Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amidst Mesopotamia Centric and Euro Cent
Amidst Mesopotamia Centric and Euro Cent
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
18
Özdoğan
Neolithic Anatolia sation, though there was some dispute in defining where
Since the early years of research, the Neolithic period has the core area was. To some scholars, the core area of the
been the focus of interest not only of archaeologists but Neolithic cultures was further to the south, in the
also of scholars of the other social and natural sciences; southern Levant, and anything to the north, including
it has been considered as one of the most significant sites such as Çayönü or Çatalhöyük, marked the northern
turning points in the history of civilisation, leading to expansion of the Neolithic way of life through ‘the
revolutionary changes in all aspects of culture. As there Levantine corridor’, thus representing an area of
is an extensive literature covering all aspects of the ‘secondary neolithisation’ (Cauvin 1988; 1989; Bar-
Neolithic period, I will not attempt to present a Yosef, Belfer-Cohen 1992). To G. Childe and his
conspectus, neither on the emergence nor on the devel- followers, the core area was the semi-arid riverine
opment of this exciting era, but I will point to some issues environments of the Near East, but excluding the
relevant to the context of this paper. highlands of Anatolia (Childe 1964); Braidwood (1960)
In the early years of research, almost up to two decades and his team shifted the core area further to the north, to
ago, the entire extent of the Anatolian peninsula, including the southern foothills of the Fertile Crescent, for the first
the southeastern lowlands, was considered to be outside the time incorporating parts of southeastern Anatolia into the
Neolithic formative zone, a view now considerably revised core area, but still keeping most of the Anatolian
to incorporate most of the peninsula within the core area of peninsula outside the formative zone.
primary neolithisation (for a review of changing views on The bias in excluding the Anatolian highlands from
the place of Anatolia in the formative process of Neolithic the core area of primary neolithisation was so strong and
cultures, see Özdoğan 1994; 1995; 1997). Defining the deeply rooted that sites such as Aşıklı and Çatalhöyük
place of Anatolia in the process of neolithisation is of were considered as trading colonies or outposts in the
importance since this sets the boundary between the East trading of obsidian and salt. Thus Seton Lloyd (Lloyd
and the West during this time. In this context, I would like 1956: 53−54, 58−61) noted, ‘ …the region more
to draw attention to the controversial implication of using correctly described as Anatolia shows no sign whatever
the geographic terms the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ to denote of habitation during the Neolithic period…’ and,
cultural entities. Taken literally in their geographic ‘...various phases were later found, first in north Syria
meaning, the East is the core area of the Neolithic formation and then at Taurus and Mersin beyond the Turkish
and the West is the contemporary Mesolithic or Epi-Palae- frontier... testifying the westward and northward
olithic cultures to the west of the primary zone of neolithi- extension of the great Chalcolithic province… a barrier
sation. However, with the growing impact of Euro-centric still existed and beyond it Anatolia remained unpopu-
tendencies during the last decade or so, the Neolithic of the lated’. This, evidently, is an extension of Childe’s view
Near East is now being considered as the ancestral form of of 1957 (Childe 1964: 36), ‘…no recognizable archaeo-
European culture, thus conceptually reversing the East with logical milestones mark an ancient route across Anatolia
the West. This has mainly surfaced in bio-genetic studies from the Orient to Europe’. Thus, even the Neolithic
carried out to determine the ratio of genes transmitted from diffusion bypassed the Anatolian peninsula, following
the Near Eastern Neolithic populations to the genetic pool the Mediterranean coastline instead.
of present European communities. It is striking that the Neolithic excavations carried out during the last two
present-day political boundary between Turkey and Greece decades on various parts of the Anatolian peninsula have
is being taken as the dividing line in defining the genetic drawn a picture that is totally different from the conven-
compositions of the East and the West (this approach can be tional one, not only placing large parts of the Anatolian
seen in most biogenetic assessments, see, for example, peninsula into the primary zone of neolithisation, but,
Renfrew 2002; Zvelebil 2002; Bentley, et al. 2003.), and more specifically, leading to revolutionary changes in our
that these data are being conveyed to assess the genetic vision of that period that necessitate reconsidering even
pools of the Neolithic populations of the East. It is evident the definition of what is implied by the term Neolithic
that this approach overlooks the fact that the western border (Özdoğan 2002b).
