Bibliography for Yatak 3

This is the cited references in Yatak 3.

Arsebük, G.,
1983, "Dip Pleistosen ve Kültür", Anadolu Araştırmaları IX: 1-9.

1987, "İki Milyon Yıl Öncesinin Taş Aletleri", Tarih ve Toplum 45: 37-41.

1993, "Yarımburgaz, A Lower Paleolithic Cave Site Near Istanbul", M. Frangipane, H. Hauptman, M. Liverani, D. Matthiac, M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains (Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata), Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, Roma: 23-36.

1995a, "'İnsan', 'İnsanlık' ve 'Prehistorya'", Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul:11-26.

1995b, İnsan ve Evrim, Ege Yayıncılık, İstanbul.

1995c, "'İnsan', 'Evrim', 'Alet'", TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 332: 18-24.

1996, "Trakya'da Eski Bir Yerleşim Yeri: Yarımburgaz Mağarası Alt Paleolitik Çağ Bulguları", Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 33-50.

1998a, "A Review of the Current Status of Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey", G. Arsebük, M. Mellink and W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul:71-76.

1998b, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası; Pleistosen Arkeolojisi ile İlgili Son Çalışmalara

1997 Gözüyle Özet Bir Bakış", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 1:8-25.

1999, "İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2:31-49.

Arsebük, G., F.C. Howell, M. Özbaşaran,
1990, "Yarımburgaz 1988", Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XI (1989): 9-18.

1991, "Yarımburgaz 1989", Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XII (1990): 17-41.

1992, "Yarımburgaz 1990", Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XIII (1991): 1-21.

Arsebük, G., M. Özbaşaran,
1995, "İstanbul'un En Eski Yerleşim Yeri: Yarımburgaz Mağaraları", Focus 2: 78-82.

2000, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası (1988-1990 Yılları) Pleistosen Arkeolojisi Çalışmaları", O. Belli (derl.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İ.Ü. Rektörlük Yayınları No: 4242, Ankara: 5-8.

Darlas, A.,
1995, "The Earliest Occupation of Europe: The Balkans", W.Roebroeks, T. Von Kolfschoten (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden Press, Leiden: 51-59.

Dinçer, B.,
2000, "Türkiye Prehistoryasının İlgilenilmemiş İki Alanı", Çapa-Mala 2: 6-8.

2001a, "Tekirdağ'da Yeni Bir Paleolitik Çağ Buluntu Yeri: Yatak", Çapa-Mala 3: 14-17.

2001b, "Trakya'da Yeni Bulunan Paleolitik Çağ Buluntu Yeri: Yatak", Bilim ve Ütopya 81: 72-77.

Esin, U.,
1994, "Yazı Öncesi Çağlar", Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi c: 7: 450-455.

Harmankaya, S., O. Tanındı,
1997, TAY-Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri c:1, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.

Jelinek, A. J.,
1980, "İstanbul Boğazı'nın Doğu Yakasındaki Vadilerden Paleolitik Buluntular", Çambel, Braidwood (derl.), Güneydoğu Anadolu Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, İ.Ü. Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, İstanbul: 309-315.

Kansu, Ş. A.,
1963, "Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya'da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar (1952-1962)", Belleten 27/108: 657-671.

Ljubin, V. P., G. Bosinski
1995, "The Earliest Occupation of the Caucasus Region", W. Roebroeks, T. Von Kolfschoten (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden Press, Leiden: 207-253.

Lowe, J. J., M. J. C. Walker,
1992, Reconstructing Quaternary Environments, Longman Scientific & Technical, London.

Özbek, M.,
2000, Dünden Bugüne İnsan, İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul.

Özdoğan, M.,
1982, "Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları", Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26/1: 37-49.

1983, "Trakya'da Tarihöncesi Araştırmaların Bugünkü Durumu ve Bazı Sorunlar", Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10/11: 21-58.

1985, "1983 Yılı Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları", Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II (1984): 221-232.

1986, "1984 Yılı Trakya ve Doğu Marmara Araştırmaları", Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı III (1985): 409-420.

1989, "1987 Edirne ve Balıkesir İlleri Yüzey Araştırması", Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı VI (1988): 571-590.

1990, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası", X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, TTK Basımevi: 373-388.

1996, "Tarihöncesi Dönemde Trakya. Araştırma Projesinin 16. Yılında Genel Bir Değerlendirme", Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 329-360.

1999, "Anadolu'dan Avrupa'ya Açılan Kapı Trakya", Arkeoloji ve Sanat 90: 2-28.

2000, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası 1986 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı", O. Belli (derl.) Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İ.Ü. Rektörlük Yayınları No: 4242, Ankara: 9-13.

2001, "Bir Buluntu Topluluğunun Düşündürdükleri", Bilim ve Ütopya 81: 73.

Schick, K. D., N. Toth,
1994, Making Silent Stones Speak, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Stiles, D.,
1979, "Paleolithic Culture and Culture Change: Experiment in Theory and Method", Current Anthropology 20/1: 1-21.

Taşkıran, H.,
1990, Biçimsel Tipoloji Açısından Anadolu İki Yüzeyli Aletleri, T.C. A.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Tarihi, Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi (yayınlanmamış).

Valoch, K.,
1968, "Evolution of the Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe", Current Anthropology 9/5: 351-390.

Yalçınkaya, I.,
1985, "Araştırmaların Işığında Anadolu Alt Paleolitiği ve Sorunlarına Genel Bir Bakış", Antropoloji 12: 395-435.

Yalçınkaya, I., M. Otte, H. Taşkıran, B. Kösem, K. Ceylan
1997, "1985-1995 Karain Kazıları Işığında Anadolu Paleolitiğinin Önemi", Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XVIII (1996): 1-9.

Wynn, T., W. McGrew,
1989, "An Ape's View of the Oldowan", Man 24: 383-398.

Bibliography for Pottery Making

This is the cited references in Pottery Making.

Cooper, E.,
1978, Seramik ve Çömlekçilik, Ö. Bakırer (Çev.), Remzi Kitabevi, Yönelim Dizisi: 2, İstanbul.

Erinç, S.,
1982, Jeomorfoloji – 1, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, No: 2931, İstanbul.

Güner, G.,
1988, Anadolu’da Yaşamakta Olan Çömlekçilik, Ak Yayınları, Kültür Serisi: 16-5, İstanbul.

Kapur, S.,
1984, “Toprak Biliminde X – Işınları Tekniği ve Arkeolojide Kullanım Olanakları”, Arkeometri Ünitesi Bilimsel Toplantı Bildirileri I (1980), TÜBİTAK Yayınları, No:591, Ankara: 220-230.

Özdoğan, M.,
1997, “Çanak-Çömlek”, Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: 1, Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları, İstanbul: 380-383.

Bibliography for Yatak 2

This is the cited references in Yatak 2.

Arsebük, G.,
1983, “Dip Pleistosen ve Kültür”, Anadolu Araştırmaları IX: 1-9.

1987, “İki Milyon Yıl Öncesinin Taş Aletleri”, Tarih ve Toplum 45: 37-41.

1995a, İnsan ve Evrim, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.

1995b, “‘İnsan’, ‘Evrim’, ‘Alet’”, TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 332: 18-24.

1995c, “‘İnsan’, ‘İnsanlık’ ve ‘Prehistorya’”, Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul: 11-26.

1996, “Trakya’da Eski Bir Yerleşim Yeri: Yarımburgaz Mağarası Alt Paleolitik Çağ Bulguları”, Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 33-50.

1998a, “A Review of the Current Status of Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey”, Light on Top of the Black Hill, G. Arsebük, M. Mellink, W. Schirmer (eds.), Ege Yayınları, İstanbul: 71-76.

1998b, “Yarımburgaz Mağarası; Pleistosen Arkeolojisi ile İlgili Son Çalışmalara 1997 Gözüyle Özet Bir Bakış”, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 1:8-25.

1999, “İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri”, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2: 31-49.

Arsebük, G., F. C. Howell, M. Özbaşaran,
1990, “Yarımburgaz 1988”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XI (1989): 9-18.

1991, “Yarımburgaz 1989”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XII (1990): 17-41.

1992, “Yarımburgaz 1990”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XIII (1991): 1-21.

Arsebük, G., M. Özbaşaran,
1995, “İstanbul’un En Eski Yerleşim Yeri: Yarımburgaz Mağaraları”, Focus 2: 78-82.

2000, “Yarımburgaz Mağarası (1988-1990 Yılları) Pleistosen Arkeolojisi Çalışmaları”, O. Belli (derl.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İ.Ü. Rektörlük Yayınları No: 4242, Ankara: 5-8.

Esin, U.,
1994, “Yazı Öncesi Çağlar”, Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi c: 7: 450-455.

Harmankaya, S., O. Tanındı,
1997, TAY-Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri c:1, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.

James, S. R.,
1989, “Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene” Current Anthropology 30/1: 1-26.

