Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:12:00.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The beginning of Neolithic economies in southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Mehmet Özdoǧan
Mehmet Özdoǧan*
Affiliation:
Prehistorya Anabilim Dali, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Istanbul Üniversitesi, 34459 Istanbul, Turkey
Get access

Abstract

The role that Anatolia played in the formation of Neolithic cultures has generally been overlooked. However, recent work indicates the presence of a new formation zone in Central Anatolia, distinct in all elements of culture from the traditional Levantine–Mesopotamian zone which also includes Southeastern Turkey. A conspectus of the recent evidence indicates that, even in areas where cultural elements are similar, there is considerable diversity in subsistence patterns. Thus, it is evident that subsistence patterns were not as significant as previously envisaged in defining the status of Neolithic communities or in stimulating their appearance. Moreover, the range of available resources in the broad-ranging habitats of Central and Western Anatolia seem to have been a potent factor both in the initial Neolithic and its later developments. The Neolithic cultures of Anatolia were much less dependent upon domesticates, with sedentary life strongly supported by hunting and gathering.

The pre-pottery Neolithic of the Near East provides a model based upon extremely complex and sophisticated socio-cultural developments, with indications of a ruling elite in control of the economy and ritual life. The collapse of this system by the end of the PPNB seemingly reflected social upheavals which provoked a massive migration to other regions. Apart from this factor, the rich environmental potential of the Aegean or the Balkans would have been sufficient to support the spread of the whole Neolithic population from Anatolia.

On a souvent négligé le rôle qu'a joué l'Anatolie dans la formation des cultures néolitiques. Toutefois, des travaux récents montrent qu'il existe une nouvelle zone de formation en Anatolie centrale, dont les caractéristiques culturelles se distinguent clairement de la zone levantine et mésopotamienne, qui comprend aussi le sud-est de la Turquie. Une vue générale des récentes études sur ce sujet montre que, même dans les endroits où les caractéristiques culturelles sont similaires, il existe une diversité considérable parmi les modes de subsistance. Ainsi, il est évident que les modes de subsistance n'étaient pas aussi importants qu'on l'avait imaginé, pour ce qui est de la définition du statut des communautés néolitiques ou la stimulation de l'apparition de ces communautés. De plus, la gamme des ressources disponibles pour les habitations qui parsèment l'Anatolie de l'ouest et l'Anatolie centrale semble avoir été un important facteur à la fois au début et à la fin du Néolitique. Les cultures néolitiques d'Anatolie étaient bien moins dépendantes des objets domestiques, leur vie sédentaire était essentiellement basée sur la chasse et la cueillette.

La période du Néolitique pré-potterie au Proche-Orient fournit un modèle basé sur une évolution socio-culturelle extrémement complexe et sophistiquée, laissant supposer l'existence d'une élite qui contrôlait l'économie et la vie rituelle. L'effondrement de ce système à la fin de la période du Néolitique pré-potterie refléterait des bouleversements sociaux qui provoquèrent des migrations de masse vers d'autres régions. Ce facteur mis à part, le potentiel offert par les richesses liées à l'environnement dans les Balkans ou la zone de la mer Egée était suffisant pour subvenir aux besoins de toute la population de l'Anatolie.

Die Rolle, die Anatolien bei der Ausbildung neolithischer Kulturen spielte, ist generell übersehen worden. Jüngere Arbeiten deuten jedoch auf ein zusätzliches Entwicklungsgebiet in Zentralanatolien hin, das sich in allen Kulturelementen vom altbekannten levantinisch-mesopotamischen Gebiet (einschlieβlich der Südosttürkei) unterscheidet. Ein Blick auf diejenigen Belege, die jüngerer Zeit hinzugekommen sind, läβt erkennen, daβ selbst in Gegenden, in denen ähnliche Kulturelement auftreten, eine beträchtliche Vielfalt an Subsistenzstrategien bestand. Es ist daher offenkundig, daβ Subsistenzstrategien für das Definieren des Status’ neolithischer Gemeinschaften und für das Hervorrufen ihrer äuβeren Erscheinung weniger bedeutsam waren als zuvor angenommen. Auβerdem scheint sowohl im beginnenden, als auch in späteren Phasen des Neolithikums die Palette der in den weitläufigen Lebensräumen von Zentral- und Westanatolien zur Verfügung stehenden Ressourcen ein wichtiger Faktor gewesen zu sein. Die neolithischen Kulture in Anatoliens waren weitaus weniger abhängig von Domestikaten, und ihr seβhaftes Leben wurde entscheidend durch Jagen und Sammeln unterstützt.

