THE STRUCTURE AND ROLE OF SETTLEMENT IN THE GOKSU VALLEY AND SOUTH-CENTRAL ANATOLIA: A GIS AND SOCIAL NETWORK APPROACH

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

(c) Copyright by Peter Bikoulis 2009

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

September 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53243-0 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53243-0

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Nnternet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1*1 Canada ABSTRACT

Title: The Structure and Role of Settlement in the Goksu Valley and south-central Anatolia: a GIS and Social Network Approach

Peter Bikoulis

This thesis examines the long held assumption that the Goksu Valley was an important prehistoric corridor through the Taurus Mountains connecting the Konya and Cilician Plains of south-central Turkey. Two methods for testing were selected using prehistoric data (6500-2000 B.C.) from archaeological surveys conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, and more recently in the 2000s. The first was the Geographic Information System (GIS) function known as Least Cost Analysis, which calculates the path of least cost between two points. The second was Social Network Analysis, which uses Graph Theory to mathematically express the relationship between actors in the network. Results from these analyses indicate that the Goksu Valley was not the primary or favoured means of travel between the two regions, but its importance to the overall structure of the political economy of south-central Anatolia increased over time as settlement systems and dynamics changed.

Keywords: Prehistoric Anatolia, Goksu Valley, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Social Network Analysis, Settlement Patterns

n PREFACE

This preface serves to summarize and introduce each chapter in this thesis, which examines a commonly held opinion concerning routes and communication in south- central Anatolia from the Late Neolithic to the end of the EBA III (6500 - 2000 uncal.

BC). Chapter One provides a background to the geography of south-central Anatolia. I also introduce the assertion made by many archaeologists concerning the relationship between the Goksu valley and adjacent regions. I focus specifically on the work of James

Mellaart and David French, both of whom conducted surveys in the valley. This initial work, especially that of Mellaart, continues to influence thinking on the importance and role of the valley in prehistory. This chapter concludes with a review of the influence of the Annates paradigm, with its regional and long term perspective, and how this has affected archaeologists. This concern with structure and the use of landscape are the two most important concepts throughout.

Chapter Two provides a brief summary of the most significant archaeological material and finds in south-central Anatolia. Given the small number of excavations in this area, there is a concentration on a few sites, including Mersin-Yumuktepe, Tarsus-

Gozlii Kule, Catalhoyuk, and Can Hasan. Even from a cursory reading, the reliance on so few sites hinders a full appreciation of human activity in south-central Anatolia. Because our knowledge is confined to so few points, a richer description is not possible for many of the periods, especially that of the Chalcolithic.

The methods used to collect the data used here, namely archaeological survey, and those used to analyze it, specifically Least Cost Analysis and Social Network

Analysis, are discussed in Chapter Three. I provide reviews of how archaeologists have

iii appropriated and applied these last two, and how I have employed them. The first is

common in archaeology now, appearing in a number of studies, of which only a few

could be discussed. The situation is largely reversed for the second, which has been used

in a few notable examples. Chapter Four provides the results obtained from these.

Interpretations of the data and results can be found in Chapter Five. These include

ideal routes through the Taurus Mountains, as well as the timing of the Goksu valley's

increase in prominence. This should not be seen as it taking a favored position, but an

acknowledgement that at the end of the Early Bronze Age the valley forms a minor

alternative to the dominant position of the Cilician Gates. Chapter Six provides

concluding comments and reflections on the value of the methods used. The appendices provide important supplemental information, outlining computational or technical details

that affected the final product.

To maximize understanding, chapters (numbered) and appendices (lettered)

should be read in the order prescribed in the following graphic:

IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

After a tornado of travel dropped me off so far from my native Alberta, I began my period of study at Trent University in a strange and wondrous city that I have come to refer to as "my" borough. While I was not greeted by representatives of the Lolly-Pop guild (do clients at the First Step clinic on Simcoe Street count?!), I did have my first encounter with one of Peterborough's infamous Wicked Witches. Fleeing with all of my belongings, which did NOT include a pair of ruby slippers, I began my journey towards this day. Along the way, many companions joined me, adding their voices to the chorus.

In all seriousness, many people deserve thanks for their unique and individual contributions to my time at Trent University, more than can be expressed in this medium.'

Those who undoubtedly deserve the most for the production of this thesis are the members of my committee: Drs. Elton, Conolly, Healey, and Knappett. To each I offer my sincere appreciation and thanks, and (of course) absolve them of any deficiencies that remain. Many thanks are due to Dr. Healey, who supplied many improvements and suggestions, and served as a first-rate Committee Chair. Dr. Knappett was an excellent external examiner, providing interesting comments and discussion. Dr. Conolly generously offered his brilliant advice, the use of his servers (which I crashed more often that I care to admit!), and books. In his hectic schedule, he found time to meet with me on numerous occasions over the past two years, saving me from many a blunder. I learned much about GIS and Spatial analysis in his Archaeoinformatics course, but most of all, he showed me the beauty of numbers. Finally, I do not have words to express my gratitude to Dr. Elton, my supervisor, colleague, and friend. He has been my hocam in the truest and most reverential sense of that word. The memory of his brutal red pen and outbursts

v of annoyance still cause moments of terror, which I take to be a good thing. Like a cliche from the Karate Kid, his sharp discipline helped me to become a better archaeologist and scholar (if you think that this is bad, just imagine what he had to work with!). In gratitude, I hope that my future academic development and career do not disappoint, especially since part of that will be due to his careful and pointed guidance; naturally, only the good things reflect on him. The summer of 2008 will remain the year that I was introduced to "Hugh Elton's Turkey", from which future research abroad will be judged.

I can only hope that, someday, future fieldwork or my own projects eclipse that warm memory.

Foremost among other members of the Trent University and Peterborough community deserving of mention include Kristine Williams, Kate Doroughty, and Cathy

Shoel. Each of these ladies made my time here more enjoyable with their jokes, stories, and time. Allowing me to hang around as much as I did certainly reduced everyone's productivity, but it did make the time more agreeable. I would like to express my gratitude to the amazingly talented Kate Story for renting her fabulous attic to me in my first year, and who has been a friend ever since. Dr. Susan Jameison, taught me a lot, including ANTH 510, and made (most) days more enjoyable with her crotchety wit. To my fellow graduate students, thank you for not killing me, and laughing at (most of) my

(many) off-coloured jokes. Wing nights at Riley's count as some of my fondest memories from my time at Peterborough, especially that night watching UFC and cheering for that hot guy in the tight black shorts while drinking incandescently sinful Marilyn Monroe's!

Special mention must be made of Zach, Jeff, Teresa, Patrick, Caylanne, and Jamie for laughing the hardest and most often. All of them contributed to this thesis in either

vi providing helpful suggestions or comments, or simply letting me run my mouth... as I thought things through out loud. Yeah, right...

Lastly, to the person who bore the cost (both literally and figuratively) of this degree, all I can say is that I am grateful that after nearly eight years I still get to wake up next to you every morning. It is for those and many other reasons that I dedicate this thesis to my partner and friend Christopher, who taught me about connecting and continues to walk the yellow brick road of life with me. I'm not saying that he is Toto or anything, but he does have the amazing ability to solve (and create) numerous problems for me! Honestly, what sort of adventures would Ms. Gale have had without her trusty and much beloved companion?! And truly, because of him, there is no place like home.

vn TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page / i Abstract / ii Preface / iii Acknowledgements / v Table of Contents / viii List of Figures/xi List of Tables /xii

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE /1 1.1. Geography and Climate / 1 1.2. Introduction to the Problem / 5 1.2.1. History of Research / 5 1.2.2. Introducing the Problem / 9 1.3.Meta-theory/ll 1.4 Chapter Summary /18

CHAPTER TWO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND / 20 2.1. Southern Anatolia during the Neolithic / 20 2.1.1. The Pottery Neolithic: beginnings of pottery production / 20 2.1.2. South-central Anatolia during the Neolithic / 23 2.1.2.1. Changes in prehistoric Subsistence economy /23 2.1.2.2. Cilicia in the Neolithic / 25 2.1.2.2.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe / 25 2.1.2.2.2. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule / 27 2.1.2.3. Sites on the Central Plateau / 28 2.1.2.3.1. Catalhoyuk East / 28 2.1.2.3.2. Other Konya Plain Sites / 30 2.1.3.4. The Beysehir District / 32 2.2. Southern Anatolia during the Chalcolithic / 33 2.2.1. Cilicia in the Early and Middle Chalcolithic / 34 2.2.1.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe / 35 2.2.1.2. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule / 36 2.2.2. Sites on the Central Plateau / 37 2.2.2.1. Can Hasan/37 2.2.2.2. Catalhoyuk West / 39 2.2.2.3. Konya Plain Sites / 40 2.2.3. Anatolia during the Late Chalcolithic / 41 2.2.3.1. Cilicia in the Late Chalcolithic / 41 2.2.3.1.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe / 42 2.2.3.1.2. Sites in the Goksu valley / 42 2.3. Southern Anatolia during Early Bronze Age / 43 2.3.1. The Age of Bronze: the origin of Metallurgy in Anatolia / 45 2.3.2. Anatolia during the EBAI and II / 47 2.3.2.1. Cilicia during the EBA I and II / 47

via 2.3.2.1.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe / 47 2.3.2.1.2. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule / 48 2.3.2.1.3. Sites in the Goksu valley / 50 2.3.2.2. Sites on the Central Plateau / 52 2.3.3. Southern Anatolia during the EBA III / 54 2.3.3.1. Cilicia during the EBA III / 55 2.3.3.1.1. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule / 55 2.3.3.1.2. Sites in the Goksu valley / 56 2.3.3.2. Sites on the Central Plateau / 58 2.4 Chapter Summary / 58

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS / 60 3.1. Surface Survey and Collecting: review and discussion / 60 3.1.1. Fieldwalking: a brief description of how to walk fields / 61 3.1.2. On Frogs and Ponds: debates on survey methodology and theory / 62 3.1.3. Evaluating Survey Data: survey reports and "source criticism" / 66 3.1.4. Settlement Patterning, Landscape Archaeology, or Both? / 69 3.2. GIS and Archaeological Research / 72 3.2.1. Predicting Routes: the use of Least Cost Analysis in archaeology / 73 3.2.2. The role of the Goksu valley in Late Neolithic-Early/Middle Chalcolithic trade between the Amuq and Konya Plains / 76 3.3. Social Network Analysis / 78 3.3.1. Beginnings of Social Network Analysis: historical development / 78 3.3.2. Theory of Social Network Analysis / 81 3.3.3. Review of Archaeological appropriations of Social Network Analysis / 84 3.3.4. Creating Ties: building the Network / 87 3.3.4.1. A note on the SNA program used: a review of Pajek 1.24 / 87 3.3.4.2. Network generation: description of method / 88 3.4 Chapter Summary / 93

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS / 95 4.1. Least Cost Analysis / 95 4.1.1. Late Neolithic Pathways / 95 4.1.1.1. Can Hasan/96 4.1.1.2. Catalhoyiik/ 97 4.1.1.3. Suberde/98 4.1.1.4. Tell al-Judaidah/99 4.1.2. Cumulative Least Cost pathways: Late Chalcolithic - EBA III /100 4.2. Social Network Analysis: Network Measures /102 4.2.1. Network Graphs: socio-centered perspective / 103 4.2.2. Centrality Measures / 104 4.2.2.1. Betweenness / 105 4.2.2.1.1. Late Chalcolithic /106 4.2.2.1.2. EBA 1-11/108 4.2.2.1.3. EBA III /110 4.2.2.2. Closeness/ 112

IX 4.2.2.2.1. Late Chalcolithic / 113 4.2.2.2.2. EBAI-II / 114 4.2.2.2.3. EBAIII/114 4.2.3. Paths and Walk/116 4.2.3.1. Late Chalcolithic /117 4.2.3.2. EBA 1-11/118 4.2.3.3. EBA III/119 4.3. Chapter Summary / 121

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION(S) /122 5.1. Least Cost Analysis, Paths, and route identification / 122 5.2. Social Network Analysis: Network Measures / 128 5.3. Chapter Summary / 136

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUDING REMARKS /137

WORKS CITED /143

APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY /167

APPENDIX B: DEM AND POINT DATA / 169 B.l. Obtaining the Spatial Data /169 B.2. Manipulating spatial data to produce a working DEM /170 B.3. On collecting Point data / 172

APPENDIX C: CERAMIC TYPES / 175 C.l. Neolithic Ceramic Types /177 C.2. Chalcolithic Ceramic Types / 178 C.3. EBA I-II Ceramic Types /181 C.3.1. EBA Burnished Ware /183 C.3.2. EBA "Metallic" Ware / 185 C.3.3. Straw Tempered / 188 C.4. EBA III Wares/188

APPENDIX D: LEAST COST ANALYSIS /190 D.l. Initial problems with generating pathways / 190 D.2. Least Cost pathways for the Neolithic /193 D.3. Least Cost pathways for creating Social Networks / 194

APPENDIX E: SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS / 197 E.l. Betweenness / 198 E.2. Closeness / 205

x LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Map of Turkey / 2 Figure 1.2 Map of Cilicia / 3 Figure 1.3 Approximate survey areas investigated in the 1950s and 1960s / 6 Figure 1.4 Prehistoric sites in the Goksu Valley found by David French / 7 Figure 1.5 View of the modern road through the Sertavul Pass, facing south / 11

Figure 2.1 Neolithic sites mentioned in text / 21 Figure 2.2 Chalcolithic Sites mentioned in text / 34 Figure 2.3 EBA Sites mentioned in text / 44

Figure 3.1 View of Cingantepe from Kilise Tepe in the Goksu valley / 68 Figure 3.2 Illustration of Social Network components and concepts / 82 Figure 3.3 Illustrating an Interpretive Dilemma: a) Late Chalcolithic, b) EBA I-II / 92

Figure 4.1 Least Cost Pathways from Tell al-Judaidah to Can Hasan / 96 Figure 4.2 Least Cost Analysis from Tell al-Judaidah to Catalhoyiik / 97 Figure 4.3 Least Cost pathway from Tell al-Judaidah to Suberde (trials 1-3) / 98 Figure 4.4 Least Cost pathway from Tell al-Judaidah to Suberde (trial 4) / 99 Figure 4.5 Least Cost pathways from the Central Plateau to Tell al-Judaidah / 100 Figure 4.6 Cumulative Least Cost pathways used for Late Chalcolithic Network /101 Figure 4.7 Cumulative Least Cost pathways used for EBA I-II Network / 101 Figure 4.8 Cumulative Least Cost pathways used for EBA III Network / 102 Figure 4.9 Box-whisker plot of Betweenness Centrality scores / 107 Figure 4.10 Vizualization of Betweenness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network /108 Figure 4.11 Vizualization of Betweenness Centrality for EBA I-II network /110 Figure 4.12 Visualization of Betweenness Centrality for EBA III network /111 Figure 4.13 Box-whisker plot of Closeness Centrality scores / 113 Figure 4.14 Late Chalcolithic Paths (showing pathway nodes) / 117 Figure 4.15 EBA I-II Shortest Paths (showing pathway nodes) / 118 Figure 4.16 EBA III Shortest Paths (showing pathway nodes) / 120

Figure 5.1 Select sites mentioned in text / 123

Figure D.l Cumulative EBA III routes: a) pathway confusion, b) reiterated pathways / 192 Figure D.2 Example of GRASS 6.4 scripting for generating Least Cost pathways for the site of Catalhoyiik, representing four trials / 195 Figure D.3 Sample scripting used to generate routes for Network analysis /195

xi LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Neolithic levels from Mersin-Yumuktepe / 25 Table 2.2 Late Chalcolithic sites in the Goksu valley / 43 Table 2.3 Bronze Weapons found in Cilician contexts / 46 Table 2.4 EBAI-II sites in the Goksu valley / 51 Table 2.5 EBA II levels at Kilise Tepe / 52 Table 2.6 EBA III sites in the Goksu valley / 57 Table 2.7 EBA III levels at Kilise Tepe / 57

Table 4.1 Centralization scores for the three networks / 103 Table 4.2 Results of Mann-Whitney significance test for Betweenness scores / 106 Table 4.3 Top 10 Ranked Betweenness Centrality vertices for Late Chalcolithic Network/107 Table 4.4 Top 30 Ranked Betweenness Centrality vertices for EBA I-II Network /109 Table 4.5 Top 6 Ranked Betweenness Centrality vertices for EBA III network /111 Table 4.6 Results of Mann-Whitney significance test for Centrality scores / 112 Table 4.7 Top 10 Ranked Closeness Centrality vertices for Late Chalcolithic . Network/114 Table 4.8 Top 30 Ranked Closeness Centrality vertices for EBA I-II Network /115 Table 4.9 Top 6 Ranked Closeness Centrality vertices for EBA III Network / 115 Table 4.10 Network Diameters and Start and End Vertices of three networks / 116 Table 4.11 Tabulation of Late Chalcolithic Paths /117 Table 4.12 Tabulation of EBA I-II Paths /118 Table 4.13 Tabulation of EBA III Paths / 119

Table 5.1 Comparative rankings of selected sites /129

Table A. 1 Standard Chronological Framework for Anatolia / 167 Table A.2 Simplified Chronological Framework 168

Table B.l Sites unable to be located, by Period and Source /173

Table C.l Distribution of DFBW sites / 178 Table C.2 Late Chalcolithic pottery types /179 Table C.3 James Mellaart's parallels between Konya and Cilician Plain EBA I and II ceramics / 182 Table C.4 Parallels of Important EBA I-II Ceramic Types / 182 Table C.5 EBA III Ceramic Types /189

Table D.l Manipulated r.walk variables / 193

Table E.l Betweenness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network /198 Table E.2 Descriptive Statistics for Late Chalcolithic Betweenness scores / 199 Table E.3 Betweenness Centrality for EBA I-II network / 200 Table E.4 Descriptive Statistics for EBA I-II Betweenness scores / 203

xn Table E.5 Betweenness Centrality for EBA III network / 204 Table E.6 Descriptive Statistics for EBA III Betweenness scores / 204 Table E.7 Closeness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network / 205 Table E.8 Descriptive Statistics for Late Chalcolithic Closeness scores / 206 Table E.9 Closeness Centrality for EBA I-II network / 207 Table E.10 Descriptive Statistics for EBA I-II Closeness scores / 210 Table E.l 1 Closeness Centrality for EBA III network / 211 Table E.l2 Descriptive Statistics for EBA III Centrality scores / 211

xin 1

CHAPTER ONE

Background and Rationale

This chapter provides necessary context to the problem this thesis examines, including the geography of southern Anatolia, the history of research in Cilicia and the Goksu valley, and the theoretical orientation adopted. I begin by summarizing the physical characteristics of Anatolia, including the geography and climate of Cilicia and southern

Turkey. I then outline the research problem through a review of previous archaeological work conducted within this pivotal area. This earlier work has served to frame contemporary views on occupation and movement through the valley. Lastly, I touch upon the perspective adopted throughout, namely the continued influence of the Annales paradigm in archaeology.

1.1. GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE

Anatolia roughly comprises the modern nation-state of Turkey (Figure 1.1). The most striking feature of southern Turkey is the formidable Taurus Mountain chain, which all but divides much of Turkey from the rest of Southwest Asia and forms part of the

Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt. The Taurides run in an East-West trajectory, and much of this meets the Mediterranean in the west. To the east they join the Zagros Mountains, combining to form a natural boundary around the Near East and the earliest centers of urbanism to the alluvial south. Peaks in the Taurus vary in elevation from 2000m to

3000m above sea level, with some in the central Taurides (Bolkar Daglan) rising well above 3000m (McNeil 1992: 19). The textured topography along the Taurus Mountains contrasts markedly with other parts of Turkey, like the Aegean region and the coast of the Black Sea. Given this overall diversity, M. Ozdogan (1997: 25) has observed that 2

'"".'i'" ,""..;' "•! -i$\ Black Sea

N -;"' -

• ; ~.

.1, S

- ••''"' % '• Mediterranean Sea „. -•' • • ,s \

Figure 1.1 Map of Turkey

"[t]he geographic features of Anatolia are varied and more different from the other part of the Near East so that it is sometimes called a sub-continent".

The region of south-central Turkey known as Cilicia derives its name from the

Greek KIIVKUX and the lengthy Classical occupation of the region. The name was used by the Romans as early as 101 BC, and later adopted as the Roman provincial name by

Pompey in 63 BC, after he (tried to) rid the area of rampant piracy (Jones 1971: 201-202;

Mitford 1980). Cilicia can be further subdivided into two smaller regions, each with unique environmental and archaeological histories (Figure 1.2). The eastern half comprises the Cilician Plain (also Cilicia Pedias, the Adana Plain, or Cukurova in

Turkish), which is a well watered drainage system of several major rivers. The Tarsus

Cay, Seyhan, and Ceyhan Rivers feed into this eastern drainage system, creating the fertile alluvial plain. With the Taurus and Amanus mountain chains, a veritable border is 3

Figure 1.2 Map of Cilicia

formed around the eastern half of the province. The rugged peaks of the Taurides dominate the western half of Cilicia, providing this region with its name Rough Cilicia.

This half, also known as Cilicia Tracheia or Isauria, primarily comprises the basin of the

Goksu River. The Goksu River, or the Calycadnus in the Classical period and Saleph in

Medieval times, bisects the mountain formation. Often sheer cliffs greet the sea, except for two deltas at Silifke and on the Adana plain.

The Goksu River cuts its way through a mix of Oligocene and Miocene deposits that make up much of the Taurus Mountains, although Miocene lithology predominates.The river has its origin at a relatively low point in the mountain chain, where "mountain ridges are much less clearly marked, the terrain is more broken and the peaks are much lower than elsewhere" (Dewdney 1971: 24). This dip in elevation has lent itself to talk of communication and trade routes through the mountains; as discussed shortly, this natural formation is considered by many to be an ideal access point through 4 the mountains, connecting the southern part of the Central Plateau with the

Mediterranean. The steep-walled basin that it gradually formed becomes much more pronounced as the Goksu River winds its way past the modern city of Mut towards the

Mediterranean.

The prevailing climate west of Mersin has been described as "attenuated thermomediterranean" (Todd 1980: 17), referring to the microclimate of the Goksu valley and other large fissures in the Taurus Mountains. As part of his survey of the Goksu

Valley, David French (1965a: 177-178) commented that there is a significant change in environment between Karaman and Mut; the change is noticeable in terms of not only vegetation and topography, but also in terms of overall climate. From the arid and expansive plain around the city of Karaman one descends the winding modern road to a humid river valley, where Mediterranean scrub and pine cling to steep mountain walls.

Paleoenvironmental data for Turkey during the Holocene is relatively scarce when compared to work done for other parts of Southwest Asia (Atalay 1998; Bottema and

Woldring 1984; Cohen 1970; Eastwood et al 1998; Erinc 1978; Rosen 1998). Erinc

(1978: 96-97) notes that prior to the post-Glacial Climatic Optimum (approx. 5000 -

3000 BC) in Anatolia, a cooler and moister climate prevailed and saw the southern expansion of pine and birch forests. Some have argued that this climatic improvement was directly responsible for settlement expansion in south-central Anatolia, especially on the Konya Plain (Cohen 1970). Following this brief period of climatic amelioration,

Anatolia experienced a period (3000-2000 BC) of increased aridity that caused the recession of these same forests from the Central Plateau and the expansion of steppe forests (Atalay 1998: 235). Bottema and Woldring (1984: 148) note that Neolithic and

Chalcolithic settlements between the Konya Plain and the Mediterranean at this time 5 were primarily situated in lacustrine environments. They go on to report that a landndm

(or leap frog effect) shows up in the pollen record in some parts of southern Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age (EBA). This profile points to the founding of new settlements on mountainous slopes, presumably to exploit shrinking forested areas.

1.2. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

1.2.1. History of Research

A number of archaeological survey projects were conducted in the early 1950s and mid 1960s of southern Anatolia and the Goksu valley in particular (see Figure 1.3).

Much of this early research was concerned with the identification of prehistoric sites, as well as addressing the potential locations of routes through the Taurus Mountains. These early surveys were also the first to propose how sites in the Goksu valley figured in the general structure of prehistoric trade in south-central Anatolia. Therefore, a review of them is necessary in order to not only provide context for the history of research in the region, but also the scholarly framework upon which this thesis rests.

From 1951-1952, James Mellaart (1954, 1958a, 1961,1963) conducted a survey of prehistoric sites located in south-central Anatolia. As part of that survey, Mellaart covered the area from Mersin in the east to the city of Denizli in the west (see Mellaart

1954: 178, map 1). The most pertinent section of his summary article reports on the

Chalcolithic and EBA ceramics collected from the Konya Plain and Goksu Valley

(Mellaart 1954: 186-188 and 189-196 respectively). He notes that there were a few

Cilician and north Syrian (Amuq) style Chalcolithic painted sherds collected from sites on the Konya plain; based on comparisons to material from Mersin, he suggests a Middle

Chalcolithic date for these (Mellaart 1954: 188). For Mellaart, this provided evidence

(albeit tenuous) of contact and exchange between the two regions. This painted tradition, Seton-Williams (1951) Black Sea French (1963-1964) :fc*' Mellaart (1951-1952) N m ^mmmi t < '*• •*> ~'-*m

- -p •' \

m% * - - VI

*f • Mediterranean Sea V Figure 1.3 Approximate survey areas investigated in the 1950s and 1960s

described as a polychrome "buff gritty ware", was found at the majority of sites surveyed

(Mellaart 1954: 187). Of EBA styles common among regional traditions, Mellaart (1954:

190-194) singles out for extended analysis "thin painted metallic ware", which was found

at sites on the Cilicia Plain, the Calycadnus valley, and on the Konya Plain. Once again, identification and elaboration on this ceramic style is dependent upon comparison to both

Tarsus and Mersin (e.g., Mellaart 1954: 191). Mellaart (1954: 193) demurs from

Garstang's early characterization of this ware as "red gritty ware", as this label is "not fit to describe the finer specimens from the Konya plain". From these and other stylistic

similarities between Cilician and Konya Plain sites, he suggests that "[f]he presence of painted sherds in the Calycadnus valley is not surprising as it formed an easy road from

Cilicia up to the Anatolian plateau, to Karaman and Bozkir", and later on, ".. .it might be well to reconsider the prevalent view that the Taurus mountains acted as an effective barrier against the spread of painted pottery cultures from Cilicia" (Mellaart 1954: 187). With this cautious admonition, Mellaart advanced his novel interpretation of human movement in south-central Anatolia.

David French (1965a) conducted additional survey work within the Goksu Valley, revisiting sites located as part of Mellaart's previous survey. Like Mellaart, French proposed that the Goksu Valley could have provided a critical link between prehistoric villages located on the Konya Plain and those on the Mediterranean coast. Of the ten sites visited as part of his survey conducted from 1963-1964, evidence of prehistoric occupation was collected from nine (French 1965a: 180-181) (Figure 1.4). With the exception of Kozlubucak, the majority of sites visited were south of Mut, extending to

Silifke on the Goksu River's delta. French was unable to replicate Mellaart's identification and collection of Late Neolithic and Early / Middle Chalcolithic sherds, stating that the assertion still awaits confirmation. He concluded that EBA ceramic styles

o Kivluhucuk * N

Mm \ Oretitepe (ji'jimui Tope L *^-^ "lomiikko le

A Miiltepc/Kilise lope T ° ° • \ iiiL;taiiii|;i. si* Allepe Tekiikoy Selille0 o Mediterranean Sea

„

~'~f Figure 1.4 Prehistoric sites in the Goksu Valley found by David French

See discussion in Appendix B.3 8 were affiliated more with Tarsus than sites on the Konya Plain (French 1965a: 186).

Some styles identified included numerous EBA wares, such as "Cilician E.B. 'Metallic' or Red gritty ware", "Cilician E.B. Slipped and burnished", and "Cilician E.B. Brown washed", although the last is of questionable provenance (see French 1965a: 182-186).

The most recent archaeological work conducted in Rough Cilicia was under the directorship of Dr. Hugh Elton beginning in 2001 with a survey of the upper reaches of the Goksu River (Elton 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007; Elton et al. 2006).

In contrast to the older surveys of Mellaart and French, the Goksu Archaeological Project

(GAP) made extensive use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GPS technology, which the project combined with intensive field walking and systematic data recording (Elton 2002). The research agenda was directed towards understanding the Late

Roman and Byzantine occupation within the valley, and especially the site of Alahan, a church complex located near modern Mut (Elton et al. 2006). However, in the course of investigations, the project discovered additional prehistoric occupations, locating the sites of Comlek Tepesi (F0249) and Kiran Kayasi (F0619); neither Mellaart nor French found these sites. The first site yielded EBA I-II (and possibly EBA III) ceramics (Elton 2004a:

26). Additionally, three lithic processing sites were located near Comlek Tepesi, dating to the Middle Paleolithic, Epi-Paleolithic, and EBA (Elton 2005a: 16-17 and 2006: 19). A chert Mousterian point was also found on Cakilli Tepe (F0652) (Elton 2007: 238). The majority of the lithic material collected from Comlek Tepesi and other sites in the upper

Goksu valley was chert (Elton 2007: 239). Due to the poor state of the ceramics, the prehistoric rock shelter Kiran Kayasi could not be dated more finely than Late

Chalcolithic and EBA (Elton 2005a: 17). 9

1.2.2. Introducing the Problem

The principal question this thesis seeks to address is how were routes and social networks in peripheral areas such as the Gdksu valley created, maintained, and modified during the tumultuous prehistoric periods of southern Anatolia, from the Late Neolithic to the end of the EBA (6500 - 2000 B.C.). The Goksu valley lends itself to such testing, as the previous fieldwork of Mellaart, French, and the GAP indicates. Again, some have assumed the Goksu Valley was a much used transportation corridor linking the Konya

Plain to the Mediterranean Coast and beyond. The earliest academic mentions of the valley are found in the accounts of early twentieth-century travelers (Hogarth 1908;

Massy 1905; Ramsay 1902). In a review of his travels in Turkey, Colonel P. H. P. Massy gives the Goksu River and valley passing glance, commenting that it was "more historically than topographically important" (Massy 1905: 282); this is an oblique reference to Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, who drowned in the Goksu river near Silifke on June 10, A.D. 1190 as he led the German contingent of the Third

Crusade (A.D. 1189-1192) to free Jerusalem from Saladin (Phillips 2002: 139-140).2

Instead, Massy's account concentrates on describing the Cilician Gates (Gulek Bogazi), a major route through the Taurus used heavily since Classical times. Departing from

Massy's view concerning the valley's relative obscurity, Mellaart strenuously advocated

2The following account of Frederick I Barbarossa's death is from the Historia de expeditione Friderici Imperatoris: The Emperor, who had shared in all the dangers, wished both to moderate the inordinate heat and to avoid climbing the mountain peak. Accordingly, he attempted to swim across the very swift Calycadnus River. As the wise man says, however, "Thou shalt not swim against the river's current" [Ecclesiasticus 4:32]. Wise though he was in other ways, the Emperor foolishly tried his strength against the current and power of the river. Although everyone tried to stop him, he entered the water and plunged into a whirlpool. He, who had often escaped great dangers, perished miserably (Brundage 1962: 165). the importance of the Goksu valley in facilitating prehistoric connections between the

Central plateau and Mediterranean, emphasizing the "ease" by which ancient peoples would have had traversing its course; while not alone, Mellaart is by far the most

enthusiastic proponent of this position. Commenting on the presence of Chalcolithic painted pottery in the valley, he states that "[fjhere is good archaeological evidence to

suggest that the Calycadnus valley formed a comparatively easy means of communication between the Konya plain and the South Coast since at least the fourth and probably fifth millennium" (Mellaart 1958a: 315, emphasis added). Recalling its unique topography,

French points out that the valley "provides the easiest means of access from the coast to the plateau and, conversely, the easiest descent from the plateau to the coast" (French

1965a: 177, emphasis added). He suggests that the prehistoric route could have made its way through the Sertavul Beli (or Sertavul Pass, 1610 m asl; Figure 1.5) at a very early

stage, despite the fact that no Neolithic occupations had been discovered in his survey.

Archaeologists are not alone in theorizing the preferred use of the Goksu valley route in the past. The geographer John C. Dewdney (1971: 179) similarly conjectured thence to Mersin, takes advantage of a natural routeway across the Taurus previously neglected in favour of the traditional, though more difficult route through the Cilician gates". Likewise,R. J. McNeil (1992: 22) agrees with this assessment, noting that the

"route through the central Taurus at Mut, connecting the Konya Plain to the sea at Silifke, has seen almost as much traffic" as the Cilician Gates to the Northeast; undoubtedly,

McNeil has more recent history in mind, leaving unanswered the question of prehistoric use. Finally, J. N. Postgate (1998: 127, emphasis added) has echoed this notion, stating that "[t]he Goksu, the Classical Calycadnus, must always have been an important funnel bringing travelers from the interior down to the Mediterranean shore". This thesis tests 11

Figure 1.5 View of the modern road through the Sertavul Pass, facing south (photograph by author, 2008) this nearly unanimously accepted assumption.

1.3. META-THEORY

In order to quantify and ultimately test this assertion, as well as address my principal concern with routes and networks, I employ two complementary methods.

These are, 1) GIS, and 2) Social Network Analysis. The first is rapidly becoming standard in archaeological research, while the second has yet to make a significant impact. Both measure geographic or social relationships between selected points or actors. The nature of the problem investigated and the use of spatial methods aligns this thesis with the trend towards Landscape studies within archaeology (e.g., Ashmore and

Knapp 1999; Crumley and Marquardt 1990; Robertson et al. 2006; Smith 2003; Thomas

2001; Tilley 1994; Wilkinson 2003). Broadly construed, archaeological Landscape studies explore the way in which people in the past engaged and interacted with 12 environmental and topographic features, both natural and anthropogenic. (Archaeological applications of GIS and Social Network Analysis are provided in Chapter 3.)

Given the long term and large-scale scope of the present project, the most germane theoretical orientation to adopt would be the Annates paradigm, which is commonly associated with French historians such as Febvre, Bloch, and the preeminent

Fernand Braudel beginning in the late 1920s (see Burke 1990). The selection of this theoretical orientation was made for several factors. First, there is an explicit regionalism in much of the historical writing associated with the Annates School; this thesis seeks to model the long-term cycling of the prehistoric Anatolian political economy focusing on a valley on the Turkish southern coast. Second, the concern with larger social or historical

"structure" is amenable to my desire to explore the patterning of prehistoric economic and social relationships. Within the Annates paradigm, the 'structure' of history was paramount, divided into three nested tiers: the longue duree (long term), conjoncture

(medium rhythms), and evenements (events). Many of the early Annates historians focused on the first two, writing regional histories rather than that of great men and circumstances. Lastly, and probably most obvious, a thesis concentrating on such a considerable range must directly face the question of temporality and scale, of which

Annates historians were undisputed masters.

Bintliff (1991) argued that the primary tenets of the Annates movement presents a rare opportunity for archaeologists to unite under a paradigm that explicitly sought to study long-term change. He looked upon the tripartite division of history offered by

Annates historians as a way for archaeologists to integrate their own concern with the patterning of long-term change. In this regard, Bintliff (1991: 4) specifically calls upon archaeologists to embrace the, Annates paradigm because it exceled "precisely through its 13 explicit combination of experienced life and externally analysed life". According to

Bintliff, the Annates history had the ability to bring together a fractured discipline. The problem with using it to stitch various factions and interests within the discipline together is its painfully obvious artificiality; these problems become readily apparent when gently pulling at the seams. The easiest to spot is Bintliff s advocacy of "post-positivist" approaches to the past, which conflicts with the rigorous empiricism practiced by Annates historians. At a deeper level, he failed to appreciate the fate of the paradigm within the discipline of History itself. By using it to pursue fashionable mentalites and/or evenements, the dejour trend among Post-Processualists, archaeologists forced it to retrace the very steps that brought about its decline in its home discipline (see Hunt

1986). Lynn Hunt (1986: 213) has argued that increased attention paid to evenments in the 1970s and 1980s forced French Structural History "to disintegrate at the very moment of its triumph". The "Post-Modern" turn in the Humanities and Social Sciences saw a repudiation of such confining meta-narratives of economy, people, and space that the

Annates School excelled at writing. She contends that Annates history was at its greatest potency when focused on the tongue duree, and that the ensuing "application of Annates methods to 'the third level' of mental events itself eventually began to undermine the

Braudelian three-tiered model of analysis" (Hunt 1986: 215). Alternately, criticisms that

Braudel (and the Annates School with him) was primarily concerned "with the long term and pays very little attention to the event and the individual" (lannone 2002: 73) inappropriately take French Structural History to task for something that it was never able to meaningfully address. This is ignoring the distinct possibility that they had no wish to do so. From the beginning, Annates history was never overly concerned with minor or unique events and the "individual". For Braudel the individual entirely disappears in the 14

Mediterranean "milieu", subsumed within a collectivity of states and nations (Kinser

1981:67).

While criticized for its environmental "determinism", one must appreciate the variety of perspectives held by major scholars associated with the Annates movement,

especially Lucien Febvre's "possibilitism" (Burke 1990: 14-15). In contradistinction to

Braudel's so-called "prisoner" conception of human-environment relations, Febvre repeatedly emphasized the range of human responses to their environment. In his discussion of the physical and geographic configurations that encouraged communication and trade routes, he states "[y]et all this only demonstrates possibilities; men did not always passively submit" (Febvre 1949: 319). Later he elaborates that man "does not always choose the same possibility out of the many which are offered him" (Febvre 1949:

320). In his review of the French historical movement, Peter Burke (1990: 109) characterizes Febre as an "extreme voluntarist". This should certainly serve as a warning against views that see Annates historians' own perspective of the relationship between people and their environment as monolithic.

The work of Vidal de La Blache, one of Febvre's teachers at the Ecole Normale

Superieure, had a major influence on the thought of his student and many Annales historians (Burke 1990: 12). For his part, Vidal de La Blache (1965) advocated this same

"possibilitist" perspective, arguing that cultural expressions represent the diverse ways humans have adapted to their respective environment. His Principles of Human

Geography (Vidal de La Blache 1965) is focused on the worldwide distribution of human settlement and how different climates and environments resulted in these diverse responses or adaptations. Discussing the geographic spread of early human populations,

Vidal de la Blache noted that "[e]ach group discovered helps as well as obstacles in the 15

particular environment where it had to establish itself; the different ways of meeting them

represent just so many local solutions of the problem of existence" (Vidal de La Blache

1965: 12).

According to Kinser, Braudel's "geo-history" shared important assumptions with the work of Vidal de La Blache, including an ecological imperative, a sense of historical

stasis (due to the long term processes at work), and that the long term interaction between people and their environments ("geohistory", or deep history) forms the basis of all

subsequent history (Kinser 1981: 69). In this sense, much of Vidal de La Blache's geographic view was embraced by many of the second generation of Annates historians.

This perspective also found fertile ground in the writings of anthropologists and archaeologists during the 1930s and 1940s. As Trigger (2006: 319) has noted, the

"Geographic Possibilism" of Vidal de La Blache gave new impetus to Functionalist interpretations of culture, which included the work of the venerable V. Gordon Childe.

