ANKARA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER FOR MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY (ANKÜSAM)

Publication No: 1

Proceedings of the International Symposium

The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age

October 13th – 19th 1997, Urla - İzmir (Turkey)

Edited by

Hayat Erkanal, Harald Hauptmann, Vasıf Şahoğlu, Rıza Tuncel

Ankara • 2008

ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ / ANKARA UNIVERSITY SUALTI ARKEOLOJİK ARAŞTIRMA ve UYGULAMA MERKEZİ (ANKÜSAM)

RESEARCH CENTER FOR MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY (ANKÜSAM)

Yayın No / Publication No: 1

Ön kapak: İzmir - Höyücek’de ele geçmiş insan yüzü tasvirli bir stel. M.Ö. 3. Bin. Front cover: A stelae depicting a human face from İzmir - Höyücek . 3rd Millennium

BC. Arka kapak: Liman Tepe Erken Tunç Çağı II, Atnalı Biçimli Bastiyon. Back cover: Early Bronze Age II horse-shoe shaped bastion at Liman Tepe.

Kapak Tasarımı / Cover Design : Vasıf Şahoğlu

ISBN: 978-975-482-767-5

Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi / Ankara University Press İncitaşı Sokak No:10 06510 Beşevler / ANKARA

Tel: 0 (312) 213 66 55 Basım Tarihi: 31 / 03 / 2008

CONTENTS

Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………………............ xi Preface by the Editors ………………………………………………………………………………… xiii Opening speech by the Mayor, Bülent BARATALI …...……………………………………………......... xxiii Opening speech by Prof. Dr. Ekrem AKURGAL ……………………………………............................... xxv Opening speech by Prof. Dr. Christos DOUMAS……………………………………………………….. xxvii LILIAN ACHEILARA

Myrina in Prehistoric Times …..……………………………………………………………. 1 VASSILIKI ADRIMI – SISMANI

Données Récentes Concernant Le Site Prehistorique De Dimini: La Continuité de l’Habitation Littorale depuis le Début du Néolithique Récent jusqu’à la Fin du Bronze Ancien ……………………………………………………………………………… 9

IOANNIS ASLANIS

Frühe Fortifikationssysteme in Griechenland ………………………………………………. 35 PANAGIOTA AYGERINOU

A Flaked-Stone Industry from Mytilene: A Preliminary Report …………………………… 45 ANTHI BATZIOU – EFSTATHIOU

Kastraki: A New Bronze Age Settlement in Achaea Phthiotis …………………………….. 73 MARIO BENZI

A Forgotten Island: Kalymnos in the Late Neolithic Period ……………………………….. 85 ÖNDER BİLGİ

Relations between İkiztepe by the Black Sea Coast and the Aegean World before Iron Age ……………………………………………………………………………... 109

TRISTAN CARTER

Cinnabar and the Cyclades: Body modification and Political Structure in the Late EB I Southern Cyclades ………………………………………………………............. 119

CHRISTOS DOUMAS

The Aegean Islands and their Role in the Developement of Civilisation ………….............. 131 ANTHI DOVA

Prehistoric Topography of Lemnos: The Early Bronze Age ………………………………. 141 NIKOS EFSTRATIOU

The Neolithic of the Aegean Islands: A New Picture Emerging ………………….............. 159 HAYAT ERKANAL

Die Neue Forschungen in Bakla Tepe bei İzmir ..…………………………………………. 165 HAYAT ERKANAL

Liman Tepe: A New Light on the Prehistoric Aegean Cultures …………………………… 179 JEANNETTE FORSÉN

The Asea Valley from the Neolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age …………….............. 191 DAVID H. FRENCH

Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Southwest Anatolia ………………............. 197

Contents

viii

NOEL GALE Metal Sources for Early Bronze Age Troy and the Aegean ………………………............. 203

BARTHEL HROUDA

Zur Chronologie Südwestkleinasiens in der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr ............... 223 HALİME HÜRYILMAZ

1996 Rettungsgrabungen auf dem Yenibademli Höyük, Gökçeada / Imbros …………….. 229

ERGUN KAPTAN Metallurgical Residues from Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Liman Tepe ………………………………………………………………………….......... 243

