P R E - P O T T E R Y N E O L I T H I C

even if they did not kill on impact they would certainly have inflicted pain and infection. With no evidence for changes in hunting patterns, Rosenberg argues that large projectile points are indicative of warfare. While he is not the first to suggest that the rise of the Neolithic ran parallel to an increase of group conflict, the changes in lithic technology he observes point to “a change in the conduct or intensity of such conflict.”120 The implications for this are significant. It appears that the development of large Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites brought with it a rise in social conflict, which eventually lead to the disaggregation and dispersal of communities, which were not inclined to live in an atmosphere of tension. In the next chapter, we will follow the development of the clustered village lay out, already observed at As¸ıklı Höyük, which, according to

Rosenberg, is overtly defensive, a view expressed many years ago by Mellaart, but which had hitherto lost appeal.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We have seen that many features distinguish the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period in Anatolia. One is the gradual evolution of sedentary life from the modest huts and permanent camps of the Epipalaeolithic to the fully fledged villages with substantial public buildings (temples in some cases) of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Another is the overt emphasis on ritual expressed through striking iconography. A third feature is the clear time lag between the earliest village communities, which subsisted through hunting and gathering, and the gradual adoption of a farming economy. Finally, and perhaps most intriguing of all, is the emergence of cultural regionalism and divergent ways of thinking, which is evident when settlements north and south of the Taurus Mountains are compared. Briefly, settlements in the southeast comprise free-standing structures that conform to a rigid plan and orientation, and form part of a domain that embraced open spaces. By contradistinction, settlements north of the Taurus are far more organic in nature even though they too adhered to strict building codes. Their closely packed neighborhoods, minimal open spaces, and rooftop access into buildings provide a starkly different communal organization. But differences are not limited to buildings. Mortuary practices are at variance too: In the southeast the secondary treatment of skeletal remains and the use of communal burial sites were the norm, whereas in central Anatolia families preferred to bury their dead beneath the floors of their houses. And despite obvious interaction between the two regions—central Anatolian obsidian was used in the southeast—their stone tool working techniques developed along different trajectories.

NOTES

1Bottema 1991; Bottema and Van Zeist 1981; Bottema and Woldring 1984; Perrot 2002: Figure 1; Van Zeist et al. 1975; Van Zeist and Bottema 1982.

78

P R E - P O T T E R Y N E O L I T H I C

2Childe 1936.

3Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1992.

4There have been several attempts to change these admittedly universal and arbitrary terms into more regionally specific nomenclature (e.g., Özbas¸aran and Buitenhuis 2002), but given the patchiness of our archaeological record for Neolithic Anatolia it is best for the time being to adhere to conventional terminology.

5The following provide useful lead-in studies: Bellwood 2005; Clutton-Brock 1989; Smith 1995; Zohary and Hopf 2000.

6Braidwood 1960: 134. Less well known is the earlier work of Russian botanist, Nikolai Vavliov (1952), who attempted to define the centers of origins of cultivated plants, in which he included the southern Caucasus.

7See the first explanation of this view in Boserup 1965.

8Binford 1968.

9Hassan 1973.

10Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991; McCorriston and Hole 1991.

11Higgs and Jarman 1969.

12For a development of the view on the relationship between humans and plants, see Rindos 1984, who believed that agriculture was the unintentional outcome of this association.

13Bender 1978; Hayden 1995. For the view that dance was fundamental to social cohesion in the Neolithic, see Garfinkel 2003.

14Cauvin 2001.

15Perrot 2000.

16Bintliff 1991; Knapp 1992. For a critique of the longue durée, see Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 32ff.

17Bellwood and Renfrew 2002.

18For a recent and thorough review on the question of the spread of Indo-European languages, see Anthony 2007.

19Özdog˘ an, M. 1995, 2002.

20Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991 on the first definition of this term.

21Özdog˘ an 2002, 2005; see also Verhoeven 2002a.