Jelinek, A. J.,
1980, “İstanbul Boğazı’nın Doğu Yakasındaki Vadilerden Paleolitik Buluntular”, Çambel, Braidwood (derl.), Güneydoğu Anadolu Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, İ.Ü. Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, İstanbul: 309-315.

Kansu, Ş. A.,
1963, “Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar (1952-1962)”, Belleten 27/108: 657-671.

1964, “Güneydoğu Anadolu ve ‘Chopper’, ‘Chopping-Tools’ Endüstrisi Hakkında”, Belleten 28/109:161-164.

Leakey, R., R. Lewin,
1998, Göl İnsanları, F. Baytok (Çev.), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları, Ankara.

Mithen, S.,
1999, Aklın Tarihöncesi, Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara.

Özdoğan, M.,
1982, “Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26/1: 37-49.

1983, “Trakya’da Tarihöncesi Araştırmaların Bugünkü Durumu ve Bazı Sorunlar”, Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10/11: 21-58.

1985, “1983 Yılı Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II (1984): 221-232.

1986, “1984 Yılı Trakya ve Doğu Marmara Araştırmaları”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı III (1985): 409-420.

1990, “Yarımburgaz Mağarası”, X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, TTK Basımevi: 373-388.

1996, “Tarihöncesi Dönemde Trakya. Araştırma Projesinin 16. Yılında Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 329-360.

2000, “Yarımburgaz Mağarası 1986 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı”, O. Belli (derl.) Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İ.Ü. Rektörlük Yayınları No: 4242, Ankara: 9-13.

Stiles, D.,
1979, “Paleolithic Culture and Culture Change: Experiment in Theory and Method”, Current Anthropology 20/1: 1-21.

Valoch, K.,
1968, “Evolution of the Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe”, Current Anthropology 9/5: 351-390.

Yalçınkaya, I.,
1985, “Araştırmaların Işığında Anadolu Alt Paleolitiği ve Sorunlarına Genel Bir Bakış”, Antropoloji 12: 395-435.

Yalçınkaya, I., M. Otte, H. Taşkıran, B. Kösem, K. Ceylan
1997, “1985-1995 Karain Kazıları Işığında Anadolu Paleolitiğinin Önemi”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XVIII (1996): 1-9.

Wynn, T., W. McGrew,
1989, “An Ape’s View of the Oldowan”, Man 24: 383-398.

Happy New Year!

Bibliography for Birds of the Halafian Culture

This is the cited references in Birds of the Halafian Culture.

Arsebük, G., F.C. Howell, M. Özbaşaran,
1990, “Yarımburgaz 1988”, XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 9-38.

Barış, S.,
1999, “Kuşların Genel Özellikleri”, Kuş Gözlem Okulu dersi, İstanbul 22-23 Mayıs 1999.

Bilgin, C. C.,
2000, “Gökyüzüne Dargın Kuşlar”, Gezi 29: 92-106.

Braidwood, R. J.,
1995, Tarihöncesi İnsan, B. Altınok (Çev.), Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Brooks, F., B. Gibbs,
2000, Kuşlar, M.T.Akay (Çev.), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları, Ankara.

Davidson, T. E., H. McKerrell,
1976, “Pottery Analysis and Halaf Period Trade in the Khabur Headwaters Region”, Iraq XXXVIII: 45-56.

Demiröz, Ş., (Yapımcı)
1998, Kuş Köşkleri, Film, 22 dakika, H.Y. Yenigün (Yönetmen), II. İstanbul Arkeoloji Filmleri Festivali, 4-7 Mayıs 1999.

Dolukhanov, P.,
1998, Eski Ortadoğu’da Çevre ve Etnik Yapı, S. Aydın (Çev.), İmge Kitapevi, Ankara.

Heinzel, H., R. Fitter, J. Parslow,
2002, Türkiye ve Avrupa'nın Kuşları, K. A. Boyla (Çev.), Doğal Hayatı Koruma Derneği, İstanbul.

Karagöz, S., O. Arıhan,
1999, “Kuşların Latince İsimlendirilmeleri ve Anlamları”, İbibik 1: 5-6.

Keşaplı, Ö.,
1999, “Baykuşlar”, İbibik 2: 3-4.

Maisels, C. K.,
1999, Uygarlığın Doğuşu; Yakındoğu’da Avcılık ve Toplayıcılıktan Tarıma, Kentlere ve Devlete Geçiş, A. Şenel (Çev.), İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, XXIV, Ankara.

Mallowan, M. E. L., J. C. Rose,
1935, “Excavations at Tell Arpachiyyah, 1933”, Iraq II: 1-178.

Merpert, N.Ya., R. M. Munchaev,
1993a, “Yarim Tepe II: The Halaf Levels”, N.Yoffee ve J.J.Clark (Derl.), Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization, Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson: 128-162.

1993b, “Yarim Tepe III: The Halaf Levels”, N.Yoffee ve J.J.Clark (Derl.), Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization, Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson: 163-205.

Müller-Karpe, H.,
1968, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte (Zweiter Band, Jungsteinseit Tafeln), C. H. Beckische Verlagsbuchhandlung, München.

von Oppenheim, M.,
1943, Tell Halaf, I Die Prähistorische Funde, Bearbeitet von Humert Schmidt, Walter de Grugterand Co., Berlin.

Özçelik, M. F.,
1994, “Anadolu’dan Dünya Doğasına Bir Nefes, Sultansazlığı”, TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 320: 54-61.

Özçelik, M. F., G. O. Aydemir,
1994, “Kuş Gözlemciliği”, TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 319: 44-51.

Özesmi, U.,
1999, “En Eski Sanatta Baykuş da Var!”, İbibik 2: 4.

Perkins, A. L.,
1957, The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Peterson, R., G. Mountfort, P. A. D. Hollon,
1969, A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe, Collins Clear-Type Press, London.

Bibliography for Yatak 1

This is the cited references in Yatak 1.

Arsebük, G.,
1983, “Dip Pleistosen ve Kültür”, Anadolu Araştırmaları IX: 1-9.

1995, “ ‘İnsan’, ‘İnsanlık’ ve ‘Prehistorya’ (Öznel Bir Deneme)”, Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul: 11-26.

1996, “Trakya’da Eski Bir Yerleşim Yeri: Yarımburgaz Mağarası Alt Paleolitik Çağ Bulguları”, Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 33-50.

1998, “A Review of the Current Status of Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey”, Arsebük, Mellink, Schirmer (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul: 71-76.

1999, "İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2: 31-49.

Arsebük, G., F. C. Howell, M. Özbaşaran,
1990, “Yarımburgaz 1988”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XI (1989): 9-18.

1991, “Yarımburgaz 1989”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XII (1990): 17-41.

1992, “Yarımburgaz 1990”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XIII (1991): 1-21.

Harmankaya, S., O. Tanındı,
1997, TAY-Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri c:1, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.

Jelinek, A. J.,
1980, “İstanbul Boğazı’nın Doğu Yakasındaki Vadilerden Paleolitik Buluntular”, Çambel, Braidwood (derl.), Güneydoğu Anadolu Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, İ.Ü. Ed. Fak. Basımevi, İstanbul: 309-315.

Kansu, Ş. A.,
1963, “Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar (1952-1962)”, Belleten 27/108: 657-671.

1964, “Güneydoğu Anadolu ve ‘Chopper’, ‘Chopping-Tools’ Endüstrisi Hakkında”, Belleten 28/109:161-164.

Leakey, R., R. Lewin,
1998, Göl İnsanları, F. Baytok (Çev.), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları, Ankara.

Özbek, M.,
2000, Dünden Bugüne İnsan, İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul.

Özdoğan, M.,
1983, “Trakya’da Tarihöncesi Araştırmaların Bugünkü Durumu ve Bazı Sorunlar”, Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10/11: 21-58.

1985, “1983 Yılı Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II (1984): 221-232.

1989, “1987 Edirne ve Balıkesir İlleri Yüzey Araştırması”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı VI (1988): 571-590.

1990, “Yarımburgaz Mağarası”, X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, TTK Basımevi: 373-388.

1996, “Tarihöncesi Dönemde Trakya. Araştırma Projesinin 16. Yılında Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 329-360.

Taşkıran, H., M. Kartal,
1999, “Karkamış Baraj Gölü Alanında Yapılan Paleolitik Çağ Yüzey Araştırması: İlk Gözlemler”, Tuna, Öztürk (derl), Ilısu ve Karkamış Baraj Gölleri Altında Kalacak Arkeolojik Kültür Varlıklarını Kurtarma Projesi 1998 Yılı Çalışmaları, Ünal Ofset, Ankara: 45-56.

Valoch, K.,
1968, “Evolution of The Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe”, Current Anthropology 9/5: 351-390.

Bibliography for Birds in Cultural History

This is the cited references in Birds in Cultural History.

Arsebük, G., F.C. Howell, M. Özbaşaran,
1990, "Yarımburgaz 1988", XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 9-38.

