The European Archaeologist – Issue No.

42: Autumn 2014

Institutional Development
of Archaeological Literature in Turkey ∗
İ. Banu Doğan ([email protected])
German Archaeological Institute Istanbul, Turkey

With the decline of the Ottoman Empire starting in the 17th century efforts to understand and
take as a model some institutions of the West were born. In the course of Westernization
archaeology in the Ottoman Empire did not develop within the local system of thought but
rather remained for a long time an occupation for the elite for it was an almost entirely
imported concept1. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire first met with scholars and travellers
interested in antiquities and regional history long before archaeology was established as a
discipline.
The history of travels and exploration starts usually with Ciriaco of Ancona, who visited
Anatolia many times between 1418 and 1443. Among many others, some names must be
noted here: archaeologist Domenico Sestini, who visited Anatolia, Greece and Mesopotamia
between 1777 and 1792 and studied the monuments, inscriptions and coins; Richard
Chandler and William Pars, who conducted archaeological exploration in Ionia between 1769
and 1797 on behalf of the Society of Dilletanti; and Count Choisseul-Gouffier, who acted as
the French ambassador between 1784 and 17892. Works by Sestine, Chandler and
Choisseul-Gouffier are available in the collection of the DAI Istanbul Library.
Outside the countries where archaeology developed as a system of thought starting with
Renaissance, archaeology usually emerged as a tool to create a nation-state or to contribute
to tourism; however, in many places, the target of building nation awareness weighed down.
States moving with this impetus paid attention to the past they appropriated with their
nation’s origins while Ottoman Empire encompassing a variety of national elements did not
assume the concept of nation, as would be expected3.
Extensive interest of foreigners in the antiquities across our geography finally triggered the
Ottoman Empire as well4; the porphyry sarcophagi of Byzantine emperors uncovered in the
second courtyard of Topkapı Palace and the base of one statue to Porphirius known to have
stood in the Hippodrome were brought to the Hagia Eirene in 1846 and constituted the core
of the first museum5.
This first core was enriched with more works acquired through instructions sent to provinces
by Saffet Pasha, the Minister of Education, in 1869-1871 and Hagia Eirene was called Müze-
i Hümayûn, i.e. the Imperial Museum6. The museum was directed by English E. Goold,
Austrian Trentzio, and German A. Dethier. With the passing of Dethier, Osman Hamdi Bey
was appointed the director and he remained so until his death in 1910. Between 1910 and
1931, Halil Edhem Bey, brother of Osman Hamdi Bey, was the director7. Osman Hamdi
Bey’s taking the position as the director of the Imperial Museum is considered a breaking
point and the actual beginning of archaeology in the local sense in Turkey.
In the last years of the Empire archaeology started to develop as “collector museum”8 and
penetrated into the Ottoman Empire as “classical archaeology”9.

∗
Translated by Çeviren İnci Türkoğlu. – First published in the exhibition publication From a Dusty Dig to the
Dusty Shelves. The Development of the Archaeological Literature in Turkey. An Exhibition of the Library of
the German Archaeological Institute – Istanbul (Istanbul 2014); slightly abridged.
1
Özdoğan, 2011: 157.
2
Carratelli, 1993: 26.
3
Özdoğan, 2011: 160.
4
Esin, 1999: 279.
5
Dolunay, 1973: 3.
6
Esin, 1999: 279.
7
Esin, 1999: 279-80.
8
Esin, 1999: 280.
9
Özdoğan, 2011: 161.

54
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

Laying the Foundations of the Local Tradition in the Ottoman Empire (1881-1923)
One of the foremost contributions of Osman Hamdi Bey to archaeology in Turkey certainly is
the regulation he introduced for the relations between the state and the antiquities and the
foreigners interested in the antiquities. The regulation he introduced assumed its final form in
1884 and remained so until 1970s, perhaps the “most durable law”. Founding the Sanayi-i
Nefise Mektebi, i.e. School of Fine Arts, Osman Hamdi also laid the foundations for the
archaeology education and for the first time, Ottoman scholars started to appear before the
international academia10.

Fig. 1: The publications by Hamdi Bey on the tumulus on Mount Nemrud and the Sidon necropolis.

