Zimmermann ANADOLU Libre

8/9/2019 Zimmermann ANADOLU Libre

1/13

III ve IV. Arkeolojik Ara şt õrmalar Sempozyumu T. Zimmermann

341

CEREMONIAL MACEHEADS IN BRONZE AGE ASIA MINOR AND THEIR

CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Thomas Zimmermann

Abstract

Pratik özelliğ i az olan daha çok sembolik değ eri olan artifaktlar, Anadolu’da geç bronz çağ õna tarih-lenen karakteristik ve iyi bilinen objeler aras õnda say õl õrlar. Alaca Höyük ve Horoztepe nekro-pollerinden ç õkan ünlü soyut ya da hayvan şeklindeki standartlar çarp õc õ örneklerdir. Zaten, ünlü

Alaca Höyük standartlar õ detayl õ bir araşt õrma gereken bu seçkin mezarlarndan ç õkan tek metal obje-ler değ ildirler. Avrasya/Kafkasya bölgesindeki komşu toplumlarla bağ lant õlar õ kan õtlanabilecek diğ erbuluntular aras õnda çengel uçlu baltalar gibi aletler ve topuzbaşlar õn özel tipleri say õlabilir. Makaleninkonusu, bu dönemdeki Anadolu-Avrasya kültürel ilişkilerinin varl õğ õn õ ortaya koyan bu fenomen

üzerinedir.

Metal items of less practical but moresymbolic or cultic function count amongstthe most characteristic items of the lateEarly Bronze Age in Anatolia. The famouszoomorphic or abstract standards from the

Alaca Höyük and Horoztepe necropoleisare one striking example1. Since these ob-jects are still an isolated phenomenon in

Western Asia, lacking any convincing par-allels, such far-ranging questions as theethnic affiliation of the people buried inthese outstanding graveyards have beenmuch debated, with these ceremonial stan-dards as the starting point in scholarly dis-cussions2. In that context the CaucasianMaikop-culture (whose apogee is dated toaround 3,000 BC) has been seen being in-fluential for the cultural setting of Anatoliain the 3rd millennium BC, since its rich tu-

mulus burials produced some theriomor-phic standards that strikingly resemble our

1 Cf. Ar õk 1937a & b; Mellink 1956 – more recentcontributions discussing the symbolic value ofthe ceremonial standards by Orthmann 1967;Börker-Klähn – Krafzik 1986; Korfmann 1986;Özyar 2000.

2 Akurgal 1989.

ceremonial items from Alaca Höyük (cf.Fig. 1). However, most recent dates fromthese still insufficiently published burialsdo not support this thesis, since the largestbulk of Maikop material has to be dated tothe 4th millennium BC, such dating wouldmake the chronological gap between theseCaucasian burials, the Alaca graves and re-

lated finds from Northern Central Anatoliamuch too large to bridge3.But apart from the well-known stan-

dards, another artefact that can be in-cluded in this group of ceremonial itemsdeserves a closer look: a cylindrical mace-head with oddly shaped projections, so-called “Pilzknaufkeulen”, or “mushroom-pommel maceheads” (a rather coarsetranslation of the German terminus techni- cus ); a quite exotic-looking metal item that

immediately attracts attention when pre-sent amongst common Early Bronze Agematerial. So far only nine specimens areknown from Early Bronze Age contexts in

Anatolia, and even fewer have a reliable

3 For recent dates and typo-chronological groupingcf. Chernykh 1992, pp. 67.


2/13

Ceremonial Maceheads in Bronze Age Asia Minor and Their Cultural Significance

342

archaeological context (cf. appendix & Fig.2).

The shapes of these maceheads is de-fined through a tubular shaft, often deco-

rated with criss-cross incisions, and anumber of globular or ‘mushroom’-shapedprojections applied in odd ankles and vary-ing numbers. These can vary considerably.Both maceheads from the Demircihöyük-Sar õket necropolis have eight “knobs”,

whereas the highest number (21) is at-tested on the example allegedly from“Haymana-Oyaca”. Although few of themare reliably documented, they can be easilygrouped together thanks to their extraor-

dinary shape. The maceheads are generally worked

from real bronze, there are two exceptions.One “mushroom-macehead” from AlacaHöyük grave “B” is made from gold, andthe specimen from Alaçam-Soğ ukçam iscast from arsenical copper, which matchesthe alloy used for most of the metal itemsfrom the Black Sea littoral in the late Chal-colithic and the Early Bronze Age4.

