Metalwork in Gaziantep Museum Said to Be a Hoard from the Region of SakçagözüAuthor(s): G. D. SummersReviewed work(s):Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 41 (1991), pp. 173-195Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642939 .Accessed: 26/01/2012 03:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AnatolianStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM SAID TO BE A HOARD FROM THE REGION OF SAK(AGOZU

By G. D. SUMMERS

In 1974 a group of copper alloy objects, including two figurines and a number of weapons, was taken to Adana Museum by a dealer from Islahiye. The objects were said to have come from a site near Kilis. One of the figurines, which has gold foil on the face, was bought by Adana Museum. Temporary closure of Adana Museum has precluded examination of this figurine. In 1975 fourteen copper alloy objects from this same group, including a figurine wearing gold and silver ornaments around the neck, were purchased from the same dealer by the Gaziantep Museum for the sum of thirty thousand Turkish Lira, then about one thousand pounds sterling. This time they were said to have come from the vicinity of Sakcagozii. Staff of Gaziantep Museum brought the existence of this hoard to the attention of the British Institute which was engaged in a restudy of material from earlier British excavations in the Sakcagzii region (French and Summers 1988). The author is extremely grateful to the Museum for allowing access to the finds, to David French for his encouragement and advice, Tugrul (akar for the photography and Jane Goddard who made the drawings. This paper has benefited greatly from discussions with Drs. John Curtis, Roger Moorey, Graham Philip and Trevor Watkins. Any faults remain, of course, the responsibility of the author.

The Objects in Gaziantep Museum The objects in Gaziantep Museum comprise a figurine of a standing male

(with ? gold and ? silver neck-pieces), two shaft hole axes, a shaft hole crescentic axe, one chisel bearing an engraved mark, two long swords and eight daggers. Museum Inventory numbers are 13/1/75 to 13/14/75. One dagger (13/9/75) was unavailable for study. An excellent colour photograph of the figurine can be found in the Museum guidebook (Temizsoy 1988: 33, P1. 49). Another hoard on display in the same museum, consisting solely of weapons (Temizsoy 1988: 30, P1. 44), is said to have come from the huge mound at Araban (Archi et al. 1971): 49-51, site no. 10). The same display case contains another figurine and various weapons from the region. A selection of these have also been reproduced on colour plates in the guidebook (Temizsoy 1988: 30-31, Pls. 43-5). Hoards of metal work of the late third and early second millennia B.C. would seem to be not uncommon in the north Syrian plain and northwards into the foothills of the Anatolian plateau. The nature and function of such hoards has been the subject of a recent study (Philip 1988).

Origin and Authenticity Circumstances surrounding the discovery of these objects is obscure. They

were said to have been found together, as a hoard, firstly on a site in the region of Kilis and then subsequently reported to have come from a site in the vicinity of the village of Sakcagzui. No other information has been obtained. No reliability can be placed on the dealer's report, although there is no specific reason to reject the general area of Gaziantep and Kilis where a large number of mounds have produced evidence of occupation in the late third and early second millennia (Archi et al. 1971).

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

The objects themselves and the paucity of knowledge pertaining to their origins raise a number of questions: (1) how many of the pieces, if any, are genuine antiquities? (2) which of the objects, again if any, formed a single hoard or part of a single

hoard? (3) where was the findspot (or findspots)? (4) when and where was each object manufactured? (5) what were the circumstances of deposition? (6) what was the date of deposition of the (presumed) hoard?

There is no good reason to doubt the antiquity of the weapons and chisel. The shaft hole axes, although unusual in form, are not exotic pieces and would hardly have been worth the trouble of a forger. Modern fakes of such mundane axes (and daggers) would appear to be rather unusual. When fake weapons do appear their lack of authenticity tends to be obvious. The forms of the shaft hole axes fall well within the general range of products which occur over a wide area in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Lack of exact parallels is not in itself reason to doubt the authenticity of these two axes. The shaft hole crescentic axe falls between a number of well known and widely distributed types although, as with the other two axes, no exact parallel is known to the writer. The two almost identical large, cumbersome swords are most unlikely candidates for forgeries. None of the pieces was new at the time of deposition: the crescentic axe was flattened along part of the back behind the shaft holes as though used for hammering, a peculiarity often found on fenestrated axes (Philip pers. comm.). The chisel had been hammered on the top causing the butt to spread and distorting the top of the engraved mark. In all cases traces of use and damage could clearly be seen to predate the formation of the patina on the surfaces of the metal.

Positive proof that all these weapons and the figurines come from a single hoard or that the group represents a complete hoard is unlikely to be forthcoming. Nevertheless, it might be surprising if a dealer had collected together such a homogeneous group of swords and daggers from dispersed sources. Further, the grooved embellishments on all three axes show some stylistic conformity, suggest- ing that they may have come from the same workshop and, therefore, increasing the probability that they were indeed found together. The swords and daggers show common features, the punched rivet holes and marks for centering unpunched rivet holes. The existence of actual rivets suggests that hilts or pommels were attached to the blades at the time of interment and, thus, provide another argument in favour of authenticity. General typological (stylistic and technical) conformity, minor differences in the forms of the daggers not withstanding, displays homogeneity. The good state of preservation and the (apparent) similarity of the patinas also favour a single deposition. Analytical facilities were not available for determination of either the composition of the metal or the tech- nology employed in manufacture. It would be helpful to know if the shared stylistic feature of the three axes (i.e. the grooved decoration), suggestive of a single workshop, is duplicated by similarity in the composition of the alloy. Metal analyses could be an aid to dating (e.g. Shalev 1988: 307-9) and might also show up any fake pieces (Moorey and Fleming 1984; Branigan et al. 1976: 15).

