©The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey - TAY Project

Coba Höyük / Sakçagözü

For site maps and drawings please click on the picture...

maps

For photographs please click on the photo...

Coba Höyük / Sakçagözü
Type:
 Mound
Altitude:
 620 m
Region:
 Mediterranean
Province:
 Gaziantep
District:
 Nurdagi
Village:
 Sakçagözü
Investigation Method:
 Excavation
Period:
 Early Iron Age

     

Location: It lies 3 km northwest of the Sakçagöz (Keferdiz) Village; west-northwest of the Gaziantep Province.
Geography and Environment: It measures 9 m in height together with the bedrock and 140x90 m in dimensions. It is one of the medium sized mounds of the Southeastern Anatolia region. The cultural deposit is reported not to exceed 6 m.
History:
Research and Excavation: It was first introduced to the archaeological world in 1883. Orthostat reliefs found at the hilltop in 1908 attracted attention to this mound, which was called Mound A during the survey, and excavations were initiated in 1908. Restricted campaign period of the Garstang team, presence of orthostats, compactness of the mound led excavation works concentrated in this mound rather than more important and large mounds in the plain [Garstang 1908:100-101]. After a few years of interruption, the excavations commenced in 1911 again. The latest excavations at the settlement on the Coba Höyük were carried out under the direction of J. Waechter on behalf of the British Archaeological Museum with the participation of J. du Plat Taylor and M.V. Seton-Williams in 1949 [du Plat Taylor et al. 1950:53-138]. Coba Höyük was miscalled as Sakçegözü/Sakçagözü in archaeological texts because of the name of the closest village. It takes place in the registered archaeological sites list prepared by Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
Stratigraphy: Remains of a city dating to the 1st Millennium BC, presumably founded during the Late Hittite Period were unearthed underlying the remains of the Roman Period. The walls enclosing the city, ruins of a palace and orthostats adorning the buildings were first unearthed during the excavations conducted under the direction of J. Garstang in 1908. These excavations revealed that the site had been inhabited from the Chalcolithic Age until the Byzantine Period. The excavations mainly focused on the upper levels of the mound, exposing the Late Hittite levels. The definite stratification of the mound was described during the 1947 campaign as follows although levels of the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic Ages identified on the bedrock were not reached: I: Pre-Halaf Period II: Samarra-Early Halaf Period III: Late Halaf (Developed Halaf) Period IV: Ubaid Period V: Uruk Period (?) -Jamdat Nasr-Early Dynastic Period VI-VIII: Habur Period IX: Syro-Hittite Period (LBA) X: Late Hittite Period (Iron Age) [Garstang 1937:119-140]. Two trenches were opened during the excavations inside the palace in 1949 conducted by Waechter, du Plat Taylor and Miss Seton-Williams. These trenches yielded two periods belonging to the Iron Age: the earlier Period IX represents the construction phase of the Hittite Palace while the later Period X represents the "inhabitation and abandonment phases of the palace". Relation to later periods is still uncertain for both periods [Ussishkin 1966:22].
Small Finds: Architectural Remains: The systematic excavations conducted in 1908 by Garstang yielded a palace enclosed by walls from the Late Hittite Period, and a portico extending towards it as decorated with basalt reliefs [Ussishkin 1966:15]. The building complex has an almost-square plan. The southwestern end was pierced by an entrance gate flanked by two small towers, contrary to the single-gate architecture commonly seen during this period [Ussishkin 1966:16]. The palace was built in a Bit Hilani plan with a trapezoidal shaped enclosure wall. Both the palace complex and portico had been examined several times by Hanfmann and Güterbock. As the site had been damaged to a great extent due to erosion, no statutues were found in situ. Garstang proposed that relief fragments collected from the surface of the mound and the neighbouring village belong to that gate and they have great similarity to the Hilani III reliefs at the Zincirli Castle. The mid-gate is supported by a double-sphinx base. The most perfect samples of the Aramaic art were found at this entrance, and now they have been exhibited in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. The façade is flanked by winged griffin-demons facing the gate passageway on a narrow orthostat and a rectangular block next to it with antithetic divine figures on both sides of the Tree of Life with a winged sundisk above. They are followed by sphinx reliefs and behind them is depiction of a king in his royal clothes of Aramaean style, carved almost in three dimensions. The two intramural orthostats to the east of the palace gate have already disappeared whereas their