This article begins by examining the frequently-invoked metaphor of Turkey as a bridge between East and West. The use of this metaphor is questioned because it implies passivity, over-simplifies the complexities of ancient communications and inter-regional exchange, and is based upon the assumption of divides that are culturally constructed. The article then examines two case-studies (the Aegean west coast and the Euphrates valley of the southeast) in order to demonstrate that the existence of different archaeological communities of practice in these regions serves to distort further the perception of differences between eastern and western Anatolia. The conclusion is put forward that a clearer distinction is definable in the practice of these two communities than in the archaeology of the ancient cultures of these two regions. Only if the divide between contemporary archaeological communities is bridged can the existence of divides between ancient communities begin to be examined. The reasons for the differences between these cultures of practice are largely historical but continue to affect the data-sets for these regions and thereby hinder the direct comparison of evidence trans-Anatolia.

Due to its geographical position, the Anatolian plateau has always been considered as a bridge in transmitting cultural formations that originated in the Near East to southeastern Europe and to the Aegean. Such a standpoint downgrades the role played by the Anatolian plateau to a transit route between the East and the West, overlooking its distinct structure. It seems that the main bias is in considering the Anatolian plateau as a single cultural unit, ignoring the multifarious nature of its structure. The role the Anatolian plateau played between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ was much more complex and multi-facetted than assumed, even at times hampering all interaction. Yet another bias is considering Anatolia, in spite of its geographic extent, as the dividing line in defining the boundary between the East and the West. However, it is evident that the geographic limits of the peninsula do not necessarily correspond with the cultural entities. Thus, for example, while the cultural boundary separating the East and the West was somewhere in between the Aegean littoral and the central plateau during the Neolithic period, later it shifted considerably in both directions. On the other hand, through the earlier part of the Chalcolithic period, the extent of the Taurus mountains marks the dividing line between the Near Eastern and Anatolia-Balkan cultural formative zones, which by the Late Chalcolithic period moved much further to the west, up to the Marmara region, the Sea of Marmara then acting as a cultural barrier. Presented here is a conspectus of the recent picture on changing cultural boundaries through the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

The results from five seasons of extensive and intensive survey in north-central Turkey, Project Paphlagonia, are here considered in relation to the prehistory of the region and the broader geographical scene. While the evidence remains limited and patchy it is possible to discern some clear patterns through these long time-periods, which in some respects match those of other regions of Turkey and beyond. They include: a strong Middle Palaeolithic presence; no detectable Upper Palaeolithic or Epi-Palaeolithic sites; an apparent absence of Neolithic settlement; a Chalcolithic settlement pattern that appears to be related to exploitation of raw materials of the region, and; a massive increase in settlement through the centuries of the Early Bronze Age, with evidence for fortification, cemeteries and strong connections to regions well beyond north-central Turkey.

Field surveys carried out within the upper Kızılırmak region have shown that the natural route-ways passing through the area have connected central Anatolia to eastern Anatolia throughout the ages. The route from north-central Anatolia reaches the Kızılırmak river by passing through the plains of Çekerek, Yıldızeli and Yıldız. The Kızılırmak river can be crossed on horseback where the road ends. A second route connects south-central Anatolia to Sivas by passing through the plains of Gemerek and Şarkışla, and leads to eastern Anatolia by passing through the Kızılırmak valley after Sivas. A third route reaches Altınyayla by passing through the Kızılırmak valley, the Şarkışla plain and reaches the plain of Malatya by travelling through a pass of the Kulmaç mountains running along the Balıklıtohma valley. A fourth route connects Sivas with Malatya via Taşlıdere, Ulaş, Kangal and Alacahan. Fieldwork has shown that these routes have been almost continuously used since the middle of the third millennium BC.

