The Persistence of Social and Spatial Memory at Prehistoric Çadır Höyük (original) (raw)
Related papers
ISTANBULER MITTEILUNGEN, 2021
Boncuklu Tarla was discovered in 2008 during a survey in the catchment area of the Ilısu Dam for the hydroelectric power plant project in the region. Excavations were initiated at the site in 20122. It is located about 3 km to the south-west of the center of the Ilısu Dam, 2 km to the west of the Tigris River, and a few meters to the south of the Nevala Maherk creek (map 1). It is about 550m above the sea level, on the northern edge of a deep valley opening towards the Eastern Taurus range and the Cizre Plain. Volcanic and calcareous mountains and hills surround the site. Archaeological excavations were conducted at the site during 2012, 2017, 2019, and 2020, which have revealed a continuous stratigraphy from the Proto-Neolithic (Late Epipaleolithic Period) to the end of the Late PPNB Level 13: Late PPNB, Level 2: Middle PPNB, Level 3: Early PPNB, Level 4a–b: PPNA-PPNB transition, Levels 5a, 5b, and 6a: PPNA, Levels 6b and 7: Late Epipaleolithic / Proto-Neolithic (fig. 1, table 1)4. Within the long duration of occupation at Bon- cuklu Tarla, levels 4a–4b, 5a–5b, and 6b are dated to the PPNA Period5 while levels 6a and 7 are dated to the 11th millennium BCE, to the Proto-Neolithic (Late Epipaleolithic)6, corresponding with the Younger Dryas. In a regional context, excavations at the PPNA sites of Boncuklu Tarla, Çayönü7, Çemka Höyük8, Demirköy9, Gusir Höyük10, Hallan Çemi11, Hasankeyf Höyük12 and Körtik Tepe13 provided insights into the Neolithization process in the Upper Tigris Valley and the social organization in these early sedentary hunter-gatherer-fisher villages. Monumental communal structures from Göbekli Tepe14 in Şanlıurfa further contributed to our knowledge of the PPNA Period architecture in Southeastern Anatolia.
Proceedings 13th International Space Syntax Symposium, 2022
The urbanization of the Early Bronze Age of Anatolia involved the widespread emergence of a radial settlement layout characterized by agglutinated megarons facing a courtyard. Previous studies focused on the cultural and architectural typologies of these settlements over time, and their spatial distributions across Anatolia. Only a few, particularly on Seyitömer and Demircihöyük, aimed to address the relation of this settlement pattern with the social structures that altered during the EBA. This study aims to understand the role that buildings played in the manifestation of the social systems in the EBA of Bademağacı Höyük, in Burdur, Turkey.
Agency, Architecture, and Archaeology: Prehistoric Settlements in Central Anatolia
Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward, 2010
Th e inspirat ion for the subjects discussed in this chapter came from discoveries at my own site, (:adu-H oyiik, in centr al Anatoli a (see . Although not yet fully exp lored, initial exposure of an area on th e south side of the mound suggested that a fairly large and well-provisi oned Late Cha lcolitbic house (ca. 3600 BCE) burned down near th e end of the 4th millennium (Steadm an et al. 2007(Steadm an et al. , 2008. In tbe subsequent 'T ra nsitio nal Period ' (ca. 3100-3000 BCE) residents built a new house . It was not, how ever , built directly acop the previous Late Chako lichic house, on che same struct ural pattern , but rather was o riented on an angle turned 90 degrees (north/south as opposed to the previ ous east/west direction of th e Late Chalcolithic house) . l was intrigu ed by this pot entially significant shift in ho use orientatio n. I began to consider what factors might have occas ion ed the rebuilding of a house on a different ax is and soon r ealized that I was exa mining individu al motivatio ns. My rum ination s revolved around th e residents of a single house and decisions they, or even one memb er of the househol d, might have made th at resulted in an enrire ly reorie nt ed hom e. Within the context of gene ral continuit y in a sett lement's architectu ral ori entation, what wou ld make a hous e bui lder cons tru ct a house in a diffe rent ori entation fro m usual (whe ther that builder lived in the origin al house, or was a new builder -resid ent) ? Whil e the inhabit ants of the st ructures were the focus of my inquiri es, I also acknowledg ed th at such decisions musr have been made within th e co nte xt of soc ietal norms, or perhaps in spite of them. lt was, it seemed , an ideal to pic co exp lore within th e cont ext of agen cy and ident ity.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2021
