Continuity of Tin Bronze Consumption and Production during the Late Third Millennium BC at Kültepe (Lehner et al. 2015)

Subartu XXXV

KIM 1Proceedings of the 1st Kültepe International Meeting

Kültepe 19-23 September, 2013

© BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.

IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.

Subar tuKültepe International Meetings (KIM)

Editorial Board

Marc Lebeau, M. Conceição Lopes, Lucio Milano,Adelheid Otto, Walther Sallaberger, Véronique Van der Stede

With the support of the following institutions:Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, Université Libre de Bruxelles,

Universidade de Coimbra, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Editorial Board KIMLevent Atici, Gojko Barjamovic, Fikri Kulakoğlu,

Joseph Lehner, Cécile Michel

Subartu — a peer-reviewed series —

is edited by the European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies

Order forms to be mailed to:Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67, B-2300 Turnhout, Belgium

FIKRI KULAKOĞLU & CÉCILE MICHEL

(editors)

PROCEEdInGS OF THE 1ST KüLTEPE InTERnATIOnAL MEETInG

KüLTEPE, 19-23 SEPTEMBER, 2013

Studies dedicated to Kutlu Emre

KIM 1

(KULTEPE InTERnATIOnAL MEETInGS 1)

FH



Fikri KULAKOGLU & Cécile MICHELProceedings of the 1st Kültepe International MeetingKültepe, 19-23 September, 2013Studies dedicated To Kutlu Emre(=Subartu XXXV, KIM 1)A4, sewn, xiv+249 pagesContents: This first volume of the Kültepe International Meetings gathers interdisciplinary studies dedicated to Kültepe, ancient Kaneš (central Anatolia), and its environment, mainly during the Bronze Age.All rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,without the prior permission of the publisher.

© 2015, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium

ISBn 978-2-503-55545-4d/2015/0095/103

Printed in the EU on acid-free paper

In memory of Kutlu Emre who dedicated 59 years of her life to Kültepe



vii

Table of Contents

Fikri KulaKoğlu Introduction ix Cécile Michel

Kutlu eMre Tahsin Özgüç: The Nestor of Anatolian Archaeology 1

Part 1: Kültepe Bronze Age Archaeology, Chronology and Population

Fikri KulaKoğlu Current Research at Kültepe 9

Mogens Trolle larsen The Relative Chronology of the Old Assyrian Period and its Consequences 23

Thomas Klitgaard hertel Paternal Estates in Old Assyrian Society 29

Part 2: Kültepe Archives Belonging to Assyrians

Jan Gerrit DercKsen The Archive of Ali-ahum (I). The documents Excavated in N-O-P/20 in 1950 47

Hakan erol The Archives of Šu-Ištar son of Aššur-bāni (Kt 92/k 264-1008) 59

Klaas R. Veenhof The Archive of Elamma son of Iddin-Suen and his Family 73

Cécile Michel Women in the Family of Ali-ahum son of Iddin-Suen (1993 Kültepe archive) 85

Murat Çayir A Letter of Ennam-Aššur son of Šalim-ahum Discovered in 2001 at Kültepe 95

Veysel Donbaz The Remaining Unpublished Kültepe Tablets from the Hrozný Excavations in 1925 Housed in Istanbul 101

Part 3: Writing

Guido Kryszat Old Assyrian Writing and the Secret of the Kültepe Eponym List A 111

Edward stratforD Old Assyrian Literacy: Formulating a Method for Graphic Analysis and Some Initial Results 117

Part 4: Anatolian Settlements and Daily Life

Alessio PalMisano Simulating Past Human Landscapes: Models of Settlement Mark altaweel Hierarchy in Central Anatolia during the Old Assyrian Colony Period 131

Xiaowen shi Village Life in Ancient Anatolia: the case of Talwahšušara 147

Güzel ÖztürK Representations of Religious Practice at Kültepe: Alabaster Idols of Early Bronze Age 155


IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. viii

Table of Contents

Part 5: Metals and Minerals

Ergun KaPtan Ancient Stone Materials Used for Ore Enrichment in Anatolia 173

Evren yazgan Cassiterite (Tin) Mineralization Related with Erciyes Volcanic Activities and the Mode of Formation of the Hematite- Cassiterite-Yazganite-Tridymite Paragenesis and its Implication for Bronze Alloys 183

Joseph W. lehner, Continuity of Tin Bronze Consumption Evren yazgan, during the Late 3rd Millennium bc at Kültepe 195Ernst PernicKa Fikri KulaKoğlu

Levent ercanli The Archaeometallurgical Study on Metal Artifacts of Kültepe in Assyrian Trade Colony Period 219

Part 6: Kültepe after the Bronze Age

Gojko barjaMoVic Kültepe after Kaneš 233

Mehmet uğuryol Recent Practices for the Conservation of Adobe Ruins of Kültepe 243Drahşan uğuryol

ix

IntroductionFikri Kulakoğlu & Cécile Michel

The first “Cappadocian tablets” were discovered in the second half of 19th century, and were sold on the Kayseri and Istanbul bazars. In 1881, T. G. Pinches published two of these tablets preserved respectively in the British Museum in London and in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.1 The texts were dated to the begin-ning of the 2nd millennium; they were written in Akkadian, but originated from central Anatolia. Scholars were thus a little skeptical about their authenticity. On January 8, 1888, J. Oppert wrote a letter to G. Mas-péro concerning these texts.2 G. Maspéro had asked for his expertise concerning a cuneiform text found in Egypt; J. Oppert explained that he had first thought that it was a fake too well preserved, and compared this tablet with the so-called Cappadocian tablets, for which he also first doubted about their authenticity:

Mes soupçons s’étaient surtout éveillés par la ressemblance de la tablette envoyée par vous avec les fameuses tablettes dites cappadociennes qui proviennent toutes de Césarée et que je crois toutes fabriquées ; du moins jusqu’à présent. Il existe dans tout l’Orient des ateliers de fausses antiquités qu’il faut payer plus cher, parce que, ils en font payer la main-d’œuvre. Les caractères sont un mélange de styles assyrien et babylonien (…) J’incline (à présent) vers l’authenticité.

The “Cappadocian” tablets, written in an Assyrian dialect, were found in a place called Kültepe, 21 km North-East of modern Kayseri, at the foothill of the Erciyes Mountain. In 1894, P. Jensen suggested that these tablets would come from an ancient town called Kaneš, a name repeatedly cited.3 In 1924, B. Landsberger confirmed the hypothesis of P. Jensen, and identified Kültepe as the ancient city of Kaneš.4 Assyrian merchants settled there during the 19th century bc and left many archives. In 1893 and 1894, E. Chantre began excavating on the top of Kültepe’s höyük. He did not find tablets but bought sixteen samples to the neighboring peasants;5 these were edited by V. Scheil who had previously published such a tablet.6 German archaeologists also explored the mound at the beginning of the 20th century, but could not find tablets.7

In 1925, B. Hrozný, well-known for deciphering the Hittite language, directed a Czechoslovakian expe-dition at Kültepe. Working again on the mound with a lot of workers, he dug a large area in the middle of Waršama’s palace, but did not find any tablet there. He bought some six hundred tablets to the local farmers before learning that the tablets were found in the surroundings fields, an area corresponding to the merchant district in the lower city, later called “kārum”. He excavated in the area (later referred to as F-J/7-12) and found four hundred more tablets.8 The site was then abandoned during more than twenty years, a period during which the surrounding villagers took out some stones of Waršama’s palace to build their houses and the soil of the mound to fertilize their fields. The site was plundered by illicit diggers who sold hundreds of cuneiform tablets to western museums and private collections.

In 1948, official exploitation of the site started, with the support of the Turkish Historical Society and under the scientific direction of Tahsin Özgüç from Ankara University. Since this date, archaeological missions have taken place every year, except 1952.9 Kutlu Emre joined the excavations in 1955 as a student of Professor Özgüç. In 1998, a small symposium gathering archaeologists and philologists working on Kültepe material was organized by Tahsin Özgüç to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Turkish excavations. After the death of Tahsin Özgüç in October 2005, the excavations went on under the direction of Fikri Kulakoğlu, Professor at Ankara University.10 A day meeting in memory of Tahsin Bey was organized in May 2006 to which participated several archaeologists and philologists.

1 Pinches 1881a; 1881b.2 This unpublished letter is preserved at the Bibliothèque de l’Institut (Paris, France). We address our warmest thanks to Mireille Pastoureau, the former director of the library, who allowed Cécile Michel and Brigitte Lion to work on Jules Oppert’s correspondence.3 Jensen 1894.4 Landsberger 1924.5 Chantre 1898, 92-115.6 Scheil 1896; 1898.7 Grothe 1912; Winckler 1906.8 Hrozný 1925.9 Özgüç 1950; 1953; 1959; 1986; 1999; 2003.10 Kulakoğlu – Kangal 2010; Kulakoğlu 2011.


IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. x

Fikri Kulakoğlu & Cécile Michel

Kutlu Emre participated to the excavations until 2013 and she kindly accepted to open the 1st Kül-tepe International Meeting with a lecture dedicated to the scientific carrier of her former Professor, T. Özgüç.11 Beside the many years she spent at Kültepe, Kutlu Hanım joined to the Acemhöyük, Altıntepe, Maşathöyük, Kululu and Kazankaya excavations under the directorship of Nimet Özgüç and Tahsin Özgüç. She also contributed to the Kamid el-Loz excavations in Lebanon while she was studying in Germany. Kutlu Emre conducted research and excavations throughout all Central Anatolia. Hittite sites of Yanar-lar12 in Afyonkarahisar, Hanözü13 in Tokat, Sultanhanı14 and Yassıdağ15 mounds and Karakuyu Dam16 in Kayseri were excavated by her. She also directed the archaeological survey named “Eastern Cappadocia Survey Project” (Kayseri Province). One of her major contributions to the Near Eastern archaeology is her monograph – and several articles17 – on lead figurines and their stone moulds; it is the reference book for the art and archaeology of Anatolia and beyond.18 The experience she has gained at Kültepe produced key volumes which enlighten the art and history of the Hittites and their predecessors.19 She also published on Anatolian pottery20 and imported ware21 from Mesopotamia and Syria. This volume, since the beginning, was intended to be offered to Kutlu Hanım who had dedicated almost sixty years of her life to Kültepe, and who was the only one who knew every single parcel of the mound and of the lower city by heart. Unfortu-nately, as the book was already submitted, Kutlu Emre passed away on Christmas day (December 25, 2014) in Ankara; this first volume of the Kültepe International Meetings is dedicated to her memory.

Fig. 1: Kutlu Emre at Kültepe.

Kültepe has always been a very prolific site, providing many artefacts and data for a wide range of dis-ciplines. Moreover, almost every year the archaeologists find new Old Assyrian tablets. The total number of

11 We have taken upon ourselves the responsibility of publishing Kutlu Hanım’s lecture in this volume without asking for her permission.12 Emre 1978.13 Emre 1992a.14 Emre 1973.15 Emre 1971a.16 Emre 1993b.17 Emre 1969; 1994b; 2005.18 Emre 1971b.19 Emre 1993a; Emre – Çınaroğlu 1993; Emre 1992b.20 Emre 1963; 1968; 1989; 1992c; 1996.21 Emre 1994a; 1995; 1999.

Introduction

xi

texts discovered in Kültepe, about 22,500, for the great majority in the lower town, places this site among the richest supplier of cuneiform texts from the whole Near East.22

A third workshop gathering Kültepe specialists took place during the Chicago ASOR annual meeting in 2012; it allowed discussions between colleagues working on the Kültepe material from various points of views.23 Fascinating discussions went on during the evenings, showing a strong desire to create the best conditions for further regular scientific exchanges. This motivated the organization of a first “Kültepe International Meeting” (KIM). We wished to create a synergy, to build up collective projects, and thus to have regular meetings taking place at Kültepe. The aim of these conferences is to bring together all the researchers working on Kültepe and its surrounding area, from a wide range of disciplines, in order to set up interdisciplinary collaborations on any question related to Kültepe-Kaneš researches. To make this dialogue possible, a general theme on material culture was addressed, and participants were also invited to present reports on their work in progress.

Every evening, general discussions took place involving all participants. On the first day, the theme addressed was linked to the archaeological aspects. The Early Bronze Age building currently excavated on the mound was discovered in 1986; systematic excavations of this building started in 2009. It is, up to now, the largest official building known in Anatolia for the 3rd millennium bc.24 Excavations have also been going on, since 2006, on the Eastern part of the lower town;25 a survey of the lower town is planned to try to find its limits. Numerous graves from levels II and Ib have been unearthed since 2006 and are systemat-ically studied by an anthropologist (H. Üstündağ). The fire that destroyed the citadel might not have taken place at the same period as in the lower town. Only one house of the lower town had a skeleton of someone trapped by the fire, killed by the fall of a wall, all the other inhabitants had time to leave their homes. The end of the lower town can be dated to 1680, then we observe a microclimate change, the environment was under water and the traffic stopped.26

The second general discussion was linked to the publication of Kültepe tablets. Complete archives are now being deciphered and studied by less than fifteen Turkish and foreign philologists. Six volumes have been published at the Türk Tarih Kurumu since 2010 (archives discovered in 1988, 1992, 1994 and 2001), three more are in press (archives excavated in 1950, 1991, 1994) and many others in preparation. In the volumes’ introduction, the archaeological context is described, and some plans of the houses are provided. K. Emre and F. Kulakoğlu wrote a detailed analysis of the archaeological context of the 2001 archive dated to level Ib (Emre – Kulakoğlu in press). There has been a strong wish to publish sealings on the envelopes together with the tablets, something which will be done for the first time for the 1991 archive. A volume on 1994 sealings is also on preparation. Such a work on archaeological archives allow addressing new topics, as the structure of families over several generations, and to link prosopographical studies together with the relative chronology now provided with complete lists of eponyms.

A final discussion was dedicated to plans for follow-up research and meeting activities. It has been collectively decided that a Kültepe International Meeting will take place at Kültepe every two years at the end of July, centered on Kültepe and its surrounding area. The international organizing team will change every time and will be constituted by two or three archaeologists and philologists, including the director of the excavations. Every meeting should be published at the time of the next one.

The first Kültepe International Meeting gathered on the site about sixty participants from three conti-nents and a dozen of countries. Thirty papers dealing with a wide range of topics were presented during the three days of the meeting. The fourth day, participants enjoyed a tour to Cappadocia offered by Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality. The twenty-one articles published in this volume are arranged in six different sections concerning the archaeology, chronology and population of Kültepe, the study of archives belon-ging to Assyrian merchants, the question of literacy, the Anatolian settlements and daily life, metals and minerals, and Kültepe after Kaneš. We are very grateful to all the authors for their contributions to this volume.

22 Michel 2003; 2006; 2011.23 Atıcı et al. 2014.24 Kulakoğlu – Öztürk 2015.25 We now avoid to identify the kārum with the excavated part of Kültepe lower town, Michel 2014.26 Kulakoğlu 2014.


IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. xii


Fig. 2: Participants to the 1st Kültepe International Meeting, Kültepe, September 2013.

AcknowledgementsThis first Kültepe International Meeting (KIM) would not have been possible without the initiative or

the help of several persons and institutions to whom we would like to address our warmest thanks:

Tahsin Özgüç and Kutlu Emre for their tremendous work revealing Kültepe since the mid-twentieth century, the Turkish Ministery of Culture and Tourism which supports Kültepe excavations since the begin-ning, the General Director of Cultural Assets and Museums Abdullah Kocapınar, the Governor of Kayseri Orhan Düzgün, the Vice Governor Haluk Tunçsu, the President of Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality Mehmet Özhaseki for their important moral, material and financial assistance, the Kültepe team, all the participants of the first Kültepe International Meeting (KIM), the Turkish and French Institutions who sponsored the conference (Ankara University, Faculty of Letters, Turkish Historical Society and CNRS research unit “Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité”), the members of the KIM series editorial board, as well as J. G. Dercksen and K. R. Veenhof, for their help in proofreading some manuscripts, and last but not least, Brepols publisher and Marc Lebeau, editor of SUBARTU series, who encouraged and accepted the creation of the new KIM sub-series.

BibliographyAtici, L. – Kulakoğlu, F. – Barjamovic, G. – Fairbairn, A.

2014 Current Research at Kültepe‑Kanesh. An Interdisciplinary and Integrative approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism and Identity, Journal of Cuneiform Studies Suppl. 4, Atlanta.

Chantre, E.

1898 Mission en Cappadoce, Paris.

Emre, K.

1963 “The Pottery of the Assyrian Colony Preiod According to the Building Levels of the Kaniş Karumu”, Anadolu/Anatolia 7, 87-99.

1968 “Acemhöyük Seramiği”, Anadolu/Anatolia 10, 99–153.

1969 “Eine neue Gussforms aus Kültepe”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 60, 134–142.

1971a “The Excavations 1971 and 1972 at Sultanhan Höyük”, Anadolu 1971, 119–138.

1971b Anadolu Kurşun Figürinleri ve Taş Kalıpları/Anatolian Lead Figurines and Their Stone Moulds. Ankara.

Introduction

xiii

1973 “Sultanhanı Höyüğünde 1971-1972 yıllarında yapılan Kazılar/The Excavations 1971-1972 at Sultanhanı Höyük”, Anadolu/Anatolia 15, 87–138; pl. I-XII.

1978 Yanarlar. Afyon Yöresinde Bir Hitit Mezarlığı/A Cemetery Near Afyon, Ankara, TTKY. V/22.

1989 “Pottery of Levels III and IV at the Karum of Kanesh”, in: K. Emre – B. Hrouda – M. Mellink – N. Özgüç (eds), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara, 111–128.

1992a “Hanözü: Masat Çervesinde bir Hitit Yerlesmesi”, in: H. Otten – H. Ertem – E. Akurgal – A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ana-dolu Medeniyetlerini Araştırma ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, Sayi 1, Ankara, 137–158.

1992b “Two Imported Bottle Shaped Jars from Karum Kanish”, in: B. Hrouda – S. Kroll – P. Z. Spanos (eds), Von Uruk nach Tuttul. Eine Festschrift für Eva Strommenger: Studien und Aufsaetze von Kollegen und Freunden, Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 12, München, 51–56.

1992c “Çorum Müzesinden Bir grup Hitit Seramiği”, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1991 Yılı Müze Konferansları, Ankara, 103–114.

1993a “A Group of Hittite Statuettes from Alaca Höyük”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 235–244.

1993b “The Hittite Dam of Karakuyu”, in: H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Anatolian Archaeology, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 7, Wiesbaden, 1–42.

1993c “New Lead Figurines and Moulds from Kültepe and Kızılhamza”, in: M. Mellink – E. Porada – T. Özgüç (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 169–177.

1994a “A Type of Syrian Pottery from Kültepe/Kaniş”, in: P. Calmeyer – K. Hecker – L. Jakob-Rost – C. B. F. Walker (eds), Beitraege zur Altorientalischen Archaeologie und Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 91–96.

1994b “A New Mould from Kültepe”, in: Festschrift für R. Mayer‑Opificius, Altertumskunde des Alten Orients 4, Münster, 71–77.

1995 “Pilgrim-Flasks from Level I of the Karum Kanis”, in: Essays on Ancient Anatolia and its Surrounding Civizilations, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 8, 173–200.

1996 “Kantharoi from Kültepe/Kanish”, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 10, 1–11.

1999 “Syrian Bottles from the Karum of Kanish”, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 11, 39–50.

2005 “Kültepe/Kaniş Karum’unda 1993-2001 Yılları Arasında Keşfedilen Yeni Kurşun Figürinler ve Kalıplar”, in: Refik Duru’ya Armağan, İstanbul.

Emre, K. – Çınaroğlu, A.

1993 “A Group of Metal Hittite Vessels from Kınık-Kastamonu”, in: M. Mellink – E. Porada – T. Özgüç (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 675–713.

Hrozný, B.

1927 “Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles tchécoslovaques de Kültepe”, Syria 8, 1–12.

Grothe, H.

1912 Meine Vorderasienexpedition, 1906‑1907, vols I-II, Leipzig.

Jensen, P.

1894 “Die kappadocischen Keilschrifttafelchen”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 9, 62–81.

Kulakoğlu, F.

2011 “Kültepe-Kaneš: a second-Millennium bc Trading Center on the Central Plateau”, in: S. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, Oxford, 1012–1030.

2014 “Kanesh after the Assyrian Colony Period: Current Research at Kültepe and the Question of the End of the Bronze Age Settlement”, in: Atici et al. 2014, 85–94.


IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. xiv


Kulakoğlu, F. – Kangal, S.

2010 Anadolu’nun Önsözü Kültepe Kaniş‑Karumu. Asurlular İstanbul’da/Anatolia’s Prologue Kültepe Kanesh Karum. Assyrians in Istanbul, Kayseri.

Lansberger, B.

1924 “Über die Völker Vorderasiens im dritten Jahrtausend”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 35, 213–244.

Michel, C.

2003 Old Assyrian Bibliography of Cuneiform Texts, Bullae, Seals and the Results of the Excavations at Assur, Kültepe/Kanis, Acemhöyük, Alishar and Boğazköy, Old Assyrian Archives Studies 1, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 97, Leiden.

2006 “Old Assyrian Bibliography 1 (February 2003 – July 2006)”, Archiv für Orientforschung 51, 436–449.

2011 “Old Assyrian Bibliography 2 (August 2006 – April 2009)”, Archiv für Orientforschung 52, 416–437.

2014 “Considerations on the Assyrian settlement at Kaneš”, in: Atici et al. 2014, 69–84.

Özgüç, T.

1950 Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Kültepe Kazısı Raporu 1948 (Ausgrabungen im Kültepe), Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından V/10, Ankara.

1953 Kültepe Kazısı Raporu 1949 (Ausgrabungen im Kültepe), Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından V/12, Ankara.

1959 Kültepe‑Kaniş, New Researches at the Center of the Assyrian Trade Colonies, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından V/19, Ankara.

1986 Kültepe‑Kaniş II, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından V/41, Ankara.

1999 Kültepe‑Kaniş/Neša Sarayları ve Mabetleri. The Palaces and Temples of Kültepe‑Kaniš/Neša, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından V/46, Ankara.

Pinches, T. G.

1881a “Tablet from Cappadocia, now in the British Museum”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology November, 11–18.

1881b “Tablet from Cappadocia in the Bibliothèque Nationale”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology December, 28–33.

Scheil, V.

1896 Tablette cappadocienne, Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 18, 74–75.

1898 “Textes cuneiforms”, in: Chantre 1898, 92–109.

Winckler, H.

1906 “Die im Sommer 1906 in Kleinasien ausgeführten Ausgrabungen”, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 9, 621–634.

195

Continuity of Tin Bronze Consumption during the Late 3rd Millennium BC at Kültepe

Joseph W. Lehner*, Evren Yazgan**, Ernst Pernicka*** & Fikri Kulakoğlu****

The organization of production and the exchange of metal underwent a significant transformation during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in Anatolia. One of the most salient features of this transforma-tion is the increased complexity of the craft, both in terms of the diversity of materials and activities but also in the organization of the technology as it variously adapted to a myriad of social and natural environments. Indeed by the end of the 3rd millennium BC and well into the 2nd millennium BC, some of the greatest inno-vations in metal technology involved how production activities became specialized and were regionally organized in networks. Inextricably linked to the evolution of social complexity more generally, these first rudiments of industrial-scale metal production developed in the context of increased specialization and diversification across many interrelated segments of society. These include not only institutionalized norms associated with the organization of production, such as independent and attached specialization, but also norms of consumption associated with social status.

Another salient feature is the development of diverse alloying technologies including tin bronze techno-logy. Bronze in the modern usage in material science is an alloy with copper as the main constituent except for copper zinc alloys which are typically known as brass. Since copper and tin are rarely found together in ore deposits, it is usually assumed that tin was added intentionally when the tin concentration is greater than 1.0 wt%. The appearance of tin bronze is an important marker of technological adopotion and long-distance trade in the archaeological record. Its production typically involves the intentional melting of copper and tin metal together at a desired ratio to produce an alloy with specific performance characteristics. As Stech and Pigott have shown (1986), tin bronzes in the Near East are also typically associated with social status, because the raw materials, specialized knowledge, and labor organization involved in their production confers a high degree of added value. Cross-culturally, bronze materials often also carry intrinsic symbolic meanings and associations codified in ritual production and consumption.

