A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia

Abstract

This article presents a preliminary comparative stratigraphy of excavated sites in Plain Cilicia and one in Rough Cilicia. It is the outcome of three workshops held in 2014, 2015 and 2017. Plain Cilicia at the junction of Anatolia, Syro-Mesopotamia and Cyprus is one of the most fertile regions of the Ancient Near East. In recent years, archaeological research in the region has intensified, re-opening questions of chronology. The comparative stratigraphy discussed in the workshops is presented here in form of a gazetteer of the participating sites and a chart. This is to be understood as a first step towards a more comprehensive chronology.Keywords: Cilicia, chronology, comparative stratigraphy Introduction (Fig. 1)Plain Cilicia (gr. Kilikia Pedias, lat. Cilicia Campestris) is an alluvial fan covering approximately 8000 km 2 and one of the most fertile regions in modern-day Turkey.1 It is located at the junction of Anatolia, SyroMesopotamia and Cyprus, defined by natural borders: the Taurus Range to the west and north, the Amanus to the east and the Mediterranean to the south. The plain is divided into a western part on the coast (Çukurova) and an eastern inland part (Yukarıova). Natural passes through the mountains give access to the neighbouring regions: the Göksu (gr. Kalykadnos) Valley connects Plain to Rough Cilicia (gr. Kilikia Tracheia, lat. Cilicia Aspera) to the west, the well-known Cilician Gates (Gülek Boğazı) north of Tarsus, the route from Kozan via Feke and the Gezbel Pass (Hittite-Kizzuwatnean Caravan Route) 2 connect the region with the central Anatolian plateau, the Bahçe (Amanus Gates) and the Belen Pass (Syrian Gates) with the İslahiye Plain and the Amuq respectively. A number of rivers, originating in the Taurus Mountains, cross the lowlands and discharge into the Mediterranean: the four most important are the Göksu (gr. Kalykadnos), the Berdan or Tarsus Çayı (gr. Kydnos), the Seyhan (hitt. Šamri/Sapara, gr. Saros) and the Ceyhan (hitt. Puruna (?), gr. Pyramos). The fertile alluvial plain allows both dry-farming and irrigation agriculture which have supported a dense settlement pattern since the Neolithic period.The archaeological richness of the region has been well-known since the early excavations by Hetty Goldman in Tarsus 9 Excavation has recently intensified in the region, although few projects have focused on new sites (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, new data has been steadily accumulating, providing insights into the cultural history and archaeology of the Cilician Plain. The importance of a solid chronology based on a thorough comparative stratigraphy of all investigated sites is apparent.The purpose of a series of workshops was to initiate a dialogue among active archaeological projects in the region. The first Cilician Chronology Workshop took place in the expedition house of Sirkeli Topography and Excavation AreasExcavation in the Bronze and Iron Age levels was largely confined to the north-western corner of the mound, and to a 40 m strip trench across the centre of the mound,...

Aegean and Aegeanising Geometric pottery at Kinet Höyük: new patterns of Greek pottery production, exchange and consumption in the Mediterranean

“…Current projects at Kinet Höyük, Misis (D'Agata 2019) and Sirkeli (Kulemann-Ossen, Mönninghoff 2019; Novák et al 2020: 298;Sollee et al 2020) have supplemented the archaeological record with evidence demonstrating that the use of Aegean tableware was a common phenomenon in the Cilician plain for this period. Other new projects, at Tatarlı and elsewhere, may well yield important evidence in the future (Novák et al 2017). In particular, the results of our typological and scientific analyses at Kinet challenge previously held assumptions.…”

“…The first ceramic mortaria (fig. 4:3) occur in this period (Lehmann 2017). They are possibly imports from Cyprus, but the provenance of the mortaria at Kinet Höyük has not yet been analysed.…”

“…The Greek and Cypriot ceramics discussed in this paper were found throughout its Middle Iron Age phases, Periods 11/10, 9, '8-9 Transitional' and Period 8. These contexts date to the Cilician Middle Iron Age, also known as Neo-Cilician 3 and 4 (Novák et al 2017). They are briefly described here to provide settings for the ceramic finds that are the core of this paper.…”