YASSITEPE HÖYÜK IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC TRADE OF WESTERN ANATOLIA]

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 32, 33 - 45, 30.04.2024

Mehmet Akif Erdem , Zafer Derin

https://doi.org/10.51493/egearkeoloji.1430912

Öz

Research has been carried out and data on local and imported cultural remains have been obtained on the settlements dating back to the 2nd millennium BC in the areas following the Coastal Aegean strip, starting from the Troas Region on the western coast of Anatolia and extending to Southwest Anatolia.Yassıtepe Höyük, located in the center of Izmir, where the Bornova Plain opens to Inner Western Anatolia, stands out as a new area contributing to the 2nd millennium BC process of Western Anatolia with its archaeological findings. Located in the prehistoric settlement area of Izmir, Yassıtepe Höyük, together with İpeklikuyu in the east and Yeşilova Mound in the south, was inhabited uninterruptedly for thousands of years, starting 8500 years ago from today until the Roman Period. Yassıtepe Höyük, which is a small-scale are a with a size of 3 hectares, like the contemporary period settlements in Izmir and its surroundings, has provided data that will contribute to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages of Western Anatolia, although it can be studied in limited areas due to being buried under modern structures. While Yassıtepe largely reflects the local characteristics of Anatolia with its architecture, pottery and smallfinds,it also show sthat it is connected to distant regions with a small number of imported finds. In this context, a connection was established with Central Anatolian cultures through caravanroutes, and the existence of commercial relations was provenby archaeological findings regarding the measurement system. With the tomb finds identified in plotno. 77, information about the burial tradition was obtained, and thanks to the Mycenaean finds unearthed in the tombs, the overseas connection area of Yassıtepe during the LH IIIA2 Period became defined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Western Anatolia, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Yassıtepe Höyük, Trade, Mycenaean.

Batı Anadolu’da MÖ 2. Binyıl Ticaretinde, Yassıtepe Höyüğü

Öz

Anadolu’nun batı kıyılarında Troas Bölgesinden başlayarak Güneybatı Anadolu’ya kadar Kıyı Ege şeridini takip eden alanlarda MÖ 2. binyıla tarihlenen yerleşimler ile ilgili araştırmalar yapılmış, yerel ve ithal kültür kalıntılarına ilişkin veriler elde edilmiştir. İzmir’in merkezinde, Bornova Ovası’nın İç Batı Anadolu’ya açıldığı yerde bulunan Yassıtepe Höyüğü, arkeolojik bulgularıyla Batı Anadolu’nun MÖ 2.binyıl sürecine katkı sağlayan yeni alan olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. İzmir'in tarih öncesi yerleşim alanında yer alan Yassıtepe Höyüğü, doğusunda İpeklikuyu, güneyindeki Yeşilova Höyüğü ile birlikte günümüzden 8500 yıl önceden başlayarak Roma dönemine kadar binlerce yıl kesintisiz yerleşim görmüştür. 3 hektar boyutuyla, İzmir ve çevresinde yer alan çağdaş dönem yerleşim yerleri gibi küçük ölçekli bir alan olan Yassıtepe Höyüğü, modern yapılar altında kalması nedeniyle sınırlı alanlarda çalışılmasına karşın, Batı Anadolu’nun Orta ve Geç Tunç Çağlarına katkı sağlayacak nitelikte veriler sunmuştur. Yassıtepe, mimarisi, çanak çömlekleri ve küçük buluntularıyla Anadolu’nun yerel özelliklerini büyük oranda yansıtırken, az sayıda ithal buluntusuyla da uzak bölgeler ile bağlı halinde olunduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bağlamda kervan yolları üzerinden Orta Anadolu kültürleri ile bağlantı kurulmuş, ticari ilişkinin varlığı ölçü sistemine ait arkeolojik bulgular ile kanıtlanmıştır. 77 no.lu parselde tespit edilen mezar buluntularıyla hem gömü geleneği hakkında bilgi edinilmiş hem de mezarlarda açığa çıkartılan Miken buluntuları sayesinde GH IIIA2 döneminde Yassıtepe’nin deniz aşırı bağlantı alanı tanımlı hale gelmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Batı Anadolu, Orta Tunç Çağı, Geç Tunç Çağı, Yassıtepe Höyüğü, Ticaret, Miken