The distribution of this type of mace-

head comprises the northern part of Cen-tral Anatolia (cf. Fig. 3), with the examplesfrom Demircihöyük-Sar õket marking the

westernmost and the macehead from Ala-çam-Soğ ukçam the northernmost findspotrecorded so far. East of the river Halys(the modern K õz õl õrmak) their presence isrestricted to the finds from the lootedcemetery of Oymaağ aç-Göller and thegold macehead from Alaca.

The light weight, size and odd shape of

these “maceheads” suggest that none ofthem was ever used as a real weapon. Thisbecomes strikingly evident when one

4 Copper sources are well known along the BlackSea littoral, as is Arsenical material in the vicinityof P õrasakaya and Bakacak Tepe (cf. Bilgi 1984,pp. 73; ibid. 2001, pp. 35).

completes their original shape by puttingthem on a wooden shaft, thus emphasisingtheir tiny appearance5. This all testifies tothe functioning of this item as a status

symbol, signifying the special position ofits bearer within the Early Bronze Age ofCentral Anatolia. Such sceptre-like items

with no practical value have a long tradi-tion as items of prestige and honour in theNear East6. Their status-defining functionis especially well attested in the LateBronze Age in Mesopotamia (2nd millen-nium BC), thanks to grave goods and illus-trations on seals, reliefs, and other remainsof art7. Finds like the gold macehead from

Alaca prove that this tradition reaches fur-ther back into the 3rd millennium BC8.

Of the nine known “mushroom-maceheads”, only two come from a relia-bly documented context, thus providing abetter idea about their chronology.

Grave “B” from the Early Bronze Agenecropolis at Alaca Höyük contained be-sides the gold macehead six of the famousceremonial standards that cannot be datedindependently due to the lack of chrono-

logically comparable material in Anatoliaor the neighbouring regions (cf. supra).

5 So done by J. Seeher reconstructing the originalsize of the Demircihöyük-maceheads (Seeher2000, pp. 52).

6 Motzenbäcker 1996, p. 67.7 Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991, pp. 38.8 One more odd-looking macehead with 4 pyrami-

dal projections is known from the collection ofthe Sadberk Han õm-museum in Istanbul. Al-though also unique in shape, it resembles a real weapon rather than a ceremonial item. Since thisobject has no archaeological context, the pro-posed Early Bronze Age date has to be hypo-thetical. Especially the results of the metal analy-sis remain problematic, since a copper-zinc alloy(brass) with traces of lead was attested, a combi-nation not known in significant numbers untilRoman times (cf. Anlağ an/Bilgi 1989, pp. 97;110 Pl. 2 final row).


3/13


343

However the much-discussed stratigraphi-cal position of the burial complex mightprovide some hint checking its date. As al-ready recorded by the excavators, grave“B” was dug in the burnt horizon that liesabove layer 5 – commonly regarded as thelayer that separates the Early Bronze Agefrom the Middle Bronze Age (“Early Hit-tite”) horizons. The relative chronologicaldate for our grave would thus be post-Early Bronze Age, suggesting an absolutedate in the early second millennium BC forsome of the ceremonial standards9. On thecontrary, one has to take into account thatthe area was heavily altered in Hittitetimes, to say partly levelled. This weakensprofoundly the significance of the graves’horizontal stratigraphy 10.

As a primary conclusion, most of theelite burials from Alaca Höyük should bedated to the late 3rd millennium BC. Oth-erwise one cannot deny the possibility thatsome graves, amongst them our “mace-head-burial”, must be put rather late intime, to say the early 2nd millennium BC.However some debate remains about thedate of the burnt layer and the relativechronology of the graves themselves11.

The only other findspot to deliver morereliable dates is the recently published ne-cropolis of Demircihöyük-Sar õket nearEskişehir: Three graves of the burial com-pound contained “mushroom-maceheads”

with eight projections (Fig. 2,1.3.5)12. Themacehead from grave 132 was associated

with a simple flat axe. Flat axes of this type

9 Ar õk 1937a, p. 219; Özyar 1999, pp. 81 – the mostradical view was advocated by C. Schaeffer whoattempted to date the whole necropolis into theMiddle Bronze Age due to the stratigraphical po-sition of grave “B” (Schaeffer 1948, pp. 286;Özyar 1999, p. 81).

