Talk:Prehistory of Anatolia

Bronze Age dates

Whoa, Nellie! The dates are wrong. Not to worry, we can clean that up. Right now the main task is to sort the material into the articles decided upon.Dave (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats a question of conjecture - I decided to make them consistent with the main page on that topic Bronze Age, using specifically the bronze Age timelines of the Near East. See also Ancient Near East. Furthermore it seemed reasonable to try and make those dates fit with those of the Bronze age civilisations that existed in anatolia from the Hattians to the collapse of the bronze age, and the Hittite Empire. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia disaster-area

"Prehistory of Anatolia", using a non-academic concept of Anatolia (Anatolia as all of "Turkey in Asia") that only dates from the 1930s. Not an inch of Urartu is in Anatolia, neither are any of the "Western Anatolia" cultures. It is like having a "Prehistory of the European Union" article complete with sections on the Etruscans and the GaulsMeowy 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So what are you proposoing to do about this? See the lead definition of Anatolia, which was made to fit the main Anatolia page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't duplicate the mistakes in one article as more mistakes in another, but the Anatolia article is further up in importance so it should be fixed first. I have fact tagged the Anatolia claim in the Anatolia article. Though it isn't quite as inaccurate as this one - it excludes Urartu from Anatolia (quote: "Anatolia corresponds to the western two-thirds of the Asian part of Turkey") Meowy 03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, what then would be the correct "academic" definition of "Anatolia" according to you? In The Cambridge ancient history 2.2 (1975),[1] Urartu is at least partly located in Anatolia (p. 424), the kingdom of Azzi-Khayasha is in the far east of Anatolia (p. 123), Arzawa is a "Western Anatolian kingdom" (p. 360), Lycians and Lydians are "Anatolian peoples" (p. 361), and the Phrygians are said to have "crossed the straits into Anatolia" (p. 417). Syria is said to lie between Egypt in the south, Mesopotamia in the east and Anatolia in the north (p. 1). All of this seems to correspond with the notion that Anatolia roughly equals "all of Turkey in Asia". Iblardi (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Cambridge ancient history source says nothing as explicit as "Urartu is at least partly located in Anatolia", the source is saying that Asssyia, because of its power struggle with Urartu, began to become increasingly involved in Anatolia. This was, if you read other sources, because the rulers of Urartu, as an alternative to engaging in open conflict with Assyria, had been instigating the rulers of various kingdoms in Anatolia to rebel against Assyrian overlordship. As for Azzi-Khayasha, in Volume 3 of the same book, on page 328 it says that these kingdoms are thought to have been located in as yet unidentified sites "on the western approaches to Urartu in the Keban area"[2]: i.e. the source says that Urartu lies beyond the far east of Anatolia. Take Urartu out of "Anatolia", along with the entire Aegean region, the Pontic region, and all of the substantial amount of territory that borders present-day Syria (that territory, though in Turkey, is also "Syria" when used geographically and historically), and you have a lot less than "all of Turkey in Asia"! Meowy 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the most westernmost Urartian site that has been discovered, but the western edge of Urartu included Harput [3] and the Harput plain. The Keban region is further to the west and northwest of the Harput region. Meowy 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't specified the "academic concept" of Anatolia. Are you sure that by "Anatolia" you don't actually mean the central Anatolian plateau? See for yourself: in vol. 12 of the CAH,[4] it is said that "in antiquity most of eastern Anatolia was contained within the kingdom or Armenia" (p. 483). Here "eastern Anatolia" must refer to the area east of the Euphrates. Again, "to the west it [i.e., eastern Anatolia] provides access to the central Anatolian plateau and Asia Minor proper" (meaning it is not part of these), while "to the east the valleys of the Araxes and Cyrus rivers lead to the Caspian Sea and Atropatene", implying that the latter can be considered its eastern boundaries (p. 481; corresponding map on the next page). As to the western boundaries of Anatolia itself, Caria is considered part of it (Vol. 6, p. 209), and in 336 Macedonian forces set out to conquer "coastal Anatolia, populated by many Greek communities" (p. 787). Perhaps you are mistaken? Iblardi (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read what your OWN source said? It says "Azzi-Khayasha in the far east of Anatolia", Azzi Khayasha "in the Keban area", NOT "Azzi-Khayasha somewhere to the west of eastern anatolia". Anatolia in academic usage is central Turkey, without any coastal regions, bounded on the east by the Euphrates. "Armenia and the Eastern Marches" is long after any prehistory of.... Chris Lightfoot, btw, is a propagandist for Turkish extremists, is a coward, a blatant liar, and an all-round unpleasant person. I could tell a number of character-revealing stories about him. You would do well to disregard his writings as a source. Meowy 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The far east of Anatolia is, of course, still within Anatolia. I don't see why it is relevant that Armenia was not a prehistoric kingdom, especially since you also placed a "fact"-tag on the main article Anatolia. I do see that you are failing to argue your case convincingly, instead resorting to personal attacks. Since you are apparently biased towards the subject, it is useless to continue this discussion. Iblardi (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to want to completely ignore your own source, now that I have pointed out that it does not support your case. Or are you just ignorant of where the "Keban area" is? Also, Wikipedia's rules require that editors show good faith towards other editors, and making "baised towards the subject" allegations is against those rules. Stating "it is useless to continue this discussion" displays a blatant refusal to engage in consensus building, again against Wikipedia's rulebook. Meowy 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP is also about backing up your claims. I have shown you that your opening statement is contradicted by at least the CAH, which should qualify as an "academic" source by most definitions. More such sources can be adduced:

