Lecture

SOME ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS OF THE CENTRAL ANATOLIAN NEOLITHIC

Günes DURU                                                                               
gduru@hotmail.com

Introduction

My aim in this paper will be to discuss some of the architectural aspects of the excavated sites in the Central Anatolian Neolithic and to try to find out points which will help to understand the characteristics of this period and which provide hints for the origins of Central Anatolian cultures.

Central Anatolia geographically is defined according to the actual geographical regions of Turkey. Within these limits two different regions can be proposed due to the architectural characteristics of the present prehistoric settlements: Western Cappadocia on the one hand and the Konya region with the Beysehir–Sugla region as its sub division on the other. The criteria in this paper will mainly be the building material and the landscape and the intra-site settlement pattern.

Western Cappadocia
The specific geological formation of the Cappadocian region today constitutes local regions that are defined due to their specific architectural characteristics in building material and in building system. The tufa formation with its easily worked character, with additions or modifications when needed, shaped the layout of the structures. Numerous volcanic formations underlay such a traditional architecture for the region.

Also in ancient times the main factor that determined the type of settlements was the volcanic formations. Today one can differentiate settlements that lie either directly on the bedrock of such a formation, on the slope of a volcanic valley, or directly on a volcanic cone (Duru 2000). Therefore so-called ‘Cappadocian traditional architecture’ can be summarised in general as an adaptation to the environment, the geological formation. The majority of the settlements are related to this volcanic bedrock and the building material of various volcanic rocks originates from such a formation.

Map of Central Anatolia. Rectangles indicate archaeological sites with mud brick architecture;
triangles represent sites with stone architecture.

When we look at the same region in prehistoric times, Asikli Höyük stands out as the earliest yet known site in West Cappadocia. It lies on the shore of the Melendiz River. This western part of Cappadocia has been formed by tufa cones, granite, andesite rock-hills due to volcanic activities (Esin 1998). The interesting situation, however, is that the main building material at Asikli is kerpiç (mud brick). Moreover, during the minimum 500 years of habitation at Asikli there seems to be a very strict understanding and tradition in the building material where continuities can be traced in intra-site settlement patterns. Such a behaviour – a conservative understanding – can be traced also in the lithic and bone industries as well as in burial customs. At Asikli the buildings are constructed on top of each other (Esin 1996), while there is no significant change in the use of space. It seems that the people of Asikli did not give up their traditions and their ‘houses’ for hundreds of years. The intramural burial tradition may also be accepted as an indication of this conservative, fixed way of thinking, that is firmly related or connected to ancestors.

The kerpiç material, used without change for hundreds of years, starts only to be replaced with another material, limestone, at the latest phases of the settlement. The structures built with stone, or where stone started to be used as a new building material, are in special locations within the settlement. Although their functions are not clearly known, they are somehow different and are separated from the residential area (Esin and Harmankaya 1999:124–125). On the other hand, stone appears suddenly as a new element and stone masons as specialists in the latest phases of Asikli. The use of stone in specific locations within the settlement provides some hints: it is used in an area separated from the dwellings; where public buildings are located; where a retaining wall was built, or where a surrounding wall is located at the very east end of the site. Such specific locations of the use of stone urge us to think of a relation between stone and such structures. In this case the questions to be asked will be: the search for permanence or a need or obligation that led the people to use stone.

As far as we know, there were no fundamental or drastic changes in climatic conditions, although we do know of the existence of floods at Asikli, as is indicated by cultural deposits and layers with substantial structures sealed under an alluvial deposit (Esin 1999:13). Some evidence of disturbed walls (during the latest phases) also indicates such a flooding and/or erosion some time during the latest building phases of the Public Building (Building T) with its red plastered floor. If this is the case then it is possible that the Asikli people have preferred stone as a resistant building material, and continued renewing the kerpiç houses in their traditional way.
At this stage we have to look at the close environment, at the settlement pattern in the region where three more sites of the Aceramic Neolithic, namely Musular, Yellibelen and Gedikbasi are located (Özbasaran 2000:129). Such sites seem to emerge more or less at the same time, during the latest phase of Asikli, after 500 years of habitation, as satellites. Although it is only Musular which has started to be excavated, in order to understand the relation between these sites and Asikli and their functions, the other two also ideally need to be excavated. Musular lies on the bedrock, on a tufa formation (Özbasaran 1999). Such a choice for such a different base seems to have happened after the partial destruction observed at the southwest part of Asikli Höyük. In other words, at present, what we have as evidence for such a change in the location is the flood observed at Asikli when people started to use stone next to kerpiç. The main building material at Musular is stone. Some of the structures exposed so far show similarities to the non-domestic buildings of Asikli. The red plastered floors are also seen at Musular with the same lime technology (Ünsal 2000). The stone building technique at Musular is more sophisticated. The bedrock provides a firm base for the structures; it is sometimes cut to obtain channels for drainage, sometimes it is cut as a wall and covered by upright slabs of stone as a pseudo-stone wall (Özbasaran et al., in press). A similar technique can be traced at Asikli in its eastern sector where such structures with unknown functions are located.
What is important in the Musular case is that the excavations have shown that it is not adequate to understand the complex structure of a Neolithic site by investigating the intrasite settlement pattern of a single site alone. In other words, understanding this pattern, Asikli and three more sites around, possibly with different functions, may help us to explain the dynamics that are not yet solved. However, the existence of such satellites shows that Asikli has to be interpreted together with its close environment as a whole. So, one can think for West Cappadocia, especially in the Asikli case, that the people had such a strong tradition – most probably emerging from a specific region or an origin – that this hindered them in adapting to their environment when they came to settle and that made them insist on their fixed concepts. It seems that these people – in order to exist in a new environment, having their own experiences and perceptions inherited from their ancestors – resisted or opposed the new landscape, the new material. It is possible that they combined these traits with local traditions and manipulated the new style that comes to the fore in later times at sites such as Tepecik, Kösk Höyük and Güvercinkayasi (Biçakçi 2001; Silistreli 1989; Gülçur 1997).

