Numbers 299-300 August/November 1995

Archaeological and historic analysis of early empires has received considerable attention in recent years. This article examines major issues and challenges in the archaeology of empires, and illustrates some of these with examples from the Vijayanagara empire of southern India. Four main challenges are identified: the vast scale of early empires, the broad internal variability that characterizes all archaic empires, the diverse and abundant sources of evidence that we must control, and the rapid pace of imperial development and collapse which often still exceeds the resolution of archaeological chronologies. The article calls for a comparative context from which to examine similarities and differences among imperial polities and their material manifestations.

---

Interest in Anatolian prehistory has experienced a rapid increase in the last decade. While many scholars are researching interaction between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, several have also been attempting to elucidate interregional interaction between Anatolia and the Balkans of southeastern Europe. This article is intended to provide an overview of this important area of investigation to researchers working outside Anatolia and Europe, with an accompanying compendium of literature treating this topic. This work offers an outline on the history of research into the issue; a chronological sketch of the relevant prehistoric periods of Anatolia and Europe, with an emphasis on the Chalcolithic; and a summary of the sites in both regions that have provided seemingly incontrovertible evidence of interconnections. The material presented here provides the initial framework needed for beginning to unravel the intricacies of Anatolian interaction with its neighbors to the northwest.

This article examines the role of Early Dynastic III and Akkadian period imperial ambitions of southern Mesopotamian states in shaping the initial process of urbanization in the upper Euphrates River Basin, during the latter half of the third millennium B.C. The area encompassed portions of southeastern Turkey and norther Syuria. Evidence is drawn primarily from recent excavations at the site of Titris Höyük, capital of a small city-state that developed and collapsed in soutyheastern Turkey between the mid- and late Early Bronze Age (ca.2600/2500-2400 and 2400-2100 B.C., respectively). The article investigates site morphology, organization of space, rate of urban growth and decline, and evidence for contacts with southern Mesopotamia. The genesis and growth of Titris as an Early Bronze Age capital may be best understood as an opportunistic response by an indigenous polity benefiting from intensified trading contacts in the second half of the third millennium B.C. between the resource-starved alluvial lowlands of southern Mesopotamia and communities in the resource-rich areas of highland Anatolia.

• Fig. 1 Location of Titris Höyük within a corridor of interlinked lowlands connecting the Harran/Urfa plain with the Euprhates ford in the Samsat-Lidar area. Map by T. J. Wilkinson.(40k)
• Fig. 6 Mid-Early Bronze Age structure in Trenches 80-81, 81-81, 82-81.(26k)
• Fig. 7 Mid-Early Bronze Age ceramics from room floor (Loci 81-81:016, 029) associated with structure in Trenches 80-81, 81-81, 82-81.(21k)
• Fig. 8 Representative Late Early Bronze Age diagnostic ceramics from Outer Town, Upper Building Phase (Locus 80-86:106 Floor).(12k)
• Fig. 11 Comparison of contemporary domestic(29k) structures at Titris and Tell Asmar. 1. Titris Outer Town, Late Early Bronze Age, Building Unit 2 (from fig. 10). 2. Tell Asmar, House II, Level IVA, Late Akkadian (after Delougaz, Hill, and Lloyd, 1967: pl. 28). Key: a. entranceway; b. intervening rooms prior to courtyard; c. courtyard; d. lateral wing; note single entrance from b; e. rooms only accessible through courtyard; f. rooms accessible only through e (furthest access from street).
• Fig. 16 Selected Late Early Bronze Age ceramics from Tomb 35-18: 229.(18k)

  ---

Transcausia was the heartland of the Kura-Araxes, or Early Transcaucasian culture, which holds an important place in the culture history of Anatolia. The transition from this Early Bronze Age culture to the more fragmented regional cultures of the Middle Bronze Age remains poorly defined. The transition is marked by a shift away from fairly autonomous village life, the appearance of evidence for enhanced social hierarchy, and the first use of tin-bronzes in Transcaucasia. Traditional chronology places the transition at teh end of the third millennium B.C. However, radiocarbon evidence indicates a mid-third millennium date for the transitional cultures, thus aligning Transcaucasian developments more closely with those in eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran (late Early Bronze Age) and in Ciscaucasia. Transcaucasia seems to have continued to play an important interregional role even after the disappearance of the Kura-Araxes culture.

