NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR

Emma L. BAYSAL (Trakya Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Edirne, Türkiye)
TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi
16 0
Yıl: 2015 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 18 Sayfa Aralığı: 9 - 23 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR

Öz:
Neolitik Dönemin boncuk, pendant ve bilezik gibi kişisel süs eşyaları şimdiye dek çok az araştırılmış bir konudur. Son yıllarda yapılan çalışmalar, süs eşyalarının nasıl kullanıldığını, neyden ve nasıl yapıldıklarını ve Neolitik yaşamın diğer yönleri ile nasıl ilişkili olduklarını ortaya çıkartmaya başlamıştır. Tipoloji ve kronolojiye dair temel sorunların yanı sıra, süs eşyaları hakkında artan bilginin bir sonucu olarak yeni sorular da doğmuştur. Örnek olarak; üretimin nasıl organize edildiği, uzmanlaşma derecesi, boncukların işlevi ve anlamı, bunların süs eşyası mı yoksa bunlarla bağlantılı olanlar arasında belli mesajları mı ilettikleri verilebilir. Bu makalede, Neolitik dönem süs eşyalarının gizemli dünyasına dair yeni araştırmalar ele alınacaktır. Burada ele alınacak temel sorunların kapsamını, tipolojik ve kronolojik eğilimler ve bunların nasıl yorumlanabileceği, Neolitik teknoloji ve kimlik hakkında bize ne söyleyebileceği ve bu ortaya çıkan yeni soruların gelecek araştırmalarda nasıl yanıtlanabileceği oluşturmaktadır. Sonuç olarak da bu makalede kişisel süs eşyalarının, prehistorik dönemde insanların kendilerini nasıl algıladıkları ve diğerleriyle nasıl ilişki kurdukları konusunda bize ne söyledikleri irdelenecektir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kültürel Çalışmalar

NEOLITHIC PERSONAL ORNAMENTS: NEW APPROACHES AND THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH IN TURKEY

Öz:
For a long time the personal ornaments, beads, pendants and bracelets, of the Neolithic period remained little researched. Recent work has begun to reveal how ornaments were used, what they were made from, how they were made and how they related to other aspects of Neolithic life. In addition to fundamental questions about typology and chronology, new questions have arisen as a result of the increase in knowledge about ornaments. For example, how production was organised and the degree to which it was specialized, as well as the meaning and purpose of beads, whether they were ornamental, or transmitted messages to those that came in contact with them. This article considers the current state of research into the enigmatic world of Neolithic ornaments, typological and chronological trends, how they can be interpreted, what they can tell us about Neolithic technology and identity and how remaining questions might be answered in future research. In its conclusions the article considers what personal ornaments can tell us about how people in prehistory perceived themselves and their relationships to others.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kültürel Çalışmalar
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • ALARASHI, H. 2014. La parure épipaléolithique et néolithique de la Syrie (12e au 7e millénaire avant J.-C.): Techniques et usages, échanges et identities (Université Lumière – Lyon 2 Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Lyon.
  • ALTINBILEK, Ç/COŞKUNSU, G/DEDE, Y/IOVINO, M/LEMORINI, C/ÖZDOĞAN, A. 2001. “Drills from Çayönü. A Combination of Ethnographic, Experimental and Use-Wear Analysis”, Beyond Tools, Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant (Eds. I. Caneva/C. Lemorini/D. Zampetti/P. Biagi). Berlin: 137-143.
  • ASTRUC, L. 2001. “Lithic Tools Involved in the Manufacture of Stone Ornaments and Utilitarian Products at Khirokitia (Cyprus),” Beyond Tools, Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant (Eds. I. Caneva/C. Lemorini/D. Zampetti/P. Biagi). Berlin: 113-128.
  • ASTRUC, L/VARGIOLU, R/BEN TKAYA, M/BALKAN-ATLI, N/ ÖZBAŞARAN, M/ ZAHOUANI H. 2011. “Multi-Scale Tribological Analysis of the Technique of Manufacture of An Obsidian Bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia)”, Journal of Archaeological Science 38/12: 3415-3424.
