Anatolian Prehistory

The end of the Early Bronze Age, in other words the EBA III, is one of the significant turning points in the cultural history of the Anatolian Peninsula. Metal objects that indicate social class differences, advancements in architecture, and finds that point to connections with distant regions all demonstrate that a political structure began to emerge in Anatolia during this period. Parallel to these developments, especially with the increase in interregional relations, the use of new vessels indicates a novelty in eating and drinking habits. Tankards, bell-shaped cups and depas amphikypellon stand out within this group and are referred to as the new drinking vessels. In addition to these, it is noteworthy that beakers or goblets, and also container amphorae started to become widespread. All these types are considered to be associated with new drinking habits, and the new drink type is suggested to be wine. However, the suggestions proposed regarding the use of these vessels are not supported by any archaeometric studies until now. In this study, we share results from total lipid extraction analyses (TLE) performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) on a group of depa vessels from the archaeological site of Küllüoba located in Eskişehir, Turkey, and re-evaluate at the possible purposes of these vessels. Biomolecules such as fatty acids, salicylic acids, organic acids, hydrocarbons, n-alkanes, and herbal steroids identified as a result of these analyzes provided the first direct evidence of the use of fermented products such as wine and herbal analgesics in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Additionally, we present the first archaeological data of the period and the region regarding the use of salicylic acid.

Bu tez çalışmasının amacı Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi çerçevesinde Türkiye sınırları içerisinde tespit edilmiş seramik fırınlarının hepsini ilk kez bir araya getirerek incelemek ve tipolojisini karşılaştırmalı olarak ele almaktır. Anadolu’da seramik fırınları Kalkolitik Çağ’dan itibaren görülmeye başlamıştır. Şu anki bilgiler ışığında Anadolu’da Kalkolitik Çağ’a tarihlenen seramik  fırını Tell Kurdu yerleşim yerinde bulunmuştur. Güncel kazı bilgileri ışığında ise Anadolu’da seramik fırınları sayısal olarak en çok Orta Tunç Çağı’nda gözlemlenmiştir. Tez kapsamında seramik fırınlarının tespit edildiği
yerleşim yerleri ise Tell Kurdu, Seyitömer, Gaziantep Kalehöyük, Troia, Kocabaştepe,
Panaztepe, Milet, Lidar Höyük, Şaraga Höyük, Limantepe, Boğazköy, Tell Atchana,
Ziyaret Tepe ve Kinet Höyük olmuştur. Tatarlı Höyük’te 2015 yılında gerçekleştirilen kazıda seramik fırını olduğu düşünülen bir fırın bulunmuştur, fakat henüz yapısal
durumu veya form ayrıntıları yayınlanmadığından tez çalışmasına dâhil edilmemiştir.

The main purpose of this article is to make a comparative interpretation of petroglyphs and rock paintings and to try to date them considering many criteria. Anatolian geography has always been the focal point with its historical culture and inventory. However, there is not much research on this subject in this geography, which is very rich in petroglyph and rock paintings. There are many similar petroglyphs and rock paintings in neighboring regions of Anatolia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Nakhchivan). Mostly all dating and evaluations are interpreted according to their typological similarities with other geographies. In this article, we will try to create some analyzes and hypotheses from both the Anatolian and other geographies and using our data.

Oswald Spengler, a brilliant yet controversial philosopher of history, is probably best known for his seminal “Decline of the West”. In this book, Spengler boldly claimed to not only to contextualize world history, but also predict future developments on the basis of understanding cultures as cyclical entities with dynamics akin to those of organic beings. Misread, shunned, and finally subject to academic oblivion in the second half of the 20th century, aspects of cultural morphology are currently rediscovered by a variety of disciplines including palaeoanthropology, ancient history, and ancient Near Eastern studies as potentially powerful tools to review regional or supra-regional phenomena like crisis, change, and adaption from a different, “Spenglerian” angle. This contribution argues that aspects of morphological thought as outlined in the “Decline”, but also in his later works can be immensely beneficial to scrutinize the mechanisms of change and apotheosis—the original meaning of “decline” in Spengler’s work!—in prehistoric contexts. Case studies from archaeology are used as a backdrop to highlight the possibilities and limits of cultural morphology as a methodological baseline to engage in current archaeological debates

