Lecture                                                                                                   

DEFINING THE NEOLITHIC OF CENTRAL ANATOLIA                                     

Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN
Prehistory Department, Faculty of Letters, Istanbul University, 34459 Istanbul, TR.
mozdo@atlas.net.tr

For the last two days we have been hearing a lot about not only Central Anatolia, but the East and West and with all the details, so I will try not to take much more of your time, but I will try to make a general conspectus of how I see, or what characterises, Central Anatolia. In an area where we know so little and in an incipient stage of knowledge – and it’s true that during the last ten years new data are being poured in, but still we are at the beginning of knowledge – to really understand what Central Anatolia is, we have to start by comparing it with an area which we know better, and that is of course Southeast Anatolia – not Southeast Anatolia only, but also the Levant and what we can describe as the Neolithic core region of the Near East.

Central Anatolia has its own evidence that is different, but to define what is different, we have to look at what we know, or what we can define better. In making such generalisations, it is evident that the general comments or generalisations will not fit to every detail – I am perfectly aware of that.

First of all, when we look at the East, it is a vast geographical area. When we consider the Southeast or the Near East, it is an enormous area ranging from the Zagros to the Taurus Mountains, or even to the north of the Taurus, to the Malatya-Elazig region; and in the south it goes all the way to the Sinai, so it is as big as a continent. Central Anatolia, no matter where we draw the boundaries, is a limited zone compared to what we know, what we have from the East.

And the second thing: the eastern Neolithic is geographically varied, there are geographically different zones within that region. When we look at Central Anatolia, even though there are volcanoes, there is the Konya Plain and the Lakes District, it is still more homogeneous compared to what we have in the Near East. In the Near East there is a complete spectrum from arid or desert environments, to semi-arid, mountainous, or to maritime environments. So it is a completely different and much more varied, much vaster environmental region compared to what we have from Central Anatolia.

The third thing: in the eastern Neolithic from the earliest period, Pre-Pottery Neolithic or PPNA, it is clear that there is more intensive habitation. The number of sites per kilometre, or per area, is much denser than anything which we know of for the early horizons of Central Anatolia (for the time being I am excluding the Pottery Neolithic phases). I am conscious that Central Anatolia is poorly surveyed, poorly documented, or still in an incipient stage of knowledge, but even in the most intensively surveyed areas the number of Pre-Pottery sites in Central Anatolia clearly indicates that the habitation is not as dense as what we know from the eastern Neolithic.

Probably, starting from this geographical point of view, in the eastern Neolithic the interaction is much more intensive. It is clear that we have a much more intensive interaction within regions, within different, completely varied environmental niches. And also in this intensive interaction, the density of habitation is one of the main factors. What this leads to is that the stimulus to change, or the stimulus to develop, is much more rapid in the East, while in the Central Anatolian Pre-Pottery Neolithic this is more gradual – it is a much slower progress. Of course there is progress, of course things are changing, but the rate of change in Central Anatolia is much slower than what we know in the East. For example, in the eastern Neolithic – just to give examples from the areas that I know better: Southeastern Anatolia – starting from the Hallan Çemi horizon, even within Hallan Çemi the changes within the architectural patterns are rapid; and if we continue with Çayönü, with the round buildings, grill buildings, cell buildings, channelled buildings, etc. – these are rapid changes, and these changes are reflected all over the area. Whether these are fashions, or cultural interaction or whatever, is beyond the concern of this meeting, I think, but the momentum of change is much higher in the East.

So in the Central Anatolian Neolithic, the Pre-Pottery, or Aceramic part of it is more sparsely inhabited, with a slower progression. We should keep this in mind for the later periods. Another aspect of the Central Anatolian Neolithic is that it is the border of a neolithisation zone. I know that most people do not like the word neolithisation, but just consider it as a jargon to explain what we are trying to understand. Further to the north of that region, or to the west of this ecological niche, things are changing. Still we know that in the Pontic areas there are Mesolithic populations, on the Mediterranean coast, especially in the Antalya region, there are Mesolithic populations. We do not exactly know what is in the west, in the Aegean littoral areas, but clearly it is not the same thing as we have seen in the core region. So, Central Anatolia represents a kind of a frontier region of another independent core of neolithisation. The Southeast has, of course, also its peripheries, but the area is so large that there is a larger core area, which is distant from the peripheral areas.

I do not want to go into the settlement patterns, or architectural layouts, I think this has been explained here in detail by a number of our colleagues. But one thing is also apparent in the eastern Neolithic which we do not see in Central Anatolia. The East is clearly a much more organised society, under some kind of a domination – whatever this domination is, I do not know. But when we consider sites which have been extensively excavated, like Çayönü or Nevali Cori, or even Hallan Çemi and other sites, there are some areas restricted to common use. And what we can see there as cult buildings or public buildings, are different from the normal domestic buildings in every aspect. In a way, I prefer to call them temples. And the reason for me to call them temples is that in every detail of their architectural layouts, stone constructions, etc., they are different from the normal domestic structures. In the eastern Neolithic, even if you do not find anything in a building, from its plan you can easily say that this is a special building, and not a domestic dwelling. However, when you come westwards, even the most sophisticated structures which we know from Central Anatolia display the same building techniques and they have the same plans as normal domestic buildings. It is only from their contents, what you find inside the buildings, that you can call them temples, shrines or cult buildings, or special buildings. But if you take away what is inside the buildings, then they look like simple, normal, domestic structures.