10 Özyar 1999, p. 82.11 Cf. Özyar 1999, pp. 80; ibid. 2000, p. 101.12 Seeher 2000, pp. 52.

are known since the Late Chalcolithic (late5th and 4th millennium BC) in Anatolia butare too simple in shape to provide someprecise chronological information.13.

Cist grave No. 316 with a double burialcontained besides the macehead only thefragment of a shafthole axe made fromgreenish stone14. This tool type with its

wide chronological and spatial range isagain insufficient for pinning down a moreprecise relative date for our macehead.

By far the wealthiest “macehead-burial”is grave No. 335 with a highly likely femaleinhumation15. The buried person was ac-companied by a needle with an incisedglobular head and a lead flask (Fig. 4,1-3)16.Needles of this type are known from theEBA-III-phase of the İkiztepe necropolisat Bafra; examples from EBA contexts atKüçükhöyük, Maşat Höyük andGöller/Oymaağ aç can be likewise men-tioned17.

The seriously deformed fragment of alead flask belonging to a rare group ofEBA lead vessels in Anatolia provides thebest evidence for an associative dating of

13 It would not be worthwhile to list all the simpleflat copper axes known from Chalcolithic and theabundant examples from EBA contexts in AsiaMinor (cf. Duru 1996, 57; Pl. 160,2-5; 161,7-10;Buchholz/Drescher 1987, pp. 52).

14 Seeher 2000, p. 103; p. 154 Fig. 38, G.316; Pl.19,4.

15 The association of the macehead is not com-pletely assured, but due to the context mostprobable (Seeher 2000, p. 106).

16 Ibid. 156 Fig. 40,G.335; Pl. 19,3.17 Ibid. P. 59; for İkiztepe see Bilgi 1984, p. 60; p.

93 Fig. 16,173; for Küçükhöyük cf. Gür-kan/Seeher 1991, p. 48; p. 85; p. 90 fig. 22,2; forMaşat Höyük cf. Emre 1979, p. 38; p. 48 Fig. 63;for Oymaağ aç/Göller see Özgüç 1978, p. 96; p.95 figs. 92-94 (highly likely from looted graves);also needles decorated in similar fashion fromgrave “A” at Alaca Höyük should be added here(Koşay 1938, p. 121 Pl. 94,Ma.29-31).


4/13


344

our macehead18. Despite its local features,such as the elongated neck, they seem toimitate a vessel type that is well knownfrom Mesopotamia and adjunct regions:

the “Syrian bottle”19. Originally developedin Early Dynastic Northern Syria, thischaracteristic vessel type, most probablyused to carry expensive and exotic sub-stances like oils and precious perfumes,spreads to Southeast- and Central Anatoliaas far as the Aegean and SoutheastEurope, to be sometimes copied in clay,gold (cf. Fig. 4,4), silver and also lead tosatisfy local demands20. They are the pre-dominant artefacts that illustrate the inten-

sified trade activities between Anatolia andMesopotamia from the mid 3rd millenniumonwards, linking distant areas with a dif-ferent social and cultural outline21. Thegrowing number of well stratified bottlesfrom mainly Central and Southeast Anato-lia22 provides a firm chronological frame-

work, at least a terminus post quem for ourlead flask from Demircihöyük-Sar õket:None of the imported original bottles andtheir local derivatives in Asia Minor can be

dated before 2,500 BC23. The overall chro-nology of the necropolis, mainly based onthe analysis of ceramic assemblages, com-prises a timespan from approx.2,650/2,500 to 2,450 BC, to the end ofEBA II and the beginning of EBA III, ac- 18 For a conspectus of lead vessels from EBA con-

texts see Baykal-Seeher – Seeher 1998, pp. 115.19 Baykal-Seeher – Seeher 1998, pp. 116.20 Cf. Zimmermann 2005, pp. 161; for recent ac-

counts on different styles and techniques cf.Schachner – Schachner 1995; Pruss 2001;Zimmermann 2002.

