Post on 04-Apr-2023
79
SOME CLUES ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN
CAPPADOCIA 10.000 YEARS AGO
Fevzi Volkan GÜNGÖRDÜ*
Abstract
Appearance of the first permanent settlements and the domestication of plant and animals could be
dated to the Neolithic Era, between 10.200 – 6.200 BC. These significant developments are crucial which
changed the human’s way of life in many different aspects. Cappadocia region has an important place in the
Near Eastern Neolithic. This volcanic area contains many different obsidian sources. Obsidian is a volcanic
glass which was seen as perfect material for tool production because of its delicate nature and impressive
color. Cappadocian obsidians were exploited by both local Cappadocian and other Anatolian, Syrian
Levantine and Cypriot Neolithic sites that points out the inter-regional connections of Cappadocia region ten
thousand years ago.
Social perspectives on Neolithic way of life are restricted in an egalitarian view. Permanently settled
hunter-gatherer people exhibit an unstratified social strata. However recent views on Neolithic way of life
emphasize the existence of a structured social system. In this article two Cappadocian Pre-Pottery Neolithic
sites, AşıklıHöyük and Kömürcü-Kaletepe obsidian workshop were evaluated by a structured social view.
Key Words: Cappadocia, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Social Structure
10.000 YIL ÖNCE KAPADOKYA BÖLGESİNDE SOSYAL YAPININ
VARLIĞINA AİT BAZI İPUÇLARI
Özet
Sürekli yerleşimlerin kurulması, bitkilerin ve hayvanların evcilleştirilmesi ile ilgili en eski
buluntular M.Ö. 10.200-6.200 tarihleri arasındaki Neolitik Çağ içerisinde değerlendirilmektedir. Bahsedilen
bu önemli gelişmeler insanoğlunun yaşam biçiminde farklı noktalarda önemli değişimlere neden olmuştur.
Kapadokya Bölgesi Yakındoğu Neolitik’i içerisinde dikkat çekici bir konuma sahiptir. Bu volkanik bölge
birçok farklı obsidyen kaynağına ev sahipliği yapmaktadır. Volkanik bir cam olan obsidyen hem doğal yapısı
hem de etkileyici rengi sayesinde alet üretiminde önemli bir materyal olarak algılanmıştır. Kapadokya
obsidyenleri yerel ve bunun yanında diğer Anadolu, Suriye, Levant ve Kıbrıs’ ta ki birçok Neolitik Dönem
yerleşmesi tarafından kullanılmıştır. Bu durum Kapadokya bölgesinin on bin yıl önceki bölgeler arası
ilişkilerini açıkça ortaya koymaktadır.
Neolitik yaşam biçimi ile ilgili sosyal perspektifler eşitlikçi bir bakış açısı ile sınırlandırılmıştır.
Sürekli yerleşik, avcı-toplayıcı insan grupları tek tabakalı bir sosyal yapıyı sergilemektedirler. Ancak
Neolitik yaşam biçimi ile ilgili güncel bakış açıları tabakalaşmış bir sosyal yapının varlığını
vurgulamaktadırlar. Bu makalede Kapadokya’nın Seramik Öncesi Neolitik Dönem’ e tarihlendirilen Aşıklı
Höyük ve Kömürcü KaletepeObsidyen Atölyesi bahsedilen güncel bakış açısı içerisinde değerlendirilmeye
çalışılacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kapadokya, Seramik Öncesi Neolitik Dönem, Sosyal Yapı
*Öğr. Gör. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü.
80
Introduction
Danish antiquarian Christian Thomsen developed the “Three Age System” for
chronological classification 178 years ago. According to his system, artifacts wereto be classified
in terms of the material they were made out of, such as stone, bronze and iron1.
The term Neolithic was first used by John Lubbock in 1865. He classified Thomsen’s Stone
Age as Paleolithic and Neolithic2. Kethleen Kenyon who worked in famous Eriha in 1952-1958
separated Lubbock’s Neolithic into two parts as Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic3.
The initial definition of Neolithic was artifact based.Currently, however, this definition
goes beyond artifacts to consider complex structures. In today’s perspective, two points are crucial
to understanding this era. First is the appearance of the permanent settlements. In Paleolithic,
people had a nomadic character. They were hunter and gatherers. But by the end of this era, in the
so-called Epi-Paleolithic, seasonal settlements started to emerge. In Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period,
the first permanent settlements were established. Although themode of subsistence was still based
on hunting and gathering as before, the persistence of the settlements is the key point for Pre-
Pottery Neolithic. Emergence of agriculture is the second crucial development in the Neolithic.
