When I first came to Türkiye, I had a very prevalent habit of comparing Gazipaşa to another city I have spent a significant amount of time in; Kathmandu. It was, on paper, quite a similar trip, sounding like it was both physically and mentally demanding based on its premise, along with going to a country long term that was not exactly one I had a burning desire to visit. It… sort of turned out to be a similar experience? While I definitely retained some beliefs in similarities between the two cities, namely the Architecture and to a much lesser extent, the food & people, I’ve definitely come to see this as an entirely separate experience. I think the first and foremost of the differences between Kathmandu & Gazipaşa is that the latter feels like an idea of a city rather than something tied to the material parts of the settlement. The ‘idea’ of gazipaşa has felt very venerable, something that arose when we were digging up the domicile, while Kathmandu as a unified city compared to the 5 original settlements in the valley is still a very new idea. I’ve warmed up to Türkiye significantly faster than I did with Nepal, especially with the physical challenges of operating in such an environment. Türkiye has felt a lot more manageable in a good way where I can eventually adapt without being forced out of half the activities due to a lack of sufficient stamina. Mentally, I’ve also adapted significantly better as well, while in Nepal I had a period at the beginning where I was horribly apathetic to the whole thing before really getting into it, for Türkiye I felt like I was just able to get right into the spirit of the job. I think a big part of why this is, is because I feel strangely… patriotic to the whole ideal of archeology, as I feel that in some small way, I’m contributing to the knowledge of humanities past, along with assisting the local community. That motivation has, as a result, made pushing through the harder parts of this internship a lot easier, and I feel like without it there was a very real chance I’d have given up.
As for the actual work, it has confirmed much of what I was already thinking in regards to Archeology; that it’s mainly Gardening that requires more care and precision. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you, I found the work to be oddly relaxing & it honestly awakened something in me that I suspect will only be satisfied by doing gardening when I get home, however, it’s also the type of work that makes me empathize with Schliemann usage of dynamite in this climate, and I’ll admit I was rather checked out of the more academic responsibilities of this internship more than once because of the work. Archeology’s connection with traditional historiography is also a lot less strong than I originally thought as well. I thought that they were very much intertwined originally, and although this idea was originally planted in History class, I think that it’s only now that I really understand it. What evidence we have from the past is often fragmented and sparse, and it’s only now that I can understand the massive leaps of faith that had to be made in order to make history’s narrative work. I think a good example of this would be how we assumed that the ancient Mediterranean ecosystem was very similar to continental Europe based on a few studies of Aristotle, and just kind of accepted that the Mediterranean used to be like western Europe despite no archeological evidence.