21 Zimmermann 2005, pp. 164.22 Most recent examples are reported from EBA

contexts at Tilbeshar and Gre Virike in Southeast Anatolia (Kepinski-Lecomte/Ergeç 2000, p. 222;pp. 220 fig. 7; Ökse/Bucak 2002, pp. 153; p. 161 Abb. 10).

23 Zimmermann 2002, pp. 51.

cording to Anatolian terminology 24. Forthis reason, the third quarter of the 3rd mil-lennium BC would fit best for the mace-heads of Demircihöyük-Sar õket as an abso-

lute date. The gold specimen from AlacaHöyük would therefore mark the upperend of our chronological scale, that is thefinal centuries of the 3rd/ earliest 2nd mil-lennium BC. Together, these find spotsgive us a good idea of the maximumchronological range of our maceheads.

A closer look at elated ceremonial itemsof the Early Bronze Age shows that the‘mushroom-pommel’ motive is not limitedto the maceheads themselves. The upper

ends of a bronze ceremonial standardfrom “Horoztepe”, or more probably fromthe region around Nall õhan near Bolu25 areshaped like our odd “maceheads” (cf. Fig.5,4). The same phenomenon can also beobserved likewise on selected standardsfrom grave “B” of the Alaca Höyük ne-cropolis, which all have knobbed mace-head-shaped projections attached to theirframes (cf. Fig. 5,1-2).

A miniature version of a ‘mushroom-

macehead’ with five knobbed projectionscan be seen as a pendant attached to a goldchain with spherical and biconical beads al-legedly from Early Bronze Age Central

24 Seeher 2000, p. 222.25 Originally published in Özgüç – Akok 1958, p.

20; p. 49; Pl. 17,1.3; contra Muscarella 1988, pp.400 Fig. 527, who discusses again the scarce evi-dence for the original findspot of the item. Along with other prehistoric metal items this sistrum was purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1955 under obscure circumstances. A re-appraisal of the facts known so far suggest thatthis object stems from the vicinity of Nall õhanrather than from one of the looted burials atHoroztepe (Zimmermann in press).


5/13


345

Anatolia, stored in the PrähistorischeStaatssammlung Munich (cf. Fig. 5,3)26.

These few examples might suggest thefact that our “knobbed projections” werenot only understood as simple decorationfor macehead-sceptres, but also served asan encoded symbol of early elites emergingin 3rd millennium Anatolia, a symbol to beseen on various items, all of them display-ing power, wealth or prestige.

The few metal macehead sceptres from Asia Minor might have an exotic shape,but a survey of inventories from Transcau-casia, and dated to the 2nd millennium BC,shows that this fashion is not restricted toCentral Anatolia. Similar types of stonemaceheads with knob-like projections that

were produced from the Eurasian MiddleBronze Age onwards are known fromSoutheast Europe to the Caucasiansteppes27.

Not mentioned in recent compilations,but definitely related to the Eurasianknobbed stone maceheads, is a semi-finished diorite macehead with five knobsfrom Troy, assigned to EBA levels II-V(Fig. 6,4)28. Although seemingly a bit iso-lated from an “Eurasian” perspective, thisobject might be useful in linking theSoutheast European/ Caucasian and Ana-

26 Published as a photograph in Zaalhaas 1995, p.

78; 81 Pl. G; also briefly mentioned by Seeher2000, 52 Fn. 164.

27 Besides their enormous spatial distribution, thechronological range of these knobbed maceheadsis equally difficult to pin down, since few exam-ples come from reliable contexts, and even fewerare sufficiently published (cf. Motzenbäcker1996, pp. 67; p. 66 Fig. 34,3.5); for a recent criti-cal compilation see Kaiser 1997, pp. 116, reap-praising the famous “Borodino”-hoard whichcontained one macehead with knob-like projec-tions.

28 First published in Schliemann 1881, p. 380 Nos.224.225; lastly mentioned in Horedt 1940, p. 288.

tolian cultural spheres in the 3rd millen-nium BC.

Equally rare in number, but stylisticallycomparable with our Anatolian “mush-room-maceheads” are Caucasian metalmaceheads with knob-like projections,mainly known from modern South Os-setia, Georgia and Armenia. Most of themcannot be dated earlier than the beginningLate Bronze Age in the Caucasus (14th/13th century BC)29. Again only a smallnumber come from professionally docu-mented contexts. The knobbed bronzemacehead from grave “18” of theBornighele-necropolis (Meskhetia/ Geor-gia) with its five plano-convex studs seemsto be closely related to its stone predeces-sors30.

