Abstract
In Anatolian archaeology, as it is the case in the neighbouring regions of the Near East and Aegean, the Bronze Age is considered in three consecutive stages, however, defined not in accordance with metallurgical achievements, but on changing modalities in social and economic structures. Before the beginning of the Early Bronze Age there were fully established farming communities across almost all of Anatolia, though subsisting mainly on family-level farming with no indication of complex social structuring. Likewise, during the final stages of the Late Chalcolithic there was a notable decrease in population, particularly in Central and Western Anatolia. In this respect, the south-eastern parts of Anatolia differ considerably from the rest of the peninsula, developing a complex socio-economic model in connection with the bordering regions of Syro-Mesopotamia. This pattern changed by incoming migration from the north, with subsequent dense population patterns in the eastern and western parts of the peninsula. Following the reorganization and consolidation of this system, the Early Bronze Age is characterized by urbanisation, institutionalized long-distance trade, intensification and revolutionized agricultural and weaving practices. The urban model that developed in Anatolia differs considerably from those of the Near East both in size and in organization. The Middle Bronze Age is marked by state formations, which by the Late Bronze Age developed into empires with their own foreign policies. Concerning the role of metals, copper and lead were used since the Neolithic and arsenic bronze by the Late Chalcolithic. The Bronze Age may be viewed as a time of mass production and development of complex technologies in casting, alloying and forming.
Introduction
The Bronze Age of Anatolia, covering the third and the second millenniums bc, is conventionally considered in three successive stages running as Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Even if the sequential division of the era had been adapted from that of the chronological systems of the neighbouring regions, more or less it concords with the socio-economic evolutionary stages of Anatolia (Table 1). In an overall assessment, the Bronze Age of Anatolia may be defined as the time of changes going through successive stages taking place in rather short periods of time. Prior to the beginning of the Bronze Age, a way of living based on farming having its roots way back in the Neolithic era had already been established in almost all of the peninsula, however, as will be defined further below, the socio-economic modalities of Pre-Bronze Age farming were notably different from that of the Bronze Age; the former might be defined primarily as an endeavour to subsist, while in defining the latter the term ‘farming economy’ stands as more appropriate. Thus, with the transformation of the agricultural practices of the Neolithic era to the farming economy, it becomes possible to visualise the initial signals for hierarchic differentiation among settlements, distinguishing villages and towns. Likewise, the revolution of agricultural practices and products followed by institutionalized long-distance trade, stimulating innovative industrial merchandises and complex metallurgies, typifies the new picture of Early Bronze Age Anatolia. It is also during this period that we begin seeing definable regional centres, however, being much different from the crowded Syro-Mesopotamian towns. The Anatolian centres were more symbolic than habitational, characterized by heavy enclosure walls, monumental entrances, simple megaron-type construction, lacking in early stages palatial residences, storehouses, temples etc. This so-called Anatolian town model began changing already by the later stages of the Early Bronze Age, now incorporating distinct residences and storerooms. In this respect, the Middle Bronze Age may be defined as the emergence of regional states or kingdoms with incipient indicators of bureaucracy, militarization and regional hegemonies. It is during the Late Bronze Age that Anatolian kingdoms evolved to act as empires taking an active role in international conflicts and politics. The Early Iron Age took place following the centuries of social and economic turbulence, giving an end to the Bronze Age. Before going into the details of what has been noted, we consider it necessary to draw attention to certain issues that are of critical importance in developing a proper understanding of Anatolia.
History of Research and Conceptualizing the Term Bronze Age
Bronze Age studies in Anatolia have a long and multifarious history carried out by both foreign and Turkish archaeologists; it is not the intention of this paper to present a detailed narrative on the history of research. Instead, we shall try to make apparent how the term and the concept of Bronze Age was introduced into Anatolian archaeology. In the earlier years of the research, there were a number of biases of chronological determinations and a marked controversy between the use of Stone Age and Copper-Bronze Age. To make the long story short, at present, the term Bronze Age is being used in almost all of Turkey more or less in the same sense as in the Near East and the Aegean.
The Anatolian peninsula extends between the Aegean and the Near East, the two areas having their distinct research histories, cultural settings and terminologies; in this respect, it is justifiable to generalize that the cultural affiliations of western and eastern ends of the peninsula are different: while the former is connected with the Aegean, and the latter with the Near East, Central Anatolian plateau lies in between, being cut off from both (Özdoğan 2007). However still, it is worth noting that the cultural relations of any part of the peninsula are extremely versatile, swaying the direction of cultural affiliations considerably. The study of Bronze Age cultures, compared to neighbouring regions, was considerably delayed in both ends of the peninsula. To make a complicated narrative simple as possible, here we shall present our survey on the history of research by region.
Eastern Parts of Anatolia
Near Eastern archaeology, in its incipient years, had its main concern in Biblical lands, which hardly touched the Anatolian peninsula. Likewise, the recovery of monumental sculptures and archival documents at sites referred to in the Bible diverted interest to southern Anatolia. Most archaeological work that took place during this period in the eastern parts of Anatolia was from the Iron Age, exposing sculptural remains of Neo-Hittite citadels and Urartian monuments. It is only towards the second half of the 20th century that some interest developed on what was considered to be the northern periphery of Near Eastern cultural sphere, which might also be defined as the contact zone of Anatolia with that of the Near Eastern cultures. Excavations that took place during this period, such as those at Tell Brak, Hama, Sakçagözü, Tarsus, Gözlükule, Gedikli Karahöyük and those of the Amuq plain laid the foundation of local Bronze Age chronology of this critical zone (French & Summers 1988; Yener 1998, 2002); through time these will be the reference points to equate the Central Anatolian cultural sequence with that of the Near East.
Actually, the picture of Bronze Age research at the contact zone between Anatolia and Near East began changing with the onset of salvage excavations along the construction of dam reservoirs, firstly at Keban on the Euphrates (1968–75) and followed by several others (Özdoğan 2006). In a relatively short period of time, large-scale excavations took place at several sites in almost all of the region covering the entire span of the Bronze Age. Here it is of interest to note that, prior to the Keban Project, there was almost a consensus in considering Southeast Anatolia as a cultural periphery with no expectation of exciting archaeological discoveries. In this respect, particularly those regions lying to the north of the East Taurus range had been considered to be totally irrelevant. Actually, along the northern flanks of the East Taurus range, there is a chain of intermountain plains running east from Lake Van towards the west through Muş, Elazığ and the Malatya plains, constituting the natural route from Iran to Central Anatolia. The stimulus triggered by the findings of salvage excavations led to several non-rescue projects eventually making it possible to draw a dependable picture of the local Bronze Age. Chronological determinations and artefactual categorizations have been more or less adapted from that of Syro-Mesopotamia, though with a trace of terms devised by the Braidwoods’ for the Amuq sequence (Braidwood & Braidwood 1960; Watson 1965).
Western Parts of the Peninsula
The eastern parts of the Anatolian peninsula were more aligned to Near Eastern cultures and the other end, the western parts, may be considered a part of the Aegean realm, but the environmental and cultural setting of the both regions is more or less similar. As in the other parts of Anatolia, in the western parts, the beginning of prehistoric studies had a considerably late start. The problem in this region was partly due to the extensive presence of historic sites covering almost all habitable areas, thus making prehistoric surfaces undetectable. Moreover, the attraction of fabulous remains of late antiquity had also diverted interest from Prehistoric remains. Even though archaeological excavations at the famous site of Troy had a very early beginning in the second half of the 19th century, during those years it was considered as a Homeric town of later periods. It was only much later that Troy came to be considered as the key site of Bronze Age Anatolia and the Aegean. It was after Dörpfeld’s work at Troy that the site was understood to be not only of the Homeric period as Schliemann envisaged, but incorporated several cultural episodes. As not much was known of Early Bronze Age cultures in the earlier years, most of the habitational sequence of Troy came to be associated with various Bronze Age identities of the Aegean, including Minoan and Mycenaean cultures; in this respect the contribution of Hubert Schmidt’s catalogue should not be overlooked (Schliemann & Schmidt 1902). Carl Blegen’s works at Troy implementing new methods of documentation from 1932 onwards should be considered the initial step of a new era in the study of Bronze Age cultures of western Anatolia and the Aegean. Blegen’s solid background in Aegean cultures made it possible for the first time to contextualize the cultural sequence and related assemblages of Troy. Actually, Blegen’s main interest was the 2nd millennium bc, it seems evident that the major impetus in contextualizing earlier habitational levels, Layers I-V, to the Early Bronze Age was driven by Winifred Lamb’s involvement. Previously, Lamb had excavated the Early Bronze Age site of Thermi at Lesbos in 1929 to 1933, later occasionally joining Blegen’s team, mostly surveying for sites comparable to Thermi and finally deciding on Kusura Mound located at the contact zone of Central and Western Anatolia, which was excavated from 1936–37. It was only then that the Trojan sequence could be understood to cover the entire extent of the Bronze Age, from its earliest stage to the Iron Age transition (Gill 2000; Lamb 1932, 1936, 1937). Restricted soundings carried out at Beşiktepe and Kumtepe in 1934 have revealed for the first-time possible antecedents of Troy I culture (Koşay & Sperling 1936; Sperling 1976).
Seemingly stimulated by Blegen and Lamb, Kurt Bittel, the director of Boğazköy Project from 1931 on, also began working on the Bronze Age of Western Anatolia, firstly excavating the settlement mound of Demircihöyük in 1937. It was also during those years that tall necked spouted jars came to be known after Paul Gaudin’s 1901 excavations as the “Yortan” type, which began appearing on the antiquity market in abundance. Searching for their provenience, Kurt Bittel excavated the cemetery site of Babaköy in 1938, located in the same general area as Yortan (Turhan 1982).
We consider elucidating two, mostly overlooked, early excavations: the first is Bozhöyük, fully excavated by A. Körte in 1899 (Körte 1899), revealing a rich assemblage of artefacts from the Chalcolithic to Late Bronze Ages, and the other is Karaağaçtepe, the so-called tumulus of Protesiliaos, excavated by Robert Demangel during the French occupation of the Gelibolu (Gallipolli) Peninsula. Actually, Karaağaçtepe stands as the first fully published Bronze Age site in Turkey (Demangel 1926), which is also of importance as being the first site to reveal Thracian version of Troadic Bronze Age assemblages.
Bronze Age research in western parts of Anatolia took a new pace from 1960’s and onwards, firstly through the surface surveys of David French and James Mellaart laying the distribution pattern of Bronze Age pottery wares for the first time (French 1967, 1969; Mellaart 1954, 1978). Along with the surveys, the picture of the Western Anatolian Bronze Age was established by some short-term excavations such as Beycesultan (1954–59), Polatlı (1949) and also by collaboration between classical archaeologists and prehistorians exposing for the first time basal layers of historic sites, among them Ayasuluk Selçuk, Afrodisias, Bayraklı (ancient Smyrna), Miletos, Müskebi, Larissa, Klazomenai, Dedecik-Heybelitepe Metropolis and Ergili Daskyleion (Günel 1999, 2018; Parzinger 1989; Mee 1978; Hertel 2011; Chabot 1994; Erkanal & Erkanal 1983; Joukowsky 1985). Korfmann’s resumed work at previously excavated sites Demircihöyük, Troy, Beşiktepe and Kumtepe made it possible not only to introduce new prospects but also to secure the absolute chronology of the entire region (Korfmann 2003, 2004). At present, large-scale excavations at several sites such as Maydoskale, Beycesultan, Küllüoba, Seyitömer, Hacılar Büyüktepe, Tepecik Çine, Çukuriçi, Limantepe are already creating a new picture of the Bronze Age (Fidan 2018; Sarı 2013; Şahoğlu 2019).
Central Anatolia
Bronze Age research in the region of the Central Anatolian plateau developed independently of what we have noted above. In earlier years, Boğazköy, with its sculptured reliefs, was the main focus of interest. Though initially associated with late antique periods, systematic excavations were initiated by Kurt Bittel in 1931. In the southern parts of the plateau, the recovery of large numbers of cuneiform tablets through field ploughing had placed Kültepe in the centre of interest, Hrozny’s initial excavations at the site in 1925 exposing the remains of Kanish Karum, enabling the decipherment of Hittite script which had been one of the main turning points in the history of study of 2nd millennium Central Anatolian plateau.
Actual archaeological work on the prehistoric cultures of Central Anatolia was triggered by Ankara becoming the capital of the newly founded Turkish Republic in 1923, soon promoting several research projects in the region, among them were the extensive excavations at Alişar and Alacahöyük. Alişar, one of the biggest settlement mounds in Central Anatolia, was excavated by H.H von der Osten and by Eric Schmidt between 1927–32. Likewise, work at Alacahöyük was initiated by Remzi Oğuz Arık in 1935 and continued by Hamit Zübeyir Koşay from 1936 and thereafter. Along with these two main excavations, several other sites were also excavated in varying scales such as Karaoğlan in 1938–41, Etiyokuşu in 1937, and Gavurkale in 1930. During those years, two surface surveys, one by Martin Schede in 1929 and another by von der Osten also in 1929 provided the initial knowledge on this previously undocumented territory (Osten 1929, Bauer 2020). In designing the chronological sequence, lack of comparable material either from Near East or from the Aegean stood as the major problem; the 21 meters deep sounding of Alişar was taken as the main reference point, however, with strong controversies in defining even relative chronological positions of layers earlier than the late Early Bronze Age (Özdoğan 1996). It is of interest to note that Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age layers were denominated as the “Copper Age”. In this respect, the impact of Central European School of Archaeology, mainly that of Hungary, is clearly evident. The term Copper Age was suggested for Late Prehistoric cultures with poor yield of metal objects, particularly of bronze. During the period before the Second World War, along with the term Copper Age, a more controversial term “Stone Age with Copper” was also used, in contexts where copper featured only in small amounts (Arık 1948). The usage of the term Bronze Age for Central Anatolia came into use after the recovery of rich graves at Alacahöyük. Later, in line with rich finds of Alacahöyük, several other rich cemetery sites were also exposed, among them Horoztepe, Mahmatlar and Hasanoğlan. In later years, Bronze Age chronology was mainly set by work at sites including Polatlı, Gordion, Konya Karahöyük, Maşat Höyük, Ortaköy etc. At present, along with the major excavations at Boğazköy, Alacahöyük, Kültepe, Acemhöyük and Kaman Kalehöyük, several other field projects have more or less consolidated sequencing and cultural affiliations, though still having considerable controversy on the transition from the Chalcolithic to Bronze Age (Bertram & Ilgezdi-Bertram 2021; Matsumura 2020; Orthmann 1963; Steadman 2011).
