This article modifies an old archaeological adage—“excavation is destruction”—to demonstrate how advances in archaeological practice suggest a new iteration: “excavation is digitization.” Digitization, in a fully digital paradigm, refers to practices that leverage advances in onsite, image-based modeling and volumetric recording, integrated databases, and data sharing. Such practices were implemented in 2014 during the inaugural season of the Kaymakçı Archaeological Project (KAP) in western Turkey. The KAP recording system, developed from inception before excavation as a digital workflow, increases accuracy and efficiency as well as simplicity and consistency. The system also encourages both practical and conceptual advances in archaeological practice. These involve benefits associated with thinking volumetrically, rather than in two dimensions, and a connectivity that allows for group decision-making regardless of group location. Additionally, it is hoped that the system's use of almost entirely “off-the-shelf” solutions will encourage its adoption or at least its imitation by other projects.

Microtopographic mapping has a long history in archaeology and has gained prominence recently owing to the proliferation of digital technologies. With such proliferation, it becomes necessary to compare and contrast different approaches based on a common set of criteria. This article compares the implementation and efficiency of two methods of mapping microtopography – ground-based Real-Time Kinematic Global Navigation Satellite System (RTK GNSS) and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry (UAVP) survey – assessing the pros and cons of each, including those related to data quality. ‘Off-the-shelf’ solutions for methods were used to create the comparative dataset of microtopographic maps of six Middle and Late Bronze Age sites over the course of four seasons between 2007 and 2013 in the study area of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey in western Turkey. Comparison of results demonstrate that the methods are similar with respect to ease of implementation, cost efficiency, and the (in)significance of data defects, while, unsurprisingly, UAVP survey can be greater than one order of magnitude more labor efficient than RTK GNSS survey and over two orders of magnitude more detailed as measured by data density. The accuracy of both methods is high, within typical error budgets for site-level mapping, and comparable to other recent digital mapping approaches. Accordingly, the results suggest that, given site suitability, UAVP is the more labor and cost-efficient method in the long run, with significant data quality benefits.

This paper explores pig husbandry across the Aegean and Anatolia based on zooarchaeological data and ancient texts. The western Anatolian citadel of Kaymakçı is the departure point for discussion, as it sits in the Mycenaean-Hittite interaction zone and provides a uniquely large assemblage of pig bones. NISP, mortality, and biometric data from 38 additional sites across Greece and Anatolia allows observation of intra- and interregional variation in the role of pigs in subsistence economies, pig management, and pig size characteristics. Results show that, first, pig abundance at Kaymakçı matches Mycenaean and northern Aegean sites more closely than central, southern, and southeastern Anatolian sites; second, pig mortality data and biometry suggest multiple husbandry strategies and pig populations at Kaymakçı, but other explanations cannot yet be excluded; and, third, for the Aegean and Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age more generally, pig data suggests pluriformity, which challenges the use of “pig principles” in this region.

This article presents previously unknown archaeological evidence of a mid-second-millenniumbckingdom located in central western Anatolia. Discovered during the work of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey in the Marmara Lake basin of the Gediz Valley in western Turkey, the material evidence appears to correlate well with text-based reconstructions of Late Bronze Age historical geography drawn from Hittite archives. One site in particular—Kaymakçı—stands out as a regional capital and the results of the systematic archaeological survey allow for an understanding of local settlement patterns, moving beyond traditional correlations between historical geography and capital sites alone. Comparison with contemporary sites in central western Anatolia, furthermore, identifies material commonalities in site forms that may indicate a regional architectural tradition if not just influence from Hittite hegemony.

In both western Turkey and the Levant, archaeology has a long history, with the rise in interest and discovery beginning in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. While many have focused on the history of excavations in both of these areas, we approach historical analyses from a different perspective. Utilizing the voices of local actors, this article aims to understand the social reactions of local communities to the increasingly prominent role of people practicing archaeology — archaeologists, diplomats, explorers — through the lens of the antiquities trade over the last two centuries. Interlacing examples from Lydia and the Levant, we provide an overview of archaeological praxis and then offer the positions of the participants, gathered from archival and published materials as well as more recent interviews, conversations, and correspondences.