The bronze macehead from the Koss-nierska-collection in Berlin (Fig. 6,1) be-longs to another subgroup, already func-tioning as a mere prestige symbol and nota weapon. Its shaft and four mushroom-shaped projections are decorated withcriss-cross incisions probably imitating or-ganic strings fastening the macehead to itsshaft31 – a feature that is also visible on ourmetal maceheads from Anatolia.

A so far unique hybrid version, com-bining features of a spiked macehead andour knobbed sceptres, showing projectionssimilar to those from Anatolian mace-heads, is likewise known from Faskau orKumbulte (Fig. 6,2). This example cannotbe dated earlier than the Late Bronze Age/

29 Horizon “Tli A” according to G. Kossack (cf.Kossack 1983, pp. 89); see also Motzenbäcker1996, p. 69.

30 Gambaschidze et al. 2001, p. 284 Nr. 107.31 Motzenbäcker 1996, pp. 67 Fig. 34,6. – Note the

cross-section showing a very narrow shaft-canal,to allow only a very slim (wooden?) shaft (Ibid.68 Fig. 34,6 right section). This feature alone would make the use as a weapon not very rea-sonable.


6/13


346

Iron Age transition, since simple spikedmaceheads are known from Tli-B-contexts, and representations of such

weapons on decorated bronze belts are

known as early as the Early Iron Age32. The knobbed macehead-motive is like-

wise to be seen on other Caucasian metalproducts, copied in miniature. So-calledmacehead[sic!]-needles are defined by theirprojecting knobs, sometimes with similarincised designs known from their mace-head counterparts (cf. Fig.6,3)33.Chronologically these pins mark thetransition from the Middle to the LateBronze Age (ca. 1.500 BC)34.

Beads imitating the macehead-motiveare known from the Late Bronze Agesanctuary of Šilda in Eastern Georgia35 and

Verchnjaja Rutcha36, and a miniatureknobbed macehead is reported from grave“158” at Tli.

This variety of forms may indicate thatin both regions –Anatolia and the Tran-scaucasus- not only oddly shaped symbolicmaceheads were in use, but their shapeserved as an inspiration for other prestige

artefacts such as jewellery. The association would indicate a similar symbolic functionor code both in Asia Minor and Eurasia inthe late 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.

The question now remains whetherthese similarities are coincidental, since ty-pological resemblances cannot alone proveor disprove cultural connections on their

32 Chidašeli 1989, p. 44 Fig. 1,1; Motzenbäcker1996, p. 69.

33 Motzenbäcker 1996, pp. 94; p. 95 Fig. 48,1-6; p.96 Fig. 49; p. 97 Fig. 50; Pl. 11,1-2; 27,2-6; 61,3-14 – Cf. the maceheads from Faskau and Kum-bulte supra with the macehead-pins from Verchnjaja Rutcha (ibid. p. 68 fig. 34,6; Pl. 27,6;61,8.12).

34 Kossack 1983, p. 95; Motzenbäcker 1996, p. 94.35 Pizchelauri 1984, pp. 42; p. 61 Fig. 37,26-33.36 Motzenbäcker 1996, Pl. 49,20.21.

own. Can such similarities indicate whether or not the later use of ceremonialknobbed maceheads in the Caucasus hasroots in Anatolian traditions?

Cultural contacts sharing similar tech-nologies in metalworking have been tracedsince the 3rd millennium BC between Ana-tolia and the “circumpontic metallurgyprovince”37. The above mentioned dioritemacehead from Troy, a well-known pres-tige symbol in the Southeast European andEurasian Early Bronze Age, could be a sty-listic forerunner of the metal “mushroom-maceheads” from the mid/ late 3rd millen-nium BC.

From the mid 2nd millennium onwardsCaucasian connections with the NearEastern koine are clearly reflected in theartefactual spectrum of both regions38. Apossible “reflux” of the knobbed mace-head motive into the Caucasus wouldmatch well with the overall situation, testi-fying to strong cultural ties between West-ern Asia and the Transcaucasus.

In this context of the exchange of tech-nologies and ideas may well be that not the

object itself, but its symbolism or “idea” was traded from Asia Minor into the Eura-sian steppes.

