Cutmarks on the bones of ten individuals from Körtik Tepe, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Southeastern Anatolia, were analysed using a bioarchaeological approach. Half of the ten individuals possess cutmarks on their crania only while the other five have cutmarks on both their cranial and postcranial bones. Diagnoses of these cutmarks suggest they were made on fresh cadavers, while skeletal data and burial customs reveal that the individuals with cutmarks were subject to human intervention in the decomposition process, understood as post-burial practices rather than secondary burials. This conclusion is supported by the application of plaster and paint as part of the burial customs. The process of defleshing is interpreted as an attempt to purify the corpse and to separate death from life.

Increasing research in western Anatolia since the 1990s onwards shows that the Neolithic way of life in this region emerged in the first half of the seventh millennium BC and evolved rapidly in the same millennium. Current data indicate western Anatolia, which is located alongside the primary zone of Neolithization in the Near East, has a complex constitution rather than being a bridge or barrier between east and west. In this article, data from past and current excavations in western Anatolia are discussed over time and space. In this context, eastern Thrace, where there are strong connections with west Anatolia, is also included.

For a long time, assessments and evaluations of the western Anatolian Early Bronze Age (EBA) have only been based on the excavation results of Tarsus, Karataş-Semayük, Beycesultan, Demircihüyük, and Troy. However, excavations and surface surveys carried out in the last two decades have increased our knowledge enormously. In particular, the excavations of Liman Tepe, Küllüoba, and Seyitömer have made an immense contribution to the establishment of a reliable West Anatolian EBA chronology. The surface surveys have also made it possible to define better the borders of the cultural areas and pottery zones of the region. Based on these new data, new theories are presented here on the cultural and socio-political development of the region, as well as on regional and inter-regional relationships during the EBA.

The Hittite state was founded c. 1650 BC and developed thereafter. The Hittites were able to establish their rule in Anatolia's hostile landscape and overcome the difficulties it presented to create an empire—an objective that they achieved with the aid of their remarkable organizational skills. Despite the frequent occurrence of geographical names in the state archives, only a small number of them can be safely localized and, although Hittitology is a 100-year-old field, the regional names have only recently been determined. This article serves as a general introduction to the Hittites as well as a review of the problem of geographical names, revealing the complexity it presents.

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.

Medieval Italian city-states with access to the sea, most notably the Venetian and Genoese, were in need of safe ‘stopovers’ that would allow their inhabitants to travel to distant places across the territories in which they conducted commerce. As the most important ‘stopover’ and centre of consumption, Constantinople became a point of attraction for Italian merchant colonies, particularly after the eleventh century. Among these, the most powerful one with the largest settlement was the Venetian colony. Following a decree dated 1082 (Chrysoboullos) that granted them certain privileges, the Venetians settled across the southern shores of the Golden Horn. In terms of administration, it appears that, until the Latin period (1204–1261), no formal officers were appointed to the Venetian Merchant Colony. ‘The bailo’ was first instituted in Constantinople only after the treaty of 18 June 1265. The mention of a house owned by the bailo dates as late as 1277. Documents on the residence of the bailo remain silent until the early fifteenth century. It is unclear if the palace of the bailo mentioned in fifteenth-century documents and the house allocated to the bailo in 1277 are the same building. Despite the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Venetians, albeit with interruptions, continued to live on the historic peninsula. However, it is no longer possible to speak of a Venetian settlement similar to the one that had existed in Byzantine times. Per the agreement signed on 16 August 1454, the Venetians were granted a house and a church that ‘once’ belonged to Anconitans. The possible location and architectural features of the residences of the bailo, which have left behind no archaeological data, are discussed here through written sources including Ottoman documents.