SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi / 2022 / Cilt: 1 Sayı: 56

UPPER TIGRIS BASIN NEOLITHIC PERIOD HUMAN-ANIMAL-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIP: AN ANTROZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE.

YUKARI DİCLE HAVZASI NEOLİTİK DÖNEM İNSAN-HAYVAN-ÇEVRE İLİŞKİSİ: ANTROZOOLOJİK BİR BAKIŞ

Muhammed Eyyub Dalar(IĞDIR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6870-6884
Hatice Tosyagülü Çelik(IĞDIR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2739-7047
Pages
84–107
Publication Date
2022-12-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, Anthrozoological data enable us to make an ethno-zooarchaeological assessment by shedding light on the relations of Neolithic communities with animals in the Upper Tigris Basin, in line with the development of human-animal relations of today's pastoral and agro-pastoral communities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Neolithic settlements of the Upper Tigris Basin provide very important data on prehistoric human-animal and environmental relations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a result of the zooarchaeological data determined in some of 10 different settlements in the basin, approximately 55.046 animal bone remains were unearthed and investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, Anthrozoological data enable us to make an ethno-zooarchaeological assessment by shedding light on the relations of Neolithic communities with animals in the Upper Tigris Basin, in line with the development of human-animal relations of today's pastoral and agro-pastoral communities.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Güneydoğu Anadolu · Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik · Çanak Çömlekli Neolitik

Abstract

The Neolithic settlements of the Upper Tigris Basin provide very important data on prehistoric human-animal and environmental relations. As a result of the zooarchaeological data determined in some of 10 different settlements in the basin, approximately 55.046 animal bone remains were unearthed and investigated. In addition to animal bones, there are also botanical remains that provide an understanding of the environmental conditions of the period, housing structures showing their social organizations, stone tool industries related to the hunting factors and symbolic products showing the forms of belief. All findings provide data that can contribute significantly to the understanding of the prehistoric human-animal and environmental relations of Western Asia, especially the Neolithic Culture of the Upper Tigris Basin. In addition, Anthrozoological data enable us to make an ethno-zooarchaeological assessment by shedding light on the relations of Neolithic communities with animals in the Upper Tigris Basin, in line with the development of human-animal relations of today's pastoral and agro-pastoral communities.

Özet

Yukarı Dicle Havzası’nın Neolitik yerleşimleri, tarihöncesi insan-hayvan ve çevre ilişkileri hakkında oldukça önemli veriler sunmaktadır. Havzada, günümüze kadar 10 farklı yerleşim merkezinin bazılarında tespit edilen zooarkeolojik veriler sonucunda, yaklaşık 55.046 küsur hayvan kemiği kalıntısı açığa çıkartılarak incelenmiştir. Hayvan kemiklerinin yanı sıra, dönemin çevresel koşullarının anlaşılmasını sağlayan botanik kalıntılar, sosyal organizasyonlarını gösteren konut yapıları, avcılık faktörlerine ilişkin taş alet endüstrileri ve inanç biçimlerini gösteren sembolik ürünler de bulunmaktadır. Bütün bu bulgular, Yukarı Dicle Havzası’nın Neolitik kültürü başta olmak üzere, Batı Asya’nın tarihöncesi insan-hayvan ve çevre ilişkilerinin anlaşılmasında önemli katkılar sağlayabilecek nitelikte veriler sunmaktadır. Ayrıca antrozoolojik veriler, günümüzün pastoral ve agro-pastoral toplulukların insan-hayvan ilişkilerinin gelişimi doğrultusunda, Yukarı Dicle Havzası Neolitik topluluklarının hayvanlarla olan ilişkilerine ışık tutarak, etno-zooarkeolojik bir değerlendirme yapabilmemize imkân sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dalar, M. E., Çelik, H. T. (2022). UPPER TIGRIS BASIN NEOLITHIC PERIOD HUMAN-ANIMAL-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIP: AN ANTROZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE.. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 56, 84–107. https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1179004

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Arbuckle, B. S., & Özkaya, V. (2006). Animal exploitation at Körtik Tepe: An early Aceramic Neolithic site in southeastern Turkey. Paléorient, 32(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2006.5193
  2. Arbuckle, B. S., Price, M. D., Hongo, H., & Öksüz, B. (2016). Documenting the initial appearance of domestic cattle in the Eastern Fertile Crescent (northern Iraq and western Iran). Journal of Archaeological Science, 72, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.05.008
  3. Aydın, D. (2019). Boncuklu Tarla Kurtarma Kazısından Çıkarılan Hayvan Kemiklerinin Zooarkeolojik Analizi [Y.Lisans Tezi]. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Antropoloji Bilim Dalı.
  4. Barbara,Lawrence. (1980). Evidences Of Animal Domestication At Çayönü. İçinde Güneydoğu Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları (s. 285). İstanbul ve Chicago Üniversiteleri Karma Proje.
  5. Brochier, J.-E. (1993). Cayönü Tepesi. Domestication, Rythmes Et environnement Au PPNB. Paléorient, 19(2), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1993.4595
  6. Clutton-Brock, J. (1979). The Mammalian Remains from the Jericho Tell. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 45, 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00009713
  7. Çelebi, D. Z. (2014). Bismil İlçe Gelişme Raporu (s. 60) [İlçe Durum Raporları]. Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı.
  8. Çelik, B. (2011). Karahan Tepe: A new cultural centre in the Urfa Area in Turkey. Documenta Praehistorica, 38, 241-254. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.19
  9. Çeli̇k, B., & Tolon, K. (2018). Şanlıurfa’dan Neolitik Dönem Tuzak Alanları. Dergi Karadeniz, 37(37), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.401311
  10. Delibaş, D. (2016). Körtik Tepe İnsanlarında Gündelik Yaşam, İskelet Kas Tutunma Bölgelerinin Analizleriyle Hareket Biçiminin Belirlenmesi [Y.Lisans Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Antropoloji Anabilim Dalı.
  11. Emra, S., Benz, M., Siddiq, A. B., & Özkaya, V. (2022). Adaptions in subsistence strategy to environment changes across the Younger Dryas—Early Holocene boundary at Körtiktepe, Southeastern Turkey. The Holocene, 32(5), 390-413. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836221074030
  12. Erdal, Y. S. (2015). Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anatolia, PPNA Period). European Journal of Archaeology, 18(1), 4-32. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000072
  13. Erim-Özdoğan, A., & Sarıaltun, S. (2018). Sumaki Höyük Batman. İçinde Batman Müzesi Ilısu Barajı Kurtarma Kazıları (ss. 55-58). Batman Müzesi Yayınları.
  14. Goudarzi, V. (2015). The Functional Analysis of Clay Figurines of the Neolithic Period. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s6p172 Harem, O., & Smail, H. (2020). Evolution of human diseases. 4, 52-67. https://doi.org/10.20956/ijab.v4i1.9914
  15. Helmer, D. (2017). The fauna of Tell Aswad (Damascus, Syria), early Neolithic levels. Comparison with northern and southern Levant sites. İçinde M. Mashkour, M. Beech, H.-P. Uerpmann, & F. Poplin (Ed.), Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: İn honour of Hans-Peter Uerpmann and François Poplin (ss. 23-41). Oxbow Books.
  16. Helmer, D., Gourichon, L., & Stordeur, D. (2004). À l’aube de la domestication animale. Imaginaire et symbolisme animal dans les premières sociétés néolithiques du nord du Proche-Orient. Anthropozoologica, 39, 143-163.
  17. Hongo, H., & Meadow, R. H. (2000). Faunal Remaıns From Prepottery Neolıthıc Levels At Çayonu, Southeastern Turkey: A Prelımınary Report Focusıng On Pıgs (Sus Sp.). Içinde Archaeozoology of the Near East IV: proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (ss. 121-140). ARC. Hongo, H., Meadow, R. H., Öksüz, B., & İlgezdi, G. (2005). Sheep and goat remains from Çayönü Tepesi, Southeastern anatolia. Içinde H. Buitenhuis (Ed.), Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas; ASWA VI; August 30—September 1, 2002, London (ss. 112-124). ARC.
  18. Hongo, H., Pearson, J., Öksüz, B., & Ilgezdi, G. (2009). The Process of Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü, Southeastern Turkey: A Multidisciplinary Approach focusing on Bos sp. and Cervus elaphus. Anthropozoologica, 44(1), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.5252/az2009n1a3
  19. İlgezdi Bertram, G. (1999). Çayönü çanak çömleksiz neolitik yerleşmesinde kızıl geyik (cervus elaphus) kemiklerinin incelenmesi [Y.Lisans Tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Prehistorya Ana Bilim Dalı.
  20. Itahashi, Y., Erdal, Y. S., Tekin, H., Omar, L., Miyake, Y., Chikaraishi, Y., Ohkouchi, N., & Yoneda, M. (2019). Amino acid 15N analysis reveals change in the importance of freshwater resources between the hunter-gatherer and farmer in the Neolithic upper Tigris. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 168(4), 676-686. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23783
  21. Itahashi, Y., Miyake, Y., Maeda, O., Kondo, O., Hongo, H., Van Neer, W., Chikaraishi, Y., Ohkouchi, N., & Yoneda, M. (2017). Preference for fish in a Neolithic hunter-gatherer community of the upper Tigris, elucidated by amino acid δ15N analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 82, 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.001 Kabukcu, C., Asouti, E., Pöllath, N., Peters, J., & Karul, N. (2021). Pathways to plant domestication in Southeast Anatolia based on new data from aceramic Neolithic Gusir Höyük. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 2112.
  22. Kartal, M., Kartal, G., Coşkun, A., Carter, T., Şahin, F., & Özkaya, V. (2018). Chipped stone assemblages of Körtik Tepe (Turkey). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 19, 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.02.017
  23. Karul, N. (2011). Gusir Höyük. İçinde N. Başgelen, M. Ozdoğan, & P. I. Kuniholm (Ed.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New excavations & new research (3rd ed., ss. 1-17). Archaeology & Art Publications.
  24. Kodaş, E., Erdoğan, N., & Çiftçi, Y. (2019). Boncuklu Tarla’da Tespit Edilen Orta PPNN Dönem Yongalama Atölyesi Üzerine İlk Gözlemler. 21.
  25. Kodaş, E., Yelözer, S., Çiftçi, Y., & Baysal, E. L. (2022). Symbolism in action: Techno-typology, function, and human-artefact dynamics in figured/non-figured bone plaques from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Boncuklu Tarla, Turkey. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 65, 101393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101393
  26. Lang, C., Peters, J., Pöllath, N., Schmidt, K., & Grupe, G. (2013). Gazelle behaviour and human presence at early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-east Anatolia. World Archaeology, 45(3), 410-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2013.820648
  27. Miyake, Y. (2013). Hasankeyf Höyük/Batman. Atlas, Mart, 96-97.
  28. Miyake, Y., Maeda, O., Tanno, K., Hongo, H., & Gündem, C. (2012). New excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A tenth millennium cal. BC site on the Upper Tigris, southeast Anatolia. Neo-Lithics, 12, 3-7.
  29. Miyake, Y., Maeda, O., Tao, M., Hongo, H., Tanno, K., & Yoshida, K. (2009). Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Salat Camii Yanı in Southeast Anatolia: 2004-2008 Season. Tsukuba Archaeological Studies (in Japanese), 20, 75-112.
  30. Morales, V. B. (1983). Jarmo Figurines And Clay Objects. İçinde L. S. Braidwood & University of Chicago (Ed.), Prehistoric archeology along the Zagros Flanks (ss. 369-427). Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
  31. Omar, L. (2013). Assessing the Patterns of Subsistence Strategies in Late Neolithic settlements in the Northern Mesopotamian region. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 28, 14-31.
  32. Özbek, M. (2003). Çayönü’nde İnsan. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
  33. Özdoğan, E. (2007). Çayönü. İçinde Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem (ss. 57-97). Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
  34. Özkaya, V., Coşkun, A., & Soyukaya, N. (2013). Körtik tepe: Uygarlığın Diyarbakır’daki ilk adımları. Diyarbakır Valiliği.
  35. Özkaya, V., & Çoşkun, A. (2011). Körtik Tepe. İçinde M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, & P. Kuniholm (Ed.), The Neolithic İn Turkey, New Excataions & New Research: The Tigris Basin (ss. 89-27). Archaeology & Art Publications.
  36. Özkaya, V., Çoşkun, A., Benz, M., Erdal, Y. S., Atıcı, L., & Şahin, F. S. (2011). Körtik Tepe 2010 Yılı Kazısı. İçinde 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı (C. 1, ss. 315-339). T.C. Kültür Turizm Bakanlığı Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.
  37. Özkaya, V., & Siddiq, A. B. (2021). Scorpion imagery at early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Körtiktepe. Academia Letters. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL686
  38. Pearson, J., Grove, M., Özbek, M., & Hongo, H. (2013). Food and social complexity at Çayönü Tepesi, southeastern Anatolia: Stable isotope evidence of differentiation in diet according to burial practice and sex in the early Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32(2), 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.01.002
  39. Peters, J., & Schmidt, K. (2004). Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: A preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica. 1(39), 179-218.
  40. Pöllath, N., Dietrich, O., Notroff, J., Clare, L., Dietrich, L., Köksal-Schmidt, Ç., Schmidt, K., & Peters, J. (2018). Almost a chest hit: An aurochs humerus with hunting lesion from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey, and its implications. Quaternary International, 495, 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.12.003
  41. Rosenberg, M. (2011a). Demirköy. İçinde N. Başgelen, M. Ozdoğan, & P. I. Kuniholm (Ed.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New excavations & new research (3rd ed., ss. 79-87). Archaeology & Art Publications.
  42. Rosenberg, M. (2011b). Hallan Çemi. İçinde N. Başgelen, M. Ozdoğan, & P. I. Kuniholm (Ed.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New excavations & new research (3rd ed., ss. 61-79). Archaeology & Art Publications.
  43. Saña Seguí, M. (1999). Arqueología de la domesticación animal: La gestión de los recursos animales en Tell Halula (Valle del Éufrates-Siria) del 8.800 al 7.000 BP. Universidad Aut??noma de Barcelona.
  44. Sanılan, Ö. (2019). Sumaki Höyük Neolitik Dönem Kemik Alet Topluluğu [Y.Lisans Tezi]. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Arkeoloji Anabilim Dalı.
  45. Siddiq, A. B., Şahin, F. D., & Özkaya, V. (2021). Local trend of symbolism at the dawn of the Neolithic: The painted bone plaquettes from PPNA Körtiktepe, Southeast Turkey. Archaeological Research in Asia, 26, 100280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2021.100280
  46. Siddiq, A. B., & Şanlı, S. (2020). Animals and Pastoral Groups in the Mountainous Ömerli District of Southeast Anatolia. Anthrozoös, 33(2), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1719754
  47. Starkovich, B. M., & Stiner, M. C. (2009). Hallan Çemi Tepesi: High-ranked Game Exploitation alongside Intensive Seed Processing at the Epipaleolithic-Neolithic Transition in Southeastern Turkey. Anthropozoologica, 44(1), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.5252/az2009n1a2
  48. Şanlı, S., & Siddiq, A. B. (2018). Güneydoğu Anadolu’nun Kızıltepe’deki Agro-Pastoral Topluluklar Üzerine Bir Antrozoolojik İnceleme. İnsan ve İnsan Dergisi, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.378568
  49. Twiss, K. C., & Rusell, N. (2009). Taking the Bull by the Horns: Ideology, Masculinity, and Cattle Horns at Çatalhöyük (Turkey). Paléorient, 35(2), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2009.5296
  50. van Berg, P.-L., Vander Linden, M., Picalause, V., Lemaitre, S., & Cauwe, N. (2004). Desert-kites of the Hemma Plateau (Hassake, Syria). Paléorient, 30(1), 89-99.
  51. Yartah, T. (2004). Tell ’Abr 3, un village du néolithique précéramique (PPNA) sur le Moyen Euphrate. Première approche. Paléorient, 30(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2004.1017
  52. Zeder, M., & Spitzer, M. (2016). New insights into broad spectrum communities of the Early Holocene Near East: The birds of Hallan Çemi. Quaternary Science Reviews, 151, 140-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.08.024
  53. Zeist, W. van, & de Roller, G. J. (1992). The plant husbandry of aceramic Çayönü, SE Turkey.