Here we have tried to present some introductory notes on the state of early research; evidently not only priorities of research but also its modalities have gone through radical changes through time, contextualizing the Anatolian peninsula in a wide array of approaches. The pace of research has been increasing steadily, extensive surface surveys and excavation projects taking place along with various archaeometric prospections, allowing for a complete and detailed revision of Bronze Age Anatolia and its connections with other regions (Fig. 1). There have been several works covering the Bronze Age cultures of Anatolia, each with its particular approach. However, the inflow of new evidence has been so intense that in only a few years each of them became outdated (Akurgal 1961; Alkım 1968; Bittel 1942; Harmankaya & Erdoğu 2002; Joukowsky 1996; Korfmann et al. 1994; Lloyd 1956, 1967; Özgüç 1948; Özyar 2014; Sagona & Zimansky 2009; Turhan 1982; Yakar 1985, 1991). Here, we shall not attempt to present a summary of recent findings, instead we shall restrict the discussion to drawing attention to certain entities that we consider important. Even though our present understanding of Bronze Age Anatolia is incomparably better than before, there are still several lacunae in our knowledge, but at least we are now able to formulate suitable questions based on concrete evidence.
Setting of the Stage – Pre-Bronze Age Anatolia in Retrospect
Growing interest in the Neolithic cultures of Anatolia have made it possible to define, more or less securely, how the way of living based on sedentary food producing emerged, developed and consolidated. It is now evident that it took over three thousand years for the foraging communities of the primary core area of neolithization to become farmers in the true sense of the term, at around 7400 bc. The gradual introduction of pottery vessels by that time marks both the turn of the Pre-Pottery (ppn) to Pottery Neolithic and the time of the so-called Neolithic collapse, the latter leading to massive emigration, farmers taking with them primary components of the Neolithic package. The dispersal of Neolithic way of living, mostly through endemic movements of farmers and to a lesser extent by cultural interaction, had lasted until about 5600 bc, eventually covering almost all of the Anatolian peninsula. Consequent to this movement, hundreds of new settlements were founded by immigrant farmers settling either in territories void of previous habitation or in areas that were already inhabited by various fishing and foraging communities. The settlers were primarily farmers, however, in the areas where local Mesolithic communities merged with the immigrant farmers, a mixed subsistence economy developed, and farming was accompanied by hunting, fishing and mollusc collecting (Özdoğan 2019). At the present stage of our knowledge, it is not possible to make demographic assessments with the available absolute dates, as it is impossible to say how many of these settlements existed at the same time or whether all buildings recovered were in use contemporarily. Nevertheless, by about 5600 bc, there were hundreds of newly established settlements all over Anatolia with the exception of the Black Sea littoral. Through surface surveys, it is possible to categorise settlements as large or small – but still categorising them as “villages, hamlets, farmsteads or towns” is not justifiable. Such categorisation seems to appear only later by the Early Bronze Age, prior to that time settlements should be considered simply as settlements. In this respect, there had been previous discussions whether the size of the settlement or the monumentality of structures should be taken as a criterion to make a distinction among settlements as villages or towns. The first recovery of a monumental Neolithic structure was the famous tower of Jericho, influencing Kenyon to publish the site “as a Neolithic town” (Kenyon 1953, 1957) which led to a fierce discussion with Braidwood (Braidwood 1957); almost a similar connotation had been used by Mellaart for Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1965). Here we want to stress that hierarchical categorisation of settlements is not due either to monumentality or demography. For all its monumental remains, it is not possible to consider Göbeklitepe, for example, a town, even if there are standing stones over 5 meters in height.
On the other hand, settlements that had been deeply rooted in the primary core area of neolithization have to be considered differently from those in the newly settled territories. In South-Eastern Anatolia, the primary Neolithic core zone of Upper Euphrates-Upper Tigris, some of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites had been deserted with the “Neolithic collapse”, others shifted their location, though those particularly in arable zones continued to exist. The social turbulence of the Neolithic collapse seems to have lasted for about 400 years. By the latest stage of the Neolithic period, the Halafian era of that region, there is again a marked increase both in the number and in the size of settlements, particularly along the Euphrates basin. Throughout the Chalcolithic period in conjunction with surplus economic model of Syro-Mesopotamia, settlement patterns of South-Eastern Anatolia also start changing, making it possible to distinguish villages, towns, market towns and colonies towards the end of Ubaid phase. However still, it is by the later stages of the Uruk period that the Syro-Mesopotamian towns attained new modalities so that they can now be actually defined as being, “urban centres” (Algaze et al. 2021; Oates 2014). In regions further to the north, particularly in the intermountain plains north of the East Taurus range, a new socio-economic model began emerging, setting the incipient form of “Anatolian town model” of the Bronze Age to come (Frangipane 2012a; Frangipane & Palmieri 1987). This is best witnessed at Arslantepe, with the emergence of a local kingdom developing a palatial system instead of the temple-based systems of Syro-Mesopotamia (Frangipane 1993, 1997). The storage of hundreds of seal impressions and metal objects of complex technology clearly draw a picture of local rulers being in control over raw materials, their production, consumption and trade (Frangipane 2018; Palumbi et al. 2017). An almost identical situation is present at Tülintepe, at Altınova plain in Elazığ (Özdoğan 2020). As will be further elaborated below, the 4th millennium Arslantepe palace-based urban model by all its parameters differs from that of Syro-Mesopotamia. What has been exposed at Arslantepe at such an early date will, with some modifications, be the base of 3rd and 2nd millennium Bronze Age Anatolian towns and urban centres.
In the other core area, the eastern part of Central Anatolia, the apparent picture is rather different from that of the southeast, as best evidenced at Aşıklı and Çatalhöyük. Even though both Southeast and Central Anatolian communities were fully sedentary before becoming food producing farmers, there is a marked difference in the social structuring of the two regions. While social stratification characterizes Neolithic settlements of Southeast Anatolia, those of Central Anatolia present a clear picture of horizontal social structuring, though neither region has any indication of an economy based on surplus production. Nevertheless, from the 7th millennium, settlements of Central Anatolia, both those in the primary core area of neolithization and those in the newly developing secondary core areas further to the west, will feature as modest settlements of farming communities bearing similar traits to each other.
With the exception of Southeast Anatolia which had strong connectivity with Syro-Mesopotamia, modalities of settled life in other parts of the peninsula, as present during the Neolithic, were sustained without any major changes all the way up to the Late Chalcolithic period. Through the Late Chalcolithic period, roughly after 4000 bc, due to reasons that are not very clear, there is a marked change in settlement patterns of Western and Central Anatolia. While the number of settlements along the alluvial plains was decreasing, there seems to have been a relative increase on elevated plateaus, actually several areas being inhabited for the first time. Whether this change is due to adverse climatic conditions for farming, stimulus from semi-nomadic animal husbandry, or to some sort of social turbulence is not clear. Nevertheless, in the 4th millennium, Eastern Thrace was almost devoid of settlements; it seems evident that the Istranca Mountains, separating northern and eastern Thrace, acted as a strict cultural border during that period. At the time when there was almost no traceable archaeological evidence of any habitation in Eastern Thrace, a remarkable cultural activity was taking place in regions further to the north, highlighted by the flourishing Gumelnitsa-Cucuteni cultures. It is very remarkable that none of these cultures either extended or penetrated into Eastern Thrace (Özdoğan 2002).
Likewise, as will be further exemplified below, the eastern impact through Obeid and Uruk periods reached as far west as Central Anatolia, and did not extend eastwards beyond this region. On the other hand, while land connection through Thrace was cut off, there seemed to have been a maritime interaction taking place between Anatolia and South-Eastern Europe through the Black Sea. Even though archaeological investigations along the Black Sea coastline of Anatolia are extremely sporadic, there are some artefacts illustrating circum-Pontic connections; some finds from basal layers of İkiztepe and the famous “Trabzon” hoard are worth noting (Ivanova 2013; Lichter 2008; Rudolph 1977); however still, the need for further research is evident (Welton 2017).
On the other side, along the eastern parts of Anatolian peninsula, there is some evidence suggestive of expanding policies of newly emerging states towards Central and Western Anatolia. In this respect, the presence of Central Anatolian types of pottery among Uruk contexts both at Arslantepe and Tepecik had been discussed on several occasions (Esin 1982). Likewise, during the same time span, newly developing Syro-Mesopotamian centres were opening to other regions, or rather testing for possibilities of new trade partners in control of raw materials. Indicators of eastern expansion towards central parts of the peninsula is best evidenced at sites such as Yumuktepe (Caneva et al. 2012), Fraktin (Özgüç 1956) and at Güvercinkayası (Demirtaş 2018; Gülçur 1997).
Accordingly, in an overall assessment, it is possible to make following generalisations for the period before the beginning of Early Bronze Age:
- –farming communities are clearly established all over the peninsula
- –by the latest stages of the 4th millennium there is a clear depopulation and change of settlement locations in the central and the western parts of the peninsula
- –all settlements in Eastern Thrace came to an end during the 4th millennium, the region possibly being invaded by pastoral herders
- –Southeast Anatolia had developed a system in accordance with the surplus economic model of Syro-Mesopotamia, however, with certain features of its own such as a palatial economy. Strict control of natural sources developed alongside complex technologies, especially metallurgy, clearly demonstrating the trajectory towards metal alloys, or to arsenic bronze (Esin 1981; Yalçın & Özbal 2009a)
Early Bronze Age as the Time of Change
In general terms, we find it justifiable to repeat Andrew Sherratt’s definition of the Early Bronze Age as a time of change (Sherratt 1993, 2004). As already noted above, by the final stages of Late Chalcolithic, the end of 4th millennium bc, while there is a marked decrease in the population of Central and Western Anatolia, the momentum of change and the pace of cultural innovativeness were almost at a standstill, even though the incipient form of Anatolian town model had already begun emerging in the south-eastern regions. Accordingly, by the very end of the Late Chalcolithic, the Anatolian peninsula can be considered as two distinct socio-economic models, a flourishing palatial system developing in the east and a rural way of living with low-level of momentum in the west. However, the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age is clearly marked by an almost sudden population build-up both in the northeast and northwest parts of Anatolia. This almost sudden demographic build-up is mostly explained by the massive immigration of Kura-Aras communities entering Anatolia from the northeast and their dispersal, covering most of East Anatolia. The developments in this region and their chronology have been extensively studied for decades (Bertram 2005; Sagona 2011). This culture, conventionally addressed in the archaeological literature as the Kura-Aras communities, in Turkish literature is mostly referred to as Karaz culture after the type site in Erzurum region, being defined firstly by Koşay (Koşay 1948). Since then, there has been several excavations and surveys featuring various aspects of this culture. Black and red burnished pottery with occasional relief decoration, horseshoe shaped andirons, pressure flaked obsidian and flint arrow points have all been taken as the most diagnostic indicators of this culture (Fig. 1) (Amiran 1965; Burney & Lamb 1971; Işıklı & Köse 2019; Palumbi 2003, Palumbi & Chataigner 2014; Yalçın 2011; Yalçın & Yalçın 2009). Since 1968, with the onset of dam reservoir rescue excavations, tens of settlements of this culture have been excavated, some fully-published, making it possible to define regional variants. Even though there have been some cemetery sites such as that of Ernis exposed in earlier years (Burney 1958), during recent years, there has been more extensive work on burial customs. Among the recent findings, it is of interest to note that along with simple inhumations and pithos burials, there also some kurgan-type cemeteries, as well as royal burials as known from Arslantepe (Frangipane 1998, 2000). The intrusion of Kura-Aras communities seems to have covered the entire part of Eastern Anatolia all the way up to the line of East Taurus range. The expansion of the Kura-Aras people seems to have stopped by the arc of the East Taurus range. However, to the north of this line, almost all-over Eastern Anatolia, from the end of Early Bronze Age I, hundreds of settlements of this culture have been plotted, pointing to a rather notable demographic explosion (Fig. 2). Even though there are no clearly detectable settlements of this culture to the south of the East Taurus range, the sporadic presence of their typical red-black burnished pottery in the areas further to the south down to the Syrian flatlands indicates some sort of infiltration, possibly as workers. Nevertheless, in regions within the arc of the East Taurus range, local Early Bronze Age cultures that are akin to those of Northern Syria continued on without being influenced by what was happening on the other side of the mountains.
On the other hand, besides the problems related to the expansion of the Kura-Aras groups, there are other indications of some sort of an ethnic heterogeneity across the region, suggesting that Southeast Anatolia had been a region of socio-economic pull. In this respect, extensive excavations of burial grounds such as that of Gedikli-Karahöyük and Bilecik, in the region of southern flatlands, present a mix of burial customs ranging from cremation, cist grave in simple inhumation, pithos burials as well as chamber tombs – all in the same cemetery contemporary to each other. Here we feel justified to consider these cemeteries as signifying the coming of communities of distinct cultural traditions living together, being fully adopted to the local culture (Duru 2006, 2010; Laneri 1999; Sertok & Ergeç 1999).
Yet another phenomenon of Kura-Aras migration is its infiltration southwards through the Amanos Mountains going as far south as Palestine, bringing with them their easily recognisable hand-made red-black burnished pottery wares and the typical andirons (Amiran 1989), locally named after the type-site of Khirbet Kerak (Bethyrah) (Amiran 1952; Greenberg 2007). Nevertheless, it is also of interest to note that this migrating community following the mountain range did not penetrate into the alluvial flatlands until reaching Palestine. Yet another seemingly related phenomenon is the megalithic burials which have been extensively documented in various parts of the Caucasus, considered to be of the Bronze Age. The presence of dolmen-like megalith burials had been known to exist in Northeast Anatolia for many years (Yükmen 2003), more recently several other similar burials have also been noted along the southern migration pathway of Kura-Aras – Khirbet Kerak groups at Adıyaman (Yükmen 2001) and as well on the mountain ranges along the Mediterranean (Harsfield 1933; Turville-Petre 1931; De Vaux 1966).
