TGBA-M
VB
JO",
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEFINITION
OF THE NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC
PERIODS IN THE LIGHT OF NEW
RESEARCH IN TURKEY
TÜRKİYE'DEKİ YENİ ARAŞTIRMALAR
IŞIĞINDA N E O L İ T İ K ve K A L K O L İ T İ K
D E V İ R L E R İ N S O S Y O - E K O N O M İ K TANIM
Dedicated us ıhı 1 ıikumry <sf Frirfcsscır
i :. • • • ı limkh\iXxJ, A umut NL-TIKH1 .uımrtg
ıhı- LTUinonı X u r KIISICTTI scholars Who£C
decades UuTft eoniribın ions to PrGfüstoty
Ittain LIKIT ıikiiHiıucıitdl proponinns.
•Jak YAKAR
Key words: Anatolia, sedentary hunter & gatherers, Neolithic, terminology, prehistoric village community
Anahtar sözcükler Anadolu, yerleşik düzenli avcı-toplayıcılar. Neolitik. terminoloji, tarihöncesi köy toplumları
Anaıktlu'tlu t:\rihtmtvsi anıştırmalardan ortaya çıkan görüntü açıkça gösteımektedir ki; kullanımdaki
geleneksel tomînoloji Anadolu'nun neoüiikleşme sınvcini tüm ekonomik, sosyal, tinsel ve teknolo­
jik ögeleıiyie birlikte tanımlamaya jeterli değildir. Dahası, yerleşik düzendeki toplumların, madde­
sel küllür huiunitılarımn \ e yetfeşme düzenlerinin de yansıttığı gibi, çevıvlerini
değiştirmelerinde
kaimi edilen yanalar, geleneksel leıminolojide doğnı bir ifade bulmaktan uzaktır. Binada teklif
edikti şema laıihöneesi köylerin sosyal, ekonomik Ve ieknokyik karmaşıklığı yönünden daha dakik
bir tanımlamayı getirmekledir, lîöyle bir şema halen kuiiammdaki tanımların, en azından hemen,
yetîüi almayı gerektirmemektedir,
fakat kaışıtaşiiımak aıaştıımalar için muhakkak ki yararlı olacaktır.
Örneğin: köy küllüden arasında yakın benzedikler, yeıel veya taonokifik değişiklikler gibi, göç,
yayılıın vs. konutu tanışma la ıda, çok daha iyi anlaşılabilen, bir çizelge olarak
görülebilmektedir.
New socio-economic data in Anatolian prehisto­
mings of this Traditional terminology for periods
ry necessitates a review nl the [radii torn J cultu­
and cultures. Hence, I proposed, for considera­
ral definitions. Most scholars agree that cultural
tion only, the use of "Early Village Culture ( s ) "
period!/atinns such as Kpi paleolithic, Aceramic
as a general
or
and Late
Chalcolithic cultures preceded either by a tech­
Neolithic, or Early, Middle and Lite Chakolithic
nical reference To indicate the successive phases
arc' not descriptive enough and ai times even
(e.g. pn>ceramic\ cemmic, painted pottery) or in
misleading. Therefore, these definitions should
reference to a particular Time - Scale (e.g. "Early
have long l>een considered obsolete. However,
Village Culture of the Sixth Millennium BC7) ( J ,
in lite absence of consensus for an alternative
Yakar, 1991Jx). I still M i e v e thai terms such as
lerminology most of us still adhere to this deep-
Aceramic Neolithic or Early Neolithic are hardly
rooted nomenclature. In the preface of my book
appropriate, certainly not descriptive enough, to
Prehistoric Anatolia. I pointed out the shortco­
define the subsistence strategies of hunter-gat-
Pre-Pottery
Neolithic.
Earfy
'Inakuic of Arc!faeotOgy.Td Aviv pnivuraiy.Jfcımiit-Aıiv.TL'l Avfv 69978, isne]
term for the Neolithic and
fak Y.AKUl
herer communities settled in permanent villages,
Thissen 2002), tried to conceptualize the nature
but not yet significantly involved in cultivation
of Central Anatolian Neolithic
or domestication* By tile same token, the term
tb
Heading the proceedings of the CANcW, includ-
describe the culture of hunter-gatherers whose
ing the discussions, one gets the feeling thai dis-
high
in
agreements on various subjects, bin particularly
monumental stone architecture and plastic art),
concerning environmental studies, dating and
economic activities, or stxial complexity are in
terminology, although not fundamental, still a i t
many
not easy lo bridge, no matter how narrow a gap
Aeefamic
Neolithic
technological
ways
is
not
quite suited
achievements
more impressive
t mainly
lhan anything
remains. [ think no one could have explained
observed later on.
