Deep bowls with sinuous upper sides, type 2C.x (Fig. 35: 659-661) and short necked jars such as our nos 667-668 apparently find no comparisons with the Boğazköy repertoire quoted here, but do recall the shape of a painted jar rim from Alaça148. Among these there is a sherd (Fig. 35: 659; Pl. 15: 10, K09.1020) which has a whitish slip and a red/orange core. Whether these elements are part of an earlier assemblage is, unfortunately, a question that must remain unanswered for the moment as our collection is from surface rather than stratified contexts. At the same time the absence from our collection of bowls with slightly outwardly flaring rims which are, instead, documented in the pre-Hittite levels at Büyükkale149 recurring in level 9 and then in level 8c-d150 and in the old *karum* period, level 8b151, could suggest further clues for differentiation but could, equally, be merely accidental.

As far as for closed shape concerns, the rims of short-necked jars are often painted, with a band overlapping on either the interior side (Fig. 35: 672-673) or on both the interior and exterior (Pl. 15: 1, K12.1268). This characteristic appears in the north-western slope of Boğazköy, level 9152, and in the lower city153 dating to the late *karum* and Old Hittite period, level IV and IVc and IVd. To conclude, some general remarks about two types of closed forms: short-necked jars similar to our no. 672 are documented at Boğazköy but with lightly different rim end 154; hole-mouth bowls/pots of type 5A (Fig. 35: 662-666) belong to a category of vessels used for a long period, and are attested, for example, in the Alaça EBA level155.

#### *<IP_ADDRESS> The 2nd millennium BC occupation, between the karum and Hittite periods*

As reagrds the 2nd millennium BC, the key sites used as best comparisons in our attempt to assign a preliminary date to the Uşaklı ceramic repertoire are mainly Boğazköy, Kuşaklı and Kaman-Kalehöyük. In particular, layers 3 and 2 of the building on the west slope of Kuşaklı, dating between the end of the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom (Mielke 2006: 170), the built-up areas on Büyükkale and the lower city of Boğazköy (Fischer 1963; Schirmer 1969), dating from the *karum* period through the Old Hittite to the Imperial period provide us with sequences which encompass most of the 2nd millennium BC. Instead, the lower city of Boğazköy, the temple central district (Parzinger, Sanz 1992), dating from the the end of 13th century BC to the beginning of 12th century BC, the quarter of the kilns in the upper city (Müller-Karpe 1988) and the contemporary level of Kaman-Kalehöyük (Matsumura 2005: 40, 529) provide further good repertoires for the Hittite and Imperial periods.

Several specimens in wheelmade plain and red slipped wares could date to the 2nd millennium BC. Our repertoire includes many types of mass-produced wheelmade plain ware with profiles and treatments characteristic of the Late Empire production (ware D). Often scraping and trimming marks are visible on the external wall of the side, the result of the removal of excess clay from the surfaces. These types probably continued to be produced also during the first part of the Early Iron Age (hereinafter EIA), as documented for example in Büyükkaya (Schoop 2003; Genz 2004: 24) and only gradually began to be substituted by new products and manufacturing techniques. On the contrary, no handmade or painted sherds similar to those found in Boğazköy and dating to the EIA (Genz 2003 and 2004: 24- 28) have been recovered during the surveying activities at Uşaklı. Another well-documented surface find is red slipped ware (Rs), characterised by a red to reddish/brown smoothed and burnished slip which covers both the exterior and interior surfaces which can also be lustrous. The distribution of red-slipped sherds is homogeneous and covers wide sectors of the terrace. We do not seem to be dealing here with a single traditions and there are serious limitations to the reliability of this ware as a

146 Fischer 1963, taf. 6: 71.

147 See, for example, similar type of plates dating to the Hittite period in Matsumura 2005: taf. 34; taf. 105; Mielke 2006: 126-127: type Te 2.

marker for purely second millennium occupation since it is also documented for the Iron Age. Many diagnostic specimens are, in fact, more probably to be dated to the MBA or Late Bronze Age (hereinafter LBA), offering at least parallels with stratified contexts.

Plates, shallow conical and flaring bowls ascribable to types 1A-H (Figs 1-2) date, in most cases, to LBA156. Usually the large sized types are characterised by simple rims or inner thickened rims variously shaped, and in some cases by a sort of inner large ribbon-like thickening that outlines the end portion of the side. Plates and shallow bowls with simple rim (type 1A.1; Fig. 1: 1-3), generally rounded, are also attested in the above mentioned sites157, as well as specimens with inner round thickened rim, listed as type 1H.2-3158. These types date from the early Hittite period up to the Late Empire159, being produced from the 17th to the 13th century BC, with a peak in the 15th century BC. A typical element associated with the large plates is the rope imprint along the external portion of the rim (Fig. 2: 22-28; Pl. 19) or, in certain cases, on the exterior upper side, a mark of the characteristic manufacturing process. The characteristic plate of LBA date is scattered over a wide geographical area and documented farther afield at some sites on the edges of the territory controlled by the Hittites, for example in Porsuk160 and Kinet Höyük161 to mention only a couple. Also conical bowls with inside thickened rim and less flared sides, classified as type 2A.9 (Fig. 4: 84 and 86) how a certain similarity with specimens from these same sites162. Small plates of type 1J.1 (Fig. 2: 34-35) can also be assigned to the same period on the basis of parallels with Kuşaklı163.

Many curved bowls classified as types 2A.1, 2A.4. 2A.9, 2A.18, 2B.17-18, some in drab ware and others in plain ware (Pl. 18164), generally buff to brown in colour, constitute our characteristic repertoire of probable Hittite date. They share with the repertoire of plates and shallow bowls the rough surface finish that retains many traces of their shaping (signs, defects, clay lumps, lines of the manufacturing from the potter's wheel).

Several types of bowls in plain and slipped wares bear similarity with the repertoire of Boğazköy dating to the Hittite period. To give just a general framework of comparisons, types 2A.2a and 2A.2b, 2d (Fig. 3: 51-57, 59-60) and types 2A.3a, 3b, 4a (Fig. 3: 63-68) show profiles similar to round bowls from Büyükkale as well as from the lower and upper cities of Boğazköy165. In particular, some shapes such as nos 53-55 and nos 59, 60, 55 with short upright rim, find more close parallels166.

Hemispheric thin walled bowls, with simple and pointed rims, classified as types 2A.2 and 2A.3 (Fig. 3: 39, 48-55, 58-64) find parallels in Kuşaklı167 and Boğazköy168, and nos 48-49 and specimens with pointed rim in the Kaman-Kalehöyük level dating to the Imperial period169.

With regard to other middle-sized conical bowls, type 2A.4a (Figs 3-4: 68-71) and 2A.4d (Fig. 4: 74, 76) general parallels to LBA contexts have also been found170; as well as for type 2A.4b (Fig. 4, 72171).

Shallow bowls types 2A.10-13 present peculiar rims vaguely in the shape of a goose beak. Type 2A.10 (Fig. 5: 87) and types 2A.11a-c (Fig. 5: 90, 95, 96, 99) find parallels respectively in Kuşaklı and in the lower city of Boğazköy172. From type 2A.11c to 2A.14b (Fig. 5: 95-111) comparisons are with Kuşaklı173

156 Fischer 1963: taf. 100-101; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: 29: type J; Müller-Karpe 1988: types S2a, Te1a-T2b; Mielke 2006: taf. 69-73; taf. 88-89.

162 Mielke 2006: taf. 49: 6; Matsumura 2005: taf. 55: KL94-M148; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: 27: type I 3,1 c; Müller-Karpe 1988: taf. 29: type S1a.

163 Mielke 2006: taf. 57: 28.

170 Mielke 2006: taf. 54: 2, 27-30; Fisher 1963: taf. 86: 744; taf. 84: 709, 707, 710; taf. 83: 691; taf. 89: 782; Matsumura 2005: taf. 2: KL95-M402 for the incurved rim; Mielke 2006: taf. 53: 23.

and partially Kaman-Kalehöyük174. In particular, we can relate to the repertoires of the above-mentioned sites our specimens nos 97-98175; type 2A.13 (Fig. 5: 107)176; type 2A.14a with inner and outer thickened rims (Fig. 5: 108-110 and 111-113)177, and types 2A.14d-e (Fig. 6: 114-115)178 which persist also in the Iron Age repertoire (see below the section on the Iron Age - hereinafter IA).

Shallow medium and large sized bowls, type 2A.18a (Fig. 6 and 7) and, in particular, examples such as nos 138-139, represent a category that is morphologically so close to certain kinds of plates (i.e. types 1H.2-3, Fig. 2) that it is difficult to establish clear distinctions purely on the basis of proportion and size ratios apart from the general observation that plates have more pronounced flaring edges and rims. Parallels of variant no. 139 (Fig. 6) are to be found at Kuşaklı and Boğazköy179. No. 141 (Fig. 7) and no. 147, type 2A.18c (Fig. 7) are characterised by a vertical end and lightly in-thickened rim documented also in Boğazköy180, but apparently with no superficial irregularities on the inner side of the rim, as a kind of narrow parallel lines and grooves left during the manufacturing phase. The light depression under the rim of type 2A.18b (Fig. 7: 144-145) is a characteristic documented in some specimens found at Boğazköy181, but belonging to different forms.

For type 2A.19a-b (Fig. 7: 157-161) the sites of Kaman-Kalehöyük, Kuşaklı and Boğazköy once again provide good parallels182, whereas type 2A.18e, no. 153 shows only a generic similarity183. Type 2A.24 (Fig. 9: 200) recalls the rim of a specimen found at Kaman-Kalehöyük, but small in size184. The shape of no. 213, type 2A.29b (Fig. 10), is documented also in Kaman-Kalehöyük from the end of LBA to the Middle Iron Age185. The size and shape of no. 220 (Fig. 10) are vaguely reminiscent of a specimen from the same site186, but not in grey ware.

The carinated bowls with thin walls are generally to be considered as dating to the IA. In a limited number of cases some elements can be found starting from the end of 2nd millennium BC. Within type 2B.1 (Fig. 10), S-shaped fine bowl no. 233 could recalls a specimen found in Kuşaklı187 but with a rectilinear external profile. It is quite probable that type 2B.2a (Fig. 10: 235) should be dated to LBA on the basis of parallel found in Kuşaklı188, and no. 234 is similar to some smaller, carinated examples189.

Small carinated bowls with everted flaring side and simple or pointed rim, our type 2B.1 (Fig. 10) cannot be assigned to any precise period. In some cases, like the Gold Wash ware specimens (Fig. 10: 223-225), and in part also 226, the general shape recalls types found at Boğazköy190, as well as the rim of nos 230 and 231191.

Carinated bowls with inturned side and V-shaped handle, types 2B.4a and 2B.4b (Fig. 11: 256-273; Pl. 16: 1), mainly but not exclusively in red slip ware, often date to the Old Kingdom period, continuing a characteristic production of the *karum* period but documented up to the end of the LBA192. Similar shapes have been found in the Hittite level of Alişar193. Parallels for our specimens characterised by the curved profile of the upper sides and simple rim, in some cases with the inner portion lightly enlarged,

174 Matsumura 2005: taf. 18: KL95-M407 and 492.

175 See Matsumura 2005: taf. 3: KL96-M42; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: taf. 37: 17.

176 See Parzinger, Sanz 1992: taf. 47: 4.

177 See Matsumura 2005: taf. 13: first seven specimens; taf. 18: KL95-M440; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: taf. 15: 1-13; Müller-Karpe 1988: taf. 35: type S5e-f; taf. 36: type S5i.

178 See Mielke 2006: taf. 50: 18 and 4; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: taf. 5: 18.

179 Mielke 2006: taf. 49: 20; Fischer 1963: taf. 91: 805, 804.

180 Fischer 1963: taf. 88: 764.

181 Fischer 1963: taf. 94: 854; taf. 96: 876.

182 Matsumura 2005: taf. 13: KL95-M462, M44, M103; taf. 16; taf. 55: KL94-M182 and for the rim M438; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: 27: type I 3.1.b.

183 Matsumura 2005: taf. 55: KL94-M182.

184 Matsumura 2005: taf. 3: KL94-M81.

185 Matsumura 2005: taf. 36: KL89-M51; in part taf. 50, KL98-M96; taf. 108: KL89-M198.

186 Matsumura 2005: taf. 52: KL93-M101.

187 Mielke 2006: taf. 59: 11.

188 Mielke 2006: taf. 56: 19, 20.

189 Mielke 2006: taf. 56: 25-27; Matsumura 2005: taf. 4: KL94-M56.

190 Fischer 1963: taf. 98: 899, 897, 898, 895.

191 Fischer 1963: taf. 98: 887 e 888.

192 Schoop 2009: 151; Mielke 2006: 149, 123; Matsumura 2005, 305: KL96-M51.

193 Von der Osten 1937b: fig. 219-220.

are to be found at Kaman-Kalehöyük194. Bowls of this kind with simple rim or out thickened rim and moderate size are documented for example in Boğazköy, sometimes with longer sides195. Some specimens with slightly thickened outer rim, type 2B.7c, like nos 293-294 (Fig. 12) or type 2C.2, nos 341-343 (Fig. 15), recur within the MBA horizon of Kültepe196; and no. 342 finds parallels also in Boğazköy197. The large, deep bowls with V-shaped handles, type 2C.2 (Fig. 15: 341-343), are also documented at Boğazköy198.

Some of the bowls with the rim curved inward (Fig. 12: 281, 279, 282) are characteristic of the LBA horizon199. The bowl type with everted rim (Fig. 12: 290) is attested at Boğazköy200, Kaman-Kalehöyük201 and at Kültepe202, whilst no. 292 recalls a type found at Kuşaklı203. The thin walled specimen no. 301 is part of the Kaman-Kalehöyük repertoire of LBA date204.

In general carinated bowls are dated from the *karum* to the end of the Empire period (Mielke 2006, 111) and then to the IA. Some of them with upright sides and outer thickened rim find parallels within LBA contexts. No. 315 (Fig. 13) bears some similarities to shapes found at Kaman-Kalehöyük, often partially red painted/slipped like our nos 318-320205. The medium to large sized carinated bowls classified as types 2B.17 and IIB.18 are part of medium/coarse production of probable LBA date, sharing fabrics, surface colours and treatments with our drab ware curved bowls and plates. A generic parallel has been found with materials from Kuşaklı206, which are slightly more flared; Boğazköy207; Kaman-Kalehöyük208 or from level V of Porsuk209. It is noteworthy that their scatter overlaps that of characteristic drab ware sherds (see chapter on the distribution of the main types below).

Among closed shapes (Figs. 19 and 20), the necked jars ascribable to the 2nd millennium are very hard to isolate on the basis only of a limited portion of rim. In general the shape is generic, morphologically poorly specialised and the type was produced over a long period of time. Consequently, the rim could often be part of a LBA assemblage, but we cannot exclude an MBA or IA date.

Comparison for the small jars are few and for those classified as type 3A.1 (Fig. 16: 345-354) some can be found in Kaman-Kalehöyük210.

