Southeast Anatolia Before the Uruk Expansion

Stein, Gil J.; Edens, Christopher; Edens, Julie Pearce; Boden, Kenneth; Laneri, Nicola; Özbal, Hadi; Earl, B; Adriaens, A.; Pittman, Holly

doi:10.2143/ana.24.0.2015479

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is in fact no significant distinction in the distribution of types in these two levels. As can be seen in table 2, comparisons with the Hacinebi typology demonstrate that both Hacinebi A and B shapes are present, and that most are dated to phase B (Stein, Misir 1994;Pollock, Coursey 1995;Stein et al 1998;Pearce 2000;Stein 2002). This would provide a good chronological interval for our Zeytinli Bahc,e local Late Chalcolithic deposit.…”

Section: Comparisons With Other Sites and Chronological Attributionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The local Late Chalcolithic (LC3) occupation at Zeytinli Bahçe (Birecik, Şanli-Urfa): the ceramic production

Restelli

2006

Anatol. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excavations and ceramic finds of the Late Chalcolithic 3 (3,700–3,500 BC) from the site of Zeytinli Bahçe, on the Turkish Euphrates, are published and discussed, with particular attention to modes of manufacture in the phase which immediately precedes the introduction of the fast wheel and mass production (middle and late Uruk). In this period, alternative modes of manufacture (coil, mould, wheel) are probable indices of experimentations in response to ever increasing economic and social needs. Ceramic classes and types are also analysed with the aim of understanding inter-regional relations in the period preceding the arrival of Uruk influence. Together with Hacınebi, Zeytinli Bahçe provides important data on Late Chalcolithic developments in the Turkish Euphrates region south of the Taurus. These help distinguish single cultural horizons, but also identify large networks of communication right down to the Iraqi Tigris. Relations of the middle Euphrates area appear to be biased eastwards, towards the Khabur river, whilst direct contacts with the regions north of the Taurus seem absent. However, indirect chronological correlations are made possible by an overview of the general distribution of ceramic typologies in the whole upper Mesopotamia and Taurus regions during the Late Chalcolithic period.

show abstract