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

Transkript

1 SOME CLUES ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN CAPPADOCIA 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 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 YIL ÖNCE KAPADOKYA BÖLGESİNDE SOSYAL YAPININ VARLIĞINA AİT BAZI İPUÇLARI Sürekli yerleşimlerin kurulması, bitkilerin ve hayvanların evcilleştirilmesi ile ilgili en eski buluntular M.Ö 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. Özet Anahtar Kelimeler: Kapadokya, Seramik Öncesi Neolitik Dönem, Sosyal Yapı * Öğr. Gör. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü. 79

2 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 iron 1. The term Neolithic was first used by John Lubbock in He classified Thomsen s Stone Age as Paleolithic and Neolithic 2. Kethleen Kenyon who worked in famous Eriha in separated Lubbock s Neolithic into two parts as Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic 3. 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 MiddleEpi-Paleolithic LateEpi-Paleolithic Pre-PotteryNeolithic A Pre-PotteryNeolithic B/C PotteryNeolithic B.C B.C B.C B.C B.C 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, 1 ChristianJurgensen Thomsen, LedetradtilNordiskeOldkindighed. Kjobenhavn 1836.KlausSchmidt.,Göbekli Tepe-Taş Çağı Avcılarının Gizemli Kutsal Alanı. İstanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2007, p Sir 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 3 KlausSchmidt, 2007: 36. A. H. Simmons, TheNeolithicRevolution in thenear East. Tucson. TheUniversity of Arizona Press, 2007, p KlausSchmidt2012. Anatolia. Potts, D. T. A. (Editor). Companion tothearchaeology of the Ancient Near East. Wiley- Blackwell. West Sussex, s

3 however, the general contention placed the earliest archaeological contexts in Central Anatolia to the Bronze Ages 5. In 1960 s James Mellaart excavated the famous Central Anatolian Neolithic site Çatalhöyük, which yielded enormous information on the Neolithic period in this region 6. During the same decade, between 1964 and 1966,Ian Todd conducted a survey in Cappadocia 7. 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 Department 8. KöşkHöyük and TepecikÇiftlik are other famous Cappadocian archaeological sites, which contain both Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic layers 9. 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 center 11. 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 Neolithic 12. Architecture The settlement pattern of AşıklıHöyük could be classified into 4 main groups; street and alleys, midden areas, domestic loam buildings and large building complexes 13. 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 5 BledaDüring, ConstructingCommunities, ClusteredNeighbourhoodSettlements of the Central AnatolianNeolithicCa Cal. NederlandsinstituutVoor Hat NabıjeOosten, Leiden, 2006, p BledaDüring, 2006, 8. 7 I. A. Tood, ThePrehistory of Central Anatolia I TheNeolithicPeriod,Paul AströmFörlag, Göteborg, 1980, p Güneş 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 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, Erhan 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 Fevzi Volkan Güngördü, ObsidiananditssignificanceforCappadocianPre-PotteryNeolithic. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş-Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3 (2014) p Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, Aşkılı, Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen (Editors), Neolithic in Turkey, TheCradle of Civilizations New Discoveries, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999, p BledaDüring, 2006, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, , BledaDüring, 2006, 76, 77, 102, BledaDüring, 2006, 101, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007,

4 20 times larger than the largest domestic loam building whose size is 25m 215. 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 rooms 16. 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 buildings 17. 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 HV 18. Finally, courtyard T contains painted floors that are rather unusual for domestic loam buildings 19. 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 courtyards 20. 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 streets 21. The courtyard HV measures 171m 2. 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 colonnade 22. 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 31m 2 ), 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 purpose 24. Also court T contains some benches and some post stands. These benches are also plastered with red ochre 25. 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 red BledaDüring, 2006, BledaDüring, 2006, BledaDüring, 2006, 102, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, BledaDüring, 2006, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, BledaDüring, 2006, , Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, BledaDüring, 2006, BledaDüring, 2006, 103, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, BledaDüring, 2006, , Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, BledaDüring, 2006,

5 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 thousands 27. 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 exist 29. 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 conditions 30. 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 village 32, on the northern slope of the Göllüdağ(Figure 11). Both Middle Paleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic layers exist in this workshop Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, 265, BledaDüring, 2006, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 2007, Ufuk Esin, Savaş Harmankaya, 1999, 26, 2007, Metin Özbek, Aşıklı Höyük Neolitik Çağ İnsanları, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 8 (1993), p Metin Özbek, Aşıklı Höyük İnsanları (1990 ve 1992 Buluntuları), Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 9 (1994), p Ufuk Esin, EarlycoppermetallurgystthePre- PotteryNeolithic Site of Aşıklı, Halet Çambel (Editör), Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları,Graphis, Ankara (1995), p 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 Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, M.C. Cauvin, E. Faydalı, Kömürcü/KaletepeObsidyen Atölyesi1997 Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 21(1) (1999), p Nur 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

