·
Illustrations are taken from the
internet, unless otherwise noted.
·
For an earlier publication on this
subject, see: Charles Gates, "American Archaeologists in Turkey:
Intellectual and Social Dimensions," Journal of the American Studies
Association of Turkey 4 (1996):
47-68.
Since
World War II
When archaeological activity
resumed after the hiatus of the war years, we see that the traditional kind of
project continued: large-scale excavations with a focus on the Greeks and the
Romans. A new interest, however, arose
in the Anatolian Iron Age peoples contemporary with early Greeks, notably the
Phrygians and the Lydians. The
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania began excavations in 1950 at
Gordion, under the direction of
Rodney Young. A search for the Phrygian
levels was a major aim.
In 1958, George Hanfmann (of
Harvard) and Henry Detweiler (of Cornell) resumed American work at Sardis.
Here, the Lydians were targeted.
Kenan Erim, a professor at New
York University, began full-scale excavations at Aphrodisias in 1961. In
contrast to Young and Hanfmann, his interests were purely Classical, focused on
the great monuments of art and architecture, aims of the sort that Clarke,
Bacon, and Butler would have appreciated.
Although the site would also yield prehistoric remains, its reputation
is due in particular to the spectacular and abundant finds of Roman sculpture.
All three men (Young,
Hanfmann, and Erim) were trained in the Classics, in philology first of all, in
Classical art and archaeology secondarily.
Young and Erim, at least, were conservative in their aims. They featured a historical-descriptive
approach, and in the field used large crews to clear whatever individual
architectural monuments might fortuitously emerge into view. Such procedures typified the discipline of
Classical Archaeology as practiced in the Mediterranean region until recently. All three projects – Gordion, Sardis, and
Aphrodisias – are still active today, even if the aims and methods of research
have evolved under new generations of directors.
Traditional approaches were
applied in prehistoric archaeology, too.
Machteld Mellink, a Dutch scholar trained in the Classics, joined Hetty
Goldman’s post-World War II team at Gözlu
Kule, Tarsus, as in fact did George Hanfmann. Immediately fascinated by Anatolian
prehistory, Mellink went on to become a leading expert in this field. A professor at Bryn Mawr, her influence among
archaeologists working in Turkey, both Turkish and foreign, cannot be
overestimated. From 1955 to 1993, her
annual newsletter, “Archaeology in Asia Minor” (later “Archaeology in
Anatolia”) published in the American Journal of Archaeology was the
internationally consulted summary of yearly archaeological activity in
Turkey. Beginning in 1963, Mellink
conducted her own research project, the excavation of an Early Bronze Age
settlement at Karataş-Semayük near
Elmalı (northwest of Antalya).
Unique among American projects
was surely the exploration of Nemrud
Dağı by Theresa Goell. Not an
academic, Goell was nonetheless a fully trained and fully committed
archaeologist. When Goldman fell ill
during the 1948 Tarsus season, Goell took over.
Soon after, she visited Nemrud Dağı and decided she had to learn more
about it. The site was remote;
conditions were difficult. Nonetheless
she persevered, from 1953 to 1973. The
full results were published after her death in a really wonderful book*. But we have a priceless record of the
extraordinary experience, for her brother Kermit filmed the work and the daily
life, and her niece, Martha Goell Lubell, put it altogether – life story,
films, research -- in a fabulous one-hour documentary, “Queen of the Mountain.”
* Donald H. Sanders (ed.). Nemrud
Dağı: The Hierothesion of Antiochus I of Commagene. Results of the American
Excavations directed by Theresa B. Goell. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1996.
New
trends
The above projects continued
methods and scientific goals that had their roots in pre-World War II
archaeology. Beginning especially in the
1960s, several new factors began to complement such traditional
approaches. Some have affected
archaeologists of all nationalities, whereas others have concerned American
archaeologists in particular. I would
like to present six such trends.
1)
The discovery of Neolithic cultures in Turkey.
Already attested in Mesopotamia, Neolithic
settlements were revealed in Turkey in the 1950s and early 1960s thanks
especially to the British excavations at Hacılar and Çatalhöyük. During the Neolithic period people made the
important transition from hunter-gatherer societies to settled communities,
with control of food sources (domestication of plants and animals), development
of fixed villages and towns, and new technologies such as pottery, with
metallurgy to follow. Americans would
eventually take part in illuminating this important era: Robert and Linda
Braidwood in a joint Turkish-American-German project at Çayönü (near Diyarbakır); Jacques Bordaz at Suberde and Erbaba
(west-central Turkey); and, in the early 1990s, Michael Rosenberg at Hallan Çemi (near Batman).
