See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272253944

An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age

Article in European Journal of Archaeology · August 2014

DOI: 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000070

CITATIONS READS

27 5,242

3 authors, including:

Deniz Sari Murat Türkteki

Bilecik Üniversitesi 5 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS
28 PUBLICATIONS 96 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Deniz Sari on 28 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015, 60–89

An Overview of the Western Anatolian

Early Bronze Age

ERKAN FIDAN, DENIZ SARI AND MURAT TÜRKTEKI

Department of Archaeology, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey

For a long time, assessments and evaluations of the western Anatolian Early Bronze Age (EBA) have
only been based on the excavation results of Tarsus, Karataş-Semayük, Beycesultan, Demircihüyük, and
Troy. However, excavations and surface surveys carried out in the last two decades have increased our
knowledge enormously. In particular, the excavations of Liman Tepe, Küllüoba, and Seyitömer have
made an immense contribution to the establishment of a reliable West Anatolian EBA chronology. The
surface surveys have also made it possible to define better the borders of the cultural areas and pottery
zones of the region. Based on these new data, new theories are presented here on the cultural and
socio-political development of the region, as well as on regional and inter-regional relationships during
the EBA.

Keywords: western Anatolia, Early Bronze Age, Küllüoba, Bithynian and Phrygian cultural regions

RESEARCH HISTORY excavations, this period was divided into

This paper offers an overview of the
western Anatolian Early Bronze Age in
light of research carried out in recent
years. Although Central Anatolia was a
culturally integral part of western Anatolia
in this period, the results of current inves-
tigations carried out there have not yet
been sufficiently published, and are there-
fore not considered here.
The first scientific excavations in
western Anatolia were carried out between
1930 and 1960; these were the first
important steps towards determining the
characteristics of the region’s prehistory.
The term Early Bronze Age (EBA) in
relation to the excavations of Troy II was
first used by Blegen (Blegen et al., 1950:
22). After the Tarsus-Gözlükule
three phases: EBA I, II, and III, and for
the first time, these periods were com-
pared with the chronology of
Mesopotamia (Goldmann, 1956). Mellaart
later adapted this periodization to the
Beycesultan EBA stratigraphy (Figure 1;
Mellaart, 1954: 189).
After the first excavations at Demirci-
höyük, Bittel (1942) wrote, for the first
time, of different cultural groups and their
distribution areas, providing a general
assessment of the Anatolian EBA. In
connection with this interpretation,
Goetze (1957: 20) stressed that a cultural
entity of its own existed in Anatolia by
comparing Anatolian cultures with those
of the eastern Mediterranean. Goetze also
differentiated certain subgroups with some
local differences within this unity. In the

© European Association of Archaeologists 2015 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000070

Manuscript received 23 February 2014,
accepted 20 June 2014, revised 9 May 2014
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Figure 1. Sites mentioned in the text.
1960s, Mellaart and French provided
important clues, particularly in terms of
EBA pottery groups and their distribution
areas in the light of surface surveys carried
out in a vast geographical area of western
Anatolia (Lloyd & Mellaart, 1962;
French, 1969b). With the Karataş-
Semayük excavations, Mellink also made
some important contributions to the
interpretation of the western Anatolian
EBA and to providing answers to existing
questions (Mellink, 1989, 1992).
The second Demircihöyük excavations
took place between 1975 and 1978 and
provided a clear stratigraphic sequence for
the first half of the EBA (EBA I–II) in
northwestern Anatolia for the first time.
Thanks to these excavations, important
steps were taken towards determining the
positions of the ceramic groups of the
region in the chronology. New theories,
such as the ‘Anatolian Settlement Plan’
61
(Korfmann, 1983) and ‘Great Caravan
Route’ (Efe, 2002), were also put forward
regarding general settlement patterns and
trade relations between western Anatolia
and Mesopotamia. With the third round
of Trojan excavations, Korfmann also
introduced the definition of the ‘Maritime
Culture of Troy I–III’, based on the distri-
bution area of the Trojan EBA pottery
(Korfmann, 1997, 1998). The excavations
at Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe (Figure 1)
not only provided firm data on the
relations between the Aegean coastline of
Anatolia, the Aegean islands, and main-
land Greece, but also gave important
information on early metalworking in the
Aegean coastal areas of western Anatolia
(Kaptan, 1998a, 1998b; Ş ahoğlu, 2008).
With the aim of filling the gaps in the
stratigraphy of Demircihöyük, and thus in
the EBA chronology of the region, Efe
later carried out a surface survey between
62
the years 1988 and 1995 in the area
encompassing today’s provinces of
Kütahya, Bilecik, and Eskişehir. Right
after this project, in 1996, he began exca-
vations at Küllüoba near Seyitgazi. Here,
the ‘Transitional Period into the Early
Bronze Age’ and ‘Early Bronze Age III’,
which are not represented in the Demirci-
höyük stratigraphy, were stratigraphically
revealed, thus providing an uninterrupted
and reliable EBA chronology for the
region. Furthermore, new clues to support
the theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’
were obtained (Efe & Ay Efe, 2000; Efe,
2007; Türkteki, 2012).
New excavations and surface surveys
carried out in western Anatolia in recent
years have enabled us to make new assess-
ments, particularly regarding the cultural
regions and pottery zones of the region,
and also to establish more precisely their
distribution areas. The most important of
these were the surface survey projects
carried out in the provinces of Manisa
(Akdeniz, 2009, 2010), Denizli (Abay &
Dedeoğlu, 2005, 2007; Dedeoğlu, 2008),
and Afyon (Koçak & Bilgin, 2005). After
Bittel, Goetze, Mellaart, and French, Efe
provided a new interpretation of the EBA
cultural regions in the Anatolian peninsula
in the light of recent investigations.
According to Efe (2003b: 89), in the first
half of the third millennium bc (EBA
I-II) in western Anatolia, there existed
‘cultural regions’, the borders of which
were mainly determined by pottery.
Within each of these cultural regions there
were also closely related ‘local pottery
zones’. Efe states that these may indirectly
show us the influential areas of the
regional political powers (Efe, 2003b,
2004: 23–24). These EBA cultural regions
and pottery groups do not always have
clear-cut boundaries; often buffer zones
existed on the borders. These borders have
been primarily determined by pottery and,
to a lesser degree, by some small finds,
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
such as figurines and idols, as well as
certain architectural traditions. They
might demonstrate the influential areas of
certain political entities that eventually
developed into the mighty kingdoms of
the EB III period of western Anatolia. It
is most likely that these kingdoms are pre-
decessors of the Luwic lands of the second
millennium mentioned in the Hittite texts
(Sarı, 2013b).
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WESTERN
ANATOLIA BEFORE THE EARLY
BRONZE AGE
Architecture
Western Anatolian architecture in the
Late Neolithic reveals some regional
differences (Bittel, 1971; Özdoğan, 1979;
Roodenberg, 1999, 2008; Duru, 2008;
Çilingiroğlu et al., 2012; Sağlamtimur &
Ozan, 2012: 228–34). Of the settlements
within the distribution area of the Fikir-
tepe Culture, which covers the area
stretching from the eastern Marmara
shores as far as the Sivrihisar range in the
east, the type-site of Fikirtepe yielded
round huts with sunken floors, while
single-roomed rectangular houses were
uncovered at the settlements of Menteşe
and Ilıpınar. Ulucak, located in the
Aegean coastal region, has structures
rectangular in plan on either side of
streets, and round- and rectangular-shaped
structures built around a courtyard. In the
Lakes District, groups of attached single-
roomed houses with empty spaces
in-between are attested in Hacılar VI. At
Kuruçay, where more limited information
is available regarding house plans, a defen-
sive wall with horseshoe-shaped towers
was uncovered. The architecture of the
area in the Early Chalcolithic Period
evolves towards a radial plan consisting of
mud-brick houses surrounding a courtyard
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
(Mellaart, 1970: 88, 89; Cookson, 2008;
Karul, 2009: 5, fig. 8).
However, in the Middle Chalcolithic
(from c. 5500 bc) the general settlement
plan of the eastern Marmara region is
made up of very simple, round-planned,
independent huts. This contradicts the
natural development of the local architec-
ture and therefore can be considered as a
turning point in architecture. Excavations
of Late Chalcolithic sites in the region
have been limited. Kuruçay, excavated
horizontally in large areas, yielded one or
two-roomed houses surrounded by open
areas and streets (Duru, 2006). Kuruçay is
so far the only site that gives information
about the general characteristics of archi-
tecture of this period. This situation
makes it difficult to determine the
relationship between the architectures of
the Late Chalcolithic and EBA in western
Anatolia.
Pottery
The oldest known cultures established in
western Anatolia, described mainly
according to the pottery characteristics,
began to take shape towards the end of
the Early Neolithic. Mainly preserving
their distribution areas, these cultures
survive—with certain developments and
innovations—until the end of the Early
Chalcolithic (Efe, 2004). In the succeed-
ing Middle Chalcolithic, important
changes occurred in pottery throughout
the peninsula, in what could be considered
a turning point. In this period, red slipped
or red-on-cream painted pottery of the
Neolithic tradition was replaced by dark-
faced burnished pottery with impressed or
grooved decoration (Efe, 2003a). The fol-
lowing Late Chalcolithic period, in which
metalworking began to gain in impor-
tance, is a period that has been little
investigated in western Anatolia. In this
63
period almost the whole of the Anatolian
peninsula was dominated by dark-faced,
well-burnished pottery; black-burnished or
white-on-black painted pottery was par-
ticularly characteristic (Lloyd & Mellaart,
1962; French, 1969a; Schoop, 2005). Due
to insufficient research, it is not possible
to draw any concrete conclusions regarding
whether the cultural boundaries of the
Neolithic were preserved in the Late Chal-
colithic. However, from the final quarter
of the fourth millennium bc onwards, the
EBA cultural regions, the distribution
areas of which more-or-less correspond to
the pottery-based cultural groups of the
previous Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic
periods, began to form. Efe (2007: 252)
claims that the same cultural boundaries
may have been preserved in the intermedi-
ary Middle and Late Chalcolithic periods
about which we so far know very little.
Metal
Anatolia played an important role in the
emergence and development of metal-
working. According to the current state of
research, the oldest metal artefacts in the
world were produced in Anatolia. They
come from certain sites in southeastern
Anatolia dated to the Pre-Pottery Neo-
lithic, where people gradually set up
permanent settlements and began to prac-
tice agriculture (Yalçın, 2013).
The early traces of metalworking in
western Anatolia are found in Hacılar VI,
which is dated to the Late Neolithic
(Mellaart, 1970: 153). Here, ceramic
pieces with traces of copper slag were
uncovered. The first metal artefacts in the
region were found in the same settlement.
Two copper beads and pieces of awls or
needles were uncovered in Layers Ia and
IIa, which date to the Early Chalcolithic.
Firmer evidence on metalworking in the
area comes from the Late Chalcolithic.
64
The earliest known finds in inland north-
western Anatolia are a double-spiral
headed pin and an awl from Layer VII of
Orman Fidanlığı (Figure 1; Ay-Efe, 2001:
105–06, fig. 8). Furthermore, a crucible
found in the same layer shows that
melting was carried out here and that the
production of metal objects in moulds had
begun (Ay-Efe, 2001: 107, fig. 8). The
hoard of metal finds from Beycesultan
XXXIV, corresponding roughly to Orman
Fidanlığı VII, includes mainly daggers,
chisels, and flat axes that are known to
have been produced by pouring molten
metal into moulds. Daggers, chisels, and
flat axes recovered in the Ilıpınar cemetery
(Phase IV) dated to the end of the period
are likewise shaped in moulds. They show
the sophistication of metal working in the
region (Stronach, 1962: 281, fig. 8; Roo-
denberg et al., 1990; Begemann et al.,
1994). At Kuruçay, metal objects such as
needles, awls, and axes were found (Duru,
2008: 143–44, figs. 286–88). The dating
of the spearhead that is said to have been
found in the Late Chalcolithic deposit is
open to discussion. These metal objects
found at Beycesultan, Kuruçay, Bağbaşı
(Figure 1), Orman Fidanlığı, and Ilıpınar,
some of which show a quite developed
technological level, give the impression
that metalworking had started to gain
importance in the Late Chalcolithic in
western Anatolia.
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD INTO
THE EARLY BRONZE AGE
(3200–3000/2900 BC)
After the last quarter of fourth millennium
BC, in other words, during the ‘Transi-
tional Period into the Early Bronze Age’
(a term introduced by Efe (1994)), the
EBA cultural regions began to emerge,
largely overlapping those of the previous
Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
(Figure 2). This period is an important
turning point in the cultural development
of western Anatolia. Besides pottery,
architectural data also show that a new
cultural and possibly political entity began
to take shape (Efe, 2003b: 88).
Architecture
Aside from Küllüoba and Kaklık Mevkii,
the Transitional Period into the EBA in
western Anatolia is known from the settle-
ments of Bakla Tepe and Beşiktepe
(Figure 2). While in the Early Chalco-
lithic the central courtyard settlement
model was present in the inland areas of
the region at centres such as Ilıpınar,
Aktopraklık, and Hacılar, it is difficult to
speak of any homogeneity in terms of
settlement plans in the coastal areas. In
this period, when EBA architecture was
beginning to take shape in western Anato-
lia, it is understood that the megaron plan
was not yet dominant. Instead, single-
roomed rectangular structures seem to
have been more characteristic in the
region.
The most concrete information about
this period comes from the settlement of
Küllüoba situated in the close vicinity of
Eskişehir (Fidan, 2012a: 8, fig. 7). The
settlement was encircled by a
zigzag-running mud-brick defensive wall,
to which the back walls of houses were
attached. It was found that the houses
were placed so as to lie between the two
zigzags and that they opened onto the
courtyard in the centre of the settlement.
This plan represents the oldest known
EBA example of a settlement with a
central courtyard. Afyon-Kaklık Mevkii,
another central western Anatolian settle-
ment of the Transitional Period into the
EBA, has predominantly rectangular
house plans. The adjacent houses with
shared walls probably open up onto a
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age 65