ANNA KARABATSOLI and LIA KARIMALI

Etude Comparative Des Industries Lithiques Taillées Du Néolithique Final Et Du Bronze Ancien Egéen : Le Cas De Pefkakia ………………………………………….. 251

NECMİ KARUL

Flechtwerkgabäude aus Osttrakien ……………………………………………………….. 263 SİNAN KILIÇ

The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Northwest Turkey in Light of Results of a Survey around the Marmara Sea ………………………………………………………….. 275

OURANIA KOUKA

Zur Struktur der frühbronzezeitlichen insularen Gesellschaften der Nord- und Ostägäis: Ein neues Bild der sogenannten “Trojanischen Kultur”…………….. 285

NINA KYPARISSI – APOSTOLIKA

Some Finds of Balkan (or Anatolian) Type in the Neolithic Deposit of Theopetra Cave, Thessaly …………………………………………………………………. 301

LAURA LABRIOLA

First Impressions: A Preliminary Account of Matt Impressed Pottery in the Prehistoric Aegean ………………………………………………………………………… 309

ROBERT LAFFINEUR

Aspects of Early Bronze Age Jewellery in the Aegean …………………………………… 323 KYRIAKOS LAMBRIANIDES and NIGEL SPENCER

The Early Bronze Age Sites of Lesbos and the Madra Çay Delta: New Light on a Discrete Regional Centre of Prehistoric Settlement and Society in the Northeast Aegean ……………………………………………………........................ 333

YUNUS LENGERANLI

Metallic Mineral Deposits and Occurences of the Izmir District, Turkey ………………… 355 EFTALIA MAKRI – SKOTINIOTI and VASSILIKI ADRIMI – SISMANI

Les Sites Du Neolithique Recent Dans Le Golfe Pagasetique : La Transformation Des Sites De L’age De Bronze En Sites Urbains (Le Cas De Dimini) ……………………. 369

ELSA NIKOLAOU, VASSO RONDIRI and LIA KARIMALI

Magoula Orgozinos: A Neolithic Site in Western Thessaly, Greece ………………………. 387 EMEL OYBAK and CAHİT DOĞAN

Plant Remains from Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe in the İzmir Region ……………………. 399

Contents

ix

DEMETRA PAPACONSTANTINOU Looking for ‘Texts’ in the Neolithic Aegean: Space, Place and the Study of Domestic Architecture (Poster summary) ………………………………….......... 407

ATHANASSIOS J. PAPADOPOULOS and SPYRIDOULA KONTORLI – PAPADOPOULOU Some thoughts on the Problem of Relations between the Aegean and Western Greece in the Early Bronze Age …………………………………………………. 411

STRATIS PAPADOPOULOS and DIMITRA MALAMIDOU

Limenaria: A Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement at Thasos ……………………… 427 DANIEL J. PULLEN

Connecting the Early Bronze I and II Periods in the Aegean ……………………………….. 447

JEREMY B. RUTTER Anatolian Roots of Early Helladic III Drinking Behaviour …………………………………. 461

VASIF ŞAHOĞLU

New Evidence for the Relations Between the Izmir Region, the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland during the Third Millennium BC …………………………………. 483

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: New Data on Aegean Prehistory ……………………. 503 EVANGELIA SKAFIDA

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly …………………………………………………………... 517

PANAGIOTA SOTIRAKOPOULOU

The Cyclades, The East Aegean Islands and the Western Asia Minor: Their Relations in the Aegean Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age …………………….. 533

GEORGIA STRATOULI

Soziale une ökonomische Aspekte des Chalkolithikums (spätneolithikum II) in der Ägäis aufgrund alter und neuer Angaben …………………………………………….. 559

GEORGE TOUFEXIS

Recent Neolithic Research in the Eastern Thessalian Plain, Greece: A Preliminary Report ……………………………………………………………………….. 569

RIZA TUNCEL

IRERP Survey Program: New Prehistoric Settlements in the Izmir Region ……………….. 581 HANNELORE VANHAVERBEKE, PIERRE M. VERMEERSCH, INGRID BEULS, BEA de CUPERE and MARC WAELKENS

People of the Höyüks versus People of the Mountains ? …………………………………… 593 KOSTAS VOUZAXAKIS

