Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T21:19:18.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia I. The İznİk Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

D. H. French
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Sea of Marmara straddles one of the greatest of the natural routes between Europe and Asia. Along this route, it might be expected, passed the movements of objects and materials, the trade, the transference of ideas, the migrations of peoples between Anatolia and the Aegean and Balkan worlds. One small part of this region is presented archaeologically in this article. This is not the first publication of the sites and pottery in this area but since the last presentation there have been new discoveries, both in this region and in other areas of Anatolia. At the same time it has become clear that the theories of Kulturtrift and the like can be evaluated only by an investigation of the areas and routes along which Kulturtrift may have moved. After the excavations at Nea Nikomedia in Central Macedonia, the problem of connections between Anatolia and the Aegean in the early pottery phases must be studied anew. In any assessment, Northwest Anatolia must be considered as a possible source or intermediary for ideas or developments that may have passed between these two areas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 17 , December 1967 , pp. 49 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1967

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

1 My interest in this area was stimulated by the work of Mr. James Mellaart and at his suggestion I visited it in 1960. I made further visits in 1961 and in 1965. Some of the material used here is from his visit in 1960 and I am grateful for his permission to incorporate it.

The following abbreviations have been used in bibliographical references:

Bittel 1942—Bittel, K. “Kleinasiatische Studien”, Ist. Mitt. 5 (1942), 1 ff.Google Scholar

Bittel 1955—Bittel, K. Vorbemerkung to Mellaart 1955.Google Scholar

Bittel and Otto 1939—Bittel, K. and Otto, H., Demirci Hüyük (Berlin 1939).Google Scholar

Burney 1956—Burney, C. A. “Northern Anatolia before Classical times”, AS VI (1956), 179 ff.Google Scholar

Cullberg 1964–1965—Cullberg, C. “10 tells aux environs de Bursa”, Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historika Museum 1964–1965, 132 ff.Google Scholar

Kökten 1949—Kökten, K. “1949 tarihöncesi araştırmaları hakkında kısa rapor”, Belleten 13 (1949), 811 ff., 830 ff.Google Scholar

Kökten 1951—Kökten, K. “Kuzeybatı Anadolu'nun tarih öncesi hakkında yeni gözlemler”, DTCFD IX (1951), 201 ff.Google Scholar

Lloyd and Mellaart 1962—Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J. Beycesultan, Vol. I (London 1962).Google Scholar

Lloyd and Mellaart 1965—Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J. Beycesultan, Vol. II (London 1965).Google Scholar

Mellaart 1955—Mellaart, J. “Some Prehistoric Sites in North-Western Anatolia”, Ist. Mitt. 6 (1955). 55 ff.Google Scholar

Mellaart 1958—Mellaart, J. “The end of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean”, AJA 62 (1958), 9 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mellaart 1962—“Anatolia c. 4000–2300 B.C.”, CAH (rev. ed.) Vol. I, Chapter XVIII.Google Scholar

Mellaart 1964—“Anatolia before c. 4000 B.C. and c. 2300–1750 B.C.”, CAH (rev. ed.) Vol. I, Chapter VII, xi–xiv and Chapter XXIV, i–vi.Google Scholar

2 Bittel and Otto 1939, 1 ff; Bittel 1942, 154 f.; Mellaart 1955, 55; Burney 1956, 179 f.; Mellaart 1964, 3 f.

3 Fisher, , The Middle East, (London 1957), 310 fGoogle Scholar.

4 For the excavations at Göztepe-Yalova see the report by Fıratlı, , Annual of the İstanbul Museums 6 (1953). 81 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Bittel 1942, 161.

6 Mellaart 1964, 10 and chart p. 17.

7 Mellaart 1964, 15.

8 Mellaart 1964, 15.

9 Mellaart 1964, 15.

10 Bittel, , V. TTK Kongresi (Ankara 1960), 29 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 Bittel and Otto 1939, 24 and pl. 10, nos. 1–5.

12 See also the remarks, Mellaart 1964, 16, where it is suggested that Fikirtepe may be contemporary with the Late Neolithic: “There are analogies and, at the same time, significant differences.”

13 At Karadin I was unable to find Early Chalcolithic material, cf. Mellaart 1964, 16.

14 The Marmara region lies on one of the routes between Asia and Europe; if there was some form of Kulturtrift from Asia to Europe, traces of such a movement might well be found in the Marmara region. Hence it is important to find, in this area, occupation which was contemporary with Hacılar and Çatal.

15 Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, Fig. P 2 nos. 7, 10, 12–13.

16 Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, Fig. P 7 nos. 31–32 and Fig. P 8 nos. 21–23.

17 Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, Fig. P 8 no. 11; Fig. P 9 nos. 17–20 and Fig. P 11 no. 13.

18 Mellaart 1962, 6 and Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 109 f.

19 Temizer, , V. TTK Kongresi (Ankara 1960), 156 f.Google Scholar; Orthmann, , Die Keramik der Frühen Bronze Zeit aus Inneranatolian (Berlin 1963), 31 fGoogle Scholar.

