« The European prospects of the region between Turkey and Russia depend primarily on Turkey, and then on their own internal relations. But the whole of relations between union-Europe and Russia will certainly not just also have a role in that, but generally remain the most important strategical problem of Europe in terms of security, and probably also of economy and anything else », wrote Hans-Peter Geissen as a conclusion of the second part of his series regarding the borders of Europe.
Hans-Peter Geissen lives in Koblenz (Germany), at the confluence of the Rhine and Moselle rivers. Interested in all what concerns faunistics (data about animal species) of the Midrhine region, he is the author of many scientific publications on these issues. He bent on the Turkish issue with a very specific approach so as « to prevent a self-definition of Europe on the grounds of historical or religious mythologies. »
General historical considerations
As a matter of course, such a borderline cannot be seen as something absolute. Transgressions are possible at any time, some communication exists across such a border, and technological developments may affect their absolute or relative importance. Nonetheless, they do not cease to exist, at least partially, as long as the physical environment persists.
Cultural and political borders, in comparison, are much more fluid. Visiting the region in the 1920ies, Louis met post-Ottoman societies in the Balkans as well as in the 1930ies’ Anatolia, and saw remnants of the Byzantine Middle Ages, Graeco-Roman Antique, and older ones in each. Especially in Turkey he himself took part in a quite revolutionary modernizing process. No less immediately he experienced the emergence of a literally “Iron Curtain” right through his own fatherland, Germany, in what is considered Central Europe. Which efficiently interrupted everyday’s communications.
On the other hand, European empires had stretched around the globe. Some of these had already been history in Louis’ lifetimes, some he saw collapse himself.
None of these changes affected the “hardware” in essence. Neither had Poland or Eastern Germany become less European with the change to communist regimes, nor had the coming and going of different empires in Southeastern Europe. It did, in one way or the other, affect communications, but Louis expected the current ones to be of limited extend, just like the ancient ones had been. He himself maintained professional contacts, as far as possible, not only with colleagues in Turkey, but in Poland and the GDR as well.
But yet, whereas the potential space of Europe is based on features of the natural environment, human history is also present in the very definition of Europe, because it is based on agriculture, which emerged in history in what is called the (pre-pottery) neolithics.
Birth and travelling years of Europe
But as the definition is spatial, it includes all prehistory of that space irrespective of the methodical details of definition. Because, the natural potential for dense settlement is more decisive as a “hardware” than its actual realization at this or that point in history.
Some role in shaping Europe must certainly been given to the mesolithics, a time when the big game had twindled and forests grew dense and most people gathered at the shores, lakesides and riverbanks to make a living largely by fishing (but also with some hunting and gathering). In Turkey, this stadium has been found in western parts. While developments in the Southeast were special, most of the country (in fact, all) is underexplored compared with neighboring regions. Which, as many archaeologists probably would concede, has something to do with preoccupations.
Whatsoever, the southeastern border of Europe is not a strict line. Rather, there are two. That towards the Syrian desert runs through the north of modern Syria. Another one runs, roughly in parallel, through modern Turkey along the mountain ridges of the Eastern Taurus. The first line is basically concerned with agriculture, the second relates to another aspect of material cultures in relation to the environment : It is an age-old border of settlement of southern cultures, best known as Semitic cultures. Obviously, this is caused by the cold and frequently snow-rich winters in the northern highlands, to which southern cultures are not prepared to resist. But of course, this doesn’t prevent migration of small groups who assimilate to the northern cultures, nor the exchange of ideas and goods.
The border of modern Turkey is situated roughly in the middle between these two ecologically defined borderlines.
a) The cradle
The overarching region of Southeastern Turkey and Northern Syria is the cradle of most what became the typical bulk of agricultural goods of both geographical Europe and the Orient. With high certainty, wheat and pig became domesticated in what today is Turkey. The same is plausible, but not sure, for many other species of domestic plants and animals typical for European agriculture. In still other cases, the region received imports from Egypt/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, India, and China. So besides being a “cradle”, it is also a “transit station”. The former was a long and largely involuntary process, but of basic importance and confined to the early neolithics ; the latter consisted of more sporadic events. And yet, whereas the transit function became even more prominent in history, the “cradle” was forgotten and must be rediscovered with archaeological and gene-analytical methods.
