Journals / Arkeoloji ve Sanat / 2017 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 155

Personal Ornaments in Neolithic Turkey, the Current State of Research and Interpretation

TÜRKİYE NEOLİTİK DÖNEMİ'NDE KİŞİSEL SÜS EŞYALARI: ARAŞTIRMALARIN GELMİŞ OLDUĞU KONUM VE YORUM

Pages
1–22
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)

It combines currently available evidence to consider the history of ornaments, their relationship to the progress of the Neolithic period as seen through other forms of material culture and subsistence strategies and their potential to offer a new way to understand some aspects of society and material culture practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Personal ornaments, beads, bracelets and a variety of other objects, of the Neolithic period in Turkey have only recently started to be researched in detail.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As they are made from a wide variety of mate-rials and involve different technologies in their manufacture, they can tell us much about society, technology, interaction and trade in early societies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It combines currently available evidence to consider the history of ornaments, their relationship to the progress of the Neolithic period as seen through other forms of material culture and subsistence strategies and their potential to offer a new way to understand some aspects of society and material culture practices.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Personal ornaments, beads, bracelets and a variety of other objects, of the Neolithic period in Turkey have only recently started to be researched in detail. As they are made from a wide variety of mate-rials and involve different technologies in their manufacture, they can tell us much about society, technology, interaction and trade in early societies. This article explores the evidence for how beads, bracelets and pendants were procured, made, used and deposited, what meanings they might have had and how all these factors changed through the Neolithic period. It combines currently available evidence to consider the history of ornaments, their relationship to the progress of the Neolithic period as seen through other forms of material culture and subsistence strategies and their potential to offer a new way to understand some aspects of society and material culture practices.

Özet

Türkiye Neolitik Dönem'inde kişisel süs eşyaları, boncuklar, bilezikler ve diğer nesneler gibi, yakın zamanda ayrıntılı bir şekilde araştırılmaya başlamıştır. Üretimlerinde çok değişik hammaddeler ve değişik teknolojiler kullanılarak yapıldıkları için ilk toplumlar hakkında bizlere toplum yapısı, tekno-loji, ticaret ve etkileşimler hakkında bilgi vermektedir. Bu makale boncuk, bilezik ve pendant gibi nesnelerin nasıl tedarik edildiği, yapıldığı, kullanıldığı ve arkeolojik bağlamlarda nasıl yer aldığı ile anlamlarını ve tüm bu etkenlerin Neolitik Dönem boyunca nasıl değiştiklerinin kanıtlarını araştırmak-tadır. Bununla birlikte süs eşyalarının tarihinde şu ana kadar bilinen kanıtları dikkate alarak, diğer formlardaki maddi kültür ve yaşamsal stratejilerde görüldüğü gibi, Neolitik Dönem'in gelişimindeki toplumların anlaşılmasına ait yeni boyutlar ile maddi kültür uygulamaları üzerine olan potansiyelleri-nin kombinasyonunu sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYSAL, E. (2022). Personal Ornaments in Neolithic Turkey, the Current State of Research and Interpretation. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 155, 1–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/448556

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Alarashi, H. 2014. La parure épipaléolithique et néolithique de la Syrie (12e au 7e millénaire avant J.-C.): Techniques et usages, échanges et identities. PhD dissertation, Université Lumière – Lyon 2. Alarashi, H. 2016. “Butterfly Beads in the Neolithic Near East: Evolution, Technology and Socio- cultural Implications”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26/03: 493-512.
  2. Altınbilek, Ç., G. Coşkunsu, Y. Dede, M. Iovino, C. Lemorini and A. Özdoğan 2001. “Drills from Çayönü. A combination of ethnographic, experimental and use-wear analysis”, I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti and P. Biagi (eds) Beyond tools, redefining the PPN lithic assemblages of the Levant: 137-143.
  3. Ex Oriente, Berlin. Astruc, L. 2001. “Lithic tools involved in the manufacture of stone ornaments and utilitarian products at Khirokitia (Cyprus)”, I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti and P. Biagi (eds) Beyond tools, redefining the PPN lithic assemblages of the Levant: 113-128.
  4. Ex Oriente, Berlin. Astruc, L., R. Vargiolu, M. Ben Tkaya, N. Balkan-Atlı, M. Özbaşaran and H. Zahouani 2011. “Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia)”, Journal of Archaeological Science 38/12: 3415-3424.
  5. Bains, R., M. Vasić, D. Bar-Yosef Mayer, N. Russell, K. Wright and C. Doherty 2013. “A technologi-cal approach to the study of personal ornamentation and social expression at Çatalhöyük”, I. Hodder (ed.) Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons: 331-363.
  6. British Institute at Ankara,
  7. London. Baird, D., E. Asouti, L. Astruc, A. Baysal, E. Baysal, D. Carruthers, A. Fairbairn, C. Kabukcu, E. Jenkins, K. Lorentz, C. Middleton, J. Pearson and A. Pirie 2013. “Juniper smoke, skulls and wolves’ tails. The Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian Plateau in SW Asian context; insights from Pınarbaşı”, Levant 45/2: 175-209.
  8. Bar-Yosef, D. 1991. “Changes in the selection of marine shells from the Natufian to the Neolithic”, O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds) The Natufian Culture in the Levant: 629-636. International Monographs in Prehistory, Michigan. Bar-Yosef, D. 2005. “The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant”, Paléorient 31/1: 176-185.
  9. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. 2008. “Dentalium shells used by hunter-gatherers and pastoralists in the Levant”, Archaeofauna 17: 103-110.
  10. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. 2013. “Towards a typology of stone beads in the Neolithic Levant”, Journal of fi