20 Milojcic, , Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas (Berlin 1949), Pl. 33 nos. 1–2Google Scholar.

21 Kökten 1951, Pl. 15 (from İnegöl I).

22 Mellaart 1955, 56 and n. 6.

23 Mellaart 1962, 12 and 18 f.

24 See below (10) Miscellaneous (b) and (c).

25 Mellaart 1962, 12 and 18 ff.

26 Troad and Coast, Thrace, Akhisar-Manisa, Tavşanlı-İznik, Balıkesir (Yortan).

27 See footnot e 29. West of Eskişehir, a significantly low proportion of the material collected; East of Eskişehir, single sherds.

28 Orthmann, op. cit. 92.

29 Results of an unfinished survey of the Bozüyük-Eskişehir area by me in 1963.

30 One of the most important results to have come out of surface surveys in the İznik and Bozüyük areas is to show that (a) Yenişehir was a pottery zone separate from Demirci Hüyük; (b) “Yenişehir” ware was found as a foreign element with “Eskişehir” pottery at Demirci Hüyük. At the time that they wrote neither Mellaart nor Orthmann could have known the origin and centre of distribution of the black burnished pottery here called “Yenişehir” ware.

31 Characteristic shape: a simple bowl with vertical “cog-wheel” handle.

32 Mellaart 1962, 46. One cannot, however, confirm the view (Mellaart 1964, 45) that Çakırca, Yeniköy and Üyücek were burnt and destroyed at the end of the EB 3 phase, i.e. at the end of the phase of wheelmade red-wash and İnegöl grey wares. These three sites were occupied in the Second Millennium. The burnings could have occurred either before or after the grey ware phase or in the Second Millennium.

33 Mellaart in Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 243 ff.; Mellaart 1964, 30 ff.

34 See Mellaart 1964, 31, 45 f. I did not find strap-handle bowls (Beycesultan EB 3 shape 5, 9, 23 and 37) in İnegöl grey ware.

35 Cf. Mellaart 1958, passim; 1964, 49; and elsewhere.

36 Bittel, , Gnomon 28 (1958), 241 ffGoogle Scholar.

37 Blegen, et al. , Troy III (Princeton 1953), 9, 34 fGoogle Scholar.

38 Caskey, , Hesperia XXIX (1960), 296 and Pl. 70, iGoogle Scholar.

39 Perhaps also certain shapes came to Greece during EH III e.g. Beycesultan EB 3 shape 45 at Aigina and numerous other sites; see Hansen, , Hesperia VI (1937), 544 Google Scholar and Fig. 3g (from Athens Acropolis N. Slope).

40 There is a pedestal bowl in Lerna IV (EH III), see Caskey, , Hesperia XXV (1956) 162 Google Scholar and Pl. 45a.

41 Mellaart 1964, 49.

42 Mellaart 1958, 17 f.

43 Balkan Studies 7 (1966), 109 Google Scholar.

44 At Tarsus, although Goldman, on the basis of Trojan shapes (Plates, A 1 or 2; one or two handled cups, A 39 or 43; depas cups, A 45) dated the beginning of Tarsus EB 3 to between Troy II and IV, it has now become accepted by some that the earliest occurrence of these shapes at Tarsus equates chronologically with the earliest occurrence of these same shapes at Troy, i.e. the beginning of Tarsus EB 3 = Troy II c or d. However, of the remaining Trojan shapes (A 11, 12, 16, 18, 44 [as in Beycesultan Level VIII] and volute or scroll feet and handles) in the pottery assemblage of Tarsus EB 3, none occur in pottery before Troy III, some not before Troy IV. The logical conclusion must be that Tarsus EB 3 did not begin before Troy III.

45 See Mellaart 1962, 6 and Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 109 f.

46 Mellink, , AJA 68 (1964), 304 Google Scholar; Orthmann, , BJV 4 (1964), 242 Google Scholar.

47 Compare the tables in Mellaart 1955, 83; 1964, 17 and 40; 1958, 32f.; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, III.

page 96 note 1 French, D. H. 1967. “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia, I. The Iznik Area”, A.S., XVII Google Scholar.

page 96 note 2 Ibid. Topography 26. Yüğücek-Iznik.

page 96 note 3 Ibid. Pottery (2) “Fikirtepe”.

page 96 note 4 a: Garstang, J. 1953. Prehistoric Mersin, Fig. 36: 32. Level XXIV, Proto-Chalco. b: Tsundas, C. 1908. The Prehistoric Citadels of Dimini and Sesklo (in Greek), Fig. 99. c: Wace, A. J. B. and Thompson, M. S. 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly Google Scholar, Fig. 83: o, p. Tsani Solid Style, A3β. d: Unpublished sherds from excavations at Nea Nikomedeia, Macedonia. Study and correspondence with R. J. Rodden.

page 97 note 5 Mellaart, J. 1964. C.A.H. I, VII, pp. 16–17 Google Scholar.

page 97 note 6 For standards of colours see: Munsell Soil Color Charts 1954, Baltimore Google Scholar.

page 97 note 7 French, D. H. 1967. Ibid. Topography 6. Hacılar Tepe-Orhangazi.

page 97 note 8 Ibid. Topography 7. Ilıcapınar-Orhangazi.

page 97 note 9 Ibid. Topography 23. Yeniköy-Orhangazi.