A precondition for the more or less accidental primary evolution of agriculture are longliving permanent settlements. It is well known nowadays (but wasn’t yet for Louis) that permanent settlement started already on the hunter-gatherer level with storage technologies. Especially wild grain is suitable for easy storage (and the evolution of house mice). If settlements are longliving, nutrient enrichment takes place in their immediate vicinity, attracting some animal species (pigs, grazers). Grain etc. may grow bigger in these soils. Fruit trees and bushes, of which the seeds are discarded one way or another, may also accumulate. For hunter-gatherers to settle for long at the same place, an “ecotone” is most suitable, meaning the neighborhood of different biotope types, for instance of woodland, steppe, mountains and riverside. Such like the Upper Tigris region.
Moreover, as in the Mediterranean and Near East soil nutrients are washed out by rain quite slowly, agriculture can be done on the same soil for long periods without special care for soil improvement. Taken together, all points show that it was not mere coincidence that agriculture emerged exactly at the border of what is called here Europe and Orient.
The whole set of SE-Anatolian/North Syrian agriculture spread along the coasts and rivers and became holo-Mediterranean, which includes Southern Europe. Another branch adapted to more northern conditions in the Anatolian highlands, and later spread through the Balkans and probably Caucasia. This development proceeded considerably slower than the former. The set of species suitable for that was much more limited, but essential for the emergence of economic and cultural Europe as a whole.
No less essential were the Anatolian highlands for the development of metallurgy. Main preconditions are again natural ones. Ores must be there, and energy (woods), hard stones for crafting ores, and a bit of agricultural surplus to feed the craftsmen. There was plenty of each in chalcolithic (copper age) Anatolia.
b) The wanderer
The earliest version of what may be called a European empire was that of the Central-Anatolian Hittites. When the mythological “Europa” was abducted by the weathergod disguised as a bull, indeed an abduction took place. The whole motive was taken from a millenium-old Anatolian plot. Many of the ancient Anatolian gods “settled down” in Greece according to Greek mythology. Gods like Apollo and Artemis, Poseidon and Athena (not least all those “who” fought on the Trojan side in that mythological war) may easily be identified with Anatolian models.
It may thus seem that the ancient Greeks had been real masters of communication, letting the world believe for more than two millenia that what in fact had been their teachers should be considered barbarians. Especially European Humanism and Enlightenment fell victim to the trick, and that may be why they digged for the roots of European civilization anywhere but in Anatolia, where however they are.
Nonetheless, Greece indeed became the next center of what may still be considered an incipient stadium of cultural Europe. But still the names of related Anatolians remain prominent : Heraklit, Herodot, Homer (the Ilias-writer ; whereas the Odyssee-writer was certainly another person), Kroesus, Midas, Thales – how could we imagine European heritage without them ?
Some centuries later, Rome took the lead, then integrating western Europe with the Mediterranean. In the Middle Ages, west and west-central Europe became more influential, while the whole Med.-centered network expanded towards the north and (north-) east. Obviously, it took time to make agriculture more effective in the northern regions, to learn and develop appropriate technologies, to build and accumulate infrastructures, and technical as well as social and organizational skills in every respect. Climate and its consequences in many respect hindered and challenged this.
Early modern times saw the world dominated by the Spanish, while the Ottomans dominated the Mediterranean. But by the 18th century, Britain and France became dominant on the oceans, while the Russian empire expanded on the continent towards the west.
Attila, the Hunnic king with numerous Germanic, Sarmatic and some Slavic vassals/allies, and in steady search for allies also in Gallia, may have been the first to consider an empire north of the Mediterranean. Perhaps too early, and yet indicating that something had grown in Dacia, Pannonia, and Germania, some accumulated force that gave him hope to succeed. As we know, it was enough to destroy the old empire, but not enough to build a new one. Probably, it was still too poorly developed to support an empire, as well as too diverse ethnically.
In fact, what is called Central Europe geographically became central in economic and political terms rather recently, in the 19th century. And it may well see a rise of southeastern Europe, once again, and of more strictly eastern Europe, in the not-so-far future. In fact, modern Europe is necessarily multi-polar.
