06 December 2008

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.

05 December 2008

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.

04 December 2008

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.

03 December 2008

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.

02 December 2008

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.

01 December 2008

"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.

15 November 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

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

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

14 November 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

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

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

13 November 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

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

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

12 November 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

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

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

11 November 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.

10 November 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

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

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

09 November 2008

Photos: Roman Portraits from Aphrodisias

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

© Berkay Dinçer 2008

10 October 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.

03 October 2008

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.

29 September 2008

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

04 August 2008

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.

05 May 2008

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.