Thomas Zimmermann Bilkent UniversityFaculty of Humanities and LettersDepartment of Archaeology and History of Art06800 Bilkent, [email protected]

37 Černykh 1983, pp. 19; pp. 26. - Chernykh et al.2002.

38 For instance frame-hilted daggers of Near East-ern fashion Kossack 1983, p. 105 with Fn. 36;Motzenbäcker 1996, pp. 74.


7/13


347

Appendix: List of Anatolian metal maceheads with knob-like projections (“mush-room-maceheads”)

Alaca HöyükGrave B (Ar õk 1937, Pl. 173,Al.243); Gold.

Alaçam-Soğ ukçamContext unclear (Bilgi 1994, p. 268; Pl. 58 Fig. 6, 44); Arsenical copper.

AfyonContext unclear (Seeher 2000, p. 52).

Demircihöyük-Sar õket:Grave 132 (Seeher 2000, p. 141 Fig. 25,G.132a); Bronze.Grave 316 (Seeher 2000, p. 154 Fig. 38,G.316b); Bronze.Grave 335 (Seeher 2000, p. 156 Fig. 40,G.335b); Bronze.

Oymaağ ac or Göller (?):From burial (?) (Özgüç 1980, p. 462; p. 470 Pl. 6-7); Bronze.

Haymana-OyacaContext unclear (Seeher 2000, p. 52 with Fn. 162).

Vicinity of AnkaraContext unclear (Seeher 2000, p. 52 with Fn. 162).

Related object: Troy, semi-finished macehead.Layer II-V (Schliemann 1881, p. 380 Nr. 224.225; Horedt 1940, p. 288); Diorit.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1 Theriomorphic standard from Alaca Höyük, Turkey (1) and a muchearlier example from a Maikop kurgan, Adygeya Republic, Russia.

After Müller-Karpe 1974. Scale ca. 1:2.

Fig. 2 Metal maceheads with mushroom-shaped projections from Anatolia:1.3.5) Demircihöyük-Sar õket – 2) Oymaağ aç/ Göller – 4) Alaca Hö-yük – 6) Alaçam-Soğ ukçam. 1.3.5) after Seeher 2000; 2) after Özgüç1980; 4) afterTemizsoy et al.; 6) after Bilgi 1994. Scale 1.3.5 ca. 1:2;2.4.6.: scale unknown.


8/13


348

Fig. 3 Distribution of “mushroom-maceheads” in Anatolia.

Fig. 4 Inventory of grave no. 335 from Demircihöyük-Sar õket (1-3) and aSyrian type bottle from Treasure A, Troy (4). 1) lead – 2-3) bronze –

4) gold. After Seeher 2000 (1-3) and Tolstikov – Treister (4). Scale 1-3 ca. 1:2; 4 unknown.

Fig. 5 Symbolic representations of “mushroom-maceheads” on ceremonialstandards from Alaca Höyük (1-2) “Horoztepe”/Nall õhan(?) (4) anda gold bead from “Central Anatolia” (3). After Müller-Karpe 1974(1-2), Muscarella 1988 (4, drawing B.C. Coockson) and Zaalhaas1995 (3, drawing B.C. Coockson). Not to scale.

Fig. 6 Bronze maceheads with knobbed projections (1-2) and “macehead-needles” (3) from Faskau/ Kumbulte, Georgia, and a knobbed stone

macehead from Troy, Turkey. After Motzenbäcker 1996 (1-2) andSchliemann 1881 (3). Not to scale.

REFERENCES

Akurgal 1989 E. Akurgal, “Are the Ritual Standards of Alacahöyük Royal Symbols of the Hat-tian or the Hittite Kings?”, in: Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour ofTahsin Özgüç, eds., K. Emre et al. (1989) 1-2.

Anlağan – Bilgi 1989 Ç. Anlağ an/ Ö. Bilgi, Sadberk Han õ m Müzesi – Protohistorik Ça ğ Silahlar õ . Weapons ofthe Protohistoric Age (1989).

Arõk 1937a R. O. Ar õk, “Alacahöyük hafriyat õn õn ilk neticeleri”, Belleten 1 (1937) 210-234.

Arõk 1937b R. O. Ar õk, Alaca Höyük Hafriyat õ . 1935 deki Çal õ ş malara ve Ke ş iflere ait İ lk Rapor(1937).