As a result of the invasion of Kura-Aras groups, the palatial centres of the Late Chalcolithic era came to an end, among them Arslantepe. This should not be considered only as the collapse of the sophisticated palatial system, but more significantly as the domination of these communities in the exploitation of raw materials and their manufacture, to be used as trading commodities. After this collapse, Syro-Mesopotamian communities that were in desperate need of all sorts of raw materials and lacking natural resources turned their sphere of interest to the western parts of Anatolia, as evidenced at Yumuktepe, Güvercinkayası or Fraktin, all located at the contact zone of Central Anatolia with the Southeast (Gülçur et al. 2018). As will be further detailed below, growing demand for Syro-Mesopotamian raw materials and consumable products began having serious consequences in Anatolia already by the early stages of the Early Bronze Age, accustoming the Anatolian economic system to that of Syro-Mesopotamia.
The coming of the Kura-Aras groups seems to have caused some sort of chaos. Though lasting only for a short period of time, stable conditions by the Early Bronze Age ii made it possible to establish several new settlements in almost all of Eastern Anatolia. The so-called settlements of Karaz type are based on dry-farming and herding, though lacking the social complexity of an elite ruling class. Almost all settlements of this era reflect the circular layout of the typical Anatolian town model as best attested at Pulur-Sakyol (Fig. 12). Even though there are sporadic findings of copper and bronze artefacts, there is no evidence of extensive metallurgical activity taking place in the region.
Nevertheless, particularly at sites along the northern foothills of the East Taurus range, such as those in the Malatya and Elazığ-Altınova plains, the presence of pottery of Syrian origin indicates the reestablishment of some sort of contact between the two regions. Among the southern imports, most notable are the wheel-made plain or reserved-slipped vessels and the so-called “metallic wares” of Akkadian era that increase in number through time. It is by the later stages of the Early Bronze Age that palatial complexes began reappearing in the region, most extensively exposed at Norşuntepe and Korucutepe (Fig. 3). The region, throughout the 2nd millennium, seems to have been ruled by small local kingdoms, which were vassal or confederate partners to powers of Central Anatolia and Syro-Mesopotamia, for a time being also ruled by the semi-autonomous kingdom of Isuwa.
North-Western Anatolia
As will be further detailed, an almost sudden increase in population, best traceable in surface surveys, has been noted and defined for decades (Fig. 15), however, with no consensus either for its origin or scope. Recent rescue excavations within the urban area of İstanbul at Beşiktaş have exposed an extensive cemetery with kurgan type of burial mounds, some cremated, others as simple inhumations mostly placed in cist graves, clearly indicating massive movement originating from the northern Balkans.1 The coming of migrant groups must have lasted at least 200 years, but was not clearly manifested in other parts of Thrace. Nevertheless, by the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age, as indicated by surface surveys, there are hundreds of newly founded settlements over Western and West-central Anatolia (Günel 2003; Korfmann et al. 1994; Şahoğlu 2005). Interestingly, they all seem to share more or less similar cultural traits such as the circular town model of Anatolia, hand-made dark-brown or black burnished pottery, open bowls, either with thickened lips of incurved profiles, and horizontal tubular lugs. It is also during this period that the tall-necked “beak spouted” jars, that will develop into more complex shapes during later stages, also began appearing (Fig. 4).
The settlements of the Early Bronze Age I are similar to each other in general terms. Different from the sites of earlier eras, the newly founded settlements display certain features such as the encircling walls that can be considered as forerunners of the later Anatolian towns. It is possible to follow the growth of central settlements, some with palatial residences and extensive storage facilities, as best exemplified by Seyitömer and Küllüoba. During the second half of the Early Bronze Age, the pottery assemblage of the region is characterized by tall-necked, exaggerated beak spouted jars and specific forms such as the so-called depas, double handed tancards that began appearing together with gradually increasing number of red-slipped and burnished wares. Wheel-made products, mainly plain dishes, also began appearing during this period. Nevertheless, based on the wide range of ceramic forms and to a lesser degree on the decoration, several local assemblages such as “Yortan” have been identified and scrupulously defined. A maritime Early Bronze Age culture of interaction has been suggested, including inland clusters based on coastal settlement such as Troy, Limantepe and those located on islands along the coastal shelf such as Poliochni, Thermi and Samos (Şahoğlu 2008).
Central Anatolia
Compared to what was taking place on the eastern and western parts of the peninsula, our knowledge on the earlier stages of Early Bronze Age of Central Anatolia, due to the lack of absolute dates, remained indistinct until rather recently; controversies were related not only to the interpretation of cultural processes, but more to the relative dating of the assemblages (Özdoğan 1996). Only after the commencement of new field projects, such as Çadırhöyük, Karaoğlan, Dereboyu, Kaman Kalehöyük, and resumed work at Alacahöyük and others, it became possible to define chronological position of the cultural assemblages. Likewise, materials from previously excavated sites have been meticulously reassessed and arranged into the newly devised chronological framework (Bertram & Ilgezdi-Bertram 2021). Overall, Central Anatolia seems to have been an independent entity up to the second half of the Early Bronze Age, having sporadic connections with both the eastern and western parts of the peninsula.
Defining the western limits of Kura-Aras migration in the early stages of the Bronze Age has always been a controversial issue. The dominant presence of burnished black and red wares in the northern parts of Central Anatolia, as best known from Alacahöyük, has occasionally been considered as an extension of Kura-Aras migration going westwards along the Pontic Mountains. In this respect, the presence of a megalithic monument in the mountainous region of the Central Black Sea has also been considered in relation to Caucasian megaliths (Bostancı 1952). A connection of the royal burials of Alacahöyük with the kurgan burial tradition of northern Caucasia has occasionally been suggested, mainly due to the wooden construction of the burial chambers and to the stylistic affiliations of the so-called standards (Sagona 2004; Winn 1974). Actually, the use of the same deserted settlement mounds as kurgan-type hillocks for royal burials has also been suggested for the Arslantepe and Başurhöyük burials (Frangipane 1998; Laneri 2020; Sağlamtimur 2019). Apart from these potential connections, all of the burials evince a high level of metallurgical advancement, not only in making alloys but also in inlays and in casting. In this respect, Alacahöyük is not the only site in Central Anatolia; several sites in the region, including Horoztepe and Hasaoğlan, have revealed a rich variety of similar findings. Recent work at the copper mining site of Derekutugun has made it possible to further detail the role of metallurgy in this region (Yalçın & Maass 2013). Whether the apparent richness of elaborate metal finds in the northern section of Central Anatolia is due to their proximity to sources of metals or a misleading picture drawn by uneven distribution of fieldwork, is difficult to answer.
Driving Forces of Anatolian Early Bronze Age: an Overview
Along with the distinct cultural formations taking place in different parts of the peninsula, there are some other important entities that are apparently shared across almost the entire peninsula. Most of these are novelties of the Early Bronze Age that led to an almost sudden economic revival, laying the basis for bureaucracy, state formation and intensive long-distance trade that defined the socio-economic framework of the peninsula at the end of the Early Bronze Age. These can be summarised as follows (Sherratt 1986):
- 1.Textile Industry: Weaving had been in practice since the Pre-Pottery Neolithic times, primarily working with linen. By the earliest stages of the Early Bronze Age, there is a boom of textile industry almost all over Anatolia and Thrace, triggered by the introduction of woolly sheep. The widespread implementation of textile production is manifested by the extensive presence of all sorts of weaving tools, spindle whorls, loom weights and various bone weaving tools (Fig. 5.) It seems evident that developments in weaving technologies stimulated textile production to become an industry and an asset to export. Thus, woolly products can justifiably be considered to be one of the main components of the Anatolian Bronze Age economy (Britsch 2018; Frangipane et al 2019; Laurito 2010, 2012; Maner 2018; Richmond 2006).
- 2.Industrial Plants- Grape and Olive: It is evident that several new plants of potential economic value were introduced by the Early Bronze Age, becoming the driving forces of the Anatolian economy (Sherratt 1999). Even though the origin of grape domestication is still vague, it is clear that towards the Early Bronze Age grape plantations became widespread in several parts of Anatolia, particularly at limestone areas bordering Syro-Mesopotamia, the regions not convenient for cereal farming. By the last stages of the Early Bronze Age, large and relatively crowded centres such as Titriş Höyük had already developed in such areas (Lordkipanidze 2017; Miller 2008). Wine production and social consumption must have already become habitual by Early Bronze Age ii; ceremonial or prestigious drinking cups such as the “depas” and two-handled tankards became widespread across most of Anatolia (Fig. 6), the Aegean and the Balkans (Mellink 1998; Stefanova 2004; Spanos 1972; Şahoğlu 2005, 2008). Evidently, an industry based on wine production emerged and developed very quickly and became one of the main assets of Anatolian export economy.
The origin of olives and the exact timing of its widespread consumption is likewise debated (Gürbüz-Veral et al. 2018, Runnels & Hansen 1986; Ulaş & Fiorentino 2010), nevertheless by the 2nd millennium olive oil also became one of the prime assets of local economy (Hoffner 1995).
- 3.Developments in Agricultural Technologies: until the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, farming was practiced more or less as it had been during the Neolithic period. It seems evident that both the pressure from the growing population and unfavourable climatic conditions of the 3rd millennium necessitated ameliorated agricultural productivity. The plough most probably first appeared by the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to be driven by oxen, intensifying cereal production (Sherratt 1981, 1983). The invention of ox driven threshing sledge must have been an eventual solution to overcome problems in processing massive amounts of products. The invention of threshing sledges necessitated a special form of flint blade to be set into cutting surface of the sledges, leading to the mass-production of the so-called Cananean Blades in the Levant and Southeast Anatolia (Anderson 1994, Anderson et al. 2004) (Fig. 7).
- 4.Domestication of Horses: As already extensively noted above, it is clear that the local Anatolian wild horse was domesticated in the earlier stages of the Early Bronze Age as illustrated by long-distance caravan trade already reaching Eastern Thrace by 2400 bc (Fig. 8)
- 5.Potter’s Wheel: Even though the potter’s wheel had been invented and used in Mesopotamia during the Late Chalcolithic, it was introduced to Anatolia somewhat later in an uneven pattern, mostly related to the pattern of urbanization, necessitating mass production of vessels of standard capacity (Bombardieri 2004). Rather interestingly, open dish-like plates, evidently used in feasting, are among the earliest wheel-shaped forms (Fig. 9).
To conclude this section, going back to Sherratt’s ‘time of change’ concept, what we have briefly mentioned above sets the picture of insignificant farming communities with extremely low momentum of change and innovativeness in the Pre-Bronze Age times, becoming ready to take part in international politics and economic activities (Greenfield, 2010). This is not only due to technological and economic innovations as listed above but also due to the reordering of the social system with clear indicators of a ruling elite laying the basis for the emergence of Middle Bronze Age local kingdoms (Efe et al. 2007). Nevertheless, compared to what has taken place in contemporary Syro-Mesopotamia, the domineering role of clergy or temples, army and bureaucracy still do not stand as apparent entities even at the final stages of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age.
Manifesting Selected Indicators of the Anatolian Bronze Age
Here we shall try to point to some issues that characterize the Bronze Age of Anatolia in general terms. Evidently, several other components may easily be added to this list; we consider the following as the bridging elements between the earlier and later phases of the Bronze Age.
The Anatolian Town Model
It is customary to associate the Early Bronze Age with the process of urbanisation when habitation sites of the Near East became urban centres laying the basis of state formation. This process is particularly apparent in Syro-Mesopotamia, where towns located in the southern flatlands inhabited by tens of thousands of people reached to over a square kilometre in size. It is misleading to consider the Syro-Mesopotamian urban structures only by their size and demography, as they are actually characterized by the complexity of their social and administrative structures. A typical feature of Syro-Mesopotamian towns are the extensive compounds attached to the temples that go beyond sacrificial practices, incorporating workshops, storage facilities and complex bureaucracies. In this respect, the temple compound and the defence system became the imposing monumental landmarks of these towns. In Anatolia, however, even though there are no such urban centres throughout the Early Bronze Age, there is still a significant change in the status of settlements. Newly emerging regional centres attaining new features that distinguish them from other settlements that may now be justifiably named villages. Thus, the socially undifferentiated settlements of Neolithic origin began changing during the 3rd millennium, however, in a totally different modality from those of Syro-Mesopotamia. In this respect, whether the Anatolian towns should also be denominated “urban centres” is an open-ended question. The “Anatolian Town Model” that will be further discussed below, implies more an administrative, ceremonial and symbolic centre rather than a settlement purely designed to hold crowded populations. Actually, this system continued up to the Late Bronze Age, as best exemplified at the Hittite capital town of Boğazköy, covering vast areas with temples, temple compounds, palaces, storage buildings, workshops, etc without the expected crowding of urban settings. The normal inhabitants in Anatolian towns lived outside of the city walls coming into the walled city when needed (Seeher 2006; Özdoğan 2011).
Considering the modalities of Near Eastern and Anatolian settlements using the same criteria has led to biases of overlooking the diversity of the driving forces of the two distinct urban models (Çevik 2007). It should not be ignored that there are radical differences in the socio-economic systems of Syro-Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In regions lying to the south of Anatolia, there is a high risk of drought, making irrigated farming vital for survival. In those regions, the topographical setup along the Euphrates and its tributaries provides optimum conditions for irrigated farming (Fig. 10). Irrigated farming, when executed properly, provides at least eight times more produce than dry farming, which is much more than the requirement of an extended family, and thus becomes the basis of the surplus economy (Bagg 2012; Hunt 1995; Wilkinson 1998, 2010). On the other hand, irrigated farming requires extensive manpower not only for the cultivation and processing the harvest but for the execution and maintenance of water channels. The extensive labour-based subsistence system began during the earlier stages of the Chalcolithic by utilizing seasonal workers. Through time these workers became a permanent working force settling not only in rural areas but also in urban centres. Thus, by the later stages of the Chalcolithic, Syro-Mesopotamian towns turned into major crowded urban centres with workers’ quarters, industrial and storage areas and other facilities (Castel & Peltenburg 2007; Oates 2014; Rothman 2004). It should be also considered that Syro-Mesopotamia is in general terms a region extremely devoid of natural resources. The surplus agricultural products supplied by irrigated farming became an asset of vital importance in view of the need for all sorts of resources lacking in Syro-Mesopotamia. Accordingly, surplus products led to a surplus economy triggering institutionalised commercial activities under strict control. The initial signals of the surplus economy had already been visible by the Obeid era, featuring highly organised systematic trade, which necessitated not only bureaucracy but also sustained security of the trade routes.
