Anatolia and the Balkans

Author(s): J. Roodenberg
Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 58, No. 2, Anatolian Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter
Neve (Jun., 1995), pp. 119-122
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210488 .
Accessed: 22/11/2013 04:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79.123.190.8 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:08:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAP
kl?

%Ck
MAE

n"

MA

Yn

VTI:

Sri

axe;

x?4
N 0,

t'

"RNki
Sig
Uk

r'j
If-

MRS1"WTV
yI
y

0 01

K'.

?V

4W

01;

INS

u34%ps

'TVol

Fop

01.
CROPS
PLO

101
I'll
i'S

"M

Roman period may have been replaced

by non-Jews in the Byzantine era.
The 1994 season was the second carried out by the Sepphoris Regional Project (SRP)which continues the 1985-89
work of the Joint Sepphoris Project. Sponsored by Duke University with the University of Connecticut, the 1994
excavations were directed by E. Meyers
and C. Meyers of Duke University.

W.

Carol Meyers
.I .

0AN
IA
Sk
15t?;'
zx.W j.
'.4 Qq
Wntwo&,
low,1R

Overviewof the area 85.3 at Sepphoris,

showingthe substantialwallsof a LateHellenisticbuilding,which perhapshad a military
function,located nearthe towering citadel
that crownsthe uppercity.

.....................

Anatolia

and

the

Balkans

Editedby J.Roodenberg.Special Issue of

Anatolica.331pp. Leiden,Holland:NederlandsInstituutvoorhet Nabije Oosten,
1993; HFL 115 (paper).

A review essay by Ronald L. Gorny

As the title of this collection of articles suggests, it discusses the question of
relations between Anatolia and the
Balkans.The scope of the book is limited,
however, to postulated prehistoric links
between the two geographic entities and
the investigation of a proposed EuroAnatolian cultural zone in which intensive human interaction is said to be
manifest in the archaeological remains of
both regions.
The inspiration behind this manuscript was a symposium held in Istanbul
during November of 1991.A primary goal
of the symposium was to bring together
scholars from east and west who shared a
common interest in relations between
Anatolia and the Balkans,but had labored in separate worlds for decades.
Participation was limited to roughly forty
scholars who examined Balkan-Anatolian
relations between 5,500 and 3,000 BCE.

..

This means that, for all intents and purposes, Anatoliaand theBalkansis written by
scholars for scholars. In other words,
readers are expected to have some degree
of familiarity with the fundamental issues or be willing to spend some time
acquainting themselves with the material.
The manner in which Anatoliaand the
Balkansis published is Spartan in design,
being fashioned in the same functional
style as Anatolicaitself. While the paperbound volume is devoid of color photographs, it displays an abundance of
quality black and white maps, drawings,
and photographs. The twenty-five articles
included in the volume are written in
French, German, and English, making the
mastery of several languages necessary
for a full appreciation of its contents.
Overall, the presentation is readable and
well-organized, though a few typographical errors have crept into the narrative.
A difficulty for the uninitiated arises
in the discrepancy between chronological
designations for contemporary periods in
Anatoliaand theBalkans(for example, the
so-called Middle Neolithic of Europe is
contemporary with the Middle-Late

ti~i

.-

:$B

Chalcolithic in Anatolia, see Ozdogan, p.

176 [author and page references are to
Anatolia and the Balkans unless otherwise noted]). Further difficulties are
encountered in the 'regionalization' of
various cultures on the Balkan peninsula
(Demoule, 1-17; Jovanovik,pp. 63-74;
Pavyik, pp. 231-241;but cf. Ozdogan, pp.
174-176)and the resultant plethora of
names which are totally unfamiliar to
most students approaching the question
from a Near Eastern background. Further
confusion can stem from the fact that
some authors use uncalibrated dates in
their contributions (e.g.,Demoule, Table1,
p. 14;Monah), while other do so in calibrated terms (e.g.,Todorova,Thissen).
The connections between Anatolia
and the Balkans in the prehistoric period
are most forcefully laid out by Mehmet
Ozdogan's article (pp. 173-193),whose
presentation represents his most incisive
contribution on a topic he has long championed. The fact that this collection of
articles has appeared at all is a credit to
Ozdogan, for without his efforts,this
whole discussion would have remained
on the back-burner for years to come.
The true significance of Anatoliaand
theBalkans,however, may be lost on the
casual observer, for the impulse behind

