Journals / MASROP E-Dergi / 2012 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 7

BATI VE ORTA ANADOLU’DA ÇARK YAPIMI ÇANAK ÇÖMLEĞİN ORTAYA ÇIKIŞI VE YAYILIMI

Pages
38–111
Publication Date
2012-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the thesis examines the early distribution of the characteristic elements of the EBA III wheelmade pottery in the Anatolian peninsula, the reasons underlying it and its consequences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The chronology of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia has not yet been fully established.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The thesis clearly demonstrates that the relations between Mesopotamia and the North Aegean Troy were established, not along the south Anatolian and Aegean coastline but, on the contrary, over the land route, via inland western Anatolia.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the thesis examines the early distribution of the characteristic elements of the EBA III wheelmade pottery in the Anatolian peninsula, the reasons underlying it and its consequences.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çömlekçi çarkı · Batı Anadolu · İTÇ III

Abstract

The chronology of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia has not yet been fully established. The most important underlying reason for this is that wheelmade pottery, a key innovation which marked the beginning of the EBA III in western Anatolia, has not been discovered with common characteristics and with the same density on a specific horizon in the entire region. This complicated a reliable synchronisation of the local chronologies considerably. As a result of this, the western Anatolian and the Aegean chronologies could not be satisfactorily correlated. So far, no noteworthy study has been made on the early use and distribution of the wheelmade pottery in western and central Anatolia. Within the framework of the thesis, the technology of this pottery and the distribution and local characteristics of its ware groups and forms are investigated and their significance is revealed, in a more concrete way, in the western Anatolian EBA chronology. In conclusion, the thesis examines the early distribution of the characteristic elements of the EBA III wheelmade pottery in the Anatolian peninsula, the reasons underlying it and its consequences. The studies on the wheelmade pottery recovered at Küllüoba near Eskişehir indicated to us the gradual intensification of trade relations in the EB III between far-reaching areas. The thesis clearly demonstrates that the relations between Mesopotamia and the North Aegean Troy were established, not along the south Anatolian and Aegean coastline but, on the contrary, over the land route, via inland western Anatolia. Thus, it has been clarified that certain cultural innovations were introduced to the Troad from inland northwestern Anatolia, due to the intensified trade relations. Consequently, the thesis emphasizes the need of dealing with the interrelations and interactions between western Anatolia and the Aegean in the EBA from a new perspective.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKTEKİ, M. (2012). BATI VE ORTA ANADOLU’DA ÇARK YAPIMI ÇANAK ÇÖMLEĞİN ORTAYA ÇIKIŞI VE YAYILIMI. MASROP E-Dergi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 7, 38–111. https://ajindex.com/articles/789518

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Berg, I., 2008 Looking Through Pots: Recent Advances in Ceramics X- Radiography, Journal of Archaeological Science,35:1177-1188.
  2. Berg, I., 2009 X-Radiography of Knossian Bronze Age Vessels: Assesing our Knowledge of Primary Forming Techniques, Annual of the British School at Athens, 104:137-173.
  3. Blegen, C., J. L. Caskey, M. Rawson, 1950
  4. Troy I, General Introduction, The First and SecondSettlements, Princeton. Braidwood, R.J-L.Braidwood 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I. The Earlier Assemblages Phases AJ. The University of Oriental Institute Publications, Cilt.LXI. Chicago. Duru,R., 2006
  5. Gedikli Karahöyük I, TTKY V. Dizi Sayı 51, Ankara.
  6. Efe, T., 1988
  7. Demircihüyük, Die ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975- 1978, Die Keramik der Jüngeren Phasen. Cilt III. Philipp von Zabern. Manz Am Rhein. Berlin. 1994 “Early Bronze Age III Pottery from Bahçehisar: The Significance of thePreHittite Sequence in the Eskişehir Plain, Northwestern Anatolia”, American Journal of Archaeology 98: 5-34. 1998 “New Concepts on Tarsus-Troy Relations at the Beginning of the EB 3 Period,” XXXIV ème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Istanbul 1987). T.T.K. Ankara: 297-304. 2007 “The Theories of „ Great Caravan Route‟ between Cilicia and Troy:the Early Bronze Age III Period in inland western Anatolia”, Anatolian Studies 57:1-17. Efe,T., E.Fidan 2008 “Complex Two in the Early Bronze Age II Upper Town of Küllüoba near Eskişehir”, Anatolica 34:67-102.
  8. Efe, T., Sarı, D., E.Fidan 2010 “Keçiçayırı and Its Significance of the Excavations in the Prehistory of Inland Northwest Anatolia”, Kütahya Üniversitesi Uluslararası Arkeolojik Araştırmaları Toplantısı 3. Erkanal,H- T. Özkan 2000 “1998 Bakla Tepe Kazıları”, 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı: 263-278.
  9. Eslick, C., 2009 Elmalı-Karataş V. The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karataş: Habitation Deposits. Bryn Mawr College Archaeological Monographs. French,D.H., 1967 Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia, I. The İznik Area”, Anatolian Studies 17:49-100. 1969 Anatolia and the Aegean in the Third Millenium B.C.,Anatolia and the Aegean in the Third Millenium B.C. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Cambridge. Frirdich, C., 1997 “Pinnacle E4/5-Die Keramik der Periode Troia II Im Vergleich”, Studia Troica 7:111-258.
  10. Gates, M.H., 2005 “2003 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşilköy-Dörtyol-Hatay)”, 26.Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı:163-174.
  11. Goldmann, H., 1956
  12. Excavations at Gözlükule, Tarsus From the Neolithic Through the Bronze Age. Princeton. Gunter, A.C., 1991 Gordion