THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA AKSARAYNIğDE REGION (original) (raw)

ABSTRACT – Cappadocia offered prehistoric societies a flourishing landscape rich in natural resources such as wild plants and animals, wood, salt, clay, obsidian, stone, a variety of minerals and even some copper. The latest archaeological excavations and surveys around the governorships of Aksaray and Ni􀀀de have enriched our knowledge about the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. The results of the excavations and C14 cal. dates from Kö􀀀k Höyük (Bor-Ni􀀀de), Tepecik Çiftlik (Çiftlik-Ni􀀀de), Gelveri- Yüksekkilise Güzelyurt-Aksaray) and Güvercinkayası (Güla􀀀aç-Aksaray) enable us to set up a reliable chronology from Late Neolithic to the Late Chalcolithic (LC) Period. The EC levels of Tepecik Çiftlik and Kö􀀀k Höyük form a cultural whole with their architectural layout, figural decorated pottery and other small finds. Gelveri-Yüksekkilise, known since the fifties for their spiral motif pottery, have close links to the Can Hasan I 2A/B at Karaman, and most likely dates to the late EC period. From EC to MC there is a change in settlement layouts involving a shifting of habitats to higher altitudes on naturally protected rock outcrops. The best examples of this phenomenon occur in Gelveri as a slope settlement, in Güvercinkayası on an outcrop on the right bank of the Melendiz River and even by Kö􀀀k Höyük, which is situated on a rocky plateau on the edge of the Bor Plain. The MC levels of Güvercinkayası I-III and Kö􀀀k Höyük I, also form a integral cultural whole with their basic architectural plans and as well as with their pottery groups and other finds. The MC settlement of Güvercinkayası (C14 cal. 5200-4750 B.C.) is divided by a fortification line into an upper and in a lower settlement. A similar phenomenon is to be seen at Mersin Yumuktepe XVI (Garstang 1953: Caneva points to a citadel tradition at Yumuktepe from level XVI on and tends to interpret the citadel as a specialized area for craft production and conservation, and metal production in particular. At Güvercinkayası, there is no evidence of metal production outside of a few finds. The main subsistence economy of the settlements, located in in two different habitats, is based on dry farming and animal husbandry. At Güvercinkayası, as at Yumuktepe, an alignment of attached houses use the inner face of the fortification as their back walls. Here two houses (H 13 and H 14) at the east end of the alignment are especially notable for their storage facilities for field crops and most probably pastoral products as well. At Güvercinkayası the importance of sheep and goat husbandry is reflected not only by rich finds of butchered animals, but also in the bone and antler industry, and as symbolic designs on pottery. Arbuckle emphasizes a “type B milk” and fiber production, and suggests that Güvercinkayası may have part of a more complex larger-scale system of sheep husbandry than existed previously in the region. The C14 cal. dates from the citadel of Güvercinkayası fit fairly well into the Yumuktepe XVI sequence. Consequently Anatolian Prehistory is confronted for the first time with the phenomenon of pre-urban settlements, which are divided into two zones before the arrival of Obeid influences