har-U..~::
i:..:::Biblical

ai

This content downloaded from 79.123.190.8 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:08:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

this volume goes back to the early twenties when Anatolia's apparent connections
with the Balkan peninsula were first
noted. Such views, however, were ahead
of their time and smacked of "diffusionism" which was then under intense attack. The articulate and up-to-date
manner with which this volume's articles
explore the issue of Euro-Anatolian relations suggests that those who first championed this cause may not have been so
far from the truth.
While a casual reading might have us
believe the "diffusionist" controversy has
become a thing of the past, the fact that it
is not dead underlies the sensitivity
shown by the contributors to the whole
question of human movement and relationships in the region. Several of the
authors, in deference to proponents of
migration and diffusionism, couch their
ideas in the more acceptable terminology
of a common cultural zone, or as Ozdogan puts it, " 'a common developing
zone' interacting within itself."This interaction, while not precluding some population movements (Ozdogan, p. 179) is
based on the assumption of internal
development rather than external influence. The geographic range of this common cultural zone extends from the
Hungarian Plain to the southeastern
stretches of Anatolia where it is effectively cut off from contact with
Mesopotamia by the Taurus Mountains.
Evidence suggests that contacts
within this zone took place in two stages.
The first,beginning around 5,500 BCE
(Thissen, pp. 302-303; Todorova,p. 307),
continued until the beginning of the
fourth millennium BCE.There is a break
in contact at this time, the reason for
which remains unclear.Various events
may have been responsible including
tectonic activity, climatic changes which
resulted in higher temperatures, extended
periods of drought, erosion, changing sea
levels, and nomadic invasions from the
north Pontic steppes (Todorova,pp.
307-318; Lichardus-Itten,p.101).The existing social system-so evident in the
widespread uniformity of the Balkan
Early Neolithic cultural network-collapsed, and the breakdown initiated an

ai77:

:"N

NNW'U

Ao"t

Chalcolithic
curvilinearpottery fromAliiarH6yOk:the best evidencefor a commonculturalzone
in Anatoliaand the Balkans.Courtesyof the OrientalInstitute.
800-year period of mostly local development (Demoule, p. 10;Makkay,p. 118,
Todorova,pp. 307-311).The stabilization of
environmental conditions at the end of
the fourth millennium led to the development of the so-called "Troja-BadenKulturblok" which witnessed a renewal of
cultural interaction taking place in southeast Europe (pp. 315-16).Although Troy
and the rest of Anatolia had been pulled
increasingly into the Near Eastern sphere
of influence by this time (Ozdogan, p.
178),the improving conditions may well
have set the stage for far-reaching relations between Anatolia and Europe during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages
when an increasing demand for metallurgical expertise probably encouraged
further contacts between the two areas.
The role played by the sea in developing this common cultural zone figures
prominently in several contributions
(Demoule, 1-17; Makkay,p. 123;Roodenberg, p. 257;Thissen, p. 303; Wijnen, p. 326:
also see Thissen 1993,p. 207,n. 4).
Demoule, for example, effectively argues
that the Aegean Basin is a unifying feature for the lands around it and that the
evolution of a common culture zone is
the logical outcome of this type of
seaborne interaction.The results are seen
in the strong degree of cultural unity at
sites scattered across the region. This
widespread cultural unity makes it more