  • BAINS, R. 2012. The Social Significance of Neolithic Stone Bead Technologies at Çatalhöyük (University College of London Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Londra.
  • BAINS, R/ VASIĆ, M/ BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D/ RUSSELL, N/ WRIGHT, K/ DOHERTY, C. 2013. “A Technological Approach to the Study of Personal Ornamentation and Social Expression at Çatalhöyük,” Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). London: 331-363.
  • BAIRD, D/ ASOUTI, E/ ASTRUC, L/ BAYSAL, A/ BAYSAL, E/ CARRUTHERS, D/ FAIRBAIRN, A/ KABUKÇU, C/ JENKINS, E/ LORENTZ, K/ MIDDLETON, C/ PEARSON, J/ PIRIE, A. 2013. “Juniper Smoke, Skulls and Wolves’ tails. The Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian Plateau in SW Asian Context; Insights from Pınarbaşı”. Levant 45/2: 175-209.
  • BAR-YOSEF, D. 1991. “Changes in the Selection of Marine Shells from the Natufian to the Neolithic”, The Natufian Culture in the Levant (Ed. O. Bar-Yosef/F. Valla). Michigan: 629-636.
  • BAR-YOSEF, D. 2005. “The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant”, Paléorient 31.1: 176-185.
  • BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. 2013. “Towards a Typology of Stone Beads in the Neolithic Levant”, Journal of Field Archaeology 38.2: 129-142. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. 2008. “Dentalium Shells Used by Hunter-Gatherers and Pastoralists in the Levant”, Archaeofauna 17: 103-110.
  • BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D/PORAT N. 2008. “Green Stone Beads at the Dawn of Agriculture”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105/25: 8548- 8551.
  • BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D/PORAT, N/GAL, Z/ SHALEM, D/SMITHLINE, H. 2004. “Steatite Beads at Peqi’in: Long Distance Trade and Pyro-Technology during the Chalcolithic of the Levant”, Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 493-502.
  • BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D/ GÜMÜŞ, B/ İSLAMOĞLU, Y. 2010. “Fossil Hunting in the Neolithic: Shells from the Taurus Mountains at Çatalhöyük, Turkey,” Geoarchaeology 25/3: 375-392.
  • BAR-YOSEF, O/ALON, D. 1988. “Nahal Hemar Cave: The Excavations,” Atiquot 18.
  • BAYSAL, E. 2013a. “Will the Real Specialist Please Stand Up? Characterising Early Craft Specialization, a Comparative Methodology for Neolithic Anatolia”, Documenta Praehistorica 40: 233-246.
  • BAYSAL, E. 2013b. “A Tale of Two Assemblages: Early Neolithic Manufacture and Use of Beads in the Konya Plain”, Anatolian Studies 63: 1-15.
  • BAYSAL, E. 2013c. “Epipalaeolithic Marine Shell Beads at Pınarbaşı: Central Anatolia in a Wider Context”, Anatolica 39: 261-276.
  • BAYSAL, E. 2014a. “Findings Relating to the Manufacture and Use of Stone Beads at Neolithic Boncuklu Höyük”, Colloquium Anatolicum 13: 57-79.
  • BAYSAL, E. 2014b. “A Preliminary Typology for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Beads of Barçın Höyük”, Anatolia Antiqua 22: 1-11.
  • BAYSAL, E/ERDOĞU, B. 2014. “Frog in the Pond: Gökçeada (Imbros), An Aegean Stepping Stone in the Use of Spondylus Shell”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80: 363-378.
  • BAYSAL, E/BAYSAL, A/TÜRKCAN, A/NAZAROFF, A. 2015. “Early Specialized Craft? A Chalcolithic Stone Bracelet Workshop at Kanlıtaş, Eskişehir, Turkey,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34.3: 232-254.
  • BAYSAL, E./MILLER, H. (baskıda). “Ornaments in Theory: The Interpretation of Prehistoric Beads in Archaeological context”. BECK, H. 1928. “Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants”, Archaeologia 77: 1-76.
