Bergner, Max

Horejs, Barbara

Knitter, Daniel

Meyer, Michael

Schütt, Brigitta

Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin

Special Volume 3 (2012), pp. 361–368DanielKnitter–MaxBergner–BarbaraHorejs–BrigittaSchütt–Michael MeyerConcepts of Centrality and Models of Exchange inPrehistoric Western Anatoliain Wiebke Bebermeier – Robert Hebenstreit – Elke Kaiser – Jan Krause (eds.), LandscapeArchaeology. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Berlin, 6th – 8th June 2012Edited by Gerd Graßhoff and Michael Meyer,Excellence Cluster Topoi, BerlineTopoi ISSN 2192-2608http://journal.topoi.orgExcept where otherwise noted,content is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 License:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0Daniel Knitter – Max Bergner – Barbara Horejs – Brigitta Schütt –Michael MeyerConcepts of Centrality and Models of Exchangein Prehistoric Western AnatoliaCentral Place; Melos; obsidian; trade network; gateway; Early Bronze Age.An exchange of goods corresponds to an interaction between humans. Centrality is themeasure of the concentration of such interactions—a central place its spatial manifesta-tion. The absence of these regional or super-regional interactions is considered as marginal-ity. In the prehistoric archaeological context, interactions are assessed using e.g. findingsof ceramics and resources that are not present at the focused location, indicating connec-tions and functions of more than local importance.We investigate the interaction in terms of obsidian exchange at two different EarlyBronze Age 1 (EBA1, ca. 3000–2600 BC) locations in Western Anatolia. The first, ÇukuriçiHöyük, a settlement dating from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, has been beingexcavated since 2006 and is interpreted as a central place for obsidian exchange or trade1while the second, Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe, which was the subject of a field survey in 2009and only showed traces of occupation from the Early Bronze Age, is interpreted 2008and 2009 as a marginal, subsistence based location, which, at present, seems not to beintegrated in the obsidian exchange network.2 Of course the different methods of inves-tigation, survey and excavation at the two sites offer different degrees of insight, but theachieved results are noteworthy and shall be discussed. Moreover, the results from YeniYeldeg˘irmentepe are taken as a selected case study and should be understood as pars prototo for all EBA 1 sites in the valley analyzed and published so far.3Natural Environmental ConditionsThe general environmental characteristic at both sites can be seen as comparable. Theyare characterized by a temperate climate, classified as Cs after Köppen and Geiger,4 withwet winters and hot and dry summers. In combination with the soils,5 especially in thealluvial plains, the area is favourable for agricultural purposes.At a site specific level, the Çukuriçi Höyük is located in a tributary valley of theKüçük Menderes while the Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe is located on a small geological hillwithin the valley of the Bakırçay. In terms of agricultural use the location of the formermay be seen as more suitable, since the area is less liable to seasonal floods and, due togeomorphological characteristics, is better drained (Fig. 1c).6 The latter location withinthe floodplain of the Bakırçay is in this regard less suitable, since recent sedimentologic1 Horejs et al. 2011, 48–50.2 Horejs 2010, 64–65.3 Horejs 2010.4 The transition to today’s climate model was around 4.6 ka BC (Schulz and Paul 2002, 46), thus thesegeneral climatic characteristics may be understood as comparable. Kottek et al. 2006, 261.5 Common soils are Rubefacient or Chromic Cambisol and Luvisols (Walter and Breckle 1991, 12–14) aswell as fertile Fluvisols in the alluvial plains and valleys (Spaargaren 2008, 281).6 Grund 1906, 8–9 map; Horejs et al. 2011, 37–38.362 Daniel Knitter et al.investigations indicate swampy conditions throughout time (Fig. 1b).7 These differencesin the local supply, indicated by suitability for agricultural production, are important,since specialized activities, such as trade, are just possible when a certain surplus is pro-duced to facilitate the effort of exchange.8A crucial factor is the dynamic Holocene landscape development. The floodplainshave been filled with alluvial sediments of several meter thickness over the last 6000years,9 thus many sites may be buried under these. Furthermore, due to the high sedimentload of the rivers, their deltas prograded towards the sea. In this context, the ÇukuriçiHöyük may be seen as a seaside location during the time of its occupation, with a severalsquare kilometer large hinterland for local supply (Fig. 1c).10 The conditions around theYeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe are different and less clear. Many meters of alluvial sediments wereaccumulated around the site, making assumptions about prehistoric conditions difficult.11Nevertheless, its location