An Alternative Suggestion in Archaeological Data Presentations: Neolithic Culture Through the Finds from Volos Archaeological Museum ……………….. 607

Closing Remarks by Prof. Dr Machteld J. MELLINK ………………………………………………. 611 Symposium Programme ……………………………………………………………………………… 615 Memories from the Symposium……………………………………………………………………… 623

Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures

Hayat ERKANAL

The Izmir region lies at the heart of the Western Anatolian coastline. The area is strategically important and acts as a bridge between Anatolia and the Aegean. The region is connected to Central Anatolia via deep river valleys and is open to the sea through many natural harbour formations. The area has been continuously inhabited since Neolithic times, and excavations at Liman Tepe have yielded important archaeological data regarding the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age cultures. This site is one of the longest inhabited settlements across the entire Aegean. Liman Tepe has been in close contact with the western Aegean since at least the Chalcolithic period. The settlement shows monumental architectural features such as fortifications and administrative buildings dating to the Early Bronze Age.

Until recently, the coastal Western Anatolian region has been evaluated in terms of its culture during the Classical period, its prehistoric cultures being overshadowed by the illustrious cities belonging to this age. Troia, as an important center, was the sole representative of the region’s prehistory, defending the influence of Western Anatolian cultures for a very long time.

The Discovery of a New Site

Troia carried this burden until 1979 when a new site, Liman Tepe, has started sharing this great responsibility.

The existence of pre-Classical cultures in Liman Tepe was first demonstrated by Ekrem Akurgal. After this important discovery, rescue excavations were undertaken in 1979 and the first prehistoric architectural remains were uncovered by Güven Bakır as a result of his investigations. In 1980-81 these investigations were continued by our team. Due to some bureaucratic and financial reasons, a break of 10 years followed. The second period of research was initiated in 1992. The Liman Tepe excavations are currently being undertaken for the Ministry of Culture and Ankara University and every season new results are adding new dimensions to the prehistory of the Aegean region1. In short, Troia is no longer alone.

1 The Izmir Region Excavations and Research Project is generously supported by the Ministry of Tourism and

The Geographic Setting of Liman Tepe

The coastal plain located immediately to the north of Urla was most probably formed as a result of gradual alluvial fill of a former bay. The bay must have first been cut off the sea by a sand barrier, later filling up with alluvium and becoming a coastal plain. During this process, a rocky outcrop in the sea joined with the mainland and a peninsula was created. This peninsula formed a suitable location for a settlement, being backed by a fertile coastal plain which receives considerable rainfall. This peninsula is now called Liman Tepe.

Liman Tepe (Fig 1), located on the southern coast of the Bay of İzmir, is situated within the İskele quarter of Urla. The ancient city of Klazomenai is also located here, as well as on Karantina Island. It is well known that this island was connected to the mainland during the Classical period. It is thus possible to define Liman Tepe as “Prehistoric Klazomenai”.

As an archaeological site, Liman Tepe is located on a peninsula directly opposite Karantina island. This peninsula slopes down

Culture, Turkey; Ankara University Scientific Research Fund Project No. 2006-0901024; TÜBITAK, Project No. 104K014; Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), Ankara University, Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi; INSTAP-SCEC; the Urla Municipality; and the Turkish Historical Society (TTK). For brief information on IRERP see www.irerp.org and www.geocities.com/irerp_tr

Hayat ERKANAL 180

from the higher rocky outcrop in the north towards the south and joins the coastal plain (Fig. 2). In photographs taken in the 1930s and 1940s, Liman Tepe appears quite different than today. During those years, Liman Tepe was a höyük (mound). The highest point of this höyük was located approximately 50 m to the south of the rocky outcrop just mentioned, which then seemed to form the slopes of the mound. In time the höyük was much disturbed through human activity to obtain new agricultural areas or areas for construction, resulting in a loss of at least 5 m of its original height.

Again during this passage of time, summer houses were built over the höyük, thus greatly reducing the areas available for archaeological investigation. The İzmir-Çeşmealtı road also cuts through the site in the east-west direction. This road not only reduces the available areas for archaeological research but also greatly impedes excavations (Fig. 4).

The Earliest Cultures of Liman Tepe

Despite all these disadvantages, Liman Tepe is being intensively investigated year after year and new important data concerning the world’s cultural history is being collected (Figure 3).