It is now unlikely that the findspot can be ascertained. Because of their size the swords might not have travelled far since their discovery and they, at least, were probably found within the province of Gaziantep.

In the absence of accurate information concerning the findspot, the circum- stances of discovery, associated objects or evidence for associated structures,

174

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

discussion on the nature and function of deposition must begin with the objects themselves.

Each piece seems to have been in fine and serviceable condition although many show signs of use. Absence of scrap metal and broken objects makes it unlikely that this deposition was a metal-workers cache. If the source was a tomb it is surprising that no other objects were apparently found, e.g. pottery vessels. Many or all of the weapons and the chisel display signs of use before deposition, thus they were not specially made for ritual burial. This observation does not necessarily apply to the figurines and is certainly not evidence against ritual deposition, but does show that the weapons and chisel were not made with the intention of immediate ritual burial. Deliberate burial in antiquity, for whatever reason (Philip 1988), would seem to be indicated. Explanation must await the discovery of a similar find under controlled archaeological excavation.

CATALOGUE

THE GAZiANTEP FIGURINE

13/01/75. Fig. 1. Temizsoy 1988: 33, P1. 49. Figurine of a standing warrior, cast in the round. Height: 17 5 cm.

Description A standing figure on a flat base. Cast in the round by the lost wax method. The

left foot is in advance of the right in a marching pose. The arms are bent and the forearms held horizontally forward. Clenched fists held objects, presumably weapons, which have not survived. The hands are clearly depicted as are the toes of the left foot. The only clothing is a kilt or skirt, with a crisscross (?engraved) pattern, held up by a sash which hangs down to the bottom of the kilt as a broad tassel in front. This tassel is (?) engraved with four horizontal lines about two thirds of the way down and four vertical lines above and below. A dagger with disproportionately large crescent-shaped pommel is attached to the belt, but the means of attachment is not depicted and the belt itself poorly represented. The distinctive face sports a prominent straight nose, a large and slightly smiling mouth, very large eyes which might have been inlaid and prominent eye brows or ridges. The conical cap or helmet, with straight vertical flutes which originally secured (?gold) plating, seems to rest above a protruding hairline. A collar of beaten (?)gold covers the whole of the long neck and a loose torque of fluted and twisted (?)silver is worn over the collar.

The surface of the metal, which has been heavily cleaned, is pitted in places from bubbles which formed during casting. This is especially noticeable on the insides of the legs.

Suspicion about the authenticity of this figurine is aroused by two features. Firstly the torque, which appears to be in pristine condition, and if not genuine could be a recent addition to an ancient figure. Secondly, there is the generally good state of preservation, especially of the face, hands, feet and dagger. Neither observation, alone or together, may be taken as proof of forgery. Indeed all the attributes of this figurine may be found in the corpus of Figurines from the Levant and North Syria (Seeden 1980), although no exact parallel embracing all the features in a single figure is apparent.

175

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Discussion The figurine has several distant cousins. Many of the features occur in Negbi's

"Type 1. Male Warriors In 'Anatolian' Pose" (Negbi 1976: 8-20). The pose is thought to show Anatolian influence because of some stylistic resemblance to the lead figurines. Negbi (1976: 8 and n. 1) was apparently unable to consult the full publication of the Anatolian lead figurines (Emre 1971) reference to which fully vindicates the tone of caution expressed by Negbi and the criticisms of Moorey (Moorey and Fleming 1984: 69). All the features of the figurine under discussion occur on one or other of Negbi's "Class A: Flat-cast Figurines": the marching pose with bent arms extended forward, clenched fists which held or often still hold weapons, kilts, belts with broad tassels in front, daggers at the waist, conical head dresses, torques and neck-pieces. Kilts, belts, neck-pieces and breast plates can be of gold or silver. These flat cast figurines are, however, very crude by comparison. The majority are to be dated to the late third and the first quarter of the second millennia B.C., some are firmly dated to MB IIA and perhaps IIB. Negbi's "Class B: Round-cast Figurines" show less similarity. Although the pose and the kilt with a broad tassel are found, daggers are not seen at the waist and head dresses are clearly different. These figurines have been re-examined in a comprehensive study by Seeden (1980), where they are assigned to group 2 "Lebanese Mountain Figurines", which she dates to around 2000 B.C. on the evidence of accompanying finds in the Jezzin hoard (Seeden 1980: 15, Pls. A-C and 2-9), but the provenance of the Jezzin hoard is open to doubt (Muscarella 1988: 361 n. 4; Moorey and Fleming 1984: 68). Seeden also treats the flat cast figurines and assigns all of them to her group 3 "North Syrian Figurines" which seems more prudent than Negbi's attempt to subdivide them (Seeden 1980: 15-23, Pls. D and 12-18). There seems to be agreement on dating them to the late third or early second millennium (Muscarella 1988: 361, n. 3; Moorey and Fleming 1984: 69-77).

