Anatolian Iron Age Archaeology

Ekrem Akurgal (1911–2002) was one of the most prominent archaeologists of Turkey in the twentieth century. He studied archaeology at the University of Berlin and held a professorship at the University of Ankara until his retirement in 1981. He directed many successful excavations in Turkey and is the author of numerous archaeological studies and popularizing publications on Anatolian civilizations.

In this study, by considering the general typologies and geographical locations of the castle
settlements located within the boundaries of Yozgat and that are understood to have been used from
the Iron Age to the Middle Ages, the purpose and methods of security provision are examined. In this
context, the aim is to introduce the defensive structures and fortresses that were identified as a result
of archaeological research in Yozgat, located in the Kızılırmak basin in the center of Central Anatolia,
and within the borders of the regions of Cappadocia and Galatia in antiquity. Many of the Iron Age
settlements, detected as a result of research projects, are located on Bronze Age mounds or around the
Iron Age fortresses established for defense and security purposes. In some of these mounds and
fortresses, stratigraphic layers of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods have also been
identified. The most remarkable elements of the settlement pattern dated to the Late Iron Age and later n Yozgat province and its surroundings are the fortresses built at strategic locations. The most typical
features of these castles are that they were built on rocks high enough to control deep valleys. In
addition, with a few exceptions, they are characteristically suitable for natural defense consisting of
steep rockfaces. Within the scope of the evaluation, defensive structures which functioned directly as
fortresses in terms of their locations and topography are discussed. In addition, structures built for
defensive purposes within the settlements at strategic locations are also evaluated.

This book provides an updated view of our knowledge about Phrygian, an Indo-European language attested to have been spoken in Anatolia between the 8th century BC and the Roman Imperial period. Although a linguistic and epigraphic approach is the core of the book, it covers all major topics of research on Phrygian: the historical and archaeological contexts in which the Phrygian texts were found, a comprehensive grammar with diachronic and comparative remarks, an overview of the linguistic contacts attested for Phrygian, a discussion about its position within the Indo-European language family, a complete lexicon and index of the Phrygian inscriptions, a study of the Phrygian glosses and a complete, critical catalogue of the Phrygian inscriptions with new readings and interpretations.

The concept of the community is vital to the way we understand human societies both past and present, and the last decade has seen widespread interest in communities from both the popular and academic spheres.

The concept is also central to archaeology, where the relationship between sites and communities remains controversial. Naoíse Mac Sweeney aims to take the debate one step further, setting out a comprehensive framework for the archaeological investigation of community identity, encompassing theoretical approaches for its conceptualization, practical methodologies for its investigation, and detailed case studies in Anatolia to test and illustrate its arguments.

The attached download is a sample of the book, consisting of chapters addressing the theorisation of community both in archaeology and in the wider social sciences.

The contribution of Oluz Höyük to the Iron Age of the Halys Basin has taken a religious turn. The evidence and the small finds uncovered in layers 2B (425-300 BC) and 2A (300-200 BC) present important data regarding early Zoroastrianism and the earlier periods of the Fire Cult, a topic where unknown data far surpasses what is known. The remains started to be uncovered in 2017 with the discovery of a sacred fire pit, understood to belong to a fire temple, and a sanctuary. Thereby the presence of monotheistic people in Oluz Höyük who worshipped or revered fire and had no belief in figurines of deities was attested. It is
understood that these people, who concretised their beliefs by building an atashkadah (fire temple), a sanctuary and a sacred road (Persian Road) leading to them between 425 and 200 BC were Persian in origin and created one of the first communities of Early Zoroastrianism. When the historical process of Zoroastrianism is taken into account, fire burning preserved outdoors in the earlier period (5th century BC) seems to be the central practice of the new religion institutionalised in Oluz Höyük.
The presence of the rituals and practices that constituted early Zoroastrianism in the Early and Middle Achaemenid periods shows that North-Central Anatolia (Pontica Cappadocia) and Cappadocia should be evaluated within the sacred geography of the Avesta.