Das vorkeramische Neolithikum des Nahen Ostens stellt ein Modell dar, das auf äuβerst komplexen und hochentwickelten soziokulturellen Entwicklungen basiert, Es gibt Anzeichen für eine herrschende Elite, die das wirtschaftliche und rituelle Leben kontrollierte. Der Kollaps dieses Systems am Ende von PPNB scheint soziale Aufstände wiederzuspiegeln, die eine riesige Wanderung in andere Regionen auslösten. Von diesem Faktor abgesehen, wären die reichen Umweltpotentiale des Ägäischen Meeres und des Balkans ausreichend gewesen, um die Ausbreitung der gesamten neolithischen Bevölkerung von Anatolien her zu unterstützen.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1997 , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angel, Lawrence, 1984. Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Cohen, Mark and Armelagos, George (eds), Paleopathology of the Origins of Agriculture: 51–73. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ammerman, Albert and Cavalli-Sforza, Luca, 1973. A population model for the diffusion of early fanning in Europe. In Renfrew, Colin (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory: 343–357. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Belfer-Cohen, Anna, 1991. From sedentary hunter gatherers to territorial hunters in the Levant. In Gregg, Susan (ed.), Between Bands and States: 181–202. Southern Illinois University (Occasional Papers 9).Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Belfer-Cohen, Anna, 1992. From foraging to farming in the Mediterranean Levant. In Grebauer, A.B. and Price, T.D. (eds), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory: 21–48. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Meadow, Richard, 1995. The origins of agriculture in the Near East. In Price, D. and Gebauer, A.B. (eds), Last Hunters, First Farmers: 39–94. Houston: Advance Seminar Series, School of American Research.Google Scholar
Bittel, Kurt, 1969. Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadiköy (Istanbul). Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20: 1–19.Google Scholar
Bloedow, E.F., 1992. The date of the earliest phase at Argissa Magoula in Thessaly and other Neolithic sites in Greece. Mediterranean Archaeology 5: 49–57.Google Scholar
Blumler, Mark A., 1996. Ecology, evolutionary theory and agricultural origins. In Harris, David (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 25–50. London: University College.Google Scholar
Boessneck, Joachim and von den Driesch, Angela, 1979. Die Tierknochenfunde aus der Neolithischen Siedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadiköy am Marmarameer. München: Institut für Domestikationsforschung.Google Scholar
Buitenhuis, Hilke, 1994. Note on archaeozoological research around the Sea of Marmara. Anatolica XX: 141–145.Google Scholar
Cauvin, Jacques, 1988. La nèolithisation du Turquie du Sud-Est dans son contexte proche-oriental. Anatolica 15: 69–80.Google Scholar
Cauvin, Jacques, 1989. La néolithisation au Levant et sa premiére diffusion. In Aurenche, Olivier (ed.), Néolithisations: 3–36. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 516).Google Scholar
Cauvin, Jacques, 1990. Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l'agriculture. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, Luca, 1996. The spread of agriculture and nomadic pastoralism: insights from genetics, linguistics and archaeology. In Harris, David (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 51–69. London: University College.Google Scholar
Childe, Gordon, 1957 [1952]. A New Light on the Most Ancient Near East. London: Evergreen Books.Google Scholar
Cohen, Mark Nathan, 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Mark Nathan and Armelagos, George (eds), 1984. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dennell, Robin, 1983. European Economic Prehistory. A New Approach. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dinç, Rafet, 1996. Kulaksizlar Mermer idol Atölyesi ve Çevre Arastirmalari. XIV. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi II: 255–282.Google Scholar
Duru, Refik, 1988. Were the earliest cultures at Hacilar really aceramic? In Emre, Kutlu (ed.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç: 99–104. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.Google Scholar
Duru, Rehk, 1994. Kuruçay Höyük I. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.Google Scholar
Duru, Refik, 1995. Höyücek Excavations 1990. Belleten LVIII: 725–750.Google Scholar
Efe, Turan, 1989. Three early sites in the vicinity of Eskisehir: Asmainler, Kanlitas, and Kes Kaya. Anatolica XVL: 31–60.Google Scholar
Efe, Turan, 1995. Iç Bari Anadolu'da iki Neolitik Yerlesme: Findik Kayabasi ve Akmakça. In Erkanal, Hayat (ed.), Metin Akyurt Bahattin Devam Ani Kitabi: 105–114. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari.Google Scholar
Efe, Turan, 1996. 1995 Yilinda Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskisehir illerinde Yapilan Yüzey Arastirmalari. XIV. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi II: 215–232.Google Scholar
Efstratiou, Nikos, 1985. Agios Petras. A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades . Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series.Google Scholar
Esin, Ufuk, 1991. Salvage excavations at the pre-pottery site of Asikli Höyük in Central Anatolia. Anatolica XVII: 124–174.Google Scholar
French, David, 1967. Prehistoric sites in Northwest Anatolia I. Anatolian Studies XVII: 49–100.Google Scholar
Gatsov, Ivan and Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1994. Some Epi-Paleolithic sites from NW Turkey: Agaçli, Domali and Gümüsdere. Anatolica XX: 97–120.Google Scholar
Groube, L., 1996. The impact of diseases upon the emergence of agriculture. In Harris, David (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 101–129. London: University College.Google Scholar
Hansen, Julie, 1992. Franchthi Cave and the beginnings of agriculture in Greece and the Aegean. In Préhistoire de l'agriculture: 231–247. Paris: CNRS Centre de Recherches Archéologiques.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Last, Jonathan, 1996. Surface pottery at Çatalhöyük. In Hodder, Ian (ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük: 115–171. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
Lazarovici, Gheorghe, 1985. Complexul Neolitic de la Partsa. Banatica: 7–71.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Seton, 1956. Early Anatolia. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mellart, 1958. The Neolithic obsidian industry of Llicapinar. Istanbuller Mitteilungen 8: 82–92.Google Scholar
Melltnk, Mellink, 1965. Anatolian chronology, In Ehrich, Robert W. (ed.), Chronologies in the Old World Archaeology: 101–131. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, N., 1990. Clearing land for farmland and fuel: archaeobotanical studies of the Ancient Near East. In Miller, N. (ed.), Economy and Settlement in the Near East. Philadelphia: MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 7.Google Scholar
Oates, Joan, 1973. The background and development of early farming communities in Mesopotamia and the Zagros. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 147–181.Google Scholar
Orthmann, Winfried, 1963. Die keramik der Frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Man.Google Scholar
Otte, Marcel and Yalçtnkaya, Isin, 1995. The Epi-Palaeolithic of Öküzini Cave (SW Anatolia) and its mobiliary art. Antiquity 65: 931–944.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Asli, 1995. Life at Çayönü During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period. Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel: 79–100. Istanbul: Graphis Publications.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1977. Lower Euphrates Basin 1977 Survey. Ankara: METU Lower Euphrates Project, Ser. I, no. 2.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1983. Pendik: a Neolithic site of Fikirtepe Culture in the Marmara region. In Boehmer, R.M. and Hauptmann, Herald (eds), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleisasien, Festschrift für Kurt Bittet 401–411. Mainz: Philipp von Zabeř.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1985. Mannara Bölgesinde Kültür Tarihi ile ilgili Bazi Sorunlar ve Bunlarin Cözümüne Jeomorfoloji Arastirmalarinin Katkisi. Arkeometri Toplantisi Sonuçlari II: 39–162.Google Scholar
Özdogan, Mehmet, 1986. Prehistoric sites in the Gelibolu Peninsula. Anadolu Arastirmalari: 51–66.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1989a. 1988 Yili Trakya ve Marmara Bölgesi Arastirmalari. VII Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi : 44: 3–457.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1989b. Neolithic cultures of Northwestern Turkey. In Bökönyi, Sandor (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections: 201–215. Budapest: Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1990. 1989 Yili Marmara Arastirmalari ve Toptepe Kazisi, XII. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi 1: 345–375.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1993. Vinca and Anatolia: a new look at a very old problem, Anatolica Special Issue on Anatolia and the Balkans XIX: 173–193.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1995. Neolithic in Turkey. The Status of Research. Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel: 41–59. Istanbul: Graphis Publications.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1996a. Neolithization of Europe: a view from Anatolia. Part 1: The problem and the evidence of East Anatolia. Poročilo XX: 25–61.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1996b. Pre-Bronze Age sequence of Central Anatolia: an alternative approach. In Mangen, Ursula and Rashad, Mahmoud (eds), Thorms.Beran zu Ehren: 185–202. Münster: Ugarit Ferlag.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1996c. Istanbul in Prehistory. In Beykan, Müren (ed.), Istanbul, World City: 88–101. Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfi.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1997a. Tarihöncesi Dönemde Trakya. Aristirma Projesinin 16. Yilinda Genel Bir Degerlendirme. Anadolu Arastirmalari XIV: 329–360.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, 1997b. Buildings of cult and cult of buildings. In Arsebük, Güven and Schirmer, Wulf (eds), Halet Çambel Festschrift. Istanbul: Graphis Publications.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet, (in press). The Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara and Bronze Age Archaeology: an archaeological predicament. H. Todorova Festchrift.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet and Gatsov, Ivan (in press). The pre-pottery Neolithic sites of Northwestern Turkey. Anatolica.Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, Mehmet and Özbasaran-Dede, Nilgün, 1990. Excavations at Toptepe in Eastern Thrace 1989. Arkeoloji ve Sanai 46/49: 2–23.Google Scholar
Pasinli, Alpay and Uzunoglu, Edibe, 1994. Pendik Kurtarma Kazisi IV. Müze Kurtarma Kazilari Semineri: 147–163.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1969. The autonomy of South-East European Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: 12–47.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1970. The tree-ring calibration of radiocarbon: an archaeological evaluation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 280–311.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1973. Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1990. Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1996. Language families and the spread of farming. In Harris, David (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 70–92. London: University College.Google Scholar
Rollefson, Gary, 1990. The uses of plaster at Neolithic Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Archeomaterials 4: 33–54.Google Scholar
Rollefson, Gary and Rollefson, Ilse Köhler, 1989. The collapse of Early Neolithic settlements in the Southern Levant. In Hershkovitz, I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change: 73–89. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports International Series.Google Scholar
Rollefson, Gary and Rollefson, Ilse Köhler, 1993. PPNC adaptations in the first half of the 6th millennium BC. Paléorient 19: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roodenberg, Jacob, 1993. Llipinar X to VI: links and chronology. Anatolica XLX: 251–267.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Michael, 1994. Hallan Çemi Tepesi: Some preliminary observations concerning Early Neolithic subsistence behaviors in Eastern Anatolia. Anatolica XX: 121–141.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Michael, Nesbitt, Mark, Redding, Richard and Strasser, Thomas, 1995. Hallan Çemi Tepesi: Some preliminary observations concerning Early Neolithic subsistence behaviors in Eastern Anatolia. Anatolica XXL: 1–12.Google Scholar
Runnels, Curtis, 1995. Review of Aegean prehistory IV. American fournal of Archaeology 99: 699–728.Google Scholar
Runnels, Curtis, 1996. The Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains. In Wells, Berit (ed.), The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990: 23–35. Stockholm: Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae.Google Scholar
Singh, Purushottam, 1974. Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia. London: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Todorova, Henrietta, 1978. The Eneolithic in Bulgaria. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce, 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tringham, Ruth, 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Van Andel, Tjeerd and Runnels, Curtis, 1995. The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity: 481–500.Google Scholar
Van Zeist, Willhelm and Roller, Jan de, 1994. The plant husbandry of aceramic Çayönü, SE Turkey. Palaeohistoria 33/34: 65–96.Google Scholar
Willcox, George, 1995. Wild and domestic cereal exploitation: new evidence from Early Neolithic sites in the Northern Levant and South-Eastern Anatolia. ARX 1: 9–16.Google Scholar
Wilus, Kathy, 1994. The vegetational history of the Balkans. Quaternary Science Reviews 13: 769–788.Google Scholar
Willis, Kathy and Bennett, K.D., 1994. The Neolithic transition – fact or fiction? Palaeoecological evidence from the Balkans. Holocene 4: 326–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gary, 1971. Origins of food production in Southwestern Asia: a survey of ideas. Current Anthropology 12 (4–5): 447–517.Google Scholar
Yalçinkaya, Isin, 1996. Öküzini 1993 ve 1994 Kazilari. XVII. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi 1: 21–47.Google Scholar
Zohary, Daniel, 1996. The mode of domestication of the founder crops of Southwest Asian agriculture. In Harris, David (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 142–158. London: University College.Google Scholar
Zvelebil, Marek, 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution. In Zvelebil, Marek (ed.), Hunters in Transition: 5–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar