The Prehistory of the Istanbul Region a Survey

8/10/2019 The Prehistory of the Istanbul Region a Survey

1/26

THE PREHISTORY OF THE ISTANBUL REGION: A SURVEY 239

doi: 10.2143/ANES.43.0.2018771 ANES 43 (2006) 239264

The Prehistoryof the Istanbul Region:

A Survey

evket DNMEZ

Department of Protohistory and Near Eastern ArchaeologyUniversity of Istanbul

Fen PTT 34459 IstanbulTURKEY

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Within the greater of Istanbul, well outside the historic precinct, chance findsand systematic excavtions are revealing the extent of this regions prehistory. The

periods represented extend from the Palaeolithic, through Mesolithic Neolithic

and Chalcolithic, and then to the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age (thirteenth totwelfth centuries BC) transition. Within central Istanbul proper building activi-ties over the last century and in various locations, as well as general maintenancework by local councils, have brought to light a range of artefacts that provideclues to the occupation of this historically prominent region.

The number of prehistoric sites coming to light within the boundaries ofgreater Istanbul but quite a distance from the historic precinct is increasing.Systematic archaeological excavations at Yarmburgaz Cave, situated on thenorthern shore of Lake Kkekmece, have brought to light LowerPalaeolithic stone tools from levels 16121dating to approximately 400.000years before present. They have shown this to be one of the oldest sites notonly in the Istanbul region, but in the whole of the Near East.2 LowerPalaeolithic tools have also been found, as a result of surveys. They havebeen collected at Ierenky,3 Pendik,4 Dudullu and mraniye5 on the

1Ozdogan 1988, pp. 330332; Arsebk and Ozbaaran 1994, p. 25; Arsebk 1996, p. 2;Stiner, Arsebk and Howell 1996, pp. 279327.

2 Arsebk 1996, 113; Arsebk 1998, pp. 47.3 Bittel 1934, p. 25; Esin 1992, p. 61.4 Atasayan 1941, pp. 522527; Kansu 1947, p. 220; Esin 1992, pp. 6162.5 Jelinek 1980, pp. 309315; Esin 1992, p. 62.


2/26

240 . DNMEZ

Anatolian (Asian) side of Istanbul, and in the Terkos-Kilyos region,6 theByk ekmece-Eskice Ridge,7and the upper terraces of Davutpaa Brook8

on the European side are. Along with those from the Yarmburgaz Cave,these surface finds represent the earliest evidence of human settlement inthe vicinity of Istanbul (Map 1).

The Middle Palaeolithic Period (130,00090,000 BC) is also representedin this region. Stone tools were found at Yarmburgaz Cave (levels 11-8),9

suggest that the cave continued to be used as a shelter.10 Other MiddlePalaeolithic Period objects have been found through survey work at Kilyos-

Agal11and Kefken,12the Byk ekmece-Eskice Ridge and in the locationof atalca-Karababa13on the European side (Map 1).

Settlement was uninetrrupted during the remaining millennia of thePalaeolithic. Artefacts of the Upper Palaeolithic Period (90,00015,000 BC)and the Epipalaeolithic Period (15,00010,000 BC) were attested in the richdeposits at Yarmburgaz Cave (levels 7 and 6),14 and also at Agal,15

Gmdere,16 Yassren,17 Haramidere,18 and Ambarl19 on the Europeanside, and at Domal20and Agva21on the Asian side (Map 1).

By contradistinction to the Palaeolithic sequence, the periods followingimmediately after remain problematic. It is still not clear, for instance,whether the stone tools found at Agal22and Gmdere23on the Euro-

pean side, and Dudullu24and Domal25on the Asian side (Map 1) date tothe Proto-Neolithic/Mesolithic period (10,0008000 BC) or to the

Aceramic Neolithic Period (80007000 BC).

6Ozdogan 1985, pp. 221222.7Ozdogan 1983, p. 137; Ozdogan 1984, p. 67; Ozdogan 1985, p. 223; Ozdogan 2000b,

p. 309.8 Kansu 1963b, p. 660; Esin 1992, p. 63.9Ozdogan 1988, pp. 330331.10 Esin 1992, pp. 6567.11Ozdogan 1985, p. 222; Esin 1992, pp. 6364; Ozdogan 2000b, p. 309.12Ozdogan 1983, p. 137; Ozdogan 1986, p. 144; Ozdogan 2000b, p. 309.13Ozdogan 1982, p. 45; Ozdogan 1983, p. 137.14Ozdogan 1988, pp. 330331.15Ozdogan 1983, p. 137; Ozdogan 1984, p. 67; Esin 1992, p. 63.16Ozdogan 1983, p. 137; Esin 1992, p. 64; Ozdogan 2000b, p. 309.17Ozdogan 1985, p. 222.18Ozdogan 1983, p. 137; Ozdogan 1985, p. 223.19 Esin 1992, p. 67.20Ozdogan 1983, pp. 137, 141; Esin 1992, p. 64.21 Esin 1992, p. 67.22 Esin 1992, p. 63.23 Esin 1992, p. 64.24 Esin 1992, p. 62.25 Esin 1992, p. 64.