The picture of Near Eastern system is that of a highly stratified social ordering through time leading to state formation in full control of trade, industry and production (Oates & Oates 2004). The sustainability of Syro-Mesopotamian economic system necessitated continuous flow of imports, maintenance of security along trading routes and the managing of complex technologies for export commodities. Neighbouring regions of Anatolia, rich in all sorts of natural products and raw materials, had been the main trading partner of Syro-Mesopotamian system from the Obeid period onwards. The modalities of the trading system between the two regions during the Obeid Period is not very clear yet, but the presence of a trade-colony type of settlements in various parts of South-Eastern Turkey, such as Değirmentepe, should be considered highly indicative of institutionalized commerce. Among the significant findings of Değirmentepe is a tripartite cult building of a smaller version of Mesopotamian temples and extensive presence of seal impressions, clearly showing not only commercial relations but an active interaction through the movement of people (Esin 1989, 1994); likewise, the presence of imported Obeid pottery at several sites, including Norşuntepe, Tülintepe and İmamoğlu is also indicative of the intensity of interregional relations. There is far more solid evidence from the following stage, the Uruk Period, allowing one to detail the mechanism of the trade system between the north and the south as best evidenced at Arslantepe and Tepecik. During that period, Southeast Anatolia became the main trade partner of newly emerging Syro-Mesopotamian centres. The palatial compound of Arslantepe incorporated not only palatial residential areas, temples, a ceremonial throne room but also several storage rooms and a special archive room with hundreds of seal impressions, demonstrating a very bureaucratic and accounting-driven system ran by kings or nobles and not by the clergy as in the Syro-Mesopotamia (Frangipane 2011). Due to the excellent state of preservation and also to the extent of the exposed area, Arslantepe has provided the clearest picture of the administrative system that developed on the northern flanks of the Taurus range (Balossi- Restelli 2019; Frangipane 2002, 2012a). It is evident that the growing demand of centres developing in semiarid regions of Syria triggered economic and social development in the north. However, it is also significant that the interaction among the two regions was not based on export of unworked metal ores or other natural sources. On the contrary, as best evinced among the finds recovered at Arslantepe Palace, the local communities had mastered the exploitation of all sorts of raw metals and minerals and developed complex technologies in manufacturing artefacts and commodities. In this respect, it is also of interest to note that these local communities, along with exploiting metal sources in their close vicinity, also developed relations to procure other types of metals such as arsenic copper and tin from other parts of Eastern Anatolia. The complex level of metal working is best exemplified by swords of arsenic copper with tin coating found at Arslantepe and Tülintepe (Esin 1981; Hauptmann et al. 2000; Palmieri et al. 1993, et al. 1999; Yalçın & Özbal 2009a, Yalçın & Yalçın 2009b). It is justifiably clear that at Arslantepe, the local ruling class had a strict control over all sorts of commodities and raw materials, developing a trade system based on a record-keeping system, replacing the simple bartering of earlier eras. As apparent from the palatial complex exposed at Arslantepe, communities living in the intermountain plains north of the East Taurus range were highly institutionalized but in a different way from those of Syro-Mesopotamia. All excavated towns on the northern side of the Taurus range are considerably smaller than those in the south, having no imposing buildings, domineering temples, and areas reserved for workers. On the contrary, what is evident at Arslantepe as being notably different from southern cities is that the temple is a part of the palace complex and not an independent entity. In this respect, Arslantepe justifiably sets out the original modalities of Anatolian town model (Fig.11; Table 2).
The flourishing palatial system of Arslantepe, and evidently of all other centres of the region, came to an abrupt end by the turn of the 4th to 3rd millennium through the massive intrusion of Kura-Aras people entering the Anatolian peninsula from the northeast, from Caucasia. The intrusion of Kura-Aras groups and its consequences will be detailed later in the paper; here we shall only note that in a relatively short period of time they covered almost all of Eastern Anatolia putting an end to the palatial ruling system (Frangipane 2012b). Even though most settlements continued, albeit some after a short break, there is now very little evidence of technological innovations taking place in the northern side of the East-Taurus range (Zimmermann 2021). The collapse of palatial system in Southeast Anatolia almost forced Syro-Mesopotamia to look for new partners in the western parts of Anatolian peninsula. By the advanced stage of the Early Bronze Age, the impact of Syro-Mesopotamian trade became apparent in almost all of Central- and Western Anatolia well as in the Aegean.
As briefly noted above, the incipient form of the Bronze Age “Anatolian Town Model” was set at Arslantepe during the later phases of the 4th millennium. Accordingly, we shall try presenting certain features of the Anatolian town model that differs considerably from that of the Near East (Bachhuber 2015; Eraslan 2008; Özdoğan 2011). Most of Anatolian peninsula lies in dry-farming belt with very low risk of extended droughts and even then there are other environmental possibilities enabling sustenance; accordingly, irrigated farming was not a necessity in Anatolia. As noted previously, up to the end of 4th millennium in almost all of Anatolia, farming was practiced at a family level in a self-sufficient way with no need either for surplus production or for extra labour. In this respect, Pre-Bronze Age agricultural practices of Anatolia may be considered under the term “low-level farming”. However, from the Early Bronze Age on this low-level farming system was replaced by intensive farming.
Firstly, Anatolian towns are incomparably smaller and less populated than Near Eastern urban centres, simply because Anatolian economy was not dependent on irrigated farming, and thus there was no need to have large labour forces (Frangipane & Palmieri 1987; Wilkinson 1994). The emergence of elite ruling groups during the Bronze Age is also evident in Anatolia, however, its reflection on social organisation and the setting of settlements developed in a totally different trajectory to that of Syro-Mesopotamia. The edifices of the ruling elite stood in Anatolia more as symbols lacking monumentality and other social indicators. Compared to the huge Mesopotamian towns, Anatolian towns are much smaller, reaching at most 200 square meters. These small Anatolian towns, however, were encircled by defensive systems with monumental gateways, lacking palatial residences, imposing temples, storage facilities or workshops. Instead, they had a few megaron-type free-standing buildings and ceremonial courtyards (Fig. 12, 13). The main habitation was outside of the enclosure walls, formed as a sporadic spread of houses. The typical Anatolian town model as briefly defined above was sustained without major changes through most of the Early Bronze Age. However, in accordance with the expansion of the Near Eastern system towards the western part of the peninsula, there have been some changes in the incipient form of the Anatolian town model. Particularly, in the southern half of Central and Western Anatolia by the latest phase of the Early Bronze Age, some central towns became larger, but not so large as those of the Syro-Mesopotamia. Thus, by the Early Bronze Age iii Anatolian settlements such as Kültepe, Seyitömer, Hacılar Büyüktepe and Küllüoba, that are located alongside Near Eastern trade routes, began incorporating residences if not palaces, storage facilities and relatively more houses (Efe 2003; Sarı 2013). However, even by the end of the Early Bronze Age, Anatolian towns lacked monumentality, imposing structures, temples, workshops and workers’ quarters. It is only by the turn of the Early to Middle Bronze Age that palaces in the true sense of the word’s meaning began appearing in Anatolian towns, as best exemplified by Norşuntepe. It is by the Middle Bronze Age that Anatolian town model gradually transformed to that of Near Eastern urban centres, as has been noted at such sites as Beycesultan, Alişar and Kültepe, but still lacking the characteristic urban crowds of the Near East (Kolb 1996; Naumann 1955).
Migrations
Since the early years of research, the impact of different communities moving into Anatolia and the consequent developments have been a controversial issue (Burney 1989; Gimbutas 1973; Yakar 1981; Steadman 1983; Winn 1974). Due to the problems in recovering undebatable clear evidence, the origin, scale and impact of these immigrant groups have been highly debated and there is currently no consensus in the scholarship. In this respect, probably the most evident intrusion into Anatolia has been that of the southern movement of Kura-Aras groups at the turn of the 4th to the 3rd millenniums bc, originating from somewhere in Caucasus, as noted above and further detailed below (Fig. 14).
Likewise, the almost sudden increase in the number of settlement sites all over Central and Western Anatolia by the beginning of 3rd millennium has also been considered as the result of large numbers of immigrants entering Anatolia (Fig. 15). However, their origin is highly debated. Nevertheless, during the recent years more concrete evidence has been made available through rescue excavations. While not answering all questions, it provides ample evidence for some of them. Until recently, even the presence of kurgan type of burials in Anatolia was met with considerable scepticism. However, with ongoing research and particularly due to rescue excavations, the number of burials that are considered to be of the so-called kurgan type, dateable to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, has been gradually increasing (Altunkaynak 2019; Özfırat 2014, Başgelen & Çoşar 2022). Ongoing excavations in İstanbul at Beşiktaş2 have until now exposed over 40 kurgan type burials with C14 dates revealing a narrow range of 3300–3200 bc, yielding an assemblage that directly points to the northeast Balkans. Another cemetery of the kurgan type, though with a small number of burials, has also have been excavated recently near İstanbul at Cambaztepe (Polat 2016) (Fig. 16). Overall, as previously hypothesized by several colleagues, it is now possible to posit a massive endemic movement originating from the Pontic steppes at the turn of 4th to 3rd millennium entering Anatolia both from the northeast and from the northwest; while the former had its origin in the Caucasus, the latter must have been from the north Pontic steppes, entering Anatolia from Thrace.
The Eurasian steppes running from Korea to Central Europe, being one of the most extensive ‘mono’ ecological zones in the world, are at the same time a region extremely sensitive to climatic fluctuations. In this respect, we consider it as necessary to point out certain features of Eurasian steppes that are consequential to their relation with Anatolia. As a habitat, the steppe is not very convenient for agricultural practices, but provides optimum conditions for grazing. However, the process of biological revitalisation is very slow, necessitating constant movement of grazing herds. At times of climatic stability, the Eurasian steppes can hold a great population of nomadic herding communities. The impact of any climatic fluctuation is first felt on the eastern parts of the steppes, forcing herding communities to move westwards, which through time becomes a chain reaction, making life extremely difficult for smaller nomadic groups. Caucasia is among the escape routes, though difficult to cross; the easiest escape route are the Balkans, allowing migrants to move south towards Eastern Thrace. In this respect, it should be considered that eastern Thrace, being an endemic steppe, is also an optimum habitat for nomadic herders. What is now evident for the turn of 4th to 3rd millennium is that massive migrations coming into Anatolia from the Eurasian steppes brought new elements, though adapted to the local cultural sphere rather quickly.
This phenomenon had in earlier years been defined by Maria Gimbutas as the migratory movements of kurgan peoples repeatedly taking place at least in four different occasions, the earliest being at the end of Neolithic and the latest by the Iron Age (Gimbutas 1973). This kurgan migration theory of Gimbutas has been highly criticized particularly in the last quarter of the last century when there was a general “anti-migrationist” trend in social sciences.
Other than the above-mentioned late 4th millennium migratory movements, another much debated migration theory is that of the so-called “Sea Peoples” giving an end to Late Bronze Age civilizations (Sandars 1978). In this respect, our surveys in Eastern Thrace have clearly presented a picture of a massive intrusion, again originating from Northern Pontic regions covering almost all of present-day Thrace, signified by the cord-impressed ‘buckel-keramik’ and also by megaliths and burial mounds (Czyborra 2001; Hoddinott 1989; Özdoğan 1998, 2011). In Anatolia, however, the only firm presence of this group had been noted at Troy VIIb2, where migrating groups seemingly took refuge at the turn of the 1st millennium bc. In other parts of Anatolia, findings of hand-made coarse pottery conventionally named “the Barbarian ware” are considered an indicator of northern invaders, and associated with the coming of Phrygians at the sites of Gordion and Boğazköy. However, whether these are the forerunners of Phrygians or the actual Sea peoples is a highly debated issue. What is evident is that the end of the 2nd millennium is a period of political turmoil spelling the end to major political entities, among them the Hittite Empire. How much of it is due to incoming populations still needs to be verified.
Yet, another controversial issue is what was taking place in Eastern Thrace during the 2nd millennium. The Early Bronze Age site of Kanlıgeçit was destroyed and abandoned at 1950 bc and never occupied again (Özdoğan & Parzinger 2012) and in spite of our intensive surveys we have not been able to recover even a single sherd datable to the 2nd millennium anywhere in Eastern Thrace with the exception of the coastal regions along the Aegean and the Sea of Marmara. Bronze Age sites all along the Dardanelles were in abundance, some being rather impressive. However, as in other inland areas of Anatolia, there was nothing of the 2nd millennium in the region around Bosporus, making questionable what had been once suggested as the Mycenaean intrusion or maritime Trojan expansion (Hawkins 1998; Korfmann 2001; Özdoğan 2003). Thus, we presume that the region was inhabited by pastoral nomads and that the southward movement of corded wares, with the groups using ‘buckel-keramik’, might have been earlier then the early Iron Age (Özdoğan 1987, 1993).
Metallurgy
Anatolia in general is rich in sources of metals, particularly copper, silver, gold, lead and iron (Hess et al. 1998; Yakar 1984; Yalçın 2003). Evidently, due to the complex geological formation of Anatolia, various other metals and minerals also occur in different amounts. Several of the most important metals are in easily accessible formations, particularly within the belt of the East Taurus range. In this respect, native copper occurring on the surface at several places of the East Taurus range must have stimulated prehistoric communities to use and to experiment with copper as early as Pre-Pottery Neolithic period as best evinced at Çayönü (Bachmann 1996). Even by the first campaign of Çayönü excavations in 1964, excavators were astonished and puzzled by the recovery of copper objects in a Pre-Pottery Neolithic horizon. Among the objects were borers, needles and beads. In the following seasons, as the number of copper objects increased, analysis of the finds clearly revealed that objects were not shaped by cold hammering but instead were heat-treated and then folded (Maddin et al. 1999). As Çayönü is located in close proximity of copper sources, it had quantities of malachite beads besides the limited number of shaped copper items. Later, at other sites of Pre-Pottery Neolithic horizon, similar finds were also recovered, though in lesser amounts. Accordingly, pyrometallurgy had a very early beginning in Anatolia and at Pre-Bronze Age horizons lead and silver were also used together with copper. As there has been extensive and detailed studies on early Anatolian metallurgy, here we will only note the issues that can be of concern for this paper and restrain from going into details (Esin 1976; Yalçın 2003).