Fully agricultural permanent settlements only occur at the end of Neolithic Era.
EarlyEpi-Paleolithic 23.000 - 15.000 B.C.
MiddleEpi-Paleolithic 15.000 - 13.000 B.C.
LateEpi-Paleolithic 13.000 - 10.200 B.C.
Pre-PotteryNeolithic A 10.200 - 8.800 B.C.
Pre-PotteryNeolithic B/C 8.800 – 6.900 B.C.
PotteryNeolithic 6.900 - 6.2004 B.C.
Epi-PaleolithicandNeolithicChronology
Central Anatolia and Cappadocia Region
Central Anatolia is a crucial region for Near Eastern Neolithic with not only its internal
dynamics but also the relationships it formed with the neighboring regions. Until the 1950s,
1ChristianJurgensen Thomsen, LedetradtilNordiskeOldkindighed. Kjobenhavn 1836.KlausSchmidt.,Göbekli Tepe-Taş
Çağı Avcılarının Gizemli Kutsal Alanı. İstanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2007, p.32-33.
2Sir John Lubbock, Pre-Historictimes, as illustratedbyancientremains, andthemannersandcustoms of modern savages,
Edinburg, London,WillamsandNorgate, 1865.Çiğdem Atakuman, Ç. (2014 a) ”Neolitik Süreci Yeniden Tanımlamak:
Güneydoğu Anadolu Neolitiğinde Mekân Kurgusu ve Sosyal İlişkiler”. Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan Analizi TAS 1,
191. Schmidt, 2007: 33
3KlausSchmidt, 2007: 36. A. H. Simmons, TheNeolithicRevolution in theNear East. Tucson. TheUniversity of Arizona
Press, 2007, p.87.
4KlausSchmidt2012. Anatolia. Potts, D. T. A. (Editor). Companion totheArchaeology of the Ancient Near East. Wiley-
Blackwell. West Sussex, s. 146.
81
however, the general contention placed the earliest archaeological contexts in Central Anatolia to
the Bronze Ages5.
In 1960’s James Mellaart excavated the famous Central Anatolian Neolithic site
Çatalhöyük, which yielded enormous information on the Neolithic period in this region6. During
the same decade, between 1964 and 1966,Ian Todd conducted a survey in Cappadocia7.
Cappadocia Region contains some archaeological sites which are dated to both Pre-Pottery
Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic Era (Figure 1). AşıklıHöyük, Musular and KömürcüKaletepe
Obsidian Workshop aresignificant sites for Cappadocian Pre-Pottery Neolithic that wereexcavated
by the İstanbul University Archaeology Department8. KöşkHöyük and TepecikÇiftlik are other
famous Cappadocian archaeological sites, which contain both Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic
layers9.
Due to the existence of rich obsidian resources, Cappadocia is a significant region for Near
Eastern archaeology. Owing to its impressive color and delicate structure (Figure 2), this volcanic
glass was seen as a perfect material to manufacture blades and points, especially in prehistoric
times. By means of geochemical analyses archaeologists are capable to identify the movement of
the goods and inter-regional connections. According to these analyses Cappadocian obsidians are
known from not only other Anatolian regions but also Syria, Levant and Cyprus (Figure 3-4-5)10
.
AşıklıHöyük is placed in the province of Aksaray, 25 km southeast of the province
center11
. The Melendiz valley, where the AşıklıHöyük is placed, is a fertile and varied
environment, but today the northern, eastern and southern edges of AşıklıHöyükare affected by
erosion caused by that river. Despite the fact that today AşıklıHöyükmeasures 4ha, it was probably
larger in the Neolithic12
.
Architecture
The settlement pattern of AşıklıHöyük could be classified into 4 main groups; street and
alleys, midden areas, domestic loam buildings and large building complexes13
.
Building complexes are monumental structures that differ from the domestic loam
buildings in terms of measurement, rooms, internal courtyards, building techniques and building
materials (Figure 6)14
. To give the reader an idea of the scale and proportions, the complex HV is
5BledaDüring, ConstructingCommunities, ClusteredNeighbourhoodSettlements of the Central AnatolianNeolithicCa.
8500-5500 Cal. NederlandsinstituutVoor Hat NabıjeOosten, Leiden, 2006, p. 8.
6BledaDüring, 2006, 8.