With Osman Hamdi Bey assuming the title of director the Imperial Museum started to
advance with a great contribution by its publications. Before him, partial catalogues of the
Museum had been published and some artefacts had been presented in European journals,
but in 1882 a general catalogue of the Museum was published. As the publishing work was in
progress Osman Hamdi Bey’s first archaeological dig and research at Mount Nemrud
Tumulus was prepared for publication together with Osgan Effendi (Le tumulus de Nemroud-
Dagh: voyage, description, inscriptions, 1883 – Fig. 1). Again his excavations at the royal
necropolis at Sidon were published in 1892 together with T. Reinach (Une nécropole royale à
Sidon. Fouilles de Hamdy Bey – Fig. 1). Although many other catalogues were published
thereafter, Mâlûmat Gazetesi criticized the Museum in 1899: “Although some catalogues
were published the Museum has not published to present its antiquities to the public; […] the
books in French regarding the archaeological studies at Sidon and Mount Nemrud are sold
for a very high price; that teaching of antiquities in Turkey has been insufficient”11. The
criticisms directed at the Imperial Museum are of importance for they reflect the local interest
in archaeology. Again in this period, provincial museums were established at Konya in 1902,
in Sivas, Bursa and Thessaloniki in 1904 as well as museum depots at Bergama and
Kuşadası12.

10
Özdoğan, 2011: 165.
11
Koç, 2011: 151-55.
12
Özdoğan, 2011: 167.

55
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

First Period of the Republic (1923-1939)

In the first years following the declaration of the Turkish Republic it is possible to state that
there was an interesting situation different from today. These years are marked with scarcity
of academic institutions and archaeological works as well as of economic sources of the
state. Yet, publications of archaeology were rich both in quantity and quality. The Halkevleri,
reflecting the excitement of the newly founded republic and spread across the entire country,
not only documented the historic and cultural assets around them but also made numerous
publications to disseminate the information to the public. The goal of disseminating to all
sections of the society the awareness in the past reveals the idea that this awareness was a
requisition of modernity13.
The first scientific excavation of the young Republic was conducted at the Phrygian tumuli at
Ankara by T. H. Makridi Bey in 1925. Its report was published in the 6th issue of Maarif
Vekâleti Mecmuası in 192614. In various issues of the same journal reports of other
excavations and surveys of the period can be found.
The publication series of Istanbul Museum of Antiquities comprises 14 books. Leading
authors are E. Unger and Halil Edhem. Among monograph authors are A. M. Mansel and H.
Glück. In this series, one monograph title needs to be mentioned here: J. P. Naab and E.
Unger, Pir Hüseyin’de Naram-Sin Stelinin Keşfi (1934). The stele was found and shipped to
the Museum by Natık Effendi, a lawyer from Diyarbakır interested in antiquities and coins. He
was instrumental in acquiring many artefacts and information for the Museum and he was
awarded with the title of Diyarbakır Fahri Müze-i Hümayûn Memurluğu [Diyarbakır Honorary
Officer for the Imperial Museum] for his honesty and virtue in 1893 and the Directorate of
Museums honoured him with other titles and medals15.
Beside archaeological digs and foundations of museums, two other attempts step forth in the
early phase of the Turkish Republic. The first one is the foundation of strong institutions that
would support archaeological studies and research and the second one is the training of
experts in these fields16. For this purpose, Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu,
shortly TTK) was founded in 1931; in 1934 Turkish Archaeological Institute was founded at
Istanbul University and shortly thereafter it was transformed to a department at the Faculty of
Letters. These were followed by the Faculty of Language and History – Geography in Ankara
(1936)17. On the other hand Halkevleri, a semi-official institution of the state, were directed
towards archaeological works and documentation18. Halkevleri were appointed the duty of
inventorying antiquities in their region, displaying them and making them available to
scholars; thus, they published many works in documentary quality19. For accomplishing the
second goal students were sent to reputable scientific institutions in Europe and at the newly
founded Istanbul and Ankara Universities, leading scholars were brought in the departments
of archaeology and relevant fields20.