Kitchen pots, jars without neck or with only sketchy/short neck (Figs. 17-18), often with out thickened rounded rim, represent a group with good parallels in the Hittite period repertoire of Kuşaklı and Boğazköy211. Type 6A.6 (Fig. 17: 378-380, 382), but also type 5A.5 (Fig. 17: 376) and type 5A.7 (Fig. 18: 383-384) recall specimens found in Boğazköy212 and Kaman-Kalehöyük213 as well as no. 392214. Type 5A.11 is documented in the lower city of Boğazköy215. A part two specimens from Boğazköy216, it is more problematic to find parallels for the type 5A.8b (Fig. 18: 387-389) characterised by a ridge on the shoulder.

The general shape of high necked jars, types 6C.2-4 (Fig. 20: 432-443) resembles specimens found at Kuşaklı and Kaman-Kalehöyük217; for 6C.2 (nos 432, 434-436) parallels are found at Boğazköy218.

194 Matsumura 2005: taf. 4.

Within type 6D are classified the fragments of beak spouted jars that were produced from the beginning of EBA/MBA transition up until the LBA. In particular for no. 460 Boğazköy shows good parallels219.

Series of fragments in plain or slip wares classified as types ZA can be assigned to craters, funnelshaped and large sized jars dating from the *karum* period to the IA. Specimens with ledged squared rim and inside stepped for supporting lids (Fig. 26: 510-511) or outer thickened oval rim and vertical neck (Fig. 26: 495-497 and 506) could be of Hittite date220 and the same applies also to no. 507221. In Kuşaklı the majority has simple rim, like our nos 494-497222, nos 506-507223 and lid support ledge is poorly documented. The slight swelling under the rim of no. 501 (Fig. 26) recalls a characteristic documented in type 15 of the Kuşaklı typology224.

Only a few storage jars fragments can be firmly dated to the LBA period. This category of container was in use for a long time and the formal characteristics show few variations over the different periods (Figs 22-25). The specimen of large storage jar with button-like application (Fig. 23: 479; Pl. 22: 5) can be dated to the LBA thanks to similar forms found in the lower city of Boğazköy225. *Pithoi* of Hittite date generally have simple rims out thickened or differently modelled compared to types found in our survey. Types 8A.1 and 8A.2 (Fig. 22: 465 and 471) have been found in Boğazköy226. Only vaguely similar to our nos 483, 488 (Fig. 24), 480 (Fig. 23) are some specimens found in Kuşaklı227. In the same levels the flattened and pointed rims found generic parallels228 but squared rims like our type 8B.1 (Fig. 23) are rare, apart from a few sporadic cases. In Kuşaklı the storage containers usually have round outwardly thickened rims229; and large basins/tubs230 can provide adequate parallels for our specimen no. 481. Other examples of large containers dating to the Imperial period and useful as general reference are found at Kuşaklı231. Apart from no. 465 (Fig. 22232) it seems that our specimens in plain ware are probably of later date, although we cannot determine their chronology with greater precision. In some cases, the use of both red slip and white/buff slip on the rim or below it, sometimes also reserved, (Fig. 24: 484, 485; Pl. 17: 7) offers comparisons with specimens documented at Kuşaklı and Böğazköy233.

Only generic remarks can be made about the bases of open and closed forms collected during the survey (Fig. 31), since there are very few specialised shapes that were used for many centuries. Kuşaklı and Boğazköy offer possible parallels of LBA date for some of our round types nos 566-567, probably of closed shapes234; no. 569235; for ring bases of open shapes nos 577-578236 and no. 572237 and pointed bases like no. 569, but larger in size238. Also the expanded thick flat base no. 565 and the conical pedestal base no. 581 – the Uşaklı specimen is in orange fine ware or Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware – have some parallels in the same levels239. Round bases, ring bases and pointed bases are typical of Hittite period layers but this do not preclude the shape from continuing also in the IA and later periods. The string-cut marks evident on the external side of some small bases (Pl. 22, 3) probably from conical

219 Orthmann 1963: taf. 17: 46, level 9=*karum* IV-III, transitional period; taf. 35: 361, level 8a, recent *karum* period; Fischer 1963: taf. 22: 229, Hittite period.

220 Fischer 1963: taf. 59: 543-544; taf. 60: 550; Matsumura 2005: taf. 29: KL96-M109, KL94-M69, for no. 502; taf. 28-29; Mielke 2006: taf. 34: 17; Parzinger, Sanz 1992: taf. 1: 19.

239 Parzinger, Sanz 1992: 32: type Q 2.4 a; taf. 20: 6; Müller-Karpe 1988: taf. 46: type B26. For the Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware see references at pag. 69, this article.

### 174 *A. D'AGOSTINO, V. ORSI*

beakers, are also documented in Büyükkale240 and this characteristic trace of the manufacturing process dates from the mid- 18th century BC to the 13th century BC. Among the profiles dating to the pre-Hittite period are specimens similar to our no. 579 (Fischer 1963: 7: 98).

Beak spouted jars, defined as *schnabelkannen* by German scholars, fall within the morphology of those found in Boğazköy241. Similar but not close parallels have been found for the miniaturist variant (Fig. 29: 551), but this is a small version of types documented in Boğazköy levels dating to the Hittite period242. The kind of beak spout with tip curved downwards (Fig. 29: 541) occurs from the *karum* period onwards and short beaks are attested243, although this type continues to be produced during the Iron Age too.

Some fragments are problematic in terms of typological definition, given the poor state of preservation or particularly odd shape. In the most cases the small portions of sherds have been counted and classified as pieces without understandable morphology. Of those sufficiently well preserved and reproduced in Figure 30, we have only been able to suggest a plausible interpretation in very few cases, such as no. 561 which could be part of a draining device like those found in Kuşaklı244.

Among the handles some specimens can be dated to the LBA period. Type H1 (Fig. 32: 583-584; Pl. 16: 5), a kind of humpback handle sometimes with sharp edge, finds good parallel at Kuşaklı245. Here and at Boğazköy specific forms attested within our repertoire have also been documented246.

A few fragments of closed shapes, mainly body sherds, with linear incisions and geometric stamps have been found. Incised potmarks are characteristic of the LBA period as clearly documented in different sites247. One of our specimens (Fig. 34: 635; Pl. 20: 3) falls within this typology of marks. The stamped marks on the vessel body, often on the shoulders of closed shapes (Fig. 34: 627-634) recur from the *karum* period to the Old Hittite period248 and are documented in several sites. Impressions of the so-called 'royal sign' (nos 633-634) and pattern with concentric circles are attested at Boğazköy and Alaça249. Furthermore, a specimen of handle with an impressed mark has been found (Fig. 33: 604), probably a winged animal. Five of these sherds with stamp impressions were recovered on the eastern slope of the terrace. At Alişar stamp seals in clay with the 'royal sign', concentric designs and volatiles representations were documented250.

Incised, stamped and excised patterns used as decoration (Fig. 34, 637; Pl. 21: 4) are usually part of the EBA horizon but are documented also in the *karum* and Hittite periods (Fischer 1963, 75). The specimens with series of cut triangles could fall within this kind of decoration (Fischer 1963, taf. 127: 1181-1193).

The handmade plate or terrine like our n. 642 (Fig. 35) remains of uncertain date but it is worth mentioning that similar shapes are documented in the earlier periods (Late Chalcolithic and EBA) but also in the LBA and IA levels as documented for example at Kaman-Kalehöyük and Kuşaklı251.

#### *<IP_ADDRESS> The Iron Age occupation*

It is difficult to draw a clear distinction between repertoires dating to end of LBA and the beginning of IA on the basis of morphology and fabrics alone. As noted above, the first impression is of a general continuity in the use of same sources of clay and a similar quality of inclusions and finishing techniques at the turn of the millennium as well as partially during the first centuries following, as documented for example at Kaman-Kalehöyük and Boğazköy (Genz 2007: 132; 2003: 180-181). At the same time, there are no clear typological markers which would enable us to distinguish between the repertoires of the middle and the late IA.

240 Fischer 1963: taf. 12: 101; taf. 6: 71; taf. 7: 98.

241 Fischer 1963: taf. 21-34.

242 Fischer 1963: taf. 33: 319-322, in particular 322; for our no. 541 cfr. taf. 27: 285-286.

243 Fischer 1963: taf. 35, 37.

246 For Pl. 16: 6, K08.1560 cfr. Mielke 2006: 149: type He8; Fischer 1963: taf. 468; taf 46: 474 *lisenflaschen*; taf. 47 and Müller-Karpe 1988: taf. 1: 2.

247 Mielke 2006: taf. 82-84; Gates 2001.

248 Seidl 1972: A50-52.

249 Seidl 1972: A33, 36 and A26; Boehmer, Güterbock 1987: pl. XLII, 328; Arik 1937: XIII: Al. 18; Koşay, Akok 1966: lev. 22: Al.g.148, Al.e.72; 1951, Lev XLIX: res. 1; lev. 23: Al.f. 189, 187.

250 Schmidt 1932: 147: Fig. 184; Von der Osten 1937b: Fig. 258, bottom; Fig. 257; Fig. 249, upper line.

251 Matsumura 2005: taf. 34; taf. 105; Mielke 2006: 126-127: type Te 2.

One of the clearest indicators enabling us to assign a specimen to the 1st millennium horizon is the presence of painted geometric decoration on light slip or directly on the surface (Wheelmade Painted Wares; Pls. 23-25), often in the so-called pottery style Alişar IV or V, characteristic of the fourth and fifth levels at the site of Alişar Höyük. Also for the IA the long sequence exposed at Alişar during the first decades of the twentieth century represents a point of reference for the main chronological partitions and provides us with a series of types and wares for comparisons. As observed at the time of excavations (Schmidt 1933: 40-53), it is not possible to subdivide level V into distinct phases and we are not yet able to distinguish clearly between common ware sherds of different two periods. This statement still hold true in many respects today. The painted decoration pattern is the feature that distinguishes Alişar IV from Alişar V (dating roughly from the collapse of Hittite kingdom to Alexander the Great). Three further sites provide us with reference repertoires for the IA. The site of Kaman-Kalehöyük, though far from our region, lying about 100km south-east of Ankara, represents a key site for the development of the pottery production across the transition between the 2nd and 1st millennium BC, thank to the stratified contexts there exposed. The Phrygian levels of Boğazköy dating from the 8th to the first quarter of the 6th century BC (Bossert 2000: 168) represent the reference point for our types, with a varied repertoire of plain and painted wares. Furthermore, the late IA settlement exposed on the acropolis of Kuşaklı and dated to 7th-early 6th century BC (levels 6 and 7, village and fortress), shows an articulated repertoire of plain wares and the presence of few painted sherds, probably because of its marginal position in relation to the area in which this painted tradition was widespread.

The majority of types belonging to bowls with curved profile, pointed or simple rims, continue to be produced between the LBA and the IA period and find comparisons in sites like Kuşaklı, Boğazköy and Kaman-Kalehöyük. In the earliest phase of the EIA a continuity of the Hittite tradition in making wheelmade pottery has been documented (Genz 2004: 48), as already noted above. The so-called drab ware production characteristic of the late Empire in some way developed and continued after the Empire itself collapsed, and types like simple bowls overlapping the two periods may not be dependable chronological markers for distinguishing between the LBA and start of the IA, for example. Quite how new the IA occupation at the site may have been is still unclear but, as we have already said, no handmade Early Iron Age materials similar to the Boğazköy assemblage (Genz 2004: 24-28 and 2003) has yet been identified at Uşaklı.

Bowls of reduced dimension with simple pointed rims (Fig. 3: 38, 39, 50, 53-68 and Fig. 4: 69-74) have parallels in Kuşaklı IA levels252, as well as specimens with a pointed rim that just barely curves inward (Fig. 3: 59-64)253. Types like nos 42 and 50 are documented at Boğazköy254. Conical bowls could be dated to different periods. Even though similar types have been found in LBA contexts, types like nos 114-115 (Fig. 6) are also documented in the IA period of Kuşaklı255. Bowls with ridged and outer thickened rim no. 138 (Fig. 6) and no. 201 (Fig. 9) are similar to examples from to Boğazköy256. The particular pointed inner side of the rim as attested in our nos. 151, 153-158 (Fig. 7) and the lightly carinated profile of the bowls remind types of Kuşaklı IA levels257; and also the medium sized curved bowl no. 202 (Fig. 9) finds here some parallels258.

Curved bowls with projecting tapered rim similar to no. 213, type 2A.29b (Fig. 10), are attested in the Middle Iron Age level of Kaman-Kalehöyük but the type begins to appear from the end of LBA259. The same site offer provides good confrontation dating to the beginning of the 1st millennium BC for different types of open forms, in particular for conical bowls like no. 93 (Fig. 15)260; some variants of type 2A.19c (Fig. 8: 164-165)261; curved bowls type 2A.26 (Fig. 9: 203)262; and in part for type 2A.23a (Fig. 9: 195-196)263. The triangular rim (Fig. 9: 206) has general parallels with specimens from Middle Iron Age

contexts264. In the light of the Kaman-Kalehöyük repertoire, we can attempt to identify useful chronological pointers for some morphological elements of curved bowls, in particular the outer and inner thickened rims that become popular in the Middle and Late IA, from chronological unit IIa6-IIc1265. Curved bowls with simple rim (Fig. 12: 274, 279-281) find more precise parallels in Kuşaklı levels 6 and 7266.

S-profiled bowls type 2A.30 (Fig. 10: 217-219 and 221) with painted decorations can be dated to the Middle Iron Age: these are, in effect, documented in the Phrygian levels of Boğazköy267 and in Kaman-Kalehöyük268. Among the carinated bowls type 2B.15b, a vague parallel can be drawn for one example (Fig. 13: 321) can be made with a specimen from Kuşaklı269.

Small jars with painted decoration belong fully to the IA horizon. The specimen no. 361 (Fig. 16) finds parallels in Kaman-Kalehöyük270; here the type is documented from the end of LBA to the Achaemenid period.

Short necked jars 6A.2 and 6B.1 (Fig. 19: 401, 407-410) are very generic types from a morphological point of view and can be dated to different periods. As for types of possibly IA date parallels are mainly from Kuşaklı271 but some specimens have been found also in Boğazköy272. In general these kinds of jars are well attested during the IA period273. Moreover the recurrent presence of outer thickened rims, slightly pointed could be an element that supports our suggestion, because, generally, specimens with round rims are more frequent in the LBA contexts. The state of preservation of necked jar nos 430-443 (Fig. 20), individuating types 6C.2-4b, is poor and prevent us from finding appropriate parallels. In any case this shape is too generic for it to be assigned to any specific chronological range. In Kaman-Kalehöyük similar types have been found in contexts dating to the first part of the IA274. The presence of painted decoration (as nos. 441-443) increase the chances of positively attribute a sherd to the IA horizon.

