THE GALAYERI SETTLEMENT: LATE CHALCOLITHIC TRADITIONS OF EASTERN ANATOLIA AND THE CAUCASUS

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-76
Author(s):  
NAJAF MUSEIBLI
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Late Chalcolithic

Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 262-285
Author(s):  
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Near East ◽  
Distribution Area ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Architectural Features ◽  
Late Chalcolithic ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
Prehistoric Settlements ◽  
Small Finds

The longevity of the Kura-Araxes culture is an archaeological phenomenon in the Caucasus and Near East. Over the course of a millennium, this culture spread from its origins in Eastern Anatolia, the Transcaucasia and northwest Iran to Southeastern Anatolia, northern Syria, Palestine and Israel. Named after the settlement mound Karaz near Erzurum, the Karaz culture is a widely established Turkish term for the Kura-Araxes culture. In Palestine and Israel, this culture is called Khirbet-Kerak. Apart from the striking small finds and special architectural features, it has a special pottery with characteristics that remained almost uniform in its area of distribution. Situated in the Altınova plain in Eastern Anatolia, Tepecik was also home for this significant culture. Today, this settlement mound lies under the waters of the Keban Dam in Elazığ. Yet its strategic location on a tributary of the Euphrates enabled the emergence and development of various cultures. At this settlement, archaeologists documented the Karaz culture that occurred in an almost unbroken cultural sequence from the Late Chalcolithic up to the beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age. Thus, Tepecik is one of the most significant prehistoric settlements within the distribution area of the Kura-Araxes/Karaz/Khirbet Kerak culture in the Near East. This paper presents the Karaz pottery from Tepecik as well as the possible development of the Karaz culture in the course of the Early Bronze Age at this settlement. .

Interaction of Uruk and Northern Late Chalcolithic Societies in Anatolia

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell S. Rothman
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
New World ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
The South ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Late Chalcolithic ◽  
Key Sites

This article presents an overview of the Uruk period. It considers the disagreement over an analysis of the organization and evolution of societies in southeastern and eastern Anatolia represented by a number of key sites. If one accepts, as most people do, that an Uruk Expansion trading system existed, and furthermore, if one accepts that the south had tremendous structural advantages in this trade, does that necessarily imply that Wallerstein's description of the periphery applies to the Mesopotamian case, in particular to the development of northern and Anatolian societies? It is argued that first, the northern societies were involved in this trade, and that it did affect the evolution of these societies; but that, second, they were already developing, so that the nature of this interaction was not the same in extent or kind as in the sixteenth century CE and the indigenous societies of the New World and their initial European colonists.

Armenia and the Caucasus in the Genesis of the Soviet–Turkish Entente

1973 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G. Hovannisian
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Minister ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Socialist Republic ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Independent State ◽  
National Assembly

On 26 April 1920, three days after the opening of the Grand National Assembly in Angora (Ankara), Mustafa Kemal addressed his first officially confirmed message to the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom) of Russia. Shortly thereafter, Bekir Sami Bey (Kundah), Turkish foreign minister, departed for negotiations in Mosocow.A draft treaty was initialed in August and delivered to Angora in September, and in March 1921 the governments of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic established formal bonds by concluding the Treaty of Moscow. During the few intervening months the small Caucasian Armenian republic, which had been created in May of 1918 and which had become the fulcrum of Armenian aspirations for an independent state encompassing both the Russian Armenian provinces and the contiguous Turkish Armenian provinces of eastern Anatolia, was crushed by the invasion of General Kazim Karabekir's XV Army Corps. The offensive, begun after attainment of a vague Soviet-Turkish understanding, not only overturned the Allied-imposed Treaty of Sévres, which had awarded to the Armenian republic much of the four eastern vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakir, and Erzurum, but also restored to Turkish dominion the sanjaks of Kars and Ardahan, since 1878 parts of Russian or Eastern Armenia. What was more, Nationalist Turkey annexed the Surmalu district, embracing Mount Ararat, the historic symbol of the Armenian people.