The figurine discussed here is, however, a far more sophisticated piece of craftsmanship than these flat pieces. It was cast in the round by the lost wax method and the well proportioned limbs and torso were carefully modelled. The head dress is of the conical form, which has been likened to a dunce's cap, that is often thought to be Anatolian in style rather than resembling Egyptianised pieces from the Levant (Collon 1972: 128). Moorey has postulated a Syrian origin for this style of head dress (Moorey and Fleming 1984: 70).

Crescentic pommels are well attested at Byblos, although surviving examples are smaller in proportion (Dunand 1950: Pls. 57, 123).

Moorey (pers. comm., letter dated 15th January, 1991) has kindly pointed out that there are a few terracotta figures published by Badre (1980: Pls. 51-3) "which in form, headdress, posture and detail (dress/dagger at belt) raise rather than diminish confidence in the Gaziantep figurine".

Date If the piece can be considered as genuine, in the light of the strong warnings

given by Muscarella (1988: 361-2, n. 4) and Moorey (Moorey and Fleming 1984: 68), there remains the question of its date. Chronological significance of the round casting is difficult to assess (Moorey and Fleming 1984: 72). The pose suggests a period when many of the Levantine figurines had their arms extended forward and before the "smiting god" came into vogue, that is, in the first quarter of the second millennium B.C. The sophistication of the piece need not cause concern if an Anatolian or north Syrian source, as opposed to one in the Levant, is postulated.

176

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

Fig. 1. Figurine 13/01/75. Ht. 175 cm. Drawn from a photograph. Copper (?alloy) with gold neckband and ?silver torque.

177

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

THE AXES All three are cast shaft hole axes with grooved decorative elements. No exact

parallels can be found.

13/02/1975. Fig. 2, PI. XXXIII. Shaft hole crescentic axe. An unusual (?unique) cast axe with three shaft holes. Each shaft hole bears a pair of parallel grooves which were modelled in the original mould. The back has been slightly flattened by hammering. Length: 12-8 cm. Width: 8 2 cm. Dia. hole: 2-1 cm. Width to length ratio: 0-64

Description Yellow metal with reddish brown and some greenish patina. No secondary marks could be seen in the grooves.

,>O- 5 0 _ 5cm L_ L :

Fig. 2. Shaft hole crescentic axe, 13/02/75

Type The form would seem to fall typologically (but not necessarily chronologic-

ally) between the true crescentic axes, anchor axes and fenestrated axes (the most recent discussions are by Tubb 1982; Muscarella 1988: 385-7, 404-5; Philip 1989). It differs from the true crescentic axe in that it was cast in the round, presumably in a two piece mould, rather than cast flat with the central tang and sometimes the wings subsequently riveted on to or beaten round the shaft; from the fenestrated axe in that the shaft hole is in three separate sections and the backs of the windows are formed by the shaft rather than part of the axe itself; and from the anchor axe in having three separate shaft holes in place of an open-ended socket and, notably, in lacking the central projection in the centre of the back.

178

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

Discussion No exact parallel is known to the author. There seems to be general agreement

that fenestrated axes evolved directly out of crescentic axes (Muscarella 1988: 385-7; Tubb 1982: 1) although Philip (1989: 58) is more cautious. Earlier studies include those by Stronach (1957: 122-5), Hillen (1953) and Maxwell-Hyslop (1949: type B1, 116-18, P1. 37 1-4), for a mould from north Syria see Liith (1989). Although these crescentic axes seem to be ancestral in type, there may have been some chronological overlap as evidenced by an apparently late example in a tomb at Kiiltepe assigned by the excavator to level IB (Ozgiic 1986: 74, P1. 128.6). It is more primitive in form than the moulds and axeheads of both the advanced fenestrated examples with lateral spines and the duckbill axes from the Assyrian trading colony (Karum) of Kiiltepe Kani? II and IB (Erkanal 1977: types 69 and 70, pp. 22-6, Fig. 6, map Fig. 9B, Fig. 19; Ozgiic 1986: 43-6, Pls. 86 2a-b, 89 4-5, 90 1-4). Fenestrated axes are rare on the Anatolian plateau, although they were manufactured at Kiiltepe Karum. In the Levant, North Syria, Mesopotamia and Luristan fenestrated axes were in vogue for a long time. They have often been studied (Philip 1989: especially 49-59; Muscarella 1988: 386-7; Erkanal 1977: 22-6, Fig. 9; Calmeyer 1969: type 22, pp. 29, 32, 44-6, 153, 175, 181, 186 and folding table; Maxwell-Hyslop 1949: types B3 and 4, pp. 119-21, P1. 37, 6-7; Schaeffer 1948: passim). Recent finds of axes and moulds have been made at Ebla (Matthiae 1985: 243, nos. 117-19, Colour pl. p. 183).