Aksaray is an important center for archaeological research. It has been visited by experts from different disciplines of archeology. Archaeological investigations are examined under two headings: excavations and surveys. Three sites are still ongoing excavations in Aksaray, it is among the most important excavations in Turkey. In addition, especially with the increasing number of systematic surveys since the 1990s, significant results have been achieved. Although these archaeological studies have been published individually by research teams, it does not make it possible to make an overall assessment of Aksaray. Therefore, in order to eliminate this negativity, archaeological studies carried out in Aksaray have been brought together. In this way, people who are interested in Aksaray and archeology will have the chance to work together on this subject. In addition, which areas of Aksaray Province and which studies are done and what results are reached will be explained chronologically. The greatest deficiency in archaeological research conducted around Aksaray is about the Paleolithic Age. If Nenezi Dağ finds from previous surveys are put aside, there is no data about this age throughout the province. For this reason, the results of our Paleolithic researches we started in 2015 and around Aksaray and completed in 2019 are also included in this study. In this way, all archaeological data of Aksaray and its immediate surroundings are presented in chronological order with the settlement areas. In the introduction part of the article, the history of the archaeological researches carried out in and around Aksaray is explained. In the second chapter; Surveys and Excavations have been evaluated under the headings and all the data have been gathered in the conclusion section.

The presence of imported and locally produced Mycenaean pottery in western Anatolia has long caught the attention of scholars and various explanatory models have been proposed to explain the apparent attractiveness of the pottery. In most cases, however, emphasis is placed on the (stylistic) differences between Mycenaean pottery and the various local plain wares, and it is assumed that these differences were actively recognised by local communities and exploited in the formation of social identities. This paper, however, pilots a different approach that focuses not on the stylistic differences between Mycenaean pottery and the various Anatolian wares but on the (perceived) common ground(s) between them and argues that the attractiveness of Mycenaean and previously Minoan pottery lay not so much in its cultural origins or its ‘foreignness’ but rather in its potential to fit in with existing local material assemblages and enhance a sense of communality among cosmopolitan communities.

in: Barbara Horejs & Mathias Mehofer (ed.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-urbanisation in the 4th millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21‒24 November, 2012 (Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: Vienna 2014) 421–446.
Abstract: The nature and development of textile production in prehistoric Anatolia has received very little systematic attention so far. This paper attempts to show that it is at the end of the 5th millennium BC when we first see a great increase of effort being invested into this field, a development which may be linked to the introduction of wool-producing caprids into the region. The social and economic implications of this development are investigated through a review of the evidence for flax-cultivation, pastoral strategies and the distribution of tools used in textile manufacture. The paper questions views that woven textiles were produced for their use-value and that they served the generation of cumulative wealth in this initial configuration. Alternative explanations are sought to understand better why the production and consumption of textiles suddenly became of central interest to Anatolian societies during the Late Chalcolithic and following times.

"Anatolia" comes from the Greek word ἀνατολή , "sunrise", "East".Four genetic clusters define the uniqueness of Neolithic Anatolia. Autochthonous, associated with the "Dzuzuanna" cluster, theWHG cluster that came from Europe, as well as the additional influence of Natufan (the Levant N genetic cluster) and Zagros (Iran N). These four genetic clusters defined all the diversity in the middle East, differing only in the local identity of the regions. Thisdiversity of regions generally corresponded to the cultural (archaeological) characteristics and traditions of the population.Central Anatolia of the Neolithic period could represent the core and Indo-European ancestral homeland, whose population wasmainly composed of Western European hunters and gatherers and local population. From this core, there was further expansionthroughout the Middle East, Europe, and further East into Asia.

