Page 139 - TINA Dergi Sayi 08

TINA

Maritime Archaeology Periodical

Fig. 2: 1770 yılına ait J. L.
Cowley’in haritası ve Vor-
donisi Adası.
Fig. 2: J. L. Cowley’s 1770
map and Vordonisi Island.

A review of the evolution of the Marmara Sea, which period . Vordonisi should also have become an island
9
was once a lake, it appears that Marmara Sea met the during this period. Most probably due to sea level rise
salt water from the Aegean Sea by crossing the Darda- and tectonic movements, it should have sunk into the wa-
nelles around 7000 BC. The connection of the Sea of ters of Marmara Sea over time. However, it is not known
Marmara with the Black Sea was probably around 5500 exactly when the island vanished.
BC . Based on the elevation of the Neolithic settlement Between 858 - 867 AD and 877 – 886 AD, photios, the
5
of Yenikapi, the sea level was less than minus 6 meters patriarch of Constantinople, was sent to exile to the Ar-
9-8 thousand years before today. Accordingly, the Sea of monians or Armenians Monastery in Vordonos . There
10
Marmara at the beginning phase of the Fikirtepe Culture, is a strong possibility that the rocky region known among
which is called the Archaic phase, should have been at the sailors as Büyük (Big) Vordonos and Küçük (Small)
a level 15 to 20 meters lower than the present-day ele- Vordonos was in fact the Vordonisi Island, which was
vation . For this reason, the prince Islands should have once above the sea level, but sank into the sea due to
6
been linked to the mainland during the Neolithic peri- massive earthquakes and floods over time. An analysis of
od . However, Yarımburgaz 4-0 material was reported the earthquakes that occured in the region and the tsuna-
7
in Yenikapi today under the Marmara Sea level . The mis triggered by these earthquakes shows that there was
8
settlements between today’s Anatolian coastal borders a tsunami in the Eastern Marmara due to an earthquake
and prince Islands should have been flooded during this in 989 AD .
11
5 ALGAN et al. 2011, 30; for relevant arguments see RYAN et al. 1997; AKSU et al. 1999; ÇAĞATAY et al. 2000; GÖRÜR et al. 2001; HIS-
COTT et al. 2002
6 Although the exact dating of the finds that belong to the Archaic Phase of the Fikirtepe Culture was not established, similar materials recovered
from the Yenikapı excavations are dated to 6400-5800 BC based on C14 data (ÖZDOĞAN 2013, 173, fig. 12).
7 ALGAN et al. 2011, 44; ÖZDOĞAN 2013, 175.
8 For detailed information on the Yarımburgaz 4 layer and materials dating to the Chalcolithic Age, see ÖZDOĞAN et al. 1986, 12; ÖZDOĞAN
1990, 382, Plt. 246-248, figs. 4a-b, 5b-c, 6a-b.
9 ÖZDOĞAN 2015, 15, fig. 6.
10 WHITE 1981, 36.
11 SOYSAL 1985; ALTINOK et al. 2001, 530.
137