the reasons for this better than Jean Perrot
Regarding tire hunting ant! gathering mtxle of
Pencil rightly points out that archaeology as a
subsistence,
sometimes
discipline suffers from a state of confusion due
accompanied by selective cultivation of wild
to the "bulk of archaeological data and simulta-
food-plants and perhaps in local attempts at
neously, big gaps in knowledge'' Q. Perroi.
keeping cenain wild food animals in captivity,
2002, 7). Therefore, " there is the weakness of a
the fact is that it continued to be pursued at dif-
poorly structured ensemble of information, the
ferent levels of intensity by most village com-
scientific status of which is still tentative; and.
munities already involved in broad range culti-
perhaps first of all. our vocabulary and temii-
vation and domestication, in other words in
nology remain inadequate.™ (J. Perrot, 2002.7)
mixed farming.
Moreover concerning the true value of methods
which
initially
was
used in archaeology, he puts it quite bluntly;
As for the use of the ttnn Chalcolithie', mainly
"(lie archaeological reality'is a reality that owes
in reference to painted pottery producing cul-
much to the imagination and intuition of the
tures of the late sixth/early fifth millennium fiC,
excavator" I have no doubt thai more than a
it remains a misnomer in view of the fact that a
few scholars of Prehistory shares this opinion.
basic copper metallurgy existed in parts of
IJUI
Anatolia long before the introduction of pottery.
edge it openly! On the Issue of interdisciplinary
Archaeologists generally adherer* this term for
scientific research Perrot rightly remarks that
the period extending from the mid-sixth 1 0 the
"The numerous specialists horn various disci-
late fourth millennium BC. despite the fact some
plines that the archaeologist invites to scrutinize
sedenierizcd
in
the reality' that he lays liel'ore them ate not
Anatolia were successfully experimenting with
always aware of its limitations; jusi as the
the basics of copper technology, still complex
archaeologist is not always conscious of the
enough necessitating some degree of familiarity
frailties of the disciplines whose advice he
with mineral identification as well as cold Wor-
seeks.
king, annealing ant! smelting procedures.
only lor archaeology, muddles the reconstruc-
hunter-gatherer
communities
few would have the tenacity to acknowl-
T h e equivtxra! tnterdisciplinariiy, not
tion of what really happened', the nature unci
Since archaeology Investigates the social, economic, technologic and spiritual aspects of a
turn of events that are the raw materials of historical reconstruction" i j . PCJTOI.2(K)2.7).
culture through their anifactual and non-art ifactual assemblages, cultural definitions Should be
Returning to the problem of terminology for
more descriptive. With surf) and other problem
Anatolia, and in particular Central
oriented issues in mind, a numlier of Near East
(here is now some sort of consensus thai defini-
and Anatolia oriented prehistorians meeting at a
tions about periods and divisions should not lie
reecnt
pinned-down
workshop
forum
(CANeW)
held
in
Istanbul 23-24 November 2001). (Gerard and
Anatolia,
to single material culture ele-
ments.In other words in describing a cultural
llll:
SOCIOECONOMIC
DM
63
INITIOS
prehistoric entity its entire cultural development
their socio-economic organization and spiritual
should lie taken into consideration. Although
activities will continue to be encapsulated into
most prehistoi ians agree that a valid separation
slots of meaningless definitions. For instance,
of periods and cultures need Correct definitions
currency used terms emphasizing (he absence
of terms, the debate with a diversity of views still
of ceramic utensils do not quite describe the
continues. In my opinion (he proposed regional
social structure (e.g. "egalitarian" versus "ranked"),
terminology of M Ozhasaran and H.Tiuilenhuis.
the sulisisience economy (Increasing emphasis
ECA' r which is only slightly different than that
on the cultivation of wild species, capiivation of
proposed by Matthews (M.OzIxt$aran and H,
wild animals) or the settlement pattern of socie-
buitcnhuis. 2002. 68-69). is an attractive scheme
ties in question. Alter all the subsistence related
that could also be used as F A for all Anatolia.
activities of prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups
After all, to use the definition of 'luirly Anatolia'
in the archaeological records of Anatolia are rea-
with its cultural sulxlivisions starting from the
sonably well documented, and they often refleci
Ixginning of sedentarization. can hardly be
their social structures. Ilierelore. from this point
iporc confusing than terms such as C y d a d i c .
of view alone, it is about lime to desist from
Helladie' or 'Cypriote' defining some of the
classifying architectural remains and other vari-
Bronze Age sequences in the Aegean and east-
ous material assemblages reeoveivd from pre-
ern Mediterranean.
historic villages within misleading and rigid cultural deflni lions.
