Reading Guide Week 1: Origins of agriculture and settled life likely?

ReadingGuide
Week1: Origins of agriculture and settledlife
There are two main questionsthat we will considerthis week. Why did people start doing
agriculture? Why did people start settling in permanentvillages? As you read the
following two articles, try to answerthesemore specific questions.
Reading 1: "The Origins of Domesticationand Settled Life"
1. What were people's subsistencestrategies(the ways they obtained food) before
the beginning of agriculture?
3. What are some of the different theories for why domesticationhappened?What
are some of the pros and cons of thesetheories?
4. What were someof the changesthat occurred along with domestication?
Reading 2: Ian Hodder. C;atalHoyiik: 9000 Year Old Housing and Settlementin Central
Anatolia.
1. What is the main question that Ian Hodder is trying to answer about ~atal Hoyiik
in this article? (seep. 44).
2. What evidence doeshe consider in trying to answerthis question?
3. What are the possible answersto his question?Which one do you think is most
likely?
DURING
THEPAST200,000 years Homo sapienpopulations occupied many different environments. As
we saw in the preceding chapter, varying climatic
conditions caused physical variation in modem
'human populations. In the past 15,000 years,
however, the greatest changes have occuned, not
fu physical characteristics, but in human culture.
The most significant of these was in subsistence,
the manner in which humans obtain food and
nourishment. Information about the diet of Upper
paleolithic peoples is very incomplete. We know,
}lowever, that hunting, especially of large Pleistocene animals, or megafauna, such as the
mammoth, was clearly imponant. Extensive use
was probably also made of seeds, fruit, and
leavesof seasonally available wild plants. Because
of the imponance of these plants and animals as
4~1)rc~~"of food, clothing, and, shelter, Upper Paleolithic populations for the most pan were probably highly mobile, nomadic people who followed the migrations of the herd animals they
hunted. These hunters and gatherers made little
or no effon to alter or modify the environ-
ment.
The Late Pleistocene: Changes
in Climate and Culture
" Beginning late in the Pleistocene epoch, approximately 15,000 years ago, this pattern began
to change gradually in some pans of the world.
Humans staned to make more intensive use of
smaller 3ame animals and wild plants. Fishing and
the gathering of marine resources also became
more imponant. People were somewhat less mobile and increasingly focused on the intensive exploitation of plants and animals within panicular
local environments. Gradually, they also staned to
experiment with planting crops and raising wild
animals in captivity. These practices set the stage
for the beginnings of food production. The shift
from food gathering to food production is the focus of this chapter.
The period of time between the late Pleistocene
and the early Holocene (the current geologic epoch) was marked by climatic change. The transition involved a gradual warming of the earth's
temperature, which caused the great glaciers that
characterized the Pleistocene to melt. Sea levels
rose in coastal areas, and lands that had been
compressed under the glaciers were uplifted. As
the earth's climate changed, many species of
plants and animals became extinct. For ecample,
Pleistocene megafauna like the mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison disappeared. Many others, however, effectively adapted to the new conditions and
expanded into the new environments. In both
North America nad Europe, as the ice sheetsmelted,
forest areas repl.a.S"~d
theJu~drq,_~r.,Y!JsJ.treeless
plains of the Arctic regions. These changes enabled
human populations to migrate in northern areas
that previously had been uninhabitable.
The reshaping of the earth's environments encouraged new patterns of technological development. As large game became extinct in areas such
as Europe and North America, humans developed
new subsistence patterns that focused on the
hunting of smaller game, fishing, and gathering
plants to satisfy nutritional needs. In many respects this change probably does not represent a
dramatic departure from earlier patterns. Instead,
people simply started to make more intensive use
of c~rtain resources within their ~nyironment.
This type of subsistence strategy, which relied on
the intensive exploitation of varied resources in
particular local environments, is referred to as
broad-spectrum collecting. Because there was
a great deal of variation in local environments,
many specialized regional patterns and technologies developed. For this reason, it becomes increasingly difficult to generalize about worldwide
developments. These new subsistence strategies
have been referred to as the Mesolithic (Middle
Stone Age) in the Old World and the Archaic in
the New World.
THE ORIGINS OF DOMESTICATION AND SEnLED LIFE 139
Mesolithic and Archaic Technology
The transition to broad-spectrum collecting began in different world areas at different times and
had varying consequences. In some areas it led to
relativeI.Y permanent settlements. In other regions
people appear to have continued relatively mobile, nomadic lifestyles. In general, however, the
Mesolithic and Archaic tools are distinct from
those of the Paleolithic. The production of percussion-flaked tools continued, but the tools were
typically much smaller and more specialized than
Paleolithic implements. Some of the most common Mesolithic tools are known as microliths,
small flakes of stone that were used for a variety
of purposes, including harpoon barbs and specialized cutting tools. The bow and arrow, a technological innovation that appeared in the Upper Paleolithic, became common among Mesolithic and
Archaic peoples. It clearly had important consequences in terms of subsistence as it allowed
hunters ~okillgame from a greatet_qistance and
with more accuracy than they could with spears.
A new type of stone tool, ground stone,also became common in both Old and New World cultures. Some of these implements were probably
unintentional products of food processing. To
make seeds and nuts more palatable, people pulverized them between a hand-held grinding stone
and larger stone slab, or even a large rock. This
activity shaped the hand stones and wore depressions, or grooves, into the stone slabs. Using a
similar grinding process, Mesolithic peoples intentionally shaped some stones into axes, gouges,
and adzes (specialized tools used for shaping
wopd). Tools with similar functions had been produced by percussion flaking during the Paleolithic,
but ground-stone tools tend to be much stronger.
The improved stone-working technology seen
during the Mesolithic and Archaic periods probably allowed for a great many innovations in other
areas such as the harvesting of resources and the
shaping of wood for building. Although watercraft
were developed during the Upper Paleolithic,
ground-stone tools made it easier to cut down logs
and hollow out the inside to make dugout canoes.
Vessels of this type improved mobility and enabled people to exploit more diverse ocean, lake,
and river resources. Ground-stone sinkers and fish
140
CHAPTER7
hooks made from shell, bone, or stone also attest
to the importance of aquatic resources.
Origins of Food Production:
The Neolithic Period
The Neolithic, or New Stone Age, marks one of
the most important changes in human historythe shift from food gathering to food production.
Like the change from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic, the transition to the New Stone Age was
gradual. During the Mesolithic period, human
populations experimented with new types of subsistence activities. Some groups purposely began
to collect seeds for planting, not just for consumption. The practice of growing plants is referred to
as cultivation.
In addition, cenain populations
began to tame animals like wild dogs or wolves to
have as companions and to help in hunting. Other
groups began to capture wild species of animals
such as sheep, goats, cattle, and horses and to
travel with these animals to different pastures.
Eventually, some populations came to rely on
panicular cultivated plants more than others. They
also concentrated on rearing panicular animals. In
other words, some of these groups engaged in artificial selection, a process similar to natural selection in which people select cenain plants or animals for reproduction and prevent others from
breeding. In effect, these human populations were
modifying plants and animals within the environment. and selecting out cenain characteristics to
produce food to satisfy their own needs. Gradua::y, this processproduced plants and animals that
were distinct from wild species and dependent on
humans. This process is referred to as domestica-
tion.
The domestication of plants and animals to
some unconscious extent may have been unconscious. When people gathered wild seeds they
more easily picked the larger seeds that stayed on
the stem. Similarly, people kept more docile, easily tamed animals rather than the more aggressive
members of the species. In some world areas at
about 10,000 years ago, these processes of anifi-
.
'dill setection.~edto the emergence of societies that
becameincreasingly dependent on the production
of domesticated agricultural plants and ~nimals.
Becausepeople had to remain in cenain areas to
tend their crops, they occupied particular settlements on a more permanent basis.
StudyingPlant and Animal Domestication
Information about the domestication of plants
comes from a number of sources. Much of what
we know has been proVided by the archaeological
record. Becausewild and domesticated speciesdiffer physically, plant and animal remains can be
examined to trace the transition to domestication
(.Struever,1970; Ucko and Dimbleby, 1969). For
example,wild speciesof grains such as wheat and
barley have fragile rachis, the portion of the stem
where the seeds are attached. This feature is advantageous in the wild because the seeds more
easily fall to the ground, where they can germi"Dateand reproduce.
In contrast, the attachments of the seeds on domesticated plants is characteristically tough, and
the seeds tend to remain attached to the stem.
This feature is convenient for humans because it
makes harvesting easier.Domesticated plants 'also
show a general tendency toward an increase in
size of the edible parts, a feature that early farmers
would have chosen.
In contrast to plants, the domestication of animals is more difficult to discern using archaeological data. This is true despite the fact that many
features distinguish wild animals from domesticated species. Unlike their wild counterpans, domesticated cattle and goats produce more milk
than is needed by their offspring: This excessis expfoited by humans. Wild sheep do not produce
wool, and undomesticated chickens do not lay extra eggs. Unfonunately, the animal remains found
at archaeological sites, primarily the skeletons, often exhibit only subtle differences between wild
and domesticated species.One obvious distinction
is seen in the case of the sheep: The shape of the
horn in domesticated speciesis different.
