ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 42 ACROSS THE BORDER: LATE BRONZE-IRON AGE RELATIONS BETWEEN SYRIA AND ANATOLIA

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 42 ACROSS THE BORDER: LATE BRONZE-IRON AGE RELATIONS BETWEEN SYRIA AND ANATOLIA Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1, 2010 Edited by K. Aslıhan YENER PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA. 2013  CONTENTS Introduction: Imperial Demise and Forging Emergent Kingdoms . . . . . . 1 K. A. YENER SECTION A: EXCAVATIONS IN LEVANTINE TURKEY AND LEVANTINE SYRIA Chapter 1 New Excavations at Alalakh: The 14th–12th Centuries BC . . . . . . . . . 11 K. A. YENER Chapter 2 The Late Bronze Age Fortresses at Alalakh: Architecture and Identity in Mediterranean Exchange Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 M. AKAR Chapter 3 Tayinat in the Early Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 T. P. HARRISON Chapter 4 Chatal Höyük in the Amuq: Material Culture and Architecture during the Passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . 89 M. PUCCI Chapter 5 The Crisis of Qatna at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age II and the Iron Age II Settlement Revival. A Regional Trajectory towards the Collapse of the Late Bronze Age Palace System in the Northern Levant . . . . . . . . . . . 113 D. MORANDI BONACOSSI Chapter 6 Shedding New Light on the Elusive Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages at Tell ‘Acharneh (Syria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 M. FORTIN and L. COOPER vi CONTENTS Chapter 7 Sabuniye: A Late Bronze-Iron Age Port Settlement on the Northeastern Mediterranean Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 H. PAMIR Chapter 8 A Re-evaluation of the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age Transitional Period: Stratigraphic Sequence and Plain Ware of Tarsus-Gözlükule . . . . . . . . 195 S. YALÇIN Chapter 9 Exploring Sirkeli Höyük in the Late Bronze Age and its Interregional Con- nections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 E. KOZAL Chapter 10 The Transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age at Tell Afis, Syria (phases VII-III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 F. VENTURI SECTION B: EXCAVATIONS IN EASTERN TURKEY AND EASTERN SYRIA Chapter 11 Across Assyria’s Northern Frontier: Tell Fekheriye at the End of the Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 P. V. BARTL and D. BONATZ Chapter 12 Between the Musku and the Aramaeans: The Early History of Guzana/Tell Halaf 293 M. NOVÁK Chapter 13 Some Implications of Revised C14 and Dendrochronological Dating for the “Late Bronze Levels” at Tille Höyük on the Euphrates . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 G. D. SUMMERS Chapter 14 The Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Transition: A Perspective from the Upper Tigris River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 T. MATNEY  CONTENTS vii Chapter 15 Neo-Hittite Melid: Continuity or Discontinuity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 M. FRANGIPANE and M. LIVERANI Chapter 16 Pottery as an Indicator of Changing Interregional Relations in the Upper Euphrates Valley. The Case of the Late Bronze-Iron Age Assemblages from Arslantepe/Malatya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 F. MANUELLI Chapter 17 New Excavations at the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Site of Gre Amer on the Garzan River, Batman Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 G. PULHAN and S. R. BLAYLOCK SECTION C: FUNERARY PRACTICES, TEXTS AND THE ARTS Chapter 18 Funerary Practices and Society at the Late Bronze-Iron Age Transition. A View from Tell Shiukh Fawqâni and Tell an-Nasriyah (Syria) . . . . . . . 423 A. TENU Chapter 19 Working Ivory in Syria and Anatolia during the Late Bronze-Iron Age . . . 449 A. CAUBET Chapter 20 Arts and Cross-Cultural Communication in the Early 1st Millennium: The Syro-Anatolian Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 S. MAZZONI Chapter 21 The Luwian Inscriptions from the Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo . . 493 J. D. HAWKINS Chapter 22 Qadesh, Sea-Peoples, and Anatolian-Levantine Interactions. . . . . . . . . . 501 K. STROBEL Chapter 23 An Amulet with the Names of Ramesses II from the Roman Baths at Ankara 539 H. PEKER  CHAPTER 4 CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ: MATERIAL CULTURE AND ARCHITECTURE DURING THE PASSAGE FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE TO THE EARLY IRON AGE Marina PUCCI Freie Universität Berlin Institut für Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde Hüttenweg 7 14195 Berlin, Germany E-mail: mpucci@zedat.fu-berlin.de ABSTRACT The analysis of the results of the excavation carried out at the site of Chatal Höyük in the Amuq plain during the 1930s by the Oriental Institute of Chicago has yielded further data on the passage from the LBA to the EIA in this region, i.e. from Amuq phase M to Amuq phase N. The architectural remains show both a discontinuity in one part of the settlement during phase M and a strong continuity in the passage from phase M to N. On the other hand, however, the material culture, especially the pottery points to a stark change at the end of phase M, changing from a local standardized, possibly Anatolian influenced repertoire during phase M, to a strong Late Helladic IIIC influenced assemblage during phase N. These changes in the material culture seem to indicate not only a change of the sphere of influence in Iron Age pottery production, but also the incorporation of foreign elements, which together with a lack of strong local standardized production suggest a new eclectic phase.1 INTRODUCTION: THE EXCAVATIONS IN THE PLAIN OF ANTIOCH AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE AMUQ PHASES It is always a very difficult task to interpret archaeological remains as evidence of political change, especially for very complex historical periods such as the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium in the Near East. This task becomes 1 I owe my gratitude to Prof. Aslihan Yener, not only for having organized this congress but also because in 2001 she offered me to work on the Chatal Höyük materials at the Oriental Institute Museum. The project has been financed by the Shelby White-Leon Levy Foundation. Many thanks are due to Dr. F. Venturi for his frequent suggestions and input. 