Anatolian Studies 57 (2007): 17−24

Amidst Mesopotamia-centric and Euro-centric

approaches: the changing role of the Anatolian
peninsula between the East and the West

Mehmet Özdoğan
Istanbul University

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

Özet
Anadolu Yarımadası’nın doğudan batıya doğru uzanan özel coğrafi konumu, Yakındoğu’da ortaya çıkan kültürel
oluşumları Ege ve Güneydoğu Avrupa’ya aktaran bir köprü olarak görülmesine neden olmuştur. Anadolu’nun bu şe-
kilde, Doğu ile Batı kültürleri arasındaki basit bir aktarım yolu olarak ele alınması, kendine özgü kimliğinin de göz
ardı edilmesi anlamını taşımaktadır. Buradaki yanılgının temelinde Anadolu kültür coğrafyasının doğru olarak algılan-
maması yatmaktadır; Anadolu sanıldığı gibi tekdüze bir birim değil, farklı özelliklere sahip coğrafi ortamların bileşke-
sidir. Anadolu’nun Doğu ile Batı kültürlerinin ilişkilendirilmesinde, sanılanın aksine basit olmayan, çok yönlü, iletişi-
mi sağlamaktan engellemeye kadar değişen bir yeri vardır. Anadolu’nun boyutlarını ve kendi içindeki çeşitliliğini göz
ardı etmenin getirdiği bir diğer yanılgı da Anadolu’yu ‘Doğu’ ile ‘Batı’ arasındaki kültür sınırı olarak tanımlamaktır.
Bu yazıyla, Anadolu’nun iki farklı kültür bölgesi arasındaki yerini, Doğu ve Batı arasındaki sınırının ne kadar göreli
ve değişken olduğunu, seçtiğimiz bazı örneklerle irdelemeye çalışacağız. Örneğin Neolitik dönemin başlarında
Doğu’yu Batı’dan ayıran sınır Orta Anadolu’nun batısındayken, Neolitik dönemin ileri aşamalarında Balkan
Yarımadası’na kaymış, Kalkolitik Çağ’da ise Doğu ile Batı’nın sınırını Toros Dağları oluşturmuştur. Tunç Çağı’nda
ise Marmara Bölgesi’nin, Anadolu-Yakındoğu ile Güneydoğu Avrupa-Balkan kültürleri arasındaki çok kesin bir sınırı
oluşturduğunu görmekteyiz.

17
 Anatolian Studies 2007
B ecause of its geographic position between conti-
nents, discussions on long distance cultural interac-
tions have always treated Anatolia as either a bridge or as
a barrier.1 As an inevitable consequence of such a stand,
the role attributed to Anatolia has been downgraded to
something comparable to a transit route conveying ideas,
commodities and/or people from one side to the other.
The biases here are self-evident. With this paper I intend
to draw a different picture of the Anatolian peninsula by
exemplifying the dynamic role it played in reprocessing
ideas, commodities and people into new cultural formats
as they passed through before transmitting.
In simplistic terms, Anatolia can be described as an
elevated plateau surrounded by ranges of high mountains
with numerous intermontane plains or depressions of
tectonic origin that are incised into this mountainous
landscape. Besides its varied topography, the Anatolian
peninsula also comprises a wide range of diverse
habitats, from densely forested zones to semi-arid steppe
environments, each covering extensive areas. Thus, from
the point of cultural geography, it is not possible to
consider the Anatolian peninsula as a single, uniform
entity; it is for this reason that Anatolia is sometimes
referred to as a sub-continent.
Yet another fact that is mostly overlooked is that
Anatolia is located at the meeting point of distinct
cultural entities covering extensive territories, each
having their own cultural traditions. With its varied
features, Anatolia notably differs from the neighbouring
regions around it. In this respect, it should be noted that
the geographic units neighbouring Anatolia are either
uniform habitats, such as the Caucasus with its alpine
environment, the steppe belt to the north of the Black
Sea and the semi-arid lowlands of Syro-Mesopotamia,
or, as in the case of the Levant, the diversity is squeezed
into small ecological niches. Accordingly, any demic
movement coming into Anatolia from the neighbouring
regions is apt to encounter not only unfamiliar and at
the same time diverse environmental conditions but
also different cultural traditions.2 In this respect,
Anatolia constitutes a buffer zone between the severely
continental Pontic steppes, the mountainous Caucasus,
1 Accordingly, we should view it as a dynamic and multi-
There is an extensive literature signifying the role ascribed to
the Anatolian peninsula between the East and the West.
However, it is evident that most of it is mere simplistic gener-
alisations based on its geographic position. D. French’s paper
(French 1986) should be acknowledged as one of the few with
a broader perspective.
2
Turkoman tribes originating from the deserts and from the
steppes of Central Asia represent one of the best cases, in a
relatively short time being fully adapted to the forest zone of the
Taurus mountains.
18
the semi-arid, desert-like lowlands of Syro-
Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean marine environments
of the Aegean and the temperate Balkan peninsula, all
displaying climatic extremes notably different from
each other.
In addition to environmental or cultural concerns, the
understanding of Anatolia’s relationship to the East and
West is influenced by another bias, so deeply rooted in
the history of archaeology that it still defines the
trajectory of thinking on Anatolian prehistory. In this
respect, Anatolia constitutes the geographic boundary
between two contradictory approaches, the diffusionist
Mesopotamia-centric school of thinking and the Euro-
centric antidiffusionist models. Thus, it has been the
region where both sides hunted for evidence to prove
their views. The clash between the diffusionist
Mesopotamia-centric school of thinking and the Euro-
centric anti-diffusionists reached its peak in the late
1960s with the emergence of autochthonous devel-
opment models for early European cultures,
occasionally going to extremes such as Grecism or Ex
Balcanae Lux. The discussions between the diffusionist
and anti-diffusionist schools of thinking were evidently
focused on the cultural relations in an east-west
direction. Almost simultaneously, another discussion
was taking place, this time, however, concerning inter-
action in a north-south direction. This discussion, also
leading to considerable controversy, was based on
defining the impact of steppe cultures on Anatolia, better
known as the ‘migrations of the Kurgan cultures’. This,
still unresolved, debate has had, and is still having, an
impact on defining the cultural boundaries in a north-
south direction. Here, both to clarify my point and to
save misunderstandings, I am not at all implying an
Anatolia-centric model;3 on the contrary, I am conscious
of the fact that whatever role Anatolia played in the past,
like many other geographic regions, it was far too
complex to be covered by a single, linear model. It
seems evident that throughout prehistory the boundaries
separating cultural regions − the Near East, the Aegean,
the Balkans as well as the areas to the east and to the
north − were very dynamic and not at all static demar-
cators. And it is also evident that interactions through
different trajectories were taking place simultaneously.
facetted process, of which I shall restrict myself to
presenting a few such cases and focusing primarily on
the most controversial ones.
3
I am conscious that even presenting a historic narrative on the
impact of either Mesopotamia or Balkan based models could be
seen as introducing a new model based on Anatolia.
 Özdoğan
Neolithic Anatolia
Since the early years of research, the Neolithic period has
been the focus of interest not only of archaeologists but
also of scholars of the other social and natural sciences;
it has been considered as one of the most significant
turning points in the history of civilisation, leading to
revolutionary changes in all aspects of culture. As there
is an extensive literature covering all aspects of the
Neolithic period, I will not attempt to present a
conspectus, neither on the emergence nor on the devel-
opment of this exciting era, but I will point to some issues
relevant to the context of this paper.
In the early years of research, almost up to two decades
ago, the entire extent of the Anatolian peninsula, including
the southeastern lowlands, was considered to be outside the
Neolithic formative zone, a view now considerably revised
to incorporate most of the peninsula within the core area of
primary neolithisation (for a review of changing views on
the place of Anatolia in the formative process of Neolithic
cultures, see Özdoğan 1994; 1995; 1997). Defining the
place of Anatolia in the process of neolithisation is of
importance since this sets the boundary between the East
and the West during this time. In this context, I would like
to draw attention to the controversial implication of using
the geographic terms the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ to denote
cultural entities. Taken literally in their geographic
meaning, the East is the core area of the Neolithic formation
and the West is the contemporary Mesolithic or Epi-Palae-
olithic cultures to the west of the primary zone of neolithi-
sation. However, with the growing impact of Euro-centric
tendencies during the last decade or so, the Neolithic of the
Near East is now being considered as the ancestral form of
European culture, thus conceptually reversing the East with
the West. This has mainly surfaced in bio-genetic studies
carried out to determine the ratio of genes transmitted from
the Near Eastern Neolithic populations to the genetic pool
of present European communities. It is striking that the
present-day political boundary between Turkey and Greece
is being taken as the dividing line in defining the genetic
compositions of the East and the West (this approach can be
seen in most biogenetic assessments, see, for example,
Renfrew 2002; Zvelebil 2002; Bentley, et al. 2003.), and
that these data are being conveyed to assess the genetic
pools of the Neolithic populations of the East. It is evident
that this approach overlooks the fact that the western border
of the Near Eastern Neolithic is not a static one, but, as is
noted below, one which moves over time from central
Anatolia to the Balkans.
