Archaeology in Asia Minor

Mellink, Machteld J.

doi:10.2307/500876

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One additional site with rich and important finds apparently belonging to the Achaemenid period, and close to although not on top of a major Urartian centre of administration, is Pa §a Tepe near Patnos to the north of Lake Van. Only the briefest of reports are available (Mellink 1964;Kroll 1976, 164-5 and n. 30). It has been suggested that this sparsity of Achaemenid period sites reflects the choice of sites which have attracted archaeologists (Sinclair 1987, 78), but it is more useful to consider that the much lower density of (recognized) Achaemenid sites, compared with the number of Urartian castles, represents a different response to controlling the highlands of eastern Turkey.…”

Section: Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeological Evidence for the Achaemenid Period in Eastern Turkey

Summers¹

1993

Anatol. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to highlight the evidence for Achaemenid settlement in eastern Turkey and to publish the sherds from two sites, Altıntepe (Cimin Tepe I, CAB Site 112) and Cimin Tepe II (CAB Site 113) collected by C. A. Burney during his survey in 1955 and now housed in the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. An Achaemenid date for Altıntepe level II has often been proposed (e.g. Burney and Lang 1971, 158–9; Forbes 1983, 59) and the site is often now included in studies of the Achaemenid Empire without comment (e.g. Tuplin 1987, 201 n. 118 and map I p. 241; Cook 1983, 198), but the large amount of evidence for extensive and wealthy Achaemenid settlement at the closely related sites of Altıntepe and Cimin Tepe II has not been considered in detail.Three recent papers concerned with the administration of the Achaemenid Empire in general (Tuplin 1987) and Achaemenid garrisons (Tuplin 1987 B and 1988) have highlighted the sparsity of sites in eastern Anatolia which are known to have been occupied in the Persian period. For the preceding era of the Median Empire, which stretched as far westwards as the Halys river (the modern Kızılırmak), archaeological evidence has been so thin that the very existence of a Median Empire has been seriously, if not convincingly, questioned (SancisiWeerdenburg 1988).

show abstract

Section: Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeological Evidence for the Achaemenid Period in Eastern Turkey

Summers¹

1993

Anatol. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The summary and additional information related to the Columbarium part of this publication was published in English by R. D.Barnett, seeBarnett 1963. The material of excavation of K. Balkan was not published, for a short informations seeMellink 1967 and Alkım 1968. The material of Balkan excavation in Kars Museum was studied by us, see Özfırat 2017b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eriqua and Minuahinili: An Early Iron Age-Nairi Kingdom and Urartian Province on the Northern Slope of Mt Ağri (Settlement Complexes at Melekli and Karakoyunlu)

Özfirat¹

2017

TÜBA-AR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A gold example, again without reliable documentation, is attributed to the findspot ‘Kalınkaya’, a small settlement and cemetery located some kilometres north of the famous Alaca Höyük in northern Anatolia. The site was investigated in the early Seventies to counteract repeated looting activities (Mellink 1972, 169–70; 1974, 109; Zimmermann 2006). Its idol was also assigned to the later Early Bronze Age, but there is good reason to make it some 1000 years older.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatolia and the Balkans, Once Again – Ring‐shaped Idols From Western Asia and a Critical Reassessment of Some ‘Early Bronze Age’ Items From İki̇ztepe, Turkey

Zimmermann¹

2007

Oxford J Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ring-shaped idol pendant, a distinctive type of Chalcolithic ritual (?) jewellery, is discussed with regard to its chronology in the Balkans in light of its occasional appearance in Asia Minor. Known from domestic contexts, funerals and hoards (?), none of the so far documented Anatolian pendants (clearly another aspect testifying to the well-known Anatolian-Balkan connections in the fourth millennium BC) can be dated later than the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I. This fact provides further evidence for the developing hypothesis that certain inventories from İkiztepe, the only prehistoric reference site on the Turkish Black Sea coast excavated on a large scale, need some profound chronological redating. Selected features and levels dated to 'Early Bronze Age II-III' at İkiztepe seem to be several centuries older than currently believed, which has implications for the overall chronological range of these pendants.Tracing cultural interaction between Asia Minor and the south-eastern European landscapes is one major focus of prehistoric research both in Anatolia and beyond the Bosporus. Thanks to numerous collaborations, a different light has been shed on the flux and exchange of technological innovations, the adaptation of settlement patterns, and the possible periods of larger-scale migration that forged the cultural and ideological outline of the Orient and the Occident on their boundary in prehistoric times (cf. Özdogan 1989;Nikolov 1993;Srejović 1993; Özdogan 1999). The 'transitional' periods in particular, or what we consider 'transitional' for lack of better understanding, have been extensively discussed: the dynamics of change in the Neolithic/ Chalcolithic (seventh/sixth millennium BC) together with the discussion of Late Chalcolithic features are the two issues which have been developed most by scholars over the past two decades (cf. Bankoff and Winter 1990;Parzinger 1992;Steadman 1995; Maran 1998 with further literature). This paper will contribute another on Balkan-Anatolian relations, by drawing attention to an item that has not been appreciated sufficiently so far: the ring-shaped idol.In a broader chronological dimension, these distinctive, tentatively 'ritual' items (assumed through their frequent association with elaborate burials and hoards; cf. below) might OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 26(1) 25-33 2007

show abstract

Archaeology in Asia Minor

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Archaeological Evidence for the Achaemenid Period in Eastern Turkey

Archaeological Evidence for the Achaemenid Period in Eastern Turkey

Eriqua and Minuahinili: An Early Iron Age-Nairi Kingdom and Urartian Province on the Northern Slope of Mt Ağri (Settlement Complexes at Melekli and Karakoyunlu)

Anatolia and the Balkans, Once Again – Ring‐shaped Idols From Western Asia and a Critical Reassessment of Some ‘Early Bronze Age’ Items From İki̇ztepe, Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About