The date and genesis of anchor axes remain unclear, although they certainly occur in the last quarter of the third millennium B.C. (Philip 1989: type 5, 55-7; Muscarella 1988: 385; Tubb 1982: 10; Calmeyer 1969: type 13, 29-32, 44-5, 186; Hillen 1953; Maxwell-Hyslop 1949: type B2, 118-19 P1. 37.5).

The width to length ratio of 0-64 is typical of Philip's Type 2 or "D shaped" fenestrated axes (Philip 1989: 291).

Date The date remains problematic. Strictures are given by Philip (1989: 57) against

chronological assumptions based on typology alone; the form of the axe described here can be used to place it in a typological but not a chronological position between crescentic, anchor and fenestrated axes. It could perhaps be placed somewhere near end of the third millennium or early in the second in view of its general resemblance to anchor and fenestrated axes. On the other hand, the possibility that it represents an unusual and degenerate form of fenestrated axe manufactured at a somewhat later date in the second millennium cannot be altogether excluded.

Origin There seems to be no good reason why it should not have been a product of

either north Syria or the foothills of Anatolia to the north. The uniqueness of the form might be taken as an argument for a workshop in an area adjacent to but distinct from the north Syrian plain.

13/03/1975. Fig. 3, P1. XXXIV, a. Axe, shaft hole, cast. Length: 167 cm. Blade; 3-5 by 0-7 cm. Dia. hole: 2-9 by 2-2 cm.

179

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Description Very yellow metal with a reddish brown rust like patina. The blade has been

recently filed but original patina exists on surfaces of the rear part. There are perhaps some secondary marks in the grooves, but these appear to be beneath the patina.

0 5 cm m~-oom -i

Fig. 3. Shaft hole axe, 13/03/75

Type No exact parallel is known to the author. The blade has parallel edges and a

rounded end. The back is very blunt. Three features stand out: the short, cut away shaft hole, the grooved decoration and the angle of the shaft to the axehead.

Discussion The form of this axe is rather unusual, especially the cut away shaft hole, the

shape of the blade and the projection at the back. A number of axeheads do have projections at the back (e.g. Deshayes 1960: Figs. XX-XXII) but there is no exact parallel. The short shaft hole would have made securing the axehead firmly to the shaft rather difficult. Secondary working, as perhaps seen in the grooves, is not uncommon in the Middle Bronze Age Levant (Branigan et al. 1976: 17-18).

180

zrr=L_ --

rgp

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

Date The short shaft hole might indicate a later date than the well known axes from

the Hypogeum at Til Barsip (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936: 116, Fig. 35; Muscarella 1988: 388-9, No. 513 with bibliography). Philip has made the observa- tion (pers. comm.) that ovoid shaft holes mostly belong to the late third and early second millennia. The slenderness of the piece and the fineness of the grooved decoration could be used as evidence for a date after the end of the Early Bronze Age. It would also seem to be earlier than the group of axes from Nimrud, Chagar Bazar, Ras Shamra and elsewhere which are dated to the third quarter of the second millennium B.C. (Curtis 1983; Chavane 1987: 360-4; Philip 1989). There is no resemblance to the axeheads and molds from Kiiltepe II and IB which have larger and heavier tapering blades, more substantial shaft holes and which lack projections at the back (Ozgii(, 1986: 42-8, Pls. 86 la-b, 87 la-b and 3a-c, 88 7-8b, 89 1-3b, 128 5; Erkanal 1977: 15-18 "Schaftlochaxte vom Typ Acemh6yiik" nos. 57-62, Pls. 5-6). These axes appear to be an Anatolian type and it is possible that the axe described here is a contemporary product from a north Syrian workshop, perhaps dating to early in the first quarter of the second millennium B.C. or soon thereafter.

13/04/1975. Fig. 4, PI. XXXIV, b. Axe, shaft hole, cast. Hole at top: 3 by 2-3 cm. Length: 16 85 cm. Blade: 1-9 by 1l1 cm. Height: 7 5 cm. Dia. of projection: 1-8 cm.

0 5 cm r _

Fig. 4. Shaft hole axe, 13/04/75

181

<= --- -5,

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Description Very yellow metal with reddish brown rust like patina. Clear engraving marks

in the grooves, especially on the end of the "melon" decoration. No file marks are visible below the patina.

Type An unusual axehead which shares some characteristics with the preceding axe,

the short shaft hole the top of which is concave, the grooved decoration, the angle of the blade to the shaft and the rather slender nature of the whole thing. It also has a projection at the rear, in the form of a rounded knob with grooved decoration. This and the preceding axe would seem to be out of the same tradition and may be products of the same workshop.

