|
©The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey - TAY Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akkas - Gödekiri |
|
|
For site maps and drawings please click on the picture...  |
For photographs please click on the photo...  |
|
Type:
|
Single Findspot |
|
Altitude:
|
m |
|
Region:
|
Central Anatolia |
|
Province:
|
Ankara |
|
District:
|
Kazan |
|
Village:
|
Cimsit |
|
Investigation Method:
|
Survey |
|
Period:
|
AP OP |
|
|
|
  |
|
| Location: This large site lies on the Akkas and Gödekiri Plain; southwest of the city of Ankara; extending four km between the villages and towns of Peçenek; Cimsit; Polatli (Polatlar) and Gödekiri. Although it is reported that the site lies on a flat plain; on section I 29 of a 1:100;000 map; part of the area 2.5 km northeast of the town of Polatli appears to be undulating and hilly terrain. The rest of the area; especially 3-4 km southwest of the village of Cimsit in Gödekiri; is indeed flat. This discrepancy is not clearly defined in the site report. |
| Geography and Environment: The Akkas Gökdekiri Plain; which is at an altitude of about 850-900 m; rises slightly in a single ridge towards the village of Peçenek. The closest source of water in this dry area is the Pekmezci Spring in the east. |
| History: |
| Research and Excavation: I.K. Kökten's 1952 survey of the Ankara region conducted in the villages and towns of Sincan; Cimsit; Gödekiri; Akkas; Karasal; Peçenek; Yaprak; Dodurga; Incik and Hacilar; yielded chipped stone tools in the Akkas and Gödekiri/Gökdere Plain. The finds were collected without record of exact provenience from a 4 km wide area. We lack information on the artifact densities. |
| Stratigraphy: |
| Small Finds: Although six of the tools found at this site have been published; the total number of artifacts is not indicated. Two of these six are bifaced handaxes; both with a 2 mm thick yellowish patinas. Kökten believes that these bifaces are characteristically Acheuléen [Kökten 1953: fig. VI.4;6]. Another two are early Moustérien retouched scrapers. Kökten describes one of them as a unifacial carefully retouched side scraper and sceptically suggests that it resembles Middle Aurignacien types [Kökten 1953:fig. VI.5]. Tomsky; on the other hand; characterizes two of the bifaces assigned to the Lower Palaeolithic as Upper Acheuléen [Tomsky 1982:191]. |
| Remains: |
| Interpretation and Dating: |