within the floodplain indicates that the direct hinterland wasprone to floods or backwater, influencing the reliability of annual agricultural produc-tion. Due to the different geomorphological and geological conditions, the site may nothave had direct access to the sea in its history.Obsidian Occurrence and ExchangeDifferent studies, investigating the occurrence of obsidian in Western Anatolia, indicatethat obsidian was exchanged as raw material or already flaked tools at least since theNeolithic.12 The obsidian in Western Anatolian sites comes from different sources: be-sides the majority that is from the Cycladic island of Melos also obsidian of Yali in theDodecanese and from Central Anatolia is known.13Melian obsidian and produced goods are found at seaside locations, while at sites lo-cated further inland, usually only finished products are found.14 Findings of large amountsof produced tools at the Çukuriçi Höyük support this idea of local production and theirregional exchange.15 Roughly two thirds of the knapped stone artifacts from that sitewere, despite available local chert resources, made of obsidian and it seems likely that itwas dispersed from the Çukuriçi Höyük to other sites in the region. The quite constantlylarge amount of roughly 60 to 70%, sometimes even more, of tools made of obsidian isconstant throughout the excavated settlement phases, from the Neolithic to the EarlyBronze Age. There is no evidence for a declining obsidian industry in the Early BronzeAge despite obviously available metal resources. A large amount of ovens and casting toolsshow that the settlement produced and probably distributed copper and copper objects atleast in the Early Bronze Age, underlining its role as a production and trading location.16The Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe (as also all other EBA 1 sites in the valley) on the other handshowed no signs of a sophisticated stone or metal industry or imported resources. Ap-parently this settlement did not participate in any raw material exchange network sincethere is no obsidian and no signs of local metallurgy. The different spectrum of artifactsrecovered at the two sites shows that the settlements were of different importance. Thismight be due to their different geographical locations, knowledge and attachment to7 Schneider, personal communication; Schneider, Bebermeier, and Schütt 2010.8 Sieferle 1997, 95.9 Kayan 1999, 542.10 Kraft et al. 2003, 370–371, Fig. 8; Horejs et al. 2011, 37.11 Schneider, Bebermeier, and Schütt 2010, 184–185.12 Perlès, Takaog˘lu, and Gratuze 2011, 42–43.13 Bergner, Horejs, and Pernicka 2009; Georgiadis 2008; Perlès, Takaog˘lu, and Gratuze 2011.14 Perlès, Takaog˘lu, and Gratuze 2011, 44–46.15 Bergner, Horejs, and Pernicka 2009, 255; Horejs et al. 2011, 48–49.16 Horejs 2010.Concepts of Centrality and Models of Exchange in Prehistoric Western Anatolia 363Fig. 1 | (a) General overview of the research area with findings of obsidian; (b) Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe inregional context, showing its location in a strongly flood prone area; (c) Çukuriçi Höyük in regional contextshowing its location in a secured, weakly flood prone area. Furthermore, the reconstructed Neolithiccoastline (based on Kraft et al. 2003, 371) advocates the assumptions of the site’s role as a seaside location(elevation data based on Jarvis et al. 2008; calculation using GRASS GIS software of GRASS DevelopmentTeam 2011; MTI index (modified topographic index) based on Manfreda, Di Leo, and Sole 2011—it is anadvancement on the Topographic Index developed by Beven and Kirkby 1979 for the delineation of areasexposed to flooding using information on the basin topography).exchange networks, which might to some degree also be due to the apparently shorteroccupation of the Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe.Melian Obsidian can be found in most western Anatolian sites, with declining quan-tities further inland, as for example in Aphrodisias17 or Beycesultan,18 but also in higherquantities at e.g. Liman Tepe or Bakla Tepe, altogether clear hints that obsidian industrydoes play a role in EBA. In northwestern Anatolia on the other hand obsidian artifacts area rather rare commodity compared to various sites in the Izmir region and the ÇukuriçiHöyük in particular, for instance in Troy19 or Demircihüyük.20 This might be due todifferent exchange networks or harder transport routes. Also with a greater distanceeastwards from the coast, other obsidian deposits in central Anatolia become available.Surprisingly, the Çukuriçi Höyük also received some obsidian from that region in theEarly Bronze Age,21 which is another indicator for a wide ranging exchange network.17 Leurquin 1986.18 Lloyd and Mellaart 1962.19 Gatsov 1998.20 In our opinion, the amount of c. 15% obsidian in Demirçihüyük seems not much in comparison toresults at other sites discussed here, even more so if we would follow the published interpretations byBaykal-Seeher 1996 that the whole assemblage from EBA layers should possibly date