SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Anthropology / 2022 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2

Animal utilization from Iron Age site of Elbistan Karahöyük, East Mediterranean, Turkey

Derya SİLİBOLATLAZ
Pages
34–66
Publication Date
2022-12-26
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)

Skeletal element distribution, dental age profile and the fusion stages are generated.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper presents the result of recent zooarchaeological analyses from the excavations of Elbistan Karahöyük in Southeast Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This has contributed to better understanding of the local diet, consumption preferences, and Iron Age subsistence strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Skeletal element distribution, dental age profile and the fusion stages are generated.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017-2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Zooarchaeology · Iron Age · subsistence strategy

Abstract

This paper presents the result of recent zooarchaeological analyses from the excavations of Elbistan Karahöyük in Southeast Turkey. Zooarchaeological data have been evaluated into conventional methods of analysis. This has contributed to better understanding of the local diet, consumption preferences, and Iron Age subsistence strategies. In addition, animal bone studies provide information about socio politic and economic alterations. After the collapse of Hittite Empire, it is known that the social and economic changes but as yet in order to see whether there is any evidence from Karahöyük that to show a major changes or recognition of the animal economy during the Iron Ages. Excavations undertaken at Karahöyük 2017-2018-2019 have yielded 2,212 identified animal bone remains from the Iron Age levels (Early, Middle and Late Iron Ages). The material consists mainly of domestic livestock (sheep, goat, cattle, and pig), dogs, equids (horse, donkey) and minor number of wild mammals (wolf, fox, hare, badger, and birds) presented in faunal assemblage as well. Skeletal element distribution, dental age profile and the fusion stages are generated.

🔖

Cite This Article

SİLİBOLATLAZ, D. (2022). Animal utilization from Iron Age site of Elbistan Karahöyük, East Mediterranean, Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Anthropology, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2, 34–66. https://ajindex.com/articles/872674

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Arbuckle B.S. (2012) Pastoralism, provisioning and power at bronze age Acemhöyük, Turkey, American Anthropologist. 114 (3):462-476.
  2. Arbuckle B.S. (2014) The Rise of Cattle Cultures in Bronze Age Anatolia, Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology&Heritage Studies. 2 (4):277-297.
  3. Arbuckle B.S. (2009)
  4. Chalcolithic Caprines, Dark Age Dairy and Byzantine Beef: A First Look at Animal Exploitation at Middle and Late Holocene Çadır Höyük, North Central Turkey, Anatolica. 35: 179-224.
  5. Baker P. (2006)
  6. Economy, Environment And Society At Kilise Tepe, Southern Central Turkey- Faunal Remains From The 1994-1998 Excavations”, In: E. Vıla, L. Gourichon, A. M. Choyke, H. Buithenhuis, editors. Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII ASWA, p 407-431.
  7. Baxter I. L. (1998) Species Identification of Equids from Western European Archaeological Deposits: Methodologies, Techniques and Problems”, In: S. Anderson, K. Boyle, editors. Current and Recent Research in Osteoarcheology, Oxbow Press, p 1-15.
  8. Boessneck J. (1969) Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and Goat (Capra hircus Linne). In: D. Brothwell, E. Higgs, editors. Science in Archaeology, London:Thames and Hudson Press, p 331-358.
  9. Çakırlar C., Bosman J., Ikram S. (2018) Animal Exploitation at Iron Age Kinet Höyük (Turkey) between 700-550 BC. In: C. Çakırlar, J. Chahoud, R. Berthon, S. Pilaar Birch, editors. Archaeozoology of the Near East XII Proceeding of the 12 th International Symposium of the ICAZ Groningen Institute of Archaeology, June 14-15 2015, p 123-143.
  10. Chuang R., Bonhomme V. (2018) Rethinking the Dental Morphological Differences Between Domestic Equids. Journal of Archaeological Science 101:140-148.
  11. Çifçi A. (2019) Two White Painted Vessels and Dating of Hamza Tepe (Elbistan-Karahöyük) Cemetery. Colloquium Anatolicum 18: 1-14.
  12. Çiftçi A., Greaves A. (2010) Settlement Patterns in the Second and First Millennia BC Elbistan Plain. Anatolica 36:89-110.
  13. Crabtree P. J. (1990) Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status and Ethnicity. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:155-205.
  14. Eisenmann V. (1986) Comparative Osteology of Modern and Fossil Horses, Half-asses and Asses. In: R. Meadow, H.P. Uerpmann editors. Equids in the Ancient World. Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden, p117-163. Gilbert A. S. (2002) The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East. In: B. J. Collins, editors. Handbook of Oriental Studies A History of the Animal Wor