Newsletter - Antiquity

Theoretical Archaeology Group - Turkey (TAGTR) Newsletter
TURKEY, JUNE 2013 – Theoretical Archaeology Group Meetings, which were initiated
in UK in 1979, have been carried out in many countries since then. In 2012, autumn
Fahri Dikkaya (Bilkent University) and Çiler Çilingiroğlu (Ege University) initiated TAGTurkey and assembled the Turkish group for Theoretical Archaeology. Regarding the
practice of theoretical archaeological methods worldwide, the major aim of TAG-Turkey
was determining the position of Turkish archaeology within that sphere as well as
bringing the related scholars and students together in order to create a discussion
ground. Thus it was possible to make an assessment of archaeological practice in
means of political, economical, cultural and scientific grounds by sharing the
experiences.
Following the announcement for TAG-Turkey meetings to archaeology departments of
Turkish universities, a google group named tagturkey was formed in order to decide on
the main themes for the first TAG meeting in Turkey. In total 69 joined the group and the
discussions on the aims and the procedures of TAG-Turkey reached to some results and
decision on main themes of the 1st meeting. The main themes of the first meeting were
Archaeology-State, Place of Theory in Turkish Archaeology, Issues in Archaeological
Education, Public Archaeology and Theoretical Approaches to Archaeological Problems.
The call for the papers was answered by more than 50 who are mostly from Turkish
universities. The first TAG-Turkey meeting lasted for two days, and in total 45 papers
were presented related to main themes. Scholars, students and administrative staff from
the Ministry of Culture presented papers in two parallel sessions in 15-minute
increments. Discussions were held after each presentation. The participation of students
in presentations and discussions was the most promising and encouraging aspect of the
first TAG-Turkey meeting.
The sessions of the meeting was organized according to the decided main themes. The
first session opened with the keynote speaker Güneş Duru (Istanbul University) who
presented his paper entitled “Archaeology: a disciplined discipline” that explained the
current issues in Turkish archaeology derived from ingrained power relations by referring
to historical and political background. Güneş emphasized that archaeology should put
aside the focus on archaeological material and cultural history for reaching a multifocal
and problem targeted archaeological practice. He also stated that for the sake of
archaeological discipline a new archaeological understanding freed from power relations
with the state should be reached.
For two days the presentations were
mostly focused on the relations of
archaeology with state, public
archaeology, theoretical approaches,
archaeological education and cultural
heritage issues. For giving some hallmarks
of the presentations Mehmet Kaya Yaylalı
(Ministry of Culture and Tourism)
explained how archaeology began to
redefine itself and it should be selfcriticising. Nezih Aytaçlar (Ege University)
attempted to justify that archaeologists
should experience epistemological rupture, while Çiler Çilingiroğlu (Ege University)
focused on the problematic notions that emerge when cultural historical approach is
presented and taught as the single way of doing archaeology. Özlem Çevik (University of
Thrace) completed her presentation on monotone themes of PhD thesis with a question,
“Does TAG-Turkey have a future?” Elif Koparal (Hitit University) discussed some
revoloutinary solutions on problems caused by power relations in archaeology. Heval
Bozbay (Dokuz Eylül University) presented a comparative assessment of Turkish and
Iranian archaeology policies. Pınar Özgüner (Boston University) made a definition of
archaeology-state relations in Turkey on the basis of proceedings of annual
archaeological conferences held by Turkish Ministry of Culture. The last session was on
issues concerning the excavation practice where Banu Aydınoğlugil (University College
London) explained the pros and cons of ‘self-reflexive’ method employed at Çatalhöyük.
Sinan Ünlüsoy (Yaşar University) emphasized the significance of employment of
contracted archaeologists due to the shifting conjunctures and large scaled building
activities where the academic scholars are not enough in number. Hüseyin Cevizoğlu
(Ege University) gave a presentation on the problems caused by culture policies
specifically for the case of Didyma. Aytekin Erdoğan’s (Ege University) presentation was
again on a specific case which mentioned the issues arised from the collaboration of
museum and university at Milas salvage excavations.