As has already been noted above, the western
boundary of the Neolithic has moved, both conceptually
and literally, over time. In the earlier years of Neolithic
studies, there was a consensus that the Anatolian
peninsula was beyond the core area of primary neolithi-
19
sation, though there was some dispute in defining where
the core area was. To some scholars, the core area of the
Neolithic cultures was further to the south, in the
southern Levant, and anything to the north, including
sites such as Çayönü or Çatalhöyük, marked the northern
expansion of the Neolithic way of life through ‘the
Levantine corridor’, thus representing an area of
‘secondary neolithisation’ (Cauvin 1988; 1989; Bar-
Yosef, Belfer-Cohen 1992). To G. Childe and his
followers, the core area was the semi-arid riverine
environments of the Near East, but excluding the
highlands of Anatolia (Childe 1964); Braidwood (1960)
and his team shifted the core area further to the north, to
the southern foothills of the Fertile Crescent, for the first
time incorporating parts of southeastern Anatolia into the
core area, but still keeping most of the Anatolian
peninsula outside the formative zone.
The bias in excluding the Anatolian highlands from
the core area of primary neolithisation was so strong and
deeply rooted that sites such as Aşıklı and Çatalhöyük
were considered as trading colonies or outposts in the
trading of obsidian and salt. Thus Seton Lloyd (Lloyd
1956: 53−54, 58−61) noted, ‘ …the region more
correctly described as Anatolia shows no sign whatever
of habitation during the Neolithic period…’ and,
‘...various phases were later found, first in north Syria
and then at Taurus and Mersin beyond the Turkish
frontier... testifying the westward and northward
extension of the great Chalcolithic province… a barrier
still existed and beyond it Anatolia remained unpopu-
lated’. This, evidently, is an extension of Childe’s view
of 1957 (Childe 1964: 36), ‘…no recognizable archaeo-
logical milestones mark an ancient route across Anatolia
from the Orient to Europe’. Thus, even the Neolithic
diffusion bypassed the Anatolian peninsula, following
the Mediterranean coastline instead.
Neolithic excavations carried out during the last two
decades on various parts of the Anatolian peninsula have
drawn a picture that is totally different from the conven-
tional one, not only placing large parts of the Anatolian
peninsula into the primary zone of neolithisation, but,
more specifically, leading to revolutionary changes in our
vision of that period that necessitate reconsidering even
the definition of what is implied by the term Neolithic
(Özdoğan 2002b).
With the inclusion of the Anatolian highlands, the
area coverage of the primary zone of neolithisation has
been considerably expanded. This, nevertheless, also
requires reassessment of the ‘boundaries’ between the
East and the West. In this respect, the earliest stages of
central Anatolia have certain characteristics that are
worth considering here (Özdoğan 2002a). Firstly, the
region constitutes the western border of the Pre-Pottery
 Anatolian Studies 2007
Neolithic world, a cultural demarcation zone that
remained static for a considerable period of time, at least
3,000 years. At the present stage of our knowledge, due
to a lack of research, defining the exact location of this
border is not possible as no early sites have yet been
recovered from the contact zone between central and
western Anatolia. However, the Mesolithic and/or Epi-
Palaeolithic assemblages known from the littoral areas of
the Aegean, the Sea of Marmara and the Antalya region
show no elements suggestive of any sort of interaction of
these coastal Mesolithic groups with the contemporary
Pre-Pottery cultures of the Konya plain. Accordingly, it
seems plausible to suggest that the border of the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic culture lay somewhere in the western
part of the Konya plain. It is not clear what exactly was
beyond that line in the littoral areas. As is the case in
mainland Greece and Bulgaria south of the Balkan
mountains, the Mesolithic horizon is conspicuously
absent in areas further inland from the coastal strip.
Throughout this region, with the exception of a few
random cases, all known Mesolithic sites are located on
or nearby the coastal areas, suggesting that either the
inner parts were void of habitation or very sparsely
populated (Andel 2000; Runnels 2003; Özdoğan 2005;
2006b). Nevertheless, without going into the details of
this discussion, it is evident that, from the onset of Pre-
Pottery cultures up to the beginning of the Pottery
Neolithic period, the eastern and western regions were
parts of different cultural formations.
