Anatolia and the Balkans

8/16/2019 Anatolia and the Balkans

1/5

Anatolia and the BalkansAuthor(s): J. RoodenbergSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 58, No. 2, Anatolian Archaeology: A Tribute to PeterNeve (Jun., 1995), pp. 119-122Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210488 .

Accessed: 22/11/2013 04:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asorhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3210488?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3210488?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor


2/5

M A P

%Ck

AE

a x e ;

V T I :

4

x?4

RNki

t'

N

Sig

0,

Uk

r'j

MRS

WTV

If-

yI

u 3 4 p s

I N S

01.

CROPS

LO

.

.

0AN

I

A

zx.-

?;'

k

Wn

15

M

two&,

'.4

W j.

I'll

01

Qq

i'S

low,1-

.....................

Roman

period

may

have been

replaced

by

non-Jews

in the

Byzantine

era.

The

1994 season

was the second car-

ried out

by

the

Sepphoris

Regional

Pro-

ject

(SRP)

which continues the 1985-89

work of the

Joint

Sepphoris Project.

Spon-

sored

by

Duke

University

with the Uni-

versity

of Connecticut, the 1994

excavations were directed

by

E.

Meyers

and

C.

Meyers

of Duke

University.

Carol

Meyers

Overviewof the area 85.3 at

Sepphoris,

showing

the substantialwallsof a Late

Hel-

lenistic

building,

which

perhaps

had a

military

function,

ocated near he

towering

citadel

that

crowns

he

uppercity.

A n a t o l i a

n d

t h B a l k a n s

Edited

by J. Roodenberg.

pecial

Issue

of

Anatolica.331

pp.

Leiden,

Holland:Ned-

erlands

Instituut

oor

het

Nabije

Oosten,

1993;

HFL 115

(paper).

A review

essay by

Ronald L.

Gorny

As the title

of

this

collection of

arti-

cles

suggests,

it discusses

the

question

of

relations between

Anatolia

and

the

Balkans. The

scope

of the book is

limited,

however,

to

postulated

prehistoric

links

between the two

geographic

entities

and

the

investigation

of

a

proposed

Euro-

Anatolian cultural zone

in which

inten-

sive human interaction is said to be

manifest

in

the

archaeological

remains of

both

regions.

The

inspiration

behind this manu-

script was a symposium held in Istanbul

during

November of

1991.

A

primary goal

of the

symposium

was

to

bring together

scholars from east and west who shared a

common interest

in

relations between

Anatolia and the

Balkans,

but had la-

bored

in

separate

worlds for decades.

Participation

was limited to

roughly forty

scholars who examined Balkan-Anatolian

relations between

5,500

and

3,000

BCE.

This

means

that,

for

all intents and

pur-

poses,

Anatolia nd the Balkans s

written

by

scholars for scholars.

In other

words,

readers are

expected

to have some

degree

of

familiarity

with

the fundamental

is-

sues or be

willing

to

spend

some

time

acquainting

themselves

with

the material.

The manner

in which Anatolia nd the

Balkans

s

published

is

Spartan

in

design,

being

fashioned

in

the same functional

style

as Anatolicatself. While the

paper-

bound volume

is

devoid of color

pho-

tographs,

it

displays

an abundance of

quality

black and white

maps, drawings,

and

photographs.

The

twenty-five

articles

included

in

the volume are written

in

French,

German,

and

English, making

the

mastery

of several

languages necessary

for a full appreciation of its contents.

Overall,

the

presentation

is readable and

well-organized, though

a

few

typographi-

cal errors have

crept

into the

narrative.

A

difficulty

for the uninitiated arises

in

the

discrepancy

between

chronological

designations

for

contemporary periods

in

Anatoliaand theBalkans

for

example,

the

so-called Middle Neolithic of

Europe

is

contemporary

with the Middle-Late

Chalcolithic

in

Anatolia,

see

Ozdogan, p.

176

[author

and

page

references are to

Anatolia and the

Balkans unless other-

wise

noted]).