Early anthropologists like Julian Steward (1955) argued very much the same perspective as Vidal de La Blache, highlighting the special role that environment played in shaping cultural evolution. Perhaps understated by their critics, Annates historians were more concerned with human responses to the limiting features of geography than what those physical features actually were. However, a detailed understanding of those features was necessary in order to fully grasp the range of those responses.

Apart from the published engagements with Annates historiography already mentioned, historians and archaeologists have explicitly used the French paradigm to structure their perspective of long-term change (e.g., Barker 1995; Horden and Purcell

2000). Following the early edited volumes by Bintliff (1991) and Knapp (1992),

Grahame Barker (1995: 3, emphasis in original) has argued in his work on the Biferno 16 valley, Italy, that "to investigate the long-term relationship between structure and agency, the most appropriate scale of archaeological analysis is generally at the level of the region rather than the single site". That is, if archaeologists wish to study human decision making and choices, we must adopt a large scale approach that affords a panoramic perspective on their behaviors and activities. The Biferno valley project sought to understand changing settlement patterning and landscape use from the Paleolithic to the present. In many ways, the work of Barker and his team exemplifies the 'total history' approach advocated by Annales historians, combining geophysical, archaeological, and historical/archival research to produce an understanding of the valley throughout its millennia of occupation. Likewise, Horden and Purcell (2000) have produced arguably the most thorough appropriation of the Annales paradigm since Braudel. They cover a temporal period preceding Braudel's own, spanning an even larger swath of time, and covering topics including agricultural production and yields, trade and communication networks, settlement patterning, and anthropological studies of Mediterranean social mores. Their study is rooted in "historical ecology", which aligns them with adaptationist views of the interaction between people and their environments. However, they rightly caution that "[ejcology is not a deus ex machina capable of solving the historian's problems with a dose of scientific rigor. It shows us the topics with which we should be concerned, and more especially the likely kinds of connection between them" (Horden and Purcell 2000: 46).

Horden and Purcell make a number of important observations concerning this thesis' two primary foci, namely trade and communication routes and a diachronic study of settlement patterning. The first concerns the role played by physical impediments - that is, mountain chains - in shaping mobility and socio-economic connections in the 17

Mediterranean; this is especially pertinent given the assumed importance of the Taurus

Mountains in shaping human activity in the Goksu valley. Contrary to conventional viewpoints that see mountain chains as limiting and segregating communities, Horden and Purcell argue that mountains (and routes through them) are fully integrated into the economic fabric of regional political economies. In their example drawn from Braudel on marginal Alpine communities, Horden and Purcell (2000: 80-82) contend that the

"isolation" often ascribed to such communities belies the very real connections that are made between villages in the uplands and settlements at lower altitudes. They argue that so-called geographically marginal villages in many ways are much more sensitive to fluctuations in economic cycling and regional shifts (Horden and Purcell 2000: 81).

Consequently, this would make them ideal arenas to study larger socio-economic structures that extend over much broader geographic areas. Continuing on, they specifically discuss the Taurus Mountains and the southern Anatolian coast, noting that river valleys and adjacent coastal plains "can parallel the significance of great gathering ports" (Horden and Purcell 2000: 82). With this, they remind us that people in the past made extensive use of seemingly impenetrable mountain passes, and that our own modern incredulity should not blind us to these very real occurrences.

In his recent work on archaeological concepts of space and complex societies,

Adam T. Smith (2003) aligns the Annates paradigm with an "organic absolutism" that attempted to appreciate the human-environmental relationship outside of the

"mechanistic ontology" of Social Evolutionism. While he favorably reviews the efforts of

Annates historians, Smith (2003: 48-49) suggests that the French historical school failed to situate their histories within a social context, instead allowing physical geography to dominate their narratives. In his view, the few archaeologists who have tried explicitly to 18 appropriate the Annates approach have largely followed the work of Julian Steward

(Smith 2003: 49). In contrast to a "mechanistic absolutist" vision of space, this new attempt saw the "revitalization" of organicist ecological theory. This newest perspective views space as a fundamental category of society, or as Smith (2003: 50) states, "rather than regular laws shaping the space of the social world, the social world fits itself to the space of the environment". Similarly, Wilkinson (2003: 15) has echoed this sentiment stating, "The natural environment provides the physical underpinning of the cultural landscape". More fundamental, Smith (2003: 12-17) argues that the traditional view of space has been largely dependent upon Marxist historical teleology, consigning space to a utilitarian sphere. This view has gone on to influence the way in which archaeologists have understood the development of complex societies.

With newer views of the correlations between space and societies, historians and archaeologists have in many important respects come full circle to theories of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Furthermore, with the renewed focus on ecology, landscape, and people found in Horden and Purcell (2000) and Smith's (2003) attempt to appreciate the way in which space is a constituting factor in the development of societies, the "environmental possibilism" advocated by nineteenth-century historians such as Vidal de La Blache may yet hold a belated triumph. As never before, Social

Scientists are attending to the way in which landscape and environment form more than a mere backdrop to human activity - space has become a medium for activity, and more importantly, profoundly impacts culture.

1.4. CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has introduced background information concerning the geography of south-central Anatolia, the history of research, and the general perspective adopted. From 19 previous work, geophysical and topographic features of the Goksu valley figure prominently in interpretations of trade and communication between sites and adjacent regions. This view understands the Goksu valley as serving a bridging role, connecting sites on the Central Plateau and the Cilician Plain. This role extended even beyond historical settlement in the valley to encompass its prehistory. The importance of its physical characteristics naturally leads into the domain of Annates historians, who wrote histories of human interaction with their landscapes as much as each other. The role of landscape, structure, and archaeological survey is picked up in Chapter Three. The next chapter provides the archaeological background to the area of study, focusing on the Late

Neolithic to the end of the EBA, spanning some 4500 years of activity and habitation. 20

CHAPTER TWO

Archaeological Background

This chapter supplies the archaeological background of south-central Turkey necessary to support this research. Following the chronological divisions outlined in Appendix A, the summaries begin with the Late Neolithic and continue to the end of the Early Bronze Age

(EBA) III period. As such, the summaries provided for the 4500 years of human settlement and activity vainly attempt to synthesize concisely archaeological data recovered from both excavations and survey work, especially focusing on work conducted in Cilicia and the southern edge of the Central Plateau.

2.1. SOUTHERN ANATOLIA DURING THE NEOLITHIC

This section briefly sketches the Neolithic period in Anatolia. I begin with a discussion of the beginning of potting, as well as a brief summary of the evidence for the emergence of pottery production from major Anatolian sites (Figure 2.1). From there, I provide an overview of the archaeological evidence for late Neolithic human occupation and activity in central-southern Anatolia.

2.1.1. The Pottery Neolithic: beginnings of pottery production

When compared to the monumental changes occurring in the Aceramic or Pre-

Pottery Neolithic (PPN), including the beginning of permanent villages and the domestication of plants and animals (Banning 1998; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2000;

Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Zeder 2006), the Pottery Neolithic (PN) is far less impressive. Some have gone so far as to argue that the PN marks a decline or deterioration from the highpoint of the PPNB, especially the MPPNB (see Simmons

2007: 199). The use of clay itself does not coincide with the PN. The development of 21

t N

•4 • 1 • /

• :

• "•

*«i& *>5

Mct/itcrranctMi Scut

Site Name 1. Asikh Hoytik 9. Gritille 2. Bademagaci 10. Hacilar 3. Beldebi 11. Hoyticek 4. Cafer Hoyiik 12. Kurufay 5. Can Hasan 13. Mersin / Yumuktepe 6. Catalhoyiik 14. Pinarbasi 7. Cayonii 15. Suberde 8. Erbaba 16. Tell al-Judaidah Figure 2.1 Neolithic sites mentioned in text

pottery should not be seen as an overly significant technological development, especially when viewed against the use of plaster dating to as early as the PPNB

(Banning 1998: 204-205; Simmons 2007: 133; also Gourdin andKingery 1975;

Kingery et al. 1988). Through their characterization study of both gypsum and lime plaster samples from Southwest Asia (Asikh Hoytik, Cayonii, Tell Ramad, Jericho, and

Anau) and Egypt (Timna), Gourdin and Kingery (1975) have illustrated the degree of 22

technological sophistication and community organization necessary to produce some of

the earliest use of plaster. The development of potting traditions in Southwest Asia was

a continuation of this early experimentation with "pyrotechnology" (Gourdin and

Kingery 1975: 150). This commonly took the form of architectural features (i.e., plaster

flooring), other utilitarian uses (i.e., composite tool adhesive, vessels, plaster balls), or

ritual/social elaboration (plastered skulls, sculpture, and beads) (see Kingery et al. 1988:

223-236). Anatolian sites yielding evidence for this early use of plaster include Can

Hasan, Catalhoyiik, Cayonu, Hacilar, and Mersin-Yumuktepe.

Schmandt-Besserat (1977) proposed a three-phase development for pottery within Anatolia. Phase I (<7500 BC) begins with the earliest use of pottery anywhere in the Near East, and is associated with the cave site of Beldebi (8500-8000 BC) (Schmandt-

Besserat 1977:133). However, sites such as Catalhoyiik East provide some of the earliest attested (i.e., dated) evidence for pottery in all of Southwest Asia (Moore 1995: 40).

Other sites providing evidence for the beginnings of pottery production are also located in

Anatolia, including Cayonu and Hacilar. In Phase II (7500-6800 BC), at many sites, such as Cayonu, Hacilar, and Asikh Hoyiik, clay was used in the construction of architecture and storage facilities, lining hearths and kilns, and the production of armaments (i.e., beads from Cayonu), figurines, and "geometric objects". Phase III (6800-5800 BC) witnesses the emergence of true pottery vessels, including painted and handled varieties, and the continuation of previous objects made from clay. Domestic structures, hearths, and kilns continue to be lined with clay, with the addition of wall relief and paintings most notably seen from Catalhoyiik (see Mellaart 1967; Hodder 2006). Regardless of the various 23 competing interpretations of the imagery itself, the use of clay by village communities had become established by this time.

2.1.2. South-central Anatolia during the Neolithic

2.1.2.1. Changes in prehistoric Subsistence economy

Domesticated plants and animals are seen at various permanently settled sites in the Late Neolithic, although wild varieties continued to be exploited. According to

Simmons, the subsistence economy of Southwest Asia during the PN can be characterized by Karl Butzer's (1996) concept of the "basic Mediterranean agrosystem" seen from the Classical Age. Simmons (2007: 214-215) suggests that this basic pattern

became established during this time. Thus, during the PN an agropastoral economy existed that became more and more dependent on a smaller number of domesticated resources. Changes in processing and cooking brought about by the incorporation of ceramics undoubtedly are embedded in this pattern. There was a likely increase in the use of secondary products as well. While domestic products formed the core of PN subsistence, people still used wild resources, although these no longer seem to have been of primary consequence.

This pattern included 1) outfield cereal cultivation, 2) infield tending of kitchen or market gardens, 3) orchard tending, and 4) stock rearing (Butzer 1996: 142). Furthermore, the entire basis of this system was "risk-minimization", whereby the different scheduling and variety of products curtailed ecological hardships "through interregional 'averaging'"

(Butzer 1996: 143).

In their survey of animal exploitation on the Central Plateau during the Early

Neolithic, Martin et al. (2002) noted that in addition to the domestication of major stock

(i.e., cattle, sheep, goats, and pig), deer, hares, and equids were hunted. Caprines dominate the faunal assemblage at numerous Central Anatolian sites, including Asikh 24

Hoyiik (Buitenhuis 1997), Suberde (Arbuckle 2008), and Pinarbasi A and B (Carruthers

2005). In addition to ovi-caprine exploitation, evidence for the hunting of wild cattle

(Aurochs or Bos primigenius) and bison (Bison bonasus) is evident at a number of

Central Anatolian sites, most famously seen at Catalhoyuk (Russell et al. 2005; Martin et al. 2002). Evidence for domesticates at Cilician sites is much less abundant. However,

Buitenhuis (2004; also Buitenhuis and Caneva 1998) has reported the identification of all four major taxa (sheep, goat, cattle, and pigs) at the site of Mersin-Yumuktepe.

Elsewhere, Buitenhuis and Caneva (1998: 125) have argued that hunting was not a significant part of the economic base, where "the absence of hunting could also be due to the nature of the site as a production centre, with a fully sedentary life in which other economic activities, such as obsidian trade, possibly played a more important role".

Domesticated cereals and pulses have been found at numerous sites in south- central Anatolia during the Neolithic. These include Asikh Hoyiik, Can Hasan,

Catalhoyuk, Erbaba, and Suberde on the Central plateau (see Asouti and Fairbaira 2002), as well as Mersin-Yumuktepe in Cilicia (Cavena 1999). According to Caneva (1999:

109), the presence of Emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), barley (Hordeum), and legumes

(lentils, peas, and bitter vetch) indicate that residents of Mersin-Yumuktepe lived in settled villages and practiced a mixed farming economy. Asouti and Fairbairn (2002:

185) note that data from Early Neolithic sites like Asikh Hoyiik, Cafer Hoyiik, Cayonii, and Gritille suggest that people lived in permanently settled villages, exploiting cultivated cereals and pulses. A combination of factors are put forward to explain this, including the admixture of local and foreign colonizers and influences, as the most likely scenario for the origins of agriculture in Central Anatolia (see Asouti and Fairbairn 2002: 189-190). 25

2.1.2.2. Cilicia in the Neolithic

2.1.2.2.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe

John Garstang excavated the site of Mersin-Yumuktepe as part of the Neilson expedition to the Near East (1939-1952). Although the first occupants of Mersin-Yumuktepe already made use of pottery, it provides one of the best Neolithic sequences in southern Anatolia

(see Table 2.1) (Caneva and Sevin 2004; Garstang 1953; 1943). Garstang's deepest sounding (Trench A) did not go below the water level at the site, but even the lowest level (Level XXXIII) contained monochromatic pottery. Garstang reports the finding of organic tempered coarser wares, black burnished ware, as well as incised wares (Levels

XVIIII-XXVII) (Garstang 1953: 19). Dishes, bowls, and opened mouthed pots dominate the assemblage.

Architecturally, the earliest inhabitants (Level XXXII-XXVIII) at Mersin-

Yumuktepe made use of "dry-walling" to erect structures, whereby large stones were piled to form a wall without the use of mortar; Garstang (1953: 14) suggests that this was preferable given the local environment. It is likely that an organic superstructure

Table 2.1 Neolithic levels from Mersin-Yumuktepe Garstang's Excavation Recent Excavations m Level Period Name New Name Level Cal. BC

0-1.50 XXXIII - Neolithique xxxm 1 en -7 on XXXII- Lower a Ceramique WWT c- 7000-6500 1.50-7.80 xxvn Neolithic Lustree XXVI 7.80-9.20 XXVI-XXV J3™?. Neolithique Neolithic Final a xxyxx c 6500.5500 9 20 XXIV Proto- Ceramique Chalcolithic Peinte (after Breniquet 1995; Caneva 1999; Garstang 1953) 26

completed the squat stone foundations of this earliest phase. Garstang (1953: 27-30) goes

on to note that the use of thin walls continued throughout the Lower Neolithic, until more

substantial ones replaced these by the later half of the Upper Neolithic. The use of "dry

walling" continued in the Upper Neolithic phase (Level XXVI-XXV). He notes that

while the same general technique was used, foundations at this level became more

extensive (Garstang 1953: 27). Very little of the architecture from lower levels was

exposed, but several structures were found beginning at Level XXVI (see Garstang 1953:

28, Figure 12).

Garstang (1953: 15) speculated that the lithic industry of the earliest phase used

obsidian obtained from Central Anatolia. Stone and bone industries of the Upper

Neolithic levels continued the use of obsidian and locally available chert. Because of the

lack of debitage, it is thought that no obsidian knapping was performed at Mersin-

Yumuktepe during the Early Neolithic (see Zambello 2004: 143-146); this inference is

further supported by the absence of cores. Blades and bladelets from this period were

likely imported from Catalhoyiik based on the recovery of bladelets struck from single- platform prismatic cores (Zambello 2004: 144; cf. Conolly 1999: 795). Likewise,

Zambello (2004: 144) indicates that a number of point shapes from Mersin-Yumuktepe

are similar those found by Braidwood at sites on the Amuq Plain; technical

characteristics of some Mersin-Yumuktepe points are also seen at Tell al-Judaidah. The

Middle - Final Neolithic industries show an increasing reliance on chert, although obsidian remains an important material until the Final Neolithic, when its use declines considerably. In addition to knapped stone, Garstang (1953: 31-32) recovered a number

of small hollow stone bowls and scoops. Other stone objects include a number of net 27 sinkers and loom weights. Worked bone makes its appearance in Level XXV, and primarily consists of pointed tools (i.e., needles) and "spatulas" (Garstang 1953: 30).

Breniquet (1995) has clarified Garstang's original stratigraphy for the Neolithic levels at Mersin. She divides the Neolithic occupation into two phases. The first roughly corresponds to most of Garstang's Neolithic levels. The second combines parts of

Garstang's Upper Neolithic, Proto-Chalcolithic, and Early Chalcolithic levels. According to Breniquet, Garstang's understanding of the succession of architectural phases is based on a failure to recognize continuity in terms of ground plan and construction techniques.

The second major stratigraphic division Breniquet (1995: 8-14) makes is based on architectural and ceramic continuities throughout levels XXV-XX. She states that there is a noticeable break between level XXVI and XXV, where the more recent structures are similar to Northern Mesopotamian rectilinear ground plans than to the preceding occupation layers (Breniquet 1995: 9).

2.1.2.2.2. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule

Excavated by Hetty Goldman (1956) in 1934-1939 and 1947-1948, Tarsus-Gozlii

Kule yielded a Pottery Neolithic occupation very similar to Mersin-Yumuktepe.'

Goldman (1956: 5) notes that too little of the Neolithic component was exposed to reveal defined structures, although walls and house foundations constructed without the use of mortar were uncovered. She reports that plaster had been used on the walls. Stone rubble was also used, and in one instance, there is evidence for the use of clay to construct walls.

Pottery found included "Dark Burnished Wares", "Light Gritty" wares, and "Red

1 Renewed exacavation at Tarsus-Gozlii Kule directed by Ozyar have only begun to repot findings (see Ozyar 2005). For a general background and summary report of activities during the 2001-2003 seasons, see Ozyar et al. (2005). 28

Polished Medium and Heavy Ware" (see Goldman 1956: 65-69). These types corresponded quite closely to material found at Mersin-Yumuktepe. She makes special mention of the "Dark Burnished Wares", noting that they are similar to Amuq A-B examples found at Tell al-Judaidah (Goldman 1956: 70; also Balossi Restelli 2006;

2004). Obsidian and chert flakes and tools were found mostly in unstratified contexts such as fills and wall deposits, and included a number of blades, but none of these could be classified as true microblades (Goldman 1956: 256); no mention is made of debitage.

Other lithic tools included sickle blades, borers and gravers, side scrapers, shaft scrapers, and possibly two arrowheads. Representing the only worked bone from the Neolithic levels, a single bone knife was also found.

2.1.2.3. Sites on the Central Plateau

2.1.2.3.1. Catalhoyuk East

Since its excavation by James Mellaart in the early 1960s, Catalhoyuk East is arguably one of the most sensational archaeological sites in human prehistory (Mellaart

1967). Renewed excavations at Catalhoyuk by Ian Hodder, beginning in 1993, continue to provide important clues to life at this Neolithic town (Hodder 2007; 2006; for project volumes, see Hodder 2007; 2005a; 2005b; 2000; 1996). From his initial work, Mellaart suggested that the chronology of Catalhoyuk East spanned the Pre-Pottery Neolithic through to the Pottery Neolithic over twelve occupation levels (levels II - XII) (Mellaart

1967: 49-53). Mellaart (1967: 52) published fourteen radiocarbon dates for most levels

(X-II), revealing nearly 800 years of continuous occupation (6500-5700 BC). Matthews and Farid (1996) have correlated present work with the findings of Mellaart's 1960s stratigraphy of the East mound, noting little discrepancy between the original published 29

measurements and plans and those reexamined once renewed excavations were begun.

However, the renewed excavations discovered additional levels below Mellaart's level

XII (Cessford 2005a). The dating of these, labeled Pre-XIIA through Pre-XIID, extended

the occupation of the mound to c. 7500 cal. BC (see Cessford 2005a: 69-70, Table 4.1;

Cessford 2001). Furthermore, Mellaart suggested that 5000-6000 individuals possibly

inhabited the site "in its heyday" (Mellaart 1975: 99-101). Adopting a Bayesian statistical approach, Cessford (2005b) has confirmed that the number initially offered by Mellaart is

supported by evidence from the renewed excavation, although deriving population estimates for the site remains an issue given the problems surrounding assumptions of the number of occupants in each house (as well as determining the exact number of houses!).

Catalhoyuk has a rich obsidian chipped stone industry, which has been discussed by numerous researchers (e.g., Carter et al. 2006; Cessford and Carter 2005; Conolly

1999). Conolly (1999) reports that the production of obsidian flakes was primarily organized at the household level. Large quantities of the volcanic material cached beneath household floors further supports this view. However, specialized tools such as prismatic blades were likely organized in "kin-group structures", especially with the

finding of concentrations of blades and cores in specific rooms (Conolly 1999: 198).

Cessford and Carter (2005) have argued that the quantities or "density" of obsidian recovered from Catalhoyuk suggest that the site controlled access to nearby obsidian

sources, and functioned as a "center of consumption" within the much larger trade network of obsidian during the Neolithic. Obsidian characterization analysis has detected chronological and typological changes in the use of the three closest sources, namely

Gollu Dag, Nenezi Dag, and Hasan Dag (Carter et al. 2006). 30

Andrew Fairbairn (2005) has argued that agriculture was the primary means of

food production at Catalhoyiik East. In line with Butzer's (1996) concept of outfield cultivation and infield gardening, Fairbairn (2005: 198) proposed that the inhabitants pursued both "extensive practices", that is, cultivation of distant fields with little or low input, and "intensive practices", which were "closer to gardening" in that there was a much greater investment in terms of tending and fields were located closer to the settlement. The suite of crops grown at Catalhoyiik is consonant with contemporaneous villages in southwestern Asia, especially the presence of Einkorn wheat {Triticum monococcum), Emmer wheat {Triticum dicoccum), and pea (Pisum sativum) (see

Fairbairn et al. 2002: 42). Domesticated stock included sheep and goats (see Martin et al.

2002: 199-200). However, evidence points to the continued hunting of equids and deer, as well as cattle (see Russell et al. 2005). On the last, Martin et al. (2002: 201) suggest that residents did not domesticate cattle alongside other taxa due to their highly symbolic nature.

2.1.2.3.2. Other Konya Plain Sites

Already mentioned, Pinarbasi A and B were excavated alongside renewed activity at Catalhoyiik (Watkins 1996). In his report of the first two seasons (1994 and 1995),

Watkins has sketched the occupations at Site A (the open air settlement) as well as Site B

(the rock shelter), both of which had been subject to extensive looting. The principal motivation for conducting excavations at Pinarbasi was to better understand the area around Catalhoyiik. Given this objective, botanical samples were floated and radiocarbon dates were obtained; as of yet, very little of this data has been published. Watkins (1996:

55) reports that the rock-shelter (Site B) yielded diagnostic Neolithic obsidian chipped 31 stone that could be correlated to Catalhoyuk, but no similar industry was found at the open air settlement (Site A); abundant chert microliths were found at Site A.

A survey of the Konya Plain was conducted in conjunction with excavations at

Catalhoyuk and Pinarbasi (Baird 2005; 2002). Mounds visited fell between the Late

Pleistocene/Epi-Paleolithic (17,000-8000 cal. BC) to the Middle Chalcolihic (c. 5500-

4500 cal. BC) (see Baird 2005: 60-62; 2002: 142-144). The number of sites on the Konya

Plain dated to the Aceramic Neolithic (8000-7000 cal. BC) did not substantially increase over earlier periods. Other than Catalhoyuk and Pinarbasi, no sites were found to date to the Ceramic Neolithic (7000-6200 cal. BC). However, Marciniak and Czerniak (2007:

123) note that the small settlements of Ali Hoyiik, Boncuklu, and Sanack were occupied during the later half of the eighth millennium; however, they emphasize the general lack of permanent settlement near Catalhoyuk. Baird (2005: 66) proposes two scenarios to explain this phenomenon: 1) either there were no permanent villages occupied during this period, or, 2) the majority of settlements were ephemeral, not leaving a signature on the landscape discernible by archaeological survey. Both point to Catalhoyuk prominence as the dominant feature in the area during this period.

Located south of the Konya Plain on the Karaman Plain, Can Hasan is actually a group of three mounds. Can Hasan I was excavated by French (French 2005; 1998; 1968;

1967; 1966; 1965b; 1964; 1963; 1962; also Yakar 1991: 196-199) and had late Neolithic through Late Chalcolithic levels. The nearby Can Hasan III, also excavated by French, had only Aceramic Neolithic levels (French et al. 1972; also Yakar 1991: 194-196). Of the seven prehistoric levels at Can Hasan I, levels 4-7 were identified as Neolithic. Buildings were constructed using roughly shaped mud bricks, notably without stone foundations 32

(French 1998: 20). Walls and floors were plastered. Evidence from Can Hasan supported the long held view that roofs were constructed from organic materials such as timber and reeds. Generally, lithic material found in Neolithic levels was comparable to Catalhoyuk, although French has described it as "the end of a tradition" (French 1962: 32). Simple obsidian blades and flakes were found, but no pressure flaked blades similar to those found at Catalhoyuk were recovered. In addition, ground stone tools, including various grinding implements, were also found. Pottery could be correlated to Neolithic levels at

Mersin (levels XXVII-XXIV), and a sherd collected from the surface was parallel to types found at Catalhoyuk (Yakar 1991: 197).

2.1.3.4. The Beysehir District

The Neolithic of the Beysehir or Lake District, a large geographic area dominated by numerous lakes, provides an important supplement to our understanding of southern

Anatolia (see Duru 1999; Mellaart 1975: 92-98). Important sites include Suberde and

Erbaba in the east, as well as Hacilar, Kurucay, and Hoyiicek in the west. Numerous sites have Aceramic Neolithic levels, most notably Suberde (levels II-III) and Hacilar (levels

I-VII) (Duru 1999: 171-174). Pottery Neolithic levels have been found at both Suberde and Hacilar, as well as at Erbaba, Kurucay, Hoyiicek, and Bademagaci (Duru 1999: 172,

174-182). Mellaart (1975: 111-119), who excavated the site in the 1950s, placed Hacilar

VI as roughly contemporaneous with the end of Catalhoyuk. His "Hacilar Culture" is characterized by monochromatic painted pottery and a profusion of clay statuary, the later of exclusively female iconography reminiscent of examples found at Catalhoyuk

(see Mellaart 1975: 114-118). The lithic industry is dominated by locally procured chert blades, which were apparently used as hafted sickle components. Mellaart (1975: 113) 33 makes special mention that sickle blades were exclusively made from chert, and "never obsidian".

Overall, sites in the Lake District are similar to those on the Central Plateau (see

Duru 1999: 182-187). Architecturally, the settlement plan is in the agglutinative pattern

found at Catalhoyuk, Asikh Hoyuk, and Can Hasan. Additionally, entrances to buildings were located on the roof. The only significant difference between the two regions was the use of stone at Erbaba, although, according to Duru (1999: 183), this "does not necessarily imply the presence of completely different architectural traditions". Ties to sites on the Konya Plain, and to Catalhoyuk in particular, include ceramic figurines of a

"Mother Goddess" type, obsidian pressure-flaked points found at Kurucay, Hoyiicek, and

Bademagaci, and the use of stamp seals (Duru 1999: 186).

2.2. SOUTHERN ANATOLIA DURING THE CHALCOLITHIC

The division between the Late Neolithic and the beginning of the Chalcolithic can be understood as an arbitrary separation, as many social and cultural processes persist

(Banning 1998: 188; Joukowsky 1996: 114). Generally, the number of permanently settled villages increases and domestic crops and animals continue to be exploited in ever increasing levels (Figure 2.2). There is an overall lack of significant technological and economic differences between the two periods, despite the minimal increased use of metals, with stone technology dominating assemblages. This section is divided into two parts. The Early and Middle Chalcolithic are grouped for the sake of convenience, as there is little significant difference between them. The second part is more significant for the present research, as it is during the Late Chalcolithic when solid evidence for permanent 34

* N

* •

J • *

•4.

_^ -.--.

Mediterranean Sea

* Site Name 1. Aphrodisias 7. Mersin-Yumuktepe 2. Beycesultan 8. Sakce Gozii 3. Can Hasan 9. Silifke 4. Catalhoyiik West 10. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule 5. Kiran Kayasi 11. Tekirkoy 6. Maltepe (= Kilise Tepe) 12. Tell Kurdu Figure 2.2 Chalcolithic Sites mentioned in text human occupation in the Goksu valley, in the form of the characteristic hoyiik settlement type, is first attested. Settlement within the valley itself is significant, although there are no excavated sites that date to this time.

2.2.1. Cilicia in the Early and Middle Chalcolithic

South-central Anatolia during the Chalcolithic is best known from the occupations at Can Hasan, Catalhoyiik West, and Mersin-Yumuktepe, and to a lesser extent from

Tarsus-Gdzlu Kule and sites on the Konya Plain. This section summarizes evidence from the most important sites, supplementing material from other parts of Anatolia. 35

2.2.1.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe

According to Garstang's (1953: 68-99) excavation, the Early Chalcolithic at

Mersin comprises levels XXIII to XX, and was characterized in idyllic terms as a period of "Peaceful Village Life". The Middle Chalcolithic follows from level XIX-XVI (see

Garstang 1953: 100-153). Unfortunately, recent excavations have not fully documented these latter levels (level XXII-XVII), so there is no new information beyond Garstang's original description (Caneva 2004: 55). Levels XXIII-XX are grouped together based on the similarities Garstang observed in material culture and architecture, the most important being the use of mud-brick and lime plaster construction technique. Beginning in level

XXIII, these take the form of a clay superstructure on top of stone foundations (Garstang

1953: 70). Significantly, barley, wheat, and legumes were identified from samples taken from a threshing floor found in level XXII (Garstang 1953: 73-74). Obsidian and chert chipped stone tools were found, as well as a number of ground stone celts, stone bowls, and maceheads. The Early Chalcolithic pottery is marked by the "culmination" of

Garstang's "Yildirim" motif first seen in the Late Neolithic levels, which he relates closely to the Hassuna (c. 5750-5250 BC; see Matthews 2000: 63-70) chevron style of

Northern Mesopotamia (Garstang 1953: 78-99).

While Breniquet (1995) convincingly argued for continuity between levels

XXXIH-XXVI at Mersin, her assumptions concerning the Neolithique Final a Ceramique

Peinte (levels XXV-XX) are not followed here; Garstang's original understanding of the

Early Chalcolithic as a distinct period is to be preserved. Her scheme deviates from

Garstang's in that she continues the Neolithic at Mersin, while Garstang understands level XXIV, his "Proto-Chalcolithic", as marking a new cultural period at the site. 36

Furthermore, Breniquet (1995: 14) does not seem to classify a true local "Chalcolithic"

phase at Mersin, organizing the next period (level XIX) based on the presence of foreign

ceramics attributed to the Northern Mesopotamian Halaf (c. 5200-4500 BC; see

Matthews 2000: 84-111) culture group. Alternately, Garstang prefers to see an

indigenous period before the onset of Halaf (or, Middle Chalcolithic) contact. Both agree

that a substantially new development occurs with that contact in level XIX. The Middle

Chalcolithic at Mersin-Yumuktepe (levels XIX-XVI) witnesses the sudden and dramatic

appearance of distinctive Halafian pottery in addition to metal tools and implements.

Levels XIX-XVII are marked by destruction and demolition debris, indicating that conflict had broken the once placid Early Chalcolithic village. The last Middle

Chalcolithic level (level XVI) saw the establishment of fortification walls and towers

around the settlement, "which must in consequence have been radically reorganized"

(Garstang 1953: 131). Materials from the "barrack-rooms" within the fortification wall

included ground stone celts and mace heads, and copper pins, needles, chisels, and

axeheads. The burnt remains of a female was found under destruction debris in the

"Central house" adjacent to the fortification wall (Garstang 1953: 138).

2.2.1.2. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule

The Chalcolithic levels at Tarsus come from a pit, with floors discernable beginning at 30.00 m below the surface of the mound (see Goldman 1956: 5-8). Early

layers are clean and laminated, and alternate between yellow clay and those covered in a

layer of ash. Unequivocal evidence for domestic use (i.e., hearths, storage bins) were not

found in these first occupation floors, which proceeded in 3-5 cm intervals from 30.00 m

to 28.80 m. At approximately 28.80 m below the surface of the mound, a dressed stone of 37 pink limestone was found, associated with antler and fragments of what was likely a pithos jar (Goldman 1956: 5). Goldman tentatively identifies this structure as a shrine, owing to the sacred position of deer in ancient Anatolia. Following directly on top of this structure, nearly a meter of domestic occupation occurs (Goldman 1956: 5-6). Continued domestic function is seen in succeeding levels, with six floor levels of occupation and four overlaid rectangular platform hearths (Goldman 1956: 6).

The stone industries from the Chalcolithic are similar to those of the Neolithic.

Goldman notes that few chipped stone tools were found, although a few blades and bladelets were recovered (Goldman 1956: 256). Imitation of chipped stone tools in material other than obsidian or chert was also continued, as seen in-the example of a green stone blade and a pointed yellow limestone pebble (Goldman 1956: 276). Based on her report, no ground stone implements were recovered from the Chalcolithic levels.

Other types of artifacts set the Chalcolithic apart. While the Neolithic completely lacked metal artifacts, two small lead pieces were recovered (see Goldman 1956: 302-303). A lead ring and lead scraps were found near Grave 4, although these were not associated with the burials themselves (Goldman 1956: 301). The second lead artifact was a small cylinder closed at one end, which Goldman (1956: 302) speculates was the cap of a thin rod.

2.2.2. Sites on the Central Plateau

2.2.2.1. Can Hasan

In many senses, Can Hasan eclipses Catalhoyiik as the most important site on the

Central Plateau during the Chalcolithic. Four layers (levels 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) comprise the

Early through Late Chalcolithic at Can Hasan, with layers 2 A to 3 dated to the Early and 38

Middle Chalcolithic. The walls and floor of the Early Chalcolithic (layer 32) mud brick structure (House 7) were plastered with red clay, while very little cultural material was found, with the exception of a few burnished sherds and obsidian blades and flakes

(French 1966: 120). Layer 2B, designated as "Transitional" between Early and Middle

Chalcolithic, occupies much more of French's reporting. Copper pieces were recovered from two phases in this and the next (layer 2A) layer. This same layer contained a number of mud brick structures, as well a number of wooden posts used to support an organic roof (see French 1998: 42, figure 22). This strongly points to the use of secondary stories, and accords well with the agglutinative plan of the settlement (see Yakar 1991:

198). Structures in layer 2A continue to be built over earlier walls, and mark the first and only use of stone foundations at the site (French 1998: 43). Overall, there is a high degree of continuity between the four Chalcolithic levels in terms of architectural plan and material culture. Elsewhere, French et al. (1978: 188) has suggested that the occupants of

Can Hasan I pursued a "mixed farming economy" based on the recovery of grains and other botanical remains; this contrasts with the pre-domesticate economy at Can Hasan

III. With elements in preceding levels clearly demarcated, French (1963:29; 1965b: 87-

89) notes that this layer contained much post-Chalcolifhic material ranging from Iron Age to Byzantine. Structures were covered with thick white plaster and constructed using

2 It should be noted that layer 3 is designated as "Early Chalcolithic" by French (1998: 20) in his latest thinking on the stratigraphy of site. In his second preliminary report on the 1962 season, French (1963: 36) dated this level to the "Middle Chalcolithic" and 2A as "Transitional Early to Middle Chalcolithic". He resolves the inconsistency through the reassignment of a structure to layer 3 that had been originally assigned to layer 2B, as well as the recognition that elements within layer 3 were seen in layer 4 (see French 1998: 25; also 1966: 119). 39 smaller mud bricks than previous periods, and the excavator indicates that the layout of buildings shifts within the layer itself suggesting that "the open layout of the settlement made it easier to rebuild and replan the structures" (French 1965b: 88).

A number of important artifacts were recovered from the excavations. Pottery identified by Mellaart's (1963) survey were also found at Can Hasan, including "red and black burnished ware", "scored ware", and "incised ware" (see French 2005). Ceramic types from Chalcolithic levels are directly parallel to those found at Catalhoyiik West, such as

"red on cream ware" from layer 2B (French 1966: 118; now French 2005). According to

French (1967: 172), the development of painted pottery is an important question in the prehistory of Anatolia, and Can Hasan contributes greatly to answering it. Another significant find was a Halaf type sherd from initial surface collection (see French 2005:

31, 115, figure 36-2). Early on, he highlighted the importance of this find, as "Halaf ware in stratified contexts on the plateau would provide a direct link between Anatolia and

North Syria and Mesopotamia and would obviate much tedious comparative chronology"

(French 1962: 29). Very little obsidian was found and mostly consisted of blades and flakes, although French (1965b: 89) reports that "small chips" were recovered from the sieved fill of one structure. Additionally, a copper bracelet and a mace head in layer 2B were recovered (French 1962: 33). Joukowsky (1996: 125) notes that the spherical copper mace head "is considered an important find of the period".

2.2.2.2. Catalhoyiik West

James Mellaart excavated the smaller mound at Catalhoyiik, known as

Catalhoyiik West, in the early 1960s (Mellaart 1965; also Last and Gibson 2006; Yakar 40

1991: 218-222). The second mound continued the prehistoric occupation into the Early

and Middle Chalcolithic (Mellaart 1965); there was no Late Chalcolithic or EBA

occupation at Catalhoyiik West. Mellaart's work at the mound consisted of two

soundings. A building dated to the Early Chalcolithic I was constructed using mud brick that were then covered in plaster. The structure itself contained platforms and internal buttresses that resembled house plans from Can Hasan 2B, except for the lack of basements (Mellaart 1965: 136). The most abundant artifact type found was painted pottery, which Mellaart divided into Early Chalcolithic Ware I and Early Chalcolithic

Ware II. Early Chalcolithic Ware I came from trench I, but both ceramic types were found in trench II. According to Mellaart, Early Chalcolithic Ware II was derived from the preceding ware as the two wares share numerous similarities. Both types are manufactured using coiling, contained grit and mica, were burnished after being painted, and have similar bases. However, significant differences were also evident.

Changes in fabric and core coloration, discontinuation of straw temper, and the application of white slip were among the most immediately noticeable. Additional differences include a reduction of vessel shapes, better firing, and new patterns and paint colours.

2.2.2.3. Konya Plain Sites

The dearth of settlement seen on the Konya Plain in the Ceramic Neolithic is entirely reversed with the Early Chalcolithic (6200-5500 cal. BC). With Catalhoyiik

East's abandonment, Baird (2005: 72) envisions the dispersal of former residents into the hinterland through a process of diaggregation, as well as the influx of new populations in the area as giving rise to numerous settlements that date to this time. The dispersed 41 settlements were located in proximity to the alluvial fan caused by seasonal flooding.