The excavations carried out lately at Yassıhöyük/Gordion, Boğazköy/Büyükkaya, Kaman-Kalehöyük, Çadırhöyük, Porsuk and Liman Tepe and also the survey at Hydas and Hisarlık Tepesi/Troya VIIb2 and Tel-el Cüdeyde excavations of which findings were evaluated later, reveals clearly that the Hittite Empire vanished approx. in 1190 BC and it was the end of the Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Dark Age, that is the Early Iron Age (1190-850 BC). These settlements located in North-West, West, Central and Southern regions of Anatolia determine how the movements of people who were called Thracean-Phrygian migrations and the Sea People moved towards Anatolia, and brought to an end of the Late Bronze Age. Not fixing any center belonging to the Early Iron Age on the Black Sea coasts indicates that these movements of people were not by means of Northern Anatolia, that is the Black Sea.

Architecture of the Iron Age in the Central Black Sea Region shows different pecularities compared to the Land and Coastal zones. By the help of present data we have, the earliest samples of the Iron Age pottery in the Black Sea Region can be dated to the end of the Early Iron Age. During the Middle Iron Age important settlements in the Kızılırmak/Halys Bend are Boğazköy, Alaca Höyük, Hacı Bektaş Höyük (Suluca Karahöyük), KamanKalehöyük, Eskiyapar, Oluz Höyük, Alişar Höyük, Çadır Höyük and also in the south of the Kızılırmak/Halys, Kültepe, Sultanhanı, Yassıdağ, Topaklı and Porsuk.

The pottery possessed in these settlements, known as Alişar IV, are the painted potteries having composition of figures of deer styled in silhouette technique and a concentric circle motif and sometimes with geometrical motifs. It is observed that the styles of ceramics workshops in the Kızılırmak/Halys Bend and its south that had been producing monotonously since the Middle Iron Age had some changes since the Late Iron Age, especially due to their decorations. Instead of figures of deer in silhoutte, figures with a more natural view, using linear and reserve technique appeared. The figures of bird were more abundant in number and in view, and also figures of bull, donkey, roe, goat, lion, dog, fish and insect were used as the main elements in the compositions. Apart from this, various creatures such as bull with wings and sphinx, and also strange, unusual creatures that can not be identified appeared. The figures of human in a styled form which were few in the Middle Iron Age, started to be the most important thing in the Late Iron Age. Mother Goddess/Kubaba of Phrygians, who had been worshipped since the Neolithic Period, was depicted on the pottery during this period. We observe that the pottery workshops in the Kızılırmak/Halys Bend and also the ones in the south were influenced by the innovations and also the political events that occurred in the Late Iron Age and showed this on their productions. For instance, figures of horse and cavalrymen that appeared suddenly were most probably due to the Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads. Besides, it is apparent that the figures of sphinx with crown and beard, depicted on the pottery had an influence of Western Iran that is Median-Achaemenid. Apart from the motifs and figures in the Late Iron Age, there were some notable changes in the paint decoration technique. The traditional colors of dark red, brown and black continued to be used in decoration; however, as an innovation, figures and compositions were started to be drawn in the frames with white and beige base. This frame technique was applied, after sometime, without using the white base. We acknowledge that the pottery workshops continued their productions in the Kızılırmak/Halys Bend, not only by keeping their traditional characteristics, but also reflecting the external influences during the period that is from the beginning of 5th Century BC to the middle of 4th Century BC, Hellenistic Period that is the Last Phase of the Late Iron Age.

As a result of archaeological survey carried out up to present, no settlement or camp site belonging to the Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in Anatolia, that is the Scythians and Cimmerians were determined. Besides, in the light of present data, it is under debate where the Scythians spread and in which regions they were. It is assumed that some tribes of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads who moved in to Anatolia through the Caucasia and destroyed Yassıhöyük/Gordion utterly in the end of the Middle Iron Age, then from Paphlagonia to the Central Black Sea Region and from there to the Eastern Black Sea Region.