Thanks to the extensive analysis of early 2nd millennium BC texts written in Old Assyrian predominantly from Kültepe, we know a great deal about the structure and trajectory of the metals trade in the Near East. Merchants from northern Mesopotamia developed cooperative enterprises partially based on kinship, long-distance exchange, and regional market integration to trade tin and textile commodities for gold and silver originating in Anatolia at high profit margins.1 Once in Anatolia, merchants participated in a highly develo-ped and complex indigenous copper exchange system to build a further surplus of silver and gold to trans-port back to Aššur.2 Texts and archaeological evidence have demonstrated that by the early 2nd millennium BC foreign enterprises in Anatolia were entering into a social environment of highly competitive indigenous polities, the largest of these being Kültepe-Kaneš, with complex political economies based on rain-fed agri-culture, pastoralism, and the exchange of high-value commodities and finished goods, often produced of metal. The well-documented existence of complex economic institutions and long-distance trade in Anato-lia during the early 2nd millennium suggests that an extensive exchange network was already in place during the Early Bronze Age.3 Following the work of Sherratt and Sherratt (1991) and Helms (1993), Bachhuber (2011) theorizes that the development of long-distance exchange in central Anatolia happened because of the increased interest among competing resident elite social groups to acquire exotic materials, including most importantly metal and textiles. This pattern is recognized cross-culturally in periods of early formative chiefdoms and states in many parts of the world.4 The factors that gave rise to the sociopolitical complexity evident at Kültepe, and the traditions of metal production and trade that develop in this context, are only recently being studied in explicit detail.

* Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California – Los Angeles; [email protected].** Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü, Ankara.*** Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie, Mannheim.**** Arkeoloji Bölümü, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.1 Larsen 1976; Veenhof 2008.2 Dercksen 1996.3 Şahoğlu 2005; see also Kulakoğlu in this volume.4 Marcus 2008; Stanish – Levine 2011.


IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. 196

Joseph W. Lehner, Evren Yazgan, Ernst Pernicka & Fikri Kulakoğlu

In this preliminary study of copper alloys at Kültepe, we examine how metal technologies were inte-grated into late EBA society in the first few centuries prior to the textually-attested development of nort-hern Mesopotamian involvement in the region. If the merchants from northern Mesopotamia were able to adapt to and ultimately thrive in a regionalized economy partially based on the consumption exotic commodities, we should be able to detect markers of long-distance trade in the composition of copper artifacts dating to the late 3rd millennium BC. We present here the first compositional analysis of 3rd mill-ennium BC copper alloys from Kültepe. We compare the profile of copper alloy consumption during the EB III and MBA periods as represented at Kültepe to test whether or not patterns of economic continuity can be detected. In line with Tahsin Özgüç’s own observations about the development of Kültepe as a regional center through intensified long-distance trade,5 we suggest that bronze consumption during the 3rd millennium BC represents an important key to the development of the metals trade in later periods. We then discuss the role of innovation and adoption of bronze metallurgy in the Near East in the 3rd millen-nium more generally to contextualize bronze consumption at Kültepe into the greater culture-historical framework.

1. MethodsA total of 70 objects dating to the late 3rd millennium BC (EB III) (see Fig. 1) and 28 objects dating to the MBA (Karum Ib) (see Fig. 2) were selected for this study. Objects dating to the EB III were recovered from excavations at the mound in 2011 and 2013. Generally consisting of small tools, pins, sheet metal, and debris, the EB III assemblage comes primarily from refuse deposits associated with monumental archi-tecture on the mound (levels 13 through 11b). Descriptions of the archaeological contexts and tentative plans of these excavations have been published by Ezer (2014) and Kulakoğlu (in this volume). The MBA objects, including multiples of cymbals, hammered and rounded bars in the form of bangles, small wire rings, and pins, are associated with burial goods in the lower town excavated in 2013. We also incorporated earlier research by Esin (1969) and Lehner (2014a) when comparing alloy consumption profiles between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC.

All samples were analyzed using a portable x-ray florescence analyzer (pXRF). For each object, we took two measurements to monitor instrumental drift and calculate a compositional average. The obvious main benefit of this analyzer is that it is portable so that analysis can be conducted directly in the field or in the museum. This method is often the only possible technique to date to conduct compositional analysis, especially of fragile and highly valuable museum display objects. Although quantitative analysis of copper alloys is theoretically possible, several limitations are important to consider here.6 First, without careful invasive sample preparation such as with drillings, pXRF essentially analyzes only the surface of the object, which is often altered by corrosion. Different solubilities of corrosion products therefore can substantially alter the composition from the original metal. Other effects which determine the surface chemistry of metal objects, such as inverse segregation of alloy phases, plating/coating, or even conservation treatments, can produce very misleading results derived from surface analysis. To mitigate the effects of these limitations, small minimally perceivable areas of corrosion were removed mechanically where possible prior to ana-lysis. These objects were then immediately retreated and conserved for storage. Laboratory analyses of pure copper and copper alloy standards with this instrument show that analytical accuracy deteriorates at concentrations of most elements lower than 0.1 wt%. Values lower than these should be regarded as semi-quantitative indicators.

Copper alloy types (ex. Cu-As, Cu-As-Sn) are defined explicitly by their chemical composition. In this study we use an elemental concentration of greater than 1.0 wt% to be an alloy, except for lead for which we set a concentration limit of greater than 5.0 wt%. We make no a priori assumptions about the intentionality of these alloys. There is considerable debate concerning the intentionality of alloys in antiquity (Lechtman 1996). Polymetallic ores are common in Anatolia meaning that so-called “natural” alloys can be easily pro-duced through direct or mixed smelting. The availability of these types of ores certainly affected the metal technologies and traditions, and therefore inferences of intentionality (or conversely accidental production) will always be challenged by the logical problem of equifinality because compositional data alone are not always conclusive.

5 Özgüç 1986.6 Heginbotham et al. 2010; Liritzis – Zacharias 2011.

197


2. ResultsResults of the compositional analyses are reported in Table 1. Figure 3 displays the frequency distributi-ons of arsenic, tin, and lead content from all published analyses of the Kültepe assemblage (n=182). The EB III assemblage shows an average of around 7 wt% tin for Cu-Sn alloys (up to 19.6 wt% Sn, but tin tends to be enriched in corrosion) which is similar to the MBA assemblage. Note however that there is no strong modal value for the EB III assemblage as there is in the MBA, which either suggests that our sample size is too small to describe the EB III population accurately or that the tin concentration was not or could not be tightly controlled. In the latter case the data demonstrate a different empirical patter compared with the MBA bronzes, which have a modal value in the 7-10 wt% range, which is known from known to 3rd millennium BC texts from Ebla.7

7 Archi 1993; Waetzoldt 1981; Waetzoldt – Bachmann 1984.

Fig. 1: Diagnostic copper alloy objects dating to the EB III (late 3rd millennium BC) from mound excavations at Kültepe. Nondiagnostics are not

shown here.




Fig. 2: Diagnostic copper alloy objects dating to the MBA (Karum 2, early 2nd millennium BC) from mound excavations at Kültepe. Nondiagnostics are not shown here.

199


Tab

le 1

: Res

ults

of

com

posi

tiona

l ana

lysi

s us

ing

pXR

F.

Con

tent

s lo

wer

than

the

dete

ctio

n lim

it of

the

inst

rum

ent a

re n

oted

as

a da

sh “

–”.)

Sam

ple

No.

Obj

ect N

o.L

ocal

Pha

seP

erio

dO

bjec

t Typ

eM

etal

Cu

%A

s %

Sn %

Sb %

Ag

%P

b %

Zn

%N

i %C

o %

Fe

%

KT

1K

t 11-

4211

bE

B I

IIat

tach

men

t too

lC

u97

0.43

-0.

050.

212.

0-

0.03

0.01

0.48

KT

2K

t 13-

882

11b

EB

III

atta

chm

ent t

ool

Cu-

Sn88

0.66

10.6

-0.

020.

21-

--

0.29

KT

3K

t 11-

247

12E

B I

IIaw

lC

u99

0.71

-0.

080.

040.

110.

060.

030.

010.

14

KT

4K

t 13-

2055

surf

ace,

mou

ndE

B I

IIaw

lC

u-A

s95

1.14

0.62

0.10

0.01

2.7

-0.

150.

060.

70

KT

5K

t 13-

390

surf

ace,

mou

ndE

B I

IIaw

lC

u98

0.52

-0.

080.

020.

46-

0.04

0.01

1.15

KT

6K

t 11-

259

11a

EB

III

awl

Cu-

As

952.

380.

02-

0.10

0.64

0.39

0.02

-0.

97

KT

7K

t 13-

739

11b

EB

III

awl

Cu-

As

953.

110.

240.

020.

020.

210.

100.

01-

1.40

KT

8K

t 11-

242

12E

B I

IIaw

lC

u-Sn

96-

3.3

--

0.65

0.12

--

0.45

KT

9K

t 13-

1409

11b

EB

III

awl

Cu-

Sn84

0.37

14.2

-0.

061.

280.

210.

02-

0.18

KT

10

Kt 1

1-25

3A11

bE

B I

IIaw

lC

u98

0.75

-0.

050.

04-

0.09

0.02

-0.

60

KT

11

Kt 1

1-25

3B11

bE

B I

IIaw

lC

u98

0.81

0.62

0.10

0.06

0.25

-0.

080.

010.

25

KT

12

Kt 1

1-26

312

EB

III

chis

elC

u-A

s97

1.23

0.33

0.21

0.07

0.29

-0.

04-

0.43

KT

13

Kt 1

1-26

611

bE

B I

IIch

isel

Cu-

As

981.

30-

0.23

0.03

0.01

0.05

0.02

0.02

0.50

KT

14

Kt 1

1-27

011

bE

B I

IIch

isel

Cu-

Sn93

0.20

4.9

0.05

0.74

1.16

0.04

0.01

-0.

05

KT

15

Kt 1

1-27

112

EB

III

chis

elC

u-Sn

-Pb

800.

488.

00.

040.

039.

90.

120.

02-

0.95

KT

16

Kt 1

1-28

11b

EB

III

blad

eC

u-A

s98

1.49

0.12

0.06

0.04

0.36

0.06

0.08

0.01

0.10

KT

17

Kt 1

3-49

512

EB

III

blad

eC

u98

0.59

0.68

0.16

0.06

0.16

0.08

0.05

0.01

0.16

KT

18

Kt 1

1-23

3A11

bE

B I

IIne

edle

Cu

980.

69-

-0.

040.

310.

070.

020.

010.

81

KT

19

Kt 1

1-23

3B11

bE

B I

IIne

edle

Cu-

As

971.

690.

04-

0.04

0.75

0.05

0.03

-0.

53

KT

20

Kt 1

3-18

65K

arum

Ib

MB

Ane

edle

Cu

990.

170.

15-

0.02

0.03

0.08

--

0.22

KT

21

Kt 1

1-23

8A11

bE

B I

IIpi

n, le

ntic

ular

hea

dC

u-A

s96

1.87

-0.

170.

010.

160.

200.

050.

011.

11

KT

22

Kt 1

1-23

8B11

bE

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft,

unid

.C

u-A

s97

1.13

-1.

34-

1.21

0.09

--

0.71

KT

23

Kt 1

1-24

812

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu-

Sn96

0.44

1.10

0.11

0.01

0.32

0.21

0.11

-1.

36

KT

24

Kt 1

1-26

812

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu-

As

981.

07-

0.04

0.03

0.22

--

-0.

64

KT

25

Kt 1

1-27

313

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu-

As

971.

010.

640.

120.

040.

140.

120.

020.

011.

10

KT

26

Kt 1

1-28

212

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu

100

0.02

--

0.02

--

--

0.14




Tab

le 1

: Res

ults

of

com

posi

tiona

l ana

lysi

s us

ing

pXR

F.

Con

tent

s lo

wer

than

the

dete

ctio

n lim

it of

the

inst

rum

ent a

re n

oted

as

a da

sh “

–”.)

Sam

ple

No.

Obj

ect N

o.L

ocal

Pha

seP

erio

dO

bjec

t Typ

eM

etal

Cu

%A

s %

Sn %

Sb %

Ag

%P

b %

Zn

%N

i %C

o %

Fe

%

KT

27

Kt 1

1-54

11b

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu

980.