Figure 2. Early Bronze Age settlement plans: 1, Bakla Tepe (Erkanal & Özkan, 1997: fig. 2); 2,
Liman Tepe (Kouka, 2010: fig. 3); 3, Küllüoba; 4, Demircihöyük (Korfmann, 1983, abb. 343); 5,
Karataş-Semayük (Mellink, 1974: fig. 1); 6, Troia (Mellaart, 1959: fig. 2); 7, Küllüoba; 8,
Keçiçayırı; 9, Bademağacı (Duru & Umurtak, 2010: fig. 2); 10, Karaoğlan Mevkii (Topbaş et al.,
1998: fig. 2); 11, Troia (Mellaart, 1959: fig. 6); 12, Seyitömer (Bilgen, 2011a: 565).

central courtyard (Efe et al., 1995: 360–
61, fig. 3). In the coastal areas of western
Anatolia, for which information on the
architecture of the period is more limited,
Izmir-Bakla Tepe is the most important
settlement so far excavated. Here, inde-
pendent structures in a grill/channel plan
have been revealed (Erkanal & Özkan,
2000: 270).
Pottery
In this period, EBA pottery appears with
certain common characteristics throughout
western Anatolia. However, the lack of
research for the period in question makes
it impossible to accurately determine
any cultural regions. In this period,
black-burnished pottery (except in south-
western Anatolia) gradually gave way to
red-slipped and burnished pottery; groov-
ing, fluting, and relief decoration—with
regional variations—became popular
instead of white paint; and Late Chalco-
lithic forms gradually began to disappear.
Beak-spouted jugs and cups, developed
from Late Chalcolithic jugs and cups,
began to appear (Efe et al., 1995: 376).
The beak-spouted jug is the most charac-
teristic pottery form of the EBA in
western Anatolia. In northwestern Anato-
lia, this period is represented by the
‘Kumtepe IB Culture’. The Kumtepe IB
layer dates to 3300–2970 BC according to
radiocarbon dating. Thus, the Kumtepe
IB culture corresponds to the Transitional
Period into the EBA, just before early
66
Figure 3. Cultural regions in the west Anatolian EB I.
Troy I (Korfmann et al., 1995: 260, abb.
21a). This culture is characterized by dark-
faced burnished wares and bowls with an
interior-thickened rim, and tubular lugs or
knobs on the rim (Sperling, 1976).
We can speak of two different pottery
traditions in inland western Anatolia: one
in the Büyük Menderes and Upper Porsuk
River Basins, the other in inland northwes-
tern Anatolia (Phrygia). There are certain
differences between them as well as a close
relationship. In Kaklık Mevkii in the Afyon
Plain, the black- or red-burnished, thin-
walled pottery with broad, shallow fluting,
typical of the Beycesultan EBA I culture of
the following period, began to appear
among the Late Chalcolithic pottery of the
region. Among the new characteristic
forms of the period, we can cite simple-
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
profile bowls, beak-spouted cups, jugs,
amphorae, and tripod cooking pots (Efe
et al., 1995). The architecture and pottery
traditions of the Transitional Period into
the EBA in the Phrygian cultural region
have been identified stratigraphically at
Küllüoba. Black-burnished wares, typical of
the Late Chalcolithic, increasingly gave way
to the red-slipped and burnished wares of
later phases. Simple-profiled, loop-handled
bowls, necked pots and jars, jugs and
beak-spouted jugs are very characteristic
(Efe & Ay-Efe, 2000).
Metal
Great progress was made in metalworking
at the end of the fourth millennium and
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
beginning of the third millennium BC,
particularly in Mesopotamia and its
neighbouring areas. However, we are not
well informed on the development on
metalworking in western Anatolia at this
time. Few metal finds have been recovered
in the layers dated to the Transitional
Period into the EBA at the settlements of
Kumtepe in the coastal region and Kaklık
Mevkii and Küllüoba in inland western
Anatolia (Efe, 2002: 51). At Bakla Tepe
various types of weapons as well as tools
mainly used in daily life were found
(Keskin, 2011: 145). Furthermore, the dis-
covery of a large number of slag pieces and
pieces of crucibles and truyers is extremely
important in terms of showing the level
that metalworking had reached in this
period.
EARLY BRONZE AGE I
(3000/2900–2700 BC)
During this period, in which megaron
buildings prevailed all over western Anato-
lia, the Aegean coastal region, and inland
western Anatolia exhibit different features
in terms of general settlement patterns
(Düring, 2011: 263–70). In this period,
the boundaries of cultural regions became
more clearly established and local pottery
zones became more apparent within these
cultural regions. As figurines and idols
were now more diversified in shape, style,
and decoration, they also contributed to
the establishment of these boundaries
(Sarı, 2013a: 227–31).
Architecture
As more research has been carried out in
western Anatolia on the EBA I period in
comparison to the Transitional Period into
the EBA, we are more informed on the
architecture of this period. Just as in the
67
Transitional Period into the EBA, the
coastal and inland areas had distinctly sep-
arate general settlement patterns. While
the settlements with central courtyards
gained importance in inland western Ana-
tolia, house blocks (insula) separated from
each other by streets prevailed in the
coastal settlements. What should be
emphasized at this point is that, from this
period on, the megaron plan became
characteristic throughout the region.
It is the settlement of Demircihöyük,
close to the city of Eskişehir, that provides
us with the most detailed information on
an EBA I settlement plan. This settlement
was surrounded by a zigzag-running
defensive wall, and the two-roomed trape-
zoid long-houses which adjoined this wall
at the back opened onto a large central
courtyard (Korfmann, 1983: fig. 343).
Similarly, Hacılar Büyük Höyük
(Figure 1), which has been under exca-
vation since 2011, yielded single-roomed
megara, the back walls of which are
attached to the zigzag defensive wall.
They might have opened up onto a central
courtyard yet to be excavated (Umurtak &
Duru, 2013: 9, fig. 13). On the Aegean
coastline, on the other hand, as witnessed
at Bakla Tepe and Liman Tepe, the settle-
ments surrounded by a defensive wall had
house blocks separated by streets (Erkanal,
2000: 259, fig. 2; Erkanal & Özkan,
2000: 274, fig. 3). A defensive wall was
constructed for the first time in Troy Ic,
but we know very little of the settlement
plan of this phase (Ünlüsoy, 2006: 133–
35, fig. 4). In consideration of the defence
systems of these three sites, we can say
that the coastal settlements now began to
be encircled by more impressive fortifica-
tion walls.
The Neolithic way of life gradually
began to change from this period on. The
most important sign of this was the
gradually emerging public buildings in
settlements. The Karataş-Semayük EBA I
68 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015

As seen in the settlements of Troy,

Liman Tepe, Demircihöyük, Küllüoba,
Beycesultan, Hacılar Büyük Höyük, and
Karataş-Semayük from this period, megara
became increasingly common in western
Anatolia. We would like to underline that
the megaron in Beycesultan XVII that was
said to have been a temple (Lloyd & Mel-
laart, 1962: fig. 9) should be reinterpreted
as a dwelling. The architecture of this
phase has only been excavated in a limited
area and the position of the megaron in
relation to the other probable structures in
the settlement is unclear. Also, it has no
exceptional architectural characteristics to
distinguish it from contemporary simple
houses.

