Foreign Impact and Local Creativity. The Case of Late Bronze Age Seals from Aegean Anatolia
Abstract
7
Full text
Foreign Impact and Local Creativity. The Case of Late Bronze Age Seals from Aegean Anatolia Magda Pieniążek ABSTRACT Late Bronze Age seals and sealings from Aegean Anatolia (the western part of western Anatolia) are avery heterogeneous collection of finds. Especially widespread are seals belonging to the Aegean tradition, including earlier hard stone seals and later soÁ stone lentoids related to the Mycenaean Mainland Popular Group. Also represented are seals executed in the central Anatolian style, which, however, arrive later to the area of study. In both groups, imports as well as local production are aested, and some seals show individual features. e spread of these objects is related to various factors, such as commercial and cultural exchange, but also political and military impacts. Participation in long-distance trade networks is confirmed by the presence of seals coming from the eastern Mediterranean. KEYWORDS Seals; imports; local production; Aegean Anatolia; western Anatolia; Late Bronze Age. INTRODUCTION Aegean Anatolia is defined in this paper as the western part of avast territory stretching between the Gulf of Antalya in the south and the east coast of the Marmara Sea in the north, which is usually referred to as ‘western Anatolia’. e area comprises not only the sea coast but the entire region dominated by river valleys and lowlands, characterised by Mediterranean or sub-Mediterranean climatic conditions and vegetation (Fig. 1). is region had various connections with the Aegean world, in contrast to the eastern part of western Anatolia, where cultural relations with central Anatolia were clearly visible (Gunter 2006; Mac Sweeny 2010, 14–15). e term ‘Aegean Anatolia’ corresponds with Pavúk’s‘Western Anatolia proper’, comprising his coastal, southwestern, and northwestern poery groups (Pavúk 2015, 92–104, fig. 7–9; Pavúk– Horejs 2018, 474–476, fig. 15), as well as the Iron Age cultural landscapes of Caria, Lydia, Mysia, Ionia, Aeolia, and the Troad. During the Late Bronze Age, western Anatolia’sneighbours, the Hiite Empire and the Mycenaean palace-states, were strong organisations from amilitary, economic, and political point of view. erefore, various activities conducted by these polities had serious implications for local western Anatolian cultures. is is true both in the case of the Aegean coast as well as the regions further to the east. However, western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age also hosted ambitious political entities, as is known from archaeological and wrien sources. Unfortunately, most of the textual evidence (chronicles, leers, treaties) was composed in Hausa (Hawkins 1998; 2015; Beckman 1999), and therefore it is surely, to acertain degree, influenced by the official state propaganda. It was wrien from the imperial Hiite and not alocal perspective and focused almost solely on military and political issues relevant to the Hiite state. Nevertheless, these sources give us priceless insights into western Anatolian history. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2, 7–38
8STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 One of the most significant research problems related to the archaeology of western Anatolia is the fact that its local material culture is still much less known than that of neighbouring areas. As aresult, narratives about the region have atendency to view things too much from the perspective of Hiite central Anatolia or the Minoan/Mycenaean Aegean. In the first case, the responsibility lies mainly with said wrien sources, especially the reports on conquests conducted by Mursili II towards the end of the 14th century and the following establishment of vassal states (Hawkins 1998, 10–31; Hawkins 2015; 2020; Beckman 1999). In the second case, the abundant presence of Aegean material culture culture such as Minoan or Mycenaean poery, has always been decisive. is led to the repeated labelling of the western Anatolian coast as a‘periphery’ of the Aegean world, as well as to acertain extrapolation of the ideas from later Iron Age colonisation into the Late Bronze Age context (Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2018, 60–62). is approach has frequently been criticised during the last two decades, and the necessity of aprimary focus on the local culture, traditions and inventions has been highlighted (Mac Sweeney 2010; Stampolidis etal. 2015; Roosevelt etal. forthcoming). Equally misleading may be the understanding of Aegean Anatolia as a‘contested territory’, as has been suggested in the case of Troy (Cline 2008; Rose 2008, 420). e Troad, as well as other western Anatolian regions, were, firstly, independent polities that followed their own political paths. ey were indeed involved in interregional relations, and their external politics were ambitious and stretched between the Aegean, central Anatolia, and Egypt, as demonstrated by both archaeological finds and textual evidence. We should not reduce this entire area to the status of something marginal, something ‘in-between’, without its own identity and policies. ese aspects of the state of the research have obscured the contextualising of Aegean Anatolia within aLate Bronze Age Anatolian-eastern Mediterranean perspective. However, thanks to recent scholarly efforts, including new fieldwork and new publications, the sitFig. 1: Location of Aegean Anatolia.
9MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK uation has begun to change (e.g. Stampolidis etal. 2015; Aykurt– Erkanal 2017; Günel 2017; Erkanal-Öktü 2018; Roosevelt etal. 2018; Pieniążek etal. eds. 2020; Sazcı 2020; Roosevelt etal. forthcoming; Pieniążek– Pavúk forthcoming). Nevertheless, influences and imports also belong to the material culture of Aegean Anatolia. e exchange of objects, spread of fashions, and transfer of technologies shaped the local cultural milieu: it inspired both the elites, who were the sponsors, as well as the artisans responsible for the manufacture. is is the perspective from which we should look at the seals found in this area (Fig. 2). Both older and recent publications have referred to seals and sealings as being executed in Minoan, Mycenaean, Hiite or even more exotic styles, and they create avery interesting collection of objects of different affinities and implications (Fig. 3). Simultaneously, they reflect in the most obvious way the major research questions and problems defined for Late Bronze Age western Anatolia so far. is paper is afirst step towards the systematisation and interpretation of the relevant evidence. Fig. 2: Late Bronze Age seals in Aegean Anatolia. 1– Kilia; 2– Troy; 3– Beşik-Tepe; 4– Panaztepe; 5– Sardis; 6– Liman Tepe; 7– Izmir; 8– Bakla Tepe; 9– Metropolis; 10– Ephesos; 11– Priene; 12– Miletos; 13– Tavşan Adası; 14– Pilavtepe; 15– Çine-Tepecik; 16– Aydın. All maps made in QGIS by N. Finkel.
10 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 WESTERN ANATOLIAN GLYPTIC TRADITIONS e use of seals in western Anatolia has along tradition: the earliest examples are known from the Neolithic (Çilingiroğlu 2009). During the 3rd millennium BC, stamp seals have been reported mainly from central-western Anatolia and the Aegean coast (Karataş Yüksel 2019; Massa– Tuna 2019; Rahmstorf 2016; Türkteki 2020; Zidarov 2020). Only afew Middle Bronze Age seals are known: on the Aegean coast, they are predominantly related to connections with the Minoan world (Pini 2004, 679–682, 687–688; Niemeier 2005, 3, 8, pl. 7–9, 19), however early links with central Anatolia are present, as well, as indicated by the hematite seal probably coming from the area of Aydin (cat. no. 1). e Late Bronze Age seals found in Aegean Anatolia are much more numerous (Fig. 4). is is avery diverse collection of objects with great interpretative potential, largely overlooked in previous research. One of the few who repeatedly drew aention to the importance of this group of finds is Armağan Erkanal-Öktü, who also excavated the cemeteries at Panaztepe, which has been the most productive findspot of seals within the study area (Erkanal-Öktü Fig. 3: Distribution of seals according to style.
11MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK 2000; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 127–131). Ashort overview of Aegean-style seals is also included by Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes (2009) in their publication of the rock-crystal example from Tavşan Adası. Some of the seals and sealings have received particular aention in scholarly discussions, mainly due to their cultural-historical significance, like, for example, those from Troy (Hawkins– Easton 1996; Jablonka 2007; Pieniążek 2018; Zidarov 2020), sealings from Çine-Tepecik (Günel– Herbort 2010; 2014) or the silver ‘Trakansnawa/Tarkondemos seal’ from the area of Izmir (Hawkins 1998; Hawkins– Morpurgo-Davis 1998), but this topic has never received acomprehensive study. In the text that follows, Iwill first summarise basic information about western Anatolian glyptic traditions and then discuss their meaning and function within the local societies. Detailed descriptions of the seals are included in the catalogue below. Altogether, 71 Late Bronze Age seals are reported from our area of study, almost half of which (at least 27 examples) were recovered in Panaztepe (Fig. 4). e findspots of eight seals (from ‘the area of Izmir’, Kilia, Sardis, and Priene) are not secure, since they are old finds coming from the antiquities trade. In the Bibliography, two further specimens are mentioned, but these Fig. 4: Distribution of seals according to the number of finds at individual sites.
12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 are especially problematic cases: abronze seal ‘from Western Anatolia’ in the Perk collection (Dinçol– Dinçol 2010; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 125) and the sealing ‘from Karaburun’ (cat. no. 15; Mora 1987, 160, 168, 170, no. VIb: 3.1; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 130). is last one is very interesting, but since it was never properly published, it is difficult to contextualise the seal impression. Most of the seals can be roughly described as belonging to an ‘Aegean’ stylistic tradition and only eight seals and two sealings to an ‘Anatolian’ one. However, these stylistic aributions are acomplicated issue, as will be addressed in detail below. Furthermore, from Panaztepe come the scarabs and one scarab impression, one Levantine cylinder seal and one anchor seal, which also belongs to the eastern Mediterranean tradition. Also very important is the fact that three sites show clear hints of local seal production: Liman Tepe, Panaztepe, and Troy, along with Beşik-Tepe. Most of the seals are made of stone (Fig. 5): hard stone prevails during the earlier stages, and soÁ stone such as steatite was the material of later seals. Bone/horn is also well represented, especially in the north (nine examples from Troy and Beşik-Tepe), while bronze, glass, and faience are represented by only afew examples. ere is also one gold and one silver seal. Fig. 5: Distribution of seals according to material of manufacture.
13MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK AEGEAN TRADITION e majority of the seals which can be dated by context and/or based on stylistic features come from the later phases of the Late Bronze Age, and only afew belong to earlier stages: LM/LH I–II (roughly LB I, according to alocal western Anatolian periodisation; correlation based on Pavúk 2020). ese are: an agate cushion seal probably from Priene (cat. no. 61, MM III/LM I), arock crystal seal from Tavşan Adası (cat. no. 63, LM Ia), agold seal ring from Kilia (cat. no. 16, LM I), acarnelian amygdaloid from Ephesus (cat. no. 10, LM I), arose quartz lentoid from Miletos IVb/V(cat. no. 27, LM II/IIIa) and acarnelian amygdaloid from Troy (cat. no. 64). Unfortunately, only afew older seals come from secure contexts. One of them is the rock crystal seal from Tavşan Adası which has been published in detail by Bertemes– Hornung- -Bertemes (2009). e seal was found in mudbrick debris from the collapse of one of the houses of period TA 4; consequently, it belonged to the final stages of that period, LM Ia, which roughly conforms with the stylistic date of the seal. e seal is in perfect condition; it shows aship with aset, wide sail under the wind. It belongs therefore to an exclusive group among the Aegean seals: agroup with apicture of asailing ship. Unfortunately, none of the other seals of this family comes from asecure context, but they date to the Neopalatial Period, based on stylistic features, and are said to come from Crete. e closest parallel is acarnelian lentoid from the C. N. Colville collection (CMSVIII.106; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 176, fig. 4:14). Seals executed in asimilar style are sometimes described as ‘talismanic’. Since almost all of them were found on Crete, and they are related to the early Neopalatial Minoan elite, the authors postulate that the seal is one piece of evidence of the Minoan character of Tavşan Adası at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009). Another seal recovered in arelatively secure context is arose quartz lentoid decorated with an image of alion aacking agriffin (cat. no. 27). It comes from alayer dating to the transition between Miletos IVb and V, meaning LM II/IIIA (Niemeier 2005, 8, fig. 22; Zenzen 2015; CMS/ Arachne VS3.480). e findspot was in an area which had most likely been asanctuary during Miletos IVa, though it is not clear if this was still the case during IVb. e seal is, in various respects, exceptional. e fight between the griffin and the lion is quite acommon motif in Minoan glyptic, but in the majority of cases, it is the griffin which aacks the lion and not the other way around (Zenzen 2015, 398). Zenzen postulated that this unusual iconography, together with ahigh technical quality, speaks to it belonging to aperson of an outstanding social status (Zenzen 2015, 400–402). Iwould like to add that the gemstone the seal was made of was also special: the CMS database shows only six other seals made of rose quartz. Interestingly, almost all of them were dated to the last stages of Minoan hard stone glyptic, based on stylistic traits: mainly LM II–IIIA. Zenzen and Niemeier propose aMinoan (strictly speaking, aCretan) origin of the seal and possibly also of the seal owner. In any case, this was certainly avery valuable object, definitively the possession of aperson of high social standing. e only other early seal with good contextual information is acarnelian amygdaloid bearing the image of awild goat from Troy (cat. no. 64; Fig. 6). However, it was deposited in aLH IIIB/IIIC context that postdates the manufacture by some 300 years, since the seal is executed in the ‘cut-style’, which dates to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (LM Ib–II, Krzyszkowska 2005, 201–202; Pieniążek– Aslan 2016, 423–428, pls. 123–125d; Pieniążek 2018, 122–123, fig. 2; Pieniążek 2020). Unfortunately, it is not possible to reconstruct the ‘biography’ of this object, but some observations can be made. Microscopic analysis has demonstrated that the edge of the drilling channel of the seal is only slightly worn from use and does not show traces of abrading or flaening against another hard stone object (Ludvik etal. 2015, 12). is supports the supposition that such seals were worn separately, for example on the