The Konya Plain

The other area is the Konya Plain, where Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1967) stands as the key site. It lies on the alluvial fan of the Konya Plain near the Çarsamba River. The building material at Çatal is kerpiç, which is common for the whole region. For thousands of years neither the building material nor the size of the buildings changed. The layout of the buildings looks similar to Asikli, being close to each other; there are also not many passages or streets or open spaces left between the buildings. The entrance to these buildings also looks similar to Asikli. The tradition of building a house on top of the old one continues at Çatal (Hodder 1996:43–48).

Canhasan III is another important site of the same region (French 1972). It lies in the Karaman Plain on the alluvial fan of the Selereki river The building material is kerpiç. Besides kerpiç, the pisé technique is also reported. It is difficult to comment on the development of the building material as well as on the intrasite settlement pattern, but the pattern recognised in the exposed areas shows similarities with Asikli and Çatalhöyük, being closer to Çatal.

The Lakes Region

The Lakes Region of Beysehir and Sugla has a somewhat different topography. Located west of the Konya Plain it is separated from the plain by a range of low mountains. Suberde (Bordaz 1969) lies near the Sugla Lake and it has been reported that it became an island from time to time with the rise in the level of the lake. The building material is kerpiç, but stone foundations are also used in some of the buildings.

Another site where stone was used is Erbaba (Bordaz and Bordaz 1982) lying close to Beysehir. Here, some of the stone walls are even preserved up to one meter in height. To comment on the intrasite settlement pattern of these two sites is difficult due to the limited excavated areas.

Conclusion

Ian Hodder already stated: ‘As families grow new houses are built using earlier walls. The concern is to stay close to the ancestors and the household gods with which they are associated’ (Hodder 1996:48). I personally join in this statement for Çatal, and Asikli as well, thinking that the existence of a strong social or perhaps a religious link to the ‘old’ has firm effects on the reflection of these factors in the intrasite settlement pattern. The principle should be: to keep it the same, to preserve the old. The same concept (keeping the traditions or being conservative) may also explain the compact pattern, the dense, tight layout of the buildings. The enlargement of the sites in an organised way seems to be directly related with the same belief of belonging to the past; in this case in the horizontal plane.

It is obvious how late Asikli people started to use the natural building material of their environment. To oppose using stone as a building material can be attributed to the tradition of the region where they came from. To make such a generalisation, depending only on the building material, of course cannot be accepted; however what I would like to emphasise is that the use of a building material, like the pattern, may have other indications such as the beliefs/ideas of the people in addition to ecological conditions or chronological developments.

So the question of ‘Where did they come from’ rises, which is the main question of this paper. If we look at the building material the possible answers at present will be: somewhere from the region itself, that is the Konya Plain, or the Lakes Region (Burdur); or else from farther away, such as Southeast Anatolia or the East Mediterranean.

For the Konya Plain we can mention a long lasting kerpiç tradition, persisting up to the present. Such a long living tradition lasts for thousands of years without a significant change. The use of stone in the Sugla–Beysehir area can in this case be accepted as evolutionary. West Cappadocia on the other hand does not have any site earlier than Asikli at present. Although Palaeolithic sites are known in this region (Harmankaya and Tanindi 1996), we do not know the details. Therefore, to comment on the origins of Asikli is difficult and will be speculative. The obsidian workshop of Kaletepe, having earlier dates than Asikli, does not comprise any architectural features (pers. comm. by N. Balkan-Atli and D. Binder). Sites such as Tepecik, Kösk Höyük and Güvercinkayasi with stone architecture are chronologically later than Asikli.