As far as large storage jars are concerned, types 8A.1-3 (Fig. 22, in particular nos 465, 470, 471, 473) recall IA specimens dating from approximately 8th to 6th cent. BC275. Something similar to our no. 483 (Fig. 24) is found in contemporary levels at Kuşaklı276. A peculiarity of the manufacturing techniques connected to the shaping of large storage jar is the rope impression on the rim (Fig. 21: 464) which has been documented in a specimen from Kaman-Kalehöyük277.

Several fragments homogeneously spread over the surface of the high mound and terrace are from funnel-shaped and large sized jars, also called craters, and could well belong to this horizon. Also the type with inner lid ledge, apparently well defined in shape and easily recognisable even from a small rim fragment, appears during the 2nd millennium BC, as above noted, and persist down the Hellenistic-Roman period (300-100 BC), making it even more difficult to date solely on the basis of rim morphology, surface treatment and fabrics. Our sherds belonging to types ZA, in particular those with lid support ledge are ascribable to funnel shaped jars and craters, but the poor state of preservation of the specimens which are limited to rims and small portion of the neck, prevent us from determining the precise category of closed forms to which they could belong. Apart from some profiles dating to the previous period (see above paragraph on 2nd millennium BC), these profiles are well documented in Kaman-Kalehöyük particularly in Middle and Late IA contexts (Matsumura 2005: taf. 132-139; 177-182). Even though these types continue to be produced, but in common ware, until the Achaemenid period278, and sporadically, even later, the occurrence of painted ornamentation is a good indicator relating to the Middle IA tradition, the painted specimens finding convincing parallels in the Phrygian painted repertoire of Boğazköy.

As regards the painted patterns, no animal silhouettes characteristic of the Alişar IV style were found during the survey, whereas concentric circles and other geometric patterns are documented (Pls

264 Matsumura 2005: taf. 202: KL87-3127.

23 and 24). The band of fully painted triangles on the body of a wheelmade sherd where also a particular type of composite triangles motif is attested (Fig. 34: 617; Pl. 25: 3, K08.2199), apparently not so common in the middle IA, bears a vague similarity with motifs of the EIA horizon as for as the composition is concerned279, though for the profile could be of middle IA tradition280. The 'fir sprig' motif (Fig. 34: 615) is also unusual and could be part of the representation of a tree, as is the possible hat/ helmet with appendix (Fig. 34: 621) that has not fitting parallels amongst the typical iconographic attributes of human figures in the repertoire of the Phrygian period281.

Grey ware sherds are only sparsely documented on the surface of the mound and it is difficult to propose a date for the few specimens we found (Pl. 21: 3-6). In one case (Fig. 28: 530), the shape of the rim has a persuasive parallel in one of the distinctive types of ledge-rimmed jars in Phrygian Grey ware, widespread in the area of Kırşehir, Nevşehir and Niğde282 and dating probably to 8th-7thcentury BC.

Some types of handles can be dated to the Middle and Late IA. Handles with finger impression H2 (Fig. 32: 585) and those with rectangular section H3 (Fig. 32: 586-587) find parallels in the repertoire of Kaman-Kalehöyük283 dating approximately to 500-300 BC but are also reminiscent of similar types in Kuşaklı Middle IA levels284. Handles with longitudinal groove H6285 are also documented and we have related these to later repertoire, on the basis of fabrics which show grater similarity with the specimens preliminarily dated to the Hellenistic period onwards (Pl. 13; Pl. 18). Also handle type H14 (Fig. 33: 608) occurs in the repertoire of Alişar dating to the Iron Age286.

#### *<IP_ADDRESS> The Later Periods: from the second half of 1st millennium BC to the modern occupation*

A quantity of specific wares scattered on the surface represent the material traces of a late occupation at the site that is to be date to approximately the second half of 1st millennium BC onwards. At the moment we are not able to isolate many types noticeably diagnostic in plain ware for this period, and can make only a few remarks regarding this repertoire. At Alişar Höyük, Çadir Höyük and Kaman-Kalehöyük levels dating to the later periods, Hellenistic and Late Roman/Byzantine, have been documented (Schmidt 1931: 141-147; Gorny *et al.* 1995: 80; Matsumura 2005: 40; Cassis 2009) and remarks on these pottery repertoires, included in final and preliminary publications, can be very useful for our tentative dating of surface-find sherds.

## *<IP_ADDRESS>.1 From the post-'Phrygian' to the Roman period*

Among the open forms in plain ware types 2B.12a and 2B.12b (Fig. 13: 306-309) could be dated to the period between 500 and 300 BC. In fact similar cream slipped or grey bowls with expanded triangular rim (like our Fig. 13: 309) or variously thickened rims (nos 308 and 306) have been found in later contexts at Kaman-Kalehöyük, which dates up to the Byzantine period287. The specific triangular section of the rims like nos 206-207 (Fig. 9) recall the typology of some specimens in Grey ware from the chronological unit I of Kaman-Kalehöyük (for example Matsumura 2005, taf. 252: KL86-1056), dating approximately to 300-100 BC.

The fine production of the end of the 1st millennium BC, encompassing also the first centuries of the Common Era, is represented mainly by the polychrome band painted pottery (Pl. 24: 6; 5: K09.76, K09.36, K10.40) defined in archaeological literature as 'Galatian' (Maier 1963) and diffused within the bend of the Kızılırmak river, the area of Galatian settlement288. Due to lack of stratigraphic data, the precise period in which this ware was used cannot be determined, but it was probably in greatest use

279 Genz 2004: taf. 33: 8; taf. 34: 1, 6, 8; taf. 35: 2. Triangles of middle IA date are in Bossert 2000: taf. 15: 127; 104: 141; 140: 1274.

288 Bittel 1974; Strobel, Gerber 2000: 256 and fig. 16a-b; Von der Osten 1937c: 21-22, 36; Fig. 30: 3369; Fig. 31; Schmidt 1933: plate II; Özsait, Özsait 2003. See also Strobel 2009 about the Galatian settlement in the Central Anatolian Plateau and 1997: 141-142 for the possible identification of Uşaklı with the city of Podanala.

between second to first century BC and the 1st century AD (Maier 1963: 236). Although Galatian pottery roughly indicates the Hellenistic period and the rise of Roman Empire under Augustus, we cannot yet exclude an earlier origin with its roots in the local IA painted tradition from which geometric patterns and shapes are derived. Several painted sherds, in particular with linear and geometric decoration, sometimes polychrome (Pl. 24: 1-4, 7) belong mainly to the horizon of Alişar V, the exact composition and chronological limits of which have not been clearly established. Reddish surfaces with painted bands are characteristics shared by other productions dating to the IA, mostly of late date (Pl. 24: 5; Pl. 25: 1-3). Generally we have classified as Galatian only the thin sherds belonging to fine open shapes and small bowls with well smoothed surface and decorated with horizontal parallel stripes and concentric lines in red, brown and white/greyish colour, or on a white band (Pl. 24: 6 and 5, the sherd at the centre ; ware Pt, group 6). Obviously in this way Galatian sherds are underrepresented and their identification relates mainly to the coexistence of fine fabric and the presence of the white painted line. We have considered more generally as late IA the sherds with common and coarser fabrics and rougher surface treatments as the sherds with painted geometric motifs on a white slip or background and of medium texture (Pl. 24: 1-4, and pieces with white slip in fig. 7). In both decoration and shapes, all of these styles show strong links with Middle Iron Age production.

Next to the Galatian style pottery, other fine wares, characterised by thick and brilliant reddish orange superficial slip (ware Os) as well as some of the shiny and well-smoothed slipped wares (whitish and pale yellow, red specimens belonging to ware Ys, Rs) might well belong to the same chronological range, from the late IA to the Hellenistic period (Pl. 26: 1-3, except Pl. 2, K08.1086 and K08.1606 that are Gold Wash ware specimens). This material can also be in part assigned to the Roman period (Schmidt 1933: 101). Usually the pieces show slip and burnished or polished surfaces. A limited number of red slipped diagnostic sherds have been collected whereas body sherds represent the majority. The red-brown surface treatment (Pl. 26: 7, K12.67 and K12.1562) could be indicative of to the same chronological range.

The profile and surface treatment of bowls type 2A.29a, in particular no. 212 (Fig. 10), attested also in the nearby site of Taşlık Höyük (see Fig. 37: 707 and Pl. 39: SS03 08.42, picture bottom left) are similar to a specimen found at Tilkigediği Tepe, north-east of Kerkenes Dağ, from a pit opened by robbers and dated to the pre-Hellenistic IA, probably to the period of the Achaemenid Empire289, s well specimen from Çadır Höyük dating to the LIA290. No. 212 and in part no. 214 are also dated at Kaman-Kalehöyük291 to roughly between 500 and 300 BC.

As for the closed shapes, type 6A.5 (Fig. 19: 405 and 406; Pl. 27: 4) is characterised by ridges and grooves on the shoulder, an element recurring in some storage jars found at Boğazköy292 and considered a post-Phrygian element, although documented in different periods (Bossert 2000: 133), and therefore of Hellenistic-Roman date. The date of type 6.3 (Fig. 19: 413-415) is problematic but within the range of the second half of 1st millennium or later. The general shape of no. 415 is close to a specimen from Kaman-Kalehöyük pertaining to chronological unit 2a3-5, roughly between 500 and 300 BC293. Also type 6B.4, in particular nos. 418-420 (Fig. 19) characterised by thin walls, a slight depression on the external part of the rim and light thickening of the inner portion, is documented in the same context of Kaman-Kalehöyük294. This similarity, however, concerns only the morphology since the example cited is registered as '04. *Blei farbige*', a classification close to the grey and polished wares (Matsumura 2005: 224-225).

Further elements in the later repertoire are the handles with finger impression H2 (Fig. 32: 585) and those with rectangular section H3 (Fig. 32: 586-587) that find parallels in the repertoire of Kaman-Kalehöyük295 dating approximately to 500-300 BC. Based on the characteristics of fabrics, colour and treatments also some body sherds and rims decorated by incisions could be dated to later periods (Pl. 27: 5-6, 8). The same applies to handle with punctuated decoration (Pl. 27: 7, K09.1185; see below the paragraph on the other identified sites for comparisons).

It is difficult to interpret some fragments with whitish/yellowish slip. No. 559 (Fig. 30) could be part of an animal-shaped portion of a vessel or figurine, similar to specimens found at Boğazköy296.

289 Summers *et al*. 1995: 46; Fig. 4.4.

290 Genz 2001: 170, Fig. 4.4.

291 Matsumura 2005: taf. 198: KL87-3580 e 3049.

292 Bossert 2000: taf. 97: 1120; taf. 132: 1136, 1137, 1141.

293 Matsumura 2005: taf. 211: KL86-1153.

294 Matsumura 2005: taf. 205: KL86-1294.

295 Matsumura 2005: taf. 207: KL86-182; taf. 211: KL86-50.

296 Fischer 1963: taf. 136, lower portion of the plate.

We have not direct parallels for the fragmentary theriomorphic head no. 558 which could be part of an animal-shaped pot or an element applied to a large vessel297. The suggestion that this could be part of a figurine cannot be excluded since similar cases are documented for this period.298.

The unusual rim no. 475 (Fig. 23) belonging to a very specialised kind of *pithos*, could date to the very late 1st millennium, given that a somewhat similar rim is found at Kaman-Kalehöyük299 dating between 300 and 100 BC.

During the 1928 survey season, H.H. Von der Osten first documented the presence of levels dating to the Later Periods at the site. It is certain that the pot containing 28 Hellenistic silver coins, published as the Küchük Köhne hoard (1929: 37-38; 1933: 155-156, Fig. 109; Newel 1931), was found in Uşaklı Höyük. In fact the report shows a picture of Uşaklı taken from the east-south-east, erroneously captioned as 'Küchük Köhne', and given as the site where the hoard was discovered. Furthermore the reports describe the presence of remains of a gate built of large stone blocks (Von der Osten 1929: Fig. 32) and the site where these Hittite remains are visible above the ground is elsewhere indicated as Forrer's 'Kuschakly-Hüjük' near Küchük Köhne (Von der Osten 1930: 171). This overlapping of places and names has already been noted (Summers *at al.* 1995: 54) and was caused probably by the inadequate maps used at the time of Von der Osten's explorations in this area (see Mazzoni, this volume, § 2). The fortification wall around the top of the high mound, built with large boulders could be late in date but this cannot yet be determined with any greater accuracy.300 The very scant presence of sherds dating to Late Roman/Byzantine periods found on the surveyed portion of the slope and on the superficial layer of the top of the mound, in the Operation 1, could however represent clues against a very late date for the circuit wall.

## *<IP_ADDRESS>.2 From the Roman-Byzantine period to the Modern Era*

At present we unable to determine the duration of Byzantine use of the site on the basis of the limited surface pottery repertoire alone, or of when the site was first occupied or finally abandoned. The rural life and settlement pattern during the Byzantine period is not documented fully enough for this area. Some useful indications for dating occupation come from Çadır Höyük where evidence of continuous use of the site from the early Byzantine to the middle Byzantine period has been found (roughly from the 5th century AD to 11th century AD). The relative proximity of the two sites, the similar location within markedly agricultural areas (similar functions?) and some general affinities in the ceramic assemblage could suggest that a comparable settlement and period of use could be attested at Uşaklı.

Particular fabrics, surface appearance and colours are some of the distinctive elements characterising the ceramic production that we assign to the late Roman/Byzantine period (Coarse Grained Ware, pseudo-Brittle Ware).

As for as the plain production is concerned, our pseudo-Brittle ware (name deduced from Northern Mesopotamia contexts301) can be mentioned as typical and easily recognisable during the survey. Orange-red to brown and grey colours, no slipped surfaces and traces of summary smoothing are characteristics of this production. The fabrics are granular with sand inclusions, mineral particles of different colours and limestone. On the surface blackened patches are frequent, resulting from daily use for cooking activities or lack of control during firing in the potters kiln. Wheel marks are also frequently attested. It is hard to find comparisons for this repertoire in sites of the North Central Plateau and in some cases we can obtain general support for a chronological classification and a useful reference framework only by looking at a wider geographical area. In fact single components and features of the vessels are shared with assemblages brought to light in sites stretching from the North Western Anatolian regions to the Euphrates and Cilicia.

