For no apparent reason, Central Anatolian Paleolithic Age studies have been neglected since the mid 20th century. And it seems that our knowledge is very poor about knapped stone findings in this region. The goal of this study is hopefully to provoke a debate among the Paleolithic Age archaeologists. Some of previous researchers such as Kansu, Kökten, Ozansoy, Pfannenstiel etc. mainly focused on Ankara’s knapped stone findings during the mid 20th century. We must also acknowledge Campbell-Thompson, Bittel, İnan and Pittard who had worked in this region in the first half of the 20th century prior to Kansu and his friends. What we mainly find in the papers of these researchers are impressive terms such as: “levalloiso-moustérien”, “aurignacien” and “tardenoasian”. But today, some questions that come to mind are “Are these the correct terms for Central Anatolia?”, “What were the shortcomings of earlier research?” and “What answers can we propose today?”

For no apparent reason, Central Anatolian Paleolithic Age studies have been neglected since the mid 20th century. And it seems that our knowledge is very poor about knapped stone findings in this region. The goal of this study is hopefully to provoke a debate among the Paleolithic Age archaeologists. Some of previous researchers such as Kansu, Kökten, Ozansoy, Pfannenstiel etc. mainly focused on Ankara’s knapped stone findings during the mid 20th century. We must also acknowledge Campbell-Thompson, Bittel, İnan and Pittard who had worked in this region in the first half of the 20th century prior to Kansu and his friends. What we mainly find in the papers of these researchers are impressive terms such as: “levalloiso-moustérien”, “aurignacien” and “tardenoasian”. But today, some questions that come to mind are “Are these the correct terms for Central Anatolia?”, “What were the shortcomings of earlier research?” and “What answers can we propose today?”