The other, but related, question concerns the inter-
action of central Anatolian Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN)
cultures with their contemporaries in the east. At first
glance, the early Neolithic cultures of both regions, conve-
niently named PPN in the east and Aceramic in central
Anatolia, seem to have developed independently of each
other, the most evident difference being the layout of the
settlements. The settlements in the east, the term ‘east’
implying all of southeastern Anatolia, northern Syro-
Mesopotamia and the Levant, consist of free-standing
buildings, neatly distributed, strongly suggesting that the
settlements had developed according to a pre-decided
plan. This implies the presence of a decision making
authority that was strictly in control of the habitation, and
a similar trend can also be seen in the steady change in
house plans. Needless to say, this can only be detected at
sites where the exposure is large enough to reveal the
layout of the buildings, Çayönü being the most apparent
one (for details and further discussion see Özdoğan 1996;
2006a). This is in strong contrast to the agglomerative
plan type of the central Anatolian Aceramic Neolithic
sites, where the types of buildings do not show any
marked changes over time and there is no indication of
planned design in the lay-out of the settlements.
20
Yet another, but more striking difference, between the
two Neolithic groups is in cult practices. In the eastern
group, from the earliest stages of the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic, there are special buildings specifically
designed and built for cultic purposes that are notably
different from domestic structures. With high retaining
stone walls, adorned with niches, buttresses, special
floorings occasionally of burnt lime, interior decorations
and standing stones with relief decorations, these cult
buildings can justifiably be considered as ‘pristine-
temples’, the best known examples include Hallan Çemi,
Çayönü, Navali Çori, Göbeklitepe, Jerf el Ahmar and
Djade. On the other hand, in central Anatolia, architec-
turally there is no difference between the domestic struc-
tures and those used for cult purposes; in other words, the
function of cult buildings in central Anatolia is defined
by their context, implying that any house can, at a certain
period, be converted to serve as a cult building. In our
consideration, the difference between the two regions in
this aspect is highly significant, reflecting the social
systems of each region.
The divergence between the two regions is not limited
to what we have noted above; sorting out the assemblages
of either region indicates significant differences in lithic
technology such as core preparation and dominant tool
types, or in symbolic representations. However, there are
other indicators that clearly suggest that, at the same time,
there was an active interaction and, more specifically, a
‘sharing of knowledge’ between the two groups. The
most evident and easily recognised case is the trade of
obsidian; as indicated at the Kaletepe obsidian workshop
(Balkan-Atlı, et al. 1999) which produced a very
specialised blade core, the so-called naviform core, used
in southeastern Anatolian and the Levant, even though
such cores are alien to the lithic assemblages of central
Anatolia. The obsidian trade between the two regions
should not be considered as an incidental event taking
place spontaneously. On the contrary, it is well organised
and the amount of obsidian going from one region to the
other was vast. Another fact that should not be
overlooked is that this intensive trade was sustained,
without any interruption, for at least 4,000 years, a unique
phenomenon unparalleled elsewhere in history. Apart
from the trade in obsidian, the Neolithic cultures of both
regions contain numerous common elements, ranging
from burial customs, to the use of copper, the presence of
certain prestige objects and the employment of sophisti-
cated technologies. In an overall assessment, it is evident
that, in spite of the differences between the two regions,
especially in their social systems, they were not totally
detached and the differences in their social and, possibly,
in their administrative systems did not hamper interaction
and the sharing of knowledge and technology.
 Özdoğan
Thus, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic stage, the
presence of two main cultural complexes is evident in
the Anatolian peninsula: the Mesolithic and the
Neolithic, that were clearly detached from each other.
Apart from the marked differences between the
Mesolithic and Neolithic communities, there is no
uniformity between the Neolithic cultures living in the
central and the southeastern parts of the peninsula. In
spite of differences in the ‘life styles’ of each region, as
reflected in the organisation of their settlements, types
of houses, cult practices, etc, an intensive interaction
was also taking place between the central and south-
eastern regions. Due to a lack of research, it is not
possible to say if the Taurus mountains constituted a
definite border between these two regions or whether
they merged into each other at some place in between.
Likewise, we have no information about what was
happening at that time in the northern parts of the
peninsula, though, looking at contemporary sites in the
Caucasus, it seems possible to surmise that, at least in
the northeast, there were some Mesolithic communities
and that other parts in the north were perhaps devoid of
habitation.
To conclude this section on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
stage, it is not possible to speak of Anatolia as a uniform
cultural entity. Every macro region was developing its
own particular identity, though at the same time inter-
acting with neighbouring regions.
Early stages of the Pottery Neolithic
The Pottery Neolithic stage marks the rapid expansion
of the ‘Neolithic way of life’ in all directions. Thus it
also comprises the core of the antagonism between
diffusionist and anti-diffusionist concerns. Discussion
of how the Neolithic way of life reached western parts
of the Anatolian peninsula and spread into southeastern
Europe is beyond the concern of this paper (for a
conspectus of different views and also for extensive
bibliographies on this issue see especially Sherratt
1997; Budja 2001; 2004; Nikolov 2002; Özdoğan
2005; 2006b). Whatever the mode of this expansion
was, whether demic diffusion or exchange of
commodities and ideas or assimilation or even parallel
development, it was a rapid one, crossing over to the
European side by the early stages of the sixth
millennium BC.
Until recently, our knowledge of the Pottery Neolithic
of western and northwestern Anatolia was restricted to
excavations at Hacılar and Kuruçay in the Lake District
and to the Fikirtepe and Pendik excavations along the
eastern coast of the Sea of Marmara. The distance
between these two regions is over 500km, making any
generalisation about the cultural setting of the western
21
parts of the peninsula almost impossible. Now, however,
the increase in the number of excavated sites4 makes it
possible, if not to draw a comprehensive picture, at least
to surmise what was happening.
The picture that is now emerging from western parts
of the peninsula, disregarding all discussion of details,
is highly interesting, displaying both a homogeneity
and, at the same time, a diversity of cultural entities that
are evidently contemporary. Firstly, even a brief look
indicates that every component of the assemblage of the
Neolithic sites in the west can be traced back to the core
area of primary neolithisation in the east. That is to say
that the basic components of the ‘Neolithic package’
have somehow been transferred with the expansion of
this way of life, but with some being modified to adapt
to local conditions (for a comparative analysis of the
Neolithic package, see Özdoğan 2007). Among these,
the most apparent is the emergence of wooden archi-
tecture. Here, it should be noted that at the time of the
westward expansion of the Neolithic model, post-hole
or wattle and daub structures with round or ovoid plans
had long been forgotten in the east; likewise, it is not
possible to consider the hut, or tent-like wattle and daub
structures of the Mesolithic cultures as the forerunners
of the substantial wooden houses of the newly installed
Neolithic sites in the west. The Neolithic houses of
western Anatolia and of eastern Thrace are substantial
structures with a rectangular ground plan. The earliest
examples, as known from Ilıpınar (Gérard 2001), and
the more advanced forms from Aşağı Pınar (Karul, Eres
2003) clearly demonstrate how the mud-brick archi-
tecture of the Neolithic was re-structured into wooden
buildings that were much better suited to this wooded
environment. In this respect, it should be noted that the
environmental conditions in the western parts of the
Anatolian peninsula, including the region around the
Sea of Marmara, differ notably from the arid conditions
of the east. Thus, immediately after the expansion of
the Neolithic way of life into the western parts of the
peninsula, almost all components of the Neolithic
culture seem to have gone through a stage of transfor-
mation, which provided the means for its survival in
temperate Europe.
4
Among the recent sites excavated, or still being excavated, it is
worth noting the following which have provided extensive new
data: Hoca Çeşme and Aşağı Pınar in Thrace; Ilıpınar, Menteşe
and Barçın in eastern Marmara; Aktopraklık in southern
Marmara; Coşkuntepe in the Troad; Heybeli Dedecik, Ulucak,
Yeşilova and Ege Gübre in the Aegean littoral; Tepecik in the
Büyük Menderes valley; Keçi Çayırı on the Phrygian plateau;
Höyücek and Bademağacı in the Lake District. For brief
descriptions and for references, see Özdogan, Başgelen 2007.
 Anatolian Studies 2007
Nevertheless, this does not imply that the western
parts of the Anatolian peninsula were a uniform cultural
entity. While most of the excavated sites display a clear
connection with central Anatolia, others, mainly those
located along the Aegean coastal strip, such as Ege
Gübre in Izmir and Hoca Çeşme near the deltaic plain
of Meriç/Evros, suggest that there were other lines of
interaction. In the early years of research, Childe
surmised a maritime expansion of Neolithic commu-
nities along the coastal areas. This view, which had for
long fallen into oblivion under the impact of anti-diffu-
sionist approaches, was taken up again recently by
Perlès (Perlès 2005), now, however, based on re-
assessment of the evidence from mainland Greece.
Perlès, by sorting out the components of the early
Neolithic package in Greece, clearly indicated that,
along with the elements transferred from mainland
Anatolia, there were others of Levantine origin that
must have arrived through maritime connections,
bypassing the Anatolian plateau. Needless to say, the
recent discoveries in Cyprus have proved that the
maritime route was active from the onset of Neolithic
cultures. In this respect, what has been exposed at
coastal sites such as Hoca Çeşme and Ege Gübre
indicates the presence of another cultural interaction
zone along the coastal areas, but not totally detached
from the events that took place on the plateau.
Substantial round buildings of stone and the so-called
impresso pottery are the most evident of the compo-
nents that are alien to the plateau during the Neolithic.
Coming back to the Pottery Neolithic of the
Anatolian plateau, again there are a number of signif-
icant differences from that in the east. The early stages
of the Pottery Neolithic period in the southeast mark a
period of depopulation; most of the ‘mega-sites’ of the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic period have either been
abandoned or considerably reduced in size. There is
also a marked contrast between the assemblages of the
two periods; fancy status objects that were extensively
used during the Pre-Pottery stage are either absent or
became a rarity during the early Pottery Neolithic
stage. However, by the same time period there is an
almost sudden increase in the number of Pottery
Neolithic sites on the Anatolian plateau, which is more
evident in the western regions, including the Aegean
(Perlès 2001). Likewise, the assemblages of central
and western Anatolian Pottery Neolithic sites are
conspicuously richer both in status objects and in
objects related to symbolism. What this implies is
again beyond the concern of this paper, but the picture
drawn of this stage is of significance. While there was
a demic movement originating from the east, bringing
together the basic components of its cultural inventory,
22
the composition of the assemblage was almost
completely rearranged by the time it reached littoral
areas of the Aegean. Considering that the westward
expansion of the Neolithic way of life was rather rapid,
the redesigning process of the cultural assemblage is
worth considering. Some non-utilitarian objects, such
as bone spoons, so-called ear studs, pintaderras, cult
tables and steatopygic female figurines, that occurred
as rather insignificant items in the east, turn into major
prestige objects among the Neolithic communities of
western Anatolia and of the Aegean.
The diversity of cultural formations within the
Anatolian peninsula during the Pottery Neolithic period
is evident, though again not implying that there was no
interaction within the peninsula. It is possible to point
to numerous stylistic innovations that somehow occur
across the peninsula throughout the Pottery Neolithic
period, such as burnished red slipped wares, applied
decorations on pottery, bucrania, horned animals, relief
human motives, etc. In spite of the presence of ‘shared’
elements, there is also a marked diversity in the stylistic
composition of the pottery assemblages; while in the
regions to the south of the Taurus range light coloured
wares with smoothed surfaces are dominant, these are
replaced by red slipped lustrously burnished wares in
the west and dark faced burnished wares in the
northwest.
Here, it is worth re-emphasising the fact that the
regional coverage of assemblages was not stable, on the
contrary, they changed location and merged with each
other to form new groupings throughout the Neolithic
and Chalcolithic periods.