of the Near Eastern Neolithic is not a static one, but, as is With the inclusion of the Anatolian highlands, the
noted below, one which moves over time from central area coverage of the primary zone of neolithisation has
Anatolia to the Balkans. been considerably expanded. This, nevertheless, also
As has already been noted above, the western requires reassessment of the ‘boundaries’ between the
boundary of the Neolithic has moved, both conceptually East and the West. In this respect, the earliest stages of
and literally, over time. In the earlier years of Neolithic central Anatolia have certain characteristics that are
studies, there was a consensus that the Anatolian worth considering here (Özdoğan 2002a). Firstly, the
peninsula was beyond the core area of primary neolithi- region constitutes the western border of the Pre-Pottery
19
Anatolian Studies 2007
Neolithic world, a cultural demarcation zone that Yet another, but more striking difference, between the
remained static for a considerable period of time, at least two Neolithic groups is in cult practices. In the eastern
3,000 years. At the present stage of our knowledge, due group, from the earliest stages of the Pre-Pottery
to a lack of research, defining the exact location of this Neolithic, there are special buildings specifically
border is not possible as no early sites have yet been designed and built for cultic purposes that are notably
recovered from the contact zone between central and different from domestic structures. With high retaining
western Anatolia. However, the Mesolithic and/or Epi- stone walls, adorned with niches, buttresses, special
Palaeolithic assemblages known from the littoral areas of floorings occasionally of burnt lime, interior decorations
the Aegean, the Sea of Marmara and the Antalya region and standing stones with relief decorations, these cult
show no elements suggestive of any sort of interaction of buildings can justifiably be considered as ‘pristine-
these coastal Mesolithic groups with the contemporary temples’, the best known examples include Hallan Çemi,
Pre-Pottery cultures of the Konya plain. Accordingly, it Çayönü, Navali Çori, Göbeklitepe, Jerf el Ahmar and
seems plausible to suggest that the border of the Pre- Djade. On the other hand, in central Anatolia, architec-
Pottery Neolithic culture lay somewhere in the western turally there is no difference between the domestic struc-
part of the Konya plain. It is not clear what exactly was tures and those used for cult purposes; in other words, the
beyond that line in the littoral areas. As is the case in function of cult buildings in central Anatolia is defined
mainland Greece and Bulgaria south of the Balkan by their context, implying that any house can, at a certain
mountains, the Mesolithic horizon is conspicuously period, be converted to serve as a cult building. In our
absent in areas further inland from the coastal strip. consideration, the difference between the two regions in
Throughout this region, with the exception of a few this aspect is highly significant, reflecting the social
random cases, all known Mesolithic sites are located on systems of each region.
or nearby the coastal areas, suggesting that either the The divergence between the two regions is not limited
inner parts were void of habitation or very sparsely to what we have noted above; sorting out the assemblages
populated (Andel 2000; Runnels 2003; Özdoğan 2005; of either region indicates significant differences in lithic
2006b). Nevertheless, without going into the details of technology such as core preparation and dominant tool
this discussion, it is evident that, from the onset of Pre- types, or in symbolic representations. However, there are
Pottery cultures up to the beginning of the Pottery other indicators that clearly suggest that, at the same time,
Neolithic period, the eastern and western regions were there was an active interaction and, more specifically, a
parts of different cultural formations. ‘sharing of knowledge’ between the two groups. The
The other, but related, question concerns the inter- most evident and easily recognised case is the trade of
action of central Anatolian Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) obsidian; as indicated at the Kaletepe obsidian workshop
cultures with their contemporaries in the east. At first (Balkan-Atlı, et al. 1999) which produced a very
glance, the early Neolithic cultures of both regions, conve- specialised blade core, the so-called naviform core, used
niently named PPN in the east and Aceramic in central in southeastern Anatolian and the Levant, even though
Anatolia, seem to have developed independently of each such cores are alien to the lithic assemblages of central
other, the most evident difference being the layout of the Anatolia. The obsidian trade between the two regions
settlements. The settlements in the east, the term ‘east’ should not be considered as an incidental event taking
implying all of southeastern Anatolia, northern Syro- place spontaneously. On the contrary, it is well organised
Mesopotamia and the Levant, consist of free-standing and the amount of obsidian going from one region to the
buildings, neatly distributed, strongly suggesting that the other was vast. Another fact that should not be
settlements had developed according to a pre-decided overlooked is that this intensive trade was sustained,
plan. This implies the presence of a decision making without any interruption, for at least 4,000 years, a unique
authority that was strictly in control of the habitation, and phenomenon unparalleled elsewhere in history. Apart
a similar trend can also be seen in the steady change in from the trade in obsidian, the Neolithic cultures of both
house plans. Needless to say, this can only be detected at regions contain numerous common elements, ranging
sites where the exposure is large enough to reveal the from burial customs, to the use of copper, the presence of
layout of the buildings, Çayönü being the most apparent certain prestige objects and the employment of sophisti-
one (for details and further discussion see Özdoğan 1996; cated technologies. In an overall assessment, it is evident
2006a). This is in strong contrast to the agglomerative that, in spite of the differences between the two regions,
plan type of the central Anatolian Aceramic Neolithic especially in their social systems, they were not totally
sites, where the types of buildings do not show any detached and the differences in their social and, possibly,
marked changes over time and there is no indication of in their administrative systems did not hamper interaction
planned design in the lay-out of the settlements. and the sharing of knowledge and technology.