3/26


Moreover, the finds attributed to the Early Neolithic Period (70006000BC) in the Istanbul region are controversial. The roughly formed hand-

made grit and sand-tempered pottery fragments decorated with fingernailimpressions found on the highest section of a sand-dune at Kilyos-Agal(Map 1), along with some burnt pieces of architectural remains found a thesame place, has led to the conclusion that Agal could have been a smallscale, single phase settlement consisting of 23 huts, dating to the begin-ning of the Neolithic Period.26However, this view is weakened by the factthat it is based only on surface finds and, as yet, no similar finds have beenuncovered in the Istanbul region. Some important settlements dating to theperiods following the Early Neolithic Period, namely the Late Neolithic Pe-

riod/Early Chalcolithic Period (60004500 BC), have been discovered. Ar-chaeological excavations carried out at Fikirtepe27 and Pendik-Temenye28

and an exploratory dig at Tuzla29(Map 1) determined that these sites werebasic village settlements. Comparative material from other archaeologicalexcavations in the region has shown that these settlements were among thefirst in the region to manufacture pottery, and that their economy wasbased on hunting and fishing rather than farming.

The Late Chalcolithic period (45003500 BC) witnessed a relative in-crease in the number of settlements, which extended into Anatolia on the

Asian side of Istanbul. Level 0 at Yarmburgaz Cave must belong to theLate Chalcolithic Period.30Further west, black burnished pottery sherds re-sembling north-west Anatolian Late Chacolithic ware,31 and other frag-ments decorated with incisions32were found at Silivri-Kanallkpr.

On the basis of current information, it appears that the earliest archaeo-logical finds found within the historic peninsula of Istanbul date to the

26 zdogan 1985, pp. 222223; Ozdogan 1986, p. 144.27 The settlement of Fikirtepe is located on a natural hill in the vicinity of Kadky, on

the eastern shore of the Sea of Marmara. During the excavations carried out by K. Bittel andH. ambel in the years 1952-1954, several trenches were opened up and in a thin culturallayer approximately 0.50 m in thickness some architectural remains of dwellings were uncov-ered along with a few burials, which were inside or next to them (Ozdogan 1992, pp. 4044).

28 Harmankaya 1983, pp. 2530; Pasinliet al. 1994, pp. 147163.29 Fratl 1958b, pp. 3031.30 Level 0 at Yarmburgaz Cave is the level that separates the Byzantine Period from the

earlier levels and is the most recent prehistoric level. A pottery group found here provides aterminus ante quem date for the earlier levels. The vessels decorated with and incised andfilled in dot design are dated by the excavators to the Middle Chalcolithic show that level 0(Parzinger and Ozdogan 1995, abb.1) is contemporary with the cultural development ofByk Gllcek Late Chalcolithic and Ikiztepe Late Chalcolithic PeriodEarly Bronze Age I(Early).

31 Kansu 1963b, res. 39, bottom row.32 Kansu 1963a, res. 23, Kansu 1963b, res. 35; Kansu 1964, res. 13.


4/26

242 . DNMEZ

Late Chalcolithic Period (45003500 BC). In 1987, during research in thestorage rooms of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Dr. A.V. oba-

noglu and Dr. F. Ozgm found Late Chalcolithic material among the ar-chaeological objects uncovered by St. Casson during excavations that tookplace in the late 1920s at the Hippodrome (in Sultanahmet)33 (Map 4).

Among these were large jars, which were handmade and of dark camel-coloured paste, slipped in the same colour as the paste, tempered with me-dium or large vegetal or medium-sized mineral particles and mottled blackon the surface due to the firing. One jar bears a human face portrayed inrelief, which closely resembles the ones from Level III at BafraIkiztepe,also dated to the Late Chalcolithic Period.34The examples from Ikiztepe

resemble closely the Hippodrome piece both in technical terms (its pasteand manufacture) and with respect to the decorative use of the human face.