Ribbed rim bowls (type 2B.6, fig. 12: 285-288) have parallels with specimens found in level III of Porsuk dating to the IA302 but the surface finishing and texture betray general similarities with materi-

299 Matsumura 2005: taf. 233: KL87-3476.

297 Von der Osten 1937c: Figs. 80, 55-56: 1356; Bossert 2000: 138.

298 Von der Osten 1937c: Fig. 89.

300 The trend to build on mounded sites is documented in the area. The Tilkigediği Tepe tower and Göz Baba tumulus, respectively north-east and south-west of Kerkenes Dağ, Keykavus Kale within Kerkenes and probably Sumerin Sivri Hisar, west of Alișar Höyük show traces of stone ramparts (Summers *et al.* 1995: 52-53). A prototype is the Phrygian period glacis in Boğazköy (Bittel 1970: 147-148). 301 See footnote below no 4 for a brief description of Brittle ware.

als that we consider more characteristic of the later periods. The handle with two longitudinal grooves no. 594 (Fig. 32), well attested in our collection, and the specimens with single groove no. 595-97 (Fig. 32) have parallels in types from Elaiussa Sebaste303 dating between 5th and 7th century AD; and in the repertoire for example of the distant Saraçhane, in Istanbul. Also the type of rim on thin shoulder no. 416 (Fig. 19) vaguely remembers cooking pots dating to the 10th-12th century AD304. Squat handles with longitudinal finger impressions are usual in Late Roman amphorae, one of the more widespread types in the eastern Mediterranean between 5th and 7th centuries AD and beyond305, even though our specimens are flattener. The fragment of a red slip deep cup n. 222 (Fig. 10) with everted rim with end that forms an angle (about 45°) and curves nearly vertical, brings to mind a type attested in the distant Sagalassos306. Red-slip wares, in fact, began to be produced during the Augustan period and lasted until the mid-7th century AD (Poblome 1999: 25) and this represents a serious obstacle to assign a limited date to our specimens in the absence of a clear sequence for the area and on the basis only of small fragments. Further investigations and excavations are required to understand the quality and nature of the settlement during this period. The pottery would appear to be a regional production destined to a local market, with few specialised elements, and not mass-produced Roman wares.

Glazed ware sherds are very rare on the mound. In general the glazed ceramics have been produced from the Byzantine period until the Modern Era and, given the context of the finds, i.e. the surface slopes, here only a vague chronological date is attempted whilst a better classification of the production will be left to the specialists. The base in white paste and blue decoration (Fig. 31: 576; Pl. 33: K09.960) can be generally dated to the Ottoman period, from the 15th century AD onwards (Özkül 2003: 107- 108). This blue and white sherd could be similar to the group defined as 'Baba Nakkash' style, spiral serrated leaf style ('Golden Horn' ware), but it is only a preliminary suggestion. A further 4 sherds (Lot 9, bands 1 and 2; survey unit J19) show a monochrome green glazed surface and a red-grey clay core (Pl. 33: K12.30; and one fragment (survey unit L5 show a reddish-brown glaze). The green glazed wares date from the Byzantine period and continued to be produced for several centuries thereafter. A typical green glaze pottery production is that from Iznik in the Ottoman period, composed of quartz-frit, compact and hard, which began in the 14th century AD and is documented until the 17th century AD.

### *2.3 Small objects and other finds*

A very limited number of complete and fragmentary objects were found during the surveying activities and most parts of these come from the scraping on the slopes, only a few have being found on top of the lower terrace.

Apart from the significant finds of six fragmentary tablets with cuneiform characters307 and a clay bulla subjects of separate contributions (see below A. Archi *et al.* and M. Poetto), the collection of objects consists of everyday tools which, in terms of their function, are probably to be related to both domestic and craft production contexts.

Three fragmentary baked clay spindlewhorls (Pl. 37: 7-9) came from the surface of the eastern slope. They present an asymmetric biconoid profile and are small in size308. Colours vary from light brown to pinkish and reddish on the surface and grey in section. Similar objects have been found for instance at Alişar, in the level dating to the 1st millennium BC, approximately from the Phrygian to Achaemenid period309. Here it has been noted that the conoid or biconoid shape is particularly characteristic of the level V310.

A small spheroid item with a flattened base (Pl. 37: 5) is preserved in full311 and is made of a blackish stone which may be hematite. A round object partially similar to our specimen is in Boğazköy312

306 Poblome 1999: Fig. 17: 5.

307 Five fragments come from the surface, one from the superficial layer of Area C, close to a fox nest. Fore measures see the articles by Archi *et al.* and Poetto, this volume.

308 No. 7, UK12.E.7 (Lot 12, band 3): h. 3.1cm; dia. max 3.8cm; dia. central hole 1,1cm; weight 35gr; no. 8, UK12.E.9, (Lot 12, band 5): h. 2.5cm; dia. max 3.5cm, dia. central hole 0.7cm; weight 16gr; no 9, UK12.E.16 (Lot 9, band 4): h. 3.2cm; width 3.5 cm ca.; dia. hole 0.6cm; weight 15gr.

309 Schmidt 1931: 137, Fig. 193; Von der Osten 1937b: Fig. 506: e2006, 2001.

310 Schmidt 1932: 258.

311 No. 5, UK09.Es.4 (G 16, c 2): h. 1.7cm; dia. 2; weight 12gr.

312 Boehmer 1972: taf. XCVII: 2396A.

303 Ferrazzoli, Ricci 2007: Fig. 11 and 36; Fig. 4: in particular 15, 18, 20, 63-65.

304 Haynes 1992: Fig. 63: 4-5.

305 Similar types have been found on the nord shore of the Black Sea for example (Sazanov 2007).

where has been interpreted as pawn. Its possible identification as a small weight, maybe a shekel of Khatti, cannot be excluded at the moment313.

The conical stone whorl decorated with parallel horizontal lines (Pl. 37: 1) comes from the southern slope314. The object is complete and the colour of the stone is between brown and dark grey. Similar whorls have been found in Boğazköy315, most from layers dating probably to the post-Hittite period, but of not more certain date. Different strata exposed at Alişar, dating from post-Empire to the Byzantine period, have yielded similar objects316.

The biconic spindlewhorl with groups of incised radial lines (Pl. 37: 4) is probably in serpentine stone, with greenish and blackish nuances317. Parallels y be found from level I of Boğazköy lower city318 and Alişar Höyük319.

From the southern slope, Lot 9, respectively band 6 and band 8, come a ball sling in light brownish grey calcareous stone, wholly preserved (Pl. 37: 2)320, attested also at Boğazköy321; and a dome shaped object in pale brown stone with flat base showing traces of cutting, possibly an unfinished seal (Pl. 37: 3)322.

In Operation 1, on the northern portion of the top of the high mound, a bead in blue glass material was found (Pl. 37: 6)323.

Chipped stones, mainly flakes of flint but also obsidian were spread over the lower terrace and on the southern and eastern slopes of the high mound324. The collection consists of types similar to points and scrapers but are mainly waste flakes. Some pieces are in dark red stone (Pl. 37: 10-11), others in red (Pl. 37: 12-13) or whitish stones (Pl. 37: 15-16); a couple of lithic instruments are in obsidian (Pl. 37: 14) and present a triangular cross-section. Retouching is marginal, often visible on both sides; as well as dorsal negatives and in some cases bulb and cortex. A few other small pieces of debitage and chipping debris have also been found.

Apart from the specimens reproduced in the plates, the further following small waste flakes in different stones have been collected. The fragments are in obsidian (fragm. 1, Lot 2, band 3), amber-coloured stone (fragm. 2 and 3, Lot 2, band 3), greenish stone with red cortex (fragm. 4, Lot 4, band 2) and red flint (fragm. 5, from Lot 3, band 4; fragm. 6, Lot 4, band 2). Fragments of a mace head (UK8.Es.3, Lot 3, band 3) and other worked stones have also been found (UK08.Es.1, Lot 2, band 4 and UK09.Es.6, G 19, b 2).

From the eastern slope come two fragments of heavy, pierced stone tools, probably hammers (Pl. 38: 1, 4)325. The stone is hard, heavy, dark grey in colour, probably gabbro or granite/andesite. They are characterised by rough surfaces and the inner surface of the central axial hole is polished in the case of the ovoid specimen with flat side no. 1 and polished with traces of drilling in case of the spherical specimen no. 4 (here there are also traces of a second polished hole, probable orthogonal to the first). A parallel for this last specimen can be found at Kuşaklı326. We do not know whether these pieces were left unfinished or broken at a later time but the surface apparently shows none the typical traces of use found on hammers or pounders. Similar tools come from Boğazköy327.

Two other pierced pale brown/ grey calcareous stones have been found (Pl. 38: 2-3)328, irregular in shape and with rough surfaces.

325 No. 1, UK12.E.19 (10m south of eastern slope limit): h. 4.7cm; th. 3.8cm; weight 261gr, greenish nuances; no. 4, UK12.E.15 (Lot 12, band 6): h. 6.7cm; l. 10.4cm; 326 Arnhold 2009: taf. 36: 5.

327 Boehmer 1972: taf. LXXXIX-XC; Schachner 2010: res. 2, 3a-c. 328 No. 2, UK12.E.14 (Operation 2, Lot 10, band 9; base of the southern slope): h. 3.2cm; w. 4.2cm; len. 6.6cm; dia. hole 0,9cm; no. 3, UK12.E.17 (lot 11, band 5 southern slope): h. 3.6cm; w. 5.1cm; len. 8.6cm; weight 183gr, th. max 6.8cm; weight 1184gr.

313 Ascalone, Peyronel 2011: 99-100.

From the lower terrace, an unfinished mace head (Pl. 38: 6)329 of pale grey calcareous stone has a coarse surface, the central hole not passing through the stone entirely and showing traces of drilling.

Only one fragmentary grinding stone has been recovered on the surface of the eastern slope (Pl. 38: 5)330, and this has a flat face, convex side and is of porous stone.

The presence of tiles noticeably document some forms of occupation in later periods. Fragments of roof tiles (Fig. 36; Pl. 36) have been found mainly on the terrace and in different concentrations. Both flat tiles (*tegulae*) and half tube tiles (*imbrices*) share the same manufacturing process. *Tegulae* are rectangular/trapezoid with two raised borders along and around one side; squared profile flanges (cut across the top edges) and rounded profile flanges have been found. *Imbrices* are curved and U shaped. Finger grooves next to the flanges, wavy grooves and footmarks are usually visible on the upper surface of tiles, whereas imprints of chaff and reed ragged lines in the lower surface are remains of the base plate on which they were manufactured. The shape of the roof tiles is similar to that of specimens found, for example, at Amorium, in the Afyon region (Witte-Orr 2007: 295-308): here tiles both with cut flanges and others with rounded upper edged flanges document occupations at the sites probably between the 5th and 8th centuries AD, the Late Byzantine period. Finger groove, wavy line decorations and footprints are also documented on the upper surface of some tiles.

### *2.4 Scatters of sherds and other materials*

Archaeological findings (ceramic sherds, slags, tiles) are spread regularly over most of the areas surveyed, sometimes following homogeneous patterns and at others, the scatters are uneven. In general the distribution of the samples is conditioned by modern ploughing activities, particularly on the terrace, and by slippage of soil on the slopes of the high mound. This state of affairs results, inevitably, in a mixed bulk of findings but, if we take into account a large enough representative area, some interesting information can be obtained and, in areas characterised by mixed materials, some original concentrations of finds can be recognised. Through counting, seriation and statistical analysis of the collected sample we are able to develop spreadsheets and produce graphic plots showing the scatter of different diagnostic markers, separating, at least in part, deposits from buried strata and mixed deposits caused by disturbance.

Analysing the occurrence of the various categories of artefacts over the site some remarks can be made regarding the contexts that possibly lay on or close to the surface331. In particular, the flat surfaces of the terrace and its slight slopes provided samples consisting mainly of materials that came from layers directly beneath the surface. In the case of substantial archaeological remains (e.g. large buildings, large domestic quarters) directly below the surface and with a well-stratified sequence of horizontal layers, the sample is very coherent and without significant intrusions from other chronological horizons, despite having been disturbed by ploughing. In this case we can find various and good concentrations of materials in specific sectors of the site with a more diverse mixture of materials only in intermediate zones between sectors of different chronology or function. Instead, the sample from the steep slopes tend to be more mixed, due to slippage of the soil, as is that from the foot of the mound where agricultural activity had cut into layers of both the high mound itself and of the flat terrace (in theory, more recent). Here it is more difficult to identify any concentration of material that could be diagnostic for a certain period or indicate a particular function for the structures lying beneath the surface. The materials from recent contexts, when substantial, tend to cover any earlier ones and it is particularly difficult to distinguish a find from a layer directly below the surface from those that have been dragged in from neighbouring sectors where another occupation date may be preserved. Background noise is, therefore, obviously always present in the counts and percentages of different sampled areas due to the disturbance caused by ploughing and slippage along the steep slope of the high mound.

Bearing in mind the differences between individual cases and making a fine distinction sector by sector, albeit of varying reliability, the features of the collected sample may be of use in outlining the occupation sequence of a given area and identifying those areas where there is a greater probability of finding remains pertaining to different periods. In fact, sectors of major concentration emerge for many categories, reflecting in some cases random scattering, but often providing chronological and functional indicators.

329 No. 6, UK9.Es.7 (Lot 2, band 1b): h. 6cm; dia. 6.4cm.

330 No. 5, UK12.E.23 (Lot 12, band 6): h. 7.5cm; w. 12.4cm; len. 15.1cm; weight 1946 gr.

331 For depositional processes and post-depositional problems see Taylor 2000: 16-26.

Figures 41-91 show the occurrence of the main types and wares332. In many cases the scatter is homogeneous, and types well distributed between the top of the terrace, its slopes and the high mound333. The surface sherd density over the entire site is quite regular with a greater occurrence on the slopes and at the northern foot of the mound (Fig. 82). For this reason, the specific occurrence of a certain marker in a given sector of the site can provide us with real information rather than merely fortuitous evidence linked, for example, to a greater quantity of sherds in that area (and, consequently, a greater probability of more varied groups of finds). However it is necessary to make a specific distinction concerning the methods implied in the fieldwork. The use of different procedures in surveying activities on the slope of the high mound, such as surface collecting and scraping, furnished different quantities of finds. By scraping we obtained 5.2 ceramic items per m2 whereas the surface survey on the slopes of the höyük yielded approximately 0.6 pottery finds per m2 . The ratio between scraping and surface survey is 8.67 to 1 pottery items per m2 . Comparing data from the same area that was subjected to both methods of collections, the results are considerably different in terms of the quantity of materials uncovered.

The distribution of wares follows a differentiated pattern showing various templates on the graphic plotting.

Wheelmade painted ware sherds were found mainly on the terrace and on the slope of the high mound (Fig. 69), with a few specimens on the slope of the terrace.

Orange slip ware is mostly documented on the top of the terrace, in the northern and north-western squares (Figs 71 and 78), whereas most of the pink slip specimens were found on the slope of the high mound (Fig. 71).

Wheelmade red slip sherds are regularly spread over the entire surface (Fig. 77), but the diagnostic finds were mainly concentrated in the north-eastern and eastern sectors of the terrace and on the slopes of the high mound (Fig. 72). This pattern follows, in part, that of the drab ware specimens (Fig. 67).

Yellow slip sherds are predominately on the terrace and high mound slopes (Figs. 73-74). The specimens more probably to be assigned to the Iron Age, on the basis of surface treatments, are concentrated on the mound and on top of the terrace, in the north-western sectors.

Kitchen ware tends to be better represented on the slopes of the mound, at its foot and, more sparsely, on the top of the terrace. The template of the scatters shows a blank spot in relation to the squares where Building II has been identified and a major occurrence the south-eastern slope (Figs. 80 and 87).

The frequency of wares and types to be assigned to late periods is greater on top of the terrace, particularly in western and north-western squares, and on the slope of the high mound (Figs. 78 and 82).