Some indication of human influence is also
provided by changes in the ratios of the ages and
sexes of the animals killed by humans. Forexam.~
pIe, archaeological evidence from the Southwest
Asia shows that Paleolithic hunters made extensive use of wild goats and sheep. They readily
killed animals of both sexesand of any age. How-
ic,
Domesticated
speciesofplants and animals
are physicallydifferentfrom wild varieties. In this photograph, the oldestmaize
cobscan be readilydistinguishedfrom the
larger. more recentexamples.
THE ORIGINS OF DOMESTICATION AND SETTLEDLIFE 141
ever, as time went on they realized that they cou.\d
increase their yield by sparing females and their
young. They also learned that they could capture
animals, keeping them to be killed when needed
(Perkins, 1964). Sheep bones dating back 9000
years have been found in some Southwest Asian
sites far away from the animals' natural habitat, a
good indication that the animals were being captured and raised by humans. Under these conditions weaker animals that may not have survived
in the wild would live.
Other Archaeological Evidence
Some archaeological evidence for the beginning of the Neolithic is less direct. The food-processing requirements associated with food production as opposed
to hunting and gathering necessitated different
technological innovations. As a result, specialized
food-processing artifacts such as grinding stones
are found more frequently at Neolithic sites. Another significant development associated with the
Neolithic period that can be examined by archaeologists is the increased capacity for:,th~ ~torage..offood crops. Because agricultural production is seasonal, it is crucial to be able to store surpluses that
can be used throughout the year. Following the
Neolithic transition, structures such as granaries
became increasingly common, allowing for the
stockpiling of large food supplies against periods
of famine. Agricultural peoples learned to construct large and small granaries or storage bins
and pits out of such diverse materials as wood,
stone, brick, and clay.
Pottery has also often been used to identify Neolithic communities The settled lifestyle associated with farming undoubtedly contributed to the
developmentofpotteryi--heavy clay pots.were not
very suitable for the mobile lifestyles of hunter
and gatherers. Pottery would also have made it
easier to cook and store food. However, generalizations about farming cannot be made solely on
the basis of indirect evidence such as pottery.
Among the earliest pottery yet discovered, perhaps
10,500 years old, was that produced by the
Jomon culture of Japan. These people did not initially cultivate plants but subsisted by hunting and
gathering wild resources, especially shellfish (Aikens & Higuchi, 1981). Conversely, some later
farming communities did not make pottery.
Distribution
of Wild Species Archaeology
142
CHAPTER
7
does not provide all of the answers. Often plant
and animal remains are poorly preserved or do
not exist. Furthermore, finding early plant or ani.
mal remains at a particular site does not necessar.
ily mean the plant was domesticated there. It may
have originally been domesticated elsewhere and
introduced to the area where the remains were
discovered. One way researchers can evaluate the
most likely origin of a domesticated plant or ani.
mal is by locating the areas where related wild
species are currently found. Because wild species
provided the breeding stock for domesticated varieties, domestication likely occurred within these
areas. For example, wild species of tomato are
known from South America, making it a likely
area for the site of initial cultivation. Domesticated
lettuce, which is presently grown in many world
areas, probably derived from prickly lettuce, a
wild species of the same genus that is native to
Asia Minor. The wild species that provided the
breeding stock for domesticated cattle was Bos
p7:i~genius, the wild ox, an animal native to the;
Old World that became extind in Europe in the
early seventeenth century (Fagan, 1989).
Ethnographic
Studies
Another source of
information on domestication is ethnographic
Jomon potteryfrom Japan. Pottery,producedfrom fired
clay. is often associatedwith the Neolithicperiod. However.
in the case ofthe Jomon culture it was initially developedby
sedentaryhunters and Batherers.
.
'data.
Modemcnlturesmake varying use of wild,
as well as domesticated, plants and animals. In
WestAfrica, archaeologist Merrick PosnaQskyhas
studied what he refers to as "the past in the
present" (1984). He observed that in addition to
domesticates,modem farmers in Ghana make extensiveuse of over 200 species of wild plants on a
seasonalbasis. The farmers also rely heavily on
tbe trapping of wild animals such as the grasscutter, or cane rat. Posnansky seesevidence for similar activities in early archaeological sites. This intensive utilization of wild resources is probably
similar to the activities in early farming communities, thus providing insight into the mechanisms
that may have eventually led to domestication.
Why Did Domestication
Occur?
from weeds and pests.-Moreover, agriculture-bffers a delayed return. Several months may elapse
between the time a crop is planted and the time it
can be harvested. Tree crops like bananas and
plantains may not bear fruit until almost a year after planting. In addition, agricultural production is
a risky enterprise. Despite the considerable energy
and time that people invest in planting, weeding,
and protecting crops, the harvest can still fail, producing enormous hardships for the entire society.
The disadvantages of agricultural production
would appear to outweigh the benefits.
In the nineteenth century, archaeologists began
exploring the origins of domestication. Early theories suggestedthat a solitary genius suddenly had
the idea of planting seeds,and this innovation led
to agricultural civilizations. Such a simplistic idea
is clearly unlikely. Using information from different world regions, archaeologists have developed
different theories explaining the transition to agriculture.
Today we take food production for granted. The
vast majority of the world's population depends
on crops and animals domesticated and cared for
by humans. Hunting and gathering contributes a
comparatively small part of our diet. However, the
reasonswhy domestication initially took place are
not clear. Modem hunting and gathering populations such as the Australian Aborigines and the
African San are confined to marginal areas, such
as desens or tropical rain forests, where food resourcesare often difficult to obtain. Nevenheless,
studies by anthropologists indicate that groups
suchas the San invest only about 17 hours a week
obtaining food (Lee, 1969). In.the past, huntergatherers were not confined to marginal regions
but were found throughout the world. Therefore,
they wt:re able to exploit a greater diversity of resourcesand could probably obtain food more easily than can modem hunters and gatherers (Price
& Brown, 1985). This observation is supported by
anthropologist George Murdock's estimate that
approximately 15 perc~nt of the world's population was still effectively living a hunting and gathering existence only 500 years ago (1968).
In contrast to hunting and gathering, agriculture is much more labor-intensive. The soil has to
One of the first scientific theories concerning
domestication was refined by V. Gordon ChiIde in
the 1930s (1936, 1952). Childe suggested that at
the end of the Pleistocene a major climatic change
transformed the environments of areas such
Southwest Asia, leading to new subsistence strategies. The climatic change produced severe
droughts that forced humans to take up residence
in isolated fenile areas caJled oasesand to adopt
agriculture. According to Childe, who coined the
term "Neolithic Revolution" to refer to this supposed period of dramatic. change, agriculture- en-'
abled humans to maintain a reliable food supply
in extreme conditions. Once invented, the idea of
food production spread rapidly to other regions.
Although Childe's theory, popularly known as
the oasistheory, was readily accepted by many archaeologists for a number of years, subsequent archaeological and geological research has not confirmed his interpretations. Thus far, little evidence
has been discovered suggesting such a dramatic
change in the environment of Southwest Asian
foJlowing the Pleistocene epoch, or of the concentration of populations around isolated, fenile oa-
be tilled, seedsplanted, and the crops protected
ses.
The OasisTheory
THE ORIGINS OF DOMESTICATION AND SETTLEDLIFE 143
~
TheReadinessHypothesis
A different theory, developed by archaeologist
Robert Braidwood (1960) of the University of
Chicago, was based on data excavated in Southwest Asia during the 1940s and 1950s. Braidwood
noted that climatic conditions comparable to those
that characterized the end of the Pleistocene had
existed in this region at severaltime periods dating
back at least 75,000 years. If agriculture was a response to environmental pressures as Childe suggested, why hadn't domestication occurred earlier?
Braidwood hypothesized that after a long period of time human populations became increasingly familiar with the plants and animals around
them. He notes:
Around 8000 B.C.the inhabitants of the hills around
the fenile crescent had come to know their habitat so
well that they were beginning to domesticate the plants
and animals they had been collecting and hunting. At
slightly later times human cultures reached the corresponding level in Central America and perhaps in the
Andes, in southeastern Asia, and in China. From these
"nuclear" zones cultural diffusion spread the new way
of life to the rest of the world (1960: 6).
Braidwood's statement may present a plausible
descriptionof agricultural origins, but, like Childe's
theory, Braidwood's hypothesis does not really
explain why hunters and gatherers adopted agriculture. His model seemsto require an assumption
regarding human nature or psychology; namely,
earlier peoples were not ready to innovate or develop agriculture for some unexplained reason.
This hypothesis, sometimes referred to as the
readinesshypothesis,aoes not come to terms With
the questions of how and why domestication originated when it did.
Population Models
More recent models of the origins of agriculture
have been influenced by economist Ester Bosecup's theories regarding the relationships among
population, labor, and resources (1965). Boserup's theories were initially aimed at explaining
changes in complex agricultural practices, but her
ideas can be applied equally well to the origins of
domestication. She proposed that societies will
144
CHAPTER
7
.only intensify their cultivation practices when
they are forced to by increasing population pressure on the available resources. The transition
from simple to intensive agriculture involves such
a substantial increase in labor that actual output of
food per capita energy expenditure drops. Thus,
the adoption of intensive agriculture would be an
unpopular innovation because it requires much
more human energy. Many historical examples
exist of hunters and gatherers who were familiar
with intensive agriculture but did not adopt these
practices because of the increased expenditure of
labor involved. Thus, in this view agricultural production would not be a rational adaptation for
populations who enjoy reliable food resources and
experience limited population growth. At some
point, however, population pressures may force
people to adopt food-production techniques. Interpretations vary as to what factors may have
caused these pressures.
