Lykian Civilization S Transition From H PDF

KUM’DAN KENT’E
Patara Kazılarının 25 Yılı

Uluslararası Sempozyum Bildirileri, 11-13 Kasım 2013 Antalya
•
FROM SAND INTO A CITY

25 Years of Patara Excavations
Proceedings of the International Symposium of 11-13 November 2013 Antalya
AYRIBASIM / OFFPRINT
PATARA VII. 1
KUM’DAN KENT’E

ISBN 978-605-5607-74-2
© 2015 Ege Yayınları – Havva İşkan – Fahri Işık
İstanbul
Bütün hakları saklıdır.
Baskı / Printed by
Oksijen Basım ve Matbaacılık San. Tic. Ltd. Şti.
100. Yıl Mah. Matbaacılar Sit. 2. Cad. No: 202/A Bağcılar-İstanbul
Tel: +90 (212) 325 71 25 Fax: +90 (212) 325 61 99
Sertifika No: 29487
Yapım ve Dağıtım / Production and Distribution
Zero Prodüksiyon Kitap-Yayın-Dağıtım Ltd. Şti.

Abdullah Sokak, No: 17, Taksim, 34433 İstanbul/Türkiye
Tel: +90 (212) 244 7521 Faks: +90 (212) 244 3209
e.mail: info@zerobooksonline.com
www.egeyayinlari.com www.zerobooksonline.com
PATARA
VII.1
HAVVA İŞKAN – FAHRİ IŞIK
KUM’DAN KENT’E
•

Bu kitabın basımı,
sponsorluğunu Kenan Işık’ın yaptığı
“Uygarlık Anadolu’da Doğdu” kitabının satış geliri ile gerçekleşmiştir.
İçindekiler / Contents
Önsöz......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... IX
Havva İŞKAN, Fahri IŞIK
1988 - 2013: Patara Kazılarının 25 Yılı......................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Havva İŞKAN
Lykia’nın Erken Dönemlerine Ait Bir Anahtar Yerleşim: Çaltılar Höyük ve Çevresi................................................................... 21
Belgin AKSOY
Patara Küçük Hamam: Kazı Öncesi Düşünceler................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Şevket AKTAŞ
Oinoanda: Forschungen in der Stadt des Diogenes............................................................................................................................................................................. 47

Martin BACHMANN
Likya Bölgesi Eskil Yerleşimlerinin Su Mühendisliği Dizgeleri...................................................................................................................................... 67

N. Orhan BAYKAN – Nesrin BAYKAN – Seyhun TÜRK
Patara in the Bronze Age - An Evaluation of the Archaeological and Historical Evidence................................................ 89
Ralf BECKS
Lykia’da Arıcılık: Seren ve Çevre Duvarlı Arılıklar Işığında Antik Geleneği Arayış...................................................................97
Süleyman BULUT
Karia-İonia Tipi Kurtağzı Kanca: Letoon, Leto Tapınağı Örnekleri..................................................................................................................... 133

M. Baki DEMİRTAŞ
Genel Hatları ile Lykia ve Karia İlişkileri Üzerine Bazı Notlar................................................................................................................................... 145
Adnan DİLER
Ölü Gömme Gelenekleri Işığında Kabalis - Milyas - Lykia İlişkileri................................................................................................................. 187

F. Eray DÖKÜ
The Ceramics from Patara: Investigations, Productions and Trade Past Studies - Future Projections......... 199
Erkan DÜNDAR
Agonistische Inschriften von Patara...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 229

Helmut ENGELMANN
Liman Hamamı 2010-2013 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları.............................................................................................................................................................................. 239

Serap ERKOÇ
Patara Kazılarından Ele Geçen Bir Grup İnsan İskeletinin Antropolojik Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi............ 253
Ayla Sevim EROL – Alper Yener YAVUZ
Town and ‘Meta-Town’? Considerations on the Urban Development of Patara................................................................................. 273
Joachim GANZERT
Arykanda’da Ölüm Nekropoller ve Ölü Gömme Adetleri.................................................................................................................................................. 289

Ayça GERÇEK
Patara Antik Kenti Koruma ve Planlama Süreci................................................................................................................................................................................. 307

Melike GÜL
Erzincan-Altıntepe Kalesi....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 329

Mehmet KARAOSMANOĞLU
Beydağları Yüzey Araştırmaları................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 339

İsa KIZGUT
Rhodiapolis Nekropolü.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 357

İsa KIZGUT
Überlegungen zu einem Monumentalgrab aus der Tepecik-Nekropole von Patara..................................................................... 369

Mustafa KOÇAK
Predynastic Lycia and Patara: What is the Evidence?.................................................................................................................................................................. 385

Frank KOLB
Letoon Tiyatrosunda 2011-2012 Yıllarında Gerçekleştirilen Jeofizik Destekli Arkeolojik Araştırmalar

Ön Rapor.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 417
Sema ATİK KORKMAZ – İsmail ERGÜDER – Ezel BABAYİĞİT
Die marmorne Wanddekoration der Weststoa der Agora von Patara.............................................................................................................. 425
Sabine MÖLLERS
Letoon Üç Dilli Yazıtı Üzerine El Bir Değerlendirme................................................................................................................................................................ 437

Selin ÖNDER
Lykia, Pamphylia ve Pisidia Arasındaki Tarihsel ve Kültürel İlişkiler.............................................................................................................445

Mehmet ÖZHANLI
Patara’da 1989-1990 Yıllarında Kazılan Bizans Kiliseleri.................................................................................................................................................... 451

Haldun ÖZKAN
The Cemetery Church at the Tepecik Necropolis of Patara. A Preliminary Report.................................................................... 463
Urs PESCHLOW
Tralleis Batı Nekropolü Mezar ve Buluntuları....................................................................................................................................................................................... 475

Aslı SARAÇOĞLU
A Legal Text and Other Fragments of Hellenistic Inscriptions from Patara.......................................................................................... 497
Christof SCHULER
Patara Kent İçi Su Dağıtım Yapıları........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 507

Feyzullah ŞAHİN
Likya’nın Yazı Sistemi Hakkında Değerlendirmeler.................................................................................................................................................................... 525

Recai TEKOĞLU
Olympos Piskoposu Methodios ve Olympos Kenti........................................................................................................................................................................ 535

B. Yelda OLCAY-UÇKAN – Levent KAYAPINAR
Pottery Finds from the Winery in the West Agora of Xanthos...................................................................................................................................545
Burhan VARKIVANÇ
Batı Torosların Deprem Üreten Yapıları Burdur-Fethiye Fay Zonu, Finike

ve Rodos Basenlerinin Jeolojisi ile Antik Kentlerin İlişkisi................................................................................................................................................ 559
Cenk YALTIRAK – İrem ELİTEZ – Serap ERKOÇ
Kemah Kalesi Kazısı....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 569

Hüseyin YURTTAŞ – Haldun ÖZKAN – Zerrin KÖŞKLÜ – Deniz BULUT – Muhammet Lütfü KINDIĞILI
Euergetes and City. The Testamentary Donation of Tiberius Claudius Flavianus Eudemos
for Hadrianic Patara........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 583
Klaus ZIMMERMANN
Patara und die Städte des Xanthostales. Urbane Standards und ihre Entwicklung.................................................................... 593
Martin ZIMMERMANN
Patara Kazılarının “25 Yılı” İçinde Hellas’tan Anadolu’ya Yön Değiştiren Lykia Uygarlığı.......................................... 603
Fahri IŞIK
Lykian Civilization’s Transition from Hellas to Anatolia

During the “25 Year” Period of Patara Excavations....................................................................................................................................................................... 619
Fahri IŞIK
Önsöz
“…Ayın 9. günü Kalamaki’den Patara’ya vardık ve beklemeden kalıntılara doğru yürüdük. Güneş yakıcı,
basacak sağlam bir zemin bulabilmek zordu; anıtlar, kaygan kum tepeleri ve omuzlarıma dek çıkan diken-
lerle kuşatılmıştı. Sürekli esen batı rüzgârları, liman ağzında giderek yığılan bir kum seti çekmiş; çıkış
bulamayan akıntıların beslediği su birikintisinden oluşan bataklık, kalıntıları yutmuştu sanki. Çok geniş
bir alana yayılan kentin yapıları arasında bağlar tümden kopuktu. Ulaşabildiklerimizi şöyle bir gördük ve
salt tiyatronun planını çizebildim; şimdiye dek gördüklerimin en iyisiydi… Kimseler yoktu çevrede otu-
ran; su ihtiyacımızı uzun aramalar sonucunda bulduğumuz tuzlu bir kuyudan karşılıyorduk. Gecelemek
için tiyatroyu seçmiş, büyük çıkış kapısına hamaklar yerleştirmiştik. Uzaklardan gelen çakal seslerinin
ürpertici ıssızlığında dingin bir gece geçirmeyi umuyorduk ki ansızın korkunç bir sivrisinek ordusuyla
sarıldık. İğnelerini örtülerden bile batırabilen bu azmanlardan bir an olsun kapayamamıştık gözlerimizi.
Artık bitkinlikten yataklarımıza girerken, güneşin doğduğunu duyumsuyordum…”
Biz de Ağustos 1981’de, Fransız arkeolog Charles Texier’i 1836 yılının aynı ayında barındırmayan benzer
bir Patara’ya talip olmuştuk. İzin için beklenen yedi yılın sonunda oraya gidildiğinde, yer aynı yer değildi
artık. Özel mikalı kumuyla büyüleyen o muhteşem kumsal keşfedilmiş; Patara Kuzey çirkin kaçak yapı-
laşmaya kurban verilmişti. Ve tıpkı Belek’te yapıldığı gibi, geleceğin tatil köylerine hazırlık olarak da,
topraklaşsın diye kumsal ağaçlandırılmıştı. Bu kez bizi orada barındırmak istemeyen, Patara’nın tarihsel
dokuyu insandan koruyan vahşi doğası olmayacaktı; doğal dokusunu betona gömerek yok etmeye kararlı
insanın doyumsuzluğu olacaktı. O ‘güçlüler’e karşı ‘kültür savaşları’ onbeş yıl sürdü ve öğretmeninden
öğrencisine ‘Kuvvacı’ bir ruhla Patara’nın bir Side’ye dönüşmesine izin verilmedi.
P(a)ttara, Lykçe adları, Hitit metinlerinde yazılanlarla örtüşen ülkenin yüreği Ksanthos Vadisi’nin dört
en büyük yerleşiminden biriydi ve onun güney ucunda, Ch. Texier’in daha o zamanlar ‘Patara Dağı’
dediği, Yalburt hiyeroglifindeki kutsal ‘Patar Dağı’nın batı eteğinde, muhteşem bir Halicin kıyısında
kurulmuştu. Vadi’nin en korunaklı limanı, dünyaya açılan kapısıydı ve sonraları Lykia Ülkesi’nin de
ana limanı olacaktı. Yarımada burnundan Haliç ağzına ters yönde dönerek ‘göl’ doğallığında kendi
içine kapanan ‘İç Liman’ ile onun kuzeydoğu kıyısından höyük görüntüsünde yükselen yerleşimin
bağlantılı konumları, Patara’yı önemli kılmaktaydı; çünkü bu, Lykia’nın bilimsel araştırma odaklı
‘karanlığını’ aydınlatabilecek bir konumdu. Tunç Çağı ticaret gemilerinin bu zor kıyılardaki hare-
keti, böyle bir doğal liman ve yerleşim olmadan düşünülemezdi; çok dilli yazıtlar da en çok burada
beklenirdi. Yine limanı nedeniyle Hellenistik Çağ’la birlikte öne çıkmış, Lykia’nın tek Birlik ve Eyalet
başkenti olma onuruna erişmişti. Patara, bir yönetsel merkez olma yanında dinsel merkezdi de. IV.
Tuthaliya’nın tanrılara ‘Patar Dağı’ önünde burada şükretmesi, Apollon’un doğum ilahisinde okunan
Leto Hurmalığı’nın burada kökleşmiş olması, Aziz Nikolaos’un burada doğması ve 20 Haziran 312’de
ilk Lykia Piskoposu Aziz Methodios’un burada başının kesilmesi ve din şehidi mertebesine erişmesi, bu
toprağın kutsanmışlığını yeterince gösteriyordu. Kum, toprak ve bataklığın altından zamanla günyü-
züne çıkması beklenenler arasında bunlar da vardı.
Ancak Patara’da tüm bunlar bekleyebilirdi; beklemeye tahammülü olmayan, bunların insan eliyle tah-
ribatıydı. Kumsalın çekiciliğinin antik dokuyu nasıl bir felakete sürükleyebileceğini hemen gördük;
sorunlar önce TAD 1991’de basılan ilk makalede çözüm önerileriyle birlikte arkeolojinin gündemine taşındı ve
sonrasında bunlar, resmi dilekçeler dışında, ayrıca KST bildirilerinde kezlerce yinelenerek sürdü. Bir seferinde
sunumun salt, “sebep olduğu tahribatın yaptırımı bağlamında, kestiği odunu taşıyan eşeğine el konulacak kor-
kusuyla Patara ormanları korunuyor; lütfen bizi Orman Bakanlığına bağlayın” dilek ve temennisini içermesi
halâ akıllardadır, unutulmamıştır. Bunları bizlere acıyla söyleten, yalnızlığımızdı; Devlet’in koruma yasalarının
arkasında durmakta ve onların uygulamaya konmasını istemekte odaklanan haklı çabalarımıza karşılık olarak
kent kezlerce ateşe verildiğinde bile, suçlunun ‘köylüyle iyi geçinemeyenler’ yani bizler olmasıydı. Bugün hâlâ 1.
derece arkeolojik sit içerisinde kaçak oteller ve evler yerinde durmaktadır; antik villaların konumlandığı yamaç
terasları traktör pulluğuyla hallaç pamuğu gibi atılmaktadır ve yetmezmiş gibi tüm örenyeri orada oturan aile-
lerden üçünün besi çiftliğine ‘mera’ hizmeti sunmaktadır. İçinde başkaca ne yapıldığı bilinemeyen, mezarların
barındığı ‘Nekropol seraları’ da yerlerinde durmaktadır, yeni dikimlerle sürekli artan ya da büyüyen meyve ve
zeytin bahçeleri de. Ve de örenyerinin kamulaştırılması bir yana, içindeki 2B ve hazine arazileri bile işgalden
kurtarılmadığı için tahribat 25 yıl öncesini aratmayacak boyutlarda sürmektedir. Bu bağlamda dünden bugüne
değişen pek de bir şey yoktur. Geçmiş gün gibi bugün de, yasa ve yönetmeliklere aykırı bu durumlara dayana-
mayınca ve yaşanan vandalizmi yüreğimiz kaldıramayınca, gücünü yasalardan alan karşı çabalarımız, çıkara
ve zamana göre değişen koruyucu ‘malûm’ güçlerin ‘halk düşmanı’ yaftasıyla ödüllendirilmektedir!... Ancak,
bugün halâ aynı şeyleri yazıyor olmak ve simgesel bir tepki olarak Patara denizine halâ girmiyor olmak, kültüre
ve tarihe duyduğumuz sorumluluğun bir gereği biçiminde algılanmalı ve dersler çıkarılmalıdır. Asla ‘şikâyet’
sanılmamalıdır, çünkü hiç acze düşülmemiştir.
Kazılar, daha ilk günden bir yaşam biçimine dönüşür. Yazın yakıcı sıcağında dökülen terler soğumadan; son-
rasında bekleyen çok yönlü bilimsel ve yönetsel yükümlülüklerin yerine getirilmesi için uğraşırken, bir yeni
döneme girilir. Ve ‘kazı’, yaşamın kendisi olur; farkına bile varılmayan fedakârlıklarla dopdolu bir ömrün
bütünü olur. İşte Patara’yla özdeşlik de böyle bir şeydir; kazı izni verilmeyen yıllarla birlikte, O’nunla dopdolu
geçen iki ömrün değil, teri toprağına dökülen çok ömrün 32 yılından fazlasıdır da. Patara’ya tutkuyla bağlanan
kazı heyetinden her kişinin her yeni dönemde artarak süren sahiplik duygusu, orayı bizler için özel mülkten
daha özel kılmıştır. Değilse; ne efsaneleşen o ‘koruma savaşı’ içinde akla gelebilecek her kötü şey göze alına-
bilirdi ve ne de ülkemiz kültür ve turizmine, eskiçağ bilimine daha iyiyi, en iyiyi kazandırabilme ülküsünün
ürünü istek ve öneriler, emekler tam karşılık bulmadığında, boşa çıktığında bile, ‘ben görevimi yaptım’ın huzu-
ruyla! yan gelip yatma yerine, azimle ve umutla direnilebilirdi. ‘Üç kuruş’a gereksinildiği hallerde birilerine
gidildiğinde, o yardımı sanki ‘kendin için’ istiyormuş gibi bir utancı içe sindirebilmek de mümkün olamazdı.
Ve ‘emanete’ sahiplik duygusu körelmiş olsaydı eğer, rantçıların avukatlığını üstlenen ve gerçekleri çarpıtarak
tazminat davası açan; ya da satın alıp gizlilik içinde devlete bağışlanan kazıevi bağlantılı bir toprak parçasını,
‘geleceğe rant devşiriyor’ hezeyanıyla herkesin içinde haykırarak soruşturma konusu yapan; ya da içeriği bilim-
sel olan bir açılış konuşmasında ‘niye bana teşekkür edilmedi’ diye tavır alan kamusal otoritelere de tahammül
edilemezdi. Adını mahkemede duyduğun insanların birilerinin kurgusuyla açtığı, tümü tek celsede boşa çıkan
‘yüz dosyalı’ davaya da tahammül edilemezdi. Tüm bu yıllar içinde Patara’ya ihanet içinde olanlar ‘güçlü’, onu
korumaya antlı olanlar ‘suçlu’ duruma düşürülmeye çalışılsalar da, yılgınlığa düşmedik ve umutla bekledikleri
gibi, çekip gitmedik.
Açıklıkla söylemeliyiz ki projelerimizden yalnızca biri, örneğin bir ‘Patara Deniz Feneri’ bile ayağa kaldırıla-
bilmiş olsaydı, ülkemiz turizmine bir Aspendos Tiyatrosu’ndan fazlası kazandırılabilirdi. Görkemli dördül bir
taban üzerinde 26 m yükselen özgün yapısıyla antik dünyada bir başkası olmayan Nero Deniz Feneri’nin tüm
çaba ve girişimlere karşın yerde yatan malzemesiyle yazgısına terk edilmişliğine karşı hiçbir şey yapamayışımıza
tahammül de, bu nedenle kolay değildir. Çünkü bu projenin içinde, Ulaştırma Bakanlığımızın ‘Efes Limanı’
projesinden çok önce düşünülen ve kolaylıkla uygulanabilir olan Lykia’nın ana limanını eski günlerine kavuş-
turmak ve ülkeye 2 km uzunluğunda bir ‘Antik Liman’ kazandırmak da vardır. İnsanlığa armağan bu çok özel
mirasın içinde, yine bir ikincisi olmayan ‘Lykia Karayolları Haritası’ işlevindeki İmparator Claudius’un anıtı da
vardır; 6 m. yüksekliğindeki “Milliarium Lyciae’. 1905 tarihli ilk Osmanlı Telsiz İstasyonu olma önemindeki
yapılar külliyesi de, diğer projelerle ile birlikte, umutla Devletimizin ilgisini beklemektedir.
Arada bir bunaldığımızda, “1981’de kazı için düşünülen bir başka seçenekte karar kılınsaydı, belki bu karaba-
sanı yaşamaz ve de bir bilim insanı için çok değerli zamanları boş umutlarla tüketmiş olmazmışız” yollu yakı-
nışımızın yanıtı da kendiliğinden gelmiştir hep: “Sonraki zamanlarda geriye kazıyla günyüzüne çıkabilecek bir
Patara kalmazmış zaten, bir başka ‘Side’ kalırmış; iyi ki başka arayışlara zaman yetmemiş ve biz burada olmuşuz
ve hep umut etmişiz!”. Herkeslerin farkında olduğu bu saptama tek başına, bizlerin üstlendiği Patara misyonu-
nun kültür mirası bağlamında değerini algılamada yeterli olmalıdır. Çünkü “uyuyan güzel” diye tanımlanan bir
başkent, beton soğuğuna gömülmeye ‘çeyrek varken’, ilk bizlerle kendi parlak tarihine uyanmaya başlamıştır. Bu
başlangıçla umuyoruz ki sonraki nesillere, geleceğin yüzyılları içinde kutlanacak çok 25 yıllarda tarihe sabırla
ve özenle tam uyandırılmayı bekleyen bir ören yeri bırakabilmiş olalım; ve Luwi soyundan kadim Anadolu
halklarından birinin, Lykialıların, bilimin yol göstericiliğinde gerçeğiyle bilinmesi yolunda üstlendiğimiz tarih-
sel görevi hakkıyla yerine getirebilmiş olalım. Biz ilk nesil Pataralıların öğrettiği çağdaş bilimsel yöntemlerle ve
aşıladığı görev bilinciyle, özgüven ve inançla gerisi mutlaka gelecektir; meşalenin, nesilden nesile aynı kararlılık
ve giderek artan bir şevkle el değiştireceğinden yana içimiz rahattır. Yol açılmıştır; geriye, değişen teknik dona-
nımlarla şimdileri izlemek kalmıştır.
Kazının üçüncü yılında Letoon’dan ziyaretimize gelen, arkeolojinin mimari çalışmalarıyla tanıdığı Danimarkalı
Prof. Dr. E. Hansen’ın, ülkesine dönüşünde gönderdiği “Patara kazısı Türklere verildi denildiğinde, ‘yazık oldu’
diye üzülmüştük. Ben ve eşim bu önyargılı düşüncemizden yana utanarak gördük ki bu çok önemli antik kent
kazı bilim yönünden güvenilir ellerdedir; sizi ve ekibinizi kutluyorum” içerikli uzun mektubu, nasıl bir sorum-
luluk üstlendiğimizin de habercisiydi. Patara’nın turizm adına ‘Antalya’nın yeni gözdesi’ olarak keşfedildiği ve
talana açıldığı 7 uzun yıl kazı izni vermeyen bir Genel Müdür’ün yıllar sonra, 2005 yılında çıkardığı -sözde-
‘günah’ın özünde de benzer bir önyargı yatmaktaydı; bu, adları bizde saklı duran biri yabancı üç bilirkişinin,
“Batılıların bile cesaret edemediği böyle zor bir kazıyı onlar beceremez” raporuydu. ‘Kendi bilim insanına
güvensizlik’ bizleri halâ derinden yaralıyor olsa da; Patara’nın bugün çağdaş kazı yöntemlerinin uygulandığı,
restorasyonların uzmanlardan oluşan bilim heyetlerinin danışmanlığında yapıldığı ve çalışmaların, her yıl
düzenli olarak çıkan KST bildirileri dışında, yüze yaklaşan makale ve onu aşkın kitapla bilim dünyasına tanı-
tıldığı disiplinli bir kazı yeri resmiyle belleklere yerleşerek geleceğe örnek gösterilmesi, tesellimizdir. Bir kazının
25. yılında uluslararası bir büyük sempozyum düzenlemek ve bildirileri kitaplaştırmak da Patara’nın ilkleri ara-
sındadır. Burada, Genel Müdürlüğe atandığında ilk icraatlarından biri olarak kazıyı bize güvenen Altan Akat’a
şükran duygularımızı özellikle belirtmek isteriz. Şükran borcumuz bir de, başvurumuz üzerine hemen o yıl,
1990 yılında, Antalya’da Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi ile birlikte Arkeoloji Bölümü’nü de açan ve böylece Erzurum’da
uzak kaldığımız Patara’nın göz önünde ve sürekli denetimimiz altında korunmasını mümkün kılan Akdeniz
Üniversitesi Rektörü Prof. Dr. Tuncer Karpuzoğlu’nadır.
İşi sevme ve görevi en mükemmeliyle yerine getirme ülküsünden kaynaklanan tüm bu başarılar ortadayken
bizi halâ derinden yaralayan olgu; parlak bir geçmişi geleceğe lâyıkıyla taşıma ve turizmin de hizmetine sunma
amaçlı beklemeye tahammülsüz ve geriye dönüşü zor projelerimizin sürekli olarak belirsizliğe ertelenmesidir.
Tarihin, bu yapılamayanların hesabını bizden soracak denli adaletsiz olmayacağını bilmek de bir teselli verme-
mektedir. Yanıtını bulmakta zorlandığımız; resmi proje desteği ve sponsorluk amaçlı tüm başvurularımızın
her seferinde “bir dosya gönderin değerlendirelim”de kalma nedenidir. Ve bununla, bilim insanının emeğine ve
zamanına, tahribata terkedilen ören yerine ve çok özel yapılarına ve kazılardan beklenen tüm değerlere yazık
edilmektedir. Daha ‘dün’ açık ara “dünyanın en güzeli” seçilen kumsalıyla, doğal, kültürel ve dinsel dokusuyla
her beklentiyi karşılayan; yani doğa, kültür ve inanç turizmi kapsamında, tümü bir arada, başkası olmayan ve
bu nedenle de çok özel olan “Lykia soyu’nun başkenti”, bunları hak etmemiştir.
Borcumuz Patara’ya emekte her pay sahibi kuruma ve her kültür dostu kişiyedir. Patara’nın gönül dostu çoktur.
O’nun eskiçağ bilimi ve ülkemiz turizmi için hakkıyla değerlendirilmesi uğruna çırpınışlarımızın karşılık bul-
mayışına üzüleni de çoktur. Onca dostu ismen saymak mutlaka eksiklikler içereceğinden ad veremeyişin hoş
görüleceğine inançla, dün ve bugün adına içten ve sonsuz teşekkürlerimiz genel anlamda: Likya Birliği Meclis
Binası ile 25 yıllık Patara Kazıları’nın restorasyona yönelik tek etkinliğine ve bu bağlamda Ülkemizde bir ‘ilk’e
imza atan Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclis Başkanlığına, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığına ve Anıtlar ve Müzeler
Genel Müdürlüğüne; Antalya Valiliğine ve İl Kültür Müdürlüğüne; Atatürk Üniversitesi ve Akdeniz Üniversitesi
Rektörlüğü ile Edebiyat Fakültesi Dekanlıklarına; Kaş Kaymakamlığına; Kaş, Kalkan, Fırnaz ve Ova Belediye
Başkanlıklarına, Antalya Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma Bölge Kurulu ile Antalya Müzesi'ne, Gelemiş Muhtarlığı
ile köy halkına; sivil toplum örgütlerine, özellikle Mimarlar Odasına, Antalya Barosuna, ÇEKÜL ve TAÇ vakıf-
larına ve elbette ki toprağına kültür neferleri erdeminde ter döken kazı heyetinden her bir arkadaşımıza, öğren-
cimize ve de işçimize olsun…
Patara, 17 Nisan 2015
Havva İşkan - Fahri Işık
Patara Kazıları Heyet Üyeleri Tarafından Yapılan
Patara İle İlgili Yayınlar
Kitaplar
1. F. Işık, Patara. The History and Ruins of the Capital City of Lycian League (Antalya 2000).
2. F. Işık – H. İşkan – N. Çevik, Miliarium Lyciae. Patara Yol Kılavuz Anıtı/ Das Wegweisermonument
von Patara, Önrapor/Vorbericht. Lykia IV, 1998/1999 (Antalya 2001).
3. F. Işık, ‘Caput Gentis Lyciae’. Patara: Likya Soyunun Başkenti (İstanbul 2011).
4. F. Işık, ‘Caput Gentis Lyciae’. Patara: Capital of the Lycian League (İstanbul 2011).
Patara Kazı Serisi