2)
The development of underwater, or nautical, archaeology
This was due to an American
initiative. When the University Museum
at the University of Pennsylvania was contacted about the likelihood of
investigating a shipwreck discovered off Cape
Gelidonya, southwest of Antalya, Rodney Young, chair of the Classical
Archaeology department, assigned graduate student George Bass to the project. Bass learned how to scuba dive in a local
YMCA pool, then went in 1960 to direct the excavation of this wreck of ca. 1200
BC, then the earliest ship known anywhere in the world. He published the results for his PhD
dissertation. Bass went on to found the
Institute of Nautical Archaeology. Based
at Texas A & M University, the Institute has undertaken excavations
throughout the world. In Turkey, with
its important regional center in Bodrum, the Institute and its members have
cooperated with the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology and Turkish
colleagues in the excavation and conservation of several more shipwrecks in
Turkish Aegean and Mediterranean waters.
News flash: This summer, a
team from INA directed by Cemal Pulak, in partnership with Hakan Öniz
(Underwater Research Center, Kemer), plan to begin excavation of wreck located
near the Gelidonya wreck. It is
tentatively dated to the 16th or 15th century BC, even earlier than the Uluburun wreck (14th c. BC). But the
remains are very deep, at 55m, so the diving will be difficult.
3)
Scientific analyses
Scientific analyses of excavated materials now include a wide range of
methods. Among these is
dendrochronology. Here, too, as for
George Bass, another dissertation prepared for the Department of Classical
Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania led to the creation of a
distinctive research niche. Peter
Kuniholm began by examining the wood used in Phrygian tumulus burials at Gordion. From the growth rings of these
logs, he was able to construct a relative chronology, following the model
developed for the archaeology of the southwestern United States. Since the 1970s, Kuniholm (long based at
Cornell, now at the University of Arizona) has taken countless samples of wood,
especially from Turkey and Greece, from periods ancient, medieval, and modern,
and extended his chronology back 6000 years.
In the process he created an awareness of the value of dendrochronology
that otherwise would not have existed.
4) The influence
of Anthropology
You will have
noticed that I have made no mention of a Department of Archaeology. That’s because in American universities there
are no Archaeology departments (with a few exceptions). Archaeology is typically taught in
departments of Classics, Art History, Oriental/Near Eastern Studies, and
Anthropology.
Virtually all American
archaeologists presented so far were trained in Classics, or perhaps art
history or oriental studies, the dominant mother fields for the study of
ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern art and cultures. Archaeology as practiced in anthropology departments
has been heavily influenced by developments in cultural or social
anthropology. Moreover, it has
concentrated on other regions of the world, such as the New World and
pre-Classical Europe. Anthropological
archaeologists tend to develop theoretical aims for their research, questions
they would like to answer through excavation, whereas the traditional Classical
archaeologists pick a site because of its interesting historical background or
art and architectural remains, and they study whatever happens to come up,
formulating generalizations accordingly.
The quality of work of both schools can be high; it is the approach that
is different, and of course the whole background of study can differ.
After World War II, the
archaeological component of the field of anthropology took up an interest in
the ancient Near East. Robert Dyson of
the University Museum began his highly influential excavations at Hasanlu in northwestern Iran in 1957,
and over the next two decades trained many students who went on to prominent
positions in Old World archaeology. Iran
in particular become focus of research for American archaeologists educated in
anthropology. After the fall of the Shah
in 1979, the new regime shut down all foreign archaeological work. Americans who had built their careers in Iran
were suddenly dispossessed. These intellectual refugees sought new areas. Afghanistan was closed because of the Soviet
invasion (also in 1979). Iraq and Syria
welcomed some, although political tensions with the United States created
underlying uncertainties for such projects, and the 1991 Gulf War closed Iraq
to American and European excavations. I
hardly need to remind you that subsequent turmoil in the region has created
grave challenges for Near Eastern archaeology and for cultural heritage
preservation.