More generally, the shifting of the center of European cultural development from the extreme Southeast westwards along the Mediterranean, then northwards along the Atlantic, then eastwards again but further in the North, may have caused some historical dizziness. A continent, generally, is imagined as something more solid and stable.
On the other hand, some exercise may enhance fitness, too.
Anatolian fate
Meanwhile, Anatolia was also the first to experience woodland devastation and overgrazing. It however remained a pillar and heartland of Eastern Rome until it was devastated in the long Sassanidian war (early 7th ct.) and later habitually pillaged for some 2-3 centuries by the early Califate’s frontier beys. As indicated above, Arabs might roam and conquer large parts of the Anatolian highlands during summer, but did not settle and thus also not rebuild the country. They did this in SE Anatolia ; however, there they had to suffer Western crusades. Three of the rather short-lived crusader principalities –Antioch, Edessa and Little Armenia- were situated in what today is SE Turkey.
The “civilizational” problem may not so much have been wether the Arabs or Franks (or Kurds, Armenians or Byzantines) attempted to rebuild the country, but their endless battles by which they obstructed each other. In central Anatolia, a major recovery started with the Seljuk and other Turks. They, Northerners by culture, could easily settle in the mountain regions. But also in these lands, numerous setbacks occurred due to several invasions (Mongol, Crusader) and the civil wars at the start and the end of the 16th ct., among numerous minor struggles. And nonetheless, when European states reacted to the Portuguese explorations and expansion and themselves expanded towards India, or what they first thought were India, one of them was the Ottoman Empire, along with Habsburg’s Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands.
In fact, however, a more fully resettlement and rebuilding of central Anatolia, perhaps a re-Europeanization in anthropo-geographical terms, just took place in republican times, after WW1 and the Turkish War of Independence. This, in fact, was the Anatolia experienced by Herbert Louis.
Still, woodland devastation and overgrazing were among the features he mapped and remain to be major problems for development in large regions.
Some related literature :
(See also some of the stuff quoted earlier. General annotation : Many of the very special accounts contain more general remarks of some of the most distinguished scholars of the respective fields.)
ADANIR, Fikret (1988) : Zum Geschichtsbild der nationalen Erziehung in der Türkei. – Internationale Schulbuchforschung 10 : 7-40. Braunschweig.
AKURGAL, Ekrem (1992) : Zur Entstehung der ostgriechischen Klein- und Großplastik. - Istanbuler Mitteilungen 42 : 67-82. Berlin, Istanbul.
AYVERDI, Fazli (1960) : Turkey’s agricultural production in 1959. Erosion plays an important part in low productivity. – Turkish Economic Review for finance, industry, trade 1 (10) : 18-24. Ankara.
BERGER, Albrecht (2000) : Letzte Zuflucht. Eine frühbyzantinische Fluchtsiedlung in Kappadokien. - Antike Welt 31 : 273-279. Mainz.
BERGES, D. (2002) : Tyana in Kappadokien. Von der hethitischen Residenz zur gräco-römischen Colonia. - Antike Welt 33 : 177-187. Mainz.
BERK, H.J. (1997) : Die Münzprägung des Kroisos. - Münzen-Revue 29 (9) : 30-32. Regenstauf.
BÖRKER-KLÄHN, Jutta (1997) : „Hereinspaziert - hineingeschaut !“. Puppenspiel in Gordion ? - Antike Welt 28 : 415-417. Mainz.
BRYER, Anthony (1987) : Han Turali rides again. – Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 11 : 193-206. Birmingham.
BUITENHUIS, Hijlke (1997) : Asikli Höyük : A „protodomestication“ site. - Anthropozoologica 25-26 : 655-662. Paris.
BUITENHUIS, Hijlke & Isabella CANEVA (1998) : Early animal breeding in south-eastern Anatolia : Mersin-Yumuktepe. – 121-130 in : ANREITER, P., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., JEREM, E. & W. MEID (eds.) : Man and the animal world. – Budapest. (Archaeolingua)
CANEVA, Isabella (1992) : Early villages in south-eastern Turkey : New research in the Cayönü area. – Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30 : 121-142. Rom.