certain that the Aegean Basin, the Marmara Sea, and the Black Sea were not the
cultural barriers scholars once thought,
certainly lesser obstacles than the Taurus
mountains which stood as a barrier between Central Anatolia and the
Mesopotamian complex for millennia
(Ozdogan, p. 180).The increasing evidence of sea contacts during this period
makes it all the more reasonable, in fact,
that the sea should be viewed, not as a
barrier to interaction,but as a means by
which an intensification of interaction
was able to take place.
Agreement regarding the details of
this cultural zone is not, however, universal, as Nikolov's article (pp. 167-171)
shows. Nikolov posits a "kontaktzone"
built during the first stage of relations (ca.
5,500-5,000 BCE.)not on the basis of interaction among its constituent parts, but on
cultural influences that originated outside of the region (p. 169).Unlike earlier
diffusionist views (Todorova1978)which
understood a unidirectional proliferation
of contacts and interaction originating in
the Balkans, Nikolov (along with
Lichardus,p. 93) sees a movement in the
opposite direction from Northwest Anatolia into the Balkans.This influence
begins during the Karanova II period and
reaches its fullest extent with the Karanova IV Suggestions of this sort, of
course, fly in the face of the idea of

27

T,
Vat~-::::

49
eo

so

s?t

Ak.A

9,?

Id~9~~~

:?.
:

wI....?"

~~i

-.1

ic~lox

This content downloaded from 79.123.190.8 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:08:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

i:

ct s

44''
IN-

4l
?"v

sov

IA
~ 49L?L~~aur~a
~ J;_

A single piece of Szakalhatpottery (at top right)fromthe Aligarcollectionat the OrientalInstitute representsthe ceramictraditionof the Hungarianplain.Courtesyof the OrientalInstitute.
internal development proposed by
Ozdogan. Bringing the idea of diffusion
once again into the equation, they compel
scholars to see the inadequacies of the
traditional posing of the issue, as in
Hauptmann's (p. x): ex "Balcania"lux or
ex Anatolia lux? There is, perhaps, more
potential in researching the development
of "alight from within."
A primary problem hindering the
investigation of the Balkano-Anatolian
relationship is that of chronology While
the relative sequences in both areas have
been fairly well established, absolute
chronology is still at issue, and the correlation of the two systems continues to be
one of the biggest challenges in Anatolian
archaeology (Renfrew 1973;Easton 1976:
146;Yakar1979:51-53).Peter Kuniholm's
AegeanandNearEastDendrochronology
Projectrises to the challenge of carefully
chronicling the correlation of dendrochronological investigations with an everexpanding number of secure carbon-14
dates (cf. Kuniholm 1989,1993).While the
final outcome of Kuniholmis ambitious
project is still some time off, his initial
efforts have often yielded spectacular
results. Continued patience and persistence will be needed, however, as investigators search for the "missing links"
necessary to harmonize the European
and Near Eastern chronologies, especially
in the problematic fourth millennium.

..

In lieu of secure carbon-14dates for

the region, pottery remains the primary
source of evidence for the proposed
"common cultural zone," and most of the
pertinent comparative materials comes
from excavated sites in Europe. The
dearth of excavated materials from central
Anatolia means that the pertinent date to
connect it to such a zone is not always
obvious. Several Anatolian sites are critical to the argument: the volume makes
prominent mention of Gelveri. Another
which was often referred to, but not formally included, is the site of Alipar
H6ytik in Yozgat Province of central
Turkey (esp. Ozdogan and Parzinger).
Needless to say,I noted these comments
with great interest because of my own
work at Aligar and in the surrounding
Kanak Su basin.
Excavated in the late 1920s and early
1930sby the Oriental Institute, Aligar was
shown to have a long prehistoric
sequence, a situation which should shed
light on the current topic. However, the
lack of secure carbon-14dates for Aligar
has made this important sequence questionable, and it remains on the periphery
of the discussion. The name is bandied
about with little in the way of new data to
add as evidence. Clearly,any resolution to
the problem of cultural development in
central Anatolia during the prehistoric
periods will have to take into account the

...

