Lecture

PROPOSAL FOR A REGIONAL TERMINOLOGY FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA

Mihriban ÖZBAŞARAN & Hijlke BUITENHUIS
Prehistory Department, Faculty of Letters, Istanbul University, 34459 Istanbul, TR. / Centrum voor Archeologische, Research and Consultancy, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Poststraat 6, 9712 ER Groningen, NL.
mozbasaran@tayproject.org / h.buitenhuis@arcbv.nl                   

Introduction

With the increase in the number of ongoing research projects, surveys and excavations in recent years in Central Anatolia, it has become obvious that the terminology used until now is inadequate. Until the results of the recent research became available, Central Anatolia lacked well-excavated and documented sites, which would show the place of Central Anatolia in the Neolithic developments both within the region as well as in relation to other areas, such as East Anatolia, Southeast Anatolia and North Syria, the Levant and West Anatolia.

Much of the terminology used so far is taken from these areas. But already in the 1980s, Cauvin (1988) pointed out that the use of terms like PPN (Pre-Pottery Neolithic) as defined in the Levant is not valid for the Anatolian area. He introduced the first regional related chronostratigraphical term, the Taurus-PPNB. Because at that time there were no well-known stratigraphical sequences in Central Anatolia, it was used to define this Neolithic stage in the Taurus region, but still the suggestion was inherent in this terminology that this stage was directly related to the Levantine Neolithic developments.

Recent research in Central Anatolia, especially in the Cappadocian area centred on Asikli Höyük and in western Central Anatolia centred around the new excavations at Çatalhöyük, has provided sequences with which it is possible to redefine the region. Although the traditional terminology of Neolithic, Chalcolithic, etc., is preferred by some, these terms are based on single or very general defined elements in the cultural context. Subdivisions such as PPNA, PPNB, etc., also (over)stress the importance of one element. These terms also originate from the period when knowledge of the developments of Neolithic cultures was still very incomplete, and they were used to describe the most notable element of change. It is the purpose of this contribution to propose a new terminology for the Central Anatolian Neolithic, and to define the subdivisions for the cultural developments in as many different fields as possible. It must be noted, however, that whatever system the Table Ronde adopts, future research may drastically change our understanding of these processes. It is also necessary to include relationships and/or cultural breaks with developments in the surrounding regions of the Near East, as no region is isolated from the others and cross-cultural exchange would have taken place.

The proposed terminology

This paper is the result of an internet-discussion of the CANeW group in 2001, in which Roger Matthews suggested a system which was adopted by a majority of the participants (Table 1). He classified the developments in Central Anatolia in five groups and called them Early Central Anatolian (ECA) I to V. A rough chronological scheme was attached to this grouping.

This periodisation can be adapted for a finer sequencing, and subdivided into ECA Ia, ECA Ib, etc.
The positive side of this divisional scheme is that the terms Neolithic and Chalcolithic are avoided. The period after 4000 cal BC, which is beyond the scope of this workshop, can be named LCA, i.e., Late Central Anatolian.

The negative side is that as it stands above, it is purely a chronological division and as all scholars know, the more analytical results become available the weaker boundaries like these become and often intermediate (in time) stages have to be fitted in. It is therefore necessary to define these chronological groups in other terms as well. It is imperative that all elements of cultures are included, such as architecture and spatial organisation of the living area, economic strategies, technological achievements and developments, symbolic and/or religious concepts and regional organisation and cooperation between the different ‘settlements’, etc.

It is clear that these definitions are very rough and need to be discussed in detail. So our approach is to try to define these stages in chronological order mainly in the light of present data obtained from the excavated sites, through the available elements/components of a culture, where a change in one of the components has had an effect on the others or in general.

Although we know of the existence of more than 30 Palaeolithic (scatter finds/single find spots are also included in this number), about 70 Neolithic and more than 175 Chalcolithic sites in total (Harmankaya et al. 1997), the excavated ones for the concerned period are few, namely Asikli, Musular, Kösk Höyük, Tepecik-Çiftlik, Güvercinkayasi and Kaletepe in the Cappadocian region, the latter being an obsidian workshop; Pinarbasi A and Çatalhöyük (East and West) in the Konya Plain; Suberde and Erbaba more to the west and the Canhasan mounds in the south.

The elements to be discussed are:

Type of the site related to its subsistence economy, whether it is a permanent site, sedentism being full/always or occasional

Regional organisation, the settlement patterns, larger and smaller sites; available exploitation areas and resources

Architectural developments; the settlement layout and patterns, domestic and non-domestic or special-purpose structures

Social structure of the community in relation to symbolism and burial customs

Material culture such as pottery, lithic technology and typology, as well as metallurgy, lime processing techniques, etc.

Due to our attempts to clarify and describe each phase we came to an adaptation of the periodisation suggested above. The proposed ECA I especially needs to be divided, as the beginning is very open ended and not fixed. We propose therefore the following terminology, to be discussed by the participants (Table 2).