As a result of our investigations until the present (Figure 3), the oldest culture of Liman Tepe belongs to the Neolithic period. It has not been possible to detail the characteristics of this early culture at Liman Tepe yet. The ground water level, which is quite high in Liman Tepe, totally covers this and the later Chalcolithic levels. The existence of a Neolithic period settlement, dated to the 6th and partly the 5th millennium BC has nevertheless been demonstrated through limited ceramic finds.

The Chalcolithic period, mainly dated to the 4th millennium BC is a time when metals first started to be used. The period is a precursor to advanced metallurgy to follow and is therefore important for various economic changes. This period was reached and investigated at Liman Tepe through the excavation of levels preceding the floor of various Classical period wells, and its general

characateristics can be understood through more abundant data.

Liman Tepe during the Early Bronze Age

The Early Bronze Age, when metals economy started playing an important role in the evolution of societies resulting in the emergence of urban settlements, was investigated in its various aspects at Liman Tepe. The Early Bronze Age I period, roughly dated to the first half of the 3rd millennium BC could be investigated in a limited area (Fig 3- 4) Despite this disadvantage, the characteristics of the settlement during this period and its material culture could be uncovered in detail.

The settlement of this period is surrounded by a fortification wall constructed in a very different technique (Fig. 3a). This fortification system was built using limestone slabs. The main wall of the fortification, measuring 0.90 m in width, could be uncovered for a length of 15.50 m. The wall continues into the unexcavated areas in both directions (Fig. 5 - 6). The preserved height of the wall (on top of the foundation level) is 2.70 m. The southern, external, face of the wall has three narrow buttresses. The wall, which is not very thick, was strengthened through the additional support provided by these structural elements. The outer face of the wall was further covered by stones forming a rampart (Fig. 6). Thick walls perpendicularly abut the northern – inner – face of the wall to compensate for the pressure created by this rampart. Domestic remains belonging to three phases were uncovered in between these walls perpendicularly supporting the fortification wall2.

It is not currently possible to provide further information on the Early Bronze Age I settlement. But despite being investigated in a limited area, important information on the economic structure of the period was gathered. Besides agricultural production, textile and metal goods were produced. Metallurgy was very advanced, with goods of all kinds being produced by moulds and forging. If the ceramic evidence is taken into consideration, Liman

2 Erkanal 1996, 76, Res.7; Erkanal 2000, 254-255, Çiz.

2, Res. 4.

Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures 181

Tepe appears to be in contact with all the Aegean Islands and mainland Greece.

First Urbanization

The settlement of the Early Bronze Age II period, dated mostly to the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, extends over a much larger area. The Early Bronze Age I settlement was covered by a thick mud brick deposit forming a hard foundation level for the large buildings of the ensuing period as well as leveling the surface of the settlement.

The fortification system was further improved and strengthened in this period and the interior of the fortification was organized as a citadel. Part of the southern section of this fortification system, which covers an oval area extending north to south, was uncovered (Fig. 3b - 4). The excavated area probably contains one side of the main gateway into the citadel. A large tower flanking the gateway to the west is located here. This tower has a mud brick fill and extends to the south that is the mainland, in a horseshoe shape (Fig. 7). The excavated remains form only the pedestal of this tower. The main tower, constructed of mud brick, must have been on top of the stone pedestal. The external length of the tower is 12 m. Its width at the base is 18.80 m. If the parts of the tower now under the water table are taken into consideration, its width could be more than 20 m3.

The western part of the tower, with a preserved height of 5 m, is very well preserved. The eastern part, however, was partly destroyed by a well and a cistern of the Classical period. Test pits excavated in this part have provided information on the details of its interior construction. On the sides of the tower there are cellular constructions of semicircular or trapezoid shape. The three walls of these cells (two side walls and the back wall) were constructed of slab stones only a single row thick. The interior of the cells were then filled with stones and earth and the remaining, outer side was then covered with rows of slab stones forming a ramp. In this way, a chain of filled cellular constructions was obtained on the

3 Erkanal 2001, 263-264, Çiz. 2, Res. 4-5.

circumference of the tower, counteracting the pressure formed by the mud brick fill and the mud brick construction on top4.