Another find that increases the likelihood that Late Chalcolithic settle-ments existed in the vicinity of the Hippodrome is a fragment of a greenstone macehead (Fig. 2b) found during the excavations carried out by theGerman Archaeological Institute in 1942 in the area between the Hippo-drome and the Martyrium of St. Evphemia (Map 4). Found in a mixedlevel,35 this find has parallels in a large number of Anatolian settlementsdating to both the Late Chalcolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age.

The most important find from the historic precinct dating to the periodfollowing the Late Chalcolithic is a jug fragment36(Fig. 1a) found duringthe digging of a foundation at arkap near the Tomb of Kara MustafaPaa of Merzifon (Map 4). This vessel has four vertical handles linking neckto shoulder and is manufactured by hand. It has a dark brown paste, andtempered with fine and medium mineral and medium-sized vegetal parti-cles. Poorly fired, its exterior is slipped in the same colour as the paste, anddecorated with a design executed in an aubergine-coloured paint. The tallneck and ornamentation do bear similarities with examples from the MiddleCypriot Period I (19001800 BC),37the Middle Cypriot Period II (18001725 BC),38the Middle Cypriot Period III (17251600 BC)39and even theLate Cypriot Period I-II (16001200 BC).40However, as this particular jugis of poor quality and has four handles an attribute not frequently seenon Cypriot pottery it is very likely that this item was made locally.

33 Casson 1930, pp. 213242.34 Alkm 1986, pp. 99116.35 Erzen 1954, pp. 134135, res. 3.36

Fratl 1958a, pp. 2930; Fratl 1978, p. 572, fig. 3: 5.37 Karageorghiset al.2000, jar no. 33/35 in the catalogue.38 Maguire 1991, fig. 7: 15.39 Karageorghis 1999, jars no. 106107: 75 and 76 in the catalogue.40 Malmgren 1999, fig. 7/C 257; Karageorghiset al.2000, jar no. 37/47 in the catalogue.


5/26


Another fragment of interest is a rim sherd found during the building ofthe Istanbul Archaeological Museum (Map 4) in 1968. The piece is hand-

made, and has a dark grey paste that is tempered with fine and medium-sized mineral and medium-sized vegetal inclusions and slipped in the samecolour as the paste. Evenly fired and smoothed by hand, it is decorated witha relief rope design41(Fig. 1b), that is relatively common in the southeasternpart of the Balkan Peninsula in the transition period from the Late Bronze

Age to the Early Iron Age ( 13001100 BC). It is clear from excavations andsurveys in Turkish Thrace that there are a large number of settlements andburials belonging to this period. These materials include pottery uncoveredin the kurgan at Talcabayr,42in the province of Krklareli, pottery sherds

gathered from the megalithic tombs near the village of Vaysal (that wasdamaged during illegal excavations)43 and at Lalapaa in the province ofEdirne.44We also have fragments found during survey work at Agakprand Yedigz in the province of Krklareli.45

These pottery pieces are derivatives of those found at Hisarlk Tepesi(Troy) VIIb2,46 Liman Tepe,47 Hydas,48 Yass Hyk (Gordion) BuildingLevel 7,49Bogazky-Bykkaya,50Kaman-Kalehyk level IId51and Tel-elCdeyde52, representing the period known as the Dark Age in Anatolia, andare associated by some with the Thraco-Phrygian migrations. In addition to

these, the Early Iron Age pottery sherds decorated with pellets, found in thevicinity of the Monastery (Manastr)53 on Ava Island in the Sea ofMarmara, show that the Thraco-Phrygian migrations penetrated into thesouthern regions of the Marmara, and from here crossed the sea to reachsome of the islands. As well as providing evidence for the existence of anEarly Iron Age settlement in the historic precinct, these pottery pieces arevery significant in that they suggest that the Thraco-Phrygian migrations,thought to have crossed the anakkale Straits,54may have also crossed theIstanbul Bosphorus Straits. This theory was first put forward in 1971 by

41 Fratl 1978, p. 570, pl. 163: 4.42Ozdogan 1984, p. 68; Ozdogan 1987, pp. 739; Ozdogan 2000a, pp. 158159.43Ozdogan 1983, res. 4.44 Akman 1997, abb. 10, taf. 15.45Ozdogan 1985, p. 225.46 Drpfeld 1902, p. 297; Schuchhardt 1941, p. 257; Blegen,Caskey and Rawson 1958,

p. 141158; Mller 1971, p. 72.47 Erkanal 1999, p. 327, res. 34.48 Benter 2002, pp. 177, 180181, abb. 10.49 Sams 1994, figs 15.50

Genz 2000, abb. 35; Genz 2001, pp. 12; Genz 2003, pp. 179191.51 Omura 1992a, pl. 8: 14; Omura 1992b, p. 323, res. 8:1.52 Buchholz 1973, p. 184.53Ozdogan 1985, p. 226.54Ozdogan 1985, p. 226.