There is apparently no clear explanation for the ubiquitous occurrence of handmade sherds both on the mound and on the terrace (Fig. 81)334, apart from a possible movement of the soil in ancient times which could have dispersed these sherds over the entire site. The slope of the high mound returned a considerable number of such sherds, as did the eastern slope of the terrace and the northern foot of the mound.

Many ceramic types are not markers of a precise period as they were in use for long time. Often the distribution of diagnostic sherds is quite homogeneous and does not provide indications useful to identifying areas of particular concentrations (see for instance type 5 or type 6, Figs. 54-55). Type Z occurs at the foot of the mound and on the slopes of the terrace (Fig. 57).

Nevertheless, some sectors of the site show traces of heavier occupation in certain periods through the occurrence of some types whose date is more clearly definable. The 2nd millennium and LBA occupation, in particular, is best documented on the slope of the terrace that provided us with a good repertoire of drab ware specimens (Fig. 67), and fragments of beak spouted jars type 20A.1-2 (Fig. 63). Generally, the same slope, together with the slope of the high mound, provided us with other markers of the same period such as plates and low bowls type 1 (Fig. 43), body sherds with impressed stamps (Fig. 60), and further possible 2nd millennium types, like the few deep bowls curved (2C.1b) and with V shaped handle (2C.2) (Fig. 51).

Carinated bowls (2B.1-2b) or with incurved rim (2B.2c-5c and 2B.7a-7c), are diffused on the slopes and at the foot of the high mound (Fig. 49). The scatter of carinated bowls types 2B.8-18 (Fig. 50) follows a similar pattern. Carinated bowls type 2B.16-18, similar in surface aspect to the drab ware specimens, have a similar distribution (Fig. 50), with a major occurrence on the slope of the terrace. Small bowls

332 Elaboration of the scattering maps using GIS is by Studio Kulla; for credits details see also footnote n. 1

333 In the western squares the sherds were in small fragments, sometimes crumbled, compared to the eastern sector where a high percentage of better-preserved sherds were found. 334 Five more handmade fragments of body sherds have been found during the survey, three of them on the

mound and two on the terrace.

with pointed rim type 2A.2 have a good concentration on the slope of the terrace and high mound (Fig. 45). Again on the slope of the terrace the greatest concentration of large storage jar fragments was found (Figs. 56 and 86). Some of our storage ware seem to be located within the 2nd millennium ceramic horizon, and especially within the Hittite ceramic horizon. The dimension of our storage jars, as suggested by rim diameters and wall thickness of the preserved sherds, would have been quite conspicuous. If we consider the consistently smaller dimension of storage jars more frequently recovered in domestic contexts of the period (see Schoop 2011b), we can presume that our large pithoi are to be connected with contexts other than domestic.

Types of possible Iron Age date (2A.21-2A.31) are documented mainly on the slopes of the high mound (Fig. 48). Bowls with thickened rims or flaring rims are on the slope of the high mound and on top of the terrace (Fig. 48).

Types we considered to date to the late period are distributed mainly on top of the terrace and in part on the slope of the mound (Figs. 61-62). This is the case also for handles type H5 and H6 that occur mainly on the flat top of the terrace (Fig. 59).

Along with the data coming from ceramic sherds, also the scattering of other materials such as tiles and slags in noteworthy concentrations contribute to completing the framework of the occupation at the site. The greatest density of roof tiles has been registered on top of the flat terrace with some concentrations at the northern and western edges and in relation with the anomaly of the Building I (Fig. 90), in the north-eastern portion of the terrace. A definitely significant concentration is registered in the square F13. The occurrence of tiles on the slopes both of the mound and terrace is very low. Even though the presence of Roman or Byzantine structures cannot be excluded, the dispersed distribution pattern on the S-SE slope of the terrace might have resulted from erosion and ploughing.

A valuable concentration of melted residuals from combustion (mainly slags but also stones and a few ceramic wastes) are concentrated on top of the terrace in relation to the squares where Building II has been identified by geomagnetic anomalies (square K19-I19), on the north-eastern slope of the terrace (square G19); and on the slope of the höyük (Fig. 89). The distribution within the other sectors of the site seems to be mainly scattered. The presence of slags at the foot of the mound suggests the possibility of burnt levels and those found in relation to certain geomagnetic anomalies could reflect an interconnected phenomenon.

### *3. Other noteworthy identified sites: survey methods and findings*

The small regional survey was aimed at identifying of sites and off-site scatters in the surroundings of Uşaklı and providing a basic sample of the archaeological landscape of the valley. The survey of the area around Uşaklı, for a radius of ca. 5km335, was extensive, with a low-resolution approach. We referred to previous research in the region and gathering information from local villagers as a preliminary guide to the location of sites of archaeological interest. However interviewing local residents about the presence of sparse ceramic sherds on their fields did not provide a positive outcome.

After a preliminary study of our topographic maps, satellite imagery and reports of previous works, systematic fieldwalking to seek sherds was conducted in the area that appeared most promising, i.e. along the courses of streams, near springs and rocks outcrops and choosing wide and flat representative areas to evaluate the possibility of sparse settlement. Fieldwalking was carried out also over ploughed fields and fallow lands, with cultivated fields limiting our activity to a certain degree. In some cases large fields devoted to cereal cultivation (mainly barley) were quickly explored after the harvest season but the crop residuals constantly hampered our ability to detect surface artefacts. Vans (local *dolmuş*) and a *Fiat Panda* car, particularly useful for the unpaved roads and off-road itineraries, were used to reach the targeted areas.

Once a site has been identified by the presence of archaeological materials the first field activity was collecting information on density of sherds and other materials, features of the archaeological deposit and taking note of evidence on the morphology of the area. Generally two types of archaeological sites were encountered: mounded sites and scatterings of materials, mostly sherds. A low level of archaeological artefact visibility was noted. Ten archaeological sites were recognised in the area assigned

335 The surveyed territory is shaped roughly like a quarter of a circle, the perimeter of which is marked by the villages of Babalı, Taşlık Köy, Incecayir and Dişlı. This area had already been partially surveyed in the context of the Alișar and Kerkenes archaeological projects.

for the surveying operations thanks to the presence of sherds dispersals (Pl. 13). Only two mounded sites were identified, site no. 3 and no. 9, which were further explored in a more detailed survey. Here the collecting was organised by dividing the surface into grids in line with the morphology of the soil. Leaving aside the two above-mentioned sites, no other concentrations merited further attention or intensive collecting given the very scarce presence of materials. In fact, handfuls of sherd scatters on the flat fields and hills was often the only element that enabled us to identify the other isolated contexts that may be considered off-sites areas of artefact distribution, which were probably short-lived and on virgin soil. These were materials exposed by ploughing or engineering works (routes, tracks, building sites) and their were located by walking along parallel transects over plots of the selected area. There is quite probably that some of these are not sites, in particular site 6, that could be earth containing few sherds deposited by a truck, and sites 8 and 13, respectively a sort of halo of Uşaklı lower slopes due to the ploughing of the nearby fields (or rubbish deposits?) and probably an off-site concentration. In addition to scatters among the agricultural fields, we registered ancient remains on top of a natural hill near Dişlı where some sherds, small cisterns, including one which is bell-shaped, could indicate a small small settlement/farmstead of later date (sites 14-16). In general, the number of finds is low, amounting to a dozen or so pottery fragments (Fig. 38; Pl. 41). At present we are not able to date these small repertoires more precisely, but would, in general, suggest a possible late 1st millennium BC production or later.

Apart from site identified as a result of dispersal of potsherds (see S. Mazzoni, this volume, § 3.3), the only other finds were the Hittite worked stone and the column and capital in the garden of the mosque of Aşağı Karakaya Köy probably of Late Roman/Byzantine date (Pl. 13: 5). Collections of surface material were not carried out because not present.

A conic formation located on the natural terrace south of Uşaklı was visited and at first interpreted as a possible *tumulus*. It had been illegally excavated in recent times and, although the morphology is typical of *tumuli* it would appear, in fact, to be a natural formation, as indicated by our geologists.

### *3.1 Taşlık Höyük (site no. 3)*

The mound is about 2 km SW of Uşaklı Höyük between the villages of Büyük and Küçük Taşlık, on a rocky spur, partially cut through by modern track (Pl. 14: 1). The site is in the gazetteer of the surveyed sites in the framework of the Kerkenes and Alişar projects (Summers, Summers 1994: 49; Summers *et al*. 1995: 59-61; Gorny 1995: plate V) and was mentioned in reports of previous expeditions (Von der Osten 1937c: Map III, between Yukarı and Aşağı Taşlık; Cornelius 1964: 12 n. 4; Meriggi 1971: 62- 63). The mound overlooks the plains to the west and a narrow valley set among rocks where the Kötü Dere stream flows. There is also a spring not far from the site. There are shallow holes on the top of the mound, probably the results of modern activities to remove soil or illicit diggings.

On the surface of the site and in correspondence to the section exposed during the building of the modern road a random sample of sherds were collected336. The repertoire consists mainly of fragments of conical and curved handmade bowl and jars (Fig. 37; Pl. 39). Chaff and grit tempers with few lime inclusions are the most typical and burnishing of the outer and inner surfaces is documented in the majority of the sherds collected. In a few cases we noted traces of a painted red band applied on the rim. We classified two groups of tempers on the basis of the prevailing inclusions: the first is mainly grit tempered and the second chaff tempered. The sherds show various colours, from dark brown and dark grey to buff, red and orange.

Bowls are characterised by irregular profiles and mouth, irregular thickness and cracked surfaces; in some case there is thin slip covering in some cases the inner side and rim of the open shapes.

Horizontal, vertical but also both and oblique burnishing traces (Fig. 37: 703) are documented; the open shapes are burnished both inside and out. In one case a dark painted band covers the outer surface of a closed form body sherd (Pl. 39: 08.17). Some grit-tempered specimens are black in colour with some buff/yellow nuances on the outer side (Pl. 39: 08.7).

Usually the sherds are thick and coarse. Conical bowls with simple rims recall forms from Alaça EBA I level (formerly considered Chalcolithic) and Alişar337. There are have red to light brown inside and darker on the external surface; or reddish inside and light brown outside (for example Pl. 39: 08.3;

336 A discrete number of pottery sherds were visible on the surface and at the base of the section. During an initial visit, we picked up a selection of 18 sherds from the section and 25 from the surface of the mound.

337 Von der Osten 1937a: specimens in Fig. 174.

08.21). A single row of small fingernail impressions is documented on the shoulder of one specimen (Pl. 39: 08.14). The use of fingernail motifs as a decorative pattern is attested at Alaça338, but often in multiple lines or disposed randomly on the body (the single line is documented, but rare); and a roughly similar example to our specimen has been found at Büyükkale339.

Rough parallels for the andiron found on the north-western slope (Fig. 37: 705; Pl. 39: 08.18) can be found at Mercimektepe340.

Some traits of the repertoire are shared with different assemblages dating from the Middle Chalcolithic to the EBA. Black and dark grey were the predominant colours of ceramics in the Middle Chalcolithic and earlier phases of the Late Chalcolithic period in the second half of the 4th millennium BC (Steadmann *et al*. 2008: 63) but the reddish colours are also attested in the same levels. The red pottery is characteristic of the EBA level of the Cıradere assemblage341: here for example parallels could be found for our nos 697, 693, 696342. Simple shapes characterised by brown and blackish burnished surfaces, mineral tempers with mica and limestone could also be dated to the Late Chalcolithic. Furthermore we cannot exclude the possibility that the shape and red slip coat on the inside (Fig. 39: 08.3) as well as the beige colour of some types (Fig. 39: 08.21) could betray some similarity also with specimens of the Late Chalcolithic horizon of the Yarıkkaya plateau343, but this would only be a generic comparison. Also the red/orange slip (Pl. 39: 08.21) and grey slip (Pl. 39: 10, K09.1020) recall the EBA I tradition (Orthmann 1963b: 16-17). Only four sherds (Pl. 39: pictures at the bottom; Fig. 37: 706 and 707) are wheelmade and to be assigned to the 1st millennium BC production.

The dimension and position of Taşlık fit well with the reconstruction of the typical site of earlier farmers who moved into central Anatolia suggested by U.D. Schoop in relation to the Büyükkaya settlement (2005a: 24). In fact, Taşlık also is a small site on a rock outcrop, in an elevated location, at the margins of the plain and close to a stream in a steep gorge.

It is worth mentioning here that there are no close links between the repertoires of Taşlık and Uşaklı. The darker colours and coarser fabrics of plant-tempered specimens, the different texture of grit fabrics and the rough surfaces as well as the predominance of the conical profile and the absence of hole-mouth types are all elements which differ from the characteristics of the handmade repertoire of Uşaklı. Apparent similarities are to be found in pieces with red and blackish outer surfaces (Pl. 15: 8, K12.1092, K12.135 and Pl. 39: 08.28). However the result of our limited collection of sherds confirms the hypothesis advanced by other scholars that the site was first occupied in the Late Chalcolithic and in the Early Bronze Age, with sparse evidence dating to the later periods (Iron-Age, Achaemenid) (Summers *et al.* 1995: 60-61).

### *3.2 Aşağı Karakaya Höyük (site no. 9)*

The hilltop site 9 is situated east of Aşağı Karakaya Köy, about 2km north of Uşaklı Höyük, in prominent position and with clear views in all directions (Pl. 14: 2). This village has been mentioned in previous reports thanks to the presence in the garden of the local mosque of a well dressed granite slab, probably Hittite and some stone architectural elements, in particular a column and a capital (Pl. 13: 5). Other fragmentary materials, mainly dressed stones, have been reused as construction materials in the modern houses. The site344, apparently not previously mentioned in other reports, overlooks the plain where Uşaklı is located and consists of a small mound on the undulating hills marking the passage between the plateau north of the Yozgat-Sorgun highway and the valley of the Egri Öz river. A remarkable scattering of sherds has been observed around this small mound and on the slopes of the natural hills nearby. Apparently no roof tiles are visible on the surface and the erosion of the archaeological deposit is profound. A layer of incoherent soil covers the top of the southern hill. Sampling survey units were established on the basis of the morphological features of the site. The density of sherds varies from a low rate along the perimeter of the two natural hills at the base of the anthropic deposit, to a high rate in the depression at the centre of the site and north of the mound. Here rock outcrops emerge on the surface. On the top of the mound a circular hole is visible, probably caused by illegal *tumuli* diggers.