The attention paid to anthropology and archaeology can also be inferred from the fact that
the first international scientific congress to be held in Turkey was the 18th International
Congress on Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology21. The congress to be held from 18th
to 26th of September 1939 was designed as academic sessions in the first week at Istanbul
followed by a ceremonial meeting at Ankara and an exploratory trip to excavation sites like

13
Özdoğan, 2008: ix.
14
T. H. Makridi, “Ankara Höyüklerindeki Hafriyata Dair Rapor”, Maarif Vekâleti Mecmuası, issue 6, 35-45.
Makridi Bey’s text was published in the former alphabet and to read its transliteration in modern Turkish see
N. Başgelen, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Arkeolojik Kazısı: Ankara Tümülüsleri 1925”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 100,
2001, 35-44.
15
A. Aziz, 1933: 5.
16
Özdoğan, 2011:167.
17
Arsebük, 1983: 71-2.
18
Özdoğan, 2011: 167.
19
See the table showing the members of 55 Halkevleri on 31 Dec. 1933 according to their gender, professions,
and tasks undertaken. Total 34,541 persons. Kebikeç, issue 3, 1996, 96.
20
Özdoğan, 2011: 167.
21
Toprak, 2012: 387-8.

56
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

Alacahöyük and Pazarlı. Due to the break-out of the Second World War the same month the
congress could not convene. However, during preparations some publications were made
including the papers to be presented (some as abstracts only). This paved the way for
accumulating important academic literature22. The preparations for this congress including
excavations and publications and foreseen projects developing with this impetus contributed
greatly to the development of prehistory as a subject.
As TTK was in charge of organizing the congress, archaeological studies augmenting in
importance then came into the program of the congress. As of 1930s TTK became an
institution of continuous and systematic excavations in Turkey. In this period, the goal was to
work on the höyüks, which revealed evidence on the earliest cultures of Anatolia, rather than
uncovering grand remains of Classical ages; it was more plausible, according to the Turkish
History Thesis, to focus on the prehistory and protohistory, during the nation-building stage23.
The opening speech by Afet Hanım at the Second Turkish History Congress clearly puts
forth this goal24.
Congress Secretariat and TTK decided to publish seven titles as preparation for the 18th
International Congress on Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology25:

Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası, No. 19-22

This annual journal of Turkish Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology belongs to the 15th
year (1939). Most of the articles were concerned with physical anthropology and similar
topics26, others concerned the protohistory and history in Denizli environs and the
Palaeolithic in Anatolia.

Türkiye’de Antropolojinin Bir Tarihçesi

Published in 1940 with a different heading as History of Turkish Anthropological Institute; yet,
it also includes a brief description of the development of anthropology in Turkey.

Anadolu Düğünleri
[Weddings of Anatolia, unpublished]

Türk Tarih Kurumu Etiyokuşu Hafriyatı Raporu

Report of TTK Excavation at Etiyokuşu, published in 1940; author Ş. A. Kansu.

Türk Tarih Kurumu Pazarlı Hafriyatı Raporu

Report of TTK Excavation at Pazarlı, published in 1941; author Koşay, whose paper “Le
Fouilles de Pazarlı” presented at the 8th International Congress of Historic Sciences at Zurich
was published in Istanbul in 1938.

Alacahöyük Material Culture Album

22
Toprak, 2012: 392.
23
Toprak, 2012: 392-3.
24
“…This celebrated task is inspired by and gets its plan from the following: Turkish race is white and
brachycephalic. The owners of today’s country are racial descendants of the founders of the most ancient
cultures. The cradle of this race rests in Central Asia according to the cultural traces. Areas where its cultural
torch reached out have attained modern civilization. The Near East, and the Mediterranean basin have
become the foci of this civilization. Europe and ancient American culture via the Pacific Ocean have
received their origins and offspring from the same root. This wide angle comprises the civilization frame of
Neolithic and Metal ages. These basics are the realities determined in the thesis description and debates of
our first congress. Turkish Historical Society has been working to prove these for five years. Writing the
outline of Turkish history and placing it within the world’s culture constitute the foundation goal of our
institution.” Afet (İnan), 1938: 5.
25
Congress General Secretariat, 1939: X-XI.
26
See, Nazan Maksudyan, Türklüğü Ölçmek (Bilimkurgusal Antropoloji ve Türk Milliyetçiliğinin Irkçı Çehresi
1925-1939), Istanbul, Metis Yayınları, 2005.

57
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

Book of Proceedings
Papers that reached the Congress General Secretariat by 1 August 1939 were published in
two volumes: Vol. 1 contains the Turkish translations of papers in other languages and
Turkish papers. Vol. 2 contains the original texts of papers in German, French, English and
Italian as well as full or summary translations of papers in Turkish27.

