trans anatolia examining turkey as a bridge between east and west

7/27/2019 Trans Anatolia Examining Turkey as a Bridge Between East and West

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/trans-anatolia-examining-turkey-as-a-bridge-between-east-and-west 1/16

Trans-Anatolia: Examining Turkey as a Bridge between East and WestAuthor(s): Alan M. GreavesSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 57, Transanatolia: Bridging the Gap between East and West inthe Archaeology of Ancient Anatolia (2007), pp. 1-15Published by: British Institute at Ankara

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455388 .

Accessed: 26/03/2013 09:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.255.107.160 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:54:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455388?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455388?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa



Anatolian tudies 7 (2007): 1-15

Trans-Anatolia:

Examining Turkey as a bridge between East and West

AlanM. Greaves

Universityof Liverpool

AbstractThis article begins by examining the frequently-invokedmetaphor ofTurkey as a bridge between East andWest. The

use of this etaphorsquestioned ecause it mplies assivity,ver-simplifieshe omplexitiesfancient ommuni

cations and inter-regionalexchange, and is based upon the assumption of divides that are culturally constructed. Thearticle thenexamines two case-studies (theAegean west coast and theEuphrates valley of the southeast) inorder to

demonstratehat he xistence f differentrchaeologicalommunitiesfpractice nthese egionserves odistortfurtherthe perception of differences between eastern and western Anatolia. The conclusion is put forward that a

clearer distinction is definable in thepractice of these twocommunities than in thearchaeology 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 tobe examined. The reasons for the differences between

these cultures of practice are largelyhistorical but continue to affect thedata-sets for these regions and therebyhinder

the irectomparisonf evidence rans-Anatolia.

OzetMakale, Tuirkiye'nin, siklikla dile getirildigi gibi Dogu ile Bati arasinda bir koiprui ldugu soyleminin tartil,lmasi ile

ba?lar. Bu soylem edilgenligi qagri?t1rdigi, ntik donem ileti?imlerinive bolgeler arasi takasi qok basite indirgedigi ve

taraflariniiltuirellarak?ekillendirilmi?arsayimlarinaayandigi qinsorgulanmaktadir.rdindan, 6z konusubolgelerde farkliuygulamalara sahip arkeolojik toplumlarinvar olmasinin Dogu ve Bati Anadolu arasindaki farkllhgin

algilanmasininin daha da qarpitilmasina neden oldugunu g6stermek tizere iki6rnek (Ege'nin bati kiyisi ve Firat vadisi

'nin guineydogusu) ele alinmi?tlr. Sonuqta, bu iki bolgenin antik kuiltuirlerinin rkeolojik olarak ayriminin yapila

bilmesindeniyade,bu toplumlarinygulamalarindakielirginfarkliliginanimlanabilirligirtaya lkmaktadir.E?zamanli arkeolojik toplumlardaki ayrimlar arasinda bir koprui olu?turmakmuimkuin olursa, ancak o zaman antik

toplumlar arasindaki ayrimlarin varligi incelenmeye ba?lanabilir. Bu kuiltuirlerdeki arkliliginnedenleri geni? ol6qtide

tarihseldir,akat arkliliklarolgelerdeki ilgi birikiminitkilemeyeevametmektedire bu nedenledeAnadoluboyunca ogrudananit ar?ila?tirmasiningellemektedir.

T he purpose of thisarticle is to explore the frequently

invokedmetaphor ofTurkey as a bridge between the

East and theWest and to assess its relevance within the

study and discussion of the archaeology of ancient

Anatolia up toand including theBronze Age. The use of

thismetaphor is sowidespread, and its interpretations re

so mutable, that it is often hard to trace its origins and

precise meaning in any one context. Only by making

ourselves aware of the assumptions that are implied by

theuse of thismetaphor can we achieve amore nuanced

andaccurate icture feast-westommunicationscrossancient Anatolia (for the purposes of this article,

'Anatolia' is defined as the landmass that equates with

modernTurkey). In thiscontext t is particularlyimportantodefine he ature f the magineddivide'that themetaphorical bridge communicates across in any

given period.

Ancient Anatolia is now recognised, not as a passive

conduit for communications between theEast and the

West, but as a region of great diversity thatwas an active

1







Anatolian tudies 007

participantnsuch ommunications.norder ounderstand rulyhe omplexitiesnd subtletiesf the rchaeological record and what it may tell us about the

historical assage of cultural ractices nd influences,we must first ppreciate that the record itself is overlain

by the ifferentistories nd traditionsf the rchaeological ommunitieshat perate n urkey.

In examining themetaphor of Turkey as a bridge, a

data-set that is directly comparable across ancient

Anatolia is required,f ast-West ommunicationsreto be traced accurately in the material record. The

second part of this paper therefore examines the

historical evelopmentf archaeologyntwo egions fTurkey in order to explore the extent to which the

differentistorical xperiences f theseregions aveinformed,nd continue o inform, he rchaeological

data and the interpretations that they offer. The twocase-studies presented here are the regions of thewest

coast and the Euphrates river valley in southeastern

Turkey. These case-studies highlight the fact thatnot

only are the physical regions and archaeological

cultures of Turkey rich and diverse, but so too are the

cultures of its archaeology and thesemust be taken into

consideration as part of any discussion of archaeology

trans-Anatolia.

Metaphors andbridgesThe idea of Turkey as a metaphorical bridge between

East and West has widespread and undeniable currency

in contemporary culture. It is a metaphor that is used

frequently in media stories about Turkey and in

numerous popular books. This metaphor is so pervasive

that it informs theway inwhich Turkey isviewed by the

modern world. Itwould be an enormous undertaking to

document fully the historical and contemporary use of

thismetaphor across all media, but, as an attempt to

quantify the frequencywith which thismetaphor isused

in contemporary writing, an internet search for the

phrase 'bridge between East andWest' in relation to the

word 'Turkey' was conducted. This search yielded19,400 hits (using google.com on 17 May 2007). In

order toput this figure into context, an identical search

for another established metaphor was conducted. A

further earch for 'fatherof modern Turkey' in relation

to 'Atatuirk'yielded just 9,310 hits. Figures such as this

are more than just anecdotal, they are an indication of

the relative currencyof thisparticularmetaphor and give

an important indication of how widespread and

ingrained it has become in contemporary writing about

Turkey. It is natural that such permeant metaphors also

influenceurrentcholarshipbout ncientnatoliaandit is importanto recognise hiswhenwe choose toinvoke t.

A metaphor is the application of a term to an object

towhich it is imaginatively, but not literally, applicable.

With the benefit of maps and satellite imagery, the

modern viewer can appreciate that natolia does indeed

appear to form a land-bridge between the continents of

Europe and Asia. However, itwould be wrong to thinkAnatolia's landmass presented the only means of

communication from east to west in ancient times

because itcan be circumvented by sea. The relative ease

and speed of maritime travel isgenerally thought tohave

made it the ominant ode of ancient ommunication.For coastal sites it is difficult to assess the relative

contribution of land and sea travel to their historical

development because the twomodes of transportwere

not mutually exclusive and sites such as Tarsus and

Miletos could receive materials and influences by both

land and sea (for example, Mellink 1998: 6, on Tarsus;Greaves 2002: 32-37, onMiletos). Understanding the

specifics of differentmodes of travel and transport is

thereforessential oanydiscussion f communicationassociated with ancient Anatolia. It is, however, often

not Turkey's function as a physical bridge for trans

portation between continents that is being alluded to in

both contemporary and scholarly references, but its role

as a bridge between cultures.

Bridges are everyday structures and this familiarity

gives themmetaphorical power. For thepurposes of this

paper, a bridge is taken to be a physical construct thatcan

carry communications across a divide. When used as a

metaphor in thisway, the bridge is predicated on two

essential concepts: the belief in the existence of a

'divide'; and the ability to communicate across it. Only

when we understand and begin to analyse these two

prerequisiteoncepts f communicationnd division,can we assess thevalidity or otherwise of thismetaphor.

Although some scholars might argue that artefacts

such as a bridges have agency in as much as they are

extensions of people and their 'social establishments'

(Meskell 1999: 181; Goffman 1959: 231-32), it is the

opinion of this author that bridges are essentiallyinanimate objects thatdo not change, nor are changed by,

thatwhich passes over them. When we compare the

passage of ideas, technology and culture throughancient

Anatolia, and by extension its people, to an inanimate

and passive object like a bridge, we are denying those

people their agency as individuals and societies. For

example, at theLate Bronze Age site of Panaztepe on the

Aegean coast it is clear that the community chose to

combine elements of bothAegean and Anatolian culture

as a deliberate act, rather thanas a simple consequence of

their eographicalocation Mee 1998: 140, 145). Ifweaccept he dea, o passionatelyhampionedyMachteldMellink, that natoliawas more than ust a 'cultural

2







Greaves

corridor' (1966: 115) we should reject themetaphor of

Anatolia as a bridge because it denies the people of

Anatolia their gency; theyhad thecapacity tomeld and

transformultural and stylistic nfluences, herebyactively reating aterial ulture.

