|
©The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey - TAY Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gelinciktepe |
|
|
For site maps and drawings please click on the picture...  |
For photographs please click on the photo...  |
|
Type:
|
Upland Settlement |
|
Altitude:
|
845 m |
|
Region:
|
Eastern Anatolia |
|
Province:
|
Malatya |
|
District:
|
Merkez |
|
Village:
|
Orduzu |
|
Investigation Method:
|
Excavation |
|
Period:
|
EBA II EBA I |
|
|
|
  |
|
| Location: It stands on a rocky hill; about 2 km east (northeast) of Ordudüzü Sub-District and Arslantepe; northeast of the Malatya Province. The southern part of this hill called Gelinciktepe looks like a natural amphitheater named Markop. |
| Geography and Environment: The rock shelters and the spaces between the rocks on the southwestern slope of this rocky hill were occupied. Due to erosion; big rock blocks emerged on the top. The smaller pieces broken from the rocks are spread onto the slopes. The hill is in a position to be naturally defended. |
| History: |
| Research and Excavation: It was discovered in 1962 [Puglisi 1964:9]; and excavated in 1965-66 by a committee under S.M. Puglisi in the name of the Italian Archaeological Institute in parallel to the Arslantepe excavations. The significance of Gelinciktepe; in fact; was figured out when the megalithic monuments; largely stone rings; located on the southern part called Markop were introduced. These monuments; frayed and disintegrated at present; are suggested to be in relation with the settlement. |
| Stratigraphy: No exact stratification was obtained since the excavation was only carried out in the spaces between the rocks and the slopes. However; both the finds and the sections expose that we are dealing with more than one layer. The lower layer probably indicates the Neolithic Age by yielding sherds of the dark colored burnished ware; small flint blades and circular scraper and two broken awls. And; depending on these finds; Mellink proposes that the first settlement was during the Neolithic Age [Mellink 1992:209] whereas the main settlement belongs to EBA. |
| Small Finds: Architecture: The inhabitants of Gelinciktepe probably were settled in simple buildings built by stone walls including wood largely on stone foundations by taking the advantage of the natural rocks. They are probably four-cornered [Puglisi-Palmieri 1968:85]. Instead of mudbrick; fragments of a wattle and daub construction were found. Fragments of walls difficult to assemble a plan; floors; pits and hearth places were uncovered. The spaces between the rocks were used as entrances to the rooms. Rock stairs; rock shelters and hollows were chosen for occupation. The pits opened into the rock were probably for storage purposes. The presence of flat stones standing as orthostate presumably evidences the relation between this settlement and the megalithic monuments. Pottery: The lower layer yielded sherds of the brown; black-dark gray; dark red; multi surface colored; very well burnished; dark faced burnished ware. Forms of big conical bowls are common [Palmieri 1967:fig.10]. The village of EBA; main settlement of Gelinciktepe; yielded intact cups and sherds of the black and red colored; orderly and elaborately burnished Karaz ware [Palmieri 1967:fig.11-16]. The origin of this ware called as "Early Transcaucausian" in Georgia and Iran; "Khirbet-Kerak" in Palestine is suggested to be probably Eastern Anatolia. The groove; incision and dot inserted decorations on both the Karaz ware and other wares are comparable with the samples of the Late Chalcolithic Age-EBA I in Central Anatolia. The most popular patterns are triangles and white paint filled in dot decorated equilateral quadrangles. The excavator compares them with the ware of Büyük Güllücek and Alisar [Palmieri 1967a:172-176; fig.17]. The third major group of Gelinciktepe is the painted ware. This group of ware seen almost all EBA settlements in the vicinity of Malatya-Elazig is represented by a rich variety of decorations [Palmieri 1967:fig.18-19]. Patterns of mingled enclosure; staircases; triangles and parallel lines are popular. This painted ware is reported to be specific to Gelinciktepe only. Another evidence of settlements belonging to different periods is the presence of sherds belonging to wheel-made vessels. These samples of thin simple ware seen at phase H of the Amuq Plain are wheel-made [Palmieri 1967:fig.22-23]. This is an evident of the interrelationship between Eastern Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. Chipped Stone: Another evidence of the relationship between Gelinciktepe and the Amuq Plain is the long blades called Cannaanean-type. Aside blades in flint; circular scrapers and side scrapers represent the industry. Ground Stone: Other than flat axes; shaft-holed axe-hammers and ponders were found. Also found is a sherd. Millstones and grindings stones represent the daily life of the settlements [Palmieri 1967:fig.27]. Bone: Various types of awls were found. Fauna: The analysis of the animal bones yielded; aside lots of bones of domesticated goats; limited number of bones belonging to cattle. Of the wild animals; bones of deers like antelopes and roe were recovered. Also found are a few bones belonging to common red fox and bear. |
| Remains: |
| Interpretation and Dating: Even tough it has unsuitable conditions to be settled; the establishment of settlements at Gelinciktepe both during the Neolithic Age and EBA remains unclear. The situation of the upland settlement is not proper for lasting occupations. The problem with the dating of lower levels housing samples of the dark colored burnished ware results from the fact that this ware continues from the Neolithic Age to the end of the Chalcolithic Age. Furthermore; the cultural elements like the pottery of Halaf; Obeids and Uruk; helpful in dating for the Chalcolithic Age; are absent. Nevertheless; no 14C samples were taken. Yet; the relation with Arslantepe; its contemporary which is only 2 km far still remains unknown. It houses no features of sacred areas. Its relation to the megalithic monuments was not discovered. Some scientists like J. Yakar propose to date the first settlement to the Chalcolithic Age and the second one to EBA II. Palmieri reports the presence of a lower level belonging to EBA I. The samples of the painted ware evidence the presence of EBA II. It is better to suggest that the site houses the transition period from the end of the Late Chalcolithic Age rather than Neolithic Age; and the beginning of EBA I and II as well. |