31-

0.04

0.11

0.03

0.11

--

1.06

KT

28

Kt 1

1-57

12E

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft,

unid

.C

u-A

s98

1.22

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.09

0.05

0.04

0.07

0.45

KT

29

Kt 1

1-81

Kar

um I

bM

BA

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu-

As

971.

72-

0.07

0.02

0.53

0.12

0.04

-0.

97

KT

30

Kt 1

3-26

311

bE

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft,

unid

.C

u99

0.11

--

0.12

0.65

--

0.01

0.39

KT

31

Kt 1

3-49

412

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu

980.

37-

0.57

-0.

05-

0.09

0.08

0.47

KT

32

Kt 1

3-49

612

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu

990.

62-

-0.

16-

-0.

010.

010.

12

KT

33

Kt 1

3-51

6su

rfac

e, m

ound

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu

990.

27-

-0.

040.

010.

05-

0.01

0.89

KT

34

Kt 1

3-58

811

bE

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft,

unid

.C

u-A

s96

2.32

0.13

0.05

0.02

0.18

0.07

0.03

0.02

1.31

KT

35

Kt 1

1-24

410

EB

III

pin

head

, uni

d.C

u-Sn

850.

6812

.90.

030.

040.

440.

19-

-0.

53

KT

36

Kt 1

1-25

411

bE

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft,

unid

.C

u-Sn

-Pb

860.

883.

40.

950.

208.

10.

070.

030.

020.

24

KT

37

Kt 1

1-26

113

EB

III

pin

shaf

t, un

id.

Cu-

Sn96

0.98

1.86

0.13

0.02

0.18

0.10

0.07

0.01

0.50

KT

38

Kt 1

1-26

513

EB

III

pin,

con

ical

hea

dC

u-A

s-Sn

941.

683.

20.

090.

020.

130.

130.

120.

020.

36

KT

39

Kt 1

3-24

011

bE

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft

Cu-

Sn89

0.24

9.6

0.29

0.30

0.34

0.11

0.02

-0.

35

KT

40

Kt 1

1-80

13E

B I

IIpi

n sh

aft,

unid

. cor

rode

dC

u99

0.42

-0.

050.

03-

0.13

--

0.02

KT

41

Kt 1

1-23

712

EB

III

pin,

con

ical

hea

dC

u-A

s-Sn

961.

891.

040.

190.

240.

590.

080.

03-

0.25

KT

42

Kt 1

1-75

12E

B I

IIpi

n, c

onic

al h

ead

Cu-

As-

Sn90

1.06

6.8

0.06

0.01

0.64

0.16

0.08

-0.

75

KT

43

Kt 1

3-20

0211

bE

B I

IIpi

n, d

isc

head

, cor

rode

dC

u-A

s95

2.36

0.73

-0.

091.

720.

370.

01-

0.09

KT

44

Kt 1

3-75

111

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

oset

teC

u98

0.12

0.03

-0.

141.

060.

460.

01-

0.32

KT

45

Kt 1

3-40

911

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

oset

teC

u-Sn

900.

688.

3-

0.03

0.32

0.17

0.01

-0.

18

KT

46

Kt 1

3-19

9811

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

oset

te, c

orro

ded

Cu-

As

935.

30.

130.

030.

060.

300.

070.

01-

0.73

KT

47

Kt 1

3-18

8011

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

oset

te, c

orro

ded

Cu-

Sn93

0.05

6.7

-0.

020.

230.

18-

-0.

35

KT

48

Kt 1

3-34

611

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

oset

te, c

orro

ded

Cu-

Sn88

0.29

10.8

-0.

020.

43-

--

0.50

KT

49

Kt 1

3-24

411

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

oset

te, c

orro

ded

Cu

970.

740.

16-

0.04

0.06

0.85

--

0.96

KT

50

Kt 1

1-24

612

EB

III

pin

head

, rou

ndC

u99

0.07

0.10

--

0.06

0.14

0.11

-0.

27

KT

51

Kt 1

3-57

911

bE

B I

IIpi

n, r

ound

hea

dC

u-A

s97

1.82

0.03

-0.

030.

02-

0.02

-1.

02

KT

52

Kt 1

3-20

0311

bE

B I

IIpi

n he

ad, r

ound

Cu-

Sn76

0.52

19.6

--

3.7

-0.

03-

0.38

201


Tab

le 1

: Res

ults

of

com

posi

tiona

l ana

lysi

s us

ing

pXR

F.

Con

tent

s lo

wer

than

the

dete

ctio

n lim

it of

the

inst

rum

ent a

re n

oted

as

a da

sh “

–”.)

Sam

ple

No.

Obj

ect N

o.L

ocal

Pha

seP

erio

dO

bjec

t Typ

eM

etal

Cu

%A

s %

Sn %

Sb %

Ag

%P

b %

Zn

%N

i %C

o %

Fe

%

KT

53

Kt 1

3-42

811

bE

B I

IIpi

n, r

ound

hea

dC

u-Sn

92-

7.1

--

0.80

0.15

0.04

-0.

29

KT

54

Kt 1

3-51

913

EB

III

pin,

rou

nd h

ead

Cu-

Sn84

0.57

11.7

0.05

0.19

3.2

-0.

090.

030.

17

KT

55

Kt 1

1-23

413

EB

III

pin,

squ

are

head

Cu-

As

971.

090.

280.

120.

060.

930.

060.

04-

0.58

KT

56

Kt 1

1-24

011

bE

B I

IIro

dC

u-A

s98

1.33

-0.

040.

01-

--

-0.

12

KT

57

Kt 1

1-23

011

bE

B I

IIsh

eet

Cu

970.

570.

020.

080.

010.

151.

650.

02-

0.31

KT

58

Kt 1

1-25

111

aE

B I

IIsh

eet

Cu

980.

500.

190.

140.

030.

210.

080.

090.

020.

67

KT

59

Kt 1

1-26

911

bE

B I

IIsh

eet

Cu

990.

970.

030.

070.

060.

120.

090.

02-

0.10

KT

60

Kt 1

1-27

712

EB

III

shee

tC

u99

0.46

0.07

0.05

0.03

0.08

0.11

0.11

-0.

60

KT

61

KT

11-

256

11b

EB

III

shee

tC

u-Sn

92-

4.2

-0.

022.

70.

310.

010.

021.

17

KT

62

Kt 1

3-43

0K

arum

Ib

MB

Ash

eet

Cu-

Sn93

0.95

3.0

0.20

0.06

1.61

0.09

0.09

0.01

0.50

KT

63

Kt 1

3-18

7711

bE

B I

IIsh

eet,

corr

oded

Cu

950.

49-

-0.

010.

161.

710.

01-

2.9

KT

64

Kt 1

1-25

012

EB

III

tack

Cu

990.

10-

--

0.02

--

-0.

84

KT

65

Kt 1

1-25

511

bE

B I

IIta

ckC

u99

0.15

-0.

040.

010.

010.

29-

-0.

70

KT

66

Kt 1

1-53

11b

EB

III

tack

Cu

990.

16-

-0.

040.

010.

090.

02-

0.26

KT

67

Kt 1

3-73

711

bE

B I

IIun

id.

Cu-

As

981.

53-

0.07

0.11

0.56

--

-0.

05

KT

68

Kt 1

1-27

613

EB

III

unid

., co

rrod

edC

u98

0.52

0.71

0.26

0.06

0.07

0.22

--

0.48

KT

69

Kt 1

1-25

212

EB

III

unid

., co

rrod

edC

u-Sn

940.

055.

7-

0.09

0.21

0.07

--

0.13

KT

70

Kt 1

3-19

9711

bE

B I

IIw

ire

ring

Cu-

As

971.

350.

07-

0.04

0.30

0.11

0.03

0.02

1.31

KT

71

Kt 1

3-15

2511

bE

B I

IIw

ire

ring

Cu-

As

933.

880.

420.

060.

020.

640.

52-

-1.

45

KT

72

Kt 1

3-20

5412

EB

III

wra

pped

wir

eC

u-Sn

970.

291.

280.

360.

060.

08-

--

0.48

KT

73

Kt 1

3-97

712

EB

III

blad

eC

u-Sn

910.

875.

60.

160.

171.

66-

0.10

-0.

25

KT

74

Kt 1

3-17

44K

arum

Ib

MB

Aat

tach

men

t too

lC

u-Sn

860.

9411

.3-

0.07

0.82

0.05

0.08

0.02

0.26

KT

75

Kt 1

3-17

46K

arum

Ib

MB

Aat

tach

men

t too

lC

u-Sn

830.

5313

.8-

0.02

1.80

0.06

0.04

-0.

97

KT

76

Kt 1

3-14

46K

arum

Ib

MB

Aaw

lC

u99

0.58

0.12

-0.

050.

23-

0.03

0.01

0.26

KT

77

Kt 1

3-14

23K

arum

Ib

MB

Aaw

lC

u-A

s94

2.36

0.59

0.15

0.02

2.1

-0.

020.

010.

58

KT

78

Kt 1

3-14

24K

arum

Ib

MB

Abl

ade

Cu

980.

770.

030.

010.

010.

07-

0.75

0.06

0.43




Tab

le 1

: Res

ults

of

com

posi

tiona

l ana

lysi

s us

ing

pXR

F.

Con

tent

s lo

wer

than

the

dete

ctio

n lim

it of

the

inst

rum

ent a

re n

oted

as

a da

sh “

–”.)

Sam

ple

No.

Obj

ect N

o.L

ocal

Pha

seP

erio

dO

bjec

t Typ

eM

etal

Cu

%A

s %

Sn %

Sb %

Ag

%P

b %

Zn

%N

i %C

o %

Fe

%

KT

79

Kt 1

3-12

33K

arum

Ib

MB

Acy

mba

lC

u-Sn

970.

032.

6-

-0.

200.

09-

-0.

33

KT

80

Kt 1

3-12

34K

arum

Ib

MB

Acy

mba

lC

u-Sn

980.

201.

57-

-0.

350.

060.

02-

0.08

KT

81

Kt 1

3-15

37K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n sh

aft

Cu-

As

961.

720.

04-

0.03

1.48

0.08

0.02

-1.

10

KT

82

Kt 1

3-16

53K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n sh

aft

Cu-

As

971.

040.

20-

0.02

0.16

0.05

0.12

0.02

1.45

KT

83

Kt 1

3-13

89K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n sh

aft

Cu-

As

963.

170.

070.

050.

080.

38-

0.03

0.01

0.53

KT

84

Kt 1

3-17

20K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n, r

oset

te h

ead

Cu-

As

914.

30.

020.

060.

011.

750.

140.

27-

2.4

KT

85

Kt 1

3-18

05K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n, tr

apez

oida

l hea

dC

u-A

s96

1.99

--

0.05

0.42

-0.

030.

011.

33

KT

86

Kt 1

3-17

61K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n, r

ound

hea

dC

u-A

s95

4.1

0.04

0.10

0.03

0.43

-0.

030.

010.

71

KT

87

Kt 1

3-17

63K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n, r

ound

hea

dC

u-A

s95

3.97

-0.

050.

060.

18-

0.02

-0.

66

KT

88

Kt 1

3-17

67K

arum

Ib

MB

Api

n, s

tone

hea

dC

u97

0.59

0.06

-0.

050.

260.

190.

02-

1.77

KT

89

Kt 1

3-15

09K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed b

arC

u-A

s97

1.13

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.59

0.07

0.02

-1.

12

KT

90

Kt 1

3-15

10K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed b

arC

u-A

s97

1.40

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.67

0.07

0.03

0.01

1.22

KT

91

Kt 1

3-17

11K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed h

amm

ered

bar

Cu-

As

971.

560.

300.

120.

030.

22-

0.19

-0.

77

KT

92

Kt 1

3-12

38K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed b

arC

u10

0-

--

0.05

0.01

--

-0.

04

KT

93

Kt 1

3-12

39K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed b

arC

u10

00.

01-

-0.

070.

02-

--

0.04

KT

94

Kt 1

3-17

51K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed b

arC

u-A

s-Sn

923.

262.

5-

0.03

1.07

-0.

09-

0.85

KT

95

Kt 1

3-17

52K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

rapp

ed b

arC

u-A

s-Sn

883.

234.

70.

030.

042.

10.

080.

06-

1.37

KT

96

Kt 1

3-15

11K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

ire

ring

Cu

100

0.04

0.04

-0.