To return to 1979: Turkey proved
to be the most sympathetic home. Just as
Turkey welcomed German refugees in the 1930s, so too it welcomed the scientific
refugees from the political turbulence in the east. All pursued projects in
Anatolian prehistory, many in the southeastern quadrant of Turkey, the area
closest to those regions heretofore familiar.
A unique confrontation of the
two schools of American archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East
was to be found at Gordion, where
Mary Voigt, a Dyson student and former excavator in Iran, directed excavations
from 1987 to 2012, while then project director G. Kenneth Sams, a student of
Rodney Young and veteran Gordionite, represented the school of archaeologists
trained in Classics and art history.
From all reports this was a stimulating encounter.
5) Large-scale salvage projects and surface surveys
The
building of dams on the Euphrates River gave rise to two major archaeological
salvage campaigns, both supervised by Middle East Technical University: the
Keban project (Elazığ province) and the Atatürk and Karababa dams project in
Adıyaman and Urfa provinces. Government
permits, not always easily obtained, were freely granted for those areas to be
flooded. The resulting projects proved
important training grounds for archaeologists of all nationalities. American salvage excavations in the early
1980s at Gritille and Kurban Höyük offered excavations
experience to many, including anthropological archaeologists who in previous
decades would have trained in Iran. Dam
projects on the Tigris and its tributaries, still ongoing, have continued these
excavation opportunities, with American projects presented among them.
A word on surface
surveys. A surface survey is the
exploration of landscapes, without excavation, to record cultural remains. Although surveys have long been conducted,
procedures became more systematic from the 1980s on. Today, scientific analyses are often part of
the methods used, such as remote sensing.
At Gordion, for example, the survey of areas extending far from the main
mounds have dramatically changed our understanding of the extent of the ancient
city.
6) Medieval archaeology
Medieval
archaeology is an up-and-coming field.
Traditionally, medieval remains were dismissed, as being of little
interest. Many classical cities
continued to be inhabited in the Middle Ages.
Archaeologists interested in the Romans, Greeks, and earlier peoples,
impatient to get to these periods, often brushed away the medieval remains as
quickly as possible. For Medievalists –
whom we might sub-divide into Byzantine and Islamic specialists, this latter
further divided into Seljuk and Ottoman specialists – architecture was
all-important. Excavations were done to
learn more about the big buildings: churches, kervansarays, palaces, and other
remains of civic and military architecture.
The detritus of medieval daily life was not of interest.
Fortunately, attitudes are
changing. Americans involved in this
transformation include Scott Redford, a specialist in the Seljuks; Asa Eger,
interested in early Islamic forts on the Byzantine-Syrian frontier; and Robert
Ousterhout, a Byzantine architectural historian whose research on rock-cut
settlements in Medieval Cappadocia has revolutionized notions of society in
that region.
In 1964, a consortium of American and Canadian
universities founded ARIT in order to assist North American scholars doing
research on Turkey in the humanities and social sciences in all periods,
ancient to modern. The original Istanbul
center was soon supplemented by a branch in Ankara. Funds provided by the subscribing
universities are used to maintain the headquarters, including libraries open to
the public, and to provide fellowships for scholars from the supporting
universities. Several US government
agencies have granted money for various purposes, including fellowships
specifically for American citizens. The
fellowship programs have grown, despite ever-present budget cuts from the US
government. The privately funded
Hanfmann and Mellink fellowships allow Turkish scholars under the age of 40 to
pursue research outside the country. The
Coulson-Cross Aegean fellowships allow Turkish scholars to do research in
Greece, and Greek scholars to do research in Turkey. And short-term scholarships have been awarded
to Turkish scholars to pursue research inside Turkey. These grants, whatever
their amount, have been much appreciated because such resources are otherwise
scarce. Although the ARIT branches do
not match the centers in Athens or Rome in the size of their libraries and
facilities, the Institute has played a highly appreciated support role for
hundreds of scholars, North American, Turkish, and other.
Because this is an
ARIT evening, I would like to end with a salute and a thank you, to our three
ARIT leaders. Antony Greenwood, the
long-time director of Istanbul-ARIT, will be retiring at the end of this month
after 36 years. Our very own Elif Denel,
director of Ankara-ARIT, is in the center.
And, at the right, is Brian Rose, the president of ARIT, as well as the
director of the Gordion Project.
(To the audience) Many thanks for coming this evening!
No comments:
Post a Comment