Aurenche, O., S. K. Kozlowski,
2000, "Continuité Convergences Influences et Innovations Dans la Préhistoire Récente de Mésopotamie", J. Guilaine (ed.), Premiers Paysans du Monde, Editions Errance, Paris: 83-95.

Avcı, M.,
2000, "Yeryüzünün Coğrafya Bölgeleri ve Türkiye'nin Yeri", Coğrafya Dergisi 8: 157-200.

Barış, S.,
1999, "Kuşların Genel Özellikleri", Kuş Gözlem Okulu dersi, İstanbul 22-23 Mayıs 1999.

Bilgin, C. C.,
2000, "Gökyüzüne Dargın Kuşlar", Gezi 29: 92-106.

Chauvet, J. M., E. B. Deschamps, C. Hillaire,
1995, La Grotte du Chauvet, Editions du Seuil, Paris.

Chiappe, M. L.,
1995, "The First 85 Million Years of Avian Evolution", Nature 378: 349-355.

Clottes, J.,
2001, "Chauvet Mağarası", National Geographic Türkiye Ağustos 2001: 150-168.

Çığ, M. İ.,
2000, Gilgameş, Kaynak Yayınları, İstanbul.

Dawkins, M. S.,
1999, Hayvanların Sessiz Dünyası, F. Baytok (Çev.), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları, Ankara.

Demiröz, Ş. (Yapımcı),
1998, Kuş Köşkleri, Film: 22 dakika, H. Y. Yenigün (Yönetmen), II. İstanbul Arkeoloji Filmleri Festivali, 4-7 Mayıs 1999.

Ertuğrul, Ö.,
1997, Mitoloji ve İkonografi, Dragon Yayıncılık, İstanbul.

Gürkan, Z.,
2001, "Doğal Sistemlerin Korunması ve Kuşlar", İbibik 1 (Temmuz 2001): 24-27.

Hauptmann, H.,
1999, "The Urfa Region", M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey Vol.: II (Plates), Arkeoloji ve Sanat, İstanbul: 37-55.

Heinzel, H., R. Fitter, J. Parslow,
2002, Türkiye ve Avrupa'nın Kuşları, K. A. Boyla (Çev.), Doğal Hayatı Koruma Derneği, İstanbul.

İslam Ansiklopedisi,
1964, "Nuh", İslam Ansiklopedisi Cilt: 9, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul: 344-346.

Kılıç, A.,
2002, "Sağlık Polisi Kara Akbaba", İbibik 2 (Nisan 2002): 25.

Mallowan, M. E. L., J. C., Rose,
1935, "Excavations at Tell Arpachiyyah, 1933", Iraq II: 1-178.

Mellaart, J.,
1975, The Neolithic of The Near East, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Merpert, N. Ya., R. M. Munchaev,
1993a, "Yarim Tepe II: The Halaf Levels", N. Yoffee, J. J. Clarc (Eds.), Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson: 128-162.

1993b, "Yarim Tepe III: The Halaf Levels", N. Yoffee, J. J. Clarc (Eds.), Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson: 163-205.

Müller-Karpe, H.,
1968, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte (Zweiter Band, Jungsteinzeit Tafeln), C. H. Beckische Verlagsbuchhandlung, München.

Özçelik, M. F.,
1994, "Anadolu'dan Dünya Doğasına Bir Nefes, Sultansazlığı", TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 320: 54-61.

1995, "Kuşların Yaşamı", TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 329:74-79.

Özçelik, M. F., G. O. Aydemir,
1994, "Kuş Gözlemciliği", TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 319: 44-51.

Özdoğan, M.,
2001, Türk Arkeolojisinin Sorunları ve Koruma Politikaları, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Özel, M.,
1998, Türkiye'nin Şaheserlerinden Örnekler, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara.

Özesmi, U.,
1999, "En Eski Sanatta da Baykuş Var!", İbibik 2 (Nisan 1999): 4.

Peterson, R., G. Mountfort, P. A. D. Hollon,
1969, A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe, Collins Clear-Type Press, London.

Schmidt, K.,
2000, "Göbekli Tepe and the Rock Art of the Near East", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi III: 1-14.

Spence, D.,
2000, Van Gogh; Sanat ve Duygular, S. Aydın (Çev.), Alkım Kitabevi, İstanbul.

Stordeur, D.,
2000, "Jerf el Ahmar et L'émergence du Néolithique au Proche Orient", J. Guilaine (ed.), Premiers Paysans du Monde, Editions Errance, Paris: 33-60.

Ünal, A.,
1999, The Hittites and Anatolian Civilizations, Etibank, İstanbul.

Yakar, J.,
1991, Prehistoric Anatolia; The Neolithic Transition and The Early Chalcolithic, Graphit Monographs, Jerusalem.

Walther, I. F.,
1993, Pablo Picasso; Yüzyılın Dahisi, A. Antmen (Çev.), ABC Kitabevi, İstanbul.

Wilson, E. O.,
2000, Doğanın Gizli Bahçesi, A. Biçen (Çev.), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları, Ankara.

Bibliography for Boxgrove

This is the cited references in Boxgrove.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/boxgrove/

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba18/ba18feat.html#roberts

http://freespace.virgin.net/mi.pope/mappingproject/raisedbeachhomep.htm

Photos: Mentese Hoyuk

Mentese Hoyuk, is one of the most important Neolithic sites in NW Anatolia.

©Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Gelibolu city dump was once a big Iron Age settlement

 

Iron Age settlement in Gallipoli, used as city dump...

©Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Bakla Burnu

Bakla Burnu in Gelibolu Peninsula yields Early Bronze Age remains...

Photos: Yarimburgaz Cave - inside

Inside the lower cave of Yarimburgaz Caves.
© Berkay Dinçer

Bibliography for Middle Pleistocene Environment at Yarımburgaz Cave

This is the cited references in Middle Pleistocene Environment at Yarımburgaz Cave.


Arsebük, G.,
1993, "Yarımburgaz, A Lower Paleolithic Cave Site Near Istanbul", Between the Rivers and Over The Mountains, M. Frangipiane, H. Hauptman, M. Liverani, D. Matthiac, M. Mellink (eds.), Roma, Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale: 23-36.

1995a, "'İnsan', 'İnsanlık' ve 'Prehistorya'", Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul: 11-26.

1995b, "En Eski 'İstanbullulara' Ait Belgeler", Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik 423: 11.

1995c, " 'İnsan', 'Evrim', 'Alet'", TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 332: 18-24.

1996, "Trakya'da Eski Bir Yerleşim Yeri: Yarımburgaz Mağarası Alt Paleolitik Çağ Bulguları", Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV: 33-50.

1998a, "A Review of the Current Status of Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey", G. Arsebük, M. Mellink, W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul: 71-76.

1998b, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası; Pleistosen Arkeolojisi İle İlgili Son Çalışmalara 1997, Gözüyle Özet Bir Bakış", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 1: 9-25.

1999, "İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2: 31-49.

Arsebük, G., F. C. Howell, M. Özbaşaran,
1990, "Yarımburgaz 1988", XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, TC Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 9-38.

1991, "Yarımburgaz 1989", XII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, TC Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 17-41.

1992, "Yarımburgaz 1990", XIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, TC Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 1-21.

Arsebük, G., M. Özbaşaran,
1994, "Yarımburgaz Mağaraları, Pleistosenden Bir Kesit", XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara: 17-25.

1995, "İstanbul'un En Eski Yerleşim Merkezi: Yarımburgaz Mağaraları", Focus 2: 78-82.

2000, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası (1988-1990 Yılları) Pleistosen Arkeolojisi Çalışmaları", O. Belli (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İÜ Rektörlük Yayınları, Ankara: 5-8.

Darlas, A.,
1995, "The Earliest Occupation of Europe: The Balkans", W. Roebroeks, T. von Kolfschoten (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden Press, Leiden: 51-59.

Dinçer, B.,
2000, "Türkiye Prehistoryasının İlgilenilmemiş İki Alanı", Çapa-Mala 2: 6-8.

2001, "Trakya'da Yeni Bulunan Paleolitik Çağ Buluntu Yeri: Yatak", Bilim ve Ütopya 81: 72-77.

Esin, U.,
1992, "İstanbul'un En Eski Buluntu Yerleri ve Kültürleri", S. Eyice Armağanı - İstanbul Yazıları, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, İstanbul: 55-71.

Farrand, W. R.,
1995, "Geoarchaeology of Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey", Actas 1: 19-36.

Farrand, W. R., J. P. McMahon,
1997, "History of Sedimentary Infilling of Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey", Geoarchaeology 12/6: 537-565.

Kunh, S.L., G. Arsebük, F. C. Howell,
1996, "The Middle Pleistocene Lithic Assemblage from Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey", Paléorient 22/1: 31-49.

Özbaşaran, M.,
1995, "Yarımburgaz Mağaraları", TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 332: 22.