338 Arık 1937: Lev. LXXXI: Al. 705; Koşay 1938. Lev. LXXVIII-VII.

The repertoire of collected sherds belonging to pots for transport, storage, table and kitchen, includes utilitarian medium-coarse mineral ware of rough reddish texture (very close to what was first identified as 'Brittle Ware'345), some specimens of painted ware and white slipped ware (Figs. 39-40; Pl. 40). This composition of the pottery repertoire as well as the occurrence of punctuated patterns on handles and wavy line decorations, mirror the picture emerging from Çadır (Gorny *et al.* 1995: 80) where these particular productions have been considered diagnostic for the Byzantine period (the date proposed is late 6th century AD). Thin-walled wheel thrown pots, vertical strap handles, horizontal wheel ridging, hard coarse-gritty reddish fabrics, medium mineral inclusions and limestone all are elements diagnostic of the Early Byzantine period of the Byzantine Dark Age (*c.* 7th-8th centuries AD). Instead, wavy incised decorations and jugs with narrow neck are recurring characteristics of the Middle Byzantine production of 10th-12th centuries AD (Vionis *et al.* 2009). However the wavy line decorations on sherds collected in the Tavium survey346 have been considered as early Byzantine, indicating the persistence of some decorative forms over lenghty periods.

The thin walls and carination angles of the narrow necked jars often with strap handles and ribbed neck of nos 730-731 (Fig. 39) could be compared with types from Saraçhane in distant Istanbul347. Finger indentations are also documented (Haynes 1992: Fig. 84: 54) as well as bowls similar to our no. 718 (Fig. 39)348, but glazed. The rim of this last type finds parallels with specimens in red paste found in Iznik and dated to the 14th-17th century AD (Özkul 2001: 374). Several elements of these jugs with conical mouth, in particular the corrugated thin walls, are similar to the containers for oil and wine found in Elaiussa Sebaste, and dated to between 5th and 7th centuries AD (Ferrazzoli, Ricci 2010; Burragato *et al.* 2007: 690), the so-called Late Roman I amphorae, widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean and identified probably with the *serioale* considered by Isidore of Seville as *Cilicienses*349. The main difference is in the shape of the handles which are usually squat and with longitudinal finger impressions in LRI amphorae but flat strap like in our cases350. Carinated walls decorated with lightly impressed wavy lines (Fig. 40: 438-9; Pl. 39: 2) and ridges with rows of X shaped hatch impressions (Pl. 39: 5; Fig. 40: 739) belong to different types of vessels for which it is hard to find appropriate parallels. Something vaguely similar is found at Tille Höyük351 dating to the medieval period (13th century AD). A kind of handle decorated with shallow grooves along either side and similar to our handle no. 734 (Fig. 39), but with crescent shaped incisions at the centre, has been found in Late Roman/Byzantine levels at Kilise Tepe (Jackson 2007: Fig. 428: no. 1429) where fabrics and some morphological elements, such as the relatively thin walls and broad flat handles, furnish a general parallel for our repertoire (Jackson 2007: 404; and wavy line in Fig. 428: no. 1419). Large bowls with deep notches cut into the lower edge of the upright rim have no parallels, o my knowledge.

To sum up, it is extremely difficult to date such a repertoire given that most of the sherds are from standard and coarse kitchenware. Moreover the absence of stratified sites in the area covering this long span of time of the Common Era make any accurate dating even harder, apart from some very general indications. Although firm evidence for developing a precise chronology for the settlement was not found, we propose here, in broad terms, that the main period of occupation was between the Late Roman and the Byzantine Period. Given the limited and generic evidence used as parallels for dating, only preliminary suggestions can be here offered for a chronological evaluation of the repertoire. The sherd in fine red-slip ware is an element that could be perhaps linked to a local manufacture derived from the Late Roman tradition. On the basis of a few, sporadic elements for comparison, we can preliminarily suggest that the earliest phase of occupation probably dates from the Late Antique or Early Byzantine period, with most of the materials being from the Early/Middle Byzantine period, approxi-

345 Brittle Ware is a thin walled ware for domestic purposes widely distributed in Northern Syria and Iraq on military sites, from the 2nd to 7th century AD (peak in 6th-7th century AD), of probable Syrian origin. Continuity in this production between the Roman and Abbasid periods has been documented. In general pottery made with ironrich clay with sand inclusions, wheelmade and high fired is widespread in the eastern Mediterranean basin, from the Hellenistic to the Omayyad period. Necked jars, with narrow mouth (around 8-15cm) and kitchen pots are the most frequently recurring types.

350 These kinds of flat handles vaguely recall those of coking pots of probable Cypriot origin (Ferrazzoli, Ricci 2007: Fig. 6-7), dating to 6th-7th century AD. 351 Moore 1993: Fig. 35: 77, 81.

mately 8th-11th century AD352. The small settlement, located on top of a natural hill, may well have been a guard post (watchtower?) or control station related to the main site of Uşaklı. It is worth mentioning here that the importance of Uşaklı and its satellite posts is due to the important communications routes which crossed this territory, connecting the eastern and western regions of the Central Plateau and in use from Roman times until the Ottoman period. The *Tabula Peutingeriana* shows that the main *Tavium* (Büyük Nefes Köy)-*Sebasteia* (Sivas) route intersects in the vicinity of Sorgun (formerly Yeşilova and Büyük Köhne) with another route leading toward north-west and connecting Zile and the Black Sea with Kayseri, ancient *Caesarea*. Traces of this road have been discovered in the area of Alişar (Von der Osten 1933: 116). Furthermore, roads designed for wheeled traffic are documented east of *Tavium* (Mitchell 1993: map 8), one of the key points in the eastern part of the road system (Mitchell 1993: 129), attesting to the importance of sites along the main arterial and secondary tracks with settlements and watchtowers developed in connection with these. The web of routes was in use in the early 7th century AD and probably continued to be so down to the Ottoman period. The exploitation of land for agricultural purposes and the closeness of important routes were the main factors that ensured the success of the settlement in this undulating landscape for centuries.

### *4. Concluding remarks*

Results from the intensive survey yielded information of great importance in relation to the settlement history of the site.

The main aim of UHSP was to obtain firm data that would enable us to study in detail the occupational sequence and obtain an areal scattering of the superficial archaeological evidence. However the complete occupation sequence of the site and its surrounding area cannot be obtained through surveying, even if intensive, and only intermittent evidence has been highlighted. Similarly, determining the chronology of the repertoire of materials proves to be a far more complex task than we had initially presumed.

The attempt to determine more precise and finer scale details regarding the settlement sequence has met with only minimal success. Chronology remains an unsolved and rather problematic aspect in relation to the Central Anatolian plateau and a more reliable pottery chronology is essential if we hope to provide a more precise interpretation of the survey data, especially with regard to Proto-historic and Post-Roman studies. However, in order to construct a valid ceramics sequence we need to excavate small, relatively short-lived sites on virgin soil for different periods and stratified layers unaffected by major rearrangement during and after phases of abandonment or settlement crises. These contexts, which could provide us with a well-defined short segments of the regional pottery horizon are, as yet, still lacking in the area.

The survey provided us with the first pieces of systematic information about the occupational history of the mound. Analysis of the finds suggests that the site was mainly occupied from the end of the Early Bronze Age to the Late Roman/Byzantine period, with an intensive occupation during the 2nd millennium BC. Sporadic traces of an earlier occupation dating to the Chalcolithic and early EBA have also probably been identified. Apart from at Uşaklı Höyük, up until now very limited evidence dating to the Chalcolithic or the first part of the EBA has been found. There is also an apparent absence of late 3rd, 2nd and 1st millennium sites and sparse presence of Late Roman/Byzantine date. We do not know whether this is a true pattern, or only the result of the inappropriate methodology of the archaeological research having been applied in this characteristic geographic and anthropic setting.

Surface collecting produced many ceramic types that we can hardly consider chronological markers of a given century as they are represented in 2nd millennium assemblages of all periods. This difficulty is encountered with sherds of red slip, for example, and some types of vessels that continued to be in use from the MBA until the end of LBA. It is often difficult to make a clear distinction between the different phases of the 2nd and 1st millennium and, at the moment, we cannot assert that our generic sherds in red slip ware belong to the MBA and LBA horizon rather than of the IA. We can only highlight the fact that the majority of the diagnostic sherds seem to have good parallels with types found at MBA-LBA sites. In many cases, however, this does not exclude the possibility that they may, instead, pertain to the IA horizon. If we look at the scattering of single categories we can observe that some categories

352 Thanks go to Marica Cassis for her remarks and useful indications concerning the repertoire and its possible date.

that can be dated firmly to the 2nd millennium tend to occur on the same portions of the site (i.e. the low slopes of the terrace and the scraped slope of the high mound). It is also difficult to identify clear markers in plain ware which was, without doubt, used exclusively in the LBA or in the IA, apart from a few specimens. In this way the bulk of the materials can be assigned only to a lengthy time-span and is cannot be used to date any single phase of use during the long history of the settlement.

The correspondence of 2nd millennium sherds and some buried structures identified by the geomagnetic survey can hardly be considered fortuitous. In particular, the density of drab ware diagnostic sherds over a limited area of the northern and eastern slopes (collecting units F19-20 and lot 2, bands 2, 4; lot 3, bands 2-3), may suggest, as a preliminary consideration, that architectural remains appearing beneath the surface might belong to the LBA period. A notable density of drab Ware sherds was found at the foot of high mound and there, again, within the sequence of occupation, we have to expect some remains dating to the same period. Red slip ware was found fairly evenly across the entire mound with a major density on the south-eastern slopes of the terrace (lots 1-4), where a fair number of diagnostic sherds, dating from the *karum* to the Imperial Hittite period, are also mainly distributed. On the basis of our analysis, the 2nd millennium settlement covered most of the terrace.

Handmade sherds, probably to be dated to the transitional period between EBA and MBA, have been found mainly on the terrace with a noteworthy concentration at the foot of the high mound and at the base of the northern terrace slope. Instead, the later sherds are homogeneously dispersed over the terrace and in part on the slope of the höyük.

The middle and late IA occupation is well documented by many types of sherds. Just how new the IA occupation is still unclear, but no handmade EIA materials similar to the Boğazköy assemblage have been recognised in Uşaklı to date.

We can identify some interesting concentrations and general trends in the scattering of materials. This means that in some sectors we stand a fair chance of finding architectural remains dating to one or another chronological period or to indicating a specific function.

The combined occurrence of wares and ceramic types of late periods together with tiles suggests that the presence of 'late' structures has to be located mostly in the northern and western portions of the terrace, and in the north-eastern squares with regard to the area occupied by Building I. Here the higher consistency of later layers prevents the 2nd millennium sherds to come to light, apart from those from the lower slope of the high mound in part cut by ploughing or which have shifted from nearby eastern squares. On the other hand, in the north eastern and eastern squares and units, the 2nd millennium is better documented by sherds, suggesting that any significant structures under the surface are to be assigned preliminarily to this period. The portions of the mound slope that have been scraped returned a good sample of types, including also handmade sherds of earlier date. Given the slope of the topsoil, it is obviously hard to determine a more finely-tuned chronological differentiation of the different collections. It is worth mentioning that the occurrence of those types we considered of 1st millennium date or later, such as painted IA and Roman/Byzantine, is relatively low compared to in other parts of the mound. This suggests that the sequence of later periods are not of principal or exclusive importance in the history of occupation of the high mound, and that here the 2nd millennium layers are also of a certain relevance.

Whilst the scattering patterns of different sets of samples could pertain to unconnected events, it is more likely that they represent the faint remains of layers below the surface relating to the various phases of occupation differently documented in different zones of the site.

The UHSP was intended primarily to understand the main phases of occupation of the site, to collect basic information on the distribution of the surface evidence, with the surrounding area a secondary aim that will require wider and more in-depth exploration. A general picture has, however, been drawn and interesting results achieved although a complete understanding of the area remain to be achieved since many fields were left outside the area of our activities because cultivated. Our fieldwork, although systematic and intensive, leaves many doubts regarding a reconstruction of the chronology of the settlement and many gaps will have to be filled in during future work. However, by reference to the data at hand and published in this report we hope to encourage debate about the archaeological relevance of settlement in this part of the Central Plateau through evidence attested on the surface.

Many outstanding questions remain and others have been raised by the UHSP but we hope the results obtained will contribute to a better understanding of settlement processes on the Central Anatolian Plateau. However only systematic excavations will be able to validate our reconstruction and confirm whether scatters of archaeological evidence reflect real settlement patterning and, more generally, throw light on the occupation of Uşaklı Höyük and the upper course of the Eğri Oz Dere.

*References*

Zoroğlu L. 1977, *Yozgat Mercimektepe Sondajı*, «Türk Arkeoloj Dergisi», 24 (1): 195-212.

### *General Charts of materials recovered on the site of Uşaklı Höyük*353

Chart 1: Materials from the survey on Uşaklı Höyük lower terrace.

353 For each survey unit the total amounts for the main categories of artifacts have been given: the number of diagnostic sherds, generic sherds and the sum of both categories; the weight in Kg of main functional ceramic classes and the total amount of recovered pottery; the amount in Kg of roof tiles and of combusted slags.

\* : number

\*\*: weight

Chart 2: Materials from the survey on Uşaklı Höyük lower terrace slopes.

Chart 3: Materials from the survey on Uşaklı Höyük upper slopes.

Chart 4: Materials from the scraping and from small soundings on Uşaklı Höyük slopes.

### 200 *A. D'AGOSTINO, V. ORSI*

### b: Bottom-up layout Diagram 20: Type B-Morphology of bases. Occurrence of main variants a: Code layout b: Bottom-up layout Diagram 21: Type H-Morphology of handles and lugs. Occurrence of main variants a: Code layout b: Bottom-up layout

\*\*\*

*List of Schemes*

Scheme 1: Typology of vessel profiles Scheme 2: Typology of neck profiles Scheme 3: Typology of rim profiles

\*\*\*

### *List of Charts*

Chart 1: Materials from the survey on Uşaklı Höyük lower terrace Chart 2: Materials from the survey on Uşaklı Höyük lower terrace slopes Chart 3: Materials from the survey on Uşaklı Höyük upper slopes Chart 4: Materials from the scraping and from small soundings on Uşaklı Höyük slopes

### *Catalogue of Plates*

### *Plate 15*

*Plate 25*

*Plate 28 (clos-ups of cross sections)*

### *Plate 29 (clos-ups of cross sections)*

## *Plate 27*

### *Plate 30 (clos-ups of cross sections)*

### THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: METHODS AND MATERIALS 207

*Plate 31 (clos-ups of cross sections)*

 08.1995 K 5A.9 W 18.390 08.1 K 6B.3 W 09.273 P 6C.5 W 09.960 Gl B5 W 31.576 12.30 Gl Bsh W 12.30

 09.1242 K 1G W 19.1 08.1816 K 5A.8a W 21.1

### *Plate 39*

Other

### *Plate 32 (clos-ups of cross sections)*

### *Plate 33 (clos-ups of cross sections)*

### 208 *A. D'AGOSTINO, V. ORSI*

### *Catalogue of Figures*

\*\*\*

### *Notes to figures and plates*

The sherd profiles have been grouped according to techniques and form. No attempt has been made to divide the whole repertoire into different chronological partition. A decision taken for the difficulty to understand in the most of cases a sure date of the type. In the end some figures show our diagnostic types for the main periods.

The identification number of the sherd report a K (for Kuşaklı, name used during the first two seasons, before to modify it in Uşaklı, according to an old map of the land register of Sorgun and to avoid confusion with the site of Kuşaklı/Sarissa) + the last two numbers of the year in which it has been picked up (for example K08 is for the season 2008) and the progressive registration number for that year.