14 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 wrist (Krzyszkowska 2005, 21, fig. 1.1). It seems generally that the seal was not much used but rather curated and kept in asafe place in the time between production and deposition. e place where the seal was found in Troy is very special– it was lying together with six other valuable objects in the ruins: strictly speaking, in the stone debris of one of the walls of the South Room of the Terrace House. e Terrace House is amonumental building erected at the beginning of the 13th century directly outside the fortifications of the citadel, and the South Room was one of its rare chambers, which was most probably ashrine. e ruins sealed the second VIIa-phase of the shrine, and an altar and abronze votive figurine were found on the burnt floor of that phase (local subphase 2a2: Pieniążek 2020, 998–1004, pl. 7, 11). e interpretation of this context is not straightforward: the fact that the seal, glass beads, aknife, aviolin-bow fibula, and bronze and silver rings (one of each) were found under and between the collapsed stones is confusing. Either these were votive giÁs deliberately deposited in the ruins or they were kept somewhere at ahigher elevation during the destruction. In either case, the finds must be related to the cultic function of the chamber. Not much can be elaborated on about the seals made of carnelian and agate said to be found at Ephesos and Priene (cat. nos. 10 and 61) beyond the fact that they were classified as Neopalatial (CMS/Arachne VI, 181; 229; Dionisio– Jasink– Weingarten 2014, 75, cat. 186) based on stylistic features. However, the last of the early seals, agold seal-ring from Kilia (cat. no. 16, also known as the ‘Berlin ring’), deserves more aention. is seal ring was originally agiÁ from Heinrich Schliemann to Frank Calvert and is now in the possession of the Antikensammlung in Berlin. According to Schliemann, it was found in the village of Killia, between Madytos and Sestos on the shores of the Dardanelles. Madytos is modern Eceabat– the site of the imposing Bronze Age tell selement of Maydos-Kilisetepe. With approximately half the dimensions of Troy, it is among the biggest sites in the Troad. Göksel Sazci has conducted excavations at the site since 2010 and discovered monumental architecture similar to that known from Troy VI, VIIa, and VIIb, including fortifications and solidly built houses with stone foundations on the top of the tell (e.g. Sazcı– Mutlu 2018; Sazcı 2020). e site has yielded very interesting material, such as Mycenaean poery and small finds like, for example, aMinoan lid made of serpentine that is almost identical to one known from Lemnos (Boulotis 2009, 196, fig. 20a). e discovery of the gold ring on the shore of the Dardanelles, far from the Minoan/Mycenaean Fig. 6: Early LBA carnelian seal from Troy (cat. no. 64).
15MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK world, always seemed suspect, and, in fact, it is still questionable, as are all old finds without awell-documented context. However, it must be added that this is not the only seal-ring known from the northeastern Aegean: in fact, they are aested in various periods. Some of the sealings discovered at Micro Vouni were executed with seal-rings most probably in local clay, like, for example, one nodulus that bears three identical impressions of asiing lion with arolled tail (CMS/Arachne VSIB 321; Matsas 1995, 242, pl. 34). ese impressions have their closest parallels in MM II Phaistos. Furthermore, from Troy comes at least one mould for the production of seal-rings from aLH IIIB context (Troy VIIa: Nessel 2014, 235–236, fig. 27–29). In summary: in light of new evidence, the seal-ring’sprovenance is perhaps more credible. Later Late Bronze Age seals are much more numerous (Fig. 7). e majority is more or less closely related to the Mainland Popular Group (henceforth MPG) widespread in the southern Aegean. is stylistic group developed in LH IIIA and lasted until the beginning of LH IIIC, with afocus on phases IIIA2 and IIIB (Krzyszkowska 2005; Eder 2007; 2014). e group includes both imports and local imitations; altogether, there are 24 seals, with the greatest number from the cemetery in Panaztepe and considerable amounts at Beşik-Tepe and Liman Tepe. Iwill discuss them in geographical order, from north to south. Fig. 7: Diagram showing details related to later LBA seals (ca. 14th–12th century BC). e division between ‘MPG-type seals’ and ‘local variants of the MPG-style’ is tentative. Seals defined as local include the most probable examples. From Troy come two or three seals executed in astyle corresponding with the Mainland Popular Group. Unfortunately, only one was recovered in aknown context: abroken lentoid made of steatite (cat. no. 65; Fig. 8) found in apit dug into the Central Room of the Terrace House with mixed material dating between LH IIIB and the Protogeometric. As already mentioned above, one chamber of this edifice functioned as ashrine: the South Room, where the carnelian amygdaloid was found. Whether the entire building had areligious function is not clear (Pieniążek– Aslan 2016; Pieniążek 2020, 998–1005). e broken steatite seal was surely redeposited, though. Another seal from Troy (cat. no. 66; Fig. 9) belongs in terms of both shape and decoration to the Mainland Popular Group but is made of very unusual material– bone,
22 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 that there must also have been important central places in these regions of Aegean Anatolia that were integrated into exchange networks (e.g. Mycenaean poery or swords from Pergamon or Balıkesır: Wijngarden 2002, 17–21, map 12; Kelder 2006; Yalçıklı 2006; Sandars 1963, 140–142, 153, pl. 27:52). On the other hand, we have to consider the possibility that the areas to the north of Panaztepe and to the south of Troy might have been akind of ‘backwater’; at least in light of the most comprehensible reconstructions of the political geography (Hawkins 1998; 2015), they were not at the centre of political action, and consequently also interregional relations and trade. Similar conclusions were suggested by Pavúk and Horejs (2018, 477–478) in evaluating the results of the survey in the valley of Kaikos, which is located in the centre of the ‘seal-less’ area. In any case, only more fieldwork may bring clarification relating to these issues. In discussing the western Anatolian Late Bronze Age seals, the following topics come to the fore: trade and other kinds of exchange, sphragistic use and other functions, as well as local production and meaning within western Anatolian societies. We can assume that later Minoan and early Mycenaean hard stone seals arrived in southern Aegean Anatolia within the frame of cultural exchange, already flourishing during the Middle Bronze Age. is is clearly visible in Miletos, where not only Minoan seals but also sealings were recovered (e.g. CMS VS3 476–479, 482–283). e importance of maritime communication is aptly demonstrated by the motif of the seal from Tavşan Adası– aship sailing under the wind– and is confirmed by the presence of other goods from Crete and the Greek mainland, such as poery or stone vessels (Niemeier 2005; Niemeier– Niemeier 1997; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009). ese early hard stone seals were surely objects of high prestige and testify to strong connections with late Minoan Crete, however not necessarily in terms of colonisation but rather of natural cultural spread due to factors such as geographic proximity, progress in sea-shipping, traditions of exchange in place since the Neolithic and shared values and priorities in asocio-political or economic sense. e case of the carnelian lentoid from Troy is special because of the fact that it was deposited ca. 300 years aÁer its manufacture. It is difficult to say how and when it arrived in the north of Aegean Anatolia. One possibility would be sometime during the LH Ib period via Samothrace or Lemnos in the course of intensive contacts between these islands and Minoan Crete in the Neopalatial period (Boulotis 2009; Pieniążek 2018; Pieniążek etal. 2018, 385–386). It could also have arrived via southern Greece together with the earliest Mycenaean poery reaching Troy in LH II (Mountjoy 2020). Alternatively, it could have been kept somewhere far from Troy and arrived at Troy any time during the Late Bronze Age. Long circulation of seals is awell-known phenomenon within the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Krzyszkowska 2005, 274–310), and two other Late Bronze Age hard stone seals from the northern Aegean come from much later contexts: one carnelian seal found in aHellenistic layer in Dion (CMS/Arachne VS3 no. 165) and an agate seal in an Early Iron Age grave in Hephaisteia on Lemnos (CMS/Arachne VS1B no. 34). We can suspect that the value of such objects grew parallel to the distance from the place of manufacture. e high value of the seal from Troy is highlighted by the fact that it was deposited as avotive giÁ together with jewellery and other precious objects. In the case of later seals, such as those executed in the style of the Mainland Popular Group, it is striking that the greatest amounts are known from cemeteries with tombs that otherwise contain numerous imports, such as Panaztepe and, to alesser degree, Beşik-Tepe and Pilavtepe (Figs. 7 and 14). MPG seals are one of the most characteristic features of late Mycenaean culture and were even considered one of the identifying markers of ‘Mycenaeans’ (envoys or officers) on the Uluburun shipwreck and elsewhere outside Greece (Eder 2007, 40;
23MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK Pulak 2005; Pulak 2008, 300–303, cat. no. 241). Generally, it seems that MPG seals were not trade goods, since only very few have ever been found in the eastern Mediterranean (Dickers 2001, 228; Krzyszkowska 2005, 307–308; Eder 2007, 40). One of the exceptions is known from Alalakh (Wooley 1955, 268, no. 171; Fig. 17); however, although this seal is quite typical in terms of material (steatite) and shape (lentoid/gabled), its decoration, composed of four geometric signs, is not. Asimilar interpretation has been put forward for groups of objects bearing specific Mycenaean symbolism, such as relief beads or clay figurines (French 1971, 175; Hughes-Brock 1999, 291; Benzi 1999; Pulak 2005, 303–305; Eder 2014). Since these items were rarely found outside the core area of the Mycenaean world (for example, they very seldom accompanied Mycenaean poery in the eastern Mediterranean), it has been suggested that they were not the focus of interregional trade. But figurines, relief beads, and seals have been found in Aegean Anatolia, the last two in considerable quantities (for glass beads, see Çınardlaı- -Karaaslan 2012); we obviously need to question these interpretations, especially since the seals were also produced locally (Pieniążek forthcoming). e understanding of the role of MPG seals within western Anatolian society is further complicated by the fact that their function is generally not clear, since only afew sealings can be associated with them, so that their sphragistic use is not obvious (Dickers 2001, 115; Krzyszkowska 2005, 275, 296; Eder 2007, 38). Additionally, they were made of less valuable material, such as soÁ stone steatite, and distributed in broader social circles in comparison to hard stone seals. Eder (2007, 94–95) suggested that they could be marks of distinction for palace officials or officers responsible for regional transactions. e fact that imported late Mycenaean seals, as well as locally made Mycenaeanising ones, have been found predominantly in tombs rich in exotic goods (Basedow 2000, 28, pl. 42; Pieniążek etal. 2018, 406; Erkanal-Öktü 2018) indeed speaks to their use in the context of trade and foreign relations but may also suggest that they were status markers. e same is true in the case of local production, which is aested in Troy/Beşik-Tepe, Panaztepe, and Limantepe. e case of Limantepe may not look so obvious at first sight, since no richly equipped tombs are known from there, but it was surely an important centre in political terms. Its involvement in exchange networks is testified not only by its location on the Urla peninsula but also by the presence of Mycenaean poery, figurines and other goods with nonlocal affinities (Günel 1998). However, comparing the function and distribution of MPG seals in Aegean Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece, one has to consider that nowhere in the east were soÁ stone seals found together with the hard stone ones, not even in Panaztepe. Fig. 17: Steatite seal of the MPG type from Alalakh (a¢er Woolley 1955).
24 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Having the well-known phenomenon in mind that the value of an object can increase in proportion to agrowing distance from the place of origin (Pieniążek 2018 with bibliography), it is reasonable to assume that the relative value of MPG and related seals within local societies in Aegean Anatolia was higher than within Mycenaean Greece. In the case of the indigenous production of LH III Mycenaeanising seals (Fig. 7), we observe three phenomena: 1) It seems that in the north, in Troy/Beşik-Tepe, such seals were produced in local material: bone or horn, not used in mainland Greece. 2) In the central area, in Panaztepe and Liman Tepe, the seals were made of soÁ stone, mainly steatite, but they incorporated non-Mycenaean ornamental designs, such as pseudo-cuneiform signs or agroove along the edge of the lentoid seal– both surely inspired by central Anatolian glyptic. 3) Finally, we also observe hybrid examples, such as the biconvex rectangular bone seal from Troy or the seal- -armring from Panaztepe. Ithink what we see here is asearch for alocal glyptic style, be it adeliberate choice or simply an outcome of the entanglement of different traditions. Local differences can be related to both indigenous traditions and the availability of material– in Troy, bone and horn seals were known since the Early Bronze Age (Zidarov 2020), and steatite was known in the central part of Aegean Anatolia (e.g. Arachne/CMS VS3 457 from Liman Tepe). Whether this production was centrally sponsored cannot be proven, but it is conceivable. For example, in Liman Tepe, the semi-finished seals were found in the workshop area, where other types of production are also aested, such as the manufacturing of poery, as proved by the presence of poery kilns (Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2015). It is possible that the elites of local polities, such as Arzawa, Wilusa, the Seha River Land or Mira, could have promoted the development of local seal production, since it was important from the point of view of commercial or cultural exchange across the Aegean. We know from the wrien sources that Arzawa was oÁen in alliance with Ahhijawa, which most probably means Myceanean Greece, until the Hiite conquest and that these contacts continued also later (Hawkins 1998; 2015; Beckman etal. 2011). Surely such political relations promoted trade, as well as the spread of strategies and fashions. e presence of late Mycenaean-style glass seals in Pilavtepe and probably in Panaztepe is also very telling– it is tempting to see this distribution as aresult of contacts with central Greece, where this kind of seal was predominantly produced (Eder 2007). From the perspective of trans-Aegean exchange, this connection– between central-western Anatolia and central Greece via Psara and Urla– must have been at least as significant as the communication routes across the southern Aegean. e importance of maritime paths along the coast of the Urla peninsula is best exemplified by the finds from Panaztepe, Liman Tepe or Bakla Tepe. e case of Psara is less known, however the astonishingly rich cemetery in Archontiki (Archontidou-Argiri 2006) clearly indicates the significance of the island in connection with the central Aegean (Pieniążek forthcoming). e finds of exotic seals at Panaztepe– the scarabs and Levantine seals– and the fact that this is the only findspot of these seals in Aegean Anatolia, confirm the great importance of this site in networks stretching not only throughout the Aegean but also between the eastern Mediterranean and the northern Aegean. e existence of this network is well known based on the distribution of poery: Anatolian Grey Ware (AGW) in Cyprus and the Levant (Mommsen – Pavúk 2007; Pieniążek etal. 2018, 391–402, fig. 2). Only the absence of Cypriot poery in Panaztepe is surprising, but this can be related to burial rituals, since Beşik-Tepe also lacks this kind of poery, and all Cypriot sherds found at Troy come from selement layers. Nevertheless, the poery testifies to the beginning of this exchange in the 15th century BC and its end in the 12th century BC (the youngest examples of AGW in the eastern Mediterranean come from LH IIIC early-middle contexts); the exotic seals from Panaztepe seem to fit in the period of the 14th–12th century BC.
25MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK In this context, one may ask why the Levantine seals were not found further to the north, for example in Troy or Beşik-Tepe, whereas other exotic objects from the eastern Mediterranean are known from there. is might be asimple coincidence, since Panaztepe is definitively the richest known cemetery of Aegean Anatolia. Furthermore, Beşik-Tepe was surely only an interstation and Troy’sagent on the coast of the Aegean Sea. e goods found in this cemetery include some exotic objects, but it is Troy where the most spectacular Levantine items from the northern part of Aegean Anatolia come from, such as Canaanite amphorae, Egyptian poery or ostrich egg shells (Pieniążek etal. 2018 with further Bibliography), but scarabs or other Late Bronze Age seals are missing. Only the tombs of the Trojan elite from the 14–13th century BC would be able to shed more light on this issue, but they have not yet been found. As mentioned above, the distribution of Anatolian-style seals shows adifferent paern. With only one exception (cat. no. 47), they are confined to the 13–12th century BC.e spread of these seals and sealings must be considered not only within the context of exchange but also of political relations, especially the Hiite conquest known from wrien sources. e timing speaks to the second option being adecisive factor. Very important in this case is the silver seal of Tarkasnawa, aking of Mira who was also the sponsor of the rock inscription at Karabel (Hawkins– Morpurgo-Davis 1998). It seems that, at least during his rulership in the second half of the 13th century, Mira might have profited from connections with the Hittites. Not only was the central Anatolian glyptic style locally appropriated, but Tarkasnawa also maintained diplomatic relations with the Hiites, as demonstrated by the impressions of two seals of this king found at Boğazköy-Hausa (one impression of one seal and four impressions of the second; Hawkins 1998, 8–9). In my opinion, the local appropriation of central Anatolian sealing praxis is equally conceivable in the case of Çine-Tepecik. ough it is possible that the sealings travelled to Çine with commodities or that they were impressed at Çine by aHiite officer deployed there, we cannot rule out the possibility that seals were manufactured in western Anatolia in the Hiite style, as in the case of the seals of Tarkasnawa of Mira. If Hiite sealing praxis was adopted in the area of Izmir, it could also be the case in Çine-Tepecik, especially considering that it probably belonged to the polity of Mira (Hawkins 1998, 9–31; Günel– Herbordt 2010, 7–8). We can view the bronze biconvex seal from Troy from asimilar perspective– as ahint of relations with the Hiites or, alternatively, with central western Anatolia. e adoption of sealing praxis does not imply the implementation of this administrative technique only in political and economic relations with the Hiites: once ‘domesticated’, it could have been used according to local needs, both in regional and interregional transactions. Also, other seals executed in the Anatolian style, such as local hybrid imitations from Troy (cat. no. 71) or from Metropolis (cat. no. 27), must be related to the spread of central Anatolian glyptic traditions. CONCLUSIONS Late Bronze Age seals found in Aegean Anatolia are avery heterogeneous but also fascinating collection of finds. Exotic seals are testament to far-reaching exchange connections, even as far as to Egypt. e spread of late Mycenaean seals of the Mainland Popular Group can, on the contrary, be seen as one of the signs of the participation of Aegean Anatolia in shared cultural traditions linking mainland Greece and western Anatolia, most probably related to intensive cultural and commercial exchange. e concentration of LH III seals as well as their local production in Troy/Beşik-Tepe and Liman Tepe accentuates the importance of these sites as centres of local polities. e role of Panaztepe, where the biggest collection of
26 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 seals was found, is not so straightforward, due to the fact that, though the excavated ‘harbour town’ was relatively well preserved, the location and character of the centre of the selement remains unclear. is is mainly due to the fact that the LBA layers in the potential location of this centre– the later acropolis, meaning the top of the hill– are eroded (Tunçel et al. 2021). However, due to the special location of the Panaztepe island– the mouth of the Hermos, the second biggest river of Aegean Anatolia– it is conceivable that the island was not amajor political centre itself but maybe an agent of another centre. But this is another story and will be discussed elsewhere. Simultaneously, exchange within the Aegean, over the course of the 13th century BC, diffused central Anatolian styles within Aegean Anatolia, as well, possibly as aconsequence of the Hiite conquest and the treaties between the empire and western Anatolian polities. It seems that during the second half of the 13th century at the latest, sealing praxis was locally adopted and actively used in diplomatic relations with Hausa and maybe also in the management of goods. Furthermore, one can observe the beginning of the development of local styles, especially within the Aegean-style group, but this was only the first stage of this process and did not result in the emergence of acoherent local glyptic, perhaps due to the Hiite impact, either peaceful or oppressive. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS is article was composed within the framework of the DFG Project 3901366721 ‘Western Anatolia in the 2 nd Millennium: Local Culture and Foreign Contacts’. For assistance in the preparation, Iwould like to thank Nina Finkel BA (QGIS mappings) and Kathleen Schaupp BA (catalogue) for their assistance, as well as Dr.Tara Ingman, who undertook the linguistic editing. Furthermore, Iam indebted to prof.Suzanne Herbordt, who gave advice regarding seal no. 71 from Troy (A05/06.0014). Iam also grateful to two anonymous reviewers, whose comments contributed in avery positive way to the quality of the article. CATALOGUE Aydin 1. Anatolian-style stamp seal, made of hematite. Said to be found in Aydin. Hogarth took anew photo of the base (Louvre AO 1180). Decoration: Hittite hieroglyphic inscription. Stylistic date: Similar to ‘Tyszkiewicz seal’, later,MBA/early Old Hittite period? Bibliography: Hogarth 1920, 75, fig. 79; Mora 1987, 18, 32–44, no. Ia:1.2; Collon 1987, 57, no. 234; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 129–130. Bakla Tepe 2. Aegean-style lentoid seal, material identified as white stone (Aykurt– Erkanal 2017, 120: ‘marble or burned quartz’, but according to Pieniążek it could also be glass). Context: Chamber Tomb (no. T 207/19110). Decoration: Alion attacking aquadruped, probably acow. Contextual date: LBA (most probably LH III). Stylistic date: LH II–LH IIIA1. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS3 456; Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 76–77, fig. 7; Bertemes– Hornung- -Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktü– Erkanal 2015, 199, fig. 35; Kozal 2017, cat. 314; Aykurt– Erkanal 2017, 120, pl. 25.5, fig. 82.
27MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK Beşik-Tepe 3. Aegean-style lentoid seal (Mainland Popular Group– MPG), made of steatite (Fig. 10). Context: Cemetery, pithos 15-Ost (no. 15-Ost.7). Decoration: Amask– two double-circles with adot in the middle separated by atriangle, below a‘boukranion’. Contextual date: LH IIIA2–B1. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS1B 474; Pini 1992; Basedow 2000, 132–133, pl. 92:1, 121:1; Pieniążek 2018, 124–129, fig. 3. 4. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of bone/horn (Fig. 11). Context: Cemetery, pithos 58 (no. 58.11). Decoration: Aquadruped. Contextual date: LH IIIA2–B1. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS1B Nr. 475; Pini 1992; Basedow 2000, 133, pl. 92:1, 121:3; Pieniążek 2018, 124–129, fig. 4. 5. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of bone/horn. Context: Cemetery, pithos 58 (no, 58.14). Decoration: Aschematic quadruped, badly preserved. Contextual date: LH IIIA2–B1. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS1B 476; Pini 1992; Basedow 2000, 133, pl. 92:1, 121:3. 6. Aegean-style (?) rectangular seal with lens-shaped section, made of bone/horn (Fig.12). Context: Cemetery, pithos 58 (no. 58.10). Decoration: Side A, quadruped with horns (agoat?); side B: also aquadruped but only partly preserved. Contextual date: LH IIIA2–B1. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS1B 477; Pini 1992; Basedow 2000, 133, pl. 92:1, 121:2. 7. Lentoid seal, unfinished or damaged, made of bone/horn. Context: Cemetery, pithos 88 (no. 88.10). No decoration. Contextual date: LH IIIA2–B1. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS1B 478; Pini 1992; Basedow 2000, 133, pl. 92:1, 121:3. Çine-Tepecik 8. Central Anatolian-style sealing (‘Tonbulle’). Context: Magazine-room with numerous pot fragments, including storage vessels and containers, many of Mycenaean provenance. Decoration: Hieroglyphic-Luwian inscription, the reading not absolutely clear but includes probably one or two names, including [Tark]asnapiya or [Tark]asnaya. Contextual date: LH IIIB2–IIIC middle. Stylistic date: Hittite Empire Period. Bibliography: Günel– Herbordt 2010, 2, 5–6, fig. 4–6; Günel– Herbordt 2014, 8–9; Günel 2015, 638–639. 9. Central Anatolian-style sealing (‘Tonbulle’). Context: Magazine-room with numerous pot fragments, including storage vessels and containers, many of Mycenaean provenance. Decoration: Aman with abow over his shoulder (warrior?), surrounded by hieroglyphs reading ‘Tamipiya, prince’. On the back side, impressions of leather and wood. Contextual date: LH IIIB2–IIIC middle. Stylistic date: Hittite Empire Period, probably 13th century BC.Bibliography: Günel– Herbordt 2014, 8–11, fig. 8–10; Günel 2015, 638–639. Ephesos 10. Aegean-style amygdaloid seal, made of carnelian. Context: Unclear, probably from Ephesos. Decoration: Two wider grooves cut by semicircles– unfinished? partly recut? Stylistic date: LMI. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VI 229. Izmir? 11. Aegean-style lentoid seal, made of serpentine or schist. Context: Old find from the area of Izmir. Decoration: Two females. Stylistic date: LHIII. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VI 291. 12. Anatolian-style seal, made of silver. Context: Antiquities trade. Decoration: Walking figure in royal dress and inscription in Luwian hieroglyphics in the middle, surrounded by acuneiform inscription reading Tarkasnawa. Stylistic date: Hittite Empire Period, most
28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 probably the second half of the 13th century BC (the rulership of Tarkasnawa of Mira). Bibliography: Hawkins– Morpurgo-Davis 1998, 243–244, fig. 1; Hawkins 1998, 2–4; Hawkins 1999, 9, fig. C; https://art.thewalters.org/detail/5130/seal-of-tarkummuwa-king- -of-mera/ (visited 21/06/2022). 13. Anatolian-style (?) ‘knob’ seal, made of limestone. Context: Antiquities trade, purchased in Smyrna (modern Izmir). Decoration: figural. Bibliography: Hogarth 1920, 38, no. 392; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 128–130. 14. Anatolian-style biconvex seal, made of limestone. Context: Antiquities trade, purchased in Smyrna (modern Izmir). Decoration: Hieroglyphics. Bibliography: Hogarth 1920, 47, no. 322; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 129–130. Karaburun? 15. Anatolian-style (?) sealing. Context: Allegedly from the area of Karaburun. Decoration: Hieroglyphics. Stylistic date: 13 th –12 th (?) century BC (Mora). Bibliography: Mora 1987, 160, 168, 170, no. VIb: 3.1; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 130. Kilia 16. Aegean-style seal ring, gold. Purchased by H. Schliemann and given as agift to F. Calvert; from the area of Kilia on the Gallipoli peninsula, according to Schliemann. Decoration: Female and male figure in front of abuilding. Stylistic date: LMI. Bibliography: CMS/ ArachneXI.028– 167241; Nilsson 1927, 228–229, fig. 31A; Zahn 1932, 78, no. 26; Pini 1988, 41, no. 28. Liman Tepe 17. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: Awell with LH IIIA pottery (LimantepeII.3) (no. 3289). Decoration: Akind of simplified rosette with adot in the centre surrounded with petals and acircle of V-shaped signs on the edge. Contextual date: LH IIIA2. Stylistic date: LH III (MPG). Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS3 460; Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 75, fig. 2g; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 130–131, pl. 139a. 18. Aegean-style low conical seal, local variant of the MPG, made of light brown soft stone, probably steatite. Context: Mixed (Limantepe II?) (no. 33147/8). Decoration: In the centre is amotif reminiscent of afour-leaf clover, surrounded by acircle. Contextual date: Settlement layer with LBA pottery mixed with younger material. Stylistic date: probably LHIII. Bibliography: Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 132, pl. 139b, 170b. 19. Local lentoid seal with agroove around the edge, made of dark grey-reddish stone, probably steatite. Context: Mudbrick debris (LimantepeII.1) (no. 40040/1). Decoration: Adot in the centre surrounded with stemmed dots. Contextual date: LHIIIC. Stylistic date: LH III? Bibliography: Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 133, pl. 139g, 170a. 20. Unfinished low conical seal, made of black soft stone, probably steatite. Context: Aditch with LBA pottery, both local and Mycenaean (Liman Tepe II?) (no. 1058). Finished perforation on one side, incipient on the other. Bibliography: Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 31, 131, pl. 139c. 21. Unfinished low conical seal, made of greenish soft stone, probably steatite. Context: Asettlement layer with pottery of LimantepeII.1, mixed with other material (no. 33171/1). Not decorated, not perforated. Contextual date: Limantepe II? Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 75, fig. 6a (there as Middle Bronze Age); Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 131, pl. 139d, 170d.
29MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK 22. Unfinished low conical seal, made of dark grey soft stone, probably steatite. Context: Mixed layer with,MBA, LBA, and IA pottery (no. 35003/1). Not decorated, not perforated. Bibliography: Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 131, pl. 139e, 170c. 23. Unfinished low conical (or, strictly speaking, dome-shaped) seal, made of dark stone, probably steatite. Context: Settlement layer (LimantepeII.3) (no. 33200/3). Not decorated, not perforated. Contextual date: LH IIIA. Bibliography: Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 133, pl. 139i. 24. Unfinished flat, cylindrical seal, made of black, soft stone, probably steatite Context: Awell with LH IIIA pottery (LimantepeII.3) (no. 3278). Decoration: Unclear– adot and three incised lines, possibly representing aschematic human figure or akind of sign? Incipient perforation on both sides. Contextual date: LH IIIA2 (LimantepeII.3). Bibliography: Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 132, pl. 139f. 25. Unfinished flat cylindrical seal, made of black soft stone, probably steatite. Context: Unknown (no. 13011). Decoration: Lines crossing in an irregular way– unclear if intentional decoration or simply tool marks. Incipient perforations on both sides. Bibliography: CMS/ Arachne VS3 458 (there as Middle Bronze Age); Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 75, fig. 6b (there as Middle Bronze Age); Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 132, pl. 139h. Metropolis 26. Anatolian-style cylindrical seal, made of black-grey soft stone, probably steatite. Context: Byzantine layer on the Acropolis. Decoration: Around the vertical perforation on the top runs azigzag pattern, and the main decoration at the bottom shows 10 engraved signs; their reading is, however, unclear. Stylistic date: LBA? Bibliography: Schachner– Meric 2000, fig. 3a–e, 6a–c. Miletos 27. Aegean-style lentoid seal, made of rose quartz, partly broken. Context: In the area of the sanctuary on the border of the layers of Period IVb and V(no. AT 99.292.1). Decoration: Winged griffin attacked by alion. Contextual date: LM II/IIIa. Stylistic date: LM I–II. Bibliography: Arachne/CMS VS3 480; 2005, 8, fig. 22; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 180; Zenzen 2015, fig. 1–2. 28. Aegean-style lentoid seal, made of material described as ‘onyx-marble’ (in reality neither marble nor onyx but banded soft stone, probably some kind of limestone). Context: Debris of the old excavations (no. AT 99.4.1). Decoration: Aquadruped. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: CMS/Arachne VS3 481; Niemeier 2005, 12, fig. 31; Niemeier 2007, 15, fig. 5:4; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 180. 29. ‘Mycenaean amygdaloid with afish motif’. Bibliography: Zenzen 2015, 389–390. Panaztepe 30. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, tholos A(no. A11). Decoration: Rough cross of three parallel incised lines. Contextual date: LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 121–122, pl. 3, 361; CMS/Arachne VS3 462. 31. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, tholos A(no. A12). Decoration: Asingular sign, meaning unknown. Contextual date: LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 69, fig. 2d; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 10, 121, 215, pl. 3, 361; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir.
30 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 32. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, tholos A(no. A10). Decoration: Pseudo-cuneiform signs composing akind of rosette-pattern. Contextual date: LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Bertemes –Hornung- -Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 121, pl. 3, 362; Pieniążek 2018, 128, fig. 7; CMS/ Arachne VS3 461; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 33. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite (Fig. 13). Context: West cemetery, tholos B (no. B 14). Decoration: Radially arranged stemmed dots. Contextual date: LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 212, pl. 8, 361; CMS/Arachne VS3 463; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 34. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG?), made of soft blue stone. Context: West cemetery, tholos BJ (no. BJ 13). Decoration: Very schematic– ahuman figure on the left side and aquadruped on the right. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 69, fig. 2f; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal- -Öktu 2018, 27, 122, pl. 45, 362, 373; CMS/Arachne VS3 467; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 35. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, pithos S(no. S7). Decoration: A‘spider’– two circles surrounded by Vand bow motifs. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 71, fig. 2e; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 34, 121, pl. 63, 362; CMS/ArachneVS3 468. 36. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, pithos S(no. S8). Decoration: Symmetrical parallel bow-motifs. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 121, pl. 63, 364; CMS/Arachne VS3 469; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 37. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of serpentine. Context: West cemetery, pithos Ö? (attribution unsure) (no. X 34). Decoration: Rosette. Contextual date: ca. LHIII. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 123, 503, pl. 113, 363, exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 38. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of serpentine. Context: West cemetery, cist grave H (no. H 1). Decoration: Geometric– akind of star indicated by incised parallel lines. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIB. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 122, pl. 95, 363; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; CMS/Arachne VS3 470; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 39. Aegean-style lentoid seal (MPG), made of steatite. Context: North cemetery, tholos AA (no. AA 4). Decoration: In the centre there are three parallel lines and on both sides of them, unclear smaller signs. Contextual date: LH IIB–IIIA1. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 69 fig. 2a; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 121, pl. 118, 361; CMS/Arachne VS3 464. 40. Aegean-style flat conical seal (MPG?), made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, tholos İ (no. İ 9). Decoration: Geometric with across dividing the surface into four sectors filled with triangles. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 69, fig. 2c; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179, n. 29; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 122, pl. 27, 362; CMS/ArachneVS3 465; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 41. Aegean-style flat conical seal (MPG?), unfinished, made of soft stone. Context: West cemetery, tholos AY (no. AY 7). No decoration. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 123, pl. 38.
31MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK 42. Flat cylindrical seal made of steatite, unfinished. Context: West cemetery, pithos S(no. S9). Decoration: Multiple crossing lines, but these could simply be tool marks. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIB–C early. Stylistic date: LH IIIA–B. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 122–123, pl. 63, 363. 43. Cuboid seal decorated on both sides, made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, tholos İ (no. İ 8). Decoration: Side A, geometric motifs– triangles and bows; side B, across dividing the surface into four sectors filled with triangles. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIB. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 69, fig. 2b; Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal- -Öktü 2018, 123–124, pl. 27, 364; CMS/Arachne VS3 466; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Izmir. 44. Cuboid seal decorated on both sides, made of steatite. Context: West cemetery, cist grave V(no. V2). Decoration: The same geometric motif on both sides of across dividing the surface into four sectors filled with triangles. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIB. Bibliography: Bertemes– Hornung-Bertemes 2009, 179; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 123–124, pl. 97, 364; CMS/Arachne VS3 471a–b. 45. Aegean-style (?) seal made of glass. Context: Cemetery, cist grave DA (‘four seals and various beads were discovered inside the chest cavity of aboy aged five or six, who was found in one of the cist graves. Although heavily damaged, the glass seal with its one conical side is striking’: Cınardalı-Karaaslan 2012, 136). Contextual date: LH III? Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü– Çınardalı-Karaaslan 2005, 28; Cınardalı-Karaaslan 2012, 129, 136 (not included in Erkanal-Öktü 2018). 46. Anatolian-style (?) seal-armlet made of bronze, composed of ahemispherical seal attached to an armlet. Context: West cemetery, tholos Ğ (no. Ǧ 27). Decoration: Central field empty and surrounded by pseudo-cuneiform signs and spiral motifs. Contextual date: ca. LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: LBA. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 71–73, fig. 3; Erkanal- -Öktü– Erkanal 2015, 197, fig. 28; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 124–126, pl. 19, 365. 47. Scarab made of faience. Context: West cemetery, pithos I(no. I4). Decoration: Inscription Jmn-R’ (=Amon-Re). Contextual date: LH IIIB–C, dating of cartouche after Jaeger– Krauss 1990: Amenhotep III (14 th century BC). Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 74, fig. 5b; Erkanal-Öktü– Erkanal 2015, 198; Kozal 2017, cat. 311; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 126–127, 422, pl. 50, 366. 48. Scarab made of faience. Context: West cemetery, pithos L (no. L 7). Decoration: Inscription Nb-m’, ’t-R’, h’(w) nfr(w) (= the name of Amenhotep III). Contextual date: LH IIIB–C, dating of cartouche after Jaeger– Krauss 1990: Amenhotep III (14th century BC). Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 74, fig. 5a; Erkanal-Öktü– Erkanal 2015, 198; Kozal 2017, cat. 310; Erkanal-Öktu 2018, 126–127, 431, pl. 57, 366. 49. Fragment of ascarab. Context: West cemetery, tholos CO. Decoration: ‘Reed-leaf’ pattern. Contextual date: LHIIIC. Stylistic date: ca. 12th century BC (by C. Mlinar, in Erkanal-Öktü 2008, 74). No illustration. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2008, 74; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 126. 50. Handle of alocal reddish-brown amphora with the impression of the scarab. Context: ‘harbour town’, Level V1/2. Decoration: Inscription, after G. Hölbe: ‘Oh, Ptah, Lord of Ma- -at’. Contextual date: LH IIIB/C. Bibliography: Erkanal-Öktü 2008, 80, 88, fig. 14b:1–2; Erkanal-Öktü– Erkanal 2015, 195; Erkanal-Öktü 2018, 126. 51. Levantine-Egyptian cylinder seal, made of green serpentine. Context: West cemetery, tholos AV; the seal was lying on the left arm of the skeleton (no. AV 1). Decoration: Afigure and asphinx facing an altar, bordered with apapyrus-motif (not all details are visible on the illustrations). Contextual date: LH IIIA–B. Stylistic date: 14th–13th century BC (based
38 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Stampolidis, N.C.– Maner, Ç.– Kopanias, K. eds. 2015: Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Archaeology 58. Istanbul. Thiersch, H. 1902: Katalog der Sammlung Calvert in den Dardanellen und in ymbra. (unpublished manuscript 1902). Tsangaraki, E. 2021: Mycenaean-style LH III seals on the slopes of Mount Olympus, Pieria. ‘Something old, something new, something borrowed and something [out of the] blue’. In: E. Karantzali (eds.): e Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Recent discoveries and research results. Lamia, 18–21 May 2018. Athens, 433–446. Tuncel etal. 2021 = Tuncel, R.– Erkanal, A.– Çayır, Ü.: Panaztepe. ASecond-Millennium BCE Regional Center in Context. Presentation during the symposium ‘Western Anatolia in the second Millennium BCE. Recent Developments and Future Prospects’, Istanbul, 15–16 April 2021. Türkteki, S.Ü. 2020: Early Bronze Age sealing tradition of Küllüoba Höyük in the context of Anatolian sealing practice. Studia Hercynia 24/1, 7–29. Wijngarden, G.J. 2002: Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Poery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy. Amsterdam. Woolley, L. 1955: Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. London. Yalçıklı, D. 2006: Zwei Bronzeschwerter aus Westanatolien. Istanbuler Mieilungen 56, 29–41. Younger, J. 1981: e Island Sanctuaries Group. Date and Significance. In: I. Pini (eds.): Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen SiegelI. Berlin, 263–272. Zahn, R.1932: Ausstellung von Schmuckarbeiten in Edelmetall aus der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin. Zenzen, N. 2015: Der greiÁötende Löwe. Ein Siegel aus Milet. In: I. Kaiser– O. Kouka– D. Panagiotopoulos (eds.): Ein Minoer im Exil. Festschri zum 65. Geburtstag von Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier. Heidelberg, 389–406. Zidarov, P.2020: Seals and Sealings at Troy. In: S. Blumetal. (eds.): From Past to Present. Studies in Memory of Manfred O. Korfmann. Gedenkschri für M. Korfmann. Studia Troica Monographien 11. Bonn, 157–170. Magda Pieniążek Institut für Urund Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mielalters Universität Tübingen Schloß Hohentübingen 72070 Tübingen [email protected]