Early Bronze Age sealing tradition of Küllüoba Höyük in the context of Anatolian sealing practice
Abstract
7
Full text
STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1, 7–29 Early Bronze Age sealing tradition of Küllüoba Höyük in the context of Anatolian sealing practice Sinem Üstün Türkteki ABSTRACT Different ideas have been put forward by the researchers for the functions of the seals made of baked clay, stone and metal. The most common view among these is that particularly beginning from the Early Bronze Age, seals were used for expressions of ownership and registration. Another view is that seals could be stamping tools used on the body or in textile printing. The pottery with seal impressions recovered in exca‑ vations is important archaeological evidence demonstrating that the find termed a‘seal’ was used also for decorative purposes. Atotal of 11 stamp seals dated to the Early Bronze Age were recovered from Küllüoba Höyük between the years of 1996 and 2019. It could be observed that the stamp seals uncovered in Küllüoba share many common characteristics with those unearthed in other contemporary settlements in Anatolia. Particularly, the close resemblance of the motifs seen on the stamping surfaces of the seals gives rise to the thought that there was acommon sealing tradition in Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age. Towards the end of the Early Bronze Age, an organized trade had developed as aresult of the close relations with distant regions. This study aims to examine the seals that have been found in the excavations at Küllüoba Höyük, located in Western Central Anatolia, which lay along asignificant trade route and which has provided important data on urbanization and trade in the EBA. KEYWORDS Anatolia; Early Bronze Age; sealing; bullae; Aegean; pintadera. INTRODUCTION The period called the Early Bronze Age (EBA) and roughly dated to the 3rd millennium BC in Anatolia is regarded as one of the most significant turning points for the region due to the developments that emerged with the advent of urbanization. Settlement types began to di‑ versify into cities, villages, citadels, and production centers, and the initial increase in their numbers signifies the beginnings of the socio ‑economic transformation of Anatolia. As the period progressed, settlements began to decrease in number (Efe 2003a, 271) while signifi‑ cantly increasing in size, which demonstrates that centralized settlements– cities– became more prominent. Once monumental structures, defensive systems, and districts (e.g. lower and upper cities) were built, these cities began to exert control over regional production and trade. High status goods that have been recovered from their remains point to the existence of aruling class, and are further indicators that ahierarchical organization, and consequently acomplex social structure, had started to emerge. Atrade network, which ran through West‑ ern Anatolia and extended to more distant regions, such as Northern Syria and the Balkans, also developed from the middle of the EBA, and grew more widespread and better organized as social complexity increased and urbanization flourished. Further cultural elements that support the above ‑mentioned trade network could be given as the use of the potter’swheel (Türkteki 2013; 2015), metal tools of Syrian origin such as toggle pins, lead bottles, new tech‑
8STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 niques implemented in the Anatolian metalworking (Türkteki 2015, 213), ivory and lapis lazuli objects (Massa– Palmisano 2018, 66). T. Efe explains this cultural interaction, which had started in Anatolia in the second half of the third millennium, through an overland trade network that he termed the ‘Great Caravan Route’ extending from Northern Syria ‑Cilicia to the Northern Aegean over the Konya plain, Northwestern Central Anatolia and consequently the Eskişehir and İznik ‑İnegöl plains (Efe 1988, 93–99; Efe 2007, 48–49). V. Şahoğlu defines this interregional activity between Mesopota‑ mia, Anatolia, and the Aegean in the EBA as the long ‑distance interaction period (Şhoğlu 2005). An important assemblage along the aforesaid route is the Syrian bottles that provide infor‑ mation on the extent and intensity of the interregional relations with Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Levant in the EBA. These bottles were initially produced in the Middle Euphrates Region in the EBA II, and later on had spread over inland Central and Western Anatolia, and also to the Aegean Islands, Eastern Thrace, and Northeastern Anatolia either as imports or as local imita‑ tions beginning from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC.Syrian bottles have been found in 64 settlements along the Great Caravan Route, dated to the EBA (Massa– Palmisano 2018, 75). The lapis lazuli finds (e.g., beads, inlays, and cylinder seals) of Mesopotamian origin, as is evident from both the typologies and the motifs they bear, are also regarded as examples demonstrating the interregional relation. Stamp seals, of which the number of forms and areas of use had also been growing since the Neolithic, can therefore be regarded as agroup of finds that might provide information on the character of trade and interrelations across the EBA. The early cylinder seals influenced by Mesopotamia and Northern Syria have been en‑ countered in the EBA III strata of Tarsus and Kültepe (Efe 2003b, 125). In addition, faience cylinder seals of the Akkadian type recently unearthed in Kütahya Seyitömer (Bilgen 2015, 142, fig. 158, 162–163) are an important assemblage demonstrating the direct relations between Mesopotamia and Northwestern Central Anatolia. In the Aegean World, the earliest seals have been recovered in Myrina belonging to the EBA I(Rahmstorf 2016, 227). In Anatolia, the earliest seals of the EBA Iare known from Demircihöyük, Karataş ‑Semayük (Rahmstorf 2016, 233), Küllüoba1 and Yassıtepe. The early seals found in Cyprus must belong to the EM II (Rahmstorf 2016, 231). The earliest seals in Cyprus have been recovered in the settlement of Kissonerga ‑Mosphilia belonging to the LCA (EM II) (mid ‑third millennium) (Webb– Weingarten 2012, 85). Exam‑ ples of impressions of the above ‑mentioned seals have also been found. These impressions must have been imprinted not on the vessels but on the clay closing pieces. Besides these, no seals have been recovered from the phase Philia (EBA III) (2400–2300 BC), which is known to have had relations with Anatolia and close regions. Therefore, no seals have been encountered in Cyprus after the LCA until the second millennium (Webb– Weingarten 2012, 86). GENERAL INFORMATION ON SEALING Scholars who study seals generally agree that they represent the owner of the seal, and that their function was associated with personal property (Collon 1987, 113; Erkanal 1997, 1314; Darga 1992, 68; Umurtak 2013, 56). Yet archaeological data demonstrating that Early Bronze Age seals in Anatolia were used within the community’seconomic system is missing. The 1 Küllüoba Excavation Project is supported by Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University– Project No:2012‑02. BŞEU.04.03).
9SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI archaeological data in question are sealings called bullae. Therefore, the stamps which have engraved surfaces similar to those of seals might have had other functions, especially in areas where sealings are not encountered (Bachhuber 2015, 79; Collon 1997, 11; Lichter 2011, 38, 79; Prijatelj 2007, 232–233). It is thought that some imprinting objects, such as those com‑ monly called ‘pintaderas’, were used on the body, textiles, leather, and other surfaces in the Neolithic period for decorative purposes. R. Duru, for example, defines pintaderas as seal ‑like imprinting tools that were used for expressions of personal identity, observing that they are much larger in size, and that their imprinting faces are engraved much deeper than those of common seals (Duru 2003, 560; Duru 2008a, 106–107; Mellaart 1970, 164). G. Umurtak argues that the reason no impressions from pintaderas have been found is that they might have been used on foodstuffs that are rapidly consumed, such as bread and cakes, or on lumps of clay to indicate the ownership of aproduct stored in acommon area, and that they have not survived because clay easily disintegrates if it has not been fired (Umurtak 2000, 7). L. Rahmstorf expresses the idea that the imprinting tools he named ‘decorative stamps’ or ‘pintaderas’ are generally termed seals and that yet there is no evidence indicating this assemblage was used as seals (Rahmstorf 2016, 227). However, in the Near East considerable numbers of bullae have survived. Three hundred were recovered from aspace used as astoreroom at Sabi Abyad in Northern Syria, asite that was contemporary with Neolithic settlements in Anatolia (Akkermans– Duistermaat 1997, 19), and more than one ‑hundred seals and six bullae dated to the 7th millennium BC have been found in the settlement of Tell El Kerkh in the same region (Tsuneki 2017, 6). This means that the actual use of seals, and the concept of ownership, goes back some 3000 to 3500 years earlier in Northern Syria than in Anatolia. It has been observed that the concept of ownership in Western Anatolia developed along‑ side the beginnings of urbanization, in the Early Bronze Age I(Efe 2003, 268–270), and that the number and variety of seals and their functions increased during this period. The larger imprinting objects (pintaderas) of earlier periods disappeared and smaller seals made from avariety of raw materials, forms, and decorations, began to be used in settlements. Until recently, only limited evidence for EBA Isealing was available, but new information on seal varieties has been added to our existing data. The excavation of Hacılar Büyük Höyük (Umur‑ tak 2015, 149–150), for example, has demonstrated that Western Anatolian sealing developed substantially and became more varied before the EBA II, when the ruling class truly emerged. Seals recovered in Western Anatolia from the Neolithic to the end of the EBA are usually made of baked clay, metal, or stone. D. Collon divides the raw material used for seal ‑making into two phases– before and after the EBA– stating that before the EBA only baked clay and soft stones were used to make seals, and that their hanging ‑holes and the decorations engraved into their imprinting surfaces were made by flint tools. After the EBA, copper tools were used in seal ‑making (Collon 1990, 39–40). No bullae have yet been recovered during excavations at Küllüoba Höyük, however we know that bullae were used when securing products placed in containers, such as pottery, baskets or sacks, to keep goods fresh or to secure personal belongings. This was achieved by wrapping clay over the cord that closed the mouth of the container and then stamping it with aseal before it dried (Massa– Tuna 2019, 61–65; Özkan 2011, 151). Whether this was done for trade or to secure personal property, seals and bullae are extremely important because they provide evidence of an economic system. For example, abulla was recovered inside aspace that may have been used as astoreroom in building MRS 2 (amulti ‑roomed structure) at Bademağacı. Umurtak believes that it might have been used to register and control goods entering and leaving the storeroom (Umurtak 2010, 20–22).
10 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Fig. 1: Sites mentioned in the text. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO KÜLLÜOBA The seals discussed in this article are from Küllüoba Höyük, which is located within the village of Yenikent in the Seyitgazi District of Eskişehir. The mound measures 350 × 150 m and rises 10 m above the plain. It has two apexes that are barely visible: the eastern and western. It is situated on afertile plain west of the Upper Sakarya River Basin, along an important natural transportation route that connects Central Anatolia to the Marmara region, the Northern Aegean, and the Balkans. Excavations at the site, which were started by Prof.Dr.Turan Efe in 1996 and have continued under the direction of Assoc. Prof.Dr.Murat Türkteki since 2019, have shown that the mound was continuously inhabited for at least 1300 years, between around 3200 and 1900 BC (Tab.1). The earliest architectural remains so far found at Küllüoba date to the EBA Transition Pe‑ riod (EBA IA), and have been uncovered in Layers 5 to 3 of the western apex. In this period the settlement was surrounded by amud ‑brick fortification wall that followed a‘zigzag’ course. The entrances to domestic structures opened onto acourtyard, with their backs adjacent to the fortification wall. This phase is not present at Demircihöyük, and Efe has suggested that this initial Küllüoba settlement plan may represent aprecursor phase to the ‘Anatolian Settlement Plan’ (‘Anatolisches Siedlungsschema’: Korfmann 1983, 190, 222) uncovered in Demircihöyük during the EBA Iand EBA II (Efe 2003, 268). By the EBA II, Küllüoba was acity consisting of upper and lower settlements (Fidan 2011, 50, pl. 13: 86). At least two public buildings, named Complex Iand Complex II, have been found in the upper settlement surrounded by afortification or enclosure wall. These are megaroid structures and can be considered monumental for Western Anatolia in the EBAII. Structures beyond this enclosure wall belong to the lower settlement (cf. Fig. 12). Architectural remains pertaining to the EBA III at Küllüoba are missing. The period is known mainly from astratified fill on the courtyard of the previous settlement phase, and
11SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI archaeological materials that come from votive pits. Yet many finds display connections with distant regions, and have been regarded by Efe as evidence for the Great Caravan Route, since they point to relations that extend from Northern Syria to the Balkans (Efe 2007, 49, 60, 61, 62, fig. 17a). Architectural styles changed in the transition period between the late EBA III and theMBA. The architecture of this period, known only from Küllüoba in this region, is of multi ‑roomed free ‑standing structures that parallel those from contemporary Central Anatolian settlements (Efe– Türkteki 2011, 207). KÜLLÜOBA SEALS AND THEIR PARALLELS IN ANATOLIA The excavation strategy at Küllüoba has largely been designed to reveal the footprint of the EBA II city, and its buildings have generally been exposed only to their surface plan. Excava‑ tion has not typically extended below these structures. There is no indication of awidespread Dates Periods Eastern Cone Western Cone 13th–15th century AD Islamic Burials I A 1st century BC – 1st century AD Late Hellenistic to Early Roman I B 1850 BC Late EB III (Übergangsperiode) II A II B II C II D II E 2200 BC 2450 BC Early EB III III A III B III C 2800 BC EB II IV A IV B IV C IV D IV E IV F IV G 1 3000 BC EB I V A V B V C 2 3 3200 BC Transition to the EBA 4 5 3300 BC Late Chalcolithic 6 Tab.1: Küllüoba cultural periods.
12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 fire in the settlement, though alimited number of localized burned areas have been detected. In total, eleven stamp seals have been recovered during excavations, nine of which are made of baked clay, one is of metal, and the other is probably of serpentine. Eight of the stamping surfaces of these seals are circular in form, two are foot ‑shaped with an oval stamping surface, and the other is in the shape of afive ‑pointed star. Fig. 2: EBA sealings of Küllüoba mound. The seal recovered at Küllüoba in grid unit U10 (U10–540) (Fig. 2:c) is of particular importance, both in terms of its form and its find ‑spot. The foot ‑shaped baked clay seal was uncovered from within the remains of amud ‑brick wall during work undertaken on the western side of the mound. It is dated to Phase 3, that is to the EBA Transition Period stratigraphy on the western apex. The seal’sentire stamping surface, an ovoid that was probably intended to represent the sole of afoot, is decorated longitudinally with four grooves, while afurther four grooves are vertically engraved on the ‘heel’ to form square motifs (Efeetal. 2001, 52, fig. 7b). The earliest known example of abaked clay foot ‑shaped seal is from Layer XIII of the Tepe Gawra settlement in modern ‑day northwestern Iraq (Tobler 1935, 121, pl. LVI: 1). This exam‑ ple from Küllüoba is the earliest yet recovered in Anatolia, though another example of such aseal dating to the EBA Iwas discovered at the Acemhöyük settlement (Tezcan 1958, 526, fig. 20a–b) (Fig. 10:e), and one with similar decoration on the stamping surface appeared in the EBA II levels at Bademağacı (Duru– Umurtak 2011, fig. 7a–b) (Fig. 10:c). Grid unit Aİ 24 (Aİ 24–38)– one of the grid units containing megaroid buildings belonging to EBA I– is located in the south of the mound, in an area that was damaged and backfilled in the Hellenistic period. Astamp seal was uncovered in the upper levels of the surviving EBAIphase (Fig. 2:a, 3:a), and can therefore be regarded as belonging to late in that phase. It is acircular, baked clay seal, bearing amotif of deeply engraved, nested U ‑shaped curvilinear patterns on its stamping surface. No exact parallels with this pattern have been encountered in EBA Anatolian contexts, but it has been observed on the surfaces of two Neolithic seals re‑ covered in Ulucak Höyük (Çilingiroğlu 2009, fig. 4:2, 6). The closest Anatolian EBA example to this pattern was found in the MEE trash pit of Layer IV in the Karataş ‑Semayük settlement (EBA II) (Warner 1994, pl. 187d) (Fig. 3:c), and aseal with asimilar motif was unearthed at Bademağacı (Duru 2005, pl. 43; Duru 2008a, fig. 346) (Fig. 3:b).
13SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI Fig. 4: Star -shaped stamp seals. The seal with astamping surface shaped like afive ‑pointed star is aunique example for Küllüoba (Fig. 2:b, 4:a) and consequently for Western Anatolian sealing, as similar seals are rarely encountered in the peninsula. It was recovered from grid unit Aİ 23 (Aİ 23–52), and bears adecorative composition made up of non ‑symmetrical grooves and arc ‑like motifs. It was also found in an area destroyed by the Hellenistic fill containing megaroid structures belonging to the EBAI. The seal can therefore be dated to the EBA I, but its closest parallel was recovered in the EBA III settlement in Alacahöyük (Koşay– Akok 1973, pl. 65, 82) (Fig. 4:b). The seal recovered from grid unit AD 20 (AD 20–118) (Fig. 2:f, 5:c) was found directly be‑ neath the ground surface. At this depth, dating is uncertain, but it probably dates to the latest phase of the EBA II, which was exposed by agriculture and erosion in some areas on the mound (IVA–IVB?). It is made of baked clay and has aswastika ‑like motif made up of engraved lines and surrounded by some decorative dots. This seal has numerous parallels, and most belong to EBA II contexts, having been found at Bademağacı (Duru 2000, pl. 36:7) (Fig. 5:f), Hacılar Büyük Höyük (Umurtak– Duru 2012, fig. 15) (Fig. 5:g), Çiledir (Türktüzünetal. 2014, fig. 34) (Fig. 5:h), Karataş ‑Semayük (Mellik 1965, pl. 64, fig.33 a, b) (Fig. 5:e), Ahlatlıbel (Koşay 1934, 70) (Fig. 5:j), Karaoğlan (Tütüncüler Fig. 3: Stamp seals with curvilinear motifs.
14 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Fig. 5: Stamp seals with swastika -like motifs.
15SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI 2013, 203) (Fig. 5:i), and in Layer XIV in Beycesultan (Lloyd– Mellaart 1962, 272, fig. 4.7) (Fig. 5:d). Two similar seals are from EBA Ilayers though, from Karataş ‑Semayük (Mellink 1972, pl. 55, fig. 4a) (Fig. 5:a) and Pulur ‑Sakyol (Koşay, 1976, 70) (Fig.5:b). Swastika ‑like mo‑ tifs have been encountered on the bullae recovered from layer 11 and layer 12 fills of Kültepe belonging to the EBA III (Öztürk 2019, 57–58, fig. 12:1–2) (Fig. 5:k–l). In the Aegean World, two seals from Lerna dated to the EH II (Fig. 5:m–n) (Krzyszkows‑ ka 2005, 43, fig. 64, 67) and seals uncovered in Geraki (Krzyszkowska 2005, 44, fig. 72) bear similar swastika ‑like motifs in the center of the stamping surfaces (Fig. 5:o). In the seal from Tiryns, the swastika ‑like motif is placed on the entire stamping surface (Fig. 5:p) (Krzysz‑ kowska 2005, 39, fig. 55a, 55b). It appears that the swastika ‑like motif is among the earliest known, being present on abaked clay stamp seal from Çatalhöyük and on the imprinting surface of apintadera found at Bademağacı in Anatolia, both dating to the middle of the 7th millennium BC.While the hanging ‑holes on these examples indicate that they were portable, it is considered that they were used as stamps (Türkcan 1999, 46–47), to produce decorations on the body, textiles, leather, or other surfaces (Duru 2008a, 107). Despite these examples, the swastika ‑like motif in Anatolia is most commonly seen in EBAII strata, and there is clear evidence that its use on pottery and stampings increased during this period. It also seems that it was more commonly used at Alacahöyük, Bademağacı and Karataş/Semayük than in other Anatolian settlements. At Bademağacı, where the earli‑ est Anatolian examples of the motif have been recovered (Umurtak– Duru 2008, lev. 21:a; Taçıldız 2016, 102, 103), it reappeared and was frequently employed on EBA II pottery, spindle whorls and stampings, after an interruption in the Chalcolithic and EBA Iperiods. In Karataş/ Semayük, the motif appears on grave goods and is common in the pottery tradition (Taçıldız 2016, 98). It appears to have fallen out of use in the EBA III, and is not encountered in the western region of Anatolia other than at Troy. Fig. 6: Stamp seals with crossor plus -sign motifs.
22 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 IIId) (Aruz 2008, 28, fig. 23, cat. no. 220). W. N. Brown differentiates the motif between those in which the four arms turn to the right (clockwise), and those in which they turn to the left (counterclockwise) (Brown 1933, 18). Seals with this motif first appeared in settlements considered to belong to the Samarra culture in the Late Neolithic period (7000–5000 BC) in Asia Minor, but the swastika ‑like motif in Anatolia is nearly concurrent with its appearance in Mesopotamia, specifically in the Early Neolithic period on astamp seal in Çatalhöyük and on the stamping surface of apintadera in Bademağacı. In Anatolia it persisted from the Early Neolithic period to the Iron Age, and probably had asymbolic meaning other than being sim‑ ply used for decorative purposes. Indeed, M. Frangipane thinks that this was their primary purpose, rather than their impressions simply denoting property (Frangipane 2003, 59). The motif was utilized by prehistoric and protohistoric societies in Anatolia in their art, religion, and economy, and this lends the impression that it could have been used as an identifier, to indicate individuals or groups that belonged to the same family, ethnicity, or culture (Taçıldız 2016, 106). Accordingly, the seal with the swastika ‑like motif at Küllüoba was probably used for symbolic purposes rather than merely as an indicator of ownership. Another common seal motif recovered from all EBA phases in Anatolia is the cross‑ or plus sign, and such aseal was unearthed in an EBA II courtyard fill at Küllüoba. Parallels have been found at Bademağacı and at Troy, and similar seals have been observed at Anatolian settlements such as Karataş ‑Semayük, Kusura, Alişar, and Taşkun Mevkii. The foot ‑shaped serpentine seal is dated to the EBAIII. Seals of this shape have been un‑ covered from awide geographic area that extends from Cilicia in many directions (Tarsus‑ ‑Gözlükule): to the north (Alacahöyük, Resuloğlu) and south (Acemhöyük, Konya ‑Karahöyük); to the west (Küllüoba) and the southwest (Bademağacı); and into the Aegean region (Yas‑ sıhöyük). This spread matches known trade routes, and the seals recovered along them, es‑ pecially in EBA III contexts, are significant because they demonstrate ancient connections between Anatolia and distant regions (Mesopotamia, Syria). Similar foot ‑shaped seals have been discovered in other Mediterranean contexts. From Crete there are seals found at Palai‑ kastro, dated to the EM III (Aruz 2008, 43, fig. 70, cat. no. 141), and at Krassi Tholos from the EM I–II (Aruz 2008, 43, fig. 69, cat. no. 140). Afoot ‑shaped seal was discovered in agrave at Despotiko, in the Cyclades, that dates to the EC II (Branigan 1970, 10, 23, fig. 3:34). Seals from settlements in mainland Greece include one from Grave VII of the EH II settlement at Zygouires, which is made of stone (Blegen 1928, 197, 218–219, pl. XX:3), and another from Aghios Kosmas that is dated to the late EH II (Branigan 1970, 10, 23, fig. 3:32). Seals from the Early Bronze Age, during which sealing emerged in Anatolia, were mostly made of baked clay and stone, but afew were made of metal (copper, bronze, and lead). There are several possible reasons for the relative scarcity of metal seals, which must have been regarded as special, in EBA settlements, including: – That metal artefacts were regarded as valuable and might have been passed on as heirlooms; – That metal artefacts are more difficult to craft than baked clay ones. As the raw material is durable, they would have been in use for along time, perhaps generations; – That raw metal is valuable and out ‑of ‑use seals could have been re ‑melted and used to make other artefacts; – That the number of metal artefacts recovered in settlements is significantly fewer than those unearthed in cemeteries, which may lead to afalse impression of their numbers. The fact is that metal seals bearing similar motifs on their stamping surfaces are seen across awide geographical area, extending from Gözlükule to Poliochni and from Bademağacı to Alişar (Emre 1971, 44). The cross‑ or plus ‑sign motif, and the decorations around the motif, was
23SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI employed on abaked clay seal from Küllüoba and many other settlements in Anatolia (Aruz 2008, 31, fig. 40). Metal EBA seals appear to have been considerably rarer in mainland Greece and the Aegean islands than they are in Anatolia, but they are often similar. One example, from Naxos (Aruz 2008, 31, fig. 44), has amotif like that on the stamping surface of the metal Küllüoba seal. Another is known from Thermi on Lesbos. It is significant that Küllüoba developed an upper and lower town during the EBA II, because this suggests the presence of aformalized, organized society. The EBA II is also the period in which the urbanization process begins, and concepts of centralized authority and ownership emerged. The fact that Küllüoba is located on the Great Caravan Route is also sig‑ nificant, because many finds (Syrian bottles, wheels, goblets, toggle pins, foot ‑shaped stamp seals, etc.) recovered in the excavations indicate that relations with distant regions included an organized trade network by the EBA II, and particularly during the EBAIII. Given this de‑ veloping organization, the comparative rarity of seals from Küllüoba is likely to stem from the fact that excavations have focused on ahorizontal plane, in which the fill within the interior areas of buildings is generally left untouched. Even though they are few in number, they are of great significance for demonstrating that the Early Bronze Age settlements of Anatolia were conduits that introduced the earliest examples of some seal forms to the ancient world. Several suggestions could be made concerning the functions of the seals in the Early Bronze Age, which differ from the pintaderas used for decorative imprinting purposes in the Neolithic period in having smaller sizes and less deeply engraved stamping surfaces. Among these, the first and the most plausible one is that seals might have been used for expressions of personal property. The most significant group of finds that clearly indicates this opinion are the bullae found particularly in the contexts that also contain storage areas. Another suggestion is that other than expressing ownership, seals may have been used as imprinting tools in the decoration of textiles, walls, and pottery. It has already been men‑ tioned that the imprinting objects called pintaderas were used in the decoration of textiles or on foodstuffs, such as bread and cakes specifically in the Neolithic Period. In fact, traces of paint have also been detected on some of the examples (Türkcan 2006, 82). By the EBA, there are traces of yellow and white paints on the stamping surfaces of the two seals recovered in Aphrodisias (Joukowsky 1986, 610) and Kusura (Lamb 1938, 268). This demonstrates that some of the imprinting tools were used for decorative purposes. The earliest examples (2700–2600 BC) of the seals impressed on pottery are seen from Poliochni (Phase Green) to Gözlükule (the early EBA II). Similar examples continue to appear in Gözlükule in the EBAIII and in Poliochni in Phase Yellow. Furthermore, examples associated with this application have also been determined in the Aegean world (Lerna IIIC) (Massa 2016, 140, 435, 436). While these motifs produced on pottery by cylinder or stamp seals might have been made for decorative purposes, they could also be evaluated as personal or communal symbols. The owner/owners of the pottery and accordingly its content may have impressed the pottery with their personal or family seal in order to indicate their property. Despite the fact that no seals have been recovered yet as bullae or as impressions on pot‑ tery in any excavation conducted in Küllüoba to date, they can still be considered symbols of property in comparison with the other examples found in Western Anatolia. Limited data have been obtained from the context in which the seals were discovered, however, the seals unearthed in Küllüoba mostly belong to the Early Bronze AgeII. The structures of Complex Iand II are prominent in the settlement as buildings of centralized ‑scale storage. However, the fact that these areas have almost been completely emptied and abandoned do not admit of the recovery of sufficient archaeological evidence. Additionally, it could be said that the uncovered seals were mostly found in the structures of the upper town. Regarding EB II, which
24 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 is represented architecturally as the most substantial period in the settlement, it is understood that the settlement might have been at least aregional center and that, within this context, beginning from the middle of the period it was interacting with its immediate surrounding and towards the end of the period with distant regions. For this reason, the seals from Küllüoba point to aperiod during which these relations had started. The EBA III period, which has not been well determined in the settlement regarding context, contains significant findings that indicate an interregional trade. Based on the outcome that this period is poorly represented in the settlement due to various reasons, only afew seals have been recovered, and no evidence of an impression has been detected either. Lastly, the unearthed stone mold (Fig. 13) dated to the late EBA III (the transition period to theMBA) has arendered imprinting surface to produce lead seals (Efe 2006, 302, 304). This shows that similar seal examples had also continued at least in the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Fig. 13: Küllüoba Late EBA III stone mold. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iwould like to thank Assoc. Prof.Dr.Murat Türkteki for letting me publish the seals. Iwould also like to thank Assoc. Prof.Dr.Deniz Sarı for the maps and Yusuf Tuna for the drawings. Special thanks to Garreth Roberts for the proofreading and his suggestions.
25SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI Catalogue 1. Location: U10 Trench; Find Number: U10–540 (Fig. 2:c) Dimensions: Height 2 cm, Diameter 2.3 cm; Period: Transitional Period (EBA IA); Substance: Clay. The light brown paste has mica inclusions and the surface is slipped. Wrist bone shaped lug has string hole. The foot shaped sealing surface is decorated longitudinally with four grooves. The intersecting four grooves in the toe part of the foot form asquare decoration. 2. Location: Aİ 24 Trench; Find Number: Aİ 24–38 (Fig. 2:a) Dimensions: Height 5.4 cm, Diameter 2 cm; Period: EBA I; Substance: Clay. The seal has light brown paste. The sealing surface has an oval form with adeep grooving of an entwined Vform and has aconical lug with astring ‑hole which is broken. 3. Location: Aİ 23 Trench; Find Number: Aİ 23–52 (Fig. 2:b) Dimensions: Height 3.1 cm, Diameter 2.8 cm; Period: EBA I; Substance: Clay. The brown ‑gray paste has mica and grit inclusions. Light gray slipped and burnished. The seal surface in the shape of afive ‑pointed star is covered with assymetrical groovings and decorated with arch like motifs. The lug has astring ‑hole. 4. Location: AD 20 Trench; Find Number: AD 20–118 (Fig. 2:f) Dimensions: Height 2.2 cm, Diameter 2.8 cm; Period: EBA II (IVA ‑IVB?); Substance: Clay. The cream ‑colored pasted seal has astring ‑hole lug. The sealing surface has aswastika motif decorated with groovings. The swastika has spots around it. 5. Location: AD 20 Trench; Find Number: AD 20–106 (Fig. 2:e) Dimensions: Height 1.3 cm, Diameter 2.3 cm; Period: EBA II (IVD); Substance: Clay. The cream ‑colored paste has small grit and mica inclusions. The sealing surface has across sign engraved with groovings. And dots engraved around this cross sign as adecoration for filling the sealing surface. The lug has astring ‑hole. 6. Location: AD 21 Trench; Find Number: AD 21–192 (Fig. 2:g) Dimensions: Height 2 cm, Diameter 3.6 cm; Period: EBA II (IVD); Substance: Clay. The dark brown paste has small grit inclusions. The sealing surface was divided into four parts with adeep engraved cross motif. Irregular line motifs are placed between the arms of the cross. The lug is broken. 7. Location: T6 Trench; Find Number: T6–17 (Fig. 2:h) Dimensions: Height 3.5 cm, Diameter 1.6 cm; Period: EBA II; Substance: Clay. The gray colored surface of the seal has no slip or burnish. The sealing surface was divided into two parts with adeep incised line with three pairs of lines perpendicuar to it. The conical lug has no hole. 8. Location: AG 22 Trench; Find Number: AG 22–82 (Fig. 2:i) Dimensions: Height 3 cm, Diameter 3 cm; Period: EBA II; Substance: Clay. The brown paste has mica inclusions. The sealing surface was divided into four parts with across motif. In each part, an arch made with grooves or nail impressions has been placed. The lug is broken. 9. Location: AA 20 Trench; Find Number: AA 20–32 (Fig. 2:k) Dimensions: Height 2 cm, Diameter: 2.5 cm; Period: EBAIII. The gray paste has small grit and mica inclusions. Since the sealing surface had worn off, it is not possible to understand the motifs and the composition but there are irregular grooves and spots around which can be seen. The lug has astring ‑hole. 10. Location: AD 18 Trench; Find Number: AD 18–28 (Fig. 2:j) Dimensions: Height 2 cm, Diameter 2.5 cm; Period: EBA III (IIIB); Substance: Serpentine. Light green colored. The foot shaped lug has astring ‑hole. There is aline grooved in the center of the sealing surface with eight short lines touching it at an acute angle. 11. Location: AA 20 Trench; Find Number: AA 20–111 (Fig. 2:d) Dimensions: Height 1.4 cm, Diameter 2 cm; Period: EBA III (IIIC); Substance: Bronze. The sealing surface was divided into two with avertical line. There is azigzag decoration on one side while the other side has irregular grooved lines. The lug is broken from its string ‑hole.
26 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 BIBILOGRAPHY Alp, S. 1994: Konya Civarında Karahöyük Kazılarında Bulunan Silindir ve Damga Mühürler. Ankara. Aruz, J. 2008: Marks of Distinction. Seals and Cultural Exchange Between the Aegean and the Orient (ca. 2600–1360 BC). In: I. Pini– W. Müller (eds.): Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Mainz. Bachhuber, C. 2015: Citadel and Cemetery in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Sheffield. Behm ‑Blancke, M.R.– Roh, M.R.– Karg, N.– Masch, L.– Parsche, F.– Weiner, K.L. 1984: Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1981–1983. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34, 31–150. Bilgen, N.– Bilgen, Z.– Çirakoğlu, S. 2015: Erken Tunç Çağ Yerleşimi (V. Tabaka). In: N. Bilgen (ed.): SeyitömerI. İstanbul, 119–187. Blegen, C. 1928: Zygouries. APrehistoric Settlement in the Valley Of Cleonae. Cambridge. Branigan, K. 1970: The Tombs of Mesara. AStııdy of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in Soııthern Crete, 2800– 1700 BC. London. Brown, W.N. 1933: The Swastika. New York. Bittel, K. 1940: Der Depotfund von Soloi Pompeiopolis. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 46, 183–206. Collon, D. 1987: First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London. Collon, D. 1990: Near Eastern Seals. London. Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2009: Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls. Contextual Evidence on the Func‑ tion(s) of Neolithic Stamps from Ulucak, İzmir, Turkey. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22/1, 3–27. Çokbanker, E. 1974: Beyşehir Kuşluca Köyü Buluntuları. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 21/2, 31–39. Darga, M. 1992: Hitit Sanatı. İstanbul. Derin, Z.– Caymaz, T.– Sümer, G. 2015: İzmir’in Prehistorik Yerleşim Alanı. Yeşilova Höyüğü 2013 Yılı Çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36/1. Ankara, 447–466. Duistermaat, K.– Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1996: Of Storage and Nomads. The Sealings from Late Neolithic, Sabi Abyad, Syria. Paléorient 22/2, 17–44. Duru, R.2000: Bademağacı Kazıları 1997 ve 1998 Yılları Çalışma Raporu. Belleten LXIV/239, 187–212. Duru, R.2003: Bademağacı Kazıları 2000 ve 2001 Yılları Çalışma Raporu. Belleten LXVI/246, 549–594. Duru, R.2005: Bademağacı Kazıları 2002 ve 2003 Yılları Çalışma Raporu. Belleten LXVIII/252, 519–560. Duru, R.2008: M.Ö. 8000’den M.Ö. 2000’e Burdur ‑Antalya Bölgesi’nin Altı Bin Yılı / From 8000 BC to 2000 BC.Six Thousand Years of the Burdur ‑Antalya Region. Akmed Monografi Dizisi 4. Antalya. Duru, R.– Umurtak, U. 2011: Bademağacı 2010 Yılı Kazıları / Excavations at Bademağacı in 2010. Anmed 9, 7–15. Efe, T. 1988: Die Keramik 2. Die Frühebronzezeitliche Keramik der jüngeren Phasen (ab Phase H). DemircihöyükIII. Mainz am Rhein. Efe, T. 2003a: Küllüoba and the Initial Stages of Urbanism in Western Anatolia. In: M. Özdoanetal. (eds.): Köyden Kente. Yakindogu’da İlk Yerleşimler / From village to cities. Early villages in the Near East. Ufuk Esin’e Armağan / Studies presented to Ufuk Esin. İstanbul, 265–282. Efe, T. 2003b: Batı Anadolu Tunç Çağı Uygarlığının Doğuşu. ArkeoAtlas 2, 92–129. Efe, T. 2006: Atrinket mold from Küllüoba near Seyitgazi ‑Eskişehir. A. Erkanal ‑Öktüetal. (ed.): Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural reflections / Hayat Erkanal’aArmağan. Kültürlerin Yansıması. İstanbul, 301–304. Efe, T. 2007: The Theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’ Between Cilicia and Troy. The Early Bronze Age III Period in Inland Western Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57, 47–64. Efe, T.– Ay ‑Efe, D. 2001: Küllüoba. İç Kuzeybatı Anatolia ‘da Bir İlk Tunç Çağı Kenti; 1996–2000 Yılları Arasında Yapılan Kazı Çalışmalarının Genel Bir Değerlendirilmesi. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 4, 43–79. Efe, T.– Türteki, M. 2011: İçbatı Anatolia Bölgesi Erken Tunç Çağı Mimarisi. In: V. Şahoğlu– P.Sotirakopou‑ lou (eds.): Karşıdan Karşıya. MÖ 3. Bin’de Kiklad Adaları ve Batı Anatolia. İstanbul, 198–207.
27SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI Emre, K. 1971: Anatolia Kurşun Figürinleri ve Taş Kalıpları. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları VI/14. Ankara. Erkanal, A. 1997: Mühür. Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi 2, 1314–1316. Fidan, E. 2011: Küllüoba İlk Tunç Çağı Mimarisinin Batı Anatolia ve Ege Dünyası İçindeki Yeri. İstanbul Üniver‑ sitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Anabilim Dalı. Unpublished PhD thesis, İstanbul. Frangipane, M. 2003: Doğu Anatolu İlk Tunç Çağı II–III Dönemi. ArkeoAtlas 2, 58–70. Goldman, H. 1956: Excavations at Gözlükule. TarsusII. New Jersey. Koşay, H.Z. 1934: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Maarif Vekâletince Yapılan Ahlatlıbel Hafriyatı. Ahlatlıbel Prehistorik İstasyonunun Bulunuşu. Türk Tarih. Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi II, 3–102. Koşay, H.Z. 1938: Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Hafriyatı. 1936’daki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları V/2, Ankara. Koşay, H.Z. 1976: Keban Projesi Pulur Kazısı 1968–1970. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları. Ankara. Koşay, H.Z.– Akok, M. 1973: Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Kazısı, 1963–1967 Çalışmaları ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları V/28. Ankara. Korfmann, M. 1983: DemircihüyükI. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. Mainz. Krzyszkowska, O. 2005: Aegean Seals. An Introduction. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 85. Oxford. Lamb, W. 1937: Excavations at Kusura near Afyon KarahisarII. Archaeologia 87, 217–273. Lichter, C. 2011: Neolithic Stamps and the Neolithization Process. AFresh Look at an Old Issue. In: R. Krauß (ed.): Beginnings. New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic Between Northwest Anatolia And The Car‑ pathian Basin. Papers of the international Workshop 8th–9th April 2009. Rahden, 35–44. Lloyd, S.– Mellart, J. 1962: Beycesultan 1. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Occasional Publication 6. London. Massa, M. 2016: Networks Before Empires. Cultural Transfers in West and Central Anatolia During the Early Bronze Age. AThesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Unpublished), Institute of Archaeology University College London (UCL). London. Massa, M.– Palmisano, A. 2018: Change and Continuity in The Long ‑Distance Exchange Networks Between Western/Central Anatolia, Northern Levant and Northern Mesopotamia, c. 3200–1600 BCE. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 49, 65–87. Massa, M.– Tuna, Y. 2019: Reassessing Western and Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age Sealing Practices. ACase from Boz Höyük (Afyon). Anatolian Studies 69, 59–75. Mellaart, M. 1970: Excavations at Hacılar I ‑II. Edinburgh. Mellink, M.J. 1965: Excavations at Karataş ‑Semayük in Lycia,1964. American Journal of Archaeology 69/3, 241–251. Mellink, M.J. 1969: Excavations at Karataş ‑Semayük in Lycia, 1968. American journal of Archaeology 73/3, 319–331. Mellink, M.J. 1970: Excavations at Karataş ‑Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1969. American Journal of Archaeology 74/3, 245–253. Mellink, M.J. 1972: Excavations at Karataş ‑Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1971. American Journal of Archaeology 76/3, 257–269. Mora, C. 1982: Isigilli Anatolici del Bronzo Antico. Orientalia n.s. 51/2, 204–226. Oğuzhanoğlu, U. 2019: ALead Seal from the Laodikeia ‑Kandılkırı Excavations and an Overall Assessment of Seal Use in South ‑Western Anatolia During the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 38/1, 39–64. Özgüç, N. 1987: Karaoğlan Mühürleri. In: H.R. Çangur (ed.): Remzi Oğuz Arık Armağanı. Ankara, 19–31. Özgüç, T. 1945: Beypazarı Çevresinden Getirilen Testi ve Damga Mühür. Belleten IX/33, 288–291. Özkan, S. 2011: Kaniş‘te Mühür Sanatı. In: F. Kulakoğlu– S. Kangal (eds.): Anatolia’nun Önsözü, Kültepe Kaniş‑ ‑Karumu, Asurlular İstanbul’da. İstanbul, 48–154.