• C. A. Burney, for instance, in "Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age" (Anatolian Studies, Vol. 8 (1958), pp. 157-209), says that "[t]he zone covered by this survey is best described as eastern Anatolia (...). The survey covered the greater part of the provinces of Sivas, Malatya, Elazig, Mus, Bitlis and Van" (p. 157).
• In another article, "Shalmaneser's Campaign to Urarṭu in 856 B.C. and the Historical Geography of Eastern Anatolia According to the Assyrian Sources" (Anatolian Studies, Vol. 34 (1984), pp. 171-201), H.F. Russell writes: "Van Kale [=ancient Turushpa; directly east of Lake Van] is the only very large Urartian site in this area" (p. 177). The maps on p. 172 and 199, entitled "Eastern Anatolia", show the Eastern Taurus to the left and Lake Urmia to the right and have Lake Van at their center. Urartu is indicated directly above Lake Van.
• In J.A.C. Greppin & I. M. Diakonoff, "Some Effects of the Hurro-Urartian People and Their Languages upon the Earliest Armenians" (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 4 (1991), pp. 720-730), there is a short discussion on the question whether the ancient Armenians were autochthonous to eastern Anatolia; the author notes: "that the Armenian language is autochthonous in eastern Anatolia is extremely implausible" (implying that the Armenians live, or lived, in E.A.; p. 727).
• G.D. Summers, in "Archaeological Evidence for the Achaemenid Period in Eastern Turkey" (Anatolian Studies, Vol. 43 (1993), pp. 85-108), says: "To the Urartians the mountainous massif of eastern Anatolia was the homeland but to the Persians it was perhaps little more than a wild, inhospitable area of comparatively little value in an otherwise huge and wealthy empire" (p. 86).
• In "The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Northeast Anatolia: A View from Sos Höyük" (Anatolian Studies, Vol. 49(1999), pp. 153-157), A. Sagona focuses on a site east of Erzurum to describe said transition.
• The introduction to The Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia (10,000-323 BCE) (S.R. Steadman, G. McMahon (2011)), finally, has this: "On its northern, western, and southwestern perimeters, Anatolia has very clear boundaries. With an exceptionally long coastline, it enjoys access to the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara, Aegean, and Mediterranean. Defining its eastern and southeastern boundary is a bit more problematic, but a number of the chapters, especially those covering the east and southeast, provide detailed arguments for what should be considered Anatolia. Modern national borders are mostly irrelevant to discussions of Anatolia in antiquity, which includes for some of our authors not only Asiatic Turkey but also parts of today’s Armenia, Georgia, Syria, and Iraq" (p. 4).