Baird (2002: 146-147) notes that Middle Chalcolithic settlements were much less dense, but located within the same general area as those of the Early Chalcolithic.

2.2.3. Anatolia during the Late Chalcolithic

A number of important sites are first occupied during the Late Chalcolithic.

Among the most important of these include Beycesultan and Aphrodisas. Excavated by

Seton Lloyd and James Mellart, Beycesultan contained twenty levels spanning the Late

Chalcolithic to the EBA (see Joukowsky 1996: 131-132). A curious structure was found in ceramic phase Late Chalcolithic 4 that may be one of the earliest examples of a megaron, a rectangular building unit with a porch entrance leading an interior room or hall with a central hearth (Joukowsky 1996: 130, 132). Like many sites in the

Chalcolithic, Aphrodisias was a farming based village (Joukowsky 1996: 132-134).

Located in southwestern Anatolia, the site provided evidence for long distant trade, with obsidian coming from the Aegean and Central Anatolia. Furthermore, carnelian beads suggest contact as far away as Iran (Joukowsky 1996: 134).

2.2.3.1. Cilicia in the Late Chalcolithic

Once again, the site of Mersin-Yumuktepe is the most important Late Chalcolithic settlement in Cilicia as it provides much of the evidence for this period. While north

Mesopotamian influence can be seen at Cilician sites during the Middle Chalcolithic (i.e.

Halaf), the Late Chalcolithic pan-Mesopotamian Uruk culture is not present in Cilicia

(Steadman 1996). Steadman (1996) has argued that this was the intentional cessation of the long standing interaction between Cilica and the Amuq valley, which had by this time become involved in the expansion of the Urukian sphere of influence at the end of the 42

Late Chalcolithic (see also Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:201-203).

2.2.3.1.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe

The Late Chalcolithic at Mersin-Yumuktepe (levels XV-XIIb) followed a major destruction of level XVI, and saw the complete replacement of Halafian contact with another Mesopotamian culture, namely Ubaidian (see Garstang 1953: 154-179). This period is marked by a number of disturbances from higher levels, making the interpretation of the stratigraphy difficult. From what little material was collected from the terrace, the lithic industries at Mersin-Yumuktepe during the Late Chalcolithic do not differ significantly from preceding ones, although the use of obsidian increases dramatically (Zambello 2004: 150). Bladelets, characteristic of the Neolithic, become scarce, and are replaced by flakes and chips. Confirming Garstang's original statement,

Zambello (2004: 150) notes that there are very few formal tools to be found in the

Chalcolithic levels at Mersin-Yumuktepe. As in the Early Neolithic, similarities in reduction strategies between Mersin-Yumuktepe and sites on the Amuq Plain (i.e., Tell

Kurdu) can be found during the Chalcolithic. Moreover, production seems to be occurring on site.

2.2.3.1.2. Sites in the Goksu valley

As no Late Chalcolithic occupations has been excavated, little can be said concerning the material culture other than collected pottery. A handful of sites in the

Goksu valley date to the Late Chalcolithic (Table 2.2). While Mellaart claims to have found earlier material, this was not corroborated by subsequently published fieldwork

(see French 1965a: 177). Ceramics found by French were described as closely paralleled to the Ubaid phase at Tarsus (group 13), and with much less confidence to Mersin (see 43

Table 2.2 Late Chalcolithic sites in the Goksu valley Mellaart French GAP Maltepe (= Kilise Tepe) Maltepe = (Kilise Tepe) Kiran Kayasi Silifke Kale Silifke Kale Tekirkoy (from Elton 2004a; French 1965a; Mellaart 1963)

French 1965a: 182). This ware was found at both Silifke and Tekirkoy. More Late

Chalcolithic pottery was found by French at Maltepe (Kilise Tepe) and Silifke, and is described as "Matt white on red burnished". Mellaart (1963: 203) also found this type, labeling it "White Painted". The final report on the ceramics from Kiran Kayasi was not available, although early reports indicate that Late Chalcolithic types were found.

2.3. SOUTHERN ANATOLIA DURING EARLY BRONZE AGE

The first true cities emerge in Anatolia during the later half of the third millennium BC, which not only saw an increase in the number of settlements, but also a change in the manner in which they were organized (see Cevik 2007; Erarslan 2006;

Eslick 1988) (see Figure 2.3). Cevik (2007: 134) has identified this as the process of

"centralization", with the "emergence of regional centres in all parts of Anatolia except the east". Others have argued that the emergence of stratified societies in Anatolia begun in the Late Chalcolithic had largely been completed by the onset of the EBA I (Eslick

1988). Concomitant with this change in social organization, technological innovation is also identifiable, namely the use of metals such as bronze and copper alloys and the wide spread production of wheel made pottery. According to Erarslan (2006), the "Proto-

Urban Period" (5000-2600 BC) was marked by an increasing craft specialization, especially metallurgy and chipped stone that can be seen at sites such as Arslantepe,

Hacinebi, and Norsuntepe. Increased craft production resulted in changes in the 44

Sff^fc

N i

Mediterranean Sea

Site Name 1. Alaca Hoyuk 7. Mersin-Yumuktepe 2. Arslantepe 8. Norsuntepe 3. Goltepe 9. Silifke 4. Hacinebi 10. Soli 5. Karahoyiik 11. Tarsus-GQzlii Kule 6. Maltepe (= Kilise Tepe) 12. Troy Figure 2.3 EBA Sites mentioned in text organization of labour. In order to facilitate the demand from emerging elites, extensive trade networks were developed and proliferated. The Royal Tombs at Alaca Hoytik serve as a good example of the emergence of elites in Central Anatolia, with the elaborate and extensive gold, silver, and bronze artifacts found in 13 burials (see Joukowsky 1996: 166-

169). By this time, fully domesticated fauna were exploited in pastoral farming villages, with special emphasis placed on the herding of cattle (Yakar 2001). The first sub-section charts the rise of metal industry in Anatolia, with a focus on Cilician sites. The next two 45

sub-sections summarize the archaeological background of the EBA I-II and EBA III periods in south-central Anatolia respectively.

2.3.1. The Age of Bronze: the origin of Metallurgy in Anatolia

The Bronze Age was one of dramatic and fundamental changes throughout the

ancient world, with many innovations appearing at this time. The most significant of these was the development of bronze metallurgy (De Jesus 1980; Yakar 2002; Yener

2000). With the ability to smelt ores, prehistoric populations in the Near East were able to forge an array of metal tools and implements. This section will briefly discuss the metal industry in Anatolia, as well as the range of produced goods in south-central

Anatolia.

Evidence for the manufacture of metals, especially native Copper, Lead, and

Malachite, can be found at Aceramic Neolithic sites such as Asikh Hoyiik, Cayonii,

Catalhoyiik, and Hallam Cemi, and take the form of small items such as bracelets and beads (see Yener 2000: 18-25). Production of these types of objects continued during the

Early Chalcolithic, although regionalism can be seen in stylistic and chemical characteristics (Yener 2000: 25-66). The trade in ores and finished products had already begun in the Middle Chalcolithic with Halaf influence (Mellink 1993: 495). A further development during this period was the increased organization of production at the site

level. Moreover, Yener (2000: 27) suggests that Goltepe had become a major site for the processing of tin, and was able to effectively control access to the nearby mine. In the early Late Chalcolithic, marked by contact with the Mesopotamian Ubaid culture, Yener

(2000: 32-33) points to the production of arsenical bronze as evidence of increasing technological sophistication. 46

Anatolian EBA metal types and composition have been a source of much discussion (see

Caneva 2000; De Jesus 1980; Stronach 1957; Yakar 1985b; Yener 2000: 67-70).

According to Stronach's (1957) organization of bronze weapons into regional styles,

artifacts from the Cilician sites of Tarsus and the Soli hoard displayed traits seen

throughout Anatolia, the Aegean, North Syria, and beyond (Table 2.3). This diversity of

styles and types suggested that Cilicia was a major region within the general trade of bronze. Others have explored this aspect of regionalism within metal working in Anatolia,

confirming the view that sites such as Tarsus occupied a cross-roads, mediating between

Mesopotamian and Central Anatolia (and further west) influences (Yakar 1984: 79).

Caneva notes that the first small finds made from native copper at Mersin should be

Table 2.3 Bronze Weapons found in Cilician contexts Weapon Type Find spot Origin Date (BC) Daggers/Swords 2 Soli Central Anatolia c. 2400 3 Soli Western Anatolia c. 2200 5 Soli Mesopotamia c. 2200 6 Soli, Tarsus Syria c. 2200 7 Soli, Tarsus Southern Levant (Gaza?) c. pre-2000 Spearheads lb Tarsus Western Anatolia c. 2400 2b Tarsus Western Anatolia c. 2300-2100 4a Soli Syria c. 2100-2000 4b Soli Syria c. 2100-2000(?) Silifke, Soli, 5a Syria c. 2300-2100 Tarsus Crescent Axes N/A Soli, Tarsus Mesopotamia, Levant c. 2200-2000 (from Stronach 1957)

3 K. Bittel's German publication of the Soli hoard from 1940 could not be consulted. 1 have relied exclusively on Stronach's analysis and summary to construct Table 2.3. 47

dated to the Middle Chalcolithic (levels XVII-XVI) based on her revised chronology and

stratigraphy, rather than Garstang's original Late Neolithic date (Caneva 2000: 70).

2.3.2. Anatolia during the EBA I and II

2.3.2.1. Cilicia during the EBA I and II

The EB I-II period in southern Anatolia is primarily known from Tarsus-Gozlii

Kule. Supplementing our knowledge, early EBA levels were also found at Mersin, although these are problematic. Notably, occupation commences at the site of Kilise Tepe during the EBA II, which provides for the first time material from the Goksu valley.

2.3.2.1.1. Mersin-Yumuktepe

The EBA at Mersin-Yumuktepe comprises a single level (level Xlla). The most characteristic pottery of the early phase is identified as "white-on-black", which are burnished black wares decorated with white paint (as opposed to incised wares). Other types include "Red Gritty ware", a ware also seen at Tarsus. Very little of the remains of the EBA component are reported or described in any detail save for the pottery. Given this, one must assume that the heavy disturbance of this level has rendered the already meager evidence from Mersin-Yumuktepe tenuous (cf. Garstang 1953: 182). According to Garstang, the break between levels Xlla and Xllb saw an alteration in trade patterns from a Mesopotamian focus to one centered more within Anatolia (Garstang 1953: 187).

The evidence for this change in trade and contact patterns is found in the appearance of pottery as parallel to other Mediterranean types, specifically Crete and Troy I. At the end of the EBA at Mersin, Garstang reports the appearance of wares similar to Central

Anatolian types found at Kiiltepe (Kanesh), which became the center of Middle Bronze

Age trade in Anatolia during the Old Assyrian Trading colony period (c. 1900-1700 BC) 48

(Macqueen 1986: 18-20).

2.3.2.1.2. Tarsus-Gozlu Kule

Despite the continuation of Late Chalcolithic ceramic types, Goldman (1956: 9-

12) marks the beginning of the EBA with the appearance of "Red Gritty Ware" and bronze implements. In addition to these innovations, architectural changes also occurred, including the discovery of numerous stonewalls throughout. Extensive examples of stone architecture continued throughout, although the use of clay in the construction of walls was also evident. Goldman also found an arrangement of semicircular stones, likely the remains of a tower almost 2.50 m in diameter. Another grouping of stones was found similar in shape nearby. Together, these concentrations may have formed an entrance to the settlement or to a court, which would have measured 1.5 m wide. In this early EBA phase, Goldman (1956: 9) argued for continuity in building phases, seeing successive structures as "simply renewals" of earlier plans.

In addition to stonewalls, other structures and buildings were also found (see

Goldman 1956: 10-11). A cluster of clay buildings was uncovered, whose walls and floors were covered in plaster, and bins, hearths, benches, drains, and a presumed stepped altar was carefully arranged to face the street. The hearth in room 117 was especially significant, as it was a separate platform 1.5 m long, and had a clay hood. A clay idol was found in association with it. Goldman (1956: 10) speculates that it may have been a

"primitive fire altar". The architectural plan of the area around this "shrine" remained constant until large stone foundations were laid over it. Paved streets were also found, with the earliest possibly associated with the supposed tower. A succession of pebble pavements was associated with the clay structures. The EBA II component at Tarsus can 49 be divided into a series of building phases. It begins with a thick deposit indicating an extensive leveling of the earlier occupation. A foundation layer of yellow clay was laid over top of this; Goldman (1956: 12, n. 8) draws comparisons to a similar formation at

Troy. Surfaces continue to be plastered. Sand was found in plaster lined storage containers, which was used in the construction of the walls and pottery of this level. Red ochre was also found. Bins of different shapes were presumably used to store grain.

Goldman separates the next EBAII phase into two parts (Goldman 1956: 14-20).

The main feature of this phase was a pebble street running east-to-west, and began in the first part. This street continued throughout the entire EBA II component of the site.

Groups of buildings were found on both north and south sides of this pavement. A number of rooms provided evidence of the use of the pilaster, a pan-Anatolian architectural feature. In another room, pithos storage jars and a number of cups were found, which led Goldman (1956: 18) to characterize this structural unit as a "wine shop" or the "equivalent of a tavern". Fortification walls and a number of gates became a major feature in these levels. The first fortification wall was built after a fire had destroyed the second phase of the EBA II period, and according to her, was caused by an attack or raid

(Goldman 1956: 20). A continuation of earlier architectural programs can be seen in the later phases. They are also marked by intrusions from higher levels, especially the EBA

III. The final building phase was ended by a "conflagration" that destroyed much of the exposed settlement.

The EBA I-II stone tool repertoire largely remains the same, and includes the same variety of forms and types as earlier periods (Goldman 1956: 256-257). The use of flint increases during the EBA I and continues into the EBA II. Only medium sized 50 blades continued to be utilized made exclusively from chert (see Goldman 1956: 258-

259). Importantly, nine "Canaanean type sickle blade" were found (Goldman 1956: 257,

260; see also Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 185; Anderson et al. 2004), making their first appearance in the EBA I. The ground stone industry at Tarsus increased in importance during the EBA I, but quantities increase dramatically during the EBA II. A number of "pounders and polishers" were found, made from various materials including dolomite and limestone. Celts, axes, hammers, mace heads, and pestles were found in

EBA II levels, in addition to a mortar and an intrusive quern. A number of shallow bowls, palettes, and polished bowls were also recovered in both periods. Beads (or whorls), bracelets, amulets, and pendants made from dolomite, red serpentine, steatite, alabaster, and possibly marble was also found.

Bronze makes its first appearance during this period. A number of bronze awls, points, chisels, needles, pins, and fibulae were also found. Ornaments included a small number of gold and lead finger and hair rings, as well as other small objects. The lid of a small lead container was also found in the EBA II, presumably to hold "cosmetic ointments or perfume" (Goldman 1956: 302). Bone awls and punches become much more numerous during the EBA II, but a number of these were recovered from EBA I contexts

(Goldman 1956: 307). Other bone tools and items found in the EBA I-II levels include: bobbins/shuttles, needles, antler pick, toggles, broken knife, an unfinished seal, and a pair of knucklebones worn from use as polishers. Clay objects include a number of loom weights, a rattle, pendants, and whorls of various shapes and sizes.

2.3.2.1.3. Sites in the Goksu valley

Both Mellaart and French identified EBA mounds in the Goksu valley (Table 51

2.4). Mellaart located seven EBA sites, while French identified a total often. While there are definite similarities between the two lists, with both finding Artepe or Attepe,

Maltepe (Kilise Tepe), Mut kale, Sancilar or Sancalar, and Tekirkoy. Conversely, French records the sites of Cingantepe, Orentepe, and Tomiikkale. Furthermore, he states that he did not recover prehistoric sherds from Gormut Tepe, despite Mellaart's report. In addition to the results of these older surveys, the Goksu Archaeological Project (GAP) contributed two additional prehistoric sites. According to early analysis of sherds found at the hilltop settlement of Comlek Tepesi, it was occupied during the EBA I-II, although there may be evidence for continued occupation into EBA III (see Elton 2005 a; 2004a).

While Comlek Tepesi and Kiran Kayasi are not true hoyiiks, their discovery increased the number of prehistoric sites in the Goksu valley.

Owing to the ongoing excavation directed by Postgate (see Baker et al. 1995;

Postgate 1998; Postgate and Thomas 2007), the most informative of all sites in the Goksu valley dating to the EBA is Kilise Tepe (also known as Maltepe). It was selected for excavated due to the planned construction of a dam near Silifke (Baker et al. 1995: 139).

Table 2.4 EBA I-II sites in the Goksu valley Mellaart French GAP Artepe (=Attepe) Attepe (= Artepe) Comlek Tepesi Gormut Tepe Cingantepe Kiran Kayasi Maltepe (=Kilise Tepe) Maltepe (=Kilise Tepe) Mut Kale Mut Kale Sancilar (= Sancalar) Orentepe Silifke Kale Sancalar (= Sancilar) Tekirkoy Silifke Kale Tekirkoy Tomiikkale (from Elton 2004a; French 1965a; Mellaart 1963) 52

Little information concerning the earliest EBA has come to light from the excavations,

while the Hittite occupation is much better represented. The earliest EBA levels at the

site (Vk and VI; Table 2.5) were built on solid bedrock, and the exposure was too limited

to ascertain what period they belonged to (Seffen 2007: 88). However, the succeeding

levels (Vj to Vg) are securely assigned to the EBA II, with a sample from level Vg

radiocarbon dated to 3100-2600 cal. BC. This would place it near the beginning of the

EBA II. The first architectural traces appear in level Vk, and consisted of stone

foundations (Seffen 2007: 88). This level was then filled with 10-20 cm of dirt. Floors

and mud brick walls of two rooms (Room 82 and 83) in level Vj were burnt (Seffen

2007: 89). All of the rooms of this level contained debris and fill. The early part of level

Vi was built on a layer of yellow clay upon which stone foundations and mud brick

structures covered in white plaster were erected (Seffen 2007: 91-92). Pottery from the

EBA II level includes examples of "Red Gritty Ware" and "Scored Ware", while forms

include jugs, bowls, and cups (see Symington 2007).

2.3.2.2. Sites on the Central Plateau

There are very few excavated sites on the Konya Plain that date to the EBA I-II.

While not excavated, James Mellaart (1963: 209) reports that EBA I-II sherds of

Table 2.5 EBA II levels at Kilise Tepe

Level Period Cal. BC Square Area exposed (m2) ^^^^"^^^BAII JJ^J^~ ^^^^~~^ Vh (early, late) EBA II H20 42-39 Vi (early, late) EBA II H20 17 Vj EBA II H20 17 Vk ? H20 17 VI ? H20 8 (modified from Seffen 2007: 87, Table 7) 53

"Burnished wares" type were collected from Can Hasan II, which is a mound associated with the mounds French excavated in the 1960s. While results from Karahoyuk have been poorly published, a few words can be said concerning its general outline, as well as its relationship with Cilicia. Easton (1976: 157) links the presence of "metallic ware" in level

VII at the site with the EBA II at Tarsus, which he also connects to Troy II (against

Goldman; see also Yakar 1985: 214). Furthermore, levels XI-VII are tentatively correlated with the late EBA II at Tarsus. Scored ware was found in levels XXII-XII, which parallels the EBA I level at Tarsus (Yakar 1985: 214).

The site of Goltepe and associated Kestel mine played an important role within the development of metallurgy in Anatolia (Yener 2000: 71-109; also Earl and Ozbal

1996; Yener and Vandiver 1993). Both Goltepe and Kestel mine were excavated, revealing a sequence that spanned the Late Chalcolithic to the end of the EBA.4 From the series of soundings, the multi-chambered mine yielded evidence of changing mining techniques through time, as well as abundant EBA ceramics (Yener 2000: 88-95). A burial chamber containing eight individuals was also discovered, dating from the Late Chalcolithic to EBA

I (Yener 2000: 95-98). From excavations at the mound, parallels to the EBA I-II at Tarsus were found in the form of dark burnished wares that formed the dominant ceramic tradition (Yener 2000: 101). Additionally, evidence for tin processing was also found at

Goltepe in the form of residues and slag (see Yener 2000: 111-112).

Furthermore, the latter was only found in small pieces, consonant with crucible smelting (Yener 2000: 117). Yener (2000: 108) states that the site reached its greatest

4 Mellaart recorded only an EBA I-II occupation when he surveyed Goltepe. 54 extent at the beginning of the EBA III.

2.3.3. Southern Anatolia during the EBA III

According to Mellaart (1957, 1958b, 1963), the end of the EB HI period was marked by widespread and massive destruction across Anatolia. Mellaart states that numerous sites occupied in the EBA I-II period show signs of violent destruction; no excavations were conducted, but this determination was made on the basis of surface collection alone. Of the 135 sites in his inventory of EBA I-II sites, a total of 33 (24.4%) are claimed to have evidence of destruction. His vivid evocation of such a widespread and cataclysmic devastation must be captured in its full tragic fervor:

As far as we can see not a single major site escaped destruction by conflagration...and the numerous deserted villages tell the same tale. To this very day, the burnt mounds of the Konya Plain are a witness in their truly uncanny desolation to a savage destruction that took place here long before the days when man recorded historical events in Anatolia. From that day no living soul seems to have settled on these mounds but for the reed shelters of a lone shepherd accompanied by his dog, impervious to the ghosts and spirits that haunt these sites according to the present villagers (Mellaart 1963: 210).5

Elsewhere, he has treated this topic in a more detailed study (Mellaart 1957,

1958b). He argues that a wave of horse riding Indo-European Kurgan peoples were the cause of the massive destruction and abandonment of sites in the Aegean and Anatolia.

Despite this assertion, he admits that the archaeological record does not support the case for a mysterious hoard of horse-riding peoples from the Ponitc steppe. This little complication is explained by suggesting that this devastating swarm was "culturally far inferior" to the one it destroyed, as "not a single weapon, pot, or other object can be

5 This last sentence is technically incorrect, as Mellaart (1963: 236) notes later on that EBA III pottery was recovered from Sizma, which was one of his destroyed EBA II sites. 55

ascribed to them" (Mellaart 1958b: 13). They are thought to have brought with them the

Luwian (related to Hittite) language (as per Mellaart 1957, 1958b, 1963: 210; also

Macqueen 1986: 26-29). Mellaart's theory sought to explain the origins of the early occupants of Anatolia who would later become the Hittites, as can be seen in his detailed discussion linking this to the stratigraphy of the most famous site during the Middle

Bronze Age and birthplace of the Hittites, namely Kanesh (or Nesha) (Mellaart 1958b).

Easton (1976: 167) defends Mellaart's reconstruction of the end of the EBAII by saying that however reticent one is to accept the veracity of theories of invasion, the

"interpretation is at any rate a plausible one". This wave of destruction was.not uniform or synchronous, affecting different areas at different times. Cilicia was not affected until the end of the EBA (c. 2000 BC), and the resumption of north Syrian influence as seen in ceramic styles (Macqueen 1986: 28-29).

2.3.3.1. Cilicia during the EBA III

Very few sites continue to be occupied during the EBA III. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule remains the primary site from which reconstructions of this period are based. Moreover,

Mersin-Yumuktepe diminishes in importance at this time. Sites in the Goksu valley continue to be occupied, albeit in reduced numbers.

2.3.3.1.1. Tarsus-Gozlii Kule

The EBA III is marked by the introduction of a foreign material culture on the

"burned ruins of the preceding level" (Goldman 1956: 32). Some have described this period as one "of slow recovery and rebuilding over the catastrophic destructions that took place at the terminus of EB II" (Joukouwsky 1996: 172). From the noticeable change in pottery styles, contacts with northwestern Anatolia and Troy in particular, 56

have been described as "striking and indeed dramatic in its implications" (Goldman

1956: 131). Many of the persistent Chalcolithic wares disappeared entirely, and were

replaced by numerous examples of the "two-handled cup" and the more distinctive

depas type variety. Their presence led Goldman to correlate the EBA HI levels at

Tarsus with Troy II in northwestern Anatolia (cf. Easton 1976: 156-157; also

Mellaart 1957: 69-71). At the same time, Syrian types also appear at Tarsus. Of the three levels of this period, phase C is by far the most complex, containing five

building phases (see Goldman 1956: 32-39). The use of chipped stone and bone

declines dramatically in this period, most likely replaced by the use of metal, although

evidence of the continued use of obsidian can be found in the recovery of a prepared core (Goldman 1956: 257). Ground stone continues to be used, with many of the

same forms as found in the preceding period. The use of metal increases and new

types are seen, including a large gold pin (Goldman 1956: 300). Notably, metal producing implements such as fragments of moulds and crucibles begin to appear in the EBA III. The EBA III at Tarsus was ended by a "series of seismic disturbances"

(Goldman 1956: 348) that weakened the city's defenses and permitted conquest by north Syrian elements.

2.3.3.1.2. Sites in the Goksu valley

The overall number of sites in the Goksu valley decreases at this time (Table

2.6). French only records four mounds where EBA III ceramics were collected.

Conversely, Mellaart did not record any EBA III sites in the valley. Once again, the two

sites found by the GAP are dated to the EBA III based on preliminary reports indicating 57

Table 2.6 EBA III sites in the Goksu valley Mellaart French GAP N/A Attepe Comlek Tepesi Cingantepe Kiran Kayasi Maltepe Tekirkoy (from Elton 2004a; French 1965a; Mellaart 1963)

the possibility of sherds dating to this period. Starting with level Vf, the EBA III

occupation at Kilise Tepe is built upon the destruction and fill layer of the previous level

(Table 2.7). From Seffen's (2007: 97-98) description, it would appear that there is a

certain degree of congruence of the plans of structures, which were largely built directly

on top of older buildings. The first three sub-phases (Vf 1 -3) are very thin, while the

fourth is the best preserved. The final level (Ve) is marked by a number of pits that make

the stratigraphy very difficult to interpret (Seffen 2007: 99-100). The last part can be

considered transitional between the EBA phase and the Middle Bronze Age phase (Seffen

2007: 100). While the architecture suggests possible rebuilding in the same location using

the same plan, a "complete departure" in the pottery beginning in level Vf is observed

(Symington 2007: 306). Examples of "Red cross bowls", a distinctive EBA III pottery

type, were found, although these are similar to early Middle Bronze Age varieties in

Table 2.7 EBA III levels at Kilise Tepe Level Period Square Area exposed (m2) Ve (early, middle, late) EBA III H20 " 25 Vf4 EBA III H20 32 Vfl-3 EBA III H20 25 (modified from Seffen 2007: 87, Table 7) 58 terms of fabric and shape (Symington 2007: 308). Furthermore, no depas cups were found at the site, except for the possibility of a few handles (Symington 2007: 312).

2.3.3.2. Sites on the Central Plateau

There are conspicuously few sites on the Konya Plain that can be dated to the

EBA III. In Mellaart's (1963: 236) article, only eight sites are possibly dated to this period. These were made based on the presence of "red crossed bowls" and other comparative material similar to EBA III levels from Kanesh, Karahoyuk, and Tarsus.

2.4. CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has reviewed the archaeological background of south-central

Anatolia from the Late Neolithic to the end of the EBA (6500 - 2000 BC). From the earliest usage of pottery from famous PPN sites like Beldebi, Cayonii, Hacilar, and

Suberde, the invention of pottery can be seen as an extension of plaster use. Important

Pottery Neolithic sites such as Can Hasan, Catalhoyiik, Hacilar, and Mersin-Yumuktepe, provide evidence for the emergence of permanently settled communities that practiced a mixed farming economy, which included sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, wheat, barley, and legumes. The Chalcolithic saw an increase in settlement, with occupations at

Aphrodisias, Beycesultan, Can Hasan, Catalhoyiik West, Mersin-Yumuktepe, and

Tarsus-Gozlii Kule figuring prominently. Likewise, the EBA saw an expansion and further elaboration of the social and economic ties from earlier periods, with the significant difference being the emphasis on metal technology.

Contact and exchange between Cilicia and adjacent regions, especially the Anit-

Taurus (i.e, Sakce G6zii) and the Amuq Plain (Tell al-Judaidah, Tell Kurdu) constitute a long term pattern of interaction that varied through time. From the close ties during the 59

Neolithic and Chalcolithic, evidence from Cilician sites portrays a picture of extensive

relations. Concomitantly, ties were established between Cilicia and sites on the Central

Plateau, especially with Can Hasan and Catalhoyuk. These ties however waxed and

waned more frequently. These multiple sources of influence highlight the important

position that Cilician sites held within prehistoric trade networks.

Despite this, the overall paucity of evidence underscores the fragmentary and

provisional nature of our understanding of the late prehistory of south-central Anatolia.

Very little is specifically known about the Goksu valley until mid-way through the EBA with the first levels at Kilise Tepe, although sherd collections point to a similar dual

influence from sites on the Central Plateau and-those in eastern Cilicia like Mersin-

Yumuktepe and Tarsus-Gozlii Kule. Although tenuous, this thesis seeks to better understand the structure of these relationships. The next chapter provides reviews of

survey methodology, the primary means of collecting data from the valley and on which this thesis is based, and the two methods used to investigate them. These include the

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) function known as Least Cost Analysis and

Social Network Analysis. 60

CHAPTER THREE

Methods

This chapter discusses the methods used and can be divided into two parts. The first

section concerns the data used in this thesis, namely archaeological surveys of Turkey

conducted over the last century. Here I discuss the nature of archaeological survey, and

how it has been used to understand regional histories. The last two sections shows "how"

this data has been interrogated, outlining the methods and procedures that I used. These

are: 1) Least Cost Analysis and 2) Social Network Analysis. Both methods are concerned

with quantifying and visualizing spatial or social relationships. Appendix B and D focus

on extraneous technical and computational details of the first method.

3.1. SURFACE SURVEY AND COLLECTING: REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

The material remains of past civilizations are like shells beached by the retreating sea. The functioning organisms and the milieu in which they lived have vanished, leaving the dead and empty forms behind. An understanding of structure and function of ancient societies must be based upon these static molds which bear only the imprint of life. (Willey 1953: 1)

Archaeological survey is arguably the best (if not most economical) way to understand regional settlement histories. As such, it has been used extensively by

archaeologists concerned with constructing long term regional histories. This section

discusses issues pertaining to the practice of archaeological survey. I briefly review early

statements from Processual (i.e., Binford 1964; Plog 1976; Plog et al. 1978; Schiffer et al.

1978) and Mediterranean (Alcock and Davis 2004; Barker 1991, 1996; Bowkett et al.

2001: 40-45; Cherry 1983, 2003; Francovich et al. 2000; Papadopoulos and Leventhal

2003) archaeologists, revealing a uniformity of practice (also Richards 2008; Wilkinson 61

2001). In a reversal of Renfrew's "Great Divide", Cherry (2003: 139) notes similarity in technique has arisen as Classical archaeologists became "increasingly under the influence of Anglo-American 'New Archaeology'". Contemporary practice is raised in order to draw attention to ways in which older surveys (i.e., by Mellaart, French, and Seton-

Williams) pose distinct difficulties for those attempting to make use of such data. Despite numerous surveys conducted in this part of southern Anatolia, an appreciation of the way in which these were conducted, artifacts collected, and interpretations of settlement patterning are critical. Therefore, I sketch the way in which archaeologists commonly conduct surveys, how they handle material collected and, in a more general sense, how they aid us in understanding regional histories and social processes at work through time.

Furthermore, I highlight the way the Goksu Archaeological Project (GAP), using current survey practices in the same geographic area, differed from previous surveys in the valley and how this produced different results. By comparing the two periods, I highlight how the overarching goals of both are coterminous: both seek to understand human activity in the past.

3.1.1. Fieldwalking: a brief description of how to walk fields

One means of carrying out archaeological survey is by "field-walking". This involves the regular spacing of participants along the edge of the survey area, and the systemic walking and recording of observations along a typically straight-line transect

(for review, see Banning 2002: 198-199; also Plog 1976). The number and spacing of participants largely depends on research design and survey goals, which is affected by the expected density of concentrations, data quality and reliability, visibility, and cost

(Banning 2002: 22-25). With recent advancements in spatial technologies and the 62 declassification of satellite imagery, researchers are now able to use new tools, including various degrees of integration with a GIS in mapping and organizing data (e.g., Bevan and Conolly 2004; Goossens et al. 2006; Holcomb 2001; Tripcevich 2004).

3.1.2. On Frogs and Ponds: debates on survey methodology and theory

The rightly famous statement by John Cherry on archaeological survey (1983; also 2003), from which this sub-section derives its title, outlined the (then) growing consensus concerning its use and practice within Mediterranean archaeology. One of the unifying themes identified was the broadly similar ecology, which allowed research questions and agendas to be "framed within a common context" (Cherry 1983: 376).

Accordingly, similarities in environmental or climatic conditions make the diverse historical and anthropological trajectories found in different regions interesting. Another theme outlined by Cherry (1983: 377) was that the Mediterranean landscape is a

"favourable" one for conducting archaeological survey. Among many other factors, vegetation and ground cover, erosion and other land formation processes, and relatively rural depopulation allow archaeologists to pursue the use of pedestrian survey. Given these factors, one may venture to say that archaeological survey works especially well in the Mediterranean because of its environmental and social characteristics.

He goes on to reflect on survey methodology, outlining three basic aspects determined to be "integral to the survey process itself (Cherry 1983: 387). According to

Cherry, the goal of survey is to investigate the large scale and long term patterning of human settlement and activities on the landscape. This diachronic concern is fundamental, as change over time is essentially what archaeology is about. Unlike excavation, survey data is organized horizontally. In this sense, archaeological survey 63

provides a temporal palimpsest that is no less complicated to make sense of than the

ambiguous nature of excavation. He argues that the data quality excavators maintain for

their sites is not substantially superior to that collected from survey, especially when the

numerous problems and difficulties of excavation are properly acknowledged. Second,

investigators must define the region in which work is to be conducted, as this definition

of study area greatly shapes the answers obtained. Cherry (1983: 386) notes that most

survey projects choose to allow topographic or other geographical features to determine

the study area. Lastly, because of the different data that are dealt with, numerous

specialists must be employed to adequately understand the total context of human

activity. In this regard, "Interdisciplinary collaboration is thus a desideratum of any

coherent survey design" (Cherry 1983: 387), drawing on specialists in fields like geology

and botany in addition to the project ceramist or epigrapher.

In the same volume as Cherry's seminal paper (see Keller and Rupp 1983),

Simpson (1983) expressed misgivings concerning the general course pursued by

Mediterranean surveyors. He registered several major criticisms against the program advocated by researchers like Cherry, including skepticism over the value of survey, the general motivation for conducting surveys, and especially the reliance on sampling. In line with traditional views, Simpson (1983: 47) argued that survey cannot be used alone, but must be accompanied by excavation. This objective, rendering survey the handmaiden of excavation, can be seen in his description of the Kommos Area survey

(Simpson 1983: 46-47). Survey was conducted to locate "almost every significant 'site' or 'scatter'" (Simpson 1983: 46). Moreover, Simpson's understanding of how artifact scatters should be interpreted betrays an 'index fossil' mentality; one should be able to 64 use ceramics to date individual structures, and if not, the entire enterprise is viewed with suspicion (see Simpson 1983: 45-46). Cherry (1983: 378-381) offers a convincing and articulated response to Simpson's "Pessimistic statements" and "failure of nerve".1 In probably the most salient part of his rebuttal, Cherry (1983: 381) states that the goal of archaeological survey should be the "reconstruction of variability over time and through space in now-extinct cultural systems". That is, archaeological survey should work towards the large scale, diachronic investigation of anthropological and historical patterning on the landscape.

While Mediterranean archaeologists were still debating the validity of archaeological survey in the early 1980s (see Dyson 1982), anthropological archaeologists held similar debates decades earlier. The criticism voiced by Simpson concerning the purpose of survey is in many respects similar to those Ruppe (1966) sought to counter in the mid-1960s. Ruppe identified four types of survey that were being used in the American Southwest. These included site cataloging (Type I), survey near an excavated (or soon to be excavated) site (Type II), problem oriented survey (Type III), and systematic investigation (Type IV); according to this scheme, Simpson advocated the use of Type II. Ruppe (1966: 314) argued that archaeologists should pursue Type IV, which was "designed to obtain a maximum amount of information from a specific geographic unit". In a clear statement, Binford (1964) suggested that a "regional approach" was the best way to vivify cultural systems. By this, he meant that one could only understand the workings of cultural processes by understanding the environment,

1 At one point, Cherry humorously likens Simpson to Flannery's (1976) "Real Mesoamerican Archaeologist" (Cherry 1983: 379). 65 both ecological and cultural, that supported them. Moreover, he criticized those who relied solely on "vertical spatial analysis" of a site - that is, on excavation - which does not permit one to understand artifacts or the activities that produced them in their total systemic context (Binford 1964: 433-434).

Taking up their progenitor's call, early Processualists clarified and refined survey methods and techniques, deepened the reliance on sampling theory, and intensified the anxiety over the representativeness of artifacts collected (see Ammerman 1981: 78-79;

Plog 1976; Plog et al. 1978; Read 1986; Redman 1973, 1982, 1987; Schiffer et al. 1978).

Probabilistic sampling became a theoretical and practical feature of research designs.

With the increasing constraints placed on researchers, Binford (1964: 427) argued that sampling was a means of conducting "partial coverage" in place of "total coverage", which is often unfeasible or unadvisable, as sampling is the "science of controlling and measuring the reliability of information through the theory of probability" (also Read

1986). The introduction of bias or possible sources of error in surveys, including visibility, artifact "obtrusiveness" (Schiffer et al. 1978: 6), accessibility, intensity, and collection strategies were of concern to early Processualists. One in particular, observer error or bias, was especially pressing (Plog et al. 1978: 413-415). Inter-observer error or variability was thought to considerably affect the comparability of results, and more importantly, the general quality of data collected. Concern with this source of bias was not confined to American archaeologists. In an experiment of walker effect in the East

Hampshire Survey project, Stephen Sherman (1985: 40-45) demonstrated that this was not a statistically significant source of error, although it was present and had to be acknowledged (see also Hawkins et al. 2003). Despite the multiple vectors they could 66 arrive through, increased "awareness" of potential sources of error and bias were hoped to reduce their adverse affects. However, as Schiffer and colleagues (1978: 19) have commented, "survey design is the process of making usually difficult decisions. There is no substitute for thoughtful consideration of theoretical factors and relevant characteristics of the study area".

3.1.3. Evaluating Survey Data: survey reports and "source criticism"

While much has been done to improve the general practice of archaeological survey, older work was not as concerned with these methodological issues. Undoubtedly, recording such obvious features as hoytiks resulted in an overrepresentation of large settlements; smaller and less intensively utilized locations were missed or ignored entirely. As Schiffer (1996: 347) has written, perhaps with a note of derision, "surveys of low intensity find mostly the large and impressive sites". Similarly, Wilkinson (2003: 37) has observed, "Near Eastern archaeological surveys frequently record only the mounded sites".