20
Özdoğan
Thus, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic stage, the parts of the peninsula almost impossible. Now, however,
presence of two main cultural complexes is evident in the increase in the number of excavated sites4 makes it
the Anatolian peninsula: the Mesolithic and the possible, if not to draw a comprehensive picture, at least
Neolithic, that were clearly detached from each other. to surmise what was happening.
Apart from the marked differences between the The picture that is now emerging from western parts
Mesolithic and Neolithic communities, there is no of the peninsula, disregarding all discussion of details,
uniformity between the Neolithic cultures living in the is highly interesting, displaying both a homogeneity
central and the southeastern parts of the peninsula. In and, at the same time, a diversity of cultural entities that
spite of differences in the ‘life styles’ of each region, as are evidently contemporary. Firstly, even a brief look
reflected in the organisation of their settlements, types indicates that every component of the assemblage of the
of houses, cult practices, etc, an intensive interaction Neolithic sites in the west can be traced back to the core
was also taking place between the central and south- area of primary neolithisation in the east. That is to say
eastern regions. Due to a lack of research, it is not that the basic components of the ‘Neolithic package’
possible to say if the Taurus mountains constituted a have somehow been transferred with the expansion of
definite border between these two regions or whether this way of life, but with some being modified to adapt
they merged into each other at some place in between. to local conditions (for a comparative analysis of the
Likewise, we have no information about what was Neolithic package, see Özdoğan 2007). Among these,
happening at that time in the northern parts of the the most apparent is the emergence of wooden archi-
peninsula, though, looking at contemporary sites in the tecture. Here, it should be noted that at the time of the
Caucasus, it seems possible to surmise that, at least in westward expansion of the Neolithic model, post-hole
the northeast, there were some Mesolithic communities or wattle and daub structures with round or ovoid plans
and that other parts in the north were perhaps devoid of had long been forgotten in the east; likewise, it is not
habitation. possible to consider the hut, or tent-like wattle and daub
To conclude this section on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic structures of the Mesolithic cultures as the forerunners
stage, it is not possible to speak of Anatolia as a uniform of the substantial wooden houses of the newly installed
cultural entity. Every macro region was developing its Neolithic sites in the west. The Neolithic houses of
own particular identity, though at the same time inter- western Anatolia and of eastern Thrace are substantial
acting with neighbouring regions. structures with a rectangular ground plan. The earliest
examples, as known from Ilıpınar (Gérard 2001), and
Early stages of the Pottery Neolithic the more advanced forms from Aşağı Pınar (Karul, Eres
The Pottery Neolithic stage marks the rapid expansion 2003) clearly demonstrate how the mud-brick archi-
of the ‘Neolithic way of life’ in all directions. Thus it tecture of the Neolithic was re-structured into wooden
also comprises the core of the antagonism between buildings that were much better suited to this wooded
diffusionist and anti-diffusionist concerns. Discussion environment. In this respect, it should be noted that the
of how the Neolithic way of life reached western parts environmental conditions in the western parts of the
of the Anatolian peninsula and spread into southeastern Anatolian peninsula, including the region around the
Europe is beyond the concern of this paper (for a Sea of Marmara, differ notably from the arid conditions
conspectus of different views and also for extensive of the east. Thus, immediately after the expansion of
bibliographies on this issue see especially Sherratt the Neolithic way of life into the western parts of the
1997; Budja 2001; 2004; Nikolov 2002; Özdoğan peninsula, almost all components of the Neolithic
2005; 2006b). Whatever the mode of this expansion culture seem to have gone through a stage of transfor-
was, whether demic diffusion or exchange of mation, which provided the means for its survival in
commodities and ideas or assimilation or even parallel temperate Europe.
development, it was a rapid one, crossing over to the
European side by the early stages of the sixth
millennium BC. 4
Among the recent sites excavated, or still being excavated, it is
Until recently, our knowledge of the Pottery Neolithic worth noting the following which have provided extensive new
of western and northwestern Anatolia was restricted to data: Hoca Çeşme and Aşağı Pınar in Thrace; Ilıpınar, Menteşe
excavations at Hacılar and Kuruçay in the Lake District and Barçın in eastern Marmara; Aktopraklık in southern
Marmara; Coşkuntepe in the Troad; Heybeli Dedecik, Ulucak,
and to the Fikirtepe and Pendik excavations along the
Yeşilova and Ege Gübre in the Aegean littoral; Tepecik in the
eastern coast of the Sea of Marmara. The distance Büyük Menderes valley; Keçi Çayırı on the Phrygian plateau;
between these two regions is over 500km, making any Höyücek and Bademağacı in the Lake District. For brief
generalisation about the cultural setting of the western descriptions and for references, see Özdogan, Başgelen 2007.
21
Anatolian Studies 2007
Nevertheless, this does not imply that the western the composition of the assemblage was almost
parts of the Anatolian peninsula were a uniform cultural completely rearranged by the time it reached littoral
entity. While most of the excavated sites display a clear areas of the Aegean. Considering that the westward
connection with central Anatolia, others, mainly those expansion of the Neolithic way of life was rather rapid,
located along the Aegean coastal strip, such as Ege the redesigning process of the cultural assemblage is
Gübre in Izmir and Hoca Çeşme near the deltaic plain worth considering. Some non-utilitarian objects, such
of Meriç/Evros, suggest that there were other lines of as bone spoons, so-called ear studs, pintaderras, cult
interaction. In the early years of research, Childe tables and steatopygic female figurines, that occurred
surmised a maritime expansion of Neolithic commu- as rather insignificant items in the east, turn into major
nities along the coastal areas. This view, which had for prestige objects among the Neolithic communities of
long fallen into oblivion under the impact of anti-diffu- western Anatolia and of the Aegean.
sionist approaches, was taken up again recently by The diversity of cultural formations within the
Perlès (Perlès 2005), now, however, based on re- Anatolian peninsula during the Pottery Neolithic period
assessment of the evidence from mainland Greece. is evident, though again not implying that there was no
Perlès, by sorting out the components of the early interaction within the peninsula. It is possible to point
Neolithic package in Greece, clearly indicated that, to numerous stylistic innovations that somehow occur
along with the elements transferred from mainland across the peninsula throughout the Pottery Neolithic
Anatolia, there were others of Levantine origin that period, such as burnished red slipped wares, applied
must have arrived through maritime connections, decorations on pottery, bucrania, horned animals, relief
bypassing the Anatolian plateau. Needless to say, the human motives, etc. In spite of the presence of ‘shared’
recent discoveries in Cyprus have proved that the elements, there is also a marked diversity in the stylistic
maritime route was active from the onset of Neolithic composition of the pottery assemblages; while in the
cultures. In this respect, what has been exposed at regions to the south of the Taurus range light coloured
coastal sites such as Hoca Çeşme and Ege Gübre wares with smoothed surfaces are dominant, these are
indicates the presence of another cultural interaction replaced by red slipped lustrously burnished wares in
zone along the coastal areas, but not totally detached the west and dark faced burnished wares in the
from the events that took place on the plateau. northwest.
Substantial round buildings of stone and the so-called Here, it is worth re-emphasising the fact that the
impresso pottery are the most evident of the compo- regional coverage of assemblages was not stable, on the
nents that are alien to the plateau during the Neolithic. contrary, they changed location and merged with each
Coming back to the Pottery Neolithic of the other to form new groupings throughout the Neolithic
Anatolian plateau, again there are a number of signif- and Chalcolithic periods.
