e-discussion (January-May 2001)
General introduction
We present here syntheses of the discussions held by the CANeW e-workshop on three major 'problems' concerning Central Anatolia during the 9th-6th mill. cal BC, to note 1. issues on terminology; 2. on origins, and 3. on homogeneity versus diversity. Despite a disappointing level of overall participation, CANeW was able to reach several of the aims envisaged at the beginning. Next to pointing out to the geo-archaeological maps with site distributions per period, to the sites databases, the 14C databases, and the chronological charts, the e-debates were particularly fruitful in assessing issues on the terminology to be used (and along which the distribution maps were structured). Interesting discussions went on also on the topics concerning the origins of the Central Anatolian neolithic, as well as on aspects of the homogeneity and diversity of the region during the timeframe involved. Unfortunately, a major aim of the e-group to discuss - in smaller subgroups - the relations of Central Anatolia with adjoining regions was not reached, although in particular the links of CA with the South-East played a key role in the debate on origins. It is our intention to have the degree of contact between CA and south-east, north-west and Aegean Anatolia debated in the Table Ronde itself.
__________________________
Problem 1: TERMINOLOGY
With the accumulating data coming forth from the work carried out all over Turkey, a more precise labelling of periods is warranted. The CANeW timeframe of the 9th-6th mill. cal BC spans the Early Neolithic down until the Middle Chalcolithic periods. The timeframe includes major shifts on the cultural and socio-economic levels, and sees the spread of farming all over Asia Minor. Limiting us to Central Anatolia, it was proposed to concentrate the debate on the validity of the traditional labels for this region and to seek for a concise definition of each term. Basing ourselves on the major Central Anatolian sequences (those of Asikli Höyük, Çatalhöyük East and Canhasan I), it was further suggested to focus on change and continuity in order to come to grips with the distinguishing features of each period. The debate was structured around five sub-issues (I-V), of which the last one, dealing with the Early and Middle Chalcolithic as terms, failed to be discussed. Follows the synthesis of the debate:
Synthesis of CANeW problem 1 - Terminology debate (Jan.-Feb. 2001) (compiled by Hijlke Buitenhuis)
In general, we can conclude a surprising unanimity about the problems of Terminology. All speakers have expressed the opinion that we must not pin the definitions about periods and divisions down to single elements, but that the whole of the cultural developments should be taken into consideration. However, many have also expressed the opinion that we have to be very careful because there is still a lot of data missing.Quite a lot of the discussion on problem 1 is actually valid for all the problems. This is not surprising as a valid separation of periods or cultures need correct definitions of terms. As Nur in one of her contributions writes: --- I really do not think that we should agree for a definite terminology, but keep in mind to re-examine the proposals after the discussion of the next problems. This is of course the whole purpose of the discussion and workshop, but we do need a starting point and a frame of reference to work with.
sub-issue I - LABELS AND DEFINITIONS
Roger: I am unhappy with the existing separation of different prehistoric cultures: the first main difference is Palaeolithic versus Neolithic, but let's be flexible about definitions.
Laurens: let us start with the traditional labels: ACN - Aceramic Neolithic - ?? 9th mill. cal BC - end 8th mill. cal BC EPN - Early Pottery Neolithic end 8th mill. cal BC - 6700/6600 cal BC LN - Late Neolithic - 6700/6600 cal BC - 600 cal BC ECh - Early Chalcolithic - 6000 - 550 cal BC MCh - Middle Chalcolithic - 5500 cal BC - ?
Roger: Aceramic Neolithic might better be called Aceramic Early Neolithic (ACN = AEN)
Laurens: Aceramic and Early are double, proposes ACN
Roger: says (with others in general) that the discussion should be as wide as possible, not focussed on single elements. He proposes the following labelling:
PCA - Pleistocene Central Anatolia
ECA - Early (Holocene) Central Anatolia subdivided:
ECA I - end Pleistocene (?) - late 8th mill. cal BC (=ACN, AEN)
ECA II late 8th mill cal BC - c. 6700 cal BC (=EPN)
ECA III 6700 - 6000 cal BC (Laurens LN)
ECA IV 6000 - 5500 cal BC (ECh)
ECA V - 5500 cal BC and later (MCh)
These can than be subdivide again. (Problem is to redefine Central Anatolia !)
Laurens: He agrees basically with Roger, but wants more defined definitions of these labels. (this is a recurring problem in this discussion which has not been resolved, see end of this paper) He also points to the missing MCA = Middle CA (Nur refers to this 'anomaly' also)
Mihriban: disagrees with Roger, as his scheme not being flexible enough She proposes:
CA 9 - Central Anatolian 9th mill. cal BC
CA 8 - Central Anatolian 8th mill. cal BC
CA 7 - Central Anatolian 7th mill. cal BC etc.
These can be subdivided in Early, Middle or Late or in CA 9.1 etc. Her argument is that this is more flexible, easy to read and gives a direct idea about the period. (A contra-argument can be that it is too strongly chronologically fixed, without cultural affinities).
Laurens: warns about using 14C chart for direct cultural interpretations. He says that the definitions of the labels should be purely cultural parameters. He accepts Rogers proposal, but not his possible MCA. He sees Mihriban's proposal as less helpful as it is more a transferring of the problem to another label. Roger's proposal is more flexible as it is not specific to one characteristic (pottery or 14C or such).
Roger: he agrees with Laurens about Mihriban's proposal. He definitely rejects MCA either as Middle Central Anatolian or Mesolithic Anatolian (Laurens). He asks for the point where LCA (Late Central Anatolian) starts.
Isabella: has an aversion for the terms aceramic and pre- and pottery, but still sees them as valid. She also points to local developments as significant in larger terms. She sees the term Neolithic as defining too long a period with one word. Also, she points to an ambiguity of parameters used: pre - versus pottery, wild versus domestic and collecting versus cultivating. None of these are rigorous. She supports Mihriban's CA + millennium proposal.
Nur: is unhappy with fixing the terminology now, but accepts Mihriban's proposal as neutral and asks for later reconsiderations.
sub-issue II - ACERAMIC versus EARLY NEOLITHIC
Roger: prefers the term EN (Early Neolithic) to Aceramic or Prepottery. This is because the absence of pottery is not proof, and the presence may be marginal (cf. Mehmet). In contrast to his proposal in Problem I he suggests Post-Pleistocene versus Early Holocene and Early Neolithic as a subdivision dating to 7750 - 6500 cal BC.
Mihriban: prefers the traditional terms, Neolithic (PPN, EN, LN) - Chalcolithic She sees the change for EN to LN as a change in pottery use and therefore type (see Laurens Problem III). She also mentions this in relation with the problem of indigenous developed pottery versus introduced, which is an element in this period.
Nur: does not like the terms Aceramic or Prepottery. She prefers EN. She also likes ECA (Roger's), but does not like PCA for Palaeolithic CA. She also dismisses the Aceramic phase of Hacilar as lacking evidence. In her optics, and knowledge, she points to developments in the lithic industries as probably important in defining early CA cultures as this is clearly a long established technological knowledge everywhere, and change must be related to the whole community.
sub-issue III - EARLY versus LATE NEOLITHIC
Laurens: pinpoints the transition in the Çatal sequence to the Levels >XII-IX/VIII, as having coarse, thick-walled, vegetable tempered ware, probably NOT used for cooking, to wares from Çatal Levels VII/VI onwards that are used for cooking and are therefore radically different in form and technology.
Roger: agrees with Laurens that the shift in pottery in Çatal is real and valid. He therefore fixes the EN/LN transition chronologically at 6500 cal BC. He points also to the upper layers of Suberde as having this coarse ware, and that in the Asikli region the pattern may have been different from the Plateau area as possibly shown in Musular.
Mihriban: warns against using Musular in this context as no dates are known and the material needs to be further studied. She does agree with Laurens and Roger that the pottery change in Çatal is valid for periodisation
Frederic: agrees with Mihriban. He argues that the emergence of pottery as such is not the importance, but is use (as cooking tools), Therefore using the presence of pottery to separate ECA I from ECA II is not valid, but the cooking pots are valid to separate ECA II from ECA III
Nur: mentions the Middle Neolithic again, She also points to local developments for example in lithics, which may be important.
sub-issue IV - LATE NEOLITHIC versus EARLY CHALCOLITHIC
Roger: defines the ECh as an undefined but rich period, with a dense network around larger sites. The definition of the period should be in terms of settlement patterns and material culture. He also draws our attention to the question of climate (and environment)
Mihriban: disagrees with Hijlke who sees the ECh mainly as a consolidating of farming cultures. She agrees with Roger that settlement patterns should be a factor in the definition of the ECh.