Pottery
Figure 4. The main EBA I ware groups of the
Phrigian cultural region. (A) Küllüoba Red
For this period, it is possible to more
Slipped and Burnished Ware; (B) Demircihüyük
Black - Topped Ware clearly define the borders of the cultural
regions that continue from the previous
period (for research on western Anatolian
pottery zones and recent assessments, see
settlement at Elmalı Ovası is a good
Bittel, 1942; Lloyd & Mellaart, 1962:
example. Here, a building was uncovered
French, 1969a; Efe, 1988, 2003b, 2007;
that may have belonged to the ruler of
Üstün-Türkteki, 2012; Sarı, 2013a). There
the settlement (Mellink, 1964: 269–78,
is important evidence to suggest that in
1965: 241–51, 1969: 293–307). This rec-
this period there were also pottery zones
tangular, independent structure, which is
within these cultural regions (Efe, 2003a).
thought to have had two stories, has a
These are Troy–Yortan Bithynia, Phrygia,
central location in the settlement and is
Büyük Menderes-Upper Porsuk, and
monumental in comparison with the
Lycia-Pisidia (Figure 3A). This time, the
other structures in the settlement. The
Troy-Yortan and Bithynian cultural
houses that line up inside the palisade
regions were formed within the distri-
encircle this structure and belong to the
bution area of the earlier Kumtepe IB
upper town. The round houses outside
culture, which was dominant in the
the palisade from the earlier layers,
majority of northwestern Anatolia in the
together with megara built in the early
previous period.
and middle phases of the EBA I, may
belong to the lower town (Warner, 1994:
167, fig. 17). This settlement layout may Troy I-Yortan cultural region
be taken as an indication of the gradual Dark-faced burnished wares, anti-splash
emergence of social stratification in the bowls with an interior-thickened rim, and
settlement. tubular lugs were the most important
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
characteristics of the Troy-Yortan Cultural
Region (Figure 3B). The local pottery
zones within the Troy I-Yortan cultural
region include Troas, Limni, Izmir, and
Yortan.
Bithynian cultural region
Characterized by grey-brown burnished
wares and bowls with outflaring lips, the
Bithynian cultural region held the position
of a transitional region that bore both the
characteristics of the Troy-Yortan cultural
region and the Phrygian cultural region.
Phrygian cultural region
In EBA I, the Phrygian cultural region
retained its borders from the Transitional
Period into the EBA and was character-
ized by red-slipped and burnished wares
(Figure 4A) and black-topped wares
(Figure 4B), loop handles, horseshoe-
shaped handles, simple-profile bowls,
bowls with painted red crosses on the
interior, and baked clay idols (Figure 3C).
There were two distinct local pottery
zones in this region: the Demircihöyük
and Upper Sakarya pottery zones. The
main difference that distinguishes these
zones is the ratio of black-topped ware:
while it is seldomly represented in the
Upper Sakarya group, it forms more than
half of the ware groups at Demircihöyük.
Büyük Menderes-Upper Porsuk
cultural region
This cultural region, also known as the
‘Beycesultan EBA I Culture’, had a very
wide distribution area and is characterized
by brilliantly burnished bowls with thin
walls (perhaps imitating metal bowls),
strap handles and groove decorations, as
well as stone idols with round bodies and
pointed heads (Figure 3D). The distri-
bution areas of the local pottery zones
within this cultural region have not yet
been clearly defined.
69
Lycia-Pisidia cultural region
(Figure 3A)
This region’s pottery is characterized by
red and brown burnished wares; simple-
profile bowls with a flaring rim and a ver-
tical handle reaching from the rim down
the body. Relief decoration, grooves, and
white paint are characteristic. The borders
of the local pottery zones within this
region have also not yet been clearly
defined.
Metal
The repertoire of metal finds of this
period is almost the same as the previous
Late Chalcolithic and the Transitional
Period into the EBA (Efe & Fidan, 2006:
19–20). The only difference worth men-
tioning in terms of the metal types of this
period is the appearance of a different
variety of daggers (Fidan, 2006).
The metal objects from this period in
inland western Anatolia are known only
from a few sites. Demircihöyük yielded
tools, weapons, and jewellery. Various
types and sizes of daggers were found at
Beycesultan, but only a few needles are
known from Kusura (Efe & Fidan, 2006:
19–20). Sites such as Iasos, Liman Tepe,
Bakla Tepe, and Beşiktepe, situated on
the Aegean coastline of Anatolia, on the
other hand, have yielded various pieces of
jewellery as well as weapons and tools
(Keskin, 2011: 146).
Our knowledge of EBA I metal pro-
duction is mainly based on the
investigations carried out in the coastal
areas of western Anatolia (Keskin, 2011).
The best data, in this context, come from
the Liman Tepe excavations. The settle-
ment contains long houses built adjacent
to the defensive wall, and finds related to
metal production were recovered in some
of these houses. Crucible pieces, truyers,
70
pieces of moulds, ore-preparation tools,
and slags recovered in these houses point
to intensive metalworking activities. Pieces
of crucibles and moulds, as well as slag
pieces, were also found at Bakla Tepe.
The other site from which similar finds
have been recently obtained is Ephesus-
Çukuriçi Höyük. Here, alongside pieces of
moulds, slag, and crucibles, an oven that
might have been used in metal production
has been unearthed (Horejs, 2009; Horejs
et al., 2010). If we also take into consider-
ation the moulds from this period found
at Troy and Milet, we can envisage inten-
sive metal production in the region
(Müller-Karpe, 1994).
EARLY BRONZE AGE II (2700–2400 BC)
The architectural and archaeological find-
ings of the succeeding EBA II
demonstrate that stronger political powers
appeared and that a development towards
urbanism is underway. There was a sub-
stantial increase in the number of sites in
this period. Although this increase is
mainly due to a population explosion, it
can also be related to socio-economic
changes, which most probably had some-
thing to do with the discovery of new
metal resources. The boundaries of the
cultural regions in this period seem to
have remained stable, while the distri-
bution areas of the pottery zones are more
crystallized. Figurines and idols display
local characteristics linked to each cultural
region (Figure 9). Architectural data also
indicate that a ruling class might have
emerged.
Architecture
The EBA II, the period for which we
have most information in terms of the
region’s architecture, is of great
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
importance in that it carries the first con-
crete signs of the transition to urbanism
(Figure 2). Excavations carried out
especially in the last two decades in
western Anatolia, which had a unique
socio-political structure and followed in
many ways a different cultural develop-
mental trajectory to that of Mesopotamia,
have provided us with new information in
terms of the transition into urbanism. The
following four themes should be taken
into consideration in order to define a
settlement as a ‘city’ in western Anatolia:
(1) existence of a ruling class; (2) the
establishment of an upper and a lower
town, occupied by different social classes;
(3) the storing of surplus products; and (4)
craftsmanship (Fidan, in press).
Besides important findings regarding
general settlement plans and defence
systems in this period, administrative
structures have also been identified.
Furthermore, the formation of lower and
upper towns, the first simple example of
which we see in the EBA I at Karataş-
Semayük, became more apparent in this
period.
Küllüoba is the site that has been the
most extensively excavated as far as this
period is concerned; a lower and an upper
town were established here from the
beginning of the EBA II (Fidan, 2012a:
10, fig. 21). It is likely that the ruler and
his relatives and servants lived in the
upper town, which is roughly rectangular
in plan. It is encircled by a zigzag defen-
sive wall, to which row-houses are
attached at their backs (Figure 2). These
houses open up onto a central courtyard at
the front and independent structures were
built in the courtyard. The independent
structure named Complex II is very
important in this regard (Efe & Fidan,
2008; Figure 2). This complex, which we
believe had an administrative function, is
formed of a 31 m monumental megaron
to the south and an annex comprised four
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
separate units to the north. The structures
located outside the enclosure wall presum-
ably belonged to the lower town
(Figure 2).
While the settlement plan at Demirci-
höyük continued with some small changes,
similar plans are also seen at settlements
dating to this period, such as Bademağacı,
Keçiçayırı, and Karaoğlan Mevkii
(Figure 2). Of these three settlements that
do not have a lower town, Keçiçayırı in
the Phrygian Highlands has a defence
system built partly with very large stones
on top of a natural hill. The fortification
wall that surrounds the settlement of
Afyon-Karaoğlan Mevkii is supported by
bastions and towers (Topbaş et al., 1998:
23, fig. 2). In Bademağacı, to the north of
Antalya, the back walls of houses often
form the defensive wall (Duru &
Umurtak, 2008: 193, fig. 2). However, the
remains of the ‘Multi-Roomed Building’
in the centre of this settlement were inter-
preted by excavators as a ‘palace’ (Duru,
2008: 150, fig. 304). The top of the
mound seems to have been disturbed by
erosion, particularly on the north side. We
must not, therefore, rule out the possibility
that, other than the exterior row-houses,
further houses may also have been located
in the centre of the settlement.
The megara uncovered in the Beycesul-
tan EBA II settlement were defined as
twin temples (Lloyd & Mellaart, 1962:
40, fig. 13). However, the fact that the
hearths that were referred to here as altars
are found in almost every building in the
Seyitömer settlement (Bilgen, 2011a: 495,
498, 501, 504, 535) strengthens the idea
that, rather than having a religious
purpose, these hearths were part of the
architectural tradition of the region. It is
therefore more likely that, in this period
just as in the EBA I, these megara func-
tioned as houses rather than temples.
We can see that in this period settle-
ments on the Aegean coast, such as Troy
71
and Liman Tepe, were encircled by strong
fortification walls (Mellaart, 1959; Erkanal
& Artzy, 2002: 285, fig. 2). However,
neither of these settlements had yet devel-
oped public buildings or the concepts of
the lower and upper towns.
The settlement model that Korfmann
(1983: 222) called the ‘Anatolian Settle-
ment Plan’, consisting of a large central
courtyard surrounded by row-houses that
open onto the courtyard, appears to have
been characteristic of inland western Ana-
tolia. When we consider the central
courtyard settlements that appeared in
inland western Anatolia throughout the
EBA and particularly in EBA II, it is
clear that this system represented a
traditional and characteristic approach to
the architecture of the region. Since the
coastal areas of western Anatolia formed
architecturally an integral part of the
Aegean world, they had a different archi-
tectural concept from the inland areas.
Here, the popular settlement model does
not have a central courtyard but is formed
of houses lining streets.
Pottery
Since the bulk of the material collected
from the surface of the mounds comes
from this period, we now have a much
better idea of the distribution of pottery
zones (Figure 5). No changes can be
identified on the borders of the Troy
I-Yortan and Bithynian cultural regions as
well as their pottery zones.
Thanks to the surface surveys carried
out in recent years within the borders of
the Phrygian cultural region (Koçak &
Bilgin, 2005), we can now speak of the
existence of the Emirdağ pottery zone in
addition to the Demircihöyük and Upper
Sakarya pottery zones.
The EBA I pottery of the Büyük
Menderes-Upper Porsuk cultural region,
72
which has a very large distribution area,
underwent a radical change in the EBA
II. During this period, a large number of
local pottery zones were present in the
same region. However, due to lack of
research, we cannot state with confidence
whether these groups stemmed from the
previous EBA I period. These groups are
known as Upper Büyük Menderes, Lower
and Central Büyük Menderes, Kusura,
Afyon, Altıntaş, and Kütahya-Tavşanlı.
The borders of the pottery zones in the
Lycia-Pisidian cultural region became
more crystallized. These are known as
Elmalı, Korkuteli, Burdur, Sultandağ, and
Beyşehir. Although some innovations
occurred in pottery in terms of wares and
forms in the EBA II, it essentially contin-
ued from the previous period without a
sharp break.
Parallel to the developments in metal-
working, we can trace visible changes in
pottery, and the pottery of the following
EBA III begins to take shape in this
period (Figures 6 and 7). This phase was
stratigraphically determined at Küllüoba,
and reflects the characteristics of the
Upper Sakarya pottery zone. These new
pottery elements at the site appear in
Figure 5. Cultural regions and pottery groups in the Anatolian EB II.
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
Phase IVB, becoming more common in
the succeeding IVA phase (Sarı, 2009).
The characteristics that can be con-
sidered the forerunners of EBA III pottery
can be specified as follows. IVB: The
appearance of proto-red coated ware and
tripod cooking pots (Figures 6H and 7D).
IVA: The first tankards represented in
proto-red coated ware; rim-slip applied by
brush (Figures 6E, F and 7B); the first
hand-made examples of the ‘Trojan A20
platters (Figure 6A); and painting and
reserved slip decoration (Figures 6C, H
and 7C). After Phase IVA, the first
wheel-made pottery appeared at Küllüoba,
heralding the coming of the EBA III
period. Certain innovative pottery
elements, which were precursory to those
of the succeeding EBA III, emerged at
the end of the EBA II (IVA Phase) at
Küllüoba. This indicates a smooth tran-
sition from the EBA II into EBA III in
the region. A similar development can be
traced at Karataş-Semayük in the Lycian-
Pisidian cultural region, which reflects the
pottery characteristics of the Elmalı group
(Figure 8). Here, EBA III pottery charac-
teristics began to appear in Phase V: 3
(Eslick, 2009).
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Figure 6. Selected late EB II pottery from Küllüoba.
Metal
In the EBA II period in western Anatolia,
there was a clear breakthrough in the pro-
duction and utilization of metals. An
increase can be observed in the number of
gold, silver, and lead objects in the area,
and objects made of tin-bronze began to
appear for the first time. This new alloy,
which is much more durable than copper,
was used especially to make weapons.
In this period, mines were exploited
industrially and the extracted minerals
began to be processed close to the source
before being taken to the settlements in
ingot form (Yalçın, 2013). These ingots
may have been stored in the settlements
for future use or distributed to other
settlements. Ingot moulds have been
found at Küllüoba, Troy, Liman Tepe,
Milet, Çukuriçi Höyük, and Aphrodisias
(Müller-Karpe, 1994; Fidan, 2013).
The real developments in metalworking
began to appear at the end of the Late
73
EBA II. The area between Syria-Cilicia
and inland western Anatolia, to which the
early influx of oriental metal tools reached,
more or less overlaps with the early distri-
bution area of tin-bronzes. These objects
finally reached the northern Aegean at the
beginning of the EBA III. During this
time-span, other regions continued to use
arsenical bronze (Yalçın, 2013: 26). The
early Syro-Cilician metal objects—such as
decorative pins with an eye known as
‘toggle pins’ (Figure 14A–E), lead bottles
(Figure 14K and L), a crescent-shaped axe
(Figure 14J), and a dagger with a bent
tang (Figure 14I; Efe, 2007) —have been
recovered not only in the Demircihüyük
and Küllüoba settlements themselves, but
also in the cemeteries at Demircihüyük-
Sarıket and Bozüyük-Küçükhöyük
(Seeher, 2000). Toggle pins also appeared
in the cemeteries at Kaklık Mevkii,
Harmanören, and Karataş-Semayük
(Fidan, 2012b). The emerging tendency
towards homogeneity in the general
74
Figure 7. Selected late EB II ware groups from Küllüoba.
settlement plans and in find groups such
as pottery and idols in inland western
Anatolia during this period is also valid
for metalworking. The absence of razors
(Figure 14F–H) and toggle pins on the
Figure 8. Selected late EB II pottery from
Karataş-Semayük (Eslick 2009).
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
Aegean coastline support this premise
(Efe, 2002; Efe & Fidan, 2006).
Metalworking in centres such as Troy,
Liman Tepe, and Çeşme-Bağlararası on
the coastline continued from the EBA I
without much change (Keskin, 2011).
EARLY BRONZE AGE III (2400–1900 BC)
At the beginning of the EBA III, an
important development occurred in the
pottery of western Anatolia occurred.
Settlements decreased in number, whereas
the size of settlements increased (Sarı,
2013b: 228, Figure 8; Dedeoğlu, 2014:
figs. 7–8). The formation of city-states,
emphasized Alkım (Alkım, 1968: 81),
might have been responsible for this devel-
opment. Important changes occurred in
the cultural and possibly political structure
of western Anatolia during the late EB III
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Figure 9. Distribution of figurine and idol types according to cultural regions.
(2200–1900 BC), or, in other words,
during the Transitional Period into the
Middle Bronze Age (MBA): the Aegean
coast was in more intense relations with
the Aegean world, while inland northwes-
tern Anatolia become culturally and most
probably politically an integral part of
central Anatolia (Efe, 2004: 23–24). This
situation would remain unchanged for the
rest of the second millennium BC.
Architecture
In the coastal areas of western Anatolia,
parallel to the continued developments in
terms of socio-political structuring and
urbanism, much progress was made in
architectural terms (Figure 2). We know
75
that fortification walls were built to a size
never before seen in western Anatolia.
Although no public building dating to this
period has yet been excavated at Liman
Tepe, remains of the lower town as well as
depot complexes belonging to the upper
town have been uncovered here (Ş ahoğlu,
2005: 247, fig. 3). In Troy, the first find-
ings related to the existence of the lower
town are seen in the IIc layer, which is
dated to the beginning of this period
(Jablonka, 2001: 392–393, figs. 437, 439).
Furthermore, megara built in rows that
may have been used for public functions
are found in this layer. Of these, Megaron
IIA, built more monumentally than the
others, might have functioned as an
administrative building (Mellaart, 1959:
143, fig. 6).
76
Despite the parallel cultural develop-
ments that appear to have existed between
inland western Anatolia and the coastal
areas, the fact that the settlements in the
region have not been widely excavated pre-
vents us from tracing the continuation of
the developments in urbanism from the
preceding EBA II. Demircihöyük was not
occupied during the EB III and at Kül-
lüoba the settlement of this period is not
well preserved. In Karataş-Semayük in the
south, we only know of the existence of
independent megara (Warner, 1994: 167,
fig. 17). Seyitömer is the most widely
excavated settlement for this period.
Here, houses and workshops as well as a
palace and an independent structure in
the courtyard, interpreted as a temple,
have been uncovered (Bilgen, 2011b:
208–13; Bilgen, 2012: 74, plan 6). In this
settlement without a lower town, the
structures open up onto the central
Figure 10. Characteristic Early EB III pottery forms of Küllüoba.
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
courtyard. This can be taken as an impor-
tant clue that the western Anatolian
central courtyard tradition continued in
this period.
The architecture changed in the late
EBA III, the period also known in central
Anatolia as ‘Transitional Period into the
MBA’ (or Übergangsperiode—a term intro-
duced by Orthmann (1963: 99).)
Architecture of this period in western
Anatolia is only known from Küllüoba.
Here, multi-roomed independent struc-
tures show parallels with those of
contemporary sites in Central Anatolia
(Efe & Türkteki, 2011: 207; Ş ahin, 2013).
Pottery of Early EBA III
In this period, the mosaic the cultural
regions and pottery zones of the previous
period seems to have remained unchanged
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age 77