At the beginning of the second settlement a change that we can define as a ‘breaking point’ takes place in Trojan indigenous cultural development. Behind this change must lie, to a great extent, the intensification of Troy's cultural and economic relations with the interior of Anatolia and beyond (north Syria and Mesopotamia). This change is archaeologically most evident in the pottery; the potter's wheel is introduced to Troy IIb along with new forms and wares. For a long time it has been widely accepted that the wheel – in use in north Syria and Cilicia since the Late Chalcolithic period – became known in the interior of western Anatolia only after its appearance at Troy, and there has been a general consensus that the potter's wheel and other Mesopotamian influences reached Troy through maritime trade from Cilicia westward and northward along the Anatolian coastline. The author, on the other hand, as early as the mid 1980s, had begun to defend the thesis that Trojan-Cilician relations were established over inland western Anatolia, rather than by sea. Here again he deals with the subject, now strengthened by new evidence that continues to come to light from recent investigations and excavations within western Anatolia – most especially that from Küllüoba, where excavation has been continuing under the author's auspices since 1996. The author now goes one step further to define this overland route between Cilicia and the north Aegean as the ‘Great Caravan Route’.

This paper aims to reappraise and evaluate central Anatolian connections with the Black Sea region and the Caucasus focusing mainly on the third millennium BC. In its first part, a ceremonial item, the knobbed or ‘mushroom’ macehead, in its various appearances, is discussed in order to reconstruct a possible pattern of circulation and exchange of shapes and values over a longer period of time in the regions of Anatolia, southeast Europe and the Caucasus in the third and late second to early first millennium BC. The second part is devoted to the archaeometrical study of selected metal and mineral artefacts from the Early Bronze Age necropolis of Resuloğlu, which together with the contemporary settlement and graveyard at Kalınkaya-Toptaştepe represent two typical later Early Bronze Age sites in the Anatolian heartland. The high values of tin and arsenic used for most of the smaller jewellery items are suggestive of an attempt to imitate gold and silver, and the amounts of these alloying agents suggest a secure supply from arsenic sources located along the Black Sea littoral in the north and probably tin ores to the southeast of central Anatolia. This places these ‘Hattian’ sites within a trade network that ran from the Pontic mountain ridge to the Taurus foothills.

The increased number of archaeological activities, underway as a result of the projected construction of the Ilısu dam to be built along the Tigris river in southeastern Anatolia, have brought to light numerous structures associated with the material culture of the late third millennium to mid second millennium BC. The assemblages are characterised by a local variety of pottery, the so-called ‘Red Brown Wash Ware’, usually found in contexts associated with materials similar to those available from contemporaneous periods in northern Mesopotamia, northern Syria and Anatolia. As a consequence, this paper investigates the apparent cultural interactions which took place between the Mesopotamian and Anatolian regions during the above-mentioned period, drawing on recent data obtained at the site of Hirbemerdon Tepe located along the upper Tigris river valley in southeastern Anatolia. Through this overview, an additional objective is to bring to a broader public the material culture of this relatively little known yet increasingly significant region of the ancient Near East.

The Maeander river (modern Büyük Menderes Nehri) provides the longest natural route through the mountains of central western Anatolia to link the Aegean basin to inner Anatolia, and research suggests that permanent settlement within the river's catchment had begun at least tentatively by the Late Neolithic period. However, the limited amount of archaeological research in the region has restricted our understanding of the inhabitants' settlement histories and intra- and inter-regional cultural contacts during prehistory. This paper seeks to understand better the nature of settlement dynamics and cultural interactivity from the Neolithic period through to the Late Bronze Age in this region by reviewing the available literature within a broad geographic context encompassing western Anatolia and the Aegean, neighbours whose archaeological evaluations have largely been conducted in isolation from each other. The evidence suggests that these early communities interacted with each other and inter-regionally with fluctuating intensities during prehistory, with the interior remaining more traditionally Anatolian, while the lower, coastal area experienced increasing interaction with and influence from Aegean cultures over time. The lower valley also displays a relatively static number of prehistoric sites in contrast to the middle and upper regions, where more dynamic and largely parallel settlement histories are seen.