Certainly we cannot mention all the excavations conducted in this period; however, we would
like to exemplify the situation through the excavations at Karalar and Göllüdağ mentioning
their excavation years and publications.
Excavation at Karalar was conducted by Remzi Oğuz on behalf of Ministry of Education and
its report was published in the second issue (1934) of Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya
Dergisi. The report tells that the necropolis and tumuli were excavated. Remzi Oğuz
considered Karalar as an important spiritual centre of the Galatians. That the report also
contains a photograph of two villagers from Karalar reveals the interest and general tendency
for physical anthropology.
Excavations at Göllüdağ were published under subtitle “İlk Kısa Rapor [First Short Report]”
by Remzi Oğuz Arık, whose name was deliberately noted as the archaeologist of the Ministry
of Culture. The report of the excavation carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Culture in
1934 states that the finds date to the 12th-9th centuries BC.
These and other examples cited above indicate that publications followed right after the
excavations themselves either as monographs or as articles in Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve
Etnografya Dergisi published by the Ministry of Education since 1933. Reşit Galip28, the
Minister of Education, in the first issue explains the reason for publishing this journal and
gives priority to “the infinite wealth of our country in antiquities of ancient civilizations”. This is
followed by the fact that the Ottoman Empire “neglected archaeological studies” with the
efforts of Hamdi and Halil Beys put aside.
Gazi Mustafa Kemal sent a telegraph to Ismet Pasha from Konya in 1931 and urged “more
students to be trained in archaeology and further care … for the protection of monuments …
uncovering … the ancient civilizations’ remains buried as unique treasures all over our
country”. The regulation for Halkevleri, which were first founded in 1932 and reached a total
number of 26 already in 1933, contains nine basic branches, one of which was the museum
and exhibition branch. The journal was published “with the goals of keeping issues of
antiquities in the forefront, being the connection between all the local and foreign interested
entities, dedicating work time necessary for history, archaeology, and ethnography, and
communicate it to abroad at the same time” 29.

To cut a long story short, many longitudinal and comprehensive studies conducted by
Turkish archaeologists with full support by the state originated in this period and academic
periodicals such as Belleten (1937), Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi (1933)
started to be published as well. Beside these periodicals, the popular journals published by
Halkevleri contained articles on archaeology and relevant fields. Ministry of Education,
Directorate of Antiquities and Museums, Board for the Protection of Monuments published a
series of city guides in 1935, 1936 and 193730. The efforts of Turkish and foreign
archaeologists in this period are reflected well in the exhibition organized at Dolmabahçe
Palace on the occasion of the second congress by TTK in 1937. Particularly the grandiose
finds from royal tombs at Alaca Höyük, so much so that they were to become symbols, were
appropriated with the Republic through this exhibition31. The journal La Turquie Kemaliste
(Fig. 2) should also be mentioned here for their special issue on the occasion of the

27
Congress General Secretariat, 1939: vii.
28
Reşit Galip, 1933: 3-4.
29
Reşit Galip, 1933: 4.
30
Among these are Schede’s İznik ve Ayzani Kılavuzu, Halil Etem’s Niğde Kılavuzu, Mansel’s Yalova
Kılavuzu and Osten’s Gavurkale Kılavuzu, covering Nicea, Aizanoi, Niğde, Yalova and Gavurkale
respectively.
31
Özdoğan, 2011: 168.

58
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

exhibition32. This journal was published in French by the General Directorate of Printing of
the Republic of Turkey from 1933 to 1949. Its mission was to present Kemalist reforms to the
wider world and thus, often included news and photographs of antiquities, monuments and
archaeological works.

Fig. 2: Covers of the periodical La Turque kemaliste (left) of 1937 and of A. M. Mansel’s report on
Yalova (s. footnote 30).

Stagnant Period (1939-1968)

Stagnation brought by the Second World War was also reflected on the archaeological
studies. Nevertheless, some important studies such as Büyük Güllücek (1957 – H. Z. Koşay),
Fikirtepe (1952 – H. Çambel – K. Bittel), Karain (1946 – K. Kökten), Karatepe (1947 – H. Th.
Bossert, B. Alkım, H. Çambel), and Kültepe (1948 – T. Özgüç) were initiated in this phase.
Among leading foreign excavations of the period are Yortan (1946 – P. Godin), Gordion
(1949 – R. Young), Harran (1951 – D. S. Rice), Beycesultan (1954 – S. Lloyd), Hacılar (1957
– J. Mellaart), and Çatalhöyük (1961 – J. Mellaart). These studies brought a new dimension
to the cultural history of Anatolia, and existence of prehistoric and particularly Neolithic
cultures, neglected until then, was put forth unexpectedly33.