İlk tunc dövründə Şimali Azərbaycanın şimal-qərbində, Kiçik Qafqaz sıra dağlarının şərq ətəyi boyunca quruluşca kamerası və dəfn ənənəsi ideyası özünəməxsus olan kurqanlar — Daşlıtəpə (Qəbələ), Daşlıtəpə (Daşkəsən), Borsunlu (Tərtər), Daşüz (Şəki), Gəncə, Göygöl (Xanlar), Xankəndi, Osmanbozu (Şəmkir), Menteştəpə, Uzunrəmə və Şadılı — qeyd edilmişdir (Şəkil 1).  Kür-Araz mədəniyyətinin erkən mərhələsi dövründə mövсud olmuş bu tip kurqanlar “kurqanaltı sərdabələr” kimi elmi dövriyyə daxil olub. Kurqanları birləşdirən əsas əlamət — kurqan örtüyü altında planda düzbucaqlı və ya dairəvi formalı, kollektiv dəfnli kamera-sərdabənın olmasıdır. Tədqiqatçı T.Axundov [20] tərəfindən bu tip  qəbir abidələrinin müxtəlif aspektlər üzrə təsnifatı aparılmışdır. Amma bununla yanaşı uzun müddət belə hesab edilmişdir ki, kurqanaltı sərdabələr İlk tuncun son mərhələsindən Orta tunc dövrünə keçiddə mövcud olmuşdur. Bu tip kurqanlardan XXI əsrin ikinci onilliyinin əvvəllərində aşkar və tədqiq edilmiş yalnız üçünün (Menteştəpə, Şadılı və Uzunrəmə) radiokarbon tarixləri məlumdur. Bu üç kurqanaltı sərdabədən olan radiokarbon tarixlər artıq bu tip kurqanların tarixlənməsi barədə mövcud fikirləri inkar etdi. Həmçinin, e.ə. IV minilliyin II yarısına, yəni, İlk tunc dövrünün əvvəllərinə aid bu tip kurqanları birləşdirən xüsusiyyətlər eyni zamanda onları Kür-Araz mədəniyyəti üçün xarakterik xüsusiyyətlərdən kəskin fərqləndirir.

In the middle 1980's the Anatolian Kelim quite suddenly became the prime genre of oriental carpet to generate research and collector interest.
The mechanics behind this have remained unknown to the public and even to many of the particpants.
This long paper for the first time exposes what happened, who was responsible as well as much of the behind the scene story.
But there is far more than social history here, the author, who was at the epicenter, sets out to codify the Anatolian Kelim by proving there is a tiny, actually only 11 example, group of masterpiece archetypes which have influenced the production of tens of thousands later examples.
Within this premise and with voluminous examples this paper makes clear and demonstrates the cohesive and proprietary nature of the Anatolian Kelim.
It also showcases the magic, mystery and beauty of those archetypal examples.
***CLICK ON THE LINK TO weavingartmuseum.org TO READ THIS PAPER***

Simpson, E., ed. The Adventure of the Illustrious Scholar: Papers Presented to Oscar White Muscarella. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

The Adventure of the Illustrious Scholar: Papers Presented to Oscar White Muscarella, edited by Elizabeth Simpson, is a Festschrift celebrating the career of one of the foremost archaeologists of the ancient Near East. Oscar Muscarella is a former curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and a formidable scholar who has excavated at sites in Turkey, Iran, and the United States. He has published eight books and nearly 200 articles, excavation reports, and reviews on topics ranging from the arts of antiquity and the importance of connoisseurship, to the difficulties of dating and the problems of forgeries, the looting of ancient sites, and the antiquities trade. The forty-seven contributors are experts in the areas of Muscarella's interests and are major scholars in their fields. This volume constitutes an unusual, important, and timely addition to the archaeological and art historical literature.