Baykal-Seeher – See-her 1998

A. Baykal-Seeher – J. Seeher, “Gefäße aus Blei in der Frühen Bronzezeit Anato-lie”, in: Light on the Top of the Black Hill. Studies presented to Halet Çambel, eds., G. Ar-sebük et al. (1998) 115-121.

Bilgi 1984 Ö. Bilgi, “Metal Objects from Ikiztepe – Turkey”, BeitrAllgA 6 (1984) 31-96.

Bilgi 1994Ö. Bilgi, “Samsun Müzesi Protohistorik Çağ Silahlar õ ve Orta Karadeniz Maden

Sanat õ Hakk õnda Yeni Gözlemler”, TTKKong 11 (1994) 253-268.Bilgi 2001

Ö. Bilgi, Metallurgists of the Central Black Sea Region. A New Perspective on the Question ofthe Indo-Europeans’ Original Homeland (2001).

Börker-Klähn/Krafzik1986

J. Börker-Klähn/ U. Krafzik, “Zur Bedeutung der Aufsätze aus Alaca Höyük”,WO 17 (1986) 47-60.

Braun-Holzinger 1991 E. Braun-Holzinger, Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischenZeit (1991).


9/13


349

Buchholz/Drescher1987

H.G. Buchholz – H. Drescher, “Einige frühe Metallgeräte aus Anatolien”, Ac- taPraehistA 19 (1987) 37-70.

Chidašeli 1986 M. Chidašeli, “Die Gürtelbleche der älteren Eisenzeit in Georgien”, BeitrAllgA 8

(1986) 7-72.Černych 1983 E. N. Černych, “Frühmetallurgische Kontake in Eurasien”, BeitrAllgA 5 (1983) 19-

34.

Chernykh 1992 E. N. Chernykh, Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age (1992).

Chernykh et al. 2002 E. N. Chernykh – L. I. Avilova – L. B. Orlovskaya, “Metallurgy of the Circum-pontic Area: From Unity to Disintegration”, in: Anatolian Metal II. Der AnschnittBeih. 15 ed., Ü. Yalç õn (2002) 83-100.

Duru 1996 R. Duru, Kuruçay Höyük II. 1978-1988 Kaz õ lar õ n õ n Sonuçlar õ Geç Kalkolitik ve İ lk TunçÇa ğ õ Yerle ş meleri (1996).

Emre 1979 K. Emre, “The Early Bronze Age at Maşat Höyük”, Belleten 43 (1979) 21-48.Gambaschidze et al.2001

I. Gambaschidze – A. Hauptmann – R. Slotta – Ü. Yalç õn (eds.) Georgien. Schätzeaus dem Land des Goldenen Vlies. Katalog Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum (2001).

Gürkan – Seeher 1991 G. Gürkan – J. Seeher, “Die Frühbronzezeitliche Nekropole von Küçükhöyük beiBozüyük”, IstMitt 41 (1991) 39-96.

Horedt 1940 K. Horedt, “Südosteuropäische Keulenköpfe”, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Ge- sellschaft Wien 70 (1940) 283-303.

Kepinski-Lecomte –Ergeç 1999

Ch. Kepinski-Lecomte – R. Ergeç, “Tilbeshar 1999. Occupations de la Valleé duSajour de la Fin du Chalcolithique au Bronze Moyen”, Anatolia Antiqua 8 (2000)215-225.

Korfmann 1986 M. Korfmann, “Die ‘grosse Göttin’ in Alaca Höyük”, TürkTK 9 (1986) 153-163.

Kossack 1983G. Kossack, “Tli Grab 85. Bemerkungen zum Beginn des skythenzeitlichen For-menkreises im Kaukasus”, BeitrAllgA 5 (1983) 89-182.

Koşay 1938 H. Z. Koşay, Alaca Höyük Hafriyat õ . 1936 daki Çal õ ş malara ve Ke ş iflere ait İ lk Rapor (1938).

Mellink 1956 M. Mellink, “The Royal Tombs of Alaca Höyük and the Aegean World” in The Aegean and the Near East. Studies presented to Hetty Goldman ed., S.S. Weinberg, (1956)39-58.

