Beadwork in a Basket: An Ornamental Item from the Final Halaf Level of Mersin Yumuktepe

Year 2016, Issue: 19, 13 - 30, 01.06.2016

Emma L. Baysal

Abstract

In the summer excavation season of 2014 a total of nearly 1500 beads were recovered from inside a shallow circular basket in the final Halaf levels of the site of Yumuktepe in Mersin. The discovery has been provisionally dated to around 5800 B.C. When found, the beads were still arranged in the rows in which they had been threaded and it was clear that they had once been a single item of beadwork, perhaps a complex necklace or item of clothing. The beadwork consisted of small red and white stone beads that were threaded in patterns. This find gives us a rare opportunity to analyse a complete beadwork item that was recovered from a non-burial context. The find raises questions about what the artefact might originally have looked like, how the beads were made and why they were deposited in a basket, not in a burial. The large quantity of beads that were deposited also raises questions about the time used for bead production, whether it might have been specialised at a household or workshop level and the value attributed to bead products. This article explores what we can discover about this intricate piece of beadwork from the archaeological evidence, and whether it is comparable to other finds of the same period.

Sepet Dolusu Boncuk: Mersin Yumuktepe Höyüğü Son Halaf Seviyesinden Süs Malzemesi

Abstract

Mersin Yumuktepe Höyüğü’nün Halaf seviyesinde ele geçen büyük yuvarlak bir sepet içinde yer alan yaklaşık 1500 adet taş boncuk yak. M.Ö. 5800’e tarihlendirilmiştir. Söz konusu sepet, höyüğün hem Tunç Çağı teraslaması hem de Ortaçağ faaliyetleri sırasında kesilen kontekst içinde açığa çıkartılmıştır. Kırmızı ve beyaz renkli boncuklar yak. 25x20 cm.’lik bir alanda ve desen oluşturacak şekilde düzenlenmiş olarak orijinal konumlarında bulunmuştur. Aslında bu yörede, bu dönemde, tek bir kontekst içinde bu kadar çok sayıda boncuk ele geçmesi sıra dışı bir durumdur. Halaf Dönemi bezeme uygulamaları üzerine yayımlanmış çok az veri bulunduğundan bu münferit buluntu, mevcut kanıtlara önemli bir katkı yapmaktadır.