The following is chapter 1 (text and plates) from my PhD dissertation on the analysis of social interaction in west and central Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age (EBA, c.3200-1950 BC). The dissertation aims at identifying potential rationales for and mechanisms of exchange from the intra-settlement to the interregional scale, within the context of growing socio-economic and political complexity experienced by the local communities across the EBA. Through distributional and contextual analysis of a large range of case studies, this dissertation explores how different products, raw materials, technological knowledge and cultural behaviours circulated within Anatolia, and does so both by mapping likely flows of goods and ideas and by analysing the context of artefact use and deposition. It also investigates how increasing degrees of organization affected patterns of exchange, both at the production (specialisation, scale and intensity of production) and the circulation stages (presence of specialised exchange intermediaries, innovations in transport technology, investment in road infrastructure, control over routes). This research further attempts to reconstruct the structure of physical and social networks in EBA Anatolia, looking at how topographic and cultural constraints funnelled movement (and hence interaction) along specific landscape corridors. Lastly, it explores the role played by rising local elites and the importance of Anatolia’s vast metal resources in the process of expansion of long-distance exchange networks, which ultimately allowed the integration of Anatolia within the Near Eastern and Aegean worlds towards the end of the EBA.

Auf Grundlage der stetigen Weiterentwicklung der Befestigungsanlagen zwischen ca. 5000 und 2000 v. Chr. in Südosteuropa und Kleinasien soll in diesem Buch exemplarisch ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Hintergründe und Mechanismen kriegerischer Auseinandersetzungen sowie deren Auswirkungen
auf die hieran beteiligten Gesellschaften geleistet werden. Im
Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung stehen Befestigungsanlagen, die jedoch nicht aus architekturgeschichtlicher oder bauhistorischer Sicht bewertet werden sollen, sondern als Dokumente, die den Zusammenhang zwischen Siedlungswesen, Gesellschaft und kriegerischer Konfliktaustragung erhellen können.

NB: Paper updated 21 May 2021 This paper looks closely at the ancient genetics of one small lineage within a sub-branch of a people sometimes known as Semitic, with implications for Near Eastern history. Applying a combination of tools: yDNA haplogrouping, ancientDNA, Primary Component Analysis, biblical genealogies, and archaeological finds, the result is a reconstruction of the lineage from the Epipaleolithic to the Early Iron Age. Some of the questions addressed include: 1) what is the deep genetic ancestry of the ‘antediluvian’ Near Eastern people, 2) where did the events reported in the Great Flood story occur, 3) where did Noah’s grandson Arphaxad live, 4) where did Abraham live before being instructed by G-d to migrate to Canaan, 5) what socio-political conditions surrounded Abraham’s migration, and 6) is there genetic evidence for the historicity of biblical genealogies involving Shem, Arphaxad, Abraham, Ishmael, and Aharon? Aharonic (Cohanim Modal Haplotype) aspects and implications of this yDNA lineage are the subject of a companion paper:https://www.academia.edu/43340967/