7I. A. Tood, ThePrehistory of Central Anatolia I TheNeolithicPeriod,Paul AströmFörlag, Göteborg, 1980, p. 22.
8Güneş Duru, Mihriban Özbaşaran, “A non-Domestic Site in Central Anatolia”. Anatolia Antiqua 13 (2005), p.15. Ufuk
Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, “Aşıklı Höyük”, Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen (Editors). Anadolu’ da Uygarlığın Doğuşu
ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’ de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul,
2007, p. 268-269. Nur Balkan Atlı, DidierBinder, “Obsidianexploitationandbladetechnology at Kömürcü-Kaletepe
(Cappadocia, Turkey)”. IsabellaCaneva, CristinaLemorini, DanielaZampetti, PaoloBiagi (Editors), Beyond Tools.
Redefiningthe PPN LithicAssemblages of theLevant. Exoriente, Berlin, 2001, p. 1. BledaDüring, 2006, 10.
9Erhan Bıçakçı, Selma Altınbilek-Algül, M. Godon, “Tepecik Çiftlik”, Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih
Başgelen(Editors).Anadolu’ da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’ de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar,
Yeni Bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007, p. 238.
10Fevzi Volkan Güngördü, “ObsidiananditssignificanceforCappadocianPre-PotteryNeolithic”. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş-Veli
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3 (2014) p. 103-110.
11Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, “Aşkılı”, Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen (Editors), Neolithic in Turkey, TheCradle
of Civilizations New Discoveries, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999, p. 17.
12BledaDüring, 2006, 72.
13Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 258-262, BledaDüring, 2006, 76, 77, 102, 263.
14BledaDüring, 2006, 101, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
82
20 times larger than the largest domestic loam building whose size is 25m215
. In terms of the
numbers of the rooms, domestic loam buildings have no more than three rooms. On the contrary,
the building complexes consist of large numbers of rooms16
. Internal courtyards were built in a
more detailed manner in these building complexes than in the domestic loam buildings. Moreover,
the dimensions of the internal courtyards of the building complexes are also larger than the
courtyards of the domestic loam buildings17
. Building processes are also completely different in
these building complexes in terms of techniques and materials. For instance, the building
complexes have larger walls with thicknesses like 1.5 m than the walls of the domestic loam
buildings, which are generally 35 cm. The use of the stone in building complexes is also an
interesting contrast, since stone is not used in regular loam buildings. Moreover, only one large
oven was found at AşıklıHöyük, and this large oven belongs to complex HV18
. Finally, courtyard T
contains painted floors that are rather unusual for domestic loam buildings19
.
The first complex is located in the southern part of the excavation area. This complex
consists of courtyards HV (Figure 7) and T (Figure 8) and rooms surrounding these two
courtyards20
. To the north of this complex, there is a wide and paved street which is called GA.
This street separates the building complex from the clustered neighborhood to the north. This might
be the reason why this street is wider and more elaborate than the other streets21
.
The courtyard HV measures 171m2. This courtyard is different than the other midden areas,
because it was paved with stone slabs. UfukEsin mentions some stone post bases with regular
intervals which might have belonged to a colonnade22
.
Another open courtyard (T) is located southeast of the courtyard HV. These two courtyards
are separated by a wall. Court T (Figure 8) is smaller than HV (5.50mby 5.50m and the surface is
31m2), with an elaborately paved floor constructed with 6-8 cm thick layer of ground tuff
23. One
yellow and four red layers of paint exist on courtyard T. Ochre was used for red paint. Court T
contains a large round hearth and a stone channel. According to Esin and Harmankaya, this channel
has a liquid based purpose24
. Also court T contains some benches and some post stands. These
benches are also plastered with red ochre25
.
A further building complex exists in the northeast of the excavation area. As the first
complex, there is a wide pebble paved street (MH) that separates this complex from the domestic
loam buildings South of this street a large courtyard exists which is called MI. This courtyard is
surrounded by several small rooms. Courtyard MI was paved with stones (Figure 9). It measures
5.20m by 3.90m. Many walls of the side rooms were painted in red26
.
15
BledaDüring, 2006, 101.
16BledaDüring, 2006, 101.
17BledaDüring, 2006, 102, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
18BledaDüring, 2006, 102.
19Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
20Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
21BledaDüring, 2006, 102-103, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
22BledaDüring, 2006, 103.
23BledaDüring, 2006, 103, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
24Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
25BledaDüring, 2006, 102-103, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
26BledaDüring, 2006, 103.