Horseshoe shaped bastions and towers are quite widespread both in the Aegean and Anatolia. If, however, the technical characteristics and the dimensions are taken into consideration, this tower is the largest and most monumental example among the ones so far excavated. The tower which must have been located to the east has not yet been discovered. Investigation of this tower, which must be located underneath a much simpler fortification of the Early Bronze Age III period, will be undertaken in the future.

This gate tower which was constructed independently of the fortification system is abutted by the fortification wall on the west. The fortification wall is also constructed of limestone slabs. It is not possible to further comment on the other characteristics of the fortification wall which has only been uncovered for a short length. The fortification wall surrounds the citadel towards the north and continues underwater.

Underwater Liman Tepe

The northern part of the citadel is now underwater due to both the rise in the sea levels in the Aegean as well as the submergence of the mainland in the area. The underwater topography and the extent of architectural remains have been generally documented as a result of our investigations. Our results indicate that the peninsula on which Liman Tepe is located slopes down towards the north and further extends northwest like a headland projecting out. This headland naturally protects the bay to its south like a breakwater (Fig. 3c). These natural factors have been put to use by the cultures at Liman Tepe and the settlement was extended in accordance with the topography. A jetty resembling a bastion was built on the headland extending towards the northwest. This pier, measuring 100 m in length

4 Erkanal 1999a, 240-241, Pl. LIII a-b. This article also

concerns the distribution of horseshoe shaped bastions and towers in the Aegean and Anatolia; Erkanal 1999b, 326, Res.2.

Hayat ERKANAL 182

and 35 m in width conforms to the natural headland underwater. A breakwater, measuring 30 m in length, was also constructed on the southwest of the jetty, counteracting the effect of winds and waves and forming secure conditions for a harbor. Some thick walls found in the exterior and interior of the harbor can be interpreted as piers. Architectural remains increase in density immediately to the east of the jetty, extending towards the mainland

An underwater research project was initiated in to document the underwater remains and to uncover the harbor structure (Figure 3)5.

The first year of this research was mainly carried out as excavation of various test pits.

Excavation of one of these test pits resulted in the discovery of limestone slabs under a layer of underwater flora and fauna, similar to ones used in the Early Bronze Age II fortification system6. Dense concentrations of large pithoi fragments were uncovered at a depth of 1.30 m in the same pit. These fragments, all displaying the same characteristics, can be defined as the cargo of a ship. Remains of a shipwreck which was previously encountered in former years was again encountered in another test pit located to the north of the jetty (i.e. on the exterior face)7. A depth of 2 m was reached in this pit and traces of a coral reef were uncovered. If this observation is taken into consideration, one could postulate that the headland on which the jetty was built must have been a coral reef. 5 The underwater excavations are carried out within the

framework of scientific co-operation established between University of Haifa and Ankara University. Haifa University joined the excavations with a group of 16 academics expert in maritime studies under the direction of Michal Artzy and also contributed greatly to the education and training of the Liman Tepe excavation members in underwater excavation. The underwater excavations were financially supported by Ankara University Research Fund, University of Haifa, TÜBİTAK and INSTAP (Institute for Aegean Prehistory). For underwater excavations cf. Artzy 2000, 3 ff.

6 The limestone deposits at and around Urla are formed in layers which can easily be broken to form slabstones of quite regular character. This stone is locally known as “Urla stone” and has been used since prehistoric periods until recently in construction.

7 The same shipwreck was encountered in the 1996 underwater documentation work. Cf. Erkanal 1998, 392.

The following forms a summary of the results obtained from a total of 5 test pits. The stone masonry of the jetty continues at least 2 m further down from the present sea floor. The real height of this masonry will be further investigated in future years and cultural material to be uncovered in lower levels will elucidate chronological matters. The gradual filling of the harbor interior has also been documented as a result of our investigations. Various deep cores from the present seabed demonstrate the existence of cultural strata more than 5 m deep. These strata conform to the stratigraphy of Liman Tepe. Levels belonging to the Archaic period were reached as a result of our excavations. In future years it is hoped that prehistoric levels will be reached. No cultural material was uncovered outside the harbor area which conclusively demonstrates that the jetty forms the final border of the settlement at Liman Tepe.