In the beginning of the 8th millennium BCE, the people of Aşıklı Höyük dramatically changed how they constructed their buildings. People no longer constructed circular, semi-subterranean residential buildings and instead started to build above ground rectangular buildings. The long-term Aşıklı Höyük excavations help us understand the tempo and organization of this important evolutionary transition. This study advances discussion in three ways: 1) it provides a fine grained understanding of the diachronic shift in social and economic practices, 2) through broad horizontal excavation, this research provides new insights into the built environment, including the opportunity to understand the synchronic organization of residential and non-residential spaces, and 3) this study puts forth a detailed understanding of the evolutionary shift from circular-oval to rectangular architectural practices within a single residential setting. Collectively, the long-term research project at Aşıklı Höyük, with extensive horizontal excavations and detailed radiocarbon dating project, advances our understanding of the changing social and economic context of the transition from circular to rectangular residential buildings.
2015
B. Horejs – Ch. Schwall, New Light on a Nebulous Period – Western Anatolia in the 4th Millennium BC: Architecture and Settlement Structures as Cultural Patterns?, in: S. Hansen – P. Raczky – A. Anders – A. Reingruber (Hrsg.), Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millennium BCE, Archäologie in Eurasien 31 (Bonn 2015) 457–474. The Late Chalcolithic period in Western Anatolia and the Eastern Aegean islands can be described as poorly investigated. In recent decades, however, the number of excavated sites dating to the 5th and 4th millennia BC has increased. Based on new excavation results from Çukuriçi Höyük, a site on the central Anatolian Aegean coast, in context with previously published studies of other sites, this contribution aims to shed new light on the Late Chalcolithic period in Western Anatolia. Our approach focuses on architectural remains and settlement structures which may point to cultural patterns in this region. It can be demonstrated that different construction techniques of Late Chalcolithic buildings are observable as local patterns. Stone socles and probably walls built entirely of stone are recorded in addition to walls built of mud bricks, or wattle-and-daub constructions. For the superstructure of these socles, walls of mud brick or of simple wattle-and-daub construction are known. From the architectural structures excavated so far, we categorize four principle types of domestic buildings in 4th millennium BC Western Anatolia: rectangular buildings, apsidal/elliptic buildings, circular structures and stone row structures. Solid building techniques with storage facilities as a general pattern in the Late Chalcolithic seem to indicate permanent settlements as the main living strategy. The closed character of the settlements – attested by enclosures or the villages’ spatial organisation – reflects some complex social organisation, even if monumental buildings have thus far not been identified.
Re-evaluating the socio-economic role of small built environments at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 2018
The Neolithic settlement of Çatalhöyük (7100–5900 calBC) has long been recognised for its architecturally standardised mud brick houses, the large majority of which display a high degree of conformity in the arrangement of their internal spaces. While the evidence from small-sized buildings, those under approximately 9m² in size, is deemed important for our understanding of social systems at this site, these structures have been insufficiently studied in the past. Assumed to be economically dependent on larger houses, the possibility that these smaller buildings were individual households with greater autonomy has not yet been critically examined. This paper tackles the cultural role of these small-sized structures through the micromorphological study of the occupation sequences of two of these built environments. This detailed microscopic investigation of activities, intensity of occupation and renewal, and both macro- and micro-remains of environmental resources present in these building sequences has shed light on the socioeconomic status of these structures. Results demonstrate the diversity and flexibility of domestic practices and concepts of space at the site, with some small buildings being used for productive activities while others display a high degree of architectural elaboration and intensity of occupation. Consequently, this paper stresses the diversity in cultural and ecological household practices during the Neolithic occupation of this site.