As for as small objects and other findings, the abbreviation of inventory objects UK *number*. Es.*number,* UK*number*.E.*number* and U*number*.E*.number* refer respectively to objects collected during the survey, the scraping or the excavations (UK is the abbreviation for Kuşaklı/Uşaklı, used in the first campaigns for the inventory).

\*\*\*

*Key to the pottery catalogue*

Abbreviations used in the description of pottery:

**n.**: number of sherds as referred to the drawing in the figures

**UKn**.: inventory number in Uşaklı Höyük collection

**SS1-9**: inventory number in Survey Sites 1-9

**Area**: square of provenience referred to topographic grid and collection units HM: high mound south-eastern slope TS: terrace northern slope Gen.: outside unit. Arbitrary survey units on the slopes, that is lots (*L*) and bands (*B*), are specified in italic type1 ; lower terrace units, which correspond to the regular squares of the grid, are in normal (roman) type2

**Type**: morphological description3

**W/Cl**: ware (W) and functional class (Cl) *Wares include*4 : Bb: Brown Burnished Ware Br: Pseudo Brittle Ware C: 'Cappadocian' [Handmade, Geometric Painted Ware] Cg: Coarse Grained Ware D: Drab Ware G: Grey Ware Gl: Glazed Ware Gp: Grey Ware, Painted Gr: Grey Ware, Rough Gw: Gold Wash Ware K: Kitchen

1 E.g., the label '*L9, B8*' stands for 'Lot 9, Band 8'.

2 As example, in the label 'G17, d3', 'G17' is the 20x20m square in the topographic grid, whereas 'd3' is the 5x5m square within the 20x20m square.

3 Refer to **§** 2.2.4, *Typology*.

4 Refer to § 2.2.3, *Wares*.

O: Orange Fine Ware Os: Orange Slip Ware P: Plain Ware Ps: Pink Slip Ware Pt: Painted Ware Rb: Reddish Brown Ware Rs: Red Slip Ware Ys: Yellow Slip Wares *Functional classes include*5 *:* C: Common and table wares K: Kitchen wares S: Storage and long term preservation wares F: Fine and luxury wares **E**: texture evaluation FF: very fine F: fine MF: medium-fine M: medium MC: medium-coarse C: coarse **ST**: surface treatment – type of coat and secondary treatment *Numbers in the first position indicate:* 1: rough, no coat/treatment 2: primary (no slip) 3: self-slip 4: slip/painting *Capital Letters in the second position indicate*: S: smoothed V: vitrified B: burnished P: polished *Small letters refers to the orientation of finishing traces as described by capital letters, and stand for:* o: horizontal v: vertical b: slanting i: irregular **Fa**: fabric – main inclusion V: vegetal M: mineral MV: mineral and vegetal **Colours**: main colours visible in surfaces (out.: outside surface; in: inner side surface) and freshly bro-

ken sections (sect.: section). In case two or more colours are registered in the same field, they are separated by a comma. Abbreviations used are referred to the Munsell Soil Color Chart: w. = white o whitish; b. = black; br. = brown o brownish; y. = yellow o yellowish; g. = gray o grayish; o. = olive; r. = red o reddish; pi. = pink o pinkish; gr. = greenish; bl. = bluish - d. = dark; du. = dusky; l. = light; p. = pale; s. = strong; v. = very; we. = weak.

*Surface colours may include*: s: colour of the Surface **Ss**: colour of the Self-Slip **S**: colour of the Slip. **P**: colour of the Painted decoration

5 Refer to § <IP_ADDRESS> , *Function*. *Section colours may include* : **O**: fracture colour on the outer margin. **C**: fracture colour on the core. **I**: fracture colour on the inner margin.

\*\*\*

*Figures Legend – (see catalogue for details)*

Figure 1 – Type 1

*Figures*

*Figure 2 – Type 1*

*Figure 5 – Type 2*

*Figure 6 – Type 2*

*Figure 7 – Type 2*

*Figure 8 – Type 2*

*Figure 9 – Type 2*

*Figure 10 – Type 2*

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: METHODS AND MATERIALS 231

*Figure 11 – Type 2*

*Figure 12 – Type 2*

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: METHODS AND MATERIALS 235

*Figure 13 – Type 2*

*Figure 14 – Type 2*

*Figure 15 – Type 2*

*Figure 16 – Type 3*

*Figure 19 – Type 6*

*Figure 20 – Type 6*

*Figure 21 – Type 7*

*Figure 23 – Type 8*

*Figure 24 – Type 8*

*Figure 25 – Type 8*

*Figure 26 – Type Z*

*Figure 27 – Type Z*

*Figure 28 – Type Z*

*Figure 29 – Type 20 and W*

*Figure 30 – Various types*

*Figure 31 – Bases*

*Figure 32 – Handles*

*Figure 33 – Handles*

*Figure 34a – Decorated (with painted motifs) body sherds*

*Figure 34b – Decorated (with incised and applied motifs) body sherds*

*Figure 35 – Hand-made sherds (various types)*

*Figure 36 – Fragmentary tiles (tegulae and imbrices)*

*Figure 37 – SS-03 Taşlık Höyük*

*Figure 38a – SS-05*

### *Figure 38b – SS-06*

*Figure 38c – SS-07*

*Figure 39 – SS-09 Aşağı Karakaya Köy*

*Figure 40 – SS-09 Aşağı Karakaya Köy*

### BULLA WITH ANATOLIAN HIEROGLYPHS

### *Massimo Poetto*

### *Abstract*

The paper presents the reading and interpretation of the legend on the impression, consisting of name of the seal owner and his title/profession.

### *Özetçe*

Anadolu hiyeroglifli mühür baskısı. Bu makale, baskı üzerinde yer alan ve mühür sahibinin ismi ile unvanı/mesleğini içeren sembollerin okunması ve yorumlanmasına dair yöntemler önermektedir.

Found during the second season of the surface survey carried out at Uşaklı in September 2009, the clay bulla (2.40 × 2.50 × 2.60cm) under consideration (Fig. 1.1-7 and Pl. 42) is currently kept in the depot of the Yozgat Archaeological Museum (catalog no. UK09.E.1).

It bears three circular impressions. The best preserved one (diameter 1.80cm) shows the main constituents of the original seal.

Framed by ornamental elements such as a guilloche and a band of spirals – hence the attribution of the object to the Old Hittite period1 – the dextroverse legend in Anatolian hieroglyphs yields2 the man's name *S*3 -*tù*- ┌ *ha*┐ (see my drawing, Fig. 1.7).

Concerning the shape of the signs: *s*3 portrays the frequent goat-like head with a prominent horn (*98*[.*1*])3 ; *tù* (*81*) lacks surface markings as in, e.g., the (masculine) anthroponyms *Hú*-*tù*-*pi* and *Tá*-*tùmi*: the first on a bulla of the 13th century BC from Boğazköy (Boehmer and Güterbock 1987: 66 no. 188 / plate XXI), the latter on the coeval(?) discoid seal (of dark-red stone) no. 102466 of the British Museum (impression in Hogarth 1920: 90 figure 113 [with A upside-down])4 ; in ┌ *ha*┐ (*191*) the upper half and the middle vertical stroke are effaced.

The glyph on the left side, a bird head on a sort of plinth, stands for the title / occupation of the seal owner. Although the pictogram in this precise shape seems elsewhere not attested in Hieroglyphic, it is likely to be regarded as a variant / reduction of the other birdlike protome with backward-pointing wing5 on the impressions nos. 285, 306, 494-495 from the Nişantepe-Archiv (Herbordt 2005: plates 22, 24, 39)6 , probable correspondence – in agreement with Hawkins' proposal (2005: 302 under no. 6) – to the Cuneiform MUŠEN-professions LÚIGI.MUŠEN 'auspex' and LÚMUŠEN.DÙ 'augur'7 .

1 Cp., also for a preliminary presentation, Mazzoni in Mazzoni, D'Agostino, Orsi 2010: 130, 162 figure 26; Mazzoni, Pecchioli Daddi 2011: 121 / plate XIIIa; lastly Mazzoni 2012: 402, 405. For the same decoration on impressions on a lump of clay recently found at Alaca Höyük (ALH 2002/19, dated to the mid-16th century BC) see Dinçol, Dinçol 2008: (167-)168, 173 figure 1a-d.

2 On the basis of the examination of photographic material – a selection from which is here offered (Figs 1.3-6) – courteously put at my disposal by Professor Franca Pecchioli Daddi.

3 On which cf. Collins 1990, in particular 44-45, 47-48, ignored by Payne 2008: 120 and Yakubovich 2010: 290- 291 (with unproven claims on the point by Oreshko 2013: 404).

4 Mora's typological description and reading (1987: 122 ad V.4.3) should be modified accordingly.

5 Superimposed to *URA* (*184*) 'great'.

6 While no. 454 / plate 35 shows the animal in full shape with wing to side. Notice also the right-facing legless bird (over IL [*386*(.*1*)] 'vir') of no. 469 / plate 37 ("X, VIR2 " in Hawkins 2005: 276 / "AVIS(?).VIR2 " in Herbordt 2005: 197, 373).

7 On their religious activities cp. Archi 1975: 129-134 *ad* no. 3, and for the documentation Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 320-321, 323-326; on the latter see in particular Bawanypeck 2005: 2-11 and *passim*. A prosopographic outline for

Stefania Mazzoni, Franca Pecchioli Daddi (edited by), *The Uşaklı Höyük Survey Project (2008-2012). A final report*, ISBN 978-88-6655-901-6 (print) ISBN 978-88-6655-902-3 (online), CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IT, 2015 Firenze University Press

### 346 *MASSIMO POETTO*

Any possible further graphic elements (space fillers included) are worn away.

Our idionym is not isolated: it occurs – persistently with initial *S*3 - – on one side of a 13th(?) century BC biconvex seal from Nizip8 in private collection (Steinherr 1974: 15 no. 1B/b; Mora 1987: 325 *ad* XIIb.1.94.*b*9 ) as well as on a bulla from the Nişantepe-Archiv (Herbordt 2005: 183 no. 384 / plate 30; Hawkins 2005: 271, with the correspondence to Cuneif. *Saduhi* [Laroche 1966: 161 no. 1137]).

Not to be left out of consideration is also *S*3 -*tù-ha-zi/za* on both sides of a biconvex seal (13th[?] century BC) added to the 'Borowski Collection' (Poetto 1983: 186, 188 no. 2), with enlargement in -*zi/za* as in Cuneif. *Pittanza / Pittazzi* vs. *Pidda* (Poetto 1983: 187), or Hierogl. *Tu-wa/wi-ná/ní-zi/za* of the Nişantepe-Archiv bulla no. 472 (Herbordt 2005: 198 / plate 37; Hawkins 2005: 276) vs. *Tu-wa/wi-ná/ ní* of the unpublished Maşat impression (14th century BC) no. 74/74 (Hawkins 2005: 276, commentary to no. 472) – equal to late (8th century BC) *Tu-wa/wi-na/ni*(-*ia*, Dat.) of KULULU Lead Strip 1 *b* I 5 (Meriggi, Poetto 1982: 98 = 1 rev. §7, 39 in Hawkins 2000: 508) alongside Cuneif. *Duwana* (KBo 28 obv. I 7 / rev. III 3[ ) and *Duwânna* (KUB 52.44 obv. 12) –, etc.

None of the above individuals, however, bear the MUŠEN-title.

### *References*

Archi A. 1975, *L'ornitomanzia ittita*, «Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici», 16: 119-180.

Cuneiform of some of the same-name bearers (*Pihatarhunta* and *Ukkura*) on the aforementioned Nişantepe documents is worked out by Hazenbos 2007: 99ff.

Pecchioli Daddi F. 1982, *Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell'Anatolia ittita*, Edizioni dell'Ateneo, Roma. Poetto M. 1983, *Nuovi sigilli in luvio geroglifico*, in O. Carruba, M. Liverani, C. Zaccagnini (eds.), *Studi orientalistici in ricordo di Franco Pintore*, GJES, Pavia: 185-188.

Steinherr F. 1974, *Hieroglyphen-luwische Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus verschiedenen Privatsammlungen und Museen*, «Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft», 32: 149-158.

Yakubovich I. 2010, *Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language,* Brill, Leiden-Boston.

*Figures*

### EPIGRAPHIC FINDINGS

*Alfonso Archi, Carlo Corti, Franca Pecchioli Daddi, Giulia Torri*

### *Abstract*

During the archeological survey in Ușaklı Höyük four fragments in Hittite language and script have been found. They are here presented in transliteration together with an analysis of their contents. Frg. 1 (UK09.E.2) is a mythical text, part of the Kumarbi cycle, as proposed by Franca Pecchioli. Mention remains of the Sun-god of Sky, the Tutelary Deity LAMMA, the Dark Earth (*daga(n)z[ipa*-), and the Beloved (?) Woman. Frg. 2 (UK12.E.3), Frg. 3 (UK12.E.4), and Frg. 4 (UK12.E.5) are letters. The surface of these fragments is abraded and their interpretation is difficult. Frg. 2 preserves the initial part: Sender and addressee, whose names are lost, are surely persons of the same social status as the typical phrase ŠEŠ-*YA/-KA* (obv. 2, 3, 4, 5) shows. The letter could deal with some administration of the land.

A fifth fragment was unhearted during excavations in 2014. Frg. 5 (UK14.E.43) is a festival text. The mention of the AZU-prist and the offer for the goddess Ninatta connect this fragment with a southern Anatolian religious background. It resembles some Hittite ceremonies for Ištar of Ḫattarina similar to the ones included in the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival of the late imperial period (CTH 615: 25th-27th days). A sixth fragment (UK15.E.62) is an oracle investigation. Autographies and photos are presented at the end of the article. Together with these fragments a new translation of the Middle Hittite fragment KBo 52.80 is offered. This fragment, found from Cornelius during his survey in the region of Yozgat, comes most probably from Ușaklı Höyük. It is a very fragmentary KIN oracle inquiry in which some typical formulas of this oracular technique are clearly recognizable.

### *Özetçe*

Epigrafik buluntular. Uşaklı Höyük'teki arkeolojik araştırmalar sırasında, üzerinde Hititçe yazılar bulunan dört adet tablet parçası ele geçirilmiştir. Bu makale, yazıların transliterasyonu ve içerik çözümlemesini içermektedir. Parça 1 (UK09.E.2), Franca Pecchioli Daddi tarafından öne sürüldüğü üzere, Kumarbi efsanelerinin parçası olan mitolojik bir metin içermekte olup; Göklerin Güneş Tanrısı, Koruyucu Tanrı LAMMA, Karanlık Toprak (*daga(n)z[ipa*-) ve Sevilen (?) Kadın'dan bahsetmektedir. Parça 2 (UK12.E.3), Parça 3 (UK12.E.4) ve Parça 4 (UK12.E.5) ise mektuplara aittir. Yüzeylerinin aşınması nedeniyle, yorumlanmaları aşamasında zorluk yaşanmaktadır. Parça 2'nin başlangıç kısmı korunmuş durumdadır: İsimleri kaybolmuş olan gönderen ve alıcı, tipik bir sözcük öbeği olan ŠEŠ-*YA/-KA*'dan (yüzler 2, 3, 4, 5) anlaşıldığı üzere şüphesiz aynı toplumsal statüye sahip iki bireydir. Mektubun, toprak idaresine dair bir yazışma içermesi mümkündür.