90 M. PUCCI even greater when, as is the case here, the analysed archaeological evidence is linked to excavations carried out in the 1930s, i.e. using older digging methods and when this evidence is available, only through two sets of sources, that is, small finds and pottery in museums and notes and documents left by archaeologists. Nevertheless, both the archaeological materials (pottery sherds and small finds) and the written documents from the excavations at the site of Chatal Höyük in the Amuq region provide such a complex and complete bulk of sources for analysing the archaeological evidence dur- ing this period, that one must necessarily take these excavations into account when analysing the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia.2 While the forthcoming final publication of all materials from the excavations by the Oriental Institute at the site of Chatal Höyük will provide all the data on pottery and small finds, the main aim of this contribution is to point out the chronological sequence of the architectural levels at the site and its dates according to the pottery and to emphasize those elements, which may suggest a political or social change dur- ing the passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age.3 Since 1944 and mainly with their publication in 1960 and 1971, a sequence of cultural phases identified by letters (A is the most ancient) defines the regional chro- nology in the Amuq plain.4 The features of the cultural phases were based on both the stratigraphic sequence at Tell al Judaidah and on the pottery assemblages from the Amuq survey. While the materials of the earlier phases (A–J) have been fully pub- lished, those of the later phases (L–T), although they represent the largest assemblage, have only been sketched out in short papers.5 These publications provided only an overview of the criteria used in distinguishing the phases, criteria which had already become evident during the excavations.6 According to these principles and to the ter- minology used in the phasing sequence, it is possible to identify Amuq phase M with the Late Bronze Age, Amuq phase N with the Iron Age I, and Amuq phase O with Iron Ages II and III. Considering that this paper is based upon data from a single settle- ment in the Amuq region, only the regional terminology (Amuq Phases M–O) is employed here, discarding the general archaeological terminology of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Ages.7 2 For the Amuq excavations and survey cf. McEwan 1937; Braidwood 1937; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Haines 1971. The survey has been resumed under the directorship of A. Yener, cf. Yener (ed.) 2005. 3 The final publication of the analysis of materials from Chatal Höyük is currently in review. 4 Braidwood 1937; Krogman 1949; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Haines 1971. 5 Swift 1958; Gevirtz 1967; Levenson 1973; Meyer 2008. 6 The first appearance of the Amuq phases (with Roman numerals) was in Braidwood 1937, while its first appearance with letters was in a short table in Krogman 1949. 7 A general archaeological periodization is employed for a very large geographical area and the crite- ria employed to distinguish Iron Age I, II and III are sometimes different from area to area (e.g. the fine periodization used in Palestine does not have a direct correspondence in the north Syrian/southwest Anatolian area), Lehmann 2008; Gilboa and Sharon 2003.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 91 Using Braidwood’s regional division of phases also necessitates keeping the main distinguishing criteria to identify these phases, which have been used during the research analysis as the basis for generally assigning the assemblages to the phases. According to Braidwood’s publication8 “Spindle Bottles, Cypriot milk bowls, White- on-Black (or -Red) painted Wares of Hurrian tradition” characterized the Phase M assemblage, “Sub-Mycenaean or Late Helladic IV wares” identify phase N, while “Red-slipped and Burnished series, bichrome painted series, which copies Sub- Mycenaean and Cypriot motifs” are typical of Phase O.9 Swift in 1954 adopted these criteria and on the basis only of complete vessels attempted to date the phases and link them to the Alalakh (Tell Atchana) sequence. Using these criteria, it became possible to chronologically assign the archaeological contexts of the assemblages (or “structural levels”), while their stratigraphic vertical position and their archaeological features (such as architecture and earth fill) provided further information on a more detailed vertical sequence.10 The following paragraphs provide a general overview of the pottery and architectural remains from phases M and N, highlighting only those areas where both phases were excavated and the period of passage from the one phase to the other. PHASE M: ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIAL CULTURE The earliest archaeological contexts excavated on the mound belong to phase M11 and were identified in two areas (II and IV). While the trench in Area V was very small and consequently the remains found in it were few and slightly confused from a stratigraphic point of view,12 the trench in Area II was large enough to indicate a clear stratigraphic sequence during phase M, so that it has been possible to archaeologically distinguish a late from a middle phase M and consequently present their assemblages accordingly.13 The archaeological context of the most ancient level in Area II (II_12) consists of a single building with two narrow rectangular rooms and a larger square one (Fig. 1.2). The floors of this structure were never reached, however, the burnt earth fill in the small rooms contained several whole vessels (including four storage 8 Braidwood 1937, Table 1. Cultural Periods VI, V, IV become respectively, Phases M, N, and O. 9 I expunged some features, which Braidwood noted in his table 1. These are no longer distinctive for each phase. Moreover, some terms are retained here, which are no longer in use such as “painted wares of Hurrian tradition,” indicating Nuzi/Atchana ware. 10 The assemblages were collected by locus; each locus was then grouped by structural level. 11 Older materials were collected from the so-called “small base cuts” at the foot of the hill and were published in Braidwood and Braidwood 1960. 12 Although the trench was very small archaeologists left the walls intact as they were excavating to lower levels, cf. Haines 1971, pl. 15. 13 This distinction is based on the vertical stratigraphy. The sequence in this area is also published in Pucci 2010, however, in the last period it has been possible to point out a mistake in the assemblage assignation so that the sequence presented here should be considered as definitive. 92 M. PUCCI jars), which not only suggests that the two rooms were used for storage but also that the structure was abandoned after its destruction. The pottery assemblage consists of a large majority of simple ware sherds, in par- ticular, conical platters with squared or incurving rims (Fig. 2.1, 2.2, Fig. 6.4),14 conical bowls with triangular (Fig. 2.6) or thickened internal rims (Fig. 2.3), and nar- row bowls with internal angular rims (Fig. 2.14).15 Necked jars with simple rims and globular walls (Fig. 2.13) and single-handled storage jugs with piriform bodies (Fig. 3.7)16 are the most common closed containers found in this assemblage. Indented rim shapes used probably in large bi-conical narrow bowls recur twice (in a simple ware bowl and on a painted piece),17 while cooking pots with short collars and trian- gular (similar to Fig. 2.17) or triangular and pressed (Fig. 2.15) rims are very frequent in the assemblage. The fabric and surface treatment of the conical platters differ greatly; the surfaces range from pale brown self-slip, some black burnished examples, and light reddish brown ones. The ware is orange/pink with a central grey core on approximately one third of the platters, while in the remaining ones is uniform pale brown.18 The fabric of the kraters and bowls is mostly light, reddish brown. Chaff temper is used on approximately half of the assemblage, while crushed shells are employed on the large majority of the cooking pots. The uniform dimensions (the diameters ranging from 200 to 300 mm), the high number (this shape is 75 % of the whole simple ware production), and the extremely similar shapes of these conical platters seem to suggest a standardized production. The simple ware bi-conical krater (A26968) is similar to the large kraters at Afis VIb and Vb, although a bottom perforation seems to suggest a different function; also, the sin- gle handled piriform jars (Fig. 3.7) find comparisons with the large jars from Afis Vb.19 The painted pottery class represents 11 % of the whole assemblage and consists of simple or bi-conical bowls with geometric decorations on the shoulder (vertical or oblique lines forming triangles, cf. Fig. 2.16) and of cylindrical bowls with horizontals bands.20 Generally speaking, this assemblage is very similar to the painted examples 14 Inventory number are indicated in the plates with A##### numbers for the Oriental Institute Museum numbers and a-/b-/e-#### numbers for those in the Antakya Archaeological Museum in Turkey . 15 The terminology employed for the descriptions of pottery parts follows Hendrix et al. 1997 16 The number b-2881 indicates eight similar jars found in the same room in level II_12. Only one (b-2881/008) is shown in Fig. 6. 17 Pucci 2010, fig. 8. 18 This fabric difference does not seem to be related to a chronological factor, nor there is a connec- tion between fabric and specific rim shapes. 19 Venturi 2010, figs. 7.9 and 9.1. 20 This percentage it is not negligible as it is at other sites such as Tell Afis, cf. Venturi 2007, p. 261. However, it should be pointed out that the selection of the sherds in the field may have strongly influ- enced these ratios making the percentage of painted pottery always greater than it was in reality.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 93 from Alalakh IV-III both in terms of the shapes, as well as in the decorations and seems to continue a tradition of painted pottery from the Late Bronze Age I. Among the imports, a monochrome single handled bowl (Fig. 3.2) belongs to the Late Cypriot III horizon21 (a similar bowl was also found in Alalakh IV)22 and three small body sherds are in the painted Nuzi/Atchana tradition. A very significant change in the spatial use of the area occurs at the following level II_11; a series of pebble floors, mud brick silos, and graves occupy the area, so that it seems possible that a break in the architectural sequence occurred and the spatial organization of this area at least was radically changed (Fig. 1.2). By contrast, the assemblage belonging to this level II_11 shows strong elements of continuity with the former level; simple ware sherds represent the majority of the assemblage and the same shapes (conical platters with incurving, square or triangular rim Figs. 2.5, 2.8), as well as globular cooking pots with doubled folded rims (identical to Fig. 2.15) are the most common ones. Fabric and surface treatment of both the simple ware and of the cooking pots do not vary from the previous level. Among the 19 painted rim sherds, the closed vessels common in the earlier assemblages with oblique lines disap- pear and fragments of open vessels with horizontal bands are the only painted sherds available in the assemblage. Among the few imported sherds (all body sherds except for one), it is possible to identify those from Cyprus (three fragments of White Slip II and five of Red Lustrous Spindle Bottles), and one single but large piece of an Atch- ana Ware beaker (A27550).23 Level II_10 directly on top of II_11 seems to continue without interruption in the use of this area as an open pebbled space with grain silos (Fig. 1.2). This time, the excavated area being larger, it is possible to connect this open area to two struc- tures separated by a street or alley. From an architectural point of view nothing changes in the use of the area or in the building techniques. The very rich pottery assemblage generally assigned to this level should, at this point, be divided into the following two groups: the sherds found on and inside the floors of this level and those found in the “filling layer” between these structures and the following level II_09. The first group basically consists of an assemblage similar to the previous ones; a vast majority of simple ware open platters (Figs. 2.7, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12), shell tempered cooking pots with doubled folded external rims (Figs. 2.17 and 2.18), while a few painted potsherds different from the ones found in the earlier lev- els, now appear (Fig. 4.13). The second assemblage, i.e. the one found in the fill layer (marked in the plates as II_10_fill), shows more relevant changes; examples of painted monochrome pottery are not only more numerous, but two main new shapes suddenly 21 Aström 1972, XV, V, 4. 22 Woolley 1955, p. 356 (ATP/38/27). 23 Published in McEwan 1937. 94 M. PUCCI appear, deep bowls with outcurving rims (or bell-shaped bowls) start to become a common shape (cf. Fig. 4.6-10), as well as (although only in minor numbers), shal- low carinated bowls with flared painted rims (Fig. 4.4). The painted patterns range from geometric elements (plain bands, wavy lines, plain or cross-hatched triangles) to figural elements (birds and fishes). Painted decoration, which appears mainly on open vessels and the tradition of geometrically decorated shoulders (Fig. 2.16), seems to be completely abandoned together with the sharp angular shapes (i.e. angular shoulders or angular bases). The variety of decorative patterns, their arrangement on the vessel surfaces, and the shapes in the assemblage, which characterize the fill layer during the passage from phase M to N, seem to be related to a LH IIIC horizon. Although the imported fragment of a bell-shaped bowl with antithetic spirals (Fig. 4.6) is simi- lar to the pieces with antithetic spirals from Tarsus,24 which have been generally dated to the LH IIIC Early,25 early this pattern developed over a long period of time (LH IIIB to LH IIIC Late)26 and may not be a good marker for specific dating. Moreover, the spirals from Chatal seem to differ slightly from the usual ones, that is, the starting point of the stem is not aligned with the spiral itself, as it is usual in antithetic spirals without stems. In the same way, cross hatched triangles on a frieze (Fig. 4.14) and simple horizontal bands (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8) are extremely common in the LH horizon and are not chronologically indicative. By contrast the plain painted bowls with reserved line under the internal rim (Fig. 4.9) are considered as typical starting from the LH IIIC middle period.27 In addition wavy line patterns on a large framed field (Fig. 3.1, Fig. 3.3 and Fig. 4.10), originating from the granary style of LH IIIC mid- dle period, suggest a middle date for the LH IIIC period for this fill layer.28 Several patterns such as fish (Fig. 4.3 and 4.13), birds (Fig. 4.13), together with stylized caprids (Fig. 4.12) are the most common decorative figural patterns and are typical in the Late Helladic III repertoire; in particular, the figural decoration in a horizontal frieze seems to be common in the LH IIIC period, however, no exact match could be identified especially for geometrized figures such as those in Fig. 4.12, which are probably a local interpretation of LH patterns. On the other hand, the quadruped with tree in Fig. 4.5 seems to refer to a local tradition of “palm tree and ibex.”29 The shapes also fit into the Late Helladic tradition, ranging from very common 24 Goldman 1937, fig. 41; Mountjoy 2005, p. 109, fig. 9–10. 