Further

difficulties are

encountered

in the

'regionalization'

of

various cultures on

the Balkan

peninsula

(Demoule,

1-17;

Jovanovik,

pp.

63-74;

Pavyik,

pp.

231-241;

but cf.

Ozdogan, pp.

174-176)

and the resultant

plethora

of

names

which are

totally

unfamiliar to

most

students

approaching

the

question

from

a Near Eastern

background.

Further

confusion

can

stem

from the

fact

that

some authors use

uncalibrated

dates

in

their contributions

(e.g.,

Demoule,

Table

1,

p.

14;

Monah),

while other

do so

in

cali-

brated terms

(e.g.,

Todorova,

Thissen).

The connections

between Anatolia

and the

Balkans in the

prehistoric

period

are most

forcefully

laid out

by

Mehmet

Ozdogan's

article

(pp.

173-193),

whose

presentation represents his most incisive

contribution on

a

topic

he has

long

cham-

pioned.

The fact

that this collection of

articles

has

appeared

at

all

is

a

credit

to

Ozdogan,

for

without

his

efforts,

this

whole discussion would

have remained

on the

back-burner

for

years

to come.

The true

significance

of Anatolia nd

the

Balkans, owever,

may

be lost on the

casual

observer,

for the

impulse

behind

ti~i

i: :::Biblicalar U..~::

ai

This content downloaded from 79.123.190.8 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:08:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

this volume

goes

back to the

early

twen-

ties when Anatolia's

apparent

connections

with the Balkan

peninsula

were first

noted. Such

views, however,

were ahead

of their time and smacked of diffusion-

ism which was then under intense

at-

tack. The articulate and

up-to-date

manner with which this volume's articles

explore

the

issue of Euro-Anatolian rela-

tions

suggests

that

those who first cham-

pioned

this cause

may

not have been so

far

from the

truth.

While

a

casual

reading might

have us

believe the diffusionist

controversy

has

become a

thing

of the

past,

the fact that it

is not dead

underlies

the

sensitivity

shown

by

the

contributors to

the whole

question

of human movement

and rela-

tionships

in the

region.

Several of the

authors,in deference to proponents of

migration

and

diffusionism,

couch their

ideas

in

the

more

acceptable

terminology

of a

common

cultural

zone,

or as Ozdo-

gan

puts

it,

'a

common

developing

zone'

interacting

within

itself. This

inter-

action,

while not

precluding

some

popu-

lation movements

(Ozdogan,

p.

179)

is

based on the

assumption

of

internal

development

rather

than

external

influ-

ence. The

geographic

range

of this com-

mon cultural

zone extends from

the

Hungarian

Plain

to

the

southeastern

stretches of Anatolia where it is effec-

tively

cut off from

contact

with

Mesopotamia by

the Taurus

Mountains.

Evidence

suggests

that contacts

within

this

zone took

place

in two

stages.

The

first,

beginning

around

5,500

BCE

(Thissen,

pp.

302-303; Todorova,

p.

307),

continued

until the

beginning

of the

fourth millennium

BCE. here is

a break

in

contact

at

this

time,

the reason for

which

remains unclear.Various events

may

have been

responsible including

tectonic activity,climatic changes which

resulted

in

higher

temperatures,

extended

periods

of

drought,

erosion,

changing

sea

levels,

and nomadic

invasions

from the

north Pontic

steppes

(Todorova,

pp.

307-318;

Lichardus-Itten,

p.101).

The exist-

ing

social

system-so

evident in the

widespread uniformity

of the Balkan

Early

Neolithic cultural network-col-

lapsed,

and the breakdown initiated an

ai77:

NNW'U

Ak.A

: N

Ao t

Chalcolithicurvilinear

ottery

from

Aliiar

H6yOk:

he best evidence

or a common cultural one

in Anatoliaand the Balkans.

Courtesy

f the Oriental nstitute.

800-year period

of

mostly

local

develop-

ment

(Demoule,

p.

10;

Makkay,

p.

118,

Todorova,

pp.

307-311).