6/26

244 . DNMEZ

N. K. Sandars55, but it did not arouse much interest as it was not ad-equately supported by archaeological data. However, the data presented

above lend support to Sandars theory. Close parallels to the jar sherd deco-rated with the relief rope impression were found during surveys of settle-ments between the Pravadi Brook and Havsa in the Edirne region,56as wellas during the excavations of the Iron Age settlement on Berezan Island inthe northwestern part of the Black Sea.57

Along with these pottery pieces, a simple hand axe in the form of a chiselmade from green stone and with a shiny surface was found in the same area(Fig. 2a). A new theory put forward by . Bilgi suggests that these axes,seen at many settlements in Anatolia from the Neolithic Period onwards,

were traded in Anatolia. According to Bilgi, the axes were manufactured atproduction centres and workshops in areas where green stone was easilyfound as a raw material, and then distributed through trade.58 Themacehead found between the Hippodrome (Sultanahmet) and the Mar-tyrium of St. Euphemia (Fig. 2b) may have been part of this trading sys-tem.

In addition to these finds, architectural remains and fragments of grey,undecorated pottery were reported in one of the sondages opened up in theyears 19461950 in the vicinity of St Irene and St. Sophia by, M.

Ramazanoglu, one of the ex-directors of Ayasofya Museum. These archaeo-logical finds have not yet been published, but according to A. Erzen, infor-mation concerning them was communicated to him verbally by the excava-tor himself, and apparently the architectural remains closely resemble thePhrygian Period walls at Bogazky from the point of view of the techniqueused.59However, although virgin soil was reached during the excavationscarried out in 1937 in the second courtyard of Topkap Palace by A. Oganand A. M. Mansel, no architectural remains or pottery parallels were foundthere.60

Linguistic documentation also supports a Thracian settlement in ancientIstanbul. According to A. Erzen, Byzantion is the eponymous name ofByzas, a Thracian.61

Apart from those in the historic precinct, no prehistoric or protohistoricsettlements have yet been found in the vicinity of the Hali (Golden

55 Sandars 1971, pp. 1718.56Ozdogan 1984, p. 66.57 Soloyov 2001, fig. 4:415.58 Bilgi 1997, p. 4.59 Erzen 1954, p. 135.60 Ogan 1940, pp. 317335.61 Erzen 1954, p. 136.


7/26


Horn).62There are two main reasons for this. First, is the original length ofthe Hali, which was twice what it is today. Parts of it have been filled in

over a period of thousands of years with clay, mud and earth, resulting fromerosion and carried in by means of the of the Alibey (Kydaris) andKagthane (Barbyses) streams that have wide riverbeds (Map 2). In otherwords, over thousands of years this debris filled first the mouth sections ofthe Alibey and Kagthane streams, then the shallower and narrower north-western part of the Hali, and later the middle and lower parts. In additionflood waters from the areas of Dolapdere, Okmeydan and Eyp, and thoseflowing directly into the Hali, and down from the northern and southernslopes caused the riverbank areas to fill up and become shallower.63As a re-

sult of these natural phenomena, the settlements that probably existed especially those near the edge of the water would have been buried un-der a thick layer of debris accumulation (Map 3).

The most important evidence pointing us to this conclusion comes fromthe Anatolian (Asian side) of Istanbul. A few pottery vessels were found on15.05.1989 at the Fenerbahe Yacht Harbour (Fig. 5), where the KurbagalStream reaches Kalam Bay, during work being done by the Kadky LocalCouncil to clean the riverbed. The group consisted of two dipper juglets(Figs 3ab) and two jugs (Figs 4a-b). Following their discovery, Dr. eniz

Atik from Istanbul Archaeological Museums,64co-ordinated a rescue opera-tion together with two underwater archaeologists, Dilek Tanz and JekferGkpnar. Unfortunately, owing to extremely poor visibility it was thetime for cutting the seaweed the underwater exploration failed to makefurther discoveries. However the underwater archaeologists were able to as-certain, through groping with their hands, the existence of some architec-tural remains that were probably walls but no evidence could be obtainedto indicate the period to which these belonged. Since then no further ar-chaeological research has been done at the Fenerbahe Yacht Harbour.