83
The question that must be asked is why these crucial differences exist between these
domestic loam buildings and large monumental complexes. Does this elaboration signify special
functions? The absence of any ritual materials such as wall paintings, or sculptures signifies that
these building complexes were not built for a ritual purpose. The estimated population of
AşıklıHöyükis in the thousands27
. When thousands of people live together, a social mechanism is
required for a place which accommodates these people. In this social mechanism, an elite part
which provides the security and the permanence of the society must exist. In such a large
population, different kinship and family groups were exist in this population. According to
UfukEsin, these buildings belong to these elites,28
who might be the representatives of these
different kinships.
Burial Customs
Intramural burials were identified at AşıklıHöyük. It is difficult to give a general account
about the burial customs due to the fact that only 70 burials were found although 400 buildings
were excavated. There is no uniform burial position that has been identified; both hocker and dorsal
positions exist29
. Studies on skeletons provide some remarkable information on burial practices.
For instance, some bodies were fired before burial. Some wooden fragments were found on some
burials. According to MetinÖzbek, this situation indicates that bodies were buried just after they
were fired. This firing custom has been identified for both male, female and children skeletons.
Some examples indicate that trepanation practices were also carried out in AşıklıHöyük.
Significantly, some deformations on female skeletons are identified on the neck and the back
bones. Since no deformation traces are found on male skeletons, anthropologists assert that females
worked in hard conditions30
. This anthropological information helps us to realize the gender based
differences in AşıklıHöyük society.
In the light of the burial gifts, archaeologists identified that native copper and malachite
were used at AşıklıHöyük for bead production (Figure 10). Esin indicates that the annealing
process was carried out at AşıklıHöyük. Annealing is crucial since it signifies the experimental
metallurgical knowledge because people realized that this process enhances the malleability of the
metals (Esin, 1999b: 29, Esin, 1995: 67)31
. This specific knowledge indicates the existence of the
craft specialization in Pre- Pottery Neolithic period.
Technology and Craftmanship
The site Kömürcü-Kaletepe is not a settlement but an obsidian workshop which is located
in Cappadocia region near the city of Niğde, Göllüdağ province, Kömürcü village32
, on the
northern slope of the Göllüdağ(Figure 11). Both Middle Paleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic
layers exist in this workshop33
.
27
Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 265, BledaDüring, 2006, 105-106.
28Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.
29Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 1999, 26, 2007, 265.
30Metin Özbek, “Aşıklı Höyük Neolitik Çağ İnsanları”, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 8 (1993), p. 201-208. Metin
Özbek, “Aşıklı Höyük İnsanları (1990 ve 1992 Buluntuları)”, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 9 (1994), p. 23-31.
31Ufuk Esin, “EarlycoppermetallurgystthePre- PotteryNeolithic Site of Aşıklı”, Halet Çambel (Editör), Halet Çambel İçin
Prehistorya Yazıları,Graphis, Ankara (1995), p. 61-77.Ufuk Esin, “CopperobjectsfromthePre-PotteryNeolithic site of
Aşıklı”, AndreasHauptmann, ErnstPernicka, ThiloRehren, Ünsal Yalçın (Editörler), TheBeginnings of Metallurgy,
Proceedings of the International Conference, Der AnschnittBeiheft 9, p.22-30.
32Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, M.C. Cauvin, E. Faydalı, “Kömürcü/KaletepeObsidyen Atölyesi1997 Kazısı”, Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 21(1) (1999), p. 3.
33Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder,”Kömürcü KaletepeObsidyen İşçiliği”, Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen (Editors).
Anadolu’ da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’ de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular.
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007, p. 218.
84
Large quantities of naviform bidirectional blade cores(Figure 12)were identified during
archaeological surveys and archaeological excavations were started. These so-called naviform
cores, which contain long and narrow triangular sections and two oblique and one flat striking
platforms opposed to each other and a crested back, are peculiar to Kömürcü-Kaletepe. Such cores
were used to produce bidirectional blades. In the process of the bidirectional blade production, the
main purpose is to produce a long standard pointed blade. Kaletepe does not have many examples
of these long standard pointed blades, indicating that these blades were produced for trade34
. The
potential of these products in trade mechanism lies in theirusein the production of arrowheads,
which were important tools for Neolithic life style35
. According to Binder and Balkan-Atlı, this
production process requires a high level of proficiency36
.