DARLING, Linda T. (1998) : Rethinking Europe and the Islamic World in the age of exploration. – Journal of Early Modern History 2 : 221-246. Leiden.
FAROQHI, Suraiya (1982) : Camels, wagons, and the Ottoman state in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. – International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 14 : 523-539. Cambridge.
FAROQHI, Suraiya (1984) : Towns and townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia. Trade, crafts and food production in an urban setting, 1520-1650. – 425 S., Cambridge (Cambridge University Press)
FAROQHI, Suraiya. & Leila ERDER (1979) : Population rise and fall in Anatolia, 1550-1620. – Middle Eastern Studies 15 : 322-345. London.
FAROQHI, Suraiya. & Leila ERDER (1980) : The development of the Anatolian urban network during the sixteenth century. – Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 23 : 265-303. Leiden.
GATSOV, Ivan & Mehmet ÖZDOGAN (1994) : Some epi-paleolithic sites from NW Turkey. Agacli, Domali and Gümüsdere. – Anatolica 20 : 97-120. Leiden.
GOPHER, A., ABBO, S. & S. LEV-YADUN (2002) : The “when”, the “where” and the “why” of the neolithic revolution in the Levant. - Documenta Praehistorica 28 : 49-62. Ljubljana.
GÖYÜNC, Nejat & Wolf-Dieter HÜTTEROTH (1997) : Land an der Grenze. Osmanische Verwaltung im heutigen türkisch-syrisch-irakischen Grenzgebiet im 16. Jahrhundert. – 312 S., 6 Anlagen (Karten). Istanbul (Eren Yayincilik)
GRISWOLD, William J. (1983) : The great Anatolian rebellion 1000-1020/1591-1611. – 331 S., Berlin (Klaus Schwarz)
GRONEMAN, A. F. (1968) : The soil of the wind erosion control camp area Karapinar, Turkey. – 161 S., Karte. Wageningen (Agricultural University Wageningen)
GROTHUSEN, Klaus-Detlev (1983) : Zuflucht bei Kemal Atatürk. Die deutsche Emigration in die Türkei 1933-1945 und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Reform des Bildungswesens. – Südosteuropa-Mitteilungen 21 (4) : 49-60. München.
GÜMÜS, Burak (2001) : Türkische Aleviten vom Osmanischen Reich bis zur heutigen Türkei. - 262 S., Konstanz (Hartung-Gorre)
HALDON, John (2002) : Das Byzantinische Reich. Geschichte und Kultur eines Jahrtausends. – 242 S., Düsseldorf, Zürich (Patmos Verl. ; Artemis&Winkler Verl.) (engl. Orig. : Byzantium. A history. - 2000, Stoud, Gloucestershire (Tempus))
HELLENKEMPER, Hansgerd (1976) : Burgen der Kreuzritterzeit in der Grafschaft Edessa und im Königreich Kleinarmenien. – Dissertation, 303 S., 88 Tafeln, Kartenbeilage. Bonn (Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Geographica Historica 1)
HESKE, Franz (1953) : Die Erschliessung der Steppe. Gedanken zu einem Nationalplan der Walderhaltung, Dürrebekämpfung und Innenkolonisation in der Türkei. – 202 S., Istanbul (Kader Basimevi) (Mitteilungen des Institutes für Forstwirtschaftsgeographie und Forstwirtschaft des Nahen Ostens 7)
HEUN, M., SCHÄFER-PREGL, R., KLAWAN, D., CASTAGNA, R., ACCERBI, M., BORGHI, B. & F. SALAMINI (1997) : Site of einkorn wheat domestication identified by DNA fingerprinting. - Science 278 : 1312-1314. Washington, D.C.
HIRSCH, Ernst E. (1982) : Atatürk und die Wissenschaft. : 41-45. in : Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 1881-1981. Vorträge und Aufsätze zu seinem 100. Geburtstag. 178 S., Heidelberg (Julius Groos Verlag)
HÖGEMANN, Peter (2000) : Zum Iliasdichter - Ein anatolischer Standpunkt. - Studia Troica 10 : 183-199. Mainz.