1. Patara I. 1 = S. Gerrit-Bruer – M. Kunze, Der Stadtplan von Patara und Beobachtungen zu den
Stadtmauern, Patara I. 1 (İstanbul 2010).
2. Patara II. 1 = T. Korkut – G. Grosche, Das Bouleuterion von Patara. Versammlungsgebäude des
lykischen Bundes, Patara II. 1 (İstanbul 2007).
3. Patara II. 2 = K. Piesker – J. Ganzert, Das Theater von Patara. Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen 2004
bis 2008, Patara II. 2 (İstanbul 2012).
4. Patara IV. 1 = E. Dündar, Patara Unguentariumları, Patara IV. 1 (İstanbul 2008).
5. Patara IV. 2 = Ç. Uygun, Tepecik Kırmızı Astarlı Seramikleri (İÖ 2. yy. - İS 4. yy.), Patara IV. 2
(İstanbul 2012).
6. Patara V. 1 = G. Işın, Patara Terracottaları. Hellenistik ve Erken Roma Dönemleri, Patara V. 1
(İstanbul 2007).
7. Patara VII. 1= H. İşkan – F. Işık (ed.), Kum’dan Kent’e: Patara Kazılarının 25 Yılı, Uluslararası
Sempozyum Bildirileri, 11-13 Kasım 2013 Antalya (İstanbul 2015).
8. Patara IV. 3 = E. Dündar, The Commercial Amphoras and Stamps, 7th century - 1st century B.C.,
from Patara (1989-2010): The Maritime Trade of a Harbor City in Lycia, Patara IV. 3
(baskıda).
9. Patara V. 2 = F. Şahin, Patara Metal Buluntuları, Patara V. 2 (baskıda).
10. Patara II. 3 = Ş. Aktaş, Patara Ana Cadde, Patara II. 3 (baskıya hazırlanıyor).
11. Patara II. 4 = H. İşkan – U. Peschlow (eds.), Mezarlık Kilisesi, Patara II. 4 (yayın aşamasında).
12. Patara II. 5 = H. İşkan (ed.), Patara Deniz Feneri, Patara II. 5 (yayın hazırlığında).
13. Patara II. 6 = H. İşkan (ed.), Patara Bouleuterionu Restorasyonu, Patara II. 6 (yayın hazırlığında).
Makaleler
1993
1. F. Işık, Patara. Dünü, Bugünü ve Geleceği, TürkAD 29, 1991, 35-49.
2. F. Işık, Der Hl. Nikolaos von Patara und sein Grab in Myra, Belleten 219, 1993, 401-411.
3. H. Yılmaz, Die Felsgräber von Patara, bk. J. Borchhardt – G. Dobesch (Hrsg.), Akten des II. Internationalen
Lykien Symposions, 6-12 Mai 1990 Wien, Bd. II (Wien 1993) 87-96.
4. H. Yılmaz – S. Şahin, Ein Kahlkopf aus Patara. Der Mime Eucharistos und ein Spruch von Philistion,
EpigrAnat 21, 1993, 77–91.
1994
5. F. Işık, Pttara im Land vom hethitischen Lukka und homerischen Lykia, Lykia 1, 1994, 1-11.
6. S. Şahin, Ein Vorbericht über den Stadiasmus Provinciae in Patara, Lykia 1, 1994, 130-137.
1995
7. M. Zimmermann, Lukian zu drei kleinasiatischen Orakeln in Mallos, Patara und Pergamon, Lykia 1, 1994
1995, 103-114.
8. F. Işık, Tempelgräber von Patara und ihre anatolischen Wurzeln, Lykia 2, 1995, 160-186.
9. H. İşkan – N. Çevik, Die Grüfte von Patara, Lykia 2, 1995, 187-216.
10. K. E. Großschmidt, Antropologische Untersuchungen zu den Felsgrüften in Patara/Lykien, Lykia 2, 1995,
217-240.
11. C. Marek, Der Lykische Bund, Rhodos, Kos und Mithridates. Basis mit Ehreninschrift für Krinolaos, Sohn
des Artapates, von Patara, Lykia 2, 1995, 9-21.
1997
12. S. Bulut – F. Gülşen, Patara Bodrum Oda Mezarı, Adalya II, 1997, 189-205.
13. E. Öner, Eşen Çayı Taşkın-Delta Ovasının Jeomorfolojisi ve Antik Patara Kenti, Ege Coğrafya Dergisi 9,
1997, 89-130.
14. B. Varkıvanç, Eine Altarbekrönung aus Patara, Adalya II, 1997, 87-95.
15. P. Yılmaz, Koruma Yasalarımız ve Patara Antik Kenti, Turizm ve Çevre. Oleyis Vakfı Yayınları (Ankara
1997) 45-86.
1998
16. E. Öner, Zur Geomorphologie der Eşen-Deltaebene und des antiken Hafens von Patara in der Südwesttürkei,
Adalya III, 1998, 207-220.
1999
17. F. Işık, Patara. Eine lykische Metropole erwacht aus ihrem Dornröschenschlaf, Antike Welt 1999/5, 477-493.
18. G. Işın, Apollo of Patara, Lykia 3, 1999, 65-70.
19. H. İşkan, Überlegungen zu einem Gemmenporträt aus Patara und zur Ikonographie der Faustina maior,
Antike Kunst 42, 1999, 92-98.
2001
20. F. Işık, Bir Koruma Misyonu’nun Öyküsü: Patara, TAÇ Vakfı’nın 25 Yılı Anı Kitabı, Türkiye’de Risk
Altındaki Doğal ve Kültürel Miras (İstanbul 2001) 237-244.
21. H. İşkan, Ein Römisches Porträtfragment aus Patara, bk. C. Özgünel (ed.), Günışığında Anadolu. Anatolia in
Daylight. Cevdet Bayburtluoğlu için Yazılar. Essays in Honour of Cevdet Bayburtluoğlu (İstanbul 2001) 132-138.
22. F. Onur, Epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Antalya VI: Lamp-Stand Offerings of Primipilarius Flavius Bassus
to Apollo Patroos in Patara, EpigrAnat 33, 2001, 169-173.
23. K. T. Kahya, Patara Dark Age Pottery, Adalya V, 2001/2002, 35-57.
24. B. Varkıvanç, Patara’da Bir Seramik İşliği, Adalya V, 2001/2002, 137-153.
2002
25. G. Işın, Ointment/Medicine Vessels from Patara: An Overview of a simple Hellenistic Form in the Ancient
Mediterranean World, AA, 2002/1, 85-96.
26. G. Işın, Terrakotten als Grabbeigaben in den Nekropolen von Patara, BaBesch Suppl. 8, 2002, 107-115.
27. H. İşkan, Zum Totenkult in Lykien I: Ein datierbares Felsgrab in Patara und Leichenspiele in Lykien, IstMitt
52, 2002, 273-309.
28. H. İşkan, Zwei Privatporträts aus Patara. Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der Klinenporträts, JdI 117, 2002,
251-282.
29. H. İşkan, Ein Siegersarkophag aus Patara, AMS 44, 2002, 145-164.
30. T. Korkut, Steinerne Mörserschalen aus Patara, AA, 2002/1, 233-245.
31. T. Korkut – R. Tekoğlu, Grabinschriften aus Pamphylien und Lykien, ZPE 143, 2002, 105-116.
2003
32. T. Korkut, Zur lykischen Badearchitektur im Lichte der Thermen von Patara, IstMitt 53, 2003, 445-45.
2004
33. H. Engelmann, Eine Marginalie in einer Inschrift (TAM II 905, XVIII G), ZPE 146, 2004, 130.
34. H. Engelmann, Marcus Agrippa in Patara, ZPE 146, 2004, 129.
35. H. Engelmann, Tiberius Claudius Flavianus Eudemus und das Theater von Patara, bk. T. Korkut (ed.),
Anadolu’da Doğdu. Festschrift F. Işık zum 60. Geburtstag (İstanbul 2004, 293-296.
36. T. Korkut – G. Grosche, Das Bouleuterion von Patara. Ein vorläufiger Bericht über die bisherigen Grabungen,
bk. T. Korkut (ed.), Anadolu’da Doğdu. Festschrift für Fahri Işık zum 60. Geburtstag (İstanbul 2004) 439-460.
2005
37. H. S. Alanyalı, Patara Tiyatrosu 2004 Çalışmaları, Anadolu/Anatolia 29, 2005, 1-12.
38. H. Engelmann, Archiereus und Lykiarch, ZPE 154, 2005, 181-182.
2006
39. H. Engelmann, Zur Lykiarchie, ZPE 158, 2006, 183-186.
40. H. Engelmann – T. Korkut, Eine Inschrift aus Patara, bk. T. Takoğlu (ed.) Anadolu Arkeolojisine Katkılar.
65. Yaşında Abdullah Yaylalı’ya Sunulan Yazılar (İstanbul 2006) 307-312.
41. F. Işık, Patara, bk. W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien. Geplantes und
Erreichtes, Akten des internationalen Symposions 6/7. August 2004 in Bergama, BYZAS 3 (İstanbul 2006) 263-279.
42. G. Işın, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery of Patara, bk. C. C. Mattusch – A. A. Donohue – A. Brauer (eds.),
XVI International Congress of Classical Archaeology 23-26 August 2003 Boston (Oxford 2006) 98-102.
43. T. Korkut, The Parliament Building of Patara. A Preliminary Report, bk. C. C. Mattusch – A. A. Donohue
– A. Brauer (eds.), XVI. International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston 23-26 August 2003 Boston
(Oxford 2006) 93-97.
2007
44. F. S. Alanyalı – D. Şen, Patara Hurmalık Hamamı Frigidariumu ve Seramiklerinin Stratigrafik Olarak
Değerlendirilmesi, bk. B. Karasu et al. (ed.), Seres’07, IV. Uluslararası Katılımlı Seramik, Cam, Emaye, Sır ve
Boya Seminerleri, 26-28 Kasım 2007, Eskişehir (Eskişehir 2007) 412-430.
45. H. Engelmann, Die Inschriften von Patara. Eine Übersicht, bk. Ch. Schuler (ed.), Griechische Epigraphik in
Lykien. Eine Zwischenbilanz Akten des int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005 (Wien 2007) 133-140.
46. F. F. Gülşen, Wall Heating Systems in the Roman Period Lycian Baths-The Examples at Patara and Tlos,
Adalya X, 2007, 223-259.
47. G. Işın, An Achaemenid Stamp Seal from Patara, bk. İ. Delemen (ed.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local
Populations and Culture in Anatolia (6th – 4th Centuries B.C.) May 20-21, 2005 Istanbul (İstanbul 2007) 75-82.
48. G. Işın, General Outlook to the Hellenistic Pottery of Patara with Selected Examples, bk. S. Lemaitre (ed.),
Les produits et les marchés. Céramique antique en Lycie (VIIe s. Av. J.-C. VIIe. ap. J.-C.) Actes de la table
ronde de Poitiers, 21−22 mars 2003 (Bordeaux 2007) 137-151.
49. T. Korkut, Die kaiserzeitlichen Gebrauchskeramik aus Patara, S. Lemaitre (ed.), Les produits et les marchés.
Céramique antique en Lycie (VIIe s. Av. J.-C. VIIe. ap. J.-C.) Actes de la table ronde de Poitiers, 21−22 mars
2003 (Bordeaux 2007) 191-224.
50. T. Korkut, Roma Dönemi Patarası Yemek Pişirme Kapları: Tavalar, bk. B. Karasu et al. (ed.), Seres’07, IV.
Uluslararası Katılımlı Seramik, Cam, Emaye, Sır ve Boya Seminerleri, 26-28 Kasım 2007, Eskişehir (Eskişehir
2007) 431-449.
51. T. Korkut, Die spätantike und frühbyzantinische Keramik aus Patara, bk. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan (ed.), I.
International Ceramic Congress, Çanakkale 28-30 Mayıs 2005, Byzas 7 (İstanbul 2007) 147-168.
52. Ş. Özüdoğru, Pttara and Wakhssepddimi (Wekhssere II), Adalya X, 2007, 31-48.
53. Ş. Özüdoğru – E. Dökü, Patara Seramik Fırınları, bk. B. Karasu et al. (ed.), Seres’07, IV. Uluslararası Katılımlı
Seramik, Cam, Emaye, Sır ve Boya Seminerleri, 26-28 Kasım 2007, Eskişehir (Eskişehir 2007) 399-411.
2008
54. Ş. Aktaş, Tombs of the Exedra Type and Evidence from the Pataran Examples, Adalya XI, 2008, 235-261.
55. J. Ganzert, Doch kein Erdbeben in Patara?, AW 2008/4, 45-51.
56. F. F. Gülşen, Patara’daki Roma Dönemi Hamamlarında Planlama ve Mimari, bk. B. Can – M. Işıklı (ed.), Doğudan
Yükselen Işık. Anadolu Arkeolojisine Katkılar. Atatürk Üniversitesi 50. Yıl Armağan Kitabı (İstanbul 2008).
57. G. Işın, Patara’dan Terrakotta bir Portre-büst, bk. İ. Delemen et al. (ed.), EUERGETES. Prof. Dr. Haluk
Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı (İstanbul 2008) 587-599.
58. G. Işın, The Preliminary Report to the Hellenistic Pottery of Patara from ‘Tepecik Hill’ Excavations, AMS
2008, 157-171.
59. T. Korkut, Adak Sunaklar Işığında Likya’da Artemis Kültü, bk. İ. Delemen et al. (ed.), EUERGETES. Prof.
Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı (İstanbul 2008) 727-734.
60. H. İşkan, Patara’dan bir Demos Kabartması, bk. İ. Delemen et al. (ed.), EUERGETES. Prof. Dr. Haluk
Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı (İstanbul 2008) 639-648.
61. H. İşkan – W. Eck – H. Engelmann, Der Leuchturm von Patara und Sex. Marcius Priscus als Statthalter der
Provinz Lycia von Nero bis Vespasian, ZPE 164, 2008, 91-121.
62. H. İşkan – T. Korkut, Eine Grabstele von Patara, bk. E. Winter (ed.), Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus: Kleinasien
in der Antike. Festschrift für Elmar Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, AMS 65 (Bonn 2008) 335-344.
63. Ç. Uygun, Patara Tepecik Nekropolü’nden İtalya ve Kıbrıs Sigillatası Örnekleri, bk. Z. Çizmeli-Öğün – K.
Bilici – M. Oral – R. Tümsü-Polat (ed.), III. ve IV. Arkeolojik Araştırmalar Sempozyumu, Anadolu/Anatolia
Suppl. 2 (Ankara 2008) 305-322.
2009
64. H. Üstündağ, Patara Hurmalık Hamamında Yürütülen Antropoloji Çalışmaları, bk. A. Çabuk – F. Alanyalı
(ed.), Kültür Varlıklarının Belgelenmesi (Eskişehir 2009) 145-148.
65. F. Alanyalı, Patara Hurmalık Hamamı 2005-2008 Yılı Arkeoloji ve Belgeleme Çalışmalarına Genel Bir Bakış,
bk. A. Çabuk – F. Alanyalı (ed.), Kültür Varlıklarının Belgelenmesi (Eskişehir 2009) 117-144.
66. H. S. Alanyalı, Patara Tiyatrosu 2004-2008 Yılı Çalışmaları, bk. A. Çabuk – F. Alanyalı (ed.), Kültür
Varlıklarının Belgelenmesi (Eskişehir 2009) 75-100.
2010
67. T. M. P. Duggan, The Lycian port of Patara and its environs during the 13th and 14th centuries, Gephyra 7,
2010, 47-72.
68. G. Işın, Patara Tepecik Akropolü ‘Bey Evi’ Kazıları (2003-2007) Geç Arkaik-Erken Klasik Dönem
Terracottaları, Olba 18, 2010, 85-106.
69. G. Işın, The Building Complex on the Tepecik Acropolis at Patara, AnSt 60, 2010, 93-104.
70. Ch. Schuler, Priester πρὸ πόλεως in Lykien: Eine neue Inschrift aus dem Territorium von Patara, ZPE 173,
2010, 69-86.
2011
71. N. O. Baykan – H. İşkan, Patara Eskil Kenti Su İletim ve Dağıtım Sistemi, bk. Devlet Su İşleri II. Su
Yapıları Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 16-18 Eylül 2011, Türkiye Mimarlar Mühendisler Odaları Birliği, İnşaat
Mühendisleri Odası Diyarbakır Şubesi (Diyarbakır 2011) 67-78.
2012
72. H. Engelmann, Inschriften von Patara, ZPE 182, 2012, 179-201.
73. Ch. Schuler – K. Zimmermann, Neue Inschriften aus Patara I: Zur Elite der Stadt in Hellenismus und früher
Kaiserzeit, Chiron 42, 2012, 567-626.
74. D. Şen-Yıldırım, Hurmalık Hamamı Buluntuları Işığında Patara’nın Geç Roma-Erken Bizans Dönemi Kuzey
Afrika Kökenli Seramikleri, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 12, 4, 2012, 151-172.
2013
75. S. Bönisch – A. Lepke, Neue Inschriften aus Patara II: Kaiserzeitliche Ehren- und Grabinschriften, Chiron
43, 2013, 487-525.
76. E. Dündar, Roman Stamped Amphorae from Patara, Olba 21, 2013, 141-149.
77. E. Dündar, Remarks on the Possible Uses of a Late Cnidian Stamped Amphora from Patara, Adalya XVI,
2013, 167-175.
78. E. Dündar, Imports from Ionia: A Group Ionian Ceramic from the Building Complex on the Tepecik
Acropolis at Patara, bk. M. Tekocak (ed.), Studies in Honour of K. Levent Zoroğlu (İstanbul 2013) 205-231.
79. H. İşkan – N. O. Baykan, Neue Ergebnisse zur Wasserleitung von Patara/Türkei, Historische Wasserleitungen:
Gestern-Heute-Morgen, Tagungsband des internationalen Frontinus-Symposiums Wien, 19.-23. Oktober
2011, Babesch Supplement 24, 2013, 93-103.
2015
80. H. İşkan – M. Koçak, Der Hafen von Patara. Altes Wissen, neue Forschungen, bk. S. Ladstätter – F. Pirson –
T. Schmidts (ed.), Harbors and Harbor Cities in the Eastern Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Byzantine
Period: Recent Discoveries and Current Approaches, Bd. 1, Byzas 19 (İstanbul 2015) 271-294.
81. E. Dündar – A. A. Akyol, New Contributions to the Classical Period Commercial Amphora Typology from
Lycia: Archaeological Comments to the Archaeometric Analysis, in: S. Lemaître – C. Rocheron (ed.), La
Lycie et ses voisons productions céramiques et échanges commerciaux, Lundi 13 Mai 2013 Poitiers (baskıda).
82. E. Dündar – G. Işın, The Hellenistic Ceramics of Cistern / Cellar finds in the Building Complex on the
Tepecik Acropolis at Patara in 2003-2004: Preliminary Report, in: E. Laflı – S. Patacı (ed.), Recent Studies on
the Archaeology of Anatolia Collected Papers in Honour of Maurizio Buora, BARIntSer (baskıda).
83. H. İşkan – N. O. Baykan, Die Kurşunlu-Zisterne auf dem Theaterhügel in Patara. Ein Vorbericht zu den
Grabungsarbeiten, bk. G. Wiplinger (ed.), De Aquaeductu Atque Aqua Urbium Lyciae, Pamphyliae et Pisidia.
Proceedings of the International Congress on the History of Water Management an Hydraulic Engineering
in the Mediterranean Region, Antalya, October 31-November 9, 2014 (baskıda).
84. S. Erkoç – M. Koçak, Four Relief-Pedestals from Patara, bk. M. Aurenhammer – R. R. R. Smith (ed.),
Proceedings of the Conference ‘Sculpture in Roman Asia Minor’, 1.-4. Oktober 2013, Selçuk (baskıda).
85. H. İşkan – Ş. Aktaş, Eine neue Darstellung der Artemis von Versaille aus Patara, bk. M. Aurenhammer –
R. R. R. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference ‘Sculpture in Roman Asia Minor’, 1.-4. Oktober 2013,
Selçuk (baskıda).
86. H. İşkan, Überlegungen zu einem neuen prehistorischen Fund aus Patara, Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt
zu seinem 80. Geburtstag (Wien, baskıda).
87. A. Lepke – Ch. Schuler – K. Zimmermann, Neue Inschriften aus Patara III, Chiron 45, 2015 (baskıda).
Kazı Raporları
Patara Kazı Ekibi Üyeleri’nin sorumlu oldukları alanlarda yürüttükleri kazı çalışmalarının ve Patara territor-
yumu içinde gerçekleştirdikleri yüzey araştırmalarının “Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı (KST)”, “Anadolu Akdenizi
Arkeoloji Haberleri (ANMED)” ve “Anadolu/Anatolia” süreli yayınlarında basılan yıllık raporları:
Patara 1988, KST XI.2, 1990, 1-21; Patara 1989, KST XII.2, 1991, 29-55; Patara 1990, KST XIII.2, 1992, 235-258;
Patara 1991, KST XIV.2, 1993, 385-408; Patara 1992, KST XV.2, 1995, 279-301; Patara 1993, KST XVI.2, 1995,
253-282; Patara 1994, KST XVII.2, 1996, 159-184; Patara 1995, KST XVIII.2, 1997, 191-217; Patara 1996, KST
XIX.2, 1998, 53-79; Patara 1997, KST XX.2, 1999, 159-178; Patara 1998, KST XXI.2, 2000, 91-104; Patara 1999,
KST XXII.2, 2001, 79-94; Patara 2000, KST XXIII.1, 2002, 397-412; Patara 2001, KST XXIV.1, 2003, 1-10; Patara
2002, KST XXV.1, 2004, 87-102; Patara 2003, ANMED 2, 2004, 37-44; Patara 2004, ANMED 3, 2005, 57-65;
Patara 2005, KST XXVIII.1, 2007, 15-28; Patara 2006, KST XXIX.1, 2008, 59-72; Patara 2007, KST XXX.4,
2009, 337-354; Patara 2008, Anadolu/Anatolia 36, 2010, 229-243; Patara 2009, KST XXXII.3, 2011, 1-21; Patara
2010, KST XXXIII.3, 2012, 15-39; Patara 2011, KST XXXIV.3, 2013, 171-188; Patara 2012, KST XXXV.2, 2014,
271-289.
Lykian Civilization’s Transition from Hellas to Anatolia
During the “25 Year” Period of Patara Excavations
Fahri IŞIK*
When we, Havva İşkan, Adnan Diler, Cengiz Işık and I, arrived at Patara in August 1981, we must have
been so fascinated by its exquisite image, as previously described in Charles Texier’s accounts, that we
barely realized we had no time to travel to Tlos, which was the other option for our excavation campaign.
On that day, Patara looked as if it was only recently abandoned, when its harbor was completely filled up
with silt brought by the River Xanthos – it was as though time had stopped for the city since AD 1500.
During the seven-year wait for the excavation permit, there were projects aiming to surround the ancient
city center and the beach with concrete buildings after the Northern Patara, as in the example of Side.
When we commenced excavations right on the verge of such a complete devastation for the city, there was
a chronic misconception about the cultural texture of Lykia, created by the unchanging content of ancient
books1, and this was a perception surrounding the entire coastal cities of ancient Anatolia: the perception
of a “Hellenic creation”.
After 25 years of intensive efforts of excavation and investigation, there emerged a new scientific picture
radically different from that of 1988, in terms of historical, cultural and artistic aspects. This picture
depicts a Lykia and Patara, which shatters a 150-year-old dogma, contradicts academic orthodoxy, and
clearly contrasts to the prevailing perception. I do hope that this ‘success story’, the product of a remark-
able endeavor, which I will try to outline below on behalf of my colleagues, will not be overlooked and
overshadowed by a shallow concept called ‘Anatolianism’, but discussed in a serious ‘scientific’ climate, so
that the truth may indeed prevail.
The so-called ‘Hellenism’ of Lykia is traditionally based on a historically prescribed “Dark Age” and a
period of discontinuity in artifacts, or ‘a gap without creation’, in the Early Iron Age. As a result of this, it
has been asserted that all ties were broken between the people of Luwian descent described as “Lukka” in
ancient Hittite and Egyptian sources and the same people Homer calls ‘Lykian’ as a clear adaptation from
the former2. A similar ‘dark period’ for the ‘400 years’ following the Hittites had been prescribed in the
earlier research regarding the Land of the Hatti in the Central Anatolia, and the first Phrygian settlement
on the destruction layer of that high culture was therefore dated to the 8th century BC3. What happened
in Lykia after the Lukka people was different from that, because this time there was no trace on the Teke
Peninsula dating from the Late Bronze Age. In fact, until recently it was maintained that “the research in
the area clearly demonstrated a lack of conclusive archeological evidence regarding the period between
the 2nd millennium BC and the 8th or 7th century BC4. When the first Iron Age finds on the southwest-
* Prof. Dr. Fahri Işık, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Archeology, İstiklal Campus 15030
Burdur. E-mail: patara88@gmail.com
1 Akurgal 1941.
2 Regarding this issue, see. Işık 1994, 1. Regarding this issue and that it could only be resolved through archeology, see Frei 1993, 94.
3 Akurgal 1955, 111-120.
4 Özgen 2006, 539.
620 Fahri IŞIK
ern coast of Anatolia (first in Xanthos and Letoon, and then in Limyra) were dated to 700 BC5, the ‘dark
period’ was extended to 1,000 years.
In the mid-1980s, I had introduced the idea to the scientific community that this ‘dark period’ might
be of scientific origin rather than historical one, in other words it resulted from the lack of scientific
evidence and data for the Central Anatolian context available those days. Subsequently, the accuracy
of this opinion was confirmed in 1990s by the evidence unearthed during the new excavation works at
Hattusa, Kaman and Gordion (Yassıhöyük)6. The same rule must have applied to Lukka/Lykia, as well.
In this respect, a series of archeological excavations and surveys to be conducted at Patara, the main port
and capital city of the region, as well as those at Tlos, located on a hill overlooking the entire Valley of
Xanthos, would be of crucial importance. Among the chief cities of the entire Lykia throughout its his-
tory, the four major settlements in this homeland valley, which had been at the heart of Trmmis since the
very first Lykians, were called T(a)lawa, Pinale, Arnna and P(a)ttara in their native language. These were
the connotations of their Hittite names, T/Dalawa, Pina, Awarna and Patar, which clearly evidenced the
continuity of their existence7. Besides, there was no known historical event that would indicate these
ancient settlements were abandoned due to a violent attack during the transition from the Bronze Age
to the Iron Age. If new civilizations with a relatively ‘primitive’ texture emerged from the sophisticated
civilizations after a brutal collapse on both sides of the Aegean, in other words if the Dorians, who over-
threw the Achaeans in Hellas, and the Aeolians and Ionians had been reborn from their ashes into the
world scene of civilizations uninterruptedly on Mira and the Seha River Land, which were carved out
of Arzawa in western Anatolia8, then there could have been no ‘dark period’ in the transition from the
Lukkans to the Lykians on the Teke Peninsula of the southwestern Anatolia9. Indeed, the archeological
works conducted at the Bronze Age Parha (Perga), situated on the River Kaastaraia (Cestrus), revealed
that there was no dark period in the timeline of this city, located on the eastern border of the Lukka
Lands10. Similarly, in the Western Lukka lands extending to Millawanda (Miletus), namely the region
subsequently came to be known as Caria, a substantial volume of traces were found to reflect an uninter-
rupted human settlement from the Sub-Mycenaean Period and the ensuing Early Iron Age to the Late
Geometric Period11.
It is obvious that no different archaeological texture may be expected in the Xanthos Valley settlements
located between these two regions. The archaeological investigations in Çaltılar Höyük, an ancient settle-
ment mound located in the northern Lykia, also showed that there was no ‘dark period’ in the mountain-
ous Lykia to the north of the Xanthos Valley12, so neither could there be on the Coast. If anyone dares to
suggest that the four stone axes unearthed during the excavations in various places at Patara might be dat-
ing from the later periods on the grounds of “magical property”, as claimed for others in Lykia, they must
provide a convincing answer to the questions of from where and how these artifacts undoubted to be the
products of prehistoric times come to Patara. Moreover, one of these stone axes unearthed from the rocky
bottom on the eastern foot of the Tepecik Acropolis, from a context where some traces of “Protogeometric”
sherds decorated with concentric circles were found, must demonstrate the presence of this type at Patara
5 Akurgal 1998, 299; des Courtils 2003, 23; Borchardt 1993, 38 ff.; Frei 1993, 94.
6 Işık 2003a, 197-200; Işık 2003b.
7 Bryce 2003, 108 ff. For this issue, see Savaş 2006, 680 ff. fn. 13; 694 ff.
8 Işık 2009
9 Işık 1994
10 Martini 2003, 179 ff.
11 Rumscheid 2009, general.
12 See in this book B. Aksoy, “Lykia’nın Erken Dönemlerine Yönelik Bir Anahtar Yerleşim: Çaltılar Höyük ve Çevresi”; Momigliano et al.
2011, 160: “a group of Early Iron Age sherds (c.11th-10th centuries B.C.) was identified, providing the first evidence of occupation continu-
ing soon after the Bronze Age”.
Lykian Civilization’s Transition from Hellas to Anatolia During the “25 Year” Period of Patara Excavations 621
before the Iron Age13. Among the finds uncovered at this earliest höyük-like settlement, located on the
shores of the inner harbor, some pottery fragments differing from others in their form and structure “are
doubted to date from the Early Bronze Age and speculated to be the products of the Early Iron Age”14. We
do hope that the scientific community will not suffer a similar dilemma in the Early Bronze Age date of
the terracotta figurine of a mother goddess unearthed by the 2014 excavations at the rocky hill of Tepecik,
whose layers of structure had been completely stripped off due to erosion15.
As a matter of fact, along with that over the stone axe, there is also a suspicion surrounding the dating of
the pottery fragments decorated with concentric circles (unearthed by excavations in various places at the
Tepecik Acropolis) to the 10th century BC in the light of their Athenian “Protogeometric” antecedents16.
The complication stems from the fact that this style of pottery was traditionally maintained in Ionia and
on the entire coast of Anatolia into the 6th century BC. In fact, this phenomenon, namely the fundamen-
tal difference of the “same style but different date” from their counterparts in Hellas, clearly appears to
contradict the so-called assumption based on the pottery finds that Ionians were “the same people”, or
an “Eastern Hellenic people of Athenian descent”17. Apart from this phenomenon, a determinant in the
cultural differences of peoples, the evolution of this style over time will soon become evident once the
excavation of layers in the cities such as Patara and Tlos has been completed18. Until then, there might be
similar doubts whether some of the finds at Rhodiapolis, Limyra, Avşartepe, Kyaneai Highlands, Patara,
Xanthos, Tlos and Çaltılar are products of the Protogeometric Period19. It has been suggested that while
the early 1st millennium BC was reached in Limyra through “several fragments of pottery from the lowest
fill layer”20, some of the fragments uncovered at Xanthos are also promising in this respect21.
Another dilemma similar to that experienced in the dating of the pottery to circa early 1st millennium BC
is also suffered in the two terracotta figurines unearthed by the excavations of the Bey Mansion (Dynastic
Mansion) at Patara22, because the Late Bronze Age form and style immediately observable in their abstract
style23 may also apply to the Early Iron Age artifacts that are under the same influence. Indeed, the late-
period Hittite terracotta heads from Alişar preserved their form and style tradition in the Early Iron Age
Ionian terracotta heads from Samos24. However, this continuity in the form, which may only be recog-
nized through an uninterrupted tradition from the Bronze Age, also evidences that there was no dark
period in between.
There have been further doubts regarding the reference to Patara in the Luwian Inscription of Yalburt,
which testifies that ‘Patar’ witnessed the reign of the Hittite King Tudhaliya IV. As a result of these
doubts, some Late Bronze Age maps of Anatolia fail to include Patar, while they plot the cities of
13 Işık 1994, 3 ff. fig. 3; Işık et al 2011, fig. p. 17. For the skeptical approach common in archeology that the samples contradicting the integrity
of the finds, such as the stone axes containing “magical power” in this context, might date from much later periods, Marksteiner 2012, 199.
14 See in this book R. Becks, “Patara in the Bronze Age. An Evaluation of the Archaeological and Historical Evidence”.
15 The publication of this special find is being prepared by H. İşkan as an “Essays to Jürgen Borchardt on his 80th Birthday”.
16 Kahya 2001/2002.
17 Akurgal 1983, 20: Based on the pottery of the Athenian format and style, “Ionization of Smyrna starts in the early 10th century”; 22: “In
the later periods of the history of Western Anatolia, the Ionization does not seem to cease, instead it gains further meaning in all areas
(including the pottery design)... Ionic pottery art was introduced with migration from Athens”; 27: In Smyrna, “the numerical increase in
the geometric pottery with the Early Geometric Period may be associated with a new wave of Ionic immigration (from Attica)”.
18 Patara: See in this book E. Dündar, “The Ceramics From Patara:Investigations, Productions and Trade. Past Studies-Future Projections”;
Tlos: Korkut 2015, 75.
19 Particularly Rückert 2003, 15 ff.; general; Gebauer 2012, 169 ff. fig. 2.
20 Borchardt 1993, 39; otherwise Gebauer 2012, fn. 19.
21 des Courtils 2003, 23 fig. 4.
22 Işık et al. 2011, fig. p. 18 and p. 32.
23 Cf. Işık 2012, fig. 173. 352
24 Işık 2012, 36 ff. fig. 26-33.
622 Fahri IŞIK
Dalawa, Pina, and Awarna. In fact, the city is specifically referred to as “Mount Patar” in the Yalburt
Inscription, which might be explained by the fact that the Hittite king offered sacrifices to gods oppo-
site this ‘sacred mount’ after his victorious military campaign into the Lukka Lands. As a matter of
fact, there exists a hill at Patara that fits this definition. The prima facie sacredness of Doğucasarı rock
tomb, elevated to a height of 195 meters to the east of the estuary, is evident from the surface residues
that would not allow any civil settlement, as well as from its religious texture of Eastern Roman Period
naturally expected to preserve the old tradition, which include a basilica at its peak, a Medieval chapel
and three rock-carved altars from early times. 25 In addition, it is also evident from the testimony of
Hesychius (lived probably in the 5th century AD), where he defines Patara as “both a city and a moun-
tain” of Lykia 26; this description denoting the organic integrity of the “city” and “mount” finds its proof
in the existence of an ancient “holy path” ascending to the top round the western and southern slopes.
The fact that ‘Mount Patar’ is mentioned along with the three major cities of the Xanthos Valley as part
of the same historical event should be evaluated within the context of geographical integrity, for this
was the case throughout the history of Lykia. Patara has a virtual late-period ‘Upper Acropolis’ located
on a highland where the Dynast never resided and a true early-period ‘Lower Acropolis’ that accommo-
dates the Bey Mansion, a characteristic feature also common in Pinara and Xanthos27. A special build-
ing complex 28 unearthed on the rocky summit of this ‘Lower Acropolis’ (Tepecik), which is elevated to
a height of 30m above the inner harbour at Patara, finds its closest counterpart in terms of location,
size, and thick walls at the Büyükavşar settlement located in the Central Lykia, and this similar find is
considered to be the residence of the Dynast ruling the region 29. The protection of Lykian settlements
by internal and external castles must have been a legacy inherited from their nearest relatives Hittites as
a Bronze Age Anatolian tradition30.
The “Mount Patar” mentioned here must be the modern day Doğucasar Hill owing to its vital importance
over the city’s harbour31, because King Tudhaliya’s military campaign into Lukka took place in a period
between the two well-known shipwrecks occurring in the Late Bronze Age: the shipwrecks of Uluburun
and Cape Gelidonya32 . During the very first presentation of the excavation at the 1989 symposium, C.
Pulak, who became an expert on these most significant shipwrecks off the Lykian coast, verbally expressed
that “without the Port of Patara, a safe seafaring of ships would not be possible due to the rugged coastline
of Lykia, and I therefore expect at least one settlement dating from the Early Bronze Age.” Besides, H. İşkan
has found significant evidence suggesting that the Hittite King Tudhaliya IV, after he ended his military
campaign, might have returned home on a voyage sailing off from the Port of Patara. It would be unimagi-
nable that this main port was not utilized during the prime of the maritime trade between the Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age, following its heavy use in the Bronze Age33. This assumption
would also contradict the reports regarding the Lukkan pirate raids against Alaşya in the late Bronze Age
25 Bruer – Kunze 2010, 38-46 fig. 41-42 (Basilica), 44-45. 50. 51 (Chapel); Işık et al. 2011, fig. p. 17.
26 Hesych. Lex. rec. see. Patareis.
27 Bruer – Kunze 2010, general; Işık et al. 2011, 25-28 Plan p. 153 (Patara); Marksteiner 2010, 53 ff. Plan p. 49 (Pinara); 78 ff. Plan p. 63
(Xanthos); Borchardt-Bleibtreu 2013, Pl. 1, 1. 84, 1 (Xanthos), 32, 1. 84, 2 (Pinara); 79, 1 (Patara); for a different opinion, cf. p. 44-47.
28 Işın 2010a; Işık et al. 2011, 29-32 with fig. (G. Işın).
29 Marksteiner 1996, fig. 44. 46; Thomsen 2002, 70 fig. 10-12. For the opinion that the structures appearing to be “towers” in Patara might
have been “a residential area for the resident aristocrats”, see Thomsen 2002, 62. 68. For the explanation that Tepecik was “a residential
castle of the Classical Period”, see Marksteiner 2010, 97.
30 Işık 2010a, 74 fig. 13 (Pinara), 14 (Şamal). Xanthos: Demargne-Metzger 1967, Plan p. 1378; Thomsen 2002, fig. 25; des Courtils 2003, 75 ff.
Plan. p. 8, fig. p. 34-35; fig. 10 (Inner Castle); Marksteiner 2010, 78 ff. Plan p. 63; Borchardt-Bleibtreu 2013, 5 Pl. 1,1; 2,2; plan, Pl. 3,1. Cf.
Naumann, Ibid. 440 ff. fig. 440 (Hattusa); 232 ff. fig. 302 (Kargamış).
31 For the significance of the Patara Port, see İşkan – Koçak 2015.
32 Kolb-Kupke 1992, 35-39
33 See İşkan-Koçak 2015.
or Ugaritic navy’s establishing a naval base in the Lukka Land34. After all, neither P(a)ttara nor the other
major cities of the Xanthos Valley, such as Arnna, Pinale ve T(a)lawa, which badly needed this seaport in
order to open to the world, cannot be considered devoid of settlements during these periods.
In any case, the early history of the Xanthos Valley is now written in the light of the archaeological
findings rather than the ancient scripts, and this will be the case henceforth. Known from the Hittite
sources about the Lukka people and from Homer’s Iliad with regard to the Lykians under the leader-
ship of the legendary Sarpedon, who fought an epic battle on the front lines at Troia, this homeland has
recently become a focus of the international research into ancient Lykia, with a special attention to Tlos. I
had thought that if Iliad was not just a legend, this majestic castle with a special location overlooking the
Valley must have been located in “Sarpedon’s City”35. As the Hittite sources from 15th/14th century BC
refer to the region as “D/Talawa Land”36 instead of “Lukka Land”, this area must have reserved crucial
evidence regarding Lukka/Lykia under the ground. With this vision, the mountainous Tlos, along with
the coastal Patara, was included among other archeological sites in 1994 under the scope of the works by
the Akdeniz University Lykian Civilizations Research Center and Department of Archaeology, headed
by Prof. Havva İşkan. Once the archeological efforts turned into an extensive excavation campaign in
2005 and this remarkable scientist concentrated her efforts on Patara, the city to which she is passionately
committed, the excavations conducted by Taner Korkut from the excavation team unearthed such archeo-
logical finds that they proved we were not mistaken37. Within a relatively short period of ten years, well
beyond our expectations, this Xanthos Valley was reborn at Tlos with unknown prehistoric nature, while
confirming what we barely know about the Early Iron Age with new findings.
Discovered during the first year of the Tlos excavations, the Arsada Cave has impressive wall paintings on its
mouth, and its Late Neolithic date may extend back to a period without pottery in its counterpart found in
Girmeler. This cave contains the traces of settlements from various stages throughout the millennia extend-
ing to the Eastern Roman times38. The Girmeler Cave near Tlos was initially thought to be a cave settlement
contemporary with the Early Chalcolithic site at Hacılar39. However, the excavations have revealed that it
dates back to the 2nd quarter of the 9th millennium BC, thus becoming the oldest known archaeological site
on the coastal Lykia. The Neolithic life apparently beginning circa 7000 BC with Early Chalcolithic settle-
ment here was maintained in a höyük settlement on the plain in front of the cave40. The archaeological evi-
dence for the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age life in the ancient city center was found at the Agora level, which
includes pottery fragments from the rocky bottom between the pool at the center and the stairs in the west,
instruments made of volcanic glass and flint stone, as well as grinding stones41. Early Iron Age layers are also
expected here. It may be assumed that this fertile valley in the heart of Lykia preserved life long before the
written Hittite sources, starting from 10th millennium BC through all times and in all other settlements42.
What is now at issue here is the identity of this original Mesolithic/Neolithic people and the degree of a
possible kinship between them and the Late Bronze Age Lukka people known from the written sources.
The scientific answers to these questions are most probably hidden in a recent undervalued argument
that the Indo-European Luwian peoples, along with those from Trmmili, are native Anatolian peoples,
34 Otten 1993, 118; Frei 1993, 88; Bryce 2003, 45. For the piracy acts of the Lukka people from the eastern Mediterranean against the coastal
towns, see Bryce 2003, 41.
35 Işık 2010a, 67; Işık et al. 2011, 15.
36 See Hititler, Arkeo Atlas 3 (2004) the folded map between p 50 and 51.
37 Korkut 2015, 15-24. 73-75. 135-138. 162-167.
38 Korkut 2015, 162-167 with fig; Korkut 2012, 465 fig. 14. 15.
39 Köktürk 1996/1997.
40 Becks – Polat-Becks 2013, 166-183; Korkut – Becks – Polat 2012, 463 ff. fig. 12. 13; Korkut 2015, 135-138 with fig.
41 Korkut 2013, 192 ff. fig. 9. 10; Korkut 2015, 73-75 with fig.
42 Işık 2007, 229-236.
624 Fahri IŞIK
not “the first settlers” migrating from other regions along with Hittites and Palaic people43. In other
words, the real answer is hidden in the power of cultural unity between the past and future. As naturally
expected, it is difficult to resolve this issue without the aid of written sources44. Along with Patara, which
opens the valley to the world through its port, the city of Tlos is of key importance for a conclusive
settlement of these issues. Among the late 3rd millennium BC finds unearthed by the Karataş excavations
at Mountainous Lykia, the beak-spouted jugs indicate a connection with Hatti, while the megarons hint
connections with Troia, and the large earthenware jugs decorated with gable-roof houses resemble those
in Lykia45, which might be the proof of a cultural unity dating back to a very distant past. The conclusive
evidence in this respect is likely to be found at the Hacımusalar Höyük46. In view of all circumstances,
the so-called ‘dark period’ in the timeline of the Early Iron Age Lykia must have resulted from the lack
of archeological excavations47, but the ongoing excavations, particularly those being conducted at these
two major settlements, will surely produce clear tangible proof to cast light upon this darkness in the
homeland of Lykia, and what has already been achieved in the Central Anatolia will be achieved here, too.
It will eventually be revealed in the scientific sense that neither “the history of Lykian people dates back to
700 BC”, as proposed by J. des Courtils48, nor “the formation of tribal communities and minor sovereigns
in the dark ages” was only “confined to the upper regions of the fertile Xanthos Valley”, as claimed by J.
Borchhardt49. This phenomenon must apply to the entire Valley.
This picture drawn here is of vital importance, because it will ward off the misconception in the
archeological arguments that “the dark period between the Late Bronze Age Lukka (1700/1200 BC) and
the Early Iron Age Lykia (700 BC) severed all ties between the past and future; therefore, the arts and
culture were reconstructed on Hellenic basis, starting from circa 700 BC”50. The view that the ‘Hellenes”
mentioned in G. Rodenwaldt’s classic determination that “the form of the tomb monuments is of Lykian
tradition, while their decoration style is borrowed from the Hellenes” refer to the peoples of “Eastern
Hellenes”, namely “Ionians” has become dogmatized within the archaeological community, and thus
never been discussed. For that reason, E. Akurgal attributes the archaic relief art of Lykia, his PhD subject,
to a “Hellenic” basis, by referring it as ‘Ionic’ style51, and he describes “the pottery fragments uncovered at
various locations during the Xanthos excavations, the oldest finds in Lykia, as the products of the Hellenic
East”. He concludes that “considering that the art of sculpture is entirely influenced by the Hellenic East,
we can naturally deduce that the pottery was imported from neighboring regions in Anatolia.”52 At Elmalı
Kizilbel Tumulus, the wall paintings with Eastern content decorating the burial chamber are elaborated in
the “Archaic-Eastern Hellenic style”, according to this esteemed scholar of Anatolian Archaeology. “The
Phoenician alphabet”, on the other hand, “must have come into Lykia from Hellas, because the majority of
the letters show Hellenic forms.”53
43 Renfrew 1988, general.