020.

040.

070.

04-

0.07

KT

97

Kt 1

3-17

53K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

ire

ring

Cu

100

0.05

0.04

-0.

020.

04-

0.03

-0.

02

KT

98

Kt 1

3-22

7K

arum

Ib

MB

Aw

ire

ring

Cu

990.

100.

09-

-0.

060.

340.

01-

0.33

203


Arsenic contents in both EB III and MBA assemblages exhibit the well-known pattern for the Bronze Age, with a broad range and a mode around 1-2 wt%. As discussed below, it is difficult to determine whe-ther such low concentrations of arsenic were intentional and indicate a controlled technology, because this composition can equally reflect intentional decisions and unintentional use of impure ores. Given the pres-ence of other metal related elements like antimony (Sb), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb), it is likely that arsenic was introduced into the copper during the original smelting process as an impurity derived from polymetal-lic ores which are common in Anatolia. A single rosette headed pin dating to the EB III (Kt 13-1998) has a concentration of 5.3 wt%, however, and is more typical of intentionally produced arsenical copper known to slightly earlier assemblages in north central Anatolia and the Upper Euphrates regions.

The distribution of lead content across the assemblages similarly depicts a typical distribution, reflec-ting the use of polymetallic ores. Two examples of leaded bronzes were observed in the EB III assemblage, including a chisel (Kt 11-271, 9.9 wt% Pb) and a pin shaft fragment (Kt 11-254, 8.1 wt% Pb). Because these objects are not typical for leaded bronzes, it is possible that the high level of lead is the result of cross contamination with proximate lead artifacts in the same depositional environment or from lead-enriched ores. The pin fragment is also enriched with antimony (0.95 wt% Sb) and silver (0.20 wt% Ag), which are also notoriously enriched on corrosion of copper alloys. The only sure way to identify leaded bronzes is with metallographic analysis.

Arsenical copper and bronze seem to be distinct alloys during the EB III. Tin appears to have been added mainly to copper with no appreciable amount of arsenic (see Fig. 4). Copper alloys with relatively high arsenic content (c. 3-5 wt% As) tend not to be alloyed with tin. Arsenic and tin concentrations of Early Bronze Age metal from the northwest Aegean also show this profile. Lead isotope analysis of these samp-les shows that some of the copper alloyed with tin was derived from non-local ores and were imported.8 Without isotopic analyses of the Kültepe samples, we cannot compare these results; however the question remains if the copper was being imported alongside tin during the Early Bronze Age. Later texts would indicate that this was not occurring as merchants did not bring copper into Anatolia at that time, clearly due to the fact that Anatolia already had a vibrant local copper trade. This intriguing signature is not as well defined for the MBA assemblage, which shows a greater degree of mixing among alloys either as a result of pooling or recycling, or possibly ternary alloys represent an intentional alloy choice.

These analyses show that the metallurgical traditions involved in alloy production have a certain degree of continuity at Kültepe from the EB III to the MBA period. This is clearly demonstrated by alloy prefe-rence over time (see Fig. 5). Alloy preference over time, which is a reasonable proxy for general changes in production and consumption behavior, shows broadly similar ratios of unalloyed copper (0.38 to 0.32), arsenical copper (0.32 to 0.29), bronze (0.25 to 0.21) consumption at the site (see Table 2). While these sta-tistics are highly aggregated and divorced from their original spatial use-contexts, the results are nonethe-less convincing of overarching temporal and regional continuity. The exception to this observation is the large intake of ternary Cu-As-Sn alloys during the MBA (0.03 to 0.18), which probably explains why the other major copper metal types experience small losses.

8 Pernicka et al. 1984.

Fig. 3: Frequency histograms of arsenic (As), tin (Sn), and lead (Pb) in weight percent (wt%) compared across the EB III and MBA periods (n=182 total objects).




Fig. 4: Scatterplot of tin (Sn) and arsenic (As) in weight percent (wt%) compared

across the EB III and MBA periods.

Fig. 5: Prevalence of copper alloy groups according to time period.

Table 2: Total ratio data of copper alloy groups across the EB III and MBA samples.

EB III MBA

Metal n fraction of subtotal n fraction of subtotal

Cu 26 0.37 36 0.32

Cu-As 21 0.30 33 0.29

Cu-Sn 18 0.26 24 0.21

Cu-As-Sn 3 0.04 20 0.18

Cu-Sn-Pb 2 0.03 0 0

Total 70 1.00 113 1.00

3. Adoption or Innovation of Tin Bronze Technology in the Near EastThe evolution of technologies, including processes of cultural innovation and adoption, requires prima-rily that we understand selection pressures which influence the frequency of technological types and their relative success over space and time. Furthermore, selection processes depend on the social and natu-ral environment in which multiple competing technologies exist. How social groups interact with these

205


environments constrains how the cultural selection of technologies operates. For example, transport costs,9 thermodynamic principles,10 performance characteristics,11 increasing returns associated with cooperation,12 demographics,13 and cultural beliefs14 can all drive selection over time. The nature of origins research is fraught with a number of fundamental problems, including the issue that we can only use highly fragmentary datasets and past selection processes and events almost certainly operated differently across space and time. Additionally, the taphonomic processes which form and deplete archaeological sites over time can pro-duce potentially large biases in the archaeological record,15 which means initially observed use-frequencies may in fact be very misleading without a means of calibrating interpretations.

Given that fragmentary data and technological use-frequencies have specific temporal distributions, we can nevertheless assume that our earliest dated samples probabilistically represent the upper limit of the earliest innovation and/or adoption dates. Our proxy data rather allow us to develop empirical appro-ximations within a range. Evidence supported by multiple radiocarbon dates today suggests that the initial adoption of tin bronze technology must have occurred rapidly, although unevenly, across the greater Near East and no later than the early-mid-3rd millennium BC.16 The earliest dated consumption of tin bronzes is wide spread in this region, which attests to the rapidity of its adoption. We argue that by the late 3rd millen-nium BC at Kültepe, tin bronzes were already common across a wide diversity of object types, suggesting that producers and consumers had predictable access to copper and tin made possible only by an elaborate exchange system of materials and shared knowledge, possibly structured similarly to the economic system observed during the early 2nd millennium BC.

Before the adoption of copper tin alloys in Anatolia, a myriad of diverse social constellations utilized specialized technologies and local resources to produce unalloyed copper as well as arsenical copper to make a wide range of objects.17 Arsenical copper has a long history of production, trade, and consumption in Anatolia whose origins extend far into the 5th-4th millennium BC.18 Multiple innovations, rapid adoption, and spread of arsenical copper technology across Eurasia generate a geographical production and consump-tion pattern that Chernyk termed Circumpontic Metallurgical Province (1992). Arsenical copper is typically characterized by a large range of arsenic content (0.5-7%, oftentimes more), with site-specific modal values usually around 1-2% which suggests that arsenic content was difficult to control. Furthermore, there are multiple possible trajectories to produce arsenical copper which means that analyses from finished objects alone cannot overcome logical equifinality between opposing hypotheses.19 Simplistically, arsenical copper could be produced intentionally by cosmelting copper and arsenic ores together or unintentionally by smel-ting arsenic rich copper ores thereby leading to copper metal rich in impurities of arsenic. Data from ana-lyses of slags and production debris associated with arsenical copper production at EBA Arisman in Iran, however, have demonstrated that intentional intermediate technological processes involved in the industrial production of speiss (an intermediate product composed of iron arsenide) existed. This material may later have been added as a mixed smelting agent or in molten copper to produce arsenical copper intentionally.20

It is traditionally thought that bronze alloys gradually replaced earlier copper technologies, like arseni-cal copper, because bronze metal has marginally better performance characteristics,21 is easier to control alloying,22 and the alloying of copper and tin is more fuel efficient than arsenical copper.23 It is clear, howe-ver, that during the Anatolian Bronze Age, people sometimes used arsenical copper with exceptionally high concentrations of arsenic to produce a silver-colored metal, examples of which are known to cast

9 Krugman 1991.10 Hauptmann 2007.11 Skibo – Schiffer 2008.12 Arthur 1994.13 Kline – Boyd 2010.14 Hosler 1995.15 Surovell – Brantingham 2007.16 Pernicka 1998.17 Lehner – Yener 2014.18 Begemann et al. 1994; Thornton 2010.19 Lechtman 1996.20 Rehren et al. 2012.21 Northover 1989.22 Pernicka 1990.23 Kaufman – Scott in press.




objects from EBA Horoztepe24 and LBA Boğazköy-Hattuša,25 whereas typical bronzes are golden in color. Examples of arsenical copper objects of this quality are quite rare in Anatolia, however the use of arsenical copper in this region continues through to the end of the Late Bronze Age as attested by finds at Kaman Kalehöyük26 and Boğazköy-Hattuša.27

3.1 The Tin Problem and Models of Bronze Adoption

The tin problem has been discussed for nearly 140 years.28 While the full discussion of this challenging historical problem is far beyond the scope of this preliminary paper, we nonetheless distill here two distinct though related models in understanding the adoption of tin use during the Bronze Age in the Near East. The standard model magisterially described by Muhly (1973; 1985) hypothesizes that the irregular distribution and the size of copper and tin resources across Eurasia and the nature of bronze technologies determined the geographic scope of the metals trade. Copper ore deposits are known across Eurasia, whereas tin sources are much rarer with the largest deposits occurring only in Europe, including Cornwall, and Central Asia, such as the Karnab and Mushiston tin sources in Uzbekistan.29 While small occurrences of tin are known in Anatolia,30 this model predicts that these occurrences were economically unsustainable or even unreco-gnizable to past communities.31 These geographic and technological parameters alone have led proponents of this model to hypothesize that tin was traded, however indirectly, via many segments and long distances into regional copper exchange systems to produce tin bronze. In this model, the demand for copper and tin in the production and consumption of bronze therefore had far reaching effects across Eurasia and helped economically integrate distinct cultural geographies through highly varied networks of communication and exchange.

This model is supported by empirical evidence that demonstrates indirect interaction with Central Asian polities, including the trade and processing of lapis lazuli, which is primarily from northeastern Afghani-stan and northern Pakistan,32 and is found concurrently with many of the earliest bronzes in the Near East, including Ebla, Kültepe, and Troy. Sources of gold and nephrite are also known to Central Asia, which gives further credence to its use in the 3rd millennium BC. Late-3rd-millennium texts in Syro-Mesopotamia and 2nd-millennium texts in Anatolia and Syro-Mesopotamia also refer to an eastern origin of tin (Akk. annakum/annuku, logographically AN.NA) by way of Susa in southwestern Iran.33 Additionally, lead iso-tope ratios of early bronzes from northwestern Anatolia and the Persian Gulf are highly variable, many samples of which are not compatible with eastern European, Aegean, and Anatolian sources of copper. This observation has led some authors34 to conclude that some copper and tin metals were likely imported from outside source(s), with some tin alloyed together with local copper. These data are consistent with an external source of tin but cannot alone logically falsify the possible local sources of tin.

An alternative model suggests that local sources of tin better explain the origin of bronze metallurgy in the Near East. Proponents of this model question how the earliest bronzes, currently dating to the northern periphery of Mesopotamia, could have developed without local parallel innovations in early tin metallurgy.35 This supplants a logical and empirical conundrum associated with the standard model and one at the core of the tin problem more generally. According to the alternative model, 3rd millennium BC communities intentionally used local tin occurrences in the production of the earliest bronze.36 This model is supported primarily by the existence of 3rd millennium BC sites in close association with some of these occurrences. One such specialized metal processing site, Göltepe in the central Taurus dating to c. 2880–2175 BC, has evidence of tin-enriched hematite powders stored in vessels and crucible residues which are interpreted to indicate tin (not bronze) processing.37 Additionally, the mining industrial landscape of Hisarcık, located just

24 Smith 1973.25 pXRF analyses by Lehner of an unpublished cast pendant measured c. 22 wt% As. The object was discovered by J. Seeher during the 1998 Büyükkaya excavations in a wall of a LBA building.26 Hirao – Enomoto 1997.27 Lehner 2014b.28 von Baer 1876.29 Boroffka et al. 2002.30 Öztürk – Hanilçi 2009; Yener et al. in press; Yener – Özbal 1987; Yener – Vandiver 1993.31 Muhly 1993; Pernicka et al. 1992.32 Delmas – Casanova 1990.33 Reiter 1997, 222–251.34 Pernicka et al. 2003.35 Yener 2000.36 Lehner – Yener 2014; Yener et al. 2015; Yazgan in this volume.37 Adriaens et al. 1999; Özbal 2009; Yener et al. 2003.