Prismatic blade production is another technique which is identified in Kaletepe. The
purpose of this technique is a serial production of prismatic blades. Balkan-Atlı and Binder
mentions that this production technique also requires a high level of proficiency37
. This type of
products are known from Syrian sites Dja’ de, Mureybet, Tell Halula, and Cypriot site
Shillourokambos38
The most significant characteristic feature of the Kaletepe workshop is the standardized
mass production, which must have required a high level of proficiency and this process must have
taken all the times of the knappers. Then, the question becomes how the knappers supplied other
necessities, such as food and shelter, when they were knapping all the time. This question indicates
that there were other people who provided such necessities of the knappers39
.
Conclusion
AşıklıHöyük and Kömürcü-Kaletepe Obsidian Workshop indicate that today’s perspective
on Pre-Pottery Neolithic social structure is far from an egalitarian system. Although similar types
of economic models were adopted, a comparison with Paleolithic societies indicates that the high
population density at AşıklıHöyük with the occurrence of a permanent settlement brings about a
social control mechanism in order to provide the persistence of Aşıklı’s society.
As mentioned above, comparison between building complexes and domestic loam
buildings at AşıklıHöyük indicates the existence of significant differences. Red painted courts,
pebble paved streets and other architectural features mark the special function of these building
complexes. Absence of any ritual based materials indicates that the construction purpose is not
related with a religious activity. Dense population and the need for a social control mechanism
expose the existence of some elites as representatives of different kin groups in social stratigraphy
who congregate at these building complexes in order to ensure the permanence of society.
Investigations on AşıklıHöyük’s burials indicate sex based difference patterns in bone
deformation between male and female skeletons. Deformations on the neck and the back bones
only identified in female skeletons point out that male and females fulfilled different roles in
AşklıHöyük society.
Kömürcü-Kaletepe Pre-Pottery Neolithic obsidian workshop contains two different
production techniques. According to specialists, both bidirectional and prismatic blade production
34
Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, M.C. Cauvin, E. Faydalı, 1999, p. 6-7.
35Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, M. C. Cauvin, “ObsidianSources, Workshops, andtrade in Central Anatolia”, Mehmet
Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen (Editors), Neolithic in Turkey, TheCradle of Civilizations New Discoveries, Arkeoloji ve
Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999, p. 138.
36Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2007, p. 219.
37Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2007, p. 219.
38Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2001, p. 14.
39Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2001, p. 15.
85
techniques require a high proficiency. AşıklıHöyük metal finds indicate that people realized that
annealing enhances the malleability of the metals even 10.000 years ago. These two different types
of materials signify the existence of the craftsmen in society who had high experience on obsidian
and copper.
Cappadocia region represents a complex social mechanism which contains different social
structures even 10.000 thousand years ago. Members of this social system had different places in
society which was clarified in terms of sex or knowledge based differences or any other yet
unidentified differences.
86
Bibliography
Atakuman, Ç. (2014). Neolitik Süreci Yeniden Tanımlamak: Güneydoğu Anadolu Neolitiğinde
Mekan Kurgusu ve Sosyal İlişkiler. Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan Analizi TAS (1), 191-216.
Balkan-Atlı, N. (2000). “Kapadokya Obsidyen Araştırmaları ve Kömürcü KaletepeObsidien
Atölyesi Kazısı.” In Belli, O., (Editor), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999). İstanbul:
Başak Matbaacılık, 32-38.
Balkan-Atlı, N.,Binder, D., Cauvin, M.C. (1999). “ObsidianSources, Workshops, andTrade in
Central Anatolia”. Özdoğan, M. and N. Başgelen, (Editors), Neolithic in TurkeyTheCradle of Civilization
New Discoveries. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 133-145.
Balkan-Atlı, N.,Binder, D., Cauvin, M.C., Faydalı, E. (1999). “Kömürcü /KaletepeObsidyen
Atölyesi 1997 Kazısı,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 20(1): 1-21.
Balkan-Atlı, N.,Binder, D. (2007). “Kömürcü-KaletepeObsidyen İşçiliği”. In Özdoğan, M. and N.
Başgelen, (Editors), Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem Yeni
Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 217-222.
Balkan-Atlı, N.,Binder, D. (2001). “Obsidianexploitationandbladetechnology at Kömürcü-Kaletepe
(Cappadocia, Turkey).” InCaneva, I.,Lemorini, C., Zampetti, D., Biagi, P., eds., Beyond Tools.
Redefiningthe PPN LithicAssemblages of theLevant. Berlin: exoriente, 1-16.
Bıçakçı, E.,Altınbilek-Algül- B, Selma., Godon, M. (2007). “Tepecik-Çiftlik.” In Özdoğan, M. and
N. Başgelen, (Editors),Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem
Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 237-253.
Chataigner, C.,Poidevin, J.L., Arnaud, N.O. (1998) “TurkishOccurrences of
ObsidianandUsebyPrehistoricPeoples in theNear East from 14.000 to 6.000BP,” Journal of
VolcanologyandGeothermalResearch 85:517-537.
Duru, G.,Özbaşaran, M. (2005). “A Non-Domestic Site in Central Anatolia,” Anatolia Antiqua13:
15-28.
Düring, B. S. (2006). ConstructingCommunities, ClusteredNeighbourhoodSettlements of the Central
AnatolianNeolithicCa. 8500-5500 Cal. BC.Leiden: NederlandsInstituutVoorHetNabıjeOosten.
Güngördü, F.V. (2014). “ObsidiananditssignificanceforCappadocianPre-PotteryNeolithic”. Nevşehir
Hacı Bektaş-Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3, 103-110.
Esin, U. (1995). “Earlycoppermetallurgy at thePre-Pottery site of Aşıklı.” in Halet Çambel (Editor),
Halet Çambel için Prehistorya Yazıları. Ankara: Graphis, 61-77.
Esin, U. (1999). “CopperobjectsfromthePre-PotteryNeolithic site of Aşıklı” Hauptmann,
A.,Pernicka, E., Rehren, T., Yalçın, Ü., (Editors) TheBeginnings of Metallurgy, Proceedings of the
International Conference. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 9, 23-30.
Esin, U.,Harmankaya, S. (1999). “Aşıklı.” Özdoğan, M. and N. Başgelen, (Editors)Neolithic in
TurkeyTheCradle of Civilization New Discoveries. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 115-132.
Esin, U.,Harmankaya, S. (2007). “Aşıklı Höyük.” Özdoğan, M. and N. Başgelen(Editors)
Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni
Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 255-272.
Lubbock, J. (1865). Pre-Historictimes, as illustratedbyancientremains, andthemannersandcustoms
of modern savages. Edinburg, London,WillamsandNorgate.
Özbek M. (1993). “Aşıklı Höyük Neolitik Çağ İnsanları,” Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 8: 201-
213.
Özbek M. (1994). “Aşıklı Höyük İnsanları (1990 ve 1992 Buluntuları),” Arkeometri Sonuçları
Toplantısı 9: 23-31.
Schmidt, K. (2012). Anatolia. Potts, D. T. A. (Editor). Companion totheArchaeology of the Ancient
Near East. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, s.144-160.
87
Schmidt, K. (2007). Göbekli Tepe- Taş Çağı Avcılarının Gizemli Kutsal Alanı. İstanbul: Arkeoloji
ve Sanat Yayınları.
Simmons, A. H. (2007). TheNeolithicRevolution in theNear East. Tucson: TheUniversity of Arizona
Press.
Thomsen, C. J. (1836). LedetradtilNordiskeOldkindighed. Kjobenhavn.
Tood, I. A. (1980). ThePrehistory of Central Anatolia I TheNeolithicPeriod, Paul AströmFörlag,
Göteborg.
88
Fıgures
Figure 1. Map of Central Anatolian “model sites” mentioned in thetext(Düring, B., S. 2006).
89
Figure 2.Obsidian (Balkan-Atlı, N. Didier, B. 2007).
Figure 3. Location of the main obsidian sources in Anatolia and Transcaucasia (Chataigner, C.,
Poidevin, J.L., Arnaud, N.O. 1998).
Figure 4.Central Anatolian Obsidian Sources (Chataigner, C., Poidevin, J.L., Arnaud, N.O. 1998).
90
Figure 5. Distribution of Obsidian from GöllüDağ and NeneziDağ (modified from Chataigner, C.,
Poidevin, J.L., Arnaud, N.O. 1998).
Figure 6.BuildingComplexes of Aşıklı (Düring, B., S. 2006).
91
Figure 7.Buildingcomplex HV and T (Düring, B., S. 2006).
Figure 8. RedPaintedFloorfromCourtyard T (Esin, U.,Harmankaya, S. 2007).
92
Figure9. BuildingComplex MI (Düring, B., S. 2006).
Figure 10.Copper Beads from Aşıklı (Esin, U., Harmankaya, S. 2007).