to a large extent (Figure 10). Now, the The characteristic forms of the EBA
pottery zones of Afyon and Polatlı of the III, such as plates (Figures 12A and B),
previous period became integrated into the tankards (Figures 12H and I), depas
Phrygian cultural region, with which they (Figure 12J), and amphora (Figure 12S),
have more common pottery characteristics occurred in the Phrygian cultural region
(Sarı, 2013a: 174–98, plate 66). A line from the early phases of the period, along-
drawn between Kütahya and Afyon side the new ware groups and forms
roughly delineates the border between the continuing and developing from the earlier
Phrygian and Büyük Menderes-Upper periods. Among these we can include red-
Porsuk cultural regions. These two cultural coated ware, plain ware, and wash ware.
regions are very distinct from each other Besides these new ware groups, the most
particularly in terms of ware groups. The important innovation of the period was
Phrygian cultural region is characterized the first use of the potter’s wheel.
by a reddish or purplish brown pottery
group, as we know very well from the Kül-
lüoba excavations (Figure 11). The Büyük THE MESOPOTAMIAN IMPACT ON THE
Menderes-Upper Porsuk Cultural Region, ANATOLIAN PENINSULA AND THE EARLY
on the other hand, is characterized by an USE OF WHEEL-MADE POTTERY
orange-red pottery group, which is well
known from the excavations at Beycesul- In the Early EBA III, common character-
tan and more recently at Seyitömer istics, particularly in pottery, are seen in
(Bilgen, 2011a, 2011b). Although the various settlements from Tarsus to Troy as
border between the Phrygian cultural a result of trade between distant regions.
region and the Troy-Yortan cultural
region remained unchanged, the relation-
ship between the two regions in this
period was more intense than in both the
previous and the following periods. It is
important to note that the specific forms
and wares at Küllüoba and Troy—the two
most important representatives of these
two cultures—occur concurrently in the
sequence. In both settlements the tankard
form (Figures 6E–G) appeared in the final
phase of the EBA II, while wheel-made
pottery appeared for the first time at the
beginning of the EBA III (Figure 12). It
is worth noting that a large number of
depa (12j), the characteristic form of the
early phase of EBA III in western Anato-
lia, have been recovered, and these
followed the same developmental process
in both settlements. Eventually, goblets
and Syrian bottles (Figure 12K) and some
imported ware groups from north Syria
were also added to the pottery repertoire Figure 11. Early EB III Red Coated Ware from
(Türkteki, 2010, 2013). Küllüoba.
78
Figure 12. Cultural regions and pottery groups of the West Anatolian Early EB III.
This has given rise to debates on how
these trade relations were established
between the northern Aegean and Cilicia.
Among the most important findings that
shed light on this issue are the early use of
wheel-made pottery and metal objects.
The debates have followed two main lines.
Mellink (1989) proposed that the potter’s
wheel reached Troy by sea via the Medi-
terranean and Aegean coastlines. Efe
(2003a, 2007), on the other hand, put
forward the theory of the existence of a
land trade network, which he called the
‘Great Caravan Route’, stretching from
Syria-Cilicia through the Konya plain,
inland northwestern Anatolia (Eskişehir
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
and the İznik-İnegöl plains), as far west as
the north Aegean. Efe (1988: 93, 99,
2003a, 2003b, 2007: 48–49) bases his
theory on two points: the absence of
wheel-made pottery from the Early EBA
III in the eastern Aegean islands and
Cyclades, and the appearance of pottery
and metal tools of western and eastern
origin over the inland route. This theory is
supported by a rough overlap between the
‘Great Caravan Route’ and the early distri-
bution area of tin-bronzes in western
Anatolia (Pernicka, 2001: 409) as well as
certain finds recovered in the Küllüoba
excavations—in particular the early use of
wheel-made pottery at the site (Rahmstorf,
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Figure 13. Cultural regions and pottery groups of the West Anatolian Late EB III.
2006, 2011; Efe, 2007; Türkteki, 2010,
2013). The absence of wheel-made pottery
(except imports) at Seyitömer, Gordion,
and Polatlı at the beginning of the Early
EBA III indicates that wheel-made
pottery was concentrated in the Upper
Sakarya Plains, the Phrygian Highlands,
and the Eskişehir Plains that form part of
the Great Caravan Route. It should be
emphasized that the cylinder seals recovered
lately at Seyitömer (Bilgen, 2011a: 552,
fig. 761) point to a direct or indirect
relationship of the site with Mesopotamia
over the Great Caravan Route. New
excavations at Denizli-Laodikeia raise the
possibility that the use of the potter’s wheel
may have reached the area over the Afyon
region (Oğuzhanoğlu, personal communi-
cation). However, this may have taken place
from the middle of the Early EBA III. On
the other hand, we still do not have enough
evidence on whether the Konya region
played a role in this development.
Another study of the trade relations
between regions was carried out by
Ş ahoğlu. According to current data, this
network of relations, which Ş ahoğlu called
the ‘Anatolian Trade Network’ (Ş ahoğlu,
2005), reflects the situation in the final
stages of the Early EBA III.
79
While no significant findings have been
recovered to prove relations between
Liman Tepe (an extremely important port
city) and Mesopotamia, a very limited
amount of wheel-made pottery recovered
at the site suggests intensified trade
relations were not yet established with the
interior of Anatolia. This also strengthens
the theory that relations between Troy and
Tarsus were established via inland Anato-
lia. According to the material evidence,
Liman Tepe seems to have been an inte-
gral part of the Aegean trade network
before the late EB III.
The western Anatolian influence—
particularly in pottery—finally reached the
Aegean islands and mainland Greece in
the middle of the EBA III. This period has
been defined as the Kastri-Lefkandi I or
‘Anatolianizing’ phase (Rutter, 1979: 15,
2008: 465; Broodbank, 2000: 284, fig. 93).
The Anatolian pottery is referred to as the
‘Kastri Group’ (Renfrew, 1972: 172).
A reliable and complete western Anato-
lian EBA chronology undoubtedly enables
us to make a more accurate comparison
with the Aegean chronology. In this
regard, Liman Tepe, which had intense
relations with the Aegean World, holds a
very important position.
80 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015

