SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Antropoloji Dergisi / 2024 / Sayı: 4

Dung Use in Rural Southeastern Türkiye (Anatolia)

Güneydoğu Anadolu Kırsalında Hayvan Gübresi Kullanımı

Meral Gökçen(Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Kültürel Çalışmalar Anabilim Dalı)0000-0003-2184-1696
Abu B. Siddiq(Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Antropoloji Bölümü)0000-0001-5838-2695
Pages
1–27
Publication Date
2025-01-16
🏛️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)

By doing so, this study contributes to bridging the gap in scientific knowledge regarding the use of animal dung in the traditional societies of southeastern Turkiye.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The people of southeastern Turkiye (Anatolia) have relied on animal husbandry since the Neolithic period, leading to the extensive use of animal dung in their daily lives for heating, baking, and building houses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This article presents the findings of a 15-monthlong ethnographic study conducted in 11 villages of southeastern Turkiye, focusing on the utilization of animal dung by traditional pastoral and agropastoral communities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By doing so, this study contributes to bridging the gap in scientific knowledge regarding the use of animal dung in the traditional societies of southeastern Turkiye.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hayvan gübresi · Tezek · Hayvancılık

Abstract

The people of southeastern Turkiye (Anatolia) have relied on animal husbandry since the Neolithic period, leading to the extensive use of animal dung in their daily lives for heating, baking, and building houses. However, despite the significance of this practice, no scientific studies have been conducted on the use of animal dung in traditional societies within the region. This article presents the findings of a 15-monthlong ethnographic study conducted in 11 villages of southeastern Turkiye, focusing on the utilization of animal dung by traditional pastoral and agropastoral communities. The primary objective of this study was to highlight the importance and diverse applications of different types of animal dung in traditional societies. Animal dung serves as a vital secondary resource for both domestic needs and ecological balance in these communities. Therefore, this study provides a comprehensive documentation of dung usage techniques, including collection and storage methods for various types of animal dung. In addition, it explores the preferences and specific uses of certain types of dung within these traditional societies. Furthermore, the obtained data was analyzed and compared with different dung use practices in traditional societies across the globe. By doing so, this study contributes to bridging the gap in scientific knowledge regarding the use of animal dung in the traditional societies of southeastern Turkiye.

Özet

Dünyadaki kırsal topluluklar sosyal ve ekonomik ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için farklı türlerden hayvan beslemektedirler. Hayvan besleyen toplumlar bu tür ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için yetiştirdikleri hayvanın gübresinden de faydalanmaktadır. Türkiye’nin Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesinde Neolitik Dönemden itibaren insanlar tarım ve hayvancılığa dayalı bir yaşam sürdürmüştür. Dolayısıyla hayvan gübresi bölge insanlarının geçmişten günümüze çeşitli ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak açısından hayati bir rol oynamaktadır. Oynadığı önemli role rağmen bölgedeki yerel toplulukların hayvan gübresi kullanımı hakkında kapsamlı etnografik bir çalışma yapılmamıştır. Bu makale, Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesinde yer alan 11 köyde yaşayan yerel toplulukların hayvan gübresi kullanımı üzerine 15 ay süren etnografik bir çalışmanın sonuçlarını sunmaktadır. Gözlemler, ısıtma, pişirme gibi hane içi ihtiyaçlarının yansıra, gübrenin ev yapımı, tarımda kullanımı gibi ekonomik ihtiyaçlar için de yoğun olarak tercih edildiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma ilk olarak, yerel toplulukların sosyo-ekonomik çerçevesine göre farklı hayvan türlerinden elde edilen gübre üretimi, depolama ve kullanım tekniklerini belgelemeye çalışmıştır. Elde edilen veriler ışığında daha sonra dünyanın farklı bölgelerinde yaşayan geleneksel topluluklardaki hayvan gübresi kullanımı ele alınmış ve incelenen köylerle karşılaştırılmıştır. Böylelikle bu araştırma, Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesindeki geleneksel topluluklarda hayvan gübresi kullanımı hakkındaki etnografik bilgi boşluğunu doldurmaya katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gökçen, M., Siddiq, A. B. (2025). Dung Use in Rural Southeastern Türkiye (Anatolia). İstanbul Antropoloji Dergisi, Sayı: 4, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.26650/IAR2024-1370121