Through the later part of the Chalcolithic, there is a marked increase in the number of copper artefacts, also featuring technological innovativeness (Hauptmann et al. 2000). In this respect, tin coated copper swords of Arslantepe (Di Nocera 2010; Işıklı & Altınkaynak 2014; Palmieri et al. 1993, et al. 1999; Yalçın & Özbal 2009a; Zimmermann 2021) and of Tülintepe, as noted previously, has to be particularly specified as exemplifying the high level of metallurgy attested in Anatolia by the beginning of the Bronze Age. There is growing evidence on the use of arsenic copper during the Late Chalcolithic, possibly originating from north-eastern sources. Until recently, there was a general consensus on the absence of tin in Anatolia, which came to be questioned firstly by the recovery of Kestel mines yielding cassiterite tin (Yener 1998, 2002) and then of other tin occurrences at nearby Kayseri (Yalçın & Özbal 2009b; Yener et al 2015). Nevertheless, it is also evident that whatever tin existed in Anatolia, it was rather difficult for exploitation and only occurred in minimal quantities (Yalçın & Yalçın 2009). From the early stages of the Early Bronze Age, extensive use of alloys including tin and arsenic bronzes and complex casting technologies are manifested at sites such as Troy and Alacahöyük (Muhly et al. 1990).
It is of interest to note that in spite of extensive presence of metal objects and alloys, all featuring high quality workmanship and complex technologies, very little is known of metal producing centres (Yalçın & Maass 2013). It is thus possible to surmise that the Anatolian system is typified more by freelance workers than that of the Near East where workshops are located within the compounds of citadels, marking the strong control of the ruling group over this industry. However, even if workshops and storage of raw materials were not located within the walled compounds of the local leaders, the distribution of metal products still seems to have been under the strict control of the ruling elite.
The establishment of long-distance caravan trade and the growing interest of Mesopotamian traders of the so-called Karum period of the Middle Bronze Age must have accelerated metal production and exploitation of local sources. In this respect, it is now evident that metal sources, mainly silver of West Central Anatolia, came into focus during the Middle Bronze Age (Barjamovic 2019; Dercksen 2005). Exploitation of Anatolian metal sources greatly increased by the Late Bronze Age, the Hittites becoming one of the main producers of metal tools for export to the pastoral communities of the Eurasian steppe (Chernykh 2011) (Fig. 17). During the later stages of the Bronze Age, Cyprus became one of the main producers of copper, which must have seriously bothered the Hittites and led to territorial conflict. The scope of metal trade and particularly of the distribution of copper and gold ingots is best attested at the 2nd millennium wreck of Uluburun, which travelled with ores of different origins (Pulak 2009).
By the later stages of Bronze Age, meteoric iron turns out as one of the strategic assets of Hittite Anatolia as evidenced by their communication with Egypt (Yalçın 2005; Müller-Karpe 2000; Akanuma 1995; Hauptmann et al. 2002).
Long Distance Trade, Maritime Connections and Establishment of Caravan System
Trading of raw materials and of commodities has a long history, however, it is not always possible to determine the system behind it, be it bartering, commerce, simple exchange or regional marts and/or markets. Moreover, with the exception of specific raw materials such as obsidian, tracing artefacts to the exact location of their sources is not always possible. It is also clear that the transfer of organic materials was far more extensive than we are able to detect through excavations; for example, any community having domestic animals has to have sufficient salt supplies: even if in rare cases sourcing may be possible, usually the scope of the trade remains only vaguely defined (Erdoğu & Fazlıoğlu 2006, 2008). Accordingly, we should always consider that there is a multifarious trade taking place since Early Prehistory, most of which is not detectable using standard archaeological methods. As briefly noted above, obsidian stands out as one of the few exceptions of which the exact sourcing is more or less possible (Balkan-Atlı & Cauvin 2007). Within the scope of this paper, we consider obsidian as a useful heuristic for later Bronze Age trade, simply because obsidian trade systems are more detectable than other metal sources. Firstly, the exchange routes of obsidian are not always in accordance with the sphere of cultural contacts. This is the case, for example, at the time of Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Upper Euphrates and sites of the Göbeklitepe culture and Çayönü, located some 130 kilometres apart as a crow flies and sharing similar modalities of life, artefactual types and technologies for over two thousand years. However, while over 50 percent of the chipped stone industry of Çayönü consists of obsidian, there is hardly any obsidian at the sites of Göbeklitepe culture. It is now clear that the region where Göbeklitepe is located was in between two main routes of Neolithic trade. Thus, trade routes do not necessarily conform with the dispersal of other cultural elements. Yet another interesting case is the production of “naviform cores” in Central Anatolia, a specific implement used in the Levant mainly to produce big arrow points by employing a specific technology (Balkan-Atlı 1996). In spite of being produced in Central Anatolia, these cores were made only for export and naviform core technology is totally absent in Central Anatolia.
Considering that there were no domesticated pack animals up to the beginning of the Bronze Age, all trade must have been conducted by individual traders or groups of traders walking from place to place. On the other hand, the scrutinising of obsidian sources has made it possible to clearly pinpoint maritime trade as early as 14,000 bc, in the cases of obsidian sources at remote island of Melos and another island much nearer to Anatolia, Giali (Yalı). Evidently, open-sea maritime trade had much earlier origins than ever estimated. Even though there are no written sources earlier than 2nd millennium in Anatolia, the distribution of certain commodities is highly suggestive of long-distance maritime connections such as the distribution of exotic shells from the Indian Ocean and Red Sea and obsidian from Yemen (Inizan & Francaviglia 2002) as well as Cypriote copper. We should also consider that commodities of Southeast Asian origin, rice and chicken, began appearing during the Bronze Age possibly through the Dilmun trade network, eventually reaching Anatolia (Castillo et al. 2016; Fuller et al. 2011; Jablonka 2018).
Coming back to the periods within the scope of this paper, the domestication of load bearing animals, the technological developments in wheeled cart vehicles and better navigable seafaring greatly ameliorated long distance trade, which gradually became more institutionalised (Oates 2003). Even though Anatolia during that era still lacked written documents, the textual evidence from Mesopotamia and later from Egypt made it possible to draw a general picture of this early institutionalised trading system. In earlier periods, traders were mainly acting on their personal drive, however, from the Middle Chalcolithic onwards, at least in Syro-Mesopotamia, they were supported and controlled by the governing systems, being stimulated to look for new sources of raw materials and to develop new markets; through time leading to the establishment of trading posts in foreign regions. It is almost customary to address these trading posts as “trading colonies” implying that they were established in agreement between the local and foreign rulers, such as the Karum of Middle Bronze Age. However, as indicated by the case of Tepecik, several others were clearly personal initiatives (Esin 1982). This new institutionalised trading system, at least by the Early Bronze Age, necessitated constant maintenance and more importantly securing of the routes.
As briefly defined above, domestication of horses and later of donkeys made it possible for long-distance trade to function as a feasible exchange system, the first clear evidence of the caravan trade being attested at Kanlıgeçit level 2 (Benecke 2002, 2009, 2012; Özdoğan & Parzinger 2012). In considering the location of Kanlıgeçit as rather outside of the Anatolian interaction zone, though in the close vicinity of copper and silver mines of the Istranca Mountains (Eastern Thrace), we can surmise that there must have been other cases of earlier dates for caravan trade. Thus, as Kanlıgeçit stands as the earliest and only securely attested evidence of caravan trade at present, we consider it necessary to define it in further details. The idea of an early caravan trade route had first been suggested by Efe based on inference through the distribution pattern of novel technologies and pottery forms (Efe 2007). Efe suggested a route originating from Northern Levant-Cilicia to Troas in Northwest Anatolia by plotting the distribution pattern of wheel-made plates occurring only along the route between the two regions (Fig. 18). Evidently, at the time when Efe wrote the paper, Kanlıgeçit evidence was not available. However, in subsequent years, Kanlıgeçit revealed a well-preserved architectural layer contemporary with the end of Troy ii, with megarons identical to those of Anatolia. This horizon of Kanlıgeçit, dateable to the second half of 3rd millennium, exhibits large numbers of wheel-made plates and brightly burnished red-slipped pottery of Central Anatolian types and some other vessels typical to Syria, all being clear indicators of long-distance trade. Later, the recovery of the large pit in the centre of large megaron’s antechamber revealing skulls of domestic horses and other bones intentionally buried together with some import wares clearly indicated that Kanlıgeçit was a terminal point of a caravan route around 2300–2200 bc (Fig. 8). Until recently, the presence of wild horses in Anatolia was questionable, it was only due to the Boessneck’s work that the presence of a distinct wild horse species was identified (Boessneck & von den Driesch 1976). The dna analysis of the Kanlıgeçit horses revealed that they were of Anatolian origin and not of the Urals as anticipated (Benecke 2012). The extensive presence of large and heavy vessels of Central Anatolia, when considered together with the horse bones, justify the characterization of Kanlıgeçit as the terminal station of an early caravan system, originating either in Northwest Syria or Eastern Central Anatolia. Prior to the findings of Kanlıgeçit, some imported pottery, such as Syrian bottles, had been recovered in a pit at Galabovo in Northern Thrace, Bulgaria (Leschtakov 2002, 2021). While the ratio of imported vessels at Kanlıgeçit is over 5 percent of the pottery assemblage, their limited presence at Galabovo clearly indicates that these were redistributed from Kanlıgeçit to other regions.
Written documents on caravan trade make it possible to follow all its modalities, beginning with the so-called Kültepe tablets of the Middle Bronze Age. These draw a clear picture not only on the intensity but also on the highly institutionalised organised operation of the system (Kulakoğlu 2011). During recent years, other written documents from the 2nd millennium related to the so-called Karum trade, began appearing at other sites all around Central Anatolia, similarly creating a picture of the multifaceted setup of the system that not only occurred at Karum Kaniş but also extended to other regions and as far west as at least the silver mines near Afyon (Kulakoğlu 2011, 2019; Yener 2015).
The institutionalisation of the caravan trade system soon became a vital asset of the Anatolian economy and thus the maintenance of the security of trade routes soon turned out to be a major prerogative of local rulers. In this respect, the Early Bronze Age citadel of Keçiçayırı has been suggested to be one of the garrisons defending one of the major trade routes (Efe et al. 2011). Needless to say, by the Late Bronze Age, the time of kingdoms extending to become empires, the trade routes came under their strict supervision.
Along with the development of caravan trade across the peninsula, now connecting distinct geographies, maritime trade also evidently continued to be an important part of the long-distance trade system, extending its scope and reaching distant geographies. Even though there is extensive evidence of imports, mainly of prestigious Aegean materials in the Eastern Mediterranean, the scope of maritime trade has best been demonstrated by the Uluburun wreck, briefly noted above. The content of the Uluburun wreck made it possible to trace the trajectory of its movement going eastward along the northern coast of Africa, turning north along the Levantine coast and moving westwards, sinking before reaching the Aegean (Pulak 2009). As also evidenced at Uluburun, by the 2nd millennium Cyprus developed into a major copper producer as signified by ox-hide ingots, with Cypriote copper ingots reaching as far north as Thrace. In spite of our extensive knowledge of Minoan and Mycenaean seafaring, with the exception of imported pottery, their interaction with Anatolian states remains highly understudied. Likewise, changing political situations were also mirrored in the change of partnerships or rivalries among the royal centres of Anatolia, swaying from Egyptian to Babylonian. Accordingly, we can conclude that while trade systems through the land were more institutionalised, maritime trade systems seem to be based on individual initiatives.
Bureaucracy and Seals
For preliterate communities, seals and seal impressions may occasionally be considered as the indicators of bureaucracy. The development in trading systems, eventually becoming institutionalised by the latest stages of the Bronze Age, is signified by a growing corpus of seals. Actually, bureaucracy and accounting are indispensable components of state formation, while pre-state communities operate on accepted traditions. In the Near East, the earliest indicators of bureaucracy in relation to trade are attested in Syro-Mesopotamia during the Obeid period, becoming more elaborate by the Uruk era. The first clear evidence of trade-related bureaucracy in Anatolia is manifested at Arslantepe in the Late Chalcolithic with the emergence of a palatial system. The tight bureaucratic nature of Arslantepe is best attested by the systematized use of seals; storerooms of various commodities were meticulously sealed with the seals of responsible bureaucrats and in each opening of their doors, the lump of clay with the seal impression was taken and stored for potential accounting (Balossi-Restelli 2019). In other parts of Anatolia, objects that look like stamp seals have been in use since the Late Neolithic, however, with no possibility to make a clear distinction between the so-called “pintaderas” stamp-like objects used mainly for decorative purposes and stamp seals signifying personal identities that function like present-day signatures. Nevertheless, stamp seals became more common and definable from the Early Bronze Age, being adorned with hieroglyphic signs during the 2nd millennium. Evidently, bureaucracy and seals stand as indicators of state formations, thus becoming much more varied and abundant through the Middle to Late Bronze Age (Doğan-Alparslan & Alparslan 2011; Matsumura 2020).
Concluding Remarks
With this paper we attempted to elucidate some particularities of Anatolia during the Bronze Ages. In doing so, we are aware that there has been an emphasis on the Early Bronze Age and to a degree on the preceding stage of Late Chalcolithic. This has been intentional, not because this period is closer to my field of expertise, but because the distinct emergence of Anatolian Bronze Age culture had its formative stages during that time. The setting of social economic system started to undergo reforming procedures by the early stages of the Early Bronze Age; during that period the pressure caused by the increased demand of Syro-Mesopotamian communities almost forced traditional barter systems to be replaced by bureaucratic formal trading systems. The small localised central chiefdoms of Anatolia, being unable to manage intensive trade or exchange mechanisms, were gradually replaced by territorial powers which by the Middle Bronze Age transformed into the politically defined city states and territorial states. This transmission is clearly traceable in Western and Central Anatolia and at the time of Early Bronze Age these regions were dotted with hundreds of small settlements. By the later stages of the Early Bronze Age, there is a marked decrease in the number of small settlements, while bigger centres emerged. Even though there is only a small number of larger settlements, through time they became larger and more organised, marking the change in the economic system.