As an option one could assign the tenn Early
Anatolian I' with its sulxlivisions to define the
In discussions pertaining to the economic, cul-
entire Neolithic period, naturally starting from
tural and technological definitions relating to
the earliest Aeeramic sub phase C'EAi a ). Next,
prehistoric vilfage communities, it is important
Early Anatolian 11' with its sulxlivisions could be
to
l
re-emphasize
the fact that continuity
or
assigned to coyer ' i e entire Chalcoliihic period.
change w ere dictated primarily, though not sole-
Such a scheme is flexible enough to incorporate
ly, by the degree of environmental stability or
cultural
instability.
sub phases yet
to be discovered.
Filially, Early Anatolian HI with its sub phases
F.iw ironmeiiEat dillereiiccs oliserved even within
can define the EBA.
Central Anatolia, between the principal subThe traditionalists voicing their discomfort con-
regions
eeming the wisdom of detaching Anatolia, and
Cappadocia during particular periods
particularly Central Anatolia from a universally
macro/micro
accepted temiinology. no matter how antiqua-
spells/cycles of changes in tire seasonality of
ted, are not alxxrt to suliscrilv to this, or any
winds,
other alternative scheme. Therefore, one has to
Kuzucuoglu, 2002; See also H. Woldring. 2002),
device an intermediate solution to this impasse.
Thus, at the core of chronological differences in
An acceptable intermediate solution could be
the emergence of similar patterns of settlement
the maintaining of the traditional terminology,
(subsistence oriented, trade oriented, long or
but make it more descriptive regarding the
short duration, seasonality, large versus small
socio-economic, cultural and technological com-
villages, clusters versus isolated villages, organi-
plexity/level/status of each period and its sub
zation. etcO lies the environmental factor guid-
periods. Otherwise, without a revised nomen-
ing the subsistence related activities of hunter-
clature', the material culture assemblages pro-
gaiherers. Even a relatively short-term instability
duced
and
in climatic conditions; could have affected the
farmers, which reflect their cultural accomplish-
living conditions in a particular environmental
ment and technological sophisticaLion as well as
niche, affecting the growth and migraioiy pat-
by hunter-gatherer
communities
such
as
the
climatic
temperatures
Konya
variations
and
plain
and
reflect
due
to
precipitation! C,
kik YAKAR
tern* bf fbod-RiSCiUrClSB, and the subsistence
(e.g. community or family based), Resource
tequiierncnis
of those dependent on them. In
management dkttted not only the settlement
eoping w ith such stress situations communities
pattern, but also the selection of environmental
would h a w enured long-term
would have selected one ol a number of options
niches, which
according to preference or manageability. These
economic stability te g. meeting the subsistence
would have been: a ! narrow spectrum exploita­
requirements of an expanding community).
tion, if necessary in a different ecological niche,
Those settling in optimal zones could h a w led
b) broad-spectrum exploitation, t ) |XT;nanent
themselves lor a few generations without having
settlement. H i e first two options could have
to cultivate food plants, or domesticate certain
resulted in the establishment of seasonal dis­
animals on condition thai they did not ewer
persed villages, with some occupied for most
exploit the rich w ild life and vegetation. Those
pan of the year. We may reasonably assume that
settling on the marginal zones on the Other hand
narrow spectrum exploitation by Jiuntei-gathe­
could h a w
rers could have in the long term led to a popu­
exploitation of a limited range of animal and
lation increase, which in turn would have resul­
plant resources. Reaching critically low levels of
ted in one of the following development*;
such wild resources, cultivation and domestica­
broad-spectrum exploitation, migration
tion would h a w been the logical alternative for
to a
marginal zone or sedentism in an optimal zone.
been involved
in the
intensive
these settled hunter-gatherers.
In all these cases no doubt that new villages
would have lieen established, But it this way.
