SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Colloquium Anatolicum / 2014 / Sayı: 13

Experimental Construction of a Neolithic Building

Deneysel Arkeoloji Yoluyla Neolitik Bir Ev Yapımı

GÜNEŞ DURU
Pages
131–151
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Some see it a methodology, while others argue that it is one of the sub-disciplines of archaeology using various methods, techniques, analyses and approaches with the aim to formulate hypotheses or test them.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Experimental archaeology is an important tool that helps to enrich archaeological research by originating new research-questions, providing a variety of perspectives in the interpretation of the data obtained from the excavations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Discussions diverge on the definition and the aims of experimental archaeology.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Some see it a methodology, while others argue that it is one of the sub-disciplines of archaeology using various methods, techniques, analyses and approaches with the aim to formulate hypotheses or test them.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Deneysel arkeoloji · Neolitik · Mimari

Abstract

Experimental archaeology is an important tool that helps to enrich archaeological research by originating new research-questions, providing a variety of perspectives in the interpretation of the data obtained from the excavations. Discussions diverge on the definition and the aims of experimental archaeology. Some see it a methodology, while others argue that it is one of the sub-disciplines of archaeology using various methods, techniques, analyses and approaches with the aim to formulate hypotheses or test them.

Özet

Deneysel arkeoloji, kazı ve araştırmalardan elde edilen arkeolojik bilginin niteliğinin çeşitlenmesinde, bilginin sağlıklı olarak yorumlanmasında kullanılan, araştırmanın yeni sorularla zenginleşmesini sağlayan önemli bir araçtır. Kimi araştırmacılar, ilk uygulamalarının 18. yüzyıla kadar geri götürülebileceğini savunur. Bu dönemde antik araç gereçler, örneğin tunçtan müzik aletleri, dönemin eğilimlerine uygun olarak romantik bir anlayışla kopyalanarak yeniden yapılmaktadır Flores 2011: 32 .

🔖

Cite This Article

DURU, G. (2014). Experimental Construction of a Neolithic Building. Colloquium Anatolicum, Sayı: 13, 131–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/147224

References (15)

  1. Berker, D. – İ. Yağmur – A. K. Atlı 1991 “Statistical report on the mud-brick construction of Aşıklı Höyük”, Anatolica XI: 149-153.
  2. Boivin, N. 2000 “Life Rhythms and Floor Sequences: Excavating Time in Rural Rajasthan and Neolithic Çatalhöyük”, World Archaeology 31: 367-388.
  3. Coles, J.M. 1973
  4. Archaeology by Experiment, London. Daune Le Brun, O. 2000 “Les Constructions du Village Néolithique de Khirokitia, Chypre. Reconstitution et Expérimentation: Premier Bilan d’une Expérience”, M.C. Belarte- J. Pou – J. Sanmarti – J. Santacana (eds), Tecniques Constructives d’Epoca iberica i Experimentacio Arquitectonica a la Mediterrania: 59-73.
  5. Dede, Y. 1997 Aşıklı Höyük Kerpiç Yapılarının Korunması Üzerine Çalışmalar, İstanbul Üniversitesi,
  6. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Prehistorya Bilim Dalı (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Istanbul. Dennis, S. – B. Finlayson – A. Najjar 2007 “Conservation and Presentation of Neolithic Beidha, Southern Jordan”, Antiquity 76: 933-934.
  7. Duru, G. 2000 Günümüz Köy Mimarisinin Arkeolojik Yerleşmelerin Yorumlanmasındaki Katkıları I, Yayımlanmamış Araştırma Kesin Raporu, İstanbul Üniversitesi Araştırma Fonu, Ör. 6O. 2002 “Some architectural indications for the origins of Central Anatolia”, F. Gérard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: 171-180. 2013 Tarihöncesinde İnsan-Mekân, Topluluk-Yerleşme İlişkisi: MÖ 9. Bin Sonu-7. Bin başı, Aşıklı ve Akarçay Tepe, İstanbul Üniversitesi,
  8. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Prehistorya Bilim Dalı (Yayımlanmamıs Doktora Tezi), Istanbul. Ertuğ, F. 1997 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Subsistence and Plant-Gathering in Central Anatolia, Washington University, (unpublished PhD thesis), Washington. Esin, U. – S. Harmankaya 2007 “Aşıklı Höyük”, M. Özdoğan –N. Başgelen (eds), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: 255-272.
  9. Flores, J.R. 2011 “Creating a History of Experimental Archaeology”, D. C. E. Millson (ed.), Experimentation and Interpretation: 29-45.
  10. Heidegger, M. 1971
  11. Poetry, Language, Thought, (Translated by A. Hofstadter), London. Heyerdahl, T. 1967
  12. Kon Tiki, İstanbul.
  13. Hodder, I. 2012 Entangled An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things, Wiley-Blackwell, London. Hurcombe, L. 2013 “Deneysel Arkeoloji”, C. Renfrew – P. Bahn (eds.), Arkeoloji Anahtar Kavramlar: 88-94.
  14. Mathieu, J.R. 2002 “Introduction- Experimental Archaeology: Replicating Past Objects, Behaviors, and Processes”, J. R. M. Mathieu (ed.), Experimental Archaeology (BAR): 1-11.
  15. Mentzer, S. 2012a Report on the Micromorphologica