The

stabilization

of

environmental conditions

at the end

of

the

fourth

millennium led to the

develop-

ment

of

the

so-called

Troja-Baden

Kul-

turblok which witnessed

a renewal of

cultural interaction

taking

place

in south-

east

Europe

(pp.

315-16).

Although

Troy

and the rest of Anatolia had been

pulled

increasingly

into the Near

Eastern

sphere

of

influence

by

this

time

(Ozdogan, p.

178),

he

improving

conditions

may

well

have set the

stage

for

far-reaching

rela-

tions between Anatolia

and

Europe

dur-

ing

the

Middle

and Late Bronze

Ages

when an

increasing

demand for metallur-

gical expertise probably encouraged

further

contacts

between the two areas.

The role

played by

the

sea

in

develop-

ing

this common

cultural

zone

figures

prominently

in

several contributions

(Demoule,

1-17;

Makkay,p.

123;

Rooden-

berg, p.

257;

Thissen,

p.

303;

Wijnen, p.

326:

also see Thissen 1993,p. 207,n. 4).

Demoule,

for

example, effectively argues

that the

Aegean

Basin is a

unifying

fea-

ture for the lands around

it and that

the

evolution

of a common culture zone is

the

logical

outcome

of this

type

of

seaborne interaction.

The results are seen

in

the

strong

degree

of

cultural

unity

at

sites

scattered across

the

region.

This

widespread

cultural

unity

makes

it more

certain that

the

Aegean

Basin,

the Mar-

mara

Sea,

and the Black

Sea were

not

the

cultural barriers scholars once

thought,

certainly

lesser obstacles

than the

Taurus

mountains which

stood

as a barrier be-

tween Central

Anatolia and the

Mesopotamian

complex

for millennia

(Ozdogan, p.

180).

The

increasing

evi-

dence of sea contacts

during

this

period

makes

it all the more

reasonable,

in

fact,

that the sea should

be

viewed,

not as

a

barrier

to

interaction,

but

as

a means

by

which an intensification of interaction

was able to take

place.

Agreement

regarding

the

details of

this cultural

zone is

not, however,

univer-

sal,

as Nikolov's article

(pp.

167-171)

shows.

Nikolov

posits

a

kontaktzone

built

during

the first

stage

of relations

(ca.

5,500-5,000

BCE.)

not on

the basis

of inter-

action

among

its constituent

parts,

but on

cultural influences

that

originated

out-

side

of

the

region

(p.

169).

Unlike earlier

diffusionist

views

(Todorova1978)

which

understood a unidirectional proliferation

of contacts

and interaction

originating

in

the

Balkans,

Nikolov

(along

with

Lichardus,

p.

93)

sees

a

movement

in

the

opposite

direction from Northwest

Ana-

tolia

into the Balkans.

This

influence

begins during

the Karanova

II

period

and

reaches its fullest

extent with

the

Kara-

nova IV

Suggestions

of this

sort,

of

course,

fly

in the face of the idea of

27 T,

I

ct s

at~-:::: i:

49

:?. Id~9~~~

wI....? -.1

so

s t

~~i i ~lox




4/5

44''

IN-

4l

? v

sov

IA

49L?L~~aur~a

~ J;_

A

single piece

of Szakalhat

pottery

(at

top right)

rom the

Aligar

ollection

at the

Oriental nsti-

tute

represents

he ceramic radition

of

the

Hungarian lain.Courtesy

f the Oriental nstitute.

internal

development

proposed by

Ozdogan. Bringing

the idea of

diffusion

once

again

into the

equation, they compel

scholars to see the

inadequacies

of the

traditional

posing

of

the

issue,

as in

Hauptmann's (p.

x):

ex Balcania ux or

ex Anatolia

lux? There

is,

perhaps,

more

potential

in

researching

the

development

of a

light

from

within.

A

primary

problem

hindering

the

investigation

of

the

Balkano-Anatolian

relationship

is that

of

chronology

While

the relative

sequences

in both areas have

been

fairly

well

established,

absolute

chronology

is still at

issue,

and the corre-

lation

of

the

two

systems

continues to

be

one of

the

biggest

challenges

in

Anatolian

archaeology

(Renfrew

1973;

Easton

1976:

146;

Yakar

1979:51-53).

Peter

Kuniholm's

Aegean

and Near East

Dendrochronology

Project

ises to the

challenge

of

carefully

chronicling

the correlation of dendro-

chronological

investigations

with an ever-

expanding

number of secure carbon-14

dates (cf.Kuniholm 1989,1993).While the

final outcome of Kuniholmis ambitious

project

is still some

time

off,

his initial

efforts

have

often

yielded spectacular

results. Continued

patience

and

persis-

tence will be

needed, however,

as

investi-

gators

search for the

missing

links

necessary

to

harmonize the

European

and Near

Eastern

chronologies,

especially

in

the

problematic

fourth

millennium.

In

lieu of secure carbon-14

dates for

the

region, pottery

remains the

primary

source of evidence for

the

proposed

common cultural

zone,

and most of the

pertinent

comparative

materials comes

from excavated sites

in

Europe.

The

dearth of excavated

materials from

central

Anatolia

means that the

pertinent

date to

connect it to such

a

zone

is

not

always

obvious. Several

Anatolian sites

are criti-

cal to the

argument:

the volume makes

prominent

mention

of

Gelveri.

Another

which was often referred

to,

but

not

for-

mally

included,

is the site of

Alipar

H6ytik

in

Yozgat

Province of

central

Turkey (esp.

Ozdogan

and

Parzinger).

Needless to

say,

I

noted

these comments

with

great

interest

because of

my

own

work

at

Aligar

and in the

surrounding

Kanak Su basin.

Excavated in the

late 1920s and

early

1930s

by

the Oriental

Institute,

Aligar

was

shown to

have

a

long

prehistoric

sequence,

a situation which should

shed

light on the current topic.However, the

lack of secure carbon-14

dates for

Aligar

has made this

important sequence ques-

tionable,

and it remains on

the

periphery

of

the

discussion.

The name is bandied

about with

little

in

the

way

of new

data to

add as evidence.

Clearly,

any

resolution to

the

problem

of

cultural

development

in

central Anatolia

during

the

prehistoric

periods

will have

to

take into account

the

role of

Aligar.

This is

a

problem

that our

own

excavations

at

Aligar

H6ytik,

and

now (adir

H6yiik,

intend to address.

While a full

analysis

of

the role these two

sites

played

in

prehistory

is still forth-

coming,

it

would

not seem

inappropriate

to share

a

few

thoughts

which bear

di-

rectly

on what is

being

discussed so

articulately by

those who contributed

to

this volume.

As

a

starting

point

we can look at the

black-polished pottery

tradition so

abun-

dantly

documented

at

Aligar.

This

pottery

plays

a

pivotal

role

throughout

this cul-

tural zone as

an indicator of

the late Chal-

colithic

in

Anatolia or

the

Late Neolithic

in

the Balkans

(see

Jovanovid,

p.

69;

Makkay

p. 119;Ozdogan,

pp.

179-181).

One

of

the

most

striking

elements of

this

style

of pottery is the punctuated-incised style

of decoration

described

by

von der Osten

(1937:57-60,

igs.

65-68)

and common to

other

contemporary

sites within

this

zone.

Similar

black-polished

pottery,

including

fine black-ware

vessels,

punctu-

ated-incised

sherds,

bowls

with red-

polished

interiors,

and

one

example

with

white-painted

decoration on

the interior

surface,

was found

at (adir

H6yiik

in

1994.

Although

our

analysis

of

these new

materials is in

a

preliminary

stage,

the

black-polished

pottery

of

Qadir

appears

to

be

very

similar to the

Diindartepe-

summit

materials described

elsewhere

by

Thissen

(1993:213-215).

Related to

the

black-polished pottery

tradition is

the

presence

of

graphite-

slipped pottery

at

both

Aligar

and

(adir

Hbyiik.

At

Aligar,

his

ware was found

in

Level

16-12

von

der Osten

1937:57,

ig.

63,

nos.

3-4).