62 At the same time the organic link betweeen the Hali (Golden Horn) and the HistoricPeninsula, that forms its southeastern shores, is a geographical fact. The widest point of theHali is an average of 900 m between Sarayburnu-Tophane, while the narrowest point isaround 150m, where the Kagthane and Alibey streams flow into it (see Map 4), its deepestpoint is 60 m between Karaky-Eminn and the longest part is 7.5km in the form of a typi-cal river bank. It is a known fact that throughout history the Hali has been used as an innerharbour and a food source as the area around the Hali consisting of several hills suitable forsettlement, would have attracted settlers. The most important hills of the Hali basin arethose of St.Sophia-Topkap Palace (40 m), Beyazt-Sleymaniye (50-60 m), Edirnekap-Fatih(6070 m), Taksim (7080 m), Okmeydan (90100 m) and ili Mecidiyeky (100120 m) (Sayar 1977, p. 357).

63 Yalnlar 1977, p. 290.64 I extend my thanks to Dr. eniz Atik for permission to publish these finds.


8/26

246 . DNMEZ

The dipper juglets are handmade and beak-spouted. The first of these(Fig. 3a) is of dark grey paste and unburnished. The upper part of the beak

spout is missing; it has a vertical handle that links the rim to the body; it isspherical in shape and has a rounded base. The second dipper is also darkgrey and unburnished (Fig. 3b). The body of this vessel widens as it extendsdownwards; its vertical handle that is now missing originally extended fromthe rim down to the plain base. Of the jugs, one is complete whereas theother has quite a large section missing. The complete jug, which like thevessels is shaped by hand (Fig. 4a) is slipped in dark buff and leftunburnished. It has a slightly raised beak spout with a cylindrical neck, anda vertical handle from the rim to shoulder. This spherical jar with a

rounded base has two circular relief designs, side by side on the shoulder,symmetrical to the handle. The second jug (Fig. 4b) would have been simi-lar in form to the first. No decoration is seen on the surviving part of this

jug, which is made of dark grey paste and unburnished.There is some similarity in the general appearance between the Kalam

Bay vessels and the pottery of the burials of the Yortan culture.65However,the Kalam Bay jugs and jug-shaped vessels do not reflect the same techni-cal structure and typology as those of the Yortan culture and Thracian set-tlements. This indicates that the Kalam Bay vessels, which can be dated to

Early Bronze Age IIIII, were probably of local manufacture.Both the handful of ceramics and the likelihood of stone foundations of

walls now underwater, it is not unreasonable to assume that an ancient set-tlement existed at Kalam Bay. The fact that Kalam is a suitable bay for asettlement, and is fed by a freshwater source like Kurbagaldere, would havebeen the most likely reasons for choosing it as a site for establishing a settle-ment. The question of why such a settlement (if it exists) is now underwa-ter can be explained by the fluctuation in water levels of the Marmarashores throughout history.66

In addition to dynamic environmental change, the high density of build-ing and settlement in the region over the past few millennia has also con-tributed to the invisibility of prehistoric settlements in Istanbul and theHali Basin. Later constructions have either sealed the vestiges of earlier set-tlements, or obliterated them. Photographs (Figs 67) taken of Istanbuland especially the Hali and its basin from the air, in a hotair balloon raisedup over the Bakrky-Incirli side, by two German lieutenants during theFirst World War are instructive.67 On close examination of these photo-

65 For the Yortan burials at Yortan, Babaky and Ovabayndr see Kamil 1982; Bittel 1939,pp. 131; zg 1944, pp. 5370; Akurgal 1958, pp. 156170; Orthmann 1966, pp. 126.

66 Erol 1991, pp. 1116.67 Saner 2001.


9/26


graphs, large empty spaces and fields can be seen in the region around theHali and its basin, especially behind the settlement area at the waters

edge. We can conclude that, if systematic archaeological research couldhave been started at least during the period when the photographs weretaken (19141918) or in the first years of The Republic of Turkey, the infor-mation we have about the archaeology of Istanbul, including the Hali andits basin, would probably have been a lot more extensive.

In conclusion, these data show us that on the Anatolian side of Istanbulthere were settlements established at Fikirtepe and Kalam, in the riverbedof the Kurbagal, and at Tuzla in the valley of the Kemikli Stream. Thesesettlements are now either under water or beneath a thick layer of alluvium.

