Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere - University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

108 J World Prehist (2006) 20:87–126 5000 123 Tell Sabi Abyad I (6200-5580; 5670-5512) Tell es-Sinn (7750-7150) Abu Hureyra 2 (7750-7050) 5500 n Halula (7800-6400) Tell Sabi Abyad III (7650-6750) G. Large Room F. Cell/Large Room Transition E. Cell plan D. Cobble-paved C. Channelled B. Grill A. Basal pits/ Round Buildings e c 6000 o 1-8 l NE mound o H 6500 e G t a Telul eth-Thalathat (6700-6100) El Kowm 1 (6350-6090) L o F 7000 t - Kashkashok (6750-6250; 5480-5000) Tell Damishilyya (7030-6650; 6600-6450) d ? Nevalı Çori (8650-7950) i M E M’ lefaat (9500-9100) 7500 Ear Holocene e Kumartepe (7030-6680) Shimshara >(7050-6050) 8000 Mezraa Teleilat (7050-6820; 6650-6530) El Kowm 2-Caracol (7100-6000) ? D e s Tell Assouad (~7800-7400) Gritille (8000-6800) C B A a h P g IV n 4-5 8500 Bouqras (7500-7200) Hayaz (7480-7200) Akarçay Tepe >(7900-6100) Cafer Höyük (8650-7950) u o Y Fill III III 9000 Çayönü (8640-8650; 8530-8240; 8220-7840; 7510-7350; 7140-6820; 6640-6270; 5250-4500) 1-3 ly Dja’de (8640-8270) Old hase P 9500 Jerf el Ahmar (9500-8550) II Göbekli Tepe >(9120-8760) IA-IB 10,000 Nemrik (phases 1-3, 9800-8650; phases 4-5, 8570-8280/70) r Iraqi sites e Qermez Dere (10,050-9450) 10,500 s g a n y Syrian sites Hallan Çemi (10,100-9200) Mureybet (10,300-7950) u r D o 11,000 Y Turkish sites Abu Hureyra 1 (11,100-10,440) Zawi Chemi Shanidar (11,150-10,400) Fig. 8 Chart of radiocarbon dates for Neolithic sites in northern Syria, southeast Anatolia and the Zagros (redrawn based on the data available in the ‘‘CANeW Upper Mesopotamia C-14 chart’’ of the CANeW Project; see http://canew.org and http://canew.org/download.html)
J World Prehist (2006) 20:87–126 109 obsidian workshops on a seasonal basis (Abbès, Atlı, Binder, & Cauvin, 1999; Binder, 2002). Another pertinent question here is that of the motivation behind the early colonization of Cappadocia. As¸ıklı is near the Göllü Dag˘ obsidian sources, which had been prized across the Levant since the Epipaleolithic. Its strategic location would seem consonant with a desire to control access to this highly esteemed raw material. However, the archaeological evidence shows that As¸ıklı was largely closed to the outside ‘‘world’’ of the Levant, Cyprus and southeastern Anatolia (see below). This implies that control over the pan-regional distribution of obsidian was not a high priority of the local community at that time. The gradual closing up of the Cappadocian obsidian sources from the eighth millennium BC to northern Levantine exploitation and its re-direction to east Anatolia were developments broadly concurrent with the consolidation of sedentary habitation in central Anatolia (Binder, 2002; Abbès et al., 2003) and underscore further the gradual appropriation of the local resources by and for the benefit of central Anatolian Neolithic communities. As¸ıklı itself may be seen as a self-sufficient and conservative segmentary (lineage) society (as indicated by the remarkable degree of long-term continuity in building layouts and the use of built space; see Esin & Harmankaya, 1999) (Fig. 9) that probably diverted most of its efforts and resources to the sustenance of its domestic economy. For these reasons it would seem inappropriate to perceive the colonization of Cappadocia as ‘‘expansive’’. Furthermore, As¸ıklı presents us with a pattern that is far removed from the expectations of models centred on the concept of the ‘‘PPNB interaction sphere’’. If the latter represented the main avenue for socio-cultural interaction based on trade, this is least apparent at As¸ıklı which seems to have deliberately ignored all the potential benefits its location offered in this respect. One might argue, instead, that it demonstrates the absence of substantial long-range contacts. This hypothesis is further reinforced by the fact that exchange of ‘‘exotics’’ remained very low-level throughout the lifetime of the site. The sole (imported?) item reported thus far from As¸ıklı is an engraved stone plaque Fig. 9 The stratigraphy in section of the deep sounding in As¸ıklı showing the degree of continuity between building levels, building plans and the location of hearths (redrawn after Esin & Harmankaya, 1999) 123
Page 1 and 2: J World Prehist (2006) 20:87-126 DO
Page 3 and 4: J World Prehist (2006) 20:87-126 89
Page 21: J World Prehist (2006) 20:87-126 10

Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere - University of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?