Özdoğan, M.,
1983, "Trakya'da Tarihöncesi Araştırmaların Bugünkü Durumu ve Bazı Sorunlar", Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 10/11: 21-58.

1990, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası", X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara: 373-388.

1998, "Tarihöncesi Dönemlerde Anadolu ile Balkanlar Arasındaki Kültür İlişkileri ve Trakya'da Yapılan Yeni Kazı Çalışmaları", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 1: 63-93.

2000, "Yarımburgaz Mağarası 1986 Yılı Kurtarma Kazıları", O. Belli (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İÜ Rektörlük Yayınları, Ankara: 9-13.

2001, Türk Arkeolojisinin Sorunları ve Koruma Politikaları, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Santel, W., W. von Koenigswald,
1998, "Preliminary Report on the Middle Pleistocene Small Mammal Fauna from Yarimburgaz Cave in Turkish Thrace", Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 48: 162-169.

Stiner, M., H. Achyuthan, G. Arsebük, F. C. Howell, S. C. Josephson, K. E. Juell, J. Pigati, J. Quade,
1998, "Reconstructing Cave Bear Paleoecology from Skeletons: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Middle Pleistocene Bears from Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey", Paleobiology 24/1: 74-98.

Stiner, M., G. Arsebük, F. C. Howell,
1996, "Cave Bears and Paleolithic Artifacts in Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey: Dissecting a Palimpsest", Geoarchaeology 11/4:279-327.

Yalçınkaya, I.,
1985, "Araştırmaların Işığında Anadolu Alt Paleolitiği ve Sorunlarına Genel Bir Bakış", Antropoloji 12: 395-435.

Bibliography for Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey

This is the cited references in Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey.

Arsebük, Güven, 1995
"'İnsan', 'İnsanlık' ve 'Prehistorya'", Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul: 11-26.

Arsebük, Güven, 1998a
"A Review of the Current Status of Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey", G. Arsebük, M. Mellink and W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul: 71-76.

Arsebük, Güven, 1998b
"Yarımburgaz Mağarası; Pleistosen Arkeolojisi ile İlgili Son Çalışmalara 1997 Gözüyle Özet Bir Bakış", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 1: 8-25.

Arsebük, Güven, 1999
"İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2: 31-49.

Bibliography for Bio-cultural Evolution of the Man

This is the cited references in Bio-cultural Evolution of the Man.

Ardos, M.,
1996, Jeolojik Temel Bilgiler, İ.Ü. Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, İstanbul.
Arsebük, G.,
1987, “İki Milyon Yıl Öncesinin Taş Aletleri”, Tarih ve Toplum 45: 37-41.
1995a, “ ‘İnsan’, ‘İnsanlık’ ve ‘Prehistorya’ (Öznel Bir Deneme)”, Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul: 11-26
1995b, İnsan ve Evrim, Ege Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
1999, "İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2: 31-49.
Darwin, C.,
1995, İnsanın Türeyişi, Ö. Ünalan (Çev), Onur Yayınları, Ankara.
Dinçer, B.,
2001, “Trakya’da Yeni Bulunan Paleolitik Çağ Buluntu Yeri: Yatak”, Bilim ve Ütopya 81: 72-77. [Yazıyı görmek için tıklayın]
James, S. R.,
1989, “Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene”, Current Anthropology 30/1: 1-26.
Leakey, R., R. Lewin,
1998, Göl İnsanları, F.Baytok (Çev.), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları, Ankara.
Lewin, R.,
1999, Modern İnsanın Kökeni, N. Özüaydın (Çev.), TÜBİTAK, İstanbul.
McClain, T.,
2000, “Unearthing Past Lives”, Washington University in Saint Louis Winter 2000: 20-24.
Mithen, S.,
1999, Aklın Tarihöncesi, İ. Kutluk (Çev.), Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara.
Özbek, M.,
2000, Dünden Bugüne İnsan, İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul.
Schick, K. D., N. Toth,
1994, Making Silent Stones Speak, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Stiles, D.,
1979, “Paleolithic Culture and Culture Change: Experiment in Theory and Method”, Current Anthropology 20/1: 1-21.

Birds of the Halafian Culture

Berkay Dinçer

Ornithology and Archaeology
Birds are bio-indicator animals. It means that they reflect very much about the environment they live. Presence or absence of some certain bird species gives very much information about the ecosystem. There are nearly ten thousand bird species living in the entire world and nearly 450 of them are observed in Turkey. For the archaeologist, bird bones found at ancient sites, can give a lot of information about the environment and catchment areas of the past humans. Humans also made many images of birds in the prehistoric art. Most famous drawings of birds from Anatolia are from Çatalhöyük. There are vulture (Gyps fulvus or Aegypius monachus) pictures on the walls of the houses. Birds have also a great role in the mythologies of later times.

Halafian Culture
Halafian culture, dated between 7000-6400 years BP, was existed in the region between the eastern Mediterranean coast and the Zagros Mountains. Clay analysis showed that painted pottery of the Halafian culture was produced in certain settlements and distributed to other sites. Some of the most important Halafian settlements are Tell Arpachiyyah, Tell Halaf, Tell Aswad, Tell Brak, Nineveh and in Turkey; Kargamış, Yunus, Cavi Tarlası and Grikihaciyan.

I just tried to find if I can draw some conclusions about the bird drawings from the painted pottery of the Halafian culture. I have just read these texts that you can find their full bibliography in the Turkish page: Mallowan-Rose 1935, Merpert-Munchaev 1993a, 1993b, Müller-Karpe 1968, and Oppenheim 1943. Those bibliographies were about Tell Arpachiyyah, Yarim Tepe I and II, Tepe Gaura and Tell Halaf.

Images of Birds in Painted Pottery
Some of the bird drawings were so stylistic that I couldn’t be sure what they are. The birds that I am sure about are flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber), stork (Ciconia ciconia or nigra), spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), eagle owl (Bubo bubo), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), and swan (Cygnus olor). Some others that I am not very sure about are snow goose (Anser caerulescens), black-winged stilt (Himantopus himantopus) and eagle.

Distribution of the Halafian culture includes the region of main bird migration routes. So we can divide "birds of the Halafian culture" into three main groups: Summer immigrants, winter immigrants and trajectory birds.

As archaeologists find bird bones at the excavation, the bones could be related only to the diet. But on the pottery, we can find birds that were not only eaten. We can find the ideas of ancient people in the drawings. So those drawings must have a meaning to the people who drew them on the pottery. We must keep in mind that this meaning can change through time and culture. In some of the drawings, we can define the bird species easily, because they are drawn naturalistically. This means that Halafian people observed the nature very carefully. Four bird species that I am sure what they are, includes flamingo, grebe, swan and spoonbill which live in the lakes and swamps. This means that the Halafian people had close relations with those kinds of ecosystems. As a general result, understanding the birds of the past cultures may shed light into the past environments, diets and uses of natural areas as well as the mythologies.

Birds in Cultural History

Berkay Dinçer
Modern archaeology, says the author, considers cultures together with their natural surroundings. Birds, as part of this natural environment, feature in archaeological studies for two reasons: Firstly, analysing bird bones found on the site can provide a fair idea on how the surroundings were at the time to which these bones belong to. Secondly, even though images of species may or may not mean that those species were to be found in the region, they will definitely be indicators of the way those societies view their environments and the birds.

Berkay Dincer also discusses the importance of bird in different cultures by relating many examples of prehistoric and historic images of birds, both from Turkey and from around the world. An insight on the use of birds as symbols throughout history brings the article to a close.

This abstract in English was originally published in the bulletin of Turkish Bird Research Society IBIBIK in the year 2002, Number 3, page 31.

Two Domains in Prehistory of Turkey That Have Not Been Interested

Berkay Dinçer

In Turkish universities there are Classical Archaeology, Protohistory and Prehistory sections. Prehistory is the most uninterested section of archaeology among the students in Turkish universities and also among common people. The reason for this indifference is, probably, that the finds of Prehistory are less effective than the finds of other sections of archaeology. Archaeologists, truly says that, importance of a find changes according to answers that the find gives. But actually, it is not so clear. For common people, importance of a find changes with the mine that the find made of and for archaeologists it changes according to the answers, but answers of popular questions! For example, the popular question of prehistory nowadays is, neolithization.

But mankind has a longer age than Neolithic and all ages up to now: Paleolithic. The longest age that the mankind has ever had is Paleolithic, but nobody knows it very well. Because it is not popular to be interested in Pleistocene archaeology especially in Turkey. In Turkey there is another prehistory domain that has rarely been interested except Pleistocene archaeology, Thrace archaeology. Thrace archaeology is interested in Neolithic and later ages. Because of lack of magnificent mounds in Thrace -like Anatolia- Thrace archaeology is in the same status with Pleistocene archaeology. So we can understand importance of finds! But we should not be hopeless. In Thrace, we have already a systematic survey and a site like Asagi Pinar -the widest excavated site for Middle Chalcolithic in the Balkans- and for Pleistocene archaeology, we have an excavated Yarimburgaz Cave -the oldest stratified site yet known in Turkey, dating middle of the Middle Pleistocene- and Karain Cave which is still being excavated -the only fossil man (a Neanderthal) physical remains found in Turkey, all phases of Paleolithic is represent. We have a lot to be hopeless and also a lot to hope for Pleistocene and Thrace archaeologies.