Histories f the ivideIt is the opinion of thisauthor that there is no inherentor

universal East-West cultural divide. If such a divide is

perceived to exist in the case of ancient Anatolia is has

almost ertainlyeencreated, itherya contemporarysociety r a previous ulture, ndprojectedor retrojected) onto the evidence. A clear example of how this

commonly has been done is in scholarly writing about

theprehistoricAegean',which is frequentlyrittenabout without reference to thewest coast of Anatolia

(Renfrew005: 153-54; commentingnMargomenou,et al. 2005: 2-5). In so doing, Aegean prehistorians are

retrojectinghe ontemporaryault-linereated y themodernGreek-Turkishorder ntotheir iscussions fthepast, even though themodern nation-state of Greece

only came intobeing inAD 1821 (Greaves forthcoming).

In thecase of contemporarywriting about Turkey, the

reasonswhy there is a perceived divide between East and

West is clear. Whether it is in the political rhetoric

surroundingTurkey's accession talks with theEuropean

Union or its role as a contact pointwith theUSA in the so

called 'clash of civilisations' (Huntington 1998), theWest

hopes thatTurkey, as a democratic and secular Muslim

country,will give itentree into theMiddle East; the need

tobuild bridges with thatregion having been brought in

to sharp relief by the attacks of 9/11 and subsequent

events (for example, consider the context of the speech

given yPresidenteorgeW. Bush referredo elow).Historically,ast-West ivideshavebeenexpressed

invarious forms,whether at the time of theCrusades or

the Cold War. The firstperiod inwhich a cultural

division between East and West can be identified

securely inwritten historical sources is at thetime of the

Persian Wars (499-477 BC). These wars marked a

point at which the division between East and West

crystallised and became enshrined in the creation of

'Greek' and 'Barbarian' as diametrically opposed

ideals. In this case the 'barbarian' East, in the formof

Persia, was characterised by Greek writers as being

decadent and feminising and theWest as restrained and

masculine (Hall 1993). These characterisations are

evident in Greek works of literature (for example,

Aeschylus, The Persians), art (for example, anAthenian

red figure oinochoe by the Chicago Painter, Boston

Museum of FineArts13.196;Boardman 989: fig. 9;Beazley Archive vase number207321, http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/)nd historyfor xample, he roem

toHerodotos). Like all such generalising ulturalstereotypes,hismage ssimplisticndun-sustainedydetailedexamination f the evidence (Miller 1997;Curtis, allis 2005). Nevertheless, his mage f theEast, once created, was an enduring and powerful one

which persistedfor centuries o come (Sidebottom2004: 8). The existence and nature of any 'divide'

between East andWest is thereforeof relevance to the

society that conceives of itand should not be taken as a

trans-historical and universal given (the works of

Martin Bernal [1987; 1991; 2006] and Edward Said

[1995] have done much to stimulate reaction and debate

on this opic).When we start to consider how themetaphor of a

bridge has, ormight, be applied to the archaeology of

ancientAnatolia, we need tobe aware that n so doingwe

presuppose the existence of a 'divide'. Ifwe accept thatthere is no inherent division between East andWest,

except for those that are culturally created, then there is

no divideto ridge.

East-WestommunicationsHaving examined the implied concept of the 'divide', it is

also worth examining the concept of 'communication'.

In contemporarywriting about Turkey, themetaphor of a

bridge between Europe andAsia has been most often used

in a political context and thepresumed traffic cross that

bridge is cultural, economic and military (for example,

PresidentGeorge W. Bush speaking in Istanbul on 29 June

2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040629-4.html).owever, he ridge etaphor asalso been used as a starting oint for cademic discussions

of interactionand exchange between the ancient cultures

of theEast andWest, and usually includes the exami

nation of material culture as proof of that interaction.

Mellink (1998), forexample, used thebridgemetaphor to

structure an examination of the spread of various metal

and ceramic vessel forms in theEarly Bronze (Troy II)

period. Other scholars have also sought to trace such

inter-regional communications via other aspects of

material culture such as artand iconography (forexample,

Akurgal 1968; Mellink, et al. 1993).

Through her extensivewritingson the subject,Mellink didmore than anyone else to raise awareness of

ancientAnatolia as an independent and diverse region in

its own right (Canby, et al. 1986: ix). Other archaeo

logists have complemented her approach and thepicture

that continues to emerge is of an Anatolia thatwas

neitherphysically nor culturally homogenous, nor just 'a

culturalorridor'n ast-WestommunicationsMellink

1966: 115). It is nowwidely accepted that ncientAnatoliawas a diverse egion hat as an active articipant nvarious xchanges etween he ast andwest

3








(Ozdogan this volume), or indeed between north and

south (Zimmermann thisvolume). It isbeyond the scope

of this aperto nalyse, ritique r contributeo pecificdebate bout ast-West ommunications,ut the eader'sattention is drawn to themany excellent papers in this

volume thatdo address this theme. Although the naturalorientation of themajor rivervalleys ofwestern Anatolia,

theGediz, KtiiukMenderes and Biuyuik enderes(Thompson)s east-west, heterrainhanges ncentraland eastern Anatolia, and, where caravan routes have

been postulated, they do not follow a simple east-west

orientationEfe).Otherpapers nthis olume ighlightthe importance of understanding theprecise nature of the

Anatolian terrainnd its regional ultures nd connections Matthews;kse).Yet other apersdeal with theinterplay of differentmodes of transport and cultural

influences inAnatolia (Yener), classes of material thatmight be used in the analysis of East-West exchange

(Fletcher; Healey; Postgate), the importanceofsettlement archaeology to that debate ((evik) and illus

trativease-studiesCzerniak, arciniak; odd; Laneri,et al.; $erifoglu; ekin). These papers, and otherscholarlyworks like them,greatly further ur knowledge,

but it is the relationship between theseworks, thenature

of the 'divide' they are seeking to bridge and the

historical context inwhich the data is produced that is of

concern ere.

Just asMellink's work recognised thatAnatolia wasnot a passive conduit for communications between the

East and West, so it is important to recognise that

'communication' itself has important ramifications for

those who we imagine tobe communicating across any

metaphoricalridge.As Bourdieu bserved, onceptsfconflict and domination are inherent in any act of

'communication', be itexchanges of gifts, challenges or

words (1977: 14, 237, n. 47). Justas-we need to be alert

to thenature of the 'divide' that is implied by thebridge

metaphor, so toowe should seek todevelop an awareness

of any pre-conceived notions thatwe may have about

power relations between the participant cultures.

Although through her work Mellink was keen to

establish connections betweenAnatolia and the historical

cultures ofMesopotamia (Canby, et al. 1986: x;Mellink

1998: 2), we should follow her lead in regarding commu

nication as a two-way process. Failure to do so would

perpetuate theerroneous principle ofEx Oriente Lux.

As archaeologists we should, therefore,be cautious

about glibly referringto 'bridges' between theEast and

West without seeking to clarify,and ifpossible assert by

theuse of archaeological evidence, the existence of such

presumed divides'.We should lsogivecarefulonsideration o thenature f 'communication'ndwhat thismight mply or articipantndividualsnd theirultures.

DividedhistoriesThe second half of thispaper is concerned with thediffer

ences etween he rchaeologicalommunitiesfpracticeoperating in various regions of modern Turkey. Recog

nising he egitimateifferencesf approachdopted y

scholars is an important tep towardsmaking ameaningful

concordancebetween the regionalarchaeologiesofAnatolia and beyond. Only by being aware of these

inherentulturalndhistoricalifferencesanarchaeologistsmake informedast-West omparisonsf archaeological data. Building bridges across thedivide that xists

in the practices of the archaeological communities may

therebyovercome differences in the data generated and

thereforeventuallyacilitateast-Westomparisons.In this section,two regional ase-studies ill be

presented and contrasted inorder to highlight the fact that

thehistory and development of archaeology within theseareas has followed different trajectories and, as a result,

the data and interpretiveframeworksapplied to itare also

different.The chosen case-study regions are thewest (i.e.,

Aegean) coast ofTurkey and theEuphrates rivervalley in

the southeast (fig. 1). These case-study regions were

chosen because they are two of themost intensively

researched and widely known regions of Turkey and are

geographicallyistinctnd, respectively,elimited hewestern and eastern extentof thearea traditionallyknown

as 'Anatolia' (for example, inmaps of the 16th and 17th

centuriesAD). Itwould, of course, have been possible toselect and contrast other regions, such as thePontus, the

Konya plain, theAmuq or theTroad. Given the limita

tions of space, what follows is a necessarily crude charac

terisation of the different archaeological histories and

approaches of these two regions andmany more examples

and counter-examples could have been added to illustrate

every point. Nevertheless, the overall picture remains

informative and useful as a basis for discussion.