22Özdog˘ an and Bas¸gelen 2007. This is the second edition of Özdog˘ an and Bas¸gelen 1999.

23For emphasis on the Levant, see, among several, McCorriston and Hole 1991. On “formation zones,” see Özdog˘ an 1993, 1996a, 2005.

24Renfrew 1986.

25Cf. Özdog˘ an 2005: 18–23, with Watkins 1992 and Rosenberg 2003, who see an increase in social conflict.

26Özdog˘ an 1999a: 11.

27Sagona and Sagona 2004 (northeast region), and Matthews 2007 (north-central region).

28On Trans-Caucasia, see Chataigner 1995; Kiguradze 2001; the earliest radiocarbon dates from northeastern Anatolia come from exploratory soundings at Pulur, near Erzurum, Is¸ıklı 2007.

29Rosenberg 1999.

30Özdog˘ an 1999c.

31Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe 2007; Gérard and Thissen 2002; Özdog˘ an and Bas¸gelen 2007.

32For a list of all the central Anatolian Neolithic sites, see Gérard 2002.

33Flannery 1972, 2002.

34Flannery 2002: 421.

35Byrd 1994; Sagona 1993; Schachner 1999; Watkins 1990.

36Flannery 2002: 421.

37Individual entries in Oliver 1997 provide useful lead-in articles on a range of topics pertaining to

79

P R E - P O T T E R Y N E O L I T H I C

vernacular architecture. I would like to thank Miles Lewis for pointing me in the right direction on matters architectural by providing me with some useful references.

38Dethier 1982; Williams-Ellis et al. 1947: 59–65.

39Synnot 1911.

40I would like to thank Miles Lewis (University of Melbourne) for this insightful observation.

41Williams-Ellis et al. 1947: 22–58.

42Özdog˘ an 1999: 44–47.

43Schrimer 1988, 1990.

44Davis 1998.

45Özdog˘ an 1999.

46Özdog˘ an 1999.

47Hauptmann 1988, 1999: 70–74.

48Hauptmann 1993; Özdog˘ an and Özdog˘ an 1998.

49Özdog˘ an 1999.

50Cauvin 1985; Cauvin et al. 1999.

51Ellis and Voigt 1982.

52Cauvin 1989; Cauvin et al. 1999: 90.

53Bıçakçı 1995.

54Cauvin et al. 1999: 91–93.

55Özgog˘ an 1999: 53–54.

56Esin et al. 1991; Esin and Harmankaya 1999.

57Esin and Harmankaya 1999; Özbas¸aran 1998.

58Esin 1998a: 91.

59Esin and Harmankaya 1999: 126.

60French et al. 1972.

61Bordaz 1968.

62Duru 1999: 187; Thissen 2002: 324.

63Efe 2005; Özdog˘ an and Gastov 1998.

64Duru 1989.

65Mellaart 1970a: 3–5.

66Hauptmann 1999; Schmidt 2004, 2006, 2007.

67Hauptmann 1993.

68Hauptmann 2000a.

69Hauptmann and Schmidt in Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.) 2007.

70Verhoeven 2002b.

71Verhoeven 2002a: 248–249; cf. Hansen 2006.

72Curtis 1914.

73French 1963: 35.

74Özdog˘ an and Özdog˘ an 1998.

75Özdog˘ an 1995, 1999.

76Esin and Harmankaya 1999: 130.

77Özbas¸aran 2000: fig. 3; Özbas¸aran et al. 2007: figures 3–4.

78Smith 1995.

79Smith 1995.

80Heun et al. 1997.

81For another view that places the centre of plant domestication in the Near East in the Levantine corridor, see McCorrsiton and Hole 1991.

82Rosenberg et al. 1995.

80

P R E - P O T T E R Y N E O L I T H I C

83Rosenberg et al. 1995.

84Özdog˘ an 1999: 44.

85Van Zeist and Roller 1994.

86Lawrence 1982.