Throughout this paper, the distinct connections of the eastern and western parts of the peninsula were accentuated; the increased pace of interaction between the different parts of the peninsula by the later stages of the Early Bronze Age has lessened the regional differences, particularly between the western and south-eastern parts. Homogeneity of socio-economic settings became much more apparent during the 2nd millennium bc, albeit with the exception of marginal zones, such as the north-eastern parts of Caucasia and Thrace. Throughout the 2nd millennium, Anatolia, or at least most of Anatolia, became an integral part of the political and economic sphere of major powers of the Near East and of the Aegean. Along with adaptation of the cuneiform script of Mesopotamia, Anatolia also developed a distinct hieroglyphic script in Luwian; different from the official language of the Hittites (Weeden 2014). As best revealed by the multilinguistic inscriptions of Karatepe-Aslantaş, the situation of ethnic diversity in the peninsula seems to continue at least up to the Iron Age. Such a confederate structure of the Hittite kingdom is attested in the so-called “bronze tablet” of Boğazköy (Schachner 2019; Zimmermann et al. 2010). However still, in spite of the extensive research on Boğazköy and on other major towns of the Hittite Empire, our knowledge on the regional kingdoms such as Arzawa, semi-independent or vassals of the Hittite system, is still minimal, with considerable controversy even relating to the localization of their capitals. Hittite texts have revealed the names of several towns and topographic features; however, the localization of most places still stands as a problem. Nevertheless, with the increased pace of research, each year our knowledge of Bronze Age Anatolia is steadily increasing, though in considering the full extent of the Anatolian peninsula, the data is still far from being conclusive.
References
Akanuma, Hideo (1995). Metallurgical analysis of iron artifacts and slag from the archaeological site of Kaman-Kalehöyük. In: T. Mikasa, ed, Essays on Ancient Anatolia and its Surrounding Civilizations, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 59–88.
Akurgal, Ekrem (1961). Die Kunst der Hethiter. Germany: Hirmer Verlag.
Algaze, Guillermo, Greenfield, Haskel, Hald, M. Marie, Hartenberger, Britt, Irvine, Benjamin, Matney, Timothy, Nishimura, Yoko, Pournelle, Jennifer and Rosen, Steven A. (2021). Early Bronze Age urbanism in Southern Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia. Recent analysis from Titriş Höyük. Anatolica 47, pp. 1–70.
Alkım, Bahadır (1968). Anatolia I (From the beginnings to the end of the 2nd millennium B.C.). Geneva: Nagel Publishers.
Altunkaynak, Gülşah (ed.) (2019). Karaz’dan Büyük İskender’e Erzurum Ovası’nda Yeni Bir Keşif Alaybeyi Höyük. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları.
Amiran, Ruth (1952). Connections Between Anatolia and Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 2 (2), pp. 89–103.
Amiran, Ruth (1965). Yanık Tepe, Shengavit, and the Kirbet Kerak Ware. Anatolian Studies 15, pp. 165–167.
Amiran, Ruth (1989). Re-Examination of a Cult-and-Art Object from Beth Yerah. In: A. Leonard, ed, Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, pp. 31–37.
Anderson, Patricia C (1994). Interpreting Traces of Near Eastern Neolithic Craft Activities: An Ancestor of the Threshing Sledge for Processing Domestic Crops? Helinium 34 (2), pp. 306–321.
Anderson, Patricia, Chabot, Jacques and van Gijn, Annelou (2004). The Functional Riddle of ‘Glossy’ Canaanean Blades and the Near Eastern Threshing Sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17 (1), pp. 87–130.
Arık, R. Oğuz (1948). Karaoğlan Höyüğü Bakır Çağı Mimarlığındaki Özellikler. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi 3, pp. 47–59.
Bachhuber, Christoph (2015). Citadel and Cemetery in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Sheffield, Bristol: Equinox (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 13).
Bachmann, Hans-Gert (1996). Zum Kenntnisstand der frühen Metallurgie in Asia Minor. In: U. Magen and M. Rashad, eds, Vom Halys zum Euphrat, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 15–24.
Bagg, Ariel M. (2012). Irrigation. In: D.T. Potts, ed, A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Volume 1, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 261–278.
Barjamovic, Gojko (2019). Silver, Markets and Long-Distance Trade in the Konya Region, 2400–1700 bce. In: Ç. Maner, ed, crossroads: Konya Plain from Prehistory to Byzantine Period. (9th International anamed Symposium), Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, pp. 71–81.
Balkan-Atlı, Nur (1996). Kaletepe, an Obsidian Workshop in Central Anatolia. Neo-Lithics 1/96, pp. 2–3.
Balkan-Atlı, Nur and Cauvin, Marie-Claire (2007). Das Schwarze Gold der Steinzeit: Obsidian in Anatolien. In: C. Lichter, ed, Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, Karlsruhe: Badisches Landesmuseum, pp. 207–213.
Balossi-Restelli, Francesca (2019). Arslantepe Period vii: The Development of A Ceremonial/ Political Centre in the First Half of the Fourth Millennium bce (Late Chalcolithic 3–4), Arslantepe – Excavations and Researches at Arslantepe-Malatya, Volume ii. Roma: Sapienza Universita di Roma.
Başgelen, Nezih and Çoşar, Engin, eds. (2022). Hidden Witnesses of Anatolian Civilizations. Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications.
Bauer, Daniel (2020). Die Abteilung Istanbul des Archäologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reiches in den Jahren 1933 bis 1944. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 70, pp.179–207.
Benecke, Norbert (2002). Die frühbronzezeitlichen Pferde von Kırklareli-Kanlıgeçit, Thrakien, Türkei. Eurasia Antiqua 8, pp. 39–59.
Benecke, Norbert (2009). On the beginning of horse husbandry in the southern Balkan Peninsula – The horses from Kırklareli-Kanlıgeçit (Turkish Thrace). tüba-ar 12, pp. 13–24.
Benecke, Norbert (2012). Haustierhaltung und Jagd. In: M. Özdoğan and H. Parzinger, eds, Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Kanlıgeçit bei Kırklareli. Ostthrakien während des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Spannungsfeld von anatolischer und balkanischer Kulturentwicklung, Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, pp. 249–266.
Bertram, Jan-Krzystof (2005). Probleme der Ostanatolischen/Südkaukasischen Bronzezeit: ca.2500–1600 v.u.Z. tüba-ar 8, pp. 61–84.
Bertram, Jan-Krzystof and İlgezdi-Bertram, Gülçin (2021). The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in Central Anatolia. Introduction – Research History – Chronological Concepts Sites, their Characteristics and Stratigraphies. Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications.
Bittel, Kurt (1942). Kleinasiatische Studien. Istanbul: Abteilung Istanbul des archäologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiches (Istanbuler Mitteilungen Hft. 5).
Boessneck, Joachim and von den Driesch, Angela (1976). Pferde im 4./3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Ostanatolien. Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 24 (2), pp. 81–87.
Bombardieri, Luca (2004). Il Dispositivo a Pivot Per Tournette Sviluppo e Diffusione tra la Mesopotamia Settentrionale e L’Area Egea. Orient Express 4, pp. 96–101.
Bostancı, Enver (1952). Gökirmak Vadisinde Yeni Prehistorya Araştırmaları ve Yeni Palaeolitik Buluntular. Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 10 (1–2), pp.137–142.
Braidwood, Robert J (1957). Jericho and Its Setting in Near Eastern History. Antiquity 31, pp. 73–81.
Braidwood, Robert J, and Braidwood, Linda (1960). Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications Volume lxi.
Britsch, Christopher (2018). Early Textile Technologies in the Anatolian – Aegean World- from Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, Doctoral thesis, Archaeology, Universität Wien.
Burney, Charles (1958). Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Anatolian Studies 8, pp. 157–209.
Burney, Charles and Lang, David Marshall (1971). The Peoples of the Hills. Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Burney, Charles (1989). Hurrians and Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Ethnic Context of the Early Trans-Caucasian Culture. In: K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Özgüç, eds, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp.45–51.
Caneva, Isabella, Palumbi, Giulio and Pasquino, Antonia. (2012). The Ubaid Impact on the Periphery: Mersin-Yumuktepe during the Fifth Millennium bc. In: C. Marro, ed, The Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond. International Workshop held at Fosseuse, 29th June – 1st July 2009, Paris: De Boccard Édition, pp. 353–389.
Castel, Corinne and Peltenburg, Edgar (2007). Urbanism on the margins: third millennium bc Al-Rawda in the arid zone of Syria. Antiquity 81(313), pp. 601–616.
Castillo, Cristina Cobo, Bellina, Berenice and Fuller, Dorian Q (2016). Rice, Beans and trade crops on the early maritime Silk Route in Southeast Asia. Antiquity 90 (353), pp. 1255–1269.
Çevik, Özlem (2007). The emergence of different social systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Urbanisation versus centralisation. Anatolian Studies 57, pp. 131–140.
Chabot, Carolyn (1994). Prehistoric Sardis, Undergraduate thesis, Archaeology, Cornell University.
Chernykh, Evgenij (2011). Eurasian Steppe Belt: Radiocarbon Chronology and Metallurgical Provinces. In: Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal V, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum, pp. 151–171.
Czyborra, Ina (2001). Die ältere Eisenzeit türkisch Thrakiens und Südostbulgariens. Berlin: Universität Berlin.
Demangel, Robert (1926). Le Tumulus dit de Protésilas. Paris: E. de Boccard.
Demirtaş, Işıl (2018). Güvercinkayası “Coba” Tipi Tarazlı Kaseleri. olba 26, pp. 1–30.
Dercksen, Jan Gerit (2005). Metals According to Documents from Kültepe-Kanish Dating to the Old Assyrian Colony Period. In: Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal iii, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum,pp. 17–34.
De Vaux, Roland (1966). Palestine during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods; the Megalithic Culture. Cambridge Ancient History 47, pp. 42–43.
Di Nocera, G. Maria (2010). Metals and metallurgy. Their place in the Arslantepe society between the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd millennium bc. In: M. Frangipane, ed, Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma. Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archaeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, pp. 255–274.
Doğan-Alparslan, Meltem and Alparslan, Metin (2011). Royal Seats and Capital Cities of the Hittite Kings. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 61, pp. 85–103.
Duru, Refik (2006). Gedikli Karahöyük I- Prof. Dr. U. Bahadır Alkım’ın Yönetiminde 1964–1967 Yıllarında Yapılan Kazıların Sonuçları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Duru, Refik (2010). Gedikli Karahöyük ii. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Efe, Turan (2003). Küllüoba and the Initial Stages of Urbanism in Western Anatolia. In: M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen, eds, From Village to Cities Early Villages in the Near East. Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, Volume 1. İstanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications, pp. 265–282.
Efe, Turan (2007). The theories of the “Great Caravan Route” between Cilicia and Troy: The Early Bronze Age iii period in inland western Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57, pp. 47–64.
Efe, Turan and Ay-Efe, Deniz Ş.M (2007). The Küllüoba Excavations and the Cultural/Political Development of Western Anatolia Before the Second Millennium bc. In: M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan and H. Peker, eds, Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan vita, İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, pp. 251–267.
Efe, Turan, Sarı, Deniz and Fidan, Erkan (2011). The Significance of the Keçiçayırı Excavations in the Prehistory of Inland Northwestern Anatolia. In: A.N. Bilgen, R. von den Hoff, S. Saldalcı and S. Silek, eds, Archaeological Research in Western Central Anatolia (The IIIrd International Symposium of Archaeology, Kütahya, 8th-9th March 2010), Kütahya: Üçmart Press, pp. 9–28.
Erarslan, Alev (2008). The Anatolian Urban Model: Its Origin and Evolution (5200–2200 bc). Colloquium Anatolicum 7, pp. 177–195.
Erdoğu, Burçin and Fazlıoğlu, İsmail (2006). The Central Anatolian Salt Project: A Preliminary Report on the 2004 and 2005 Survey. Anatolia Antiqua 14, pp. 189–203.
Erdoğu, Burçin and Fazlıoğlu, İsmail (2008). Archaeological Science and Salt in Prehistoric Central Anatolia. In: Ü. Yalçın, H. Özbal and A.G. Paşamehmetoğlu, eds, Ancient Mining in Turkey and The Eastern Mediterranean, Ankara: Atılım Üniversitesi, pp. 209–214.
Erkanal, Armağan, Erkanal, Hayat (1983). Vorbericht über die Grabungen 1979 im Prähistorischen Klazomenai/Liman Tepe. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1 (1), pp. 163–183.
Esin, Ufuk (1976). Die Anfänge der Metallverwendung und Bearbeitung in Anatolien (7500–2000 v. Chr.). Les Débuts de la Métallurgie Colloque 23, pp. 209–246.
Esin, Ufuk (1981). Die Chalkolithischen, Arsen-Kupferzeitlichen und Frühbronzezeitlichen Kulturen Anatoliens Anhand der Metallanalysen. El Origen de la Metallurgia Comision 16, pp. 105–123.
Esin, Ufuk (1982). Die kulturellen Beziehungen zwischen Ostanatolien und Mesopotamien sowie Syrien anhand einiger Grabungs- und Oberflachenfunde aus dem oberen Euphrattal im 4. Jt. v. Chr. In: H.J. Nissen and J. Renger, eds, Mesopotamien und seine Nachbaran. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient Band I), Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, pp. 13–21.
Esin, Ufuk (1989). An Early Trading Center in Eastern Anatolia. In: K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Özgüç, eds, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp. 135–141.
Esin, Ufuk (1994). The Functional Evidence of Seals and Sealings of Değirmentepe. In: P. Ferioli, E. Fiandra, Gian G, Fissore and M. Frangipane, eds, Archives before Writing, Torino: Scriptorium, pp. 59–81.