HONGO, H. & R.H. MEADOW (1998) : Pig exploitation at neolithic Cayönü Tepesi (Southeastern Anatolia). - MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 : 77-98. Philadelphia, Pa.
HOPWOOD, Keith (1991) : Nomads or bandits ? The pastoralist/sedentarist interface in Anatolia. – Byzantinische Forschungen 16 : 179-194. Amsterdam.
HÜTTEROTH, Wolf-Dieter (1974) : The influence of social structure on land division and settlement in Inner Anatolia : 19-47. in : BENEDICT, Peter, TÜMERTEKIN, Erol & Fatma MANSUR (eds) : Turkey. Geographical and social perspectives. – 446 S., Karte. Leiden (E.J.Brill).
HÜTTEROTH, Wolf-Dieter & Volker HÖHFELD (2002) : Türkei. - 380 S., Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft)
ISIN, Ekrem (2003) : Coffeehouses as places of conversation. – 199-208 in : FAROQHI, Suraiya & Christoph K. NEUMANN (eds) : The illuminated table, the prosperous house. Food and shelter in Ottoman material culture. – 352 S., Würzburg (Ergon)
KEARNS, J.M. (1997) : A Lydian etymology for the name of Croesus. - Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 20 : 23-29. Washington, D.C.
KORFMANN, Manfred (1998) : Troia, an ancient Anatolian palatial and trading center : Archaeological evidence for the period of Troia VI/VII. - Classical World 91 : 369-385. New York, N.Y.
KOZLOWSKI, S. (1998) : Early “neolithic” chipped industries of greater Mesopotamia. - 651-664 in OTTE, M. (ed.) : Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes. - 863 S., Liège.
KRAFT, J.C., RAPP, G., KAYAN, I. & J.V. LUCE (2003) : Harbor areas at ancient Troy : Sedimentology and geomorphology complement Homer’s Iliad. - Geology 31 : 163-166. Washington, D.C.
KREISER, Klaus (1979) : Über den „Kernraum“ des Osmanischen Reiches : 53-63. in : GROTHUSEN, Klaus-Detlev (Hrsg.) : Die Türkei in Europa. - 271 S, Göttingen (.Vandenhoek & Ruprecht)
LEHMANN, Edgar (1980) : Herbert Louis’ Beitrag zur topographischen und geographischen Kartographie. - Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in München 65 : 27-32. München. - Schriftenverzeichnis von Herbert Louis. - 33-39. ibid.
LOUIS, Herbert (1927) : Albanien. Eine Landeskunde vornehmlich auf Grund eigener Reisen. – 164 S., 10 Tafeln. Stuttgart (J.Engelhorns Nachf. ; Geographische Abhandlungen, 2. Reihe, Heft 3)
LOUIS, Herbert (1939) : Das natürliche Pflanzenkleid Anatoliens, geographisch gesehen. – Geographische Abhandlungen, 3. Reihe, Heft 12 : 132 S., Karten, Tafeln. – Stuttgart.
LOUIS, Herbert (1954) : Über den geographischen Europabegriff. - Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in München 39 : 73-93. München.
LOUIS, Herbert (1979) : Die Stellung Anatoliens am Rande Europas : 11-19. in : GROTHUSEN, Klaus-Detlev (Hrsg.) : Die Türkei in Europa. - 271 S, Göttingen (.Vandenhoek & Ruprecht)
LOUIS, Herbert (1985) : Landeskunde der Türkei, vornehmlich aufgrund eigener Reisen. – 268 S., Karten. – Stuttgart (Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, Geographische Zeitschrift, Beiheft Erdkundliches Wissen 73)
MARSH, Ben (1999) : Alluvial burial of Gordion, an Iron-Age city in Anatolia. – Journal of Field Archaeology 26 : 163-176. Boston, Mass.
MOUNTJOY, Penelope A. (1998) : The East Aegean - West Anatolian interface in the late bronze age : Mycenaeans and the kingdom of Ahhiyawa. - Anatolian Studies 48 : 33-67. London, Ankara.