....

role of Aligar.This is a problem that our

own excavations at Aligar H6ytik, and
now (adir H6yiik, intend to address.
While a full analysis of the role these two
sites played in prehistory is still forthcoming, it would not seem inappropriate
to share a few thoughts which bear directly on what is being discussed so
articulately by those who contributed to
this volume.
As a starting point we can look at the
black-polished pottery tradition so abundantly documented at Aligar.This pottery
plays a pivotal role throughout this cultural zone as an indicator of the late Chalcolithic in Anatolia or the Late Neolithic
in the Balkans (see Jovanovid,p. 69;
Makkay p. 119;Ozdogan, pp. 179-181).One
of the most striking elements of this style
of pottery is the punctuated-incised style
of decoration described by von der Osten
(1937:57-60,figs. 65-68) and common to
other contemporary sites within this
zone. Similar black-polished pottery,
including fine black-ware vessels, punctuated-incised sherds, bowls with redpolished interiors, and one example with
white-painted decoration on the interior
surface, was found at (adir H6yiik in
1994.Although our analysis of these new
materials is in a preliminary stage, the
black-polished pottery of Qadir appears
to be very similar to the Diindartepesummit materials described elsewhere by
Thissen (1993:213-215).
Related to the black-polished pottery
tradition is the presence of graphiteslipped pottery at both Aligar and (adir
Hbyiik. At Aligar,this ware was found in
Level 16-12(von der Osten 1937:57,Fig. 63,
nos. 3-4). Additional pieces now reside in
both the Oriental Institute collection and
the Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (Thissen 1993:218,n. 27).
Graphite-slipped pottery found in sounding 770.900during the 1994 season at
Cadir H5yiik is identical to that found at
Aligar.The best external connections for
central Anatolian graphite-slipped wares
are with the KaranovaVI Vinga D cultures, as indicated in this volume by
Demoule (pp. 9-10, map 6),Tasic (pp.
286-87, 291),and Thissen (1993:218-219).
This Balkan connection provides a date

..~

1ow

3i
This content downloaded from 79.123.190.8 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:08:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

somewhere between 3000 and 3500 BCE.

for the pottery from both Aligar and
9adir (Thissen 1993:218-219).
Perhaps the most striking evidence
used to argue a common cultural zone in
Anatolia and the Balkans is the curvilinear-decorated pottery of Gelveri which is
cited in this volume by both Esin (pp. 4756) and Makkay (1993,esp. fig. 3, p. 128).
Curvilinear-decorated pottery of the
same type was also found at Alisar and is
probably earlier than the graphite-slipped
pottery, though no levels are noted for the
Aligar exemplars. This swirling decoration (the so-called fruchenstich technique; Makkay,p. 121) is also cited in the
I volume (written in
Japanese Kamankale
Japanese, pp. 201-202, fig. 12,nos. 1-24). At
Aligar,in fact, there appear to be examples
of curvilinear decoration on both punctuated-incised (Gorny 1995)and painted
sherds (von der Osten 1937:57,Fig. 64, no.
3; P1.II, no. 3; cf. Omura, Kaman Kale
Hdyiik I, p.197,fig. 2). There are seven
pieces of the ware in the Oriental Institute collection, the nicest of which is a
small black-polished bottle with a
swirling spiraloid design (d 2370).1The
painted style is paralleled by examples
from Yeniyapan (Omura, Kamankale
I, p.
210,nos. 1-5). Although there is no provenance for this material at Alipar,it must
fall within the range of the pottery from
Gelveri (Ozdogan 1994) and Yeniyapan
which dates to the KaranovaV and Vinqa
C phases (Makkay,p.121) or somewhere
between 4000 and 3500 BCE(Thissen 1993:
222). Other pieces may also be significant ??
as one sherd is reminiscent of Szakalhat
pottery (von der Osten 1937:60,Fig. 67,no.
3), a site from the Late Neolithic Btikk
(Tisza-K6r6s) culture of the Hungarian
plain (cf. von der Osten 1937,Fig, 67 no. 3)
and another has affinities with the
"corded ware" from the same area (von
der Osten 1937:58,Fig. 65, no.19).
As noted above, a primary goal of
Anatoliaand theBalkanswas to familiarize
scholars of the west with the nearly unknown work of their colleagues in the
east. In this respect, the volume has provided a great service that more than
fulfills the editor's stated goals. This unprecedented collaborative effort brings
together an intriguing group of scholars
22 2z

