Izmir Ages Another 3,500 Years

[Minimalist]

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... sid=118950

New excavations have revealed that İzmir, once believe to be 5,000 years old, may be as old as 8,500 years.

Associate professor Zafer Derin of the Ege University archeology department, the head of the excavation team, said in a written statement his team had removed 150 artifacts discovered at the Yeşilova Tumulus excavation site, reported the Anatolia news agency.

[Ishtar]

Another Neolithic Turkish site.

I wonder why there are so many in the Turkey/Central Asia area - Gobekli Tepe, Catal Hoyuk, Ain Ghazal - and now this one.

[Minimalist]

Both Jericho and Nazareth In Israel (granted, not that far from Turkey in geographic terms) show evidence of neolithic occupation too, back to 9,000 BC. I have a strange suspicion that as archaeologists head east and dig deeper they will find more evidence in Mesopotamia, India and China.

[Ishtar]

...and there is Mergarh in Pakistan, which would have been part of India at the time, or Bharatavarsha (as it was known then).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh

Mehrgarh, one of the most important Neolithic (7000 BC to 3200 BC) sites in archaeology, lies on what is now the Kachi plain of Balochistan, Pakistan, and is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia."[1]

Located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi, Mehrgarh was discovered in 1974 by an archaeological team directed by French archaeologist Jean-François Jarrige, and was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986. The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh—in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km2) site—was a small farming village dated between 7000 BC–5500 BC.

[Minimalist]

Exactly. I have no doubt that the date will be pushed back further. The one thing I'm not certain of in India/Pakistan & China is the idea of the "tel." In the M/E people built on the same spots over and over. I don't recall anything elsewhere with that same idea. One would guess that with the monsoon rains in South Asia that one spot would be pretty much as wet as any other. The same can't be said for the M/E.

Add in the fact that earthquakes are common in the region and I can see where a lot of re-building would be necessary.

[Ishtar]

I don't recall anything elsewhere with that same idea. .

I think where I've noticed this building on top of existing structures the most is on 'sacred ground'. For instance, many English churches are built on former pagan shrines. But imo, in the Neolithic, the only permanent or semi-permanent structures they built were 'temples' or other such sacred or ritual structures, and temporary huts to house themselves during the building of it. Then they would up sticks (literally) and move on. That seems to be an emerging pattern.

[Minimalist]

Yeah - leaving "sacred places" out of the equation building towns on top of other towns seems to require a significant geographical reason.

In Palestine one can speculate that in addition to water there would have been a need to preserve arable land by not spreading out too much and there were always some sites that were strategically important.

Megiddo has multiple levels along the coastal road....but the number of times it was overrun suggest that the site was not as defensible as everyone seems to think.

[Barracuda]

I spent the first ten years of my life in Izmir. Someday I will return with more appreciation of all the history there.