Abstract

SOME ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS OF THE CENTRAL ANATOLIAN NEOLITHIC

Güneş DURU
gduru@hotmail.com                                                                                   

In this paper, Central Anatolia is defined according to the actual geographical regions of Turkey. Within these limits, two different areas can be proposed on the basis of the architectural characteristics of the prehistoric settlements, to note: Western Cappadocia on the one hand and the Konya Region with the Beysehir-Sugla Lakes area on the other hand.

The criteria to be used for such a regional division will be the building material, the intra-site settlement pattern and the preferences for the landscape.

For Western Cappadocia, Asikli Höyük, being the earliest yet known site and also the type site of the region, is selected together with Musular, Yellibelen and Gedikbasi as the probable satellite-sites of Asikli. For the Konya Plain, Çatalhöyük and Canhasan will be discussed and compared with Suberde and Erbaba.

The aim of such a discussion is to define the similarities and the differences recognised in the two different regions and to try to look for the 'origins'.

The present data allows us to talk about the following points:

      - Due to the volcanic formation of Western Cappadocia, stone is the dominantly available building material in the area. However, at Asikli the use of kerpiç, even without any stone foundations, lasts for hundreds of years with a conservative attitude. Does this characteristic give us a hint at looking for the origins of the site in another region?

      - Given the architectural features at Asikli, it is possible to talk of strict traditions both in the building material used and in the intra-site settlement pattern lasting for at least some 500 years. The obsidian and bone industries and the burial customs confirm this idea. A change in the building material (the use of stone) and the emergence of satellite sites like Musular and Yellibelen take place during the latest building levels of Asikli, that is after the previously mentioned 500 years of settlement. What are the reasons causing such changes at Asikli?

      - Çatalhöyük, the key-site of the Konya Plain, also has kerpiç architecture that is typical for its landscape. Both building material and intra-site settlement pattern look similar to Asikli Höyük. However, the clear distinction in other cultural aspects of these two sites belonging to two different landscapes may be accepted as a chronological and processual development. Is it possible to consider a common origin for Asikli and Çatalhöyük, in time developing in different ways?

Thinking lastly of linear development; Palaeolithic sites in Central Anatolia suggest the presence of pre-Asikli sites in the region, - a local development therefore similar to the development known from Asikli. If this is the case, then we may either think of looking for the missing links in this chain, or think of the dominance of the cultures represented by Asikli and others over these local/regional cultures.

__________________________

Go to the related lecture