Yet you state that the concept of "Anatolia as all of 'Turkey in Asia'" is "a non-academic concept" and imply that academic sources would not claim that even "an inch of Urartu is in Anatolia", or that "any of the 'Western Anatolia' cultures" are. The evidence clearly shows that that statement is wrong. Iblardi (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well fxxx me, you might actually be Chris Lightfoot in person, or one of his student offspring! Certainly the only common denominator in all your sources is the disreputable "school of the 'English' Institute of Archaeology at Ankara", an organisation that has done more damage to academia in Turkey than even Ataturk's 1930s meddling. Poor old Charles Burney: he was too scared in the 1950s to take a picture of a single Armenian site around lake Van, and half a century later was too scared to even get out of his car and walk 20 metres to look at Yedikilise. So, its not surprising which "A" word he insisted on using. Meowy 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't really care about your personal vendettas. It's quite simple: you made a wrong statement, I countered it, and all you now offer in return (apart from a cryptic re-interpretation of one passage, while ignoring the rest) is some vague innuendo about some of the authors of the quoted sources. This usually betrays a lack of substance. I understand that there are, apparently, political sensitivities involved. That's fine. It may well be that, even apart from the political aspect, there exists controversy about the use of the term "Anatolia". This doesn't have to be a problem. All you have to do is quote some credible sources (according to WP standards) that support your point of view as I have done, and then we can perhaps start to work on achieving a synthesis of some sort. You are not helping your case by merely using ad hominems to discredit authors who do not happen to agree with you. Iblardi (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am partly responsible for this, having drawn attention to the issue by splitting the overlong History of Anatolia into two parts with a separate Prehistory of Anatolia. This is an interesting discussion, possibly worth a note on one of the pages, if properly documented, stating that there is some controversy. As an academic I am still not sure what is implied by 'non-academic' here. I am concerned that traditional Turkish-Armenian difficulties are spilling over into these pages. We need to be careful to distinguish geographical terms such as Anatolian Plateau, from geopolitical ones. In ancient times frontiers where not delineated precisely or guarded the way they are now and frontiers were of course very fluid over the millennia. While Asia Minor/Anatolia is well demarcated by coastlines to the west, north and south it is not so to the east, which is where the problem lies. Here it is used as a broad reference to the lands north and west of Mesopotamia and the Levant, and to the south east of the Caucasus, another geo-political term dividing Europe and Asia. 'Anatolia' is a convenience term for a region which has historical significance because of its position at the cross-roads between Europe and Asia, and the consequent historic events which make it unique.

I will grant that as used here it includes the Armenian Highlands to the west and the controversy over the term Eastern Anatolia is noted in several places. There is also the issue of a separate page called Prehistoric Armenia. The use of the word Anatolia here should not be judged to have any political implications any more than it is defined precisely. Linkages can bring all these pages together, and I notice that someone has already added various references to Armenia on some of the Anatolian pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This usage of "Anatolia" is a recent one – you will not find it in 19th-century sources – and one that has a dirty little history, having its origin as part of the "Turkish History Thesis" formulated in 1930 by Turkey’s Kemalist regime (in it the Hittites were stated to be prehistoric ethnic Turks, and part of the process in which the Turks civilised the world). It was part of a campaign to give the Muslim inhabitants of the Turkish republic a new identity and belief system. However, even the “Thesis” in its earliest incarnation did not use the term “Anatolia”, instead using "Asya-i Sagra" (i.e., Asia Minor) (See Ermitan's article in Anatolian Studies, 2008). The concept of "Anadolu" (i.e. "Anatolia") developed later, in the 1930s and 1940s, as an attempt by the Kemalists to coin a new geographical definition to encapsulate their ideological aims (and also to eliminate any terms that harked back to regions formerly inhabited by Greeks or Armenians). In the immediate post-WW2 period "Anadolu" was taken up with relish by certain English academics who wished to establish their new "Institute of Archaeology" in Turkey. To gain official Turkish approval, it was a conscious choice by them to site the institute in Ankara, the heartland of the new Turkish "Anatolia", and to call their journal "Anatolian Studies". Every British academic who has done any research in Turkey has been required (by Turkish law) to go through the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, and has been obliged to adopt its "house style" in order to be published in Anatolian Studies. Non-Turkish usage of "Anatolia" started as a convenience, developed into a habit, and eventually became a dogma.

O. R. Gurney, in his 1952 "The Hittites", was still referring to the Hittite's homeland as "Asia Minor". In his text, Gurney is strangely vague on his terminology, sometimes using "Asia Minor" and sometimes using "Anatolia". The "Anatolia" is used mostly in the form "Anatolian Hittite kingdom". Is there any other Hittite kingdom, you might ask? Well, yes, there is! Burney explains (on page 14) that some scholars consider that Hittite-like sites outside of Anatolia are not actually Hittite but are Hurrian, and these scholars consider that only Hittite sites inside Anatolia (inside the "Anatolian Hittite kingdom") should be classed as real Hittite sites. This means that sites of the Hurrian civilisation lay outside what was, in the 1950s, understood to be "Anatolia". J. A. MacQueen’s 1975 book is still called "The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor", indicating that the term "Anatolia" still did not have enough currency to be used as a term that equated to Asia Minor.