in Chalcolithicperiods. A detailed discussion of a complex chronological interpretation of Late Chalcolithic and EarlyBronze Age lithic technologies cannot be undertaken here.21 Bergner, Horejs, and Pernicka 2009, 255.364 Daniel Knitter et al.Fig. 2 | (a) Theory of a settlement network with gateway locations, (b) interpretation of the role of theinvestigated sites in a resource exchange network based on gateway locations.SynthesisDue to findings of obsidian throughout the Western Anatolian coast, marine trade may beseen as common since Neolithic times. To facilitate sustainable trade it is mandatory thatthe local supplying hinterland is productive and that the site has access to regional andsuper-regional traffic or exchange networks: conditions that are present at the ÇukuriçiHöyük and absent at the Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe.We presume that seaside locations on the Western Anatolian coast may be seen asgateway locations22 that function as focal points in the integration of its surroundingregion into larger economic networks – in this regard obsidian exchange (Fig. 2a).23 TheÇukuriçi Höyük, with its local supplying hinterland and its location that combines ma-rine and terrestrial traffic, may be understood as such a gateway location (Fig. 2b). Incontrast, the Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe does not have this locational advantage concerningtraffic and its environs seem less suitable for a permanent local supply, indicating that itwas just of local importance without regional or super-regional connections (Fig. 2b).At present this is just a hypothesis since the state of knowledge is fragmented. Never-theless, ongoing research in the surroundings of the Yeni Yeldeg˘irmentepe24 and ÇukuriçiHöyük25 as well as at other sites of Western Anatolia like Bakla Tepe26 or Liman Tepe27may lead to further important insights in the understanding of obsidian exchange.22 Burghardt 1971; Hirth 1978.23 McKenzie 1967, 5.24 Horejs (in press).25 Horejs et al. 2011.26 Erkanal 2008a.27 Erkanal 2008b; S¸ahog˘lu 2008.Concepts of Centrality and Models of Exchange in Prehistoric Western Anatolia 365BibliographyBaykal-Seeher 1996A. Baykal-Seeher. “Die Lithischen Kleinfunde”. In Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse derAusgrabungen 1975 – 1978. Band IV: Die Kleinfunde. Ed. by M. Korfmann. Mainz:Philipp von Zabern, 1996, 7–169.Bergner, Horejs, and Pernicka 2009M. Bergner, B. Horejs, and E. Pernicka. “Zur Herkunft der Obsidianartefakte vomÇukuriçi Höyük”. Studia Troica 18 (2009), 249–272.Beven and Kirkby 1979K. J. Beven and M. J. Kirkby. “A Physically Based, Variable Contributing Area Modelof Basin Hydrology”. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 24 (1979), 43–69. DOI: 10.1080/02626667909491834.Burghardt 1971A. F. Burghardt. “A Hypothesis About Gateway Cities”. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 61.2 (1971), 269–285. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1971.tb00782.x.Erkanal 2008aH. Erkanal. “Die neuen Forschungen in Bakla Tepe bei I˙zmir”. In Proceedings of theInternational Symposium. The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early BronzeAge. October 13th–19th 1997, Urla – I˙zmir (Turkey). Ed. by H. Erkanal et al. Ankara:Ankara University, 2008, 165–177.Erkanal 2008bH. Erkanal. “Liman Tepe. New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures”. In Proceedingsof the International Symposium. The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the EarlyBronze Age. October 13th–19th 1997, Urla – I˙zmir (Turkey). Ed. by H. Erkanal et al.Ankara: Ankara University, 2008, 179–190.GRASS Development Team 2011GRASS Development Team. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS)Software. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. 2011.< http://grass.osgeo.org>(14.06.2012).Gatsov 1998I. Gatsov. “Technical and Typological Analysis of the Chipped Stone Assemblagesfrom Troia”. Studia Troica 8 (1998), 161–117.Georgiadis 2008M. Georgiadis. “The Obsidian in the Aegean Beyond Melos. An Outlook from Yali”.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27.2 (2008), 101–117.Grund 1906A. Grund. Vorläufiger Bericht über physiogeographische Untersuchungen im Deltagebietdes Kleinen Mäander bei Ajasoluk (Ephesus). Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademieder Wissenschaften in Wien 115. Wien: Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof- und Staatsdruck-erei, 1906.366 Daniel Knitter et al.Hirth 1978K.G. Hirth. “Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Com-munities”. American Antiquity 43.1 (1978), 35–45. DOI: 10.2307/279629.Horejs (in press)B. Horejs. “The 2nd millenium BC in the Bakircay (Kayos) Valley. An Overview”. InFestschrift Universität Ankara. Ankara. In press.Horejs 2010B. Horejs. “Bronzezeitliche Besiedlungsmuster im Kaikostal. Interpretationen ersterSurveyergebnisse im Umland von Pergamon (Türkei)”. In Siedlung und Handwerk.Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beiträge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeits-gemeinschaft Bronzezeit 2007 und 2009. Ed. by B. Horejs and T. Kienlin. Universitäts-forschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 194. Bonn: Habelt, 2010, 47–67.Horejs et al. 2011B. Horejs et al. “Aktivitäten und Subsistenz in den Siedlungen des Çukuriçi Höyük.Der Forschungsstand nach den Ausgrabungen 2006–2009”. Praehistorische Zeitschrift1 (2011), 31–66. DOI: 10.1515/PZ.2011.003.Jarvis et al. 2008A. Jarvis et al. Hole-filled Seamless SRTM Data V4, International Centre for TropicalAgriculture (CIAT). 2008. URL: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.Kayan 1999I. Kayan. “Holocene Stratigraphy and Geomorphological Evolution of the AegeanCoastal Plains of Anatolia”. Quaternary Science Reviews 18.4/5 (1999), 541–548. DOI:10.1016/S0277-3791(98)90095-6.Kottek et al. 2006M. Kottek et al. “World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated”.Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15.3 (2006), 259–263. DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.Kraft et al. 2003J.C. Kraft et al. “Sedimentary Facies Patterns and the Interpretation of Paleogeo-graphies of Ancient Troia”. In Troia and the Troad – Scientific Approaches. Ed. byG.A. Wagner, E. Pernicka, and H.-P. Uerpmann. Berlin: Springer, 2003, 361–377.Leurquin 1986J.L. Leurquin. “Chipped Stone. Chipped Stone Analysis 1975–1982”. In PrehistoricAphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studie. Ed. by M. Joukowsky.Archaeologia Transatlantic 3. Providence: Brown University, Center for Old WorldArchaeology and Art, 1986, 240–285.Lloyd and Mellaart 1962S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart. Beycesultan I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Layers.Ankara: British institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1962.Manfreda, Di Leo, and Sole 2011S. Manfreda, M. Di Leo, and A. Sole. “Detection of Flood-Prone Areas Using DigitalElevation Models”. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 16.10 (2011), 781–790. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000367.Concepts of Centrality and Models of Exchange in Prehistoric Western Anatolia 367McKenzie 1967R.D. McKenzie. The Metropolitan Community. New York: Russel & Russel, 1967.Perlès, Takaog˘lu, and Gratuze 2011C. Perlès, T. Takaog˘lu, and B. Gratuze. “Melian Obsidian in NW Turkey. Evidencefor Early Neolithic tTade”. Journal of Field Archaeology 36.1 (2011), 42–49.Schneider, Bebermeier, and Schütt 2010S. Schneider, W. Bebermeier, and B. Schütt. “Geoarchäologische Untersuchungenim westlichen Kaikostal. Erste Ergebnisse”. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2010/2 (2010),183–188.Schulz and Paul 2002M. Schulz and A. Paul. “Holocene Climate Variability on Centennial-to-MillennialTime Scales. 1. Climate Records from the North-Atlantic Realm”. In Climate Devel-opment and History of the North Atlantic Realm. Ed. by G. Wefer, K.-E. Behrke, andE. Jansen. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2002, 41–54.Sieferle 1997R.P. Sieferle. Rückblick auf die Natur. Eine Geschichte des Menschen und seiner Umwelt.München: Luchterhand, 1997.Spaargaren 2008O. Spaargaren. “Fluvisols”. In Encyclopedia of Soil Science. Ed. by W. Chesworth.Dodrecht: Springer, 2008.Walter and Breckle 1991H. Walter and S.-W. Breckle. Ökologie der Erde: Spezielle Ökologie der gemäßigten undarktischen Zonen Euro-Nordasiens. Zonobiom IV-IX. Vol. 4. Stuttgart: Fischer, 1991.S¸ahog˘lu 2008V. S¸ahog˘lu. “Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe. New Evidence for the Relations BetweenIzmir Region, The Cyclades and the Greek Mainland During the Late Fourth andThird Millenia BC”. In Proceedings of the International Symposium. The Aegean in theNeolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. October 13th–19th 1997, Urla – Izmir(Turkey). Ed. by H. Erkanal et al. Ankara: Ankara University, 2008, 483–501.Daniel Knitter (corresponding author), Excellence Cluster Topoi, Research Area A-I-21,Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Earth Sciences, Physical Geography, Malteser-straße 74–100, 12249 Berlin, Germany, daniel.knitter@topoi.orgMax Bergner, Austrian Archaeological Institute, Franz Klein-Gasse 1, A–1190 Vienna,AustriaBarbara Horejs, Austrian Archaeological Institute, Franz Klein-Gasse 1, A–1190 Vienna,Austria368 Daniel Knitter et al.Brigitta Schütt, Excellence Cluster Topoi, Research Area A-I-21, Freie Universität Berlin,Department of Earth Sciences, Physical Geography, Malteserstraße 74-100, 12249 Berlin,GermanyMichael Meyer, Excellence Cluster Topoi, Research Area A-I-21, Freie Universität Berlin,Department of History and Cultural Studies, Prehistoric Archaeology, Altensteinstraße15, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Concepts of Centrality and Models of Exchange in Prehistoric Western Anatolia

https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/fub188/18742/1/160.pdf

Concepts of Centrality and Models of Exchange in Prehistoric Western Anatolia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin