262
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture
in Eastern Anatolia
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
Institute for Archaeological Sciences, Ruhr University Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum Bochum, Bochum, DE
goenuel.yalcin@bergbaumuseum.de
ABSTRACT – The longevity of the Kura-Araxes culture is an archaeological phenomenon in the Cau-
casus and Near East. Over the course of a millennium, this culture spread from its origins in Eastern
Anatolia, the Transcaucasia and northwest Iran to Southeastern Anatolia, northern Syria, Palestine
and Israel. Named after the settlement mound Karaz near Erzurum, the Karaz culture is a widely
established Turkish term for the Kura-Araxes culture. In Palestine and Israel, this culture is called
Khirbet-Kerak. Apart from the striking small finds and special architectural features, it has a special
pottery with characteristics that remained almost uniform in its area of distribution. Situated in the
Altınova plain in Eastern Anatolia, Tepecik was also home for this significant culture. Today, this set-
tlement mound lies under the waters of the Keban Dam in Elazıg. Yet its strategic location on a tri-
butary of the Euphrates enabled the emergence and development of various cultures. At this settle-
ment, archaeologists documented the Karaz culture that occurred in an almost unbroken cultural
sequence from the Late Chalcolithic up to the beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age. Thus, Tepecik is
one of the most significant prehistoric settlements within the distribution area of the Kura-Araxes/Ka-
raz/Khirbet Kerak culture in the Near East. This paper presents the Karaz pottery from Tepecik as well
as the possible development of the Karaz culture in the course of the Early Bronze Age at this settlement.
IZVLE∞EK – Dolgo∫ivost kulture Kura-Araxes je arheolo∏ki fenomen na obmo≠ju Kavkaza in Bli∫nje-
ga vzhoda. Skozi tiso≠letje se je ta kultura raz∏irila od izvornih obmo≠ij v vzhodni Anatoliji, v Za-
kavkazju in v severozahodnem Iranu do jugovzhodne Anatolije, severne Sirije, Palestine in Izraela.
Kultura Karaz je bila poimenovana po naselbinski gomili Karaz pri Erzurumu in predstavlja dobro
uveljavljen tur∏ki termin za kulturo Kura-Araxes. V Palestini in Izraelu pa se ta kultura imenuje
Khirbet-Kerak. Poleg presenetljivih majhnih najdb in posebnih arhitekturnih zna≠ilnosti ima kultu-
ra ∏e posebno lon≠enino z zna≠ilnostmi, ki so ostale skoraj nespremenjene na celotnem obmo≠ju raz-
∏irjenosti. Najdi∏≠e Tepecik, ki se nahaja v ni∫ini Altınova v vzhodni Anatoliji, je prav tako pred-
stavljalo dom tej pomembni kulturi. Danes je celotni najdi∏≠e pod vodo za jezom Keban v pokrajini
Elazıg. Strate∏ka lega naselbine na pritoku Evfrata je omogo≠ila nastanek in razvoj razli≠nih kultur.
Tukaj so arheologi dokumentirali kulturo Karaz, ki se pojavlja v skoraj nepretrgani kulturni sek-
venci od poznega halkolitika do za≠etka srednje bronaste dobe. To postavlja Tepecik na mesto ene
bolj pomembnih prazgodovinskih naselbin znotraj obmo≠ja raz∏irjenosti kulture Kura-Araxes/Ka-
raz/Khirbet Kerak na Bli∫njem vzhodu. V ≠lanku predstavljamo lon≠enino tipa Karaz iz Tepecika
kot tudi mo∫en razvoj kulture Karaz v ≠asu zgodnje bronaste dobe na najdi∏≠u.
KEY WORDS – Late Chalcolithic; Early Bronze Age; Kura-Araxes/Karaz/Khirbet Kerak culture;
Karaz pottery; Keban Dam Project; Tepecik
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – pozni halkolitik; zgodnja bronasta doba; kultura Kura-Araxes/Karaz/Khirbet
Kerak; lon≠enina tipa Karaz; projekt jeza Keban; Tepecik
Naselbinska gomila Tepecik 
in kultura Karaz v vzhodni Anatoliji
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.15
Fig. 1. The distribution area of the
Kura-Araxes/Karaz/Khirbet Khe-
rak culture in Transcaucasia and
the Near East (Yalçın 2012). 1 Altın-
tepe; 2 Amiranis Gora; 3 Ararat; 4
Armavir Blur; 5 Arslantepe; 6 As-
van; 7 Beshtasheni and Tetri-Tsa-
qaro; 8 Kargamıs; 9 Çatal Höyük;
10 Tell Chuera; 11 Ernis and Dilka-
ya; 12 Goey Tepe; 13 Godin Tepe;
14 Haftavan; 15 Hama; 16 Horsa-
tepe; 17 Hornavil; 18 Horomhan;
19 Degirmende; 20 Iremir; 21 Isa-
köy; 22 Tell el-Djudeyde; 23 Kara-
kuru; 24 Karaz, Pulur, Güzelova
and Sos Höyük; 25 Kiketi, Didube
and Kvatzchelebi; 26 Korucutepe;
27 Hayaz Höyük and Hassek Hö-
yük; 28 Kurban Höyük; 29 Kültepe;
30 Lugove; 31 Norsuntepe; 32 Pu-
lur-Sakyol; 33 Kal’at err-Rus; 34 Ras
Shamra; 35 Shengavit; 36 Shresh
Blur; 37 Sivrikaya; 38 Tell Suqas;
39 Tabar el-Akrad; 40 Tell T’ayinat;
41 Tülintepe and Tepecik; 42 Tria-
leti; 43 Yanık Tepe; 44 Yaycı; 45
Zülfübulak; 46 Tell es-Shuna; 47 Affula; 48 Khirbet Kerak; 49 Jericho; 50 Bad edh-Dahra; 51 Köhne Sha-
har; 52 Basur Höyük; 53 Alucra-Gavur Kalesi; 54 Çadır Höyük.
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
263
the latest literature as well as the most recent hypo-
theses regarding the complex interplay among the
interregional cultural landscapes where this impor-
tant prehistoric culture spread.
The paper is dedicated to my teacher and mentor,
Ufuk Esin, head of the excavations of Tepecik and
one of the most important pioneers of Anatolian
archaeology, who left us far too early.
Introduction
The Karaz culture is a widely established Turkish
term for the Kura-Araxes culture named after the
settlement mound Karaz that is located some 16km
western-northwest of Erzurum in Eastern Anatolia
(Kosay, Turfan 1959.349). However, this Anatolian
variant cannot be considered as exactly the same
culture as the Kura-Araxes culture of Transcaucasia.
It is rather a mixture of different cultural traditions
of Anatolia, but also of the southern Caucasia in Late
Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Palumbi
2017.124–125). Occurring in Northeastern, Eastern
and Southeastern Anatolia, overarching the north
central plateau of Anatolia, the Karaz culture repre-
sents a long-lived culture that persisted over one mil-
lennium (Fig. 1) (Burney 1958; Kosay 1977; 1979;
Yalçın 2012.257–298; Isıklı 201; Steadman et al.
2008; 2015).
Preface
The present work is a brief and updated summary of
the dissertation completed in 2012 at the Philipps
University of Marburg (Germany) with the title ‘The
Karaz Pottery of Tepecik in Eastern Anatolia’, which
was published in German in the same year. It is
based on the excavation results of the years 1968–
1974. The interim reports of these excavations have
been brought out in annual Keban Project publica-
tions, yet a final evaluation is still pending. For this
reason the results presented here, especially the stra-
tigraphic and chronological interpretations, should
be regarded as preliminary. However, the Karaz phe-
nomenon has recently become the subject of archa-
eological investigations again. Thus, there is a need
to re-examine the role of Tepecik and its Karaz pot-
tery in an article written in English, in order to make
the issues under discussion accessible to a broad sci-
entific research community. This is especially the
case when we consider that the final publication of
the Tepecik is still pending, though more than fifty
years have passed since the last excavations. Since
the archaeological data of Tepecik is not completely
accessible for researchers, insufficient and someti-
mes incorrect information circulates in the publica-
tions that compare some early material from Tepecik
with the finds of other contemporary settlements.
When writing this paper, care was taken to consider
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
264
The Kura-Araxes/Khirbet Kerak/Karaz culture
The history of research, dispersal theories and
dating
We owe the discovery of the Kura-Araxes culture to
the wealthy archaeology enthusiasts who collected a
red-black polished pottery in the Southern Cauca-
sus region during the second half of the 19th centu-
ry (Sagona 2014b.23–24). This pottery was the sub-
ject of archaeological research, as Boris Alekseevich
Kuftin (1941) started to excavate in the Trialeti re-
gion and found the same pottery again. After the
study of the finds in the Museum of Tbilisi in Geor-
gia as well as the finds from the other excavations
such as Beshteshani, Ozni or Shengavit, he suggest-
ed a particular dating and circulation area for this
pottery (Sagona 2014a; 2014b). In Transcaucasia,
the culture associated with this typical pottery was
called Kura-Araxes, since its settlements were en-
countered between the rivers Kura and Araxes (Yal-
çın 2012.39–42; Sagona 2014b.22–23).
In the late 1920s, archaeologists became aware of a
comparable culture in the Southern Levant, as Wil-
liam F. Albright (1926) reported on a red-black, po-
lished pottery with striking shapes and ornaments
during his investigations in Khirbet Kerak. Recorded
in many Levantine settlements, the culture associ-
ated with this pottery was then called Khirbet Ke-
rak (Sagona 2014b.22–23). In Southeastern Anato-
lia, settlements in the Amuq plain and Tabara el-
Akrad on the present Turkish-Syrian border also
provided similar pottery finds (Hood 1951; Braid-
wood, Braidwood 1960.518). As research progres-
sed, it turned out that the culture and pottery found
in Khirbet Kerak differ in details from the Kura-Ara-
xes culture and pottery, as in Anatolia. Yet in this
early phase of research, common roots seemed to
be reasonable to the archaeologists.
In 1935, following the excavations in Alacahöyük,
Hamit Z. Kosay (1938.170, 173) recognized simila-
rities between the Early Bronze Age pottery found
here and the Kura Araxes pottery, as well as the
Khirbet Kerak ceramics, thus identifying cultural
relations between Central Anatolia, Transcaucasia
and the Levant. Shortly after the surveys of Kılıç
Kökten (1952) in Northeastern and Eastern Anato-
lia in the 1940s and 1950s, and the excavations in
the settlement mound Karaz, the presence of an
Eastern Anatolian culture that showed common fea-
tures with the Kura Araxes culture became obvious.
Thus, for the first time the term ‘Karaz culture’ ap-
peared (Kosay, Turfan 1959.359, 360). After Char-
les A. Burney’s survey in 1957 and the publication
of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery
from this, the ubiquitous presence of the Karaz cul-
ture in Eastern Anatolia became more apparent
(Burney 1958). In 1968, the rescue excavations start-
ed at the floodplain of the Keban Dam near Elazıg,
in Eastern Anatolia. This rescue project marked a
turning point in Anatolian prehistory. During the
course of the excavations, Karaz culture, its pottery,
small finds and architecture were documented in
many settlements in the Elazıg and Altınova plains
(Yalçın 2012.39–55).
Being aware of this vast cultural distribution, addi-
tional archaeological work gave insight on the deve-
lopment stages of the Karaz culture, which was dis-
covered in the Mus plain and around the Van Lake
(Kozbe 1990; Rothman, Kozbe 1997; Sagona 2000).
The excavations at Arslantepe in the Malatya plain
are important milestones of research in Eastern Ana-
tolia. At Arslantepe, investigations into this culture
have proceeded from the 1980s onwards (Frangi-
pane 2001; 2014). Sos Höyük near Erzurum repre-
sents another important site in Northeastern Anato-
lia (Sagona 2000; 2014a; 2014b), which is more
related to the original Kura-Araxes culture because
of its geographical position. Besides Arslantepe, the
excavations at Sos Höyük support the research of
the Karaz culture with numerous 14C dates (Sago-
na 2000.333–336; 2014a.39, Tab. 3; Frangipane
2019.73, Tab. 1). Further investigations attempting
to reveal the origins of this culture are continuing in
the Erzurum Region (Isıklı 2015).
During the rescue excavations at the reservoir of the
Karakaya and Karababa dams in Southeastern Ana-
tolia in the last two decades of the 20th century, and
further excavations in Southeastern Anatolia, more
evidence of the Karaz culture was unearthed. Yet,
Karaz pottery did not appear in large quantities at
the sites. Special finds were enough to testify to the
spread of this culture in Southeastern Anatolia or to
regions on the modern Syro-Turkish border. Like-
wise, these finds suggested the encounter of the
Syro-Mesopotamian cultures with the Transcaucasian
Kura-Araxes and Karaz culture (Yalçın 2012.289–
293).
Nowadays, within the framework of further archae-
ological investigations, we know that the Karaz cul-
ture infiltrated also into the eastern part of Central
Anatolia and interacted with the local people of this
region. Here we encounter the typical Karaz pottery
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
265
near Yıldızeli in Sivas (Ökse 1993). Excavations in
Çadırhöyük near Yozgat yielded the characteristic
relics of this culture and pinpointed the cultural rela-
tions between Central and Eastern Anatolia from the
Late Chalcolithic on (Palumbi 2007.46, 47; Stead-
man et al. 2008.50). According to the latest inves-
tigations, we can demonstrate the expansion of the
Karaz culture into the Eastern Black-Sea region as
well, as the latest excavations near Ordu and Gire-
sun provided the pottery and architecture of this
culture (Kaymakçı 2017.28–30, 32). Furthermore,
the influences of this culture spread to the eastern-
most part of Southeastern Anatolia, such as Basur
Höyük near Siirt. At the Early Bronze Age I cemetery
of this site, dated to 3100–2900 cal BC, typical Ka-
raz pottery and metal finds were found in some cist-
graves (Saglamtimur 2017.10.Fig. 10; Saglamtimur
et al. 2019.205, 211).
Archaeologists were not aware of the presence of
the Karaz culture in Anatolia until the mid-1950s.
Because of some similarities, Sinclair Hood (1951.
116), Ruth Amiran (1952.91) and Winifred Lamb
(1954.31) compared the Early Bronze Age pottery
of Alacahöyük with the ceramics of the Khirbet-Ke-
rak culture in the Levant. Robert J. Braidwood pos-
tulated a common origin for the Khirbet Kerak pot-
tery of the Amuq plain and the Early Bronze Age
pottery of Alacahöyük (Braidwood, Braidwood
1960.518; Palumbi 2007.39).
After the excavations in Tabara el-Akrad, Hood (1951.
113, 117, 118) stated that the Khirbet Kerak people
had brought their pottery tradition from the Kura
plain to Syria, thus spreading it to the south. In the
1970s, Ian A. Todd (1973.181–189) and Marilyn
Kelly-Buccellati (1974) postulated interregional trade
as the cause of this spread. In the 1980s, Amiran
(1989.9–10) suggested that the peoples of this cul-
ture invaded the south in order to conquer new
lands and establish new settlements.
At the beginning of our century, further dispersal
theories were developed. Marcella Frangipane (2001.
4) saw the reasons for the dispersal of the culture in
a short-term power vacuum caused by a political
crisis in Eastern Anatolia at the end of the Late Chal-
colithic. Already during period VII, and especially VI
A, interactions with different groups of people, such
as those from Central Anatolia and pastoralists or
semi-sedentary people from northern mountainous
regions, coming from Northeastern Anatolia and
Southern Transcaucasia, existed at Arslantepe. The
interests of these populations must have come into
conflict with those of the ruling authorities around
3200 cal BC, as the centralized Late Uruk system of
Arslantepe VI A collapsed completely, which lead to
a regional crisis. After the downfall of the central
administrative apparatus in Arslantepe, new tran-
shumant groups, probably with Northeastern Anato-
lian and Southern Transcaucasian origins settled in
Arslantepe VI B1 around 3200–3100 cal BC (Fran-
gipane 2019.86, 87). The newcomers used both a
red-black polished, Kura-Araxes like pottery and the
wheel-made pottery of the Late Uruk period (Fran-
gipane 2001.4, 8; 2014.176). However, in the fol-
lowing period VI B2 (3100–2800 cal BC), local se-
dentary agriculturalists founded a rather simple vil-
lage with the cultural tradition of the Post-Uruk pe-
riod and regained possession of the settlement
(Frangipane 2019.89). Likewise, in this period the
inhabitants kept using both the red-black pottery of
Transcaucasian origin and the wheel-made pottery
of the Late Uruk tradition. In Arslantepe the red-
black pottery tradition continued in periods VI C
and VI D until the end of the Early Bronze Age.
Pierre de Miroschedji (2000.264) considered that
Khirbet-Kerak pottery in the Levant was the product
of migratory metalworkers, having arrived there
from Anatolia and spreading the knowledge of both
metallurgy and their pottery. Being a prestige object,
this pottery probably complied with the demands of
the regional elites.
Graham Philip (1999.44–45) suggested tracing the
presence of the Khirbet Kerak culture in the Levant
back to seaborne connections following the coastal
eastern Mediterranean routes. Using their original
pottery and adopting a conscious sign of class diffe-
rentiation, Khirbet Kerak people probably took a
stand against the local population who had a diffe-
rent cultural style and pottery tradition (Philip 1999.
45; Greenberg 2007.267). Recently, Raphael Green-
berg supported the conventional diffusion theory
from the north to the south, which, in his opinion,
took place gradually over centuries. He noted that in
Khirbet Kerak this pottery appeared around 2850
cal BC for the first time (Greenberg et al. 2012.
100–102) suggesting an arrival around the very be-
ginning of the Early Bronze Age II.
Recent studies have reverted to the diffusion theory
via trade routes, indicating that trade in raw mate-
rials such as salt, obsidian, metal or livestock fa-
voured the spread of this culture (Breniquet, Michel
2014.1–3; Palumbi 2017). Peoples of the Kura-Ara-
xes culture, those who were trading in wool, prob-
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
266
ably met the needs of Mesopotamian textile manu-
facturers. In this way, their cultural elements may
have infiltrated the related societies (Alizadeh et al.
2018.128).
Nowadays, new finds are shifting the view concern-
ing the origin and spread of this culture from a uni-
fied perception to a dynamic cultural interplay among
the Caucasus, Central and Eastern Anatolia, North-
eastern Iran, Syro-Mesopotamia, and the Levant. The
Kura-Araxes culture is increasingly seen as a collec-
tion of processes that were formed over the course
of centuries in the context of social, economic and
religious interactions (Batiuk, Rothman 2007.1–9;
Sagona 2014a.23–25).
Until the end of the 20th century, the absolute dates
of the Transcaucasian settlements were missing, so
that they were mostly dated comparatively. Thus,
with only a few 14C dates the beginning of the Kura-
Araxes culture in Transcaucasia and Eastern Anato-
lia was put to the second half of the 4th millennium
BC (Sagona 2000.332–333; Dschaparidze 2001.95).
For the arrival of this culture in Southeastern Anato-
lia and the Levant, a date about 2800–2700 cal BC
has been accepted (Braidwood, Braidwood 1960.
259 ff.; Maisler et al. 1952.165; De Miroschedji
2000; Greenberg et al. 2012.98; Palumbi, Chataig-
ner 2014.254). Today there are enough absolute
dates from Transcaucasia, North-Central and Eastern
Anatolia, Northwestern Iran and the Levant (Palum-
bi, Chataigner 2014.248, Fig. 1; Sagona 2014a.37,
39, Tabs. 2, 3; Steadman et al. 2015.90, Tab. 1;
Frangipane 2019.73, Tab. 1). The old non-calibrat-
ed 14C dates from Anatolia were also made available
(Üncü 2010), while researchers are increasingly
working to secure their finds with 14C dates (Philip,
Millard 2000; Badalyan 2014.78, 79, 83; Sagona
2014a.25–29, 37–39; Steadman et al. 2015.90, Tab.
1; Alizadeh et al. 2018.131). Thus, according to cur-
rent knowledge the earliest evidence for this culture
in the northern dispersal area has already emerged
from about 3500 cal BC onwards, becoming well es-
tablished by 3300 cal BC (Palumbi 2008; Sagona
2014a.25). During the 3rd millennium BC, the cul-
ture spread through a vast region in the Near East
(Sagona 2014a.25, 29; Isıklı 2015.242; Palumbi,
Chataigner 2014.248, Fig. 1; Alizadeh et al. 2018.
464, 474, 475). This culture disappeared gradually
in the Levant, e.g., in Khirbet Kerak from 2400 cal
BC onwards (Greenberg et al. 2012.89, 103), while
its pottery remained in use in Eastern Anatolia until
about 1800 cal BC (Yalçın 2012.23, 358, 364; Sago-
na 2014a.25).
The characteristics of the culture
The people of this culture inhabited the fertile and
high-elevated plains or valleys. Contrary to earlier
views, early communities of this culture, especially
during the Early Bronze Age I, seem to be sedentary
rather than being highly mobile (Frangipane 2014;
Sagona 2014a.42). Maintaining agriculture and
keeping livestock, they might have been transhu-
mant from time to time. Circular wattle and daub
buildings, rectangular mudbrick houses with round-
ed corners and wooden pillars, and large rectangu-
lar house complexes are the typical architectural fea-
tures in the distribution area of this culture (Maisler
et al. 1952.171–172; Burney 1961.141 ff.; Haupt-
mann 1976.76, 78; 2000; Yalçın 2012.29; Yakar
2020) (Fig. 2).
Fire and its symbolism must have played an impor-
tant role in this culture (Kosay 1976.27, 28; Takaog-
lu 2000; Balossi 2015.147; Simonian, Rothman
2015.27–30), and thus we notice a horseshoe-shaped
hearth, sometimes decorated with anthropomorphic
depictions that probably have a relation to this sym-
bolism. From this type of hearth the typical portable
andirons of the Karaz/Kura-Araxes/Khirbet Kerak
culture were developed (Lamb 1954.23; Haupt-
mann 1979.70–72; Balossi 2015.140). The hearths
with anthropomorphic depictions on protrusions on
both sides, as found in Cinis Höyük near Erzurum
and Pulur-Sakyol X near Tunceli in Eastern Anatolia,
are the best examples of this type of hearth (Kosay
1976.Pl. 38; Takaoglu 2000) (Fig. 3). It is important
to note that comparable hearths were also found in
Kusura in Western Anatolia (Lamb 1937.37, Pl. V),
and more recently in Seyitömer Höyük near Kütahya
in the levels dated to the Early Bronze Age III and
Middle Bronze Age (Bilgen, Bilgen 2015.77, Fig.
81). In the 1950s, Lamb (1954.22) pointed out that
there might have been cultural relations between
the inner part of Western, Central and Eastern Ana-
tolia. She referred to the similarity of pottery and
hearths between Kusura, Alacahöyük and Karaz
(Lamb 1954.22, 31–32). In the light of our current
knowledge, Lamb’s assumption seems to make more
sense, as we are more and more aware of the rela-
tionships between North-Central and Eastern Anato-
lia since the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
(Çalıskan Akgül 2012). According to Mehmet Özdo-
gan (2000.499), the relations seem to begin already
in the Chalcolithic and are reflected in the local black
polished pottery at the end of this period. Thus, it
may also be appropriate to ask whether certain com-
ponents, such as this type of hearth, came from East-
ern to Western Anatolia, along with some metallur-
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
267
Fi
g.