As for the "Asia Minor" terminology – Asia Minor did not include Urartu or the later Armenian kingdoms that were located on the same territory as Urartu. Lynch writes "The natural boundary between Armenia and Asia Minor is the course of the Western Euphrates between the towns of Kemah and its passage through Taurus below Keban-Maden", (H.F.B. Lynch, "Armenia, Travels and Studies", volume 2 page 390). This means that the eastern border of "Asia Minor" was exactly the same as that eastern border of "Anatolia" written about in the Cambridge ancient History source which stated that Azzi-Khayasha was "in the far east of Anatolia" and "in the Keban area". Meowy 16:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. Concerning Erimtan (not Ermitan; the full reference is C. Erimtan, "Hittites, Ottomans and Turks: Ağaoğlu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist Construction of Turkish Nationhood in Anatolia", Anatolian Studies, Vol. 58 (2008), 141-171): if Anatolian Studies is, as you state, effectively a propaganda instrument of the Turkish government, then it seems unlikely that Erimtan's very critical article on the use of the concept of "Anatolia" for propaganda purposes would have been allowed for publication in that same journal.

2. Gurney speaks of a dichotomy between Anatolia/Asia Minor and Syria, which has never been considered part of Anatolia under any definition; secondly, Gurney calls the strict separation of these cultural areas an "extreme position" taken by Götze and notes that views have changed recently as a result of further research. ("But of recent years, since it was established that 'hieroglyphic Hittite' is closely related to ... 'cuneiform Hittite', there has been a new tendency towards synthesis and renewed recognition that the Anatolian and Syrian kingdoms must after all be treated as parts of a single whole"; Gurney 1952/1954, p. 14.)

3. Your argument that "Anatolia" did not have enough currency by 1975 to be used as a term that equated with "Asia Minor" is refuted even by a Google Books search, which renders numerous instances of this usage even in 19th-century sources (e.g. "Asia Minor is a name borrowed from ancient geography to describe the western or Anatolian peninsula", 1871 (W.L. Bevan, The student's manual of modern geography, 393); "Asia Minor or Anatolia", 1883 (S. Menzies, Turkey, old and new, 536); "Anatolia, or Asia Minor", 1868 (Th. Lavallée, Physical, historical and military geography, 498); and many more).

4. Regarding the boundaries of eastern Anatolia, I have already pointed out several passages from the CAH that contradict your interpretation (i.e., eastern Anatolia providing access to "Asia Minor proper", eastern Anatolia being "contained within the kingdom of Armenia"; above).

Iblardi (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And I pointed out several passages from the CAH that contradict your interperetation (i.e., Anatolia's eastern border is the Keban region). And your CAH passages concern a different time period, and a very politicised area, and were written by an individual with questionable motivation (Lightfoot is an Armenian genocide denier, and uses the "they were never there so how could they have been murdered" argument to justify his position). If Erimtan was not a Turk, the article would not have been written far less published. BIAA acts as a gatekeeper for foreigners, not Turks (they can study whatever they want without permits). However, the article's content is so guarded in tone that I think the author was pressurised to soften its content before publication (i.e., rather than simply saying in one sentence that the Armenian Genocide happened, and then moving on, the author, without ever stating a position, and straying wildly off the actual topic, cites source after source after foreign source, extending over several pages of the article, which say what happened. Gurney's characterisation of the strict separation of those cultural areas as an "extreme position" might actually be the extreme position. Frankfort, writing at the same time, wrote about the alleged connection saying "demonstratably it is no such thing" (The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, p279-80). But the point of my mentioning it was that Gurney's wording placed that other culture outside his Anatolia, but this article places it inside it. Meowy 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the tradition of creating Synthesis from Thesis and Antithesis why don't those concerned about the use of the word "Anatolia" start a page discussing this controversy and we can simply direct people there to learn more about it, rather than shred this article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is the first time that I see the familiar usage of the term "Anatolia" (which is of course a little inexact, as many geographical terms are, especially regarding its eastern limits) being disputed in such a fundamental way, and it is not clear to me where this is coming from. It apparently has something to do with (real or perceived) cultural imperialism by the Turks vis-à-vis ethnic minorities that inhabit the same region, but I'm not sure if this is just the opinion of one editor or if there is a "real" (large-scale and documented) controversy about this subject. Iblardi (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A casualness about this term's usage, and an unquestioning acceptance of things familiar, is not actually an indication of anything more than your own personality. Where are there sources that get down to specifics and define what is "Anatolia"? Why has "Anatolia" changed in area so much in the last 70 years? Are you denying that the meaning has changed? The Byzantine theme of Anatolikon covered only the equivalent of the modern Turkish regions of Konya, Aksaray, Nevsehir, Nigde, and Kayseri. That meaning, a region of the Roman and Byzantine empire, is the meaning we find in most 19th and early 20th-century sources. In sources from the first half of the 20th-century that are writing about the newly-discovered Hittites and the ancient Near East, "Anatolia" is central Turkey. It is not until the 1950s that we see the word "Anatolia" being widely used to define an even larger area - and that larger area is "Asia Minor". The term "Anatolia" seems to be used parallel with, and then, ultimatley, replace the term "Asia Minor". Asia Minor does not include the Armenian Highlands, so does not include the territory of Urartu. Then, in some sources, and in a lot of British Institute of Archeology at Ankara sources, we begin to see Anatolia expand vastly in size. It is now being used to define the entire territory of modern Turkey with the exception of Hatay and its territory in "Europe". The only prior occurrance of this sort of usage is found inside Turkey, in the Turkish term "Anadolu" whose origin lies in the 1930s development of the "Turkish History Thesis". "Anadolu" is an artifical concept that is not related to real cultures and real history. If this inflated "Anatolia" (Anadolu) actually existed as a definable historical, cultural, (or even geographical) region then Georgia is also part of "Anatolia", and Armenia is too. If they are not, how can you sanely propose that if you move five metres to the right of the current Turkish border with those countries then you are no longer in "Anatolia"! Meowy 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but much of what you say here is incorrect. Historically, "Anatolia" has been used to refer to the Ottoman district of Anadolu, to the inner plateau, to Asia Minor, or to Asiatic Turkey in general, but all of these uses are also attested for the period before the Turkish republic came into existence. Your contention that the practice of equating Anatolia to Asia Minor is entirely or even mostly a post-1950 phenomenon is wrong. It was done at least from the 1810s onward, and in such widely published works as the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

1. "Asia Minor, now called Anatolia, lies to the east of the Archipelago" (Geography and history, 1813);

2. [Anatolia:] "The term is frequently employed as the modern synonym of the peninsula of Asia Minor. In the divisions of the country as they are recognised by some writers, however, the term Anatolia (written also Natolia and Anadoli) has a more restricted sense, and is applied to the west and north-west of Asia Minor" (Knight, 1854);

3. "Anatolia is bounded on the north by the Black sea, the sea of Marmora, and the Dardanelles, on the west by the Grecian Archipelago, on the south by the Mediterranean sea and Syria, and its ill-defined eastern boundary is near the courses of the rivers Euphrates and Tchoruk." (The New American Cyclopaedia, 1857);

4. "Under the name Anatolia is generally understood the whole of Asia Minor." (Johnston, 1862);

5. "The term Anatolia is sometimes used by geographers as synonymous with Asia Minor" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1902);

6. "Anatolia (...). The land so called is the extremity of that part of Asia which stretches out like an arm or bridge towards Europe." (Webb, 1910);

7. "To all of Asia Minor was once applied the term "Anatolia"" (Hawley, 1913);

8. "He goes on to say that the term "Anatolia,*' as here used, covers all of Asia Minor lying west of a line running north from Alexandretta to the Black Sea" (Horton, 1926);

9. "There is no ancient name for Asia Minor as a whole; it never was a unity. The name Anatolia I use as almost equivalent to it; but strictly Anatolia is distinguished from Karamania, the south coast of Asia Minor." (Ramsay, 1927).

It is no surprise that this usage was continued after 1950:

10. "The name Anatolia — the Levant — may be taken as synonymous with Asia Minor." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961);

11. "The term Anatolia is frequently used in referring to Asia Minor but some geographers apply it to the upland areas only." (Pearcy, 1963);

12. "The term 'Anatolia', which is here used synonymously with 'Asia Minor'" (Unstead & Gilbert, 1966); et cetera.