Furthermore, all things considered, it is likely that the city of Istanbul, theHali Basin and the historic peninsula were settled in prehistory, but it isclear that evidence of this occupation has been damaged by the dense andrapid building construction.

Catalogue

Fig. 1a: Jug. Di. 7.1cm, H. 11.4cm, W. 5.8cm, Th. 0.9cm. Dark buff paste.

Fine mineral and medium vegetal tempered. Slipped in the same colour asthe paste. Poorly fired. Unburnished. Decorated on both the outside andinside; the rim in aubergine. Handmade. The Tomb of Kara Mustafa Paaof Merzifon, arkap, Historic Peninsula, Istanbul. Date: Middle CypriotPeriod IIII or Late Cypriot Period III.

Fig. 1b:Jar rim. Di. 18.5cm, H. 7.3cm, W. 12.2cm, Th. 0.9cm. Dark greypaste. Medium vegetal and fine and medium mineral tempered. Slipped inthe same colour as the paste. Moderate fired. Slightly burnished. Decora-

tion on the outside is in relief, in the form of a rope impression. Hand-made. Found during the extension of Istanbul Archaeological Museums,Historic Peninsula, Istanbul. Date: Late Bronze AgeEarly Iron Age.

Fig. 2a: Hand Axe. Stone. 7370. L. 12.7cm, W. 6.1cm, Th. 3.5cm. Mottleddark green. Well burnished. Found during the extension of Istanbul Ar-chaeological Museums, Historic Peninsula, Istanbul. Date: Late Bronze

AgeEarly Iron Age.

Fig. 2b: Macehead. Di. 5cm, H. 4.7cm. Dark Green. Well burnished. St.Evphemia Martyrium-Hippodrome (Sultanahmet), Historic Peninsula, Is-tanbul. Date: Late Chalcolithic PeriodEarly Bronze Age.


10/26


11/26


Atasayan, M.1941 1940 Ylnda Pendikte Bulunan Paleolitik Tipte El Baltas Hakknda Bir

Not, Dil ve Tarih Cografya Fakltesi Yllk almalar Dergisi 1: 523527.

Benter, M.2002 II. Hydas Yzey Aratrmas 2000/Zweiter Hydas-Survey 2000, 19.

Aratrma Sonular Toplants, vol.1: 177188.

Bilgi, .1997 Klasik agOncesi Anadoluda Ticaret/Trade in Anatolia During the Pre-

Classical Period, Palmet I. Sadberk Hanm Mzesi Yllg: 155.

Bittel, K.1934 Prhistorische Forschung in Kleinasien. Istanbul: Istanbuler Forschungen 6.

1939 Ein Grberfeld der Yortankultur bei Babaky, Archiv fr Orientforschung13: 139.

Blegen, C., Caskey, J. L. and Rawson, M.1958 Troy.Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati 19321938. vol. IV.

Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Buchholz, H. G.1973 Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus and Northern Syria, in Bronze Age Migra-

tions in the AegeanArchaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek prehistory,edited by R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, pp. 179187. London: Noyes Press.

Casson, S.1930 Les fouilles lhippodrome de Constantinople, Gazete des Beaux-Arts 6(3):

213242.

Drpfeld, W.1902 Troja und Ilion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und

historischen Schichten von Ilion, 18701894. Athens.

Erkanal, H.

1999 1997 Liman Tepe Kazlar, XX. Kaz Sonular Toplants, vol. 1, pp. 325336. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

Erol, O.1991 Trkiye Kylarndaki Terkedilmi Tarihi Limanlar ve Bir evre Sorunu

Olarak Ky izgisi Degiimlerinin Onemi, Istanbul niversitesi Denizilim-leri ve Cografya Enstits Blteni 8: 144.

Erzen, A.1954 Istanbul ehrinin Kuruluu ve Isimleri, Belleten 18(70): 131158.

Esin, U.1992 Istanbulun En Eski Buluntu Yerleri ve Kltrleri, in Semavi Eyice

Armagan. Istanbul Yazlar, edited by H. Abbasoglu and O. Belli, pp. 5571.Istanbul: The Touring and Automobile Club of Turkey.


12/26

250 . DNMEZ

Fratl, N.1958a arkapda Bulunan Prehistorik Keramik/The Prehistoric Pottery Found

at arkap, Istanbul Arkeoloji Mzeleri Yllg/Annual of the ArchaeologicalMuseums of Istanbul 8: 2930/74.