25 Cf. Mountjoy 2005, p. 84. 26 Dothan and Zuckerman 2004, p. 37; Mountjoy 1986, FS 50; Venturi 2007, p. 298. 27 Mountjoy 1986, p. 156; Mountjoy 2007, p. 224 dates it to the LH IIIC middle advanced, French 2007, p. 181 assigns this pattern to the period starting from the LH IIIC middle advanced. These dates refer to the Greek mainland, while it seems that on Crete this pattern already started during the LH IIIC early cf. Mountjoy 1999, pp. 512–513. 28 cf. Lehmann 2008, p. 493, pp. 517–518 Fig. 4. The wavy line pattern in Afis phase IV slightly differs from the examples from Chatal, cf. Venturi 2007, pp. 278–279, fig. 69.3, 69.6. 29 Venturi 2007, p. 287.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 95 deep bowls (Furumark Shape 285)30 and kraters with flat rims (probably FS282), to more seldom monochrome deep bowls and carinated cups with high handles (FS240). Among the imports, besides a few (five body pieces probably belonging to the same bowl), body fragments of White Slip II milk bowls, and of Atchana painted beakers (three body sherds), the two deep bowls described above (one with antithetic spirals, Fig. 4.6, and the one with reserved lines Fig. 4.9), show a fabric completely different from the local painted examples (fine, with no temper and pink), and are thus consid- ered imported. This change in the painted pottery tradition, the arrival of new shapes and the evident connections to a “Helladic” tradition of this fill layer mark the passage from phase M to N. In Area V the sequence from phase M to phase N can again be easily identified according to the assemblages. However, the small extent of the trench precludes a clear understanding of the sequence and the number of excavated levels per phase is differ- ent from Area II, so that it is not possible to establish a one-to-one connection between the two areas. In Area V the earliest excavated context is the architectural level, V_06 (Fig. 1.1). Several walls with stone foundations belong to this level without a clear building plan; by contrast, their orientation may suggest that they belong to slightly different building phases, so that it is likely that level V_06 comprises more than one occupational period. Grave b-S-61 was dug during level V_06 and partially destroyed some of the walls mentioned above. The grave goods included a Red Lustrous spindle bottle and a Base Ring II jug, both imported from Cyprus .31 The assemblage from this level again includes several classes, among which the main one is simple ware. Also in this area, conical platters with incurving or thickened internal rims (Fig. 2.10) are the main shapes which occur, while combed decoration is frequently employed on closed vessels. Cooking pots with shell temper and triangu- lar external rims can be considered the common shape in this class, although quartz grit is very common and used at the same time as shell temper. Again the few painted monochrome sherds belong to closed vessels with oblique lines painted on the shoul- ders or deep bowls with horizontal bands, and again both belong to the same painted local tradition well known from Alalakh VII-IV. The following level V_05 includes only a single stone wall with some floor patches. The locus was identified on the base of its elevation above sea level rather than on the actual presence of horizontal interfaces such as floors. However, there are a few changes in the pottery assemblage; again simple ware conical platters (Fig. 2.4), triangular shaped cooking pots, and one White slip II rim sherd. It should be noted here that among the usual closed vessels with painted monochrome decoration, a few sherds 30 Furumark 1941 classification of shapes is employed (abbreviated FS) here, because, although it is in some aspects outdated, it is still commonly used. Cf. Mountjoy 1986. 31 The grave was published in McEwan 1937, fig. 1. 96 M. PUCCI display different motifs such as one figural example (Fig. 4.5), suggesting a progressive change, which will become evident in the following level.32 The assemblage changes at the following level V_04, where only painted mono- chrome decorated sherds were collected belonging to deep bowls with everted rims or to kraters with flat rims. This is a phenomenon similar to the one observed in Area II with the sole, but relevant difference in this case, being that the total number of col- lected sherds is extremely small to be representative of each class. The structural remains do not indicate any relevant change; a single wall with the same orientation and the same building technique as the one from the previous period occupies the excavated area. CHRONOLOGICAL LIMITS OF PHASE M The absolute chronological dates of the phase M period are based on the imported objects and pottery. If we take into consideration both areas and all levels of period M, it is evident that fragments of Nuzi/Atchana ware are frequent, although in very small and not-diagnostic pieces (except for the archaeologically complete beaker mentioned above). These imports may establish a parallel with levels IV-II at Alalakh, i.e. with a date starting from the mid-15th century BC onwards, however, their low number and poor state of preservation may indicate that either this type of “luxury” tableware, despite its proximity to Alalakh, was not imported to the site of Chatal or that it was no longer a fashionable item.33 The majority of the imports were from Cyprus; Red Lustrous Spindle Bottles and White Slip II milk bowls fragments are common in the phase M repertoires. The distribution of WSII seems to be related mainly to the 13th century BC,34 while Red Lustrous Spindle Bottles have a long period of produc- tion and distribution (from the mid-17th century to the end of the 13th century BC),35 although at Alalakh the highest number of imports was found at level III together with LHIIIA2 pottery,36 i.e. from the 14thcentury BC. Late Helladic imports are extremely few but they definitely belong to a Late Helladic IIIC horizon; in particular, 32 However, the existence of “collared” cooking pots with quartz grit similar to Afis VIII, of a single but large fragment of a fine small bowl (Swift 1958, fig. 12) similar to Alalakh V-VII palace ware, and the larger number of combed pale brown bi-conical craters (which are also frequent in Afis VIII, cf. Venturi in this book), may indicate that the excavations in this area also reached older (LBI?) levels. 