Motzenbäcker 1996 I. Motzenbäcker, Sammlung Kossnierska. Der digorische Formenkreis der kaukasischenBronzezeit. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin Bestandskataloge Vol. 3 (1996).

Muscarella 1988 O.W. Muscarella, Bronze and Iron. Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1988).

Müller-Karpe 1974 H. Müller-Karpe, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Dritter Band Kupferzeit. Tafeln (1974).

Ökse – Bucak 2002 T. Ökse – E. Bucak, “Karkam õş Baraj õ-Gre Virike 2000 Kaz õs õ”, KST 23 (2002)151-162.

Orthmann 1967 W. Orthmann, “Zu den Standarten aus Alaca Höyük”, IstMitt 17 (1967) 34-54.


10/13


350

Özgüç 1987 T. Özgüç, Ma ş at Höyük Kaz õ lar õ ve Çevresindeki Ara ş t õ rmalar. Excavations at Ma ş atHöyük and Investigations in its Vicinity (1978).

Özgüç 1980 T. Özgüç, “Çorum çevresinden bulunan Eski Tunç Çağ õ eserleri. Some Early

Bronze Age Objects from the District of Çorum”, Belleten 44 (1980) 459-466; 467-474.

Özgüç – Akok 1958 T. Özgüç – M. Akok, Horoztepe. Eski Tunç Devri Mezarl õ ğ õ ve İ skân Yeri. An EarlyBronze Age Settlement and Cemetery (1958).

Özyar 1999 A. Özyar, “Reconsidering the ‘Royal’ Tombs of Alacahöyük: Problems of Stra-tigraphy According to the Topographical Location of the Tombs”, TüBA-Ar 2(1999) 79-85.

Özyar 2000 A. Özyar, “Noch einmal zu den Standartenaufsätzen aus Alaca Höyük”: ed., Ü. Yalç õn, Anatolian Metal I. Der Anschnitt Beih. 13 (2000) 101-112.

Pizchelauri 1984 K. Pizchelauri, Jungbronzezeitliche bis ältereisenzeitliche Heiligtümer in Ost-Georgien, Ma-

tAllgA 12 (1984).Pruss 2001 A. Pruss, “Die graue Ğaz ī ra-Ware”, in: Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Wil-

fried Orthmann gewidmet, eds., J. Waalke-Meyer et al., (2001) 412-429.

Schachner – Schach-ner 1995

Ş. Schachner – A. Schachner, “Eine ‘syrische’ Flasche aus Fara”, MDOG 127(1995) 83-96.

Schaeffer 1948 C.F.A. Schaeffer, Stratigraphie Comparée et Chronologie de l’Asie Occidentale (1948).

Schliemann 1881 H. Schliemann, Ilios. Stadt und Land der Trojaner: Forschungen und Entdeckungen in derTroas und besonders auf der Baustelle von Troja (1881).

Seeher 2000 J. Seeher, Die bronzezeitliche Nekropole von Demircihöyük-Sar õ ket. Ausgrabungen des Deut- schen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum Bursa, 1990-1991.IstForsch (2000).

Temisoy et al. s.a. İ. Temizsoy – M. Kutkam – T. Saatçi, Museum für Anatolische Civilisationen (s.a.).

Tolstikov – Treister1996

V. Tolstikov – M. Treister, The Gold of Troy: Searching for Homer's Fabled City (1996).

Zaalhaas 1995 G. Zahlhaas, Orient und Okzident. Kulturelle Wurzeln Alteuropas 7000 bis 15. v. Chr.(1995).

Zimmermann 2002 T. Zimmermann, “Eine „Syrische Flasche" der Troiasammlung des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums”, AKorrBl 32 (2002) 51-57.

Zimmermann 2005 T. Zimmermann, “Perfumes and Policies: A ‘Syrian Bottle’ from Kinet Höyük and Anatolian Trade Patterns in the Advanced Third Millennium BC”, Anatolica 31

(2005) 161-169.

Zimmermann in press T. Zimmermann, “Anatolische ‚ Isisklappern’. Eine Randnotiz zu einigen bronze-zeitlichen Sistren aus Alaca Höyük und ‘Horoztepe’, Türkei, AKorrBl 35 (in press).


11/13


351

Fig. 1

Fig. 2


12/13


352

Fig. 3

Fig. 4


13/13


353

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Documents

Zimmermann ANADOLU Libre