Obsidian and Fission Track

Berkay Dinçer

Archaeometry is a connection between archaeology and natural sciences and helps archaeology to have scientific and correct information. In Turkey archaeometry was founded in 1980s by a group of prehistorian and Near Eastern archaeologists. First investigations were concentrated on archaeo-metallurgy, geophysics, geomorphology and radiology. In the next stage of the development of archaeometry in Turkey, pottery descriptions took place using methods like source analyses and thermoluminesance. In 1985 an archaeometry section was added to the International Symposium of Excavations and Surveys, organised by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture. Than archaeo-metallurgy lessons have started in the university of Bogazici, METU and ITU. As a result of development of archaeometry in Turkey, an archaeometry section was founded in METU.

Obsidian can be in colours grey, brown, black, green and red. It is a natural volcanic glass. But we can not see obsidian in all volcanic areas. Obsidian spreads in only young volcanic areas. For this reason Anatolia has rich obsidian resources. Anatolian obsidian was used in everywhere of the Near East since 14 thousand years BP. With its physical and chemical structure its source can easily be found. This property make archaeologists able to separate all Near East into different regions according to the obsidian used. Obsidian can be dated with the methods fission track, hydration and thermoluminesance.

Fission tracks in obsidian are being made with fission of Uranium 238. Fission track method can be used for dating obsidian and human made glass in all cultural stages of humankind including 20 years ago. Minerals like sphene, zircon, apetite; mineral including pottery, human made glass, obsidian tools, fire places and burned stones and soil can be dated with fission track method. To find geological date of an obsidian piece with fission track method (for finding out its source), the piece should not be fired. In archaeological sites, it is not so easy to find a unfired piece of obsidian artifact. Because tool-makers usually fired obsidian for an unknown reason. With fire, fission tracks that have been constituted after its first existence, are being erased. So we can only find tracks constituted after its firing.

Middle Pleistocene Environment at Yarimburgaz Cave

Berkay Dinçer

The data came from the archaeological excavations of the Cave of Yarimburgaz (near the city of Istanbul, northwestern Turkey), dated roughly 400 kyrs, obtained a well preserved statigraphy for a very long time in the middle of the Middle Pleistocene.

The excavations of the cave have yielded 1600 culturally Lower Paleolithic artifacts. There are no bifacials and levallois technique used flakes. The industry is generally characterized by small flakes with retouch. There are some chopper and chopping tools, but not so many. The tolls seems very primitive but they are very functional. No human remains found, but possible Homo erectus occupied the cave.

The faunal assemblage in the cave is mainly of bears that used the cave for hibernation. There are two co-extant bear species: Ursus deningeri (cave bear) and Ursus arctos (brown bear). Bear bones shows that all of the bears in the cave died from nonviolent reasons. The bones of the bears and other animals show no sign of human activity. This shows that the occupation of cave by human groups and other animals occurred in different times. Before the excavations of the cave, the distribution of the Middle Pleistocene cave bear (Ursus deningeri) did not contain eastern Balkans and Thrace. Yarimburgaz excavations showed that the cave bear existed in this region in the Middle Pleistocene.

Herbivores like Equus caballus, Equus hemionus (?), Capreolus aff. sussenbornensis, Dama sp., Cervus elaphus, Megalocero ssp., cf. Bos primigenius, Bison cf. priscus, Sus scrofa, Capra aff. aegagrus, Capra cf. ibex, Gazella sp. and pachyderm existed in the cave deposits. Herbivores are not very much in number. But it is interesting that they show a very high variation. Probable, those bones was carried to the cave by nonursid carnivores like Pantera (leo and possible pardus), Felis (caracal and sylvestris), Crocuta crocuta, Canis lupus, Vulpes spp., and Canis aureus (?). The investigation of small mamalian fauna from the cave showed that the cave sediments can be dated to a cold era in the Middle Pleistocene.

Hassuna

Berkay Dinçer

Hassuna lies 22 miles south of Mousul and was found by Fuad Safar in 1942. Its height reaches 7 meters above the valley that it lies on and occupational debris show a 200x150-meter rectangle. Excavations were undertaken at the campaigns of the years 1943 and 1944. The earliest evidences of a farming society in all over the world were found in the oldest levels of Hassuna (Ia, Ib and Ic). Despite no architectural remain was found in the oldest layers, it could be presupposed that a semi-nomadic society occupied the site and, according to the ashes of campfires found, lived in a kind of tent. At level II, remains of walls reach nearly 1 meter but it is still questionable that settlement planned. As a general view, we can suppose that, building tradition developed chronologically in the Hassuna sequence.

Prehistoric pottery of Hassuna can be divided into five ware groups. Coarse ware is generally made of straw tempered clay. This is the earliest pottery of Hassuna. Husking trays are oval shaped. The majority of the earliest bowls are burnished outside. Burnishing could be made with a pebble. Both coarse and burnished wares are seen in the earliest and second levels. Archaic painted ware is seen mostly in the levels Ic and II. Number of this ware group decreases in the level III and it totally disappears in the level IV. Hassuna standard ware, divided into incised, painted and both painted and incised groups. These ware groups reach their peak in levels IV and V.

Stone tools do not seem as qualified as those found at Jarmo. Both obsidian and flint were used to make tools. Turquoise is perhaps imported. Beads, pendants and some small ornaments exist. Figurines are most commonly shaped in the "mother goddess" type and made of baked clay.

Asagi Pinar

Berkay Dinçer

Asagi Pinar was found in 1980 survey. But excavation could start in 1993 as a result of the co-operation with Herman Parzinger from German Archaeology Institute. Today Asagi Pinar is the widest excavated area (over 3000 squaremeter) for the ages 6200- 7200 BP in South-eastern Europe. Also Asagi Pinar is the widest prehistoric site yet known in Eastern Thrace. Neolithic is excavated in a very small area but it is clear that Asagi Pinar is the last site of Karanovo I on the east (yet known).

Two of seven phases are dating Neolithic Age, four phases are dating Lower and Middle Chalcolithic Periods and the last prehistoric phase is dating to Earlier Maritsa Culture. Wood is the main architectural material in all phases of Asagi Pinar and was used in some phases in the same architectural technique and in some phases in a different way. Architectural remains that were found during the excavation are still alive in some regions of Thrace. According to this living architectural tradition, three houses were built on Asagi Pinar excavation area with experimental archaeology methods.

The results that have been reached up to now are, that pottery colour did not change all at once with transition to Chalcolithic from Neolithic and the relation between Anatolian End Neolithic cultures and Thracian Earlier Neolithic cultures should be reviewed. But this relation can only be reviewed with more excavations in Thrace.

Intelligence of the Neanderthals

Berkay Dinçer

In archaeological record, it is not always possible to find traces of cognitive behaviors of fossil humans. Such cognitive traces are probably the most difficult remains to understand by archaeologists. At the present state of knowledge, there is no certain criteria to define these behaviors. Usually, non-utilitarian artifacts accepted as the signs of this concept. But sometimes, it is not easy to differ non-utilitarian and utilitarian. For example Upper Paleolithic decorated arrow throwers are something like this. Personal adornments, burials and "art" have great value to understand cognitive behaviors of past humans.

Many of the archaeologists think that such cognitive behaviors first appeared as an explosion in the Upper Paleolithic with genus Homo sapiens sapiens. We can name this idea as the "traditional thought". For the traditional sight such cognitive behaviors like art etc. have close relations with anatomically modern humans. Therefore they believe that there is no evidence of this kind of behaviors before Homo sapiens sapiens. They categorize all other fossil humans as they had no such intelligence like modern humans had. We may say that this traditional sight has very close relations with religious ideas.

On the other hand, there are also some archaeologists who suggest a cumulative development of cognitive behaviors through time. If we talk about "art" and its emergence, we can say first "artists" were stone-tool makers who flaked rocks symmetrically in the Lower Paleolithic. We should re-evaluate traditional sight to understand cognitive evolution. Because it is not logic to connect all cognitive behaviors to Homo sapiens sapiens. We accept that before anatomically modern humans evidences of such behaviors are very rare. But there are at least some evidences. In modern archaeology we cannot see rare evidences as the evidence of low intellectual capacity of pre-modern humans.