Empire-building has been a little discussed topic in Anatolian circles, and when discussed, it is generally viewed from the perspective of the imperial capital and its major settlements. This paper examines Hittite Imperialism and its expansion into the Kanak Su basin of central Turkey from the viewpoint of Alishar Höyük, a medium-sized settlement located at the center of this important part of central Anatolia. The paper focuses on the means of discerning the integration process on the Anatolian plateau in the second millennium B.C. with special reference to the apparent lack of fortification walls at Alishar during most of the Hittite period. Both archaeological materials and Hittite sources are utilized to provide an explanation of the puzzling ambiguities associated with a critical site originally excavated by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago between 1927 and 1932.

• Fig. 1 Map of Anatolia(93k)
• Fig. 2 Aerial view ofthe Hittite Capital Hattusha (Photo courtesy of Jürgen Seeher, Director of the Hattusha-Boghazköy Excavations and the German Archaeological Institute)
• Fig. 3 The Mound at Alishar (view from the south looking north)(102k)
• Fig. 4 Alishar Höyük and the Kanak Su basin
• Fig. 5 Topographic Map of Alishar Höyük
• Fig. 6 Aerial view of Alishar Höyük (Courtesy of Geoffrey and Françoise Summers and the Kerkenes Dag Excavations)
• Fig. 7 Walls of Alishar level 11T
• Fig. 8 Towered fortification walls at Hattusha-Boghazköy(65k)
• Fig. 9 Area of pits and "Goldglimmerware" sherds on northeast terrace
• Fig. 10 Goldglimmerware from Alishar Höyük(96k)
• Fig. 11 Relief Ware from Alishar Höyük(59k)
• Fig. 12 Plans of the southern gateway of Alishar and of the lower west gateway of Boghazköy, showing resemblance. Scale, 1:300. (Boghazkö after Puchstein.)
• Fig. 13 Various types of Biconvex and Axled seals found at Alishar. A) Biconvex seal (with metal mounting). B) Biconvex seal with grooved edge. C) Biconvex seal with flat edge. D) Biconvex seal with pointed faces. E) Hemispheroid. F) Disk with flat edge. G) Disk with convex edge.

  ---

Recent excavations at Gordion have revealed below the destroyed Phrygian city (ca. 700 B.C.) an early Iron Age settlement with handmade coarse ware, which is followed by a settlement that contains the earliest Phrygian pottery forms. The handmade ware relates to that from Troy and the Balkans and is considered firm evidence of the historically recorded migration of the Brygians into Anatolia. A suggested chronology for teh two early settlements is posited, based primarily on information from Troy. This chronology is then examined together with the information derived from preserved ancient traditions. A hypothesis is generated regarding the chronology of the establishment of kingship in Phrygia. This event is posited to have occurred in the late ninth century B.C., and the historical King Midas is considered to have been the fourth Phrygian king to reign.

The distinctive artifacts associated with the kingdom of Urartu are normally assumed to constitute the material assemblage of a homogeneous culture. This article reviews the characteristics of these artifacts class by class, and argues that for the most part they are deliberate creations of an imperial government, not a broad spectrum of the east Anatolian population. Archaeological research on Urartu ahs focused on excavating fortresses, which are essentially state enclaves, rather than settlement sites. The model of Inca imperialism is invoked as an alternative to the presumption of cultural uniformity. The extent to which it applies and the issue of provincialism within the Urartian state can only be addressed by shifting the emhasis of Urartian archaeological studies toward the governed.