Hijlke: He agrees but points out that the subsistence base in this period did not change, but because of its long-time development might have resulted in important sociocultural changes leading to different settlement patterns.
Frederic: points also to the changing settlement patterns, in which large sites are being replaced by more and smaller farming sites. He sees the LN-ECh shift as a major cultural shift He also points to Rogers scheme in which ECA IV and V should be considered MCA I and II (Middle Central Anatolia)
Final comments (by Hijlke Buitenhuis):
I think that we are each aware of the fact that the amount of data, especially of different sites in different periods, is still scarce. Also, the general agreement is that we should not be fixed on the traditional Aceramic/Prepottery/Pottery divisions. Both Roger and Mihriban have proposed different labelling schemes. Mihriban's has the advantage in that the labelling is independent of cultural definitions, which Roger's scheme does exhibit. However, Roger's scheme is more versatile as it is less restricted in its definitions and can take into account different development stages in the same period.Roger's scheme, however, lacks definitions. All contributors have warned to be flexible about this, but at a certain stage we must define these periods, if only to define the differences. Most probably this is part of the following discussions, and as such Nur's suggestion is very right in that this needs a follow-up after the discussions of the other subjects. As already indicated by the webmasters Frederic and Laurens, this is planned for the month of May. As such it will be helpful if during the coming debates we try to fit our discussions and results in above schemes to see if they fit and where adaptations are needed. It will also show very clearly where we have a lack of evidence, and where future research must be focussed.
__________________________
Problem 2: ORIGINS
A multivocal proposal to debate the origins of the Central Anatolian neolithic, boiling down to questions on local evolution, the impact of the obsidian 'trade', and the possible roots in south-east Anatolia, resulted in an at points highly stimulating debate, as is hopefully visible from the following synthesis:
Synthesis of CANeW problem 2 - Origins debate (Feb.-March 2001) (compiled by Laurens Thissen)
There was definite reluctance to debate the problem of Central Anatolian origins. Main drawback was evidently the very poor state of knowledge concerning the earlier occupation of the region, as expressed by several contributors (Mehmet, Roger, Laurens, Nur and Mihriban): basal Asikli is hardly known, virgin soil is not reached there; the (lithic) material of the as yet earliest site, Pinarbasi A, has not yet been published. So what went on before? Nur notes "the important existence of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic [in CA]." The absence thus far of Upper and Epipalaeolithic sites in CA she attributes to deficient survey strategies, simultaneously acknowledging the presence of CA obsidian on some Natufian (i.e. Epipalaeolithic) sites in the Levant (for example, Lavan 109 and Beidha). (A play of possible links of basal Pinarbasi A with the Natufian cannot be overlooked in Watkins' 1996 report, nor in the relevant Web pages (http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/pinarbasi/lithics.htm). Epipalaeolithic occupation has been attested through survey on at least two locations in the Konya Plain by Douglas Baird (Baird in Anatolian Archaeology 3 [1997]). All these data are glimpses of a CA past stretching way back beyond Asikli and Çatal. If seeking for CA origins, they cannot be dismissed. And the contributions to CANeW tackling the origin-question unequivocally, seem to favour an indigenous trajectory (Mehmet, Mihriban, Laurens, Nur).
Some contributions contemplated the possibility of seeking CA origins in SE Anatolia. A most important disclaimer here was Nur's remark "that the blade production of Asikli has no parallels with SE or Levant." Also important was her observation that despite intense distribution of CA obsidian to the SE and Levant, the specific lithic technology used in the south and southeast, and attested at the Kaletepe workshop, has not been noticed among the CA lithic industries. Linked to this is Nur's statement that Asikli cannot be shown to have played a definite role in obsidian distribution or exchange. Central Anatolian obsidian is thus widely procured and worked for sites in the SE and in the Levant from at least the Epipalaeolithic period down till PPNB times. Simultaneously, the large CA settlements (Asikli and Çatal) did not take part in this system, and, in fact, they fetched their own material with their own techniques, but from the same workshops! (cf. also Balkan-Atli et al.1999:139 - Neolithic in Turkey volume).