scholarly journals Zur Konstruktion von sozialer Kohärenz: Kirvalıq-Verwandtschaft in Georgien

2014 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-257
Author(s):  
Elguja Dadunashvili ◽  
Agnes Korn
Keyword(s):  
Religious Group ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Network Ties ◽  
The Caucasus

This article, which is based on fieldwork carried out 2007–2009 in various regions of Georgia, studies the Islamic circumcision ritual (Turkish sünnet, Azeri sünnǝt, Georgian ts‘inadatsveta) in the Caucasus and neighbouring regions. It specifically focusses on the tradition called Kirvalıq as practised by Azeri Turks in Georgia. This tradition establishes a relation between the boy and a kirva (“godfather”), who holds the boy during the ritual; the relation is understood as being a very close blood relation although the kirva and the boy are technically not related. In fact, the person chosen as kirva by the boy’s parents is often a member of another ethnic and/or religious group. This specific type of Kirvalıq is also found in Eastern Anatolia. We argue that the Kirvalıq serves the purpose of increasing the family’s network ties and thus contributes to the coherence of multiethnic and multireligious communities.


scholarly journals Re-assessing the notion(s) of craft standardization through diversity statistics: A pilot study on Late Chalcolithic pottery from Arslantepe in Eastern Anatolia

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0245660
Author(s):  
Pamela Fragnoli
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Geochemical Data ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Archaeological Data ◽  
Labor Division ◽  
Late Chalcolithic ◽  
End Products ◽  
Economic Specialization

This paper proposes a new range of diversity indexes applicable to ceramic petrographic and geochemical data and potentially to any archaeological data of both metric and non-metric nature in order to assess the degree of craft standardization. The case study is the Late Chalcolithic pottery from Arslantepe in eastern Anatolia, ideal to test the standardization hypothesis, i.e. the assumed correspondence between craft standardization and increased rates of production, which in turn correlate with economic specialization. The results suggest that the procurement and processing of raw materials are more sensible indicators of standardization than vessel shape variability. Higher standardization is connected with the scale of production rather than with the use of the wheel or its rotational speed. The socio-economic centralization marks a process of labor division within the operational sequence and, more generally, a shift from communal to more segregated potting practices. As a result, the variability of both technical procedures and end products increases. In contrast univocal trends towards standardization can be found in coeval contexts from northern Mesopotamia, where the incipient urbanization served to create bonds between vessel makers, favoring the transmission of models and practices regardless of the centralized power.

Composition of the Petroleum of the Caucasus

1881 ◽  
Vol 12 (288supp) ◽  
pp. 4589-4589
Author(s):  
MM. P. Schutzenberger ◽  
N. Toniner
Keyword(s):  
The Caucasus

Book Reviews

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-106
Author(s):  
Janet Klein ◽  
David Romano ◽  
Michael M. Gunter ◽  
Joost Jongerden ◽  
Atakan İnce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Nation Building ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
National Movement ◽  
The World ◽  
Modern Turkey ◽  
Oxford University Press

Uğur Ümit Üngör, The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913-1950, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 352 pp. (ISBN: 9780199603602).Mohammed M. A. Ahmed, Iraqi Kurds and Nation-Building. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, 294 pp., (ISBN: 978-1-137-03407-6), (paper). Ofra Bengio, The Kurds of Iraq: Building a State within a State. Boulder, CO and London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2012, xiv + 346 pp., (ISBN 978-1-58826-836-5), (hardcover). Cengiz Gunes, The Kurdish National Movement in Turkey, from Protest to Resistance, London: Routledge, 2012, 256 pp., (ISBN: 978-0-415—68047-9). Aygen, Gülşat, Kurmanjî Kurdish. Languages of the World/Materials 468, München: Lincom Europa, 2007, 92 pp., (ISBN: 9783895860706), (paper).Barzoo Eliassi, Contesting Kurdish Identities in Sweden: Quest for Belonging among Middle Eastern Youth, Oxford: New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, 234 pp. (ISBN: 9781137282071).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document