33 Nuzi painted Ware was found at the “end of level IV, common in level III, most abundant in level II,” Woolley 1955, p. 347. Atchana Ware is more abundant in Level II (Woolley 1955, p. 350). The beaker from Chatal (A27550) belongs to the “Atchana Ware” group. 34 At Tell Abu al Kharaz the WSII was found in Phase 7 and dated to 1380–1290, cf. Fischer 1999, at Tell Kazel the WS II was found in Area IV lev. 5 upper floor and dated to the Late Cypriot IIb–c, cf. Badre 2006; at Deir el-Balah the White slip II was found on floor IX and dated to the 19th dynasty, i.e. to the 13th century, cf. Killebrew et al. 2006. However the time period of the distribution of this class of pottery occupies the 14th to the end of the 13th centuries, cf. Eriksson 2007. 35 Manning et al. 1998, p. 335; Eriksson 1993, p. 119. 36 For this new dating of the imports see Yener (this volume).  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 97 the painted bowls with reserved lines as well as the wavy line style on the bowls appear to be related to a LH IIIC middle tradition, which is commonly dated to the mid- 12th century. Thus, according to these elements it is possible to suggest for the exca- vated levels of phase M a date to the 14th and 13th centuries BC, and the mid-12th cen- tury for the end of this phase.37 Moreover, the standardized repertoire of simple ware conical platters with incurv- ing rims may suggest two very different origins. On the one hand it is similar to the Late Bronze Age platters from Tarsus and Kinet Höyük, which are frequently identi- fied with a chronological indicator for the LB II period. However, due to the fact that these vessels were not imported from Anatolia but were locally produced and conse- quently are subject to regional variations, it is only possible to interpret them as indi- cating standardization, but it is not possible to use them as a chronological element. On the other hand, these conical platters with angular internal rim and elevated ring base may also refer to a local tradition of pottery production visible also in Alalakh38 and therefore should be considered as the continuation of a local tradition. PHASE N: ARCHITECTURE AND POTTERY Architectural levels belonging to phase N were excavated in all sectors on the mound, suggesting that at least during this phase the whole mound was inhabited. In Area II, not only was the orientation of the walls maintained and not only were some of the walls built on top of the older ones, but also the structures appear to be similar in shape and spatial organization to the previous ones (Fig. 5). This area was then gradually built up with the large open areas reduced by construction of more houses, reflecting a denser urban population. The sequence of structural levels in Area II belonging to phase N (four structural levels from II_09 to II_05) is charac- terized by a change in the general orientation of the structures during period II_08/ II_07 and by a denser population of this area. The function of the area and the type of dwelling structures seem to have remained the same, although the large open peb- bled areas with silos gradually disappeared and the system of streets and consequently of the neighbouring structures was rearranged. By contrast in Area V, it is only pos- sible to establish a general continuity in the orientation of the structures built one on top of the other and the existence of a mound wall with square towers at least at Level V_02 (the excavated area was large enough), where several open pebbled spaces adjoined it. The pottery assemblage of phase N is characterized by a large majority of painted monochrome pottery, which imitates the shapes and decorative patterns of the Late 37 Both the continuity of some shapes and the continuity of the architectural levels in Area II exclude the existence of a gap in the settlement occupation. 38 Woolley 1955, pottery types 5 and 6a found mainly in levels V and IV. 98 M. PUCCI Helladic IIIC middle, late, and sub-Mycenaean periods as well as local develop- ments. As far as the ratio is concerned, it is important to point out that assemblages were selected in the field and probably all the painted monochrome decorated diag- nostic sherds were collected and brought to Chicago , but not all the simple ware or cooking ware sherds. Therefore, it is likely that the painted to unpainted ratio is somewhat overrepresented in all levels. However, even though this error recurs in every analysed context, it alone does not explain the striking proportion of painted pottery in phase N assemblages, which in level II_08 reaches 94 % of the whole repertoire.39 A pale brown, fine or medium fine clay with polychrome grit and very frequent organic inclusions characterizes the fabric of the painted decorated pottery. The sur- face is frequently left untreated; a simple wash or self-slip is seldomly used, while a proper slip is almost absent. By contrast the few imported pieces are characterized by fine ware, also pale brown or pinkish fabric, by rare organic inclusions, and a fine slip, usually paler than the ware itself. The bell-shaped bowl (FS244), hemispherical bowls, carinated cups (FS240), strainer jugs (FS155), which are all well-known Helladic IIIC shapes, are extremely common in the assemblage of phase N. The bell-shaped bowls maintain their globu- lar shape, while the bowls with flaring rim from the earlier level (Fig. 4.4) become shorter (Fig. 6.4). They are very similar to carinated bowls of the Late Helladic tradi- tion (Fig. 6.3) and probably are a more elaborated version of simple bi-conical bowls (Fig. 6.6). Painted decoration is also employed on earlier shapes, such as the well- known conical platters, which in part keep their incurving rim shapes (Fig. 6.7) but for the most part, show simplified square rims (Fig. 6.5). Large hemispherical bowls with everted rims (Fig. 6.8) seem to completely replace the more ancient shape with angular internal rims. Necked jars with simple rims (Fig. 6.14), as well as feeding bottles (Fig. 3.5), and strainer jugs (Fig. 6.11) are common shapes in the painted monochrome class. The painted patterns are mainly geometrical, tend to be more and more simplified during phase N, and they are very often organized in rows (Fig. 6.14). Wavy lines are now more narrow-framed (Fig. 6.3; 6.5), while a “palmette” hanging from the rim of the bowls (Fig. 6.1) or on closed vessels (Fig. 6.10) becomes an extremely common pattern as do loops hanging at the base of handles (Fig. 6.15). The “palmette” can be probably interpreted as derivative from Late Helladic patterns such as the tassel (FM72), which seems to become more elaborated during the sub-Mycenaean period,40 while the hanging loops at the base of the handle, are common motifs in the Aegean 39 All percentages are calculated on rim sherds. 40 A very similar piece was found at Tell Tayinat, cf. Harrison 2010, fig. 4.7.