In Southeast Anatolia it is known that mud was used from the beginning of sedentary settlements, although stone is the determinant and the basic element for building activities. It is clear that it is not possible to conclude with a single parameter, and we have to consider the site pattern together with the building material. In my opinion, the pattern is not just a planning of the landscape or a division of the landscape, but it is the reflection of the social structure of a community. The excavations in Southeast Anatolia have shown a completely different pattern when compared to Central Anatolia. The plans of the buildings, the intrasite settlement pattern, the use of space are all distinctive and dissimilar. After all, the pattern in Central Anatolia indicates a clear ‘similarity’ between sites.
What I want to underline in this paper is: does this similarity imply a common origin for these sites? Çatalhöyük and Asikli, being the two key sites to answer this question, give hints from the architectural point of view for a common origin which is unknown at present but can be searched for within the region by future research. Actually Douglas Baird’s surveys have already provided hints for late Pleistocene/early Holocene sites.

If the origin is to be searched for outside the region, another possibility will be the Eastern Mediterranean with its kerpiç tradition. However, in order to test this relation, we have to look to other aspects of these cultures, for example their beliefs and symbolism, which seem different as evidenced from the finds of Jericho and Ain Ghazal (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999:67–69).

References

Aurenche, O. and S. K. Kozlowski, 1999. La naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient. Paris: Éditions Errance
Biçakçi, E., 2001. Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyügü (Nigde) kazisi isiginda Orta Anadolu tarihöncesi kültürleri ile ilgili yeni bir degerlendirme. TÜBA-AR 4, 25–41
Bordaz, J., 1969. The Suberde excavations, Southwestern Turkey, an interim report. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 17, 43–71
Bordaz, J. and L. Bordaz, 1982. Erbaba: the 1977 and 1978 seasons in perspective. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26, 85–93
Duru, G., 2000. Günümüz Köy mimarisinin arkeolojik yerlesmelerin yorumlanmasindaki katkilari. Istanbul University Research Fund ÖR/60 – unpublished report
Esin, U., 1996. Asikli, ten thousand years ago: a habitation model from Central Anatolia. In Y. Sey [ed.]. Tarihten günümüze Anadolu’da konut ve yerlesme/Housing and settlement in Anatolia: a historical perspective. Habitat II, Istanbul 1996. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari, 31–42
Esin, U., 1998. Hunted animals at Asikli and the environment. In P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem and W. Meid [eds.]. Man and the animal world: studies in archaeozoology, archaeology, anthropology and palaeolinguistics – in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 215–226
Esin, U., 1999. Some archaeological evidence from the Asikli excavation for climatic fluctuations in Central Anatolia during the early Holocene 10/9. mill. B.P. Anadolu Arastirmalari 15, 1–26
Esin, U. and S. Harmankaya, 1999. Asikli. In M. Özdogan and N. Basgelen [eds.]. The Neolithic in Turkey, the cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, 193–202
French, D., 1972. Excavations at Can Hasan III. In E. Higgs [ed.]. Papers in economic prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181–190
Gülçur, S., 1997. Güvercinkayasi: eine vorgeschichtliche Felsrücksiedlung in Zentralanatolien. Anatolica 23, 85–110
Harmankaya, S. and O. Tanindi, 1996. Türkiye arkeolojik yerlesmeleri – TAY. Vol. I: Paleolitik/Epipaleolitik. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari
Hodder, I., 1996. Çatal Höyük: 9000 year old housing and settlement in Central Anatolia. In Y. Sey [ed.]. Tarihten günümüze Anadolu’da konut ve yerlesme/Housing and settlement in Anatolia: a historical perspective. Habitat II, Istanbul 1996. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari, 43–48
Mellaart, J., 1967. Çatal Höyük: a Neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson
Özbasaran, M., 2000. The Neolithic site of Musular, Central Anatolia. Anatolica 26, 129–151
Özbasaran, M., G. Duru, N. Kayacan and M. Endogru, in press. Musular 2000 yili kazisi. 23. uluslararasi kazi, arastirma ve arkeometri sempozyumu
Silistreli, U., 1989. Les fouilles de Kösk Höyük. In K. Emre, M. Mellink, B. Hrouda and N. Özgüç [eds.]. Tahsin Özgüç’e armagan. Anatolia and the Near East. Studies in honour of Tahsin Özgüç. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 461–463
Yalçin, Ü., A. Hauptmann and U. Esin, 2000. Asikli Höyük’te ilk ‘pyroteknoloji‘. Paper presented during the 22. Uluslararasi Kazi, Arastirma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu, 22–26 May 2000, Izmir

__________________________

Go to the related debate (Panel : Mihriban Özbaşaran, Frédéric Gérard, Bleda Düring)