As we do not know much about ideas of Lower Paleolithic humans, we can say that the oldest evidences of such cognitive behaviors are from the Neanderthals. Burials are the most significant evidences about that subject. Oldest burials are dated to the beginning of the Würm glacial. Burials point to sensational relations between humans. Burying is so common among the Neanderthals that up to date more than 20 individuals found with all bones of their body. Before burials, it was not easy to find full skeletons of humans. Some of the archaeologists suggest that the burying is only a hygienic way of hiding the dead bodies because there were many predators to come just for these. But burial gifts which started in the later phases of this behavior shows that it is more sensational and cognitive than hygienic. Nearly 30 percent of Neanderthal burials have gifts. In the Upper Paleolithic, this percentage is 90. Most famous Neanderthal burials are found at Shanidar (Iraq), La Ferrasie, La Moustier, La Chapelle-aux-Saints (France), Teshik Tash (Uzbekistan) and Dederiyeh (Syria). 183 Neanderthal individuals found in graves which is more than 50% of total Neanderthal remains yet found.

Prehistoric art is very hard to define. Because it is very different from the modern art. Prehistoric art is figurative and symbolic. As commonly accepted, it first appeared  in the Upper Paleolithic (40-30 thousand years ago). Up to the discovery of Chauvet Cave (France). it was thought that art developed gradually from primitive to naturalistic. But at Chauvet Cave, which is the oldest prehistoric art site yet known, images are drawn very naturalistically. So, it is now certain that art did not appear as an explosion; it has roots before the Upper Paleolithic. There are not many "artistic" objects in the Middle and Lower Paleolithic but we should see Neanderthals and Homo erectus as the embryo of the artist as André Langaney  said.

Oldest "artistic" objects of the Lower Paleolithic, are from Bilzingsleben (Germany) which is nearly 350 thousand years old. Those are engravedbone pieces. Robert Bednarik calls these "concept-mediated marking"s and for him, those are evidences of a more gradual evolution of cognitive faculties beginning in the Lower Paleolithic. In the Middle Paleolithic there are more evidences. Neanderthals occupied Oceania nearly 60 thousand years ago and since 45-40 thousand years there were a kind of "rock art" in that part of the world. as most of the world is not very well researched for the Pleistocene cultures, we can assume that there are more to discover about cognitive behaviors of pre-modern humans.

As we say "prehistoric art", most people think only about cave art or figurines but we must include music too. We cannot hear songs they singed but we can find musical instruments of that times. The oldest flute yet known is from Divje Babe I (Slovenia) and dated back to 43 thousand years.

If we talk about the figurines, most probably the oldest "figurine" is Berekhat Ram from the Golan Highs. It is found in a layer which is dated between 800 and 233 thousand years. It is a tuff piece that has naturally a shape of woman. It is probably carved by humans to give this shape a further meaning. There are also some beads and amulets from Arcy-sur-Cure which is dated to a period between 45-38 thousand years ago. At that time two human species, the Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were occupying the Europe. For that reason, it is still not clear which of them made this finds. There are also some other finds like these from Tata (Hungary) and La Ferrasie (France) too.

It is commonly accepted that Upper Paleolithic art appeared as an explosion with the anatomically modern humans. Most of the archaeologists working on this subject accept that the prehistoric art has close relations with Homo sapiens sapiens. As R. Bednarik said, this idea has its roots in the euro-centrism because for this theory art first appeared in Europe. But in modern archaeology, it is not possible to make correlations between art and distinct human species. Because cognitive behaviors cannot be related to certain biological nor anatomical features. Or we can say, that the Neanderthals were very close to Homo sapiens sapiens for the cognitive abilities.

From the first discovery, the Neanderthals used to be imagined as "ape-like" primitive cave men. Most of the people still think that they are a dead-end in human evolution and they were not ancestors of modern man. Common ideas about them should be changed because they had a very important culture and they were "human" as much as us. As our scientific knowledge expands we will be able to understand them better. I believe that the Neanderthals were very much like us and they were as "intelligent" as us.

Yatak (A Lower Paleolithic Site in Turkish Thrace)

Berkay Dinçer

B. Dincer found Yatak in the year 2000. The site is situated in the village called Karansilli (nearly 30 kilometres on the west of the modern city of Tekirdag; nearly 100 kilometres west of Istanbul) and about 230 m above the sea level. According to find concentration, its dimension is about 60x75 meters. The geographical distribution of stones such as quartz, quartzite, flint and chert is very common in the province of Tekirdag. Artefacts that we found in Yatak, are generally made of these types of stones.


The reason for us to discover Yatak was a stone cluster including Paleolithic artefacts that collected by the owner of the field (find spot is in a field). We did only surface collection four times in the year 2000. We could not visit Yatak in the year 2001, but in 2002 we went there, collected nothing because of the stone cluster was destructed by villagers and the field was full of crops. No excavation is done at the site. According to our point of view, no excavation is needed because of the findings are not in situ, artefacts are in a secondary position; they are carried from somewhere else. As a result of this, there is no stratigraphy. This position explains why we have found a biface among chopper/chopping tools.

As a result of our "non-systematic" collections based mostly collecting from the stone cluster, we can say that chopper/chopping tools dominate the "known" lithic assemblage of Yatak. G. Arsebuk, of Istanbul University, says that Yatak chopper/ chopping tools seem like older than ones found in Yarimburgaz excavations (a cave site in Istanbul, dated to the middle of the Middle Pleistocene ca. >300.000 -nearly 400.000 years BP).

The most important find of Yatak is a bifacial hand axe that is the first and only biface of Turkish Thrace yet known. There is no biface in the Yarimburgaz assemblage. The "hand axe" found in Davutpasa (Istanbul) by one of the grounders of the Turkish Pleistocene archaeology, S. Aziz Kansu, is a very suggestive artefact and the surveys conducted in the year 1980 showed that found tools couldn't be connected to any known Paleolithic tool producing tradition. This obtains us to suppose that the biface of Yatak is the first and the only bifacial artefact. While bifaces were very widespread in Near East and Anatolia, we do not know what was happening in Thrace. It is very interesting that until the discover of Yatak, there was no biface known in Thrace anyway we know some from Istanbul and Kefken, just nearly 100 kilometres away.

When we found the biface in the stone cluster, we thought a communication between a "biface using" community from the east of the Bosphorus and a "chopper/chopping tool using" local community. Because we found only a biface, not two or more. But that was totally wrong. Because as M. Ozdogan of Istanbul University, says that this two very different types of artefacts cannot be belonging to the same cultural era.

In Pleistocene archaeology, mostly in the Lower Paleolithic, typological evidence is not enough to date artefacts. Chopper/chopping tools were being used nearly two million years without any change in their typology. Yatak finds are totally from the Lower Paleolithic era and Lower Paleolithic begins ca. 2 million years BP and ends nearly 220 thousand years BP. We suggest that the oldest artefact type of Yatak (chopper/ chopping tools) can be dated to Gunz-Mindel (Cromer) interglacial (beginning of the Middle Pleistocene). This suggestion suits to the dates of other Lower Paleolithic find spots in the Balkans and the thought of G. Arsebuk that Yatak finds are older than the ones found in Yarimburgaz. Dating of the biface is more doubtful because of the known bifaces in the Balkans and in Istanbul is not very well dated. Our suggestion is Mindel-Riss (Holstein) or Riss-Wurm (Eem) interglacial stages. Because bifaces found in Turkey had been used in interglacial stages, that people can live in open-air sites.

Until the discovery of Yatak, there was no Paleolithic find spot known in inner Thrace. All known Paleolithic evidence of Thrace was from Istanbul, therefore the thought for the Paleolithic of Thrace was that all Paleolithic evidences were destroyed by geological reasons. The discovery of Yatak points the lack of surveys and investigations in Thrace and also that some Paleolithic evidence can be still available. Our point of view is that at least in the province of Tekirdag, Paleolithic was very magnificent and some Paleolithic evidence is still available if any Paleolithic research will be done. Researches should be done very quickly because intensive agricultural activities and urbanisation are destructing the cultural heritage in Thrace. In the village of Karansilli, researches should find out the exact limits of the Paleolithic find spot/ spots (?) and the position of bifacial artefacts.

Pleistocene Archaeology in Turkey

Berkay Dinçer

In Turkey, Paleolithic man has settled since the oldest stages of Paleolithic Age. Anatolia and Thrace is very rich for Paleolithic sites. However Turkish archaeologists are not very interested in the Pleistocene archaeology. As a result of this, intensity of known Paleolithic sites are not equally dispersed. We have a huge amount of Paleolithic sites in regions like Euphrates basin, Ankara, Istanbul and Antalya environs. But also in this regions, we have not got a clear view of the Paleolithic. Other places in Turkey are not very well investigated. Also some of known sites have yielded only a few artifacts. With this uninvestigated status, we only have a very little information of Pleistocene fauna and more less information of the flora.

The first artifact of the Paleolithic of Turkey was published in 1894 by J.E. Gautier. That was a biface found in Birecik/Urfa. But the oldest samples yet known according to typology, are coming from Eskini/Sefini and Aktas. They were pebble tolls. But we have no archaeometric date of these finds. With the foundation of Turkish Republic, archaeology investigations became more important. The age between the years 1930- 1960, was the "golden age" for the investigations and foundation time of Pleistocene archaeology in Turkey. S. A. Kansu, K. Kokten, M. Senyurek, E. Bostanci was the founders and we can not evaluate the status of Pleistocene archaeology in Turkey without giving due credit to them.

