SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Arkeoloji Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 19

NEOLİTİK DÖNEMDE İZMİR BÖLGESİ'NDE UÇLARA NE OLDU?

What Happened to Projectile Points in the İzmir Region during the Neolithic Period?

Neyir BOSTANCI KOLANKAYA
Pages
127–136
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

This study will try to answer the basic question about thedecline of projectile points during the Neolithic period in the light of western Anatolian lithic industries;what happened to projectile points in the Neolithic period?

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Among Neolithic lithic tools, two types clearly indicate the nature of economic activities; projectile pointsand sickle blades.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Projectile points are the key components of all human subsistence strategies and arefound in many forms in prehistoric sites, from the Palaeolithic period onwards.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study will try to answer the basic question about thedecline of projectile points during the Neolithic period in the light of western Anatolian lithic industries;what happened to projectile points in the Neolithic period?
🔬Design:Experimental Field Trial
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Among Neolithic lithic tools, two types clearly indicate the nature of economic activities; projectile pointsand sickle blades. Projectile points are the key components of all human subsistence strategies and arefound in many forms in prehistoric sites, from the Palaeolithic period onwards. Excavations at westernAnatolian sites, especially the İzmir area, such as Ulucak Höyük (7040-5660 BC), Yeşilova Höyük (6500BC) and Ege Gübre (6250-5720 BC) have provided insights about the nature of lithic industries from theearly seventh to the early sixth millennium BC. This study will try to answer the basic question about thedecline of projectile points during the Neolithic period in the light of western Anatolian lithic industries;what happened to projectile points in the Neolithic period?

Özet

Neolitik dönem yontmataş aletleri arasında, ekonomik aktivitelerin yapısını gösteren iki alet tipi bulun- maktadır; uçlar ve orak dilgileri. Uçlar, en azından Paleolitik dönemlerden itibaren tüm geçim kaynak- larının temel birleşenlerini oluşturmaktadır. Batı Anadoludaki, özellikle de İzmir bölgesinde yer alanUlucak Höyük (MÖ 7040-5660), Yeşilova Höyük (MÖ 6500) ve Ege Gübre (MÖ 6250-5720) gibi buluntuyerlerindeki kazılar, MÖ erken 7. bin ile erken 6. bin arasına tarihlenen yontmataş endüstrilerinin yapısıhakkında bilgiler vermektedir. Bu çalışma, Batı Anadolu yontmataş endüstrilerinin ışığı altında uçlardakigerileme ile ilgili temel soruyu cevaplamaya çalışmaktadır; Neolitik dönemde uçlara ne oldu?

🔖

Cite This Article

KOLANKAYA, N. B. (2022). NEOLİTİK DÖNEMDE İZMİR BÖLGESİ'NDE UÇLARA NE OLDU?. Arkeoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 19, 127–136. https://ajindex.com/articles/448283

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Arsebük and Korfman 1976:
  2. G. Arsebük, M. Korfmann, “Tülintepe Kazılarından Sapan Taneleri Toplu Buluntusu, 1972”, Keban Projesi 1972
  3. Çalışmaları, Ankara, 134-144. Bar-Yosef 2010: O. Bar-Yosef, “Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic. A Hypothesis to be Considered”, Neolithics 1(10), 6-10. Bialor 1962: P. Bialor, “The Chipped Stone Industry of Çatal Höyük”, AnSt 12, 67-110. Bordaz 1969: J. Bordaz, “The Süberde Excavations, Southwestern Turkey an Interim Report”, TAD XVII (2), 43-71. Bordaz and Bordaz 1983:
  4. J.Bordaz, L.A. Bordaz, “Erbaba, the1977 and 1978 Season in Perspective”, TAD 26(1), 85-93. Carter 2011: T. Carter, “A True Gift of Mother Earth: The Use and Significance of Obsidian at Çatalhöyük”, AnSt 61, 1-19. Carter and Milić 2013:
  5. T. Carter, M. Milić, “The Chipped Stone” In: I. Hodder (Ed.) Çatalhöy ük Research Project Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. British Institute at Ankara Monographs 48, Oxford, 417-478. Childe 1951:
  6. V.G. Childe, Man Makes Himself, New York. Clare 2011: L. Clare, “Pastoral Clashes: Conflict Risk and Mitigation at the Pottery Neolithic Transition in the Southern Levant”, Neolithics 1(10), 13-31. Clare et.al. 2008:
  7. L. Clare, J. Eelco, B.W. Bohling, H. Johanna, “Warfare in Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Pisidia, Southwestern Turkey. Climate Induced Social Unrest in the Late 7th Millennium cal BC”, Documenta Praehistorica XXXV, 65-92. Clark 1969:
  8. J.G.D. Clark, The Mesolithic Settlement of Southern Europe, New York. Çakirlar 2012: C. Çakırlar, “The Evolution of Animal Husbandry in Neolithic Central-west Anatolia: The Zooarchaeological Record from Ulucak Höyük (c. 7040-5660 cal. BC, İzmir, Turkey”, AnSt 62, 1-33. Çilingiroğlu 2005: Ç. Çilingiroğlu, “The Concept of “Neolithic Package”: Considering Its Meaning and Applicability”, Documenta Praehistorica 32, 1-13. Çilingiroğlu 2009:
  9. Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Central-west Anatolia at the end of the 7th and beginning of the 6th Millennium BCE in the Light of Pottery from Ulucak (İzmir). PhD thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen. Çilingiroğlu 2011: Ç. Çilingiroğlu, “The Current State of Neolithic Research at Ulucak, İzmir” In R. Kraub (Ed.), Beginnings-New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, Menshen-Kulturen-Traditionen, Stıudien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Rahden/West, 67-76. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004:
  10. A. Çilingiroğlu, Z. Derin, E. Abay, H