1958b Tuzlada Bulunan Prehistorik Keramik/Prehistoric Pottery Found at Tuzla,Istanbul Arkeoloji Mzeleri Yllg/Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Is-tanbul 8: 3031 and 7475

1978 New Discoveries Concerning The First Settlement of Ancient Istanbul -Byzantion, The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Ar-chaeology, vol. I, pp. 565574. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu.

Genz, H.2000 Die Eisenzeit in Zentralanatolien im Lichte der keramischen Funde vom

Bykkaya in Bogazky/Hattusa, TBA-AR 3: 3554.2001 Bogazkyn Erken Demir ag, EskiagBilimleri Enstits Haberler 12: 12.

2003 The Early Iron Age in Central Anatolia, Identifying Changes: in The Tran-sition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and Its Neighbouring Regions. Pro-ceedings of the International Workshop, edited by B. Fischer, H. Genz, E. Jeanand K. Kroglu, pp. 179191. Istanbul: Institutum Turcicum Scientiae

Antiquitatis.

Harmankaya, S.1983 Pendik Kazs 1981, IV. Kaz Sonular Toplants, pp. 2530. Ankara:

T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.Jelinek, A. J.1980 Istanbul Bogaznn Dogu Yakasndaki Vadilerden Paleolitik Buluntular, in

Istanbul ve Chicago niversiteleri Karma Projesi Gneydogu Anadolu TarihOncesi Aratrmalar I, edited byH. ambel and R. J. Braidwood, pp. 309318. Istanbul.

Kamil, T.1982 Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia. Oxford: BAR

International Series 145.

Kansu, . A.1947 The Stone Age Cultures in Turkey,American Journal of Archaeology 51(3):

227232.1963a Kanall Kpr (Silivri) Kalkolitigine Yeni Keramik Belgeler ve

Heraeum?un Yeri, Belleten 27(10): 289296.1963b Marmara Blgesi ve Trakyada Prehistorik Iskan Tarihi Bakmndan

Aratrmalar (19591962), Belleten 27(108): 637705.

1964 Marmara Blgesi ve Trakyada Prehistorik Iskan Tarihi BakmndanAratrmalar (19591962),Atatrk Konferanslar I, pp. 205214. Ankara.

Karageorghis, V.1999 Ancient Cypriote Art in the Severis Collection. Athens: Costakis and Leto

Severis Foundation.


13/26


Karageorghis, V., Mertens, J., Rose, M., Mertens, J. R. and Rose, M. E.2000 Ancient Art from Cyprus. The Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum

of Art. New York: HNA Books.

Maguire, L. C.1991 The Classification of Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery: Wares, Styles

Workshops?, in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited byJ.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 5966. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, Pennsylvania.

Malmgren, K.1999 The White Slip Ware from Klavdhia-Tremithos, in Cypriot Archaeology in

Gteborg, edited by K. H. Niklasson, pp. 7796. Jonsered: Studies in Medi-

terranean Archaeology.

Mller, W.1971 Troja. Leipzig: Die Forschungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts.

Ogan, A.1940 1937 Ylnda Trk Tarih Kurumu Tarafndan Yaplan Topkap Saray

Hafriyat/Les fouilles de Topkap Saray, entreprises en 1937 par la secietedHistorie Turque, Belleten 4(16): 317328/329335.

Omura, S.

1992aKaman-Kalehyk I. Ibaraki: Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan.1992b 1990 Yl Kaman-Kalehyk Kazlar, XIII. Kaz Sonular Toplants,

vol. I. pp. 319336. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

Orthmann, W.1966 Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen, Istanbuler Mitteilungen

16: 126.

Ozdogan, M.1982 Dogu Marmara ve Trakya Aratrmalar, Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26(1): 37

49.1983 Trakya ve Dogu Marmara Aratrmalar 1981 Yl almalar, IV. KazSonular Toplants, pp. 137142. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

1984 Dogu Marmara ve Trakya Aratrmalar, 1982, I. Aratrma SonularToplants, pp. 6368. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

1985 1983 Yl Dogu Marmara ve Trakya Aratrmalar, II. Aratrma SonularToplants, pp. 221232. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

1986 Marmara Blgesinde Kltr tarihi Ile Ilgili Baz Sorunlar ve Bunlarnzmne Jeomorfoloji Aratrmalarnn Katks, I. Arkeometri SonularToplants, pp. 139162. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

1987 Talcabayr, A Late Bronze Age Burial Mound in Eastern Thrace,

Anatolica 14: 739.1988 Yarmburgaz Magaras 1986 Yl Kaz almalar, V. Aratrma Sonular

Toplants, vol. II, pp. 323346. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.