The link of CA with SE Anatolia has been pursued along the 'public buildings' HV and T of Asikli Phases 2C-A (Laurens, Roger, Mihriban). Sharing some elements with the 'sanctuaries' at Göbeklitepe, Nevali Çori and Çayönü (square groundplan, benches, central posts, concrete plaster floors), the differences are clear as well: absence of 'art', not dug-in, only partially built of stone. Different seems also the function of the Asikli buildings: stress is on 'publicity', access and openness (although Roger was sceptical here, pointing out that the openness of the Asikli buildings HV-T was perhaps only 'metaphorical'). A ritual/religious purpose seems not to be at play in Asikli, although Nur points out that the few (lithic) finds retrieved from HV-T differed qualitatively from other Asikli contexts. However, building upon the 'public' aspect of the Asikli buildings, and following a plea by Perrot to consider the SE Anatolian sanctuaries rather as places for congregation, for rites of initiation, it was ventured to view the Asikli buildings as such as well. It was suggested that shared attitudes on the social level (linked to specific buildings within settlements used for specific rites) might have connected CA and SE Anatolia at least during the Aceramic Neolithic (CANeW's ECA I) (Laurens). The chronological distance between the SE buildings and those at Asikli might be partially redressed by claiming that the Asikli buildings are most probably reduplications of older structures on the same spot (Laurens, Roger). A 'public' character of the Asikli buildings is confirmed by the presence of a large oven/hearth in one of the adjacent rooms, which, incidentally, must be considered as integral parts of HV and T (Mihriban, Günes Duru).
__________________________
Problem 3: HOMOGENEITY versus DIVERSITY
It was proposed to discuss three sub-issues: I. was Central Anatolia a culturally homogeneous entity during the 9th-6th mill. cal BC?; II. the degree of diversity, notable between the western part of the region (Çatal) and the eastern part (Asikli); and III. aspects of isolation: is CA a culturally isolated, self-contained region during the period of study, and if so, how to match this with the long-distance distribution of its obsidian. The first two issues in particular happened to be addressed, as may be glanced from the following synthesis of the debates:
Synthesis of CANeW problem 3 - Homogeneity vs. Diversity debate (April 2001) (compiled by Roger Matthews)
Here is a brief synthesis of the brief discussion that took place during April on the general topic of homogeneity vs. diversity.
1. The month got off to a good start with the issue of the CANeW Archaeological Sites Database in concert with the CANeW geo-archaeological maps along with Catherine's very useful notes.
2. Although the general topic of homogeneity vs. diversity was divided into 3 sub-headings, in fact the discussion ranged over several related areas at any one time. There was a disappointing lack of communication from most of the group.
3. Laurens emphasised the diversity between Çatal/Konya and Asikli/Cappadocia, pointing to possible absence of ECA II sites in the latter region. Why the fluctuating interest in obsidian? What caused these shifting patterns of settlement and exploitation? Are they real patterns? The questions hung in space like a wealthy tourist.
4. Frederic suggested the possibility of 2 waves of migrants from the Levant into CA, one through Cappadocia in mid-9th mill. cal BC, the other through Göksu valley a millennium later, and pointed to points of comparison in architecture and subsistence means. In response, Laurens stressed the evidence for local evolution of the Çatal community, based on plant-use and other deep-rooted local adaptations.
5. Roger mused on the nature of complexity at Çatal, including the evidence for rigid principles in the lay-out of buildings and in the art/symbolism. He pointed to the archaising tendencies of the hunting scenes and wondered how the symbolic life of Çatal might compare to Cappadocian evidence. Laurens wondered about the inspiration of landscape at Asikli and also saw the need for strict codes of social conduct there. Roger wondered about the role of hunting, ironically, as a social force in the Neolithic transformation. Frederic discussed the subsistence evidence from Çatal and Asikli and how it might relate to socio-cultural systems. He stressed the fact the Asikli and Çatal still relate to the world of hunting-gathering in many ways. Laurens reminded us how blurred is the distinction between hunting and farming, concluding with the suggestion that the depiction of cattle on pottery at Kösk in effect typifies the full domestication of that species by the Early Chalcolithic.
6. Laurens also raised the matter of people of mixed origin at Çatal, and Roger commented on the 2 types of people depicted in Çatal paintings (black and red) and in the skeletal evidence, ending with the crazy notion of Neanderthal survival at Çatal - even this bait failed to tempt some wild animals out of their cages...