EARLY CENTRAL ANATOLIAN I: ECA I

There are no data yet known from this period. The division is created partly because of the clear climatic break in the Younger Dryas when the conditions became warmer and more humid (pers. comm. Henk Woldring) and because in the next phase things have already reached stages which in other areas are preceded by certain developments, such as developing sedentism, round houses, broad-spectrum hunting and gathering. It might be that this stage does not occur in Central Anatolia, but the ongoing research at Pinarbasi A (oral communication during the Table Ronde) suggests a different stage of development prior to the beginnings of Asikli.

EARLY CENTRAL ANATOLIAN II: ECA II

The subsistence pattern in this period basically depends on hunting and gathering. While food production was practiced at this phase (as evidenced at Asikli, see Van Zeist and De Roller 1995), hunting and gathering or the management of wild resources seem to be the major sources of subsistence, a system which could be inherited from a preceding way of life.

At Asikli various species of wild plants – gathered either for food or for other purposes – were recovered. However, firm evidence for plant cultivation and domesticated crop plants such as einkorn, emmer wheat and barley, is also present (Van Zeist and De Roller 1995:181). There is also good evidence of cultivation of wheat, barley and lentils at Canhasan III. The full importance of plant cultivation in the economy of this site is, however, unknown (Payne 1972:193).

There is no good evidence of animal domestication in this phase, although both at Asikli and at Canhasan III (and maybe at Suberde as well, cf. Perkins and Daly 1968, 1973) age selection of animals, particular sheep and goat, was observed (Buitenhuis 1996). In both sites a high number of young animals was found, and the age range of more adult sheep and goat was very limited. This indicates a degree of control which goes further than ‘casual’ hunting. Micromorphological analysis of soil samples has shown that at least some herbivorous animals (sheep or goat?) were kept in open areas on the site (Matthews 1998). More than 20 different species of wild animals are observed at Asikli. Almost the same variety of animal species were documented for Suberde and Canhasan III. In the sites there is, however, a clear dependence on mainly sheep and goat.

Asikli and Suberde look similar in location type, lying on the banks of a river. Canhasan III and Çatalhöyük are located on alluvial fans being subject to flooding. Each is located in a landscape with rich wild resources and exploitation areas, in warm and humid climatic conditions (Esin 1999:13). Looking at these characteristics, we can assume sedentary occupation of a long duration. Each site mentioned above has substantial architecture with domestic structures, quadrangular in plan, with hearths and plastered floors. At Asikli, there are also buildings for specific functions and use. These can be separated from the houses by their size and layout, by the floor treatments (lime plaster and red paint) and by the inner architectural elements (e.g., channels). Burial practices consist of intramural inhumations, usually in pits under the floor of houses, sometimes wrapped in reed-mats (Esin and Harmankaya 1999).
When we look at the material culture of ECA II, obsidian is the main raw material for the lithic industry, especially in the Cappadocian region. Bipolar technology stands as a distinguishing technique for this phase. If the main aim is to get long, regular, parallel-sided blades to produce points, then this may confirm the importance of hunting in the economy of the people of ECA II.
Lime processing and copper manufacturing should be mentioned under the title of others, which may imply relations between different communities, as exchange of ideas and knowledge, or else an independent innovation emerging in Central Anatolia itself. Either way they indicate the existence of complex technologies in this phase.

EARLY CENTRAL ANATOLIAN III: ECA IIIA

ECA III shows clear developments from the earlier periods. These developments, however, do not occur at the same time in the type site of Çatalhöyük. Therefore it was decided to subdivide this period in ECA IIIA and ECA IIIB.

In ECA IIIA a different way of supplying food becomes clear, i.e., the production of food: agriculture. The choice of the location of the permanent settlements in this period should be related to available arable land. However, this contradicts with the case of Çatalhöyük, the key site for this phase, where the phytolith analyses showed that agriculture at Çatalhöyük took place some kilometres away from the site (pers. comm. Ian Hodder). Animals such as sheep and goat and perhaps cattle start to be domesticated. Cattle seems to have played a significant role, maybe not as a basic food supply but as a symbol in the expression of the beliefs of the people.

Musular represents a specific situation where cattle is by far the most important animal in number and meat production (Buitenhuis 2001a). It is potentially a site which can contribute to our understanding of the importance of the different aspects of cattle, even at the end of ECA II.

The material culture shows the introduction of pottery, which is a new way of manipulating clay, but in Çatal the clay pots are probably of secondary importance to wooden cups and baskets.

EARLY CENTRAL ANATOLIAN III: ECA IIIB

The changes observed in ECA IIIB are mostly due to material culture, especially in the pottery and lithic technology (Mellaart 1967:214). The way of living in general does not show distinct changes from the previous way of living. In Çatalhöyük, the change in the pottery production seems due to a change in the way of cooking or of food preparation. The question therefore is whether or not this implies a change in diet and/or a change in the management of agriculture.