44 See Işık 2007, 230 ff.
45 Pottery: Işık 2007, 230 fig. 5a (Alacahöyük), 5b (Karataş); Megaron: Işık 1997, 10 fig. 37 (Troia IIc), 40 (Karataş); House with gable roof:
Mellink 1964, 1 ff. fig. 5-7.
46 Özgen 2006, 540 ff.
47 Steiner 1993, 136.
48 des Courtils 2003, 23.
49 Borchardt 1993, 10.
50 Işık 1994.
51 Akurgal 1941.
52 Although E. Akurgal’s determination that “it seems that the wealthy Lycian principalities, who were under a heavy Hellenic influence in
the sculptural art, were meeting their pottery requirements through imports from the Hellenic cities” (see Akurgal 1998, 302) has been
documented by the high-quality import ceramics of all kinds unearthed at the Patara Bey Mansion, this may not be interpreted to mean
“there was no local production”, and this was further evidenced by the Patara excavations, Acar 2011; Dündar 2012.
53 For all these views, see Akurgal 1993, or Akurgal 1998, 299-303. For the view that the Lycian script “was undoubtedly adapted from
Hellenes, with Rhodes playing a decisive role as the supplier side in this exchange”, see Frei 1993, 95.
In archeology, this is how they draw the conclusion that the Lykian civilization “is the creation of a
Hellenic culture” – it is done by using the term ‘Hellenic’ instead of ‘Ionic’. According to the mainstream
archeological perspective, “the Ionians were originally the Athenian colonists who came from Hellas
during the Early Iron Age Migrations in the Aegean, conquered the Mid-West Anatolia from the Carians
and established colonies there; therefore, the people on both sides of the Aegean were the same people.”
If this were the case, then the culture and art should also have been the “same”. In line with the historical
records, the ‘Athenian Ionians’ should have created in their homeland, and the ‘immigrant Ionians
should have received that creation in the colonies’. Surprisingly, even such a simple point has not yet been
questioned, although the accounts of the Migrations in the Aegean were not constructed on the basis
of ‘historical facts’, but on the basis of the ‘myths’ narrated in Athens for propaganda purposes seven
hundred years after the migrations54. The identification of Ionians as Hellenes, which accidentally started
in the 19th century, had never been opened to discussion and questioned, which was natural after all the
accounts subsequently written in that respect.
The first questions addressing this issue were raised by us within the context of the true identity of the
Lykian civilization, as required by a true scientific inquiry. My investigations spanning over the last 25
years, including all areas of art, culture and thought, 55 have shown that “the Ionians cannot have been
Athenians”, because the art and culture in Ionia were cast in the mould of Anatolia and shaped upon the
basis of Anatolian thought, and thus the art forms and styles under that influence are its own creation.
Most importantly, the so-called homeland Hellas is not the ‘influencing side’ here, but the ‘influenced
side’, because the Migrations in the Aegean were not some ‘migration of culture’, nor did they have a
particular purpose of ‘colonization’, which requires an organized effort. Rather, they were characterized
by people’s fight for survival, miserable after the Dorian invasion, where the mighty Achaean castles were
demolished. Besides, Athens was just an ordinary city-state among other powerful Achaean principalities.
The findings of recent research, particularly those regarding the pottery from the Geometric period shown
as the prima facie evidence for this “colonization” purpose, have begun to validate our position56. It is now
obvious that those migrating to Anatolia were in fact the impoverished peoples from all over Hellas, who
lost everything during the Dorian invasion. They were forced to leave all that they love behind and go into
the unknown in the hope of a better life, so it was a ‘refugee’ migration57.
What we wrote regarding the Anatolian origin of the Ionians has recently found its written evidence, as
the earliest reference to Ionia has been found in the inscriptions on a series of pedestals from the Temple-
Tomb of Amenhotep III (1403-1364 BC) at the Theban Necropolis. The inscription lists ‘Iunia A’a’ among
other major regional territories and lands of political importance for the ancient Egypt. This recent find
irrefutably documents that the ‘Great Ionia’, listed on the same block with other names such as ‘Luwian’
and ‘Mitanni’, was in fact on the Anatolian territory, that is to say, Ionians were one of the ancient peoples
of these lands at least 250 years before the Athenian migration to Anatolia. The silence of the archeologi-
cal community, ongoing since the monument’s first introduction under the heading of “great sensation”58,
may not otherwise be explained59. This finding, which had already been envisaged by E. Curtius as early
as 185560, is of vital importance in determining the true identity of the Lykian civilization. Given the
54 Rose 2008.
55 The Turkish translation of the selected twenty articles that I wrote in German on the subject are collected in the book titled “Uygarlık
Anadolu’da Doğdu (2012)”.
56 Işık, 2012, 38-41 fig. 486-497
57 Högemann 2001; Işık 2012, 44 ff. (with quotations from J. Boardman, J. Latacz ve J. Cobet).
58 Sourouzian – Stadelmann 2005.
59 Because, in the same place, for example “Danaja/Danalar”, along with the island of “Kythera”, in the fifth inscription has been attempted to
be located in Peloponnesus, the northern neighbor of the island, because of the word “Kafta/Crete” on the same line: Latacz 2005, 159-162.
60 Curtius 1855, 6-9.
626 Fahri IŞIK
fact that Lykia not only features cultural and artistic characteristics common to Anatolia, but also has an
alphabet resembling the Ionic alphabet which is peculiar to Anatolia,61 and if it was not founded on the
influences from Hellas, then the ‘Hellenization’ of the Lykian civilization would be unacceptable. The
appropriate term in that case should be “Anatolianization”, because the sculptors appear to have been
under that influence, so were the architects and potters producing their works under the same influence62.
Consistent with the Anatolian tradition, the Lykians usually performed their worship rituals in the open air,
which explains the scarcity of early temples in the region. The settings evidencing this contention, including
the rock-cut altars, rock-cut stairs, rock-hollows, and steles, apparent from the presence of rectangular stele-
tenons on the rock, exist in almost every location63. The traces of ancient Anatolian rock-cut settings in
Asarcık, situated on the upper slopes of Mount Kragos, appear to be the most impressive open-air rock
sanctuary in Lykia. It watches over the eastern part of the Valley, where the River Xanthos meets the sea,
creating a mesmerizing scene on the rocky cape ascending over the hills of Patara through the Pınara cliffs64.
The most sacred of such rocks with a natural texture reflecting divine power may also be found in Letoon.
They were left intact within this national cult center of Lykia, like a “cult statue” in the center of subsequent
Temple of Artemis, and preserved as an abstract painting of the goddess herself65. Without a doubt, that
rocky cliff was once the “house of the god”, as was the Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazılıkaya66. Furthermore,
the religious rock structures are not under a “Persian influence”67, as previously claimed, but they were
shaped by an Anatolian-Phrygian influence68. When the connection of Leto and Artemis with the Anatolian
Mother Goddess was demonstrated by descriptive documents, it became evident that they were influenced
by the Cybele of Phrygia69. The Lykians learned to carve tombs into rock by imitating the architecture of
their homes from the Phrygian masters70. The austere temple tombs of Lykia show an Ionic influence in their
plan, but they are unique in that they face south, with the presence of rock altars in the front71.
Although completely modified and converted into a “Roman Agora” in the later periods, the Classical
Period Agora of Xanthos must have been different from that of Athens, resembling the Lykian Agora
at Avşartepe, which was compared with Agora of Alazeytin at Caria by A. Thomsen72 . Indeed, like its
counterpart found in the Central Lykia, the Agora of Xanthos also lies beside the Acropolis; it is accom-
panied by several tombs inside and alongside. While the adjoining church to the west still promises a
temple underneath its foundations, the “sacredness” of this site, which contains a “Sanctuary of the Twelve
Gods”, is recorded on the “inscribed obelisk” located within73, and the Bey Mansion is not too far from
61 Işık 2010a, cf. 74 fig. 11. 12.

