Authors' replies

PROPOSAL FOR A REGIONAL TERMINOLOGY FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA

Mihriban ÖZBAŞARAN & Hijlke BUITENHUIS                                      
mozbasaran@tayproject.org / h.buitenhuis@arcbv.nl

Proto Neolithic, Aceramic Neolithic, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Aceramic Early Neolithic, PPNB, Early Neolithic, Pottery Neolithic (Early Pottery Neolithic, Middle Pottery Neolithic, Late Pottery Neolithic) and Early and Middle Chalcolithic. Such were the terms used so far for Central Anatolia by various researchers during the e-discussions and the CANeW workshop. These could be discussed and revised, as M. Özdogan suggested, but all are based on a single element, lithics, or on the presence or absence of one element, pottery. Our main aim, as stated in our paper, was, however, to set up a terminology in which it was possible to integrate and unite all possible data in order to explain human behaviour and human evolution (as put forward and criticised by M. Otte and J. Kozlowski, mostly concerning periodisation). In order to achieve such an aim, we need to see first, the data we have at present, and second, to try to speak the same language so that we can communicate and understand each other properly.

The terminology proposed by us should be considered as labelling schemes or a framework to start working on Central Anatolian prehistory, and the principal questions of cultural change, connections and relations within the region itself and those with other cultural regions, the social dimensions etc. As such any labelling system is relative to a certain area, in which the different parameters of climate, environment, geomorphology and cultural unity are more or less the same. Transferring terminology from other arenas to this area is dangerous, as underlying assumptions of relationships are also taken over. A good example of this is the term PPN, Pre-Pottery Neolithic (A and B). This term was coined in the Levantine as a period from the end of the Natufian till the beginning of the period in which full domestication occurred or was introduced widely. The term PPN was used as if the absence of pottery was an important factor, while in reality the exploitation patterns of the environment are the real subject of this period. In Central Anatolia we now see clearly that the idea of a gradual change in subsistence, from hunting and gathering to plant- and subsequently animal domestication, did not occur in the same way as in the Levant. Therefore, the use of the term PPN is incorrect in our view. Also, it does not work, as we can see both in Cappadocia and western Central Anatolia. Domestication of plants occurred probably very early in this area, while domestication of animals took apparently millennia. The example of Çatal shows that the introduction of pottery did not change the other elements of the cultural complex until quite later. We are therefore left with a situation which is quite different on the basis of the exploitation patterns and on the basis of the pottery, when Central Anatolia and the Levant are compared. This is just one example.

As stated by every researcher working in Central Anatolia, the present state of research in the region allows us to work only on the data of a few sites. The more data we get, the wider we can discuss the issues; although that does not just mean feeding our framework with new data (as criticised by L. Thissen) and fill the empty boxes in the frame, keeping them separate. On the contrary, such a framework serves as a basis to put forward new questions and problematics, to build new theories to test and discuss. The proposed framework should be considered as a tool, as stated by N. Balkan-Atli. When this happens the chronological dependence of the new model will decrease. It is correct that it overemphasises the periods in terms of a time scale, but this is because in contrast to other areas one of the richest data sources are the 14C dates.

The discussion did not mention that the proposed terminology would tie in quite nicely with the geomorphological terms used by Catherine Kuzucuoglu, therefore integrating also this aspect of a culture into the terminology.