14/26

252 . DNMEZ

1992 Tarihncesi Dnemde Istanbul, in Semavi Eyice Armagan. Istanbul Yaz-lar, edited by H. Abbasoglu and O. Belli, pp. 3951. Istanbul: The Touringand Automobile Club of Turkey.

2000a Talcabayr Kazs, in Trkiye Arkeolojisi ve Istanbul niversitesi, edited byO. Belli, pp. 158159. Ankara: University of Istanbul.

2000b Marmara Blgesi Yzey Aratrmas, in Trkiye Arkeolojisi ve Istan-bul niversitesi,edited by O. Belli, pp. 308313. Ankara: University of Istan-bul.

zg, T.1944 Yortan Mezarlk Kltrne Ait Yeni Buluntular, Belleten 8: 5370.

Parzinger, H. and zdogan, M.

1995 Die Ausgrabungen in Krklareli (Trkisch-Thrakien) und ihre Bedeutungfr die Kultur beziehungen zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan vomNeolithikum bis zur Frhbronzezeit, Bericht der Romish-GermanischenKommision 76: 529.

Pasinli, A., Uzunoglu, E., Atakan, N., Girgin, . and Soysal, M.1994 Pendik Kurtarma Kazs, IV. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri, pp. 147

163. Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanlg.

Sams, G. K.1994 The Early Phrygian Pottery. The Gordion Excavations 19501973: Final Reports.

Volume IV. Philadelphia: University Museum, Pennsylvania.

Sandars, N. K.1971 From Bronze Age to Iron Age: A Sequel to A Sequel, in The European

Community in Later Prehistory. Studies in Honor of C.F.C. Hawkes, editedby G. A. Wagner, E. Pernicka and H. P. Uerpmann, pp. 129. London:Springer.

Saner, T.2001 Zirvelerin zeri Hep Sakin Kalsa da. Istanbul 3: 117123.

Sayar, C.1977 Hali ve Civarnn Jeolojisi, Hali. Sorunlar ve zm Yollar Ulusal

Sempozyumu Tebligleri (1113 February 1976 Bogazii University), pp. 350366. Istanbul. Bogazii University.

Schuchhardt, C.1941 Alteuropa. Die Entwicklung seiner Kulturen und Vlker. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Soloyov, S. L.2001 The Archaeological Excavation of the Berezan Settlement (19871991),

in North Pontic Archaeology. Recent Discoveries and Studies, edited byG. R. Tsetskhladze, pp. 117141. Leiden: Brill.


15/26


16/26

254 . DNMEZ

Map1.TheregionofIstanbulshowingkeyarchaeologicalsites(AfterEsin1992)


17/26


Map 2. The region of Hali (Golden Horn), showing streams that would have attractedprehistoric settlements


18/26

256 . DNMEZ

Map 3. The alluvial filled areas of the region Hali (Golden Horn), which might be coveringprehistoric settlements


19/26


Map 4. The historic precinct of Istanbul showing the location of prehistoric finds near theHippodrome


20/26

258 . DNMEZ

Fig. 1a: Jug with Paint Decoration, arkap, Historic Peninsula, Istanbul

Fig. 1b: Jar rim with a Bas Relief Decoration, Extension Building at IstanbulArchaeological Museums, Historic Peninsula, Istanbul


21/26


Fig. 2a: Stone Hand Axe, Extension Building at Istanbul Archaeological Museums,Historic Peninsula, Istanbul

Fig. 2b: Stone Mace-Head, Hippodrome/Sultanahmet-the Martyriumof St. Evphemia, Historic Peninsula, Istanbul


22/26

260 . DNMEZ

Fig. 3b: Dipper from Fenerbahe Yatch Harbour, Istanbul

Fig. 3a: Dipper from Fenerbahe Yatch Harbour, Istanbul


23/26


Fig. 4b: Jug from Fenerbahe Yatch Harbour, Istanbul

Fig. 4a: Jug from Fenerbahe Yatch Harbour, Istanbul


24/26

262 . DNMEZ

Fig.5:SketchPlanofKalamBayanditsVicinity


25/26


Fig.6:AnAreialPhoto

ofEypRegionofHali(TheGo

ldenHorn)


26/26

264 . DNMEZ

Fig.7:AnAreialPhotoofili-HaskyRegionofHali(TheGo

ldenHorn)

The Prehistory of the Istanbul Region a Survey

Documents

Transcript of The Prehistory of the Istanbul Region a Survey