Fidan, Erkan (2018). Early Buildings for Elites in Western Anatolia: Reflections of Ruling Class on Architecture. In: Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal viii, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum, pp. 69–76.
Frangipane, Marcella (1993). Local components in the Development of Centralized Societies in Syro-Anatolian Regions. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann and M. Livera, eds, Between the Rivers and over the Mountains: Archaeologica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Roma: Dipartmento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichita Universita di Roma, pp. 133–161.
Frangipane, Marcella (1997). A 4th-millennium Temple/Palace Complex at Arslantepe-Malatya. North-South Relations and the Formation of Early State Societies in the Northern Regions of Greater Mesopotamia. Paléorient xxiii (1), pp. 45–73.
Frangipane, Marcella (1998). Arslantepe 1996: The Finding of an E.B.I “Royal Tomb”. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 19, pp. 291–309.
Frangipane, Marcella (2000). The Transition Between Two Opposing Forms of Power at Aslantepe (Malatya) at the 3rd Millenium B.C. tüba-ar 4, pp. 1–24.
Frangipane, Marcella (2002). ‘Non-Uruk’ Developments and Uruk-Linked Features on the Northern Borders of Greater Mesopotamia. In: J.N. Postgate, ed, Artefacts of Complexity, Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips Ltd., pp. 123–148.
Frangipane, Marcella (2011). Trade versus Staple Economy: Some Remarks on the Background of Mesopotamian Urbanization (Algaze’s Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape). Current Anthropology 52 (2), pp. 300–301.
Frangipane, Marcella (2012a). Fourth Millennium Arslantepe: The Development of a Centralised Society without Urbanisation. Origini 34, pp. 19–40.
Frangipane, Marcella (2012b). The Collapse of the 4th Millennium Centralised System at Arslantepe and the Far-Reaching Changes in 3rd Millennium Societies. Origini 34, pp. 237–260.
Frangipane, Marcella (2018). Different Trajectories in State Formation in Greater Mesopotamia: A View from Arslantepe (Turkey). Journal of Archaeological Research 26 (1), pp.3–63.
Frangipane, Marcella, Andersson Strand, Eva, Laurito, Romina, Möller-Wiering, Susan, Nosch, Marie-Louise, Rast-Eicher, Antoinette and Wisti Lassen, Agnete (2009). Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey): Textiles, Tools and Imprints of Fabrics from the 4th to the 2nd Millennium bce. Paléorient 35 (1), pp. 5–29.
Frangipane, Marcella and Palmieri, Alba (1987). Urbanization in Perimesopotamian Areas: The case of Eastern Anatolia. In: L. Manzanilla, ed, Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions, Oxford: B.A.R. International Series, no.349, pp. 295–316.
French, David (1967). Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia I: The İznik Area. Anatolian Studies 17, pp. 49–100.
French, David (1969). Anatolia and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C., Volume i-ii, Ph.D. Dissertation, Archaeology, Cambridge University.
French, David and Summers, Geoffrey (1988). Sakçagözü Material in the Gaziantep Museum. Anatolian Studies 38, pp. 71–86.
Fuller, Dorian Q, Boivin, Nicole, Hoogervorst, Tom and Allaby, Robin (2011). Across the Indian Ocean: the prehistoric movement of plants and animals. Antiquity 85 (328), pp. 544–558.
Gill, David W (2000). ‘A rich and promising site’: Winifred Lamb (1894–1963), Kusura and Anatolian archaeology. Anatolian Studies 50, pp. 1–10.
Gimbutas, Marija (1973). Old Europe c.7000–3500 B.C.: The Earliest European Civilization before the Infiltration of the Indo-European Peoples. Journal of Indo-European Studies I (1), pp. 1–20.
Greenberg, Raphael (2007). Transcaucasian Colors: Khirbet Kerak Ware at Khirbet Kerak (Tel Bet Yerah). In: B. Lyonnet, ed, Les cultures anciennes des pays du Caucase (6ème-3ème millénaire), Paris: CNRS Editions, pp. 257–268.
Greenfield, H. Joseph (2010). The Secondary Products Revolution: the past, the present and the future. World Archaeology 42 (1), pp. 29–54.
Gürbüz-Veral, Melek, El Bakkali, Ahmed, Essalouh, Laila, Tollon, Christine, Hakan, Mehmet, Ulaş, Mehmet, Ulaş, Burhan, Santoni, Slyvain and Khadari, Bouchaib (2018). New Insight on Olive Domestication in Turkey. Acta Horticulturae 1199, pp. 15–20.
Gülçur, Sevil (1997). Güvercinkayası: Eine vorgeschichtliche Felsrückensiedlung in Zentralanatolian. Anatolica 23, pp. 85–110.
Gülçur, Sevil, Çaylı, Pınar, Demirtaş, Işıl, Eser, Barış and İndere, Varlık (2018). Güvercinkayası und frühe Urbanisierung in Anatolien. In: Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal viii, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum, pp. 43–56.
Günel, Sevinç (1999). Vorbericht über die mittel- und Spätbronzezeitliche Keramik vom Liman Tepe. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 49, pp. 41–82.
Günel, Sevinç (2003). Vorbericht über die Oberflächenbegehungen in den Provinzen Aydın und Muğla, Anatolia Antiqua 11, pp. 75–100.
Günel, Sevinç (2018). Die Beziehungen der agaisch-westanatolischen Kulturen im 2. Jt. v. Chr. In: Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal viii, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum pp. 157–167.
Harmankaya, Savaş and Erdoğu, Burçin, eds. (2002). Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri (tay), Volume IVa IVb. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Harsfield, George (1933). Dolmen-field in Transjordan. Antiquity 7(28), pp. 471–473.
Hauptmann, Andreas, Hess, Karsten and Palmieri, Alberto (2000). Metal Production in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 4th/3rd millennium: case studies from Arslantepe. Anatolian Metal I (DerAanschnitt 13), pp. 75–82.
Hauptmann, Andreas, Maddin, Robert and Prange, Michael (2002). On the Structure and Composition of Copper and Tin Ingots Excavated from the Shipwreck of Uluburun. basor 328, pp. 1–30.
Hawkins, John David (1998). Tarkasnawa King of Mira: ‘Tarkondemos’, Boğazköy sealings and Karabel. Anatolian Studies 48, pp. 1–31.
Hertel, Dieter (2011). Pre-classical Pergamon and its Settlement Profile. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 61, pp. 21–84.
Hess, Karsten, Hauptmann, Andreas, Wright, Henry and Whallon, Robert (1998). Evidence of fourth millennium bc silver production at Fatmalı-Kalecik, East Anatolia. Der Anschnitt 8, pp. 57–67.
Hoddinott, Ralph F (1989). Thracians, Mycenaeans and the Trojan Question. In: J.G.P. Best and N. de Vries, eds, Thracians and Myceneans. (Proccedings of the 4 th International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984), Leiden, New York, Kobenhavn, Köln: E.J. Brill, pp. 52–67.
Hoffner, Harry A (1995). Oil in Hittite Texts. Biblical Archaeologist 58 (2), pp. 108–114.
Hunt, Robert C (1995). On Dry Farming in Upper Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 36 (2), pp. 289–290.
Inizan, Marie-Louise and Francaviglia, Vincenzo (2002). Les periples de l’obsidienne a travers la mer rouge. Journal des Africanistes 72/2, pp.11–19.
Işıklı, Mehmet et al (2010). Geçmişten Geleeğe Armağan, Atatürk Üniversitesi.
Işıklı, Mehmet and Altunkaynak, Gülşah (2014). Some Observations on Relationships between South Caucasus and North-Eastern Anatolia Based on Recent Archaeo-Metallurgical Evidence. In: G. Narimanishvili, M. Kvačaże, M. Puturidze, N. and Šanšašvili, N Problems of Early Metal Age Archaeology of Caucasus and Anatolia (Proceedings of International Conference, November 19–23, 2014, Georgia), Tbilisi: GNM Press, pp.73–93.
Işıklı, Mehmet and Köse, Sefa (2019). A Short History of the Researches on the East Anatolian Kura-Aras Culture: Two Key Settlements Two Leading Figures. In: N. Durak and M. Frangipane, eds, I. International Archaeology Symposium Proceedings, Malatya: İnönü Üniversitesi Yayınevi, pp. 191–202.
Ivanova, Mariya (2013). The Black Sea and the Early Civilizations of Europe, the Near East and Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jablonka, Peter (2018). 3rd Millennium bc Exchange Networks Between the Aegean and the Indus: Connecting the Dots on Archaeological Distribution Maps. In: Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal viii, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum, pp. 139–155.
Joukowsky, Martha (1985). Change Finds of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age in the Aphrodisias Museum. In: J.-L. Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet, eds, De l’Indus aux Balkans. Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes, Paris: Editions Recherchesur les Civilisations, pp. 147–158.
Joukowsky, Martha (1996). Early Turkey: An Introduction to the Archaeology of Anatolia from Prehistory through the Lydian Period. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.
Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1953). Mankind’s Earliest Walled Town. Uncovering the Walls and Towers of Jericho from Neolithic Times to the Sack of Joshua. The Illustrated London News, 17 October 1953, pp.603–604.
Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1957). Reply to Professor Braidwood. Antiquity 31, pp. 82–84.
Kolb, Frank (1996). The Role of Dwelling Houses in Larger Anatolian Settlements of Antiquity. In: Y. Sey, ed, Housing and Settlement in Anatolia a Historical Perspective, Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, pp. 146–154.
Korfmann, Manfred (2001). Troia als Drehscheibe des Handel sim 2. Und 3. Vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Erkenntnisse zur Troainischen Hochkultur und zur Maritimen Troia-Kultur. In: Archaologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Wurttemberg, ed, Troia – Traum und Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag, pp. 355–369.
Korfmann, Manfred (2003). Troia in Light of New Research. Trier: Universität Trier.
Korfmann, Manfred (2004). Zum Stand der Chronologiediskussion ca. 1980 oder “Zum Absoluten Zeitansatz Beim Komparativen Stratigraphiesystem” von V.Milojçic. Eine Rückschau. In: B. Ha Hänsel and E. Studeniková, eds, Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis.Neolithikum und Ältere Bronzezeit.Gedenkschrift für Viera Nemejcová-Pavuková, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH (Internationale Archäologie. Studia Honoraria Band 21), pp. 109–119.
Korfmann, Manfred, Baykal-Seeher, Ayşe, Kılıç, Sinan (1994). Anatolien in der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Körte, Alfred (1899). Kleinasiatische Studien iv. Ein altphrygischer Tumulus bei Bos-öjük (Lamunia). Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Institus, Athenischen Abteilung 24, pp. 1–45.
Koşay, Hamit Z (1948). Karaz Sondajı. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi iii, pp. 165–169.
Koşay, Hamit Z (1976). Keban Project Pulur Excavations 1968–1970. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Koşay, Hamit Z and Sperling, Jerome (1936). Troad’da Dört Yerleşme Yeri. İstanbul: Devlet Basımevi.
Kulakoğlu, Fikri (2011). Kültepe-Kaneš: A Second Millennium B.C.E. Trading Center on the Central Plateau. In: S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 B.C.E.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1012–1030.
Kulakoğlu, Fikri (2019). The Emergence and Consolidation of State in Anatolia as Evidenced at Kültepe Excavations. 4th Shanghai Archaeology Forum. Archaeology of Urbanization and Globalization-The Past for the Common of Humankind. Awarded Projects, Shangai, pp. 15–25.
Lamb, Winifred (1932). Schliemann’s Prehistoric Sites in the Troad. Prähistorische Zeitschrift xxiii (1/2), pp. 111–131.
Lamb, Winifred (1936) (1937). “Excavations at Kusura Near Afyon Karahissar.”, Archaeologia 86, pp. 1–64 and Archaeologia 87, pp. 217–74.
Laneri, Nicola (1999). A Funerary Tradition of the Middle Euphrates Valley during the IIIrd Millennium bc. Anatolica 25, pp. 221–241.
Laneri, Nicola (2020). Tracing inequality: a reflection on ‘royal tombs’ in eastern Anatolia at the beginning of the third millenium bc. In: F. Balossi Restelli, A. Cardarelli, G.M. Di Nocera, L. Manzanilla, L. Mori, G. Palumbi & H. Pittman, eds, Pathways Through Arslantepe. Essays in Honour of Marcella Frangipane, Roma: Sapienza Universita di Roma, pp. 125–131.
Laurito, Romina (2010). Textile tools and textile production. The Archaeological evidence of weaving at Arslantepe. In: M. Frangipane, ed, Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma. Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archaeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, pp. 275–285.
Laurito, Romania (2012). Changes in Textile Production at Arslantepe During the 4th and 3rd Millennia bce. Origini xxxiv, pp. 317–328.
Leshtakov, Krassimir and Petrov, Lacezar (2002). Mikrosondenanalyse der bronzezeitlichen Metallfunde aus Galabovo. In: J. Lichardus and F. Stein, eds, Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde, Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, pp. 223–224.
Leshtakov, Krassimir (2021). Galabovo: Ordinary Things – Odd Things. In: Galabovo in Southeast Europe and Beyond. Cultural Interactions during the 3rd-2nd Millennium bc, Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, pp. 12–69.
Lichter, C (2008). Varna und İkiztepe – Überlegungen zu zwei Fundplätzen am Schwarzen Meer. In: V. Slavchev, ed, Varna Eneolithic Necropolis and Problems of Prehistory in Southeastern Europe. Studia in Memoriam Ivani Ivanov, Varna: Acta Musei Varnaensis, pp. 191–208.
Lloyd, Seton (1956). Early Anatolia. The Archaeology of Asia Minor before the Greeks. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Lloyd, Seton (1967). Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson.
Lordkipanidze, David, ed. (2017). Georgia, The Cradle of Viticulture. Georgia: Georgian National Museum.
Maddin, Robert, Muhly, James D and Stech, Tamara (1999). Early Metalworking at Çayönü, Der Anschnitt 9, pp. 37–44.
Maner, Çiğdem (2018). Anadolu’da Dokuma Devrimi Neolitik Çağ’dan Demir Çağı’na Yünün Tarihi ve Maddi Değeri. In: E. Kızılcık, ed, Tarihi Dokumak- Bir Kentin gizemi, Sof, Ankara: Koç Üniersitesi VEKAM, pp. 43–63.