62 For further details, see Işık 2009.
63 Işık 1995; Işık 1996; Işık 1999, generally, fig. 6. 10.21. 22. 27. 44; Işık 2010b, 89 ff. fig. 20. 22. 24. 25; Işık 2010a, 78 fig. 43-46.
64 Işık 2010b, 84 ff. with fig; Işık 2010a, 75 fig. 19.
65 Işık 1999, 20 fig. 48; Işık 2010, 78 fig. 26; Marksteiner 2010, 87 with fig.
66 Işık 1999, 21 ff. fig. 15; Seeher 2006, 134-166 fig. 138 ff.
67 Borchardt 1993, 37 fig. 11; Bayburtluoğlu 2004, 113 with fig.
68 Işık 1996.
69 Işık 2000.
70 For all such issues within the context of Phrygia, see Işık 2012, related articles. “Despite the lack of early examples in Lykia”, for the reverse
direction of the influence, that is, Lykia as the influencing side and Phrygia as the influenced side, see Akurgal 1961, 108 ff.
71 Kolb 1999; Işık 2010b.
72 Thomsen 2002, 126 ff. 146 ff. fig. 45 (Avşartepe), fig. 41 (Alazeytin); Işık 2010a, 75 fig. 17 (Avşartepe), fig. 18 (Alazeytin); Borchardt –
Bleibtreu 2013, 110 ff. Pl. 106, 1 (Xanthos); 106, 4 (Avşartepe); Kolb 1984, 77 ff. fig. 13 (Athens).
73 In this context, for the connection tried to be established through the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Agora of Athens, Kolb 1984, fig. 13,
see Kolb – Kupke 1992, 19. For the view that the Hittite origin Twelve Gods of Lykia is not even remotely connected with the Twelve Gods
of Hellenes (Dodekatheon), and they differ in five aspects, see Freyer-Schauenburg 1994, 75-78. Bryce discusses this group of deities in
the context of “probable Bronze Age Anatolian-origin gods”: Bryce 1986, 179 ff. For the position of the Sanctuary of the Twelve Gods to
the “north of the Agora” and the plausibility of the Hittite influence, see Borchardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 87 ff. Pl. 1, 1; cf. Pl. 93, 1. 2 (Hattusa
Yazılıkaya) with Pl. 93, 3 (Lykia). For the expectation of a temple under the foundation of the great Basilica in the center of the “Roman
Acropolis” rising in the north, see Demargne – Metzger 1967, 1405; Thomsen 2002, 110 fn. 22.
the Agora. Again, the three-cella “Temple-C” in the Acropolis finds its closest counterpart at Avşartepe,
with its plan adapted from its own house type74.
Located on the northeast corner of the Agora of Xanthos, the 4-meter-high monolithic obelisk sitting atop
a dynastic tomb bears an inscription of 243 lines in the Lykian language on all four sides, as well as a short
summary in Hellenic language on the north side (lines 20-31), which reads as follows: “Since the day when
the sea separated Europe from Asia, no Lykian soul has ever erected such a stele, an immortal monument
symbolizing His gallantry in battle, to the Twelve Gods in the sacred temenos of the Agora. He, (..)r(.)is the
son of Harpagos, prevailed at wrestling in His prowess over the youth of Lykians in His time, demolished
many castles with the aid of Athena, Sacker of Cities, and distributed a share of His domain amongst His
kin. In respect thereof, the immortals offered Him the recompense He deserved. He had slain seven heavily-
armed Arcadian hoplites in a single day. These were Arcadian men. Of all the mortals, it was Him who
raised the most numerous trophies to Zeus. It was Him who crowned the lineage of Karikas through the most
beautiful deeds.”75
F. Kolb attaches a special importance to this monument, as if it was the witness of the “Hellenization”
of Lykia; therefore it has a key position in our subject matter76. Firstly, the structure being both a “vic-
tory monument” and a “tomb” is a prevalent feature of all tombs on which the victories of the dynast are
depicted, which begins with the pre-Persian Lion Tomb, the earliest example of such obelisks, and then
becomes a rule. Therefore, this phenomenon may not be associated with the “glorification of heroes by
Hellenes”, because the dynast buried in the tomb, as written countless times, is not heroified in Lykia,
but actually deified. The ‘Hellenic nudity’ of the soldiers depicted is because they are actually Hellenes,
and it is the requirement of a realistic expression by the sculptor in the Eastern tradition. Celebrating and
highlighting the athletic accomplishments in boxing and wrestling may not be linked to the Hellenistic
tradition, because these are among the favorite themes in the Archaic dynast tombs of Lykia, and they
were a typical part of the feasts for the dynasts at Isinda, Xanthos and Kızılbel77. “The passage in Hellenic
language initially resembling the one attributed to Simonides of Ceos” is not a binding issue for the main
Lykian text. Even such a pictorial depiction corresponding the same historic event recorded independently
contradicts the Hellenic tradition.
The inscription mentions a stele as ‘an offering to the Twelve Gods’ and the ‘sacredness’ of the area in
which this stele was erected, reminiscent of the ‘obelisks’ in the Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazılıkaya
(inscribed rock) within the context of the cult of the dead, as well as the cultic contents of the massive steles
first employed at Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia, and those traditionally preserved at Gerga, one of the sacred
centers of Caria, even after thousands of years78. According to the generally accepted scientific finding
of the only comprehensive study into this issue, the concept of the Twelve Gods “traces back to ancient
Hittite-Luwian origin”, and thus is not even remotely connected with the ‘Hellenic Dodekatheon’79. The
dedication of tropaions (trophy monuments erected to commemorate a victory) to Zeus is falsely inter-
74 Thomsen 2002, 156-162 Nr. 419 fig. 74; cf. fig. 76 (Xanthos); Işık 2010b, 106-108 fig. 45; cf. fig. 44 (Xanthos) and fig. 46 (residence); Işık
2010a, 75 fig. 20.
75 Kolb – Kupke 1992, 19; Nieswandt 2011, 6 (From the German translation by K. Zhuber-Okrog). For the monument, see des Courtils 2003,
249-54 (Nr. 2) fig. 14. 15; Demargne 1958, 79-105 fig. 9-16 Pl. 26-42; Işık 2010a, 84; Nieswandt 2011, 3-33 with illus.
76 Kolb – Kupke 1992, 19.
77 Isinda: Ozhanlı 2001/2002, 89; Xanthos: Demargne 1958, Pl. 8; Kızılbel: Mellink 1998, Pl. 22.
78 For another example of the relationship between the cult of the dead and sacred area, which is found in the Hittite Yazılıkaya regarding the
King Tudhaliya IV, see Nieswandt 2011, 9. For steles, see: Hauptmann – Schmidt 2007, 28-43; Korfmann 1998, 473-475. For Gerga: Held 2008,
87-102 Floor. Nr. S 1-S 19; 140-142 Fig. 134-159. For this exquisite Open Air Sanctuary and its connection with Neolithic Period Steles in terms
of shape and cultic nature: Işık 1999, fig. 63, cf. fig. 24 (Nevali Çori). Held 2008, in my opinion, the date of “Roman Empire Period” in page
142, is rather late for this (with his own words) “ancient and mighty sacred area”, at least for its first phase; on the contrary, the “view” that the
steles might be depicting the Anatolian Mother Goddess “in connection with the Cybele cult” seems more plausible to me.
79 Freyer-Schauenburg 1994, 75 ff. 78; Akyürek-Şahin 2002, 112. Especially cf. y. fn. 73.
628 Fahri IŞIK
preted as a Hellenic connection based on the Hellenic translation of the inscription, because the main text
in the Lykian language states that these trophies were dedicated to Trqqas, the Sky God of Lykians. As for
the relationship between depiction of weapons and tropaion, if this may be considered a shield80, then the
offering dedicated to Trqqas must be the shields of a defeated foe taken as a symbol of his brilliant victory
over Melesandros and hung as a relief on his tomb81. Furthermore, the name Athena in the Hellenic trans-
lation should not be perceived as the Athena Parthenos of Hellas, but the native Lykian goddess Maliya,
an “Anatolian Sister” derived from Luwian goddess Ishtar, for this is the case in the neighboring Caria,
whose inhabitants were of Luwian origin and established diverse cultural relations with Lykia82.
The Hellenic reading of the god and goddess names evidently results from the adoption of Hellenic as
the literary language in the post-Alexander period, and it may not be attributed to the original names.
Although the Hellenic language summary of the main Lykian text on the Inscribed Obelisk of Xanthos,
the first instance where the Hellenic language emerges as a second language in the 4th century BC,
records the names Zeus, Athena, Aphrodite and Artemis as a feature required by the nature of translation,
the native inhabitants of Xanthos were not familiar with them; they only knew about the names in the
main Lykian text: Trqqas, Maliya, Pedrita and Ertemi83. People actually used the original names in their
language and belief system, not the translated versions that were completely foreign to them. The people
of Xanthos, the majority of whom were not able to read even in their own native language, cannot be
deemed “Hellenized” only because there is a Hellenic inscription featuring some Hellenic names84. The
transformation of the Lykian names into Hellenic language on the late period inscriptions, which was a
circumstance obviously imposed by Alexander the Great, may only be interpreted as Hellenization of the
script, but not the people. The translated summary of the inscription on the pillar on which the Lykian
dynast Kheriga or Kherei’s tomb sits must have been intended for the Hellenic merchants visiting the city,
because this monument was supposed to be a display of power to foreigners. The reliefs decorating the
external walls of the burial depict the defeat and demise of Melesandros in 430/29 BC, apparently taking
place at the entrance of the Xanthos Valley85, as mentioned in the History of the Peloponnesian War by
Thucydides (2, 69). Indeed, the inscriptional epigram written in the Hellenic language records that they
fought the Athenians who came to Lykia to collect tax and defeated the warriors “seven of whom were slain
by the dynast himself in a single day”, where their commander Melesandros was also killed86. F. Kolb, too,
admits that this kind of ‘self-praise is unique to the people of the East, not Hellenes’.
The most solid proof to confirm that the depiction was undoubtedly an actual historical event worth com-
memorating in Lykia is found in the images that literally reflect what is recorded in the inscription. The
‘seven Arcadian hoplites that were slain’ are symbolized by the six shields hanging on the southern face
of the obelisk and the seventh one that the dynast is trying to take from a warrior. ‘Seizing of the shield’
symbolizes a victory over the enemy and is a unique tradition of Lykia87. In the southern face, the depic-
tion of the dynast twice the size of the last Arcadian he defeated should also be considered a demonstra-
tion of his divine power in this context. Such a representation also supersedes the balance between the vic-
tor and defeated common in the Hellenic depictions, because the victor is overemphasized in the Eastern
80 Pekridou 1986, 62 fn. 157: “For example, depiction of eight round shields on Leuctra Tropaion”.
81 Demargne 1958, Pl. 30. 31; Kolb – Kupke 1992, 16 fig. 23.
82 Radt 1970, 14 fn. 16. For “Anatolian Athena”, see Işık 2004.
83 Bryce 1986, 175-193; Bean 1986, 181-183; des Courtils 2003, 49-54.
84 Otherwise, Frei 1993, 93. According to this scholar, the Hellenic names gained recognition in the country during the Hellenization process,
and the earliest evidence in this direction is found in the Hellenic language epigram on the Inscribed Obelisk of Xanthos, from such a
relatively late period as c. 400 BC.
85 Keen, 1998, 125-135.
86 Bean 1986, 181 ff.; Kolb – Kupke 1992, 19.
87 Bruns-Ozgan 1987, 56 Pl. 8, 3. Akurgal 1941, 33 ff. 64 ff. Pl. 5 (Lion Tomb); 62 ff. Pl. 9 (Isinda Obelisk).
tradition88. It would be difficult to argue that the prominent bull protomes projecting from the corners
may be borrowed from the Persians merely as a decorative element, because bulls are known to symbolize
power in the Anatolian tradition, and they might also have been placed to attribute divinity or as tomb
guardians, as commonly practiced that tradition89.
In the light of the foregoing findings, we may never draw such a conclusion that “Lykians underwent a
cultural transformation and became Hellenized”, solely based on the epigram written in the Hellenic
language. In contrast, just like the monument itself, the content of the inscription appears to be a
declaration of an Anatolian identity for the Lykian art and culture90. What is more, this inscription dates
from the early 4th century BC, a time Lykia was supposed to have already been ‘Hellenized’, and Xanthos
was then a city capable of best representing the Lykian art of the time alone. However, neither this type
of tomb, nor the sarcophagi with gabled roof, nor the tombs imitating the temples or wooden houses were
known in Hellas, nor did they have such rock-cut tombs there91. Besides, the tombs there could never
be placed inside a city 92 . Now that “the sculptors identified as the Eastern Hellenic people styling the
decorations of these tombs”93, namely the ‘Ionians’, have been proven to be of Anatolian origin by the
inscription from the Temple of Amenhotep III in Egyptian Thebes, just like the Lykians, who shaped the
form of these tombs, it is obvious that the ‘acculturation’ argument may not be possibly grounded on a
scientific basis through some indefensible abstract grounds that have so far been postulated.
One of these abstract grounds appears to be the description by P. Demargne and H. Metzger that the
Temple Tomb of Erbbina (Nereid Monument), the most striking monument of Lykia, “is a true manifest
of exquisite Hellenism, though it does not deny the tradition it inherited”94. What kind of manifest is
this when no example of such tomb architecture may be found in Hellas? The monumental tomb here
stands elevated on a sumptuous podium, with its body featuring an Ionic temple. Its cella has four
funerary beds and has a sculpture inside – probably such as a cult statue of a deity 95. The pediment,
on the other hand, shows the deified dynast and his family, while this area is reserved for the gods in
Hellas. How come its “decorations are borrowed from the Hellenic art”96? They are in fact a product
of “Ionic naturalness of expression”97 characterized by the Eastern features such as war, hunting and
feast, or the hastiness of the people f leeing their besieged castle, or those living in a rocky terrain.
Was it possible that the image form and style argued to have been borrowed from Athens, namely the
“influence”, would precede the Eastern thought and its deep-rooted pictorial depiction? All that the
Athenian artists borrowed from Anatolia in the Golden Age of Ionia was merely an “influence”, which
is observed even in the Ionic temples preferred in Classical Athens. This must have been the case 98 ,
because the change occurred in the form, but not diffused into the way of thinking. When the direction
of this influence was reversed in the Classical Period, in other words, when Athens assumed the role
of the influencing side99, this artistic exchange suddenly and interestingly becomes the “manifest of
Hellenism”, which is clearly an unfair double standard.
88 Akurgal 1941, 65.