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 99 and at Tell Afis.41 The figural patterns (usually on a closed vessel) are rare finds per- centage wise, but keep the same motifs as in the earlier assemblages (Fig. 6.11). By contrast, the deep bowl (Fig. 6.9) is a rare shape and is probably linked to a differ- ent earlier and local tradition. The plain painted bowls with reserved decoration are common (Figs. 6.2, 6.13 and 3.6) both in red and black. The simple ware class does not completely disappear, however, large-scale produc- tion of conical platters decreases significantly, incurving rims progressively disappear, and the painted wares appear to be the common tableware now; although the same standardization of dimensions and shapes is not as in the earlier phase. By contrast cooking pots keep their old shapes; globular vessels with external thickened rim, short collar, and shell temper (Fig. 6.12). CHRONOLOGICAL LIMITS OF PHASE N Considering that the beginning of phase N can be identified with the sudden but massive appearance of local imitations of LH IIIC middle phase ceramics, this local production appears in a simple fill level between two similar structural phases with no traces of destruction or sudden break. Also, this “new local trend” continues uninter- rupted and therefore it seems evident that not only the transition from phase M to N was smooth, but also that this “new” local painted tradition settled and flourished at the site developed during phase N. From a chronological point of view it is possible to set this transition during the second half of the 12th century BC. Moreover, although the number of local imitations of LH IIIC late is extremely high during phase N, and seem to represent an important local production, Myce- naean imports are extremely rare (Fig. 6.3); the majority consisting of body frag- ments. At the more recent levels still dating to phase N, the imports are also not numerous and originate mainly from Cyprus with several examples of White Painted Wheel made cups and bowls. A large fragment of an imported Protogeometric amphora and two fragments of Euboean bowls with hanging semicircles in the more recent levels of this phase set the end of this phase to a relatively late period. These imports together with two fragments of Black on Red juglets seem to mark the end of phase N during the second half of the 9th century BC. CONCLUSION: THE ANATOLIAN AND MYCENAEAN INFLUENCES The large distribution and the overwhelming number of conical platters in the assemblages of phase M support the idea of a standardized multifunctional vessel; the shape and size could allow comparisons with the so called “drab ware” from Tarsus, 41 Mountjoy 1986, fig. 261; Venturi 2007, fig. 85. 100 M. PUCCI Kinet Höyük and Kilise Tepe. This term “drab ware” has been employed to identify pottery bearing surface scraping, poor quality fabric, pottery marks on the surface and it is mostly related to an Anatolian sphere of influence.42 Consequently, according to these definitions, the lack of scraping, or of a particular gritty fabric, or of wheel or rope traces on the bottom, and of potmarks prevent conclusive identification of the sherds from Chatal with “Drab Ware.” These standardized shapes may be related generally to the Anatolian region because they allow similarities with the Hattusha repertoire and because they slightly differ from earlier assemblages at Alalakh VII- IV.43 However, several similarities of this repertoire to regional local assemblages may also suggest a well rooted local tradition rather than a relation with a general Anatolian pottery tradition. In an attempt to identify distinctive pottery features which may be considered Anatolian as opposed to Syrian ones, and thus following Glatz, who identifies five “typical Anatolian shapes,” it is only possible to point out two elements.44 The minia- ture bowl is extremely similar to the piece from Chatal (Fig. 2.3) and “stepped” plat- ters can be only identified in those shapes with squared and slightly angular rim (Fig. 2.5), but their relatively simple shape may be not distinctive. Besides these two shapes, the other platters with hooked internal rim, folded internal, or simply thick- ened internal rims found at Chatal are very standardized and common; their shape is identical both to Anatolian and Syrian pieces.45 Moreover, it is impossible to establish a direct connection between the Hittite con- quest of the area and the massive use of apparently Anatolian pottery shapes. In 2001 Gates proposed an identification of this mass-produced limited standardized reper- toire with the Tudhaliya conquest of Cilicia although in a recent article, these shapes seem to already be present at level 15 at Kinet, i.e. at a level which predates the Hittite conquest of the area.46 In Tarsus these shapes suddenly appear “instead of the sharply profiled carinated bowls of LBI,” so that they are directly connected with a Late Bronze II horizon.47 At Kilise Tepe platters with inverted rims were found in the 42 To my knowledge there is no clear or uniform description of this pottery class. However, on the one hand Goldman (1938, p. 36; 1937), who was the first to use this term for a specific Late Hittite Pottery class in Tarsus, does not mention scraping rather only a “brown to red ware” colour, chaff tem- per and varied grits (Goldman 1956, p. 203), while both Summers (1993, pl. 104) and Gates (1996, p. 294; 1997, p. 274; 2001) mention scraping and potmarks in connection with this pottery. Schoop 2006 has emphasized that “more than half of the drab ware pottery is still undistinguishable from older assemblages in terms of quality,” so that this deterioration of the technical standard in the Hittite pot- tery concerns less than half of the whole production. 43 The shapes 5 and 6a at Atchana are in part similar and were found in level Alalakh V and IV (Woolley 1955, p. 322 and pl. 109), the stepped or hooked incurving rims seems to be typical for the Anatolian region cf. Müller-Karpe 1988; Parzinger 1992, pl. 15, 16, 22, and not common in Syria. 44 Glatz 2009, Fig. 2. 45 Cf. Fischer 1963, pl. 83 and 100; Parzinger 1992, pl. 15, 22; Venturi 2010, fig. 6 and 8. 46 Gates 2001; Gates 2006, p. 293. 47 Goldman 1956, p. 203.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 101 Late Bronze Age repertoire, although it should be noted here, that very similar shapes were also found in the EBA assemblage from the same site.48 At Chatal Höyük it is only possible to state that the simple ware class in phase M represents almost two-thirds of the whole repertoire. Among these, more than half of the shapes can be interpreted as related to Anatolian or of local traditions, but these shapes are, in any case, locally produced, that is, related to local fabric variations. Moreover, it is not possible to affirm on the basis of the Chatal assemblage, whether these shapes were also common in earlier levels (as is apparently the case at Kinet), or that they characterize only a later part of the LBA (as in Tell Afis and in Tarsus ), because the earlier levels (underneath II_12) were not excavated. Thus, not only the idea of a strong Anatolian influence linkage and the political Hittite presence remains a hypothesis, but also the connection between the Hittite occupation of the area, which is certain, and an Anatolian influence on the material culture requires further research.49 Only eight biconvex seals, some of which bear traces of hieroglyphs were found and are in general extremely similar to those found at Kilise Tepe.50 A single bronze bull figurine found at Chatal Höyük may also in part support this Anatolian link.51 On the other hand, the red burnished pottery sherds, which were collected in Phase M levels, cannot be definitely identified with red burnished Hittite pottery hav- ing no definitive similarities between either the shape or the surface treatment. Only one single red burnished spouted bowl, found in one of the trenches dug on the mound, can be interpreted as a typical “Hittite” red burnished production.52 From an architectural and stratigraphic point of view, it is possible to point out a change in the spatial organization of at least the southeastern part of the settlement, which took place during phase M. Here a massive structure was replaced by rural dwelling units with large open areas, where grain was kept and the dead were buried. Neither the massive structure nor the following buildings can be related to an Anatolian or non–Anatolian tradition, but this sequence may suggest only that rural elements could have experienced an insecure political situation during phase M and have moved to the town.53 Before and after this change in the settlement, the material culture did not immediately change nor apparently did any foreign elements arrive, while the possible Anatolian tradition mentioned above remained predominant.54 48 Postgate and Thomas 2007, cf. LBA platter 616, fig. 388 with EBA platter 310, fig. 372. 49 For this problem cf. Venturi (this volume). 50 Postgate and Thomas 2007, nos. 1471, 1472, 1473 and 1475. 51 Neither the eight seals nor the figurine were found in phase M contexts, rather in later ones or on the surface. 52 This bowl (A26873) has long open spout, vertical stranded handle and high foot. 53 The only slope excavated down to this phase was located in Area II, where external erosion pre- vented the preservation of the mound walls for all levels. For this reason, it is not possible to state the existence of a mound wall during phase M. 54 Mitannian influence or presence is even less visible; a few Nuzi/Atchana imported wares (all body sherds except for one) and several Mitannian cylinder seals, which were found both in these levels 102 M. PUCCI During the end of phase M and the beginning of phase N, no breaks are visible in the structural sequence, settlement levels gradually become denser, parallel with the sudden change in the pottery production; local painted pottery imitating the LH IIIC middle tradition starts to become the most commonly produced class. Besides deter- mining the area of origin for the Late Helladic pottery imported to Chatal Höyük,55 the main unresolved problem is an explanation of how it was possible that such a mas- sive and sudden imitation of foreign pottery took place when the number of imported vessels of the same type was so low. It seems likely that only the arrival of external foreign elements can explain the massive local production of this kind of pottery. This theory dates back to beginning of the 20th century and has been partially reconsidered in recent times, not only in order to explain archaeological sets of data similar to the one at Chatal Höyük, but also as a consequence of recent discoveries of written docu- ments.56 Therefore, it seems possible that this pottery imitation was not connected to a general “influence” but to the local presence of “external peoples,” who moved to the Amuq area. Furthermore, if this hypothesis is correct, then the structural evidence at Chatal Höyük suggests that the arrival of external people was not directly related to any break in the settlement but was subsequent to a change in urban density, i.e. “foreign,” possibly eastern Mediterranean people arriving in a period of urban shrink- age and population decrease. This new population settled down, mixing with the local traditions, and started a new local tradition of painted, decorated pottery which con- tinued during the whole of phases N and O, i.e. until the 6th century BC. In conclusion, although the political implications suggested by the Chatal Höyük materials remain hypothetical, the material clearly shows the manifold cultural ele- ments, which during different periods affected a secondary and provincial town in a region, and not only experienced different political powers, but was also at the bor- der between different cultures. LIST OF WORK CITED ÅSTRÖM, P. 1972 The Late Cypriot Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: IV part 1C. Lund: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. BADRE, L. 2006 “Tell Kazel-Simyra: A Contribution to a Relative Chronological History in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 45–75. belonging to phase M and in the later ones. Probably the structural levels belonging to the Mitannian period at Chatal are still to be excavated. 55 For this problem see Venturi 2007, pp. 406–407, who suggest a Aegean origin. 56 Venturi 2010; Niemeier 2001; Liverani 1987; Hawkins 2009; also Janeway 2008.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 103 BRAIDWOOD, R. J. 1937 Mounds in the Plain of Antioch an Archaeological Survey, OIP 48. Chicago: Chicago University Press. BRAIDWOOD, R. J., and BRAIDWOOD, L. S. 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I, OIP 61. Chicago: Chicago University Press. ERIKSSON, K. 1993 Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, SIMA 103. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. 2007 The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Account of the Archae- ological Importance of White Slip Ware, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 38. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. FISCHER, F. 1963 Die Hethitische Keramik von Bogazköy, WVDOG 75. Berlin: Mann. FISHER, P. M. 1999 “Chocolate-on-White Ware: Typology, Chronology and Provenance. The Evi- dence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley ,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313: 1–29. FRENCH, E. 2007 “Late Helladic III C Middle at Mycenae ,” LH III C Chronology and Synchro- nisms, Veröff. der Mykenischen Kommission Band 28, edited by S. Deger- Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil, pp. 175–188. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. FURUMARK, A. 1941 Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitter- hets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. GATES, M. H. 1996 “Archaeology in Turkey,” American Journal of Archaeology 100: 277–335. 1997 “Archaeology in Turkey,” American Journal of Archaeology 101: 241–305. 2001 “Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite Ceramic Industry,” La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.C. 4e siècle ap. J.C.). Actes de la table ronde Internationale d’Istanbul, Varia Anatolica 13, edited by E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol, S. Durugönül, pp. 137–158. Istanbul and Paris: Institut fran- çais d’études anatoliennes. 2006 “Dating the Hittite Levels at Kinet Höyük: a Revised Chronology,” Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology, BYZAS 4, edited by D. P. Mielke, J. Schoop, U. D. Seeher, pp. 293–309. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. GEVIRTZ, S. 1967 “A Spindle Whorl with Phoenician Inscription,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26: 13–16. GILBOA, A. and SHARON, I. 2003 “An archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332: 7–80. GLATZ, C. 2009 “Empire as Network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 127–141. GOLDMAN, H. ed. 1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol. II: From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 104 M. PUCCI GOLDMAN, H. 1937 “Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1936,” American Journal of Archaeology 41: 262–286. 1938 “Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus , 1937,” American Journal of Archaeology 42: 30–54. HAINES, R. C. 1971 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II: the Structural Remains of the Later Phases, OIP 95. Chicago: Chicago University Press. HARRISON, T. P. 2010 “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition in the North Orontes Valley,” Societies in Transition. Papers presented on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the new Excavations in Tell Afis, Studi e Testi Orientali 9, edited by F. Venturi, pp. 83–102. Bologna: Clueb. HAWKINS, J. D. 2009 “New Light in a Dark Age,” Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 164–173. HENDRIX R. E., PHILIP R. D., BJØRNAR J. S. 1997 Ancient Pottery of Transjordan, Berrien Springs: Institute of Archaeology/Horn Archaeological Museum. JANEWAY, B. 2008 “The Nature and Extent of Aegean Contact at Tell Tayinat and Vicinity in the Early Iron Age: evidence of the Sea Peoples?,” Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 123–146. KILLEBREW, A. E., GOLDBERG, P. and ROSEN, A. M. 2006 “Deir el-Balah: A Geological, Archaeological and Historical Reassessment of an Egyptianizing 13th and 12th Century BCE Center,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 97–19. KROGMAN, W. M. 1949 “Ancient cranial types at Chatal Höyük and Tell al Judaidah,” Belleten XIII: 407–477. LEHMANN, G. 2008 “Decorated Pottery Styles in the Northern Levant during the Early Iron Age and their Relationship with Cyprus and the Aegean,” Ugarit Forschungen 39: 487–550. LEVENSON, J. D. 1973 “The Spindle Whorl Inscription from Chatal Höyük: a Forgery,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 209: 37–40. LIVERANI, M. 1987 “The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: the Case of Syria,” Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, K. Kristiansen, pp. 66–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MANNING, S. W., MONKS, S. J., STEEL, L., RIBEIRO, E. and WEINSTEIN, J. M. 1998 “Late Cypriot Tombs at Maroni Tsaroukkas, Cyprus,” The Annual of the Brit- ish School at Athens 93: 297–351. MCEWAN, C. W. 1937 “The Syrian expedition of the oriental institute of the University of Chicago,” American Journal of Archaeology 41: 8–13. MEYER, J.-W. 2008 Die eisenzeitlichen Stempelsiegel aus dem ‘Amuq-Gebiet: Ein Beitrag zur Ikono- graphie altorientalischer Siegelbilder, OBO 28. Freiburg: Academic Press Fri- bourg.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 105 MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1986 Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: a Guide to Identification, Studies in Mediterra- nean Archaeology 73, Goteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. 1999 “Late Minoan IIIC/Late Helladic IIIC: Chronology and Terminology,”Melemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcom H. Wiener as He enters His 65. Year, Aegeum 20, edited by P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, pp. 511–516. Liège: Université de Liège 2005 “The Mycenaean Pottery from the 1934–1939 Excavations at Tarsus,” Field Season 2001-2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project, edited by A. Öyzar, pp. 83–134. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2007 “A Definition of LH III C Middle,” LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms, Veröff. der Mykenischen Kommission Band 28, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil, pp. 221–242. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissen- schaften. MÜLLER-KARPE, A. 1988 Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattusha, Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10. Marburg: Lahn. NIEMEIER, W.-D. 2001 “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322: 11–32. PARZINGER, H. 1992 Die Oberstadt von Hattusa. Hethitische Keramik aus dem zentralen Tempelviertel, Bogazköy-Hattusa. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung 15. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. POSTGATE, N. and THOMAS, D. eds. 2007 Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-98, BIAA Monograph 30. Oxford: Oxbow Books. PUCCI, M. 2010 “The Chatal Höyük Publication Project: a work in progress,” Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2, edited by P. Matthiae et al., pp. 567–580. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. SCHOOP, U.-D. 2006 “Dating the Hittites with Statistics: Ten Pottery Assemblages from Bogazköy- Hattusa,” Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology, BYZAS 4, edited by D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop, J. Seeher, pp. 215–240. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. SUMMERS, G. 1993 Tille Hoyuk 4: The Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Transitions, British Insti- tute of Archaeology at Ankara Monographs 15. Ankara: David Brown Book Co. SWIFT, G. 1958 “The Pottery of the Amuq Phases K to O, and its Historical Relationships.” Unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago. VENTURI, F. 2007 La Siria nell’età delle trasformazioni, Studi e Testi orientali 8. Bologna: Clueb. 2010 “Cultural Breakdown or Evolution? The impact of Change in 12th Century BC Tell Afis,” Societies in Transition, papers presented on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the new Excavations in Tell Afis, Studi e Testi Orientali 9, edited by F. Venturi, pp. 1–27. Bologna: Clueb. WOOLLEY, L. 1955 Alalakh. An Account on the excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937– 1949, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 106 M. PUCCI YENER, A. ed. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, Volume 1: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002, OIP 131. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 107 Fig. 1 Phase M. Structural Remains from Area V (1.1) and II (1.2). Adapted from Haines 1971: pl. 29 and 37. 108 M. PUCCI Fig. 2 Phase M, pottery assemblage. The locus is indicated in bold under each sherd. Grey hatch = red paint. Scale 1:5.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 109 Fig. 3 Drawings and photo of complete vessels. Drawings A26950, A26966 and A26811 (T. d’Este) in scale 1:5; pictures b-2764, b-2841 and b-2881 are from original negatives of the excavations. 110 M. PUCCI Fig. 4 Phase M/N, pottery assemblage. The locus is indicated in bold under each sherd. Black hatch = black paint, grey hatch = red paint. Scale 1:5.  CHATAL HÖYÜK IN THE AMUQ 111 Fig. 5 Phase N. Structural Remains from Area V (top) and II (bottom). Adapted from Haines 1971: pl. 29 and 37. 112 M. PUCCI Fig. 6 Phase N, pottery assemblage. The locus is indicated in bold under each sherd. Black hatch = black paint, grey hatch = red paint. Scale 1:5.