Ege Arkeolojisindeki Kolonyal ve Postkolonyal Yaklaşımların Batı Anadolu Geç Tunç Çağı Literatürüne Etkileri: Iasos ve Miletos Örneği

19. yüzyıl ve 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısında Avrupa’daki sosyo-politik atmosferin temel paradigması olan Kolonyalizm, bir disiplin olarak henüz şekillenen arkeoloji üzerinde köklü bir etki bırakmıştır. Bu gelişim döneminde kolonyal perspektifin yön verdiği arkeolojik geçmiş anlatıları, üstün niteliklere sahip medeni topluluklar sömürgeciler ve karşılarında yer alan pasif ötekilerden oluşan bir ikilem içerir. Ancak, 1950’lerden sonra Avrupalıların kolonyal geçmişine karşı gelişen daha doğrusu üstüne inşa edilen postkolonyal teorinin, arkeolojik araştırmalardaki yansımalarıyla kolonyal literatüre alternatif fikirler geliştirilmiş akültürasyon, hibritleşme gibi temalar kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. . Bu makalede kolonyal ve postkolonyal yaklaşımların Batı Anadolu’daki arkelojik geçmiş kurguları üzerindeki etkileri eleştirel bir şekilde ele alınarak, Miletos ve Iasos’taki Geç Tunç Çağı tabakalarına yönelik eski ve güncel değerlendirmeler, birer örnek vaka olarak kullanılacaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kolonyalizm, Arkeoloji, Postkolonyal Teori, Iasos, Miletos

Colonialism, the main paradigm of sociopolitical atmosphere in Europe during 19th and first half of the 20th the centuries had a deeply rooted effect on archaeology as a newly developing discipline. Archaeological narratives shaped by colonial perspective in this formation period contain a dichotomy of civilized societies the colonizer and non-active others. However, along with reflections of postcolonial theory, which was established on European colonial past after 1950s, alternative counter frameworks have been launched, and notions such as acculturation, hybridization has begun to flourish in archaeological studies. In this article, the effects of colonial and postcolonial approaches on the archaeological reconstructions of the past in Western Anatolia will be critically analyzed and pastpresent interpretations of Late Bronze Age stratums in Miletos and Iasos will be used as case studies.

Keywords:

Colonialism, Archaeology, Postcolonial Theory, Iasos, Miletos,

PDF

___

Benzi, M. 1987 “I Micenei a Iasos, Studi su Iasos di Caria”, Venticinque anni di scabi della Missione Archaeologica Italiana, Istituto poligrafico e Zecca della Stato, Roma: 29-34.
-2005 “Mycenaeans at Iasos? A Reassessment of Doro Levi’s Excavations”, R. Laffineur – E. Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Liege: 205-215.
Boardman, J. 1980 The Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade, Londra.
Broodbank, C. 2004 “Minoanisation”, The Cambridge Classical Journal 50: 46-91.
Cusick, J. 1998 “Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of Concepts and their Application in Archaeology”, J. Cusick (eds.), Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and Archaeology, Carbondale: 126-145.
Diaz-Andreu, M. 2007 A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past, New York.
van Dommelen, P. 1997 “Colonial Constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in the Mediterranean”, World Archaeology 28: 305-323.
Girella, L.– E. Gorogianni – P. Pavuk, 2016 “Introduction: Methodological Considerations”, L. Girelli – P. Pavuk (eds.), Beyond Thalassocracies: Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean, Oxford: 1-14.
Gosden, C. 2001 “Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge”, I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today, Maiden: 241-261.
-2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present, Cambridge.
Hamilakis, Y. 2006 “The Colonial, The National, and the Local: Legacies of the ‘Minoan’ Past”, Y. Hamilakis – N. Momigliani (eds.), Archaeology and European Modernity: Producing and Consuming the ‘Minoans’ Crete: 146-149.
Hingley, R. 2014 “Colonial and Post-colonial Archaeologies”, A. Gardner – M. Lake – U. Sommer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199567942.013.008
Kaiser, I.– J. Zurbach, 2015 “Late Bronze Age Miletus. The Anatolian Face”, C. Stampolidis – Ç. Maner – K. Kopanias (eds.) NOSTOİ Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during Late Bronze and Early Bronze Age, İstanbul: 557-581.
Knapp, B. – P. van Dommelen, 2010 Material Connections Mobility, Materiality and Mediterranean Identities, P. van Dommelen – B. Knapp (eds.) Material Connections in the Ancient Mediterranean, New York: 1-18.
Knappet, C. 2016 “Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation: A Commentary”, L. Girelli – P. Pavuk (eds.), Beyond Thalassocracies: Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean, Oxford: 202-206.
Knappet, C. – I. Nikolakopoulou, 2008 Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera, The Journal of American School of Classical Studies at Athens 77/1: 1-42.
Momigliano, N. 2009 “Minoans at Iasos?”, The Minoans in the central, eastern and northern Aegean – new evidence, Acts of a Minoan Seminer 22-23 January at Athens, 2005, Aarhus: 121-140.
-2012 Bronze Age Carian Iasos: Structures and Finds from the Area of the Roman Agora (c. 3000-1500), Roma, 2012.
Moore, H. 1987 “Problems in the Analysis of Social Change: An Example from Marakwet”, Archaeology as Longterm History, Cambridge: 85-104.
Mountjoy, P. 1998 “The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa”, Anatolian Studies 48: 33-67.
Niemeier, W.D. 1998 “The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples, S. Gitin – A. Mazar – E. Stern (eds.) Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, Jerusalem: 17-65.
-2005 “Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians in Western Asia Minor”, A. Villing (eds.), The Greeks in the East, London: 1-36.
Raymond, A.– I. Kaiser –L.C. Rizzotto – J. Zurbach. 2016 “Discerning Acculturation at Miletus: Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation”, L. Girelli – P. Pavuk (eds.), Beyond Thalassocracies: Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean, Oxford: 58-74.
Redfield, R. – R. Linton – M. J. Herskovits. 1936 “Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation”, American Anthropologist 38: 149-152.
Roosevelt, H.C. – P. Cobb – E. Moss - B. R. Olson – S. Ünlüsoy 2015 “Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice”, Journal of Field Archaeology 40/3: 325 - 346.
Rubertone, P. 1994 “Archaeology, Colonialism and 17th-century Native America: Towards an Alternative Interpretation”, R. Layton (ed.), Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, New York: 33-45.
Russell, A. 2017 “Sicily without Mycenae: A Cross-Cultural Consumption Analysis of Connectivity in the Bronze Age Central Mediterranean”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 30/1: 59-83.
Steel, L. 2013 Materiality and Consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, New York.
Tartaron, T. 2013 Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World, Cambridge.
Uziel, J. 2007 “The Development Process of Philistine Material Culture: Assimilation, Acculturation and Everything in between”, Levant 39: 165-173.
Voskos, I.– B. Knapp, 2008 “Cyprus at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Crisis and Colonization or Continuity and Hybridization?”, American Journal of Archaeology 112/4: 659-684.

ISSN: 1303-8486
Yayın Aralığı: Yıllık
Başlangıç: 2002
Yayıncı: Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enst.

Arşiv