Yontmataş buluntu toplulukları ışığında Ankara: neyi biliyoruz? Neyi bilmiyoruz? Yeni değerlendirmeler ve sonuçlar
No Thumbnail Available
Files
Date
2005
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
For no apparent reason, Central Anatolian Paleolithic Age studies have been neglected since the mid 20th
century. And it seems that our knowledge is very poor about knapped stone findings in this region. The
goal of this study is hopefully to provoke a debate among the Paleolithic Age archaeologists. Some of
previous researchers such as Kansu, Kökten, Ozansoy, Pfannenstiel etc. mainly focused on Ankara’s
knapped stone findings during the mid 20th century. We must also acknowledge Campbell-Thompson,
Bittel, İnan and Pittard who had worked in this region in the first half of the 20th century prior to Kansu
and his friends. What we mainly find in the papers of these researchers are impressive terms such as:
“levalloiso-moustérien”, “aurignacien” and “tardenoasian”. But today, some questions that come to
mind are “Are these the correct terms for Central Anatolia?”, “What were the shortcomings of earlier
research?” and “What answers can we propose today?”
First of all, we must consider not only the geographic position of Central Anatolia but also the possible
cultural connections between the Balkans and the Levant and/or the Taurus-Zagros cultural zone. Some
archaeologists whom we have consulted thought that Central Anatolia doesn’t play a role in the
distribution of bifacial tools. Yet since it is obviously possible to see that the necessary evidence has
already been obtained from Central Anatolia, today this hypothesis seems absolutely speculative. On the
other hand, beside the existence of the bifacial tools which belong typologically to the lower Paleolithic
period, there are also many findings from the middle Paleolithic period that reflect the moustérien type of
assemblages with or without the levallois knapping strategies. Up to now, we have no basis for saying the
aurignacien tradition is present in Central Anatolia. But this tradition is currently identified in the Karain
B cave’s sequence in southwestern Anatolia in the new excavations. Although, it seems impossible to
identify tardenoasian culture not only in Central Anatolia but also all around Anatolia on the basis of
existing data. It is not surprising that we also have some findings of possible food production phases from
Ankara. It is known that the Aşıklı, Çatalhöyük and Pınarbaşı sites represent the first food production
phases in Central Anatolia. Of course we can not give absolute data about this period from these few
findings. We must consider these findings as initial clues from Ankara and its surroundings.
Consequently, in addition to the surface collections of knapped stone findings, Ankara and its
surrounding territories need more in situ findspots to establish the cultural sequence and the dates of this
cultural sequence’s sub-phases during the pleistocene and the beginning of the holocene.