The Land That Time Forgot: Five Millennia of Settlement at Çadıt Höyük
From Households to Empires, 1993
The archaeological search for the "true picture" of what life was like in villages, towns, and cities long ago and far away is fraught with the danger of misinterpretation and misrepresentation. This was certainly the case in the early years of archaeological exploration of the Ancient Near East when museum curators were starry-eyed over the arrival of statues and imperial luxury goods from excavations at places such as Nineveh,
Neolithic Houses and Households in Central Anatolia in multi-regional perspective
2013
I draw attention to the distinctive agglutinative or cellular house pattern observed at numerous prehistoric sites in Central Anatolia, and suggest that these are indicative of a suite of social relations that may have differed markedly from roughly contemporaneous village sites in southeastern Turkey and elsewhere in southwestern Asia. Looking at archaeological and architectural remains from major excavated sites such as Aşıklı Höyük, Çatalhöyük, and Canhasan, I argue that a strong local character that persists through a long period of time typifies these sites and many others in the region. This observed continuity underscores and supports views of in situ cultural development within the Anatolian interior. Rather than focusing simply on descriptions of house plan and floor area, integrative approaches explicitly working within a 'House Societies' model of social and settlement organization offer more insight into these unique cultural formations observed at early Holocene in Central Anatolia.
Paléorient, 2017
At Arslantepe towards the end of the 4 th millennium BC, after the destruction of the palatial complex of period VIA, the following period VIB1 witnesses the flimsy architectural remains of wattle and daub huts associated with a ceramic culture clearly recalling the contemporary Kura-Araxes traditions of Eastern Anatolia and of the Southern Caucasus. The combination of architectural and zooarchaeological data suggests that period VIB1 represented the occupation by one or more specialised pastoral communities. Recent excavations at Arslantepe have brought to light an imposing mud-brick building (Building 36) dating to period VIB1. Building 36 rested on top of a large courtyard and of a monumental hall dating to the period VIA of the palace complex, thus highlighting a strong sense of continuity in terms of monumental architecture between periods VIA and VIB1. It was destroyed by a violent fire, burying a huge amount of materials in situ (83 ceramic vessels, metals and stone tools). A detailed reconstruction of the material assemblages and a thorough analysis of the functions of the building will constitute the main focus of this paper. This will ultimately shed light on the functions and political significance of this special building in the VIB1 settlement in the frame of ceremonial feastings that may have represented the new strategies enacted by the new Kura-Araxes oriented elites that emerged in the Malatya region, following the collapse of the Uruk-related centralised system. Résumé : Vers la fin du 4 e millénaire av. J.-C., après la destruction du complexe palatial d'Arslantepe de la période VIA, on observe sur le site, dans la période qui suit (VIB1), les vestiges de huttes en torchis, associés à une culture céramique qui rappelle des traditions contemporaines du Kura-Araxe de l'Anatolie orientale et du Sud du Caucase. La combinaison des données architecturales et fauniques suggère que la période VIB1 d'Arslantepe pourrait être l'occupation d'une ou plusieurs communautés pastorales. Les fouilles récentes effectuées à Arslantepe ont mis au jour un grand bâtiment en brique crue (Bâtiment 36) datant de cette période. Ce bâtiment repose directement sur une grande cour et une salle monumentale du complexe palatial de la période VIA ; il souligne une continuité très soutenue dans l'architecture monumentale entre les deux périodes. Ce bâtiment fut détruit par un violent incendie qui a entraîné l'enfouissement d'une quantité considérable de mobilier in situ (83 vases en céramique, métaux et outils en pierre). Cet article met l'accent sur une reconstitution détaillée de tous les assemblages recueillis et sur une analyse de la fonction du bâtiment. Cette reconstitution a pour but de faire la lumière sur le rôle social et politique de ce bâtiment spécial dans le cadre de cérémonies et de repas collectifs qui ont pu représenter les stratégies politiques mises en place par les nouvelles élites influencées par le monde Kura-Araxe, élites qui « émergent » dans la région de Malatya à la suite de l'effondrement d'un système centralisé, dérivé du monde urukéen.