western correspondents were found in situ. Above them are two young officials depicted in specific Aramean style. With a walking position, headed to left, the one in the front holds a palm fan in his right hand, and the one behind has a raptor/falcon, symbol of hunting on his right hand, and a wand in his left hand. The basalt, massive base of the column, probably made of a cedar trunk, erected at the center of the gate passageway was uncovered. The frontal part of one of the sphinxes belonging to that base has been damaged [Darga 1992:300-301]. Statue/Relief: The Sakçagözü reliefs were published and introduced in 1890 by Humann and Puchstein [Ussishkin 1966:16]. Sakçagözü has two groups of reliefs. One group decorates the entrance gate of the palace while the other one is in the interior part of the portico [Ussishkin 1966:18]. The gate reliefs engraved in Aramean style were found in situ at the large entrance of the palace [Darga 1992:299]. Each of the relief backgrounds on the orthostats has a different size. Some are very deep almost three dimensional, a king relief in 3/4 profile and reliefs of gate lions in profile are observed on the orthostat surfaces as well as sphinx reliefs inside the gate. Another feature of these reliefs is that they were sometimes carved as three dimensional. The face of the above mentioned king, and legs of the lions and sphinxes were processed on a background as deep as it requires to outline the negative spaces for each of the claw fingers. With a depth of 90 cm at most, these orthostats have a plain side fillet on which the figures stand. The orthostats with griffin demons and antithetic compositions have a broad band on the top and sides. Each theme is potrayed on the surface of one orthostat with only one exception, which is in the reliefs of the royal officials; fan and sword extend over the surface of the adjacent orthostat. Although Assyrian influence is observed in this group of reliefs, a complete Aramean style is reflected in sculpturing. The male figures on the reliefs at Zincirli Hilani III are similarly observed here [Darga 1992:300-301]. The portico reliefs and palace reliefs at Sakçagözü are divided into two subgroups as Sakçagözü I and Sakçagözü II with a prominent time difference between them. The reliefs on the gate represent the Sakçagözü I group while the Sakçagözü II group is represented by reliefs in Aramean style inside the portico. Darga dates all Sakçagözü reliefs to the last quarter of the 8th century BC, and thus the related buildings are also dated to the same period [Darga 1992:303]. Ussishkin indicates that both groups were made in different periods and in diverse styles, and dates the interior reliefs at portico to the second-half of the 8th century BC as they are similar to the reliefs at the Lower Palace in Zincirli while dating the reliefs at the fortification gate to an earlier period, the first half of the 8th century BC. [Ussishkin 1966:18]. Güterbock proposes a different dating for Sakçagözü reliefs by comparing the king relief at Sakçagözü to the king's statue in the chamber-gate at Arslantepe. Güterbock suggests similarities between the two figures not only on the basis of style, but also on dress, crown, attitude and facial characteristics. He reinforces his suggestion further combining the historical facts proposed by Landsberger about the King of Malatya. Consequently, he dates the carving of Sakçagözü reliefs between 720-708 BC, and the Aslantepe statue between 712-708 BC, indicating that the palace at Sakçagözü had been decorated at late 8th century BC, and sustained until the late 7th century BC [Güterbock 1961:49]. The orthostats with griffin-demons, sphinxes and gate lions are other major artifacts of the Late Hittite Period. No Hittite influence is observed on the gate lions anymore [Darga 1992:302]. The griffins had been transformed into a new appearance by the Aramean artists, losing their eagle characteristics replaced by a "hybrid" creature of a lion and horse mixture [Darga 1992:303].
Remains:
Interpretation and Dating: The reliefs of portico and palace at Sakçagözü are divided into two subgroups; Sakçagözü I and Sakçagözü II. The reliefs on the fortification gate represents the Sakçagözü I group while the reliefs in the Aramean style inside the portico are examples of the Sakçagözü II group. Ussishkin indicates that both groups were made in different periods and in diverse styles, and dates the interior reliefs at portico to the second-half of the 8th century BC as they are similar to the reliefs at the Lower Palace in Zincirli while dating the reliefs at the fortification gate to an earlier period, the first half of the 8th century BC [Ussishkin 1966:18]. Hanfmann who analysed the Sakçagözü reliefs reports that the Sakçagözü Palace was present during the 7th century BC and in use unti 650-625 BC although many Late Hittite palaces had been destroyed by Assyrians in the late 8th century BC [Hanfmann 1960:43-44].


To List