Ri

If

p?41ql~3

aelogis

who, though separated for years by political barriers,nevertheless, address a common interest. The chance to debate
common concerns has by no means produced a "popular"book, and some difficulties will exist for the general reader.In
spite of this, Anatoliaand the Balkansis a
welcomed addition to the literature representing the archaeology of both regions.
Overcoming the "scholarly"nature of the
book is well worth the effort of those
whose interests touch on this part of the
ancient world. The most significant contribution of Anatoliaand theBalkansis that
it updates the best previous overview, The
AncientHistory(1982),and adds
Cambridge
significant new information about important developments, not the least of which
are the Gelveri finds.
In the final analysis, the question of
cultural exchange in this Balkano-Anatolian zone has yet to be definitively answered, and a variety of issues remain to
be addressed. Among these are the precise role of the Marmara area in the transference of cultural influences and the
extent to which central Anatolia was
drawn into the activities of this network
of cultural exchange. This volume represents a significant contribution to these
investigations, but as Hauptmann indicates (p. x), Anatoliaand theBalkansis only
a preliminary step in the direction of an
answer. Continued excavation at sites like
Ilipinar,Gelveri, Aligar Hdyiik, and 4adir
H6yiik, as well as the development of a
complete chronological scheme based on
secure carbon-14dates from central Anatolian sites will be required to produce an
answer to the questions posed by those
who contributed to this valuable collection of articles.

1The piecenoted is markedd 2730but the 1931

recordsshow 2730as being a smallpottery
cakefromS 27 on the terraceand not the
incised potterysherdthatalmostcertainlyhad
to come fromthe deep sounding.As it stands,
thereareno depthsor levels listedfor any of
the curvilinearpieces whichmay partlyexplain why the sherd(s)wereneverpublished.
Apparentlythe misplacedpieces werelost and
somehowfell throughthe cracks.

Bibliography
Kuniholm,E
1993 A Date-Listfor BronzeAge and Iron
Age Monumentsbased on Combined
and RadiocarDendrochronological
bon Evidence.Pp.371-373in Aspectsof
ArtandIconography:
Anatolia
andits
StudiesinHonorofNimet
Neighbors:
Ozgiix.Ankara.
1989 A 677YearTree-RingChronologyfor
the MiddleBronzeAge.Pp.279-293in
andtheAncientNearEast:
Anatolia
Studiesin HonorofTahsin
Ozgiig,
Ankara.
Omura,S.et al.
1992 Kamankale
I. Tokyo.
Osten,von der,H. H.
1937 TheAliiarHiiyiik:Seasonsof1930-32.
OrientalInstitutePublications28,part
1.Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
Ozdogan, M.
1991 An InterimReporton the Excavations
and Toptepein Eastat Yarimburgaz
17:59-120.
ernThrace.Anatolica
1994 MarmaraBolgesi-Balkanlar-Orta
AnadolueArasindaKronolojiSorunun yeni BirYaklasim.Pp.69-79 in
I.
XLTurk
TarihKurumu
Kongresi
n.d. Pre-Bronze
Age Sequenceof Central
Anatolia:An AlternativeApproach.
BeranFestschrift.In Press.
Renfrew,C.
New York:Alfred
1973 Before
Civilization.
Knopf.
Thissen,L.
1993 New Insightsin Balkan-Anatolian
Connectionsin the LateChalcolithic:
Old EvidencefromtheTurkishBlack
Studies
Sea Littoral.Anatolian
43:207-237
Todorova,H.
BARInternain Bulgaria.
1978 TheEneolithic
tionalSeries48.Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports.
Yakar,
J.
TheLate
1985 TheLaterPrehistory
ofAnatolia:
andEarlyBronze
Chalcolithic
Age.BAR
InternationalSeries268.Oxford:
BritishArchaeologicalReports.

isc 47

0
444

-~AZ

This content downloaded from 79.123.190.8 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:08:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

-el