scholarly journals The Iron Age Dogs from Alaybeyi Höyük, Eastern Anatolia

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1163
Author(s):  
Abu B. Siddiq ◽  
Vedat Onar ◽  
Rıfat Mutuş ◽  
Dominik Poradowski
Keyword(s):  
Oral Cavity ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Solid Food ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Morphological Status ◽  
Juvenile Individual ◽  
Cultural Status ◽  
Archaeological Knowledge ◽  
People’S Attitudes

To date, little is known about the biological and cultural status of Iron Age dogs in Anatolia. Here, we present a zooarchaeological study of an assemblage of 143 Iron Age dog bones, including two dog skeletons, unearthed from the 2016 and 2017 salvage excavations at Alaybeyi Höyük, Eastern Anatolia. At least eight adults and one juvenile individual, along with a large number of miscellaneous specimens, were identified. The morphological status of the Alaybeyi dogs were primarily compared to previously published Iron Age dogs from Yoncatepe in Eastern Anatolia, and with the average mean of 18 modern dog breeds. Unlike in other Eastern Anatolian Iron Age sites, butcher marks were observed in some specimens, indicating at least occasional cynophagy at the site. Noticeable pathologies were found in about 5% of the sample, particularly pathologies of the oral cavity and dentitions, suggesting that some of the dogs at Alaybeyi Höyük might have been undernourished, had to live on solid food, and probably injured by humans. The results of this study reflect both the morphological and biological status of Alaybeyi dogs, as well as the Alaybeyi people’s attitudes toward dogs, adding vital information to the very limited archaeological knowledge of dogs in Anatolia.

scholarly journals Xenophon in a Black Sea Landscape: Settlement Models for the Iron Age on the Sinop Promontory (Turkey)

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110
Author(s):  
Owen Doonan
Keyword(s):  
Black Sea ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Coastal Region ◽  
Western Mediterranean ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Basic Model ◽  
Black Sea Coast ◽  
The Social ◽  
Sea Coast

Research into the Iron Age of Anatolia has seldom paid sufficient attention to settlement patterns and the social organization of space. TheAnabasisby Xenophon records the observations of a Greek outsider who travelled across eastern Anatolia and along the Black Sea coast in 400bce, a time that was relatively early in the colonial process in this area. Xenophon's observations are used to establish a basic model for settlement in the Black Sea coastal region of Anatolia, which is then tested against the results of recent archaeological surveys and related research on the Sinop promontory. A fuller and richer model of indigenous Iron Age settlement and colonial engagement on the Sinop promontory is developed and considered in light of recent research on colonization in the western Mediterranean and northern Black Sea regions.

The Iron Age in Eastern Anatolia

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Khatchadourian
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Ninth Century ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Late Bronze Age ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Social Difference ◽  
Political Transformations ◽  
Key Sites

This article presents data on the Iron Age of eastern Anatolia. The roughly 900 years embraced by the Iron Age marked a period of radical political transformations shaped first and foremost by the rise and fall of empires. How Urartu emerged in the ninth century BCE is a question whose answer lies most immediately in the opening centuries of the Iron Age. Currently, the very roughest outlines of two different scenarios exist. In the western Armenian plateau, relatively flat settlement hierarchies (compared to the preceding Late Bronze Age) and undifferentiated built spaces in what appear to be village-like constructions at key sites in the Euphrates basin provide few clues for precursors to the kinds of consolidated political institutions that came to reproduce Urartian hegemony. At the other end of the highlands, however, especially in southern Caucasia but perhaps also further west, a political tradition characterized by imposing fortresses continued from the Late Bronze Age, potentially signaling the earliest foundations of Urartu's archipelagic fortress polity. These scenarios invite a two-pronged inquiry into the Iron 1 period focused both on the production of power and authority by an emergent political élite, perched within the stone citadels of the highland mountains, and on the constitution of social difference through routine practices among the region's subject communities.

Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age

1958 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 157-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Burney
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Early Bronze Age ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Lake Van ◽  
Eastern Shore ◽  
The North ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Varied History

The pottery described in this article was collected during a survey of ancient sites in eastern Turkey carried out in the summer of 1956. More than 150 Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age sites were recorded: only the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery is discussed here, the later periods being reserved for a future article. A considerable quantity of potsherds was collected, so that only a selection of the more significant examples has been illustrated. The zone covered by this survey is best described as eastern Anatolia within the mountains, excluding both the Pontic region and the south-eastern provinces of Turkey, bordering on Syria and Iraq: it is the narrowest part of the great natural bridge between Asia and Europe that has given Anatolia its long and varied history. The survey covered the greater part of the provinces of Sivas, Malatya, Elazığ, Muş, Bitlis and Van. Sites near Adıyaman, also visited, are not dealt with here. The plain of Iğdır, north of Mount Ararat, was partially explored in 1957, and yielded important material, but the plain of Karaköse proved to have few sites, and those with little surface pottery. The sherds here described are supplemented by intact vessels from Ernis, on the north-eastern shore of Lake Van, now in Van Museum.

Ernis-Evditepe: The Largest Early Iron Age Necropolis in Eastern Anatolia

Tel Aviv ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oktay Belli ◽  
Erkan Konyar
Keyword(s):  
Iron Age ◽  
Early Iron Age ◽  
Eastern Anatolia

scholarly journals Conflict and Interaction in the Iron Age: The Origins of Urartian–Assyrian Relations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kemalettin Köroğlu
Keyword(s):  
Iron Age ◽  
Ninth Century ◽  
Local Culture ◽  
Early Iron Age ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
Natural Development ◽  
Middle Iron Age ◽  
Surrounding Areas

The Neo-Assyrian Kingdom and the Urartian Kingdom were two important Near Eastern states in the Middle Iron Age (ninth to sixth centuries BC) that steered political developments and considerably transformed the lives of populations within their territories. This article aims to explore the origins of Urartian–Assyrian relations: the processes and ways through which Mesopotamian and Assyrian influences reached the eastern Anatolian highlands. The populations who founded the Urartian Kingdom lived mostly as semi-nomadic tribes in eastern Anatolia and surrounding areas during the Early Iron Age (thirteenth to ninth centuries BC). It is impossible to explain the emergence of the Urartian Kingdom in the Van region towards the mid-ninth century BC—which quickly became a powerful rival of its contemporaries—as a natural development of local culture. The main question at this stage is how and from where Assyrian influences were transmitted to the tribes who founded the Urartian Kingdom. Our opinion is that the answer to this question should be sought in the Upper Tigris region, which was inhabited by both cultures (Pre-Urartian and Assyrian) before the foundation of the Urartian Kingdom.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document