87Cauvin et al. 1999: 100.

88Rosenberg 1999.

89Martin et al. 2002: figure 1; Watkins 1996.

90Buitenhuis 1997.

91Perkins and Daly 1968.

92French et al. 1972.

93See Disa et al. 1993 for the effectiveness of obsidian when compared to modern metal surgical steel blades.

94Conolly 1999a.

95X-ray fluorescence (XRF), instrumental neutron activation (INAA), proton induced x-ray emission and proton induced gamma ray emission (PIXE/PIGME), and, the most sensitive method, measuring parts per billion, laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS).

96Badalyan et al. 2004; Cauvin et al. 1998; Jackson and McKenzie 1984; Oddone et al. 2003; Yılmaz et al. 1987.

97Poidevin 1998.

98Chataigner 1998.

99Balkan-Altı et al. 1999.

100Kobayashi and Sagona 2008.

101Peralkaline obsidian has a relatively high iron and zirconium content and the amount of alumina is less than that of sodium and potassium oxides combined; cal-alkaline obsidian comprises more than about 60% silica and an equal proportion of calcium oxide, potassium oxide, and sodium oxide; alkaline obsidian which contains a higher than average amount of sodium than potassium. For a technical discussion, see Shackley 2005.

102Mauss 1990.

103Leach and Leach 1983; Malinowski 1920.

104Maddin et al. 1991; Yener 2000.

105Esin 1995; Yener 2000.

106See, for example, Caneva et al. 1998.

107Ellis and Voigt 1982; Roodenberg 1979–80; Voigt and Ellis 1981.

108Balkan-Altı 1994b; Balkan-Altı et al. 1999.

109French et al. 1972.

110Davis 1982.

111Özdog˘ an 1995.

112Özdog˘ an 1995.

113Maréchal 1985.

114See, for example, Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1989.

115Rosenberg 2003.

116Bar-Yosef and Meadows 1995.

117Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe 2007; Özdog˘ an and Bas¸gelen 2007.

118Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1989.

119Rosenberg 2003: 94–99.

120Rosenberg 2003: 95. Cf. Watkins 1990.

81

4

ANATOLIA TRANSFORMED

From Pottery Neolithic through Middle Chalcolithic (7000–4000 BC)

The transition between Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic in Anatolia, a span of time straddling the turn of the eighth and seventh millennia BC, is curiously indistinct. Yet the subsequent changes transformed the long-established traditions of the pioneer sedentary groups. The production of ceramic vessels is one such break with the past. Even though clay was used sparingly well before now, this technological innovation of transforming clay by heat marks a convenient reference point with which to divide the Neolithic into two broad periods.1 As with all technological achievements, the invention of pottery was accompanied by changes in social behavior that now very much revolved around the home and the hearth, which became the fixed points of human existence.

Pottery Neolithic is also distinguished by the expansion into new areas and the development of regional traits. The Lake District and the Marmara region emerged as well-defined and distinct groups, and recent investigations at Ulucak show that the western coastal region is shaping up to be yet another discrete Neolithic zone, with strong Aegean connections. This adoption of a Neolithic lifestyle in disparate areas was gradual, and we must always be aware of the timelag between, say, the establishment of Pre-Pottery settlements in central Anatolia about 8500 BC and the onset of early Pottery communities in western Anatolia around 6500 BC.2

Finally, in the seventh millennium we also witness a shift in the character of cult ritual. The drama of religious activity was no longer performed in and around large temples, but instead was centered within the domestic domain. Buildings where cult activities were carried out are for the most part similar in plan to houses. It seems that the home became the liminal space where residents and their ancestors, often buried beneath the floor, interacted and mediated with the numinous. Religious imagery also changed. Sometimes vivid, at other times muted, we can nonetheless detect new iconographic elements at sites north of the Taurus. Highly evocative wall paintings and well-articulated female figurines are the most eye catching. In other instances, the

82