Demographic Stress One archaeologist who
proposed increasing population pressure to explain
why populations developed agriculture is Lewis
Binford (1968). Binford noted that at the end of the
Pleistoceneperiod sealevels beganto rise becauseof
the melting of the world's glaciers in the temperate
regions. He reasoned that rising sea levels would
have forced coastal peoples to migrate into interior
regions in which other populations alreadY.resided.
In Binford's view this movement led to population
increaseand demographic stressin these interior regions. To adjust to these new demographic and environmental conditions, populations began systematically to use agricultural practices to provide adequate food supplies for the expanding population.
TilUS, in Binford's view, population pressure was
the key reason for the development of agriculture.
Population
Growth
Another hypothesis
that considers the possible consequencesof population pressure on domestication was formulated
by Mark Cohen (1977). Cohen pointed out that
by the end of the Paleolithic era hunting and gathering societies had spread to all pans of the world.
During their migrations they gradually expanded
the amount and variety of wild food resources
they could exploit. Eventually these populations
were using nearly all of the naturally available
food. Populations continued to increase, but territorial expansion had left very few unpopulated ar-~
~
easto which nomadic hunterS'and gatherers could
migrate. The need to feed greater numbers of people led these popula~ons to adopt agricult~r~.
Recent archaeological research on the ongms of
agriculture has examined these de~ographic hypotheses carefully. Many archaeologist considers
variations of these interpretations to provide the
most viable explanations of agricultural orgins.
However, researcherssuch as Fekri Hassan (1981)
have been critical of the population-pressure models proposed by Boserup, Binford, and Cohen.
They argue that population pressure by itself
would not cause people to abandon hunting and
gathering in favor of intensive agriculture. Furthermore, although most archaeologists would
agree that population densities did increase at the
end of the Pleistocene, they would also argue that
it is not clear whether this occurred before or after
the transition to food production.
variation in Environment and Human
'Selection
'...,.
"...'.~7
Work by many researchers has emphasized
particular local conditions and cultural settings
that may have instigated contributed to domestication. Although they differ widely in the specifics
of their interpretations and the world areas they
have examined, many theorists have suggested
how variation in human adaptions, ranging from
early hunting and gathering to cultivation, may
have influenced differences in patterns of domestication. Human selection of certain plants and
the alteration of the environment through cultivation changed the distribution and characteristics
of certain plant species.
";-r,,,
.,
CarlO. Sauer (1952) was among the first archaeologists to examine how changes in human
interaction with the environment may have led to
domestication. He focused particular attention on
the early cultivation of root crops in East Asia,
suggesting that plants were first domesticated by
successful, sedentary food collectors who had the
opportunity to observe the plants' growth cycle.
Sauerconsidered Southeast Asia to be a major domestication center, and he suggested that domestication spread outward from this region.
Studying data from Mesoamerica and Southwest Asia, archaeologist Kent Flannery ap-
proached the question from a different perspective
(1965, 1973). He argued that an imponant push
for domestication came when humans introduced
plants to environmental zones outside the areas
where the plants normally occurred. Such a change
might result from population growth or from human desire to exploit cenain resources on a more
permanent basis. Under these circumstances humans would have had to invest extra time to nurture plants removed from their natural environment. This eventually resulted in domestication.
Co-evolution
One archaeologist, David Rindos, has examined
the question of domestication within a biological
evolutionary framework (1984). Rindos criticizes
other interpretations of domestication for placing
too much emphasis on conscious or intentional
selection. He argues that humans unintentionally
encouraged the survival and dispersal of cenain
types of plants through human activities such as
,"..weeding, storing, irrigating, and burning of fields.
Rindos states:
Early domesticatory interactions indirectly increase
the total potential yield obtainable from an environment ...The
major effect of domestication during
these early periods comes from the increases in wild
yield that it encourages. Increase in total available yield
permits human population growth. Population growth,
however, brings with it increased environmental disturbance and therefore increased potential for the initiation
of specialized domestication.
In moving from incidental to agricultural domestication, humans experience a radical shift in' feeding strategy. Rather than construct diets from the most hightly
valued foods in the environment, humans begin to feed
on all resources in direct proportion to their perceived
abundance. ...The
interaction of the shift toward
higher levels of utilization of resources and the increasing abundance and yield of domesticates provides the
positive feedback system that brings about the transition
to full agricultural subsistence (1984:192-93).
Human agricultural practices and biological
changes in cultivated plants evolved simultaneously. Human agents unintentionally selected
and germinated specific varieties of plants and developed certain behaviors that created a link between agricultural yields and population growth.
The research by Rindos has been important in
THE ORIGINS OF DOMESTICATION AND SETTLEDLIFE 145
underscoring the role of unconscious human
choice in the process of domestication. However,
other archaeologists emphasize that learning eognition, culture, and conscious processesare as important in explaining the origins of agriculture as
are uncouscious choices. For example, Michael
Rosenberg (199O) suggests that population pressures result in the conscious development of cul-
gionaiareasand involved a vast number of species
(Figure 7.1). The following discussions examine
the transition from hunting and gathering to food
-.in
different world regions.
tural norms regarding property and territorial arrangements for hunter-gatherer populations. He
believes that these cultural practices were deliberate choices that affected the origins of agriculture.
foo
roduction has been most intensively udied
is So west Asia, including the countrie
f Israel,
Jordan yria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. T changes
that occ ed there are in many way
~ s'* ilar to de-
Instead
velopmen
of focusing
entirely
on single
causal
factors
Asia
, of the world areas where the transi
"in
other
areas.
A gradua~
end
n to
toward
such as population pressure or intentional proc,.
essesof plant selection, a number of theorists have
the exploita pn of a variety ofresou" s can be seen
throughout t " , "Fertile Crescent," in area that ex-
stressed the complexity of agricultural origins. AIthough no consensus exists among archaeologists
concerning the exact reasons for domestication, all
agree it was a much more complex process than
early theorists suggested.
on
fo-
tends along a t\rve from the Redjl.ea, north along
the eastern edg~,of the MediteJ'iranean Sea, then
southeast throug!\the Zagros Mountains of Iran
and Iraq, down to(~e Persi~ Gulf (Figure 7.2).
This region includes a numbf:r of distinct environmental zones ranging \"~romhigh mountains to the
fertile Tigris and Euphriiles;t-ivervalleys. Such a region would have present~ early hunter and gatherers with a wide range Q{~atural resources.
The Natufians
Th!e ~est-known Mesolithic
people of Southwest 4iSia a~~ the Natu'fians, who
lived in the eastern p~rtion d( the Fertile Crescent
in what is today p~ of Isra~, and Jordan. They
hunted wild anim,~ls and ga~ered wild plants
(Henry, 1985; ~ellart, I97~~. Approximately
12,000 years ag~- the Natufians, began to settle
down in villages, where they '\~ultivated wild
grains and cere~/!.l
grasses.Archaeol'\)gists have discovered mortws, pestles, and groun~,-stone bowls
associated with
the new dietary p~ctices.
They
"
\'
have also ff}bnd sharp flint blades t~! were inserted int~~one handles and used to~ut grains
(Figure 13). Archaeologists know h,,"w these
blades !ere used because a distinctiv~,residue
called plica glo.ss was left by t~e plan\,stalks.
shel s.atufian
Some sites
laler were
settlements,
ere
Some
located however,
III natur~ ock
some of the
to domesHowever,
is a complex issue that
qui substantial, containing houses with ""ne
fo dations, paved floors, and storage chamb
riation in the material wealth found in gra~ ;S.
ggests that there was some differentiation In s '.
is
Although domestication appears to
earlier in some areas than
in others,~it occurred independently in many re-
cial status. Imported items such as sea shells, sail
and obsidian (a volcanic glass) attest 10 the Natu-'
Ran's increasing trade conlacts. This elaboration in
ConclusionsAbout Agricultural Origins
The preceding summaries provide only a brief
overview of differing perspectives on agricultural
origins. Numerous other ideas have been formulated, many of which cannot be easily simplified.
Future research will very likely reveal earlier evidence, greater complexity, and more regional variation. Domestication clearly had important consequences for human society. However, it has become clear that it was a gradual process,rather than
th:~:::;~:.~i~~~iii
D ome§~lcat!on
t
~ hiIde.
!n n.-f
L'I. feren t
World Areas
J
cused
Discussions of
China and
first archaeological
tication was
the
146
CHAPTER7
have
~
FIGURE 7.2 Sites of domestication in Southwest
Asia, Europe, and the Nile
Valley.
\~;~
South ,America
..(Smith,
Evidence for early agrIcultural developments m
South America has been found in a n.umber of areas, but many of the better-known sItes are from
Peru. Near the foothills of the Andes Mountains
on the Peruvian coast are fertile river valleys th
are ideal for the cultivation of food. Following t
Pleistocene, people congregated in coastal regi, s,
..fish and other marine resource B.y
-, out 7500 years ago these sedentary co
umti
were experimenting with a variety
wild
pia species (Fagan, 1989). The earliest omesticate species, including cotton, the. bo e gourd,
chiles, ima beans, squash and achlr ~a starchy
root),
ear around 4500 years ago. vidence for
peanuts d maize dates slightly lat.
The su istence stategies of th early inhabitants of the eruviarihighlands w e distinct from
those of co~al people (Fagan, 89). The highland terrain \cludes steep mo tain slopes that
cut through a \ariety of micr nvironments. The
transition to ag~lture
is do ~ented by arch.a~ological finds at ~ s such a ultarrero and Piklmachay Caves, w .h prese e a rec~rd extending
back about 12,000 ars. rly hunting and gathering populations fir ,su isted on animals such
the giant sloth and sm" I game, and on a variety
of wild plants. Later Ar aic subsistencestrategies
focused more on the
of more varied
seasonal resources. It
p sible that people were
pn to 7000 B.C. Extenspedes
sive evi'dence for~ h use 0 domesticated
of
maize,
squash,
p
ato,
bea
s, gourds
and
North
North At
ica has traditionally
as
peripheral
the domestication cent of Mesoamerica. Ithough it is true that kn~'~dge of
important plant crops such as corn, s~~h, and
beans appears to have been introduced from Mesoamerica, North America also appears to have
CHAPTER7
ence of the domestication of some speci
as
bee ecovered from sites dating
r 4000
and 3
years ago.
The c "vation of Mesoamerican
such as mai
nd beans spread intoj/sorth America
(juring the pe .d between A.o/"sOO and 1100
(Smith, 1989). G ually, mai!#/bec~~e the most
important crop in
ing fjitfumumnes throughout North America. In e,lresent-day southwestem United States,maizt;.. Itivation led to the development of speciali
-land farming practices in Pueblo cultur '-such-the Hohokam, Anasazi, and Mogollo
Some of .e most extensive
agricultural techn ogy, focusing
the cultivation
of maize, beans nd squash, diffu
through the
Midwest, the ,,'.utheast, and eventua
the Northeast, culmin fig in the Adena and Hewell
cultures and t immense Mississ~ppiancuI al complex wit ts center at Cahokla (see Cha r 14).
Some 0 e artwork and other artifacts ass' ted
with
ese societies suggest contact with Mesua rica across the Gulf of Mexico and through
th 'ver systems connecting the Mississippi with
the Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois rivers.
other
crops appears bet en 7000 d 5000 years ago.
The llama, a .50
American pack animal, and
"'the ;U'lnea pig -probably
3500 B,C.
154
been an independent locatcenter of domestication
1989). Archaeologists have uncovered evidence of the domestication of various starchy and
oily seeds in what some researchers term the Eastern Agricultural Complex (Ford, 1985; Keegan,
1987). As in other New World areas, the ma
tion of wild plants began early in the Arch.
;:riPU
Consequences
of Domes tit ation
Although the precise reasons for the domestication of plants and animals remain uncertain, these
activities clearly had important consequences.
Most fundamental was the alteration of the environment. Although farming practices vary in different societies, all involve the modification of the
natural environment by clearing the land. Although some agriculturalists periodically allow the
~
[:",
~y \
.;~c)J~- "'::i~*' ,."
'*"=i~
New World culturesdevelopeda varietyof agricultural practicessuitable to many different
environments.PuebloIndian farming communities,.suchasjhe-,o~ pictUl;ed,above..
..flourishedfor hundreds ofyears by making effectiveuse ofthe limited water available.
land to lie fallow (uncultivated), the land is eventually cleared again, preventing the regrowth of
natural plants. Domesticated animals also alter the
environment by grazing and preventing regrowth.
Larger settlements and more intensive land use by
humans frequently contributed to erosion and a
decline in sou fenility.
PopulationGrowth
..-"~
The development of agriculture led to increases
in human populations. In general, the domestication of plants and animals probably made food
supplies more stable or reliable. More importantly,
agriculture allows more food to be produced per
acre of land, enabling a given region to support a
larger population. The increase in world population during the Neolithic period represents a major
demographic shift in human history. The annual
population growth rate 'increased dramatically,
leading to a tenfold population increase from the
end of the Paleolithic. By the year A.D. 1, some researchersestimate that the world population was
approximately 300 million (Hassan, 1981).
Health and Nutrition
Although agricultural developments promoted
population growth, they did not necessarily improve the quality of life in all respects. Evidence
from a .number of areas suggeststhat the advent of
domesticated crops actually contributed to a decline in human health (Cohen & Armelagos,
1984}. The larger settlements associated with the
Neolithic increasingly brought people into contact
with one another, thereby facilitating the spread
of infectious disease.In some casespeople also became increasingly dependent on panicular domesticated plants such as com. This restricted diet did
not fulfill nutritional requirements as well as those
of hunter and gatherers, which included a wide
variety of both plants and animals. The reliance
THE ORIGINS OF DOMESTICATION AND SETTLEDLIFE 155
on..eae-:;Grop:ratherthan on a variety of wild resources also increased the risk of famine.
Archaeologists can study the impact of Neolithic life by studying human skeletons (Goodman
et al., 1984). Conditions such as poor nutrition,
arrested growth, and disease leave identifiable
traces on the bone. Evidence of physiological
stress induced by food shortages is provided by
Harris lines, lines in long bones indicating periods
of arrested growth, and enamel hypoplasias,deficiency in tooth enamel. Calculations of the average height of people and age of death in prehistoric populations also provide imponant clues as
to changes in general health.
In a recent survey of worldwide data, Anna
Cunenius Roosevelt concluded that there is evidence of food stress in Paleolithic and Mesolithic
populations. However, she found more evidence
of stress as well as other health and nutritional
problems in sedentary Neolithic communities.
Roosevelt concludes:
.,
,. ...,
~ c
.
lt seems that a large proponion of most sedentary
prehistoric populations under intensive agriculture underwent chronic and life-threateningmalnutrition and
disease,especiallyduring infancy and childhood. The
causesof the nutritional stressare likely to have been
the poveny of the staplecrops in most nutrients except
calories,periodic faminescausedby the instabilityof the
agricultural system,and chronic lack of food due to
both population growth and economicexpropriationby
elites. The increasesin infectious diseaseprobably reflect both a poorer diet and increasedinterpersonalcontact in crowded settlements,and it (infectious disease]
is, in turn, likely to have aggravatednutritional problems (1984: 573-74).
forms and was also used-to make"sm()kihg-pipes~~"
lamps, and sculptures. Plants cultivated by humans included cotton and flax, which could be
woven into clothing. Many Neolithic artifacts are
readily recognizable to modem-day humans.. For
example, some sites contained remains of chairs,
tables, and beds similar to those used today (Clark
& Piggott, 1965). Ritual structures and ornamentation also became more elaborate.
There were also innovations in transportation
technology. In Southwest Asia the wheel was used
to construct transportation vehicles. Although New
World civilizations knew how to make wheels
(they are found on toys in Mesoamerica), they did
not use the wheel. Their failure to do so probably reflected the fact that, unlike Old World peoples, they
had not domesticated oxen or cattle to pull vehicles. Moreover, in the mountainous region of the
Andes where the llama was domesticated, wheeled
transportation was inefficient.
As populations settled permanently in villages
and urban areas,.they -built durable dwellings of
mud, brick, stone, and mortar. All of the structures within a particular settlement were not always the same. Some structures had many rooms
with private courtyards and rich furnishings,
whereas others were very modest. The nature of
this housing reflected the growing divisions on the
basis of wealth, prestige, and status found in some
societies.
IncreasingMaterial Complexity
Technological developments that accompanied
the Neolithic revolution indicate dramatic changes
in food production, as well as in other economic
and cultural activities. Archaeologically, the Neolithic is represented by an explosion of artifacts.
Settlement sites often contain huge trash mounds,
or middens, containing food remains, broken
tools, and other garbage. The material culture represented by these artifacts becomes increasingly
complex. Clay was shaped into a variety of vessel
156
CHAPTER7
As the preceding discussion of the Neolithic illustrates, societies during the past 10,000 years became increasingly varied and difficult to categorize
in general terms. Some populations successfully
maintained hunting and gathering subsistence
strategies until modem times. Others employed
relatively simple agricultural methods. Paleolithic
societies generally appear to have been egalitarian,
meaning that people had equal access to power
and prestige. This does not mean that all people
entirely equal. Some were betterht:lnters. or ~...oihe(,~~qp~~9~~B.ql?J!I.ation growth, however,
gifted leaders than others. However, people
led to the formation of large urban centers, or citsame sex and capabilities had a1;lputthe
ies. In contrast to the small-scale settlements
access to power and prestige. During the
found in earlier societies, cities contained large,
was an increasdense populations. These developments may have
toward more variation in status in many
contributed to the emergence of more complex
areas. Certain individuals started to acquire
forms of political organization. In areas such as
influence than others in decision making
Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, Mesoamerica,
allocating agricultural surpluses and were
and South America, cities grew dramatically and
In addition, fullincorporated outlying regions and populations. In
craft specialists, individuals who concensome world areas beginning almost 6000 years
on the manufacture of panicular types of
ago, these developments set the stage for the apgpods,became more common.
pearance of the centralized political organization
Most Neolithic farming communities were relacalled the state.The emergence of state systems is
small and largely independent of one andiscussed in Chapter 15.