207


south of Kültepe itself, is comprised of scores of irregular mines associated with tin and arsenic bearing iron ores and small settlements with late 3rd millennium BC pottery38. Experimental studies have demonstra-ted how iron-tin oxide ores evident at Kestel/Göltepe and Hisarcık could be beneficiated and successfully reduced to produce prills of tin using appropriate technologies.39 This model is challenged by the fact that all current textual data, which dates to the early 2nd millennium BC, do not confirm a local source of tin and rather refer to sizeable imports, as mentioned above. Multiple hypotheses have been put forth to explain this, including drastic shifts in trade networks40; however, these hypotheses remain to be tested using empi-rical methods. Further research among these sites, especially those at Hisarcık, promises to test this model further.From the perspective of cultural evolution, we are still missing key elements in the early adoption of tin bronze to confidently describe and explain the evolution of tin and bronze technological lineages. If the evolution of lineages of tin extraction is fundamentally related to the production of bronze, then we would expect the earliest bronzes to occur in the vicinity of tin sources. However if this is not the case, where the evolution of bronze and tin technologies are distinct, then we must examine the nature of knowledge trans-mission and resource networks involved in at least these two independent technological lineages. If bronze technologies evolved in a social environment located in the Near Eastern geography without an initial local tin extraction knowledge, then there must be a reasonable explanation for the production of tin metal in Central Asia prior to the adoption of bronze in that region. Indeed, the earliest empirical data for the use of tin is known only as an alloy with copper. Realistically, multiple sources of tin were probably used over time, however by the 2nd millennium BC, our data dramatically improves concerning the tin trade with clear, although not necessarily exclusive, associations with eastern sources in Iran and Central Asia.

3.2 The Distribution of Earliest Bronzes in the Near East

The earliest bronze alloys occur in the Near East during the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BC (generally the Late Chalcolithic and EB I), whereas the wide spread consumption of bronze can be dated to the mid-3rd millennium BC and extends from the Persian Gulf to the Aegean.41 Many of the earliest bronzes come from early excavations whose exact contexts and dates cannot be directly confirmed using independent absolute dating techniques.42 Furthermore, analytical sensitivity has improved considerably for important elements relating to metal technology. Given these uncertainties we are still presented with plausible evidence for a range of early tin bronzes whose adoption in the Near East can be confidently dated to at least the early 3rd millennium BC. Examples of copper tin alloys across Mesopotamia include several objects dating to the early 3rd millennium BC from Tepe Gawra43 the Y cemetery at Kish,44 Tell Razuk,45 and Tell Agrab.46 Seve-ral more examples from a burial dating to the EB I in northern Syria at Tell Qara Quzaq along the Middle Euphrates show appreciable evidence for the use of copper tin alloys.47

Among the earliest examples of copper tin alloys in the Near East include a group of ornaments from Kalleh Nisar (northwestern Iran) with tin contents ranging from 3.5% to 14.8% and are considered to be purposefully alloyed. These ornaments come from a burial excavated by Louis Vanden Berghe in the 1960s and date to the EB I in Luristan, which is roughly contemporary with the Jamdet Nasr to Early Dynastic I (ED I) periods in Mesopotamia.48 Further examples are noted in the Caucuses in Dagestan49 and Armenia.50

Along the northwestern bend of the eastern Mediterranean at sites in Cilicia and within the Amuq Valley, early copper tin alloys are first observed in early 3rd millennium BC contexts. For example, six figurines from a cache at Tell Judeidah and probably dating to the Amuq G period were produced from a cast copper tin alloy.51 Although the date and context of the figurines has been seriously questioned,52 renewed investigations

38 Yener et al. 2015; Yazgan 2005.39 Earl – Özbal 1996. 40 Yener 2009.41 Pare 2000; Pernicka 1998; Weeks 2004.42 See Buchholz (1967), de Jesus (1980), Esin (1969), and Muhly (1973) for a comprehensive discussion of these older analyses and the references therein.43 Hauptmann – Pernicka 2004, no. 267, 289.44 Hauptmann – Pernicka 2004, no. 8, 10, 18; Müller-Karpe 1989; Stech 1999.45 Hauptmann – Pernicka 2004, no. 723.46 Hauptmann – Pernicka 2004, no. 45.47 Montero Fenollós 1995; Montero Fenollós 1997; Montero Fenollós 2000; Montero Fenollós 2004.48 Fleming et al. 2005; Vanden Berghe 1970, 1973.49 Kohl 2002.50 Meliksetian et al. 2003.51 Braidwood et al. 1951.52 Hall – Steadman 1991, 227; Seeden 1980, 8; Yakar 1984, 70.




of Amuq G copper alloys and production debris from Tell Judeidah53 and radiocarbon dates from a soun-ding in 1995 confirming the Amuq G chronology54 reinforce the evidence for early tin consumption at the site. Early-3rd-millennium deposits at Tarsus (EB II) in Cilicia also provide several examples of early cop-per tin alloys.55 Near to modern Gaziantep at the site of Gedikli, analyses confirmed the presence of copper tin alloys from Level III,56 which are dated to the EB II with radiocarbon dates bracketing the assemblage between 3060-2500 BC (1σ).57

Empirical evidence for copper tin alloys in central and eastern Anatolia appears to date somewhat later. It is presently unknown if the adoption of tin use in these regions was a result of a slower technological dif-fusion rate, because relatively fewer analyses of Late Chalcolithic / EB I metal assemblages have been con-ducted to date. This is partly due to the relative paucity of contexts in these periods in central Anatolia. An important exception includes the Late Chalcolithic and EB I contexts from İkiztepe and Bekaroğlu in north central Anatolia. Several hundred analyses of weapons, tools, and ornaments demonstrate the prolific con-sumption of arsenical copper and a near conspicuous absence of copper tin alloys,58 which parallels patterns observed in most EBA contexts in Transcaucasia.59 Analysis of Late Chalcolithic and EB I fine weapons and ornaments at the site of Arslantepe shows a somewhat different pattern of copper alloy production and consumption without the use of tin. Here we find the production of copper silver alloys and arsenical copper with significant lead, nickel, and antimony contents.60 A similar compositional profile from several objects at the roughly contemporary sites Tepecik and Tülintepe have been described, however also including the presence of a single rolled head pin with 5.27% tin.61 Unfortunately the date of these objects, which were discovered by chance in a hoard found in 1966, cannot be independently verified beyond stylistic compari-sons and are therefore unreliable. Nearby at Norşuntepe, select analyses of a long sequence of copper alloys demonstrate that tin bronzes do not appear until levels 8-6 which date to the EB III.62

The well-known metal assemblages associated with the Early Bronze Age burials at Alacahöyük provide some of the earliest examples of a well-developed tin bronze tradition in central Anatolia. Several so-called standards and other copper-based objects were first analyzed by Esin (1969), which demonstrated that cast tin bronzes were consumed alongside with arsenical copper. Recent surface analyses of several objects con-firm the presence of tin bronzes, however also demonstrating a remarkable diversity in metal compositions, including alloys of copper silver gold, copper silver, leaded tin bronze, and one example of an antimonial tin bronze figurine.63 Stylistically and contextually similar objects from the nearby sites of Horoztepe and Mahmatlar,64 Kalınkaya,65 and Resuloğlu66 all attest to a similar profile of metal consumption.

There is not yet an absolute chronology which defines the central Anatolian Early Bronze Age which is capable of linking these sites and the metallurgical tradition that they collectively represent. It is not our purpose to enter into a discussion of Early Bronze Age chronology in this region, which is very much in dispute, but suffice to say it is now clear that the AliŞar sequence, which was developed in the 1930s-1960s, needs to be critically reexamined in light of chronological inconsistencies across the region.67 The impor-tant ongoing research at nearby Çadır Höyük promises to resolve some of the problems.68 New work by Spagni at Alişar Höyük and nearby Çadır Höyük, for example, demonstrates that tin bronze consumption develops during the mid-3rd millennium (personal communication 2014). Nevertheless, relative interre-gional chronologies based on stylistic comparison variously place the Alacahöyük burials in the mid- to

53 Adriaens et al. 2002.54 Yener et al. 2000, 197.55 Esin 1969; Kuruçayırlı – Özbal 2005.56 Bengliyan 1985.57 Duru 2006, 206.58 Two exceptions from İkiztepe include a spearhead (İ/93-120) and a dagger (İ/93-043) that date to a later EBIII occu-pational context and contain 1.05% and 1.25% tin respectively (see Özbal et al. 2008, 68). See Bilgi 1984; Özbal et al. 2008; Özbal et al. 2002; Zimmermann – Ipek 2010.59 Edens 1995.60 Hauptmann et al. 2002.61 Yalçın – Yalçın 2009, 137.62 Pernicka et al. 2002, 117.63 Yalçın 2010; Yalçın 2012.64 Esin 1969.65 Yıldırım – Zimmermann 2006.66 Zimmermann 2012; Zimmermann – Yıldırım 2007; Zimmermann et al. 2009.67 Ivanova 2013, 233-237; Schoop 2005, 66.68 Steadman et al. 2013; Steadman et al. 2008.

209


late 3rd millennium BC.69 The work at Kalınkaya and Resuloğlu, which has important parallels with EBA Alacahöyük, dates the burials and settlement to the late 3rd millennium BC.70 Recent analyses by Yalçın, however, are beginning to provide an absolute chronology based on three radiocarbon dates derived from charcoal trapped in the corrosion of some of the copper-based objects (2010, 61-62). These dates would conservatively place the burial deposits into the early to mid-3rd millennium BC, roughly contemporary with Troy I and Amuq H. Further analysis is required before this important data can be interpreted with any probabilistic confidence, answering whether this tradition of bronze production and consumption extended through many centuries in the 3rd millennium, or if this tradition represents a short period of use shortly before the emergence of numerous of regional urban centers across Anatolia.Evidence for the adoption of tin bronze is comparably better understood in northwest Anatolia, where analyses of materials from the Troad and across the Aegean demonstrate the consumption of tin bronze by the mid-3rd millennium BC. Data from the Troad, primarily from the sites of Troy and BeŞiktepe, show that bronze consumption is confir-med in the Troy I period during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC,71 and with a rapid adoption in use by the Troy II period.72 A similar pattern can be observed in the Aegean at sites like Poliochni on Lemnos,73 Thermi on Lesbos,74 and Kastri on Syros.75

Lead isotope analysis of many mid-3rd millennium BC copper tin alloys roughly contemporary with Troy I and II from northwestern Anatolia and the Aegean demonstrate that the copper in the bronze is distinct from many of the copper ores from these regions.76 This highly radiogenic lead is probably deri-ved from ores of at least Precambrian age, the rocks of which are almost entirely unknown to the Aegean, Anatolia and the Middle East more generally. Additionally, because placer deposits of cassiterite have little to no trace lead, the lead from the bronzes is most likely derived from the copper. Lead isotope measures from these studies also suggest that the copper used to produce arsenical copper, a much older metallurgical technology, is likely sourced locally. This influx of imported copper is observed elsewhere in the Aegean (e.g. Kastri) and from sites as far as in Oman and the United Arab Emirates,77 which coincides with the rise of tin bronzes in the region. This combined evidence suggests that the earliest bronzes of northwestern Anatolia and the Aegean regions were imported and not locally produced.

What is at once noticeable in the distribution of early tin bronzes is the correlation of the chronological and regional proximity of adoption. Current evidence suggests that Syro-Mesopotamia, central and eastern Anatolia, and highland western Iran all adopted bronze technology around the same time. Combined chro-nological and lead isotopic data suggests that the consumption of bronze dates a few centuries later in northwestern Anatolia and the Aegean and that the metal was imported through long-distance exchange, which is more consistent with a diffusion model of adoption. Given the apparent rapidity of the transmis-sion of bronze technology, we must assume that social groups were highly connected to allow relatively fast transmission rates.78

4. Kültepe and Bronze Technology in the 3rd Millennium BC

In this paper we sought to describe new data on the consumption of copper alloys at Kültepe in the late 3rd millennium BC. We argue that these data are qualitatively continuous with periods immediately after-wards, which suggests that the rise of bronze consumption, and implicitly tin consumption, has a deep history in central Anatolia. The late 3rd millennium BC sample from Kültepe shows not only continuity in alloy preference, but also in alloy choice across functional object groups. Clearly from the discussion above we can observe that by the mid-3rd millennium BC, bronze consumption was wide spread across the Near East, Anatolia, and into the Aegean. The contagion of bronze technologies however does not seem to replace arsenical copper in Anatolia during the Bronze Age, but rather added to an already diverse reper-toire of metal production.