It seems that the eastern limit of this "enlarged" Anatolia was usually considered to be at approximately 40° E., which meant that it did not include most of the territories east of the Euphrates (most notably Armenia and Kurdistan). However, even these lands were sometimes referred to as part of Anatolia or Asia Minor prior to 1950. This usage was far from universal and perhaps was not even very common (I am principally relying on a GB search for this), but it was apparently by no means unheard of. It occurs both in popular literature and in more specialized writings. Quoting, from a variety of sources:

13. "Asia Minor, from Scutari to Van, and from Van northward to Batoum" (Quarterly Review, 1878);

14. "Eastern Anatolia, which is separated from the lower ground on the west by the Anti-Taurus, is a rugged plateau, above which rise many peaks culminating in Mount Ararat, 17000 feet high." (Wilson, 1907);

15. "the lakes of the Gobi Desert, Lake Hamun in the Seistan depression between Afghanistan and Persia, Lake Urmi on the Persian plateau, and Lake Van in Eastern Anatolia" (Murray et al., 1910);

16. "Western Anatolia, a high and fertile plateau, extending from the Aegean to the Anti-Taurus Mountains, and Eastern Anatolia, a rugged plateau over which towers Mount Ararat." (The Twentieth Century, 1913);

17. "The Armenian Plateau of Eastern Anatolia culminates in Mount Ararat (17160 feet)." (The International Whitaker, 1914);

18. "In Eastern Anatolia, elevated plains are separated by mountain ranges that run from east-north-east to west-south-west. The principal features are the fertile volcanic district of Van..." (Mill, 1915);

19. "This variety is kept in Anatolia, and especially in the Provinces of Brousse, Costamuni, Sivas, Van, and vilayet of Konia." (International Institute of Agriculture, 1921);

20. "Here his most powerful adversary was the kingdom of Urartu, which lay to the north of Mesopotamia, among the hills and the great lakes of southeastern Anatolia." (Manson, 1939);

21. "The Phrygian from Thrace and the Armenian of unknown provenience settled in Anatolia at a later time. In 900 B. C, Vannic or Chaldic (cuneiform) was still spoken in Urartu, the land later settled by the Armenians." (American Oriental Society, 1921);

22. "The second Caucasian immigration wave brought the Hurri (the 'Cassites') into east Anatolia about 2000 BC. They founded the Khaldish Urartu empire (not of course Chaldean) and in addition ruled over large parts of northern Syria." (Crawford, 1933);

23. "The eastern part of Anatolia is dotted with the remains of a civilization referred to in Assyrian inscriptions as that of Ur-Artu" (American Asiatic Association, 1939);

24. "In breadth Kurdistan averages 120-50 miles, although the maximum of 250 miles is attained on the line from Mosul to Mt. Ararat in Anatolia." (Field & Martin, 1940).

25. "One line in South Anatolia joins Diarbekr with the Iraqi frontier. The other, in East Anatolia, links Kharput with the Iranian border, and goes via Lake Van." (Britannia and the East, 1940)

Remember that these are all western sources that were written before the establishment of the British Institute at Ankara in 1947 and partly even before the establishment of the republic. The equation of Anatolia to Asia Minor and even the application of the term "Anatolia" in a much wider sense are not unprecedented. Iblardi (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any old atlases to hand, but I do have a 1915 map titled "War Map of the Near East" and subtitled "Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Armenia, the Caucasus districts, Syria, Egypt, the Persian Gulf". The title sees a difference between "Asia Minor" and "Armenia", and the difference is revealed further on the actual map. Asia Minor and Armenia are marked on it. The "A" of Asia Minor is a few hundred miles east of Smyrna and the "r" is at Harput. The "A" of Armenia is at Sivas. So, again, the eastern end of Asia Minor ends in the Keban region. Meowy 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

All very interesting but does not solve anything, unless you want to write an article describing these controversies. I have reviewed your record on Wikipedia from which I conclude that (a) that you are passionate about this area of the world, but (b) your record is not encouraging, having engaged in many heated discussions and having just emerged from a prolonged ban, and you continually blank your usage page. You may be right but I am interpreting your comments as likely having somewhat of a POV. At present I don't see any compelling need to change this article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodyear seems to be an editor with a fondness for blatant lies as well as no understanding of the subject: far from "continually blanking my user page" I have never even once blanked my user page, and when unable to disprove the facts he resorts to attacking the deliverer of the facts with his snide bad faith insinuations. Meowy 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Protohistoric

If we are going to introduce terms such as protohistoric we need to be consistent across what is currently 3 pages and a template. Therefore I removed the single reference in a redirect --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvage from Asia Minor

Asia Minor was just redirected, it was just a short article that covered Prehistoric and Classical Anatolia. I'm posting this link here in case there's something worth salvaging from that article. Remember to follow WP:CWW if you import content from that article into this one, that's extremely impotent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OR map

I've noticed that two maps here are about the Hitite Empire and about the same time period. Although this one [[5]] is perfectly sourced, the other one [[6]] although it concerns almost the same period ca. 1300 BCE, turns to be clear wp:or, since the references he is based on (in commons) don't confirm a Hitite control over all the western Anatolian coast. To be more clear, [[7]] is supposed to be based on this: [[8]],[[9]]. For that reason, and until a clear link is presented in the talkpage, this map, contradicts the given sources.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Go get the book: Byrce, Trevor, "The Kingdom of the Hittites". Oxford university press, 2005. p. 44.

p.44: "At the height of its power in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries, the

Hittite kingdom incorporated large areas of Anatolia and northern Syria, from the Aegean seacoast in the west to the Euphrates river in the east."

There's also a map. Cavann (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific quote is on p. 46 [[10]]. Also it doesn't say nowhere that is included all the Aegean coast. On the other hand the wikimap is extremely wp:or, it labels non-Hitite regions i.e. Ahiyawa, as Hitite. You still need to point out in which page is this 'map', since it's nowhere to find in this book.Alexikoua (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just read the entire section and as I imagine there was never a Hitite controlled area in sw Anatolia. Thus, the only decent one we have to present is based on maps like this [[11]],[[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems we have large scale disruption in the case of the specific map, although it has been suggested that this is taken from: Byrce, Trevor, "The Kingdom of the Hittites". Oxford university press, 2005. p. 44, (or p. 46), there is neither map nor relevant text that shows a Hitite control in sw Anatolia (also in the rest of the book).Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is in pdf version. Not everyone is using google books. It would be under maps in google books. Cavann (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've access in this one, if you mean the map on p. 43 (map no.3 The world of the Hittites), it has no borders at all.Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't but under Suppiluliuma I's section, it talks about how he controlled Arzawa and Lukka lands. Cavann (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be usefull to point on the specific quotes/pages. So far we have the following conclusions:

1. The map is wp:or, no book confirms the specific western Hittite borders.
2. In p.54 it clearly describes that Lukka people were rebellious and were not even a vassal kingdom of theHittites.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive reverts

I wonder what's the meaning of this rv [[13]] (not to mention the disruptive edit summary and the excuse that the map is too small for a right edit summary):

1. mention of the "Ahhiyawa" was removed, although its clearly mentioned on the correspondent map
2. . the Bronze Age movement image caption was also removed, although this part is clearly taken from the reference: Mellart, 1952: p.21. A serious reader would say that something is missing there (i.e. the blue direction from nw Anatolia to Aegean).Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is here: [14] [15]

The caption was weird as the primary focus was on Greeks. This is not Prehistory of Greece article; this display of perception of inflated self-importance is inappropriate. Few passing comments are ok, but there seems to be no consensus about who moved to Greece, etc. And there are other ethnic groups in the map, we can't explain all. About, "Ahhiyawa", the map shows Hittite's neighbours, but I do not necessarily have any objections against this. Cavann (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The caption describes the map in a few words, not to mention that the map is taken from Mellart, 1952. To say it with simple words: the brown arrow are the Hittites and the blue arrow the Greeks. For some unexplained reasons you avoid to describe the blue one.... Some bchildish stuff on the other caption about "Ahhiyawa": they were part of the Anatolian populations. So, none cares if they were near the Hittites or not since the article is about Anatolia in general.Alexikoua (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus who moved to Greece (ie: no consensus that blue is Greeks) (p. 723). [16] There might be some cultural exchange (virtually identical pottery), but this source, which is an up-to-date review source, does not mention "Middle Helladic Greek-speaking peoples." And there is also no consensus that even Hittites migrated (p. 704) [17]. I am going to remove the map. It's not an up-to-date source. Cavann (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This map is based on this specific scenario, i.e taken from Mellart's map, off course there are alternative scenarios as I have said. To say it with simple words: this map supports the assumption that Greek people moved from nw Anatolia to s. Greece. Everyone can see a blue arrow that confirms this move, apart from you I suppose. So, if this map stays the necessary caption (explanation why we have a blue arrow and a brown arrow) has to stay too. Alexikoua (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it would be a reasonable argument to support the complete removal of this map, which is based on a not so widely accepted theory by some scholars (as I've pointed from the very start), instead of insisting to keep it without the appropriate caption.Alexikoua (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed the map. Cavann (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maps

Why do we have 2 14th century BC maps, especially considering that one map seems to be from what looks like a children's book? [18] Cavann ^(talk) 18:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that both maps are not the same, they even do not present the same chronological periods. The one you want to remove, gives additional data about local geography (Kaska, Mirra, Seha river land, Wilusa are mentioned). Another fact is that this map is about 14th century in general, it isn't limited to the end of the 14th century-early 13th century as the second map, which presents only the limits of the Hittites.