Now coming k i c k to the question of terminolo­
the sedentanzation of hunier-gatherers could lie
gy, proposed here' for consideration, and if ne­
seen as the outcome of a economic strategy tip-
cessary for further refinement is a data descrip¬
ting for a subsistence mode requiring much less
tion formal to assist in the cultural classification
group mobility. "Hie choice and success til this
of individual prehistoric village sites. The lerm
mAGgy would have depended on a nnml>er of
"village community" should be viewed as a cul­
interlinked preconditions, such as: a) the choice
tural stage common to all sedentary societies
of settlement location; bl a measure of social
Mailing with fairly Holocenc hunters and gathe­
complexity: c> a balanced demography with a
rers. Needless to say, the purpose of this "exer­
majority of healthy youngsters; d) an economic
cise" is not Hi replace the traditional terminolo­
organization with emphasis on resource mana­
gy for prehistoric Anatolia, but to further stress
gement and surplus production. In most hunter-
the importance of chronological and cultural
gatherer societies economic activities could have
placement of prehistoric village communities
been grouped based, at least in the initial phas­
using a uniform formal. In this formal likely vari­
es of the sedentarization and more or less in the
ations in subsistence strategies are proposed
Epi pa let /lit hie tradition, lienefiling the entire
based on archaeological data recovered from
community. This phase in village architecture is
characterized mainly by round houses (huts),
prehistoric
which provided small living spaces with hardly
Gürcütcpe. Cafer Höyük, Açıklı, Musular. Çaral
any storage capacity under the same roof. Liter
Höyük,
on and as suggested by the development of
Kuıuçjy, Yumuktepe; and others.
villages
such
as
HaIlan
Çemi,
Demirci, Çtyünü. Neyaii Çoıi. Göbekli Tepe.
ilacılar.
Höyücek;
liademağacı,
larger habitation units with Intramural storage
facilities, village economies may have became
Although these sites follow a chronological
family based.
set|uence. considerable overlapping
Ivtween
them and different localities/regions cannot !x 3
Resource management was certainly an impor­
ruled out. Once lite chronological framework
tant concern among scdentari/cd I luntei-gathe­
and cultural stage emphasizing socio-economic
rers, regardless of their economies organization
and industrial complexity of all excavated pre-
65
historic village in Anatolia are dearly established, discussions pertaining to dilTu.sk/ns,
migrations, continuity and change will be p r o
ducing more convincing results.
Data description formal for the cultural classification of individual villages*
Nairn?
iVriod
Dates D C
(Calibrated]
PVCV1
4000-31X10
PVC V
5000-4000
PVGIV
WKW-5000
I'VC III
7IXK1-6000
PVC
11
PVC I
VilLage
L*yi HI i
S o d a I and
Religious
Complexity
Economy
Storage l i m d
1'nH.vssirig
Tcdinukigy
An
mUM1-7000
HtaHi-
PVC-Prehistoric Village Communily
Village layout in terms of house plan and disposition:
a) Freestanding:
(1) Round;
(2) Grill-plan;
(3) Channeled:
(4) Cobble-|>aved;
(5) Cell-plan;
( 0 Other;
b) Agglutinated or other.
Social Complexity;
a) Segregated Domestic/Sacral Units;
b) G unm tm a I Structures;
c) Disposal of the Dead;
(1) Collective
(i) Primary.
(ii) Secondary;
(2) Individual
( 0 Primary.
(ii) Secondary;
(5) Special pt>s( mortem treatment:
0 ) Skull removal, (ii) Pktstered skulls,
(iii) Painted skulls, (iv) Painted long bones.
Economy;
a) Hunting-Gathering: Broad Spectrum
Exploitation;
b) Hunting-Gathering: Narrow Specirum
Exploi union;
c) Hunting-Gathering and Incipient Animal
DomesEieation;
d) I [tuning-Gathering and Selective Cultivation
of Legumes / Wild cereals / No Domestical ion
of animals;
e) I [unting-Gatheriilg and Selective Cultivation
of Cereals / Incipient / Selective Animal Domestication;
0 I funting-Gailieiing and Cultivation of
Domesticated ftxxi Plants, Animal Husbandry;
g) Cultivation of Domesticated Ftxxl Plants /
Animal Husbandry . Hunting-Gathering.
h) Exchange of Surplus / Specialized
Qjmmodities:
(1) Long distance exchange on a seasonal
basis perhaps via intermediaries;
(2) Short distance direct exchange.
Storage and Food Processing Installations:
a) Indoor:
b) Outdoor:
(1) Oven;
G) Hearth;
0 ) Roast ing-piE;
(4) Storage-pit;
(5) Storage-bin;
( 0 Work pkufomi with
grinders / mortars.
Technology:
a) Copper Industry;
b) LfthlC and Stone Industry:
(1) E'Tint tools and weajions;
(2) Obsidian tools, weapons and utensils
G ) Stone weapons, tools, ornaments, utensils;
(-0 Marble utensils and ornaments;
c) Ceramic Industry:
(1) Plain pots;
(2) Decorated pots:
CO Incised.