The Early Bronze Age
In conventional terms the Early Bronze Age is marked
by the appearance of city-states through a rapid process
of urbanisation. As the emergence of urban centres has
a much earlier beginning in Syro-Mesopotamia, going
back to the first part of the fourth millennium BC, town
centres such as Troy or Alaca Höyük have always been
considered as the reflection of the Mesopotamian
system at a considerably reduced scale. However, a
simple comparison regarding the defining parameters of
the two systems indicates that the diversity between the
Anatolian and Syro-Mesopotamian models was far
greater than indicated by the dimensions of the settle-
ments. Still, it is worth bearing in mind that while the
dimensions of the third millennium Syro-
Mesopotamian towns were occasionally over several
hectares, contemporary town centres of Anatolia hardly
exceeded a few hundred metres; the smallest ones such
as Kanlıgeçit being 39m, the larger ones, Troy I, Troy II,
Demircihöyük, Pulur Sakyol, still being less than 100m
 Özdoğan
in diameter. However, a more significant difference is
in what these centres imply. The Syro-Mesopotamian
centres were adorned with ‘prestige buildings’ such as
monumental temples, ceremonial edifices and
magazines of extensive storage capacity; at the same
time they were bureaucratic centres, where records and
all commodities that were considered as economic
assets were kept. Thus they were the forerunners of
present-day cities, organised to house the ruling élite,
priests, the military, craftsmen and merchants as well as
the workers. On the other hand, the Anatolian centres
lack all of these. The Anatolian towns are marked by a
substantial city wall, adorned by a monumental gate
building, but they had none of the urban parameters
within the walled space; no temples, no palaces, no
storage areas, no workshops, no military installations
and no place either for the bureaucrats and craftsmen, or
for the workers. The only structures of any importance
within these walled citadels were the megarons. The
Anatolian Early Bronze Age centres also lacked an
outer town of any significance,5 and, moreover, there is
no indication of either record keeping or of any other
bureaucratic mechanism. Nevertheless, as evidenced
by the hoards and cemetery finds such as those at Troy
and Alacahöyük, in third millennium Anatolia there was
an extensive accumulation of wealth, highly specialised
craftsmanship, developed metallurgy, intensive trade
and importation of precious materials. Thus, the social
system must have been organised according to totally
different parameters to the Syro-Mesopotamian one. It
seems that what we consider as the Anatolian towns of
the Early Bronze Age I and II can more correctly be
termed as ‘symbolic’ centres than actual habitation
sites. This ‘Anatolian town model’ prevailed through
western, central and eastern Anatolia, while towns such
as Titriş, Zeytinlibahçe and Gedikli Karahöyük in the
southeastern parts reflected the Syro-Mesopotamian
model. In the interim zone between the Syro-
Mesopotamian and Anatolian systems, as indicated by
sites such as Arslantepe in Malatya, or Tarsus and
Yumuktepe in Cilicia, there seems to be another model,
seemingly an amalgamation of both systems. This is
best attested at Aslantepe where the palace constituted
the dominant feature of the settlement rather than the
temple as in the Syro-Mesopotamian towns.
5
This does not imply that there were no settlements
surrounding the walled centres, but, as in the cases of Karataş
Semahöyük, Troy I and II, and Kanlıgeçit, what can be
considered as the outer town consisted of very sparsely
scattered houses, with no indication of any social stratification
or of craft specialisation.
23
Concluding remarks
With this paper, I wished to point to the dynamic
diversity of the Anatolian plateau by noting certain cases;
actually, the picture is much more complex than that
which I have presented here. Anatolian archaeology is
still in its incipiency, and there are extensive areas, larger
than some countries in Europe, where no sites have been
excavated. Thus, we are still far from understanding
what happened and, as more data flow in, it becomes
more difficult to find acceptable answers to the old
questions. At least now it is clear that the old questions
were not properly formulated and the overall picture was
much more complex then ever envisaged. It seems
evident that the problem lies more in our mutual under-
standing of the Anatolian peninsula and that probably it
is now time to reconsider our vision.
Bibliography
Andel, T.H. 2000: ‘Where received wisdom fails: the
Mid-Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic climates’ in C.
Renfrew, K. Boyle (eds), Archaeogenetics: DNA
and the Population Prehistory of Europe.
Cambridge: 31−39
Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., Kuzucuoğlu, C. 1999:
‘L’atelier Néolithique de Kömürcü-Kaletepe:
Fouilles de 1998’ Anatolia Antiqua 7: 231−43
Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. 1992: ‘From foraging to
farming in the Mediterranean Levant’ in A.B.
Grebauer, T.D. Price (eds), Transitions to
Agriculture in Prehistory. Wisconsin: 21−48
Bentley, R.A., Chikhi, L., Price, T.D. 2003: ‘The
Neolithic transition in Europe: comparing broad
scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence’
Antiquity 77/295: 63−66
Braidwood, R.J., 1960: ‘The agricultural revolution’
Scientific American 203: 130−41
Budja, M. 2001: ‘The transition to farming in southeast
Europe: perspectives from pottery’ Documenta
Praehistorica 28: 27−47
⎯ 2004: ‘The Neolithisation of the Balkans: where in the
puzzle?’ in A. Lukes, M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK
Dialogues. Studies in the Formation of the Linear
Pottery Culture (British Archaeological Reports
International Series 1304). Oxford: 37−48
Cauvin, J. 1988: ‘La Néolithisation de la Turquie du Sud-
est Dans Son Contexte Proche-Oriental’ Anatolica
15: 69−80
⎯ 1989: ‘La Néolithisation au Levant et sa premiére
diffusion’ in O. Aurenche (ed.), Néolithisations
(British Archaeological Reports International Series
516). Oxford: 1−36
Childe, G. 1964 (1957): The Dawn of European
Civilization. New York
 Anatolian Studies 2007
French, D. 1986: ‘Anatolia: bridge or barrier?’ IX. Türk
Tarih Kongresi 1: 117−18
Gérard, F. 2001: ‘Stratigraphy and architecture on the
southwest flank of Ilıpınar’ in J. Roodenberg, L.