Sonsöz
Kulağa önemsiz gelse de, kazı yapan herkes bilir, insan kemiklerini hayvan ke- miklerinden ilk anda ayırabilmek her zaman kolay bir iş değildir. Kırık ve kü- çük kemik parçaları kazılarda topraktan çıktığında toz, toprak ve hatta çamurla kaplanmış yüzeylerinden ilk anda buluntunun ne olduğunu kestirebilmek bile zorken, hangi kemiğe ait olduklarını söylemek ancak uzun yıllarda kazanılan deneyim ve iyi bir anatomi bilgisiyle üstesinden gelinecek bir iştir. Antropolojiye gönül vermiş, arkeoloji kökenli veya diğer disiplinlerden gelen meslektaşların bu konuda zorlandıklarına şahit oldum. Çoğu sadece laboratuvarlarda ya da müze, üniversite koleksiyonlarında önlerine gelen kutularda önceden tasnif edilmiş, ve etiketlere tüm bilgileri yazılmış, temiz ve tümlenmiş örnekler üzerinde çalıştık- larından, araziye çıktıkları zaman oldukça zorlanabilmektedir. Bu nedenle özel- likle, biyolojik antropolojiyi uzmanlık alanı olarak seçen genç meslektaşlarıma tavsiyem, sadece laboratuvarda ya da kitap üzerinde kemikleri öğrenmek yerine, mümkün olduğunca arazide çalışmaları ve eğer anatomi temel bilgisini eğitim- leri sırasında almamışlarsa, bu açıklarını kısa sürede kapatmalarıdır. Ne kadar çok kemik malzeme görürler ve dokunurlarsa, o kadar fazla malzemeye aşina olacaklar ve zamanla adeta deyim yerindeyse kemikleri gözleri kapalı tanıyabi- leceklerdir. Çünkü bu işin alfabesi kemik ve diş anatomisidir. Arkeoloji öğren- cilerine ve arkeologlara ricam ise, yazımın başında da belirttiğim gibi, sonuçta bizlere getirecekleri insan kalıntılarını kazarken son derece itinalı davranmaları ve buldukları her kemik / diş buluntuyu mutlaka bize eksiksiz ulaştırmalarıdır.
Bu bölümü bitirirken son olarak, önemli gördüğüm başka bir konuya değinmek- te fayda görüyorum. Bilindiği üzere kelime anlamıyla “insan bilimi” demek olan antropoloji, insanın kültürel ve biyolojik yapısını ve özelliklerini inceler. Arkeo- loji ise özetle tanımlarsak, insan elinden çıkan seramik, mimari, alet gibi mad- di ve gelenek, görenek, inanç gibi manevi kültürleri araştırır, ortaya çıkarır ve sonuçların bir bölümünü diğer disiplinlerin de yardımıyla yorumlar. Başka bir deyişle, antropoloji insanın hem geçmişini, hem bugününü araştırır ve aydın- latmaya çalışır; arkeoloji ise geçmişini, daha iyi bir ifadeyle kültürünün tarihini araştırır. Bu nedenle, en azından Anglo-Sakson gelenek içinde arkeoloji, insanlı- ğı en geniş bakış açısıyla araştıran antropolojinin bir parçası olarak görülür. Bu bölümün ana konusunu oluşturan biyolojik antropoloji de, arkeoloji gibi antro- polojinin alt disiplinlerinden biridir. Bu nedenle bu iki disiplinin birlikte çalış- ması, verilerin değerlendirilmesi ve doğru yorumlanması açısından son derece önemlidir. Ülkemizde ne yazık ki arkeoloji ve antropoloji genel olarak birbirle- riyle ilişkisiz iki ayrı disiplin gibi görülmekte ve meslektaşlarımız birbirlerinden kopuk çalışma alanları oluşturmayı tercih etmektedirler. Arkeologların çoğu sa- dece kazı yapmayı hedeflemiş ve buna odaklanmış gibi görünürlerken, biyolojik antropologları, kazılarında buldukları insan kemiklerini inceleyen uzmanlardan biri, dolayısıyla biyolojik antropolojiyi de yalnızca arkeolojinin yardımcı bir bi- lim dalı olarak değerlendirirler. Öte yandan antropologlar da, kendi alanlarının arkeolojiyle ilgisini bütünüyle görmezden gelmekte ısrarcılar. Son yıllarda arkeo- loglar biyolojik antropolojinin önemini biraz olsun fark etmiş gibi görünüyorlar. Giderek artan sayıda arkeoloji bölümünde, antropoloji derslerinin öğretim prog- ramına dahil edildiğini sevinerek görüyoruz. Tutucu ve diğer disiplinlere kapalı bir imaj veren her iki disiplinden meslektaşlarımın, önümüzdeki dönemlerde bu kısır döngüden kurtularak, uzmanlık alanları ne olursa olsun aynı temel amaca hizmet ettiğimizi ve genelde her iki disiplinin de insanın biyolojik ve kültürel evrimini çalışmakta olduğunu hatırlaması, bu yazının da antropoloji bilimine ilgi ve sevgiyi artırması dileğiyle yazımı noktalamak isterim.