No exact parallel is known, but an axe bearing some degree of similarity has been found at Kiiltepe (Ozgiic 1986: 73-74, P1. 128,5). The Kiiltepe axe differs in that the blade widens a little and is slightly curved, the grooves are coarser and the projection at the back slighter (as it has been preserved); the rear projection also continues as a rib to the lower end of the blade. Exact parallels for the Kiiltepe axe are cited from Ugarit (Ozgiic 1986: 73 and n. 94) but the published example (Schaeffer 1948: 44.) is much more symmetrical. Identical to the Kiiltepe piece is an axe from Byblos (Dunand 1939: Atlas P1. 96.1127). These axes fall within Maxwell- Hyslop's type 15 (1949: 104-5, P1. 36.2) although they are not the same as the so- called Naramsin axes which also fall within this broad type. The Naramsin axes have elongated shaft holes, heavy symmetrical rear projections and symmetrical blades that are horizontal to the shafts (Muscarella 1988: 386-8, no. 512). Two axeheads in the British Museum have heavily moulded grooves around the top and bottom of the shaft hole, and have hook-like protuberances at the back (Maxwell- Hyslop 1952). One is dated by an inscription along the top of the blade to the latter part of the reign of Rim-Sin (1822-1763 B.C. CAH 1971: 1000).

Date The closest dated parallel is from Kiiltepe and is thought to have derived from

a disturbed Level IB tomb, but in any case above a floor of Level II, the example should be dated to the first half of the 17th century B.C. (Ozgiiu 1986: XXI, 74). But the parallel is not exact. Thus the axe presented here ought to belong in the first half of the second millennium B.C.

CHISEL

13/05/1975. Fig. 5, Pls. XXXV(a) and (b). Chisel, cast, with engraved mark. Length: 25-9 cm.

Description Very yellow metal with reddish brown rust like patina. The top end has been

flattened by hammering which has destroyed the top of the mark. It was hammered before the patina formed. There are extant file marks, apparently all after the formation of the patina.

It gradually widens from the top to the blade. The blade itself is slightly splayed and shows signs of damage, presumably wear. In profile it narrows slightly towards both the blunt and hammered top, and to the point. Both surfaces are slightly convex across the width so that the sides are a little narrower than the middle along the whole length.

182

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

I i

, /

5 cm

\\ ^

Fig. 5. Chisel with engraved mark, 13/05/75

The mark resembles an ear of grass with a central stem bearing five (left side) or six (right) grains.

Type Tools of this type are most usually called "Flat Axes". Use as a chisel or wedge

rather than a flat (hafted) axe is evidenced by the hammered butt. Functions of flat axes and chisels are discussed by de Jesus (1980: 106-7). For Anatolian examples with hammered butts, contra de Jesus, see Muscarella (1988: 410-11). The form is a common one with a long life and wide distribution, e.g. Early Bronze Age Tepe Gawra stratum 6, twelve examples (Speiser 1935: 108, P1.48.8) and Late Bronze Age I Tarsus (Goldman 1956: 283, 289 nos. 22-6, Fig. 424.24-6).

Marks are rather rare. Muscarella (1988:410-11, nos. 552-61) has published ten flat axes in the Metropolitan Museum one of which (557) has "a neatly incised cross-hatched sawtooth motif'. Amongst the 25 specimens in the Soli Hoard one small flat axe has engraved marks on one face and on one side (Bittel 1940: 195, Fig. 12). A similar, larger engraved mark, perhaps a cedar tree, can be seen on a

183

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

=t - _ I

?

b

_

It

.,,,,S,,,, _

I\, I

i

?'

._

t_ I

- l

i\ I!

, _

0 10 cm -' I-

Fig. 6. Two swords: a. 13/06/75, b. 13/07/75

184

I - , ..

1I

-

I

_ , _ ., ,,, ,7

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

lugged axe from Byblos (Dunand 1939: Atlas P1. 96.6571). This axe belongs to Erkanal's Type 5 (1977: 7-12, Pls. 8B). Engravings on copper alloy tools and weapons are quite common at Byblos.

Date The chisel could date to anywhere from the late third to the end of the second

millennium B.C.

SWORDS The two swords are almost identical. They are distinct from the daggers by

reason of their size, but are closely linked to them by well defined tangs and punched rivet holes (discussed below).

13/06/75. Figs. 6a and 7, P1. XXXV(c), a. Sword. Tang broken. Length: 88 cm. extant. Yellow metal with reddish patina. Rivets: 3, both ends flattened by hammering. Lengths: top 2-6 cm., middle 2-2 cm., bottom 2-2 cm. Rivet holes: 4. Two in the tang (one complete and one broken at the end) and two in the top of blade. All punched from one side but no burr. The edges of the blade have been beaten out, creating very slight ridges.

7^ O 0.--05 cm 1

Fig. 7. Detail of sword hilt and rivets, 13/06/75

Type A large, heavy sword which would have been difficult to wield with one hand.

It is a variant of Stronach's (1957) type 5, having four rivet holes instead of three or five, and Maxwell-Hyslop's (1946) type 3; but is a heavy sword rather than a dagger and does not fit well into either of these classifications. The best parallel, although smaller and in a comparatively poor state of preservation, comes from Kiiltepe II (Ozgiic 1986: 75, P1. 128.3: Erkanal 1977: 35-6, PI. 12.28), and is the only sword in Erkanal's type 9. The well developed tang might indicate a later date in spite of the lack of a central rib. The use of four rather than three rivets to fix the pommel on to such a heavy weapon is not significant.