Additional

pieces

now

reside in

both the Oriental

Institute

collection

and

the

Ankara

Museum of Anatolian

Civi-

lizations

(Thissen

1993:218,

.

27).

Graphite-slippedpottery found in sound-

ing

770.900

during

the 1994season

at

Cadir

H5yiik

is identical to that found

at

Aligar.

The best external connections

for

central

Anatolian

graphite-slipped

wares

are with

the Karanova VI

Vinga

D

cul-

tures,

as indicated

in this volume

by

Demoule

(pp.

9-10,

map

6),

Tasic

(pp.

286-87,

291),

and

Thissen

(1993:218-219).

This Balkan connection

provides

a

date

.. ... ....

..~

1ow

3i

A




5/5

somewhere between 3000 and 3500 BCE.

for the

pottery

from both

Aligar

and

9adir

(Thissen 1993:218-219).

Perhaps

the most

striking

evidence

used to

argue

a common cultural zone in

Anatolia

and

the

Balkans is

the

curvilin-

ear-decorated

pottery

of Gelveri which is

cited in this volume by both Esin (pp.47-

56)

and

Makkay

(1993,

sp.

fig.

3,

p.

128).

Curvilinear-decorated

pottery

of

the

same

type

was also found

at

Alisar

and

is

probably

earlier

than

the

graphite-slipped

pottery, though

no

levels

are noted

for

the

Aligar

exemplars.

This

swirling

decora-

tion

(the

so-called fruchenstich tech-

nique; Makkay,p.

121)

is also

cited

in

the

Japanese

Kamankale volume

(written

in

Japanese,

pp.

201-202,

fig.

12,

nos.

1-24).

At

Aligar,

n

fact,

there

appear

to be

examples

of curvilinear decoration on both punctu-

ated-incised

(Gorny

1995)

and

painted

sherds

(von

der

Osten

1937:57,

ig.

64,

no.

3;

P1.

II,

no.

3;

cf.

Omura,

Kaman

Kale

Hdyiik

I,

p.197,

ig.

2).

There are seven

pieces

of the ware

in

the

Oriental

Insti-

tute

collection,

the nicest of which is

a

small

black-polished

bottle with a

swirling spiraloid design

(d 2370).1

The

painted style

is

paralleled by examples

from

Yeniyapan

(Omura,

Kamankale

,

p.

210,

nos.

1-5).

Although

there is no

prove-

nance for this material

at

Alipar,

t

must

fall within the

range

of the

pottery

from

Gelveri

(Ozdogan

1994)

and

Yeniyapan

which dates

to the Karanova V and

Vinqa

C

phases

(Makkay,

p.121)

or somewhere

between

4000

and

3500

BCE

Thissen

1993:

222).

Other

pieces

may

also

be

significant

??

as one sherd is reminiscent of Szakalhat

pottery

(von

der

Osten

1937:60,

Fig.

67,

no.

3),

a

site from the Late Neolithic

Btikk

(Tisza-K6r6s)

culture of the

Hungarian

plain

(cf.

von

der

Osten

1937,

ig,

67

no.

3)

and another has affinities with the

corded ware from the same area (von

der Osten 1937:58,

Fig.

65,

no.19).

As noted

above,

a

primary goal

of

Anatolia nd theBalkanswas to familiarize

scholars

of the

west

with the

nearly

un-

known work of their

colleagues

in

the

east.

In

this

respect,

the volume has

pro-

vided a

great

service

that more than

fulfills the editor's stated

goals.

This un-

precedented

collaborative effort

brings

together

an

intriguing group

of scholars

who,

though

separated

for

years by politi-

cal

barriers,nevertheless,

address

a

com-

mon interest. The chance to debate

common concerns has

by

no means

pro-

duced a

popular

book,

and some diffi-

culties

will exist for the

general

reader.

In

spite

of

this,

Anatolia nd the Balkans

s a

welcomed addition to the literaturerepre-

senting

the

archaeology

of both

regions.

Overcoming

the

scholarly

nature of the

book is

well

worth

the

effort

of those

whose

interests touch on

this

part

of the

ancient

world.