Settlement Plan of the Early Bronze Age II

Period

If the remains underwater are also taken into consideration, Liman Tepe possesses a citadel of roughly oval shape with a length of 300 m. The strong fortification system which continues on land and most probably underwater joins the harbor complex with its piers (Fig. 3). To the south of the citadel is a lower city which opens up like a fan towards the mainland. The lower city, which is 4-5 m on lower ground possesses stone paved streets and large houses adjacent to them. Like the citadel, at least three different architectural levels have been uncovered in the lower city. A large building is located at the focal point of the citadel itself.

Central Authority during the Early Bronze

Age II Period

An external wall of this central building, which extends in a northwest-southeast direction, have been uncovered (Fig. 3c,). This wall, which has been preserved for a height of 2 m is 1.50-2.20 m wide. A second wall, 0.60 m wide, was constructed parallel to the exterior wall. A corridor measuring 1.20 m in width is found between these walls. This corridor was

Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures 183

divided by walls forming narrow compartments. The pottery from these compartments demonstrates that they were used as storage areas. Imported material from Western Aegean among the pottery is important for the chronology of both regions. Two lines of rooms are located to the north of this corridor (Fig. 8). A court, measuring 5-6 m in width is located between the corridor compartments and this line of rooms. A posthole was discovered at the center of this court. The northern external wall of this building could not be discovered. The northwestern extension of the building continues into the unexcavated areas and even under the modern houses. Most of this important building whose one wing consists of a single line of corridor compartments and its other wing is made up of lines of rooms remains in unexcavated areas. The real dimensions of this building, which has been excavated for a length of 15 m is so far unknown8.

These central buildings where the long sides contain corridors are widely known in Greece and are called “corridor houses”9. This type of building is generally found at the centre of a fortified area and believed to be a residence of a lord or chief. Other residential units are scattered around this central building. Despite the peculiar characteristics of the Liman Tepe central building, its concept conforms to the “corridor houses” from mainland Greece. Around this building are other structures having long narrow rooms resembling storage areas. Both the central building and the surrounding structures have 3 architectural phases.

The corridor houses located within fortified settlements of the Early Bronze Age II period in the Aegean are normally interpreted as reflections of central authority. This authority most probably directs the political and economic organization. Besides these, the central building at Liman Tepe also has a different characteristic. The most telling assemblage of finds within this building is a group of phalloi. These are of various stones

8 For this central structure see. Erkanal 1996, 77-78, Res.10-11; Erkanal 1998, 383-387,Res. 1.

9 Cf. Shaw, 1987, 59; Shaw 1990, 183-194, Fig. 1-2; Sinos 1971, Pl. 36-85.

and possess a cylindrical body, a flat base and a rounded head. Of the 7 examples discovered so far, one of them is important not only for elucidating religious beliefs but also the art of the period. This particular example is made of sandstone and possesses a monkey’s head at the tip (Fig. 9). This monkey’s head is rendered in a natural style and may have been imported from the Eastern Mediterranean region. A pottery disk of oval form and a fragmentary bull’s head ryhton should also be interpreted as religious paraphernalia. These finds give the central building at Liman Tepe a new, religious characteristic10.

The Political Organization of the Region during the Early Bronze Age II Period

Liman Tepe displays different characteristics from all the known Aegean settlements of the Early Bronze Age II period. A well organized settlement with a harbor complex linked to the citadel and a lower town is in evidence. The citadel, due to the earlier build-up from previous settlements, is located on higher ground in comparison to the lower city. The excavated remains of the fortification system only forms the lower pedestal of the entire fortification. If the mud brick superstructure which has since demolished is also taken into consideration, the fortification system must have been approximately 10-12 m high. These urban characteristics suggest that Liman Tepe is a regional center.

The other contemporary sites found on the Urla Peninsula display different characteristics (Fig. 10). Gölkayası, located in Alaçatı is a rocky outcrop. The caves and rock shelters located in this rocky outcrop were used for settlement. The surroundings of this site is covered with rocks and there is no available agricultural land. These characteristics suggest that Gölkayası was a site established to ward off possible attacks from the sea. Another site, Kale Tepe, is located on the İzmir-Çeşme road. This small site, approximately 50 m in diameter and surrounded by a fortification wall is in a commanding position overlooking the valley and the natural route that passes through it.

10 Erkanal & Günel 1997, Çiz. 3-4, Res. 10.

Hayat ERKANAL 184

Değirmen and Yağcılar are in a similar position (Fig. 9). The Early Bronze Age II settlements outside the peninsula display more rural characteristics. If these points are considered, the available evidence suggests that the necessary actions were taken to establish a regional defense system which itself points to a regional political unity. Its particular characteristics make Liman Tepe the center of this political union, as there are no other known settlements which are candidates for such a position.

Conclusion

Liman Tepe reflects the cultures of the region from the 6th millennium to the end of the 2nd millennium BC without a break. If the ancient city of Klazomenai is also considered, the cultural continuity of the settlement is evident until the end of the Classical period. This characteristic can so far only be observed in Western Anatolia at Liman Tepe. The prehistoric sites documented and excavated in the İzmir region demonstrate the cultural importance of the region. This culture went farther than the Aegean world and achieved relations with the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans and even Caucasia. The excavations and investigations of prehistoric sites11 will continue in the future, undoubtedly producing more important data and documenting the archaeological richness of the İzmir region which fed on the great cultural potential of Anatolia.

HAYAT ERKANAL Ankara University Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Department of Archaeology Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology 06100, Sıhhiye – Ankara TURKEY

11 Panaztepe within the district of Menemen, Bakla Tepe

and Kocabaş Tepe in the Tahtalı Dam area are being investigated along with Liman Tepe within the framework of the İzmir Region Excavations and Research Project (Fig. 1).

Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures 185

Bibliography: Artzy, M. 2000, “Ankara-Haifa Joint University Project at Liman Tepe 2000”, R.I.M.S. (Recenati Institute for Maritime

Studies) News 27, 3-5. Erkanal, H. 1996, “Erken Tunç Çağı’nda Batı Anadolu Sahil Kesiminde Kentleşme / Early Bronze Age Urbanization in the

Coastal Region of Western Anatolia”, in: Sey, Y. (ed.), Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme / Housing and Settlements in Anatolia. A Historical Perspective, Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, 70-82.

Erkanal, H. 1998, “1996 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları”, 19. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 379-398. Erkanal, H. 1999a, “Early Bronze Age Fortification Systems in İzmir Region”, in: Betancourt, P.P.-V. Karageorghis-R.

Laffineur & W.D. Niemeier (eds.), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th year. Vol. 1, 237-242.

Erkanal, H. 1999b, “1997 Liman Tepe Kazıları”, 20. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 325-336 Erkanal, H. 2000, “1998 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları”, 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 251-262. Erkanal, H. 2001, “1999 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları”, 22. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 259-268. Erkanal, H. & S. Günel 1997, 1995 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları”, 18. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 231-260. Shaw, J.W. 1987, “The Early Helladic II Corridor House. Development and Form”, AJA 91, 59-79. Shaw, J.W. 1990, “The Early Helladic II Corridor House, Problems and Possibilities”, in Darcque, P. & R. Treuil (eds.),

L’habitat egeen prehistorique. Actes de la table ronde internationale, BCH Supplement No. XIX, Athens, 183-194. Sinos, S. 1971, Die Vorklassischen Hausformen in der Ägäis, Mainz am Rhein. List of Illustrations: Fig. 1: Map of Izmir Region showing the location of sites excavated within the framework of Izmir Region Excavations and

Research Project (IRERP). Fig. 2:Aerial photograph of Liman Tepe. Fig. 3:Topographical map of Liman Tepe. Fig. 4:Aerial photograph of Liman Tepe (Photo by J. Driessen). Fig. 5:View of the EBA I fortification wall parallel to the modern road – Liman Tepe. Fig. 6: EBA I fortification wall – Liman Tepe. Fig. 7: Monumental EBA II horseshoe shaped bastion – Liman Tepe. Fig. 8:EBA II Late, “Central Structure” at Liman Tepe. Fig. 9:Phallic object with a monkeys head – Liman Tepe. Fig. 10:Map showing the Early Bronze Age sites around the gulf of Izmir.

Hayat ERKANAL 186

Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures 187

Hayat ERKANAL 188

Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures 189

Hayat ERKANAL 190