Summary
..-,;,
"",.
"
,,",,'
"""'f.. "1'\"" "".. ".
'This chapter examines a fundamental change in
provided more regular food supplies, allowing for
human lifestyles, the shift from a reliance on natgrowth in human populations. However, the
urally occurring plants and animals to that of food
reasons why domestication took place remain
production. This transition is seen in many world
speculative. By exploiting a variety of naturally
areas at different times. Food production is prooccurring resources, hunters and gatherers actuceeded by a period, known as the Mesolithic or
ally invest much less time in subsistence activities
Archaic, in which humans started to exploit plants
than do food producers. Domesticated crops must
and animals intensively within particular environbe planted, weeded, and watered for several
ments: In some cases permanent or semipermamonths before they can be harvested. The chance
nent settlements developed around these reof crop failure also makes agriculture a risky insources. Specialized tool technologies appeared for
vestment.
processing plant foods, hunting. and fishing.
Archaeologists have offered many hypotheses
Many Mesolithic and Archaic populations also
to explain the origin of food production. These exstaned to plant wild seeds and capture "WUd ani- ,- planat!p.I:}~...!;.a_~ge
_f1:9W
climatic change at the end
mals. The manipulation of wild species was the
of the Pleistocene to population growth. Other in.first stage in the transition of food production. Afterpretations tend to view the transition as a comter a period of human selection some plants and
plex process involving fundamental changes in the
animals became domesticated-physically distinct
way humans interacted with the environment.
from wild varieties and dependent on humans for
Food production clearly had important consequences for human history. Aside from a dramatic
reproduction.
The shift in subsistence to domesticated species
increase in population, the Neolithic period is also
marks the beginning of the Neolithic period. Bemarked by increasing material complexity, social
cause people had to stay near their crops. Neostratification, and political complexity. These delithic people became more sedentary than earlier
velopments set the stage for the emergence of
hunting and gathering populations. Domestication
states in many world areas.
THE ORIGINS OF DOMESTICATION AND SETTLEDLIFE 157
(iiJ
.~
~'\.~~~
§1'tA
r
~t\,.~::t;
~..p lA' '1)0
~1(Y
-I
-.
L-
:J
~
43
~ATALHOYUK: ORTA ANADOLU'DA 9000
YILLIK KONUT VE YERLE~ME
CATALHOYUK: 9000 YEAR
OLD HOUSING AND
SETTLEMENT
ANATOLIA
i;eviri: 1~llarKiir
Ian Hodder
CATALHOYUK (EAST MOUND)
<;atalhoyuk zamanlna gore
geni~ bir yerle~me alanldlr.
~,~
.'",
~,
az 13.5 hektar olup, degi~ik donemlerde 5-10 bin
le~melerinden ~ok daha eski alan <;atalhoyuk, A~lkll
Hoyuk gibi onemli
yerle~melerin gelenegini
surdurur. i~ duzeni, Konya
Ovasl'nln hemen dogusundaki A~lkll Hoyuk gibi, Gu-
~atalhoyiik is a large site for its early date. The east
mound alone is 13.5 hectares at least and may have
contained 5000 to 10 thousand people in some
phases(Fig.1)*. All this is well before the growth of
"urban" settlement in Mesopotamia and Egypt,
although it continues on from important sites such
as A~lkll Hoyiik. As at the latter site just to the east
of the Konya Plain, the internal organisation of
~atalhoyiik is most similar to the pueblos of the
American southwest. Housesare built up against
each other with entrances through the roof. There
are few streets and movementwas presumably
mainly across the flat roofs. Housesare organised
along terraces which encircle the summit of what
came to be a 20 meter high mound. There is also
radial organisation of houses(Fig.2) since channels
had to be provided for water and drainage to flow
down the slope and off the site. Although there are
areas for refuse deposition, the overall organization
of the site seemssimple, with no public buildings
identified as yet. Perhaps the main enigma of the
site is that this simple organization is associated
with a complex art. Several of the houseshave
paintings and reliefs showing complex scenes,often
with narrative content.
-~-
Yalnlzca dogu hoyugu en
ki~i barlndlrabilmi~
olmalldlr (Res.1).* Mezopotamya
ve Mlslr'daki "kent" yer-
IN CENTRAL
,
"
'"
~
J\\\
)\1\
~\\\~\
1""'1
,-I
li
~!\~:\'\i ,,""
0 \\\'
~)))
I(---""'
(I'ill!
"
'0001
{'-~""
1
.[ (i'/':(;
~
1
-:fif1JA,1(0'
1~
neybatl Amerika'daki
klzllI
oooJ
derili yerle~melerine (puebc~;::~1 ~Jn:!'
} ~
In
0 ,.-.,
los) benzemektedir. Dam,//
(if
dan giri~li evler birbirine
biti~ik yapllml~tlr. Az saYI000f
1000 .-1,..,
"SO
da yol vardlr ve gorunu~e
c
O...""""
gore geli~ gidi~ler duz
~";"'.""""'c'1
R~s.lPlan
~atalhoyiik'te
dogu
hoyiigiiniin
pl~n~:
dam Ia rl n ustunden Yap rlFlg.l
oftheeast
mound
at(;atalhoyuk.
ml~tlr. Evler, 20 m yukseklige varan hoyugun tepesini ~evreleyen teraslar boyunca yerle~tirilmi~tir. Ayrlca, su g.ereksinimi ve drenajln baYlr a~agl ve yerle~im alanl
dl~lna allnmasl i~in gerekli kanallar dolaYlslyla evler 1~lnsal duzenlenmi~tir (Res.2). Atlklar i~in yerler vardlr; ama, genelde duzenleme basittir ve ~imdiye dek kamu binalarl olarak tanlmlanacak yapllara rastlanmaml~tlr. Belki de bu yerle~im alanlnln gizlencesi bu basit duzenlemenin karma~lk bir sanatla baglantlll olmasldlr. Evlerin birka~lnda oykusel i~erikli resimler ve kabartmalar vardlr.
~=
~
~.;qr
~iE".
Yerle§me alanl ilk olarak, 1960'larln ba§larlnda Ankara'daki ingiliz
Arkeoloji Enstitusu'nun destegiyle, James Meilaart'ln yonetiminde kazllml§; daha sonra, yakrn bir zamanda Turkiye, ingiltere, Yunanistan
ve ABO'den ara§tlrmacllarln
olu§turdugu uluslararasl bir ekip taraflndan tekrar kaZllml§tlr. Yeni proje, ara§tlrma komiteleri, Avrupa Birligi
ve oze! sponsorlarln olu§turdugu geni§ bir I;evre taraflndan desteklenmektedir.l Amal; bu alanda 25 ill sureyle I;all§maktlr. ilk donem
(1993-1995) yuzey ara§tlrmalarlnl
kapsaml§tlr. ikinci be§ Yllilk donem, yerte§imin ba§langlcl, il; duzeni, il;inde sanat alan yapllarla olma-
The site has been excavatedunder the auspices of
~
r
,
"it"1
,
.."~;,t""!J!i?c
,
{1WJ;;
~1
~-.
'iif
,
;
~
~L~~
Res.2 I;atalhoyuk'te dogu hoyugunun kuzeyinde yuzey
topragmm kaldlrllmaslyla ortaya ~Ikartllml~ evlerin plan!.
Fig.2 Plan of an area on the northern part of the east
mound at t;atalhoyiik, showing the houses revealed by
scraping (removal of the surface soil).
~
44
CATALHOVUK:ORTAANAOOLU'OA9000 VILUK KONUTVE VERLE$ME
~ATALHiiYOK: 9000 YEAR OLD HOUSINGAND SETTLEMENTIN CENTRALANATOUA
yanlarln
farkl,
zaman
i~indeki
gibi,
belirli
bulmak
zilarl
i~eriyor.
Mellaart,
yanlt
yapllacak
Ayrlca,
anlayabilmek
once
kurulmu~
yerle~mele-
excavation
origin
ama~)anl-
thesiteoff;atalhiiyiik.
nUl
ba~kanllglnda
projenin
ilk
~ebilirlikleri
bir
ekip
belirlemenin
onune
taraflndan
ara~tlrllmaktadlr)
de ozellikle
a~amalarlndaYlz;
goz
to answer specific questions such as the
of the site, its internal organization,
the
differences between buildings with and without art,
Dr.
ko~ullarlnl
involved surface
survey work. The second 5-year phase involves
ugh
ekonomik
The aim is to work at the site for 25
years. The first phase (1993-1995)
Res.3I;atalhoyiik'tekarbonla~ml~
bitki artlklarlnl toplamaki~in suda
elemeteknigininkullanlll~l.
Fig.3Useofaf/otationtechniquetocollectbotanicalremainsfrom
Roberts'in
from
Greece and the USA. The new.
councils, the European Union, and private
sponsorship.l
yor. C;atalhoyuk'un
~evreI b ~I
(L
hb
se
ag amlnl
Dug
oro-
N.
participants
project is funded by a wide range of research
i~in
Universitesi'nden
team including
C;a-
ya da daha
first
of James
Turkey, Britain,
donemde
da
at Ankara,
ka-
aynl
ricsaptamak
of Archaeology
and then again more recently by an
international
talhoyuk'u ~evresel konumunda
Institute
in the early 1960s under the direction
surekliligi
sorulara
i~in
the British
yapllarln
uzerinde
dolaYlslyla
allnarak
a~agldaki
goru~ler,
degi-
through time. Also
and earlier
sites in order to understand !;atalhiiyuk
in its
identifying
He-
of buildings
the aim is to locate other contemporary
regional setting.
ve
duruluyor.
and the continuity
Emphasis is also being placed on
the environmental
context of the site (a
team led by Dr. N. Roberts of Loughborough
University)
and its subsistence economy. We are
thus at an early stage in the life of the project and
degerlendirilmelidir.
the comments below must be seen as preliminary
C;;atalhoyuk'un
pek
~ok
bolgesindeki
rulabilecek
ler?
jar.
Daha
~agda~
olasltlgl
bir
neden
anlatlmla,
sanatlndan
irdelememiz
bi~imde
Pleistosen
insanlar
sunuyor.
tumunu
en keskin
bir~ok
sorudur:
C;atalhoyuk,
goru~
larln
kar~lmlza
Ama
aynl
sonrasl
ilk
ni~in
dolaYI
~Ikardlgl
once
daha
yerle~im
and provisional.
dunyanln
yeri
i~in
merkezlere
de so-
yerle~ti-
ya da "medeni"
bu konulara
zamanda
yerle~me
buyuk
"~ehirli"
soru,
alanlndaki
raises most acutely is
one that can be asked of many post-Pleistocene
sites
in many parts of the world: why did people first
oldu-
derinlemesine
The question that !;atalhiiyuk
settle down into larger centres? In contemporary
bir
terms, why did they become "urban"
!;atalhiiyuk
kanlt-
or "civilised".
offers the promise of a special insight
into such questions because of its art.
gerekiyor.
But we also
need to consider the full range of evidence from the
Ornegin, belki de insanlarl toplu yerle~meye ~evre zorluyordu?
sen sonrasl donemde ~atalhoyuk
lerinin ayrlntllarlnl
anlamaktan
Pleisto-
bolgesindeki iklim ve ~evre degi~iklikhala ~ok uzaglz. Bildigimiz,
yerle~imin
Konya Ovasl'nln kenarlnda olu~maya ba~layan aluvyon yelpazesinde konumlandlgldlr.
ba~laml~tl.
Pleistosen'de ovaYI dolduran gal bu u~tan yak olmaya
Yerle~im alan I, ovaya iyi suzulmu~ aluvyon getiren ve zen-
gin bir kaynak saglayan ~ar~amba Irmagl
~evre, yaklnlardaki
batakllk
kenarlnda bulunuyordu.
alanlar dl~lnda klsmen aga~llkll
olmallY-
dl. Nispeten kaynak zengini alan bu ~evrede toplu yerle~im1 zorunlu
kl-
lacak herhangi bir neden gorunmemektedir.
Ama belki bu toplu yerle~me, ~evreden ozellikle yogun ve duzenli bir
~ekilde yararlanma ihtiyaclnln sonucudur. Yerle~imin varllgl ile uretim
araslnda onemli bir baglantl bulundugu kesin gorunuyor. Konya Ovasl'ndaki en buyuk Neolftik yerle~menin en geni~ aluvyal yelpazenin
merkezinde yer aimasl bir rastlantl olamaz. Ancak ~u a~amada ya~ama
ekonomisinin nasll duzenlendigi konusunda pek az fikir sahibiyiz. Levant (Dogu Akdeniz) ile kar~lla~tlrlldlglnda,
bu buyuklukte ve bu tarihtel ~atalhoyuk ekonomisinin tamamen tarlmsal oldugu varsaYllabilir.
Hem b61gede hem de tahll ambarlarlnda uretilmi~ tahillar bulunmu~tur, ama diger yandan, insan di~leri uzerinde yaf}llan mikro a~lnma
etudleri ire insan kemikleri uzerinde yapllan analizler, ~ok az tahll tuketildiginde ve bitki beslenmesfnin fazlaslyla bakliyat ve kok bitkilere
dayall oldugunda birle~mektedir. Ayrlca, ezici ve ogutucu ta~ az saYlda
bulunmu~tur. Avclilk ve hayvanclllga gelince, kanltlar hala ~eli~kilidir.
site.
For example,
was the environment
to have forced settlement
perhaps such as
agglomeration?
We are
Res.4 Mikromorfoloji: ~alalhoyuk'un do~emelerindeki
kallntllarln mikroskopik delayI do~emelerin kullarnmlrn
aniamamizi sagllyor.
Fig.4 Micromorphology: microscopic detail of what
remains on the floors at t;atalh6yiik allows us to infer use
of the floors.
TARiHTEHGUHUMUZEAHADOLU'OAKOHUTVE YERl~ME
45
HOUSINGANO SETTLEMENTIN ANATOLIA:A HISTORICALPERSPECTIVE
Av i~in kullanllml~
olabilecek pek ~ok alet vardlr, ama slglr, koyun, ke-
still a long way from understanding
the details of
~i veya domuzun evci1le~tirildigi konusunda fikir birligine varllamaml~tlr. Yalnlzca kazllarln surmesiyle ~ozulebilecek butun bu belirsizliklere
climate and environmental
kar~ln, toplu yerle~meyi doguracak bir ekonomi tipinin belirtisi henuz
gorulmeml~tir. Ancak ~u ya da bu ~ekilde sulama faktoru hala bir o1aslllktir.
had started to develop on the edge of the Konya
Plain. The lake which had filled the plain in the
DolaYlslyla en azlndan eldeki kanltlarln durumundan dolaYI sosyal etkenleri goz onune almak zorunda kallyoruz. Bununla <.;atl§ma ve savun-
resource of well-drained
region in the post-Pleistocene.
Pleistocene had begun to diminish
sec;kin
yerle§menin
bir
mahalleye
kazdlgl
yuzde
rastladlglnl
one
dortluk
bolumunde
surmu§tur.2
Ancak,
dinsel
daha
brought alluvium
by its end. The
to the plain and provided a rich
soils. The landscape would
have been only partly wooded, perhaps with
backswamps
in areas near the site. The environment
would have been relatively
resource-rich
and there is
nothing to suggest crises of a type which might have
forced settlements
to agglomerate.
Might the agglomeration
have resulted from a need
to exploit the environment
and coordinated
ya da
production
can
!
yakln
fan which
site was located by the <;ar~amba River, which
I
Mellaart,
What we do know is
that the site was situated on an alluvial
maYI kastetmiyorum,
<.;unkuyerle§me buyuk bir olaslilkia duvarla <.;evrelenmemi§ti ve <.;atl§maya da sava§1 gosteren pek az kanlt vardlr. Ancak, belki de toplu yerle§me, se<.;kintabakanln, halkl ve onun kaynaklarlnl denetim altrna alma giri§iminin bir par<.;aslydl. ~atalhoyuk'te sosyal slnlfla§ma ne durumdaydl? Bugune kadar buyuk kamu binalarlna
ya da toren merkezlerine rastlanmaml§tlr.
J.
change in the <;atalhoyuk
be
seems
no
in a particularly
way? Certainly
central
accident
that
to
the
the
intense
some link with
site's
largest
existence.
It
Neolithic
site
in
the Konya Plain is situated at the centre of the
largest alluvial fan. However, we have very little
zamanda
tam ters
yapllan
ucunda
kazllarda
karma§lk
ve kabartmalarl
ortaya
Yapi
rllml§
bir
ic;inde
duvar
ogeler
ve degi§ik
yanml§
bir
leri
k
buralarln
ba§ka
dedigi
ba§ka
.In I.Ikl er ..1C;ln k u II ani
alC;1
ozenli
yaplde bu-
\'kutsal
yaanaliz-
normal
Id ~
Iglnl
boMella-
yerlerinde
kez
slglr
biC;i-
klrmlzl
C;lktl. Ayrlca,
mikromorfolojik
c;ogy
bir
\'kutu"
Boylece,
yapllar"
ortaya
zeminin
boynuz-
(Res.5),
bulduk.
yerle§menin
lundugu
pllar"ln
buyuk
geyik
zamanlarda
duvar
yapi§tl-
alC;lll,
buyuk
alc;/ bir
C;lklntlSJ
\'kutsal
larln
ustu
olarak
bulunan
~
2, 6).
du§mu§
"adak"
minde
art'ln
yeri,
~
yapllar
Slgl r boynuzu
duvardan
c;ene kemigi
benzer
(Res.l,
I'de,
oturma
olaslilkia
larl,
bulunan
C;lkartllml§t/r
I995'te,
yerle§imin
iC; do§emeleri
ev
Re5.5<;atalhoyuk'teYapll'in ayaktaka/ml~
duvarlndaki kabartmarnn tabarnnda bulunan
al~1"kutu". i~inde buyuk bir 51glr ~ene
iC;i et-
.. t
.kemigi
gas erlyor
bulunmu~tur.
Fig.5 Remainsofa plaster "box" at thebase
idea as yet of how the subsistence economy was
organized.
It might be assumed, on comparison
fully agricultural.
(Res.4).
"Kutsal"
binanln
slnda
olsun
kullanlm
sanat
olmasln
surelerinin
ic;erdikleri
birc;ok
bir
aC;lkllk
of~~/ieffigureont.he..survivingwallin
BuIlding 1 at t;atalhoyuk.
WIthin
nokta-
the "box"
isalargecattlejaw.
kazanm/~
ve "kutsal"
Certainly,
domesticated
cereals
have been recovered from the site and from grain
storage bins, but on the other hand, initial
olmayan
the microwear
birc;ok
with
the Levant, that a site of this size and date would be
study of
on the human teeth and initial
analysis of trace elements in the human bones
yaplda
da yuksek
lunmu~tur.
makla
kaliteli
Sec;kin
birlikte,
volkanik
ve sec;kin
ku§kusuz,
bir
cam,
olmayan
dereceye
seramik
araslnda
kadar
ve zengin
aC;lk bir
sosyal
gomuler
ayrlm
bu-
olma-
farkllilklar
conspire to suggest that few cereals were consumed;
the plant diet was based very much on pulses and
vardl.
tubers. In addition,
few pounding or grinding
stones
are known. As regards animal hunting or husbandry,
Toplu
yerle~menin,
lemek
zordur.
sosyal
gucun
yogunla~maslyla
nasll
dogdugunu
90Z-
the evidence remains contradictory:
there is much
equipment which could have been used in hunting,
but no consensus on whether the cattle, sheep, goat
Asllnda §imdiye kadarki belirtiler, ~ok buyuk ve nispeten farkllla§maml§ bir k6y bi~iminde betimlenebilecek bir yerle§meyi g6steriyor. Ancak bu yerle§me buyuk olaslilkia b6lgelere, belki ikili bir yaplya b6lunmu§tu. Kullanlmlnln ana d6nemi boyunca, derin bir dere yataglyla kuley ve guney b61umlere ayrllml§tl. Kuzey b61umdeki Yapl l'in detaylarl, Meilaart'ln guney b61umde buldugu her §eyden a~lk~a farkllilk g65-
and pig were domesticated.
uncertainty,
continuing
Despite all the
which can only be resolved by
excavation,
there is no indication
as yet
of a type of economy which could be said to have
caused settlement agglomeration,
irrigation
although
in some form remains a possibilty.
So we are prompted
to consider, at least in the
-J
~
~A!~L~Y~:
ORTA ANA~OLU'OA
9000 YILUK
46
KONUT VE YERLE~ME
termektedir. Ornegin, Oda 71 'deki ku~uk bolme, Meilaart'ln alanlnda
rastlanan bir ozellik degildi; bir duvar kabartmaslnln tabanl ~evresine
yerle~tirilmi~ ince cidarll al~1 kutu ya da Oda 70'te bulunan yuksek duvarll ocak da. insan yaplml belirli alet tipleri de yerle~im alanlnln butununde yerelle~mi~ ayrlmlarl gosteriyor. Belki yerle~im alan I, kulturel
farkllilklarl
torpuleyebilecek bir merkezi otorite olmadan biraraya gelmi~
bir gruplar toplulugunu (klanlar ya da a~iretler gibi) barlndlrlyordu.
71
~
Qatalhoyuk'teki toplu yerle~meyi a~lklama bilmecesi sanat ve ideolojiyi
goz o,nune aldlglmlzda derinle~iyor. Her ev, uretim, alet yaplml ve baklml q{lslndan nispeten kendi kendine yeterli gorunuyor. Buna ek olarak,
~' "'-i
,
Res.6 GatalhoyOk'te dogu hoyOgOnOnkuzeyindeki Yapi
I'in piano.
Fig.6 Plan of Building 1 on the northern part of the east
mound at l;atalh6ytik.
...~i.j
*"~""--:::
.-.",~ '"
~,
Res.? Bir r;atalhoyiik "kutsal yaplsl"nda akbabalarl ve ba~slz oliileri gosteren resimler.
Fig. 7 Paintings of vultures and headless corpses from a I;atalhoyiik "shrine".
birbirine kom~u binalarda uretilen sanat, gene Ie yaygln bir slkllkta ve
dOzen i~inde olmakla birlikte birbirinden olduk~a farklldlr. Heryeni ev
onceki bir evin duvarlarl ustune in~a edilmi~tir. Surekliligin derecesi
dikkate degerdir; yuzlerce hatta binlerce ill boyunca duvarlar, duvarlar
ustune in~a edilmi~tir. Mekan kullanlmlnda degi~iklik azdlr. Ku~kusuz,
aynl evde bin ill boyunca aynl "aile"nin ya~adlglndan em in olamaYlz
ama, olulerin ev do~emelerinin altlna gomulmesi nedeniyle boyle bir
varsaYlm da olasldlr. Ger~ekten de ev atalarlna buyuk saygl gosterilir.
Gluier; kolyeler, silahlar, aynalar ve benzeri gibi ~eylerle bir platformun
altlna gomulmu~ ve yapl, en azlndan bir durumda, ev kullanlmlndan
torensel bir i~leve ge~mi~tir. Kullanlml sonunda (belki her 100 Yllda
bir) yap I temizlenmi~, e~yasl bo~altllml~ ve denetim altlnda yak.llml~.
Ardlndan i~i doldurulup, yeni duvarlar ve do~emeler eskinin kallntllarl
ustune in~a edilmi~. Duvarlarln in~asl slk slk, tuglalar araslna ku~uk
heykelciklerin
yerle~tirilmesiyle
ili~kilidir.
C;;atalhoyuk'te yerle~me yaplslnl buyuk oranda belirleyenin evlerin surekliliginin pratigi ve ideolojisi oldugu a~lktlr. Sanata ~ogunlukla, tahll
ambarlarlnda bulunan kadln heykelcikleri gibi verimliligi ve uremeyi
vurgulama, ya da akbabalarln ba~slz insan vucutlarlndan et kopardlgl
karma~lk cenaze torenlerini betimleme (Res.?) a~!larlndan bakllml~tlr.
Evlerin birbirinden baglmslz surekliligi uzerindeki turn bu vurgu, yalnlzca, insanlarln neden buyuk bir toplu yerle~me merkezinde biraraya
gelme zorunlulugu duydugu sorununu derinle~tirmeye yarlyor. Sanat
yalnlzca bir tek kesin ipucu veriyor. C;;oksaYlda insanl (genellikle erkek), buyuk bogalarln ya da ba~ka efsanevi vah~i hayvanlarln taciz
present state of our evidence, social factors. I do not
mean by this conflict and defensebecausethe site is
probably not walled and there is little secure
evidence of fighting and warfare. However, the
agglomeration might have been part of an attempt
by an elite to control a population and its resources.
How ranked was I;atalhiiyiik? So far there has been
no indication of large public buildings or ceremonial
centres.J. Mellaart argued that in the 4% of the
site that he had excavated he had come across the
quarter of a priestly caste or elite.2 However, the
more recent excavations have discovered buildings
with equally complex internal fittings and reliefs in
an area at the opposite end of the site (Figs.l, 2, 6).
In 1995, in Building 1, we found a bench with a
cattle horn attached, deer horns with plaster which
had probably fallen off the wall, a wall relief with a
plaster "box" beneath containing an "offering" of a
large cattle jaw (Fig.5), other plaster features and a
wall painted red on numerousoccasions. It appears
then that the elaborate buildings Mellaart called
"shrines"are also found elsewhereon the site. In
addition, micromorphological analysis of the floors
in the "shrines" shows that they were often used for
normal domestic activities (Fig.4). It has also
becomeclear that many buildings, "shrines" and
non-"shrines", contained art at some point in their
use-lives, and that many non-"shrines" contained
concentrations of high quality obsidian and ceramics
as well as rich burials. There was no clear
separation between elite and non-elite although
social variation undoubtedly existed to somedegree.
It is difficult to see how settlement agglomeration
could have been produced by the concentration of
social power.
In fact the evidenceso far suggestsa settlement
best described as a very large and relatively
undifferentiated village. It was, however, probably
divided into zones, perhaps into a dual structure.
Throughout its main period of use the settlement
was divided by a deep gully into northern and
southern sectors. The details of Building 1 in the
northern sector differ clearly from anything found
by Mellaart in the southern sector. For example, the
small enclosure in Room 71 was not a feature found
47
edilmesi ya da onlara eziyet edilmesi ~evresinde geli§en ayinlerde betimleyen resimler var. Bunlar bireysel erkek yurekliligini
i~eren erkek
grup etkinliklerini
gostermektedir. ~atalhoyuk sakinlerinin ya§amlnda
merkezi bir rolu oldugunu bildigimiz ziyafetler ve all§veri§, belki ortak
mekanlarda ger~ekle§iyordu. Ama boyle sahneler, butunuyle efsanevi
degillerse, yerle§im alanlnda bu tOr ayinlerin ger~ekle§ebilecegi a~lk
alan bulunmadlglna gore, yerle§me dl§lnda ger~ekle§iyor olmalldlr.
Boyle anonim etkinlikler yerle§im alanl dl§lnda ger~ekle§tigine gore,
toplu yerle§me olgusunu a~lklayamaz.
area, and neither was the thin-walled
placed around the base of a wall
relief, nor the high-walled
Specific artifact
distributions
bakmallYlz. Her §eyden once, sanat bir
karanllk i~ bolumlerine gizlenmi§ti. Buraa~lk ~atl ustlerinden dola§lp bir merdivenBurasl olumle (Bazen duvarlarlnda alum
oven found in Room 70.
types also show localised
within
the site as a whole.
Perhaps the
site was inhabited by a collection
of groups (clans or
moieties) who had come together
without any
central authority
which might have erased cultural
differences.
The conundrum
at I;atalhoyiik
Eger sanat toplu yerle§me a§amalarlnl anlamamlza yardimci olacaksa,
nasll tecrube edildigine daha yaklndan ve ~atalhoyuk'te ya§amln nasll
olduguna daha genel olarak
toplu gosteri degildi. Evlerin
ya ula§mak isteyen, herkese
Ie karanllk i~ me kana inerdi.
in Mellaart's
plaster "box"
of how to explain the agglomeration
is deepened when we consider the art
and ideology. Each household seems to have been
relatively
self-sufficient
manufacture
in terms of production,
and maintenance.
produced in neighbouring
In addition,
buildings
tool
the art
is often quite
different within an overall canon. Each new house is
built on the walls of a previous house. The degree of
continuity
is remarkable;
walls are built on top of
walls for many hundreds, even thousands, of years.
There is little change in the use of space. Of course
--1
we cannot be sure that the same "family"
-
In
the same house over a millennium,
supposition
is likely because the deceased were
buried beneath the floors of the houses. Indeed,
great respect is shown to the household ancestors.
~-
The bodies are placed beneath a platform
necklaces, weapons, mirrors
~
:
r'
~
"-"'=
~~
least one case the building
,.
with
and so on, and in at
then shifted in use from
a domestic to a ritual function.
:I~j=--~';;;'-.,
it': ~~
lived in
but such a
At the end of its use
(perhaps every 100 years or so) the building
cleaned, dismantled
is
and burned in a controHed way.
It is then filled in and new waHs and floors are
~~:~:
~\
~
--"""'--
j'-
Ir~.::.,~J
~
-iP'i"
~
i
',\\11'
'., c",
"fi!
V'~
constructed
on the remains of the old. The
construction
placing
of walls is often associated with the
of figurines
in the bricks.
There is clearly a practice and an ideology of
continuity
of individual
of the patterning
households dominating
at I;atalhoyiik.
been seen in these terms, emphasising
reproduction
as in the finding
grain bins, or depicting
much
Much of the art has
fertility
and
of female figurines
in
of complex burial rites in
which the flesh is torn off headless human corpses
~
Res.8 J. Meilaart'ln <;atalhoyiik "kutsal yapllarr'ndan birine ail rekonstruksiyonu.
Fig.8 Reconstruction by J. Mellaart of one of the £;atalh6yiik "shrines".
by vultures (Fig.7).
AH this emphasis on the continuity
of individual
households only serves to deepen the problem of why
imgeleri vardl), tanrllarla ve atalarla ili~kiliydi. Bu "oze/" dOnyada her
ev biriminin sOrekliligi vurgulanlrdl. insan/ar kendilerini ev atalarlnln
alOmO ve yeniden yapllanmaslyla ili~kili garOrlerdi.
people should have come together to live in a large
agglomerated
centre. The art gives only one direct
clue. There are paintings
around the baiting
Boyle inanl~lar toplu yerle~meyi nasI! dogurdu? Geli~im, basit olmu~
olabilir. C;atalhoyuk'un en erken katlarl hakklnda hi~bir ~ey bilmiyoruz.
Ama eger evlerin yerle~medeki sosyal rolu hakklnda yanllmlyorsam,
aluvyon alanlnda ba~langl~ta ku~uk bir grup insan oldugunu
du~unebiliriz. Aileler geni~ledik~e eski duvarlar kullanllarak yeni evler
in~a edilir. Ama~, bagl, olunan atalara ve ev tanrllarlna yakln olmaktlr.
Eski evler kallr; bu nedenle yeniler onlarln ~evresine ve araslna slkl~mak zorundadlr. Sonu~, sosyal ve dinsel baglarla birarada tutulan bir
toplu yerle~me. Sosyal, ideolojik ve mekansal yaklnllk ortu~ur ve turn
yerle~im, basit olarak, geni~lemi~ bir buyuk koye donu~ur; belki klan-
;":,.!c..r
~
w-'
~~-
of large numbers of people
(largely men) involved in rituals which centre
mythical
or teasing of large buHs or other
wild animals.
group activities
The paintings
involving
individual
suggest male
male prowess.
Perhaps feasting and exchange -which we know
played a central part in the lives of the inhabitantstook place in public settings.
Nevertheless, such
scenes, if they are not entirely mythical,
must have
taken place off the site since there are no large open
spaces on site where such rituals could have taken
place. Because such corporate
activities
took place
off site, they cannot explain the agglomeration
phenomenon.
If the art is going to help us understand the proceses
of settlement agglomeration,
we have to look more
lara
larl
,
ve a~.iretlere
bolunmu~tur,
ama buyuk aranda,
ayinleri
ve tarihleriyle
artan
~eki Ide baglmslz
kendi duvar
Slnlrbi reysel evlere
daya II d Ir.
DolaYlslyla
..'
1111k, haklar,
closelyathowitwasexperienced,andmore
generally at what life was like at !;atalhiiyuk. Above
all, the art was not a public spectacle. It was hidden
in the darker inner zones of houses. A person would
bu
bugunku
slnlrlar,
herhangi
safllk,
ayinler
ve inan~lar
i~inde
zer du~uncelere
Sudan'ln
maktadlr,
ama
\\ kent"
benzeri
Qatalhoyuk
bi r ol~ege
bi r toplum
..'then
temlzllk
tabularl
tipinden
farklldl
vb hakklnda
r.
surek-
karma~lk
bi~imlenmi~
bir toplumdur.
Gunumuzde
benNuba'sl3
gibi ku~uk topluluklarda
rastlanr.
w
te dlkkate
deger alan bu du~uncelerln
buyutulmu~
olmasldl
r.
Bu varsaYlmln dogrulugunu gormek i~in C;atalhoyuk'te yeni ~all~malara ihtiya~ vardlr. Yerle~imin erken geli~imi onerilen modele uyuyor
mu? Ger~ekten, kaynaklar ayrl evler taraflndan ml elde tutuluyordu?
Her evdeki toren ve resimler zaman i~inde benzerlik gosteriyor mu?
C;atalhoyuk'un gizlencesi spekulasyonu davet ediyor. \\Torensel"
mekanln kullanlml, bitkilerin ve hayvanlarln evcille~tirilmesi, bin ill
boyunca aynl eve gomulen insanlarln genetik ili~kileri gibi sorulara ancak uzun sureli, ayrlntllr bilimsel ~all~malar cevap verebilir.
OiPNOTLAR:
* Butun fotograflar Qatalhoyuk Ara§tlrma Vakfl'nm projesine aittir.
1. Qatalhoyuk ara§tlrma projesi, Visa International, Glaxo Wellcome, Merko ve Shell
tarafmdan mali olarak desteklenmi§tir.
2. J. Mellaart, f;atafhiiyiik: a Neolithic town in Anatolia, Londra, 19b7.
3. I. Hodder, Symbols in action, Cambridge, 1982
have moved around on the pub!iC roof spa~e an?
descendeddown a ladder Into a dark Interior,
an interior associatedwith death (sometimes with
images of death on the walls), the gods and the
ancestors. In this "private" world the continuity of
each household unit was emphasised. People saw
themselvesin relation to the death and regeneration
of their householdancestors.
How could such beliefs produce agglomeration? The
processmay have been a simple one. We know
nothing of the earliest levels at !;atalhiiyuk. But, if I
am right about the social role of housesat the site,
we might initially anticipate a small group of people
on the alluvial fan. As families grow new housesare
built using earlier walls. The concern is to stay close
to the ancestors and the householdgods with which
they are associated. Older housesremain so new
ones have to fit around and betweenthem. The end
result is an agglomeration held together by social
I and religious ties. Social, ideological and spatial
I propinquity coincide, so the whole site grows into
what is simply an enormous extendedvillage,
perhaps divided into clans and moieties, but largely
based on individual households,each increasingly
independent,with its own wall boundaries, rituals
and history.
So this would have been a different type of society
from anything we might experience today -a society
steeped in complex rituals and beliefs about
continuity, rights, boundaries, purity, cleanliness
taboos, etc. Such ideas are found today in smaller
communities such as the Nuba of Sudan,3 but the
remarkable thing about !;atalhiiyuk is that such
ideas were extended to a "town"-like scale.
New work is neededat !;atalhiiyuk to see if this
hypothesis is correct. Does the early development of
the site fall into the proposed pattern? Is it really
the case that resourceswere held by separate
households?Are the rites and paintings in each
housesimilar over time? The enigma of !;atalhiiyuk
invites speculation. Only detailed long-term
scientific analysis can answer questions about the
use of "ritual" space, the domestication of plants,
animals and the genetic (kin) relationships between
people buried in one houseover a millennium.
NOTES:
* All photographsbelong to the I;atalhoyiik ResearchTrust i.e.
the project.
1. The I;atalhoyiik research project is sponsoredby Visa
International, Glaxo Wellcome, Merko and Shell.
2. J. Mellaart, r;atalhoyiik: a Neolithic town in Anatolia,
London, 1967.
3. I. Hodder, Symbols in action, Cambridge,1982.