6 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 trade 34. The potential of these products in trade mechanism lies in theirusein the production of arrowheads, which were important tools for Neolithic life style 35. According to Binder and Balkan-Atlı, this production process requires a high level of proficiency 36. 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 proficiency 37. This type of products are known from Syrian sites Dja de, Mureybet, Tell Halula, and Cypriot site Shillourokambos 38 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 knappers 39. 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 Nur 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 Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2007, p Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2007, p Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2001, p Nur Balkan-Atlı, DidierBinder, 2001, p

7 techniques require a high proficiency. AşıklıHöyük metal finds indicate that people realized that annealing enhances the malleability of the metals even 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 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. 85

8 Bibliography Atakuman, Ç. (2014). Neolitik Süreci Yeniden Tanımlamak: Güneydoğu Anadolu Neolitiğinde Mekan Kurgusu ve Sosyal İlişkiler. Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan Analizi TAS (1), Balkan-Atlı, N. (2000). Kapadokya Obsidyen Araştırmaları ve Kömürcü KaletepeObsidien Atölyesi Kazısı. In Belli, O., (Editor), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi ( ). İstanbul: Başak Matbaacılık, 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, Balkan-Atlı, N.,Binder, D., Cauvin, M.C., Faydalı, E. (1999). Kömürcü /KaletepeObsidyen Atölyesi 1997 Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 20(1): 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, 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, 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, Chataigner, C.,Poidevin, J.L., Arnaud, N.O. (1998) TurkishOccurrences of ObsidianandUsebyPrehistoricPeoples in thenear East from to 6.000BP, Journal of VolcanologyandGeothermalResearch 85: Duru, G.,Özbaşaran, M. (2005). A Non-Domestic Site in Central Anatolia, Anatolia Antiqua13: Düring, B. S. (2006). ConstructingCommunities, ClusteredNeighbourhoodSettlements of the Central AnatolianNeolithicCa Cal. BC.Leiden: NederlandsInstituutVoorHetNabıjeOosten. Güngördü, F.V. (2014). ObsidiananditssignificanceforCappadocianPre-PotteryNeolithic. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş-Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3, Esin, U. (1995). Earlycoppermetallurgy at thepre-pottery site of Aşıklı. in Halet Çambel (Editor), Halet Çambel için Prehistorya Yazıları. Ankara: Graphis, 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, Esin, U.,Harmankaya, S. (1999). Aşıklı. Özdoğan, M. and N. Başgelen, (Editors)Neolithic in TurkeyTheCradle of Civilization New Discoveries. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 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, 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- Özbek M. (1994). Aşıklı Höyük İnsanları (1990 ve 1992 Buluntuları), Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 9: Schmidt, K. (2012). Anatolia. Potts, D. T. A. (Editor). Companion tothearchaeology of the Ancient Near East. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, s

9 Schmidt, K. (2007). Göbekli Tepe- Taş Çağı Avcılarının Gizemli Kutsal Alanı. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Press. Simmons, A. H. (2007). TheNeolithicRevolution in thenear East. Tucson: TheUniversity of Arizona Thomsen, C. J. (1836). LedetradtilNordiskeOldkindighed. Kjobenhavn. Tood, I. A. (1980). ThePrehistory of Central Anatolia I TheNeolithicPeriod, Paul AströmFörlag, Göteborg. 87

10 Fıgures Figure 1. Map of Central Anatolian model sites mentioned in thetext(düring, B., S. 2006). 88

11 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). 89

12 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). 90

13 Figure 7.Buildingcomplex HV and T (Düring, B., S. 2006). Figure 8. RedPaintedFloorfromCourtyard T (Esin, U.,Harmankaya, S. 2007). 91

14 Figure9. BuildingComplex MI (Düring, B., S. 2006). Figure 10.Copper Beads from Aşıklı (Esin, U., Harmankaya, S. 2007). 92

15 Figure 11. Kömürcü Kaletepe (Balkan-Atlı, N. 2000). Figure12..KaletepeNaviformCoreandUnipolarCore (Balkan-Atlı, N. Didier, B., Cauvin, M-C. 1999). 93