Despite the important roles that horses have played in human history, particularly in the spread of languages and cultures, and correspondingly intensive research on this topic, the origin of domestic horses remains elusive. Several domestication centers have been hypothesized, but most of these have been invalidated through recent paleogenetic studies. Anatolia is a region with an extended history of horse exploitation that has been considered a candidate for the origins of domestic horses but has never been subject to detailed investigation. Our paleogenetic study of pre- and protohistoric horses in Anatolia and the Caucasus, based on a diachronic sample from the early Neolithic to the Iron Age (~8000 to ~1000 BCE) that encompasses the presumed transition from wild to domestic horses (4000 to 3000 BCE), shows the rapid and large-scale introduction of domestic horses at the end of the third millennium BCE. Thus, our results argue strongly against autochthonous independent domestication of horses in Anatolia.

No abstract

Çadır Höyük provides rich evidence for the endurance and transformation of specific cultural features and phenomena at a rural center on the Anatolian Plateau as it experienced the waxing and waning of control by imperial political powers of the Bronze and Iron Ages. Especially evident for those periods is the construction and maintenance of public architecture during periods of imperial power; certain economic activities also shift in their importance at those times. At the same time, continuity in economic and social organization is also a feature stretching across times of imperial control and its loss. Examination of the archaeological evidence from Çadır Höyük suggests that nothing is as continuous, nor as discontinuous, as it might seem.

Byzantine archaeological sites tend to be seen as representative of the empire as a whole, with little concern given to regional context. Within the imperial narrative that shapes Byzantine history, sites—whether urban or rural—are often used to explain and illustrate imperial trends. However, when we remove that overarching narrative, the sites in Anatolia provide the potential to view them as singular examples of local and regional identity. In this article, we have separated out four types of data: fortifications, coins, faunal material, and archaeobotanical evidence to illustrate how a close examination of the data provides new ways of understanding regional identity. In doing so, we posit that the Byzantine empire needs to be seen as a collection of local identities working alongside one another, but always expressing individual needs and resources.

No abstract