Kaynakça

• Bachelard 196: G. Bachelard, The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Basso 1996: K. H. Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Blanton 1994: R. E. Blanton, “Houses and Households: A Comparative Study, Springer Science”, Business Media, New York.
• Cannon 1989: A. Cannon, “Historical Dimensions in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment”, Current Anthropology 30: 437–58.
• Chesson 2001: M.S. Chesson, “Social memory, identity, and death: An introduction”, Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, M.S. Chesson (ed.). Arlington: American Anthropological Association, 1-11.
• Düring 2005: B. S. Düring, “Building Continuity in the Central Anatolian Neolithic: Exploring the Meaning of Buildings at Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 3-29.
• Edmonds 1997: M. Edmonds, “Taskscape, Technology and Tradition”, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 99-110.
• Erdal ve Takaoğlu 2021: Y.S. Erdal, T. Takaoğlu, “Mortuary behavior in Chalcolithic Anatolia: A view from Gülpınar.” Arkeoloji Bilimler Dergisi 1: 42-66.
• Garrow 2006: D. Garrow, Pits, Settlement and Deposition During the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in East Anglia. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 414, Oxford.
• Giddens 1984: A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Gutiérrez 2011: E. M. Gutiérrez, “Memories without a place.” International Social Science Journal 62: 19–31. Hackley vd. 2018: L. D. Hackley, S. Selover, S. Steadman, “The persistence of social and spatial memory at prehistoric Çadır Höyük.” The International Journal of the Constructed Environment 9: 1-20.
• Halstead 1995: P. Halstead, “From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neolithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society”, Politeia: Society and State in Aegean Bronze Age, I R. Laffineur, W. D. Niemeier (eds.), (Aegaeum 12), University of Liège, Liège, 11-22.
• Hendon 2010: J. A. Hendon, Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life in Mesoamerica. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Hodder ve Pels 2010: I. Hodder, P. Pels, “History Houses: A new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhoyük”, Religion in the Emergence of Civilization, Çatalhoyük as a Case Study, I. Hodder (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163-186.
• Hodder ve Cessford: I. Hodder, C. Cessford, “Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatal Höyük”, American Antiquity 69: 17-40.
• Kuijt 2002: I. Kuijt, “Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching, and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic”, Life in Neolithic Farming Communities Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, I. Kuijt (ed.), New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 137-164.
• Kuijt 2008: I. Kuijt, “The regeneration of life Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting”, Current Anthropology 49: 171-197.
• Lawrence ve Low 1990: D. L. Lawrence, S.M. Low, S. M. “The Built Environment and Spatial Form”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 453–505
• Pearson ve Richards 1994: M. P. Pearson, C. Richards, “Ordering the world: Perceptions of architecture, space and time”, Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, P. P. Michael & C. Richards (eds.), London: Routledge, 1-37.
• Pollard 1999: J. Pollard, “These places have their moments: thoughts on settlement practices in the British Neolithic”, Making Places in the Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology, J. Brück & M. Goodman (eds.), London: University of California Press, 76-93. Özdemir 2017: A. Özdemir, A. (2017), Kalkolitik Gülpınar (Smintheion) Mimarisi ve Mekânsal Kullanımı. (Doktora Tezi) Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Çanakkale.
• Remizova 2020: O. Remizova, “Architectural memory and forms of its existence”, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 44: 97-108.
• Russell vd.: N. Russell, K. I. Wright, T. Carter, S. Ketchum, P. Ryan, N. Yalman, R. Regan, M. Stevanović, M. Milić. “Bringing Down the House: House Closing Deposits at Çatalhöyük”, Bringing Down the House: House Closing Deposits at Çatalhöyük, vol. 32, Ian Hodder (ed.), Los Angeles: University of California, 109–21.
• Schiffer 1987: M.B. Schiffer, Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Schiffer 1995: M.B. Schiffer, Behavioral Archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
• Steadman 2005: S. Steadman, “Reliquaries on the Landscape: Mounds as Matrices of Human Cognition”, Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives, S. Pollock & R. Bernbeck (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 286–307.
• Takaoğlu 2021: T. Takaoğlu, “Erken Kalkolitik Gülpınar’da Depolama Davranışı”, Anadolu Arkeolojisiyle Harmanlanmış Bir Ömür: Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu'na Armağan, M. A. Yılmaz, B. Can, M. Işıklı (eds.). Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 713-727.
• Takaoğlu ve Özdemir 2018: T. Takaoğlu, A. Özdemir, “Middle Chalcolithic period in the Troad: A new look from Gülpınar”, Communities in Transition. The Circum-Aegean Area in the Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC, S. Dietz, F. Mavridis, Ž. Tankosić, T. Takaoğlu (eds.), Oxford: Oxbow Books, 479-90.
• Tang vd. 2020: Z. Tang, A. Lu, Y. Yang, “Design research in the practice of memory place-making”, Open House International 45: 55-68.
• Van Dyke 2019: R. M. Van Dyke, “Archaeology and Social Memory”. Annual Review of Anthropology 48: 207-225.
• Van Dyke ve Alcock 2003: R. M. Van Dyke, S. E. Alcock, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction”, Archaeologies of Memory, R. M. Van Dyke & S. E. Alcock (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, –13
• Watkins 2004: T. Watkins, "Architecture and ‘Theatres of Memory’ in the Neolithic South-West Asia”, Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World. E. De Marrais, C. Gosden, C. Renfrew (eds.), Cambridge: Mc Donald Institute Monographs, 97 – 106.
• Wilson 2008: G. D. Wilson, “The Archaeology of Everyday Life at Early Moundville”, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
• Wilson 2010: G. D. Wilson, “Community, Identity, and Social Memory at Moundville.” American Antiquity 75: 3–18.