(ii) Relief.
fök YAKAR
(iii) Painted,
e) Textile Tndustıy:
( 1 ) PlaX;
(iv) Other;
d) Stone Sculptures;
( 2 ) Wool:
e) Anthropomorphic Pigurines;
( 1 ) Female;
( 2 ) Male;
( 3 ) Composite;
f) Bone Industry;
g) Wood Industry;
j) Other (exiruciion of oil and paint from plants
and minerals);
Ait:
a) Wall-painting;
b) Wall relief:
0 Animal Figurines;
g) Anthropomorphic and Ztxanorphic Pols.
'Key words such as Freestanding cell-plan hous­
es and collective secondary burial with |X>st
moiietn skull removal should appear in their
allotted space as a.3 and c.l,ü,c,3.İ
c) Decorated Stone Pillars:
KErautNo-s
GERARD. F., L THI55EN 1Fd5.>. ¿002
Ilk' Xtnllliif i* CnHnl Aiwttiu: Invnul !•••,••:• • < • .ml
BWmâ Sehlüm.- Ofttirig sin vXl>-t*İ\ MÜkmân Örf. HC
PnBXvJUW* ;ı| ı\v i-•• - -• • • -CANvV "Ijl*.- Hmm.1 İMjnlml
23-2* NfWwnbO 2wi. fatnbuL
K U Z U C U O G L U . C. 2002
J
'lJv iiiiirnnnviujl
m - ,-..n . AıumlLı Ü
Ov '*\\ m
:•<• « ı m l.i
i i-Jİ İMİ. An irinnkı.1km » l İ v MutŞ ii I t b In mi IVIWLVH LIII in-IIULTHJ I n TKIHH m- ırk I l l v ilm !• '|"in nl
•rfkumul •->-tfB>'L Jit .V.'JiffH-irfOntrai AftiWifa /nr.™,j]
Bmt|MWft .««I bHUMl KLILPTJ*ifp*. Dirnjlft rih- Wt-Wi
Hilk'iHiKf <Jİ. İKİ. RnvcrtUnRS ı ı i l İ v lıırLULilkıiLil IZANcAY
T d * ' RiWnd, Iflanbd, 23-24 NoWmbti' KOt, kçiERARD,
LT1IISSEX (Ml 1, İMjkHil. | M t
(BAŞARAN. M.r If ÜUntPİHUlS. 2CÜ2
•ftapail li* J n0atâ leımınııltyy h* (Vmrıl AJtuiJUY Jlte
VııJi/ı*- .if Urnr-if AwJu
in.1.'i.-.M ¡\iviiuruiti*
.ml
BmM
M. /•.••••i.- iftc Wtfth
MiHrnHh Cpf./fc.
l'n^LTLİniı;-^ [In- lııknum uul t"_ANcVC TJ14L RI HUMI. MM:-..
23-24
F.GERAND. LTlllSStN IHİM. lnanlml.
PFPROTJ.,2C02
"I In UTIMIIII <U w in VMF I J 4 I T I I i»tliFMmy~. tin \*nl\fhn " İ
I 'tnlijl .InjiriJj.i Innnul Ifcii-A• VP|ut* .ml F.\tui*l Hi'Li'tut*
ixunn lit "ıh HE VElK-mv Qi İ C i- -..-Jipp U lit
rnk'nıı[»™i CI\SE-U' 1JI4L- RmifttL. IMJIIIUI £.V1I Sim-mWi
&ioL. na:K\ki). LTIEISSKN a:d\.i. iManhui. ~-m
WOUIRING.H.aM?
"CJinnk- . I . j i h l "" ..i - i ,4 -.. .1. ,.II-IM in G j|i|U(k vu'.
I lif \ii4i'itt
£ijJifrj/ Aml'/iif Itihnul I\m*ihtfm.nii JIHI
FMenvl JMnrh*i* Daring lite Hlı-r*lı MUkii'i* Cstl A C
ll-nıvılm^n! llv Ifii-TiUllnur CANi-U TJIIIL K-mikl. Mjnlml.
23-Zl \I>ILHIW.I jmi. F utKARİ). L TlllSSI^s lEık.J Njnkil.
3Ş0
YAKAR.}., 1991
JYi'/u'ifurU' Amttfj/kn Tin Nct&lhn Tr.mJfun.JfN <n .ml Tin
F-i'ly 0ntlt"lî\lın PfîiKl Mrın<^;ıi|ilı St-ıEo ni IİM- lıı^llıık1 nl
AKİtk-ı*ijfl-. SM.I TL-I-AVİ*1. 'M Avt' i1nin,<*i[>-.