89 Especially, Borchardt 2012, 69-72 Pl. 3 Fig. 3: “cenotaph-guardian”.
90 For further details, see Işık 2010a, 84-88.
91 For Xanthos tombs, see des Courtils 2003, generally; Borchardt – Bleibtreu 2013, Pl. 4-7. 107-109.
92 Işık 1999a, 483; Nieswandt 2011, 8
93 Rodenwaldt 1933, 10-30.
94 Demargne – Metzger 1967, 1391.
95 Borchardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 105 ff. Pl. 103, 1: “From the cella or temenos; Kheriga and his wife Upeni”.
96 Akurgal 1998, 301.
97 Işık 2010a, 73 ff. fig. 7a. b; Borchardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 130-134 Pl. 125, 4; 128. 129; Jacobs 1987, 61 Pl. 14, 2. 3.
98 Cf. Işık 1998, 17 fig. 21 (Xanthos) with fig. 19 (Athens).
99 Işık 2010a, 81 ff. fig. 54 (Acropolis of Athens); fig. 55 (Acropolis of Xanthos).
630 Fahri IŞIK
Even though the nature of science requires unprejudiced inquiry and discussion, F. Kolb seeks traces of
the ‘acculturation’ he hopes to find in Lykia within the context of the ‘superiority of Hellenism’ as dogma-
tized by the West. He maintains that such conviction is further supported by the ‘Hellenic’ identity of the
author of the Inscribed Obelisk: “...the author of these verses was a Hellenic man or a Hellenized Lykian. It
should not be surprising that he was a Hellenic man, for it was around 400 BC and later. The Peloponnesian
War had caused a mass migration of Hellenic artists to the royal palaces in the borderlands of the Hellenistic
World. These Hellenic architects and sculptors were at work in Xanthos, Trysa and Limyra”100. If we all
know that the sculptural works dated to circa 400 BC were a product of Ionic art, then on what grounds
can we assert that an architect from Hellas must have built the Ionic order Temple Tomb of Erbbina
at Xanthos, Mithrapata’s Temenos Temple Tomb at Trysa, known to be indigenous to Anatolia, or the
Temple Tomb of ‘Perikle’ at Limyra, constructed circa 350-340 BC? Moreover, the identity of a structure
is determined by its function, not its constructor. As described below, the true identity of these edifices is
confirmed by their being temple tombs, a phenomenon never existed in the Hellenic thinking.
While the very first creative products of realistic portraiture, the coins of Mithrapata and Perikle, as
opposed to idealistic Hellenic art, sparked a revolution at the royal palaces of Lykia101, how can we possi-
bly interpret the nationality of the constructors as a sign of ‘acculturation’? For instance, though the reliefs
on the sarcophagus of Hecatomnus, like those in the Maussollos temple tomb, are known to have been
crafted by the artists migrating from Hellas, even Maussollos, a well-known admirer of Hellenic culture,
preserved the themes within the limits of the Eastern tradition known from Lykia. To be more specific, he
was not Hellenized in thought, nor did he die like a ‘Hellenic’ citizen, as he was deified in his impressive
temple tomb inspired by the monumental tomb of Erbbina.
Another recent issue that we have brought up for discussion in the context of the Anatolian origin of Lykia,
as partially mentioned above, is that the descendants of Lykian dynasts never became ‘heroes’ (heros) after
death, like the Carian dynasts of the Hekatomnid era, and thus their tombs cannot be described as ‘heroons’.
When they die, they do not become a ‘hero’, as in the Hellenic thinking, but they become a ‘god’, just like the
Hittite kings. Considering that its contemporary Acropolis of Athens is reserved for the gods with the temple
structures, the Acropolis of Xanthos, which contains three dynastic tombs, two temples and a dynastic pal-
ace standing side by side, provides conclusive evidence to reveal the extent of difference in thinking between
these two peoples102. Accordingly, the statue of the dynast seated on a lion throne, which is above the burial
chamber of his pillar tomb with inscription, finds its closest counterparts in the representations of deified
or god kings of New Hittite Kingdom, which depict them seated on a throne resting on wild animals103. The
monumental tombs where the dynasts were buried are not ‘heroons’, but ‘temple tombs’104. Whatever mean-
ing is embedded in the Nereid Monument, which undoubtedly served a cultic function with its Ionic temple
shape105, with its elevated base substituted for an obelisk, the burial chamber at the top and the descendants
of dynasts resting inside, it should also apply to the subsequent-period Inscribed Pillar Tomb. In addition to
this, the dynast of the tomb in the former is deified with his family on the roof pediment, while he is deified
alone on his lion throne above the roof in the latter. The “annual sacrifice” offering mentioned in the eastern
face of the pillar can only be meant for the deified dynast106.
100 Kolb – Kupke 1992, 19.

101 Zahle 1990, 54 ff. fig. 18 Fl. Nr. 96. 97; Özgan 2013, 29 ff. fig. 20-22.
102 Işık 2010a, 81 ff. fig. 54 (Acropolis of Athens); fig. 55 (Acropolis of Xanthos).
103 Işık 2001/2002, 109 ff. fig. 5-12; Işık 2010a, 81 fig. 51-53. Despite a “Late Hittite connection”, for the view that the “warriorship alone may
be considered as a symbol of the power of sovereignty”, see Nieswandt 2011, 29. 31 ff.
104 Işık 1995, 164-176; particularly Işık 2001/2002, 107-124.
105 Coupel – Demargne 1969. For the cult of the dead postulated by Demargne see, the latest: Işık 2010a, 80; Nieswandt 2011, 303 ff.;
Borchardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 7.
106 Nieswandt 2011, 7 ff. While everything related to the monument but the form and style of the reliefs is known to be foreign to Hellas,
Nieswandt 2011, 3-33, emphasizing the Hellenic concept of “heroified” for the “deified” Lykian dynast is a clear contradiction.
What is particularly inexplicable in this context is the insistence on the term ‘heroon’ to describe these
tombs just because the Hellenic translations state so, while admitting that these dynasts were actually dei-
fied, or more specifically, J. Borchhardt’s efforts to explain the deification of the Lykian dynasts, which
he can no longer deny after our publications, breaking it off from Hittite-Luwian tradition, as “a sign of
respect paid to Harmodius and Aristogeiton as the founding heroes of Athens”107. This renowned scientist
attempts to attribute the judicial system of the Lykian League, praised by Montesquieu with his statement
in his masterpiece “The Spirit of the Laws” (Book 9) that “Were I to give an excellent model of government
system, it would be that of Lykia”, to “a structure established by the Lykian lawgivers during the hegemony
of Athens”108, which indicates that it will not be an easy task “to break down the prejudices” and estab-
lish the facts, nor will it be easy to attribute an Anatolian origin, on the basis of its Eastern character, to
a civilization presumed ‘Hellenistic” without question and reasonable scientific doubt. The proofs for the
“spirit of unity” among the Lukkan people may be found both in the Assuwa Confederation of the 15th
century BC and in the historical records from Kadesh that place them at the top of the list of 22 nations as
Hittite allies in the 13th century BC; this gene common in Lykians is expressed by the common attitude
toward Athens in the 5th century BC, while in Anatolia, it is read in Homer’s accounts, and actualized in
the Ionian League, Aiolian League and Carian league.
When the sculptors of the Aegean Golden Age, who could not tolerate even a relatively liberal Persian
rule, fled their homeland Ionia and scattered throughout other regions, including Athens in particular,
and Athens gained the leadership in the Aegean by expelling the Persians from Hellas, the circumstances
in Lykia were naturally influenced by this development. Indeed, the artistic power of Athens could be
observed as early as the second quarter of the 5th century BC in the statues of young women with peplos
(dress) in the Monument-G at Xanthos, and this foreign influence would continue in the form and style
of the works created by these Ionian sculptors during the Classical Period109. As mentioned above, it was
only the artist who was ‘Hellenized’ with the Athenian form and style observed in the external appear-
ance, not the people. The influence had not diffused into the essence, people’s way of thinking. In the
periods from the Geometric Renaissance of the 8th century BC until the Classical Period, where Ionia
was the ‘creator’ and Hellas was the ‘follower’110, the influence also remained superficial in the style of the
image, that is to say, the people of Athens were not Ionianized. This phenomenon may be further traced
in the disapproval of the Milesian school, a school of rational and free thought, even in the Golden Age of
Classical Athens, or in the trials and banishment of Anaxagoras and Protagoras in the glorious Athens of
Pericles on the grounds that they had been questioning the existence of God111.
The process of cultural transformation, ‘acculturation’ occurs only if the inf luence infiltrates the
thought of a people112; the script and language are merely some means of communication. Therefore, the
Lykian cities in the Roman Era, despite the hegemony of the Hellenic written language, were reshaped
following the example of Rome, the capital of a world empire whose official language and script was
Latin. Accordingly, while they assert that “the script was Hellenic, so the language must have been
Hellenic as well, and thus the Phrygian people must have been Hellenized”, they are not surprised by
the fact that, after hundreds of years, the language used in the Polybotos (Bolvadin) tomb inscriptions
from Roman Era is “Phrygian” written in Hellenic letters. In other words, they fail to realize that
107 Borchardt 2001/2002, 29 ff.

108 Borchardt 2001/2002, 30.
109 Işık 2010a, 82 ff. fig. 56-59.
110 Işık 1990, 24-33; Işık 2001; Işık 2012, 61 ff. 71 ff. 139 ff. 159 ff. 175 ff.
111 Akurgal 1998, 334 ff.
112 Işık 2012, 82-84.
632 Fahri IŞIK
Hellenic was only a second language “written and spoken by a tiny elite of well-educated Phrygians”113.
A similar case should not be surprising for Lykia, either.
As a natural consequence of a nonquestioning obedience for 150 years, the comments on the Lykian
tomb reliefs suffered a fair share of this Hellenism obsession, with a Persian argument added this time114.
Interpreting the artistic expression of an ancient Anatolian people through the perspective of foreign
people outside its own tradition was utterly inexplicable. The attempts to Hellenize this artistic style,
shaped in the hands of the Ionian masters to fit the demands of their Persian sovereigns, by calling it
‘Greco-Persian’ instead of ‘Anatolian-Persian’ must have been the result of this habit of not questioning.
The scientists from the Patara team challenged the dogmatized interpretations, primarily arguing for an
Anatolian way of thinking, the deification of the deceased ruler, which was a taboo to the Hellenes. They
also challenged these archaic views calling attention to the non-Hellenic depictions that are unique to the
eastern sovereigns, asserting that the image reflecting the way of thinking was shaped by a Neo-Hittite
and Phrygian influence. The Neo-Hittite-Anatolian influence detected in the Lykian relief images, or the
view that “the Hittite artistic language finds its equivalents at all locations in Lykia”115, has received a
silent “approval”, as has always been the case.
In the beginning of the 1990s, a relief of lion was found at Xanthos, and it was dated to the period after the
Persians based on a presumed “Hellenistic influence” in accordance with the old habit116. A part of this
relief, a new bull relief uncovered by the 2004 excavations at the same location became a ‘turning point’ in
the history of the Lykian art, and yet when a ‘Late Hittite influence’ was observed in the form and style,
or iconography, of these artifacts, they then claimed to have first noticed this influence, never mentioning
H. İşkan, who had previously noticed and written about it. Thus it was once again them who first ‘brought
up’ “the need to reconsider “the settlement chronology of Xanthos and its cultural influences in the Iron Age
Lykia based on this new discovery”117. They were implying that they were the ‘first to bring this up’, as if
the researchers in the neighboring Patara had not been calling attention to the ‘Anatolian essence’ of the
Lykian art and culture for years. I must say I am sorely disappointed by the fact that this unfair approach
disregarding our efforts, as employed by our French colleagues, is not an individual and unique example
in this respect. Sadly, the same attitude has been shared by J. Borchhardt, who until recently attributed a
“Hellenistic or Persian” influence to the Lykian artifacts and thus never dated any of them to before 550
BC, but now dates this lion-bull pair from Xanthos “to c. 700 BC as the earliest artifacts from Lykia”,
emphasizing a “Late Hittite influence”.118
Prescribed by other western scientists, the dating of the Orthostat reliefs with Neo-Hittite influence
unearthed by excavations at Xanthos to the 7th century BC is of great significance in this regard, for this
may allow the date (second quarter of the 6th century BC)119 we proposed for the dynast tombs at Trysa,
Xanthos, İsinda, and Gürses to be considered ‘seriously!’. From now on, it will not be difficult to close the
remaining gap of 100 years in the timeline, as the new finds just keep coming. Moreover, we should also
expect early artifacts contemporary of Neo-Hittite products from the Lykians, “who best represents the
continuity of Luwian peoples and their cultures into the 1st Millennium BC”120. Indeed, what is expressed
113 Drew-Bear 2007, 162. 164.

114 Bruns-Özgan 1987, 198-254 (Lit.); Jacobs 1987, general (Lit.). Also, J. Borchardt, with his numerous articles.
115 İşkan 2004b; İşkan 2004a; Özüdoğru 2008.
116 des Courtils 1995; des Courtils 2003, 7 Fig. 5 (caption); Marksteiner 2002, 245 fig. 155 Pl. 168: “The Lion Tomb is quite different apart
from the highly Hellenized style of its lion, and it stands out among other lions at Xanthos”
117 des Courtils 2005, 43 ff. fig. 5; des Courtils 2006, 33-35 fig. 2; des Courtils 2006b, 147-150 fig. 5-7.
118 Borchardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 10 ff.
119 Işık 2001a; Özhanlı 2001/2002.
120 Bryce 2003, 107.
in the images from the Early Archaic Period is the way of thinking and lifestyle adopted in the early dark
ages, which were carried into future by the sovereigns committed to their tradition121. The insistence on
the themes involving the life of the dynast, as well as battle, hunting, feasting and family depictions in the
reliefs cut in from the tomb walls, or painted as in Milyas, which are not found in Hellas,122 are all reflec-
tions of this so-called ‘darkness’ in the way of thinking.
I would also like to address another fundamental misconception about the Lykian history, which we pre-
viously introduced to the scientific community. The history of Lykia was written through the accounts of
Herodotus, and its relations with Persians particularly may be learned from his famous work “Historia”.
However, his deep passion for Athens and his bitter hatred against Lygdamis123, the tyrant of Halicarnassus,
ultimately turns into a pertinacious anti-Persian bias (or Persophobia). This is actually a well-known fact,
and yet scholars often fail to question the extent of his objectivity, or the authenticity of his accounts writ-
ten in such negative personal feelings124. When we did question this aspect, it became evident that his
reputation in the Athens of Pericles biased his accounts of Persian ‘persecution’ on Lykians. According to
this Carian historian (I, 176), “As for the Lykians, when the army of Harpagos came down to the Plain of
Xanthos, they met his forces in the open field. Although small in number, they engaged in battle and fought
gallantly against the endless troops, thus gaining reputation as valiant warriors; but they were overpowered
and forced back into their cities. They gathered their wives, children, all their treasures and slaves into the
citadel, and set it on fire from below and around such that the blaze burnt the citadel to the ground. After
this, they bound themselves together by most formidable oaths, and then charged against the enemy. All that
residing at Xanthos fell in battle on that day. Those who now claim to be Xanthians are of foreign descent,
all but eighty households; these eighty families were then abroad, and hence survived the others. Thus seized
Harpagos the city of Xanthos”125. What is inferred from this account of Herodotus is that those who made
a stand against the Persian army were all warriors of the valley, who came from Telmessos, Araksa, Tlos,
Pinara, Sidyma and Patara. However, only the citadel of Xanthos was burnt to the ground with its people
inside. This is a clear contradiction for those familiar with the spirit of solidarity between the Lykian city
states against external enemies, a characteristic inherited from their Lukkan forefathers. Indeed, no layer
of fire dating from c. 540 BC, when the Persians came down to the Valley, has been found in the citadel of
Xanthos, which could have testified the magnitude of this horrible event126, nor does J. des Courtils men-
tion any trace of such a fire.
“Unearthed during the excavations, a thick layer of ash indicating a big-scale fire” is actually associated
with Cimon the Athenian’s attack on the Acropolis in 468 BC, when he failed to secure the city’s support
against the Persians127. The hostile attitude of the people of this Valley toward Athens may be traced in
the battle fought against Melesandros, the Athenian commander who came into Lykia to collect tax. On
the other hand, these people are known to have supported the Persians with a fleet of 50 ships at the Battle
of Salamis (Hrd. VII, 92. 98). In addition, unlike their neighboring Carians, the people of Lykia chose not
to participate in the great Ionian Revolt against the Persian rule at the beginning of that century. Perhaps
the most solid proof for this favoring attitude of the Xanthians toward the Persian is that the name of
121 Işık 1994, 7; Işık 2001a, 126.

122 The complete existence of these depictions in the wall paintings at Kızılbel even in a period between 540-530 BC, along with the “lack
of documentation in the Achaemenid monumental art”, underscores an Assyrian and Neo-Hittite influence in Lykia. Kızılbel: Mellink
1998. Cf. Jacobs 1987, 55 ff. 69 ff.
123 Marek 2010, 178.
124 That he made too little effort to reveal the truth and would rather write his accounts based on common knowledge is an observation by
Thucydides, Otto 1963, XXI ff.
125 Herodotus I, 176 (Translated by Müntekim Ökmen/ Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul 2006).
126 Demargne – Metzger 1967, 1381.
127 des Courtils 2003, cf. 24. 71; Bryce 1986, 99 fn. 3.
634 Fahri IŞIK
Harpagos, after the Persian commander who “allegedly” inflicted the most severe persecution upon the
people of Valley, became the name of the ruling dynasty at Xanthos in the second half of the 5th century
BC128. The Hellenic language summary on the Inscribed Obelisk of Xanthos is also crucial in that it sheds
light on the historical misconception regarding this ‘epic of gallantry’ told by Herodotus, because if it is
true, this could only mean that a lineage known for their uncompromising dedication to independence
did not suffer such an agonizing event. In my opinion, the dynastic ruler with the same name, Harpagos
of Xanthos, must have been a native Lykian of Kuprlli descent, not a Median noble from the “house of
Harpagos” as asserted by J. Borchhardt. Just as Pericles of Limyra, the Lykian freedom fighter, was named
after a great Athenian statesman, whom he deeply respected, the same must have happened at Xanthos,
too. Otherwise, it would be an arduous job to explain the continuity and invariance in the way of think-
ing, primarily observed in the art and culture129. Furthermore, perhaps it was this ‘friendly relationship’
with the Persians that implicitly prompted the remarks by Isocrates of Athens (4, 161 ff.) that “no one of the
Persians ever dominated Lykia”130. The stagnation in art production at Xanthos between the Monument-G
and Nereid Monument during the hegemony of Athens following the expel of Persians from Hellas and
the subsequent Peloponnesian War may not be attributed to any reason other than the Athenian system of
exploitation, because a similar situation was experienced in the Ionic art during the Persian rule131.
Patara has conclusively established that the accounts of Herodotus about the origin of Lykians were
based on myths rather than historical facts. He wrote (I, 173): “When Sarpedon, one of the sons of Europe,
lost the fight for the kingdom of Crete to his brother Minos, and was driven into banishment together with
his followers, they came to the land of Milyas in Anatolia. While Sarpedon reigned over his people, they
kept the name which they brought with them from Crete: Termilae; even now their neighbors call them by
this name. Then from Athens came Lycos, the son of Pandion. He, too, was banished from his country by
his brother Aigeus and found a refuge with Sarpedon in the Land of Termilae. They are now called Lykians,
a name taken from Lycos. Their customs are partly Cretan and partly Carian.” The archeological evidence
has confirmed a tight cultural bond between Anatolia and Minos, and even in the undeciphered pictorial
signs (hieroglyphs) of the Phaistos Disc, scientists have sought such a connection with Lykia132. However,
in Lykia, we may not speak of a “Cretan period”133 as in experienced by Millawanda/Miletus (structural
layers of III and IV) between 2000 and 1450 BC; in fact, the direction of influence in the relationship
tends to be from Anatolia to Crete134. The Luwian origin of Lykians should suffice to prove the false-
hood of these accounts by Herodotus, accepted as if they were the ‘history’ itself within the archeological
community135. In this respect, the conclusive evidence has come from a recent find at Patara: one of the
Road Guide Monument blocks locates the land of “Trmmili” between Balboura and Kibyra, which sug-
gests a strong possibility that the very first Lykian land was located on today’s Dirmil Plateau, named
after or before Trmmili136. Besides, the region was the ancient Kabalis, not Milyas, which was referred to
128 Kolb –Kupke 1992, 19; des Courtils 2003, 25.

129 Borchardt 1998, 157-160 fig. 2. In addition to the relationship between Phellos and “Harpagos Dynasty”, emphasized by Borchardt, for
further remarks on the “Lineage of Harpagos” under the subheading of “A Median-Lykian Dynasty at Xanthos”, see Jacobs 1987, 27-29.
130 Marek 2010, 208.
131 Işık 2012, 167-171.
132 Mellink 164, 6 ff. For the view that it is yet too early to relate the 24th sign of the Cretan Disc to the “images of wooden houses in the shape
of late Lykian gabled-roof sarcophagi”, drawn on the funerary jugs (dated to the 3rd millennium BC) from Karataş, see Frei 1993, 95 fn. 46.
133 Greaves 2003, 66-78. 89-94.
134 Işık 2012, fig. 345 cf. 344; fig. 386 cf. 382. 385. 453; fig. 388 cf. 387; fig. 400 cf. 389; fig. 424 cf. 421-423; see the text regarding the figures.
For the view that the relationship between Crete and Southwestern Anatolia in the 3rd millennium BC cannot be fundamentally denied,
see Frei 1993, 90 fn. 28. For the connection of double-headed axe with Hurrian Teshup as a divine symbol in Anatolia, as well as with
the Mother Goddess cult in Crete, with the male gods remaining in the background, and its derivatives “labrus/labyrinthos”, see Nilsson
1992, 276 ff.
135 des Courtils 2003, 22. For further details on this issue, see Bryce 1986, 21-23; Bryce 2003, 112-114
136 Işık – İşkan – Çevik 1998/1999, 90 Pl. 5c.
as “the first land to which they migrated from Crete”. After all, if they “had come from Crete”, they, as
a seafaring people, would have been expected to give their name to a coastal settlement, not a plateau in
the Mountainous Lykia.
Thus the doubts raised by P. Frei about Herodotus’ accounts of Solymoi, Milyans and Termilae137 have
been further reinforced, and most importantly, how the archeological community was misguided by
Herodotus’ descriptions (I, 143-147) of the ‘refuge’ migrations in the Aegean as a ‘colonization’ movement,
as well as his identification of Ionians as Athenians, has been demonstrated.
One of our scientific missions was to reverse a common perception in our country, alienation of Methodios
and Nikolaos, first Lykian Christian saints, on racial and religious grounds138. Indeed, their monotheistic
stand against polytheistic tradition was not distinct from Islam’s fight for the same cause in its early years.
There cannot have been much difference between these first Christian martyrs and the first Muslims who
died for the sake of their faith. The Lykian saints should have been equally respected and esteemed by
our people like the Islamic dervishes such as Abdal Musa and Kafi Baba139, because their teachings were
known to overlap with the tenets of Sufism. They should not have been considered foreigners of Lykia
just because they were able to speak and write in Hellenic language, as it had been a lingua franca (trade
language) throughout the port cities for a long time. It was also a sacred language for them, for their Bible
had been written in Hellenic. Their religion, in the meantime, had not come from Hellas, but was brought
by Paul from Anatolia.
As the term ‘Rum’ could be safely used to identify them, without any denotation to ‘Hellenic’ people, the
Anatolian people called those living here ‘the Rum’, while referring to the Hellenes in Hellas as ‘Yunan’
(Greek) to differentiate between these two peoples; because the Seljuks used the term ‘Rum’ to denote
the indigenous Christian population of Anatolia in every region. The phrase “Byzantine” was invented
and popularized by Westerners in the 19th century, although the history had recorded no such empire
or people until then. Instead, these peoples identified themselves as ‘Romaioi’ (Romans)140; they were just
Eastern ‘Romans’, after which Seljuks named them as the ‘Rum’. The historical misperceptions regarding
the identity of the saints and the Rum have begun to disappear in our country through our efforts. We
must particularly emphasize the scientific absurdity of deliberate insistence on the wrong just because
some misconceptions have become deep-rooted. It is our scholarly duty that we announce the scientific
conclusion drawn by F. von Luschan after his anthropological studies in Lykia that the ancient people,
whom he describes as “Lykian Turks”, has partly survived through centuries, assuming a new language
and religion, despite the massive amount of Turkmen migration to the region141, for it is their ancestors
who created the Western civilization.
My esteemed colleagues who have rewritten the history of Lykian Civilization have been scattered
throughout Lykia in pursuit of new scientific evidence, after the experience, knowledge and self-confi-
dence they have so far gained at Patara: Havva İşkan and her successor Şevket Aktaş exhibited an exem-
plary effort in the management of excavation campaigns at Patara, the capital of both the Lykian League
and Pamphylian province. Havva İşkan and then Taner Korkut were also at Tlos, which Hittites called
the ‘Land of Dalawa’, and they were assisted by Gül Işın as vice president of operations in both excava-
tion campaigns. After conducting a challenging archaeological field survey in the Land of Solymoi, they,
together with Nevzat Çevik and İsa Kızgut, went to Rhodiapolis, which displays a texture of the “last
137 Frei 1993, 90 ff.

138 Işık et al. 2011, 103-107.
139 Borchardt 1993, 17; Marksteiner 2010, 179.
140 Niehoff 1996, 871.
141 Petersen – von Luschan 1889, 198 ff.
636 Fahri IŞIK
Lykian” in the east. Accompanied by Nevzat Çevik and Süleyman Bulut, they set out to Myra, one of the
six major cities of the Central Lykia, and its port Andriace. Nowadays, after half a century of the French
excavations, they are excavating Xanthos, the stronghold of the Dynastic Period, under the leadership of
Burhan Varkıvanç. Şükrü Özüdoğru, who has taken over the excavation campaign we jointly launched
with the Museum of Burdur at Kibyra on the border of Trmmili/Dirmil, and Eray Dökü, who has been
performing an archaeological field survey at Uylupınar, were also at Patara, as was Mehmet Özhanlı, who
now works at the Antioch of Pisidia, far from Lykia. This is a substantial scientific endeavor involving
numerous students and scholars, which should not be overlooked for the sake of science.
In the introduction of his latest book142, Jürgen Borchardt mentions Frank Kolb’s School of “Tubingen”
and the School of “Vienna”, which he represents, whereas he overlooks the “School of Patara”, or “Antalya”,
making no mention of those making a “scientific revolution” by changing the course of the Lykian
Civilization from Hellas to Anatolia after 150 years, a fact which he was finally compelled to approve. As
mentioned above, this may not be explained by anything but a constant concept of “self-presumed supe-
riority”. All the efforts made during the process of change in archeology that has begun with the science
people of ‘Antalya’ have solely focused on scientific improvement under the guidance of modern educa-
tion, so that the prejudices are not conveyed as facts, but grounded theories could be discussed and thus
truth may prevail. If our original theories that challenge the “academic orthodoxy” are included in what
is written on Lykia, but not cited in footnotes, or hidden from the scientific community as if it had ‘never
been written’ before, then how and what can the science discuss in pursuit of the truth? That is the ques-
tion here. A prerequisite to qualify as a true ‘School’ in this information age is a spirit of ‘critical inquiry’
freed from prejudice, not grounding it on a false ‘Hellenic basis’ that was laid 150 year ago. This is the first
and foremost responsibility of being a ‘School’.
In his last “farewell” tour to Lykia, to which he was passionately committed, our esteemed colleague
Thomas Marksteiner visited Patara. I would like to consider him to have attended the ‘25th Anniversary
of Patara’ as the guest of honor with his remarks that the eulogy for the Lykian gallantry in Troia, quoted
from Homer’s Iliad on an inscription decorating the mosaic floor of the Emperor’s Hall at Xanthos, is “a
documentation of the fact that Lykians still preserved their national identity far into the Christianity”143,
which emphasizes a clear contradiction with the view that this ancient Anatolian people were ‘Hellenized’
a millennium ago despite having a strong sense of Lykian national identity.
142 Borchhardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 1.

