Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T11:47:02.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amidst Mesopotamia-centric and Euro-centric approaches: the changing role of the Anatolian peninsula between the East and the West

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Mehmet Özdoğan
Mehmet Özdoğan
Affiliation:
Istanbul University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Due to its geographical position, the Anatolian plateau has always been considered as a bridge in transmitting cultural formations that originated in the Near East to southeastern Europe and to the Aegean. Such a standpoint downgrades the role played by the Anatolian plateau to a transit route between the East and the West, overlooking its distinct structure. It seems that the main bias is in considering the Anatolian plateau as a single cultural unit, ignoring the multifarious nature of its structure. The role the Anatolian plateau played between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ was much more complex and multi-facetted than assumed, even at times hampering all interaction. Yet another bias is considering Anatolia, in spite of its geographic extent, as the dividing line in defining the boundary between the East and the West. However, it is evident that the geographic limits of the peninsula do not necessarily correspond with the cultural entities. Thus, for example, while the cultural boundary separating the East and the West was somewhere in between the Aegean littoral and the central plateau during the Neolithic period, later it shifted considerably in both directions. On the other hand, through the earlier part of the Chalcolithic period, the extent of the Taurus mountains marks the dividing line between the Near Eastern and Anatolia-Balkan cultural formative zones, which by the Late Chalcolithic period moved much further to the west, up to the Marmara region, the Sea of Marmara then acting as a cultural barrier. Presented here is a conspectus of the recent picture on changing cultural boundaries through the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