Another change is an innovation in the lithic technology: the use of pressure flaking as the most important technique. It could either be an invention during the process of the development of the lithic technology, or a necessary change because of the pressure or consequence of a need. The problem to be discussed is: What does this change imply and how does/did this affect the tool kit and therefore the people? The chipped stone industry at Çatalhöyük, which reached its climax in Levels VII–V, shows a marked decline in the later levels (III and II) (Mellaart 1967:214).

EARLY CENTRAL ANATOLIAN IV: ECA IV

ECA IV is represented by Canhasan I (French 1998), Catalhöyük West, Kösk Höyük (Silistreli 1989, 1991) and Tepecik-Çiftlik (Biçakçi 2001). Due to the ongoing excavations at the latter three sites, few data are as yet known with which to define this phase. A general comment for this phase could be the existence of full farming sites in Central Anatolia, whereas the general characteristics of the phase indicate a part of the processual development (with ups and downs), already started in ECA III and ending around 5500 BC. The subsistence is based on full agriculture of plants and animals, although hunting and gathering still might have played a significant role (Buitenhuis 2001b).

The occurrence of pottery with well-developed plastic figures of animals and humans might indicate relations between humans and animals, that is, the importance of husbandry.

EARLY CENTRAL ANATOLIAN V: ECA V

The preliminary results of the excavations at Güvercinkayasi (Gülçur 1997; Gülçur and Endogru 2001) show that this phase precedes and anticipates a new system in Central Anatolia. The establishment of various settlements which are specialised in function emerges – in other words, settlements the main occupation of which is with animal products or on plant cultivation, hunting or metallurgy, etc.
Location of sites seems to be related to the type and function of settlement (pastoral landscape, trade routes, defensive position). They have their own territories.

Architectural layouts of the settlements and the specific craftsmanship as reflected in various finds indicate social stratification during this phase. Such a pattern signals the initial stage of the establishment of a new system which will reach its climax in the ‘Late Chalcolithic’, or the ‘Late Central Anatolian’ (LCA) stage.

Conclusion

It is not possible yet to define each stage of this proposal in detail through all the elements with the available data. At this stage of development it does not seem possible to take into consideration every change or innovation (technological/social/symbolic), mainly because of the early stage of research in Central Anatolia. Such a terminology system leaves us, however, with a framework in which new results can be placed and which can easily be adapted to include new developments.

Although all scholars are of course free to use any system in their work, the discussions before and during the Table Ronde have shown the need to use a clearly defined terminology. So we propose and recommend this new terminology for Central Anatolia to CANeW, with thanks to Roger Matthews as the initiator of this framework. In the future, each phase or subphase can be more fully described and defined, which will provide a less controversial nomenclature than is being used at present.

References

Biçakçi, E., 2001. Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyügü (Nigde) kazisi isiginda Orta Anadolu tarihöncesi kültürleri ile ilgili yeni bir degerlendirme. TÜBA-AR 4, 25–41
Buitenhuis, H., 2001a. Musular: the first results of the analysis of the faunal remains, a field report. Unpublished manuscript
Buitenhuis, H., 2001b. A first survey of the faunal remains from Tepecik-Çiftlik. Unpublished manuscript
Cauvin, J., 1988. La néolithisation de la Turquie du Sud-Est dans son contexte proche-oriental. Anatolica 15, 69–80
Esin, U., 1999. Some archaeological evidence from the Asikli excavations for climatic fluctuations in Central Anatolia during the early Holocene 10./9. mill. BP. 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., 1998. Canhasan sites 1: Canhasan I, stratigraphy and structures. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
Gülçur, S., 1997. Güvercinkayasi: eine vorgeschichtliche Felsrücksiedlung in Zentralanatolien. Anatolica 23, 85–110
Gülçur, S. and M. Endogru, 2001. Güvercinkayasi 1999 kazisi. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi 22(I), 47–62
Harmankaya, S., O. Tanindi and M. Özbasaran, 1997. Türkiye arkeolojik yerlesmeleri – TAY projesi 2. Neolitik. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari
Matthews, W., 1998. Çatalhöyük 1998 archive reports, sampling and micromorphology 1998–appendix 2. Online: http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/Archive_rep98/wmapp2.htm
Mellaart, J., 1967. Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson
Payne, S., 1972. Can Hasan III, the Anatolian Aceramic and the Greek Neolithic. In E. Higgs [ed.]. Papers in economic prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–194
Perkins, D. and P. Daly, 1968. A hunters’ village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219, 96–106
Perkins, D. and P. Daly, 1973. The beginning of animal domestication in the Near East. American Journal of Archeology 77, 278–282
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
Silistreli, U., 1991. 1989 Kösk Höyük kazilari. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi 12(I), 95–104
Zeist, W. van and G.-J. de Roller, 1999. Plant remains from Asikli Höyük, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Central Anatolia. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4, 179–185

__________________________

Go to the related debate (Panel : Roger Matthews, Mehmet Özdoğan, Laurens Thissen, Didier Binder)