Figure 14. Late EBA II metal finds of the Eskişehir Plain demonstrating distant connections. 1–5,
toggle pins; 6, a razor; 7, knife or razor; 8, razor? with twisted handle; 9, a spearhead with a bent
tang; 10, crescent axe; 11–12, lead bottles; 13, shaft-hole axe; 14–15, maceheads (G/ürkan & Seeher,
1991: figs. 21, 23; Seeher, 2000: figs. 17, 18, 23, 30, 33, 38, 45, 49).

Liman Tepe late EBA II is synchro-
nized approximately with the end of
Troy II. This raises issues for the corre-
lation of the Aegean and Anatolian
chronologies (Kouka, 2009: 135, Tab. 1).
Just as in the rest of western Anatolia,
the single-handled tankard form first
appeared at Liman Tepe in the layer that
corresponds to the end of the EBA II
according to the Anatolian chronology.
Particularly in Troy, the first use of the
potter’s wheel and the appearance of the
depas form is accepted as the beginning
of the EBA III in the interior of the
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Anatolian peninsula. Therefore, in this
chronology Liman Tepe LMT B V–1b—
in which wheel-made pottery first
appears—should correspond to Troy IIc
and Küllüoba IIIC at the earliest.
However, one gets the impression that
wheel-made pottery in this level at
Liman Tepe is represented only by a
single depas (Ş ahoğlu, 2004:115, fig. 6a).
This single example found in level LMT
V–1b could therefore be an import. It
seems that the depas form is more typical
in Liman Tepe V–1a (Kouka, 2013:
573). The wheel-made Trojan A2 platter
is only represented with two examples in
the succeeding LMT IV–2, correspond-
ing to Troy IIg and Küllüoba III B–IIIA
(Kouka, 2013: 573). As in settlements
with Kastri group pottery, a small
number of A2 platters are found here
(Ş ahoğlu, 2002: 71). This makes us think
that, like the depas forms, these examples
may also be imports.
Pottery of Late EBA III
This period forms an important turning
point in the west Anatolian cultural devel-
opmental process. In the Late EBA III,
the cultural and political structure in
western Anatolia underwent an important
change: coastal areas become more inte-
grated with the Aegean world, and inland
northwestern Anatolia became integrated
with central Anatolia (Figure 13). At the
same time, the local pottery groups contin-
ued to exist throughout western Anatolia.
The Troas and Izmir pottery zones of the
Troy-Yortan cultural region have a pottery
development with strong Aegean connec-
tions. The Bithynian cultural region,
characterized by İnegöl grey ware, contin-
ued to display the characteristics of a buffer
zone between Troy-Yortan and Phrygian
cultural regions (Figure 13).
81
According to current data, the earliest
examples of the pottery of the Transitional
Period into the MBA appear in the
Eskişehir region. The cultural character-
istics of this period, represented by a long
and unbroken stratigraphy at Küllüoba, do
not appear suddenly (Ş ahin, 2013: 236).
Red coated ware of the Early EBA III
continued to exist at the beginning of this
period. The pottery of this period is
characterized by its own red-slipped wares,
bowls with bead-rims and vertical lugs,
teapots, conical cups with string-cut bases,
schnabelkanne, and fine incision and dot
decoration. The early phases of this
pottery have not been found in central
Anatolia. The cultural characteristics
specific to this period seem to have first
developed in western Anatolia, spreading
from here over time to central Anatolia.
Metal
Metalworking became an important occu-
pation in western Anatolia in the early
EBA III, parallel to the emergence of
mighty local political powers and the
development of urbanism. As a result of
this, important innovations in metalwork-
ing appeared. Techniques such as riveting,
soldering, filigree, granulation, engraving,
coating, appliqué, and gilding appear at
almost the same time in the area stretching
from Mesopotamia to central Anatolia and
Troy. The wealth of metal finds from this
period in western Anatolia comes mainly
from Troy (Sazcı, 2007). The hoard of
metal finds discovered by Schliemann in
1873, which he named ‘Priam’s Treasure’,
is of utmost importance in showing the
level that metal working had reached in
terms of material, types, introduction of
new techniques, and level of workmanship.
It is very difficult, at the moment, to
confirm the same level of metalworking in
inland western Anatolia, due to the
82
limited number of finds from the exca-
vations at Küllüoba (Efe & Fidan, 2006)
and Seyitömer (Bilgen, 2011a, 2011b),
and the fact that no EBA III cemeteries
have yet been excavated in the region.
However, it is highly likely that metal-
working similar to that of Troy existed in
inland western Anatolia, since it formed a
buffer zone between central Anatolia and
the Aegean coastline.
The only information on Late EBA III
metalworking in the region comes from
Küllüoba. In particular, the architecture
and pottery of this period show that
inland western Anatolia became integrated
with central Anatolia in this period. A
trinket mould (Efe, 2006) and a double
lead figurine found at Küllüoba from this
period are the most important finds in
connection with metalworking.
CONCLUSION
Until recently, the western Anatolian
EBA was mainly assessed according to the
excavation results from Tarsus, Beycesultan,
Karataş-Semayük, Demircihöyük, and
Troy. Since these settlements are very few,
geographically distant from each other and
belong to different cultural regions, it is
not possible to fully establish the chronol-
ogy and cultural development process of
the EBA of the region in question.
However, thanks to the excavations and
surface surveys carried out in recent years,
important steps have been taken towards
establishing a more reliable EBA chronol-
ogy (Figure 15). Inland northwestern
Anatolia is, in this sense, the best investi-
gated area in the whole of western
Anatolia. It is now possible to make some
more concrete statements regarding the
general settlement plans, the initial steps
of urbanism and the socio-economic struc-
ture of western Anatolia in the EBA. In
this context, Karataş-Semayük, Küllüoba,
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
Liman Tepe, and Troy are important
sites, as they reveal different stages of
urbanism during the whole timespan of
the EBA.
We can speak of two separate architec-
tural regions, particularly in terms of
general settlement plans: coastal western
Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands,
and inland western Anatolia. The charac-
teristic row-houses occur in both regions.
However, in the coastal areas and islands,
these were generally built in blocks of
houses (insula) separated by intersecting
streets (linear settlement plan), while in
the inland areas the houses encircle a
central courtyard (Figure 2). It is this
second settlement plan, which may date
back as far as the Neolithic Period in the
region that most closely matches Korf-
mann’s ‘Anatolian Settlement Plan’
(Korfmann, 1983: 222).
These differences between the two
regions are even more pronounced in
pottery. The pottery zones characterised
mostly by red or orange burnished and/or
slipped wares are common in inland areas.
On the other hand, the pottery tradition
that represents the Troy-Yortan cultural
region is mainly characterized by dark-
faced burnished wares, showing a process
of development particular to the region in
the EBA I–II periods. Parallel to the
architecture, these two main pottery tra-
ditions associated with coastal and inland
areas (with some local differences) had
their own developmental trajectory,
although they had some common
characteristics.
The cultural regions, the distribution
areas of which are mainly established by
pottery—and to a lesser extent by some
other find groups, such as figurines and
idols—may also point to the areas of influ-
ence of local political powers. It is highly
probable that these political structures
developed into city-states in the Early
EBA III.
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Figure 15. Chronological chart synchronizing the stratigraphies of major EBA sites in western Anatolia.
In parallel to the intensifying trade
relations between distant regions, the first
clear Syro-Cilician influence was felt in
inland western Anatolia towards the end
of the EBA II and finally, at the begin-
ning of the EBA III, they reached the
northern Aegean and Thrace. This event
led to important innovations in pottery
and metalwork in western Anatolia.
Thanks to the Küllüoba excavations,
not only has an uninterrupted sequence of
the Late EBA III (i.e. ‘Transitional Period
into the MBA’) of the area been estab-
lished, but also comprehensive and
detailed information has been obtained in
connection with the period in question. In
the Late EBA III, the coastal areas
became more integrated with the Aegean
World, while inland northwestern Anato-
lia, represented by the Phrygian cultural
region, split from western Anatolia cultu-
rally—and perhaps also politically—and
became aligned with central Anatolia. It is
likely that this new cultural/political for-
mation brought new dimensions to the
relations between Mesopotamia and
central Anatolia and led to alterations in
the trade network. This new trade
network most probably laid the foundation
for the succeeding Assyrian Trading
Colony Period.
83
At the end of the EBA, at certain sites
such as Troy, Liman Tepe, Aphrodisias,
and Alacahöyük, conflagrations or destruc-
tion layers have been observed that might
have something to do with the turmoil
marking the end of the EBA in the Ana-
tolian peninsula and the Aegean world
(Massa, 2014: figs. 2, 3). After this
turmoil, which can be interpreted as the
struggle between the western Anatolian
city-states for power, cultural elements of
the Hittite, Minoan and Mycenaean civili-
zations gradually began to take shape in
western Anatolia and the Aegean world
with the impetus of the earlier periods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express our thanks and gratitude to
Prof. Dr Turan Efe for valuable advice
and editing. Our sincere thanks also go to
Umay Oğuzhanoğlu for sharing the infor-
mation from her on-going doctoral thesis
on the EBA pottery in Laodikeia.
REFERENCES
Abay, E. & Dedeoğlu, F. 2005. 2003 Yılı
Denizli/Çivril Ovası Yüzey Araştırması.
84 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015

Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 22 The Contribution of Ulucak. In:

(2):42–50. M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen &
Abay, E. & Dedeoğlu, F. 2007. 2005 Yılı P. Kuniholm, eds. The Neolithic in Turkey,
Denizli/Çivril Ovası Yüzey Araştırması. New Excavations & New Research, Western
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 24 Turkey. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art
(1):277–93. Publications, pp. 139–75.
Akdeniz, E. 2009. 2007 Yılında Manisa İli ve Cline, E.H. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of the
İlçelerinde Yürütülen Prehistorik- Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford: Oxford
Protohistorik Yüzey Araştırmaları. Araştırma University Press.
Sonuçları Toplantısı, 26(2):255–66. Cookson, C. 2008. The Houses from Ilıpınar
Akdeniz, E. 2010. 2008 Yılında Manisa İli ve Phase Z and VI Compared. In:
İlçelerinde Yürütülen Prehistorik— J. Roodenberg & S. Alpaslan Roodenberg,
Protohistorik Yüzey Araştırmaları. eds. Life and Death in a Prehistoric
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 27 Settlement in Northwest Anatolia The
(1):153–74. Ilıpınar Excavations, Vol III. Leiden:
Alkım, B. 1968. Anatolia I. Geneva: World Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Publishing Company. Oosten, pp. 149–203.
Ay-Efe, D.Ş .M. 2001. The Small Finds. In: Dedeoğlu, F. 2008. Cultural Transformation
T. Efe ed. The Salvage Excavations at and Settlement System of Southwestern
Orman Fidanlığı. A Chalcolithic Site in Anatolia from Neolithic to LBA: A Case
lnland Northwestern Anatolia. İstanbul: Study from Denizili/Çivril Plain. In:
TASK Vakfı Yayınları, pp. 127–58. J. Córdoba, J.M. Molist, C. Pérez,
Begemann, F., Pernicka, E. & Schitt-Strecker, I. Rubio & S. Martínez, eds. Proceedings of
S. 1994. Metal Finds from Ilıpınar and the 5th International Congress on the
the Advent of Arsenical Copper. Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Anatolica, 20:203–15. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Bilgen, N. 2011a. Seyitömer Höyük Kazısı Ön Investigaciones Cientificas, pp. 587–601.
Raporu (2006–2010). Kütahya: Dumlupınar Dedeoğlu, F. 2014. Yukarı Menderes Havzası
Üniversitesi Yayınları. Bölgesel Yerleşim Analizi: Erken Tunç
Bilgen, N. 2011b. Seyitömer Höyük. In: Çağı’nda Sosyo-Ekonomik Örgütlenmedeki
V. Ş ahoğlu & P. Sotirakopoulou, eds. Değişim ve Dönüşüm Süreçleri. In: Ö.
Across: The Cyclades and Western Anatolia Çevik & B. Erdoğu, eds. Tematik Arkeoloji
during the 3rd Millenium BC. Istanbul: Serisi 1—Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan
Sabancı University Sakıp Sabancı Analizi, Ege Yayınları, pp. 19–42.
Museum, pp. 208–13. Duru, R. 2006. Kuruçay Höyük II, (1978–1988
Bilgen, N. 2012. Seyitömer Höyük Kazısı Ön Kazılarının Sonuçları Geç Kalkolitik ve İlk
Raporu (2011–2012). Kütahya: Tunç Çağı Yerleşmeleri). Ankara: Türk
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Yayınları. Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Bittel, K. 1942. Kleinasiatische Studien. Duru, R. 2008. Burdur-Antalya Bölgesi’nin
Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 5:1–204. Altıbin Yılı. Suna—İnan Kıraç Akdeniz
Bittel, K. 1971. Bemerkungen über die Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü.
Prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Duru, R. & Umurtak, G. 2008. Bademağacı
Fikirtepe bei Kadıköy (İstanbul). Istanbuler Kazıları, 2006. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı,
6 Mitteilungen, 19(20):1–19. 2:187–96.
Blegen, C., Caskey, J.L. & Rawson, M. 1950. Duru, R. & Umurtak, G. 2010. Bademağacı
Troy I, General Introduction, The First and Kazıları, 2008, 31. Kazı Sonuçları
Second Settlements. Princeton: Princeton Toplantısı 3. Ankara, pp. 261–68.
University Press. Düring, B.S. 2011. The Prehistory of Asia
Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of Minor, From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to
the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge Early Urban Societies. Cambridge:
University Press. Cambridge University Press.
Çilingiroğlu, A., Çevik, Ö. & Çilingiroğlu, Ç. Efe, T. 1988. Demircihöyük. Band III, Die
2012. Ulucak Höyük towards Keramik 2, Die Frühebronzezeitliche
Understanding the Early Farming Keramik der Jüngeren Phasen (ab Phase H).
Communities of Middle West Anatolia: Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
Efe, T. 1994. Eskişehir Yöresindeki Bazı
Höyüklerde Saptanmış Olan İlk Tunç
Çağı’na Geçiş Evresi Çanak Çömleği.
Anadolu Araştırmaları, 13:17–46.
Efe, T. 2002. The Interaction Between
Cultural/Political Entities and Metal
Working in Western Anatolia during the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages.
Anatolian Metal, 2:49–66.
Efe, T. 2003a. Batı Anadolu Tunç Çağı
Uygarlığının Doğuşu. ArkeoAtlas, 2:92–129.
Efe, T. 2003b. Pottery Distribution within the
Bronze Age of Western Anatolia and its
Implications upon Cultural, Political (and
Ethnic?) Entities. In: M. Özbaşaran &
A. Boratav, eds. Archaeological Essays in
Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük
için Armağan Yazılar. İstanbul: Ege
Yayinlari, pp. 87–105.
Efe, T. 2004. Kültür Gruplarından Krallıklara:
Batı Anadolu’nun Tarihöncesi Kültürel ve
Siyasal Gelişim Profili. Colloquium
Anatolicum, 3:15–29.
Efe, T. 2006. A Trinket Mold from Küllüoba
near Seyitgazi/Eskişehir. In: A. Erkanal,
A. Öktü, E. Özgen & S. Günel, eds.
Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan. Kültürlerin
Yansıması/Studies in Honor of Hayat
Erkanal. Cultural Reflections. İstanbul:
Homer Kitabevi, pp. 301–04.
Efe, T. 2007. The Theories of the ‘Great
Caravan Route’ between Cilicia and Troy:
The Early Bronze Age III Period in
Inland Western Anatolia. Anatolian
Studies, 57:47–64.
Efe, T. & Ay-Efe, D. 2000. Early Bronze Age
I Pottery from Küllüoba Near Seyitgazi,
Eskisehir. Anatolia Antiqua, 8:1–87.
Efe, T. & Fidan, E. 2006. Pre-Middle Bronze
Metal Objects from Inland Western
Anatolia: A Typological and Chronological
Evaluation. Anatolia Antiqua, 14:15–43.
Efe, T. & Fidan, E. 2008. Complex II in the
Early Bronze II Upper Town of Küllüoba
Near Eskişehir. Anatolica, 34:67–102.
Efe, T. & Türkteki, M. 2011. Early Bronze
Age Architecture in the Inland Western
Anatolian Region. In: V. Ş ahoğlu &
P. Sotirakopoulou, eds. Across the Cyclades
and Western Anatolia during the 3rd
Millenium BC. İstanbul: Sabancı
University Sakıp Sabancı Museum, pp.
198–207.
Efe, T., İlaslı, A. & Topbaş, A. 1995. Salvage
Excavations of the Afyon Archaeological
85
Museum, Part 1: Kaklık Mevkii, A Site
Transitional to the Early Bronze Age.
Studia Troica, 5:357–99.
Erkanal, H. & Özkan, T. 1997. 1995 Bakla
Tepe Kazıları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
18/1. Ankara: TTK Basımevi, pp. 261–79.
Erkanal, H. 2000. 1998 Liman Tepe Kazıları,
21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 1:251–62.
Erkanal, H. & Artzy, M. 2002. 2000 Yılı
Liman Tepe Kazı Çalışmaları. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı, 23(1):375–88.
Erkanal, H. & Özkan, T. 2000. 1998 Bakla
Tepe Kazıları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı,
21(1):263–78.
Eslick, C. 2009. Elmalı-Karataş V, The Early
Bronze Age Pottery of Karataş: Habitation
Deposits. British Archaeological Reports.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Fidan, E. 2006. Waffen aus Metall vor der
Mittleren Bronzezeit im Inland
Westanatoliens. Colloquium Anatolicum,
5:91–106.
Fidan, E. 2012a. Küllüoba İlk Tunç Çağı
Mimarisi. M.A.S.R.O.P. E-Dergi,
(Mimarlar, Arkeologlar, Sanat Tarihçileri,
Restoratörler Ortak Platformu), 7:1–44.
Fidan, E. 2012b. İç Kuzeybatı Anadolu İlk
Tunç Çağı Gözlü Süs İğneleri (Toggle
Pin). Colloquium Anatolicum, 11:179–204.
Fidan, E. 2013. Küllüoba İlk Tunç Çağı
Metal Eser Kalıpları. In. P. Ayter,
Ş . Demirci & A.M. Özer, eds. ODTÜ III.
Arkeometri Çalıştayı, Türkiye Arkeolojisinde
Metal: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar.
Yayınlayan: ODTÜ Arkeometri Anabilim
Dalı, Ankara, pp. 249–59.
Fidan, E. in press. Urbanism in the Western
Anatolian Early Bronze Age, IV. In:
International Archaeology Symposıum of
Dumlupınar University at Kütahya, 2014.
French, D.H. 1969a. Anatolia and the Aegean
in the Third Millenium B.C., Anatolia and
the Aegean in the Third Millenium B.C.
(unpublished PhD dissertation,
Cambridge University).
French, D.H. 1969b. Prehistoric Sites in
Northwest Anatolia II: The Balikesir and
Akhisar/Manisa Area. Anatolian Studies,
19:41–98.
Goetze, A. 1957. Kleinasien. München: Beck.
Goldmann, H. 1956. Excavations at Gözlükule,
Tarsus from the Neolithic through the Bronze
Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gürkan, G & Seeher, J. 1991. Die
frühbronzezeitliche Nekropole von
86
Küçükhöyük bei Bozüyük. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen, 41:39–96.
Horejs, B. 2009. Metalworkers at the Çukuriçi
Höyük? An Early Bronze Age Mould and a
Near Eastern Weight from Western Anatolia.
Universitaetsforschungen zur Praehistorischen
Archaeologie: Metals and Societies, vol. 169.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, pp. 358–68.
Horejs, B., Mehofer, M. & Pernicka, E. 2010.
Metallhandweker im Frühen 3. Jt. v. Chr.
Neue Ergebnisse vom Çukuriçi Höyük.
İstanbuler Mitteilungen, 60:7–37.
Jablonka, P. 2001. Ş ehrin Tahta Surları Troia
II Aşağı Ş ehrinin Savunması. In:
M. Korfmann ed. Troia. Düş ve Gerçek.
İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi, pp. 391–94.
Kaptan, E. 1998a. Bakla Tepe‘‘de Eski
Metalurjiye Ait Buluntular. Arkeometri
Sonuçları Toplantısı, 13:103–14.
Kaptan, E. 1998b. Liman Tepe‘‘de Eski
Metalurjiye Ait Buluntular. Arkeometri
Sonuçları Toplantısı, 13:83–102.
Karul, N. 2009. Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da
Anahatlarıyla Neolitik-Kalkolitik
Dönemler’. In: M. Doğan Alparslan & A.
Özdizbay, eds. Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri 11
Enstitüsü Haberler 28. Zero Yayınları,
İstanbul, pp. 1–6.
Keskin, L. 2011. Metalworking in Western
Anatolian Coastal Region during the 3rd
Millennium BC. In: V. Şahoğlu &
P. Sotirakopoulou, eds. Across. The Cyclades
and Western Anatolia during the 3rd
Millennium BC. İstanbul: Sabancı University
Sakıp Sabancı Museum, pp. 144–52.
Koçak, Ö. & Bilgin, M. 2005. Taşlı Höyük:
An Important Early Bronze Age
Settlement and Necropolis in
Bolvadin-Dişli Village. Anatolia Antiqua,
13:85–109.
Korfmann, M. 1983. Demircihüyük Die
Ergebnisse Der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978
Band I, Architektur, Stragraphie und
Befunde. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp
von Zabern.
Korfmann, M. 1997. Troia 1995 Kazıları.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 18(1):213–29.
Korfmann, M. 1998. Troia 1996 Kazıları.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 19(1):427–53.
Korfmann, M., Girgin, G., Morçöl, G. &
Kilic, S. 1995. Kumtepe 1993. Bericht
über die Rettungs grabungen. Studia
Troica, 5:237–91.
Kouka, O. 2009. Third Millenium BC.
Aegean Chronology. In: S. Manning &
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
M. Bruce, eds. Three Rings, Kings and Old
World Archaeology and Environment,
Studies in Honor of Ian Kuniholm. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 133–49.
Kouka, O. 2010. Third Millennium BC
Aegean Chronology: Old and New Data
from the Perspective of the Third
Millennium AD. In: S. W. Manning &
M. J. Bruce, eds. Tree-Rings, Kings, and
Old World Archaeology and Environment
Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian
Kuniholm. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.
133–50.
Kouka, O. 2013. Minding the Gap Against
the Gaps: The Early Bronze Age and the
Transition to the Middle Bronze Age in
the Northern and Eastern Aegean/
Western Anatolia. American Journal of
Archaeology, 117:569–80.
Lloyd, S. & Mellaart, J. 1962. Beycesultan
Volume I. The Chalcolitic and Early Bronze
Age Levels. London: The British Institute
of Archaeology at Ankara.
Massa, M. 2014. Destructions,
Abandonments, Social Reorganisation and
Climatic Change in West and Central
Anatolia at the End of the Third
Millennium BC. In: B. Erciyas &
E. Sökmen, eds. Arkeolojide Bölgesel
Çalışmalar Sempozyum Bildirileri /
Regional Studies in Archaeology Symposium
Proceedings YAS 4. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları,
pp. 89–123.
Mellaart, J. 1954. Preliminary Report on a
Survey of Pre-Classical Remains in
Southern Turkey. Anatolian Studies,
4:175–240.
Mellaart, J. 1959. Notes on the Architectural
Remains of Troy I and I. Anatolian
Studies, 9:131–62.
Mellaart, J. 1970. Excavations at Hacılar.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mellink, M.J. 1974. Excavations at Karataş-
Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1973. American
Journal of Archaeology, 78:351–59.
Mellink, M. 1989. Anatolia and Foreign
Relations of Tarsus in the Early Bronze
Age. In: K. Emre, M. Mellink, B. Hruda
& N. Özgüç, eds. Anatolia and the
Near East. Studies in the Honor of Tahsin
Özgüç. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp.
319–32.
Mellink, M. 1992. Anatolian Chronology. In:
R.W. Ehrich ed. Chronologies in Old
World Archaeology I, II. Chicago:
Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age
University of Chicago Press, pp. 171–84,
207–20.
Mellink, M.J. 1964. Excavations at
Karataş-Semayük in Lycia, 1963. American
Journal of Archaeology, 68:269–78.
Mellink, M.J. 1965. Excavations at
Karataş-Semayük in Lycia, 1964. American
Journal of Archaeology, 69:241–51.
Mellink, M.J. 1969. Excavations at
Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı. American
Journal of Archaeology, 73:293–307.
Müller-Karpe, M. 1994. Anatolisches
Metallhandwerk. Neumunster: Wachholtz
Verlag.
Orthmann, W. 1963. Die Keramik der Frühen
Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. Berlin:
Gebr. Mann.
Özdoğan, M. 1979. Fikirtepe (unpublished
PhD dissertation, Istanbul University).
Pernicka, E. 2001. Metalle machen Epoche.
Bronze, Eisen und Silber. In:
M. Korfmann, ed. Troia—Traum und
Wirklichkeit. İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi,
pp. 369–72.
Rahmstorf, L. 2006. Zur Ausbreitung vor der
asiatischer Innovationen in die
Frühbronzezeitlische Agäis. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift, 81:49–96.
Rahmstorf, L. 2011. Re-Integrating ‘Diffusion’:
the Spread of Innovations among the
Neolithic and Bronze Age Societies of
Europe and the Near East. In:
T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt & J. Bennet, eds.
Interweaving Worlds Systemic Intgeractions in
Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia BC. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 100–19.
Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of
Civilisation The Cyclades and the Aegean in
the Third Millenium B.C. London:
Methuen Publishing Ltd.
Roodenberg, J., Thissen, L. & Buitenhuis, H.
1990. Preliminary Report on the
Archaeological Investigations at Ilıpınar in
the North West Anatolia. Anatolica,
16:61–144.
Roodenberg, J.J. 1999. Investigation at
Menteşe Höyük in the Yenişehir Basin.
Anatolica, 25:21–36.
Roodenberg, J.J. 2008. Stratigraphy and
Architecture of Phases X and IX. In: J.
J. Roodenberg & S.A. Roodenberg, eds.
Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in
Northwest Anatolia, The Ilıpınar Excavations
III. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten, pp. 1–34.
87
Rutter, J. 1979. Ceramic Change in the Aegean
Early Bronze Age. The Kastri Group,
Lefkandi I and Lerna IV: A Theory
Concerning the Origin of Early Helladic III
Ceramics. Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology, University of California.
Rutter, J.B. 2008. The Anatolian Roots of
Early Helladic III Drinking Behavior. In:
H. Erkanal, H. Hauptmann, V. Ş ahoğlu
& R. Tuncel, eds. The Aegean in the
Neolithic Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze
Age, Proceedings of the International
Symposium. Ankara University, Research
Center for Maritime Archaeology
(ANKÜSAM), Publication No 1. Ankara:
Ankara University Press, pp. 461–81.
Sağlamtimur, H. & Ozan, A. 2012. Ege
Gübre Neolitik Yerleşimi. In:
A. Çilingiroğlu, Z. Mercangöz &
G. Polat, eds. Ege Üniversitesi Arkeolojik
Kazıları. İzmir: Basımevi, pp. 95–114.
Ş ahin, F. 2013. Küllüoba Höyüğü Orta Tunç
Çağı’na Geçiş Dönemi (Übergangsperiode):
Mimari ve Çanak Çömlek (unpublished
PhD dissertation, Istanbul University).
Ş ahoğlu, V. 2002. Liman Tepe Erken Tunç
Çağı Seramiğinin Ege Arkeolojisindeki Yeri
ve Önemi/Early Bronze Age Pottery from
Liman Tepe and its Significance in the
Archaeology of the Aegean (unpublished
PhD dissertation, Ankara University).
Ş ahoğlu, V. 2004. Interregional Contacts
Around the Aegean during the Early
Bronze Age: New Evidence from the İzmir
Region. Anadolu/Anatolia, 27:97–120.
Ş ahoğlu, V. 2005. The Anatolian Trade
Network and the Izmir Region During
the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal Of
Archaeology, 24:339–61.
Ş ahoğlu, V. 2008. Liman Tepe and Bakla
Tepe: New Evidence for the Relations
Between the İzmir Region, The Cyclades
and the Greek Mainland during the Late
Fourth and Third Millennia BC. In:
H. Erkanal, H. Hauptmann, V. Ş ahoğlu
& R. Tuncel, eds. Proceedings of the
International Symposium, The Aegean in the
Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze
Age. Ankara University, Research Center for
Maritime Archaeology (ANKÜSAM),
Publication No 1. Ankara: Ankara
University Press, pp. 483–501.
Sarı, D. 2009. Late EB II Pottery Recovered
in Complex II of Küllüoba. Anatolia
Antiqua, 17:89–132.
88
Sarı, D. 2013a. Evolution culturelle et politique
de l’Anatolie de l’Ouest au bronze ancien et
au bronze moyen. Lille: Atelier national de
reproduction des thèses.
Sarı, D. 2013b. The Cultural Development of
Western Anatolia in the Third and Second
Millennia B.C. and its Relationship with
Migration Theories. In: A. Mouton,
I. Rutherford & I. Yakubovich, eds.
Luwian Identities, Culture, Language and
Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean.
Leiden: Brill, pp. 305–28.
Sazcı, G. 2007. The Treasures of Troia.
İstanbul: Aygaz.
Schoop, U. 2005. Das anatolische
Chalkolithikum. Eine chronologische
Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlischen
Kultursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien
und den angrenzenden Gebieten.
Remshalden: Verlag BA Greiner.
Seeher, J. 2000. Die Bronzezeitliche Nekropole
von Demircihüyük-Sarıket. Tübingen:
Ernst Wasmuth Verlag.
Sperling, J.W. 1976. Kum Tepe in the Troad:
Trial Excavations, 1934. Hesperia,
45:305–64.
Stronach, D. 1962. Metal Objects. In:
S. Lloyd & J. Mellaart, eds. Beycesultan,
vol. I. London: The British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, pp. 280–90.
Topbaş, A., Efe, T. & İlaslı, A. 1998. Salvage
Excavations of the Afyon Archaeological
Museum, Part II: The Settlement of
Karaoğlan Mevkii and the Early Bronze
Age Cemetery of Kaklık Mevkii. Anatolia
Antiqua, VI:21–94.
Türkteki, M. 2010. Batı ve Orta Anadolu’da
Çark Yapımı Çanak Çömleğin Ortaya Çıkışı
ve Gelişimi (unpublished PhD dissertation,
İstanbul University).
Türkteki, M. 2012. Batı ve Orta Anadolu’da
Çark Yapımı Çanak Çömleğin Ortaya
Çıkışı ve Yayılımı. M.A.S.R.O.P. E-Journal,
7:45–111.
Türkteki, M. 2013. The First Use of
Wheel-Made Pottery and its Distribution
in Western and Central Anatolia. In:
L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino,
G. Guarducci, V. Orsi & S. Valentini, eds.
SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity,
Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on
Mediterranean Archaeology, Italy, 1–3 March
2012, vol. I. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 2581. Oxford:
Archaeopress, pp. 193–200.
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (1) 2015
Umurtak, G. & Duru, R. 2013. Yeniden
Hacılar—Hacılar Büyük Höyük Kazıları
2011–2012. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi,
142:1–22.
Ünlüsoy, S. 2006. Vom Reihenhaus zum
Megaron-Troia I bis Troia III. In:
M. Korfmann, ed. Troia Archaologie
Siedlungshügnels und Seiner Landschaft.
Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, pp. 133–44.
Üstün-Türkteki, S. 2012. Göller Bölgesi İlk
Tunç Çağı 1–2 Çanak Çömleği (unpublished
PhD dissertation, İstanbul University).
Warner, J.L. 1994. Elmalı-Karataş II, The
Early Bronze Age Village of Karataş. Bryn
Mawr: Bryn Mawr College.
Yalçın, Ü. 2013. Anadolu Madenciliği. In:
P. Ayter, Ş . Demirci & A.M. Özer, eds.
ODTÜ III. Arkeometri Çalıştayı, Türkiye,
Arkeolojisinde Metal: Arkeolojik ve 12
Arkeometrik Çalışmalar. Yayınlayan:
ODTÜ Arkeometri Anabilim Dalı,
Ankara, pp. 17–28.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Erkan Fidan completed his PhD disser-
tation on ‘The Place of the Early Bronze
Architecture of Küllüoba in West Anatolia
and the Aegean World’ under the supervi-
sion of Prof. Dr Turan Efe in the
Department of Protohistory and Near
Eastern Archaeology of Istanbul Univer-
sity. He was a research assistant at
İstanbul University between 2006 and
2011, and since 2011 he has been working
as an Assistant Professor in the Archaeol-
ogy Department of Bilecik Ş eyh Edebali
University.
Address: Bilecik Ş eyh Edebali Üniversitesi,
Fen—Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji
Bölümü, 11210 Gülümbe Kampüsü,
Bilecik, Turkey. [email:erkan.fidan@
bilecik.edu.tr]
Deniz Sarı completed her PhD entitled
‘The Cultural and Political Development
 Fidan et al. – An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age 89