The

most

significant

con-

tribution

of

Anatolia nd the Balkanss that

it

updates

the best

previous

overview,

The

Cambridge

ncient

History

1982),

and

adds

significant

new

information

about

impor-

tant

developments,

not the least of which

are the Gelveri finds.

In the final analysis, the question of

cultural

exchange

in this Balkano-Anato-

lian

zone has

yet

to be

definitively

an-

swered,

and

a

variety

of issues

remain

to

be addressed.

Among

these

are the

pre-

cise role of the

Marmara

area

in

the trans-

ference of cultural influences

and the

extent

to which central Anatolia was

drawn into the activities of this network

of cultural

exchange.

This volume

repre-

sents

a

significant

contribution to these

investigations,

but

as

Hauptmann

indi-

cates

(p.

x),

Anatolia nd theBalkanss

only

a

preliminary step

in the direction of an

answer. Continued excavation at sites

like

Ilipinar,

Gelveri,

Aligar

Hdyiik,

and 4adir

H6yiik,

as well as the

development

of a

complete chronological

scheme based on

secure

carbon-14dates from central Ana-

tolian sites will be

required

to

produce

an

answer

to the

questions

posed by

those

who contributed to

this valuable collec-

tion of

articles.

1

The

piece

noted is markedd 2730

but

the 1931

records how 2730as

being

a small

pottery

cake romS 27 on the terrace nd not the

incised

pottery

herd

that

almost

certainly

ad

to

come fromthe

deep sounding.

As it

stands,

thereareno

depths

or evels listed for

any

of

the curvilinear

ieces

which

may partly

x-

plain why

the

sherd(s)

werenever

published.

Apparently

he

misplacedpieces

were ost and

somehow

fell

through

he cracks.

Bibliography

Kuniholm,

E

1993 A Date-List or Bronze

Age

and

Iron

Age

Monumentsbased on Combined

Dendrochronological

nd Radiocar-

bon

Evidence.

p.

371-373 n

Aspects f

Artand

Iconography:

natoliand ts

Neighbors:tudiesn Honor fNimet

Ozgiix.

Ankara.

1989

A 677Year

Tree-RingChronology

or

the MiddleBronze

Age.Pp.

279-293 n

Anatolia

nd heAncient earEast:

Studies

n Honor

of

Tahsin

Ozgiig,

Ankara.

Omura,

S.et al.

1992 Kamankale.

Tokyo.

Osten,

von

der,

H. H.

1937

The

Aliiar

Hiiyiik:

easons

f

1930-32.

Oriental

nstitutePublications

8,

part

1.

Chicago:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

Ozdogan,

M.

1991

An Interim

Report

on the Excavations

at

Yarimburgaz

nd

Toptepe

n East-

ern Thrace.

Anatolica7:59-120.

1994

Marmara

Bolgesi-Balkanlar-Orta

AnadolueArasinda

Kronoloji

oru-

nun

yeni

Bir

Yaklasim.

p.

69-79

in

XLTurk

arihKurumu

ongresi

.

n.d.

Pre-Bronze

ge Sequence

of Central

Anatolia:

An

Alternative

Approach.

BeranFestschrift.

n

Press.

Renfrew,

C.

1973 Before ivilization.ewYork:Alfred

Knopf.

Thissen,

L.

1993 New

Insights

n Balkan-Anatolian

Connections

n the LateChalcolithic:

Old Evidence romthe

TurkishBlack

Sea Littoral.

natoliantudies

43:207-237

Todorova,

.

1978

TheEneolithicn

Bulgaria.

AR

nterna-

tionalSeries48.Oxford:

British

Ar-

chaeological

Reports.

Yakar,

.

1985 TheLater rehistoryfAnatolia:heLate

Chalcolithic

nd

Early

ronze

ge.

BAR

International

eries268.Oxford:

British

Archaeological

eports.

22 .

i

47sc 0

444

-~AZ

e l o g i s

p ? 4 q l ~ 3


Anatolia and the Balkans

Documents

Transcript of Anatolia and the Balkans