So in the East we might be getting the pristine stages of a later Mesopotamian temple architecture, or the concept of a temple – defining temple as a special kind of a building just reserved for special purposes and which is not to be used for other functions. And I think what we see especially in two of the sites, Nevali Çori and Çayönü, there are special areas reserved for such purposes, the buildings are built in a stone technique and masonry which is different from the building techniques of the normal houses. Göbekli Tepe looks the same, and I think that when we take the details of the temple-like structures of Çayönü and Nevali Çori, we can apply them to a certain degree to Göbekli as well.

Also prestige items, or items which need special craft-specialisation, are rather more abundant in the East than in Central Anatolia. Of course there are some prestige objects in Central Anatolia. Of course there are some objects which have to be made by specialised craftsmen. But when you compare the quantities and quality, what we see in the East is on a completely different level. What this implies is a rather more intensive exploitation of precious or semi-precious stones. It needs special craftsmen, who are really specialists in performing these arts. The beads and the other objects such as stone bowls, etc., which are found in the Near Eastern Neolithic could not have been made by anybody else. You really had to be a special craftsman to do that. This implies in fact a completely different way of living, a different social structure. The further you go west, the number of such prestige objects diminishes very rapidly. You find them, but they occur in minimal numbers. I suggest that it is now possible to call the eastern system an incipient stage of the temple economy that is later to develop in the area, that is somehow at the roots of the later Syro-Mesopotamian, or Near Eastern, temple economy which will come into actual being by the fourth millennium.

What happens after the Pre-Pottery stage? Almost all of a sudden we start seeing more habitation, more sites in Central Anatolia, not only in Central Anatolia, but also in the Western Aegean regions, to be accompanied quickly by the Balkans. No matter how poorly these areas are surveyed, the number of Pottery Neolithic sites increases dramatically, and almost all of a sudden. In the East, however, there is a decrease in the number of settlements, or the existing ones become smaller – whether you can call it a collapse or not, is not now the issue. So evidently there must be some kind of a movement, an endemic movement from East to West. And not only this is evident from the increase in settlements, but from that time onwards we begin seeing common elements in the assemblages between the two areas. During the Pre-Pottery stages the number of common elements between the two regions were minimal – of course there are some shared aspects, like plastered floors, or the removing of skulls, and such details. And of course there has been interaction, or trade at least in obsidian. But when you are looking at an assemblage in general, I think in technology or in the main composition of the material assemblages, they are rather different, with very few things which you could call as common to both areas. But once you are in the Pottery horizon all of a sudden you start seeing a number of common elements in the assemblages, which you can see both in the East and in the West. And these elements seem to be moving gradually towards the West, to the Aegean and to the Balkans and, finally, towards Central Europe.

From the Pottery Neolithic stages onwards there are more cultural interactions in an East–West direction than there were along the previous North–South cultural interaction zone. This is most evident in the pottery and in the ware-types. I know that there are local differences (there are a number of local differences even within the East or within the West), but when you look in a general way the number of similarities in the pottery, in fabrics, construction techniques, shapes and even in decoration are apparent. Beginning with the Dark-Faced Burnished Ware traditions, the dark wares, and the coming of the red-slip wares and then with the painted decorations you can follow a number of common elements in both regions. And this is valid also for tool types, for the bone industry, bone tools, stamp seals and all kind of other elements. In the lithics, as to arrowheads, etc., there is quite a number of common elements which are apparent to both areas. But what does not go to Central Anatolia is the temple, which remains in the East. Even when we look at Çatal, all the structures there are normal domestic buildings. If you would take away the wall paintings, the structures would look perfectly like normal domestic buildings.

Further, when we carry that Neolithic to the West, to the Balkans or to the Aegean, there are only three or four structures all-over the Balkan Neolithic which have been called cult buildings. But they are called cult buildings, because a number of figurines were found in them, while some structures in the Vinca site of Parta (Romania), for example, apart from a few skulls and plastered objects found, look like normal domestic buildings. So this whole concept of a temple or a special building reserved for a certain belief system, is gradually fading away (there is probably no exact boundary to it) the further you go west.

And also, the further you move west, society is becoming more rural. I have the advantage of working both in a core area of the Near East, that is in Southeastern Anatolia, and in a periphery as is Turkish Thrace, which enabled me to see the differences between core and periphery. The number of prestige objects which we found in one day in the Near Eastern sites, whether from Mezraa-Teleilat or from Çayönü, we find only after one whole campaign in Thrace. So it is getting more rural, things are getting rather more simple westwards. There are of course some exceptional pieces always, but also these represent things that can be done by everybody. You do not need a special craftsman.

So Central Anatolia during the Pottery Neolithic stage is in a way a kind of a frontier again between the western expansion of the Neolithic and the steady core area in the East. It had its own elements which came up from the Pre-Pottery stage, from the Aceramic stage, and then they had been coupled by the eastern elements – which were brought in from the East probably – so it is a kind of amalgamation of the local tradition mixed up with elements that were derived from the eastern Neolithic, and subsequently there is a local development which starts this movement further towards the West.

Again we have to consider the boundaries of what we mean by Central Anatolia: whether it is limited to the area which we have been hearing about in the last two days – whether Cappadocia is the eastern limit of Central Anatolia, or whether the Lakes District is the western boundary, or whether the Central Anatolian Neolithic indeed ends in the north, by the Salt Lake. This we do not know presently. If anybody would ever survey east of Cappadocia, probably there will be interim sites between the Near Eastern Neolithic and Cappadocia, especially in the highlands east of Kayseri, or towards the south. To the north, I take it that the Ankara region, or the upper plateau beyond the Tuz Gölü basin would constitute the boundary, because we know that in the Pontic area there are still Mesolithic communities. Probably there is some kind of merging, of a gradual disappearance of the Central Anatolian character. Towards the West, I think that ‘Central Anatolia’ continues on at least up to the Phrygian highlands and then to confront, probably, another neolithic way of living in Western Anatolia and in the Aegean areas.

What is interesting with Central Anatolia, is the neolithic life-style. It is a typical village life-style that we are seeing in the Central Anatolian Neolithic. They are real farmers, and the further you go west they become more and more farmers. It is a typical village life that is being established and that characterises the identity of the Central Anatolian Neolithic, no matter whether we found sophisticated buildings at Çatal or not. Especially when we look at the sites that have been excavated in the Lakes District, these are typical farming communities – small villages, not extensive big settlements – it gets smaller and smaller as you move towards the West, and the life gets more and more simple.

What is different again from the East, and which shapes the identity of the Central Anatolian Neolithic, is the symbolism, of which we have been hearing just before from Mr. Bischoff, so I will not go into that. But the things related to symbolism in the East needed a communal effort. To make the pillars in Nevali Çori or in Göbekli you need an organised communal effort. Or take the terrazzo floors which we have been seeing in Çayönü and Nevali Çori and in other sites – they need a communal, organised, time-consuming effort. In the Central Anatolian Neolithic, however, there are very few indications of such an organised and large-scale work.

So the life-style of Central Anatolia is apparently different again from the East, and to a degree it is also different from the Aegean Neolithic, or from the Southeastern European Neolithic, which really becomes much more rural, much more simple. Central Anatolia is a kind of interim zone, and it is this position between the eastern Neolithic and the western boundary zone which makes the area so interesting. In a way we can call it a bridge, although always pertaining its own identity as it is quite a large area which has local variations within the whole area. It has varied ecological niches, but it is still keeping its own identity, especially so in the basin of Konya.

What about the significance of raw materials? Evidently, obsidian has been an important raw material, which gave an added value to the importance of Central Anatolia. Compared with the obsidian trade in the East, from the Bingöl–Van region, again there must have been a different system of organisation. From the Kaletepe evidence it appears that the Central Anatolian trade in obsidian is more organised. The obsidian coming from the eastern Anatolian highlands is more sporadic, probably representing a less organised manner, even though we do not know what is really happening in the eastern highlands. However, considering that the Malatya–Elazig region is a kind of boundary of the eastern Neolithic, and that nowhere in the Bingöl–Van area, these obsidian-bearing areas, are there substantial Neolithic sites as in Central Anatolia, it seems more likely that this is a less organised flow of material. And this concerns probably also salt, which is a very critical element for the Neolithic period, for the animals for example. Possibly salt was much more needed than obsidian, and hence it must have played an important role in the economy of this region.

So to conclude, until now we have been seeing Central Anatolia from two perspectives, one by looking at Asikli, and second by looking at Çatalhöyük, and we have been trying to add Çatal to Asikli, or Asikli to Çatal, and we have been trying to draw a picture. But now what we have been hearing in the last two days, with other sites in the area, now I think we can look at it as a different Neolithic from the Near East. But certainly Central Anatolia represents a different model than other neolithic models in the Near East. As we will know more sites, things will probably become clearer. Now, especially in the Lakes District with Refik Duru’s excavations at Bademagaci, Höyücek and Kuruçay, and that coupled with other sites like Erbaba and Suberde, etc., we can begin to define the Neolithic in Central Anatolia much better than with single sites being excavated in the eastern or central parts of the region. No matter how much difference there is per site, still, when we look at the Lakes District sites, it is apparent that there is a somewhat different formation taking place, a differently definable Neolithic, with small settlements, with conglomerative houses, more or less using similar pottery.

So as a working hypothesis, I suggest that we should try to see Central Anatolia as a frontier zone, or as a bridge, representing a different model of neolithisation. In the future we will certainly better understand this region. Thank you.

__________________________

Go to the related debate (Panel : Turan Efe, Roger Matthews, Laurens Thissen)