Matsumura, Kimiyoshi (2020). New Evidence on Central Anatolia during the Second Millennium bce. Excavations at Büklükale. Near Eastern Archaeology 83 (4), pp. 234–247.
Mee, Christopher (1978). Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C. Anatolian Studies xxviii, pp. 121–156.
Mellaart, James (1954). Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-classical Remains in Southern Turkey. Anatolian Studies iv, pp. 175–240.
Mellaart, James (1965). Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic City in Anatolia. London: British Academy by Oxford University Press.
Mellaart, James (1978). The Late Chalcolithic Period in Anatolia: An Interim Assessment. Studia Praehistorica 1–2, pp. 84–87.
Mellink, Machteld J (1998). Anatolia and the Bridge from East to West in the Early Bronze Age. tüba-ar 1, pp. 1–8.
Miller, Naomi F (2008). Sweeter than wine? The use of the grape in early western Asia. Antiquity 82 (318), pp. 937–946.
Muhly, James D, Begemann, Friedrich, Öztunalı, Önder, Pernicka, Ernst, Schmitt-Strecker, Sigrid and Wagner, Günter (1990). The Bronze Metallurgy of Anatolia and the Question of Local Tin Sources. Archaeometry 90, pp. 209–220.
Müller-Karpe, Andreas (2000). Zur Metallverarbeitung bei den Hethitern, Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal I, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum, pp. 113–124.
Naumann, Rudolf (1955). Architektur Kleinasiens. Von Ihren Anfängen Bis Zum Ende der Hethitischen Zeit. Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth.
Oates, Joan (2003). A Note on the Early Evidence for Horse in Western Asia. In: M. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, eds, Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and The Horse, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 115–125.
Oates, Joan (2014). Prehistory and the Rise of Cities in Mesopotamia and Iran. In: C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, eds, The Cambridge World Prehistory Volume 3: West and Central Asia and Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1474–1497.
Oates, Joan and Oates, David (2004). The Role of Exchange Relations in the Origins of Mesopotamian Civilization. In: J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan, eds, Explaining social change: Studies in Honor of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, McDonald Institute Monographs, pp. 177–192.
Orthmann, Winfried (1963). Die Keramik der Frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.
Osten, Hans Henning von der (1929). Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor. Oriental Institute Communications V (85), pp. 130–157.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (1987). Taşlıcabayır, A Late Bronze Age Burial Mound in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica 14, pp. 7–39.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (1993). The Second Millennium of the Marmara Region: The Perspective of a Prehistorian on a Controversial Historical Issue. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, pp. 151–163.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (1996). Pre-Bronze Age Sequence of Central Anatolia: An Alternative Approach. In: U. Magen and M. Rashad, eds, Vom Halys zum Euphrat. Thomas Beran zu Ehren, Münster: Ugarit Ferlag, pp. 185–202.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (1998). Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the Megalithic Monuments. In: N. Tuna, Z. Aktüre and M. Lynch, eds, Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallellism (Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3–4 June 1995), Ankara: METU, Faculty of Architecture Press, pp. 29–40.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2002). The Bronze Age in Thrace in Relation to the Emergence of Complex Societies in Anatolia and in the Balkans, Ü. Yalçın, ed, Anatolian Metal ii, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum), pp. 67–76.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2003). The Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara and Bronze Age Archaeology- an Archaeological Predicament. In: G. Wagner, E. Pernicka and H-P. Uerpmann, eds, Troia and the Troad, Berlin: Springer, pp. 105–120.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2006). Keban Projesi ve Türkiye’de Kurtarma Kazıları. In: V. Tolun and T. Takaoğlu, eds, Sevim Buluç Anı Kitabı, Çanakkale: Çanakkale 18 Mart Üniversitesi, pp. 13–19.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2007). Amidst Mesopotamia-Centric and Euro-Centric Approaches: The Changing Role of the Anatolian Peninsula Between the East and the West. Anatolian Studies 57, pp. 17–24.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2011). Eastern Thrace: The Contact Zone between Anatolia and the Balkans. In: S.R. Steadman and G. McMahon, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 B.C.E.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 657–682.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2019). An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From and Old Periphery to a New Core. In: M. Brami and B. Horejs, eds, orea Vol.12: The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier (Proceedings of the Neolithic Workshop held at 10th icaane in Vienna, April 2016), Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, pp. 143–158.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (2020). Tülintepe Revisited. In: G. Yalçın and O. Stegemeier, eds, Metallurgica Anatolica. Festschrift für Ünsal Yalçın anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, pp. 67–76.
Özdoğan, Mehmet and Parzinger, Hermann, eds. (2012). Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Kanlıgeçit bei Kırklareli. Ostthrakien während des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Spannungsfeld von anatolischer und balkanischer Kulturentwicklung. (Series: Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum Band 3, Archäologie in Eurasien Band 27). Darmstadt: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Özfırat, Aynur (2014). Bozkurt Kurgan Nekropolü Kazısı. In: A. Özfırat and N. Coşkun, eds, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Arkeoloji Bölümü Kazı ve Araştırmaları, Antakya: Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Yayınları 51, pp. 45–70.
Özgüç, Tahsin (1948). Die Bestattungsbraeuche im vorgeschichtlichen Anatolien. Ankara: Veroeffentlichungen der Universitaet von Ankara.
Özgüç, Tahsin (1956). Fraktin Kabartması Yanındaki Prehistorik Ev. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Tarih Coğrafya Dergisi 1(1), pp. 59–64.
Özyar, Aslı (2014). Anatolia from 2000 to 550 bce. In: C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, eds, The Cambridge World Prehistory Vol.3: West and Central Asia and Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1545–1570.
Palmieri, Alberto, Frangipane, Marcella, Hauptmann, Andreas and Hess, Karsten (1999). Early Metallurgy at Arslantepe During the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age ia-ib Periods. Der Anschnitt 9, pp. 141–148.
Palmieri, Alberto, Sertok, Kemal and Chernykh, Evgenij (1993). From Arslantepe Metalwork to Arsenical Copper Technology in Eastern Anatolia. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae and M. Mellink, eds, Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Arceologica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Roma: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Ankropologiche dell’Antichita Universita di Roma, pp. 573–599.
Palumbi, Giulio, Alvaro, Corrado, Grifoni, Clara and Frangipane, Marcella (2017). A “Communal” Building of the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age at Arslantepe- Malatya (Turkey). Spatio-Functional Analysis and Interpretation of the Archaeological Context. Paléorient 43 (1), pp. 89–123.
Palumbi, Giulio and Chataigner, Christine (2014). The Kura-Araxes Culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between Unity and Diversity. A Synthesis. Paléorient 40 (2), pp. 247–260.
Palumbi, Giulio (2003). Red-Black Pottery: Eastern Anatolian and Transcaucasian Relationships during the Mid-Fourth Millennium bc. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40, pp. 80–134.
Parzinger, Hermann (1989). Zur frühesten Besiedlung Milets. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39, pp. 415–431.
Polat, Mehmet Ali (2016). Cambaztepe Tümülüsü (Kurgan) Kazısı Ön Değerlendirmesi. Journal of Archaeology and Art 152, pp. 231–236.
Pulak, Cemal (2009). The Uluburun Tin Ingots and the Shipment of Tin by Sea in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. tüba-ar 12, pp. 189–207.
Richmond, Joanna (2006). Textile Productions in Prehistoric Anatolia: A Study of Three Early Bronze Age Sites. Ancient Near Eastern Studies (anes) 43, pp. 203–238.
Rothman, Mitchell S (2004). Studying the Development of Complex Society: Mesopotamia in the Late Fifth and Fourth Millennia bc. Journal of Archaeological Research 12 (1), pp. 75–119.
Rudolph, Wolf (1977). A Note on Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age Jewelry. Indiana University Art Museum Bulletin 1, pp. 6–21.
Runnels, Curtis and Hansen, Julie (1986). The Olive in the Prehistoric Aegean: The Evidence for Domestication in the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5 (3), pp. 299–308.
Sagona, Antonio (2004). Social Boundaries and Ritual Landscapes in Late Prehistoric Trans-Caucasus and Highland Anatolia. In: A. Sagona, ed, A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Herent: Peeters Press (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 12), pp. 475–538.
Sagona, Antonio (2011). Anatolia and the Transcaucasus: Themes and Variations ca. 6400–1500 B.C.E. In: S.R. Steadmann and G. McMahon, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 B.C.E.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 683–703.
Sagona, Antonio and Zimansky, Paul (2009). Ancient Turkey. Oxon: Routledge.
Sağlamtimur, Haluk, Batıhan, Metin & Aydoğan, İnan (2019). Başur Höyük & Arslantepe the Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs at the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age. In: N. Durak and M. Frangipane, eds, I. International Archaeology Symposium Proceedings, Malatya: İnönü Üniversitesi Yayınevi, pp. 203–215.
Şahoğlu, Vasıf (2005). The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir Region during the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24 (4), pp. 339–361.
Şahoğlu, Vasıf (2008). Crossing Borders: The Izmir Region as a Bridge between the East and the West during the Early Bronze Age. In: C. Gillis and B. Sjöberg, eds, Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Crossing Borders (Proceedings of the 7th, 8th and 9th International Workshops, Athens 1997–1999), Sävedal: Paul Åströms förlag, pp. 153–173.
Şahoğlu, Vasıf (2019). The Early Bronze Age Anatolian Trade Network and Its Role on the Transformation of the Anatolian and Aegean Communities. In: V. Şahoğlu, M. Şevketoğlu and H.N. Erbil, eds, Connecting Cultures: Trade and Interconnections in the Ancient Near East from the Beginning until the End of the Roman Period anatolia Supplement Series I.4, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Arkeoloji Bölümü Dergisi (Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi), pp. 115–131.
Sandars, Nancy K (1978). The Sea Peoples. Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean 1250–1150 bc. London: Thames and Hudson.
Sarı, Deniz (2013). The Cultural Development of Western Anatolia in the Third and Second Millennia bc and Its Relationship with Migration Theories. In: A. Mounton, I. Rutherford and I. Yakubovich, eds, Luwian Identities. Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Leiden: Brill, pp. 305–327.
Schachner, Andreas (2019). Archaeology of the Making of a Bronze Age Capital City: Boğazköy/Hattusha through Time. 4th Shanghai Archaeology Forum. Archaeology of Urbanization and Globalization-The Past for the Common of Humankind. Awarded Projects, Shangai, pp. 235–245.
Schliemann, Heinrich and Schmidt, Hubert (1902). Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer. Berlin: Georg Reimer.
Seeher, Jürgen (2006). Chronology in Hattusa: New Approaches to an Old Problem. In: D.P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher, eds, Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. byzas 4, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, pp. 197–213.
Sertok, Kemal and Ergeç, Rıfat (1999). A New Early Bronze Age Cemetery. Excavations near the Birecik Dam, se Turkey, Preliminary Report (1997–98). Anatolica 25, pp. 87–107.
Sherratt, Andrew (1981). Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In: I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, eds, Pattern of the Past. Studies in Honor of David Clarke, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 261–305.
Sherratt, Andrew (1983). The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 15 (1), pp. 90–104.
Sherratt, Andrew (1986). Wool, Wheels and Ploughmarks: Local Developments or Outside Introductions in Neolithic Europe. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 23, pp. 1–15.
Sherrat, Andrew (1993). What would a Bronze-Age World System Look Like? Relations between Temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later Prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1.2, pp. 1–58.
Sherratt, Andrew (1999). Cash-crops before cash: organic consumables and trade. In: C. Gosden and J. Hather, eds, The Prehistory of Food, Appetites for change, London: Routledge, pp. 13–34.
Sherratt, Andrew (2004). Fractal Farmers: Patterns of Neolithic Origin and Dispersal. In: J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan, eds, Explaining social change: Studies in Honor of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, McDonald Institute Monographs, pp. 53–63.
Spanos, Peter (1972). Untersuchung über den bei Homer ‘depas amphikypellon’ gennennten Gefässtypus. Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 6, pp. 1–119.
Sperling, Jerome W (1976). Kum Tepe in the Troad. Hesperia 45(4), pp. 306–364.
Steadman, Sharon R (1983). Burial Practices in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Evidence for Population Movements and the Arrival of Indo-Europeans. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Steadman, Sharon (2011). The Early Bronze Age on the Plateau. In: S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 B.C.E.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 229–259.
Stefanova, Morena (2004). Kontextuelle Probleme der Becher depas amphikepellon in Thrakien. In: V. Nikolov and K. Bacvarov, eds, Von Domica bis Drama. Gedenkschrift für Jan Lichardus, Sofia: Arhäologisches Institut mit Museum der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 197–203.
Turhan, Kamil (1982). Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia. Oxford: BAR International Series 145.
Turville-Petre, Francis (1931). Dolmen Necropolis near Kerazeh, Galilee. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 64, pp. 155–160.
Ulaş, Burhan and Fiorentino, Girolamo (2010). Yumuktepe Höyüğü Yerleşmesi Arkeobotanik Analizlerinin Ön Sonuçları. Journal of Archaeology and Art 135, pp. 1–10.
Watson, Patty Jo (1965). The Chronology of North Syria and North Mesopotamia from 10,000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. In: R.W. Ehrich, ed, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Express, pp. 61–100.
Weeden, Mark (2014). Hieroglyphic Luwian. Actual Archaeology Magazine 9, pp. 54–63.
Welton, Lynn (2017). Reforging connections: The Black Sea coast of Anatolia in the 4th-3rd millenia bc. Anatolica 43, pp. 117–156.
Wilkinson, Tony J. (1994). The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 35, pp. 483–520.
Wilkinson, Tony J (1998). Water and Human Settlement in the Balikh Valley, Syria: Investigations from 1992–1995. Journal of Field Archaeology 25 (1), pp. 63–87.
Wilkinson, Tony J (2010). The Domestication of Water: Early Hydraulic Systems. Neo-Lithics 2/10, pp. 33–38.
Winn, M. M. Shan (1974). Thoughts on the Question of Indo-European Movements into Anatolia and Iran. Journal of Indo-European Studies 2, pp. 117–142.