  • BELCHER, E. 2011. “Halaf Bead, Pendant and Seal ‘Workshops’ at Domuztepe: Technological and Reductive Strategies”, The State of the Stone:Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13 (Eds. E. Healey/S. Campbell/O. Maeda). Berlin: 135–143.
  • BIRCH, T/REHREN, T/PERNICKA, E. 2013. “The Metallic Finds from Çatalhöyük: A Review and Preliminary New Work”, Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük, Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). London/Los Angeles: 307-316. CALLEY, S/GRACE, R. 1988. “Technology and Function of Micro-Borers from Kumartepe (Turkey)”, Industries Lithiques Tracéologie et Technologie Volume 1 (Ed. S. Beyries). Oxford: 69-81.
  • CANEVA, I. 2012. “Mersin-Yumuktepe”, The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol, 3. Central Turkey (Eds. M. Özdoğan/ N. Başgelen/ P. Kuniholm). İstanbul: 1-29.
  • CARTER, E. 2010. “The Glyptic of the Middle-Late Halaf Period at Domuztepe, Turkey (ca 5755-5450 BC)”, Paléorient 36/1: 159- 177.
  • CHAPMAN, J/GAYDARSKA, B/BALEN, J. 2012. “Spondylus Ornaments in the Mortuary Zone at Neolithic Vukovar on the Middle Danube”, VAMZ 3.45: 191-210.
  • CHOYKE, A. 2001. “Late Neolithic Red Deer Canine Beads and Their Imitations”, Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August- 5 September 1999 (Eds. A. Choyke/L. Bartosiewicz). Oxford: 251-260.
  • COLONESE, A/MANNINO, M/BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D/FA, D/FINLAYSON, J/LUBELL, D/STINER M. 2011. “Marine Mollusk Exploitation in Mediterranean Prehistory: An Overview,” Quarternary International 239: 86- 103.
  • COŞKUNSU, G. 2008. “Hole-Making Tools of Mezraa Teleilat with Special Attention to Micro-Borers and Cylindrical Polished Drills and Bead Production”, Neo-Lithics 1/08: 25-36.
  • DENHAM, S. 2013. The Meanings of Late Neolithic Stamp Seals in North Mesopotamia (University of Manchester Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Manchester. DUBIN, L. 1987. The History of Beads from 30,000 BC to the Present. New York.
  • ERİM-ÖZDOĞAN, A. 2011. “Çayönü”, The Neolithic in Turkey: The Tigris Basin (Eds. M. Özdoğan/N. Başgelen/P. Kuniholm). İstanbul: 185-269.
  • ESİN, U. 1993. “Copper Beads of Aşıklı”, Aspects of Art and ıconography: Anatolia and Its neighbours. Studies in Honour of Nimet Özgüç (Eds. M. Mellink/E. Porada/T. Özgüç). Ankara: 179-183.
  • ESİN, U. 1995. “Early Copper Metallurgy at the Pre-Pottery site of Aşıklı”, Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. İstanbul: 61-78.
  • FABIANO, M/BERNA, F/BORZATTI VON LÖWENSTEIN, E. 2004. “Pre-Pottery Neolithic Amazonite Bead workshops in Southern Jordan”, Le Néolithique au Proche-Orient et en Europe. The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe. Acts of the XIVth UNESCO International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences 208 September 2001 (Ed. Secretariat du Congrès). Oxford: 265-273.
  • FRANCIS Jr., P. 1982. “Experiments with Early Techniques for Making Whole Shells into Beads”, Current Anthropology 23/6: 713-714.
  • GARROD, D. 1932. “A New Mesolithic Industry; the Natufian of Palestine”, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 62: 257-269.
  • GROMAN-YAROSLAVSKI, I/BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. 2015. “Lapidary Technology Revealed by Functional Analysis of Carnelian Beads from the Early Neolithic site of Nahal Hemar Cave, Southern Levant”, Journal of Archaeological Science 58: 77-88.
  • GWINNETT, A/GORELICK, L. 1981. “Beadmaking in Iran in the Early Bronze Age Derived by Scanning Electron Microscopy,” Expedition 24/1: 10-23.
  • HAMILTON, N. 2005. “The Beads,” Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge/Ankara: 325-332.
  • HEALEY, E. 2013. “Exotic, Aesthetic and Powerful? The Non-Tool Use of Obsidian in the Late Neolithic of the Near East,” Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia (Eds. O. Nieuwenhuyse/R. Bernbeck/P. Akkermans/Rogasch). Turnhout: 251-265.
  • HEALEY, E/CAMPBELL, S. 2014. “Producing Adornment: Evidence of Different Levels of Expertise in the Production of Obsidian Items of Adornment at Two Late Neolithic Communities in Northern Mesopotamia,” Journal of Lithic Studies 1/2: 79-99.
  • IFANTIDIS, F. 2011. “Cosmos in Fragments: Spondylus and Glycymeris Adornments at Neolithic Dispilio, Greece,” Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data and Approaches. Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies (Eds. F. Ifantidis/M. Nikolaidou). Oxford: 123-137.
  • IFANTIDIS, F/NIKOLAIDOU M. 2011. Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data and Approaches. Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies. Oxford.
  • IFANTIDIS, F/PAPAGEORGIOU, P. 2011. “Sur un anneau Néolithique en marbre fragmenté (Dispilio, Grèce),” Profils d’objets. Approches d’anthropologues et d’archéologues (Ed. F. Wateau). Paris: 33-43.
  • JACKSON, B. 2005. “Report on Bead Material Identification”, Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük, Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). Ankara/Cambridge: 373-376. KUHN, S/STINER M. 2007A. “Paleolithic Ornaments: Implications for Cognition, Demography and Identity”, Diogenes 214: 40-48.
  • KUHN, S/STINER, M. 2007B. “Body Ornamentation as Information Technology: Towards An Understanding of the Significance of Early Beads”, Rethinking the Human Revolution, New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans (Eds. P. Mellars/K. Boyle/O. Bar-Yosef/C. Stringer). Cambridge: 45-54.
  • KUHN, S/STINER, M/REESE, D/GÜLEÇ E. 2001. “Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Palaeolithic: New Insights from the Levant,” PNAS 98/13: 7641-7646.
  • LANGE, K/PERLÈS, D/VANHAEREN, M/REICHE, I. 2008. “Heat-Induced Modification of Marine Shells Used as Personal Ornaments at the Prehistoric Site of Franchthi Cave, Greece: First Results of a Multi-Analytical Approach”, Ninth International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem, Israel, 25–30 May 2008. http://www.ndt.net/ article/art2008/ papers/191Lange.pdf.
  • LANKTON, J. W. 2003. A Bead Timeline. Vol. 1: Prehistory to 1200 CE. Washington. MARÉCHAL, C. 1985. “Les bracelets néolithiques en pierre de Cafer Höyük (Turquie),” Cahiers de l’Euphrate 4: 109-115.
  • ÖZBAŞARAN, M. 2012. “Aşıklı”, The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3. Central Turkey (Eds. M. Özdoğan/N. Başgelen/P. Kuniholm). İstanbul: 135-158.
  • ÖZBAŞARAN, M/DURU, G. 2011. “Akarçay Tepe, a PPNB and PN Settlement in the Middle Euphrates – Urfa”, The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 2. The Euphrates Basin (Eds. M. Özdoğan/N. Başgelen/P. Kuniholm). İstanbul: 165-202.
  • ÖZDOĞAN, A. 1994. Çayönü Yerleşmesinin Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitikteki Yeri (İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul.
  • ÖZKAYA, V/COŞKUN, A/SOYUKAYA, N. 2013. Körtik Tepe. Uygarlığın Diyarbakır’daki İlk Adımları. Diyarbakır.
  • ÖZTAN, A. 2010. “Archaeological Investigations at Köşk Höyük, Niğde”, Geo-Archaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia, Turkey (Eds. L. d’Alfonso/M. Balza/C. Mora). Pavia: 83-96.
  • ÖZTAN, A. 2012. “Köşk Höyük. A Neolithic Settlement in the Niğde-Bor Plateau”, The Neolithic in Turkey Vol. 3. Central Turkey (Eds. M. Özdoğan/N. Başgelen/P. Kuniholm). İstanbul: 31-70.