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Acibuca, V., ve Budak, D. B. (2021). Mardin ilindeki küçükbaş hayvancılık işletmelerinin yapısal durumu. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 31(4), 898-905. https://doi.org/10.29133/ yyutbd.925141 google scholar
  2. Altınlı, I. E. (1966). Geology of Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, 66(66), 35-76. google scholar
  3. Anderson, S., & Ertug-Yaras, F. (1998). Fuel fodder and faeces: An ethnographic and botanical study of dung fuel use in Central Anatolia. Environmental Archaeology, 1(1), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1179/ env.1996.1.1.99 google scholar
  4. Arnold, D. Y. (1988). Matrilineal practice in a patrilineal setting: Rituals and metaphors of kinship in an Andean ayllu [Doktora Tezi]. University of London. google scholar
  5. Bakır, G., ve Mlkall, N. (2019). Siirt ilindeki küçükbaş hayvancılık işletmelerinin yapısal durumu. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.17097/ataunizfd.411087 google scholar
  6. Boyarin, J. (Ed.). (1993). The Ethnography of Reading. California: University of California Press. google scholar
  7. Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Berkshire: Open University Press. google scholar
  8. Charles, M. (1989). Agriculture in Lowland Mesopotamia in the Late Uruk-Early Dynastic Period [Doktora Tezi]. London: University College London. google scholar
  9. Comaroff, J. L., & Comaroff, J. (2018). Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Routledge: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429033872 google scholar
  10. Çağlıyan, A., ve Durmuş, E. (2010). Diyarbakır havzası ve yakın çevresinde küçükbaş hayvancılık. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 29-56. google scholar
  11. Elliott, S., Bendrey, R., Whitlam, J., Aziz, K. R., & Evans, J. (2015). Preliminary ethnoarchaeological research on modern animal husbandry in Bestansur, Iraqi Kurdistan: Integrating animal, plant and environmental data. Environmental Archaeology, 20(3), 283-303. https://doi. org/10.1179/1749631414Y.0000000025 google scholar
  12. Erinç, S. (1980). Human ecology in Southeastern Anatolia. İçinde H. Çambel & R. J. Braidwood (Ed.), Prehistoric Research in Southeastern Anatolia (ss. 73-90). Istanbul: University of Istanbul, Faculty of Letters Press. google scholar
  13. Fenton, A. (1985). The Shape of the Past: Essays in Scottish Ethnology, Volume 1. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd. google scholar
  14. Gbenou, B., Adjolohoun, S., Ahoton, L., Houndjo, D. B. M., Saıdou, A., Houinato, M., & Sinsin, B. A. (2017). Animal dung availability and their fertilizer values in a context of low soil fertility conditions for forage seed and crops production in Benin (West Africa). American Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(12), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.28933/ajar-2017-10-2902 google scholar
  15. Goldstein, M. C., & Beall, C. M. (1991). Nomads of Western Tibet: The survival of a way of life. Pacific Affairs, 64(3), 450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2759518 google scholar
  16. Goodall, H. L. (2000). Writing the New Ethnography. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. google scholar
  17. Gökçen, M. (2023). Dung Use in Southeastern Anatolia from the Late Neolithic to the Iron Age: An Ethnoarchaeological Assessment. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mardin: Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi. https://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.23094.27207 google scholar
  18. Greenfield, T. L. (2014). Feeding Empires: Provisioning strategies at a Neo-Assyrian provincial capital at Ziyaret Tepe (Tushan). Unpublished Phd Dissertation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge. google scholar
  19. Hammer, E. L., & Arbuckle, B. S. (2017). 10,000 years of pastoralism in Anatolia: A review of evidence for variability in pastoral lifeways. Nomadic Peoples, 21(2), 214-267. https://doi.org/10.3197/ np.2017.210204 google scholar
  20. 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 google scholar
  21. Huss-Ashmore, R., Goodman, J. L., Sibiya, T. E., & Stein, T. P. (1989). Energy expenditure of young Swazi women as measured by the doubly-labelled water method. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 43(11), 737-748. google scholar
  22. Iphofen, R. (2021). Research Ethics in Ethnography/Anthropology. Brussels: The European Commission. google scholar
  23. Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı. (2013). Şanlıurfa Büyükbaş Hayvancılık Ve Hayvansal Gıda Ürünleri Kümelenme Yol Haritası (TRC2/13/DFD/0021; ss. 1-118). Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı. google scholar
  24. Katale, D., Kamara, V. S., & Adedeji, A. A. (2013). Significance of use of clay soil mixed with cow dung to produce bricks for low cost buildings. Journal of Research Information in Civil Engineering, 10(1), 340-371. google scholar
  25. Kawaguchi, E. (1909). Three Years in Tibet. Chennai: Theosophical Publishing Society. google scholar
  26. Lancelotti, C., & Madella, M. (2012). The ‘invisible’ product: Developing markers for identifying dung in archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(4), 953-963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jas.2011.11.007 google scholar
  27. Miller, N. F. (1984). The use of dung as fuel: An ethnographic example and an archaeological application. Paleorient, 10(2), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1984.941 google scholar
  28. Ostrower, F. (1998). Nonparticipant observation as an introduction to qualitative research. Teaching Sociology, 26(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318680 google scholar
  29. Peemot, V. S. (2022). Livestock dung use in steppe pastoralism: Renewable resources, care, and respect for sentient nonhumans. Sibirica, 21(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.3167/sib.2022.210102 google scholar
  30. Portillo, M., Kadowaki, S., Nishiaki, Y., & Albert, R. M. (2014). Early Neolithic household behavior at Tell Seker al-Aheimar (Upper Khabur, Syria): A comparison to ethnoarchaeological study of phytoliths and dung spherulites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 42, 107-118. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.038 google scholar
  31. Reddy, S. N. (1998). Fueling the hearths in India: The role of dung in paleoethnobotanical interpretation. Paleorient, 24(2), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1998.4677 google scholar
  32. Rhode, D., Madsen, D. B., Jeffrey Brantingham, P., & Dargye, T. (2007). Yaks, yak dung, and prehistoric human habitation of the Tibetan Plateau. Developments in Quaternary Sciences, 9, 205-224. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0866(07)09013-6 google scholar
  33. Siddiq, A. B. (2017). Pastoral societies of Mardin province in Southeast Turkey -Some anthrozoological aspects. Mukaddime, 8(2), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.19059/mukaddime.296314 google scholar
  34. Siddiq, A. B. (2022). Common animals for elite humans: The Late Ottoman fauna from Mardin fortress, Southeastern Anatolia (Turkey). International Journal of Historical Archaeology. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10761-022-00657-4 google scholar
  35. Siddiq, A. B., & Şanlı, S. (2018). Anthrozoological study on the agro-pastoral societies of Kiziltepe, Southeast Anatolia. İnsan&İnsan, 5(16), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.378568 google scholar
  36. 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 google scholar
  37. Sillar, B. (2000). Dung by preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean pottery production is embedded within wider technical, social, and economic practices. Archaeometry, 42(1), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00865.x google scholar
  38. Sözer, A. N. (1984). Güneydoğu Anadolu’nun doğal çevre şartlarına coğrafi bir bakış. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 2(1), 8-30. google scholar
  39. Spengler, R. N. (2019). Dung burning in the archaeobotanical record of West Asia: Where are we now? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 28(3), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-018-0669-8 google scholar
  40. Şanlı, S., & Siddiq, A. B. (2018). Anthrozoological study on the agro-pastoral societies of Kiziltepe, Southeast Anatolia. İnsan ve İnsan, 5(16), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.378568 google scholar
  41. Thevenin, M. (2011). Kurdish transhumance: Pastoral practices in South-east Turkey. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 1(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-1-23 google scholar
  42. Trotman, G., & Jeffrey, B. (2007). Methodological developments in ethnography (1. ed). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI. google scholar
  43. Vankat, A., Krepl, V., & Kara, J. (2010). Animal dung as a source of energy in remote areas of Indian Himalayas. Agricultura Tropica Et Subtropica, 43(2), 140-142. google scholar
  44. Winterhalder, B., Larsen, R., & Thomas, R. B. (1973). Dung as an sssential resource in a highland Peruvian community. Human Ecology, 2(2), 89-104. google scholar