Good written & well known children's encyclopedias as this one, pass wp:rs for certain. What's childish on this, is that an Armana-period map, was already part of this article for years and reactions occurred when I created a new improved version of it.Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it until you changed it. This is Prehistory of Anatolia article, not prehistory of Near East. The second map (Hittite map) is more suited. And it is well-sourced, as you -yourself- put it in so many articles. Both maps "present the same chronological periods", ie: 14th century BC. Read the legends. 2 14th century maps are too much. Cavann ^(talk) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1300-1350 is half the 14th century, but the only difference isn't only this, the middle east map mentions a number of ancient Anatolian regions that are not mentioned in the Hittite map (Kaska, Mira, Seha, Happala, Tarhuntassa etc.). The Hittite map is good for the Hittite Empire exclusively, but the Middle East one, gives more info about the geography of prehistoric Anatolia.Alexikoua (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Bronze age Hattians

Some intelligent author put the "Hattians (c. 2500 BC – c. 2000 BC)" mitakenly into the para EBA, which just ENDS -2500. This is only one of the many "bad signs" in this article. HJJHolm (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Anatolian tribes

Since Urartu encompassed the current territory of central Turkey, it is safe to designate it as part of Anatolia as defined by today's standards. Anatolia is a vast region that stretches from the Bosphorus toward the mountains of Armenia. All of these tribes overlapped each others borders. I'd like to start a discussion about what really constitutes Anatolia, since there is a point to be made regarding the fact that "Eastern Anatolia" could be a modern construct that doesn't correspond to its historical designation. Since Urartu could be incorporated in a variety of geographical definitions, it could be excluded along with the other eastern regions if we take a different approach, but removing Urartu warrants the removal of the other regions as well. Note: Asia Minor is not the same thing as Anatolia. --92slim (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Urartu did not "encompassed the current territory of central Turkey" - its extreme western border was the plains around Elazig (Harput castle originated as an Urartian fortress); west of here was the eastern edge of Anatolia. Immediately east of the Elazig plain also start those "mountains of Armenia" you speak of. This is summarized in the recently produced British Museum information board for its Anatolia and Urartu gallery (showm here [19]) in which Urartu is located as "lying to the east" of Anatolia, i.e., both in the infoboard and in the title of the gallery (Anatolia and Urartu [20]) it is explicitly stated that the territory of Urartu was not within ancient Anatolia. If you want to remove Assyria from the article, then go ahead and do it. The Asia Minor as Anatolia content is nothing to do with anything I've edited, ("Asia Minor" currently redirects to "Anatolia", b.t.w.), and the "Latin" label for Asia Minor seems strange and vague since it, like Anatolia, is Greek in origin. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Piotrovski (in "Urartu - The Kingdom of Van and its Art") refers to Urartu being in Asia Minor, but the Hittite kingdoms being in Anatolia, so there is a difference in usage in some sources. Other wording additionally indicates that he considers Urartu as not being in Anatolia, for example on p4 he mentions the Chalcolithic cultures in the Erzurum, Van and Urmia regions that preceded Urartu, and then says "In Anatolia a similar culture preceded the formation of the Hittite empire". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the article is about Turkey, we should use the definition taken by modern scholars, and not rely on some sort of vague interpretation. Urartu is on what we commonly know now as Anatolia, based on information from Turkish history books, as much as Cimmeria. Cimmeria conquered Urartu, and so did Assyria - which is now encompassed in Syria and much of Turkey. So for the time being I will remove the rest until we work out what terminology works best. --92slim (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Urartu is technically in what we now call Anatolia or Asia Minor

I have reverted some changes because the Republic of Turkey classifies what would encompass the modern territories of Urartu as the Eastern Anatolia Region. That's a significant nomenclature. The other thing is that Anatolia is currently used interchangeably with Asia Minor. I don't see how Urartu and other tribes should be removed, because we are using the modern definitions used today, as opposed to what Anatolia originally meant 2000 years ago. --92slim (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

continental plates

should this be described? the Turkish-Syrian earthquake is actualy Anatolia if i understand this correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Turkey%E2%80%93Syria_earthquake is this why copper was found and used here as first place of the 'metal ages'? that is a question and not an answer, i know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)