 2
. T
he
 ty
pi
ca
l a
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
 fe
at
ur
es
 o
f t
he
 K
ur
a-
A
ra
xe
s/
K
ar
az
/K
hi
rb
et
 K
he
ra
k 
cu
lt
ur
e 
(Y
al
çı
n 
20
11
.3
3,
 A
bb
. 1
).
 a
K
ül
te
pe
 (
n
ea
r 
N
ak
hi
ch
ev
an
);
 b
Sh
en
ga
vi
t
(A
rm
en
ia
);
 c
K
va
tz
kh
el
eb
i 
(G
eo
rg
ia
);
 d
Ar
sl
an
te
pe
 V
I 
B
2;
 e
Ar
sl
an
te
pe
 V
I 
D
; f
Pu
lu
r-
Sa
ky
ol
; g
Te
pe
ci
k 
EB
A 
I-I
II
; h
N
or
su
n
te
pe
 E
B
A 
II
I;
 i
se
tt
le
m
en
ts
 o
f 
Am
uq
 v
al
-
le
y
(E
B
A
 I
I)
: T
el
l e
l-D
ju
de
id
e;
 j
N
or
su
n
te
pe
 E
B
A
 I
I 
[a
-c
 P
ar
zi
ng
er
 2
00
0.
Ab
b.
 3
.1
–3
.3
(K
ül
te
pe
, S
he
n
ga
vi
t, 
K
va
tz
kh
el
eb
i –
 e
ar
ly
 p
ha
se
s)
; d
an
d 
e
Fr
an
gi
pa
ne
 2
00
4.
10
6,
 1
48
, 1
49
(A
rs
la
n
te
pe
 V
I 
B
 a
n
d 
V
I 
D
);
 f
K
os
ay
 1
97
6.
Pl
. 1
20
(P
ul
ur
-S
ak
yo
l X
);
 g
Es
in
 1
98
2.
Pl
. 1
08
(T
ep
ec
ik
 E
B
A
 I
-II
I)
; h
 H
au
pt
m
an
n 
19
82
.T
af
. 3
0
(N
or
su
n
-
te
pe
 E
B
A
 I
II
);
 i
 B
ra
id
w
oo
d,
 B
ra
id
w
oo
d 
19
60
.2
61
, F
ig
. 1
96
(A
m
uq
 H
);
 j 
H
au
pt
m
an
n 
19
79
.T
af
. 3
7
(N
or
su
n
te
pe
 E
B
A
 I
I)
].
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
268
gical innovations, as part of a ‘cultural package’, as
Antonio Sagona (2014a.26–27) recently claimed
(Kelly-Buccellati 1990.119; Fidan et al. 2015.82).
The burials of the Karaz/Kura-Araxes culture are ei-
ther single or collective inhumations. There are also
burials in kurgans (Kushnareva 1997; Palumbi,
Chataigner 2014.249; Saglamtimur 2019). Taking
numerous sites found during the archaeological in-
vestigations into account, in Eastern Anatolia there
is only limited evidence for simple inhumations con-
sisting of pits and stone-cist graves, but not for kur-
gans (Altunkaynak et al. 2018.80–84). On this point,
the cist grave from Arslantepe VI B1 is worth not-
ing. A rather young man of high social rank was
buried here, surrounded by rich grave goods. Obvi-
ously, his loyalties accompanied him in the afterlife.
According to the rich grave goods composed of pot-
tery, metal weapons and other metal objects, this
grave testifies to an encounter with a culture influ-
enced by Kura-Araxes people and the local Late Uruk
culture at the end of Late Chalcolithic and beginning
of the Early Bronze Age I, respectively (Frangipane
2000.450, 469; 2019). Seven spearheads and a short
sword belonging to the hoard from Tülintepe in the
Altınova plain may also have originally come from
a cist grave. This hoard seems to be approximately
contemporary with the metal finds from the cist
grave of Arslantepe that was recently dated to 3100–
3000 cal BC by Frangipane (2019.87), and present-
ed evidence of profound metallurgical knowledge
with regard to dealing with different metals, such as
arsenical copper and tinned copper surfaces (Yalçın,
Yalçın 2009.127). Using arsenical copper in order to
achieve glittering metal surfaces or
tin for decorative purposes are thus
important features of the Karaz-/Ku-
ra-Araxes culture (Yalçın, Yalçın
2009; Greenberg et al. 2012.101).
The latest excavations in Basur Hö-
yük yielded seventeen burials in a
cemetery that consists of stone cist
graves and simple earthen pits,
which are dated between 3100–2900
cal BC (Saglamtimur et al. 2019.
205). Unlike the single burial inside
the cist grave from Arslantepe, mul-
tiple burials have been found in the
majority of the graves at Basur Hö-
yük. Some of the various metal ob-
jects and pottery found inside the
graves can be compared with the
finds from the ‘Royal Tomb’ of Ars-
lantepe VI B1.
A handmade, initially black, dark or buff, and in the
subsequent periods rather red-black polished pot-
tery with typical forms is the most significant fea-
ture of this culture. Having formerly defined the
Kura Araxes culture by this red-black polished pot-
tery, scholars today increasingly tend to distinguish
between older, dark monochrome ceramics and red-
black polished pottery of the following phases in
Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia. Nevertheless,
Fig. 4. Some examples for the Kura-Araxes/Karaz/Khirbet Kerak
pottery. a Pulur-Sakyol XI; b Arslantepe VI B1; c Alaybeyi Höyük;
d Pulur-Sakyol XI; e Khirbet Kerak; f Kvatzkhelebi; g Amuk H (a
Yalçın 2012.30, Abb. 5c; b, d, f Yalçın 2011.35, Abb. 6 a-c; c Altun-
kaynak et al. 2018.88, Fig. 11; e Greenberg et al. 2013.100, Fig. 19;
g Braidwood, Braidwood 1960.Pl. 34/2).
Fig. 3. Hearth with anthropomorphic depictions of
Karaz culture from Pulur Sakyol X (Tunceli), East-
ern Anatolia (Kosay 1976.Pl. 38).
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
269
considering the common shapes in these regions
there seems to have been a consensus in styling the
pottery during the Early Bronze Age when this cul-
ture was flourishing (Sagona 2014a.30–32) (Fig. 4).
The relief decoration characteristic of this pottery
consists mostly of double spirals, stylized animal de-
pictions, bold concentric circles and knobs, as well
as grooves and dimples (Sagona 1984; Yalçın 2012.
239–240). In the Late Chalcolithic and the Early
Bronze Age I, this relief decoration was used rather
sporadically and strikingly on the
surfaces of the vessels, being elabo-
rated in the Early Bronze Age III, es-
pecially in Eastern Anatolia (Sago-
na 2014a.32). Incised decoration in
geometric patterns also appears. In
Eastern Anatolia and Northwestern
Iran, the incisions were filled with
white encrustation in the Late Chal-
colithic and the Early Bronze Age I
(Yalçın 2012.131, 132). Graphite
slip is another decoration technique
that we observe on the vessels of
Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia
from the beginning of the Early
Bronze Age (Sagona 2000.336; Yal-
çın 2012.138–140). Globular bowls,
jugs, pots, drinking cups, and storage
vessels with tall straight necks, rail
rim vessels, baking plates and trays,
cylindrical potstands, sieves, lids and
special handles called Nakhichevan
lugs are among the shapes and attach-
ments of this pottery. At the same time,
the pottery shapes point to the dietary
practices of this culture, which were
probably based on animal and dairy pro-
ducts on the one hand, and agricultural
products like cereals on the other (Ali-
zadeh et al. 2018.128).
The special small finds include clay ani-
mal figurines and plastically decorated
clay stamps, combs made from bone,
convex-based arrowheads made of ob-
sidian and flint, as well as metal finds.
Among the finds there are also metal je-
wellery or weapons like double spiral
headed needles, diadems and spear-
heads (Yalçın, Yalçın 2009; Yalçın
2012.31) (Fig. 5). Crucibles, moulds and
tuyéres that are occasionally found at
the settlements indicate the metallurgi-
cal activities that were practiced by the people of the
Kura-Araxes/Karaz culture (Alizadeh et al. 2018.
131–133, Figs. 4–6).
Tepecik, an Eastern Anatolian settlement
mound of the Karaz culture
Tepecik was located 31km east of the Elazıg pro-
vince in the Altınova plain in Eastern Anatolia. To-
day it is under the water of the Keban Dam (Fig. 6).
The settlement mound with an extension of about
Fig. 5. Metal finds from the so-called Royal Tomb of Arslantepe
VI B1 (Yalçın 2011.34, Abb. 4b; after Frangipane 2001).
Fig. 6. Keban Dam reservoir area and archaeological sites excavat-
ed in the Altınova plain (Yalçın 2012.32, Karte 5).
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
270
200 to 300m rose almost 17m above the
plain (Esin 1974; Yalçın 2012.33). It was ex-
cavated between 1968–1974 (Esin 1970.
159, 160; Yalçın 2012.67) (Fig. 7).
Stratigraphy and architecture
Despite the extensive excavations, the stra-
tigraphy of Tepecik is rather challenging
(Erim 1982; Yalçın 2012). The final publi-
cation of the excavations is still pending, and
an adjustment of the stratigraphy from dif-
ferent trenches has not yet been accomp-
lished. According to the preliminary reports
and unpublished masters and PhD theses, a
cultural sequence from the Late Neolithic to
the Medieval Ages was brought out that con-
sists of 29 levels (Yener 1974; Bıçakçı 1982;
Erim 1982; Yalçın 2012.68) (Fig. 8).
Two deep soundings provided information
on the older periods from the Late Neolithic to
the Early Bronze Age I-II. In the ‘deep trench
8 O’ at the northeastern slope of the settle-
ment mound, the Chalcolithic Period, the
Early Bronze Age I and the transition to the
Early Bronze Age II were encountered above
a thin layer of the Late Neolithic. At the south-
western slope of the settlement mound, ano-
ther ‘deep trench’ called ‘15 K’ was opened,
where the transitional periods from the Late
Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age I and
from the Early Bronze Age I to II were documented.
The architectural finds were poor in both ‘8 O’ and
‘15 K’, yet the pottery finds abundant (Yalçın 2012.
68, 71, 73, 74). At the southern slope of Tepecik,
parts of a fortification wall dated to the Early Bronze
Ages I and II were excavated. Inside the fortress
walls, with jagged protrusions, the remains of some
rectangular buildings came to light (Esin 1972.156;
1974.133; Yalçın 2012.75). A corresponding stea-
tite seal from Tarsus Gözlükule in Southern Anatolia
dated the fortification wall to the Early Bronze Age II
(Esin 1972.145). In the course of the Early Bronze
Age, the settlement expanded to the north and reach-
ed its final extent in the Early Bronze Age III (Fig. 9).
In the Early Bronze Age III, the rectangular architec-
tural plan prevailed in Tepecik. Agglutinating mud-
brick houses were built on narrow streets that some-
times had two floors (Yalçın 2012.74–85). The build-
ings consisted of several rooms with hearth installa-
tions and rectangular clay benches in front of the
walls. Some rooms in larger buildings were probably
used as workshops, storage rooms, to prepare meals,
and as dining rooms for common meals (Esin 1974;
Yalçın 2012.353–354). Pottery, grinding stones, ob-
sidian, flint and bone instruments, copper and stone
beads, metal needles, cereal stamps and animal figu-
rines are among the finds. The settlement of the
Early Bronze Age III suffered several fire disasters on
different architectural levels, and there is no indica-
tion of martial attacks that would have caused these
(Esin 1982; Yalçın 2012.83).
In the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, the inhabitants
resettled the settlement of the Early Bronze Age III.
On the northwestern slope and on the west of the
settlement mound there was a thorough stratigra-
phy of these periods (Esin 1982; Yalçın 2012.68,
70). The most recent settlement phase was on top of
Tepecik at the western and southwestern part, where
an Iron Age settlement and a medieval cemetery
were excavated.
The Uruk sector was located to the west of the set-
tlement mound (Fig. 10). Here, the Late Chalcolithic,
the transition from Late Chalcolithic to the Early
Fig. 7. Trench location plan of Tepecik (Yalçın 2012.71, La-
geplan 1).