The Malatya-Elaziğ area is one of the most intensively studied regions in eastern Turkey, but archaeologically the general picture is still not very clear. Most of the archaeological excavations and surveys in the area were conducted as part of the Keban and Turkish lower Euphrates salvage projects within a very short period of time. Although the project results were published, still most of the original data is not available and few intensive field projects have since undertaken to fill the gaps between the previously studied areas. As the survey areas are now under water, there is no opportunity to re-survey the areas covered. Under these circumstances, it seems useful to re-analyse the available material in conjunction with evidence provided by other disciplines like geography, geology and even biology up to an extent, aided by certain computer applications; predominantly GIS software but also certain computer programs used by other disciplines for specific analyses. This re-evaluation of the current evidence has made it possible to identify a settlement system that was formed of small clusters of sites, and it can also be suggested that the area was divided into three cultural zones during most of the Middle Bronze Age.

This article explores the character of social transformations within Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic communities of central Anatolia. This comprises the demise of neighbourhood communities that formed the social basis of the Early Neolithic period and the emergence of the household as a well-defined and autonomous entity. These changes are examined by focusing mainly on settlement patterns, the organisation of space and changes in architecture. The transformations are examined on the microscale, using Çatalhöyük as a case study, and on a regional scale focused on three areas of central Anatolia: the Beyşehir-Seydişehir area, the Konya plain and the Cappadocian region.

The second half of the third millennium BC has generally been accepted as the period in which urbanisation took place in Anatolia. Prominent sites of this period are described by scholars as ‘towns’, ‘town-like settlements’, ‘city-states’ and ‘proto-city-states’. The use of a variety of terms for the same type of site implies that there is no clear consensus on the conceptualisation of this transformational process. It is generally accepted that, from the Neolithic period onwards, Anatolia did not display a great degree of cultural homogeneity, both in terms of material culture and social systems. The topography of Anatolia is divided by deep river valleys and high mountain chains, and this may well have been a crucial factor in stimulating cultural regionalism. This article suggests that Early Bronze Age populations in Anatolia did not just experience the process of urbanisation, but also centralisation. Furthermore, it has been argued that certain areas of Anatolia at this time experienced neither urbanisation nor centralisation, but remained rural. This paper utilises archaeological evidence, such as settlement patterns, settlement layouts and types of material culture that have social implications, to explain these phenomena.

Starting from Kilise Tepe in the Göksu valley north of Silifke two phenomena in pre-Classical Anatolian ceramics are examined. One is the appearance at the end of the Bronze Age, or beginning of the Iron Age, of hand-made, often crude, wares decorated with red painted patterns. This is also attested in different forms at Boğazköy, and as far east as Tille on the Euphrates. In both cases it has been suggested that it may reflect the re-assertion of earlier traditions, and other instances of re-emergent ceramic styles are found at the end of the Bronze Age, both elsewhere in Anatolia and in Thessaly. The other phenomenon is the occurrence of ceramic repertoires which seem to coincide precisely with the frontiers of a polity. In Anatolia this is best recognised in the case of the later Hittite Empire. The salient characteristics of ‘Hittite’ shapes are standardised, from Boğazköy at the centre to Gordion in the west and Korucu Tepe in the east. This is often tacitly associated with Hittite political control, but how and why some kind of standardisation prevails has not often been addressed explicitly. Yet this is a recurring phenomenon, and in first millennium Anatolia similar standardised wares have been associated with both the Phrygian and the Urartian kingdoms. This paper suggests that we should associate it directly with the administrative practices of the regimes in question.

The comparisons at the heart of this article concern the varying roles of cuneiform texts, instrumental analysis and artefacts at the Bronze Age capital of Alalakh, located in the northeastern Mediterranean region of southern Turkey. The production of fine artefacts, such as sophisticated metallurgy, glass, faience, ivory carving and, especially, bronze, was under palace patronage, while trade and the networks of inter-regional relations facilitated the transport of materials across great distances in the ancient Near East. Several lines of evidence suggest that exchange relationships between Alalakh and the Middle Bronze Age central Anatolian kingdoms, such as Kanesh, were established prior to the arrival of Hattusili I. One category of artefact, ivory and bone with metallic embellishments, is emphasised here since the crafting of ivory and bone entails the use of local resources, while the plating with precious metals reflects artistic expression and exploitation that is international in scope. Several analytical techniques are presented, such as lead isotope ratios, scanning electron microscopy and polarizing light microscopy, which have aided in defining the artistic expression of Alalakh and the production of artefacts of power and prestige.

Until recently, few excavations had been undertaken in the upper Tigris region. Çayönü was the only site from the Pottery Neolithic period that had been thoroughly investigated. Since 1998, excavations have taken place at a number of sites within the area due to be flooded by the construction of the Ilısu dam. One of these sites, Hakemi Use, is the only settlement from the Hassuna and Samarran periods that has been excavated in this region. A large group of Syro-Cilician sherds, showing close relations to both regions in the sixth millennium BC, was found.

Obsidian was used to make tools and luxury items which were widely distributed in the ancient Near East. At most sites it is an imported material and, as such, has been used as an indicator of exchange, although little specific detail of the nature of that exchange is available. Even though methods of provenance analysis for obsidian are well established, often only a few samples per site have been analysed. This means there is not enough information to indicate the relative importance of the obsidian from each source, or to establish whether source preference changed through time or whether obsidians from different sources were treated differently. The restriction in numbers analysed is, at least in part, due to the expense and the destructive nature of provenance analysis and problems associated with obtaining sufficient samples. In an attempt to address these problems case-studies examining the obsidian assemblages from three sites of Halaf date will be used to demonstrate the potential of a method of grouping obsidians based on their physical characteristics, including colour; these groupings are confirmed by geochemical analysis. This allows the entire assemblage to be grouped quickly and cost effectively and, if used alongside techno-typological and spatial studies, enables us to begin to confront some of the issues outlined above.

The site of Horum Höyük is located on the Euphrates, near the modern town of Nizip. It was excavated in advance of the flooding caused by the Birecek dam. The prehistoric ceramic assemblage contains stylistic elements that relate to the Halaf, northern Ubaid and earliest Late Chalcolithic periods. Studies of the Late Chalcolithic in the region of the Syro-Turkish border have tended to take a Mesopotamia-centric focus, as characterised by the so-called Uruk Expansion. Recently, however, research has begun to examine Syro-Anatolia as a discrete entity. The precise chronology for the Late Chalcolithic period remains an issue of discussion. The main source of chronological evidence in the region is the pottery from the Amuq sequence, which exhibits a hiatus in the crucial Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic phases (E–F). Most of the prehistoric assemblage at Horum Höyük falls within this period and therefore has the potential to contribute to the debate. Three issues will therefore be addressed, namely, the chronological relationship between ceramic ware types, Horum Höyük's regional stylistic relations and the pottery assemblage's overall chronological position.

The Maraş and Sakçagözü valley surveys on the east side of the Amanus mountains provide new data regarding patterns of Hittite territorial management and administration. Sites dating to the Late Bronze Age II period were identified by the presence of burnished pottery, drab ware and, occasionally, by animal-shaped ceramic vessel fragments. The standardised drab ware pottery is emblematic of mass production and rigid control of labour sources and raw materials through systems designed to support the economic and political strategies of the Hittite court and to serve its interests. The settlement pattern is linked to Hittite regional needs for agricultural production, raw materials and territorial security. The distinct site location pattern indicates a strategic, restrained use of space by the Hittites. This left room for beneficial integrative features that local élites might emphasise for their own purposes, which comprise a foundation for the prestige later accorded to the Hittite legacy.