A scrutiny of the British prehistorian James Mellaart’s (1925-2012) estate in his former study in northern London, conducted on 24-27 February 2018, revealed evidence that the famous pioneer of Anatolian archaeology had fabricated translations of alleged Late Bronze Age documents from western Asia Minor over a period of many years. Scholarly disputes in which the authenticity of the material presented by James Mellaart was questioned had arisen before, above all after the publication of the Dorak Treasure in 1959 and of alleged reconstructions of wall paintings from Çatalhöyük during the years 1984 until 1999. In 1992/93, Mellaart also briefly mentioned in publications his possession of an extensive Arzawan royal annal, the so-called Beyköy Text, written in cuneiform Hittite and said to be composed around 1170 BC for the great king of Mira, Kupantakuruntas. An examination of his study produced over a thousand pages on this subject, but no material from an external source: no translations written by someone other than Mellaart, and no correspondence regarding any envisaged publication of this Beyköy Text. On the contrary, Mellaart related the research history and details of the Beyköy Text in so many different versions in his unpublished manuscripts and notes that it was obvious that he had composed these documents himself. His study even contained the tool kit for the production of the Beyköy Text, including many notes on small pieces of cardboard and rough first drafts in handwriting. In 1989, Mellaart also came forward with a number of drawings said to reflect Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions found between 1854 and 1878 in western Asia Minor. The most prominent of these would have been about 29 metres long, allegedly dated to ca. 1180 BC and also accredited to Kupantakuruntas. Mellaart’s former study did not contain earlier drafts of this drawing that would have pointed to forgery. However, a manuscript typewritten by Mellaart but accredited to the deceased Turkish archaeologist Uluğ Bahadır Alkım indicates that the British prehistorian handled this subject untruthfully as well.

This paper provides an overview of our current knowledge about the transformation towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and the Aegean, and offers a narrative for their interpretation. Within the longue durée perspective of the long revolution in the Near East, the first millennia of the Holocene of the Aegean and western Anatolia are contrasted with each other. Economic strategies, environmental conditions, technologies, raw material procurement and cultural practices in the Aegean Mesolithic and the Pre-Neolithic times in western Anatolia are analysed to classify
potential similarities and differences. The evidence of new cultural and symbolic practices, economies,
and technologies in the seventh millennium is discussed as the paradox of a short revolution embedded in a long-term process of interaction, knowledge-transfer and adaptation, setting the scene for the Neolithic pioneers establishing a new social life.

This is the manuscript version of the paper published in the volume. There are a few differences between the manuscript version and the published final version.
Please send me an e-mail or a message on academia.edu if you are interested in an offprint of this paper.

Basically Romeic Greek and Modern Greek Örfemes or Syntax Morphologies to Western Turan Anatolian Turk Language have been provided make light for further research.

In this thesis format research, based on örfemes provided one can easily interpret that 'Turk' language's presence on Anatolia is way older than what has been taught at schools as 'nomadic' Turk culture has only been
introduced to this geography after Malazkirt wat aroun 1000 after Jesus.
It shows rather a comprehensible Anatolian Nativeness that probably goes at least 7000 years back to civilized Sumer im (tablet) culture which in Modern Turk language means the first symbol.
One abstract mind could pragmatically claim that Jung has built his archtype approach based on Astrological knowledge that are found by parallels of mythological prototypes which are reflected on people through heavenly bodies and other zodiac forms. When one says ‘zaten’ in Turkish, to mean ‘already’ this is about the most possible outcome that one assumes. More simplicitely to say ‘zod’ is ‘zat’ or ‘heavenly’ in modern Turkish Language. Then Zâten comes forth what had Jung assumed having a look at in his work ‘Synchronicities’.

This chapter employs the western Anatolian Early Bronze Age (c. 3200–1950 BCE) as a case study to analyse the existence, development and persistence of social and cultural boundaries at different spatial scales, from the intra-settlement to the supra-regional contexts. The results
suggest an active process of identity building that involves individuals, communities and emerging territorial entities, a process paralleled by the formalisation of social and cultural differences.
Prominent arenas for signalling diversity and boundedness include funerary ceremonies, defensive architecture, and fortifications systems around major valleys.