While these data cannot confirm or logically falsify any known source of tin currently believed to be functional during the 3rd millennium BC, the coincidence of early trade connections with Mesopotamia

69 Bachhuber 2008; Gerber 2006; Gürsan-Salzmann 1992.70 Yıldırım 2006; Zimmermann 2007.71 Begemann et al. 2003; Pernicka et al. 1984.72 Pernicka et al. 2003.73 Pernicka et al. 1990.74 Begemann et al. 1995.75 Stos-Gale et al. 1984.76 Begemann et al. 2003; Pernicka et al. 1984.77 Weeks 1999; Weeks 2004.78 Boyd et al. 2013, 139.




suggests that the tin trade we observe in the early 2nd millennium BC may also have continuity into the earlier periods. These early deep cultural connections are evinced not only by indictors of long-distance exchange, including pottery and beads produced of lapis and carnelian,79 but also administrative techno-logy and monumental architecture.80 The newly defined Hisarcık tin occurrence, if indeed confirmed to be utilized in the 3rd millennium, adds important nuance to the interpretation regarding the emergence of Kültepe as a regional center. Yet despite the origins of the tin used to produce bronze as a commodity with high added value, it remains that long-distance trade among competing polities is an important determining factor in the coevolution of society and technology.

AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost the authors would like to thank Cécile Michel for her unending patience and support in organizing, together with Fikri Kulakoğlu, such a successful conference. We are also indebted to the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which granted us the permission to conduct our research. We would also like to thank the Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie (CEZA) for providing support during the 2013 field season. The team members of the Kültepe project deserve special mention, especially Prof. Dr Kutlu Emre, whose resilience and dedication to the Kültepe project serves as inspiration. We would also like to acknowledge Brett Kaufmann and Michael Johnson for comments on earlier versions of this draft. Thanks are also due to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation German Chancellor Fellowship program which supported Lehner’s laboratory research in Germany in 2012 and 2013. We also thank the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA for their support in this project.

BibliographyAdriaens, A. – B. Earl – H. Özbal – K. A. Yener.

2002 “Tin Bronze Metallurgy in Transformation: Analytical Investigation of Crucible Fragments from Tell al-Judaidah, Amuq (Turkey) Dating to Circa 3000-2900 BC”, in: E. Jerem – K. T. Biró (eds), Archaeometry 98, 273–277.

Adriaens, A. – K. A. Yener – F. Adams.

1999 “An Analytical Study Using Electron and Ion Microscopy of Thin-walled Crucibles from Göltepe, Turkey”, Journal of Archaeological Science 26(8), 1069–1073.

Archi, A.

1993 “Bronze Alloys in Ebla”, in: M. Frangipane – H. Hauptmann – M. Liverani – P. Matthiae – M. Mellink (eds), Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, 615–625.

Arthur, W. B.

1994 Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy.

Bachhuber, C.

2011 “Negotiating Metal and Metal Form in the Royal Tombs of Alacahöyük in North-Central Anato-lia”, in: T. C. Wilkinson – S. Sherratt – J. Bennet (eds), Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interac-tions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennium BC, 158–174.

Bachhuber, C. S.

2008 Sumptuary Behavior in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: The Royal Tombs of Alacahöyük and the Tre-asure Deposits of Troy, University of Oxford, Unpublished PhD thesis

Begemann, F. – E. Pernicka – S. Schmitt-Strecker.

1994 “Metal Finds from Ilıpınar and the Advent of Arsenical Copper”, Anatolica 20, 203–219.

1995 “Thermi on Lesbos: A Case Study of Changing Trade Patterns”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14(2), 123–135.

79 Özgüç 1986.80 Kulakoğlu in this volume.

211


Begemann, F. – S. Schmitt-Strecker – E. Pernicka.

2003 “On the Composition and Provenance of Metal from Beşiktepe (Troia)”, in: G. Wagner – E. Pernicka – H.-P. Uerpmann (eds), Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches, 173–201.

Bengliyan, A.

1985 Trace Element Analysis of Metal Artifacts from the Gedikli Hoard by Atomic Absorption Spectro-scopy, Unpublished MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul

Bilgi, Ö.

1984 “Metal Objects from Ikiztepe – Turkey”, Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäo-logie 6, 31-96.

Boroffka, N. – J. Cierny – J. Lutz – H. Parzinger – E. Pernicka – G. Weisgerber.

2002 “Bronze Age Tin in Central Asia: Preliminary Notes”, in: K. Boyle – C. Renfrew – M. Levine (eds), Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia, 135–159.

Boyd, R. – P. J. Richerson – J. Henrich.

2013 “The Cultural Evolution of Technology: Facts and Theories”, in: P. J. Richerson – M. H. Christiansen (eds), Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, and Religion, 119–142.

Braidwood, R. J. – J. E. Burke – N. H. Nachtrieb.

1951 “Ancient Syrian Coppers and Bronzes”, Journal of Chemical Education 28(2), 87–96.

Buchholz, H.-G.

1967 “Analysen prähistorischer Metallfunde aus Zypern und Nachbarländern”, Berliner Jahrbuch fur Vor- und Frügeschicte 7, 189–256.

Chernykh, E.

1992 Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR.

de Jesus, P. S.

1980 The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia.

Delmas, A. B. – M. Casanova.

1990 “The Lapis Lazuli Sources in the Ancient East”, in: M. Taddei (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1987, 493–506.

Dercksen, J. G.

1996 The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia.

Duru, R.

2006 Gedikli Karahöyük I. The Results of Excavations Directed by Prof. U. Bahadır Alkım in the Years 1964–1967.

Earl, B. – H. Özbal.

1996 “Early Bronze Age Tin Processing at Kestel/Göltepe”, Anatolia, Archaeometry 38(2), 289-303.

Edens, C. M.

1995 “Transcaucasia at the End of the Early Bronze Age”, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 299/300, 53–64.

Esin, U.

1969 Kuantitatif Spektral Analiz Yardımıyla Anadolu’da Ba langıcından Asur Kolonileri Çağına Kadar Bakır ve Tunç Madenciliği.

Ezer, S.

2014 “Kültepe-Kanesh in the Early Bronze Age”, in: L. Atıcı – F. Kulakoğlu – G. Barjamovic – A. Fairbairn (eds), Current Research at Kultepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity, 5–23.




Fleming, S. J. – V. C. Pigott – C. P. Swann – S. K. Nash.

2005 “Bronze in Luristan: Preliminary Analytical Evidence from Copper/Bronze Artifacts Excavated by the Belgian Mission in Iran”, Iranica Antiqua 40, 35-64.

Gerber, C.

2006 “Zur Stratigraphie der Fürstengräber von Alaca Höyük: neue Einsichten in ein altes Problem”, in: A. Erkanal-Öktü – E. Özgen – S. Günel – A. T. Ökse – H. Hüryılmaz – H. Tekin – N. Çınar-dalı-Karaaslan – B. Uysal – A. Karaduman – A. Engin – R. Spieß – A. Aykurt – R. Tuncel – U. Deniz – A. Rennie (eds), Studies in Honour of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Reflections, 379–388.

Gürsan-Salzmann, A.

1992 Alaca Hoyuk: A Reassessment of the Excavation and Sequence of the Early Bronze Age Settle-ment. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Hall, M. E. – S. R. Steadman.

1991 “Tin and Anatolia: Another Look”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4(1), 217–234.

Hauptmann, A.

2007 The Archaeometallurgy of Copper.

Hauptmann, A. – S. Schmitt-Strecker – F. Begemann – A. Palmieri.

2002 “Chemical Composition and Lead Isotopy of Metal Objects From the “Royal” Tomb and Other Related Finds At Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia”, Paléorient 28(2), 43–69.

Hauptmann, H. – E. Pernicka.

2004 Die Metallindustrie in Mesopotamien von den Anfängen bis zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.

Heginbotham, A. – A. Bezur – M. Bouchard – J. M. Davis – K. Eremin – J. H. Frantz – L. Glinsman – L.-A. Hayek – D. Hook – V. Kantarelou – A. Karydas – L. Lee – A. Lins – J. Mass – C. Matsen – B. McCarthy – M. McGath – B. Price – A. Shugar – J. Sirois – D. Smith – R. J. Speakman.

2010 “An Evaluation of Inter-Laboratory Reproducibility for Quantitative XRF of Historic Copper Alloys”, in: P. Mardikian – C. Chemello – C. Watters – P. Hull (eds), Metal 2010: ICOM-CC Interim Meeting of the International Council of Museums Committee for Conservation Metal Wor-king Group, 178–188.

Helms, M. W.

1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power.

Hirao, Y. – J. Enomoto.

1997 “Chemical Analysis of Copper Objects Excavated from 8th and 9th Excavations of Kaman- Kalehoyuk”, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 6, 187–221. (original in Japanese)

Hosler, D.

1995 The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico.

Ivanova, M.

2013 The Black Sea and the Early Civilizations of Europe, the Near East and Asia.

Kaufman, B. – D. A. Scott.

2014 “Fuel Efficiency of Ancient Copper Alloys: Theoretical Melting Thermodynamics of Copper, Tin and Arsenical Copper and Timber Conservation in the Bronze Age Levant”, Archaeometry. doi: 10.1111/arcm.12127

Kline, M. A. – R. Boyd.

2010 “Population Size Predicts Technological Complexity in Oceania”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277(1693), 2559–2564.

213


Kohl, P. L.

2002 “Bronze Production and Utilization in Southeastern Daghestan, Russia: c. 3600-1900 BC”, in: M. Bartelheim – E. Pernicka – R. Krause (eds), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt, 161–178.

Krugman, P.

1991 Geography and Trade.

Kuruçayırlı, E. – H. Özbal.

2005 “New Metal Analysis from Tarsus Gözlüküle”, in: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal III, 49-61.

Larsen, M. T.

1976 The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies, Copenhagen.

Lechtman, H.

1996 “Arsenic bronze: dirty copper or chosen alloy? A view from the Americas”, Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4), 477–517.

Lehner, J. W.

2014a “Metal Technology, Organization, and the Evolution of Long-Distance Trade at Kültepe”, in: L. Atıcı – F. Kulakoğlu – G. Barjamovic – A. Fairbairn (eds), Current Research at Kultepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity, 135–155.

2014b “A Report on the Archaeometallurgical Research at Boğazköy”, in: A. Schachner (ed.), Die Aus-grabungen in Boğazköy-H

˘ attuša 2013. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014(1).

Lehner, J. W. – K. A. Yener.

2014 “Organization and Specialization of Early Mining and Metal Technologies in Anatolia”, in: B. W. Roberts – C. P. Thornton (eds), Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective, 529–557.

Liritzis, I. – N. Zacharias.

2011 “Portable XRF of Archaeological Artifacts: Current Research, Potentials and Limitations”, in: M. S. Shackley (ed.), X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology, 109–142.

Marcus, J.

2008 “The Archaeological Evidence for Social Evolution”, Annual Review of Anthropology 37, 251–266.

Meliksetian, K. – E. Pernicka – R. Badalyan – P. Avetissyan.

2003 “Geochemical Characterisation of Armenian Early Bronze Age Metal Artefacts and Their Rela-tion to Copper Ores”, in: S. Hansen – A. Hauptmann – I. Motzenbacker – E. Pernicka (eds), Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien, 41–58.

Montero Fenollós, J.-L.

1995 “Estudio Provisional del Ajuar Metalico del Conjunto Funerario de los Loci 12 E y 12 W. Tell Qara Quzaq (Siria). Campagna 1992”, Aula Orientalis 13, 25–30.

1997 “L’activité Métallurgique dans la Vallée du Haut-Euphrate Syrien (IIIe-IIe Millénaires av. J.C.)”, Akkadica 103, 6–28.