Studies in archaeology were not scarce and a new department of archaeology was opened
at the newly founded Atatürk University in Erzurum. Yet, it is noted that Turkish archaeology
lost its dynamism and went into introversion getting away from contemporaneous
developments in the wider world. In the period after WWII, especially as of the 1950s, world
archaeology went into a new phase of evolution and its goal, perspective, methods and
therefore its description changed rapidly. A connection between archaeology and society,
which did not exist before, was established34. In spite of numerous workshops organized
across the world Turkey either did not attend or was not effectively represented. This period

32
La Turquie Kemaliste, No. 21-22, December, 1937.
33
Özdoğan, 2011: 169.
34
Özdoğan, 2011: 170.

59
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

of world archaeology is, generally, defined with the perspective underlining life and economy
through the new theoretical approach now known as “New Archaeology”. These
developments in world archaeology are reflected, in a limited fashion, at H. Çambel’s
Çukurova Regional Planning Project (1965-67) and H. Çambel and R. J. Braidwood’s
Southeast Anatolia Mixed Project. However, in overall it can be said that Turkish archaeology
broke off from rapid developments in world archaeology35.
Parallel to the atmosphere of the discipline the studies and publications initiated on Anatolian
archaeology and art by the state went into stagnation as well36.The reason underlying this
stagnation is that the cultural issues went down the steps of priority in the state agenda as of
the 1950s; and, although the level of income per capita rose monetary support allocated for
cultural heritage diminished37.

Popularization of Archaeology (1968 – today)

The year of 1968 can be considered a turning point for Turkish archaeology. With METU
(Middle East Technical University, Ankara) leading the way, a comprehensive, multi-faceted
and multi-national project was initiated at the reservoir area of Keban Dam under
construction on the River Euphrates. The leading excavations were that at Aşvan by D.
French, at Tepecik by U. Esin, and at Norşuntepe by H. Hauptmann introducing new
excavation, research, evaluation and interdisciplinary work praxis to Turkish archaeology.
Again in this period, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı initiated by the Ministry of Culture in 1979
facilitated that various teams working at a variety of sites got acquainted with each other and
improved their knowledge and methodology. This meeting has convened traditionally every
year. In the present period there have been hundreds of excavations going on, which are not
possible to be mentioned here. Education in archaeology has spread tremendously since the
1980s and departments of archaeology were opened at many universities established in
various provinces of the country; thus, archaeology was released from the yoke of being an
elitist occupation38.
Until recently, archaeological studies were handled only by the universities, museums and
TTK; however, now institutions such as Tarih Vakfı (History Foundation), Çekül (Foundation
for the Protection and Promotion of the Environment and Cultural Heritage), and TÜBA
(Turkish Academy of Sciences) have stepped in the field effectively and facilitated the
penetration of new perspectives to our country39. Furthermore, these institutions have started
their own periodical publications and introduced new channels to the archaeological
literature.
It is necessary to note the spurt by private enterprises in recent years within the frame of
archaeological literature. As the first example, the Belleten by Touring and Automobile Club
of Turkey (TTOK) must be cited. TTOK has conducted work especially on Istanbul’s history
and culture and regularly published the restoration, renovation and conservation work
conducted by themselves as well as analyses on the city’s culture and arts. Publications by
banks, such as Akbank’s Türkiyemiz (1st issue 1970) and Yapı Kredi Bankası’s Sanat
Dünyamız (1st issue 1974), as well as Shell’s İlgi have published articles exploring
archaeology and art history from a current viewpoint since the 1970s-1980s40.
The journal Arkeoloji ve Sanat (Fig. 3) came to publishing life in 1978 and sets the first
example of a publication dedicated to archaeology only and of a product of personal
enterprise41. For a long time Arkeoloji ve Sanat remained the only example of its kind. In
2002, Atlas magazine published the first issue of its annual Arkeoatlas. Then Aktüel Arkeoloji
was started in 2007 and has been out every two months regularly. The increase in popular
periodicals is parallel to the increase in the books published in archaeology. Beside the

35
Özdoğan, 2011: 171.
36
Esemenli, 2006: 125.
37
Özdoğan, 2008: x.
38
Özdoğan, 2011: 172.
39
Özdoğan, 2011: 172-3.
40
Esemenli, 2006: 126.
41
Esemenli, 2006: 126.

60
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları (founded in 1982), Ege Yayınları started in 1990 and was
followed by Homer Kitabevi in 1995. Among other publishers some like Kabalcı, Dost, İş
Bankası and Yapı Kredi also publish on archaeology and relevant fields, although this is not
their primary focus. Among many examples one should be noted here: the Anadolu
Uygarlıkları / Anatolian Civilizations series by Yapı Kredi published, with the sponsorship of
Tüpraş, Urartu (2011), Phrygians (2013), Hittites (2013) and seven others currently under
preparation42.

Fig. 3: The homepage of Arkeoloji ve Sanat (http://www.arkeolojisanat.com/shop/hosgeldiniz_1.html).

Recent years have also witnessed the foundation of private institutes such as AKMED and
RCAC, which started to publish their own periodicals: Adalya, 1st issue 1996; ANMED News
of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas, 1st issue 2003. Furthermore, state
universities also started to publish high quality international periodicals, which are indexed
internationally: e.g. Mersin University Research Centre for Cilician Archaeology’s Olba, 1st
issue 1998.
Moreover, for the last 20 years the TAY (Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri) Project has been
inventorying all the archaeological settlements and findspots of all ages in Turkey.

Apart from all those mentioned above there are certainly many more publications, publishers,
whom we may have happened to forget; however, we hope that this incapacity of ours shall
be forgiven considering the fact that it has arisen from the immense increase in the interest in
archaeology and thus in the number of publications.

42
Erkut, 2011: 6.

61
 The European Archaeologist – Issue No. 42: Autumn 2014

References
AFET (İnan), 1938. Türk Tarih Kurumunun Arkeoloji Faaliyeti. Belleten 2, 5-12.
AZIZ, A. (Ogan), 1933 [1934]. Başlangıç. In Pir Hüseyin’de Naram-Sin Stelinin Keşfi, Die
Entdeckung der Stele des Naram-Sin in Pir Hüseyin, 5-7.
ARSEBÜK, G., 1983. Dünden Bugüne Arkeoloji. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi vol.
1, 66-75.
CONGRESS GENERAL SECRETARIAT, 1939. Tebliğler Kitabı, I, XVIIIinci Beynelmilel Antropoloji
ve Prehistorik Arkeoloji Kongresi İstanbul-Ankara, 18-25 Eylül. Ankara.
DOLUNAY, N., 1973. İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri. Istanbul, Ak Yayınları.
ERKUT, Y., 2011. Uygarlığın Şafağı’na Methiye... In K. Köroğlu and E. Konyar (eds), Urartu:
Doğu’da Değişim, Transformations in the East. Istanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 6.
ESEMENLI , D., 2006. Türkiye’de Arkeoloji Alanında Yayıncılık. In N. Başgelen (ed.), Toprağın
Altındaki Geçmiş “Arkeoloji”: Sorunlar, Öneriler, Kazılar. Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları.
ESIN, U., 1999. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin 75. Yılında Atatürk Düşüncesinde Ulusal Kimliğin
Oluşturulma Sürecinde Arkeoloji’nin Yeri: Dünü, Bugünü. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin 75.
Yılında Bilim “Bilanço 1923-1998” Ulusal Toplantısı, Ankara, TÜBA, 277-288.
K , H., 2011. Müze-i Hümayun’da Yayın Çalışmaları (Cumhuriyet Dönemine Kadar). In S.
OÇ
Bağcı and Z. Yasa Yaman (eds), Gelenek, Kimlik, Bireşim: Kültürel Kesişmeler ve
Sanat: Günsel Renda’ya Armağan. Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Arkeoloji-Sanat
Tarihi Bölümü, 151-164.
ÖZDOĞAN, M., 2008. Türkiye’de Arkeoloji Yayıncılığı ve Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Arkeoloji ve Sanat 128, ix-xii.
Ö ZDOĞAN , M., 2011. Arkeolojik Kazılar Bilimsel Çalışma mı? Toprak Hafriyatı mı? Istanbul,
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, G., 1993. Giriş. In Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme. Türkiye’deki
İtalyan Kazıları, transl. E. Özbayoğlu, Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti, Ankara, 13-30.
REŞIT GALIP, 1933. Tarih Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi Niçin Çıkıyor? Türk Tarih,
Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi, issue 1, 3-4.
TOPRAK, Z., 2012. Darwin’den Dersim’e Cumhuriyet ve Antropoloji, Istanbul, Doğan Egmont
Yayıncılık.

62