ÖKSE, A.T. (2000) : Neue hethitische Siedlungen zwischen Masat Hüyük und Kusakli. - Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50 : 87-113. Berlin, Istanbul.
ÖZDOGAN, Mehmet (1998) : Hoca Cesme. An early neolithic Anatolian colony in the Balkans ? – 435-451 in : ANREITER, P., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., JEREM, E. & W. MEID (eds.) : Man and the animal world. – Budapest. (Archaeolingua)
ÖZDOGAN, Mehmet & Necdi BASGELEN (eds.) (1999) : Neolithic Turkey. The cradle of civilization. - Bd. I (text) 236 S., Bd. II (plates) 203 S., Istanbul (Arkeoloji Ve Sanat Yayinlari)
ÖZDOGAN, Mehmet & Ivan GATSOV (1998) : The aceramic neolithic period in western Turkey and in the Aegean. - Anatolica 24 : 209-232. Leiden.
OZKAN, H., BRANDOLINI, A., SCHÄFER-PREGL, R. & F. SALAMINI (2002) : AFLP-analysis of a collection of tetraploid wheats indicates the origin of emmer and hard wheat domestication in Southeast Turkey. - Molecular Biology and Evolution 19 : 1797-1801. Chicago, Ill.
PARKER, B.J. (2002) : At the edge of empire : conceptualizing Assyria’s Anatolian frontier ca. 700 BC. - Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 : 371-359. New York, N.Y.
PARZINGER, Hermann & Mehmet ÖZDOGAN (1995) : Die Ausgrabungen von Kirklareli (Türkisch-Thrakien) und ihre Bedeutung für die Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. - Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 76 : 5-31. Mainz, Berlin.
PEASNALL, B.L. & R.H. DYSON, jr. (2002) : Intricacies of Hallan Cemi. - Expedition 44 (1) : 5-6. Philadelphia, Pa.
PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT, Anneliese (1996) : Der Kult des anatolischen Regen- und Wettergottes auf dem Gipfel des Latmos und das Heiligtum des Zeus Akraios im Tal von Dikilitas. - Istanbuler Mitteilungen 46 : 217-225. Berlin, Istanbul.
REDDING, Richard W. & Michael ROSENBERG (1998) : Ancestral pigs : A new (Guinea) model for pig domestication in the Middle East. - MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 : 65-76. Philadelphia, Pa.
REDFORD, Scott (1993) : The Seljuks of Rum and the antique. - Muqarnas 10 : 148-156. Leiden.
REDFORD, Scott (2000) : Landscape and the state in medieval Anatolia : Seljuk gardens and pavillons of Alanya, Turkey. - 309 S., Oxford (Archaeopress ; British Archaeological Reports (BAR), International Series 893)
RICHARDS, M.P., PRICE, T.D. & E. KOCH (2003) : Mesolithic and neolithic subsistence in Denmark : New stable isotope data. - Current Anthropology 44 : 288-294. Chicago, Ill.
RIEDEL, Holger (1996) : Die holozäne Entwicklung des Dalyan-Deltas (Südwest-Türkei) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der historischen Zeit. – Marburger Geographische Schriften 130 : 216 S., Marburg.
ROSENBERG, Michael, NESBITT, R.Mark, REDDING, Richard W. & Thomas F. STRASSER (1995) : Hallan Cemi Tepesi : Some preliminary observations concerning early neolithic subsistence behaviors in Eastern Anatolia. - Anatolica 21 : 1-12. Leiden.
ROSENBERG, Michael & Richard W. REDDING (1998) : Early pig husbandry in southwestern Asia and its implications for modeling the origins of food production. - MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 : 55-64. Philadelphia, Pa.
ROTHMAN, Mitchell S., ERGEC, Rifat, MILLER, Naomi, WEBER, Jill & Gülriz KOZBE ((1998) : Yarim Höyük and the Uruk expansion. - Anatolica 24 : 65-101. Leiden.
RUNNELS, C. & M. ÖZDOGAN (2001) : The palaeolithic of the Bosphorus Region, NW Turkey. - Journal of Field Archaeology 28 : 69-93. Boston, Mass.
SAMPSON, A., KOZLOWSKI, J.K. & M. KACZANOWSKA (1998) : Entre l’Anatolie et les Balkans : Une séquence mésolithique-néolithique de l’ile de Gioura (Sporades du Nord). - 125-141 in : OTTE, M. (ed.) : Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes. - 863 S., Liège.
SCHIRMER, Wulf (1990) : Some aspects of building at the “aceramic-neolithic” settlement of Cayönü Tepesi. - World Archaeology 21 : 363-387. London.
SCHWARZBERG, Heiner (2005) : Kultgefäße von Asagi Pinar. « Kulttischchen » und ihre Stellung im Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum Südosteuropas und Westanatoliens. – 248-416 in : PARZINGER, H. & H. SCHWARZBERG (Hrsg.) : Asagi Pinar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik. Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 2. - Archäologie in Eurasien 18. Mainz (Philipp von Zabern).
SEVIN, Veli (1999) : The origin of the Urartians in the light of the Van/Karagündüz excavations. - Anatolian Studies 49 : 159-164. Ankara, London.
SHAW, Brent (1990) : Bandit highlands and lowland peace : the mountains of Isauria-Cilicia. – Journal of economic and social history of the Orient / Journal de l’Histoire social et économique de l’Orient 33 : 199-270. Leiden, Köln.
SHAW, Stanford J. (2002) : From Empire to Republik. The Turkish war of National Liberation 1918-1923. A documentary Study. - CD-ROM, Ankara (Turkish Historical Society).
SHERRATT, Suzan (2003) : Visible writing : Questions of script and identity in early iron age Greece and Cyprus. - Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22 : 225-242. Oxford.
STARKE, Frank (1997) : Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend. - Studia Troica 7 : 447-487. Mainz.
STOS-GALE, Z.A., GALE, N.H. & G.R. GILMORE (1984) : Early bronze age Trojan metal sources and Anatolians in the Cyclades. - Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3 : 23-43. Oxford.
STROBEL, Karl & Christoph GERBER (2000) : Tavium (Büyüknefes, Provinz Yozgat) - Ein regionales Zentrum Anatoliens. Bericht über den Stand der Forschungen nach den ersten drei Kampagnen (1997-1999). - Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50 : 215-265. Berlin, Istanbul.
TAESCHNER, Franz (1979) : Die bürgerliche Futuwwa. Das Achitum im seldschukischen und nachseldschukischen Anatolien. – 275-402 in : TAESCHNER, F. : Zünfte und Bruderschaften im Islam. Texte zur Geschichte der Futuwwa.. – 672 S., Zürich, München (Artemis)
THEUNE-GROßKOPF, B. et al. (Red.) (2001) : Troia. Traum und Wirklichkeit. - 487 S., Stuttgart (Konrad Theiss).
TUNA, Numan, Zeynep AKTÜRE & Maggie LYNCH (eds.) (1997) : Thracians and Phrygians. Problems of parallelism. – 173 S., Ankara (Middle East Technical University Press)
URSULESCU, Nicolae (1998) : Courants culturels d’origine anatolienne dans le néolithique balkano-carpathique. - 193-213 in : OTTE, M. (ed.) : Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes. - 863 S., Liège.
VIGNE, Jean-Denis (2001) : Chypre et les débuts de l’élevage. - La Recherche 348 : 29-33. Paris.
WATKINS, C. (2002) : Homer and Hittite revisited II. - 167-176 in : YENER, K.A. & H.A. HOFFNER jr. (eds.) (2002) : Recent developments in Hittite archaeology and history. Papers in memory of Hans G. Güterbock. - 212 S., Winona Lake, Indiana (Eisenbrauns)
WEISCHET, Wolfgang (1980) : Herbert Louis 80 Jahre. Versuch einer Würdigung von Person, Weg und Werk. – Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in München 65 : 5-26. München.
WIRTH, Gerhard (1999) : Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa. – 208 S., Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln (W.Kohlhammer)
YENER, K.Aslihan (2000) : The domestication of metals : The rise of complex metal industries in Anatolia. - 210 S. + 18 Tafeln. Leiden, Boston, Köln (Koningklijke Brill NV).
Télécharger le texte de l'article au format PDF
RSS 2.0