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
271
Bronze Age I and the Early Bronze
Age I were excavated in five archaeo-
logic layers. In ‘level 3’, the excava-
tions revealed a typical tripartite
building of the Late Uruk Period,
which was destroyed by a devastat-
ing fire as in Arslantepe VI A (Yal-
çın 2012.86–87) (Fig. 10). In this
building complex, at the corner of a
larger room, the remains of a hearth
as well as copper ore and leftovers
of slags were found (Esin 1982.109,
Pl. 62/1–3). According to Ufuk Esin
(1982) and the research of the au-
thor of the current paper, the early
occurrence of the Karaz pottery was
also documented in ‘level 3’. This
pottery was found together with the
Late Uruk and Central Anatolian type
pottery that can be compared with
the contemporary finds from Arslan-
tepe VI A. Besides the settlement in
Arslantepe VI A, the Late Chalcolithic
settlement in the Uruk sector of Te-
pecik offers important evidence da-
ted to the Late Uruk Period in Ana-
tolia, bearing both the wheel-made
Late Uruk pottery and Central Anato-
lian type pottery, and the early Karaz pottery (Fran-
gipane 2012.238; Palumbi 2017.124). In the poor-
ly preserved layer 2, several pits came to light. The
content of one pit testified to metallurgical activi-
ties at the transition from Late Chalcolithic to Early
Bronze Age I. Dated to the Early Bronze Age I, layer
1 displayed a stone foundation in the east-west di-
rection. Several rectangular rooms bordered this
foundation. Karaz sherds, as well as chaff-faced and
light-coloured pottery of the Late Uruk period, were
exposed together on the floors. (Yalçın 2012.86).
Thus, we can probably conclude that this was a new
settlement with simple houses of light construction,
as in Arslantepe VI B1 (Palumbi 2017.120). This
could indicate the arrival of new settlers, perhaps
pastoralists, who benefited from the decline of the
Late Uruk inhabitants.
The Early Bronze Age stratigraphy of Tepecik is
based on ceramic comparisons with the settlements
of the Elazıg and Malatya plains. As is usually the
case with many old excavations, there is a lack of
absolute dates in Tepecik. In the Uruk sector, the
14C samples of ‘level 3’ yielded a calibrated age of
3644–3376 cal BC (Esin 1985). We can thus put the
end of the Late Chalcolithic Period at approx. 3300
cal BC. There are only two calibrated 14C dates from
the settlement mound, which came from ‘level 4’ of
‘trench 12 K’. These dates are 4119±62 cal BP
(2880–2490 cal BC) and 3980±70 cal BP (2850–
2200 cal BC). Thus, this level is dated to the Early
Bronze Age I/Early Bronze Age II and the Early
Bronze Age III (Esin 1985; Üncü 2010.269).
Furthermore, the 14C dates of Arslantepe were ap-
plied to the settlements in the Elazıg and Malatya
plains, as was the case in Tepecik, putting them into
a certain time range. According to Frangipane (2019.
73, Tab. 1) the following calibrated 14C dates are
in use for the time being: Arslantepe VII (Late Chal-
colithic 3–4) 3900–3400 cal BC, VI A (Late Chalcoli-
thic 5) 3400–3200 cal BC, VI B1–VI B2 (Early Bronze
Age I) 3200–2800 cal BC, VI C (Early Bronze Age II)
2750–2500 cal BC, and VI D (Early Bronze Age III)
2500–2200 cal BC.
The prehistoric pottery of Tepecik
In Tepecik there are different groups of prehistoric
ceramics, including the dark faced burnished ware
of the Late Neolithic or pottery groups of the Chal-
colithic Period, such as the Halaf, Obeid and Uruk
ceramics (Esin 1982.115). The fabrics of the Early
Fig. 8. Table showing the cultural sequence in different excavation
areas in Tepecik (Yalçın 2012.70).
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
272
Bronze Age account for most of the items in the
entire pottery assemblage of the settlement mound.
The Uruk pottery, the Central Anatolian type wares
and the early Karaz pottery are among the pottery
groups of Late Chalcolithic and the beginning of the
Early Bronze Age. There are wheel-made Mesopota-
mian wares such as simple ware, reserved slip ware
and metallic ware that remained in use in the course
of the Early Bronze Age. Both simple ware and re-
served slip ware appear in Tepecik from the Late
Chalcolithic onwards. They continued to an increa-
singly lesser extent until the end of the Early Bronze
Age III. About the end of the Early Bronze Age II,
the Syro-Mesopotamian metallic ware arrived at Te-
pecik (Yalçın 2012.73, 75, 77, 85). From the Early
Bronze Age II on a local painted ware appeared in
Tepecik, which was native to the Elazıg and Malatya
plains (Marro 2000).
On the origins of the Karaz pottery in Tepecik
Tepecik is the only settlement in the Altınova plain,
where the apparently continuous development of
Karaz pottery (Fig. 11) was detected based on the
stratigraphy, though we also have some evidence
for an early stage in the neighbouring settlements
Norsuntepe and Korucutepe (Hauptmann 1982.
54; Yalçın 2012.265–270).
In the deep ‘trench 8 O’, excavations yielded dark
faced burnished ware from the ‘29th level’ onwards,
which has, according to some scho-
lars, its origins in the Neolithic of
Anatolia (Braidwood, Braidwood
1960; Mellaart 1967; Esin 1993).
This is a medium-fine ware predomi-
nantly tempered with sand and chaff
that has dark surfaces, but also on
the exterior reddish-brown and on
the interior black polished surfaces.
Starting in the Late Neolithic the pro-
duction of this ware had its peak in
the Early Chalcolithic Period, and it
lasted until the beginning of Early
Bronze Age I in Tepecik, likewise in
Tülintepe (Özdogan 2020).
According to Güven Arsebük (1979),
a local ware of the Early Chalcolithic
Period, called mica-slip ware, appear-
ed together with the dark faced bur-
nished ware in layer 25 of the deep
‘trench 8 O’. It is also tempered with
chaff and sand, and likewise was
present in Altınova in both Norsun-
tepe and Tülintepe at the same pe-
riod (Arsebük 1979.85; Yalçın
2012.249). Together with the dark
faced burnished ware, it existed in
small quantities until the end of the
Early Chalcolithic. The fabric is of a
light reddish or reddish brown co-
lour. Mica was added to the water-
diluted clay intentionally in order to
produce a shiny micaceous slip that
looks like a polish (Arsebük 1979.
85, 90, Fig. 3, Pl. 47). The shapes are
almost identical to those of the dark
faced burnished ware. At this point,
it is important to note that Sagona
Fig. 9. Schematic plan of Tepecik. Buildings of the 2nd and 3rd mil-
lennium BC (Yalçın 2012.84).
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
273
(2014a.30) describes similar features for Late Sioni
ware in Transcaucasia towards the end of the 4th
millennium BC that also occurs in Agrı. The features
mentioned by Sagona also seem to conform to the
mica-slipped ware from the Altınova plain. However,
the probable relationship between these wares has
not yet been studied.
According to Arsebük (1979.85–86), at the end of
the Late Chalcolithic, besides these two aforemen-
tioned wares, early Karaz ware appeared in layer 21
of the deep ‘trench 8 O’, which has the same man-
ufacturing features and similar shapes. The surface
colours of the sherds vary between light or dark
brown, pale pink, buff and black. Red colour on the
exterior and black on the interior surface is rather
rare. However, the key difference of Karaz pottery
lies in the highly polished surfaces resembling the
shimmering surfaces of the mica-slipped ware.
Arsebük (1979.87, Fig. 6) stated that the quantity
of the dark faced burnished ware decreased signifi-
cantly after the disappearance of the mica-slipped
ware in the Late Chalcolithic layers 20–14. Then it
completely disappeared in layers 13–9 during the
transition from Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze
Age I. The Karaz pottery was the only ce-
ramic group available in the Early Bronze
Age I and II in the deep ‘trench 8 O’ in
‘level 8’.
The similarity between these wares led
Arsebük (1979.88–90) to the assumption
that the early Karaz ware evolved from
the dark face burnished ware in Tepecik.
According to the thesis of Arsebük (1979.
88), the mica-slipped ware was probably a
connecting link between these two cera-
mic groups. Based on his observations, he
emphasized that the Altınova plain must
have been one of the original homelands
of Karaz pottery (Figs. 12, 13).
Sagona (2000.332, 333) drew attention to
the possible coexistence of a Sioni-like
pottery and the early Kura-Araxes pottery
based on the Late Chalcolithic ceramics
coming from Sos Höyük Va (3500/3300–
3000 cal BC). Found side-by-side with
the coarse Transcaucasian Sioni pottery,
there is evidence for an early form of Ku-
ra-Araxes pottery that is either drab, or
sometimes blackened on the exterior. Sa-
gona emphasized this one-to-one resem-
blance between the Late Sioni and Early Kura-Ara-
xes pottery either in the Erzurum region or in Geor-
gia, which bears conceptual similarities to the theory
raised by Arsebük (1979) about the possible conne-
ctions between dark face burnished ware and early
Karaz pottery in the Altınova (Sagona 2000.333).
According to Özdogan (2020.83, 84) the dark face
burnished pottery was found in the context of Late
Chalcolithic layers in Tepecik, as well as in the early
layers of the nearby settlement mound Tülintepe.
He claimed that Arsebük (1979) mistook the dark
faced burnished ware and mica-slipped ware for the
ancestral variants of the early Karaz pottery. Özdo-
gan (2020.84) stated that during the early years of
the Keban Project the cultural sequence of this re-
gion was rather nebulous, and thus this approach
seemed to be reasonable then. Yutaka Miyake (1996)
reworked the dark face burnished pottery both from
Tülintepe and from Tepecik. He found out that there
has to have been a break between the traditions of
the dark face burnished ware and the Karaz pottery.
If we compare the early shapes and fabrics of the
pottery groups described above, we still see com-
mon characteristics and similarities. Thus, we should
Fig. 10. Schematic plan of the Uruk sector in Tepecik. The tri-
partite Late Uruk building and the distribution of the pottery
(Yalçın 2012.80).
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
274
not neglect the idea of a common origin for Kura-
Araxes/Karaz pottery either in Transcaucasia or in
Eastern Anatolia based on the foregoing local pot-
tery groups like Sioni ware in Georgia, and the dark
face burnished ware and micaceous ware in the East-
ern Anatolian Altınova. This similarity might have
come from a common taste and knowledge of the
same pottery techniques, both in Eastern Anatolia
and Southern Transcaucasia.
Evidence for the Early Karaz pottery at the end
of the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
I-II levels in Tepecik
In Tepecik, the lower ‘levels 21–14’ of the deep
‘trench 8 O’ yielded the pottery of the Late Chalcoli-
thic Period. In the same trench, ‘levels 9–13’ corres-
pond to the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to
the Early Bronze Age I. Further down, in the deep
‘trench 15 K’ in ‘levels 9–14’ we observe the transi-
tion from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze
Age I. ‘Levels 7–8’ of the same deep trench reach the
Early Bronze Age I (Erim 1982). Through all these
levels, the early Karaz pottery appeared in relatively
large amounts along with the wares influenced by
the Central Anatolian Late Chalcolithic cultures.
The early Karaz pottery was also found in the Uruk
Sector of Tepecik. Here it appeared towards the end
of the Late Chalcolithic Period in ‘level 3’, and at the
transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early
Bronze Age I in ‘levels 1–2’. It shows the same ma-
nufacturing techniques and similar shapes that ap-
pear in ‘8 O’ and ‘15 K’ in Tepecik (Yalçın 2012.70,
86). According to Esin (1982.112, 113) in ‘layers 1–
3’, besides the Karaz pottery, hand-made and wheel-
made Late Uruk wares as well as the Central Anato-
lian type wares occur. The shapes of these ceramics
and those of the early Karaz pottery are almost the
same (Yalçın 2012.157, 236, 237). Hence, we may
assume that the Late Chalcolithic Central Anatolian
pottery also influenced the shapes and fabrics of the
Karaz pottery at Tepecik. Compared to the coexisting
pottery in Alacahöyük, Alisar and Çadır Höyük in
Central Anatolia and Central Anatolian type pottery
found in Tepecik, the early Karaz ware has some dis-
tinctive differences, especially in the fabrics. The lat-
ter is always tempered with chaff and some fine
sand. At the very end of the Late Chalcolithic Period,
the amount of straw temper in the paste of the Ka-
raz ware decreases while that of sand temper increa-
ses. In contrast, the paste of the Central Anatolian
type of pottery contains a large amount of sand,
some fine grit and a small portion of mica and some
fine organic temper. This is also case in the Late Chal-
colithic settlements of Central Anatolia and in Ars-
lantepe towards the end of VII and during VIA (Pa-
lumbi 2007.43). While the surfaces of the early Ka-
raz pottery from Tepecik are of a black, dark brown,
buff, pale pink and sometimes black and red colour,
those of the Central Anatolian type pottery are red
and black or blackish-grey in the Uruk Sector of Te-
pecik. Black and blackish-grey variations can be af-
filiated with the early Karaz pottery. Furthermore,
the early Karaz pottery bears a self-slip and is always
burnished. The Central Anatolian type of pottery is
either colour-slipped or without slip and sometimes
burnished (Esin 1982.112, 113).
Among the shapes of Central Anatolian type pottery,
the so-called fruit stands and large funnel-shaped in-
cised bowls are worth noting. This peculiar shape
probably served special ceremonial functions, with
burning incense a subject of some debate in this re-
gard. It is a firm component of the Central Anatolian
Late Chalcolithic culture and as well as the Late Uruk
pottery of Mesopotamia. In Central Anatolia, some
rare fragments of this shape were found in the Chal-
colithic levels of Alisar, Alacahöyük and Çadır Höyük
(Orthmann 1963; Palumbi 2007). In ‘level 3’ of the
Uruk Sector, fragments of similar fruit stands with
triangular apertures were found that show a closer
resemblance to the fruit stands of Alacahöyük (Esin
1976.115).
The light brown, buff or brownish grey polished
examples of the funnel-shaped bowls typify the early
Karaz ware, while the grey or blackish-grey surface
colours of the same shape are examples of the Cen-
tral Anatolian type wares. The Karaz variants of
these bowls were mostly found in the 3rd and 2nd la-
yers of the Uruk Sector (Fig. 14). They were decorat-
ed with geometric patterns consisting of intersecting
Fig. 11. Selected Karaz Pottery from Tepecik, EBA
I-III: a bowls, b rail rim bowls and small pots, c rail
rim pots and holemouth jar, d rail rim storage ves-
sel with relief decoration (photographs by Ünsal
Yalçın, author’s archive).
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
275
quadrilaterals placed between two incised bands.
Generally, the quadrilaterals bear a white encrus-
tation (Yalçın 2012.88). Similar incised decoration
can be seen on the sherds of Alacahöyük, Alisar and
Çadırhöyük in Central Anatolia, while the incised
patterns from Büyükgüllücek seem to be composed
rather differently, probably indicating an early stage
of the Chalcolithic Period (Esin 1976.115; Yalçın
2011; 2012.301–306).
A similar influence of the Late Chalcolithic Central
Anatolian wares is visible in Arslantepe VII-VIA, as
researchers have recognized resemblances between
the Central Anatolian shapes like conical bowls, sin-
gle-handled jugs and fruit stands, the shapes from
Tepecik 3–2 in the Uruk Sector and the ones found
in Arslantepe VI A (Frangipane 2000; 2014; Palum-
bi 2017).
The development of Karaz pottery in Tepecik
in the Early Bronze Age I-III
A wide range of Karaz sherds were found in the
‘deep soundings 8 O’ and ‘15 K’ in ‘levels 7–8’, in
the ‘trenches 14 H-I-K-L-M-N’ in ‘layers 9–7’ and in
‘13–14 K’ in ‘layers 7–8’. Belonging to the Early
Bronze Age I, these sherds are less chaff tempered
and rather compact. We may thus presume the on-
going influence of the Central Anatolian type wares
on the Karaz pottery found at the settlement mound.
Here, the Early Bronze Age I Karaz pottery shows,
although very rare, relief decoration on rather large
vessels, as well as incised sherds with white encrus-
tation. However, the latter type of decoration disap-
pears over time in Tepecik. On some sherds the gra-
phite slip is also present. In addition to Karaz cera-
mics, the pottery assemblage of this period includes
wheel-made simple and reserved slip wares of North-
ern Syria and Mesopotamia. Compared to the Karaz
pottery, these wares are dominant in the Early
Bronze Age I and are found in a ratio of 1:2 in the
pottery assemblage of Tepecik (Yalçın 2012.252).
Shapes include flat or conical bowls with divergent
lugs, rail-rim bowls with high straight necks, round
bellied holemouth pots and jars with rail rims and
tall necks, flat lids with incised decoration (see Fig.
14). The surface colours consist of pale pink, buff,
black, greyish black or dark brown, with black pre-
dominating, however. The well-polished surfaces of
the vessels that are black on the outside and red on
the inside are rather sporadic. The surface colours of
red on the outside and black on the inside are a ra-
rity in the repertory of Karaz pottery throughout the
entire Early Bronze Age.
There is a transitional period between the Early
Bronze Age I and the Early Bronze Age II in Tepe-
cik, in both of the ‘deep trenches 8 O’ and ‘15 K’ and
in the ‘trenches 13–14 K’, in ‘levels 4–6’. In this pe-
riod, the Karaz pottery frequently has black surfaces,
while black on the outside and red on the inside is
still rare. Yet, from this time forward the occurrence
of light surface colours like buff, pale pink and light
brown diminishes. The Nakhichevan-lugs appear in
Tepecik for the first time. In this transition, the co-
existence of wheel-made, plain, simple and reserved
slip pottery of Syro-Mesopotamia and Karaz pottery
is a distinguishing feature. However, the wheel-made
pottery constitutes about 60 percent of the total pot-
tery assemblage. Thus, the presence of the Karaz
pottery is rather weak. The influence of Central Ana-
tolian pottery can still be discerned, as funnel-shaped
bowls are present in the pottery assemblage of this
period. Logically considered, the relations between
the Karaz culture of Tepecik, Central Anatolian and
Syro-Mesopotamian cultures seem to be quite consi-
stent in this transitional period.
The Early Bronze Age II was brought to light in the
‘sounding 15 K’ in ‘layers 1–4’ and in ‘trenches 13–
14 K’ in ‘layer 6’. Yet it is noticeable that the amount
of wheel-made Syro-Mesopotamian pottery drops to
Fig. 12. Pottery shapes of the dark faced burnished
ware after Arsebük 1979.
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
276
about 25 percent. The Karaz pottery has a predomi-
nant share of about 70 percent (Yalçın 2012.253)
(Fig. 15). Apart from these two groups of pottery,
the local painted pottery of the Altınova plain ap-
pears in Tepecik for the first time. Among the Ka-
raz vessels there are certain shapes, like the glob-
ular pots with angled rims and linear incised deco-
ration patterns that occur in Shengawit in Armenia
and in Yanıktepe in Northwestern Iran in the Early
Bronze Age II. By contrast, in Tepecik we do not see
other typical shapes of this period, like the triphore.
This liquid storage vessel with three horizontal lugs
occurs in ‘level 23’ in Norsuntepe, In the Early
Bronze Age II. This shape is also present in Pulur
and Güzelova in Northeastern Anatolia, and in some
settlements of Georgia (Hauptmann 1982.55, Pl.
46/7). In this period Tepecik seems instead to have
had a tie to the Kura-Araxes culture of Armenia and
Northwest Iran that probably ran along overland
routes following the vast plains of Eastern Anatolia.
A globular holemouth pot with opposing nose-
shaped lugs is found in addition to the prevailing
shapes. We find similar pots in Arslantepe VIC dated
to the Early Bronze Age II that also confirm the pe-
riodization at Tepecik (Conti, Persiani 1993.372,
Fig. 8/6, 10). Pots and bowls with high straight
necks that show multiple horizontal grooves as well
as Nakhichevan lugs are the striking features of Ka-
raz pottery in this period. The number of globular
rail rim vessels with high straight necks, as well as
of vessels with black exteriors and red or reddish
brown interiors, increases. Yet the black polished
surfaces dominate. On the rims of some bowls a red
stripe appears. Occasionally, there is a relief decora-
tion on the exterior surfaces of the vessels. The gra-
phite polish is still present, yet not common.
In the Early Bronze Age III, certain shapes like rail
rim bowls and simple conical bowls of the Karaz
pottery seem to have been mass-produced in Tepe-
cik. Plenty of vessels that were found in the build-
ings of this period give clues about the utilization
and function of the Karaz pottery in Tepecik. In con-
trast to the preceding periods, the Karaz vessels are
mostly chaff tempered. The dense paste of the Early
Bronze Age I and II rarely appears. Instead, due to
chaff temper the texture of the sherds is rather
loose. The vessels are usually well polished and
fired. Black exteriors and red interiors are present.
Red, brown or reddish-brown surface colours predo-
minate. On the rims of the vessels, narrow, red or
brown coloured stripes occur from time to time. The
relief ornamentation with stylized animal depictions
is in vogue and usually present on the large rail-rim
storage vessels. Another decoration technique is gro-
oving, which is applied to the large pots or storage
vessels in Tepecik or in Norsuntepe and Korucutepe
(Hauptmann 1982, Pl. 52/2; Yalçın 2012). A nov-
elty is the incised decoration after firing, which we
can also observe on some small pots in Sos Höyük
during this period (Sagona 2000). The incised deco-
ration after firing seems to have a long tradition in
southern Transcaucasia, as it appears here from the
Early Bronze Age I on (Palumbi 2007; 2008). The
wheel-made simple, reserved slip and metallic wares
continue in Tepecik, although the rate of these wares
fall back to 10 percent and more than 80 percent of
the entire pottery assemblage consists of Karaz cera-
mics (Yalçın 2012.256). The local painted Altınova
ware is still a part of the pottery assemblage. Mass-
produced conical bowls, globular holemouth cook-
ing pots with tabs, rail rim pots and storage vessels
with tall necks are common (Fig. 16). We record rail
rim bowls with downwardly tapering bottoms that
were probably used either for food intake or as mea-
suring vessels for distributing food rations (Yalçın
2012.352). Among the other vessels there are bowls,
jars, pots, convex low pot stands, flat lids and bak-
Fig. 13. Pottery shapes of the micaceous ware and
the early Karaz pottery in Tepecik and Tülintepe
after Arsebük 1979.
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
277
ing trays in the rooms that indicate food storage,
preparation and consumption at the settlement of
the Early Bronze Age III. A couple of zoomorphic
high pedestal bowls that probably depict ducks, and
especially the increasingly occurring vessels with a
red surface colour, indicate the resumption of rela-
tions with Central Anatolia (Schmidt 2000; Yalçın
2012.347). In this period, we can also assert a re-
semblance of the pottery shapes of the Early Bronze
Age III from Alacahöyük and Arslantepe VI D (Con-
ti, Persiani 1993.385–387; Yalçın 2012.282, 304).
Scientific investigations on the Karaz pottery
from Tepecik
The systematic and serial scientific analyses of Ka-
raz pottery from Tepecik were missing until now.
However, analyses carried out on 11 samples pro-
vide important information regarding the choice of
raw material and the production and firing techni-
ques (Yalçın, Yalçın 2003). Mainly calcareous clays
were used when producing Karaz pottery, though
in the Late Chalcolithic potters probably preferred
calcareous clays. In contrast, in the Early Bronze Age
rather low-calcareous clays were used (Yalçın, Yal-
çın 2003.37). The examined sherds were inorgani-
cally tempered with crushed minerals like quartz
and grit, as well as organically with chaff.
The large proportion of chaff in paste helped to in-
crease the porosity of the Karaz vessels, giving them
better isolating properties. The vessels were gener-
ally fired in a reducing atmosphere, with tempera-
tures hardly exceeding 800°C. A graphite slip/coat-
ing could be detected on some vessels (Fig. 17). This
method or technique was particularly common in
Southeastern Europe in the Balkans, but also in Ana-
tolia from the Late Neolithic Period onwards until
the end of the Early Bronze Age. It gave the ceramic
vessels a silvery shine, which was a way to imitate
metal vessels and made them more attractive (Mar-
tino 2017.3–9). Some of the Karaz-sherds from Te-
pecik dated to the Chalcolithic have a graphite slip
applied in a way that can be compared with the
grainy graphite used in Southern Bulgaria and North-
ern Greece in the Late Neolithic (Martino 2017.9).
Interpretation of the results
During the Late Chalcolithic Period, transhumant or
semi-sedentary groups linked with the Kura-Araxes
culture might have displayed more presence in the
Altınova and Malatya plains. Probably interfering
with the indigenous population, they might have
frequented the settlements, perhaps even on a sea-
sonal basis. We can clearly observe an encounter of
different societies and change in the settlement pat-
terns at Arslantepe VI A-B1 in the Malatya plain at
the end of the Late Chalcolithic Period (Frangipane
2014.171). Yet we cannot prove the same situation
for the settlement mound of Tepecik, since there are
not enough architectural remains associated with
the early Karaz culture of this period. However, the
Fig. 14. Shapes of Karaz pottery from Tepecik, Late
Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age I (Yalçın 2011.Abb.
21).
Fig. 15. Shapes of Karaz pottery from Tepecik,
Early Bronze Age II (Yalçın 2011.44, Abb. 231).
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
278
simultaneous presence of the early Karaz pottery in
the well-established Uruk sector in Tepecik dated to-
wards the end of the Late Chalcolithic and in the
lower layers of the settlement mound in ‘trenches
8 O’ and ‘15 K’ would be a conceivable argument for
different populations living side by side, at least pe-
riodically. It is likely that the Late Uruk community
at the Uruk sector made use of the services of the
Karaz people (pastoral societies with transhumant
features) with connections to the Kura-Araxes cul-
ture. At the same period, these transhumant or semi
sedentary people were probably also in contact with
the Late Chalcolithic cultures of Central Anatolia.
We found therefore in the tripartite building of the
Late Uruk Period in Tepecik, as well as after the de-
struction of this building, a mix of the pottery of the
Late Uruk culture, Central Anatolian type pottery
and the early Karaz pottery. Besides animal hus-
bandry, these people probably had some knowledge
of metallurgy. An understanding of Eastern and Cen-
tral Anatolian metal ores, like the native copper in
Derekutugun near Çorum (Yalçın, İpek 2016), that
were essential to produce the metal objects for the
elitist demands of this period, was probably an im-
portant part of the services such people offered. The
Karaz people (Yakar 2020) might also have supplied
other raw materials, such as obsidian, salt and wool.
Wool was especially highly sought after by the Meso-
potamian communities that specialized in manufac-
turing woollen textiles.
Besides Central Anatolian and Mesopotamian pot-
tery, Karaz pottery was also present in Tepecik dur-
ing the Early Bronze Age I. As in the previous peri-
ods, the inhabitants of the settlement mound seem
to have continued to maintain contact with Central
Anatolia as well with the cultures of Syro-Mesopota-
mia, as both ceramics and other small finds from
these cultures were sufficiently present in Tepecik to
suggest this. However, the Karaz pottery was rep-
resented rather weakly here. After the abandonment
of the Late Uruk settlement people lived in simple
dwellings in Tepecik, at least for a short while at the
beginning of the Early Bronze Age I. A threat from
outside or existing conflicts among the different po-
pulation groups might possibly have occurred, be-
cause there were fortification walls at the settlement
mound of Tepecik, as well as in other major settle-
ments in Altınova, Malatya and almost in the enti-
rety of Anatolia (Frangipane 2001).
In the previous period and the Early Bronze Age I,
the surface colours of the early Karaz pottery found
in Tepecik are predominantly black, grey, dark
brown, buff and pale pink. Black exteriors and red
interiors are rather rare. Yet this colour scheme is a
typical feature that distinguishes the Central Anato-
lian influenced pottery with its dark surface colours
from the Karaz ceramics that we find either in the
Uruk sector or in the lower levels of the deep tren-
ches at Tepecik. Resembling Central Anatolian-type
wares, the paste of the early Karaz pottery in Tepe-
cik is tempered with fine grit and rather moderate-
ly with fine chaff. The firing indicates reducing con-
ditions during firing and low temperatures. In that
initial period, the early Karaz pottery shows little
decoration, but when ornamentation is present it
consists only of simple reliefs and small knobs. We
can compare the large funnel-shaped bowls with
white encrusted incisions with the similar shapes of
Central Anatolian Late Chalcolithic pottery. However,
most of the funnel-shaped bowls from Central Ana-
tolia are dark faced and not decorated. In Tepecik,
graphite polishing is present on some vessels, yet
not widely used.
In the Early Bronze Age II, the settlement mound
was still fortified. It is conceivable that in this peri-
od a major wave of migration from Northeastern
Anatolia, maybe also from Transcaucasia and North-
western Iran, arrived in the Elazıg and Altınova
Fig. 16. Shapes of Karaz pottery from Tepecik,
Early Bronze Age III (Yalçın 2012.47, Abb. 29a).
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
279
plains. The typical wattle and daub architecture at
some settlements like Taskun Mevkii, Degirmentepe
or Norsuntepe shows a stronger connection to the
Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture (Yalçın 2012.49,
50, 53, 55). The absence of this typical architecture
at Tepecik is probably due to the insufficient exca-
vations at the southwestern section of the settle-
ment mound, where we observe fragments of the
fortification in the Early Bronze Age I and II. Some
special shapes and ornamental features that we
know from the Kura-Araxes pottery of Georgia, Ar-
menia and Northwestern Iran appear frequently in
the pottery assemblages of Elazıg and the Altınova
plains in that period. In comparison to Taskun Mev-
kii and Norsuntepe, Tepecik shows more attachment
to the Shengavit and Yanık cultures in the Early
Bronze Age II, which might have come directly from
the Eastern Anatolian plains and Northwestern Iran
(Yalçın 2012.319, 320, 327, 328). A new ware, call-
ed the local painted ware of Altınova, appears (Mar-
ro 2000). Esin (1976) stressed the possible influence
of the west Iranian painted pottery tradition. This
new pottery indicates a growing cultural synthesis,
as it shows both the shapes and certain decorations
of Karaz culture infiltrating and merging with diffe-
rent pottery traditions.
In the Early Bronze Age II, we see skilfully produced
vessels and elaborated forms in the Karaz pottery,
such as angled rims or rail rims with high collar
necks. The fabrics are increasingly tempered with
fine chaff rather than with fine grit. In rare cases, we
observe incised geometric patterns on the exterior
of the small pots and bowls. The vessels are usual-
ly well polished. Graphite polish is present more
often on the small bowls than on large vessels. The
number of vessels with black exteriors and red in-
teriors increases, indicating a controlled fire, proba-
bly in the pottery kilns. The knowledge of the me-
thod underlying this change in colour must be part
of the technological achievements and the tradition
of the Karaz culture, and is probably based on an an-
cient traditions of Anatolia. We observe high cylin-
drical necks on the bowls or drinking vessels, as
well as at the small pots that also occur in the adja-
cent settlement mounds, like at Norsuntepe. This
typological feature is a significant indication for de-
termining the periodization, as the necks of these rail
rim vessels tend to become shorter in the following
Early Bronze Age III (Yalçın 2012).
The Early Bronze Age III was a period of population
growth, new social orientation and cultural synthe-
sis at several settlements in the Elazıg and Malatya
plains, as in Norsuntepe, Korucutepe, Tepecik and
Arslantepe, but also in Sos Höyük in Northeastern
Anatolia (Sagona 2000; 2014a). In the Altınova, a
social hierarchy emerged on the model of Norsun-
tepe, whereby according to the finds there is no in-
dication of an elitist worldview in the society. Rather,
a surplus at the storeroom of a palace-like complex
on the citadel mound of Norsuntepe points to a cen-
tral administration system in the Altınova plain,
which might have supplied the adjacent smaller set-
tlements in times of need (Hauptmann 2000). Ac-
cording to this idea, the semi-sedentary living style
of the Karaz people might have faded away. During
this period, Tepecik was one of the relatively large
settlements of Altınova, with a regular settlement
structure and building complexes on streets. As in
Arslantepe VI D, Tepecik was probably surrounded
by a fortification wall (Harmankaya, Erdogu 2002;
Yalçın 2012.60). We can presume that Tepecik was
subordinated to Norsuntepe and had a close rela-
tionship with this settlement mound, as we find the
same shapes and decoration patterns on the Karaz
pottery of both settlements. During the Early Bronze
Age III, Tepecik probably re-established contacts
with Central Anatolia. Some elements of the Central
Anatolian pottery seem to have influenced the finish
of the Karaz vessels. Simple bowls on the convex
shaped stands, zoomorphic vessels, groove decora-
tion on the exterior of the large pots, and surface
colours such as red or reddish brown were probably
due to the interregional cultural relations between
Central Anatolia and the Altınova plain (Yalçın
2012). These elements were applied to Karaz pot-
tery though it had still its own characteristics, such
as typical forms, alternating surface colours or styl-
ized relief decoration depicting animals. Wheel-
made simple ware and metallic ware were still pre-
sent in the pottery assemblages, which were found
only in very small quantities either in Tepecik or in
Norsuntepe (Yalçın 2012).
Fig. 17. Graphite coated Karaz-sherds from Tepe-
cik (photographs by Ünsal Yalçın, author’s archive).
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
280
As in the previous periods, in the Early Bronze Age
III the potters in Tepecik produced according to the
conventional finishing methods, such coiling or using
clay plates. There is no evidence of pottery kilns or
well-organized pottery workshops. Perhaps a sea-
sonal production can be assumed, which may have
been in the hands of women because of the orna-
ments and traditional designs used (Yalçın 2012.
346, 349–351). In the Early Bronze Age III, chaff is
the main temper added to the paste of the Karaz
pottery. The vessels have contrasting surface colours,
black and red, but they remain in the minority of
items found. However, the proportion of vessels with
red or reddish surface colours increases. Incised li-
near decoration after firing is distinctive in this pe-
riod. The amount of large storage vessels increases,
which probably indicates that they were used for
storing cereals (Yalçın 2012).
Unfortunately, the Karaz pottery of Tepecik has still
not been sufficiently published and evaluated. This
is to be regretted, as this pottery deserves our atten-
tion, because archaeologists have increasing debated
the issue of the Eastern Anatolian Karaz culture, as
the results of recent research are gradually becoming
available from Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia.
Tepecik played an important part during the expan-
sion and the heyday of this culture. Due to its stra-
tegic location not far from the Euphrates and on the
trade routes from Eastern Anatolia to Central and
Southern Anatolia, and to Northern Iran, Syria and
Mesopotamia, this settlement mound in the Altınova
plain was of particular importance, and was conce-
ivably intermediating between different cultural
landscapes. On one hand, the importance of Tepecik
was probably related to the trade in raw materials
such as metals, both on the river route and the in-
land routes (Bıçakçı 1982). On the other hand, the
knowledge of the processing and refining of metals
was a strength of the people who settled down either
here or at the other sites of the Altınova, like in Nor-
suntepe (Hauptmann 2000). Over the course of one
millennium, a population emerged in Altınova based
on intermingling with the indigenous ethnic groups
and a probably semi-sedentary people who gradual-
ly settled down here, commuting between Central
and Northeastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and North-
western Iran. The settlers of this plain created an
Anatolian cultural synthesis based on an originally
pastoral culture covering a large area from Transcau-
casia, Northwestern Iran, Eastern, Southeastern Ana-
tolia and the North-Central Anatolia, Northwestern
Syria and the Levant.