The parallel session held at another room on the first day focused on Theoretical
Approaches to Archaeological Problems. The presentations were mostly in English and
covered a wide range of subjects including Gordon Childe and Post-Modernism (Emilio
Rodrigues Alvarez, University of Arizona), transformation of imagery in Neolithic Period
(Patrycja Filipowicz, Poznań Adam Mickiewicz University); gender based research for
Anatolian prehistory (Göksenin Abdal, Istanbul University), archaeology of districts
evacuated for urban transformation projects (Elizabeth Angell, Columbia University),
archaeological models and terminology problems for studies dealing with “complex
societies” (Fulya Dedeoğlu, Ege University) and identity problems of ancient west
Anatolian art (Tuna Şare, Çanakkale 18 Mart University). While big issues of Turkish
archaeology were being discussed next door, here perhaps the genuine topics of
theoretical archaeology applied to case studies were being presented.
On the second day of the meeting only one session was held and the discussion themes
were focused on issues in archaeological education and public archaeology. Most of the
speakers were students and the presentations were quite original and inspiring. Bartu
Dinç (Istanbul University) in his presentation on academic inbreeding questioned the
strict hierarchical and domineering environment in which archaeology students find
themselves and how it prevented the critical mind. Gökhan Murat Çoban (University of
Thrace) criticised the monotype education system based on rote by examining the syllabi
of archaeology departments in a comparative manner. He complained particularly about
the few number of lessons that included theoretical approaches. Ekin Dalbudak (Istanbul
University) pointed out how archaeology isolates itself from sub-disciplines in a wrong
way. Murat Karakoç (Ankara University) emphasized how Paleolithic periods are missing
from the picture in Aegean archaeology and suggested that it derived from the lack of
interest in Paleolithic researches.
The session on Public Archaeology focused on archaeological publication and
archaeology in press. Onur Bütün (İthaki Press) defined the archaeological texts as
complicated rather than complex and explained how this created a formidable situation
for people out of archaeological sphere. She also recommended all the archaeologists to
simply read more theoretical texts for stronger bonds with the current issues in social
sciences. Berkay Dinçer’s (Ardahan University) presentation put a smile on our faces
after listening about serious issues for long hours. In a very witty and humorous way he
gave us a collection of newspaper articles on archaeology and pointed out that most
news on archaeology are speculative and far from expressing the genuine information
about the archaeological projects.
The last session closed with Oğuz Erdur’s (University of North Carolina) presentation
which made a critical assessment of the two days and he questioned how things
changed in ten years since TAP (Public Archaeology Platform) was organized with
Güneş Duru ten years ago. He was hopeful in a way for that there was a new generation
of archaeologists who believed in criticizing the issues in Turkish archaeology, which lost
its distinguished position as a discipline in terms of its relations with the state. The
meeting ended with a panel with the participation of Kenan Yurttagül, who is a retired
bureaucrat of the Ministry of Culture. Even if he criticized the meeting as a group therapy
for archaeologists, he also admitted how he himself is worried about the current
operation of the bureaucracy in Turkey. He ended his words by encouraging
archaeologists to get in dialogue with the ministry and discuss the problems.
There also took place several exhibitions. In the conference room the “Faces of
Archaeology” project by Jesse W. Stephen and Colleen Morgan, which comprised of
portraits of archaeologists who attended 2013 World Archaeology Congress in Amman
was exhibited. In the conference room also an exhibition entitled ‘Born in Anatolia-Being
An Anatolian’ by Aktüel Arkeoloji took place. A video installation entitled “What We Can’t
See, We Can Imagine” by Annie Danis and Erin Schneider was displayed on screen
during the breaks between the sessions on Friday. Caricatures on archaeology were also
exhibited in the conference room for two days. The sweetest surprise was the cookies in
shape of a hand shovel and brush –the ultimate tools of an archaeologist- offered in the
tea break.
TAG-Turkey bloggers Elizabeth Angell and Canan Çakırlar keep the people informed
about the meeting online via http://tag2013.wordpress.com. The reports on impressions
of participants are also shared online via TAG-Turkey web site:
http://tagturkey.wordpress.com
By the end of the 1st TAG-Turkey meeting the members of the national committee are
elected according to the regulations of TAG Constitution. Six members are elected from
fifteen candidates by vote. The members of the 1st National Committee of TAG-Turkey
are Özlem Çevik, Çiler Çilingiroğlu, Güneş Duru, Kenan Eren, Elif Koparal, Coşkun Sivil
(undergraduate representative) and Ahmet Uhri. In the meanwhile, a committee is
working on the election of an executive committee for the second meeting and above all
for encouraging a wide base participation for TAG-Turkey. Keep on watching us!