28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Öztürk, G. 2019: Yeni Kazılar Işığında MÖ 3. Binyılın Sonunda ve MÖ 2. Binyılın Başında Kültepe Mühür ve Mühür Baskıları. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Bilim Dalı. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Ankara. Prijatelj, A. 2007: Digging the Neolithic Stamp ‑Seals of SE Europe from Archaeological Deposits, Texts and Mental Constructs. Documenta Prehistorica 34, 231–256. Rahmstorf, L. 2016: Emerging Economic Complexity in the Aegean and Western Anatolia During Earlier Third Millennium BC.In: B.P.C. Molloy (ed.): Of Odysseys and Oddities. Scales and Modes of Interaction Between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and Their Neighbours. Sheffield studies in Aegean archaeology. Oxford, 225–276. Schliemann, H. 1881: Ilios, Stadt und Land der Trojaner. Forschungen und Entdeckungen in der Troas und Be‑ sonders auf der Baustelle von Troja. Leipzig. Schmidt, F.E. 1932: The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928 and 1929 1. Oriental Institute Publications 19. Chicago. Şahoğlu, V. 2005: The Anatolian trade network and the Izmir region during the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24/4, 339–360. Taçyıldız, D. 2016: Anatolia’da Başlangıcından MÖI. Binyıla Kadar Gamalı Haç (Swastika) Motifinin Ortaya Çıkışı ve Gelişimi. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Bilim Dalı. Unpublished MA Thesis. Bilecik. Tezcan, B. 1958: Aksaray Çevresinden Derlenen Eserler. Belleten XXII/C (88), 517–526. Tobler, A.J. 1950: Excavation at Tepe GawraII. Philadelphia. Tsuneki, A. 2017: The Significance of Research on the Emergence of Pottery in West Asia. In: A. Tsuneki– O. Nieuwenhuyse– S. Campbell (eds.): The Emergence of Pottery in West Asia. Oxford, 1–8. Türkcan, A.U. 1999: Neolitik Dönem Çatalhöyük Damga Mühürleri ve Benzerleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Arkeoloji Anabilim Dalı, Unpublished PhD thesis. Ankara. Türkcan, A.U. 2006: Some remarks on Çatalhöyük stamp seals. In: I. Hodder (ed.): Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–99 seasons. Cambridge, 175–185. Türkcan, A.U.– Beyoğlu, Z.B. 2015: Höyüktepe 2014 yılı Erken Tunç Çağı Damga Mühürleri. Kureyşler Ba‑ rajı Kurtarma Kazıları 2014/Kureyşler Dam Rescue Excavations, 2015. In: M. Türktüzün– S. Ünan (eds): Kütahya Müzesi Müdürlüğü, Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. Ankara, 431–445. Türkteki, M. 2013: The first use of wheel ‑made pottery and its distribution in western and central Anatolia. In: L. Bombardieri– A. D’Agostino– G. Guarducci– V. Orsi– S. Valentini (eds.): SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. BAR International Series 2581. Oxford, 193–200. Türkteki, M. 2015: Yeni Teknolojilerin Kullanılması ve Yayılmasında Kültürel İletişim Ağlarının Rolü. Çömlekçi Çarkı Perspektifinden Bir Değerlendirme. In: İletişim Ağları ve Sosyal Organizasyon. Tematik Arkeoloji Serisi 2. İstanbul, 211–223. Türktüzün, M.– Ünan, S.– Ünal, S. 2014: Çiledir Höyük Erken Tunç Çağı II Bulguları [Early Bronze AgeII Findings at Çiledir Höyük]. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 17, 49–72. Tütüncüler, Ö. 2013: Swastika. Asymbol known to be of Indo ‑European origin in the Early Bronze Age Anatolia. In: L. Bombardieri– A. D’Agostino– G. Guarducci– V. Orsi– S. Valentini (eds.): SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. BAR International Series 2581. Oxford, 201–208. Umurtak, G. 2000: Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çağlar’da Burdur ‑Antalya Bölgesi Mühürcülüğü Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler. Adalya 4, 1–20. Umurtak, G. 2009: AStudy of Three Numerical (!) Tablets and Stamp Seal from the Early Bronze Age Set‑ tlement at Bademağaci. Adalya 12, 1–11. Umurtak, G. 2010: Questions Arising from aBulla Found in the EBA II Settlement at Bademağacı. Adalya 13, 19–27.
29SINEM ÜSTÜN TÜRKTEKI Umurtak, G. 2013: Some Comments on aFew Intriguing Seals Found in the EBA Settlements at Hacılar Büyük Höyük and aSeal From Burdur Museum. Adalya 16, 49–59. Umurtak, G. 2015: Hacılar Büyük Höyük İlk Tunç Çağı IYerleşmesi’nde Bulunmuş Olan Bir Grup Mühür Üzerine Gözlemler. In: H. Metin– A.P.Becks– R. Becks– M. Fırat (eds.): Pisidia Yazıları. Hacı Ali Ekinci Armağanı. İstanbul, 147–157. Umurtak, G.– Duru, R.2012: Hacılar Büyük Höyük Kazisi 2011 [Hacilar Büyük Höyük Excavations 2011]. Müze 5, 44–48. von der Osten, H.H. 1937: The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1930–32 I. Oriental Istitute Publications 28. Chicago. Warner, L.J. 1994: The Early Bronze Age Village of Karataş. Elmalı ‑KarataşII. Philadelphia. Webb, J.M.– Weingarten, J. 2012: Seals and Seal Use. Markers of Social, Political and Economic Transfor‑ mations on Two Islands. In: G. Cadogan– M. Iacovou– K. Kopaka– J. Whitley (eds.): Parallel lives. Ancient island societies in Crete and Cyprus. London, 85–104. Yıldırım, T.– Ipek, Ö. 2011: 2009 Yılı Resuloğlu Eski Tunç Çağı Mezarlık Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/3, 348–357. Sinem Üstün Türkteki Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University Faculty of Science & Letters Department of Archaeology Building E, Room 225 Bilecik/Turkey [email protected]