Thissen (eds), The Ilıpınar Excavations II. Leiden:
177−221
Karul, N., Eres, Z. 2003: ‘Rekonstruktionsversuche zu
den Bauten von Aşağı Pınar’ in N. Karul, et al.
(eds), Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungs-
geschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur. Mainz
am Rhein: 174−80
Lloyd, S. 1956: Early Anatolia. London
Nikolov, V. 2002: ‘Nochmals über die Kontakte zwischen
Anatolien und dem Balkan im 6.Jt.v.Chr.’ in R.
Aslan, et al. (eds), Mauerschau. Festschrift für
Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach: 673−78
Özdoğan, M. 1994: ‘Neolithization of Europe: a view
from Anatolia (Neolitizacija Evrope: Pogled iz
Anatolije)’ Proçilo o Razjskovanju Paleolita,
Neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 22: 25−61
⎯ 1995: ‘Neolithic in Turkey. The status of research’
Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet
Çambel. Istanbul: 41−59
⎯ 1996: ‘From huts to houses: “firsts” in architecture’ in
M. Beykan (ed.), Housing and Settlement in
Anatolia. A Historical Perspective (HABITAT II).
Istanbul: 19−30
⎯ 1997: ‘The beginning of Neolithic economies in
southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective’
Journal of European Archaeology 5/2: 1−33
⎯ 2002a: ‘Defining the Neolithic of central Anatolia’ in
F. Gérard, L. Thissen (eds), The Neolithic of Central
Anatolia. Internal Developments and External
Relations During the 9th−6th Millennia cal BC.
Istanbul: 253−61
⎯ 2002b: ‘Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia’ in R.
Cappers, S. Bottema (eds), The Dawn of Farming in
the Near East. Berlin: 153−59
⎯ 2005: ‘The expansion of Neolithic way of life. What
we know and what we do not know’ in C. Lichter
(ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? (BYZAS
2). Istanbul: 13−27
24
⎯ 2006a: ‘Hypothetical approaches and realities:
research strategies in defining space and context’ in
D. Papaconstantintinou (ed.), Deconstructing
Context. Oxford: 159−75
⎯ 2006b: ‘Neolithic cultures at the contact zone between
Anatolia and the Balkans. Diversity and
homogeneity at the Neolithic frontier’ in I. Gatsov,
H. Schwarzberg (eds), Aegean-Marmara-Black
Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early
Neolithic. Langenweissbach: 21−28
⎯ 2007 (in press): ‘Westward expansion of the Neolithic
way of life: migration, adaptation and aculturation’
in J.P. Bocquet-Appel (ed.), The Neolithic
Demographic Transition and its Consequences.
Harvard
Özdoğan, M., Basgelen,
ş N. (ed.) 2007: Türkiye’de
Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular.
Istanbul
Perlès, C. 2001: The Early Neolithic in Greece.
Cambridge
⎯ 2005: ‘From the Near East to Greece: let’s reverse the
focus-cultural elements that didn’t transfer’ in C.
Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe?
(BYZAS 2). Istanbul: 275−90
Renfrew, C. 2002: ‘The emerging synthesis: the archaeo-
genetics of farming/language dispersals and other
spread zones’ in P. Bellwood, C. Renfrew (eds),
Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal
Hypothesis. Cambridge: 3−16
Runnels, C. 2003: ‘The origins of the Greek Neolithic: a
personal view’ in A. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds),
The Widening Harvest. Boston: 121−32
Sherratt, A. 1997: ‘Changing perspectives on
European prehistory’ in A. Sherratt (ed.),
Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe.
Edinburgh: 1−34
Zvelebil, M. 2002: ‘Demography and dispersal of early
farming populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition: linguistic and genetic implications’ in P.
Bellwood, C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis.
Cambridge: 379−94