SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2

Specialization and Organization in Obsidian Tool Production in the Early Bronze Age II, Liman Tepe

Neyir BOSTANCI KOLONKAYA
Pages
139–153
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Keywords: Chipped Stone, Obsidian, Early Bronze Age II, Aegean, Liman Tepe.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Specialization and organization in obsidian tool production started in the Early Bronze Age II period along with social and political advances.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to establish the effects of this centralized authority on the chipped stone industry and to determine if there was an organization frame for this production, 73 Early Bronze Age II obsidian artifacts originating from Melos island and Central Anatolia were undertaken and compared with the Early Bronze Age I obsidian artifacts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Keywords: Chipped Stone, Obsidian, Early Bronze Age II, Aegean, Liman Tepe.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Specialization and organization in obsidian tool production started in the Early Bronze Age II period along with social and political advances. Architectual remains show that in this period Liman Tepe-in Izmir city, Urla district had a centralized authority. In order to establish the effects of this centralized authority on the chipped stone industry and to determine if there was an organization frame for this production, 73 Early Bronze Age II obsidian artifacts originating from Melos island and Central Anatolia were undertaken and compared with the Early Bronze Age I obsidian artifacts. These artifacts that have been obtained from the administrative and religious buildings in the interior citadel, consist of debris, blanks and tools. Among these artifacts there isn't any core and the debris are very few, which indicates that obsidian debitage took place outside the interior citadel and the tools were brought here as finished products. There is no doubt that in Liman Tepe in Early Bronze Age II there was a specialization in obsidian tool production as in the Early Bronze Age I. However, there isn't any trace that shows an organization in that field. On the other hand, the use of imported obsidian in the tool production indicates highly organized long distance trade in Liman Tepe. Keywords: Chipped Stone, Obsidian, Early Bronze Age II, Aegean, Liman Tepe.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOLONKAYA, N. B. (2022). Specialization and Organization in Obsidian Tool Production in the Early Bronze Age II, Liman Tepe. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2, 139–153. https://ajindex.com/articles/531386

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akurgal, E. (1950). Bayraklı kazısı önrapor. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1): 2-97.
  2. Bakır, G. ve Anlağan, Ç. (1981). 1979 Klazomenia kazısı. II. Kazı Sonuçlan Toplantısı: 87-90.
  3. Baykal-Seeher, A. (1996). Yontmataş endüstrisi, (edit. Refik Duru) Kuruçay Höyük 1: 1978-1988 kazılarının sonuçları, Geç Kalkolitik Çağ ve tik Tunç Çağ yerleşmeleri (s. 61-63). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Bayri-Baykan, S. (1988). İkiztepe kazısının 1975-1975 dönemi taş alet malzemesi (edit. Bahadır Alkım ve diğerleri) İkiztepe I, birinci ve ikinci dönem kazıları (s. 110-118) Ankara:
  4. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Carter, T. ve Ydo, M. (1996). The chipped and the ground stone, (edit. W. Cavanagh ve diğerleri) Continuity and change in a Greek rural landscape: The Laconia survey II. (s. 141-182). London: British School at Athens. Cosmopoulos, B. M. (1995). Social and political organization in the Early Bronze 2 Aegean, (edit. R. Laffineur ve W.D. Niemeier) Politeia: Society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, 10-13 April 1994, I. Aegeaum 12: Annale d'archeologie egenne de VÜniversite de Liege et UT-PASP (23-31). Belgium: Üniversite de Liege. Ercan, T. ve diğerleri. (1990). Kuzeybatı Anadolu obsidiyen buluntularının kaynak belirleme çalışmaları. Jeoloji Mühendisliği Dergisi, 36, 19-32.
  5. Erkanal, A. ve Erkanal, H. (1983). "Vorbericht über die grabungen 1979 im Prâhistorischen Klazomenai/ Liman Tepe". Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 163- 183. Erkanal, H. (1998). 1996 Liman Tepe kazıları. 19. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, 379-398.
  6. Erkanal, H. (2001). "Liman Tepe, tarihöncesi Ege kültürlerine yeni bir bakış".Cogido, 28, 304-316.
  7. Erkanal, H. (2002). Liman Tepe kazılan. İzmir Kent Kültür Dergisi, 5, 221-227.
  8. Erkanal, H., Artzy, M. ve Kouka, O. (2004). "2002 yılı Liman Tepe kazıları". 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, II, 165-178.
  9. Erkanal, H. ve Giinel, S. (1996). 1994 Liman Tepe kazıları. 17. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, I, 305-327.
  10. Erkanal, H. ve Günel, S. (1997). 1995 Yılı Liman Tepe kazılan. 78. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, I,231-260.
  11. Erkanal, H. ve Hüryılmaz, H. (1994). 1992 Liman Tepe kazılan. 15. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, I,361-373.
  12. Gatsov, I. (1998). Technical and typological analysis of the chipped stone sssemblages from Troia.Studia Troiaca, 8, 115-140.
  13. Goldman, H. (1931). Excavations at Eutresis in Boetia. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  14. Hartenberger, B. ve Runn