References

• Bains et al. 2013 R. Bains – M. Vasi – D. Bar-Yosef Mayer – N. Russell – K. Wright – C. Doherty, “A Technological Approach to the Study of Personal Ornamentation and Social Expression at Çatalhöyük”, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons, Volume 9 (2013) 331-363.
• Balossi 2004 F. Balossi, “New Data for the Definition of the DFBW Horizon and Its Internal Developments”, The Earliest Phases of the Amuq Sequence Revisited, Anatolica 30, 2004, 109-149.
• Bar-Yosef Mayer 2013
• D. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Towards a Typology of Stone Beads in the Neolithic Levant”, JFA 38.2, 2013, 129-142.
• Baysal 2013a E. Baysal, “A Tale of Two Assemblages: Early Neolithic Manufacture and Use of Beads in the Konya Plain”, AnatSt 63, 2013, 1-15.
• Baysal 2013b E. Baysal, “Will the Real Specialist Please Stand up? Characterising Early Craft Specialization, a Comparative Methodology for Neolithic Anatolia”, Documenta Praehistorica 40, 2013, 233-246.
• Baysal 2014a E. Baysal, “A Preliminary Typology of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Beads of Barcın Höyük”, Anatolia Antiqua 22, 2014, 1-11.
• Baysal 2014b E. Baysal, “Findings Relating to the Manufacture and Use of Stone Beads at Neolithic Boncuklu Höyük”, Colloquium Anatolicum 13, 2014, 57-79.
• Baysal – Miller forthcoming
• E. Baysal – H. Miller, “Teoride Süs Eşyaları: Arkeolojik Kontekstlerinde Prehistorik Boncuklarin Yorumu”, APAD II, forthcoming.
• Beck 1928 H. Beck, “Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants”, Archaeologia 77, 1928, 1-76.
• Belcher 2011 E. Belcher, “Halaf Bead, Pendant and Seal ‘Workshops’ at Domuztepe: Technological and Reductive Strategies”, in: E. Healey et al. (eds.), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13 (2011) 135-143.
• Caneva 2012 I. Caneva, “Mersin-Yumuktepe in the 7th Millennium BC: An Updated View”, in: M. Özdoğan et al. (eds), The Neolithic in Turkey, Central Turkey (2012) 1-29.
• Caneva 2010 I. Caneva, “The Early Prehistoric Occupation: The Neolithic (7000-5800 BC)”, in: I. Caneva – G. Köroğlu (eds.), Yumuktepe, a Journey through Nine Thousand Years (2010) 17-36.
• Coşkunsu 2008 G. Coşkunsu, “Hole-making Tools of Mezraa Teleilat with Special Attention to Micro-Borers and Cylindrical Polished Drills and Bead Production”, Neo-Lithics 1/08, 2008, 25-36.
• Erdal 2013 Y. S. Erdal, “Life and Death at Hakemi Use”, in: O. Nieuwenhuyse et al. (eds.), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia (2013) 213-223.
• French 1967 D. French, “Excavations at Can Hasan, 1966: Sixth Preliminary Report”, AnatSt 17, 1967, 165-178.
• French 2010 D. French, Canhasan Sites 3, Canhasan I: The Small Finds (2010).
• Healey – Campbell E. Healey – S. Campbell, “Producing Adornment: Evidence of Different Levels of Expertise in the Production of Obsidian Items of Adornment at Two Late Neolithic Communities in Northern Mesopotamia”, Journal of Lithic Studies, 1.2, 2014, 79-99.
• Lange et al. 2008 K. Lange – D. Perlès – M. Vanhaeren – I. Reiche, “Heat-induced Modification of Marine Shells Used as Personal Ornaments at the Prehistoric Site of Franchthi Cave, Greece: First Results of a Multi- Analytical Approach”, in: Ninth International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem, Israel, 25-30 May 2008.
• http://www.ndt.net/article/art2008/ papers/191Lange.pdf (accessed June 2015) (2008).
• Mallowan – Rose M. Mallowan – J. Rose, “Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah 1933”, Iraq 2.1, 1935, 1-178.
• Merpert – Munchaev 1987
• N. Ya. Merpert – R. M. Munchaev, “The Earliest Levels at Yarim Tepe I and Yarim Tepe II in Northern Iraq”, Iraq 49, 1987, 1-36.
• Özdemir 2014 M. Özdemir, “Kozluören Köyü (Manisa İli Soma İlçesi) Tahtacı Kadın Giyimi”, Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Velî Araştırma Dergisi 69, 2014, 167-180.
• Özkaya – Coşkun 2011 V. Özkaya – A. Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, in: M. Özdoğan et al. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, the Tigris Basin (2011) 89-127.
• Pickard – Schoop 2013 C. Pickard – Schoop, “Characterization of Late Chalcolithic Micro-beads from Çamlıbel Tarlası, North-Central Anatolia”, Archaeometry 55.1, 2013, 14-32.
• Popper-Giveon et al. 2014
• A. Popper-Giveon – A. Abu-Rabia – J. Ventura, “From White Stone to Blue Bead: Materialized Beliefs and Sacred Beads Among the Bedouin in Israel”, Material Religion 10.2, 2014, 132-153.
• Thissen 2002 L. Thissen, “Appendix 1, CANeW 14C Databases and 14C charts, Anatolia, 10,000 – 5000 cal BC”, in: F. Gérard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations During the 9th - 6th Millennia cal BC. Proceedings of the CANeW Table Ronde, Istanbul 23-24 November 2001 (2002) 299-337.
• Tobler 1950 A. Tobler, Excavations at Tepe Gawra: Joint Expedition of the Baghdad School and the University Museum to Mesopotamia (1950).
• Williams 1987 S. Williams, “An Archae-logy of Turkana Beads”, The Archaeology of Contextual Meaning (1987) 31-38.
• Wright 2012 K. Wright, “Beads and the Body: Ornament Technologies of the BACH Area Buildings”, in: R. Tringham – M. Stevanovi (eds.), Last House on the Hill, BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey (2012) 423-446.