icant differences from that in the east. The early stages
of the Pottery Neolithic period in the southeast mark a The Early Bronze Age
period of depopulation; most of the ‘mega-sites’ of the In conventional terms the Early Bronze Age is marked
Pre-Pottery Neolithic period have either been by the appearance of city-states through a rapid process
abandoned or considerably reduced in size. There is of urbanisation. As the emergence of urban centres has
also a marked contrast between the assemblages of the a much earlier beginning in Syro-Mesopotamia, going
two periods; fancy status objects that were extensively back to the first part of the fourth millennium BC, town
used during the Pre-Pottery stage are either absent or centres such as Troy or Alaca Höyük have always been
became a rarity during the early Pottery Neolithic considered as the reflection of the Mesopotamian
stage. However, by the same time period there is an system at a considerably reduced scale. However, a
almost sudden increase in the number of Pottery simple comparison regarding the defining parameters of
Neolithic sites on the Anatolian plateau, which is more the two systems indicates that the diversity between the
evident in the western regions, including the Aegean Anatolian and Syro-Mesopotamian models was far
(Perlès 2001). Likewise, the assemblages of central greater than indicated by the dimensions of the settle-
and western Anatolian Pottery Neolithic sites are ments. Still, it is worth bearing in mind that while the
conspicuously richer both in status objects and in dimensions of the third millennium Syro-
objects related to symbolism. What this implies is Mesopotamian towns were occasionally over several
again beyond the concern of this paper, but the picture hectares, contemporary town centres of Anatolia hardly
drawn of this stage is of significance. While there was exceeded a few hundred metres; the smallest ones such
a demic movement originating from the east, bringing as Kanlıgeçit being 39m, the larger ones, Troy I, Troy II,
together the basic components of its cultural inventory, Demircihöyük, Pulur Sakyol, still being less than 100m
22
Özdoğan
23
Anatolian Studies 2007
French, D. 1986: ‘Anatolia: bridge or barrier?’ IX. Türk ⎯ 2006a: ‘Hypothetical approaches and realities:
Tarih Kongresi 1: 117−18 research strategies in defining space and context’ in
Gérard, F. 2001: ‘Stratigraphy and architecture on the D. Papaconstantintinou (ed.), Deconstructing
southwest flank of Ilıpınar’ in J. Roodenberg, L. Context. Oxford: 159−75
Thissen (eds), The Ilıpınar Excavations II. Leiden: ⎯ 2006b: ‘Neolithic cultures at the contact zone between
177−221 Anatolia and the Balkans. Diversity and
Karul, N., Eres, Z. 2003: ‘Rekonstruktionsversuche zu homogeneity at the Neolithic frontier’ in I. Gatsov,
den Bauten von Aşağı Pınar’ in N. Karul, et al. H. Schwarzberg (eds), Aegean-Marmara-Black
(eds), Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungs- Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early
geschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur. Mainz Neolithic. Langenweissbach: 21−28
am Rhein: 174−80 ⎯ 2007 (in press): ‘Westward expansion of the Neolithic
Lloyd, S. 1956: Early Anatolia. London way of life: migration, adaptation and aculturation’
Nikolov, V. 2002: ‘Nochmals über die Kontakte zwischen in J.P. Bocquet-Appel (ed.), The Neolithic
Anatolien und dem Balkan im 6.Jt.v.Chr.’ in R. Demographic Transition and its Consequences.
Aslan, et al. (eds), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Harvard
Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach: 673−78 Özdoğan, M., Basgelen,
ş N. (ed.) 2007: Türkiye’de
Özdoğan, M. 1994: ‘Neolithization of Europe: a view Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular.
from Anatolia (Neolitizacija Evrope: Pogled iz Istanbul
Anatolije)’ Proçilo o Razjskovanju Paleolita, Perlès, C. 2001: The Early Neolithic in Greece.
Neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 22: 25−61 Cambridge
⎯ 1995: ‘Neolithic in Turkey. The status of research’ ⎯ 2005: ‘From the Near East to Greece: let’s reverse the
Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet focus-cultural elements that didn’t transfer’ in C.
Çambel. Istanbul: 41−59 Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe?
⎯ 1996: ‘From huts to houses: “firsts” in architecture’ in (BYZAS 2). Istanbul: 275−90
M. Beykan (ed.), Housing and Settlement in Renfrew, C. 2002: ‘The emerging synthesis: the archaeo-
Anatolia. A Historical Perspective (HABITAT II). genetics of farming/language dispersals and other
Istanbul: 19−30 spread zones’ in P. Bellwood, C. Renfrew (eds),
⎯ 1997: ‘The beginning of Neolithic economies in Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal
southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective’ Hypothesis. Cambridge: 3−16
Journal of European Archaeology 5/2: 1−33 Runnels, C. 2003: ‘The origins of the Greek Neolithic: a
⎯ 2002a: ‘Defining the Neolithic of central Anatolia’ in personal view’ in A. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds),
F. Gérard, L. Thissen (eds), The Neolithic of Central The Widening Harvest. Boston: 121−32
Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Sherratt, A. 1997: ‘Changing perspectives on
Relations During the 9th−6th Millennia cal BC. European prehistory’ in A. Sherratt (ed.),
Istanbul: 253−61 Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe.
⎯ 2002b: ‘Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia’ in R. Edinburgh: 1−34
Cappers, S. Bottema (eds), The Dawn of Farming in Zvelebil, M. 2002: ‘Demography and dispersal of early
the Near East. Berlin: 153−59 farming populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic
⎯ 2005: ‘The expansion of Neolithic way of life. What transition: linguistic and genetic implications’ in P.
we know and what we do not know’ in C. Lichter Bellwood, C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the
(ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? (BYZAS Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis.
2). Istanbul: 13−27 Cambridge: 379−94
24