SOME CLUES ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN CAPPADOCIA 10.000 YEARS AGO

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.


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.




19Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.


21BledaDüring, 2006, 102-103, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.




25BledaDüring, 2006, 102-103, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 263.


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.


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.




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).

93

Figure 11. Kömürcü Kaletepe (Balkan-Atlı, N. 2000).

Figure12..KaletepeNaviformCoreandUnipolarCore (Balkan-Atlı, N. Didier, B., Cauvin, M-C.

1999).

SOME CLUES ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN CAPPADOCIA 10.000 YEARS AGO

Documents

Transcript of SOME CLUES ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN CAPPADOCIA 10.000 YEARS AGO