Search

Documents are considered one of the first important sources for the study of Islamic history, because they contain original historical material, and we mean in particular official papers, such as letters, publications, records, judicial rulings, financial systems, religious fatwas, political treaties, decrees and covenants for senior officials, including ministers, governors and pimps. Many of these documents, whether written in Arabic or otherwise, have been lost despite their great importance in the study of Islamic history, and perhaps the main reason for their loss and destruction is that the Islamic world, after it was a political unit until the end of the Umayyad era in the year 12 AH / 750 CE . He divided himself as a result of the emergence of conflicts between Muslims and religious intolerance among non-Muslims, which led to their loss or falsification, especially in the period of the separation of many regions from the Islamic state, as the first historical documents are still unknown to us, and only a few of them remain scattered and scattered in the books of the later . Researchers in Islamic history should not hesitate to search for them (documents) and publish them, and collect what was found in the books of later scholars because it is the main way to bring us to the right truth. We will try to study the historical document, which was attributed to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab at times and to his leader Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah at other times, and which was transmitted by Muslim and oriental jurists and historians, and they differed in its proportions. Whoever denies that Caliph Umar should issue such a document, especially since he was one of the most merciful of the Rightly Guided Caliphs to the Christians and other dhimmis. We have the best evidence for that in his statements and commandments. It was narrated from him upon his death that he said: (The caliph recommended after me the responsibility of the Messenger of God to fulfill their pledge to them and to fight behind them and not be overburdened).

In his excellent studies on the skulls from Alişar Höyük, W. M. Krogman discussed the measurements of the skulls and the succession of cranial types from the Chalcolithic Age to the Ottoman period. Subsequently, in a paper published in 1941 I discussed the cranial measurements and the cranial types of the ancient inhabitants of Anatolia from the Chalcolithic to the end of the Hittite period. In a paper published in 1945, Marc-R. Sauter gaye the proportions of dolichocephalic, mesocephalic and brachycephalic skulls in the Near East, including Turkey, from ancient to modern times. More recently, Krogman has studied the skulls form the Chalco- lithic to Byzantine times from Chatal Höyük and Ten Al-Judaidah and Angel in his exhaustive monograph has discussed the cranial types from Troy and its vicinity, from Troy I (Chalcolithic Age) to the late Roman period. But in the studies that have been made so fax, although the means of the skulls from various sites have been calculated, so far as I know the mean values of the cranial measurements and indices of all the available ancient Anatolian skulls from the various sites belonging to the same period have not been giyen. In order to meet this need, at least partially, I have decided to calculate the averages of the glabello-occipital length, maximum skull breadth and of the cranial index of the skulls of the ancient inhabitants of Anatolia, belonging to the Chalcolithic, Copper Age, Early Bronze Age and the Hittite Empires period. Although the series from these periods, especially from the Early Bronze Age, are stili not as large as one would wish, they are stili much larger than the series from the same periods, when I studied them in 1941, thus giving more reliable results for at least some of the period

The pottery, which forms the subject of this paper, was collected by the writer during a series of surveys in Southern Anatolia during the years 1951 - 1954. During these surveys, m.ostly on foot, large numbers of prehistoric sites were found, but a complete survey of the Konya plain, originally intended, had to be abandoned as the distances involved were too great to be traversed on foot. More-over the richness of many mounds in broken pottery was often so great that the carrying back of potsherds over considerable distances became too much of a burden. In an area like that of the Konya plain, mechanical transport is required if one really wants to visit every mound.

I have already described the teeth of some individuals from Alaca Höyük in my various papers on the skulls from this site, excavated under the auspices of the Turkish Historical Society. However, as the teeth already described by me represent only a part of the material and as most of the teeth from this site are relatively well-preserved, I have considered it useful to study all the available teeth from Alaca Höyük preserved in the Alaca Höyük Museum and in the Department of Anthropology of the University of Ankara