|
©The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey - TAY Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
Güzelova |
|
|
For site maps and drawings please click on the picture...  |
For photographs please click on the photo...  |
|
Type:
|
Mound |
|
Altitude:
|
1780 m |
|
Region:
|
Eastern Anatolia |
|
Province:
|
Erzurum |
|
District:
|
Merkez |
|
Village:
|
Güzelova |
|
Investigation Method:
|
Excavation |
|
Period:
|
EBA III |
|
|
|
  |
|
| Location: It is located where the village of Güzelova (Tufanç/Tufanli) is situated; south of Dumlu; 15 km north-northeast of Erzurum Province. |
| Geography and Environment: One of the branches of the Euphrates; the Karasu Stream; passes by the south of the mound. The mound is located in a fertile and watery part of the Erzurum Plain. It is 12.5 m high above the plain level. It is noted that the lower levels of the mound are below the plain level because the virgin soil was still not reached at 20 m depth. The eastern part of the mound has been severely damaged; particularly by the foundations of the modern buildings and garbage pits. |
| History: |
| Research and Excavation: The western part of the mound was excavated in 1961 under H.Z. Kosay and H. Vary. It takes place in the registered archaeological sites list prepared by Ministry of Culture and Tourism. |
| Stratigraphy: The stratification of Güzelova is not expressed clearly by the excavators. The presence of a mixed deposit is figured out depending on the information published. The level full of garbage pits (?) yielded foundations of a church and a charred deposit of barley recovered at 2 m depth. A sterile deposit of 4.5 m thick is informed to include a few items [Kosay-Vary 1967:6]. This embankment is associated with the fortification wall. The layers; probably dating from the prehistoric ages were reached after 4.5 m. |
| Small Finds: Architecture: The architectural remains worth to investigate was only reached after 4.5 m. They consist of stone walls which do not generate a complete plan. At 8 m depth; mangers; erected by stones; with boarded floors in thick and circular profiles were uncovered. Bulks of clayed reeds and decayed wooden ruins recovered at 9-9.5 m should belong to the hut-like houses built of light material. The plan of these houses was not identified by the excavators. Pottery: A pottery industry of the handmade; black-red colored; burnished; relief and groove decorated ware was found. Forms of pithos; cooking pot; dish; mug and platter are common for this Karaz ware recovered from many settlements like Pulur; Karaz and other settlements of Eastern Anatolia. Also found are small vessels used for cosmetics and open vessels assumed to be used for boiling milk. Decoration patterns are rich. Motifs of filled in triangles; spirals; triangles; circles; etc. are common [Kosay-Vary 1967: pl.VII-IX]. The excavation report doesn't specify if there is any improvement in patterns throughout the layers. Clay: Vast majority of this group is represented by movable hearths. Varying from simple types to the ones with three projections decorated in the shape of human or animal heads; they are also suggested to be cult elements [Kosay-Vary 1967:9; pl.XIII]. Also found are oval or quadrangular big and flat vessels; one sides being high (?); probably functioned like a brazier. The high side of these vessels was exteriorly decorated with mysterious schematized patterns [Kosay-Vary 1967:lev.XII]. Small animal figurines are considered as votive objects. They are small in number. Terra cotta spindle whorls are found. They are undecorated. Chipped Stone: Blades; scrapers and saws in obsidian were found. Aside limited number of silex; transparent obsidian is available. Samples of leaf-shaped spearheads and spearheads with triangular blades; both sides treated; were collected. They were; probably; utilized while hunting. Ground Stone: Plenty of grinding stones in basalt was recovered. Objects like braces and mallets are also found. Bright polishing stones locally called "möhre" were recovered. They are suggested to be used for pottery burnishing. The function of an incised stone was not clarified. Bone/Antler: Aside various types of awls; fork-like spear tangs; spindle whorls; combs and pins were found. Those finds expose the presence of an intense leather work. The bone combs are suggested to be used for weaving kilims. Metal: The shaft holed axe recovered at ca. 1.5 m depth and included among the limited number of metallic finds is not an EBA type. It must be dated to periods following EBA. A copper/bronze spearhead coming from 7 m deep is consistent with the age it is dated. Human Remains: Remains of two burials were recovered; one at 7.25 m and the other at 9.00 m. The skeleton no. 1 was buried in hocker position. The head is oriented toward the south; the foot toward the north. A small movable hearth was left as a grave good. It lies on a stone bench. The other one is a pithos grave recovered at 9 m. Skeleton of a 11years old child was found inside. On top of the pithos; there is a big stone used like a lid. The relation of those graves with the architectural finds remains unclear. Such a small number of graves are not enough to propose the presence of an intramural cemetery. The main cemetery of the Güzeloba inhabitants should be located somewhere nearby. |
| Remains: |
| Interpretation and Dating: The first inhabitants of Güzelova; probably; settled on a natural hill in a swamp and marshy area. They adapted themselves to the cold weather of Eastern Anatolia by moving from simple huts made of timber; reeds and clayed mortar to mudbrick houses on stone foundations. Probably; hunting; besides agriculture and animal husbandry; played an important role in their nutritional economy. They are suggested to crop wheat and barley. No 14C date was identified; and given the insufficient excavation results; it is difficult to date the site. Even tough it looks like comparable to the Late Chalcolithic Age and EBA finds of Karaz and Pulur; its exact status in the archaeology of Eastern Anatolia is unknown. A. Sagona; also; indicates the difficulty of dating; but he includes Güzeloba between EBA III-MBA II in parallel to the dating of Pulur in the chronology table of this region upon evaluating the finds of Sos Höyük. However; the excavators propose the year 2600 BC for EBA settlement [Kosay-Vary 1967:7]. It should be further explored. |