The present work is a brief and updated summary of the dissertation completed in 2012 at the Philipps Uni-
versity of Marburg (Germany) with the title “The Karaz Pottery of Tepecik in Eastern Anatolia”, which was pub-
lished in German in the same year. It is based on the excavation results of the years 1968–1974. The interim
reports of these excavations have been brought out in annual Keban Project publications, yet a final evaluation
is still pending. For this reason the results presented here, especially the stratigraphic and chronological interpre-
tations, should be regarded as preliminary. However, the Karaz phenomenon has recently become the subject of
archaeological investigations again. Thus, there is a need to re-examine the role of Tepecik and its Karaz pottery
in an article written in English, in order to make the issues under discussion accessible to a broad scientific re-
search community. This is especially the case when we consider that the final publication of the Tepecik is still
pending, though more than fifty years have passed since the last excavations. Since the archaeological data of
Tepecik is not completely accessible for researchers, insufficient and sometimes incorrect information circulates
in the publications that compare some early material from Tepecik with the finds of other contemporary settle-
ments.
When writing this paper, care was taken to consider the latest literature as well as the most recent hypotheses
regarding the complex interplay among the interregional cultural landscapes where this important prehistoric
culture spread.
The paper is dedicated to my teacher and mentor, Ufuk Esin, head of the excavations of Tepecik and one of the
most important pioneers of Anatolian archaeology, who left us far too early.
I am particularly grateful to my friend Prof. Dr. Kathleen James Chakraborty from the School of Art History
& Cultural Policy of University College Dublin for proofreading the English of this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
281
Albright W. F. 1926. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age.
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
6: 13–74.
Alizadeh K., Sameib S., Mohammadkhanic K., Heidarid R.,
and Tykote R. H. 2018. Craft Production at Köhne Shahar,
a Kura-Araxes Settlement in Iranian Azerbaijan. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 51: 127–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2018.06.006
Altunkaynak G., Isıklı M., and Erkmen M. 2018. In the
Light of New Evidence from the Erzurum: An Overview of
Kura-Araxes Funerary Practices in Eastern Anatolia. Erzu-
rum Ovası’ndan Yeni Kanıtlar Isıgında Dogu Anadolu’da-
ki Kura-Aras Ölü Gömme Uygulamalarına Genel Bir Bakıs.
Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 1: 73–93.
http://tubaar.tuba.gov.tr/index.php/tubaar/article/view/
424/442
Amiran R. 1952. Connections between Anatolia and Pa-
lestine in the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Jour-
nal 2: 89–103.
1989. A Note on two Items of the Khirbet Kerak Ware
Culture. In K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N. Öz-
güç (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Stu-
dies in Honour of Tahsin Özgüç. Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi. Ankara: 9–10.
Arsebük G. 1979. Altınova’da (Elazıg) Koyu Yüzlü Açkılı
ve Karaz Türü Çanak Çömlek Arasındaki İliskiler. VIII.
Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 11–15 Ekim 1976. Kongre-
ye Sunulan Bildiriler I: 81–92.
Badalyan R. S. 2014. New Data on the Periodization and
Chronology of the Kura-Araxes Culture of Armenia. Palé-
orient 40(2): 71–92. https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_01
53-9345_2014_num_40_2_5636
Balossi Restelli F. 2015. Hearth and Home. Interpreting
Fire Installations at Arslantepe, Eastern Turkey, from the
Fourth to the Beginning of the Second Millennium BCE.
Paleorient 41(1): 127–151.
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2015.5659
Batiuk S., Rothman M. S. 2007. Early Transcaucasian Cul-
tures and Their Neighbors. Penn Museum. Expedition
49(1): 1–9.
Bıçakçı E. 1982. Tepecik Höyügün’de Kalkolitik Çag Mi-
marisi. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Istanbul.
Bilgen A. N., Bilgen Z. 2015. Orta Tunç Çag Yerlesimi (IV.
Tabaka). Middle Bronze Age Settlement (Layer IV). In A.
N. Bilgen (ed.), Seyitömer Höyük I. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Ya-
yınları. Istanbul: 61–118.
Braidwood R. J., Braidwood L. S. 1960. Excavations in
the Plain of Antioch I. The Earliest Assemblages A-J. Vo-
lume LXI. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute
Publications. Chicago.
Breniquet C., Michel C. (eds.) 2014. Wool Economy in
the Ancient near East and the Aegean: From the Begin-
nings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile In-
dustry. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
Burney C. A. 1958. Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcholithic
and Early Bronze Age. Anatolian Studies VIII: 157–209.
1961. Excavations at Yaniktepe, North-West Iran. Iraq
XXIII: 138–153.
Conti M., Persiani C. 1993. In M. Frangipane, M. Mellink,
M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, and H. Hauptmann (eds.), When
World Collides. Cultural Developments in Eastern Ana-
tolia in the Early Bronze Age. Between the Rivers and
over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopo-
tamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Roma: 361–413.
Çalıskan Akgül H. 2012. Looking to the west: the Late
Chalcolithic Red-Black Ware of the Upper Euphrates Re-
gion. Origini XXXIV: 97–109.
Dschaparidze O. 2001. Zur frühen Metallurgie Georgiens
vom 3. bis zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Georgien. In I.
Gambaschidze, A. Hauptmann, R. Slotta, and Ü. Yalçın
(eds.), Schätze aus dem Land des Goldenen Vlies. Kata-
log der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bo-
chum in Verbindung mit dem Zentrum für Archäologische
Forschungen der Georgischen Akademie der Wissenschaft-
en. Tblissi. Bochum: 92–119.
Erim A. 1982. Tepecik Höyügü’nde İlk Tunç Çagı Ker-
piç Mimarisi. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Istan-
bul. İstanbul.
Esin U. 1970. Tepecik Excavations 1968 Campaign, Pre-
liminary Report. In METU Keban Dam Area Salvage Pro-
ject Executive Committee (ed.), 1968 Sommer Work. Mid-
dle East Technical University Keban Project Publications.
Serial I. No. 1. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara:
159–179.
1972. Tepecik Excavations, 1970. In METU Keban Dam
Area Salvage Project Executive Committee (ed.), Keban
Project 1970 Activities. Middle East Technical Univer-
sity Keban Project Publications, Series I. No.3. Türk Ta-
rih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: 149–158, Pl. 99–120.
1974. Tepecik Excavations 1971. In METU Keban Dam
Area Salvage Project Executive Committee (ed.), Keban
Project 1971 Activities. Middle East Technical Univer-
References
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
282
sity Keban Project Publications, Series I. No.4. Türk Ta-
rih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: 123–136, Pl. 97–111.
1976. Tepecik Excavations 1972. In METU Keban Dam
Area Salvage Project Executive Committee (ed.), Keban
Project 1972 Activities. Middle East Technical Univer-
sity Keban Project Publications, Series I. No. 5. Türk Ta-
rih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: 109–147.
1982. Tepecik Excavations, 1974. In METU Keban Dam
Area Salvage Project Executive Committee (ed.), Keban
Project 1974–1975 Activities. Middle East Technical
University Keban Project Publications, Series I. No.7.
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: 95–127. Pl. 53–
78.
1985. Tepecik ve Tülintepe Kazılarına Ait Arkeometrik
Arastırmaların Arkeolojik Açıdan Degerlendirilmesi. Tü-
bitak – Arutob II: 157–182.
1993. The relief decoration on the prehistoric pottery
of Tülintepe. Between the Rivers and over the Moun-
tains. In M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P.
Matthiae, and M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers
and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et
Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Universita di
Roma “La Sapienza”. Roma: 105–119.
Fidan E, Sarı D., and Türkteki M. 2015. An Overview of
the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age. European Jour-
nal of Archaeology 18(1): 60–89.
https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000070
Frangipane M. 2000. The Late Chalcolithic/EB I Sequence
at Arslantepe. Chronological and Cultural Remarks from
a Frontier-Site. In C. Marro, H. Hauptmann (eds.), Chro-
nologie des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe–
IIIe Millenaires. Varia Anatolica XI. De Boccard. Paris:
439–472.
2001. The Transition between two Opposing Forms of
Power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the Beginning of the
3rd Millennium. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji
Dergisi 4: 1–24.
2004. La crisi del Sistema palatino e il tramonto del
consenso. Il nuovo potere politico-militare agli inizi del
III millennio ‘Alle origini del potere. In M. Frangipane
(ed.), Arslantepe, a collina del Leoni. Milano: 103–113.
2012. The Collapse of the 4th Millennium Centralised
System at Arslantepe and the Far-Reaching Changes in
3rd Millennium Societies. Origini XXXIV: 237–260.
2014. After Collapse: Continuity and Disruption in the
Settlement by Kura-Araxes-linked Pastoral Groups at
Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey). New Data. Paléorient 40
(2): 169–182. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2014.5641
2019. Arslantepe. The Rise and Development of a Poli-
tical Centre: From Temple to Palace to a Fortified Cita-
del Arslantepe. Siyasi Merkezin Yükselisi ve Düsüsü:
Tapınaktan Saraya Saraydan Surla Çevrili Bir Kente. In
N. Durak, M. Frangipane (eds.), Arslantepe. Proceedings
of the 1. International Archaeological Symposium. 1.
Uluslararası Arkeoloji Sempozyumu Bildirileri. İnönü
Üniversitesi Yayınları/İnönü University Press 71. Malat-
ya: 71–104.
Frangipane M., Di Nocera G. M., Hauptmann A., Morbidel-
li P., Palmieri A., Sadori L., Schultz M., and Schmidt-Schultz
T. 2001. New symbols of a new power in a ‘royal’ tomb
from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Paléorient
27(2): 105–139. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2001.4733
Greenberg R. 2007.Transcaucasian Colors: Khirbet Kerak
Ware at Khirbet Kerak (Tel Bet Yerah). In B. Lyonnet
(ed.), Les Cultures du Caucas. CNRS Editions. Paris: 257–
268.
Greenberg R., Paz S., Wengrow D., and Iserlis M. 2012. Tel
Beth Yerah: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant. Near
Eastern Archaeology 75(2): 88–107.
https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.75.2.0088
Harmankaya S., Erdogu B. 2002. Türkiye Arkeolojik Yer-
lesmeleri. 4a, 4b (İlk Tunç Çagı). Task Yayınları. Istan-
bul.
Hauptmann H. 1976. Die Grabungen auf dem Norsun-Te-
pe, 1972. In METU Keban Dam Area Salvage Project Exe-
cutive Committee (ed.), Keban Project 1972 Activities.
Middle East Technical University Keban Project Publica-
tions, Series I. No.5. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Anka-
ra: 71–109, Pl. 29–62.
1979. Die Grabungen auf dem Norsun-Tepe, 1973. In
METU Keban Dam Area Salvage Project Executive Com-
mittee (ed.), Keban Project 1973 Activities. Middle
East Technical University Keban Project Publications,
Series I. No.6. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara:
61–78, Pl. 26–45.
1982. Die Grabungen auf dem Norsun-Tepe, 1974. In
METU Keban Dam Area Salvage Project Executive Com-
mittee (ed.), Keban Project 1974–75 Activities. Middle
East Technical University Keban Project Publications,
Series I. No. 7. Ankara: 41–70, Pl. 13–52.
2000. Zur Chronologie des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. In
C. Marro, H. Hauptmann (eds.), Chronologie des Pays
du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe – IIIe Millenai-
res. Varia Anatolica XI. De Boccard. Paris: 419–425.
Hood S. 1951. Excavations at Tabara el-Akrad, 1948–49.
Anatolian Studies I: 113–147.
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
283
Isıklı M. 2015. The Kura-Araxes Culture in the Erzurum
Region: The Process of its Development. Kura-Aras Kültü-
rü’nün Erzurum Bölgesi’ndeki Gelisim Süreci. Türkiye Bi-
limler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 18: 51–69.
Kaymakçı S. 2017. Dogu Karadeniz Bölgesi’nde Karaz-
Erken Transkafkasya Kültürü’ne Ait Yeni Bir Yerlesim:
Alucra-Gavur Kalesi, Giresun. A New Settlement Belong-
ing to Karaz-Early Transcaucasian Culture in Eastern Black
Sea Region. Alurca-Gavur Kalesi, Giresun. Türkiye Bilim-
ler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 21: 25–34.
Kelly-Buccellati M. 1974. The Early Transcaucasian Cul-
ture: Geographical and Chonological Interaction. Unpub-
lished PhD Dissertation. University of Chicago. Chicago.
1990. Trade in Metals in the Third Millennium: North-
eastern Syria and Eastern Anatolia. In P. Matthiae, M. v.
Loon, and H. Weiss (eds.), Resurrecting the Past. A
Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni. Netherlands Archaeo-
logical Institute. Istanbul: 117–133.
Kosay H. Z. 1938. Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yap-
tırılan Alaca Höyük Hafriyatı, 1936’da Yapılan Çalıs-
malar ve Kesiflere Ait İlk Rapor. Türk Tarih Kurumu Ya-
yınları V.  Seri, No. 2. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. An-
kara.
1976. Keban Projesi Pulur Kazısı 1968–1970. Keban
Project Pulur Excavations. Orta Dogu Teknik Üniversi-
tesi Keban Projesi Yayınları. Seri III, No. 1. Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara.
1977. Pulur (Sakyol) Etnografya ve Folklor Arastır-
maları. Orta Dogu Teknik Üniversitesi Keban Projesi
Yayınları. Seri 2. No. 2. Ankara.
1979. Keban’ın Pulur (Sakyol) Höyügü Kazısı’ndaki Kut-
sal Ocaklar. VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye Sunu-
lan Bildiriler I. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara:
77–80. Pl. 41–44.
Kosay H. Z., Turfan K. 1959. Erzurum Karaz Kazısı Ra-
poru. Belleten XXIII(91): 349–413.
Kozbe G. 1990. Van-Dilkaya Höyügü Erken Transkafkas-
ya Keramigi. VII. Arastırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: 533–554.
Kökten I. K. 1952. Anadolu’da Prehistorik Yerlesme Ye-
rleri ve 1944–48 Yıllarında Yapılan Tarih Öncesi Arastır-
maları. IV. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye Sunulan Teb-
ligler. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: 194–204.
Kushnareva K. 1997. The Southern Caucasus in Prehi-
story. Stages of Cultural and Socioeconomic Develop-
ment from the Eighth to the Second Millennium BC. The
University Museum. University of Philadelphia. Philadel-
phia.
Kuftin B. A. 1941. Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Triale-
ti. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Gruzinskoi SSR. Tiflis.
Lamb W. 1937. Excavations at Kusura near Afyon Karahi-
sar I. Archaeologia LXXXVI: 1–64.
1954. The Culture of North-East Anatolia and Its Neigh-
bours. Anatolian Studies IV: 21–32.
Maisler B., Stekelis M., and A.-Yonah M. 1952. The Exca-
vations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak) 1944–1946. Is-
rael Exploration Journal 2: 165–173.
Marro C. 2000. Vers une chronologie comparée des Pays
du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVème-IIIème millénai-
res. In C. Marro, H. Hauptmann (eds.), Chronologies des
Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVème-IIIème mil-
lénaires. Varia Anatolica XI. De Boccard. Paris: 473–494.
Martino S. 2017. Graphite-Treated Pottery in the North-
eastern Mediterranean from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze
Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(1): 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.80.1.0003
Mellaart J. 1967. The Earliest Settlements in Western
Asia. From the Ninth to the Fifth Millennium BC. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
Miyake Y. 1996. Dogu Anadolu’da Koyu Yüzlü Açkılı Ça-
nak Çömlek. The Dark Face Burnished Ware in Eastern
Anatolia. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Istanbul.
Istanbul.
De Miroschedji P. 2000. La Ceramique de Khirbet Kerak
en Syro-Palestine: Etat de la Question. In C. Marro, H.
Hauptmann (eds.), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et
de l’Euphrate aux IVème-IIIème millénaires. Varia Ana-
tolica XI. De Boccard. Paris: 255–279.
Orthmann W. 1963. Die Keramik der Frühbronzezeit
aus Inneranatolien. Verlag Geb. Mann. Berlin.
Ökse T. 1993. Verbreitung der transkaukasischen Kultur
in der Sivas-Region. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43: 133–146.
Özdogan M. 2000. An Overview from Anatolia and Pros-
pects for Future Research. In C. Marro, H. Hauptmann
(eds.), Chronologie des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euph-
rate aux IVe – IIIe Millenaires. Varia Anatolica XI. De
Boccard. Paris: 497–501.
2020. Tülintepe Revisited. In H. G. Yalçın, O. Stege-
meier (eds.), Metallurgica Anatolica. Festschrift für
Ünsal Yalçın anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags. Ünsal
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
Yalçın 65. Yasgünü Armagan Kitabı. Ege Yayınları. Is-
tanbul: 77–85.
Parzinger H. 2000. Transkaukasien, Ostanatolien und
westlicher Iran im 3. Vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Das
Problem der Kura-Araxes Kultur. In R. Dittmann, B. Hrou-
da, U. Löw, P. Matthiea, R. Mayer-Opificius, and S. Thür-
wächter (eds.), Variatio Delectat. Iran und der Westen.
Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 272. Münster: 539–565.
Palumbi G. 2007. Mid-Fourth Millennium Red-Black Bur-
nished Wares from Anatolia: A Cross-Comparison. Anes
27: 39–58.
2008. The Red and Black. Social and Cultural Inter-
action between the Upper Euphrates and Southern
Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third mil-
lennium B.C. Università di Roma “La Sapienza” (Studi
di Preistoria Orientale 2). Roma.
2017. Push and Pull Factors? The Kura-Araxes ‘Expan-
sion’ from a Different Perspective: The Upper Euphra-
tes Valley. In E. Rova, M. Tonussi (eds.), At the North-
ern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology. Recent Re-
search on Caucasia and Anatolia in the Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the International Humboldt-Kolleg Ve-
nice, 9th January–12th January 2013. Subartu XXXVIII.
Brepols. Thurnhout: 113–133.
2019. The expansion of the Kura-Araxes culture in Iran:
what role for the Uruk? In J. W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mash-
kour, and R. Vallet (eds.), The Iranian Plateau during
the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Pro-
duction and Trade. MOM Éditions. Lyon: 29–50.
Palumbi G., Chataigner Ch. 2014. The Kura-Araxes Cul-
ture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant:
Between Unity and Diversity. A Synthesis. Paléorient 40
(2): 247–260. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2014.5645
Philip G. 1999. Complexity and Diversity in in the South-
ern Levant during the Third Millennium B.C: The Evidence
of Khirbet Kerak Ware. Journal of Mediterranean Archa-
eology 12: 26–57.
https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v12i1.26
Philip G., Millard A. R. 2000. Khirbet Kerak Ware in the
Levant: The Implications of Radiocarbon Chronology and
Spatial Distribution. In C. Marro, H. Hauptmann (eds.),
Chronologie des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux
IVe–IIIe Millenaires. Varia Anatolica XI. De Boccard. Pa-
ris: 279–296.
Rothman M., Kozbe G. 1997. Mus in the Early Bronze Age.
Anatolian Studies 47: 105–126.
Sagona A. 1984. The Caucasian Region in the Early
Bronze Age. Vol. I-III. British Archaeological Records IS
214 (i). Archaeopress. Oxford.
2000. Sos Höyük and the Erzurum Region in Late Pre-
history: A Provisional Chronology for Northeast Anato-
lia. In C. Marro, H. Hauptmann (eds.), Chronologie des
Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe–IIIe Mille-
naires. Varia Anatolica XI. De Boccard. Paris: 329–373.
2014a. Rethinking the Kura-Araxes Genesis. Paléorient
40(2): 23–46. https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153
-9345_2014_num_40_2_5634
2014b. The Kura-Araxes Culture Complex: A History of
Early Research. In A. Özfırat (ed.), Arkeolojiyle Geçen
Bir Yasam İçin Yazılar. Veli Sevin’e Armagan. Scrip-
ta. Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin. A Life Immersed
in Archaeology. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul: 21–32.
Saglamtimur H. 2017. Siirt-Basur Höyük Erken Tunç Çagı
I Mezarları: Ön rapor (Early Bronze Age I Cemetery in
Siirt-Basur Höyük: Preliminary Report). Ege Üniversitesi
Arkeoloji Dergisi XXII: 1–18.
Saglamtimur H., Batıhan M., and Aydogan İ. 2019. Basur
Höyük & Arslantepe the Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary
Customs at the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age. In N.
Durak, M. Frangipane (eds.), Arslantepe. Proceedings of
the 1. International Archaeological Symposium. 1. Ulusla-
rarası Arkeoloji Sempozyumu Bildirileri. İnönü Üniversite-
si Yayınları/İnönü University Press. Malatya: 203–215.
Simonian H., Rothman M. 2015. Regarding Ritual Beha-
viour in Shengavit, Armenia. Ancient Near Eastern Stu-
dies 52: 1–46.
Steadman S. R., Ross J. C., McMahon G., and Gorny R. L.
2008. Excavations on the north-central plateau: The Chal-
colithic and Early Bronze Age occupation at Çadır Höyük.
Anatolian Studies 58: 47–86.
Steadman S. R., McMahon G., Ross J. C., Cassis M., Emre
Serifoglu T., Arbuckle B. S., Adcock S. E., Alpaslan Rooden-
berg S., von Baeyer M., and Lauricella A. J. 2015. The 2013
and 2014 Excavation Seasons at Çadır Höyük on the Ana-
tolian North Central Plateau. Anatolica XLI: 87–124.
Takaoglu T. 2000. Hearth structures in the religious pat-
tern of Early Bronze Age northeast Anatolia. Anatolian
Studies 50: 11–16.
Todd A. I. 1973. Anatolia and the Khirbet Kerak Problem.
In H. A. Hoffner Jr. (ed.), Orient and Occident, Essays
presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his
sixty-fifth Birthday. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22.
Neukirchener Verlag. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 181–206.
284
Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia
285
Yakar J. 2020. Assessing the LBA-EIA Ethno-Cultural
Continuity in Eastern Anatolia. In H. G. Yalçın, O. Stege-
meier (eds.), Metallurgica Anatolica. Festschrift für Ün-
sal Yalçın anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags. Ünsal Yal-
çın 65. Yasgünü Armagan Kitabı. Ege Yayınları. Istan-
bul: 197–207.
Yalçın H. G. 2011. Die Karaz-Kultur in Ostanatolien. In Ü.
Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal V. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft
24. Bochum: 31–53.
2012. Die Karaz Keramik von Tepecik in Ostanato-
lien. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul.
Yalçın Ü. 2003. Metallurgie in Anatolien. In Th. Stöllner,
G. Körlin, G. Steffens, and J. Cierny (eds.), Man and Min-
ing: Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on occasion
of his 65th Birthday. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 16. Bochum:
527–536.
Yalçın Ü., İpek Ö. 2016. Prähistorische Kupfergewin-
nung in Derekutugun, Anatolien. Band I: Montanar-
chäologische Forschungen in den Jahren 2009–2011.
Ein Vorbericht. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 30. Bochum.
Yalçın Ü., Yalçın H. G. 2003. Zur Karaz-Keramik von Te-
pecik – Ostanatolien. In M. Özbasaran, O. Tanındı, and A.
Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Ho-
mo Amatus: Güven Arsebük. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul: 321–
342.
2009. Evidence for Early Use of Tin at Tülintepe in East-
ern Anatolia. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji
Dergisi 12: 123–142.