|
Archaeological views of the Iron Age in inland Anatolia have been dominated by the two main polities that developed during the first millennium b.c.e. : Urartu in the east and Phrygia in the west. Our understanding of how these and other Iron Age societies developed in the aftermath of the Late Bronze Age Hittite collapse, how new polities emerged and forged new political and economic relations, however, is limited due to the rarity of excavated Early Iron Age sites in the region (Genz 2003 ; Grave et al. 2009 ; Kealhofer et al. 2009 , 2010). One of the keys for understanding Iron Age dynamics is the development of a regional chronological framework. Since 2000, each of the sites discussed here has produced new Iron Age dates, oft en substantially altering our interpretation of the relationships between sites, the rate of change within Iron Age societies, and the timing and scale of interaction (figure 18.1). Results from these excavations are beginning to define an exceptionally dynamic and volatile period of society building. However, constraints in the development of a high-resolution regional chronology (radiocarbon calibration plateaus, sampling issues) continue to challenge our ability to adequately map the dynamics of Iron Age societies. After describing the geographical context of the Anatolian plateau, we outline advances and constraints in the development of a regional chronological framework. |
|