of Western Anatolia in Early and Middle
Bronze Ages’ in the Protohistory and
Near Eastern Archaeology Departments of
Istanbul University and Strasbourg Uni-
versity, under the co-supervision of Prof.
Turan Efe and Prof. Dr Dominique
Beyer. She was a research assistant at
İstanbul University between 2002 and
2010. She is currently Assistant Professor
in the Archaeology Department of the
University of Bilecik Seyh Edebali.
Address: Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi,
Fen—Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü,
11210 Gülümbe Kampüsü, Bilecik, Turkey.
[email.deniz.sari@bilecik.edu.tr]
Murat Türkteki completed his PhD on
‘The First Use of Wheel-made Pottery
and its Distribution in Western and
Central Anatolia’ under the supervision of
Prof. Dr Turan Efe. He was a research
assistant at İstanbul University between
2001 and 2010, and from 2011 has been
working as Assistant Professor in the
Archaeology Department of Bilecik Ş eyh
Edebali University.
Address: Bilecik Ş eyh Edebali Üniversitesi,
Fen—Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji
Bölümü, 11210 Gülümbe Kampüsü,
Bilecik, Turkey.
[email: murat.turkteki@bilecik.edu.tr]

Aperçu de l’Âge du Bronze ancien en Anatolie occidentale

Pendant longtemps, les études et évaluations sur l’Âge du Bronze ancien (EBA: Early Bronze Age) en
Anatolie occidentale se sont uniquement basées sur les résultats des fouilles de Tarsus, Karataş-Semayük,
Beycesultan, Demircihüyük et Troie. Toutefois les fouilles et les levés de surface effectués tout au long des
deux dernières décennies ont considérablement accru nos connaissances. Plus particulièrement les fouilles
de Liman Tepe, Küllüoba et Seyitömer ont immensément contribué à l’établissement d’une chronologie
fiable de l’EBA ouest-anatolien. Les sondages de surface ont également permis de mieux définir les
frontières des zones culturelles et céramiques de la région. En nous basant sur ces nouvelles données, nous
présentons ici des nouvelles théories sur le développement culturel et socio-politique de la région, de
même que sur les relations régionales et inter-régionales durant le EBA. Translation by Isabelle
Gerges.

Mots-clés: Anatolie occidentale, Âge du Bronze ancien, Küllüoba, régions culturelles bithyniennes
et phrygiennes

Ein Überblick über die westanatolische Frühbronzezeit

Über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg beruhten die Beurteilungen und Bewertungen der westanatolischen
Frühbronzezeit auf den Ausgrabungsergebnissen von Tarsus, Karataş-Semayük, Beycesultan, Demirci-
hüyük und Troja. Jedoch haben Ausgrabungen und Oberflächenbegehungen der letzten zwei Jahrzehnte
unsere Kenntnisse deutlich bereichert. Besonders die Grabungen von Liman Tepe, Küllüoba und Seyitö-
mer haben einen wesentlichen Beitrag zur Etablierung einer verlässlichen Chronologie der
Frühbronzezeit in Westanatolien geleistet. Oberflächensurveys haben es zudem möglich gemacht, die
Grenzen der Kulturgebiete und der Keramikzonen in den jeweiligen Regionen besser zu definieren.
Anhand dieser neuen Ergebnisse werden hier neue Theorien zur kulturellen und soziopolitischen
Entwicklung der Regionen wie auch zu lokalen und überregionalen Beziehungen während der Früh-
bronzezeit vorgestellt. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Stichworte: Westanatolien, Frühbronzezeit, Küllüoba, Bithynische Kulturregion, Phrygische

Kulturregion

View publication stats