Lower Paleolithic is well presented both in Anatolia and Thrace. Acheul industries are widespread in Anatolia but we have very less bifaces in north-western Anatolia and Thrace. But the first biface of Turkish Thrace was found in a very new discovered Lower Paleolithic site (Yatak). As a result of the excavations which had been done in the oldest stratified site of Turkey, Yarimburgaz Cave, in Thrace we have Clactonian flakes and chopper, chopping tolls industries. Middle Paleolithic artifacts are usually named Moustier in whole Turkey. Points, scrapers and flakes -some produced using the Levallois technique- are very common. Most of the Middle Paleolithic artifacts were collected from surface and only a few sites excavated -especially Karain Cave and some caves in Hatay. Upper Paleolithic is very well presented in south-eastern Anatolia, Marmara region and Mediterreinan coast. We can define Upper Paleolithic artifacts as Aurignac. End and side scrapers, points, burins, perforators and blades and blade cores are present like in Europe, but we have no Upper Paleolithic knives in Turkey.

In spite of Paleolithic of Turkey is not very well investigated, we have well stratified Paleolithic caves of Yarimburgaz and Karain. In Karain Cave the only fossil man remain of Turkey (a Neanderthal) was found. All Paleolithic layers (Lower, Middle and Upper) are present in Karain Cave. Yarimburgaz Cave is the best investigated Paleolithic site in Turkey. The oldest layer of human artifacts are dated Middle of Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400.000 years ago). Number of human artifacts is over 1600 and there is no Acheul style biface. So we have a lot to be hopeful for Turkish Pleistocene archaeology.

"Magic"

Berkay Dinçer

In Turkey anybody has not done a study about religion in prehistoric ages. I say "magic" instead of the word "religion" in this article because it was not a really religion at that prehistoric ages. But I am sure that as time passes the "magic" became our "holly" religions. When "magic" got rules, books and -of course- prophets and great gods, I name it religion. I mean all of our believes are coming from the believes of Middle and Upper Paleolithic Ages. While believing our "holly" religions, we should consider the evolution of human mind. Some people, whose beliefs are very strong, say that the god of Muslims has sent over 25 thousand of prophets and the cave art and other prehistoric belief evidences are the wrong versions of their "true" religions. Anyway we have not found the true version yet -I guess we will never be able to.

In the Middle Paleolithic we can see the evidence of burials and cannibalism. Neanderthals have shown that they have given a value to their death friends while burying them. The oldest Neanderthal burials are dated to the beginning of the Wurm glacial. In Neanderthal burials, men have burial gifts but women and children do not. In Shanidar (Iraq), some useful plants were found in a burying pit. This sample also shows how Neanderthals were using the nature. Neanderthals had also made cannibalism. We know this from some of sites like Krapina (Yugoslavia), Monte Circeo and Saccopastore (Italy). In Drahenloch Cave (Sweden) Neanderthals had put skull of seven bears in a stone sarcophagus orienting their faces to the entrance of the cave.

Upper Paleolithic is very famous for the wall relieves and paintings. These paintings and relieves are magical art objects. These kind of art and magic objects are concentrated in the north Spain and south France. Paintings are usually painted naturally dark places in the depth of the cave. This information means that the cave art was not made for seeing them. So they could be made just for magic.

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

 

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Bibliography for Bursa Archaeological Settlements

This is the cited references in Bursa Archeological Settlements (1).

Bigazzi, G., M. Oddone, Z. Yeğingil,
1995, “A Provenance Study of Obsidian Artifacts from Ilıpınar”, The Ilıpınar Excavations I, Uitgave van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, İstanbul: 143-149.

Canew
http://canew.org/sw14cbox.html

Efe, T.,
2000, “Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskişehir İlleri Yüzey Araştırmaları ve Orman Fidanlığı Kurtarma Kazıları”, Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara: 118-122

French, D.,
1967, “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia – I The Iznik Area”, Anatolian Studies 17: 49-100.

Harmankaya, S., O. Tanındı, M. Özbaşaran,
1997, TAY - Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri C: 2, Neolitik, Ege Yayınları:, İstanbul.

Kayan, İ.,
1995, "The Geomorphological Environment of the Ilıpınar Mound", The Ilıpınar Excavations I, Uitgave van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, İstanbul: 17-33.

Özdoğan, M.,
2002, “Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Çağ”, ArkeoAtlas 1: 66-82

Özdoğan, M.,
1985, “1984 Yılı Trakya ve Doğu Marmara Araştırmaları”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı III, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 409-420.

Roodenberg, J. J.,
1995, "Introduction to the Project", The Ilıpınar Excavations I, Uitgave van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, İstanbul: 1-7.

TAY Projesi,
www.tayproject.org

Thissen, L. C.,
2000, Early Village Communnities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500-5500 cal BC (Studies in Cronology and Culture Contact), Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Leiden University, Leiden.

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

From the exhibition: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias in Yapi Kredi, Istanbul.

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

Bibliography for Hassuna

This is the cited references in Hassuna.

Abdul-Aziz, M., J. Slipka,
1966, "Twins from Tell Hassuna", Sumer 22: 45-50.

Braidwood, R. J.,
1995, Tarihöncesi İnsan, B. Altınok (Çev.), Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Lloyd, S.,
1963, Mounds of The Near East, The Edinburg University Press, Chicago.

Lloyd, S., F. Safar,
1945, "Tell Hassuna Excavations By The Iraq Government Directorate General of Antiquities in 1943 and 1944", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4: 255-289.

Maisels, C. K.,
1999, Uygarlığın Doğuşu (Yakındoğu'da Avcılık ve Toplayıcılıktan Tarıma, Kentlere ve Devlete Geçiş), A. Şenel (Çev.), İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, XXIV, Ankara.

Mellaart, J.,
1975, The Neolithic of The Near East, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Bibliography for Asagi Pinar

This is the cited references in Asagi Pinar.


Özdoğan, M., 1998
"Tarihöncesi Dönemlerde Anadolu ile Balkanlar Arasındaki Kültür İlişkileri ve Trakya'da Yapılan Yeni Kazı Çalışmaları", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi (TÜBA-AR) 1: 63-93.

Özdoğan, M., 1999
"Anadolu'dan Avrupa'ya Açılan Kapı Trakya", Arkeoloji ve Sanat 90: 2-28.

Özdoğan, M., H. Parzinger, N. Karul, 1999
"Kırklareli Höyüğü 1997 Yılı Kazısı", XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı c:I, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: 139-164.

Bird symbolism in Warqa wa Gulshah

Warqa and Gulshah is a love story which was written as a book with miniatures in early 13th (or late 12th) century AD. This is an Islamic story which has lots of saddening details inside.

Miniatures used to explain story in a different way. Sometimes miniatures helped to clarify the text, and sometimes they have meaning that is not present in the text. There are lots of birds in the miniatures of the book. A. Daneshvari published 25 miniatures including bird symbols in his/her book Animal Symbolism in Warqa wa Gulshah in 1986.

The Archaeological Settlements of Bursa - BAY Project

The BAY (Archaeological Settlements of Bursa) Project aims to document archaeological settlements and monuments which still resists to the destructive effects of time in Bursa province and share archaeological information with the public.

An archaeological heritage inventory of Bursa (nor another city in Turkey) has never been made before. Especially in last decades, due to the increase of urbanization, mechanizing of agriculture and illegal treasure hunting excavations in our province and country, many archaeological sites of Bursa and Turkey are destructed.

Nevertheless many sites are coming face to face with destruction that made by human hand or nature. The most important step we have to take to stop this process and save the heritage is to collect and compile cultural heritage information to establish a central inventory. Inventory studying have to be completed as soon as possible, the destruction (agriculture, urbanization and illicit excavation) of sites have to be prevented and public needs to be informed on this matters.

BAY Project is continuing to constitute the inventory of archaeological sites. At BAY Project web site which is available since 2004;

You can find,

-Settlement information regarding Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (only in Turkish),

-Information regarding to the fieldwork (only in Turkish).

The basic aim of the fieldwork which are conducted by BAY Project is not to examine of excavations and surveys. But it is interested in to how archaeological sites were damaged during the last decades. Fieldworks are mostly restricted as determining the today's situations, documenting them again and -if available-investigating for destruction situation of the sites. During the first step of fieldwork which is started in 2004 summer, BAY Project visited 21 archaeological sites that are dated from the Neolithic to the end of Early Bronze Age. We have documented the destruction, constituted an archive regarding archaeological sites and finally presented the results to science world, regional and national public opinion through internet.

Visit: The Archaeological Settlements of Bursa - BAY Project

Kültür Varlıklarının Korunmasında Yerel İnisiyatiflerin Önemi

Bursa'nın Tarihöncesi ve BAY Projesi

Bibliography for Paleolithic Magic

This is the cited references in Paleolithic Magic.