  • POPPER-GIVEON, A/ABU-RABIA, A/VENTURA J. 2014. “From White Stone to Blue Bead: Materialized Beliefs and Sacred Beads among the Bedouin in Israel”, Material Religion 10.2: 132-153.
  • REESE, D. 1991. “Marine Shells in the Levant: Upper Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic”, The Natufian Culture in the Levant (Ed. O. Bar-Yosef/F. Valla). Michigan: 613-628.
  • REESE, D. 2005. “The Çatalhöyük Shells”, Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). Ankara/Cambridge: 123-128.
  • ROSENBERG, M. 1994. “Hallan Çemi Tepesi: Some Further Observations Concerning Stratigraphy and Material Culture”, Anatolica 20: 121-139.
  • RUSSELL, N. 2005. “Çatalhöyük Worked Bone”, Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). Ankara/Cambridge: 339-367.
  • RUSSELL, N/GRIFFITTS, J. 2013. “Çatalhöyük Worked Bone: South and 4040 Areas”, Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons (Ed. I. Hodder). London/Los Angeles: 277-306.
  • SERRAND, N/VIGNE, J-D/GUILAINE, J. 2005. “Early Preceramic Neolithic Marine Shells from Shillourokambos, Cyprus (Late 9th-8th Mill. Cal BC): A Mainly Ornamental Set with Similarities to Mainland PPNB”, Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in Former Environments of Human behavior (Ed. D. Bar-Yosef Mayer). Oxford: 122-129.
  • STINER, M. 2014. “Finding a Common Bandwidth: Causes of Convergence and Diversity in Paleolithic Beads,” Biological Theory 9/1: 51-64.
  • TANIGUCHI, Y/HIRAO, Y/SHIMADZU Y/TSUNEKI, A. 2002. “The First Fake? Imitation Turquoise Beads Re-Covered from a Syrian Neolithic Site, Tell el-Kerkh”, Studies in Conservation 47/3: 175-183.
  • WRIGHT, K. 2012. “Beads and the Body: Ornament Technologies of the
  • BACH Area Buildings”, Last House on the Hill BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük Turkey (Eds. R. Tringham/M. Stevanović). Los Angeles: 423-446.
  • WRIGHT, K/CRITCHLEY, P/GARRARD, A. 2008. “Stone Bead Technologies and Early Craft Specialization: Insights from Two Neolithic Sites in Eastern Jordan”, Levant 40/2: 131-165.
  • WRIGHT, K/GARRARD A. 2003. “Social Identities and the Expansion of Stone Beadmaking in Neolithic Western Asia: New Evidence from Jordan”, Antiquity 77: 267-284.
  • YENER, K. A. 2000. The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. Leiden.
APA BAYSAL E (2015). NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. , 9 - 23.
Chicago BAYSAL Emma L. NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. (2015): 9 - 23.
MLA BAYSAL Emma L. NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. , 2015, ss.9 - 23.
AMA BAYSAL E NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. . 2015; 9 - 23.
Vancouver BAYSAL E NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. . 2015; 9 - 23.
IEEE BAYSAL E "NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR." , ss.9 - 23, 2015.
ISNAD BAYSAL, Emma L.. "NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR". (2015), 9-23.
APA BAYSAL E (2015). NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi, 0(18), 9 - 23.
Chicago BAYSAL Emma L. NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 0, no.18 (2015): 9 - 23.
MLA BAYSAL Emma L. NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi, vol.0, no.18, 2015, ss.9 - 23.
AMA BAYSAL E NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi. 2015; 0(18): 9 - 23.
Vancouver BAYSAL E NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR. TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi. 2015; 0(18): 9 - 23.
IEEE BAYSAL E "NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR." TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi, 0, ss.9 - 23, 2015.
ISNAD BAYSAL, Emma L.. "NEOLITIK DÖNEM KIŞISEL SÜS EŞYALARI: YENI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE TÜRKIYE'DEKI SON ARAŞTIRMALAR". TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 18 (2015), 9-23.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
25-04-2024 5:24

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları