Reassessing Anthropomorphic Metal Figurines of Alacahöyük, Anatolia

Yalçın, Ünsal; Yalçın, Hatice

doi:10.5615/neareastarch.76.1.0038

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The figurine’s smaller size and body features significantly differ from the other figurines. Considering both typological features and compositional analysis, Alaca Höyük figurine 7027 was proposed to be an import, without identifying any particular region as its possible source [ 56 : p.45].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Dardeniz

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The archaeometallurgical and archaeological research carried out in Anatolia has provided numerous examples of diverse alloying practices representing different levels of societal interaction, from the extraction of ores to the trade of finished goods and high level gift exchange among elites. While discussions abound about the exploitation of mines, mining settlements, possible origins of artifacts, resources of copper, arsenic, and especially tin to improve our knowledge about Anatolian Bronze Age mining and metallurgy, uncommon alloying practices including the use of antimony, nickel, or lead have long remained in the shadows of scholarly research. With the aim of bringing attention to the diversity in alloying practices in Anatolian metallurgy, this article focuses on the use of antimony through an appraisal of archaeological and textual evidence from Bronze Age Anatolia. Archaeometric data from several Early Bronze Age sites are re-examined alongside new data emerging from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey) to explain the reduction of the variety of alloy types used. Portable-XRF analysis of artifacts from Resuloğlu and mineralogical analysis of an antimony-bearing ore fragment present evidence of use of antimony at the region during the Early Bronze Age. This period is followed by disappearance of antimony in material record until the Iron Age, while textual records weakly refer to its circulation within the region. This paper considers geological, technological, and socio-economic factors to explain why the use of antimony alloys falls dormant after the Early Bronze Age. The political and economic change towards centralization over geological and technological factors is proposed as an explanation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Dardeniz

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turning to early ironworking, it appears closely integrated with bronzeworking in an urban context at contemporary Iron I Tell Tayinat in Syria (Roames 2011). Later, separate bronze- and ironworking facilities without any monumental associations were recorded in the Early Iron Age (EIA) at the small settlement of Oropos in Euboea, with a date 1050–800 BC: at eleventh-century Phokaia, on the Anatolian coast, an ironworking-only workshop appears within the settlement (Doonan and Mazarakis-Ainian 2008; Yalçin and Öyziğit 2013). In the Levantine Iron IIA (early tenth to mid-ninth century), the Tel-es-Safi settlement had adjacent and integrated workshops for secondary bronzeworking/refining, and iron smelting and working; iron was smelted at small scales in urban sectors at Hazor, Rehov and Beer-Sheba settlements of the same period, and smithed at Beth Shemesh (late tenth century), in proximity to the urban centre (Eliyahu-Behar et al 2012; 2013; Yahalom Mack 2009).…”

Section: Background Of Research Data On Metal Artefact Production And...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobility and Metals: Insights on Manufacturing, Consumption, Knowledge and Procurement Networks at the Bronze–iron Transition From the Karphi Assemblage

Wallace

2022

Annu. Br. Sch. Athens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the transformative effects on technology of state collapse and related major cultural transitions in the period 1200–1000 BC (Late Bronze to Iron Age). It documents and assesses a notably large, preserved metal artefact assemblage (mainly bronze) from one of the best-known Mediterranean sites of the period. This is the large mountaintop town of Karphi, recently confirmed through excavation as occupied solely at the Bronze–Iron transition. Few other contemporary Aegean settlements sharing these characteristics of size, complexity and single-period occupation have been excavated, producing a lack of comparably informative metals assemblages. This contextual interpretative study considers in-depth knowledge of the archaeology of the site and its landscape alongside the results (published and discussed in Archaeometry in 2021) of surface HH-XRF testing on the whole assemblage. The latter is preserved in similar condition throughout, offering opportunities for broad internal alloy composition profiling by the latter method, as well as limited general compositional comparison with other assemblages from the contemporary Mediterranean. Comparisons of an interregional nature are attempted through typological, technological and contextual study of the Karphi material. In considering using this range of evidence, and considering how procurement, manufacturing technology and consumption processes around bulk metals and metal artefacts changed following state collapse, the analysis dwells on and highlights signs of locally centred, agent-driven shifts in contact, cultural and economic networks. On the basis of the full range of evidence addressed, it argues that Lasithian groups made specific, informed choices about manufacture and consumption without relying on specialised manufacture and supply from other points within Crete.

show abstract

“…Within this context, the abstract/sexless stone figurines seem to be closely associated with burials of sub-adults at Demircihüyük-Sarıket, and this supports the previously noted interpretation that the figurines are related to shifts in personal status that are related to age. The metal figurines have highly individualised naturalistic schemes and they are made of rarely accessed raw materials which would have demanded specialised production skills; thus their presence in contexts such as Alacahöyük's lavish cemeteries can perhaps be associated with a differential elaboration of 'elite' status (Zimmermann 2008;Yalçın, Yalçın 2013).…”

Section: The Spatiality and Materiality Of Early Bronze Age Figurinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…BüyükGüllücek(Bilgi 2012: fig 440;Martino 2014), as well as those from the Kalınkaya(Kulaçoğlu 1992: fig. 93;Zimmermann 2007) and Alacahöyük cemeteries(Kulaçoğlu 1992: figs 96-99;Yalçın, Yalçın 2013). Comparable material can be found also at west-central Anatolian sites in the region of Eskişehir, Afyon and Burdur, at sites such as Demircihüyük (Baykal-Seeher, Obladen-Kauder 1996: pl.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Figurines of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age: the assemblage from Koçumbeli-Ankara

Atakuman

2017

Anatol. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through analysis of a figurine assemblage from the site of Koçumbeli-Ankara, this study aims to re-evaluate the origins, meanings and functions of the Early Bronze Age (third millennium BC) anthropomorphic figurines of Anatolia. Conventional typological approaches to figurines are often focused on their origins and sex; however, such approaches hinder an understanding of the context of the norms of production, display and discard within which the figurines become more meaningful. Following an examination of breakage patterns and the decorative aspects of the Koçumbeli assemblage, a comparative review of figurine find contexts, raw materials and abstraction scales in Anatolia is provided, so that the social concerns underlying the use of these figurines can be explored. It is concluded that the origins of the figurines are difficult to pinpoint, due to the presence of similar items across a variety of regions of the Near East from the later Neolithic onwards. The sex of the figurines is equally ambiguous; while some human sexual features can be discerned, it is difficult to decide whether these features are ‘male’, ‘female’, both or beyond classification. Alternatively, the decoration, breakage and find contexts of the figurines suggest that the imagery was embedded in more complex perceptions of social status, death and social regeneration. The need for materialisation of these concerns in the form of the figurines could be related to the development of a new social landscape of interaction leading to political centralisation by the second millennium BC. Furthermore, the figurines were produced through a meaningful linking of particular raw materials and particular abstraction scales to particular use contexts, which seems to have shifted during the centralisation process.

show abstract

Reassessing Anthropomorphic Metal Figurines of Alacahöyük, Anatolia

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Mobility and Metals: Insights on Manufacturing, Consumption, Knowledge and Procurement Networks at the Bronze–iron Transition From the Karphi Assemblage

Figurines of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age: the assemblage from Koçumbeli-Ankara

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About