Arsebük, G.,
1995, İnsan ve Evrim, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.

Lewin, R.,
1999, Modern İnsanın Kökeni, N. Özüaydın (Çev.), TÜBİTAK, İstanbul.

Bibliography for Bird Symbolism in Warqa wa Gulshah

This is the cited references in Bird Symbolism in Warqa wa Gulshah.

Altın Sözlük, 1989
Altın Sözlük İngilizce-Türkçe, N. arıkan, G. Yenal, G. Taşpınar (haz.), İstanbul, Milliyet Yayınları.

Daneshvari, A., 1986
Animal Symbolism in Warqa wa Gulshãh, Oxford Studies in Islamic Art II, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Dinçer, B., 2002
“Kültür Tarihinde Kuşlar”, İbibik 3: 18-21.

Ertuğrul, Ö., 1997
Mitoloji ve İkonografi, İstanbul, Dragon Yayıncılık.

Heinzel, H., R. Fitter, J. Parslow, 2002
Türkiye ve Avrupa'nın Kuşları, K. A. Boyla (Çev.), İstanbul, Doğal Hayatı Koruma Derneği.

Özçelik, M. F., 1994
“Anadolu’dan Dünya Doğasına Bir Nefes, Sultansazlığı”, TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik 320: 54-61.

Pancaroğlu, O., 2004
"The Itinerant Dragon-Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and Identity in Medieval Anatolia", GESTA XLIII/2: 151-164.

Wilson, E. O., 2000
Doğanın Gizli Bahçesi, A. Biçen (Çev.), Ankara, TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları.


OTHER PUBLICATIONS ABOUT WARQA WA GULHSAH
Ateş, A., 1961
“Un vieux poème romanesque persan, récit de Warqah wa Gulshah”, Ars Orientalis 4: 143-152.

Melikian-Chirvani, A. S. 1970
“Le roman de Varqe et Golsah”, Ars Asiatiques 22: 1-262.

Safa, Z., 1964
Ayyuqi, Warqa wa Gulshah, Tahran.

Photos: Decorated pottery

©Berkay Dinçer

Decorated potteries waiting for klin.

Photos: Pottery drying

©Berkay Dinçer

Pottery must be dried in cool place without direct sunlight.

Photos: Pottery, waiting before klin

©Berkay Dinçer

Pottery must be awaited to dry after shaping.

Photos: Pottery shaping

©Berkay Dinçer

Shaping is the most important part of pottery making. Potter's wheel is a big invention which made people able to produce more standardized potteries.

Photos: Pottery clay kneading

©Berkay Dinçer

Clay must be kneaded well before shaping in order to make raw material homogeneous and avoid air bubbles inside the clay.

Photo: Pottery forms

©Berkay Dinçer
Pottery forms give clues to archaeologists about its date, but those in the picture are just modern replicas of Hittite pottery.

Pottery making from archaeologists' view

Clay is an aluminium silicate that contains some metal and alkaline. It can be separated into some different kinds according to their atomic structure and chemical components. Clay minerals has a stratified structure and can be in the forms of flake, plate or pin.

In the Near East, pottery was first used in Anatolia, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia nearly 8200 years ago and, with some exceptions, diffused everywhere in the Old World in a short period of time for the human history; two thousand years. Pottery is divided into different ware groups in accord with their making technique, shape and decoration. Geographical and historical distribution of this groups is used for understanding relative chronology when absolute chronology is not available -even when absolute chronology is available. Many times, changes in making technique and shape of pottery reflect cultural change. According to clay sources that can be defined with clay analysis of pottery, some trade routes and cultural relations can be understood better.

There are two ways of shaping clay for making vessels: Making by hand or using a wheel. Many different ways can be used in hand work. The wheel can be turned by hand or by foot or by both.

Before surface procedure, vessel is usually left to dry one or two days. Surface can shine like polished or be mat according to burnishing. Slip or wash can be used for decorating. Glaze is a metallic silicate and usually applied like slip. In prehistoric pottery, decoration is usually made before the vessel gets dry. Stamping and incising decoration is usually common. Kiln is not very necessary to fire a vessel. Many times just fire is enough.

Read full text Pottery Making article (in Turkish)

Pottery Making images

Kaletepe Deresi 3 Excavation areas

Paleolithic excavation areas at Kaletepe Deresi 3 on the slope of Göllüdağ volcano.
©Berkay Dinçer

Lower Paleolithic poliedric pieces from KD3

Poliedric pieces from Kaletepe Deresi 3.
©Berkay Dinçer

Kaletepe Deresi 3 excavations

A view from Kaletepe Deresi 3 excavations in 2005.
©Ludovic Slimak

Obsidian source

An obsidian source near Kaletepe.
©Berkay Dinçer

Poliedric pieces from Kaletepe Deresi 3 Acheulean

Most numerous finds of Kaletepe Deresi 3 Acheulean; poliedric pieces.
©Berkay Dinçer

Obsidian biface, Acheulean of KD3

An obsidian biface from Lower Paleolithic layers of Kaletepe Deresi 3
©Berkay Dinçer

Excavations at Kaletepe Deresi 3

Kaletepe Deresi 3 excavations in 2004.
Photo: ©Merve Andaç

An Equid tooth from Middle Paleolithic layer of Kaletepe Deresi 3

An equid tooth from Kaletepe Deresi 3 Middle Paleolithic layers.
©Berkay Dinçer

Kaletepe Deresi 3

Kaletepe Deresi 3 is a recent water course. At the back, Kabaktepe.
©Berkay Dinçer

Kaletepe, Neolithic Obsidian Workshop

Kaletepe. Aladag mountain range and Demirkazık peak at the back.
©Berkay Dinçer

Obsidian cleaver from Kaletepe Deresi 3 Lower Paleolithic layers

Excavations at Kaletepe Deresi 3. An obsidian cleaver.
©Berkay Dinçer

Golludag volcano, obsidian source

Göllü Dag volcano.
©Berkay Dinçer

Kaletepe article on Atlas magazine

One of Kaletepe's latest article appeared on Atlas magazine.

Atlas 169 (2007)

Kaletepe Deresi 3 and Obsidian Source

"Kaletepe Deresi 3" is an open air Paleolithic site located in the volcanic region of Central Anatolia. The activity of this geological complex generated an important intrusion of obsidian largely used during the prehistoric period for tool making. The site is located a few kilometers on the eastern slopes of Gollu Dag volcano in the proximity of the Komurcu obsidian intrusions which represent one of the most important obsidian sources in the Near East with outcrops continuing for more than 3 km.

Discovered in summer 2000 during an archaeological survey, Kaletepe Deresi 3 is an in situ open air Paleolithic site, yielding 17 archaeological occupations from middle to upper Pleistocene. The data allow the examination of long-term human comportements and illustrate the first discovery of an Acheulean complex in Turkey. The multidisciplinary researches are also integrated to the tephrochronological and paleontological context.

Kaletepe Deresi 3 is the first Paleolithic sequence of Central Anatolia and its oldest archaeological layers illustrate one of the oldest human settlements actually known in Turkey.

This summary was originally published in:
Slimak, L., N. Balkan-Atlı, D. Binder, B. Dinçer,
2005, "Installations paleolithiques en Cappadoce", Anatolia Antiqua XIII: 287-294.

Read full text Kaletepe Deresi 3 article (in Turkish).

Read full text Kaletepe Paleolithic and Neolithic article (in Turkish).

Kaletepe related images.

Kaletepe bibliography.

Another Kaletepe source page.

Archaeogeophysics

Geophysics is a nature science that can obtain archaeological information. Techniques used in archaeogeophysics are gravity, magnetism (nature based); electromagnetic, seismic, induced polarization, ground probing (artificially based) and many more like these.

First works are done in North America and Britain in the 1940s. According to the developments of computer technologies (like developments in image processing and modelling), remote sensing became more commonly used in archaeology. Magnetism, resistivity and ground probing are the most common techniques.

In Turkey, archaeogeophysical techniques are first used in 1960s at Nemrut and Giges tumuluses and in the Keban Project. At 1970s, Hattusas and Demirci Hoyuk became a part of the first investigated mounds with the archaeogeophysical techniques in the world. As a very fast technique to obtain information about the undersoil, archaeogeophysics can help us to protect cultural heritage from the destruction of dam lakes and other constructions like roads or buildings.

Read full text Archaeogeophysics article (in Turkish).

Archaeogeophysics related images.

Archaeogeophysics bibliography.

Archaeogeophysics at Ancient Aphrodisias

Subsurface imaging of ancient Aphrodisias, a Hellenistic/Roman city in Anatolia (Turkey). City streets (laid out on a planned grid) and architecture can be plainly seen. Image courtesy of Aphrodisias excavations, New York University.

This file has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its author, Aphrodisias excavations, New York University. This applies worldwide. Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aphrodisias-res.jpg)