Another culture that was effective in the Central Black Sea Region, was Achaemenids. Among the satrapies that were established in Anatolia by Achaemenids, we acknowledge that three satrapies comprise the Black Sea Region of today. The first satrapy to mention is Daskyleion that comprises NorthWest Anatolia, together with Paphlagonia and Mariandyns, land means western part of the Black Sea Region. The second satrapy named Katpatuka (Cappadocia) was ruling today’s Central Anatolia and probably the Central Black Sea Region. The third satrapy in the Eastern Black Sea Region was ruling the lands of Mushki, Tibarens, Macrons, Mossyniks, Marelis; the land between today’s Ordu and Trabzon provinces. The second satrapy named Katpatuka (Cappadocia) comprised the today’s Central Anatolia and the Central Black Sea Region; that is the central part of the coasts of northern Anatolia. As we acknowledge, apart from Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Kilikia were the tax regions (nomos) of Achaemenid King Darius the Great, Cappadocians are mentioned as ‘Syrian’, however Pontus is never mentioned, thus, this northern area was included in Cappadocia in 6th century BC. Cappadocia Satrapy most probably comprised the region of Anatolia from the Taurus Mountains reaching at the Black Sea. Cappadocia Satrapy was divided into two parts. The southern part was named as Major Cappadocia and the northern part as Minor Cappadocia or Pontic Cappadocia. We acknowledge that Gashka people who live seminomadic in the Cental Black Sea Region during the Iron Age, did not settle in permanently and also did not let any alien settle in the region. We observe that despite their powerful dominance, some settlements that appeared to be seen on the terrestrial of the Central Black Sea Region during the end of Early Iron Age and also acquired a character with its ceramics with painted decoration of Central Anatolia Iron Age, were dwelled in by the people whose place of origin was the Central Anatolia. We acknowledge that this policy of dwelling was effective completely in the Land and Coastal regions by degrees. In the light of all these evaluations, we can utter that the culture of the Central Black Sea Region during the Iron Age had the local pecularities of Central Anatolian Culture and was an extension to the north.

The Iron Age absolute Chronology in Anatolia relies entirely on the dating of the burned layer at Yassı höyük, Gordion. Recently a new dating of this layer was proposed and according to this the layer should be dated ca. 100 years older than before. But from the traditional relative chronological point of view there is a disagreement about this new dating. To cast new light on this problem, we are attempting to construct a new Iron Age Chronology, that is independent from the dating at Gordion, at Kaman-Kalehöyük by combination of stratigraphic analysis and the AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) 14 C dating method.

Paper presented at BICANE 4; 16 October 2021 (Conference Proceedings to be published, edited by Pieter van der Veen, Ron Wallenfels, and Peter James)

This paper aims to analyse and contextualise a recently discovered inscription from Türkmen-Karahöyük in southern Anatolia. The inscription is in Luwian hieroglyphic and refers to a certain 'Great King' Hartapu and his military exploits against the Muška (a people often identified as the historical Phrygians). It has provisionally been dated to the 8th century BC. This date, however, poses a number of problems, most notably in terms of historical context. For if this Hartapu was indeed a powerful ruler in the 8th century BC, why don't we hear from his from contemporary Assyrian texts (which do mention other kings in the area)? And how could this be squared with the fact that the Phrygian kingdom flourished precisely at a time when Hartapu claims to have defeated various kings and supposedly ruled over a significant swathe of land? These and other problems warrant a re-examination of the evidence, especially now that the 8th century BC date has already been adopted as a reference point for the interpretation of archaeological data from Türkmen-Karahöyük. This paper highlights a number of methodological pitfalls, and discusses the possibilities and limitations of interpretations of the currently available historical, archaeological, linguistic and epigraphic evidence.

Hitit İmparatorluğu’nun yıkılmasıyla sona eren Tunç Çağlarının ardından yerleşimlerde görülen materyal kültürdeki değişimler yeni bir çağın başlangıcının da habercisi olur. Demir Çağ adı verilen bu yeni dönem kendi içinde kısmen kesin (Radyo-karbon ve dendrokronolojik analizler) kısmen tarihsel olayların ve kısmen de buluntuların (Seramik vb.) şekillendirdiği kronolojiye bağlı alt bölümlere ayrılır.
Hitit İmparatorluğunun yaklaşık MÖ 1190 yıllarında yıkılışından sonra yazılı ve arkeolojik belgelerin susmasıyla “Karanlık Çağ” olarak literatüre geçen bir dönemin yaşandığı varsayılmaktaydı. Çorum/Boğazköy-Büyükkaya, Yozgat/Çadır Höyük, Ankara/Yassıhöyük-Gordion, Kırşehir/Kaman-Kalehöyük gibi merkezlerde son yıllardaki yapılan kazılar Karanlık çağı aydınlatan önemli bulgular ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle bu anahtar yerleşimlerin C14 verileri ve ele geçen seramikler Erken Demir Çağ kurgusunun oluşturulmasında oldukça önemlidir. Erken Demir Çağ ile ilgili veriler Orta Anadolu’da daha güvenilirken Orta Karadeniz Bölgesinde tartışmalı bir durum söz konusudur.
Oymaağaç Höyük Erken Demir Çağ mimarisi ile ilgili bilinenler kısıtlı ve henüz bir kontekst açığa çıkarılamadığından dolayı yetersizdir. Höyükte belirlenen tek odalı evlerin Demir Çağına ait olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bu mimariyle birlikte tarihlemeye yardımcı olacak buluntular gelmediğinden dolayı Erken Demir Çağına ait olup olmadıkları şüphelidir. Oymaağaç Höyük Demir Çağ seramik buluntuları genellikle çukurlardan gelmektedir. Bu makalede, Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Erken Demir Çağı’nın kurgusuna katkı sağlayacak Oymaağaç Höyük seramik buluntuları, güvenilir stratigrafilere sahip anahtar yerleşimler ışığında, karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilecektir. Eldeki malzeme sadece form değil aynı zamanda hamur, üretim tekniği ve bezeme üslubu açısından ele alınacaktır.

This paper takes a holistic approach to the data for rural hinterlands in the Black Sea region in the fourth century BCE to reveal pan-Black Sea patterning, importantly including the southern coast and the territory of ancient Sinope. During a period of dynamic mobility and prosperity, the rural hinterlands of Greek settlements around the Black Sea expanded in ways that demonstrate significant regional commonalities in terms of increased settlement, intensified agricultural infrastructure, new connections via road and path networks and the inclusion of dependent territories beyond the traditional chora. Decisions to expand rural territory and intensify agricultural production were taken at the local level, but this patterning demonstrates that such developments were also a response to the dynamics of Black Sea economic and political networks. The associated increased density of occupation and connectivity in these rural hinterlands made them key facilitators of social networks, crea...

Research into the Iron Age of Anatolia has seldom paid sufficient attention to settlement patterns and the social organization of space. The Anabasis by Xenophon records the observations of a Greek outsider who travelled across eastern Anatolia and along the Black Sea coast in 400 BCE, a time that was relatively early in the colonial process in this area. Xenophon's observations are used to establish a basic model for settlement in the Black Sea coastal region of Anatolia, which is then tested against the results of recent archaeological surveys and related research on the Sinop promontory. A fuller and richer model of indigenous Iron Age settlement and colonial engagement on the Sinop promontory is developed and considered in light of recent research on colonization in the western Mediterranean and northern Black Sea regions.

This paper examines the reliefs built into the gates of the strong- hold of Karatepe–Aslantaş/Azatiwataya in order to contemplate the wealth of iconography observed in the visual programme of the monument. Firstly, I consider the order of the reliefs and propose a visual grammar to read the friezes. Next, I discuss the variety of the imagery to demonstrate the range of contacts beyond the boundaries of Anatolia. Finally, I delineate the Aegean connotations of composition among the reliefs that go beyond the adoption of single motifs and move on to highlight, in particular, connections to the coroplastic art and sculpted art of Cyprus, by presenting a selection of examples for each. The visual eclecticism addressed in this paper is one of the idiosyncrasies of the site, which seems its defining trait. Therefore, I conclude that the solution to reading the gate reliefs lies primarily in acknowledging the diversity in their imagery. I end by briefly contemplating what could account for this heterogeneity.

A glass bead of Carthaginian origin (Punic necklace) in the shape of a human head, uncovered in the excavation of 2010 in Oluz Höyük in the vicinity of Amasya, is important for being the sole example from Central Anatolia. The other important finds in Turkey of pendants of this shape are from Kırşehir, Seydişehir, Byzantium and Sirkeli Höyük. Other important finds of these beads are kept in Sadberk Hanım Museum. The presence of such pendants in Oluz Höyük has a greater importance than the better known examples from the vicinity of the Black Sea. How such beads, which are understood to have been traded by both land and sea, reached Oluz Höyük is an exciting topic worthy of examination.