Contrasting histories of Turkey's west coast and

southeastThe criteria used to identify sites for excavation on the

west coast have historically been driven by the research

interestsof Classical archaeologists, including the desire

to investigate the sitesmentioned in the surviving corpus

of Greco-Roman literature (for example, Newton 1881;

Wood 1890) and the sometimes undisguised desire to

bring back sculpture for themuseums of Europe. In the

latter ase, some siteswere chosen forexcavation simply

because their accessibility by sea meant that sculptures

could be removed more easily (Jenkins 1992: 168-91,

esp. 185). It is important tobear inmind thispreference

for coastal siteswhen discussing the apparently'maritime'ature f western natoliancultures. It isalso importanto note that mportantatural arbours

4







Greaves

IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 BQ 6sulcul

B odvBadmgedigaTepe rlus <i } '

2DWd,ewXagnetci>GreckCorme"sc

s -S (>-S~~~~Nevah?nG)rkt;*wCt_ {t > Tars iX ;tsn3pa (G*iustsl ,-*u w

_0 pQ200 M

Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text. Sites in the area of theKarkamq, dam include (fiom north to south): Fistikli Hoyiuk;

ZeytinlibahVeHoyuik;Mezraa Teleilat;Mezraa Hoyuik; faviHojyuk; Gre Virike; faraga Hbyfik; Akarvay Tepe; Akargay

Hoyiuk; and Harabebezikan Hoyiuk

will form locus for ettlementhroughoutistory ndthismight account for the overburden of latermaterial,

thus making it difficult for archaeologists to expose

extensive rehistoricevels.Atmany ites, herefore,he iscoveryfBronze ge

levels has been incidental to the primary aim of investi

gating Classical ruins; such as atMiletos where excava

tions began in 1899, the firstBronze Age levels were

found in 1907, excavated again in the 1930s and then

from the 1950s onwards (Wiegand 1908: 7-9; von

Gerkan 1925: 73-77, 113-16; 1935: 8-9; Weickert 1940;

1957; 1959/1960; chiering1975; 1979; 1984; Mee

1978: 133-37; Niemeier,Niemeier 1997; Niemeier2005). There renumerousther ites here ronze gelevels or isolated finds have been discovered as a conse

quence of Classical excavations in this area, including

Kolophon Bridges 974),Metropolis/Bademgedigiepe(Meric 003),Ephesos Giiltekin,aran1964;Bammer,

Muss 1996: 25-28), Kadi Kalesi (Greaves, Helwing

2004: 241) and Didyma (Schattner 1992). This list is not

exhaustive. Notable exceptions to this pattern are the

Classical site lasos, which was originally chosen for its

potential to answer questions about the connections

between Caria and theBronze Age Aegean (Benzi 2005),

and Bakla Tepe, which was a rescue excavation (Erkanal,

Ozkan 1997; 1998).

Relative to the early date of the first xcavations of

Classical sites in the region,dedicated prehistoricexcavations ave nlyrecentlyegun, ncludinghe nitiation of the Izmir Regional Excavations and Research

Project (IRERP). Our awareness of the Bronze Age in

this region remains restricted to the coast and therehave

been very few excavations of sites in the hinterland.

There had been no major systematic excavation of a

prehistoricite in theupperBiiyuik enderes valleysystem inceBeycesultan n the 950s (Lloyd, ellaart1962; 1965; Lloyd 1972;Mellaart,Murray 1995) andAphrodisias n the 960s and 1970s (Joukowsky986)

until the start of excavations at Cine-Tepecik in 2004(Gunel 006).

Many past and current Bronze Age excavation sites

on the west coast therefore did not arise out of a

systematicrameworkf archaeologicalrospectioniththe express aim of finding sites of all periods and

selecting sites for excavation based on those survey

results, as was to happen in southeast Turkey. Appreci

ating the fact that thehistorical background to theBronze

Age archaeology of the west coast has largely been

associated with Classical archaeology is necessary

because this heritage not only affects which sites were

selected forexcavation, but also thenature and quality of

the data available from those sites. Quality of data is

5








affectedbecause there have been significant advances in

fieldworkpractice and recordingsince the first

excavation of the region's key sites. Also, the data and

materials rom hose arly xcavationsavebeensubject

to historical events, such as war and civil unrest,which

led tonotebooks and material being lost atKolophon andmislaid fordecades from he egirmentepe ombs t

Miletos (Bridges 1974: 264; Niemeier 2005: 13).Although it is possible tomake importantnew observa

tions from old excavation trenches and materials (for

example, Momigliano 2005; 2006, at lasos), the limita

tions that thishistorical heritage will continue to impose

on theBronze Age archaeology of thewest coast will

inevitablyemain frustrationo rchaeologists.The second case-study area is the Euphrates river

valley in southeast Turkey. Here, although there had

been archaeological research at some sites, includingZeugma (Cumont 917;Wagner 1976), from he arly1900s the real impetus to initiatenew excavations came

with themajor dam-building projects of the 1960s (i.e.,

the Keban and Karakaya dams) and 1970s (i.e., the

Atatiirk am). The impendingestructionosed bythese projects provided enormous impetus to archaeo

logical investigations,uchasA?van (Mitchell 998)

and Tille Hoyuk (Summers 1993; Blaylock 1998),

which were co-ordinated by theMiddle East Technical

University (METU). With renewed dam-building in the

1990s (i.e. theBirecik andKarkami?

dam projects) as

part of the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) devel

opment programme, a wave of new excavations and

surveyswas begun, again under the strategic guidance

of theMETU TAQDAM Project (http://www.tacdam.

metu.edu.tr/index.php) under an agreement with the

then Ministry of Culture, the State Hydraulic Works

(DSI) and Gaziantep, Urfa and Diyarbakir Museums

(Tuna, et al. 2001: xxix-xxx). Although these projects

had always been international in character, themilitary

and political developments in theMiddle East, including

the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the rising tensions

and eventual outbreak of war in Iraq in 1990-1991

(Matthews 2002: ix), increasingly directed the attention

of western scholars wishing towork in the Near East

towardsTurkey ratherthan the traditional centres further

east and south.

The aim of this pre-emptive work was to recover

archaeological information in a controlled and

systematicway, prior to its destruction. As an example

of this, theKarkami? project prioritised salvage opera

tions and gave a structured framework for the publi

cation of excavations and the dissemination of results to

a wide audience by publishingannual excavationreportsn oth urkish ndEnglish Tuna, zturk 999;Tuna, et al. 2001; 2004;Tuna,Velibeyoglu 002). This

was not as innovative however as the initiation of

annual archaeology symposia and the resulting publi

cation of proceedings inKazi Sonuqlarl Toplantisi (for

excavations) and Aratirma Sonuqlarl Toplantisi (for

surveys), from 1978 and 1982 respectively, which has

established a framework for regular publication acrossall regions of Turkey.

The density of excavated sites that has resulted from

these projects is impressive. To take just one example,

sites in theKarkami? dam area alone, identified first y

survey (Algaze, et al. 1991; 1994) and then subject to

follow-up intensive survey and excavation, include (from

north to south)': Fistikli Hoyuik (Algaze, et al. 1994: no.

45; Pollock, et al. 2001); Zeytinlibah?e Hoyuik (Algaze,

et al. 1994: no. 44; Frangipane, Bucak 2001; Frangipane,

Balossi 2006); Mezraa Teleilat (referred to in some publi

cations as Teleilat Hyiik, for example, Tuna, et al. 2001:xxx) (Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 48; Ozdogan, et al. 1999;

2001; 2004; Karul, et al. 2001; Ozdogan 2001a); Mezraa

Hoyuk (not to be confused with Mezraa Teleilat or

Teleilat Hoyuik) (Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 51; Okse, et al.

2001; Yalqikli, Tekinalp 2004); 5avi H6yuk (Algaze, et

al. 1994: no. 65; Dittmann, et al. 2001; Dittmann 2003);

Gre Virike (Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 69; Okse 2001; 2002;

2004); $araga Hyiik (Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 71; Sertok,

Kulakoglu 2001; 2002; Sertok, et al. 2004); Akarcay

Tepe (Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 73; Arimura, et al. 2001;

Balkan-Alti, et al. 2003; Ozbasaran, et al. 2004); Akarcay

Hoyiik (Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 72; Mergen, Deveci

2001) and Harabebezikan Hoyuk (Algaze, et al. 1994:

no. 75; Oguz, Macit-Tekinalp 2001). Just to the north of

theKarkami? dam, a five-year programme of salvage

excavations from1992-1997 at Hacinebi at theBirecik

dam reached completion just as theTA(DAM Karkami?

project was initiated in 1998 and the objectives,

approaches and resultsof thisproject may have served to

informthedesign of similar rescue projects to the south

(Algaze, et al. 1994: no. 28; Stein 1994a; 1994b; 1995;

1996; 1997; 1998; 1999; Tuna, et al. 2001: xxix; for a

more extensive bibliography on Hacinebi see:

http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/anthropology/stein/index.html). Itwould be wrong, however, to think

that the academic agenda in thisarea has been dominated

by these rescue excavations alone since there were

1The bibliographypresentedhere isby nomeans exhaustive.

For an overview of the progress and development of these

projectsthereader sreferredoGreaves,Helwing 2001; 2003a;

2003b; 2004; Tuna, ?zt?rk 1999;Tuna, etal. 2001; 2004; Tuna,

Velibeyoglu 2002. Some interim reports also appeared inKazi

Sonu?lari Toplantisi and final publications for many of these

sites are now beginning to appear (for example, ?kse 2005;

2006a; 2006b).