2000 “La Métallurgie du Bronze dans le Bassin Syromésopotamien au Début du IIIe Millénaire Avant J.-C.”, in: P. Matthiae – A. Enea – L. Peyronel – F. Pinnock (eds), Proceedings of the First Inter-national Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 1093–1104.

Montero Fenollós, J.-L.

2004 “La ‘Tumba de la Princesa’ de Qara Quzaq: Metal, Muerte y Prestigio en la Cuenca Sirio- Mesopotámica a Comienzos del III Milenio a.C.”, Historiae 1, 36–55.

Muhly, J. D.

1973 Copper and Tin: The Distribution of Mineral Resources and The Nature of the Metals trade in the Bronze Age.




1985 “Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy”, American Journal of Archaeology 89(2), 275–291.

1993 “Early Bronze Age Tin and the Taurus”, American Journal of Archaeology 97(2), 239–253.

Müller-Karpe, M.

1989 “Neue Forschung zur Frühen Metallverarbeitung in Mesopotamien”, Jahrbuch des Römisch- Germanisches Zentralmuseum 36(1), 179–192.

Northover, J. P.

1989 “Properties and Use of Arsenic-Copper Alloys”, in: A. Hauptmann – E. Pernicka – G. A. Wagner (eds), Old World Archaeometallurgy: Proceedings of the International Symposium “Old World Archaeometallurgy”, Heidelberg 1987, 111–119.

Özbal, H.

2009 “New Analtical Data from Göltepe Crucibles”, TUBA-AR 12(155–163).

Özbal, H. – N. Pehlivan – M. Adriaens – B. Gedik-Uluocak – B. Earl.

2008 “Metal Technologies During the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in North Central Ana-tolia: Ikiztepe A Case Study”, in: Ü. Yalçın – H. Özbal – A. G. Paşamehmetoğlu (eds), Ancient Mining in Turkey and The Eastern Mediterranean, 65–85.

Özbal, H. – N. Pehlivan – B. Earl – B. Gedik.

2002 “Metallurgy at Ikiztepe”, in: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal II, 39–48.

Özgüç, T.

1986 “New Observations on the Relationship of Kültepe with Southeast Anatolia and North Syria During the Third Millennium BC”, in: J. V. Canby – E. Porada – B. S. Ridgway – T. Stech (eds), Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change & Cultural Development, Essays in Honor of Machteld J. Mellink, 31–47.

Öztürk, H. – N. Hanilçi.

2009 “Metallogenic Evaluation of Turkey: Implications for Tin Sources of Bronze Age Anatolia”, TUBA-AR 12, 105–116.

Pare, C. F. E.

2000 “Bronze and the Bronze Age”, in: C. F. E. Pare (ed.), Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe, 1–38.

Pernicka, E.

1990 “Gewinnung und Verbreitung der Metalle in prähistorischer Zeit”, Jahrbuch des Römisch- Germanischen Zentralmuseum 37, 21–129.

1998 “Die Ausbreitung der Zinnbronze im 3. Jahrtausend”, in: B. Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzeit Europas, 135–147.

Pernicka, E. – F. Begemann – S. Schmitt-Strecker – A. P. Grimanis.

1990 “On the Composition and Provenance of Metal Artefacts from Poliochni on Lemnos”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(3), 263–298.

Pernicka, E. – C. Eibner – Ö. Öztunalı – G. A. Wagner.

2003 “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy in the North-East Aegean”, in: G. A. Wagner – E. Pernicka – H.-P. Uerpmann (eds), Troia and the Troad, 143–172.

Pernicka, E. – J. D. Muhly – Ö. Öztunali – G. A. Wagner.

1992 “Comment on the discussion of ancient tin sources in Anatolia”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5(1), 91-98.

Pernicka, E. – K. Schmidt – S. Schmitt-Strecker.

2002 “Zum Metallhandwerk”, in: K. Schmidt (ed.), Nor tepe: Kleinfunde II, 115–137.

215


Pernicka, E. – T. C. Seeliger – G. Wagner – F. Begemann – S. Schmitt-Strecker – C. Eibner – Ö. Öztunalı – I. Baranyi.

1984 “Archäometallurgische Unterschungen in Nordwestanatolien”, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 31, 533–599.

Rehren, T. – L. Boscher – E. Pernicka.

2012 “Large Scale Smelting of Speiss and Arsenical Copper at Early Bronze Age Arisman, Iran”, Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 39(6), 1717–1727.

Reiter, K.

1997 Die Metalle im Alten Orient unter besonderer Berücksichtigung altbabylonischer Quellen.

Şahoğlu, V.

2005 “The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir Region During the Early Bronze Age”, Oxford Jour-nal of Archaeology 24(4), 339–361.

Schoop, U.-D.

2005 Das anatolische Chalkolithikum. Eine chronologische Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kul-tursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien und den angrenzenden Gebieten.

Seeden, H.

1980 The Standing Amed Figurines in the Levant.

Sherratt, A. – S. Sherratt.

1991 “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems”, in: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean.

Skibo, J. M. – M. Schiffer.

2008 People and Things: A Behavioral Approach to Material Culture.

Smith, C. S.

1973 “An Examination of the Arsenic-Rich Coating on a Bronze Bull from Horoztepe”, in: W. J. Young (ed.), Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art, 96–102.

Stanish, C. – A. Levine.

2011 “War and Early State Formation in the Northern Titicaca Basin, Peru”, Proceedings of the Natio-nal Academy of Sciences 108(34), 13901–13906.

Steadman, S. R. – G. McMahon – J. C. Ross – M. Cassis – J. D. Geyer – B. Arbuckle – M. Von Baeyer.

2013 “The 2009 and 2012 Seasons of Excavation at Çadir Höyük on the Anatolian North Central Pla-teau”, Anatolica 39(113–167).

Steadman, S. R. – J. C. Ross – G. McMahon – R. L. Gorny.

2008 “Excavations on the North Central Plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Occupation at Çadır Höyük”, Anatolian Studies 47–86.

Stech, T.

1999 “Aspects of Early Metallurgy in Mesopotamia and Anatolia”, in: V. C. Pigott (ed.), The Archaeo-metallurgy of the Asian Old World, 59–72.

Stech, T. – V. Pigott.

1986 “The Metals Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Millennium B. C.”, Iraq 48, 39–64.

Stos-Gale, Z. A. – N. H. Gale – G. R. Gilmore.

1984 “Early Bronze Age Trojan Metal Sources and Anatolians in the Cyclades”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(3), 23–43.

Surovell, T. A. – J. P. Brantingham.

2007 “A Note on the Use of Temporal Frequency Distributions in Studies of Prehistoric Demography”, Journal of Archaeological Science 34(11), 1868–1877.




Thornton, C. P.

2010 “The Rise of Arsenical Copper in Southeastern Iran”, Iranica Antiqua 45, 31–50.

Vanden Berghe, L.

1970 “La Nécropole de Kalleh Nisar”, Archéología 32, 64-73.

1973 “Le Luristan à l’âge du Bronze. Prospections archéologiques dans le Pusht-i Kuh Central, VII (1971) et VIII (1972) campagnes”, Archéologia 63, 24-36.

Veenhof, K. R.

2008 Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period.

von Baer, K. E.

1876 “Von wo das Zinn zu den ganz alten Bronzen gekommen sein mag?”, Archiv für Anthropologie 9, 263.

Waetzoldt, H.

1981 “Zur Terminologie der Metall in den Texten aus Ebla”, in: L. Cagni (ed.), La Lingua di Ebla, 363–378.

Waetzoldt, H. – H.-G. Bachmann.

1984 “Zinn- und Arsenbronzen in den Texten aus Ebla und aus dem Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtau-sends”, Oriens Antiquus 23(1–18).

Weeks, L.

1999 “Lead isotope analyses from Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates: new data regarding the ‘tin prob-lem’ in Western Asia, Antiquity 73(279), 49–64.

Weeks, L.

2004 Early Metallurgy of the Persian Gulf.

Yakar, J.

1984 “Regional and Local Schools of Metalwork in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Part I”, Anatolian Stu-dies 34, 59–86.

Yalçın, Ü.

2010 “Alacahöyük İlk Tunç Çağı Kral Mezarları Üzerine”, Çorum Kazı ve Ara tırmalar Sempozyumu 1, 55–64.

2012 “Alacahöyük İTÇ Kral Mezarları Üzerine II: Idoller”, Çorum Kazı ve Ara tırmalar Sempozyumu 2, 111–122.

Yalçın, Ü. – H. G. Yalçın.

2009 “Evidence for Early Use of Tin at Tülintepe in Eastern Anatolia”, TUBA-AR 12, 123–142.

Yazgan, E.

2005 “Cassiterite (Tin) Mineralization Related with Erciyes Volcanic Activities and the Mode of For-mation of the Magnetite-Cassiterite-Yazganite-Tridymite Paragenesis”, Proceedings of the 58th Geologi-cal Congress of Turkey, 11-17 April 2005, 135-138.

Yener, K. A.

2000 The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia.

2009 “Strategic Industries and Tin in the Ancient Near East: Anatolia Updated”, TUBA-AR 12, 143–154.

Yener, K. A. – C. Edens – T. P. Harrison – J. Verstraete – T. J. Wilkinson.

2000 “The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998”, American Journal of Archaeology 104(2), 163–220.

217


Yener, K. A. – F. Kulakoğlu – E. Yazgan – R. Kontani – Y. S. Hayakawa – J. W. Lehner – G. Dardeniz – G. Öztürk – M. Johnson – E. Kaptan – A. Hacar.

2015 “The Discovery of New Tin Mines and Production Sites near Kültepe, Ancient Kanesh in Turkey: a Third Millennium BC Highland Production Model”, Antiquity 89(345), 596–612 doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.30.

Yener, K. A. – H. Özbal.

1987 “Tin in the Turkish Taurus Mountains: The Bolkardağ Mining District”, Antiquity 61(232), 220–226.

Yener, K. A. – H. Özbal – B. Earl – A. Adriaens.

2003 “The Analyses of Metalliferous Residues, Crucible Fragments, Experimental Smelts, and Ores from Kestel Tin Mine and the Tin Processing Site of Göltepe”, in: P. T. Craddock – J. Lang (eds), Mining and Metal Production Through the Ages, 181–197.

Yener, K. A. – P. B. Vandiver.

1993 “Tin Processing at Göltepe, an Early Bronze Age Site in Anatolia”, American Journal of Archaeo-logy 97(2), 207–238.

Yıldırım, T.

2006 “An Early Bronze Age Cemetary at Resuloğlu, Near Uğurludağ, Çorum. A Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Work Carried Out Between Years 2003-2005”, Anatolia Antiqua 14, 1–14.

Yıldırım, T. – T. Zimmermann.

2006 “News from the Hatti Heartland – The Early Bronze Age Necropoleis of Kalinkaya, Resuloglu, and Anatolian Metalworking Advances in the Late 3rd Millennium BC”, Antiquity 80(309) online project gallery: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/zimmerman/.

Zimmermann, T.

2007 “Kalınkaya-Toptaştepe, eine chalkolithisch-frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung mit Nekropole im nördlichen Zentralanatolien: Die Grabfunde der Kampagnen von 1971 und 1973”, Istanbuler Mit-teilungen 57, 7–26.

2012 “Lapanu – Let (It) Glow! – Recent Archaeometric Analyses of Hattian and Hittite Metalwork”, in: R. Matthews – J. Curtis (eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April – 16 April 2010, 303–312.

Zimmermann, T. – Ö. Ipek.

2010 “The ‘Hattian’ Metal Assemblage from Bekaroğlu Köyü – An Archaeometrical Footnote”, Anato-lia Antiqua 18, 31–34.

Zimmermann, T. – T. Yıldırım.

2007 “Land of Plenty? – New Archaeometric Insights into Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age Metal Consumption in Funeral Contexts”, Antiquity 81(314) online project gallery: http://www.antiquity .ac.uk/projgall/zimmerman1/.

Zimmermann, T. – T. Yıldırım – L. Özen – A. Zararsız.

2009 “‘All that glitters is not gold, nor all that sparkles silver’ – Fresh Archaeometrical Data for Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age Metalwork”, Antiquity 83(321), Online Project Gallery, http://antiq-uity.ac.uk/projgall/zimmerman321/index.html.

Continuity of Tin Bronze Consumption and Production during the Late Third Millennium BC at Kültepe (Lehner et al. 2015)

Documents