2014 yılında yürütülen kazı çalışmaları sırasında, beşinci bir parça daha gün ışığına çıkarılmıştır. Parça 5 (UK14.E.43), bir şenlik metnidir. Metinde AZU rahibinden ve tanrıça Ninatta'ya sunulan adaktan bahsediliyor oluşu nedeniyle, bu parçayı güney Anadolu dini geçmişiyle ilişkilendirmek mümkündür. Şenlik, Hattarina'nın İştar'ı için yapılan ve son imparatorluk dönemindeki AN.TAḪ. ŠUM bayramı (CTH 615: 25nci – 27nci günler ) kapsamındaki kutlamalarla benzerlik göstermektedir. Ele geçirilen altıncı parça (UK15.E.62) ise, bir kehanet soruşturmasıdır. Otografiler ve fotoğraflar, makalenin sonunda sunulmaktadır. Bu parçalarla birlikte, Orta Hitit Dönemi'ne ait KBo 52.80 parçasının yeni bir tercümesi de önerilmektedir. Yozgat bölgesindeki araştırmaları sırasında Cornelius tarafından bulunan bu parça, muhtemelen Uşaklı Höyük'ten gelmektedir. Bahsedilen KIN kehanet falı metni bütünlükten yoksun olup, içeriğinde bu kehanet tekniğine ait bazı tipik formülleri bulundurduğu açıkça görülmektedir.

*The epigraphic findings*

Four Hittite fragments (**nos. 1-4**) have been found during the surveys conducted at Ușaklı Höyük from 2009 by the archaeological expedition of the University of Florence. The fragment **no. 5** has been found during the excavations of 2014, and the fragment **no. 6** has been found during the campaign of 20151 .

All these fragments, that come from secondary find spots (see map below), are now stored at the archaeological Museum of Yozgat.

Text **no. 7** was found by F. Cornelius in the village of 'Tașlık Hüyük', which he misunderstood clearly (according to his description) for Ușaklı Höyük, when he was surveying that area in 1962 (Corti 2010, 195-197). He gave this fragment to the Museum of Ankara, where it was registered as 1000/u. C. Corti has edited it as KBo 52.280 (Corti 2009), and studied in 2010. Its transliteration and translation is given again here below.

> ? -

*1. Tablet UK09.E.2*

Measures: h. 7.9 cm, w. 8.3 cm, thick. 4.3 cm. Color: obverse, light reddish brown; reverse: light grey.

Myth of the Kumarbi Cycle mentioning DLAMMA/KAL2

14' [ ]x[

1 The copies of nos. 1 and 2 are by C. Corti; those of nos. 3-6 by A. Archi.

2 An edition of this text is published by Pecchioli, Torri, Corti 2014. Here it is given again with some small improvement after a further collation at Yozgat Museum in September 2014.

3 Or GAM-*an-da* but the reading AN for the second sign is very uncertain.

### EPIGRAPHIC FINDINGS 351

This first fragment was found during the survey 2009 (03/09/2009) on the surface of the southern area at the base of the mound (Lot -1, band 4c). It measures 7,9 x 8,3 cm and, given the thickness of the inner part (maximum thickness preserved is 4,3 cm.), the original tablet could have been quite large and long. This piece belongs to the left side of the tablet. The surface is spoiled and the left edge deformed by fire; on both sides, obverse and reverse, 14 incomplete lines remain.

F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri, and C. Corti presented this text at the 8th International Congress of Hittitology in Warsaw. It is probably part of a mythological text, without parallels among the documents from Ḫattuša, where some deities and characters are involved: mention remains of the Sungod of Sky, the Tutelary Deity LAMMA, the Dark Earth (*daga*(*n*)*z*[*ipa*-), and the Beloved (?) Woman. Recently at the 9th International Congress in Çorum, (September 2014), Franca Pecchioli was able to refer to KUB 36.30 (CTH 346.7) obv. 2' and 10' for a similar dialogue with a woman (MUNUS), and assigned this fragment to the Cycle of Kumarbi.

```
2. Tablet UK12.E.3
```
Measures: h. 4,7 cm, w. 4,2 cm. Color: light reddish brown.

Letter

obv.

 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 6 ˹*ka*˺-*a-ša am-m*[*u-uk*

rev.

This tablet comes from the survey 2012 (13/7/2012). It was found on the southern slope (Lot 11, band 8). The content is not completely clear but the preserved incipit let us convincingly state that it is a letter. Sender and addressee, whose names are lost4 , are surely persons of the same social status as the typical phrase ŠEŠ-*YA/-KA* (obv. 2, 3, 4, 5) shows. The letter could deal with some administration of the land (see rev. 2' *ma-ni-ya-aḫ*[-, rev. 3' *ki-nu-na-za* x[, rev. 6' *ŠA* ITU.KAM).

The tablet has the typical shape of the letters with the beginning of the text (obv. l. 1) written on the upper edge, and the last line on the lower edge of the reverse (rev. l. 8). Unfortunately only the left side of the tablet is preserved. Signs are elongated and the script is cursive, so much that the scribe often did not drew the full sign, as for example in the case of KI (rev. 3') and ŠA (rev. 5') whose internal horizontals are not visible. There are not diagnostic signs preserved well enough to establish the dating of the text. If the reading *eštu* (rev. 5') is correct we may propose an earlier dating than the Late Hittite period.

4 The sign LÚ (*ziti*) in obv. 1 has to be probably considered part of the name of the addressee.

*3. Tablet UK12.E.4*

Measures: h. 3.8 cm, w. 3.6 cm, thick 1.5 cm. Color: light brown.

Letter 1' ⸢x⸣ 2' ]⸢x⸣-*aḫ*-[x-]⸢x⸣[ 3' -]*te-ir* ⸢x⸣[ 4' -]⸢x⸣ ⸢x⸣ ⸢x⸣ [ 5' ]⸢x⸣-*u-i A-NA* ⸢ŠEŠ⸣[*-YA* 6' ] *i-ya-kán*- ⸢x⸣[ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 7' -*t*]*a*? -*i pár-za*[- 8' ]⸢x⸣ ⸢x⸣ ⸢x⸣[

This small fragment, strongly abraded, (probably a letter) was found during the survey 2012 (18/7/2012) on the south-eastern slope (lot 12, band 5).

### *4. Tablet UK12.E.5*

Measures: h 3.5 cm, w 2.4 cm, thick. 1.8 cm. Color: light red.

Letter

The text, probably a letter (see the form *ḫatra*[*iš/it*], l. 3', and *AŠPUR* from *šapāru*, l. 5'), was found during the survey 2012 (20/7/2012). It comes from the border (lot 12, band 5/6) at the foot of the mound. The word, partially lost, at l. 4' could be restored as *maršanteš*, thus this letter would deal with the problem of treacherous or pour people.

### *5. Tablet UK14.E.3*

Measures: h. 4,9 cm, w. 3,5 cm. thick. 2,3 cm. Color: light red

Festival with Kizzuwatnean influence

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

### EPIGRAPHIC FINDINGS 353

7' EGIR-*pa-ma* [ 8' *ta-aš-ša-an* [ 9' 10[+x] ⸢NINDA⸣[.K]U7 LÚ[AZU 10' ]⸢x⸣ ⸢x⸣

This tablet was found in the excavation 2014 (18/07/2014). It comes from Area C, step trench, Square M17C4. Only one side of the tablet is preserved, probably the obverse, and a part of the left edge. The text presents a clear writing and can be safely dated back to the Late Empire period. In the first paragraph a ritual action of the AZU-Priest is partly preserved. In the second paragraph there are offers of sweet bread and porridge to the deity Ninatta (l. 6'). After Ninatta the deity Kulitta is here restored as they are almost always mentioned together in festivals. The performer of this ritual action is probably the queen (l. 5'). The queen acts together with the LÚAZU in the festival for Ištar of Ḫattarina (*CTH* 615: 25th-27th days of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR-festival), see I. Wegner 1995, Nos. 19-34. For the LÚAZU, see, e. g., no. 19 IV 3'', 5'' (p. 115); no. 22 II? 7', 19', III? 3' (pp. 121-122), etc. The archaizing form *ta-aš-ša-an* seems, however, not attested in the Ḫattuša version of this Kizzuwatnean festival. It is found, instead, in some texts of the festivals for Ištar of Šamuḫa as for example KBo 35.168 (Wegner 1995: Nr. 8).

*6. Tablet UK15.E.62*

Measures: h. 4.2 cm, w. 2.4, thick. 2.7 Color: light red

Extispicy obv. x+1 -*z*]*i* ⸢x⸣-⸢x⸣-*an*-⸢x⸣[ 2' ]⸢x⸣ *ú-e-ku-en* 3' ] GIŠTUKUL 4' ] ZAG-*aš na-ak-ti-iš* ⸢x⸣[- 5' -]*i ku-it ŠA* D*IŠTAR* 6' SA]G? -*ni* EGIR-*pa ḫa-at-t*[*a*- \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 7' -]*ma-an-da-an* [ ] ⸢x⸣[

```
8' ] ⸢pí⸣-an[-
```
This fragment has been found during the campaign 2015 (15/06/2015) on the surface of the southeastern slope of the high mound (square M17D3). It preserves eight fragmentary lines clearly indicating that the tablet reported an oracular investigation. These lines concern an inquiry performed with the practice of extispicy, according to the technical terms GIŠTUKUL and *naktiš*5 . Further, the goddess *IŠTAR* (l. 5') is often mentioned with parts of the liver. The text of the obverse continues, through the right edge, without breaks on the reverse (surely ll. 4'-7'). The scribe had, therefore, to leave part of the second column of the reverse unwritten. Diagnostic signs like E (l. 2'), EN (l. 2'), AK (l. 4'), IT (l. 5'), and DA (l. 7', partly abraded) show an older ductus (15th/14th cent.).

*7. KBo 52.280*

Measures: h. 6.5 cm, w. 6 cm, thick. 1.4 cm. Color: from reddish to light brown

KIN Oracle Inquiry obv. 1' x[ 2' *nu*? -*uš*? *ḫ*[*u*? -

5 Until now a *hapax* attested only in KUB 49.17 IV 15' (*CHD* N, 374a).

3' *da-i-ú-en* x[ 4' *pár-*⌈ *na*⌋??-*aš*-*ša*? -*aš* [ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 5' *šal*? -*li*? (?) GIG *i-d*[*a*? -*a-lu*(?) …. *da-a-aš*(?)] 6' *na-aš-t*[*a*] *an-da* [ .... *pa-a-iš*(?) 7' *ta*? -x[ ]x MU*-a*[*n* 8' *i* ? -*da-*⌈ *a*⌉ *-*[*lu-m*]*a*? *da-a-a*[*n* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 9' [ ]x[ ]DUMU.SAN[GA-*m*]*a* KI.MIN[ 10' [ ]x(-)MU? (-)x-*i-pa*? TUKU? [ 11' [*i-d*]*a*? -*a-lu da-a-aš pa-a*[*n-ga-u-i pa-a-iš*(?) (NU.)SIG5 (?) ….] 12' [*d*]*a*? -*a-an* x*-at-*⌈ *ma*⌉? x[ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 13' [ ]x-*na*? (-)x-*pí*? DIM? TUKU? [ 14' [ ]x[ ]x[ ]-*ra*? *da-a-*x[ 15' [ ]x[ ]x x[ lower edge 16' [ ]x-x[ *d*]*a-a*? -*a*[*š* ]x-x[ 17' [ ]x x[ -*y*]*a-za*? *kar-pí-in* [*d*]*a-i*[*š*(?)](-)x? [ 18' [*na-a*]*š*? -*ta an-da i-da-a-la-u-*[*i pa-a-iš*(?) (NU.)SIG5 (?) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ rev. 19' [ ]x*-an ku-i*[*t* ]DUMU.SANGA KIN-*ti*[ 20' [ ]x *pa-an-ku-u*[*š* ]x *wa-aš-túl x*[ 21' [GÙ]B? -*la-az da-iš nu* DUMU-*l*[*i* ] 22' *ku-wa-at-ga na-a-ḫu-wa*-*n*[*i* 23' *ku-iš-ki ma-a-na-aš* LÚ[-*aš* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 24' [*d*]*a*? -*la-a-*⌈ *i* ⌉? -*za mu-ga-u*[- \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 25' *nu* DUMU.SANGA *wa-\*aš-túl\** [ 26' LÚ MUNUS-*za* LÚ URU*Ḫa-\*a*[*t-t*]*i\** [ *ku-iš-ša-aš*(?)] 27' *im-ma ku-iš* LÚ[-*aš* 28' DINGIRMEŠ *a-ri-ir nu x*[*…. i-da-a-lu da-a-ir* (?)] 29' *pa-an-ga-u-i pí*[-*e-ir*(?) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 30' *nu* DUMU.SANGA *an-d*[*a*? 31' *i*-x[ ]x[ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Translation obv. 1' x[ 2' and them (?) [ 3' we placed x[ 4' of his house(?)[ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 5' The great sickness [took] the ev[il(?) .... ] 6' and [it gave(?)] to the [ 7' [ ] the year [ 8' but the evil for the second ti[me …. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 9' [ ]x[ ] but the son of the priest *ditto*[

10' [ ] x the year [ ]x the anger(?)[

11' the [evi]l it took (and) [gave (?) it to the](?) it to the] peop[le]. Un/favorable.(?) ....]

12' for the second time (?) x [ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 13' [ ] x the Storm God(?) [is] anger[ed(?) 14' [ ]..[ ]..[ ]… ...[ 15' [ ]..[ ].. ..[ Lower edge 16' [ ]…[ h]e/i]t took(?) ..[ ]…[ 17' [ ].. ..[ ]… the anger [he/it too]k 18' [and he/it gave to] the evi[l. Un/favorable (?). \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ rev. 19' [ ].. becau[se(?) ] the son of the priest through the lot investigation [ 20' [ ]x the people took the sin, the x[ 21' from the adversity, and he [gave it] t[o] the son[of the priest]. 22' Should we have to fear [… ? 23' Whoever, whether (it be) a man[, or (it be a) woman …?] \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 24' He [pe]rmits/[le]aves(?) [the] invoc[ation(?) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 25' And the son of the priest the sin [ 26' a man, a woman, a person of Ḫatti[, ...] 27' whatever person (it may be)[ 28' They have consulted the Gods by the oracle. The G[ods (?) have taken the evil] 29' [and they ga]ve [it] to the people. [Un/favorable (?)]. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 30' The son of the priest i[n/t[o(?) 31' …[ ]..[ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_