143 Marksteiner 2010, 73.
Kaynakça – Bibliography
Acar 2011 G. Acar, Patara-Tepecik Akropolü Bey Konağı Siyah Figürlü Seramikleri (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi,
Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya 2011).
Akurgal 1941 E. Akurgal, Griechische Reliefs des VI. Jahrhundert aus Lykien (Berlin 1941).
Akurgal 1955 E. Akurgal, Phrygische Kunst (Ankara 1955).
Akurgal 1961 E. Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander (Berlin 1961).
Akurgal 1983 E. Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna I: Wohnschichten und Athenatempel (Ankara 1983).
Akurgal 1993 E. Akurgal, Die einheimischen und fremden Elemente in der lykischen Kunst, bk. J. Borchhardt – G. Dobesch
(Hrsg), Akten des II. internationalen Lykien Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990 (Wien 1993) 149-159.
Akurgal 1998 E. Akurgal, Anadolu Kültür Tarihi (Ankara 1998).
Akyürek-Şahin 2002 E. Akyürek-Şahin, Dodekatheoi. Oniki Tanrı’ya Adanmış Adak Stelleri. Lykia’da Bir Geç Devir Kültü, bk. S.
Şahin – M. Adak (ed.), Likya İncelemeleri 1 (İstanbul 2002) 103-114.
Bayburtluoğlu 2004 C. Bayburtluoğlu, Lycia (İstanbul 2004).
Bean 1986 G.E. Bean, Kleinasien 4. Lykien (Stuttgart 1986).
Becks – Polat-Becks 2013 R. Becks – A. Polat-Becks, Girmeler Mağarası – Lykia’da Bir Kalkolitik Yerleşim, MAKÜ Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi 8, 2013, 166-183.
Borchhardt 1993 J. Borchhardt, Die Steine von Zemuri (Wien 1993).
Borchhardt 1998 J. Borchhardt, Gedanken zur lykischen Gesellschaftsstruktur unter persischer und attischer Herrschaft, bk.
G. Arsebük – M. M. Mellink – W. Schirmer (ed.), Karatepe’deki Işık. Halet Çambel’e Sunulan Yazılar (İstanbul
1998) 155-169.
Borchhardt 2001/2002 J. Borchhardt, Zum Kult der Heroen, Herrscher und Gefolgsleute in Lykien zur Zeit der Klassik, bk. H. İşkan
– F. Işık (ed.), Güneybatı Anadolu’da Mezar Tipleri ve Ölü Kültü/Grabtypen und Totenkult im südwestlichen
Kleinasien, Lykia VI, 2001/2002 (2005) 29-48.
Borchhardt 2012 J. Borchhardt, Der Mithras-Code in Limyra/Lykien, bk. M. Seyer (Hrsg.), 40 Jahre Grabung Limyra. Akten
des internationalen Symposions Wien, 3.-5. Dezember 2009 (Wien 2012) 67-132.
Borchhardt – Bleibtreu 2013 J. Borchhardt-E. Bleibtreu, Strukturen lykischer Residenzstädte im Vergleich zu älteren Städten des Vorderen
Orients (2013).
Bruer – Kunze 2010 S.-G. Bruer – M. Kunze, Der Stadtplan von Patara und Beobachtungen zu den Stadtmauern, Patara I. 1
(Istanbul 2010).
Bruns-Özgan 1987 Ch. Bruns-Özgan, Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., IstMitt Beih. 33 (Tübingen 1987).
Bryce 1986 T. R. Bryce, The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources (1986).
Bryce 2003 T. R. Bryce, History, bk. H. C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians (Leiden/Boston 2003) 27-124.
Coupel – Demargne 1969 P. Coupel – P. Demargne, Le monument des Néréides, FdX III (Paris 1969).
des Courtils 1995 J. des Courtils, Un neuveau bas-reliefs archáique de Xanthos, RA 1995, 337-364.
des Courtils 2003 J. des Courtils, Ksanthos ve Letoon Rehberi (İstanbul 2003).
des Courtils 2005 J. des Courtils, Excavations and Research at Xanthos 2005, ANMED 4, 2006, 41-45.
des Courtils 2006a J. des Courtils, Excavations and Research at Xanthos and Letoon in 2004, ANMED 3, 2005, 31-45.
des Courtils 2006b J. des Courtils, Nouvelles découvertes a Xanthos, bk. K. Dörtlük et al. (ed.), III. Uluslararası Likya
Sempozyumu, 7-10 Kasım 2005 Antalya, Cilt I (İstanbul 2006) 145-152.
Curtius 1855 E. Curtius, Die Ionier vor der ionischen Wanderung (Berlin 1855).
Demargne 1958 P. Demargne, Les piliers funéraires, FdX I (Paris 1958).
Demargne – Metzger 1967 P. Demargne – H. Metzger, Xanthos in Lykien, RE 18 (1967) 1376-1408.
Drew-Bear 2007 Th. Drew-Bear, Neo-Phrygian Inscriptions, bk. H. Sivas – T. Tüfekçi Sivas (ed.), Friglerin Gizemli Uygarlığı
(İstanbul 2007) 161-172.
Dündar 2012 E. Dündar, A Group of Amphorae from Side Museum and a New Type of Amphora: The Lycian Amphora?,
AA 2012/1, 43-61.
Frei 1993 P. Frei, Solymer-Milyer-Termilen-Lykier. Etnische und politische Einheiten auf der lykischen Halbinsel, bk.
J.Borchhardt – G. Dobesch (Hrsg), Akten des II. internationalen Lykien Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990
(Wien 1993) 87-97.
Freyer-Schauenburg 1994 B. Freyer-Schauenburg, Die lykischen Zwölfgötter-Reliefs, AMS 13 (Bonn 1994).
Gebauer 2012 J. Gebauer, Die archaische und klassische Fundkeramik der Weststadtgrabung 2002-2005 – ein Überblick,
bk. M. Seyer (Hrsg.) 40 Jahre Grabung Limyra, Akten des internationalen Symposions Wien, 3.-5. Dezember
2009 (Wien 2012) 169-178.
Graeves 2003 A. M. Greaves, Miletos. Bir Tarih (İstanbul 2003).
Held 2008 W. Held, Gergakome. Ein altehrwürdiges Heiligtum im kaiserzeitlichen Karien, IstForsch 49 (Tübingen 2008).
638 Fahri IŞIK
Högemann 2001 P. Högemann, bk. J. Latacz et al. (Hrsg.) Troia. Traum und Wirklichkeit, Begleitband zur Ausstellung in
Stuttgart, Braunschweig, Bonn 2001/2002 (Stuttgart 2001) 58-63.
Işık 1990 F. Işık, Frühe Funde aus Theangela und die Gründung der Stadt, IstMitt 40, 1990, 17-36.
Işık 1994 F. Işık, Pttara, im Land vom hethitischen Lukka und Homerischen Lykia, Lykia I, 1994, 1-11.
Işık 1995 F. Işık, Likya Kaya Tapınakları, 1994 Yılı Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları (Ankara 1995) 110-139.
Işık 1995a F. Işık, Tempelgräber von Patara und ihre anatolischen Wurzeln, Lykia II, 1995, 160-186.
Işık 1996 F. Işık, “Zum Ursprung lykischer Felsheiligtümer”, bk. F. Blakolmer et. al. (Hrsg), Fremde Zeiten. Festschrift
für Jürgen Borchhardt I (Wien 1996) 51-64.
Işık 1997 F. Işık, Megaron. Özel Bir Yapı Tipinin Kökeni, Gelişimi ve Bir Ege Tapınağına Dönüşümü, Adalya II, 1997, 1-49.
Işık 1998 F. Işık, Yunan Mucizesi Var mıydı?, Adalya III, 1998, 13-37.
Işık 1999 F. Işık, Doğa Ana Kubaba. Tanrıçaların Ege’de Buluşması (İstanbul 1999).
Işık 1999a F. Işık, “Patara. Eine lykische Metropole erwacht aus ihrem Dornröschenschlaf, Antike Welt 1999-5, 477-493.
Işık 2000 F. Işık, Die Statuetten vom Tumulus-D bei Elmalı, Lykia V, 2000 (Antalya 2003).
Işık 2001 F. Işık, Zur Rolle der ionischen Plastik bei der Entstehung der attischen Klassik, bk. D. Papenfuss – V. M.
Strocka (Hrsg.), Gab es das griechische Wunder, 16. Fachsymposium der AvH-Stiftung, Freiburg 1999 (2001)
147-162.
Işık 2001a F. Işık, Zur Entstehung der Pfeilergräber in Lykien, bk. C. Özgünel et al. (ed.), Cevdet Bayburtluoğlu için
Yazılar (2001) 123-131.
Işık 2001/2002 F. Işık, Die Vergöttlichung der lykischen Dynasten im Lichte ihrer Gräber, bk. H. İşkan – F. Işık, Güneybatı
Anadolu’da Mezar Tipleri ve Ölü Kültü/Grabtypen und Totenkult im südwestlichen Kleinasien, Lykia VI,
2001/2002 (2005) 107-124.
Işık 2003a F. Işık, Die Vergöttlichung der phrygischen Dynasten im Lichte ihrer Gräber, IstMitt 53, 2003, 183-208.
Işık 2003b F. Işık, Karanlık Dönem’in Aydınlığı ve Frig Sanatının ‘Anadoluluğu’ Üzerine, Anadolu/ Anatolia 24, 2003,
19-33.
Işık 2004 F. Işık, Zur anatolischen Athena im Lichte der Athena Ergane von Ilion und der Athena Nikephoros von
Pergamon, IstMitt 54, 2004, 507-518.
Işık 2007 F. Işık, Lykia’nın Dip Tarihi ve Hint-Avrupalıların Anadolulaşması Üzerine, bk. G. Umurtak et al. (ed.) Refik
Duru’ya Armağan (İstanbul 2007) 229-236.
Işık 2009 F. Işık, Anadolu-İon Uygarlığı: ‘Kolonizasyon’ ve ‘Doğu Hellen’ Kavramlarına Eleştirisel Bir Bakış, Anadolu/
Anatolia 35, 2009, 53-86.
Işık 2010a F. Işık, Anadolu-Lykia Uygarlığı. Lykia’nın ‘Hellenleşmesi’ Görüşüne Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım, Anadolu/Anatolia
36, 2010, 65-125.
Işık 2010b F. Işık, Das Leto-Heiligtum in Asarcık am Xanthostal. Zur sog. Akkulturation in Lykien anhand seiner früh-
en Tempelbauten, IstMitt 60, 2010, 81-115.
Işık 2012 F. Işık, Uygarlık Anadolu’da Doğdu (2012).
Işık et. al. 2011 F. Işık, Caput Gentis Lyciae. Patara: Lykia Birliği’nin Başkenti (İstanbul 2011).
Işık – İşkan – Çevik 1998/1999
F. Işık – H. İşkan – N. Çevik, Miliarium Lyciae, Lykia IV, 1998/1999 (2001).
Işın 2010 G. Işın, The Building Complex on the Tepecik Acropolis at Patara, AnatSt 60, 2010, 93-104.
İşkan 2004a H. İşkan, “Zum Totenkult in Lykien II: Schlachtopfer an Lykischen Gräbern”, bk. T. Korkut (ed.), Fahri Işık’a
Armağan (2004) 379-417.
İşkan 2004b H. İşkan, Der Einfluss des späthethitischen Kulturraumes auf die Grabreliefs in Lykien, bk. M. Novak – F. Prayon
– A. M. Wittke (Hrsg.), Die Aussenwirkung des späthethitischen Kulturraumes: Güteraustausch-Kulturkontakt-
Kulturtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs ‘Anatolien und seine Nachbarn’
der Eberhard-Karls-Universitaet Tübingen, 20. Bis 22. November 2003 (Münster 2004) 151-175.
İşkan – Koçak 2015 H. İşkan – M. Koçak, Der Hafen von Patara. Altes Wissen, neue Forschungen, bk. F. Pirson – S. Ladstätter –
T. Schmidts (Hrsg.), Harbors and Harbor Cities in the Eastern Mediterranean from Antiquity to Byzantine
Period: Recent Discoveries and Current Approaches I, BYZAS 19, 2015, 271-294.
Jacobs 1987 B. Jacobs, Griechische und persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der achaemenidischen
Herrschaft (Jonsered 1987).
Kahya 2001/20012 K. T. Kahya, Patara Dark Age Pottery, Adalya V, 2001/2002, 35-57.
Keen 1998 A. G. Keen, Dynastic Lycia. A Political History of the Lycians and their Relations with Foreign Powers c. 545-
362 B.C. (Leiden/Boston 1998).
Kolb 1984 F. Kolb, Die Stadt im Altertum (München 1984).
Kolb 1999 F. Kolb, Kulte und Heiligtümer im archaischen und klassischen Lykien, bk. P. Léveque – O. Lordkipanidze
(Hrsg.), Religions du Pont-Euxin. Actes du VIIIe Symposium de Vani, Vani 22.-27. Sept. 1996 (Tbilissi 1999)
155-171.
Kolb – Kupke 1992 F. Kolb – B. Kupke, Lykien. Geschichte Lykiens im Altertum (Mainz 1992).
Korfmann 1998 M. Korfmann, Stelen vor den Toren Troias: Apaliunas-Apollon in Truisa/Wiluşa, bk. G. Arsebük – M. J.
Mellink – W. Schirmer (eds.), Karatepe’deki Işık. Halet Çambel’e Sunulan Yazılar (1998) 471-488.
Korkut 2012 T. Korkut, Tlos 2010 Kazı Etkinlikleri, KST 33. 1, 2012, 453-474.
Korkut 2013 T. Korkut, Tlos 2011 Kazı Etkinlikleri, KST 34. 1, 2013, 189-204.
Korkut 2015 T. Korkut, Tlos (İstanbul 2015).
Korkut – Becks – Polat 2012 T. Korkut – R. Becks – A. Polat, Tlos 2010 Kazı Etkinlikleri. VIII: Girmeler Mağarası, KST 33, 1, 2012, 463-464.
Köktürk 1996/1997 H. Köktürk, New Lights on Prehistoric Lycia. Finds from Girmeler Cave near Tlos, Lykia III, 1996/1997, 39-45.
Latacz 2005 J. Latacz, Troia und Homer (Leipzig 2005).
Marek 2010 Ch. Marek, Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike (München 2010).
Marksteiner 1996 Th. Marksteiner, Der befestigte Siedlung von Büyük Avşar, Lykische Studien 3, AMS 24 (1996) 141-152.
Marksteiner 2002 Th. Marksteiner, Trysa. Eine zentrallykische Niederlassung im Wandel der Zeit. Siedlungs-, architektur- und
kunstgeschichtliche Studien zur Kulturlandschaft Lykien (Wien 2002).
Marksteiner 2010 Th. Marksteiner, Lykien. Ein archäologischer Führer (Wien 2010).
Marksteiner 2012 Th. Marksteiner, Die Siedlungsgeschichte der ostlykischen Polis Limyra: Ein wissenschaftlicher Essay, bk. M.
Seyer (Hrsg.), 40 Jahre Grabung Limyra. Akten des internationalen Symposions Wien, 3.-5. Dezember 2009
(Wien 2012) 199-209.
Martini 2003 W. Martini, Schlussfolgerungen, bk. H. Abbasoğlu – W. Martini (Hrsg.), Die Akropolis von Perge (Mainz
2003) 179-186.
Mellink 1964 M. J. Mellink, Lycian Wooden Huts and Sign 24 on the Phaistos Disk, Kadmos 3, 1964, 1-7.
Mellink 1998 M. J. Mellink, Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia (Bryn Mawr College, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 1998).
Momiglaino et al. 2011 N. Momiglaino – A. Graeves – T. Hodos – B. Aksoy, Çaltılar Yüzey Araştırması 2010, ANMED 9, 2011, 159-163.
Naumann 1971 R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit (Tübingen
1971).
Hauptmann – Schmidt 2007 H. Hauptmann – K. Schmidt, 12000 Yıl Önce Anadolu. Erken Neolitik Dönem Yontuları, bk. N. Başgelen
(ed.), 12000 Yıl Önce Uygarlığın Anadolu’dan Avrupa’ya Yolculuğunun Başlangıcı: Neolitik Dönem (İstanbul
2007).
Nieswandt 2011 H.-H. Nieswandt, Ikonographische und ikonologische Untersuchungen zur Herrschaftsrepräsentation xan-
thischer Dynastengräber (Münster 2011).
Niehoff 1996 J. Niehoff, Byzantion/Byzans/Kultur, Der neue Pauly 2 (Stuttgart 1996) 867-874.
Nilsson 1992 M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion I (München 1992).
Otten 1993 H. Otten, Das Land Lukka in der hethitischen Topographie, bk. J. Borchhardt – G. Dobesch (Hrsg.), Akten
des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990 (Wien 1993) 117-121.
Otto 1963 W. F. Otto, Herodot und die Frühzeit der Geschichtsschreibung, bk. Herodot: Historien. Übersetzt von A.
Horneffer (Stuttgart 1963) XI-XXVIII.
Pekridou 1986 A. Pekridou, Das Alketas-Grab in Termessos, IstMitt Beih 32 (Tübingen 1986).
Petersen – von Luschan 1889 E. Petersen – F. von Luschan, Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis (Wien 1889).
Özgan 2013 R. Özgan, Roma Portre Sanatı I (İstanbul 2013).
Özgen 2006 İ. Özgen, Elmalı Ovası ve Hacımusalar, bk. K. Dörtlük et al. (ed.), III. Uluslararası Likya Sempozyumu, 7-10
Kasım 2005 Antalya, Cilt II (İstanbul 2006) 537-555.
Özhanlı 2001/2002 M. Özhanlı, İsinda Dikme Anıtı, Adalya V, 2001/2002, 73-106.
Özüdoğru 2008 Ş. Özüdoğru, Arkaik Dönem Plastik Eserleri Işığında Lykia İkonografisinde Yerli ve Yabancı Unsurlar
(Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya 2008).
Radt 1970 W. Radt, Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos, IstMitt Beih 3 (Tübingen 1970).
Renfrew 1988 C. Renfrew, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (New York, Cambridge
University Press 1988).
Rodenwaldt 1933 G. Rodenwaldt, Griechische Reliefs in Lykien (Berlin1933).
Rose 2008 C. B. Rose, Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aiolian Migration, Hesperia 77, 2008, 399-430.
Rückert 2003 B. Rückert, Zur frühen Keramik aus dem Gebiet von Kyaneai, bk. B. Rückert – F. Kolb (ed.), Probleme
der Keramikchronologie des südlichen und westlichen Kleinasiens in geometrischer und archaischer Zeit.
Internationales Kolloquium, Tübingen 24.3- 26.3. 1998, Antiquitas Reihe 3. 44 (Tübingen 2003) 13-21.
Rumscheid 2009 F. Rumscheid (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin,
13. bis 15. Oktober 2005 (Bonn 2009).
Savaş 2006 S. Ö. Savaş, Anadolu (Hitit-Luvi) Hiyeroglifli Belgeler Işığında: Hattuşa’dan Lukka’ya, bk. K. Dörtlük et al.
(ed.), III. Uluslararası Likya Sempozyumu, 7-10 Kasım 2005 Antalya, Cilt II (İstanbul 2006) 679-707.
640 Fahri IŞIK
Seeher 2006 J. Seeher, Hattuşa Rehberi. Hitit Başkentinde Bir Gün (İstanbul 2006) Sourouzian – Stadelmann 2005 H.
Sourouzian – R. Stadelmann, Die ältesten Erwähnungen von Ioniern und Danäern, AW 36-6, 2005, 79–83.
Steiner 1993 G. Steiner, Die historische Rolle der Lukka, bk. J. Borchhardt – G. Dobesch (Hrsg.), Akten des II.
Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990 (Wien 1993) 123-137.
Thomsen 2002 A. Thomsen, Die lykische Dynastensiedlung auf dem Avşar Tepesi (Bonn 2002).
Zahle 1990 J. Zahle, Herrscherporträts auf lykischen Münzen, bk. Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien, Ausstellungskatalog
Wien 1990 (1990) 51-58.

Lykian Civilization S Transition From H PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lykian Civilization S Transition From H PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KUM’DAN KENT’E

Patara Kazılarının 25 Yılı

FROM SAND INTO A CITY

FROM SAND INTO A CITY

Yapım ve Dağıtım / Production and Distribution

Zero Prodüksiyon Kitap-Yayın-Dağıtım Ltd. Şti.

HAVVA İŞKAN – FAHRİ IŞIK

FROM SAND INTO A CITY

1988 - 2013: Patara Kazılarının 25 Yılı......................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Patara Küçük Hamam: Kazı Öncesi Düşünceler................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Oinoanda: Forschungen in der Stadt des Diogenes............................................................................................................................................................................. 47

Likya Bölgesi Eskil Yerleşimlerinin Su Mühendisliği Dizgeleri...................................................................................................................................... 67

Karia-İonia Tipi Kurtağzı Kanca: Letoon, Leto Tapınağı Örnekleri..................................................................................................................... 133

Ölü Gömme Gelenekleri Işığında Kabalis - Milyas - Lykia İlişkileri................................................................................................................. 187

Agonistische Inschriften von Patara...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 229

Liman Hamamı 2010-2013 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları.............................................................................................................................................................................. 239

Arykanda’da Ölüm Nekropoller ve Ölü Gömme Adetleri.................................................................................................................................................. 289

Patara Antik Kenti Koruma ve Planlama Süreci................................................................................................................................................................................. 307

Erzincan-Altıntepe Kalesi....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 329

Beydağları Yüzey Araştırmaları................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 339

Rhodiapolis Nekropolü.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 357

Überlegungen zu einem Monumentalgrab aus der Tepecik-Nekropole von Patara..................................................................... 369

Predynastic Lycia and Patara: What is the Evidence?.................................................................................................................................................................. 385

Letoon Tiyatrosunda 2011-2012 Yıllarında Gerçekleştirilen Jeofizik Destekli Arkeolojik Araştırmalar

Letoon Üç Dilli Yazıtı Üzerine El Bir Değerlendirme................................................................................................................................................................ 437

Lykia, Pamphylia ve Pisidia Arasındaki Tarihsel ve Kültürel İlişkiler.............................................................................................................445

Patara’da 1989-1990 Yıllarında Kazılan Bizans Kiliseleri.................................................................................................................................................... 451

Tralleis Batı Nekropolü Mezar ve Buluntuları....................................................................................................................................................................................... 475

Patara Kent İçi Su Dağıtım Yapıları........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 507

Likya’nın Yazı Sistemi Hakkında Değerlendirmeler.................................................................................................................................................................... 525

Olympos Piskoposu Methodios ve Olympos Kenti........................................................................................................................................................................ 535

Batı Torosların Deprem Üreten Yapıları Burdur-Fethiye Fay Zonu, Finike

Kemah Kalesi Kazısı....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 569

Lykian Civilization’s Transition from Hellas to Anatolia

Patara Kazı Serisi

43 Renfrew 1988, general.

61 Işık 2010a, cf. 74 fig. 11. 12.

88 Akurgal 1941, 65.

100 Kolb – Kupke 1992, 19.

107 Borchardt 2001/2002, 29 ff.

113 Drew-Bear 2007, 162. 164.

121 Işık 1994, 7; Işık 2001a, 126.

128 Kolb –Kupke 1992, 19; des Courtils 2003, 25.

137 Frei 1993, 90 ff.

142 Borchhardt – Bleibtreu 2013, 1.

You might also like