Journals / Anadolu / 2020 / Sayı: 46

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON RESIDENTAL LIVING AND STORAGE UNITS IN PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE NEAR EAST: SAMPLES OF BONCUKLU TARLA

YAKIN DOĞU’DA ÇANAK-ÇÖMLEKSİZ NEOLİTİK DÖNEM’DE YERLEŞİK YAŞAM VE DEPOLAMA BİRİMLERİ ÜZERİNE BAZI GÖZLEMLER: BONCUKLU TARLA ÖRNEKLERİ

Journal
Anadolu
Pages
123–146
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)

In this context, it causes controversy such as some question titles which are typological developments, construction types, spatial positioning of storage units how they are used, the chronological change of those architectural elements during the Pre-Pottery Neo-lithic Period in the Near East and also how they played a role in the economic structuring of the commu-nities in question, which have changed from the hunter-gatherer-fisherman economy model to food pro-duction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It is argued that the storage units (silos, cells, buildings), which have undergone significant changes in terms of construction techniques, forms and sizes during the Neolithic Age, are architectural reflections of the economic structures of the communities in question.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition to the economic di-mensions of the storage units, the spatial positioning of these units also contributes to the study of the vil-lage-site organizations of the Neolithic Age communities and the socio-economic and socio-cultural struc-tures of the period through architectural remains.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, it causes controversy such as some question titles which are typological developments, construction types, spatial positioning of storage units how they are used, the chronological change of those architectural elements during the Pre-Pottery Neo-lithic Period in the Near East and also how they played a role in the economic structuring of the commu-nities in question, which have changed from the hunter-gatherer-fisherman economy model to food pro-duction.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

It is argued that the storage units (silos, cells, buildings), which have undergone significant changes in terms of construction techniques, forms and sizes during the Neolithic Age, are architectural reflections of the economic structures of the communities in question. In addition to the economic di-mensions of the storage units, the spatial positioning of these units also contributes to the study of the vil-lage-site organizations of the Neolithic Age communities and the socio-economic and socio-cultural struc-tures of the period through architectural remains. In this context, it causes controversy such as some question titles which are typological developments, construction types, spatial positioning of storage units how they are used, the chronological change of those architectural elements during the Pre-Pottery Neo-lithic Period in the Near East and also how they played a role in the economic structuring of the commu-nities in question, which have changed from the hunter-gatherer-fisherman economy model to food pro-duction.

Özet

Neolitik Çağ boyunca inşa teknikleri, formları ve boyutları açısından önemli değişimlere uğra-yan depolama birimlerinin (silolar, hücreler, binalar) söz konusu dönem topluluklarının ekonomik yapı-lanmalarının mimari olarak yansımaları oldukları öne sürülmektedir. Depolama birimlerinin ekonomik bo-yutlarının yanı sıra söz konusu birimlerin bulundukları mekânsal konumlanmalar aynı zamanda Neolitik Çağ topluluklarının köy-mekân yerleşme düzenleri ve dönemin sosyo-ekonomik ve sosyo-kültürel yapı-lanmalarının mimari kalıntılar üzerinden incelenmesine de katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda depolama bi-rimlerinin tipolojik gelişimleri, inşa biçimleri, mekânsal konumlanmaları, nasıl kullanıldıkları gibi bazı soru başlıkları konu üzerine yapılan araştırmalar için ayrı bir önem teşkil etmektedir. Söz konusu sorunsallar ay-nı zamanda depolama birimlerinin Yakın Doğu’da Çanak-Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem boyunca nasıl bir kronolojik değişim geçirdikleri ve avcı-toplayıcı-balıkçı ekonomi modelinden besin üretimine doğru deği-şim yaşayan söz konusu dönem topluluklarının ekonomik yapılanmaları içerisinde nasıl bir rol oynadıkları gibi bir takım tartışmalara neden olmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KODAŞ, E. (2020). SOME OBSERVATIONS ON RESIDENTAL LIVING AND STORAGE UNITS IN PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE NEAR EAST: SAMPLES OF BONCUKLU TARLA. Anadolu, Sayı: 46, 123–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/356473

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Abbes 2011 F. Abbes, ‘‘Bal’as: L’occupation des zones arides durant la néolithisation’’, Prix Clio (Lyon 2011). Arnold 1996 J. E. Arnold, ‘‘The Archaeology of Complex Hunter-Gatherers’’, Journal of World Prehistory 3/2, 1996, 77-126. Aurenche 1981 O. Aurenche, 1981 La Maison orientale: L'architecture du Proche- Orient ancien, des origines au milieu du quatrième millénaire (Lyon 1981). Aurenche – Kozlowski 2000 O. Aurenche – S.-K. Kozlowski, La Naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient. Editions Errance (Paris 2000). Akkermans 1996
  2. P. M. M. G. Akkermans, Tell Sabi Abyad, the late Neolithic Settlement (İstanbul 1996). Bar-Yosef 1986 O. Bar-Yosef, ‘‘The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation’’, Current Anthropology Vol. 27/2, 1986, 157-162. Bar-Yosef – Belfer-Cohen 2001 Bar-Yosef – A. Belfer-Cohen, ‘‘From Africa to Eurasia: early dispersals’’, Quaternary International, 75, 19-28. Bar-Yosef 2002 O. Bar-Yosef, “Natufian: A complex Society of Foragers”, içinde: B. Fitzhugh – J. Habu (ed.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems (New York 2002) 91-152. Bar-Yosef – Rocek 1998 O. Bar-Yosef – T. R. Rocek, ‘‘Introduction’’ içinde: O. Bar- Yosef – T. R. Rocek (ed.), Seasonality and Sedentism. Archaeological Perspectives from Old and New World Sites (Boston 1998). Benz ve diğ., 2015 M. Benz – K. Deckers – C. Rössner – A. Alexandrovskiy – K. Pustovoytov – S. Scheeres – M. Fecher – A. Coşkun – S. Riehl - K.W. Alt - V. Özkaya, ‘‘Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey’’ Paleorient 41/2, 2015, 9-30. Bıçakçı 2001
  3. E. Bıçakçı, Çayönü Tepesi. Untersuchungen zu den Bauten und Siedlungsmustern der akeramisch-neolithischen Subphasen 5 und 6 (Materialien zu Bauforschung und Baugeschichte 21) (Berlin 2001). Bocquentin 2006 F. Bocquentin, ‘‘Pour une approche anthropologique de la transition Epipaléolithique-Néolithique au Proche-Orient’’ Bulletin du Centre de recherche français de Jéusalem, 17, 2015, 41-51. Cauvin 1994
  4. J. Cauvin, Naissance des divinités, Naissance de l’agriculture: La Révolution des Symboles au Néolithique. CNRS Edition (Paris 1994). Cauvin ve diğ., 2011 J. Cauvin – O. Aurenche – M.-C. Cauvin – N. Balkan-Atlı, ‘‘The Pre Pottery Site of Cafer Höyük, içinde: M. Özdoğan - N. Başgelen - P. Kuniholm (ed.), The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. II (İstanbul 2011) 1-40. Erim-Özdoğan 2011 A. Erim-Özdoğan, ‘‘Sumaki Hö