Date Somewhat smaller and more elaborate swords with central midribs (Maxwell-

Hyslop type 19) occur in hoards at Byblos, especially in the hoard from the north wall of the court of the Temple of Obelisks (Seeden 1980: P1. 130). If typological

185

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

simplicity can be equated with chronological ancestry, the Gaziantep swords might have been manufactured at an earlier date than the Byblos examples. Punched rivet holes would indicate a date early in the Middle Bronze age in the Levant (Watkins 1981: 139 and pers. comm.).

13/07/75. Fig. 6b and 8, PI. XXXV(c), b Sword. Length 87-6 cm. Yellow metal with reddish patina. Rivet holes: 4. Two in the tang and two in the shoulder, with the centre for a third hole marked but not punched in the middle. Punched from one side but no burr.

Discussion and date as above.

0 5 cm 0

no 0 o o 0

Fig. 8. Detail of sword hilt and rivet holes, 13/07/75

DAGGERS A coherent group of daggers, or knives (Watkins 1981: 139) with well defined

tangs. Rivet holes are symmetrically placed in the tangs and shoulders. A unifying feature, in common with the swords, is the rivet hole punched through from one side with important implications for the date.

13/08/1975. Fig. 9, PI. XXXVI, f. Dagger. Length: extant 29-6 cm. plus a bent piece of tang surviving one side of the topmost hole. Dull yellow (different to the rest). Overcleaned. Rivet holes: 4. Two in the tang (one of which is incomplete) and two on extremities of the shoulders. Punched through leaving a burr on the reverse side.

Type Equivalent to Stronach's (1957) type 5, but with four (surviving) rivet holes.

Closer is Maxwell-Hyslop's (1946) type 3d but the positioning of the rivets is not the same. Philip (1989) does not have a type with exactly the same pattern of riveting.

186

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

-[,I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '

/ / c

r r

0 5 cm

Fig. 9. Dagger, 13/08/75

Date The number of rivets, evidence of a developed method of attaching the

pommel, is suggestive of a date later than Stronach's type 5. The Ras Shamra example quoted by Maxwell-Hyslop (1946: 9; Schaeffer 1938: 232-3, Figs. 27.P, 28) seems to be more developed with the shoulders and tang demarcated from the blade. The punched rivet holes would indicate a date early in the Middle Bronze age in the Levant (Watkins 1981: 139 and pers. comm.).

13/09/1975. Dagger. Missing.

187

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

13/10/1975. Fig. 10, P1. XXXVI, a. Short dagger with a slight central rib. Heavily cleaned and filed. Length: 17-9 cm. Yellow metal with reddish patina. Rivet holes: 4. Two in the tang and two on the shoulders. Punched from one side, but no burr.

0 5cm r I

Fig. 10. Dagger, 13/10/75

Type Again the closest of Stronach's types is five. Neither Maxwell-Hyslop nor

Philip have a type that combines this system of rivets to a slight central rib. The four rivets link it with the last specimen. Also linking it with the last example are three daggers from the same tomb at Ras Shamra (Schaeffer 1938: 232-3, Fig. 27. M, N and Q; 28).

Date A similar date is postulated.

188

_/ /

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

13/11/1975. Fig. 11, P1. XXXVI, d. Dagger. Cleaned and filed. Length: 24-5 cm. Bright yellow metal with reddish patina. Rivet holes: 4. Two in tang and two on shoulders, punched from one side leaving a slight burr on the other.

C

10/ 0

-e h so ldsar so/- co ttheg

\ Date \! i :

i ^Ii

- '

0 5 cm 5.

Fig. 11. Dagger, 13/11/75

Type Very similar to 13/8/1975; but shorter with wider shoulders so that the two

rivet holes on the shoulders are not so close to the edge.

Date A similar date is postulated.

189

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

13/12/75. Fig. 12, PI. XXXVI, b. Dagger. Length: 23-9 cm. Metal bright yellow, reddish patina. Rivet holes: 3. All in the tang. Punched from one side. Rivets: extant in top and bottom holes, ends flattened. Length of rivets: 01 9 cm.

, [

-

/' .- -

e

- - / ".

I c X _ /

0 5cm _

Fig. 12. Dagger, 13/12/75

Type A narrower dagger with a fairly thick blade and a thick tang which is

rectangular in section. It belongs to Maxwell-Hyslop's (1946) type 7 and Philip's (1989) type 35. Watkins (pers. comm.) has pointed out that the shape is more reminiscent of Mesopotamia than the Levant.

Date Although different in type to the previous pieces, there is no reason to think

that it does not fall into the same time span. The second millennium parallel from Chagar Bazar cited by Maxwell-Hyslop (1946: 11; Mallowan 1937: 123, Fig. 13.4) is not as close in profile as the preceding dagger on the same Fig. (Mallowan 1937: 126-7, 13.3) from a grave dating to the first half of the third millennium B.C.

190

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

13/13/1975. Fig. 13, P1. XXXVI, e. Dagger. Heavily cleaned. Length: 27-2 cm. Metal not visible, reddish patina. Rivet holes: 3. One in the tang and two on the shoulders. Punched from both sides.

I

1 0

/

/

0 5 cm

Fig. 13. Dagger, 13/13/75

Type Falls into Stronach's (1957) type 5 and Maxwell-Hyslop's (1946) type 3. It is

very similar to 13/11/1975, lacking only the second rivet hole in the tang. Philip (1989) does not illustrate a type with three rivet holes and such a well defined tang.

Date Contemporary with 13/8/1975 and 13/11/1975.

191

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

13/14/1975. Fig. 14, P1. XXXVI, c. Dagger. Length: 23-9 cm. Yellow metal, reddish patina. Rivet holes: 3. One in the tang, two on the shoulders. Punched from one side leaving a metal burr bent over on the reverse.

Type and Date As the above specimen, 13/13/1975, which is slightly bigger but otherwise the

same.

0 5 cm mmm _ ? -~

Fig. 14. Dagger, 13/14/75

192

_ _ ,,, _ .

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

CONCLUSIONS

The Homogeneity of the Group The swords are clearly a pair. The daggers, with the possible but unlikely exception of 13/13/1975, are very

similar to each other, especially in the number and arrangement of rivets. The swords and three of the daggers, 13/8/1975, 13/10/1975 and 13/11/1975,

share the same unusual positioning of four rivets. The swords and all the daggers have rivet holes punched through from one side. They would seem to be contemporary.

The two shaft hole axes share distinct traits, notably the short shaft hole with cut away profile, the angle of the axe to the blade and the fairly fine moulded grooves.

The shaft hole crescentic axe shares moulded grooves, admittedly coarser, with other axes. All three axe heads have a certain uniqueness, although a parallel from Kiiltepe may be relevant.

The figurine is more problematical and there does not seem to be any way of linking it directly with the weapons. There are three indirect lines of approach. When the group was purchased from a dealer it was understood that all the pieces had been found together. While it would be foolhardy to place too much trust in such hearsay, there is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Secondly, if an independent date could be ascertained for the figurine and for the weapons chronological compatibility might be established or rejected. The last line of investigation would be metal analyses.

The Provenance of the Weapons The swords and daggers, with their distinctive tangs and rivet system, are not

of Anatolian type. The exact forms do not appear in Stronach's (1957) classifica- tion nor in Erkanal's more recent study (1977), except for the sword from Kiiltepe. Closer parallels from north Syria and the Levant are to be found in Maxwell- Hyslop's broader scheme. Stronach's type 5 and 5a, from Soli, Tarsus and Ras Shamra, provide the closest parallels in his scheme. The Soli hoard was used to argue for a Cilician centre of evolution (Stronach 1957: 99-100), but no further evidence has come to light. Indeed, the provenance of the Soli hoard has recently been re-examined and shown to be unsatisfactory (Muscarella 1988: 396). The Gaziantep swords and daggers are so similar that most or all can be said to have come from the same metalworking tradition. It has already been argued that the size of the swords makes it unlikely that they travelled any great distance since their discovery in recent times.

The Provenance of the Chisel This common and widespread tool is not distinctive enough to be closely

provenanced.

The Provenance of the Figurine Stylistically the figurine does not fit exactly into the corpus from the Levant. It

has been argued above that certain attributes, especially the head dress, are perhaps Anatolian or possibly north Syrian. The artistic merits of the piece and the competent round casting also suggest an origin other than in the Levant, unless the date suggested here is much too high. A metal working centre capable of casting the two shaft hole axes would not have found such a figurine beyond its competence.

193

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Date Dated parallels for any of the objects in this hoard are difficult to establish. A

close but not exact parallel for one of the shaft hole axes from Kiiltepe IB has been discussed. Also from Kiiltepe, this time from II, is a sword which bears at least a superficial resemblance to the ones described here. The Kiiltepe finds should not be much later than 1750 B.C.

Tangs and rivets on the swords and daggers are well developed although the forms of the blades are undeveloped. They are more reminiscent of early Middle Bronze Age than Early Bronze Age types. Punched rivet holes are typical of Middle Bronze IA in the Levant (Watkins 1981: 139 and pers. comm.)

General differences between this hoard and the Hypogeum at Til Barsip, dated by Watkins (1983) and Tubb (1982) to the late Early Bronze Age would seem to rule out an Early Bronze Age date. The evidence, meagre as it is, points to the early Middle Bronze Age and, on the basis of the parallels with Ras Shamra, Chagar Bazar and Byblos discussed above, perhaps early in the first half of the early Middle Bronze Age for the daggers and swords and, if only by association, the three axes.

The figurine is very difficult to date precisely although it clearly belongs somewhere in the second millennium B.C. While a date at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age can be supported by the pose of the Gaziantep piece, the sophistication of the casting warrants caution. It would be injudicious to date it on the basis of the daggers and swords in the absence of better parallels for the figurine itself.

It may be postulated with some confidence that the swords and daggers form a not untypical cohesive group which can be dated to the early part of the Middle Bronze Age. The three axes, if genuine, might not be out of place at the same period and could have formed part of the same hoard. The figurines in Gaziantep and Adana museums might also be ascribed to this date, assuming that either of them can be established as genuine pieces, but may also be a little later.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archi, A., Pecorella, P. E. and Salvini, M., 1971, Gaziantep e la sua regione. Rome (Incunabula Graeca 48).

Badre, L., 1980, Les figurines anthropomorphes en terre cuite a l'Age du Bronze en Syrie. Paris.

Bittel, K., 1940, Der Depotfunde von Soli-Pompeiopolis. ZA. 12(46): 183-205. Branigan, K., McKerrell, H. and Tylecote, R. F., 1976, An Examination of Some

Palestinian Bronzes. Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 10: 15-23. Braun-Holzinger, E. A., 1984, Figurliche Bronzen aus Mesopotamien. Munich (Pra-

historische Bronzefunde 1, 4). CAH, 1971, CAH 1.2 Third Edition, Cambridge. Calmeyer, P., 1969, Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah. Berlin (Unter-

suchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaologie 5). Chavane, M-J., 1987, Instruments de Bronze. In Yon, M. (ed.) Le Centre de la Ville. Ras

Shamra-Ougarit III: 357-72. Paris (Ras Shamra-Ougarit III. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations "memoire" 72).

Collon, D., 1972, The Smiting God: a Study of a Bronze in the Pomerance Collection in New York. Levant 4: 111-34.

Curtis, J. E., 1983, Some Axe-heads from Chagar Bazar and Nimrud. Iraq 45: 73-81. de Jesus, P. S., 1980, The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia.

Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 74, i and ii).

194

METALWORK IN GAZIANTEP MUSEUM

Dunand, M., 1939, Foullles de Byblos Tome 1 1926-1932. Paris. , 1950, Foullles de Byblos Tome 2 1933-1938. Atlas. Paris.

Deshayes, J., 1960, Les Outils de Bronze, de l'Indus au Danube. Paris (Institut Franqais de Beyrouth Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique 71).

Emre, K., 1971, Anatolian Lead Figurines and their Stone Moulds. Ankara (Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlar 5. Seri No. 14).

Erkanal, H., 1977, Die Axte und Beile des 2.Jahrtausends in Zentralanatolien. Munich (Prahistorische Bronzefunde 9, 8).

French, D. H. and Summers, G. D., 1988, Sakcag6zii Material in the Gaziantep Museum. AnatSt: 38: 71-84.

Goldman, H., 1956, Excavations at G6zlii Kule, Tarsus. II, From Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton.

Hillen, C., 1953, A Note on Two Shaft-Hole Axes. BibO: 10: 211-15. Liith, F., 1989, Ein neuer Typus halbmondformiger Axtklingen aus Nordsyrien. In Haex,

O.M.C., Curvers, H. H. and Akkermans P. M. M. G. (eds.) To the Euphrates and Beyond. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon: 167-72. Rotterdam.

Mallowan, M. E. L., 1937, The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur Region. Second Campaign, 1936. Iraq 4: 91-177.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R., 1946, Daggers and Swords in Western Asia. Iraq 8: 1-65. , 1949, Western Asiatic Shaft-Hole Axes. Iraq 11: 90-129, Pls. 38-9. , 1952, A Note on Two Western Asiatic Bronze Axe-heads. Iraq 14: 118-19, P1. 31.

Matthiae, P., 1985, In Ebla to Damascus. Weiss, H. (ed.), Washington. Moorey, P. R. S. and Fleming, S., 1984, Problems in the Study of Anthropomorphic Metal

Statuary from Syro-Palestine before 330 B.C. (with a check-list and analyses of statuettes in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford). Levant 16: 67-90, Pls. 21-7.

Muscarella, O. W., 1988, Bronze and Iron. Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in The Metropolitian of Art. New York.

Negbi, N., 1976, Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv (Tel Aviv University, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 5).

Ozgii9, T., 1986, Kiiltepe-Kani? II. Ankara (Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlan 5. 41) Philip, G., 1988, Hoards of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the Levant. World

Archaeology 20, 2: 190-208 , 1989, Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 526, i and ii).

Schaeffer, C. F. A., 1938, Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Syria 19: 193-255. , 1948, Stratigraphie Comparee. London.

Seeden, H., 1980, The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant. Munich (Prahistorische Bronzefunde 1, 1).

Speiser, E. A., 1935, Excavations at Tepe Gawra 1. Philadelphia. Shalev, S., 1988, Redating the "Philistine Sword" at the British Museum: a Case Study in

Typology and Technology. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7: 303-11. Stronach, D. B., 1957, The Development and Diffusion of Metal Types in Early Bronze

Age.Anatolia. AnatSt: 7: 89-125. Temizsoy, I. (ed.), 1988, Gaziantep Miizeleri. Thureau-Dangin, F. and Dunand, M., 1936, Til-Barsip. Paris. Tubb, J. N., 1982, A Crescentic Axehead from Amarna (Syria) and an Examination of

Similar Axeheads from the Near East. Iraq 44: 1-12. Watkins, T., 1981, Levantine Bronzes from the collection of the Rev. William Greenwell,

now in the British Museum. Levant 13: 119-55. ,1983, Cultural Parallels in the Metalwork of Sumer and North Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. Iraq 45: 18-23.

195