6







Greaves

already existing research excavations in the vicinity that

have informed and influencedwork in theKarkaml? dam

project. There had, forexample, been important excava

tions atArslantepe-Malatya as early as 1932 (de Laporte

1940; Frangipane, Balossi 2004; for a full bibliography

onArslantepe see: http://w3.uniromal.it/arslantepe/homepage.htm)nd theon-goingwork at thisnonsalvage site has greatly influenced discussion of the

theme ofUruk expansion, which has been such a feature

of the archaeological investigation of the Near East

(Frangipane 2001a). The excavations atArslantepe are

directed yMarcella Frangipane, ho simultaneouslydirected herescue xcavationstZeytinlibahqe6yuik(see above).

Contrasting ethodologicalnd theoreticalpproaches

There s an iterativend nteractiveelationshipetweentheway thatwe practice archaeology and how we apply

frameworks to the interpretation f evidence. That is to

say,methods and theories inform and arise from one

another (Hodder 1998). The methods and theories that

are used inany given regionwill depend on thehistorical

development of archaeology in thatregion. Not only do

geographical and cultural factors affect theway inwhich

sites are formed,but sociological factorswithin archae

ologists' local communities of practice can also affect

theways inwhich theyare excavated. The very different

fieldworkistories f thetwocase-studies onsideredhere have resulted in the adoption of different archaeo

logical methods. This not only affects thenature of the

data produced, but also the interpretation f thatdata and

the theoretical frameworks typically applied to it. It is

therefore necessary to examine the nature of these

communities of practice across Turkey, because their

differing practices may result in tangible differences in

the evidence base that may be misinterpreted as

indicating the existence of an ancient divide, when it is

in fact the product of themodern era. The following

section outlines and contrasts the relationship between

survey and excavation, the nature of excavations, the

methodologiesnd the nterpretativerameworksnthetwo ase-studyegions.

On thewest coast: survey

Even thoughmodern survey techniques had not yet been

developed, theearly excavations on thewest coast were

sometimes accompanied by landscape research that

aimed to relate theClassical sites to theirgeographical

context (for example, Wiegand, Wilski 1906; Wiegand

1929). It was not until the emergence of systematic

extensive survey as a form of archaeologicalprospectionnd amethod f researchn ts wn rightnthe 1980s that surveytechniqueswere applied to

research into prehistoric settlement Tiil 1986;Marchese1986). Themostextensiverehistoricurveyof the region todate has been thework of Sevinc Gunel

inAydin and Mugla provinces (Giunel 2003; 2005),

although there had been a number of earlier, and in

some cases on-going, surveys that often focused ondiscrete geographical areas or had a specific research

objective or remit (for example, Cook 1961; Lohmann

1995; 1997; 1999; Peschlow-Bindokat996; Lambrianides, Spencer 1996; 1998). Since thesesurveysstarted late in relation to thevery early startof excava

tions within the region, they were conducted with

awareness of the date and nature of recognised key sites.

Even with the publication of Giinel's survey, there is

still little known about the hinterland of the major

coastal sites, somuch so thatTuran Efe has referred to

southwest Anatolia as a terra incognita (speaking at theTransanatolia onference,April2006).

On thewest coast: excavation

As noted above, themajor archaeological sites of the

west coast were selected for the wealth of their

Classical ruins and this has often hindered the explo

ration f pre-Classical levels. The Classical siteschosen for excavation were often harbour towns.

Locations that had been settled in the Bronze Age

continued tobe occupied into theClassical period and

beyond, because of the continuing importance of their

natural harbours, and thismay account forwhy Bronze

Age levels are so frequently overlain by Classical ones.

As a result, excavation areas at these coastal sites are

limited and deposits are restricted in area or cut by later

material (for example, Niemeier 2005: 1). An exception

to this is the Bronze Age site of Bademgedigi Tepe,

which is not overlain by its Classical counterpart,

Metropolis, which is not coastal (Meric 2003).2 In

general, however, open-area excavation of undisturbed

prehistoriceposits scomplicated y the resence fClassical remains. Despite generations of archaeo

logical work, both survey and excavation, significantBronze Age discoveries are still apparently made by

accident in this region, such as the discovery of

Bademgedigi Tepe as a consequence of road building

(Greaves, Helwing 2001: 506; Meric 2003) or the

discovery of significantHittite andMycenaean artefacts

at Kadi Kalesi during the excavation of a Byzantine

castle Greaves, elwing2004: 241).

2However, as David Hawkins reminded me when this paper

was presented to the Transanatolia conference, it is important

topointout thatthis site (identified y the excavatorwith the'Puranda' mentioned in Hittite texts) has the appearance of a

defended hilltop refuge, not a settlement site.

7







Anatolian Studies 2007

On the est coast:methodologyAnother onsequence fthe act hat rehistoricxcavations on thewest coast have arisen out of the excavation

of Classical sites is that they have adopted some of the

methodologies typically ssociated with Classical

archaeology. Classical archaeologyhas historicallyvalued the eticulous tudy f artefactsverthe igorousrecordingnd detailed tudy f archaeological ontextsand this has been one of its major contributions to

archaeology as a whole (Shanks 1996). This has

coincided ith, nd contributedo, he evelopmentf adetailed typological framework for egean ceramics that

is used to date sites on thewest coast of Anatolia. In

some cases theseAegean ceramics are imported (for

example, Giunel 2006: 22, pl. 3), in others they are

produced ocally for xample, eriq,Mountjoy2001;

2002; Kaiser 2005). The ceramics of inland westernAnatolia are less well studied than theAegean and do not

lend hemselveso uchprecisetypologicalnd chronological lassificationecause changes ntheir orm renot so readily identifiable and they are mostly undeco

rated. Correlating veryperiodof thevery preciseAegean ceramic typology to the less well understood and

less typologically uanced potteryof Anatolia isthereforeifficult.3

On thewest coast: interpretation

It could be argued thata further onsequence of the fact

that theBronze Age archaeology of thewest coast has

historically been linked to Classical archaeology has

been the desire by archaeologists and historians to relate

Bronze Age levels to specific identifiable archaeological

or quasi-historical 'events' (Snodgrass 1985: 36). These

may be events from theAegean world, such as theThera

eruption which forms an identifiable event horizon

across the region (Huber, et al. 2003), or events from

Hittite texts,such as campaigning againstMillawanda by

Mursili II which affected certain named sites (Niemeier

2005: 16-20).

The Aegean coast ofAnatolia was positioned betweentwo contemporary literate Bronze Age cultures: the

Hittites and theMycenaeans. From theMycenaean side,

thereare few unequivocal references to sites on thewest

coast ofAnatolia in the surviving Linear B tablets and

none of these describe identifiable 'events'. There are a

number of laterGreek traditions that appear tomake

reference to 'events', such as theMinoan colonisation of

Miletos, but these are chronologically distanced from the

period in question (Greaves 2002: 67-68) and, some have

argued, otworth iving erious onsiderationo Unal1991:37-38). A moresubstantialody f textsurvivesfromtheHittite side, many of which mention 'events' that

mightbe identifiednd corroboratedy archaeology,

such as military ampaigns. However, the locationswhere these 'events' took place are uncertain and the

Hittite geography of western Anatolia has become a

highlycontentiousssue betweenscholars Niemeier1998:20, fig. ). Occasionally ewdiscoveries ring olight ew textsfor xample, eschlow-Bindokat001),but there is still no general academic agreement on this

issue, ithnewtheorieseing ropoundedndpublishedannually (for example, Pantazis 2006); but these often

serve only to distract us fromunderstanding the local

populations ofwesternAnatolia in their wn right nd not

only in relation toexternal powers.Scholars working in this area have also frequently

sought to define the precise character of the possible

presence of Aegean peoples (i.e., the Minoan and

Mycenaean cultures) inwestern Anatolia. Models which

attempt to assess thenature ofAegean presence at a site

by consideration of its settlement organisation (for

example, Branigan 1981) are not applicable here because

of the very limited extent of excavated areas. For

example, the area so far excavated atMiletos represents

only ca 3.5% of the total settlement,which has been

estimatedto cover 50,000m2 (Mee 1978: 135-36;Greaves 2002: 60; Niemeier 2005: pl. 1). This has

prompted hedevelopmentf increasinglyystematicapproaches and sophisticated models for assessing the

extentofAegean contact at sites such as these (Niemeier,

Niemeier 997;Broodbank 004;Kaiser forthcoming).

In theEuphrates valley: survey

The large-scale excavation of sites in theEuphrates river

valley of southeastTurkey began in earnest in the 1970s

with thefirst f a number of largedam building projects. In

the areas designated for inundation, rapid systematic

archaeological surveyspreceded excavation as the first tepto assessing thearchaeological potential of the areas under

threat, nd surveying continued alongside excavation (for

example, Ozdogan 2001b: 289, n. 1). Based on theresults

of these surveys, archaeologists could make informed

choices about which sites, and which parts of sites, to

select for excavation. This was especially important

because of the limited time-scale prior to destruction

(Tuna, et al. 2001: xxix) and meant that sites could be

chosen inorder toexamine periods of particular academic

significance, such as the transition from thePre-Pottery to

Pottery eolithicOzdogan, t al. 1999;Ozdogan2001a).Therefore,ites ere chosen ccordingo heirisibilityosurvey echniques nd recognisable esearch alue to

3The most important Anatolian pottery sequence for Bronze

Age western Anatolia comes from the stratigraphie excavations

at Beycesultan (Lloyd, Mellaart 1962; 1965; Lloyd 1972;

Mellaart, Murray 1995).

8







Greaves

scholars. At a number of these sites, excavation was

preceded y intensiveurface ollectionnd recording,such as at FistiklhHoyuik (Pollock, Bernbeck 1999; 2001)

and Mezraa Hoyik (Okse, et al. 2001). It was also

intendedhat he esultsf theseurveysouldeventually

be published on-line (Tuna, et al. 2001: xxx).

Inthe uphrates alley: xcavationIn some cases itwas possible to choose sites which did

not have an overburden of lateroccupation inorder toget

directly own to theprehistoricevels. At MezraaTeleilat, for xample, an area of 1,600m2was excavated in

a single season, uncovering a large and contiguous area of

Neolithic ettlementOzdogan 001a:25). The exposureof such a large area of prehistoric occupation material

would be impossible at themajority of sites excavated so

far on the Aegean coast because of the limitationsimposed y theirlassical remains. oincidentally,hisis almost exactly thesame area of prehistoric levels that it

has taken a century of intermittentxcavation atMiletos

to uncover (Niemeier 2005: pl. 1). However, evenwhen

siteswere chosen for rescue excavation on thegrounds of

their apparent archaeological potential some were still

severelyffectedypost-depositionalisturbances,s atGre Dimse in the igris rivervalley (Karg 2001: 672-75).

Other sites were chosen precisely because theywere

multi-periodites, uchas TilleH6yuk (Blaylock 998:111),and extensivepen-area ingle-periodxcavationwas not theobjective here.

Thepositioningf excavationrenchescross ites ntheEuphrates valley was often influenced by the need to

sample as large an area of the site as possible prior to

destruction, rather than the location of trenches being

dictated by limitations imposed by Classical ruins. For

example, atGre Virike itwas possible to uncover almost

all thesurface of thisritualplatform (35m by 50m) (Okse

2001; 2002; 2004) yielding an unprecedented amount of

information about Early Bronze Age cult and burial

activity (Okse 2005; 2006a; 2006b).

The Euphrates rchaeological escueprojects ereconducted from theoutsetwith theknowledge that they

would have to be completed quickly and in a co

ordinated fashion. An important element of the

systematic co-ordination of these pre-emptive rescue

projects by TAQDAM was thepublication of regular bi

lingual Turkish ndEnglish) interimeportsTuna,Oztiirk 1999; Tuna, et al. 2001; 2004; Tuna, Velibeyoglu

2002). This resulted in a clear and consistent publication

recordfor thearchaeologyf theregion, omethingwhich has not been possible in thewest where thepubli

cation istoryf such ong-lastingrojectss inevitablypiecemeal nd frequentlynterruptedfor xample, heDegirmentepeombs,eeabove).

Although theapproach adopted in theEuphrates may

appear to be more objective and 'scientific' than the

criteria thatwere originally used to choose sites for

excavation on theAegean coast, even thismethodology

was not entirely failsafe, as the case of Nevali Cori

demonstrates. This site had initially been missed bysurveyGreaves,elwing 001:463-65),but xcavationsin the 1980s until itwas flooded in 1992 showed it to be

a cruciallymportantre-Potteryeolithic ettlementnterms of evidence for early forms of organised religion

(Hauptmann988;1993; 1999:70-78).

Inthe uphratesalley:methodologySince themajority of archaeological work in this region

has been carried out within just the last 30 years, ithas

been conducted with thebenefit ofmodern methods of

stratigraphic excavation and recording, such as theintegration of the survey data via Geographical Infor

mation Systems (Tuna, et al. 2001: xxx). As a resultof

the long history of theprojects, thematerials frommany

early excavations on the Aegean coast cannot be

subjected to the same types of enquiry as those from the

more recentexcavations in the Euphrates region.Conversely though, on the coast there have been very

productivee-investigationsf old excavationst lasosandMiletos (Huber, et al. 2003; Momigliano 2005; 2006;

Niemeier 005), but this eems nunlikely utureossibility for those sites affected by the Euphrates dams

(Ozdogan 2001b: 291). Although itshould be noted that

not all sites thathave been floodedwere totallydestroyed.

$emsiyetepe was flooded by theKarakaya dam, but parts

of it are still accessible (Darga 2001: 115). Similarly,

Zeugmawas not ompletelyestroyedy its nundation.

Inthe uphratesalley: nterpretationJust as on the coast, where archaeologists working on

BronzeAge sites erceivedhemselveso eworking nthe 'periphery' of the egean 'core' (Rowlands 1987), so

too have archaeologists working in theEuphrates valley

regiondeveloped and tested ophisticated heoreticalmodels to explain the region's interaction with the

perceived 'core' of Mesopotamia. The area is in the

highland region into which the Uruk culture of

Mesopotamia expanded (Algaze 1989). In order to

model how this expansion may have occurred, parallels

were initially drawn to themodern World System of

Wallerstein 1974), therebytimulatingn on-goingacademic debate (Marfoe 1987; Algaze 1989; 1993;

Stein, et al. 1996; Frangipane 2001a; 2001b). Intensive

work in this region has also generated other important

researchutcomes, uch as theidentificationf PrePottery eolithicritual omplexes tNevali (;ori and

Go5beklitepeHauptmann999).

9








SummaryIn both regions, he relationshipetween urvey ndexcavation and the limitations (both spatial and temporal)

placed uponexcavators remarkedly ifferent.ongrunningxcavationsf the ites fClassical antiquityn

theAegean coast of Turkey began in the 19th and early

20th enturiesndwere conducted ithout he enefitfcurrent rchaeologicalmethods and recording. Thechoice of sites made at that time and the data produced

have influenced the archaeology of the area until the

present day. There has now been systematic survey of the

region, ut the istributionf excavated ites ontinuesto be dominated by coastal Classical sites. In the

Euphrates, he ntensivend time-limitednvestigationfa large number of sites took place towards the end of the

20th entury.hese sites erechosen ithin he ontext

of an iterative relationship between survey andexcavation and were driven by the need to salvage infor

mationprior oitsdestructiony flooding. he consequence of these two very different regional histories has

been to affect permanently thequantity and character of

the archaeological data available. The regional data-sets

produced reessentially on-comparable,temmingstheydo fromdifferent ommunities of practice.

DiscussionThese differentregional histories affectnot only theway

inwhich 'hard' archaeological data are produced, butalso themethodologies and interpretative frameworks

favoured by archaeologists. It should come as no

surprise that there are differences between theClassical

archaeologies ofTurkey's Aegean coast and the studyof

sites in theEuphrates valley; this is, after all, the very

same Great Divide between theClassical Great Tradition

and the anthropological New Archaeology that Colin

Renfrew defined back in the 1980s (Renfrew 1980;

Snodgrass 1985). In both regions, scholars apparently

look to areas outside Anatolia: on theAegean coast they

look west towards theAegean, while in theEuphrates

valley they look southeast towardsMesopotamia. Such

attitudes served tode-value the studyofAnatolia and the

recognition of its own rich regional diversity (contra

Mellink1966;1998).Yet thesenitiallyutward-lookingattitudes have not been entirelynegative forAnatolia as

they served to simulate debate and lead to the formu

lation of models for analysing the relationship between

'core' and 'periphery' and prompted counter-arguments

that recognise the autonomous cultural developments of

Anatolian peoples (for example, Frangipane 2001a).

Even from thebrief surveys presented above, it s clear

thathererevery eal ifferencesn the haractersf theevidence rom urkey's egean coast and that romheEuphrates alley, nd that hereasonsforthese iffer

ences are largely historical. This has implications for our

perception of Anatolia as a 'bridge' because these differ

ences and the 'divide' that they impose on the archaeo

logical data are a product of contemporary experiences of

the archaeological community. We are in danger of

seeking to find evidence of 'communication' across a

divide where no such divide existed in the ancient past.

The influence that regional histories have had on the

development of archaeology as a discipline inTurkey

and the role that social constructivism within archaeo

logical ommunitiesf practice as played n the esignand execution of archaeological projects need to be

taken into consideration when assessing both how data

have been accumulated and how they are interpreted.

This is relevant because, ifwe seek to analyse, or make

comparisons between, the ancient archaeological

cultures of eastern and western Anatolia, either as ameans to understand heir ontributiono the largerEast-West ultural ialogue r otherwise,t s importantto recognise that those cultures and the data fromwhich

theyhave been created are themselves the products of

modern rchaeological ultures.The initiation of annual archaeology symposia and

the resulting publication of proceedings now provide a

framework for regular publication across all regions of

Turkey. It is also interestingto note that theoccasion of

the symposium itselfprovides an opportunity for social

networkingeyond he stablishedocalcommunitiesfpractice and thismay indeed serve as a bridge between

these two traditions.

ConclusionsWhen we conceive of ancient East and West as entities

that can be communicated between by means of a

metaphorical bridge, thenwe must recognise the divide

inherent in thatmetaphor. This divide is often one of our

own making thatwe retrojectonto the past. At certain

points in history, both ancient and modern, images of

East and West have been created as diametrically

opposed opposites. Hence such divides are not real and

will not be reflected in the archaeological data. Only if

we are aware of this fact can we be mindful of it in our

language and interpretations when applying such

metaphors to Anatolia's position in the ancient world.

Where a real and identifiable divide does exist, though, is

in the regional communities of practice that generate

primaryrchaeologicalvidence cross urkey.As a result of the differenthistories of these contem

porary archaeological communities certain sites have

been chosen for research and specific methodologies

applied thathave affected the nature of the dataproduced.Any perceived ast-West ivide n thedatacan thereforee interpreteds a productf differencesn

10







Greaves

archaeological practice and it is the resultingmismatch in

the data-sets thatmakes thebridge metaphor redundant.

In pursuing the interests of theircommunity of practice

archaeologists have also sought to develop models in

response o pecific roblemsr academic opoi elevant

to their community. It behoves us to reflect on theexistence and nature of this divide between communities

ifwe are ever tomake meaningful interpretative ompar

isons of material culture across Turkey and achieve a

truer nderstandingf its cultural evelopmentndcontributionoworldhistory.

Only ifwe recognise the role thathistory,both ancient

and modern, plays in the construction of communities'

knowledgendpreconceptionsboutmodern urkey,ndconsequently ancientAnatolia, can we begin toopen up a

richernterpretiveramework.he picture hat merges

(and that thepapers in thisvolume contribute to) is thatAnatolia has often been called on to meet the need of

contemporary societies for a bridge across an imagined

divide. We must recognise that lthoughmodern Turkey

fulfils this role, it never does so passively, and only

throughtheprism of itsown richcultural traditions.Only

byconsciously emovinghese utativeivides rom urconsiderations can we hope to achieve a true under

standingof the role that ncientAnatolia may, ormay not,

have played inbridging similar divides in the past.

AcknowledgementsIt is a pleasure to acknowledge the help of so many

colleagues who have contributed to the development of

this paper: toDavid Hawkins, who first invitedme to

present it at SOAS in November 2003; to all the

excavators in theEuphrates area who took time to show

me their excavations while still in progress; and to

BarbaraHelwing fornumerous timulatingiscussionsovermany years. I am also grateful tomy colleagues in

Liverpool: Chris Mee, Christopher uplin,AnthonySinclair and Karina Croucher. The delegates at the

Transanatolia conference and the anonymous readers

providedtimulatingndchallenginguestions hat aveimmeasurably improved the end product. Above all, I

would like to thankSally Fletcher without whom neither

this article nor the conference fromwhich it sprang

would have been possible.

Bibliography

Akurgal, E. 1968: The Birth ofGreek Art: The Mediter

ranean and the ear East. London

Algaze, G. 1989: The Uruk expansion: cross-cultural

exchange in early Mesopotamian civilization'

CurrentAnthropology 30/5: 571-608?1993: The Uruk World System: theDynamics of xpan

sion ofEarlyMesopotamian Civilisation. Chicago

Algaze, G., Breuninger, R., Lightfoot,C, Rosenberg, M.

1991: 'TheTigris-Euphrates Archaeological Recon

naissance Project: a preliminary reportof the 1989

1990 seasons' Anatolica 17: 175-240

Algaze, G., Breuninger, R., Knudstad, J. 1994: 'The

Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance

Project: final reportof theBirecik and Carchemish

dam survey areas' Anatolica 20: 1-96

Arimura, M., Balkan-Alti, N., Boreil, F., Quells, W.,

Duru, G., Erim-?zdogan, A., Ib??ez, J.,Maede, O.,

Mayake, Y., Molist, M., ?zba?aran, M. 2001:

'Akar?ay Tepe excavations 1999' in N. Tuna, J.

?zt?rk, J.Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project of the

Archaeological Heritage of the Ihsu and

Carchemish Dam Reservoirsy Activities in 1999.

Ankara: 309-57

Balkan-Alti, N., Bucak, E., Duru, G., Molist, M. 2003:'Akar?ayTepe 2001 y ill?ali?malan' Kazi Sonu?lari

Toplantisi 24/2: 223-32

Bammer, A., Muss, U. 1996: Das Artemision von

Ephesos. Mainz

Benzi, M. 2005: 'Mycenaeans at lasos? A reassessment

of Doro Levi's excavations' in R. Laffineur, E.

Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in theCentral and

Eastern Mediterranean. Li?ge: 205-16

Bernai, M. 1987: Black Athena: TheAfroasiatic Roots ofClassical Civilisation. The Fabrication ofAncient

Greece, 1785-1985. New Brunswick? 1991: Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of

Classical Civilisation. The Archaeological and

Documentary Evidence. New Brunswick? 2006: Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of

Classical Civilisation. The Linguistic Evidence.

New Brunswick

Blaylock, S. 1998: 'Rescue excavations by theBIAA at

Tille H?y?k, on theEuphrates, 1979-1990' inR.

Matthews (ed.), Ancient Anatolia. London: 111-26

Boardman, J. 1989: Athenian Red Figure Vases: The

Classical Period. London

Bourdieu, R 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice.

Cambridge

Branigan, K. 1981: 'Minoan colonisation' Annual of the

British School atAthens 76: 23-33

Bridges, R.A. 1974: 'The Mycenaean tholos tomb at

Kolophon' Hesperia 43/2: 264-66

Broodbank, C. 2004: 'Minoanisation' Proceeding of the

Cambridge Philological Society 50: 46-91

Canby, J.V., Porada, E., Ridgway, B.S., Stech, T. (eds)1986: Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and

Cultural Development. Essays in Honor of

MachteldJ. Mellink. MadisonCook, R.M. 1961: 'Some sites of theMilesian territory'

Annual of theBritish School atAthens 56: 90-101

11








Cumont, F. 1917: Etudes syriennes. Paris

Curtis, J.,Tallis, N. (eds) 2005: Forgotten Empire: The

World ofAncient Persia. Berkeley

Darga, M. 2001: '?emsiyetepe excavations in the lower

Euphrates basin 1978-1989' in O. Belli (ed.),

Istanbul University's Contributions toArchaeologyinTurkey 1932-2000. Istanbul: 115-20

Dittmann, R. 2003: 'Excavations at ?avi H?y?k 2000

2001' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 24/2: 247-58

Dittmann, R., Grewe, C, Huh, S., Schmidt, C. 2001:

'Report on a survey at ?avi H?y?k 1999' inN.

Tuna, J. ?zt?rk, J. Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage

Project of theArchaeological Heritage of the hsu

and Carchemish Dam Reservoirsy Activities in

1999. Ankara: 233-61

Erkanal, H., ?zkan, T. 1997: '1995 Bakla Tepe kazilan'

Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 18/1: 261-80? 1998: '1996 Bakla Tepe kazilan' Kazi Sonu?lan


Frangipane, M. 2001a: 'The transition between two

opposing forms of power atArslantepe (Malatya) at

thebeginning of the thirdmillennium' T?BA-AR 4:

1-24? 2001b: 'On models and data inMesopotamia' Current

Anthropology 42/3: 415-17

Frangipane, M., Bucak, E. 2001: 'Excavations and

research atZeytinlibah?e H?y?k 1999' inN. Tuna,

J.?zt?rk,

J.Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project ofthe Archaeological Heritage of the Ihsu and

Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999.

Ankara: 65-131

Frangipane, M., Balossi, F. 2004: 'The 2002 exploration

campaign at Arslantepe-Malatya' Kazi Sonu?lan

Toplantisi 25/l: 397-404? 2006: 'Excavation and study campaign at Zeytin

libah?e 2004' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 27/2: 391

400von Gerkan, A. 1925: Milet 1.8: Kalabaktepe, Athen

atempel und Umgebung. Berlin

? 1935: Milet 2.3 Die Stadtmauern. Berlin

Goffman, E. 1959: The Presentation of Self inEveryday

Life. London

Greaves, A.M. 2002: Miletos: A History. London?

forthcoming: The Land of Ionia

Greaves, A.M., Helwing, B. 2001: 'Archaeology in

Turkey: the Stone, Bronze and IronAges, 1997

1999' American Journal ofArchaeology 105: 463

511? 2003a: 'Archaeology inTurkey: theStone, Bronze and

IronAges, 2000' American Journal ofArchaeology

107: 71-103? 2003b: 'Archaeology inTurkey: the Stone, Bronze

and IronAges, 2001' T?BA-AR 6: 125-57

? 2004: 'Archaeology inTurkey: theStone, Bronze and

IronAges, 2002' T?BA-AR 7: 225-50

Gultekin, H., Baran, M. 1964: 'The Mycenaean gravefound at the hill of Ayasuluk' Turk Arkeoloji

Dergisi 13/2: 125-33

G?nel, S. 2003: 'Vorbericht ?ber die Oberfl?chenbege

nungen in den Provinzen Ay dm und Mug?a'Anatolia Antiqua 11: 75-100

? 2005: 'The cultural structureofAydin-ikizdere regionin the prehistoric age and its contribution to the

archaeology of the Aegean region' Anatolia

Antiqua 13: 29-40? 2006: '?ine-Tepecik H?y?g? 2004 yili kazilan' Kazi

Sonu?lari Toplantisi 27/1: 19-28

Hall, E. 1993: 'Asia unmanned: images of victory in

Classical Athens' in J.Rich, G. Shipley (eds), War

and Society in theGreek World. London: 108-33Hauptmann, H. 1988: 'Nevali ?ori: Architektur'

Anatolica 15: 99-110? 1993: 'Ein Kultgeb?ude in Nevali ?ori' in M.

Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P.

Matthiae, M. Mellink (eds), Between theRivers and

the ountains. Rome: 37-69? 1999: 'TheUrfa region' inM. ?zdogan, N. Ba?gelen

(eds), Neolithic inTurkey: Cradle of Civilisation.

Istanbul: 65-86

Hodder, L 1998: TheArchaeological Process: Towards a

ReflexiveMethodology.Oxford

Huber, H., Bichler, M., Musilek, A. 2003: 'Identification

of pumice and volcanic ash from archaeologicalsites in the easternMediterranean using chemical

fingerprinting'Aegypten und Levant/Egypt and the

Levant 13: 83-105

Huntington, S.P. 1998: The Clash ofCivilisations and the

Remaking ofWorld Order. London

Jenkins, I. 1992: Archaeologists and Aesthetes: In the

Sculpture Galleries of theBritish Museum 1800

1939. London

Joukowsky,M.S. 1986: Prehistoric Aphwdisias. Provi

dence, Rhode Island

Kaiser, I. 2005: 'Minoan Miletus: a view from the

kitchen' inR. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds), Emporia:

Aegeans in theCentral and Eastern Mediterranean.

Li?ge: 193-98?

forthcoming: 'Miletus IV: the locally produced coarse

wares' in E. Hallager, C. MacDonald, W.D.

Niemeier (eds), The Minoans in the Central,

Eastern, andNorthern Aegean. Athens

Karg, N. 2001: 'First soundings atGre Dimse 1999' inN.


Project of theArchaeological Heritage of the hsuand Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in

1999. Ankara: 662-93

12







Greaves

Kami, N., Ayhan, A., ?zdogan, M. 2001: '1999 excava

tions atMezraa-Teleilat' inN. Tuna, J.?zt?rk, J.

Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project of theArchae

ological Heritage of the Ihsu and Carchemish

Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999. Ankara: 133

74Lambrianides, K., Spencer, N. 1996: 'The Madra ?ay

Delta Archaeological Project, first preliminary

report'Anatolian Studies 46: 167-200? 1998: 'Regional studies in the Madra ?ay delta:

archaeology, environment and cultural history on

theAegean coast ofTurkey from theEarly Bronze

Age to theOttoman Empire' inR. Matthews (ed.),Ancient Anatolia. London: 207-23

deLaporte, L. 1940:Arslantepe I: La Porte des Lions. Paris

Lloyd, S. 1972: Beycesultan 3.1: Late Bronze Age Archi

tecture.London

Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1962: Beycesultan 1: The Chalcol

ithic and Early Bronze Age Levels. London? 1965: Beycesultan 2:Middle Bronze Age Architecture

and Pottery. London

Lohmann, H. 1995: 'Survey in der Chora von Milet'

Arch?ologischer Anzeiger 1995: 293-328

?1997: 'Survey in derChora vonMilet: Vorbericht ?ber

die Kampagnen der Jahre 1994 und 1995' Arch?ol

ogischerAnzeiger 1997: 285-311

?1999: 'Survey inder Chora vonMilet: Vorbericht ?ber

die

Kampagnen

der Jahre 1996 und 1997' Arch?ol

ogischerAnzeiger 1999/3: 439-73

M?rchese, R.T. 1986: The LowerMaeander Flood Plain

(BritishArchaeological Reports InternationalSeries

292). Oxford

Marfoe, L. 1987: 'Cedar forest to silver mountain:

social change and the development of longdistance trade in early Near Eastern societies' in

M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, K. Kristiansen (eds),Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World.

Cambridge: 25-35

Margomenou, D., Cherry, J.F., Talalay, L.E. 2005:

'Reflections on the "Aegean" and its prehistory:

present routes and future destinations' in J.F.

Cherry,D. Margomenou, L.E. Talaly (eds), Prehis

torians Round thePond: Reflections on Aegean

Prehistory as a Discipline. Ann Arbor: 1-21

Matthews, R. 2002: Secrets of the ark Mound: Jemdet

Nasr 1926-1928. London

Mee, C. 1978: 'Aegean trade and settlement inAnatolia

in the second millennium BC Anatolian Studies

28:121-56? 1998: 'Anatolia and theAegean in theLate Bronze

Age' in E.H. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), TheAegean and theOrient in the Second Millennium

(18 edition,Aegaeum). Li?ge: 137-48

Mellaart, J.,Murray, A. 1995: Beycesultan 3.2: Late

Bronze Age and Phrygian Pottery andMiddle and

Late Bronze Age Small Objects. London

Mellink, M. 1966: 'Anatolia: old and new perspectives'

Proceedings of the merican Philosophical Society

110/2: 111-29?1998: 'Anatolia and thebridge fromeast towest in the

Early Bronze Age' T?BA-AR 1: 1-8

Mellink, M.J., Porada, E., ?zg?c, T. 1993: Aspects ofArt

and Iconography: Anatolia and itsNeighbors.

Studies in onor ofNimet ?zg?c. Ankara

Mergen, Y., Deveci, A. 2001: '1999 season excavations

atAkar?ay H?y?k' inN. Tuna, J. zt?rk, J.Velibe

yoglu (eds), Salvage Project of theArchaeological

Heritage of the Ihsu and Carchemish Dam Reser

voirs,Activities in 1999. Ankara: 359-79

Meri?, R. 2003: 'Excavations at Bademgedigi Tepe(Puranda) 1999-2002: a preliminary report' Istan

bulerMitteilungen 53: 79-98

Meri?, R.,Mountjoy, P.A. 2001: 'ThreeMycenaean vases

from Ionia' IstanbulerMitteilungen 51: 131-Al? 2002: 'Mycenaean pottery fromBademgedigi Tepe

(Puranda) in Ionia: a preliminary report' Istanbuler

Mitteilungen 52: 79-98

Meskell, L. 1999: Archaeologies ofSocial Life: Age, Sex

and Class et cetera in ncient Egypt. Oxford

Miller, M.C. 1997: Athens and Persia in the Fifth

Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity.

Cambridge

Mitchell, S. 1998: 'TheA?van Project' inR. Matthews

(ed.), Ancient Anatolia. London: 85-100

Momigliano, N. 2005: 'lasos and theAegean islands

before the Santorini eruption' in R. Laffineur, E.

Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in theCentral and

Eastern Mediterranean. Li?ge: 217-25? 2006: 'The relationship between Crete and Caria in

the Bronze Age' inProceedings of the IX Creto

logical Congress, Elounda 7-13 October 2001

(Vol. 4). Herakleion: 82-90

Newton, CT. 1881: Antiquities of Ionia. London

Niemeier, W.-D. 1998: 'The Mycenaeans in western

Anatolia and theproblem of theorigins of the Sea

Peoples' in . Gitin,A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds),Mediter

raneanPeoples inTransition. Jerusalem: 17-65? 2005: 'Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians in

western Asia Minor: new excavations in Bronze

Age Miletus-Millawanda' inA. Villing (ed.), The

Greeks in the ast. London: 1-36

Niemeier, B., Niemeier, W.-D. 1997: 'Milet 1994-1995,

Projekt "Minoisch-Mykenisches bis Protoge

ometrischesMilet": Zielsetzung undGrabungen aufdem Stadionh?gel und amAthenatempel' Arch?ol

ogischer Anzeiger 1997: 189-248

13








Oguz, A., Macit-Tekinalp, V. 2001: 'Harabebezikan

excavation: 1999 season' inN. Tuna, J.?zt?rk, J.

Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project of theArchae

ological Heritage of the Ihsu and Carchemish

Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999. Ankara: 381

411?kse, A.T. 2001: 'Excavations atGre Virike 1999' inN.



and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in

1999. Ankara: 263-397? 2002: 'Excavations atGre Virike 2000' inN. Tuna, J.

Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project of theArchaeo

logical Heritage of the hsu and Carchemish Dam

Reservoirs, Activities in2000. Ankara: 241-85? 2004: 'Excavations atGre Virike 2001' inN. Tuna, J.

?zt?rk, J.Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project of theArchaeological Heritage of the Ihsu and


Ankara: 179-226? 2005: 'EarlyBronze Age chamber tomb complexes at

Gre Virike (period IIA) on themiddle Euphratesriver' Bulletin ofAmerican Schools of Oriental

Research 339: 21-46? 2006a: 'Early Bronze Age graves at Gre Virike

(period II B): an extraordinary cemetery on the

middle Euphrates river' Journal ofNear Eastern

Studies 65/1: 1-37

? 2006b: 'Gre Virike (period I)-

Early Bronze Ageritual facilities on the middle Euphrates river'

Anatolica 32: 1-27

?kse, A.T., Macit-Tekinalp, V, Engin, A., Ugur Dag, H.,

G?rm??, A. 2001: 'Mezraa H?y?k researches in

1999' inN. Tuna, J.?zt?rk, J.Velibeyoglu (eds),

Salvage Project of theArchaeological Heritage ofthe Ihsu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activ

ities in 1999. Ankara: 187-232

?zba?aran, M., Duru, G., Balkan-Alti, N., Molist, M.,

Bucak, E. 2004: 'Akar?ay Tepe 2002' Kazi

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 25/1: 303-10

?zdogan, M. 2001a: 'Mezraa Teleilat excavation' inO.

Belli (ed.), Istanbul University's Contributions to

Archaeology inTurkey 1932-2000. Istanbul: 25-26? 2001b: 'Lower Euphrates surface survey' inO. Belli

(ed.), Istanbul University's Contributions to

Archaeology inTurkey 1932-2000. Istanbul: 289

91

?zdogan, M., Ayhan, A., Demirta?, A. 1999: 'Mezraa

Teleilat: Firat Havzasinda Bir Neolitik ?ag

Yerle?mesininTamtimi' inN. Tuna, J. zt?rk (eds),

Salvage Project of theArchaeological Heritage ofthe Ihsu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activ


?zdogan, M., Kami, N., Ayhan, A. 2001: 'Mezraa

Teleilat 1999 Yih ?ali?malan' Kazi Sonu?lari


?zdogan, M., Kami, N., ?zdogan, E. 2004: 'Mezraa

Teleilat H?y?g? 4. D?nem ?ah?malan' Kazi

Sonu?lari Toplantisi 25/2: 235-44Pantazis, V 2006: 'OMHPOS KAI TPOIA Homer and

Troy: Shedding a New Light on theRelationshipBetween Mythos and Reality. Athens

Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1996: Der Latmos: Eine

unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der t?rkischen

Westk?ste. Mainz am Rhein? 2001: 'Eine hethitische Grossprinzeninschrift aus

dem Latmos. Vorl?ufiger Bericht' Arch?ologischer

Anzeiger 2001/3: 363-78

Pollock, S., Bernbeck, R. 1999: 'Fistikli H?y?k 1998:

systematic survey and sounding' in N. Tuna, J.?zt?rk (eds), Salvage Project of theArchaeological

Heritage of the hsu and Carchemish Dam Reser

voirs,Activities in 1998. Ankara: 81-95? 2001: 'Excavations at Fistikli H?y?k 1999' Kazi

Sonu?lari Toplantisi 22/1: 155-64

Pollock, S., Bernbeck, R., Allen, S., Gessner, A.G.C.,

Costello, R., Costello, S.K., Foree, M., Lepinski, S.,

Niebuhr, S. 2001: 'Excavations at Fistikli H?y?k1999' inN. Tuna, J.?zt?rk, J.Velibeyoglu (eds),

Salvage Project of theArchaeological Heritage ofthe Ihsu and Carchemish Dam

Reservoirs,Activ


Renfrew, C. 1980: 'TheGreat Tradition versus theGreat

Divide: archaeology as anthropology?' American

Journal ofArchaeology 84/3: 287-98? 2005: 'Round a bigger pond' in J.F. Cherry, D.

Margomenou, L.E. Talaly (eds), Prehistorians

Round the ond: Reflections onAegean Prehistoryas a Discipline. Ann Arbor: 151-59

Rowlands, M. 1987: 'Centre and periphery: a review of a

concept' in M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, K.

Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the

Ancient World. Cambridge: 1-11

Said, E.W. 1995: Orientalism (Reprint with new

afterword).Harmondsworth

Schattner, T.G. 1992: 'Didyma, ein Minoisch

Myknischer Fundplatz?' Arch?ologischer Anzeiger1992: 369-72

Schiering,W. 1975: 'Dieminoisch-mykenische SiedlunginMilet vor dem Bau der grossen Mauer' Istan

bulerMitteilungen 25: 9-15? 1979: 'Milet: Eine Erweiterung der Grabung ?stlich

desAthenatempels' IstanbulerMitteilungen 29: 77

108?1984: 'The connections between theoldest settlement

atMiletus and Crete' in R. H?gg, N. Marinatos

14







Greaves

(eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy, Myth and

Reality. Stockholm: 187-89

Sertok, K., Kulakoglu, F. 2001: 'Results of the 1999

season excavations at ?araga H?y?k' inN. Tuna, J.

?zt?rk, J.Velibeyoglu (eds), Salvage Project of the

Archaeological Heritage of the Ihsu andCarchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999.

Ankara: 453-86? 2002: '?araga H?y?k 1999-2000 Kazilan Sonu?lan'

Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 23/1: 107-22

Sertok, K., Kulakoglu, F., Squadrone, F.F. 2004: '2002

Yih ?araga H?y?k Kurtarma Kazilan' Kazi

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 25/2: 139-54

Shanks, M. 1996: Classical Archaeology of Greece.

London

Sidebottom, H. 2004: Ancient Warfare: A Very Short

Introduction.OxfordSnodgrass, A.M. 1985: 'The new archaeology and the

Classical archaeologist' American Journal of

Archaeology 89'/l: 31-37

Stein,G. 1994a: 'Mesopotamian-Anatolian interactionat

Hacinebi, Turkey: preliminary report on the 1992

excavations' Anatolica 20: 145-89? 1994b: 'Hacinebi excavations, 1992' Kazi Sonu?lan

Toplantisi 15: 131-52? 1995: 'Excavations at Hacinebi Tepe, 1993' Kazi

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 16: 121-40? 1996: '1994 excavations at Hacinebi

Tepe'Kazi

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 17: 108-28? 1997: '1995 excavations at Hacinebi Tepe' Kazi



Sonu?lan Toplantisi 20: 183-203

Stein, G., Bernbeck, R., Coursey, C, McMahon, A.,

Miller, N.F., Misir, A., Nicola, J., Pittman, H.,

Pollock, S., Wright, H. 1996: 'Uruk colonies and

Anatolian communities: an interim report on the

1992-1993 excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey'American Journal ofArchaeology 100/2: 205-60

Summers, G. 1993: Tille H?y?k: The Late Bronze Ageand the ronAge Transition. London

T?l, S. 1986: 'Prehistoric settlements on theMaeander

plain' inM.S. Joukowsky (ed.), Prehistoric Aphrodisias (Vol. 2). Providence, Rhode Island: 713-24

Tuna, N., ?zt?rk, J. (eds) 1999: Salvage Project of the

Archaeological Heritage of the hsu and Carchemish

Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1998. Ankara

Tuna, N., ?zt?rk, J.,Velibeyoglu, J. (eds) 2001: Salvage


and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in

1999. Ankara? 2004: Salvage Project of theArchaeological Heritage

of the hsu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activ

ities in 2001. Ankara

Tuna, N., Velibeyoglu, J. (eds) 2002: Salvage Project oftheArchaeological Heritage of the Ihsu and


Ankara?nal, A. 1991: 'Two peoples on both sides of theAegean

Sea: did theAchaeans and theHittites know each

other?' Bulletin of theMiddle Eastern Culture

Center inJapan 4: 16-44

Wagner, J. 1976: Seleukeia amEuphrat. Wiesbaden

Wallerstein, 1.1974: TheModern World System : Capitalist

Agriculture and theOrigins of theEuropean World

Economy in the ixteenthCentury. San Diego

Weickert, C. 1940: 'Grabungen inMilet 1938' inBericht

?ber den 6 internationalen Kongress f?r

Arch?ologie.Berlin: 325-32

? 1957: 'Die Ausgrabung amAthena-Tempel inMilet

1955' IstanbulerMitteilungen!: 102-32

?1959/1960: 'DieAusgrabung Beim Athena-Tempel in

Milet 1957' IstanbulerMitteilungen 9/10: 1-96

Wiegand, T. 1908: Sechster Vorl?ufigerBericht ?ber die

von denK?niglichen Museen inMilet undDidymaUnternommenenAusgrabungen. Berlin

? 1929:Milet 2.2: Die milesische Landschaft. Berlin

Wiegand, T., Wilski, P. 1906: Milet 1.1: Karte der

Milesischen Halbinsel. Berlin

Wood, J.T. 1890: Modern Discoveries on the Site of

Ancient Ephesus. London

Yal?ikh, D., Tekinalp, V.M. 2004: 'Mezraa H?y?k 2002

Yih Kurtarma Kazilan' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi

25IT. 377-86

15

trans anatolia examining turkey as a bridge between east and west

Documents