Özet

Anadolu Yarımadası'nın doğudan batıya doğru uzanan özel coğrafi konumu, Yakındoğu'da ortaya çıkan kültürel oluşumları Ege ve Güneydoğu Avrupa'ya aktaran bir köprü olarak görülmesine neden olmuştur. Anadolu'nun bu şekilde, Doğu ile Batı kültürleri arasındaki basit bir aktarım yolu olarak ele alınması, kendine özgü kimliğinin de göz ardı edilmesi anlamını taşımaktadır. Buradaki yanılgının temelinde Anadolu kültür coğrafyasının doğru olarak algılanmaması yatmaktadır; Anadolu sanıldığı gibi tekdüze bir birim değil, farklı özelliklere sahip coğrafi ortamların bileşkesidir. Anadolu'nun Doğu ile Batı kültürlerinin ilişkilendirilmesinde, sanılanın aksine basit olmayan, çok yönlü, iletişimi sağlamaktan engellemeye kadar değişen bir yeri vardır. Anadolu'nun boyutlarını ve kendi içindeki çeşitliliğini göz ardı etmenin getirdiği bir diğer yanılgı da Anadolu'yu ‘Doğu’ ile ‘Batı’ arasındaki kültür sınırı olarak tanımlamaktır. Bu yazıyla, Anadolu'nun iki farklı kültür bölgesi arasındaki yerini, Doğu ve Batı arasındaki sınırının ne kadar göreli ve değişken olduğunu, seçtiğimiz bazı örneklerle irdelemeye çalışacağız. Örneğin Neolitik dönemin başlarında Doğu'yu Batı'dan ayıran sınır Orta Anadolu'nun batısındayken, Neolitik dönemin ileri aşamalarında Balkan Yarımadası'na kaymış, Kalkolitik Çağ'da ise Doğu ile Batı'nın sınırını Toros Dağları oluşturmuştur. Tunç Çağı'nda ise Marmara Bölgesi'nin, Anadolu-Yakındoğu ile Güneydoğu Avrupa-Balkan kültürleri arasındaki çok kesin bir sınırı oluşturduğunu görmekteyiz.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 57 , December 2007 , pp. 17 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andel, T.H. 2000: ‘Where received wisdom fails: the Mid-Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic climates’ in Renfrew, C., Boyle, K. (eds), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. Cambridge: 31–39Google Scholar
Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., Kuzucuoğlu, C. 1999: ‘L'atelier Néolithique de Kömürcü-Kaletepe: Fouilles de 1998’ Anatolia Antiqua 7: 231–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. 1992: ‘From foraging to farming in the Mediterranean Levant’ in Grebauer, A.B., Price, T.D. (eds), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Wisconsin: 21–48Google Scholar
Bentley, R.A., Chikhi, L., Price, T.D. 2003: ‘The Neolithic transition in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence’ Antiquity 77/295: 63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidwood, R.J., 1960: ‘The agricultural revolution’ Scientific American 203: 130–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budja, M. 2001: ‘The transition to farming in southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery’ Documenta Praehistorica 28: 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budja, M. 2004: ‘The Neolithisation of the Balkans: where in the puzzle?’ in Lukes, A., Zvelebil, M. (eds), LBK Dialogues. Studies in the Formation of the Linear Pottery Culture (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1304). Oxford: 37–48Google Scholar
Cauvin, J. 1988: ‘La Néolithisation de la Turquie du Sudest Dans Son Contexte Proche-Oriental’ Anatolica 15: 69–80Google Scholar
Cauvin, J. 1989: ‘La Néolithisation au Levant et sa premiére diffusion’ in Aurenche, O. (ed.), Néolithisations (British Archaeological Reports International Series 516). Oxford: 1–36Google Scholar
Childe, G. 1964 (1957): The Dawn of European Civilization. New YorkGoogle Scholar
French, D. 1986: ‘Anatolia: bridge or barrier?’ IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi 1: 117–18Google Scholar
Gérard, F. 2001: ‘Stratigraphy and architecture on the southwest flank of Ilıpınar’ in Roodenberg, J., Thissen, L. (eds), The Ilıpınar Excavations II. Leiden: 177–221Google Scholar
Karul, N., Eres, Z. 2003: ‘Rekonstruktionsversuche zu den Bauten von Aşağı Pınar’ in Karul, N. et al. , (eds), Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur. Mainz am Rhein: 174–80Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. 1956: Early Anatolia. LondonGoogle Scholar
Nikolov, V. 2002: ‘Nochmals über die Kontakte zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan im 6.Jt.v.Chr.’ in Aslan, R. et al. , (eds), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach: 673–78Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 1994: ‘Neolithization of Europe: a view from Anatolia (Neolitizacija Evrope: Pogled iz Anatolije)’ Proçilo o Razjskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 22: 25–61Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 1995: ‘Neolithic in Turkey. The status of research’ Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: 41–59Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 1996: ‘From huts to houses: “firsts” in architecture’ in Beykan, M. (ed.), Housing and Settlement in Anatolia. A Historical Perspective (HABITAT II). Istanbul: 19–30Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 1997: ‘The beginning of Neolithic economies in southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective’ Journal of European Archaeology 5/2: 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 2002a: ‘Defining the Neolithic of central Anatolia’ in Gérard, F., Thissen, L. (eds), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations During the 9th–6th Millennia cal BC. Istanbul: 253–61Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 2002b: ‘Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia’ in Cappers, R., Bottema, S. (eds), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Berlin: 153–59Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 2005: ‘The expansion of Neolithic way of life. What we know and what we do not know’ in Lichter, C. (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? (BYZAS 2). Istanbul: 13–27Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 2006a: ‘Hypothetical approaches and realities: research strategies in defining space and context’ in Papaconstantintinou, D. (ed.), Deconstructing Context. Oxford: 159–75Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 2006b: ‘Neolithic cultures at the contact zone between Anatolia and the Balkans. Diversity and homogeneity at the Neolithic frontier’ in Gatsov, I., Schwarzberg, H. (eds), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic. Langenweissbach: 21–28Google Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 2007 (in press): ‘Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life: migration, adaptation and aculturation’ in Bocquet-Appel, J.P. (ed.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. HarvardGoogle Scholar
Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (ed.) 2007: Türkiye'de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. IstanbulGoogle Scholar
Perlès, C. 2001: The Early Neolithic in Greece. CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlès, C. 2005: ‘From the Near East to Greece: let's reverse the focus-cultural elements that didn't transfer’ in Lichter, C. (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? (BYZAS 2). Istanbul: 275–90Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 2002: ‘The emerging synthesis: the archaeogenetics of farming/language dispersals and other spread zones’ in Bellwood, P., Renfrew, C. (eds), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge: 3–16Google Scholar
Runnels, C. 2003: ‘The origins of the Greek Neolithic: a personal view’ in Ammerman, A., Biagi, P. (eds), The Widening Harvest. Boston: 121–32Google Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1997: ‘Changing perspectives on European prehistory’ in Sherratt, A. (ed.), Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Edinburgh: 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zvelebil, M. 2002: ‘Demography and dispersal of early farming populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition: linguistic and genetic implications’ in Bellwood, P., Renfrew, C. (eds), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge: 379–94Google Scholar