In her book Graecia Capta, Alcock (1993: 49-53) has challenged archaeologists

(Classical or otherwise) to examine critically the sources and quality of their data when synthesizing regional surveys. Alcock (1993: 50) identified several factors that should be considered before results of survey projects are used. First, the periodization used greatly affects the results. Another area of concern is the problem of visibility, or, in her example, whether the drop in the number of Hellenistic and Early Roman sites recorded for Greece is a product of what actually happened or merely our ignorance. Lastly,

Alcock (1993: 37-38) grades the data of the projects according to the survey and collection methods used. According to her definitions, the survey projects used in the 67 present study could be classified as either "Category B" or, more likely, "Category C".

Preferring to label this last as "reconnaissance", these projects result in "haphazardly discovered" sites, cover an extensive area, and focus on "the upper segment of the settlement hierarchy" (Alcock 1993: 37). She places these at the lowest confidence level.

When they discussed their survey method in the 1950s and 1960s, Mellaart and

French both mention they drove around looking for hoyiiks; in Processualist parlance, this would be an example of "biased, low intensity survey", or classified as Ruppe's Type

I survey (site cataloging). Systematic or Intensive survey was not used, which invariably shaped their understanding of prehistoric landscape as dotted by mounds. However, it should be remembered that "Intensive survey" as it is known and understood today would not be invented until the 1970s. French indicates that the primary means of his survey was vehicular, and was conducted on two occasions separated by a year's time; his is the most detailed discussion of the conditions under which he worked. Conversely, Seton-

Williams' (1954) reporting is entirely lacking in methodological concerns, and provides no discussion at all. Despite the many criticisms that could be raised, the geographic areas covered by Mellaart and Seton-Williams especially are much larger than those usually selected by proponents of newer methodologies, and provided an important contribution to regional histories in the area. Conversely, the level of intensity favored by

Processualists in their survey would be unfeasible in the area covered by these surveys.

Finally, it bears pointing out that hoyiiks are not terribly difficult to find for those familiar with the geography and topography of Turkey (Figure 3.1). Furthermore, it is understandable that initial fieldwork in little studied areas like south-central Anatolia 68

Cingnntcpc

Figure 3.1 View of Cingantepe from Kilise Tepe in the Goksu valley (photograph by author, 2008) would be oriented towards answering larger regional questions, which can be reasonably approached through study of settlement patterning afforded by those same mounded sites.

The research design of the GAP followed current survey techniques (see Elton et al. 2006: 306). Directed by Dr. Jim Newhard (College of Charleston, SC), systematic fieldwalking was used to investigate the study area, locating artifact concentrations. These followed current practices, including both intensive and extensive teams thoroughly recording observations and sherd counts. This data was then transferred to a GIS, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of human settlement in the upper part of the

Goksu valley. "Scouting" of potential sites was also practiced, which allowed for the identification of points of interest to be later surveyed systematically. This was how the

EBA site Comlek Tepesi was identified (see Elton 2005a: 16-17). When compared to this 69 coordinated approach, with its increased dependence upon technology (including satellite imagery and GIS) and refined survey methodology, it is easy to judge the work of

Mellaart, French, and Seton-Williams as being plagued by deficiencies, lack of sophistication, or riddled with egregious errors or assumptions. However pejoratively one may look upon the work of Mellaart, French, or Seton-Williams, they have done their scholarly descendants an immense service in accumulating, studying, discussing, and promptly publishing data that, however dimly, shone a light into a formerly vacant abyss.

It should also be borne in mind that they conducted their research according to the general practice of their day. Ultimately, the continuing value of these earlier projects is that they provided us with data that was previously unknown.

3.1.4. Settlement Patterning, Landscape Archaeology, or Both?

Gordon Willey's (1953; cf. Willey 1999) survey of the Viru valley, Peru, beginning in 1946, is often cited as the putative origins of Settlement Pattern analysis in archaeology (also Billman and Feinman 1999; Chang 1968; Parsons 1972; Trigger 1967).

At the beginning of his report, Willey (1953) clearly laid out the main objective(s) of the project, namely the geographic and chronological ordering of human settlement in the

Viru valley, especially as it related to the "function" of sites in the cultural system.

Combining aerial photography with an extensive field based research program, he was able to identify, record, and report on over 300 sites that ranged from pre-ceramic to the

Inca. Moreover, sites were divided into four broad functional categories, namely: domestic structures, religious or "community" based structures, "fortified strongholds", and cemeteries (see Willey 1953: 7). Dating of sites and mounds was done primarily by means of ceramic seriation for the Viru valley proposed by Ford in the late 1940s (see 70

Willey 1953: 10).

In the late nineteenth century, long before Willey, anthropologists and

antiquarians such as Morgan and Mindeleff had conducted fieldwork investigating

"aboriginal residential architecture" (Parsons 1972: 127-128). Julian Steward (1955: 151-

172) conducted ethnological research into residency patterns in the development of

lineages and clans in the Great Basin. Additionally, American archaeologists before

Willey had conducted similar fieldwork in the southeastern United States (Phillips et al.

2003; also Dunnell 1985). Beginning in 1940, Philip Phillips, James A. Ford and James

B. Griffin conducted multidisciplinary investigations of the Lower Mississippi valley,

looking at geological, archaeological, and historical development in the area from the

southern Ohio River to Vicksburg, Mississippi. They organized their chronology based primarily on ceramic sequences and complexes, which were based on surface collections

correlated to small scale excavations. Robert Dunnell has argued that due to their

identification with the "Old Archaeology", the work of Phillips, Ford, and Griffin has been underappreciated by practitioners of the "New" despite the prevailing assumption of

"incommensurability between approaches to a degree that simply did not, and does not,

exist" (Dunnell 1985:298).

In contrast, methodological developments in archaeological survey have

emphasized landscapes as continuous surfaces that are strewn with anthropogenic

material. Beginning with early Processualist emphasis on sampling theory and systematic

fieldwalking, the settlement approach advocated by Willey became subsumed within a

much larger concern with cultural dynamics and systems. In their study of Prehispanic

occupation in the Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz, Mexico, Santley and Arnold 71

(1996) combined systematic archaeological survey techniques with a broader settlement

pattern analysis. In their report, they detail the methodology used (see Santley and Arnold

1996: 226-228), as well as how identified "sites" were systematically surveyed. They

demonstrate how a combination of methods was able to produce such detailed regional

studies. Among numerous studies since the 1960s, examples of how systematic survey

has been synergistically used to conduct settlement pattern study come from the northeastern Bronze Age Peloponnesos (Wright 2004), Tiwanaku valley in Bolivia

(McAndrews et al. 1996), and western Rough Cilicia (Blanton 2004; 2000). Richard

Blanton has published an interesting comparative study of Mediterranean and

Mesoamerican settlement patterning, arguing that the observed similarities (and differences) point to broad social evolutionary trajectories common to early civilizations

(Blanton 2004: 226-228; see also Fletcher 1986).

Systematic field walking has demonstrated that artifacts vary in concentrations across the landscape, but what does one do with a hoyuk? Artifact "halos" around sites or other "background noise" surrounding settlements, whether caused by manuring or not

(see Alcock et al. 1994; Fentress 2000; Wilkinson 1982), seem to confirm that these pockets of habitation are significant convergences on the landscape; evidence for human presence tapers off around them, suggesting that they are points of intense activity.

Likewise, the increasing prominence of "off-site survey" (Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988) does not diminish the importance of analyzing settlement patterning. If we wish to reconstruct past "cultural systems", to borrow Binford's phrasing, a "regional approach"

is the most suitable one to adopt. The investigation of settlement patterning focused attention on the relationship(s) between clearly defined sites (e.g., Chang 1967: 38-56), 72 whereas a Landscape approach focuses on how people have used the "landscape", even in areas of low artifact visibility or accumulation. Despite this (false) dichotomy, the two are not mutually exclusive. As Sollars (2005: 252, emphasis added) has recently written,

"Settlement is one of the basic blocks from which archaeological patterns are built and should never be forgotten, for without these patterns any attempt at an interpretation of the landscape is futile". Kantner (2008) has also noted the adoption of a "regional perspective", which necessarily includes investigating settlement patterning as part of recovering how people used space. Furthermore, Stanish (2003: 168) has recently stated that the term "Settlement archaeology" "is often used as a shorthand for 'regional approaches in anthropological archaeology'". He goes on to elaborate that such an approach does not simply focus on a single site, or even a series of sites, but uses an array of techniques and methods to understand regions. Settlement patterning is, therefore, an important component of the investigation of landscapes in the past, and attention must be paid to how the location and interaction of settlements affected the way in which ancient landscapes were used.

3.2. GIS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

GIS is increasingly becoming a standard tool utilized by archaeologists as they study landscape use in the past (see Allen et al. 1990; Conolly and Lake 2006; Ebert

2004; Kvamme 1999; Stancic and Veljanovski 2001; Wheatly and Gillings 2002). This section discusses one of the more common GIS functions archaeologists have made use of, namely Least Cost Analysis. Its use has been primarily centered on the simulation of probable routes that people may have taken in the past. To begin, I survey a handful of archaeological studies that make use of this function. I then briefly 73 outline my own use of it to predict pathways and routes in south-central Anatolia.

Technical details concerning the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), GIS program used, computational specifics, and steps taken have been consigned to an appendix (see

Appendix B and D).

3.2.1. Predicting Routes in the Past: the use of Least Cost Analysis in archaeology

The whole Mediterranean consists of movement in space.. .routes are of course the channels of this movement. (Braudel 1972: 277)

Routes are an important aspect of the economic and political structure of any culture. The ability to move goods and people over landscapes was an important feature of ancient states. Routes are also critical for communication and the unification of territory under a particular ruler or group. As Annates historian Lucien Febvre (1949: 316) wrote,

States are usually formed by methods which imply the existence of routes and of various means of communication. For without routes and communications, how could men succeed in reconstructing, out of the debris of the natural units they have broken in pieces, homogeneous ensembles to suit their convenience?

Given the importance of routes to trade and communication networks around the world and through time, it is only natural for archaeologists to try to determine the contours of those movements. As Wilkinson (2003: 60) has recently noted, "Roads and tracks are fundamental to an understanding of the economic landscape". While relatively "easy" for periods with extant historical or monumental records, as in the case of the much degraded

Ptolemaic and Roman roads in the Egyptian Eastern Desert (Gates 2006), determining prehistoric routes requires creative approaches.

Bell and Lock (2000) have used LCA to investigate the use of the Ridgeway in

Oxfordshire, England. In their discussion, they note that the way cost surfaces are 74 calculated greatly affects the direction and course of the pathway. They argue that doing so makes movement dependent upon slope, which does not necessarily correlate to human behaviour. Bell and Lock (2000: 89) argue in favour of using anisotropic surfaces, and against the use of simple slope (isotropic) maps. In contrast to isotropy, anisotropy differs depending on the direction of measurement. Accordingly, the use of anisotropic surfaces captures the varying difficulty of movement across the landscape, with its more arduous ascents and less laborious descents; in terms of movement and behavioral constraints and preference, walking downhill is much easier than walking uphill. They argue that the calculation of anisotropic surfaces corresponds to the "s-curves" of traditional mountain routes (see also Bell et al. 2002). Finally, they determined that the course of the Ridgeway path and the positioning of hillforts dating to the Late Bronze

Age, Iron Age, and Romano-British periods were intended to maximize visibility between settlements and the road.

In a widely cited example, Bell et al. (2002) continued using GIS to predict routes, this time in the identification of routes linking settlements in the Sangro valley of

Abruzzo, Italy. An important feature of their study was the explicit concern with settlement histories and the local communication routes that tied them. With archaeological data obtained from survey, they generated Least Cost pathways for each of the four identified periods. Routes in the Bronze Age largely pre-figured those in the following period. During the Iron Age/Samnite period, the number of sites increased, with a concomitant increase in route complexity. The Roman period saw a further increase in "pathway network" complexity, often occupying hilltop locations. According to Bell et al. (2002: 182-183), Monte Pallano became a "communications hub" for 75 surrounding settlements. The Medieval period saw a drop in recorded sites, which could be related to both population decline or settlement nucleation (Bell et al 2002: 184). In addition to predicting routes between settlements, Bell et al. (2002) state that many of the routes calculated were then "field tested". In many cases they found that the predicted routes aligned closely to existing routes, suggesting that anisotropic cost surfaces can reasonably predict the way in which people move across the landscape.

Field et al. (2007) have used LCA to investigate Pleistocene (OIS 4) hominid dispersal routes in South Asia using ArcGIS 8.3, and HYDRO IK and ETOP02 databases. To the slope map generated using these sources, they added barriers or other impediments such as bodies of water (significant lakes and rivers), and both desiccated

("sand seas") and frigid (continental ice sheets) environments. An interesting feature of their study was the use of a "wandering route" function. Their analysis showed that ideal paths from the western bank of the Indus valley (a hypothesized entry point for early modern humans) favoured routes circumnavigating the western South Asian coast. Two points of entry into the interior of the subcontinent were located along the coast; an additional route ran north along the Indus River, then shifted east when reaching the

Tibetan Plateau. These interior routes were along the Narmada River, which bisects

India, as well as through the Western Ghats at Cape Rama. Field et al. (2007: 99-102) argue that these theorized routes accord well with known Pleistocene occupations, despite the paucity of coastal sites. They conclude that early modern humans could have followed natural "corridors" into the heartland of India, displacing the "indigenous South

Asian Homo" species already present (Field et al. 2007: 103).

More recently, Newhard et al. (2008) have investigated routes through the Goksu 76

river valley, focusing on the EBA sites of Comlek Tepesi and Kilise Tepe. Newhard and

colleagues contend that prehistoric pathways through the Goksu valley did not make use

of the modern road through the Sertavul pass. They note that the site of Comlek Tepesi was not located in close proximity to the pass, prompting their examination of whether the pass was a primary means of accessing the Plateau (Newhard et al. 2008: 90). The primary focus of their analysis was to investigate the small, but significant, lithic material

found at both sites. The study also used the following sites as other points of interest:

Mersin-Yumuktepe, Tarsus-Gozlu Kule, Catalhoyuk, Can Hasan, Karahoyuk (Konya), and Nenezi Dag (the closest obsidian source). From the predicted routes generated, they determined that the Sertuval Pass was not a primary route connecting the Goksu valley to the Konya Plain.

3.2.2. The role of the Goksu valley in Late Neolithic-Early/Middle Chalcolithic trade between the Amuq and Konya Plains

In line with these and other studies using Least Cost Analysis, the GIS function was used to examine the direction of routes in south-central Anatolia. The GRASS 6.4 anisotropic cost-surface generating module known as r .walk was selected because anisotropic pathways produce "natural" routes, and as Bell et al. (2002) found, tend to correspond closely to already existing "traditional" paths. This is due to the way in which r.walkcalculates the map surface, by using a simulated "effort" cost assigned to each raster cell. The simulation was designed to predict routes connecting the Amuq and Konya Plains through the presence of Dark Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) during the Late Neolithic (see Balossi-Restelli 2004, 2006). The widely distributed ceramic horizon style provided a good test case of possible routes through Cilicia, and whether 77

the Goksu valley was a preferred route during the period covering the Late Neolithic to

the Early Chalcolithic (6500-4500 BC). While no long-term occupation in the Goksu

valley had been recorded for this period, Mellaart suggested that it might have served as

a conduit at that time, funneling goods and people from the Central Plateau to important

coastal sites like Mersin or Tarsus. According to Balossi-Restelli (2004, 2006), DFBW had been found at three sites on the southern Central Plateau. These are: Suberde,

Catalhoyiik, and Can Hasan. The analysis was structured to test whether the Goksu valley would be used to connect sites on the Amuq and Konya Plains by tracing a Least

Cost pathway from the important site of Tell al-Judaidah to the other three locations.

Reverse pathways from each of these three sites to Tell al-Judaidah were also generated, as pathways on anisotropic surfaces can vary depending on the direction they flow. The experiment sought to test whether, if at all, the Goksu valley was used as a route connecting the two regions. If it was used, what where the conditions of that use?

Was it used traveling to or from sites on the Konya Plain?

Four trials were conducted while manipulating two of the variables used to calculate the cost surface. The first trial kept the module's default values. These values replicate the way in which a person would "normally" traverse the landscape (see Neteler and Mitasova 2007: 139-140). Subsequent trials increased the movement resistance across the landscape. On a purely conjectural level, they could be imagined to correspond to a) an itinerant merchant, b) an encumbered merchant, c) a donkey, and (d) a drawn cart

(following a suggestion in Newhard et al. 2008: 95-96). Exponentially increasing resistance was designed to reflect these different situations, and to test in which ways they would affect pathways. Given the increasing logistical requirements of the last three 78

travel methods, the selection of different routes would be expected.

3.3. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

I have used Social Network Analysis to quantify the relationship(s) between sites

in south-central Anatolia from the Late Chalcolithic to the end of the EBA. This tool is a

field unto itself and due to its little known status in archaeology, requires more

introductory comments and elaboration than GIS or LCA. In the first subsection, I

provide a concise history of Social Network Analysis, from its origins in sociology and

social psychology and later incorporation into anthropology. I then review the theoretical

framework supporting it. After this, I review the way in which archaeologists have

appropriated Social Network Analysis. Lastly, I conclude with a description of the Social

Network program Pajek that was used as part of this research and the methods by which

the three networks were constructed.

3.3.1. Beginnings of Social Network Analysis: historical development

A particular social relation between two persons (unless they be Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) exists only as part of a wide network of social relations, involving many other persons, and it is this network which I regard as the object of our investigations (Radcliffe-Brown 1940: 2). Conventional histories of Social Network Analysis trace its beginnings in the

social psychological work of Jacob (Levy) Moreno and his sociometric work in the early

1930s (see Wasserman and Faust 1994: 11-13). Others identify three major streams of

development at work, specifically: 1) German social psychology (Moreno), 2) structural-

functionalists at Manchester University, and the 3) Harvard University industrial

sociology studies (see Scott 2000: 7-37), with the last two being independently

influenced by Radcliffe-Brown. Still others assert a much more complicated and diffuse path towards the development of Social Network Analysis, often with very personal 79

interconnections and conflicts (see Freeman 2004). Freeman (2004: 10-21) provides perspectives on the earliest forerunners of Network analysis, including the likes of

Auguste Comte, Pierre Huber, and Lewis Henry Morgan. The primary conceptual breakthrough in all of these early examples was a "structural" perspective that saw connections between events and individuals (Wellman 2003). This structural perspective would eventually find expression in the mathematics of Graph Theory (Harary 1969), which is the two dimensional intersection of vertices and lines whose relation can be understood in statistical or numeric form. When used by Network theorists, these points and lines signify agents and the connections between them.

Early Network analysts like Moreno sought to measure the ties between actors within "webs" or "networks" of relations. In the case of Moreno's research, he was the first to actually use the term "network" in the manner in which Network analysists use it today (Freeman 2004: 37). Moreno's greatest contribution to the "Structural" perspective was to provide a general framework to represent relationships within groups that he named the "sociogram". Although described as "a method of presentation" (Moreno

1953: 96), the sociogram allowed for a "microsociology" of much larger structures that would not have been possible without a reduction in the complexity of all interactions.

The key "criterion" used to construct sociograms was the connections or ties between individuals or groups. His extensive study of group interaction among school age children nicely illustrates this (see Moreno 1953: 127-215). From interviews with students at various schools, Moreno graphed friendship and animosity relationships among various age sets from Kindergarten to grade eight. Moreno (1953: 219-282) goes on to apply his technique to larger groups, including extended households and work 80

settings.

In an important distinction, the structural perspective of Social Network analysis is not necessarily the same as the anthropologists' Structuralism, although the two are intimately connected. The epigram at the beginning of this section illustrates Structural-

Functionalist obsession with "structure". Radcliffe-Brown (1940) argued that the "social structure" he transcribed was bound up in the series of inter-personal relations that existed between individuals. This also included the study of a person's "social role", or position within the entire network of inter-connecting relationships. In his own phrasing,

"We cannot study persons except in terms of social structure, nor can we study social structure except in terms of the persons who are the units of which it is composed"

(Radcliffe-Brown 1940: 5). This conceptualization of structure as a series of connections between actors was seminal to the development of Social Network Analysis in Britain.

Likewise, Levi-Strauss (1969) famously used Graph Theory to construct his elaborate kinship networks. The use of Network analysis was abandoned alongside the general disinterest in tracing familial patterns and kinship ties, but it should be recognized as an import feature in early Structural anthropology. The direction of obligation, in terms of economic or social capital, to another individual in the entire structure of kinship is a network of relationships that have been expressed graphically. In numerous cases from

The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Levi-Strauss 1969), a form of Moreno's sociogram is used extensively to illustrate the graphical system of filiations: circles, triangles, and the lines connecting them stand in for people and the ties between them.

More recently, cultural anthropologist Per Hage and mathematician Frank Harary have continued to use Network analysis to investigate questions pertaining to social 81 structure and actor role (Hage and Harary 1983, 1991, 1996; also Hage 1979; Hage et al.

1986). Based in large part on Malinowski's original description of the Papua New

Guinean trade network known as the Kula ring, Hage et al. (1986) reevaluated the flow of quantities of arm shells and necklaces reported by him throughout the archipelago.

Malinowski's hypothesis concerning an early core of islands and the diffusion of mythology was generally supported by their work. A nucleus of ten islands formed a cycle and were the highest ranked from the twenty used in the analysis; Dobu was the lowest ranking island in arm shell trade (9* ) and Ampletts for necklaces (7l ). This core was later expanded to include neighboring islands, with myths following economic ties.

Hage and Harary (1991, 1996) have continued working on social and economic networks in Oceania. This entailed translation of previously published ethnographic material into

Graph Theory. The most important concept in their stimulating book Island Networks has to do with the idea of Centrality, or the "structural advantage" of some actors owing to their position or location within the network (see Hage and Harary 1996: 165-203).

Centrality and three common network measures are discussed in Chapter Four.

3.3.2. Theory of Social Network Analysis

The basic analytical unit in Social Network Analysis is the "graph". By this,

Graph Theory not only visualizes a network, but to also expresses its entirety. Thus, a graph encapsulates the theoretical and methodological rational behind Network Analysis, and a brief discussion of how graphs are constructed can serve in an introductory way to summarize the way in which Social Network analysts go about investigating their datasets. Much of what I present here is a summary of what can be readily found in introductory texts written by experts in the field (Wasserman and Faust 1994; see also 82

Carrington et al 2005; Mitchell 1969). Graphs are composed of two components: actors and relations (Figure 3.2). Actors can be interchangeably referred to as nodes or vertices, and can range from a group of individuals to nation states. They are selected for the significant relations or ties between them. Depending upon the nature of the graph and the relationship between actors, relations between nodes can either be edges or arcs.

Figure 3.2 Illustration of Social Network components and concepts 83

Edges are drawn between nodes if the graph is non-directional. Network analysts label graphs non-directional if they have "identical relational interactions" (Wasserman and

Faust 1994: 72). Arcs are drawn between nodes on directed or directional graphs, more appropriately called digraphs. A directed graph illustrates a relation between actors that implies movement from one actor to another or asymmetrical interaction. Subgraph form if the nodes and lines form a subset of the graph (Wasserman and Faust 1994: 97). A subgraph composed of two adjacent nodes is called a dyad, and three adjacent nodes are labeled a try ad. Larger relationships within graphs are dependant upon the concept of connectivity. A vertex whose removal reduces the connectivity of nodes is called a outpoint, and a group with this property is known as a cutset (see Wasserman and Faust

1994: 112-114). Likewise, a bridge is a line whose removal would reduce the overall connectivity of the graph.

The most common type of graph is the Simple graph, which is composed of actors with a single relation between them. Complex graphs measure more than one relation and are multivariate. As Wasserman and Faust (1994) note, much of Social Network theory and method is directed toward the creation and analysis of Simple graphs. A Signed graph is identical to a normal graph, except for the addition of a valence, indicated with positive (+) or negative (-) signs added to an edge or arc (see Wasserman and Faust 1995:

136-139). In the example used by Wasserman and Faust (1994: 137), a (+) or (-) can be used to indicate alliance or hostilities between nations. A Signed graph or digraph has three component parts: nodes, edges or arcs, and a sign. The sign in many respects serves the function of presence/absence, as in the relationships between children who are either 84

friends or enemies. Likewise a Valued graph contains additional information indicating

the "strength or intensity of each tie" (Wasserman and Faust 1994: 140). Valued graphs

are able to record non-dichotomous information by assigning a value or magnitude to an

edge or arc. Graphs constructed here are simple, non-signed, non-valued graphs.

3.3.3. Review of Archaeological appropriations of Social Network Analysis

Social Network Analysis has been used in archaeology to study interaction and relationships, with most appearing in the last decade. Studies range from trade and

interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age (see Broodbank 2000; Davis 1982; Knappett et al.

2008), settlement pattering in Middle Uruk Susiana Plain (Rothman 1987), development of urban centers in early medieval Scandinavia (Sinkbaek 2007), the evolution of Cahokia

along the Mississippi River drainage (Peregrine 1991), intervisibility of hilltop

communication (fire signaling) platforms in Chihuahua, Mexico (Swanson 2003), historical trajectories in state evolution beginning in the Kofun period in Japan

(Mizoguchi 2009), and the centrality of administrative and storage facilities in the Inka

Empire (Jenkins 2001). This subsection can only sketch the most relevant of these, and discuss how they exemplify conceptual and methodological issues encountered.

Archaeologists studying the Aegean Bronze Age have made extensive use of

Network theory and analysis (Broodbank 2000; Davis 1982; Knappett et al. 2008). Davis

(1982) argued that the island of Delos was a "hub" of activity owing to its central

location within the Aegean and Ionian world (see also Hage and Harary 1996: 194-201).

This long held opinion is supported by his analysis, which showed Delos ranking third out of twenty-nine selected sites (see Davis 1982: 33). While he does not present ranking results or network visualization, he uses the concept of Centrality, even if the exact term 85 he uses is "accessibility". Another important feature of Davis' work was that his analysis attempted a diachronic perspective, even if he only constructed a single graph. The key point is that Mediterranean archaeologists had begun to think of the past in terms of the overall Network structure and connections between sites.

Nearly two decades after this precocious foray into Network analysis, Cyprian

Broodbank (2000) published a major study of colonization, mobility, and interaction of the Cycladic "local world" from the Neolithic to the end of the EBA. Broodbank built upon the work of Hage and Harary, furthering the use of Network analysis in

Mediterranean prehistory. Specifically, he made use of the gravity model known as

Proximal Point Analysis (PPA) to allocate nodes to islands based on a predetermined set of criteria (see Broodbank 2000: 180-183). In many senses, Broodbank's primary method for assigning points was the abstraction of settlement pattern and demographic data

(Broodbank 2000: 181); this presented him with several complications, especially possible objections over variation in settlement nucleation through time (see Broodbank

2000: 183). This simulated approach to Cycladic interaction and settlement was favoured to overcome problems with determining contemporaneity between individual settlements.

One of the major drawbacks of Broodbank's study was that he did not clearly spell out how connections between islands were made; one must assume that the limited connections between islands were made using a concept similar to Davis' "accessibility".

Finally, the recent study of the Aegean Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1600 BC) by

Knappett et al. (2008) sought to re-investigate maritime trade networks based on the resource capacity of 34 sites circling the Aegean (see also Broodbank 2000: 350-361).

This resulted in a ranked gravity model that measured the connections between Cycladic 86

sites with those on Crete, western Anatolia, and Greek mainland. Apart from outlining

the methodology of how they constructed their model (see Knappett et al. 2008: 4-10),

the authors introduce a "new level of sophistication" (Knappett et al. 2008: 1009) in understanding prehistoric Aegean trade and exchange. That is, the Cycladic Islands were critically important for the maintenance of long distant trade and communication networks in the Middle Bronze Age because of their central position; their discussion is related to 'Minoanization', or the expansion of long distance trade connections centered on the site of Knossos. An interesting feature of their modeling was the manipulation of network variables, namely the use of "imperfect optimization", to sketch these relationships. On a general level, their paper brings into archaeological discourse an example of how to conduct a Network analysis using the latest software; based on their referencing (i.e., de Nooy et al 2005), Knappett et al. (2008) made use of Pajek.

Mitchell Rothman (1987) used data from Wright and Johnson's regional surveys of the Susiana Plain in southern Iran to reexamine claims concerning the evolution of early states in southern Mesopotamia. Data used came from published reports, which used the distribution of ceramic types to indicate trade networks as well as cultural affiliation. As Rothman notes, Wright and Johnson's conclusions were based on familiarity with the material collected, especially the distribution of several key ceramic types such as Beveled-rimmed Bowls. These in turn were assumed to represent the extent of labour and trade networks. In an attempt to furnish the argument with quantitative substantiation, Rothman (1987: 80) argued, "graphical analysis is a technique designed to describe and analyze just such structured flows". From the results, Rothman suggested that elites residing in major centers like Susa were able to control labour and resources 87 due to their central position within economic and cultural networks.

In the arguably best example of the use of Network Analysis, David Jenkins

(2001) investigated the position of storage facilities in the distribution and transportation of staple and wealth finance in the Inkan Empire. Jenkins argues that these two exchange patterns emerged as ways of accumulating wealth as well as centralizing administrative apparatuses within the capital of Cuzco. Using extant Inkan roads connecting excavated sites (see Jenkins 2001: 658, Figure 1), he was able to construct a graphical representation of the interaction between fifty-four sites (see Jenkins 2001: 664, Figure

2). Sites were selected because they contained large storage facilities, although not all known facilities (or tampu) or centers with "ambiguous" functions were included (see

Jenkins 2001: 663). He used the software package UC1-NET IV (version 1.0) to calculate the various measures of centrality in his network. His results suggest that centers with administrative and storage facilities were located in areas of high centrality, and storage facilities without administrative centers in areas of low centrality.

3.3.4. Creating Ties: building the Network

3.3.4.1. A note on the Social Network software used: a review of Pajek 1.24

Of the many software packages currently available, Pajek (Slovenian for

"Spider") was used to conduct the networks for this research (see de Nooy et al. 2005).

This specific program was mentioned by Conolly and Lake (2006: 236) and has recently been used by archaeologists (i.e., Knappett et al. 2008). In a review of current Network software, Huisman and van Duijn (2005) note great diversity in quality and functionality.

Of the available options, the authors identified 27 programs that met basic requirements for performing Network analysis (based on Wasserman and Faust 1994), 22 of which 88 were "stand alone" programs and five were "utility toolkits" (Huisman and van Duijn

2005: 270). The program Pajek was among the six "stand alone" programs that were examined in more depth (see Huisman and van Duijn 2005: 280-286). Pajek received high marks ("++") for visualization and procedure-based analysis, but was criticized for lacking all but the most basic statistical packages (see Huisman and van Duijn 2005: 311, table 13.4.12). The primary criticism leveled against Pajek by Huisman and van Duijn was the lack of "user friendliness", as evidenced by the lack of a help guide or manual.

Now that an introductory text has been published (de Nooy et al. 2005), Pajek may very well be one of the best Network software packages currently available.

3.3.4.2. Network generation: description of method

Using actual locations for sites was an important feature of the present study.

However, as becomes apparent in Cyprian Broodbank's (2000) study, a major problem emerges when applying Social Network Analysis to archaeology. This centers on whether the network is an open or closed system; site catalogues are open to new additions. For this reason, Broodbank chose to use Principal Point Analysis (PPA) of Cycladic networks during the Bronze Age. He argued that using allocated points to simulate distributions was preferable to using actual sites, as networks using "real-world" data are subject to the failings of survey, problems of determining contemporaneous occupation, and revision in light of new discoveries (Broodbank 2000: 182). These arguments are indeed persuasive, but not entirely convincing, as the position of sites on the landscape is an important feature of the present analysis. Therefore, using actual sites, despite the fragmentary nature of the surveys conducted, is preferable to simulated ones. In Network analysis parlance, this problem would be one of "Boundary Specification" (see Knoke and Yang 89

2008: 15-20). In constructing the networks used here, I have followed an "Event-based

Strategy" which is composed of "actors who participate in a defined set of activities

occurring at specific times and places" (Knoke and Yang 2008: 20). Knoke and Yang

emphasize the difficulty of actors in meeting the requirement for inclusion in such networks, as participation must be carefully documented or observed. This was part of the rational for the work in Appendix C, where I discussed the prehistoric ceramic typology for south-central Anatolia. Ceramic types become indicators of not only period, but also affiliation and contact within the three broad "events" tracked.

The first step in creating the networks was the identification of probable routes used in early antiquity. Unlike the Inkan road networks that Jenkins (2001) had to work with, no extant prehistoric roads were available upon which I could base my network.

This missing data was simulated by using GIS to connect all sites in a given period.

Location data for sites came from a variety of source, but mostly from the TAY project

(see Appendix B.3). Networks were created for three broad chronological periods of published occupation in the Goksu valley, namely the Late Chalcolithic, EBA I-II, and

EBA III. Sites were identified based on the presence or absence of ceramic types datable to a given time period.

Anisotropic maps were generated for each site to all the others using the r .walk module in GRASS 6.4. Doing this was the most time consuming part of the analysis, including scripting and computing time, but most important as all subsequent analysis was based on these maps. The determination of Least Cost pathways was a much simpler affair, as the r. drain module allows for the inputting of a simple ASCII file containing all desired the coordinates; this took considerably less time to compute. This produced 90

pathways from a single site to all other sites in the network. This step was repeated for all

sites in each of the three networks. When finished, all of this data was then used in the

creation of the networks used to study settlement patterning. The combination of all pathways resulted in frequent overlapping. These were assumed to represent an idealized

or "favoured" route between sites. It was relatively easy to understand the relationships between sites when they were in proximity to each other. Often, all sites in a given area connected to all others. The real motivation for using Least Cost pathways was for sites that had to be connected over long distances. There were numerous instances where all

such routes for a given period overlapped, producing a relatively single pathway. By using these pathways, "effort" was the primary means of connecting the network. In this way, I sought to avoid facile assumptions concerning how people in the past would have made their way through the Taurus Mountains.

Once all of the Least Cost pathways had been successfully completed, these GIS generated relationships were then translated into the language of Graph Theory. The route maps for each period (see Chapter Four) were used to produce a corresponding hand-drawn network. This involved visual inspection of cumulative routes between points and the ties between sites were recorded; in many ways, this step felt more akin to

solving a connect-the-dots puzzle than "academic research". Translating the GIS routes into hard copies of the network was done for several reasons, the most important because

it was easier to then produce a list of connections with a copy that could be referenced.

The second step, as already noted, was to make a list of adjacent vertices in the network.

Once finished, this final list was then loaded into Pajek. The process of imputing data

into Pajek was unnecessarily complicated by the fact that it was not entirely intuitive. The 91 published guide states that the authors "stress learning by doing" (de Nooy et al 2005: xxiii), but gives very little attention to how to actually load data (this is a minor criticism). Once all of the network data had been manually imputed into Pajek, the resulting graph could then be visualized.

While this process was rather straightforward, several technical and interpretive difficulties arose when translating the GIS data into a useable network. First, I assumed that a pathway coming close to a site along its course would "stop off' at that site, thereby making it a connection point within the overall route. This was especially important if three (or more sites) generated the same or a similar route, resulting in all sites being relatively close to the repeated route. Rather than connecting each site to all others separately, the first site would be connected to the second, and the second to the third, etc. In this example, the first site did not directly connect to Site 3, but had to go through the second site; this site served as an intermediary between the other two. This was determined by a subjective judgment based on visual inspection, while accounting for the scale of the map and approximate distances between route(s) and point(s). This was complicated by the reality that the r. drain module did not provide a continuous line output, but only represented by vector points of the original raster file. When sites tended to cluster, this made determining connections very difficult. To resolve this, individual maps had to be consulted, leading to a lengthy process of inspecting numerous map sets for a single period. Where this was still not sufficient to resolve difficulties, I assumed a maximizing approach, assuming all sites affected were connected to all other sites (in some way). Given that I was using cumulative pathways for numerous drains, this was a reasonable assumption. This last method was adopted in a number of cases, especially for 92

the EBAI-II period. I do not think this greatly detracted from the final result; in all

likelihood it preserved ties obscured by the visualization limitations of the GIS modeling.

Other interpretive problems can be seen in Figure 3.3. Several Late Chalcolithic

and EBA I-II sites from the Beysehir District surround Beysehir Golu (Lake). The lake was absent in the original GIS modeling, and therefore produced routes that go across the

area where the lake would be. I have excluded these routes from the affected graphs, as I was unable to account for the way in which water travel would have affected routes

elsewhere; I assumed travel only by land. It would have been inconsistent to allow it here, while denying coastal sites like Mersin, Silifke, and Tarsus the same opportunity. By

"correcting" the Least Cost pathways, I am not suggesting that water based travel was not used (as it appears to be the case in other periods), but that I have not accounted for

it in my analysis. Moreover, I cannot assume that routes would not be the same if I had. were able to weight the 34 sites used in their study. Moreover, Broodbank (2000) was

a) b)

"

"'••'•8S

+ r-s*1 "*

I

- ^ <

Figure 3.3 Illustrating an Interpretive Dilemma: a) Late Chalcolithic, b) EBA I-II. 93

7able to weight the allocation of nodes to islands based on settlement and demographic

data. However, other studies, namely Jenkins (2001), Mizoguchi (2009), and Rothman

(1987), did not weight network nodes. Vertices in this study were not weighted for a number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of applicable data. One possible option was to

A final problem encountered concerns network weighting. Knappett el al. (2008)

Relying on the idea that more ceramic types were indicative of prominence in trade

networks, this was not feasible because reporting was not consistent over the three

surveys. Some styles were not found at all sites, including diagnostic types, which would

have rendered the weightings meaningless. A more attractive option would have been to

weight nodes based on site size. This met with the same difficulties as not all sites had

published areas. This meant that they could not be organized in a ranking system. The

survey data used by Rothman was organized into a three-tiered hierarchical system based

on settlement size, which would have given him a means of differentiating or weighting

them; he did not pursue that course. Given the diversity of approaches, weighting of sites

was not deemed to be critical or entirely necessary.

3.4. CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter I have discussed where the data used came from, namely

archaeological survey. These older surveys from the 1950s and 1960s were contrasted

with recent developments to highlight the changing understanding of ancient landscapes

from punctuated to continuous surfaces. However, this development does not remove the

need to understand the systemic context of "sites". From there, I reviewed the two

methodologies used to analyze this data. The first, Least Cost Analysis, is now common

within archaeology. Like the example of the Sangro valley (Bell et al. 2002), this G1S 94

function has been used to predict routes connecting sites within regions. Using the

GRASS 6.4 modules r.walk and r .drain, a number of routes were generated connecting sites on the Central Plateau and the Amuq Plain to determine if the Goksu valley was indeed an ideal route between the two. This was based on the appearance of the horizon style DFBW in both regions. Lastly, I discussed the second method used, namely Social

Network Analysis. This method examines the structural relationships between actors within a web of interaction. Using the same GIS function, Least Cost pathways were generated to connect all sites in the three periods (i.e., Late Chalcolithic, EBA I-II, EBA

III) investigated. These cumulative pathways were the basis of further analysis in the

Network program Pajek. In an effort to justify the software used, I reviewed reporting by

Network Analysts demonstrating Pajek to be one of the best available software packages.

The next chapter presents the results from these two methods, while interpretations are reserved for Chapter Five. 95

CHAPTER FOUR Presentation of Results

This chapter presents the results of the quantitative and spatial tools used to address the question of the role of the Goksu valley in late prehistory. The contents are divided into two sections. The first discusses the results from the Least Cost pathways conducted to investigate routes between sites on the Central Plateau and those in the Amuq valley.

The second section presents results obtained from the Social Network Analyses conducted for three networks. This chapter emphasizes the summary presentation and visualization of results.

4.1. LEAST COST ANALYSIS

4.1.1. Late Neolithic Pathways

This section presents the results of Least Cost Analysis for the four sites selected because evidence for Dark Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) was found during excavation.

This Pottery Neolithic phenomenon was widely distributed from north Syria to central

Anatolia. According to Belossi-Restelli (2004, 2006), the sites of Can Hasan, Catalhoyiik, and Suberde all produced evidence of DFBW. Braidwood and Braidwood (1960) identified the fourth site, Tell al-Judaidah in the Amuq Plain, as being one of the more important sites for the spread of this ceramic horizon into Cilicia. Therefore, a test was conducted to determine the ideal pathway(s) between Tell al-Judaidah and Central

Anatolian sites. To explore the role the Taurus Mountains would have played in the selection of routes between the Konya and Amuq Plains, variables used to calculate movement were manipulated. This involved the exponential increase of two variables used to calculate the cost surface over the course of four trials. The first three subsections 96 present the results of pathways generated from the site of Tell al-Judaidah to each of the three Central Plateau sites. The last sub-section presents the route analysis from the three

Central Plateau sites to that of Tell al-Judaidah. In many instances, the routes calculated across the four trials were identical. In these cases, I have provided only one map for such results to reduce the amount of redundancy. Interpretations of the significance of routes are discussed in Chapter Five.

4.1.1.1. Can Hasan

In the case of the Least Cost pathways from Tell al-Judaidah to Can Hasan

(Figure 4.1), all four trials generated pathways that went through the Cilician Gates.

Based on this simulation, the ideal path from the Amuq Plain to the site of Can Hasan

1" N Catalhoyiik o ^\-w_^ ^^H Cilician o ^> "* Gates Suberde Can Hasan

(ioksu Valley ?J Mediterranean o „ Tell al-Judaidah

si?**'

- J* riv1"!^,.. / ( Figure 4.1 Least Cost Pathways from Tell al-Judaidah to Can Hasan 97 would travel through this route, and not one through the Goksu Valley. The initial pathway from Tell al-Judaidah cuts westward towards the coast, until making its way northward towards the Cilician Gates. Once ascending the Plateau, the route traveled west in a roughly hemispherical manner until reaching Can Hasan.

4.1.1.2. Catalhoyuk

The Least Cost pathways generated for Catalhoyuk were identical over the four trials (Figure 4.2). This suggests that this simulated path from the site of Tell al-Judaidah to Catalhoyuk is the most ideal, even when two of the more important factors affecting the way in which the cost surface is calculated are exaggerated. Like the case of Can

Hasan, manipulation of the r .walk variables does not seem to have affected the outcomes. As for the route itself, it is similar to Can Hasan when it leaves Tell al-

* N

Cilician (Jales o Suberde ,. .. ° Can Hasan

Goksu Valley Mediterranean Sea

Figure 4.2 Least Cost Analysis from Tell al-Judaidah to Catalhoyuk 98

Judaidah until reaching the Plain. Rather than traveling along the topographic contours of

the southern land formation, the pathway goes deep into the plain. Once exiting the

Eastern half of the Cilician Plain, the route travels along the coast until reaching a point

midway between the Cilician Plain and the Goksu river delta. From there, it proceeds

directly northwest and onwards to Catalhoyiik. It should be noted that the route comes

close to Can Hasan.

4.1.1.3. Suberde

Of the four pathways generated for the Central Plateau sites to Tell al-Judaidah, the site of Suberde produced the greatest variability (Figure 4.3 and 4.4). The pathway

from trials 1 to 3 is presented in Figure 4.3. Here we see a route similar to that for Can

Hasan, namely reaching the Central Plateau via the Cilician Gates. When the route starts

* N Catalhoyiik • Cilician Gales Suberde Can Hasan

Gok.su Valley Mediterranean -HBfr- Sea Tell al-Judaidah

-

Figure 4.3 Least Cost pathway from Tell al-Judaidah to Suberde (trials 1-3) 99

* N Catalhoyiik Cilician Gates Can Hasan o Sulvrilv."

lioksu \^ 'V^-'' Vallev Mediterranean Sea fell al-Judaidah

Figure 4.4 Least Cost pathway from Tell al-Judaidah to Suberde (trial 4) at Tell al-Judaidah, it is identical to the route generated for Can Hasan as it clears the

Cilician Gates. Understandably, it continues eastward towards Suberde. Significantly, the route travels very close to Catalhoyiik along this path. The results from the fourth and final trial produced a different route. Rather than going through the Cilician Gates like the previous trials, the fourth one travels along the coast, similar to the pathway generated for Catalhoyiik. Once again, this route ventures close to Can Hasan along its roughly northwestern trajectory. Once past Can Hasan, it makes a turn to the northwest before reaching Catalhoyiik, which lies a far distance to the north. Following on from there, this path takes the same route as the earlier trials towards Suberde.

4.1.1.4. Tell al-Judaidah

Because anisotropy varies depending on the flow direction, reciprocal pathways were generated from sites on the Plateau to Tell al-Judaidah. As in the previous three 100 routes analyses, variables were manipulated in the same manner. Three pathways were generated using these four cost surface maps and all were combined to form a single route (Figure 4.5). Over the four trials, the three routes descend the Central Plateau between the Goksu valley and the Cilician Plain. Traveling along the coast, it travels eastwards until reaching Tell al-Judaidah.

4.1.2. Cumulative Least Cost pathways: Late Chalcolithic - EBA III

Networks for the Late Chalcolithic, EBA I-II, and EBA III were based on cumulative pathways using the same steps outlined previously. An important aspect of these pathways is that they replicate similar ones already observed. Routes for the Late

Chalcolithic (Figure 4.6), EBA I-II (Figure 4.7), and EBA III (Figure 4.8) make use of

N Catalhoviik Cilician Subcrdc Gates

Goksu Vallev Mediterranean gea Tell,al-Judaidah

?j$?t

Figure 4.5 Least Cost pathways from the Central Plateau to Tell al-Judaidah (four trials) 101

Cilician Gates j .fcv^p

Goksu Valley

Figure 4.6 Cumulative Least Cost pathways used for Late Chalcolithic Network

V. •A I?—-, ^fibcs, Cilician .-c ->*•-. 5 '^S^-;^^^?'^smae^f '**'^> *Gate UdlC!s>

/? i.

Goksu Valley

Figure 4.7 Cumulative Least Cost pathways used for EBA I-II Network 102

Figure 4.8 Cumulative Least Cost pathways used for EBA III Network routes through the Cilician Gates. Only the EBA I-II routes made use of the second identified pathway, namely the one between Silifke and Mersin instead of the two routes, the EBA I-II had three. Another feature of the EBA I-II cumulative pathways is the concentration of routes around site clusters. These are located on the Konya and Karaman

Plains, and two areas of the Cilician Plain. However, routes through the Taurus

Mountains followed far fewer options. This constriction of available pathways is even greater in the Late Chalcolithic and EBA III pathways. The biggest difference between the Neolithic routes and these is the presence of sites in the Goksu valley, which resulted in pathways traveling through it.

4.2. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS: NETWORK MEASURES

Once pathways for each site had been generated, cumulative routes were then used to aid in creating the Network. A simplified version of the cumulative pathways was 103 entered into the Social Network program Pajek. This section presents a selection of these results. The first measure obtained highlights the difference between a "total network" view and "ego-centered" perspectives. Using the concept of "centralization", the three periods are evaluated. Turning to the "ego-centered" perspective, top ranked scores obtained for Betweenness and Closeness Centrality for individual vertices are presented.

4.2.1. Network Graphs: socio-centered perspective

Comparing total complexity of graphs can be through the concept of centralization. De Nooy et al. (2005:125-131) discuss this socio-centered, or total network perspective; an ego-centered perspective focuses on Centrality scores for each vertex. Centralization is based on the summed variability of each measure divided by the

"maximum... variation which is possible in a network of the same size" (de Nooy et al.

2005: 126; see also Scott 2000: 90). That is, centralization divides the network ties by the total possible connections given the number of vertices. In this sense, centralization serves to compare networks as it is akin to network averaging. Table 4.1 presents the centralization scores obtained from the three networks.

Centralization scores for the three networks point to interesting differences between them in terms of overall structure. As can be seen from the Betweenness centralization scores, the EBAI-II period is significantly lower than the other two

Table 4.1 Centralization scores for the three networks Centralization Period Betweenness Closeness Late Chalcolithic 0.37508 0.19896 EBA Ml 0.17875 0.10826 EBA III 0.31902 0.31170 scores. This is caused by the increased number of sites, which lowers the overall frequency with which a single vertex appears in the geodesic (or, the shortest path between two nodes) between two other vertices. This also means that individual nodes in the EBA I-II did not have as much control over the overall flow between the network when compared to the Late Chalcolithic and EBA III, with vertices in the Late

Chalcolithic having the most control. Likewise, the EBA III Closeness network indicates that more vertices are located at the "center" of the network, as Closeness is a measure of distance between vertices. In contrast, lower centralization score suggests that nodes in the EBA I-II network are much farther apart in terms of overall structure, which is understandably a product of the increased number of nodes.

4.2.2. Centrality Measures

Network analysis has been used because of its ability to measure the position of actors within networks. More specifically, as Everett and Borgatti (2005: 57) state,

"Centrality is one of the most important and widely used conceptual tools for analyzing social networks". Following Freeman's (1979) original formulation, Jenkins (2000) calculated the following measures for his study of Inkan storage facilities: Degree,

Closeness, and Betweenness. I present two measures in the following subsections, namely Betweenness and Closeness Centrality. Both measures are succinctly introduced, highlighting the different perspective each provides on the network, before the rankings for each period are presented and described. The tables in this chapter only present the highest ranking sites per period per measure; rankings for all vertices can be found in

Appendix E.

Further comments can be made concerning the general diachronic comparability 105 of results. Mizoguchi (2009) conducted a similar study, investigating the diachronic change in Centrality measures among ten regions beginning in the Yayoi V period in

Japan. His results were easily comparable, as the size of the network did not change; this is significant as Centrality scores are based on the size of the network. Unlike

Mizoguchi's study, however, the size of the three networks constructed here greatly varied. Therefore, the raw Centrality scores were transformed to a log scale in order to make them comparable. These values were then converted to z-scores in order to make their value a matter of standard deviation from the mean. This was done for two

Centrality measures, Betweenness and Centrality, as these were thought to be more important in determining the role of vertices within the flow of communication and movement within the networks. Furthermore, using the z-scores, Ordinal significance testing was performed at a higher confidence level (0.01) using the Mann-Whitney test.

All statistical transformations and tests were done using Vassar Stats.'

4.2.2.1. Betweenness

The first network measure is called Betweenness Centrality. Betweenness

Centrality measures the frequency that a node is within the geodesic of other vertices in the network. Betweenness measures the ability of vertices to have "control over the interactions" (Wasserman and Faust 1994: 189) of other nodes. Moreover, the application of Betweenness Centrality can be summarized as "an indicator of control over information exchange or resource flows within a network (Knoke and Yang 2008: 67).

That is, Betweenness Centrality measures the role of nodes within the network, especially as this position relates to movement within the network. High Betweenness values indicate that a node lies within the geodesic of most of the network vertices, and therefore

' http://facuity.vassar.edu/lowry/VassarStats.html 106

is important in maintaining the flow between individual nodes.

Based on the results from significance testing (Table 4.2), the UA value is very high (>20), indicating that the samples are "approximately normally distributed"

(Sherman 1997: 412). Concordantly, given the high UA value, the Z score had to be used

to determine significance using a Normal Distribution table. Based on the Mann-Whitney

test, there are no significant differences between the samples (NULL not rejected). A higher critical value (0.01) was used to overcome the great range between the sample sets and to reduce the likelihood of a false outcome because of this. This is visually represented by means of a box-whisker plot (Figure 4.9). The figure also highlights the number of outliers (circles) and extremes (asterisks) in the Betweenness scores for each network. As Drennan (1996: 20-21) has discussed, one can eliminate or "trim" values that do not fall within acceptable limits of the total set of values. However, I have left them in as they represent "true" scores and are important for determining vertex rankings.

4.2.2.1.1. Late Chalcolithic

For convenience sake, the top 10 ranking sites can be found in Table 4.3. The top ranked site using this measure was Beytepe (v.5), which is located near the Cilician

Gates. The other top 10 ranked sites are almost all located on the Konya Plain, although

Table 4.2 Results of Mann-Whitney significance test for Betweenness scores Critical Value (0.01) Compared Periods UA Z PI P2 PI P2 LC-EBA1-II 4929.5 -1.1 0.1357 0.2713 0.4562 0.8643 LC-EBAIII 504 0.32 0.3745 0.7490 0.6293 0.8744 EBAI-II-EBAIII 1715 -0.11 0.4562 0.9124 0.5438 0.9562 Betweenness Centrality

2. EBA1-2 3, EBA3 Period

Figure 4.9 Box-whisker plot of Betweenness Centrality scores

Table 4.3 Top 10 Ranked Betweenness Centrality vertices for Late Chalcolithic Network Rank Site Name Betweenness ID Location 1 Beytepe 0.4305 5 Central Plateau 2 Velican Tepe 0.3806 52 Cilician Plain 3 Molla Ahmet 0.3628 33 Cilician Plain 4 Sahr 0.3392 36 Centra] Plateau 5 Bayat 0.2726 3 Central Plateau 6 Keyren 0.1557 26 Central Plateau 7 Bey§ehir C 0.0992 4 Central Plateau 8 Pekmezli II 0.0747 35 Central Plateau 9 Til an 0.0733 50 Cilician Plain 10 Akcasehir 0.0728 1 Central Plateau there are two high ranking (second and third) sites on the Cilician Plain. These sites are

Velican Tepe (v.52) and Molla Ahmet (v.33). A pictorial presentation of Betweenness

Centrality for the Late Chalcolithic network is provided in Figure 4.10.

4.2.2.1.2. EB I-II

Because of the number of measures obtained for this period (n=169), only the top

30 ranked vertices have been provided here (Table 4.4). The highest ranked node was

Goltepe (v.52), which is located on the Central Plateau close to the Cilician Gates.

Another high ranking node adjacent to the Cilician Gates is Zencirli (v. 167), which placed nineteenth overall. The second and third highest ranked vertices, Yahhuyuk

(v.158) and Tilan (v.148), are located on the Central Plateau and northern periphery

Figure 4.10 Visualization of Betweenness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network Table 4.4 Top 30 Ranked Betweenness Centrahty vertices for EBA I-II Network lank Site Name Betweenness ID Location 1 Goltepe 0.2028 52 Central Plateau 2 Yahhuyiik 0.1701 158 Central Plateau 3 Tilan 0.1306 148 Cilician Plain 4 Karapinar I 0.1174 78 Central Plateau 5 Akcajehir 0.1067 4 Central Plateau 6 Ka§akh 0.0994 83 Central Plateau 7 Tutup 0.0931 153 Central Plateau 8 imamoglu 0.0895 65 Cilician Plain 9 Tomiikkale 0.0868 151 Southern Coast 10 Zoldura / Zordula 0.0772 169 Central Plateau 11 Maltepe (Konya) 0.0771 108 Central Plateau 12 Ibrahim 0.0770 62 Cilician Plain 13 Orta Karaviran North 0.0764 120 Central Plateau 14 Keyren 0.0754 90 Central Plateau 15 Kozlubucak 0.0752 101 Goksu Valley 16 Homa 0.0666 60 Central Plateau 17 Yalakozfi 0.0635 157 Central Plateau 18 Oriinduku 0.0630 122 Central Plateau 19 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.0596 167 Central Plateau 20 Emirler 0.0583 44 Central Plateau 21 Cavu§lu 0.0581 27 Cilician Plain 22 Kazan li 0.0580 87 Central Plateau 23 Koca II 0.0574 99 Central Plateau 24 Evregi II 0.0567 47 Central Plateau 25 Karasinir 0.0563 80 Central Plateau 26 Yanik Hotami§ 0.0556 159 Central Plateau 27 Domuz III 0.0546 39 Cilician Plain 28 Gokhuyiik Timraj 0.0526 51 Central Plateau 29 Domuzbogazliyan 0.0498 40 Central Plateau 30 Bayat (Konya) 0.04821 13 Central Plateau

of the Cilician Plain respectively. Other nodes situated more centrally on the Cilician

Plain included: imamoglu (v.65) in eighth and Ibrahim (v.62) ranked twelfth.

Additionally, vertices from the Goksu Valley begin to appear. Kozlubucak (v. 101),

located on the northernmost reaches of the valley, was ranked fifteenth.

As can be seen from the visualization of the EBA I-II Betweenness values (Figure

4.11), there is very little variability in the sizes of the nodes. What can be observed is that 110

Figure 4.11 Visualization of Betweenness Centrality for EBA I-II network

the highest ranking vertices are relatively larger than the lowest ones, but there is a general degree of similarity between nodes in the middle. However, given the overall size of the network itself, smaller Betweenness values are expected. The graph is much more complex, with more connections seen in the Late Chalcolithic.

4.2.2.1.3. EB III

The top six Betweenness Centrality values obtained for the EBA III network are presented in Table 4.5. The EBA III Betweenness Centrality graph has been visualized in Figure 4.12, where the relative sizes of the vertices indicate their ranking.

From this graphic, a number of points can be made. Zencirli (v.20) is identified as the vertex with the highest Betweenness value. Other sites of importance in descending Ill

Table 4.5 Top 6 Ranked Betweenness Centrality vertices for EBA III network

Site Name Betweenness ID Location Zencirli / Sincirili 0.3749 20 Central Plateau Comlek Tepesi 0.2204 4 Goksu Valley Attepe 0.1363 1 Goksu Valley Kiran Kayasi 0.1107 10 Goksu Valley Mersin 0.1030 11 Cilician Plain Kilise Tepe / Maltepe 0.0907 9 Goksu Valley

Figure 4.12 Visualization of Betweenness Centrality for EBA III network

order include: Comlek Tepesi (v.4), Attepe (v.l), Kiran Kayasi (v. 10), Mersin (v.l 1), and Kilise Tepe (Maltepe) (v.9). Significantly, five of the top scores are located in the

Goksu Valley or on the Mediterranean coast. Not all sites in the Goksu Valley ranked high, as the fifteenth place of Cingantepe (v.3) demonstrates. Likewise, sites located on the Central Plateau nearly all ranked low in comparison, with the exception of Eminler 112

(v. 5), which ranked seventh.

4.2.2.2. Closeness

Closeness Centrality measures "how close an actor is to all other actors"

(Wasserman and Faust 1994: 183, italics in original) in the network. That is, Closeness measures the distance from a vertex to all other nodes in the graph. This affects a particular node's ability to interact, which is based on its geodesic distance to all other points (Knoke and Yang 2008: 65). Furthermore, low Centrality values indicate a marginal quality to the vertex, as it is removed from all other points and ultimately the network "center". High ranking nodes have the ability to communicate more freely with all others based on their close proximity (Wasserman and Faust 1994: 184). This affords them easy and rapid interaction, but does not necessarily mean that an individual vertex is the most prominent in terms of "prestige" in the network, just that it is located near or at the network center.

The results of the Mann-Whitney significance test for Closeness Centrality scores is found in Table 4.6. A normal distribution is assumed because of the high UA value.

Similarly, the Z score had to be used to consult a Normal Distribution table. As the values for Pi are equal to or less than the critical value (0.01), the NULL hypothesis was not rejected. That is, there were no significant differences between the sample sets. This can

Table 4.6 Results of Mann-Whitney significance test for Centrality scores Critical Value (0.01) Compared Periods UA z pi p? Pi P2 LC-EBAI-II 4390.5 0.21 0.4168 0.8337 0.4168 0.9168 LC-EBAIII 528 0.02 0.4920 0.9840 0.4920 0.9920 EBAI-II-EBAIII 1650 0.17 0.4325 0.8650 0.4325 0.9325 113

Closeness Centrality

2.00-

1.00- 0) ok. w Ifl N 0.00- w 0) c 41 "> ••1.00- Oo

•2.00-

1 1 I. L.C. 2, EBA1-2 3. EBA3 Period

Figure 4.13 Box-whisker plot of Closeness Centrality scores

be also seen in a visualization of the distribution (Figure 4.11). One noticeable difference between the Closeness and Betweenness Centrality scores is that the Closeness values are much more homogenous, with only a few outliers (circles). No graphics visualizing Closeness Centrality measure have been included for this reason.

4.2.2.2.1. Late Chalcolithic

The top 10 ranking Late Chalcolithic sites can be found in Table 4.7. The highest ranking site was Sahr (v.36), followed by Beytepe (v.5) in second and Sincirli Hoyuk

(v.42) in third. The overwhelming majority of these are found on the Central Plateau, with the exception of Velican Tepe (v. 52) on the coast, which tied with Karahoyuk 114

Table 4.7 Top 10 Ranked Closeness Centrality vertices for Late Chalcolithic Network Lank Site Name Closeness ID Location 1 Sahr 0.3443 36 Central Plateau 2 Beytepe 0.3398 5 Central Plateau 3 Sincirli 0.3132 42 Central Plateau 4 Velican Tepe 0.3113 52 Cilician Plain 4 Karahoyiik (Konya) 0.3113 22 Central Plateau 6 Sanhasantolu 0.3005 38 Central Plateau 7 Okcul 0.2988 34 Central Plateau 7 Seydihan 0.2988 40 Central Plateau 7 Boyali I (Tumegi) 0.2988 6 Central Plateau 10 Bayat 0.2954 3 Central Plateau

(v.22) on the Konya Plain for fouth. Sahr (v.36) is also among the most northern of all the sites, with Beytepe being the most eastern of the Central Plateau sites. Importantly, it is located north of the Cilician Gates.

4.2.2.2.2. EB I-II

The highest ranking vertex for the EBA I-II period was Kasakh Hoyiik (v.83).

The majority of the highest ranking vertices resented in table 4.8 are located on the

Central Plateau, with the exception of the eighteenth place Ibrahim (v. 62) and Imamoglu

(v. 65) in twenty-ninth, both of which are located on the Cilcian Plain. Once again, sites located in and around the Cilician Gates feature prominently, namely Goltepe (v.52) in third, and Zencirli (v. 167) in eleventh. Significantly, no sites in the Goksu Valley appear on the list.

4.2.2.2.3. EB III

The highest ranked vertex in the EBA III network was Comlek Tepesi (v.4).

Following this, in descending order, are: Zencirli (v.20), Eminler (v.5), and Sizma (v. 15)

(table 4.9). Kiran Kayasi (v.10) and Ochuyuk North (v.18) tied for fifth place. Two nodes are located within the Goksu Valley itself, while the others are located on the Central 115

Table 4.8 Top 30 Ranked Closeness Centrality vertices for EBA I-II Network

Rank Site Name Closeness ID Location 1 Kazakh 0.2488 83 Central Plateau 2 Yahhiiyiik 0.2481 158 Central Plateau 3 Goltepe 0.2420 52 Central Plateau 4 Gokhiiyiik Timra§ 0.2382 51 Central Plateau 5 Alibey I 0.2356 7 Central Plateau 6 Zoldura / Zordula 0.2349 169 Central Plateau 7 Orta Karaviran North 0.2330 120 Central Plateau 8 Akca§ehir H. 0.2314 4 Central Plateau 9 Koca II 0.2298 99 Central Plateau 10 Karahoyuk Akviran 0.2282 76 Central Plateau 11 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.2270 167 Central Plateau 12 Sigirci 0.2261 137 Central Plateau 13 Dineksaray 0.2255 36 Central Plateau 14 Karasinir 0.2252 80 Central Plateau 15 Gaferiyat 0.2248 49 Central Plateau 15 Kiiciik 0.2248 103 Central Plateau 17 Eminler 0.2242 43 Central Plateau 18 ibrahim 0.2231 62 Cilician Plain 18 Yelbeyli 0.2231 162 Central Plateau 20 Karapinar I 0.2216 78 Central Plateau 20 Kestel (Sarituzia Madeni) 0.2216 89 Central Plateau 22 Kayacik 0.2204 85 Central Plateau 23 Keyren 0.2193 90 Central Plateau 23 Uchtiytik North 0.2193 154 Central Plateau 25 Abdullah 0.2190 1 Central Plateau 25 Cumra F (East) 0.2190 33 Central Plateau 27 Yav§an 0.2173 161 Central Plateau 28 Evdereji / Evdereje 0.2164 46 Central Plateau 29 Imamoglu 0.2162 65 Cilician Plain 29 Boz Giillii 0.2162 19 Central Plateau

Table 4.9 Top 6 Ranked Closeness Centrality vertices for EBA III Network Rank Site Name Closeness ID Location 1 Comlek Tepesi 0.5937 4 Goksu Valley 2 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.5757 20 Central Plateau 3 Eminler 0.5428 5 Central Plateau 4 Sizma 0.5277 15 Central Plateau 5 Kiran Kayasi 0.5135 10 Goksu Valley 5 Uchiiyiik North 0.5135 18 Central Plateau 116

Plateau. Significantly, Zencirli is located near the Cilician Gates.

4.2.3. Paths and Walk

Within Network Analysis, Paths and Walks form a way of understanding the direction of the flow within the network; this is not be confused with Directed Graphs.

Paths and walks are used to investigate network "reachability" (see Wasserman and Faust

1994: 105-107). An interesting aspect of paths and walks is that they not only allow for the examination of whether nodes can be reached, but they also show how this was done.

Rather than selecting arbitrary start and end points, the diameter of each network, which measures the distance across the network from its furthest points using the least number of incident nodes, was selected to structure the paths; this was the most efficient movement through the network. The diameter for each of the networks and the start and end points used are provided in Table 4.10. Heuristically, these are ideal routes through the network from one end of south-central Anatolia to the other end. As can be seen from a comparison between the three, there is little difference between the Late Chalcolithic and EBA I-II networks, despite the fact that one is three times the size of the other. The diameter of the EBA III is considerably smaller than the other two, highlighting its greatly reduced size. In the example of the Late Chalcolithic, a network diameter means that there are ten steps or edges between vertices 11 and 32, which constitute the stop and end points. An interesting feature to notice is how these results mirror those for

Betweenness Centrality.

Table 4.10 Network Diameters and Start and End Vertices of three networks Period Diameter Start Vertex End Vertex Late Chalcolithic 10 11 32 EBA I-II 12 2 102 EBA III 5 6 19 117

4.2.3.1. Late Chalcolithic

The start point of the Late Chalcolithic walk begins at v.l 1 and proceed in linear fashion until step seven (Table 4.11 and Figure 4.14). Along the first half of the path, the incident nodes travel along the north of the network, and through the Cilician Gates, as

Table 4.11 Tabulation of Late Chalcolithic Paths Step Start 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 4 3 36 5 52 33 35 37 32 48 32 50 37 32 48 32

Figure 4.14 Late Chalcolithic Paths (showing pathway nodes) 118 seen from the sequence of Sahr (v.36), Beytepe (v.5), and Velican Tepe (v.52). Two possibilities are then available after Molla Ahmet (v.33). According to this path, Misis

(v.32) can only be reached from Samsin (v.37) or Tatarli (v.48).

4.2.3.2. EBA III

This path has 12 steps, beginning on the Cilician Plain at Ada Tepe II (v.2) and ending at Kubadabad (v.102) (Table 4.12 and Figure 4.15). Once again there is a

Table 4.12 Tabulation of EBA I-II Paths Step Start 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 114 147 157 65 52 158 169 96 67 107 21 102 120 12 47 84 115 102 71 47 84 115 102

Figure 4.15 EBA I-II Shortest Paths (showing pathway nodes) 119 linear sequence of steps until the sixth, when two options become available for step seven. The path taking Zoldura (v. 169) proceeds in singular fashion until reaching the end point. In contrast, once Orta Karaviran North (v. 120) is selected, two additional options become available. The path becomes the same regardless of the selection made after step eight. Burun (v.21) or Monastir (v.l 15) are the only vertices that can reach

Kubadabad (v. 102). Once again, the path makes use of sites located near the Cilician

Gates, via imamoglu (v.65) and Goltepe (v.52), and then either to Orta Karaviran North

(v. 120) or Zoldura (v. 169).

4.2.3.3. EBA HI

The path of greatest distance within the EBA III network was between Hatunsaray.

(v.6) and Viransehir / Soli (v. 19), with a distance of five edges separating them (see

Table 4.16 and Figure 4.16). Figure 4.16 presents a graphical representation of the

Table 4.13 Tabulation of EBA III Paths

6 4 1 9 17 19 20 2 1 1 19 12 1 1 19 16 1 1 19 5 20 2 1 1 19 12 1 1 19 16 1 1 19 15 20 2 1 1 19 12 1 1 19 16 1 1 19 18 20 2 1 1 19 12 1 1 19 16 1 1 19 120

Figure 4.16 EBA III Shortest Paths (showing pathway nodes)

pathways. An interesting feature of the EBA III pathways is that the greatest pathway diversity is found in the first step. This contrasts with the previous walk determinations, which have the greatest diversity of possible nodes in the latter half; this diversity of pathways is entirely reversed if going in the opposite direction, with Mersin (v.l 1) dominating access to the end point. There are four possible first steps from the starting point of Hatunsaray (v. 6). The second step either goes through Zencirli (v.20) or Attepe

(v.l). Viransehir / Soli (v. 19) can only be accessed by Mersin (v.ll) or Uchiiyuk North

(v. 17). While the majority of pathways go through Zencirli (v.20), there is only one pathway utilizing both Attepe (v.l) and Uchiiyuk North (v. 17), which also includes

£omlek Tepesi (v.4) and Kilise Tepe (v.9). This is also the only pathway that uses sites from the Goksu Valley. All other walks use Mersin (v.l 1) to reach Viransehir / Soli 121

(v. 19).

4.3. CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter I present the results of the Least Cost pathways and the Social

Network Analysis. The first included Neolithic pathways based on the presence of

DFBW connecting the Central Plateau and Amuq Plain. Additionally, cumulative pathways generated as part of the Network analysis were presented. These supported the general trend observed identifying few idealized routes through the Taurus. The results of the Network Analysis were also presented, focusing on values obtained for Betweenness and Closeness Centrality. The first network measure identifies nodes able to control network flow while the second identifies nodes located close to the network center. The

following chapter will discuss the significance of these results, and what they suggest for prehistoric trade and communication in south-central Anatolia. 122

CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion and Interpretation^)

I have divided the following discussion into two parts to address the two aspects covered in this thesis. The first concerns the identification of routes. This was accomplished using the GIS function known as Least Cost Analysis and Network paths. The second and more important element concerns the structural relationships between sites in south-central

Anatolia from the Late Chalcolithic to the end of the EBA III period. This was accomplished using the Social Network Analysis software program known as Pajek. The ability to rank-order sites according to Centrality measures allowed for a relative understanding of the different roles of vertices (i.e., sites, see Figure 5.1) within the network, and how this interaction influenced economic and political structures.

5.1 LEAST COST ANALYSIS, PATHS, AND ROUTE IDENTIFICATION

Complementary data was obtained from GIS modeling and paths through the three

Networks. The first uses a (now) common GIS function known as Least Cost Analysis to predict the shape of routes based on assigned effort costs. This function is sensitive to topographic variability, as costs are assigned based on a raster map combining elevations and slope values. The Least Cost AOnalysis identified two idealized routes between the

Amuq Plain and sites on the Central Plateau. From the sites of Can Hasan and the first three trials of Suberde, a northern route through the Cilician Gates was identified. This first route follows the commonly traveled route through the Taurus Mountains that is well documented from the earliest history of the region. The second route traveled south towards the coast between the Goksu valley and Cilician Plain.

The identification of routes have important implications for understanding the 123

t N

••-. •: i •?."' •"& •.:

••>• •- • li

• *

A k'iiilerrancan Sea

\ ^vzt-z-s- .y '

Site Names 1. Attepe 12. Silifke 2. Beytepe 13. Tarsus 3. £6mlekTepesi 14. Tekirkoy 4. Eminler 15. Tilan 5. Goltepe 16. Uchiiytik North 6. Imamoglu 17. VelicanTepe 7. Kilise Tepe 18. Viransehir/ Soli 8. Kiran Kayasi 19. Yalakozu 9. Mersin / Yumuktepe 20. Yahhiiyuk 10. Molla Ahmet 21. Zencirli 11. Sakce Gozii 22. Zoldura Figure 5.1 Select sites mentioned in text direction of trade. As Seton-Williams observed in her 1950s survey of the Cilician Plain, contact had been established with the Anti-Taurus regions and with the site of Sakce

Gozii specifically. As a continual source of north Mesopotamian influence, contact with

Sakce Gozii was likely channeled to the Central Plateau via the Cilician Gates. The single

Halafian sherd at Can Hasan, while provocative in terms of its implications, attests to 124

(limited) contact between the distant regions. Even earlier to this, the presence of Dark

Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) on the Central Plateau in the Late Neolithic points to a long term trade pattern that was likely established around that time. The movement of people, goods, and style over such a wide area can be parsimoniously explained as following this route through the Taurus Mountains from its inception.

While one pathway replicated this well known and traveled route, the other charted a course through an especially arid part of the Taurus Mountain range. It must be stated openly that no archaeological work has been conducted in the area between Mersin and Silifke. However, a number of historical settlements are located in this area; researchers have generally avoided it for the more established regions that it divides. The exception to this general trend being the classical settlements of Dagpazan and Olba, which are located roughly in the vicinity of this route. One explanation for why this area has been avoided concerns the critical lack of important resources, specifically abundant water supply. In this case, settlement was perhaps avoided entirely in areas that could not support settlement. As has been observed for Rough Cilicia in general, "the human exploitation of this landscape is intimately related to the hydrology" (Baker et al. 1995:

139). The aridity of the second route certainly deterred settlement, and would have made travel along it less desirable. This leaves open the possibility that the Goksu valley, while less ideal in terms of slope and "effort", may have presented itself as a possible route due to the availability of this key resource. Furthermore, Least Cost Analyses must consider ecological variables in future modeling, especially that of water availability. As in the example of Field et al. (2007), these will require greater attention to factors other than slope. It is one thing to simulate an idealized pathway, but another to walk it with parched 125

throat.

A number of additional comments can be made concerning the GIS modeling

itself. First, there was no variation in the shape of the route over many of the trials. This was especially seen in the examples of Can Hasan and Catahoyuk. There did not appear

to be any change in the way in the pathway, despite the exponential increase in the variables when generating the cost surface. This presents a number of significant problems. First, they were thought to be the more important factors in the calculation of effort costs in the r. walk map; the manipulation of variables B and D did not produce an

expected variety of pathways. Even exponential increases did not significantly alter routes, and in one case, it was only the fourth trial that produced changes. This would indicate that the manipulation of the r.walkvariables did not have an affect on the some of the outputs. While ostensibly the most important as they are the values for incline (B) and steep decline (D) effort costs, the selected variables may not be as important in terms of the overall cost equation. Further experimentation may be needed to ascertain which variables, if any, critically affect total effort costs.

The Cilician Gates once again figured highly when looking at paths through the

Networks. This was done using cumulative Least Cost paths that were then translated into

Graph Theory and analyzed in Pajek. Seen in the Late Chalcolithic, a pattern connecting sites near the Cilician Gates on the Central Plateau with those on the Cilician Plain emerges. During this period, Beytepe and Tarsus form this chain. In the EBA I-II, a similar geographic pattern is observed, even if the actors have changed. Proceeding from imamoglu on the Cilician Plain, the path connects to Goltepe, Yahhuyiik, and Zoldura before reaching the end point. Lastly, the sites of Zencirli and Mersin figure prominently 126 in the majority of the shortest paths identified in the EBA III. While the individual nodes are of lesser importance, the overall effect underscores the importance of this link between the Cilician Plain and the Central Plateau via the Cilician Gates. This pattern further suggests that sites located on either side of the Cilician Gates formed an important means of accessing and connecting the two regions. Only in the EBA III do sites in the

Goksu valley figure at all in these determinations, forming a unique and exclusive alternative to this dominant model. This highlights the increased prominence of these sites, as they can be seen as forming a path of lesser, but still possible, usage.

With the deletion of the highly unlikely route predicted along the coast, the only viable route remains the one through the Cilician Gates. Significantly, this route confirms an older view concerning this mountain pass. While far less numerous and vocal, scholars arguing against the "primacy" of the Goksu valley have been primarily confined to the field of Roman history (e.g., Elton 2004b; Mitford 1980). Archaeologists should heed their reasons. These include the reality that only under Roman Imperial control did the

Goksu valley truly "flower", that is, witness its most dense occupation. This was feasible because of the extensive and efficient administrative apparatus and feats of engineering of the Roman Imperial system, one that facilitated the colonization of even the most uncongenial Mediterranean landscape. T. B. Mitford (1980) has summarily advanced the most devastating denial of the importance of the Goksu valley in the following extended commentary, which serves to deflate much of the present confidence concerning the role of the valley:

It was never a coveted land; it was avoided by all through traffic; it possessed no adequate system of internal communication before Hadrian's roads of coast and hinterland. Until ten years ago there was no winter 127

traffic by land between Gazipasa (Selinus) and Silifke (Seleucia); Ermenek (Germanicopolis) was cut off from Karaman (Laranda) and Mut (Claudiopolis) by snow. But in the last decade Tracheia has been abruptly opened up by a net-work of new roads, the work of the Turkish Forestry and Road Service. Recent archaeological exploration, extending from the sea into the Taurus and beyond has profited by these easier conditions and recorded much before it could be destroyed or removed (Mitford 1980: 1252-1253, emphasis added).

Several points can be taken from this, other than the direct refutation of the valley's importance. First, the Romans did not immediately "open up" the Goksu valley, waiting some 200 hundred years after taking control. The implication is that development was not a high priority for numerous factors, one being the valley's relative isolation. Mitford attributes this to the marginal quality of settlements within the valley, with few means of effective communicating between them, let alone to more prominent cities on the Central

Plateau and on the coast. This relative inaccessibility was exploited during the Roman period by unsavory elements, where the terms "Cilices and Isauri became synonymous with brigands and thieves" (Lenski 2001: 417). More importantly, the effect of modern development in the valley has been unacknowledged and underappreciated in the archaeological surveys used in this thesis. As previously stated, the accounts of nineteenth century travelers made use of the Cilician Gates due to these very same constraints outlined by Miford. Moreover, Mitford makes plain that the production of knowledge about the valley's history was a direct product of the Turkish government's investment in infrastructure that made travel easier for vehicular traffic. This handily explains the repeated reference to "ease" by many archaeologists working in the valley, who are seemingly unaware of this recent transformation. Related to this, one must also think of the volume of prehistoric traffic through the valley. With so few settlements, one must consider whether modern levels of tourists and travelers to the coast that now make 128

their way to the southern coast every summer comparable to the regular traffic of

inhabitants of prehistoric villages or small settlements in the valley? This, among so

many other factors, argues against the idea of heavy prehistoric use. The growth in our

understanding of prehistoric settlement in the valley was facilitated by this activity, with

the corollary assumption of similar access and activity in the past.

5.2 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS: NETWORK MEASURES

The data obtained from the two important Network measures of Centrality

demonstrate shifting control and settlement foci through time. Given that our knowledge

of settlement in south-central Anatolia is still based on an incomplete data set, it would be

a mistake to use these results in an attempt to pinpoint exact locations of important sites

or nodes. Rather, the clustering of nodes within a specific area offers a regional picture - no local or site-specific interpretations can be offered given the blunt instrument used.

However, there are a number of statements that can be made using this data that directly

addresses the research questions pursued in this thesis.

From the few sites whose occupation spans the three periods, a few interesting

trends can be noted (Table 5.1). There are few sites in the Goksu valley during the Late

Chalcolithic, and these do not figure prominently in terms of this network's overall flow

or interaction. In terms of Betweenness Centrality, there is a general decline in the ability

of individual nodes to control flow between the Late Chalcolithic and EBAI-II networks.

This is expected with the dramatic increase in the number of sites. High ranking EBA I-II

sites are located near the Cilician Gates, and include Goltepe, Imamoglu, Tilan,

Yalakozu, and Zencirli. In line with results from the Network paths, these sites were

important for their ability to control trade and communication between sites on the 129

Table 5.1 Comparative rankings of selected sites Centrality (z-scores) Site Betweenness Closeness LC EBAI-II EBA III LC EBA I-II EBA I] Attepe /Artepe - -0.6 0.66 - -0.49 0.15 Cingantepe - -0.38 -0.57 - -0.3 -0.71 Comlek Tepesi - 0.52 1.62 - 0.74 1.96 Eminler - -0.01 -0.13 - 1.2 1.22 Karahoyiik (Konya) 0.25 -0.21 -0.70 1.4 0.7 -0.26 Karahoyiik Akviran - -0.63 -0.76 - 1.36 -0.13 Kilise Tepe / Maltepe -0.11 -0.6 0.17 -0.38 -1.22 -1.09 Kiran Kayasi -0.55 -0.03 0.38 0.00 0.48 0.82 Mersin -0.09 -0.77 0.30 0.03 -1.32 -1.17 Orta Karaviran North - 1.58 -0.77 - 1.55 -0.26 Seydihan -0.45 -0.3 -0.63 1.11 0.15 0.00 Sizma - -0.74 -0.27 - -0.47 1.01 Tarsus -0.30 0.32 -0.31 0.89 0.81 -0.13 Tekirkoy -0.36 -0.55 -0.41 -0.-88 -0.93 -1.66 Uchiiyiik North - 0.47 -0.43 - 1 0.82 Viransehir / Soli -0.31 -0.67 -0.36 -0.74 -0.56 -1.84 Zencirli / Sincirili - 1.05 3.59 - 1.31 1.69

Central Plateau and Cilician Plain during the EBA I-II. In many senses, these sites conform to Hirth's (1978) discussion of the role of "gateway communities". Their development is likely tied to "increased trade or to the settling or sparsely populated frontier areas" (Hirth 1978: 37). This certainly explains the position of sites like Goltepe that was a major player in the burgeoning metal trade in the EBA. Likewise, Tarsus was able to function as a meeting point between Anatolian and eastern influence. Due to environmental constraints, settlement in the pass was avoided, so Mersin, Tarsus and other Cilician sites were able to control access to sites on the Central Plateau by occupying positions immediately south of the pass itself. Sites on either side of the pass functioned also as frontier settlements, extended as far as tolerable conditions would allow to maintain trade. 130

When applied to the Goksu valley, settlements function in this way only in later periods. During the EBA III, the ability of sites in the Goksu valley to control network flow increases concomitant with decreases elsewhere. This reversal is not seen at the site of Zencirii, whose Betweenness Centrality score increases from the EBA I-II to the EBA

III. This result points to the persistently important role of the Cilician Gates. In the EBA

III, the Goksu valley emerged from relative obscurity to play a major part in the network.

However, the overall standing of vertices in the Goksu valley increases steadily. Attepe,

Comlek Tepesi, Kilise Tepe, Kiran Kayasi all increase in Betweenness Centrality rankings through time, reaching their greatest control within the networks during the

EBA III. However, Cingantepe decreases in both Centrality measures. This is explainable because of its proximity to Attepe and Kilise Tepe; as those increase, Cingantepe understandably decreases in relation to them.

Despite this increase, the Cilician Gates remained a favoured means of travel between the two regions. This is seen in high ranking sites located near it in two key

Centrality measures, namely Betweenness and Closeness. The site of Zencirii is ranked first in Betweenness Centrality, or the network measure that scores the ability of nodes to control movement through the network. However, four out of the top six ranked sites are found in or around the Goksu valley, with Mersin-Yumuktepe being fifth. In terms of settlement structure, sites in the Goksu valley are now able to control more effectively the flow of communication, goods, and people through the network. A significantly different picture emerges from the Closeness Centrality rankings. While the settlement of Comlek

Tepesi is ranked first out of the 20 vertices in the network, the majority of the high ranking vertices are located on the Central Plateau. Moreover, with the exception of 131

Zencirli, all of these are found on the Konya Plain. When put in this perspective, it

becomes apparent that the Central Plateau continues to play a dominant role as the

network "center" even into the EBA III. This scenario belies its dramatic depopulation.

Sites located on the Cilician Plain and especially on the coast have lower

Closeness Centrality scores in the EBA III, suggesting that they are located away from

the Network center. This result is surprising when contrasted with the assumed

importance of Tarsus at the time. Archaeologists have long argued that Tarsus was an

extremely prominent site at the time. Generally, this has not been supported by the

results. During the Late Chalcolithic, Tarsus does not figure prominently. Likewise, it

was not an important vertex during the EBA I-II. In the EBA III, Tarsus was ranked ninth

in both Betweenness and Closeness Centrality. This scoring suggests that Tarsus was not

as significant in the total network, but became most prominent during the EBA I-II.

Nevertheless, because of its extensive excavations, Tarsus remains a key site in

understanding the EBA II to EBA III transition in southern Anatolia.

This last issue poses several difficulties, the most obvious of which concerns the

network itself. Given that so few vertices were included in the EBA III network, one

cannot implicitly "trust" the rankings; there are simply too few sites. Furthermore, there

is a serious problem with the apparent over-representation of sites in the Goksu valley

during the EBA III. While the number of settlements in the valley must be accepted -

they quite simply "exist" - one cannot help but ask why so few sites have been found

elsewhere. The explanations for this situation, as proposed by Mellaart, may be correct.

The greatly reduced number of settlements on the Central Plateau may have been the

result of a massive wave of raiders from the Pontic steppe. If so, what cultural process 132 can be invoked to explain the equally low numbers of EBA III sites on the Cilican

Plain? This is especially curious when one posits increased trade with northwestern

Anatolia, which would presumably have led to increased population densities along the south coast, and consequently more settlements. Once the commonly cited rationalizations to resolve this problem are fully expressed, the root cause becomes apparent: for whatever reason, archaeological survey has been unable to identify this period. Mellaart recorded some 130 EBA I-II sites on the Central Plateau, but was only able to assign eight to the EBA III with any certainty. Granted, numerous sites were probably abandoned (or other similar cultural processes may have occurred), but this dramatic decrease cannot be blamed solely on Mellaart's mythical hoard. The paucity of EBA III settlement is more likely a result of our failure to detect its material signature. Similarly, there are very few non-hoyiik settlements for the Neolithic and

Chalcolithic, which makes a true settlement pattern analysis difficult.

Lesser problems also abound. While not a significant factor in previous networks, the increase in prominence of Comlek Tepesi and Kiran Kayasi in the EBA III network poses several problems. First, neither Comlek Tepesi nor Kiran Kayasi can be classified as hoyiiks. As such, their place within the structure of the settlement system of the Goksu valley and south-central Anatolia remains conjectural and uncertain. They were included for numerous reasons, including increasing the overall number of sites and incorporating new research from the GAP. Within a true settlement pattern analysis, the function of these sites would be of critical importance. However, such determinations are beyond the scope of this thesis. If these two sites were entirely removed from the EBA III network, I think the increased prominence of the Goksu valley would remain intact. Moreover, the 133 prominence of hoyiiks such as Attepe and Kilise Tepe could only increase through the elision of the two minor sites recorded by the GAP, which may have occluded ties between major settlements in the Goksu valley and adjacent regions. While these last ranked high in Betweenness Centrality, they did not figure prominently elsewhere. If

Comlek Tepesi or Kiran Kayasi were removed, more linkages would be made directly to

Attepe or Kilise Tepe, thereby increasing their Closeness Centrality score, as they would be repositioned closer to all other sites in the network.

The determination of the network "center", as seen from Closeness Centrality scores, also supports the view offered here that the Goksu valley increased in prominence only in the EBA III. Sites located at the edge of the Central Plateau and at the northern reaches of the valley increase in prominence. With the exception of Zencirli, all of the top ranked sites are located within this general area; Zencirli's high ranking points to the continued distinction of sites located near the Cilician Gates to access sites on both sides of the Taurus Mountains. This increase in Closeness scores suggests that they are located in the center of the network, as they are located in closer proximity to all other nodes.

Moreover, Closeness scores of sites on the Mediterranean coast decline, further pointing to the reality that the network center has shifted. This change has bifurcated the network center from a concentration near the Cilician Gates in previous periods, to one more concentrated near the upper Goksu valley and southern margin of the Central Plateau, and a lesser focus on the Cilician Gates in the EBA III.

Regardless of the numerous problems with the size of the network and certain vertices used, sites in the Goksu valley increased in importance in two key measures of

Network Centrality. Sites in the valley went from relatively low rankings during the Late Chalcolithic and EBA I-II to filling up the top ranks in the EBA III. However,

increases in Network Centrality rankings do not sufficiently explain why settlements

in the Goksu valley increased in prominence. In my opinion, the answer is quite

simple. The Goksu valley became prominent in terms of connecting adjacent regions

and controlling the flow of communication and goods during the EBA III precisely because of its obscurity in previous periods. The relative isolation of sites in the Goksu

valley in the Late Chalcolithic and EBA I-II shielded them, by and large, from the

massive wave of destruction envisioned by Mellaart. Even if some other process is

imagined like economic collapse, the Goksu valley was too marginal to have been

devastated; the effects were felt, but its relative distance from the network center

allowed it to recover more quickly. Looking to their overall position within the EBA I-

II networks, sites in the Goksu valley ranked very low, indicating that they were not

critical in the maintenance of connectivity or the control of movement and

communication. If Mellaart's preferred antagonists caused abandonment or destruction of sites on the Central Plateau, they would certainly have sought out important or

easily accessed targets. These would not have included sites in the valley. A general

decline in the total number of settlements is seen in the EBA III, including the lack of

settlement at Mut Kale and Silifke; this is more likely a lack of evidence. However, a

cluster of sites in the heart of the valley continue to be occupied, especially Attepe,

Cingantepe, and Kilise Tepe. Combined with the evidence for continued use of the

sites of Comlek Tepesi and Kiran Kayasi, a picture of reduced, but still vibrant

settlement can be seen. Regardless of the actual mechanism, the few sites that do remain in the valley increase in prominence in the following period because of the 135 removal of a large number of vertices elsewhere in the network.

Given the overall prominence of most of the Goksu valley sites in terms of

Betweenness Centrality scores, the latter seems to be an especially important measure.

This feature suggests that during the EBA III, sites in the Goksu valley became an ideal series of connections between the Central Plateau and the Cilician Plain and

Mediterranean coast. It should be remembered that, despite its increased importance, the

Goksu valley never became a primary or critical means of connecting the Central Plateau and the Cilician Plain. As seen from the consistent high ranking of sites located in proximity to the Cilician Gates, they were much more important to the overall flow within the network of sites and settlements, and this remained so well into historical times. Under later Hittite kings, this route along the Goksu River was incorporated into the kingdom (and city) of Tarhuntassa (see Macqueen 1986: 55; also Jasink 2001;

Symington 2001). Moreover, the king Muwatallis II (r. 1308-1285 BC) is reported to have moved his capital to Tarhuntassa when Egyptian control of Cilicia threatened the long established Hittite route through the Taurides via the Cilician Gates. While the capital would be returned to Hatussa, Tarhuntassa would remain a Hititte vassal kingdom that "survived independently after the destruction of Hattusa and the extirpation of its royal house in 1190 BC" (Postgate 1998: 137). However, the kingdom of Tarhuntassa was less critical compared to its neighbour, the kingdom of Kizzuwadna. This kingdom, which constantly vacillated between Hittite and Mitanni rule, was important to the

Hittites precisely because it controlled the Cilician Gates. In Late Roman times, the

Sassanid Persians did not penetrate into the interior of the Goksu valley during raids in the AD 260s, despite harassing coastal cities, largely because of conditions similar to 136

Thermopylae (see Elton 2004b).

5.3. CHAPTER SUMMARY

In sum, the results obtained from complementary analyses indicate that the original assumption grappled with in this thesis, namely that the Goksu valley formed a major route connecting the Central Plateau with the Mediterranean Coast and the Cilician

Plain, is not well supported. As repeatedly detailed, the majority archaeological opinion views the Goksu valley as being an important corridor linking the Central Plateau to the coast and the Cilician Plain. I have argued that this is not demonstrated from the evidence obtained from the two analyses used to examine these geographic and archaeological relationships. Rather, the importance of sites in the valley and its use as a route increase over time, largely as a result of events occurring elsewhere. Based on the results presented in this thesis, predicted routes through the Taurus Mountains do not favour the

Goksu valley. Data from two complementary sources indicate that the Cilician Gates was the preferred means of travel between the Cilician Plain and the Central Plateau. This is not a 'ground-breaking' assertion. However, it is at odds with the recent consensus among researchers working in Cilicia and the Goksu valley that this was a major corridor connecting the Plateau and Cilicia. Instead, the results of this analysis have lent support to the older view, namely that the Goksu valley was largely peripheral to major cultural centers on the Central Plateau and on the Cilician Plain. 137

CHAPTER SIX

Concluding Remarks

Reflecting back on the previous five chapters, major themes emerge from the methodological program and theoretical perspective adopted in this thesis. First, the importance of the interrelationships between settlements in south-central Anatolia takes primacy. As shown, the shifting fortunes of sites in the Goksu valley was based on the overall changes and historical developments that shaped the much larger adjacent regions of the Central Plateau and the Cilican Plain. Alteration of the economic and political configuration over time led to the eventual increase in importance of settlements in the valley by the EBA III period. However, this result cannot be understood outside of the total structural change occurring at the time. In many important ways, the rehearsal of the fieldwork of Mellaart and French in Chapter One set up discussions in later chapters of how people and groups maintained ties through the Taurus Mountains. Chapter Two was a summation of the archaeological background of the area studied in this thesis, which was heavily influenced by the work of these archaeologists. Through their important contribution to the archeology of prehistoric Anatolia, they each helped frame the question of the structure and role of settlement in south-central Anatolia during this time.

In the scenario they offer, sites on the Cilician Plain and those on the Central Plateau are connected through routes through the Goksu valley. These routes are imagined to tie important Cilician sites like Tarsus and Mersin to counterparts on the Plateau like Can

Hasan and Catalhoyiik. These ties are based on similarities in material culture observed through their survey programs that encompassed the entirety of south-central Anatolia.

Their research sought to understand how these relationships were created and maintained. 138

Literally, routes become the foundations of social structure, connecting disparate communities through the formidable Taurus chain.

This also points to a subsequent theme, namely the importance of "structure". By investigating the settlement patterning of south-central Anatolia, I have aligned this study with the much larger discourse of Landscape Archaeology, noting the multifarious approaches and perspectives that this designation maintains in order to understand the ways in which people have organized their settlements and activity through time. From the earliest forays into "regional analysis" as advocated by Willey (1953) and Binford

(1964), among many others, archaeologists have sought to expand their vision of the past by adopting-as wide a perspective as possible in the geographic sense. Understandably, this shift resulted in the further development of techniques and methods to accommodate the competing interests of time and resources. With this refinement, a progressive change in understanding emerged. Current archaeological survey theory and method does not view landscape as a series of discrete and punctuated habitations, but a continuous surface upon which people have felt the material remains of their presence. However, this newer view does not militate against the need to understand the structure of human settlement, especially how these were organized and arranged to meet the needs of the people who populated them.

Furthermore, the primary means of conducting the analysis for this thesis, with the aide of the Social Network Analysis program known as Pajek, was chiefly concerned with social structure. Through the creation of networks, and their translation into Graph

Theory, Network Analysts examine the series of interactions between vertices that make up the much larger whole of the network. Like Structural-Functionalist Radcliffe-Brown, 139

Network analysis looks to the much larger scale of interactions, where the "emphasis on society over the individual" (Barnard 2000: 71) results in a totalizing vision, unencumbered with an obsession with the microscopic. This large scale approach, equally criticized for failing to identify the individual, is also at play in the work of the

French Annalesschool of historians, especially the work of Braudel. These too were criticized for emphasizing the effects of ecology upon their subjects, where they argued, as Braudel did, that the physical environment placed important and undeniable conditions on human activity and behaviour.

In many ways, where the Structural-Functionalists emphasized the synchronic and comparative elements of culture,.the Annates historians sought to document diachronic changes in economic and political ties at the macroscopic level. These are complementary visions, nicely supplementing the failings in the other. The creation of

Networks according to three major chronological divisions sought to understand the cycle of trade and movement in south-central Anatolia. The results from the "ego-centered"

Centrality measures demonstrate that it was only in the EBA III that the Goksu valley rose to prominence, after massive depopulation and settlement abandonment had disposed of major settlements on the Central Plateau and Cilician Plain. The measures point to the rising fortunes of sites in the valley, increasing in their ability to control network flow and becoming positioned more centrally. An explanation for this looks to the relative isolation of sites in the valley, which could have been largely spared from the marauding horde envisioned by some that caused the decline of EBA I-II settlement in the area. In this sense, while sites in the valley were integrated with those on either side of the Taurus Mountains, they became more so when they were required to maintain the connectivity of the network itself. While certainly not a true "cutpoint" or "cutset", these sites helped the greatly reduced network maintain a higher level of integration otherwise.

Moving onto larger questions, each type of analysis has their respective benefits and value. As seen from the results of the Least Cost Analysis, the prediction of routes aids us in understanding how ancient peoples may have used their landscapes.

Fortuitously, one pathway generated using the GIS function identified a route that was heavily used in antiquity; the second was largely discounted because of unfavorable conditions. This points to the ability of this function to reliably predict routes. However, the manipulation of variables controlling incline and steep decline (variables B and D) did not produce the expected results of pathway variability. This suggests that individual variables, even those that assumedly are the most important in allocating cost to raster cells, do not greatly affect the outcome. On the whole, this experiment reaffirms the validity and reliability of the default settings. Related to this, the cumulative pathways largely conform to this general pattern, although routes were identified going through the

Goksu valley because of settlement there.

Likewise, the Network Analysis was successful to a point. This was a product of the limitations of the data used. Despite this, the results that were obtained were valuable in so far as they allowed for an understanding of prehistoric interaction that transcends

'familiarity'. Rothman (1987) encountered a similar assumption, and used Network

Analysis to "objectify" the results of the regional survey data he used. The value of

Network analysis lies in its ability to quantify and test assumed relationships and interaction between actors. In this sense, graphing the results of these archaeological surveys has been a useful contribution to our understanding of the past. Regardless of the 141 problems with creating the networks, the intrinsic value of hypothesis testing is of worth in helping to rethink and reevaluate how we view connections in south-central Anatolia.

Consonantly, a number of issues would have to be addressed in future modeling.

There are a number of readily available options to expand or change what has been presented here. Future elaborations could make use of the accumulated cost values calculated when Using tllC r.drain module. Values obtained for pathways from each site to all others in the three networks could then be used to create a Valued digraph. This alteration would generate two different and asymmetrical values for connections between nodes. As previously mentioned, a Valued digraph factors in the intensity of interaction between vertices. In this case, values assigned to each arc would be-the calculated cost values generated by the GIS module. Conversely, pathways would have to be individually written, greatly increasing the amount of scripting and computing time required. Another modification could be the inclusion of more recent surveys other than the GAP to increase the total number of sites in the networks (i.e., Steadman 1994).

Although I have relied exclusively on the reports of French, Mellaart, and Seton-

Willaims, these remain the most comprehensive and important field projects in the region.

In sum, this thesis has explored spatial and social relationships in south-central

Anatolia in late prehistory. Through the application of Least Cost and Social Network

Analyses, I have confirmed the older view concerning routes through the Taurus

Mountains based on these results. The results do not support the more recent and commonly held opinion of the importance of the Goksu valley, and its role in prehistoric trade. Through the chronologically bounded networks created here, I have been able to identify when the Goksu valley did become more important. This occurred in the EBA

III, with the dramatic decrease in known settlement in south-central Anatolia, and particularly on the Central Plateau. This situation produced further questions concerning whether archaeological data are adequate to form theories of settlement in this region.

Furthermore, this general question could be expanded to encompass earlier periods, highlighting the fragmentary nature of our current knowledge. This situation underscores the continued need to approach this critical region in Anatolia within a systemic and structural approach. 143

WORKS CITED

Adams, W. Y. and E. W. Adams 1991 Archaeological typology and practical reality: a dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and G. M. Schwartz 2003 The Archaeology of Syria: from complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies (ca. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Alcock, S. E. 1993 Graecia Capta: the landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Alcock, S. E. and J. F. Cherry (editors) 2004 Side-by-Side Survey: comparative regional studies in the Mediterranean world. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Alcock, S., J. F. Cherry, and J. L. Davis 1994 Intensive survey, agricultural practice and the classical landscape of Greece. In Classical Greece: Ancient histories and modern archaeologies, edited by I. Morris, pp. 137-170. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Allen, K. M. S., S. W. Green, E. B. W. Zubrow (eds.) 1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, London and New York.

Ammerman, A. J. 1981 Surveys and Archaeological Research. Annual Review of Anthropology 10: 63-88.

Anderson, P. C, J. Chabot, and A. van Gijn 2004 The Functional Riddle of 'Glossy' Canaanean Blades and the Near Eastern Threshing Sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17 (1): 87-130.

Arbuckle, B. C. 2008 Revisiting Neolithic Caprine Exploitation at Suberde, Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology 33 (2): 219-236.

Ashmore, W. and B. Knapp (editors) 1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell, London.

Asouti, E., and A. Fairbairn 2002 Subsistence economy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic. In The 144

Neolithic of Central Anatolia: internal developments and external relations during the 9th -6th millennia cal. BC, edited by F. Gerard and L. Thissen, pp. 181-192. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Atalay, I. 1998 Paleoenvironmental conditions of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Anatolia, Turkey. In Quaternary Deserts & Climatic Change: Proceedings of an International conference on Quaternary Deserts and Climatic Change at Al Ain, UAE, December 9-11, 1995, edited by A. S. Alsharhan, K. W. Glennie, G. L. Whittle, and C. G. St. C. Kendall, pp. 229-238. Taylor and Francis, London.

Baird, D. 2002 Early Holocene settlement in Central Anatolia: problems and prospects as seen from the Konya Plain. In The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: internal developments and external relations during the 9th -6th millennia cal. BC, edited by F. Gerard and L. Thissen, pp. 139-152. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.

2005 The History of Settlement and Social Landscapes in the Early Holocene in the Catalhoyuk Area. In Catalhoyuk perspectives: reports from the 1995- 99 seasons, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 55-74. Catalhoyuk Research Project, volume 6. BIAA Monograph, no. 40. British Institute at Ankara, Ankara, Turkey, and McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Cambridge.

Baker, H. D., D. Collon, J. D. Hawkins, T. Pollard, J. N. Postgate, D. Symington, D. Thomas 1995 Kilise Tepe 1994. Anatolian Studies 45:139-191.

Balossi-Restelli, F. 2004 New date for the definition of the DFBW Horizon and its internal developments: the earliest phases of the Amuq sequence revisited. Anatolica 30: 109-149. 2006 The Development of "Cultural Regions " in the Neolithic of the Near East: the "Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon ". BAR International Series 1482. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Banning, E. B. 1998 The Neolithic Period: triumphs of architecture, agriculture, and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (4): 188-237. 2002 Archaeological Survey. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Barker, G. 1991 Approaches to survey. In Roman Landscapes: archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region, edited by G. Barker and J. A. Lloyd, pp. 1-9. British School at Rome Archaeological Monographs 2. British School at 145

Rome, London. 1995 A Mediterranean Valley: landscape archaeology and Annates history in the Biferno Valley. Leicester University Press, London and New York. 1996 Regional archaeological projects: trends and traditions in Mediterranean Europe. Archaeological Dialogues 3 (2): 160-175.

Barnard, A. 2000 History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen 2000 Early Sedentism in the Near East: a bumpy ride to village life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt, pp. 19-37. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

Bar-Yosef, O. and R. Meadow 1995 The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. In Last Hunters-First Farmers: new perspectives on the prehistoric transition to Agriculture, edited by T. Douglas Price and Anne Brigitte Gebauer, pp. 39-94. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Bell, T. and G. Lock 2000 Topographic and cultural influences on walking the Ridgeway in later prehistoric times. In Beyond the Map: archaeology and spatial technologies, edited by Gary Lock, pp. 85-100. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Bell, T., A. Wilson, and A. Wickham 2002 Tracking the Samnites: landscape and communication routes in the Sangro Valley Italy. American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2): 169-186.

Bevan, A. and J. Conolly 2004 GIS, Archaeological Survey, and Landscape Archaeology on the Island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29: 123-138.

Billman, B. R. and G. M. Feinman (editors) 1999 Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Viru. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. and London.

Binford, L. 1964 A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29: 425-441. Binthff, J. 1991 The contribution of the Annaliste/structural history approach to archaeology. In The Annates School and Archaeology, edited by J. Bintliff, pp. 1-33. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

Bintliff, J. (editor) 1991 The Annales School and Archaeology. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

Bintliff, J. and A. Snodgrass 1988 Off-Site Pottery Distributions: a regional and interregional perspective. Current Anthropology 29 (3): 506-513.

Blanton, R. E. 2000 Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Settlement Patterns of the Coast Lands of Western Rough Cilicia. BAR International Series 879. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2004 Settlement Pattern and Population Change in Mesoamerican and Mediterranean Civilizations: a comparative perspective. In Side-by-Side Survey: comparative regional studies in the Mediterranean world, edited by S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry, pp. 206-240. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bottema, S. and H. Woldring 1984 Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate of Southwestern Turkey, Part II. Palaeohistoria 26: 123-149.

Bowket, L., S. Hill, D. Wardle, and K. A. Wardle 2001 Classical Archaeology in the Field: approaches. Bristol Classical Press, London.

Braidwood, R. J. and L. S. Braidwood 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: the earlier assemblages, phases A-J. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, volume 61. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Braudel, F 1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (volume one). Harper & Row, San Francisco. 1973 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (volume two). Harper & Row, San Francisco.

Breniquet, C. 1995 La stratigraphie des niveaux prehistoriques de Mersin et L'evolution culturelle en Cilicie. Anatolia Antiqua 3: 1-31. Broodbank, C. 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brundage, J. A. 1962 The Crusades: a documentary survey. Marquette University Press, Milwaukee.

Buitenhuis, H. 1997 A§ikh Hoyiik: a protodomestication site. Anthropozoologica 25-26: 655- 662 2004 Yumuktepe: the importance of Yumuktepe in the origin and spread of animal domestication. In Mersin-Yumuktepe: a reappraisal, edited by I. Caneva and V. Sevin, pp. 163-168. Congedo Editore, Galatino, Italy.

Buitenhuis, H. and I. Caneva 1998 Early Animal Breeding in South-Eastern Anatolia: Mersin-Yumuktepe. In Man and the Animal World: studies in archaeozoology, archaeology, anthropology andpalaeolinguistics in memoriam Sdndor Bokonyi, edited by P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem, and W. Meid, pp. 122-130. Archaeolingua, Budapest.

Burke, P. 1990 The French Historical Revolution: the Annales school 1929-89. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Butzer, K. W. 1996 Ecology in the Long View: settlement histories, agrosystemic strategies, and ecological performance. Journal of Field Archaeology 23 (2): 141- 150.

Caneva, I. 1999 Early Farmers on the Cilician Coast: Yumuktepe in the seventh millennium BC. In Neolithic in Turkey, Cradle of Civilization: new discoveries, edited by M. Ozdogan and N. Basgelen, pp. 105-114. 2000 Early Metal Production in Cilicia: A View from Mersin-Yumuktepe. In Anatolian Metal I, edited by U. Yalcin, pp. 69-74. Zeitschrift fur Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau, beiheft 13. Der Anschnitt, Bochum, Germany. 2002 Ethnicity as a form of social relationship between Neolithic Cilicia and Central Anatolia. In The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: internal developments and external relations during the 9th -6th millennia cal. BC, edited by F. Gerard and L. Thissen, pp.119-128. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul. 2004 The Citadel Tradition (5000-4200 BC). In Mersin-Yumuktepe: a reappraisal, edited by I. Caneva and V. Sevin, pp. 57-72. Congedo Editore, Galatino, Italy. Caneva, I. and V. Sevin (editors) 2004 Mersin-Yumuktepe: a reappraisal. Congedo Editore, Galatino, Italy.

Carrington, P. J., J. Scott, and S. Wasserman (eds.) 2005 Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Carruthers, D. B. 2005 Hunting and Herding in Central Anatolian Prehistory: the sites at Pinarbasi. In Archaeozoology of the Near East: proceedings of the sixth international symposium on the archaeozoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas, edited by H. Buitenhuis, A. M. Choyke, L. Martin, L. Bartosiewicz, and M. Mashkour, pp. 85-95. ARC-Publicaties, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Carter, T., G. Poupeau, C. Bressy, and N. J. G. Pearce 2006 A new program of obsidian characterization at Catalhoyiik, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 893-909.

Cessford, C. 2001 A new dating sequence for Catalhoyiik. Antiquity 75: 217-275. 2005a Absolute Dating at Catalhoyiik. In Changing materialities at Catalhoyiik: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons, edited by I. Hodder, pp 65-99. Catalhoyiik Research Project, volume 5. BIAA Monograph, no. 39. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara. 2005b Estimating the Neolithic population of Catalhoyiik. In Excavating Catalhoyiik; south, north, KOPAL area reports from the 1995-1999 seasons. Catalhoyiik Research Project, volume 3. BIAA Monograph, no. 37. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara.

Cessford, C. and T. Carter 2005 Quantifying the Consumption of Obsidian at Neolithic Catalhoyiik, Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology 30 (3): 305-315.

Cevik, O. 2007 The emergence of different social systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: urbanization versus centralization. Anatolian Studies 57: 131-140.

Chang, K. C. 1967 Rethinking Archaeology. Random House, New York. Chang, K. C. (editor) 1968 Settlement Archaeology. National Press Books, Palo Alto, CA.

Cherry, J. F. 1983 Frogs Round the Pond: perspectives on current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean region. In Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, edited by D. R. Keller and D. W. Rup, pp. 375-416. BAR International series 155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2003 Archaeology Beyond the Site: regional survey and its future. In Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives, edited by J. K. Papadopoulos and R. M. Leventhal, pp. 137- 159. Costen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California.

Cohen, H. R. 1970 The Palaeoecology of South Central Anatolia at the End of the Pleistocene and the Beginning of the Holocene. Anatolian Studies 20: 119-137.

Conolly, J. 1999 Technical strategies and technical change at Neolithic Catalhoytik, Turkey. Antiquity 73: 791-800.

Conolly, J. and M. Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crumley, C. L. and W. H. Marquardt 1990 Landscape: A Unifying Concept in Regional Analysis. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M.S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B.W. Zubrow, pp. 73-79. Taylor and Francis, London.

Davis, J. L. 1982 Thoughts on Prehistoric and Archaic Delos. Temple University Aegean Symposium 7: 23-33.

De Jesus, P. S. 1980 The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia. BAR International Series 74. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. de Nooy, W., A. Mrvar, and V. Bategelj 2005 Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dewdney, J. C. 1971 Turkey: an introductory geography. Praeger, New York. 150

Drennan, Robert D. 1996 Statistics for Archaeologists: a commonsense approach. Springer, New York.

Dunnell, R. C. 1985 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 19401947: a landmark study in American Archaeology. American Antiquity 50 (2): 297-300. du Plat Taylor, J., M. V. Seton-Williams, and J. Waechter 1950 The Excavations at Sakce Gozii. Iraq 12 (2): 53-138.

Duru, R. 1999 The Neolithic of The Lake District. In Neolithic in Turkey, Cradle of Civilization: new discoveries, edited by Mahmet Ozdogan and Nezih Basgelen, pp. 165-191. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaymlari, Istanbul.

Dyson, S. L. 1982 Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Basin: a review of recent research. American Antiquity 47 (1): 87-98.

Earl, B. and H. Ozbal 1996 Early Bronze Age tin processing at Kestel/Goltepe, Anatolia. Archeometry 38 (2): 289-303.

Easton, D. F. 1976 Towards a Chronology for the Anatolian Early Bronze Age. Anatolian Studies 26: 145-173.

Eastwood, W. J., N. Roberts, and H. F. Lamb 1998 Paleoecological and Archaeological Evidence for Human Occupation in Southwest Turkey the Bey§ehir Occupation Phase. Anatolian Studies 48: 69-86.

Ebert, D. 2004 Applications of Archaeological GIS. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28: 319-341.

Elton, Hugh 2002 Goksu Archaeological Project. Anatolian Archaeology 8: 24. 2003 Goksu Archaeological Project. Anatolian Archaeology 9: 28-30. 2004a Goksu Archaeological Project. Anatolian Archaeology 10: 26-28. 2004b Cilicia, Geography, and the Late Roman Empire. In Travel, Communication and Geography in Late Antiquity: sacred and profane, edited by L. Ellis and F. L. Kidner, pp. 5-11. Ashgate, Aldershot and Burlington, United Kingdom. 151

2005a Goksu Archaeological Project 2005. Anatolian Archaeology 11: 16-18. 2005b Goksu Archaeological Project 2002-2004. Arastirma Sonuqlari Toplantisi 23:331-342. 2006 Goksu Archaeological Project 2006. Anatolian Archaeology 12: 19-21. 2007 Goksu Archaeological Project 2005-2006. Arastirma Sonuqlari Toplantisi 25: 237-250.

Elton, H., M. Jackson, G. Mietke, J.M.L. Newhard, L. Ozgenel, and E. Twigger 2006 Recent Work at Alahan, Turkey. Journal of Roman Archaeology 19: 300- 311. Erarslan, A. 2006 Local Steps towards Urbanism in Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia (3900-2600 BC). Anatolica 32: 55-70.

Erinc, S. 1978 Changes in the Physical Environment in Turkey since the end of the Last Glacial. In The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East Since the Ice Age, edited by W. C. Brice, pp. 87-110. Academic Press, New York.

Everett, M. and S. P. Borgatti 2005 Extending Centrality. In Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, and S. Wasserman, pp. 57-76. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fairbairn, A. 2005 A History of Agricultural Production at Neolithic Catalhoyuk East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37 (2): 197-210.

Fairbairn, A., E. Asouti, J. Near, and D. Martinoli 2002 Micro-botanical evidence for plant use at Neolithic Catalhoyuk, south- central Anatolia, Turkey. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 41- 54.

Fair, T. G., P. A. Rosen, E. Caro, R. Crippen, R. Duren, S. Hensley, M. Kobrick, M. Paller, E. Rodriguez, L. Roth, D. Seal, S. Shaffer, J. Shimada, J. Umland, M. Werner, M. Oskin, D. Burbank, and D. Alsdorf 2007 The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Reviews of Geophysics 45: RG2004, doi:1029/2005/RG000183.

Febvre, L. 1949 [1924] A Geographical Introduction to History. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Fentress, E. 2000 What are we counting for? In Extracting meaning from ploughsoil 152

assemblages, edited by R. Francovich, H. Patterson, and G. Barker, pp. 44-52. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Field, J. S., M. D. Petraglia, and M. Mirazon Lahr 2007 The southern dispersal hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: examination of dispersal routes through GIS analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 88-108.

Flannery, K. V. (editor) 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.

Fletcher, R. 1986 Settlement Archaeology: world-wide comparisons. World Archaeology 18 (1): 59-83.

Francovich, R., H. Patterson, and G. Barker (eds.) 2000 Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Freeman, L. C. 1979 Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1:215-239. 2004 The Development of Social Network Analysis: a study in the sociology of science. SP Empirical Press, Vancouver.

French, D. 1962 Excavations at Can Hasan: first preliminary report, 1961. Anatolian Studies 12: 27-40. 1963 Excavations at Can Hasan: second preliminary report, 1962. Anatolian Studies 13: 29-42. 1964 Excavations at Can Hasan: third preliminary report, 1963. Anatolian Studies 14: 125-137. 1965a Prehistoric Sites in the Goksu Valley. Anatolian Studies 15: 177-201. 1965b Excavations at Can Hasan: fourth preliminary report, 1964. Anatolian Studies 15: 87-94. 1966 Excavations at Can Hasan, 1965: fifth preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 16: 113-123. 1967 Excavations at Can Hasan, 1966: sixth preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 17: 165-178. 1968 Excavations at Can Hasan, 1967: seventh preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 18: 45-53. 1998 Canhasan Sites I: stratigraphy and structures. The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph No. 23. The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London. 2005 Canhasan Sites I: the pottery. The British Institute at Ankara, Monograph No. 32. The British Institute at Ankara, London. 153

French, D., G. C. Hillman, S. Payne, and R. J. Payne 1972 Excavations at Can Hasan III 1969-1970. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 181-190. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gale, N. H., Z. A. Stos-Gale, G. R. Gilmore 1985 Alloy Types and Copper sources of Anatolian copper alloy artifacts. Anatolian Studies 35: 143-173.

Garrard, A., J. Conolly, N. Moloney and C. Wright 1996 The early prehistory of the Sakcagozii region, North Levantine rift valley: report on the 1995 survey season. Anatolian Studies 46: 53-82.

Garstang, J. 1943 The Discoveries at Mersin and their Significance. American Journal of Archaeology 47 (1): 1-14. 1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Yumuk Tepe in southern Turkey. Oxford University Press, London.

Gates, J. E. 2006 Hidden Passages: Graeco-Roman roads in Egypt's eastern desert. In Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by E. C. Robertson, J. D. Seibert, D. C. Fernandez, and M. U. Zender, pp. 315-322. University of Calgary, Calgary, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Goldman, H. 1956 Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus (volume 2). Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Gorenflo, L. J. and T. L. Bell 1994 Network analysis and the study of past regional organization. In Ancient road networks and settlement hierarchies in the New World, edited by C. D. Trombold, pp. 80-98. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goossens, R., A. De Wulf, J. Bourgeois, W. Gheyle, and T. Willems 2006 Satellite imagery and archaeology: the examples of CORONA in the Altai Mountains. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 745-755.

Gourdin, W. H. and W. D. Kingery 1975 The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian Lime Plaster. Journal of Field Archaeology 2 (1-2): 133-150. Hage, P. 1979 Graph Theory as a Structural Model in Cultural Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 115-136. 154

Hage, Per, and Frank Harary 1983 Structural models in anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1991 Exchange in Oceania: a graph theoretical analysis. Claradon Press, Oxford. 1996 Island Networks: communication, kinship, and classification structures in Oceania. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hage, P., F. Harary, and B. James 1986 Wealth and Hierarchy in the Kula Ring. American Anthropologist 88 (1): 108-115.

Hageman, J. B. and D. A. Bennett 2000 Construction of digital elevation models for archaeological applications. In Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists: a predictive modeling kit, edited by K. L. Westcott and R. J. Brandon, pp. 113-127. Taylor and Francis, London.

Harary, F. 1969 Graph Theory. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.

Harmankaya, S. and B. Erdogu 2002 TAY- The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey 4: Early Bronze Age (2 volumes). Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul. Harmankaya, S.,0. Tanidi, and M. Ozbasaran 1997 TAY— The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey 2: Neolithic. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul. 1998 TAY - The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey 3: Chalcolithic. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Hawkins, A. L., S. T. Stewart, and E. B. Banning 2003 Interobserver bias in enumerated data from archaeological survey. Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (11): 1503-1512.

Hirth, K. G. 1978 Interregional trade and the formation of prehistoric gateway communities. American Antiquity 43 (1): 35-45.

Hodder, I. 2006 The Leopard's Tale: revealing the mysteries of Catalhoyuk. Thames and Hudson, London. 2007 Catalhoyuk in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annual Review ofAnthropology 36: 105-120. 155

Hodder, I. (editor) 1996 On the Surface: Qatalhoyuk 1993-95. Catalhoyfik Research Project, volume 1. BIAA Monograph, no. 22. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara. 2000 Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example of Qatalhoyilk. BIAA Monograph, no. 28. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara. 2005a Qatalhoyuk perspectives: reports from the 1995-99 seasons. (Qatalhoyuk Research Project, volume 6. BIAA Monograph, no. 40. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara. 2005b Changing materialities at Qatalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-99 seasons. (Qatalhoyuk Research Project, volume 5. BIAA Monograph, no. 39. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara. 2007 Excavating Qatalhoyuk: south, north, KOPAL area reports from 1995-99 seasons. Catalhoytik Research Project, volume 3. BIAA Monograph, no. Catalhoyiik Research Project, volume 3. BIAA Monograph, no. 37. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara.

Hofierka, J., J. Parajka, H. Mitasova, and L. Mitas 2002 Multivariate Interpolation of Precipitation Using Regularized Spline with Tension. Transactions in GIS6 (2): 135-150.

Hogarth, D. G. 1908 Problems in Exploration: I. Western Asia. The Geographical Journal 32 (6): 549-563.

Holcomb, D. W. 2001 Imaging Radar and Archaeological Survey: an example from the Gobi desert of southern Mongolia. Journal of Field Archaeology 28 (1-2): 131- 141.

Horden, P. and N. Purcell 2000 The Corrupting Sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Blackwell, Oxford and Maldon, MA.

Huisman, M. and M. A. J. van Duijn 2005 Software for Social Network Analysis. In Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, and S. Wasserman, pp. 270-316. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hunt, L. 1986 French History in the Last Twenty Years: the rise and fall of the Annales paradigm. Journal of Contemporary History 21 (2): 209-224. 156

Iannone, Gyles 2002 Annales History and the Ancient Maya State: some observations on the "Dynamic Model". American Anthropologist 104 (1): 68-78.

Jasink, A. Margherita 2001 Kizzuwatna and Tarhuntassa: their historical evolution and interactions with Hatti. In La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millenaire av. J. C. -4e siecle ap. J.C.). Actes de la table ronde Internationale d'Istanbul, 2-5 Novembre 1999, edited by E. Jean, A. M. Dincol, and S. Durugoniil, pp. 47-56. Varia Anatolica XIII. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Jenkins, D. 2001 A Network Analysis of Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities. Ethnohistory 48 (4): 655-687.

Jones, A. H. M. 1971 The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (second edition). Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Joukowsky, M. S. 1996 Early Turkey: an introduction to the archaeology of Anatolia from prehistory through the Lydian period. Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, IO.

Kantner, J. 2008 The Archaeology of Regions: from discrete analytical toolkit to ubiquitous spatial perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 16: 37-81.

Keller, D. R. and D. W. Rupp (editors) 1983 Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region. BAR International Series 155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Kinser, S. 1981 Annaliste Paradigm? The Geohistorical Structuralism of Fernand Braudel. The American Historical Review 86 (1): 63-105.

Kingery, W. D., P. B. Vandiver, and M. Prickett 1988 The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: production and use of lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15 (2): 219-244.

Knapp, B.A. (editor) 1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 157

Knappett, C. 2005 Thinking Through Material Culture: an interdisciplinary perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Knappett, C, T. Evans, and R. Rivers 2008 Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 82 (1): 1-16.

Knoke, D. and S. Yang 2008 Social Network Analysis (second edition). Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences no. 154. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA and London.

Kvamme, K. L. 1990 GIS algorithms and their effects on regional archaeological analysis. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 112-126. Taylor and Francis, London. 1999 Recent Directions and Developments in Geographical Information Systems. Journal of Archaeological Research 7 (2): 153-201.

Last, J. and C. Gibson 2006 Exchange & Art: ceramics and society in the Early Chalcolithic of central Anatolia. In Prehistoric Pottery: some recent research, edited by A. Gibson, pp. 39-49. BAR, International Series 1509. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Lenski, N. 2001 Relations between Coast and Hinterland in Rough Cilicia. In La Cilicie: espaces etpouvoirs locaux (2e millenaire av. J.-C. -4e siecle ap. J.C.). Actes de la table ronde Internationale d'lstanbul, 2-5 Novembre 1999, edited by E. Jean, A. M. Dincol, and S. Durugoniil, pp. 417-423. Varia Anatolica XIII. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1963 Structural Anthropology. Basic Books, New York. 1969 [1949] The Elementary Structures of Kinship (revised edition). Beacon Press, Boston.

McAndrews, T. L., J. Albarracin-Jordan, and M. Bermann 1997 Regional Settlement Patterns in the Tiwanaku Valley of Bolivia. Journal of Field Archaeology 24 (1): 67-83.

McNeil, J. R. 1992 The Mountains of the Mediterranean World: an environmental history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 158

Macqueen, J. G. 1986 The Hittites and their contemporaries in Asia Minor (revised edition). Thomas and Hudson, London.

Marciniak, A. and L. Czerniak 2007 Social transformations in the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic periods in Central Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57: 115-130.

Martin, L., N. Russell, and D. Carruthers 2002 Animal Remains from the Central Anatolian Neolithic. In The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal. BC, edited by F. Gerard and L. Thissen, pp. 193- 206. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Massy, P. H. H. 1905 Exploration in Asiatic Turkey, 1896 to 1903. The GeographicalJournal 26 (3): 272-303.

Matthews, R. 2000 The Early Prehistory of Mesopotamia 500,000 to 4,500 BC. Subartu V. Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium.

Matthews, W. and S. Farid 1996 Exploring the 1960s' Surface: the stratigraphy of Catalhoyiik. In On the Surface: Catalhoyiik J993-95, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 271-300. Catalhoyiik Research Project, volume 1. BIAA Monograph, no. 22. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara.

Mellaart, James 1954 Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-Classical Remains in Southern Turkey. Anatolian Studies 4: 175-240. 1957 Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Anatolian Studies 7: 55-88. 1958a Second Millenium Pottery from the Konya Plain and Neighbourhood. Belleten 22: 311-345. 1958b The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1): 9-33. 1961 Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau. Anatolian Studies 11: 159- 184. 1963 Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau II. Anatolian Studies 13: 199-236. 1965 Catal Hiiyiik West. Anatolian Studies 15: 135-156. 1967 Catal Hiiyiik: a Neolithic town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London. 1975 The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and Hudson, London. 159

Mellink, Machteld J. 1992 Anatolian Chronology. In Chronologies in the Old World (third edition), edited by R. W. Ehrich, pp. 207-220. Chicago University Press, Chicago. 1993 The Anatolians south coast in the Early Bronze Age: the Cilician perspective. In Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: archaeolgoica anatolica et mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, edited by M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, and M. Mellink, pp. 495-508. Dipartimento di Sienze Storiche Archaeologiche e Antropologiche dell'Antichata, Universita di Roma La Sapienza, Rome.

Mitchell, J. Clyde (ed.) 1969 Social Networks in Urban Situations: analyses of personal relationships in central African towns. University of Manchester Press, Manchester.

Mitford, T. B. 1980 Roman Rough Cilicia. Aufstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt II.7.2: 1230-1261.

Mizoguchi, K. 2009 Nodes and edges: a network approach to hierarchisation and state formation in Japan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 14-26.

Moore, A. M. T. 1995 The Inception of Potting in Western Asia and its Impact on Economy and Society. In The Emergence of Pottery: technology and innovation in ancient societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 39-53. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.

Moreno, L. J. 1955 Who Shall Survive? foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama. Beacon House, Beacon, NY.

Neteler, M. and H. Mitasova 2007 Open Source GIS: A GRASS GIS Approach (third edition). Springer, New York.

Newhard, J. M. L., N. Levine, and A. Rutherford 2008 Least-cost pathway analysis and inter-regional interaction in the Goksu valley, Turkey. Anatolian Studies 58: 87-102.

Ozdogan, M. 1997 Anatolia from the Late Glacial Maximum to the Holocene Climatic Optimum: cultural formations and the impact of the environmental setting. Paleorient 23 (2): 25-38. 160

Ozyar, A. (editor) 2005 Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus- Gozlii Kule Interdisciplinary Research Project. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Ozyar, A., G. Damsman, and H. Ozbal 2005 Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus-Gozlu Kule Interdisciplinary Research Project. In Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus-Gozlu Kule Interdisciplinary Research Project, edited by A. Ozyar, pp. 8-47. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Papadopoulos, J. K. and R. M. Leventhal (editors) 2003 Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old world and New world perspectives. Costen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Parsons, J. R. 1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1, 127-150.

Peregrine, P. 1991 A Graph-Theoretical approach to the evolution of Cahokia. American Antiquity 56 (1): 66-75.

Phillips, J. 2002 The Crusades, 1095-1197. Longman, London and New York.

Phillips, P., J. A. Ford, and J. B. Griffin 2003 [1951] Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Edited with an Introduction by S. Williams. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Plog, S. 1976 Relative Efficiencies of Sampling Techniques for Archaeological Surveys. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by K. V. Flannery, pp. 136- 158. Academic Press, New York.

Plog, S, F. Plog, W. Wait 1978 Decision making in modern surveys. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (vol. 1), edited by M. B. Schiffer, p 383-421. Academic Press, New York.

Postgate, J. N. 1998 Between the Plateau and the Sea: Kilise Tepe 1994-97. In Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years' work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, edited by R. Matthews, pp. 127-141. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Ankara, Turkey. 161

Postgate, J. N. and D. Thomas (editors) 2007 Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: from Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia. BIAA Monograph no. 30. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara, Turkey.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1940 On Social Structure. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 70(1): 1-12.

Rabus, B., M. Eineder, A. Roth, and R. Bamler 2003 The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission-a new class of digital elevation models acquired by spaceborne radar. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57: 241-262.

Ramsay, W. M. 1902 The Geographical Conditions Determining History and Religion in Asia Minor. The Geographical Journal 20 (3): 257-275.

Read, D. W. 1986 Sampling Procedures for Regional Surveys: a problem of representativeness and effectiveness. Journal of Field Archaeology 13 (4): 477-491.

Redman, C. L. 1973 Multistage Fieldwork and Analytical Techniques. American Antiquity 38 (1): 61-79. 1982 Archaeological survey and the study of Mesopotamian urban systems. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 375-382. 1987 Surface Collection, Sampling, and Research Design: a retrospective. American Antiquity 52 (2): 249-265.

Richards, T. 2008 Survey Strategies in Landscape Archaeology. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, edited by B. David and J. Thomas, pp. 551-561. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Robertson, E. C, J. D. Seibert, D. C. Fernandez, and M. U. Zender (eds.) 2006 Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rosen, A. M. 1998 Early to Mid-Holocene environmental changes and their impact on human communities in southeastern Anataolia. In Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change, edited by A. S. Issar and N. Brown, pp. 215-240. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 162

Rothman, M. S. 1987 Graph Theory and the Interpretation of Regional Survey Data. Paleorient 13 (2): 73-91.

Ruppe, R. J. 1966 The Archeological Survey: a defense. American Antiquity 31:313-33.

Russell, N., L. Martin, and H. Buitenhuis 2005 Cattle Domestication at Catalhoytik Revisited. Current Anthropology 46 (5): S101-S108.

Santley, R. S. and P. J. Arnold III 1996 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Tuxtla Mountains, southern Veracruz, Mexico. Journal ofField Archaeology 23 (2): 225-249.

Schiffer, M. B., A. P. Sullivan, and T. C. Klinger 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10 (1): 1-28.

Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1977 The Beginnings of the Use of Clay in Turkey. Anatolian Studies 27: 133- 150. Scott, J. 2000 Social Network Analysis: a handbook (second edition). Sage, London and Thousand Oaks, CA.

Seffen, L. 2007 Level V: the Early Bronze Age. In Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: from Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia, edited by J. N. Postgate and D. Thomas, pp. 87-101. BIAA Monograph, no. 30. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford, and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara.

Seton-Williams, M. V. 1954 Cilician Survey. Anatolian Studies 4: 121 -174.

Sherman, S. 1985 Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: the East Hampshire survey. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. 1997 Quantifying Archaeology (second edition). University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Simmons, A. H. 2007 The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: transforming the human landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. 163

Simpson, R. H. 1983 The Limitations of Surface Surveys. In Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, edited by D.R. Keller and D.W. Ruppe, pp. 45-48. BAR International Series 155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Sinkbask, S. M. 2007 Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity 81: 119-132.

Sollars, L. 2005 Settlement in the Prehistoric Mediterranean. In The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, edited by E. Blacke and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 252-269. Blackwell, Maldon, Massachusetts and Oxford.

Smith, A. T. 2003 The Political Landscape: constellations of authority in early complex polities. University of California Press, Berkley.

Stancic, Z. and T. Veljanovski (eds.) 2001 Computing Archaeology for Understanding the Past: CAA 2000 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. BAR International Series 931. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Stanish, C. 2003 A Brief Americanist Perspective on Settlement Archaeology. In Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives, edited by J. K. Papadopoulos and R. M. Leventhal, pp. 161-171. Costen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California.

Steadman, S. R. 1994 Prehistoric Sites on the Cilician Coastal Plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery from the 1991 Bilkent Survey. Anatolian Studies 44: 85-103. 1996 Isolation or Interaction: prehistoric Cilicia and the fourth millennium Uruk expansion. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9 (2): 131-165.

Steward, J. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Stronach, D. B. 1957 The development and diffusion of metal types in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 7: 89-125.

Swanson, Steve 2003 Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks: a case study in the Paquime Polity. American Antiquity 68 (4): 753-767. 164

Symington, D. 2007 The Early Bronze Age pottery. In Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: from Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia, edited by J. N. Postgate and David Thomas, pp. 295-318. BIAA Monograph, no. 30. McDonald Institute of Archaeology, Oxford and British Institute at Ankara, London and Ankara. 2001 Hittites at Kilise Tepe. In La Cilicie: espaces etpouvoirs locaux (2e millenaire av. J.-C. -4e siecle ap. J.C.). Actes de la table ronde Internationale d'Istanbul, 2-5 Novembre 1999, edited by E. Jean, A. M. Dincol, and S. Durugoniil, pp. 167-184. Varia Anatolica XIII. Ege Yayinlan, Istanbul.

Thomas, J. 2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I Hodder, pp. 165-186. Polity, Cambridge, England.

Tilley, C. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg, Oxford.

Todd, I. A. 1980 The Prehistory of Central Anatolia I: the Neolithic period. Paul Astroms Forlag, Goteborg, Germany.

Trigger, B. G. 1967 Settlement Archaeology: its goals and promise. American Antiquity 32 (2): 149-160. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought (second edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tripcevich, N. 2004 Flexibility by Design: how mobile GIS meets the need of archaeological survey. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 31 (3): 137- 151.

Vidal de la Blache, Paul 1965 [1926] Principles of Human Geography. Constable Publishers, London.

Wasserman, S. and K. Faust 1994 Social Network Analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wellman, B. 2003 [1988] Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In Social Structures: a network approach, edited by B. Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz, pp. 19-61. Canadian Scholars' Press, Toronto. 165

Werner, M. 2001 Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM): Mission overview. Frequenz: Journal of RF-Engineering and Telecommunications 55: 75- 79.

Wheatley, D. and M. Gillings 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: archaeological applications ofGIS. Taylor and Francis, London and New York.

Wilkinson, T. J. 1982 The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive Sherd- Sampling Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology 9 (3): 323-333. 2001 Surface Collection Techniques in Field Archaeology: theory and practice. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard, pp. 529-541. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 2003 Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Willey, G. R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 155. Smithsonian Intuition, Washington, D.C. 1999 The Viru Valley Project and Settlement Archaeology: some reminiscences and contemporary comments. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty years since Viru, edited by B. R. Billman and G. M. Feinmann, pp. 9-11. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. and London.

Wright, J. C. 2004 Comparative settlement patterns during the Bronze Age in the northeastern Peloponnesos. In Side-by-Side Survey: comparative regional studies in the Mediterranean world, edited by S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry, pp. 114-131. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Yakar, Jak 1984 Regional and Local Schools of Metal Work in Early Bronze Anatolia, Part I. Anatolian Studies 34: 59-86. 1985a The Later Prehistory of Anatolia: the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (2 volumes). BAR International Series 268. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 1985b Regional and Local Schools of Metal Work in Early Bronze Anatolia, Part II. Anatolian Studies 35: 25-38. 1991 Prehistoric Anatolia: the Neolithic transformation and the early Chalcolithic period. Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2000 Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: rural socio-economy in the bronze and iron ages. Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 166

Israel. 2001 Meat in the Diet of Early Bronze Age Anatolian Farmers. In Lux Orientis: archdologie zwischen Asien und Europa, edited by Rainer Michael Boehmer and Joseph Maran, pp. 433-442. Verlag Marie Leidord GmbH, Rahden, Westfalia, Germany. 2002 East Anatolian Metallurgy in the Fourth and Third Millennia BC: some remarks. In Anatolian Metal II, edited by Unsal Yalcin, pp. 15-25. Zeitschrift fur Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau, beiheft 15. Der Anschnitt, Bochum, Germany.

Yener, K. A. 2000 The Domestication of Metals: the rise of complex metal industries in Anatolia. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, volume 4. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Yener, K.A. and P.B. Vandiver 1993 Tin Processing at Goltepe, an Early Bronze Age Site in Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology 97: 207-238.

Zambello, M. 2004 The use of obsidian and flint at prehistoric Yumuktepe: an overview. In Mersin-Yumuktepe: a reappraisal, edited by I. Caneva and V. Sevin, pp. 143-151. Congedo Editore, Galatino, Italy.

Zeder, M. A. 2006 Central Questions in the Domestication of Plants and Animals. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 105-117. 167

APPENDIX A

Chronology

This appendix outlines the chronological framework used throughout. Table A. 1 presents a commonly used periodization for Anatolia. It begins with the Aceramic Neolithic sometime around 8000 BC. With the adoption of pottery production, the Neolithic begins around the middle of the seventh millennium BC and ends in the early sixth millennium

BC. The following Chalcolithic period occupies some 2500 years, ending halfway into the fourth millennium BC. The Chalcolithic is subdivided into Early-Middle-Late phases of various lengths. Then, with the advent of bronze production, the EB A extends from the middle of the fourth millennium BC to the close of the third millennium BC. Within the

EBA, five subphases have been demarcated, each running 200-500 years in length.

Given that current evidence for permanent settlement in the Goksu Valley dates to the Late Chalcolithic, my primary concern was to produce a workable chronology for the period from the Late Chalcolithic to the end of the EBA. In addition, because of the reliance on survey material, Mellink's five EBA subphases at Tarsus became unwieldy

Table A.l Standard Chronological Framework for Anatolia Period Phase Chronology (BC) Aceramic 8000-6500 Neolithic Ceramic 6500-5800 Early 5800-5400 Chalcolithic Middle 5400-4500 Late 4500-3500 IA 3500-3000 IB 3000-2700 EBA II 2700-2400 III A 2400-2200 III B 2200-2000 (after Mellink 1992) 168 and exceeded the level of detail available from surface collections. Furthermore, it was difficult to attribute many (if not most) of the ceramic types described by Mellaart,

French, and Seton-Williams to a finer level than EBA I-II. All three reports reference material from Tarsus, often down to exact figure of plate numbers. In this sense, dating material in the Goksu Valley is heavily dependent upon these observations. However, caution should be observed, as some of these types transgress time periods at Tarsus, most often ranging from the Late Chalcolithic to EBA I-II. As such, Table A.2 provides the chronology of the EBA that was used when sorting settlements into periods, although sub-phases have been conflated due to the nature of the data. Furthermore, I have not been able to identify "EBA I" or "EBA II" sites, so the two have been combined; this reduced the total number of periods to three. This is a more realistic and workable chronological breakdown, despite the hazard of obscuring data resolution.

Table A.2 Simplified Chronological Framework Period Phase Chronology (BC) Chalcolithic Late 4500-3500 I -II 3500-2400 EBA III 2400-2000 169

APPENDIX B

DEM and Point Data

Following Kvamme's (1990) call for archaeologists to more rigorously examine the quality of the GIS they use (and not just the archaeological data that goes into it), I provide the technical details of the GIS that was built to support the present research.

Discussion of how the spatial data was obtained, as well as the computational process by which it was modified is necessary to satisfy this requirement. This includes a description of the generation of a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) that was created as part of course work for ANTH 535: Archaeoinformatics, and GRASS modules. Parts of this data was then used in the Social Network Analysis.

B.l. OBTAINING THE SPATIAL DATA

Geospatial information can come in either "primary" or "secondary" forms (see

Conolly and Lake 2006: 61-89). Primary spatial data is data that is collected directly from its original context. This often takes the form of survey using either GPS or a TOTAL station (Conolly and Lake 2006: 61-66; Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 71-73), or from imagery taken from aerial or satellite projections (Conolly and Lake 2006: 66-72;

Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 74-81). Secondary data is commonly derived from the digitizing of paper maps, but comes with a host of unique problems and difficulties that must be dealt with in order to ensure the quality of the DEM (see Conolly and Lake 2006:

77-89; Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 62-71). The DEM that was created for this research comes from a "Primary" data source, based on satellite imagery obtained as part of the

Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)1 (Farr et al. 2007; Rabus et al. 2003; Werner

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm 170

2001). The SRTM was an international project launched February 11, 2000 from

Kennedy Space Center with cooperation between US (NASA), French, and German

space agencies. The project made use of two synthetic aperture radars, a C band system

and an X band system, totaling a 13-ton payload housed in the shuttle Endeavor. The primary goal of the SRTM was to produce a high quality global topographic map (Farr et

al. 2007). The SRTM project is important for several reasons. First, it is that is arguably the most accessible spatial data set yet, available by anonymous FTP from the SRTM website. Second, it is the most recent geographical image of the Earth's surface, uses the

latest technological application and techniques, and covers the entire Earth's surface with varying degrees of resolution; the coarsest resolution being 90 m for the entire world,

2 with 30 m tiles available for North America. Surprisingly, few archaeologists have availed themselves of this excellent source, preferring remote sensing imagery from older

(pre-1990s) sources (i.e., discussion of LANDSAT, SPOT, and declassified Russian sources in Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 78-80).

B.2. MANIPULATING SPATIAL DATA TO PRODUCE A WORKING DEM

This section provides very little in the way of commentary, as much of what is discussed here can be easily followed with the help of the online help GRASS offers, or through the most recent published manual (Neteler and Mitasova 2007). The primary concern will be to demonstrate how I went from raw SRTM data to a working DEM.

However, I will briefly discuss major issues of DEM quality and computing as they arise; straightforward commands or modules will be merely provided without discussion. The raster data available from the SRTM website comes in the form of Latitude-Longitude tiles. The resolution for Turkey was 00:00:03, corresponding to 90 m tiles. For the 171

purposes of the present research, I created a DEM with a Latitude of 32° -42° and a

Longitude of 26° -44° using GRASS 6.3. Each tile was inputted into the GIS using the

r .in.srtm module.

After all tiles had been downloaded, I began construction of the DEM. The

module r.fiiinuiis was used to interpolate NULL values from the raw SRTM data,

which is usually caused by cloud cover or other such interference to the scanning. The

r.fiiinuiis module uses Regularized Spline with Tension (RST) to fill in "no data" or

NULL areas (see Neteler and Mitasova 2007: 121-122). Hageman and Bennett (2000)

have argued that the different methods of interpolation can significantly affect the quality

of a DEM. They discuss the various algorithms in which filling NULL areas in a DEM is

accomplished, with the most common being Ordinary Kriging, Universal Kriging,

Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), and Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) (see

Hageman and Bennett 2000: 115-117). They conclude that there is no single "best"

algorithm to fill in NULL areas, although Ordinary Kriging produced the least degree of

error (see Hageman and Bennett 2000: 121, Table 7.1); they are careful to note that none

of the interpolated maps were "perfect" (that is, error free), just that some where less

flawed than others. In comparison, Hofierka et al. (2002) compared RST to other

commonly used interpolation methods (e.g., Kriging and Co-kriging), and found that

RST performed as good, or in some cases better than the others. The r.patch module was used to stitch together all of the interpolated tiles into a single map. The module

r.slope.aspect was then used to generate Slope and Aspect maps using the original DEM, where map cells were assigned slope values. The slope map was transformed using

r.mapcaic according to the prescribed algorithm in Bell and Lock (2000; also Bell et al. 172

2002). The formula they give is: tan(slope)/tan(r). This last transformation allowed for the generation of anisotropic surfaces that were used in later Least Cost pathway analyses.

B.3. ON COLLECTING POINT DATA

Point data was obtained almost exclusively from the Tiirkiye Arkeolojik

Yerlesmeleri (TAY) project, either from publications for the Neolithic (Harmankaya et al. 1997), Chalcolithic (Harmankaya et al. 1998), Early Bronze Age (Harmankaya and

Erdogu 2002), or from the project website2. Site coordinates not coming from TAY project publications were obtained from the GAP GIS database, courtesy of Dr. Hugh

Elton. The data obtained through the TAY project came in decimal Latitude and

Longitude coordinates, while the GAP coordinates were recorded in UTM. A further, and more important distinction between the two sources of point data was that the GAP data was obtained through GPS recording during on-site visits, while the method by which

TAY data was obtained was never explicitly stated. Most likely, it was either to the closest village or from direct recording; I have assumed the former.

An important deficiency of the database constructed was the inability to locate point data for all sites identified by the surveys. For instance, 1 was unable to find data on

Sancilar (=Sancalar), which is located between Silifke and Tekirkoy (see French 1965a:

179, Figure 3). However, I was able to find information for Gormiit Tepe, which Mellaart

(1963: 208, Figure 5) found. French (1965a: 181) states that he did not find prehistoric ceramics at Gormiit Tepe when he visited the mound, although Mellaart (1963: 209)

http: / /taypro j ect. eies . itu . edu . tr / The present research could not have been conducted without the work of the members of the TAY project. Their efforts are acknowledged here with much gratitude. 173 retrieved sherds of "EBA Metallic ware" type. Table B.l enumerates the sites that I was unable to obtain location data for. Some sites found by Mellaart lacked means of clearly locating them, sometimes simply labeled with very generic names like "Hiiyiik". Others were located in proximity to other sites, as in the case of "Hiiyuk north of Akcasehir".

Given the difficulties encountered identifying and locating many of these more problematic sites, their absence does not necessarily invalidate the results. With the exceptions of Sancilar [Sancalar in French 1965a] and Soyali, most of the missing sites from Mellaart are from the Konya Plain, and are concentrated in areas dense in EBA I-II settlement; the loss in terms of data for the Network Analysis appears to be minimal.

More acute is the problem of whether the site inventories record all-available sites; seen in this light, being unable to locate point data for a few sites isn't the greatest deficiency of the data set used in this thesis. However, I am aware that their omission has

Table B.l Sites unable to be located, by Period and Source Period Sites not located Mellaart French Seton-Williams Late Batum Hiiyuk, Timras-Gokchhuyiik, Chalcolithic Dipsiz Golii Hiiyiik

Yanagelmez, Batum Hiiyiik, Sakarlar, Okcu II, Hiiyiik north of Cumra B, Turkmen-Kara Hiiyiik south, Hiiyiik, Kinet, Hiiyiik north of Akcasehir, Gocii or G6k EBA 1-11 Sancalar Kiidkciiler, Hiiyuk, Kiiciikgonu, Cardagin, Davda Soyali (Agil), Hiiyiik SW of K. [?],Kiiciik, Ulukisla, Bor West, Sancilar, Koca, Ortakaraviran South, Kesekoy, Soyali

EBA III 174

(potentially) biased my interpretation of the structure of trade in the area of study.

Revision of my conclusions maybe necessary if (and when) these missing sites are included in future reevaluations of the data.

An additional source of potential error comes from site names found in TAY project publications that differ from those used by Mellaart, French, or Seton-Williams.

Some of the difficulty encountered when trying to locate sites from Mellaart's report may have been because of this - his designations are now nearly fifty years old, and newer names have undoubtedly been given. This does not necessarily only occur with older published materials, as the example of Tell al-Judaidah bears out. Ballossi-Restelli (2006) uses the original spelling of Braidwood and Braidwood (1960), although the TAY project spells the same site as "Tell el Cudeyda"; when pronounced, the two are the same. When in doubt, I have relied on homophones as this example illustrates, with the understanding that Turkish spellings of a site name may produce a different alphabetic form, but similar or identical pronunciation. 175

APPENDIX C Ceramic Types

We consider that typologies are tools made for a purpose, and as long as they can be shown to work for that purpose they require no more abstract justification than does a crowbar. Their validity lies ultimately in their value. (Adams and Adams 1991: 8)

The purpose of this Appendix is to describe the ceramic types that have been used.

However, several caveats must be mentioned before proceeding. First, a detailed analysis of all available material from southern Anatolia was beyond the scope of this thesis.

Despite the wide variety of information available, I am narrowly concerned with what pottery collected from the surveys of Mellaart, French, Seton-Williams, and the GAP can tell us about regional interaction and what they can tell us about local and regional social organization. Second, the typology that I have constructed has been designed with an eye towards maximizing the data. Third, and probably the most tenuous, I have largely relied on the determinations of others. In this sense, what I have complied can only be a good as the judgments of those who collected and identified the original material. With this said, there are few today who could rival the detailed familiarity with the relevant data held by previous generations of archaeologists. While some of the linkages that they see may be no more than mere figments of the imagination, I remain genuinely impressed with their abilities and good sense. Lastly, I have no pretensions of being the definitive word on this topic, and heartily welcome anyone who so wishes to correct, amend, and improve that which has been enacted here.

The first step in creating the data used in this thesis was to identify the various types used by the former archaeologists who have worked in south-central Anatolia; this 176 proved to be a monumental task in-of-itself. Yakar (1985a: 218-224) provides a useful summary of the same material from the Late Chalcolithic onwards. My understanding of the prehistoric ceramics of south-central Anatolia is however different from the one given by him in that I am less reliant on Mellaart, and have investigated the parallels they draw in the original excavation reports. I have also used French and Seton-

Williams much more to supplement and expand this information. The struggle has been to demonstrate settlement contemporaneity based on the presence/absence of ceramic types. This resulted in truncated periodizations, as the available data did not permit a higher level of chronological discrimination. Moreover, where one archaeologist attributed a particular type to one period, others placed it elsewhere. Every report reviewed used a different typological scheme, with the only common theme being the connections that were drawn to comparative material found at either Mersin or Tarsus.

Often these were explicit, detailing the exact level or identifying the type the author was citing. This resulted in a "free-floating" or relative type scheme for the regions covered were the basis for the one used here, although greatly revised and amended in places.

Additionally, it should be remembered throughout that I have not examined the collections that I refer to; this is certainly a severe deficiency. However, through the descriptions provided by the original excavator(s) or surveyor(s), as well as their original observations, it is hoped that much of this lack of first-hand experience has been overcome. Additionally, I was able to examine collections at the British Institute at

Ankara (in summer 2008) from Mellaart's and French's survey. This allowed me to better understand the written descriptions in each. Moreover, 1 was able to look at EBA sherds from Kilise Tepe with the kind permission of J. N. Postgate. These observations were not 177 systematic or comprehensive, but were beneficial nonetheless. In the case of prehistoric sites located in the Goksu Valley, the primary sites upon which detailed comparisons have been made are Mersin, Tarsus, and more recently, Kilise Tepe. Each of these sites spans a critical chronological period, with the primary anchors to chronological and comparative discussions being Mersin and Tarsus. Where Kilise Tepe overlaps with

Tarsus in the EBA II and EBA III periods, this provides confirmatory evidence for similar cultural activity in the Goksu Valley itself. With no recorded occupations in the

Goksu valley before the Late Chalcolithic, I only discuss typologies for those periods where evidence exists, namely the Late Chalcolithic through to the end of EBA III.

C.l. NEOLITHIC CERAMIC TYPES

The Early Pottery Neolithic in Cilicia is part of the Amuq A-B sub-tradition, which unified the regions of Northern Syria and Cilicia through the presence of the diagnostic "Dark Faced Burnished Ware" (DFBW) (Balossi Restelli 2004, 2006;

Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). DFBW is one of the most widely distributed artifact types during the late Neolithic along the Anatolian and north Levantine coasts, prompting

Robert Braidwood to label it a "Syro-Cilician" horizon style and cultural entity

(Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). In his original excavations at Tell al-Judaidah, DFBW appears immediately in level XIV and extended from Phase A to Phase E in declining frequency (see Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 49-52, 73-77, 106-110, 138-141, 158, and 177-178); only Phases A and B can be understood as being "Neolithic". In her re- analysis of this important ceramic type, Francesca Balossi Restelli (2006) studied assemblages from Anatolian, Syrian, and Iraqi sites (Table C.L). For the purposes of the present research, I relied on the more prominent Central Plateau sites, namely Catalhoytik 178

Table C.l Distribution of DFBW sites Turkey Syria Iraq Akarcay, the Amuq plain Abu Hureyra, Ard, Tlaili, Yarim Tepe I, Tell [Tell el Judaydah, Tell Assouad, Bouqras, Byblos, Hassuna, Kaskashok, Dhahab, Wadi el- Damishliyya, Djad'e, Halula, Tell Sotto, Umm Hammam], Catalhoyuk, Hama, Janoudiyeh, Kosak Dabaghiyah Cayonii, Can Hasan, Sh., Labweh, Neba'a Faour, Gritille, Kosk Hoyuk, Nebi Mend, Qal'at el-Mudiq, Kumartepe, Mersin- Qoueiq, Ramad, Ras Shamra, Yumuktepe, Pinarbasi Bor, Rouj, Sabi Abyad, Sukas, Sakce Gozti, Suberde, Tabbat al-Hammam Suriik, Tarsus-Gozlii Kule, Tepecik (after Balossi Restelli 2006: 9, Plate 1.1)

(Last 2005: 137-138), Can Hasan (see French 2005: 15-17, 116-117, Figures 037-038),

and Suberde. Her research primarily focused on newly excavated material from ongoing

Italian-Turkish work at Mersin-Yumuktepe under the directorship of Isabella Caneva

(Caneva 1999, 2002), building upon the older classification system constructed by

Garstang and Braidwood (see Garstang 1953; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). Using

chemical and mineral analysis, Balossi Restelli (2006) found that a degree of homogeneity was detectable between some of the classes of pottery from Mersin. She

suggests that the instance of DFBW there was the result of local production, although it is

stylistically part of the larger DFBW tradition (Balossi Restelli 2006: 103-104).

C.2. CHALCOLITHIC CERAMIC TYPES

Based on the reports of Mellaart and French, no evidence for Early Chalcolithic occupation of the Goksu Valley can be found. Likewise, Mellart reports Middle

Chalcolithic material from a few sites in the Goksu valley, although French's survey

indicates that there is only evidence for initial occupation during the Later Chalcolithic.

Results of the GAP investigation of the valley discovered pre-Chalcolithic localities 179 within the valley, but from the available published reports this thesis is based, permanent settlement can only be demonstrated for the Late Chalcolithic. A listing of

Late Chalcolithic ceramic types used is provided in Table C.2; references to comparative material provided by original authors are provided. There is no definitive way of providing further delineation between different classes of pottery given the way in which Mellaart (1958, 1963) reported the Late Chalcolithic pottery types found in his survey. While he does provide a description of the major types identified (see

Mellaart 1963: 199-204), no data concerning the provenience of these is provided, except for a handful of illustrations. Unfortunately, these cannot be taken as a complete listing. Therefore, the pottery Mellaart collected cannot be used beyond chronological ordering. When this situation is compared to the surveys of French (1965a) and Seton-

Williams (1954), a different method of recording can be seen. French and Seton-

Williams are very careful to locate individual types at specific mounds. This difference in recording methods produced distinct limitations in the data, specifically not allowing for detailed analyses of trade relationships and networks even between roughly

Table C.2 Late Chalcolithic pottery types Mellaart French Seton-Williams Name Mersin Name Mersin Tarsus Name Mersin

"Monochrome Level "Al Level XV- Ware" XVI 'Ubaid" XIX "Cilician Level Late XV- [see "White- Chalcolithic XVII comments] Level Painted Ware Level Painted" XIV-XIII "Coba" and related Xlla (see Monochrome comments) Fabrics" (after French 1965a; Mellaart 1963; Seton-Williams 1954) 180 contemporaneous sites. Another source of difficulty in identifying ceramic types dating to the early part of the Chalcolithic certainly comes from the fact that no sites dating to this period have been excavated in the Goksu valley. Kilise Tepe is presently the only excavated site in the valley, but evidence indicates that it was initially occupied sometime in the EBA II. As such, no stratified examples of Late Neolithic or Early-

Middle Chalcolithic material from the Goksu itself are available for comparison. The absence of these early periods may be more a product of our ignorance than actual reality (Hugh Elton 2008, personal communication). Finally, the varying quality of data available has limited the present research to an analysis of binary (present/absent) relationships.

A note concerning the dating of Mellaart's "White-Painted Ware and related

Monochrome Fabrics" is necessary due to the confusion surrounding his identification.

Mellaart compares this ware to Mersin XII (Mellaart 1963: 201). Doing so would actually make these wares of Early Bronze Age (Mersin Xlla). His assertion is based on design similarities to patterns found at Mersin ("parallel chevrons"; see Garstang 1952: 185,

Figure 118). Level XII at Mersin is greatly confused, although Garstang assigns level

Xllb to the Late Chalcolithic and level Xlla to the EBA (2800-2500 BC) (see Garstang

1952: 182-192). He views this type as comparable to material found at Tarsus (c. 2500-

2000 BC) (Garstang 1952: 189). French's comparison of his "Cilician Late Chalcolithic

Painted" to 'Ubaid period types at Mersin includes a comment that painted examples

(white on red or black) may be "variants" of this type (French 1965a: 182). Furthermore, he states that he was unable to compare this material to examples from Mersin (due to missing assemblages), leaving open the question concerning possible comparisons. 181

In her report on the Cilician Plain survey, Seton-Williams does not compare her

"Coba ware" to either Mersin or Tarsus, but with pottery from Coba Hiiyuk (previously called "Jobba Euyuk") near the modern village of Sakce Gozii (aka Keferdiz) (see du

Plat Taylor et al. 1950; Garrard et al. 1996). This type is labeled as "flint-scrapped bowls" based the finishing treatment, and is hand made using a straw mold (as evidenced by impressions on vessel bases; Seton-Williams 1954: 129; see also du Plat

Taylor et al. 1950: 95); wheel-made examples begin in Period IV B. This type is associated with the Late Chalcolithic, with comparative examples dating to the Uruk period (levels XIV-XII) at Mersin (see Garstang 1952: 173-174). This class of pottery makes its first appearance in Period IV A (Middle Chalcolithic) at Coba Hiiyuk, alongside Halaf ("Lattice Ware") and Ubaid ("Al 'Ubaid" and "Plum Red Burnished

Ware") wares (see du Plat Taylor et al. 1950: 94-99), although frequencies increased though to Period IV C (most abundant). Non-painted wares are replaced in later levels.

C.3. EBA I-II CERAMIC TYPES

James Mellaart has outlined the parallels that he observed between the material found in the course of his survey and that found on the Cilician Plain (see Table C.3).

From his descriptions, it is clear that Mellaart saw many similarities between the material that he found on the Konya Plain, and that found at sites like Mersin and Tarsus on the

Cilician Plain. As can be seen from his rather broad categories, Mellaart saw a great deal of homogeneity within his own Konya Plain typology; I have largely followed Mellaart's lead, although some of the reasons may differ. I have also provided the original labels supplied by the original surveyors, and the (presumed) correlations with either Mersin or

Tarsus (or both) (Table C.4). The reader will immediately notice that material from these 182

Table C.3 James Mellaart's parallels between Konya and Cilician Plain EBA I and II ceramics

Konya Plain Cilician Plain 1. Plain Black burnished (E.B. I only) Red and Black Burnished ware 2. Incised black burnished (E.B. 1 and early 2) 3. Plain red burnished (most common in E.B. 1 and 2) 1. Red gritty ware (plain, E.B. 1-2) 2. Apricot ware (E.B. 1-2) 3. Decoration with red or white paint, or both (E.B. 1 "Metallic ware" and beginning 2) 4. Miniature lug ware, plain red, painted purplish red or coated in purple slip (E.B.2) Red-painted ware 1. cf. striped ware of E.B. 1 1. Red-gritty scored ware (end of E.B. 1, especially E.B. Scored ware 2) 1. Coarse ware (both periods, but not significant for Coarse ware comparison)

(after Mellaart 1963:234)

Table C.4 Parallels of Important EBA MI Ceramic Types Survey Report^ Seton- Mersin Tarsus Mellaart French Williams

"Plain Black "Cilician E.B. Black burnished", "Black Burnished", "Cilician "Red and "EB Burnished White- E.B. Slipped and Black Burnished N/A filled Incised", "Red burnished", and Burnished Ware" Burnished Ware", "Cilician (?) E.B. Ware" "Plain Red Burnished" Brown washed"

"Cilician E.B. Metallic'or Red Gritty ware", "Red gritty ware", "EB "Gritty Level Xlla "Cilician E.B. Red "Apricot ware", Metallic incised Jugs (see and white painted "Miniature lug ware" ware" and Handles" comments) 'metallic' ware", "Konya Plain E.B.2 Metallic ware" 183 two sites, and especially the later, function as a "lynch-pin" for the entire system. While perhaps overstating its importance, the pottery sequence from Tarsus forms the basis for regional comparisons between central Anatolia and the southern coast (and beyond) during the Early Bronze Age. The following sections provide brief descriptions and justifications for why 1 have included each of the diverse types into a "super" type. The most important of the types listed here are "EBA Burnished Ware" and especially "EBA

'Metallic' Ware". These two types are critically important because they both appear on the Konya Plain and in Cilicia. The similarities between Mellaart's and Seton-Williams' work makes these two types important for demonstrating that people in Cilicia were in contact with those on the Konya Plain. The next three pottery classes (i.e., "Red Painted

Ware", "Scored Ware", and "Coarse Ware") are of minimal value in determining the general structure of trade in the regions they cover; the first two are primarily confined to the Konya Plain, and "Coarse Ware" appears at the overwhelming majority of sites; I take this to be a utilitarian ware. I have included them because Mellaart (1963) includes them, although no description is offered here. Table C.4 provides site parallels for the two wares, providing the names that have been used to describe them; no assumption of equivalency is made, but I have merely provided parallels seen by others. Lastly, 1 have included a description of Seton-Williams' "Straw tempered ware", as it was used to date some sites to the EBA l-II based on her identification. It should be noted that there are no parallels to material from Mersin or Tarsus offered by Seton-Williams.

C.3.1. EBA Burnished Ware

This type is labeled "EB Burnished Ware" by Mellaart (1963: 211-220), "Cilician

E.B. Black Burnished", "Cilician E.B. Slipped and burnished", and "Cilician (?) E.B. 184

Brown washed" by French (1965a: 183), and "Red and Black Burnished Ware" by

Seton-Williams (1954: 131). The primary means of identification is surface treatment

(burnishing). Surface colour can range from black and brown to red or orange. Some examples are incised, although these seem to be confined to black cups and red vessels

(jugs and jars) (see Mellaart 1963: 213). Mellaart suggests that this type can be dated to the E.B. II, although some shapes, such as flaring and straight-sided bowls, may have emerged in the preceding period (E.B. I). Neither French or Seton-Williams hazard an estimate of date, preferring to compare sherds of this class to examples from Tarsus. I have opted to date this type to the E.B. I-II in the absence of a definitive date, even with the many parallels to material from the well stratified sequence at Tarsus.

In the case of French's typology, I have combined several similar descriptions, but it is important to note in which ways they differ (see French 1965a: 183). The surface color of his "Black Burnished" ware is usually black or brown, with a fine burnishing and occasional incision. The other two types, "Slipped and burnished" and "Brown washed" have much more variety in surface coloration. These can range in colour from brown to orange to red; French (1965a: 183) notes that brown or orange examples can be found near Mut, whereas red surface colour is found predominantly around Silifke. While these are significant differences, there are several commonalities. These include: all three are hand made, and, more importantly, French considers them comparable to "Red Burnished

Ware" from Tarsus.

At Tarsus, the four types which Mellaart, French, and Seton-Williams draw parallels to contain an appreciable degree of variability (see Goldman 1956: 95-96).

Although I have grouped them as a single period, many of the types found at Tarsus 185 extend from the EBA I into the EBA II levels, and were treated as such in the final report. However, without the stratigraphic context like the one found at Tarsus, there is simply know way to determine whether surface collections should be dated to the first of second phase of the EBA. The primary means of identifying this group of pottery is from the surface treatment, namely burnishing. The fabric of the black burnished varieties can range from grey to black, while the red burnished types typically are red-brown to buff. Black types are typically tempered with organics, where as this is conspicuously absent from red types. In addition, the fabric of black types contains small amounts of mica, while red types evidently do not contain this mineral. Other differences in fabric composition include the presence of shell in red types. No comment is made concerning whether black types are slipped, but the red types are slipped before firing. The incised types in red and black are sufficiently different from the plain variety and from each other to warrant a brief description. Both incised types share a common shape, namely the

"steep-walled cup", as well as decorative features including chevrons and lozenges.

Examples of Black burnished Incised ware are entirely in this shape, while the red ware comes in a variety of shapes, including open bowls and pitchers. Red burnished incised ware is better manufactured, with an almost entirely buff core despite being relatively thicker. All of the Tarsus burnished wares are present in the

EBA I and extend into the EBA II, varying in relative frequency.

C.3.2. EBA "Metallic" Ware

This type is labeled as "EB Metallic ware" by Mellaart (1963: 228-229), "Cilician

E.B. 'Metallic' or Red Gritty ware" by French (1965a: 183) and "Gritty incised Jugs 186 and Handles" by Seton-Williams (1954: 131). Like the rest of her EBA wares, Seton-

Williams poorly defines this group; it would be impossible to connect it with the Goksu

Valley and Konya Plain material were it not for the parallels drawn to material from

Tarsus. I follow Mellaart's original label, preferring it as a large umbrella designation, which also allows for the inclusion of other types of "metallic" ware. This permits including French's separate types labeled as "Cilician E.B. Red and white painted

'metallic' ware" and "Konya Plain E.B.2 Metallic ware" (see French 1965a: 184). It should be noted that all three surveys identify this type based on comparative material found at Tarsus. French (1965a: 183) suggests that differences in fabric and shape between Konya Plain examples and those from Tarsus are due to different regions of manufacture, and that the two types have a common origin. Comparative material from

Mersin figures to a lesser extent, largely due to the disturbed nature of this part of the sequence.

Of all the ceramic types recovered from his survey, Mellaart states that "EB

Metallic ware" is the most distinctive in character. Very hard firing, thin walls, pale body color (red or buff), and painting characterize this type (see Mellaart 1963: 228).

According to Mellaart, the firing resulted in vitrified paint, when applied, and pitting of limestone inclusions. Surface decoration consists of hatching, stripes, and wavy lines of red or orange paint, while others bear darker (brown, purple, or red) banding. Mellaart sees a periodization in the painting, with the banding dating to a chronologically later period. Shapes include jugs, bowls, and jars, with distinctive lips (Mellaart 1963: 228-

229). These are similar to vessel shapes at Tarsus.

Comparison between Mellaart's type and material found at Mersin deserves some 187 consideration (see Mellaart 1963: 228). Although not found in a stratified context,

Garstang expresses his desire to associate the two jugs Mellaart references with material from Level XII a (Garstang 1952: 196); Mellaart does not state the reasons for drawing this comparison. If accepted, this would date the only two examples of "EB 'Metallic'

Ware" from Mersin to 2600-1900 B.C. However, based on comparisons to stratified material from Tarsus, Mellaart asserts "EB 'Metallic' Ware" is to be dated to EBAI-II.

In the descriptions of Tarsus, some clarifications need to be made (see Goldman

1956: 94-95). First, "Red Gritty Ware" can be divided into three varieties, although the first two are hard fired. The first variant is distinctive for the appearance of temper on the surface, with resulted in frequent pitting. Additionally, temper includes sand and limestone, with a clay that is "brick-red" in colour. Due to the "excessive" quantity of temper, examples are easily breakable revealing laminating. The second sub-type at

Tarsus is very similar to the first, with some exceptions. Goldman asserts that this second sub-type "becomes the chief utility ware thoughout the Early Bronze Age" (Goldman

1956: 94). The fabric is similar to the first as well, although there is more sand than lime.

Furthermore, the surface of second sub-type of "Red Gritty ware" is "smooth", suggesting that the pitting found among examples of the first is greatly reduced, if not entirely absent. Other characteristics of this sub-type include its hard firing ("clinky when struck", Goldman 1956: 94), red slipped, uneven burnishing, as well as thinning of the sides. Moreover, the third variety labeled as "Apricot ware" by Mellaart is in reality a sub-type or subgroup of "Red Gritty ware". Goldman describes this type as having a

"more apricot color" (Goldman 1956: 94), although she found few examples of this subgroup. Therefore, Mellaart's designation of some material from his survey as "Apricot 188 ware" should be understood as representative of the large class of "Red Gritty ware".

C.3.3. Straw Tempered

Seton-Williams (1954:130-131) identified this ware in her survey, although she does not provide much description concerning its characteristics. However, she links it to her "Red and Black Burnished" ware, which she dates to the early part of the Bronze

Age, and may represent a transitional ware from the Late Chalcolithic to EBA. Moreover, she states that this ware was found "on nearly all the early sites" (Seton-Williams 1954:

130). I have taken this to mean sites dated to the early part of the EBA. This would presumably date it to either EB I or II, but most likely both. Therefore, I have treated it as an EBA I-II ware in my analysis.

C.4. EBA III WARES

The work of Mellaart ends at the EBA I-II period. Seton-Williams does not subdivide her EBA period, but much of what she reports falls into the EBA I-II as well.

French does list EBA III types in his description; however, as it focuses exclusively on the Goksu valley itself, it is probably the least informative of the three. Therefore, additional sources were needed to supply data for this period. From his report, Mellaart identifies only eight sites from the Central Plateau that can be securely dated to the EBA

III. The basis of this identification was the recovery of "Red crossed bowls" from most of these mounds (see also Mellaart 1958a: 321-323) (Table C.5). While this type was dated to the last phase of the EBA in his summary of the EBA III (Mellaart 1963: 236),

Mellaart had earlier dated this type to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Mellaart

1958a: 322). French includes examples of materials recovered from Attepe and

Maltepe/Kilise Tepe in the Goksu Valley within the "Red cross bowl" type with the 189

Table C.5 EBA III Ceramic Types Survey Report Tarsus Mersin Mellaart French Seton-Williams "W. Anatolian/ "Red cross "Red cross [See Cilician E.B.3 Red [See comments] bowls" bowls" comments] Washed ware" (after French 1965a; Garstang 1952; Goldman 1956; Mellaart 1963; Seton-Williams 1945) understanding that these are dated to the EBA III (French 1965a: 184). Seton-Williams does not draw an explicit parallel to anything from Tarsus, but from her fleeting mention of "thin bowls" found at various (unmentioned) sites, it is a safe presumption to assume that she is referring to this type. French's "Red slipped ware" presumably corresponds to

Goldman's "Light Clay Red-slipped Burnished ware" at Tarsus, although he does not draw the parallel. Goldman herself draws the parallel between this type and a "red coated ware" found at Troy by Blegen (see Goldman 1956: 134). Related to this, depas cups are associated with the EBA levels at Troy in northwestern Anatolia, but also appears throughout Anatolia and Aegean at this time. This type is more properly understood as a vessel form than a separate type of pottery, as Goldman groups this form with her "Light

Clay Red-Slipped Burnished Ware" (see Goldman 1956: 134). Her identification of

"Two-handled cups" as being similar to examples found at other Cilician sites like Tarsus and Mersin, suggests that Seton-Williams viewed these as similar in form to descriptions of the depascup. This is especially evident due to the fact she dates these to the end of the

EBA (Seton-Williams 1954: 131). In light of this last association, this ceramic type becomes the primary means of tracking intrusive elements into Cilicia, presumably originating from Troy in the northwest. 190

APPENDIX D

Least Cost Analysis

Appendix D discusses technical aspects of Least Cost analyses used in this thesis. I briefly discus the anisotropic module in GRASS 6.4 that was used, namely r.walk, as well as the ways in which its variables were modified to test whether the Goksu Valley was used as a trade/communication corridor. I then discuss how Least Cost pathways were used to help generate the networks used in the Network Analysis for the Late

Chalcolithic through to the end of the EBA III.

D.l. INITIAL PROBLEMS WITH GENERATING PATHWAYS

I encountered numerous difficulties when initially conducting the LCA using

GRASS 6.3, the most recent stable version of the Open Source program. This included the little known - at least to myself- problems with using the r .walk and r.drain modules.

The modules were unable to successfully complete a route, which resulted in what looked like flagella attached to point locations. After discussion with Dr. Andrew Bevan (UCL) in January 2009, who mentioned the work of Colin Nielsen (currently at McGill

University), code Mr. Nielsen had written for his MSc. at UCL was used to generate the anisotropic maps used in the Least Cost analysis.1 Compared to older versions, GRASS

6.4 produced an additional direction output map that was then used by the re-written r.drain module. Prior to this, cost values were not given a direction, which became problematic when calculating a route on anything other than a flat surface. This new code overcame limitations in GRASS 6.3, which was unable to process the direction of the slope as it calculated the pathway.

1 1 would like to acknowledge the work of Drs. Bevan and Conolly and Colin Nielsen for serendipitously solving this problem for me. 191

An additional problem was encountered when it came time to visualize the newly calculated routes. The newer code did not output a continuous line. This affected the present research in two ways. The first was that I had to render the drain as points instead of a line, as the original raster file containing the pathway was converted into a vector file; routes connecting sites in the maps used throughout this thesis are in actuality thousands of little points. Generally, this was more of a visualization problem, and for the most part was successfully dealt with. However, once the cumulative pathways were visualized to create the network later on, numerous routes aggregated to create a complicated mass of points (Figure D.I.). Contrarily, other routes allowed for a relatively straightforward process of identification where multiple iterations reproduced the same pathway.

Finally, despite all of the 'work-arounds' that had to be used, some maps would not compute. There were three maps in the entire project that were unable to be completed: Akclar, Buyiikgonu, and Viransehir / Soli. I have no definitive explanation for why these three maps could not be completed. Numerous failed attempts were made to generate them, including shrinking the total area for which cost surface values had to be calculated (to speed up processing). The first two did not produce the directional output maps necessary to calculate the drains used in GRASS 6.4.1 was simply unable to use the regular output maps that were generated, as these alone would have not provided sufficient data to calculate the drains. Viransehir / Soli presented an altogether different problem. After numerous attempts, it became apparent that the equally numerous server problems were caused by this particular site. I concluded that because of some inherent feature of this site, perhaps owing to its immediate proximity to NULL values on the 192

Seydihan pi !••'• TSarafrSytik (Kony a)

Ufhuyiik North

a)

'••.. Kiran Kayasi

./>•--::•-••

Attepe %

"\. • .Rilise Tepe ';;... . 6;.' •. v : i;: ' '--=:--> -";-;S,<:jpingantepe

b) Figure D.l Cumulative EBA HI routes: a) pathway confusion, b) reiterated pathways. 193 coast (?), it became a 'run-away' process. If forced to provide an answer, I would speculate that this was likely caused by a lack of raster cells available around the site to calculate the values assigned to the cost surface; using up all available server memory trying to resolve this unsolvable problem brought down the server numerous times. The lack of routes for Akclar and Biiyukgonu only affected the EBAI-II period, which also had the most number of sites. Viransehir / Soli was occupied during all three periods, making its absence a distinct source of error. However, given that Viransehir/Soli is near

Mersin-Yumuktepe, there is good reason to assume that routes would not have differed significantly from the latter; methodological redundancy would potentially have minimized deleterious affects of its absence in the network as a whole.

D.2. LEAST COST PATHWAYS FOR THE NEOLITHIC

Table D.l shows how some of the values in the r.waik module that were manipulated over the course of the four trials (see Neteler and Mitasova 2007: 139-140).

The waikcoef f in the table correspond to the input parameters for the module. According to the online GRASS manual2 coefficient "a" is used to determine the "underfoot condition", which allows for the imputing of walking speed (a=l/walking speed). The

Table D.l Manipulated r.waikvariables

Walking Coefficients (' walk icoef f ) Trial . a b c d 1 0.72 6.0 1.9998 -1.9998 2 0.72 36.0 1.9998 -3.99920004 3 0.72 216.0 1.9998 -7.99760024 4 0.72 1296.0 1.9998 -15.99360095994

http://grass.itc.it/grass62/manuals/html62_user/r.walk.html 194 larger the number, the more "effort" inclines cost. This was the most significant variable in terms of testing different constraints on the shape of routes. The next coefficient ("c") determined how effort values for moderate declines (>5° and <12°) were calculated. The last coefficient manipulated ("d") was used to calculate effort values for steep declines

(>12°); coefficient "d" was kept negative throughout the trials. The first trial kept the default values for each of the coefficients, and set the lambda (k) value at 1. The lambda value was kept constant through the four trials. Lambda is the coefficient combining movement energy and friction costs (i.e., total cost = movement time cost + (lambda) x friction costs).

Sample scripting for the first trial, using the site of Catalhoyuk as an example in

Figure D.2. Because I did not want to create a cost surface using the DEM's default resolution of 00:00:03 or 90 m2,1 decreased the resolution of the maps to 0:00:09 (or 270 m2 tiles) to reduce processing time. The Knight's Move (-k) modifier was also used.

According to the online GRASS manual, this modifier produces a more multifaceted cost surface, but increases computing time. An important feature to observe is how the changing values from Table D.l are put in the waikcoef f input section in Figure D.2.

D.3. LEAST COST PATHWAYS FOR CREATING SOCIAL NETWORKS

The Least Cost pathways that were generated for the Social Networks used the same method as previously outlined. I have supplied an example of how the routes for the site of Akcasehir were scripted in Figure D.3. Several important points concerning the scripting should be noted. First, unlike the trials outlined in the preceding section, the default values for r.walk were consistently used. Once again, the map resolution was 195

[D.l] g.region rast=DEM.new,slopefriction res=00:00:09

[D.2] r.walk -k elevation=DEM.new friction=slopefriction output=walk_Catal_l outdir=walk_Catal_l_dir coordinate=32. 82,37.66 lambda=l

[D.3] r.drain —d input=walk_Catal_l_dir output=drain_walk_Catal_l outdir=walk_Catal_l_dir coordinate=36 .58,36.26

[D.4] r.to.vect input=drain_walk_Catal_l output=drain_walk_Catal_l feature=point

[D.5] r.walk -k elevation=DEM.new friction=slopefriction output=walk_Catal_2 outdir=walk_Catal_2_dir coordinate=32.82,37.66 walk_coeff=0.5184,36.0,3.99920004,- 3.99920004 lambda=l [D.6] r.drain —d input=walk_Catal_2_dir output=drain_walk_Catal_2_Ceydede vector_points=Neolithic_Sites

[D.7] r.to.vect input=drain_walk_Catal_2 output=drain_walk_Catal_2 feature=point

[D.8] r.walk -k elevation=DEM.new friction=slopefriction output=walk_Catal_3 outdir=walk_Catal_3_dir coordinate=32.82,37.66 walk_coeff=0.373248,216.0,7.99760024,-7.99760024 lambda=l

[D.9] r.drain —d input=walk_Catal_3_dir output=drain_walk_Catal_3 coordinate=36.58, 36.26

[D.10] r.to.vect input=drain_walk_Catal_3 output=drain_walk_Catal_3 £eature=point

[D.ll] r.walk -k elevation=DEM.new friction=slopefriction output=walk_Catal_4 outdir=walk_Catal_4_dir coordinate=32.82,37.66 walk_coeff=0.26873856,1296.0,15.99360095994,-15.99360095994 lambda=l

[D.12] r.drain —d input=walk_Catal_4_dir output=drain_walk_Catal_4 coordinate=36.58,36.26

[D.13] r.to.vect input=drain_walk_Catal_4 output=drain_walk_Catal_4 feature=point Figure D.2 Example of GRASS 6.4 scripting for generating Least Cost pathways for the site of Catalhoyiik, representing four trials.

0:00:09 (or 270 m2 tiles). Because many of the maps created at this stage would be used later on, I did not decrease the area of the DEM for which cost values would be calculated. I also used the Knight's Move (-k) modifier to calculate the cost values for each raster cell. A significant feature of this method was that I reduced the computing

[D.14] g.region rast=DEM.new,slopefriction res=00:00:09

[D.15] r.walk -k elevation=DEM.new friction=slopefriction output=walk_Akcasehir outdir=walk_Akcasehir_dir coordinate=33.48,37.45 lambda=l

[D.16] r.drain —d input=walk_Akcasehir_dir output=drain_walk_Akcasehir_Chalcolithic vector_points=Chalcolithic_Sites

[D.17] r.to.vect input=drain_walk_Akcasehir_Chalcolithic output=drain_walk_Akcasehir_Chalcolithic feature=point Figure D.3 Sample scripting used to generate routes for Network analysis. 196 time by using a file containing locations for all sites (the vector_points input). This meant that the individual cost values assigned to raster cells for each route could not be used due to the continuous overlapping of pathways; this affected what could be done with the network later on. Once all of the appropriate drains had been computed, they were converted to vector (line) files with the outcomes already mentioned. The resulting map set was then displayed sot that all routes for a particular period were visible, and this cumulative final map was then used to create the networks. It should be remembered that generating the numerous Least Cost pathways was the initial step in the creation of the networks explained elsewhere (Chapter Three). 197

APPENDIX E

Social Network Analysis

The theoretical and disciplinary frameworks of Social Network Analysis were discussed in Chapter Three. The tables here provide all data obtained from the Centrality measures, while only a selection of top ranked vertices were reproduced in Chapter Four.

The data in these tables represent "ego-centered" Centrality, as they focus on scores for individual vertices. Others refer to these as "actor" based measures (see Knoke and Yang

2008: 62). This section is organized according to the three Centrality measures obtained, with tables organized chronologically. Descriptive statistics are also provided for each table. The measures were obtained using the methods outlined according to the recently published Pajek handbook (see de Nooy et al. 2005: 123-137). This part of the analysis was much less time consuming, as the scores were quickly calculated and the output readable by Textedit. Values were rank ordered. I determined that the Betweenness and

Closeness Centrality scores would be the best to understand network dynamics, which required that they be comparable. In order to do this and to normalize the data, I had to transform the raw Centrality scores, converting them to a log scale. Then I further transformed these values to z-scores. This allowed me to compare sites that appeared in two or more networks, and to determine whether they increased or decreased in prominence. Discussion of this aspect of my analysis can be found in Chapter Five. The results of the rank ordered Mann-Whitney significance test are found in Chapter Four. -t- U) U) U) U) Ul Ul U> Ui OJ Ui M K) to K) K> KJ K) N> KJ K) 4^ 4^ 4^ vo 00 ^j ON Ul 4^ w H 4^ LO K) o* . vo oo ^j ON Lh 4^ L*> to o vo 00 ~J C\ Vyi -fc. U) K> O vo oo ^1 o\ v> 4*. UJ K> o m — — — — h-k Pekmezl i I Moll a Ah m Misi s Kira n Kay a Kepirc e I Kepirc e I Karahoyu k Kana l Ibrahi m Hom a Hacila r (Ci l Goztep e Ceyha n II I Ca n Hasa Buru n Boya h I ( E Boya h I (Tur n Beytep e Baya t Silifk e Seydiha n Sarla k Nor t Sanhasant o Sah r Minarel i Mersi n / Y i Koc a I Kilis e Tep Keyre n Evreg i 2 Eflatu n Pi Sirkel i Sinnel i Sincirl i •VI O o o •o o Cd > ffi P ft CO 3 •C/l o £ <-< ffi e Pi re ffi VI E

»etw e s o o o o o o o O O O O ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o O o o o o o o o o © o U> O U> 4^ o K) o o — u> ooooo — 00000000000000000000 U> vn -~l n^ ^1 4^ 4^ OJ UJ — O *~t\ oo vo 4i W in i- O Ui Ui — ^ Ui U M U >• OOOWN>tOOOK>OONO — O VD K) VO SJ ft as o\ OJ j^. tyi vo 4*. NJ -J M » W to — -J K) •— O lO W ^1 50 — Ji. — KD VO O . . _ . 3 —\ K>^]l/i4^4i.Uioo^looooOU>vOOOU>OOlyi-JtOOOON>VOv/o o i t^ K) OS o oo 3 o vo o 4*. ui w oo M sj l« Ijj 4i W w Oi a\ ^ Wi 4»O^I»W4>Ul«U 4^0\N>VDOOO^JO\ — CT\ o K) o o <*, o> o w os> !"« JO r — — K> to Ui M - Ji * « 4>*.WUW^UUJii-*U„ i^». OOUlQ-VOa-WOO-H'M e CO vl U K) — 4*. OJ 0>ONN>V0U)U>4^'— 3 o ov o *»• ui W « Bn" 65 oooooooo 00(0000000 — OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUJOtOOO r ffi lyi!OV0OIO4* — OOJi— ,— Ul 4^- K> •— K> — OOOKJ — — OO — O 4> O >— lyi ^1 — — Ui UiUltOK) — OUJ — OJOvK>OK)OOSJOOivilOOJ — -~J4^.U)0JOOtO~J^lV0K)O4>.O4i0\O00 — — U)IO o O ^1 w 4^ 4i vo lyi — ~J OsUJOvK)vo^lU\vOOvK>OOU>4i.O\NJOOV004iK)l0^1~-JOOaN4^<-n'-nvOOv04^4i.K)

N oooooooo P 6 1-^ooooooPooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO u> p to o 3 u'->uto4^ui»!^ 3 >° Ulk)WUUlUll»Ulbui4^ bo u b ji ffi ooooovot-n o •— OJ O OO O VO ON Ul — ViJ^j v] OO Wl ^ VO — CO CO o\ui^^aoo^oo^o^ rt- o

vo CX) Table E.l Betweenness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network (continued)

ID Site Name Betweenness Rank Log Z-score 45 Sultan Tepe 0.00080 47 1.0005 -0.58 46 Tarmil 0.00810 43 1.0057 -0.51 47 Tarsus 0.03325 24 1.0235 -0.30 48 Tatarli 0.19330 45 1.0212 -0.33 49 Tekirkoy 0.02576 30 1.0181 -0.36 50 Tilan 0.07330 9 1.0526 0.06 51 Toprak Tol. 0.00000 51 1.0000 -0.58 52 Velican Tepe 0.38068 2 1.3094 3.20 53 Viransehir / Soli 0.03163 27 1.0223 -0.31

Table E.2 Descriptive Statistics for Late Chalcolithic Betweenness scores

Raw Scores Mean 0.0624 Standard Error 0.0139 Median 0.0316 Mode 0 Standard Deviation 0.1014 Range 0.4305 Minimum 0 Maximum 0.4305 Sum 3.3122 N= 53 Table E.3 Betweenness Centrality for EBA I-II network ID Site Name Betweenness Rank Log Z-score 1 Abdullah 0.01462 82 1.0122 -0.33 2 Ada Tepe II 0.00050 160 1.0004 -0.76 3 Akcalar 0.00009 164 1.0001 -0.77 4 Akca§ehir 0.10672 5 1.0929 2.56 5 Akkuyu 0.01363 83 1.0114 -0.36 6 Akyoku§ Kizil 0.02495 58 1.0209 -0.02 7 Alibey I 0.04801 31 1.0407 0.69 8 Alyahanun 0.00335 131 1.0028 -0.67 9 Anberinharki 0.00634 118 1.0053 -0.58 10 Apasaraycik 0.00125 147 1.0010 -0.74 11 Attepe / Artepe 0.00576 120 1.0048 -0.6 12 Bagiu Bagra 0.02983 49 1.0251 0.13 13 Bayat (Konya) 0.04821 30 1.0409 0.69 14 Bayat (Nigde) 0.00144 145 1.0012 -0.73 15 Bey§ehir C 0.01238 88 1.0103 -0.4 16 Beytepe 0.01069 93 1.0089 -0.45 17 Boyali I (Tumegi) 0.01777 72 1.0149 -0.24 18 Boyali II (East) 0.01626 76 1.0136 -0.28 19 Boz Giillu 0.00822 102 1.0068 -0.53 20 Bozhuyuk 0.00021 162 1.0002 -0.76 21 Burun 0.01547 80 1.0129 -0.31 22 Buyiik A$lama 0.00102 152 1.0008 -0.74 23 Buyiikgonu 0.00640 117 1.0053 -0.58 24 Can Hasan II 0.00668 114 1.0056 -0.57 25 Cariklar 0.00722 111 1.0060 -0.56 26 Catal I (Osmaniye) 0.01789 71 1.0150 -0.23 27 Cavujlu 0.05811 21 1.0495 1 28 Ciller 0.00215 136 1.0018 -0.71 29 Cingantepe 0.01315 85 1.0110 -0.38 30 Comlek Tepesi 0.04264 35 1.0361 0.52 31 Cumra B (Mezarlik) 0.01269 87 1.0106 -0.39 32 Cumra C 0.00060 158 1.0005 -0.75 33 Cumra F (East) 0.01309 86 1.0109 -0.38 34 Dedeli 0.01577 77 1.0132 -0.3 35 Dervi$li 0.00840 100 1.0070 -0.52 36 Dineksaray 0.02054 65 1.0172 -0.15 37 Direyuk / Diruyuk 0.00660 116 1.0055 -0.57 38 Domuz I 0.00529 123 1.0044 -0.61 9 Domuz III 0.05462 27 1.0465 0.9 40 Domuzbogazliyan 0.04984 29 1.0423 0.74 41 Domuz Tepe 0.00360 128 1.0030 -0.66 42 Eflatun Pmar 0.04618 32 1.0391 0.63 43 Eminler 0.02534 56 1.0213 -0.01 44 Emirler 0.05831 20 1.0497 1.01 45 Eskiler 0.02508 57 1.0210 -0.02 46 Evdereji / Evderese 0.02315 62 1.0194 -0.08 o

jnn«»imin'*" t a (N a r^ m _<^-" m — r- o o. n m m oO o Oo^ooo ooo o »_; o — do i99°<=©99'o99>9'cN9'd<:=>9

moo r-~ r~ c^ c~- ON NO in in a n mONNOoH-oj-NO'sfmcnNo^ r^ OH ON -H in t— ON r- t— o o f- — r~-ONOONONOinO —'NO — o O O O Tf CN o oo — o —i -tf — •sfOCNO-'a-OOOOmOOOOmONOOOr-oH —' — cn CN CM O O CN o o o — o o © o o o o o o o en NO o CN o -J ooooo — oooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo

CN o NO - !§ - CN) m ON OO „"n_,'NfnON2. m —^ d —^ 0O^vOtNtNT„„t-«„^ ^r NO oo ~ NO CN r- <0 ON \* s S 5 2

OH OH OH OH OH OH in o o OO •M- 00 in TT m (N o ON OcnoCNm-HTtcN t~~ m in oo o en NO -^r O in NO oo >n 00 o •* •*!• in CM *f ^r r^ CN ^r oo NO 00 OH m ON oo VI NO OO NO ON or^ONinenTfeno NO oo o en ^r 00 r~- oo •* o m CN CN T NO o CN o r~ NO TT NO r~ r» NO 00 ON o CN CN *-H in r-H r^ ON OH CM NO r^ t-^-HoHONCNONmNO OH ON OH 00 •n- NO r^ o NO in O ON TT o m 00 r~ en in m TT 00 OH in o CN o in o O o •* o o o o NO o r^oooo — - N m en CM o o m OH o o OH o

•a CB >N ^ § Itep e T«D O 2 a- _H c •_- ra ca U

w tuz i

yii k s C/J Ho

T! Bura n

a l u Eas t Tep e Tule k

za n OH 0. (Cilicia ) egirme n .5 5 -o> CO OH •— BZU I )0J> T5 >ftn m 1 X U >N o - o ^_ C ^ :3 c Dula k tiisa r tioyu k tioyti k pina r I pina r I nl i

o- an e eTep e

•_ sini r )0J ) ' a. ca o cal l manh o s l (Sa r liit i _H 3 u ar s I aci k

0> Ho rli k 11 T* :_^^ •s -NH ca j=

del e ca ca ca ca ca ca ca rmt i yii k sig i cila r yir o mo 3 E crt F o^ -« XJ c n o cn. r»N •c s lo Wi •—

I ci.) ira n Kay a ca S O :0 a ca ca Ctt o 13 s E -> rrt ca Ctf cd ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca c^»a ca ea ca - —. UU UH OOO a a O w ffi K K K K K ._. 7~, •OH .-2 .£ o4 OH OH ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!^^^^^^^^ oo o\ o « (N n ^ in 0 h OO ONO^Mnl-^^^OO^ O « N m ^ w-i so r- r--r^oooooooooooooooooo oo o\ o o\ ON „ „ oooooooooo SO so ^o \o ^ so — OsOOOslOsUi4^U>tO — O a » si a w ^

ivr i irk e Oilifk e O OO ey d ey d ari a ari a ari h oo oo »r r/n c/i oo oo oo oo r/> 3 O O O o=o z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2ET. ^^^^^^^ 7? * ^ 2?. £5 25 p P- c o c 3 E 2 p ^J •-t ~ 3 2. «' 3' CD t» a* N] N| N' w

asa n 3 c CfQ'. p ° ° N' W P si •weh i •r ?r ?r H §• cT — w' 2. a. a. o o El ^ s *• w OO c •a 3 P Z d p p ps 03 O tol u ST g rt h o £ I- > ~ s- re •^ C ? o ap . 3 re c f re rr p Z S o S re o re

CD o o o o o o o o o oooooooooo OOOOOOOOO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o b o o 'd '<=• bbbbbbbbb o o o o o o o o o o o o b b *t oooooooooo B—* M^ O U> O Ui o o — o o OOOUIOOOOs] K) ta^ u> o si o Ul ui to o — *. Os O to O oo o oo — O — OOOOsOslO-fc- — 00 s] U - O Ul H- si ^ta^^ Ul •— -J to o Ul OS si o si 00 Ul 00 W OO — OO Ul ON — O si -J SIUIOOUIUIOOOSOS-U — — si 00 O O — Ul i- so s| as o to as -u as •-* M-* OS Ul CO si M OO OO l« UliOMW-NOOUWKIOiOOOsl^^lJO-WWJU-VOWWOOM W ^ - OS Ul O Ul -fck O OS K INJ ^^ *. Ul si •fc* *-* oo to o so to o as os o

fO 3 si so Os so s] -U OS Ul IO — 0 — „ Ul os -fc. O O ui Oi u * " — _, to so ui ui 00 00 Ul OO o ui to ui o ui to j^ -u "i re ui so ;; Ul OS SO 00 ~ U) ^ Ul OS w u ^ oo u u w 3 o i pr ooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO r ^^, O — OOOUiOOSOUi — OOOUIOOOOOSO — O — to OOSO .*>. O Ul to O — o re OUiOlOO — OOOOO — O Os — OOUlUlOsUiUislosOOSOsOOOtO— OssOsOsO-^sl o-tkUi so oo — u> u> ui TO o uito — osooososiooouisooo4^tosooosuiuiso-t^ooosui oosui ooouisioui -t^oosiouiosoosi — oto — e+a OUlslUlUltO00UlUl^^.S0Ul a N s 0 O o © O poop oooppppp PooooPoo oo o o o o o o — o o o o o o o w re OS ^ si to ^j — Ul Ul yj '— si Ul Ul W si 'si OS 'si si Ul ;yi SO J^ U) a w Ul "ji- Ul si slUlslUlUlslslbs -p» o -p> to to o as to W Ul "* Ul — tOOs — tOUlslslUlOS 00 Ji. U> 4^. J^ si 00 tO to 00 to Ul 1 ' si si OS Os to

to o to Table E.3 Betweenness Centrality for EBA I-II network (continued)

ID Site Name Betweenness Rank Log Z-score 14 Sizma 0.00094 153 1.0008 -0.74 14 Tarmil 0.00256 134 1.0021 -0.7 14 Tarsus 0.03601 41 1.0304 0.32 14 Tajagil 0.00375 126 1.0031 -0.66 14 Tekirkoy 0.00742 110 1.0062 -0.55 14 Tenevardi I 0.00155 144 1.0013 -0.72 14 Tepesidelik 0.01732 75 1.0145 -0.25 14 Tilan 0.13066 3 1.1150 3.35 14 Tilkili 0.01190 91 1.0099 -0.42 150 Tirmil 0.00241 135 1.0020 -0.7 151 Tomiikkale 0.08688 9 1.0749 1.91 152 Topraktepe 0.00694 112 1.0058 -0.56 153 Tutup 0.09318 7 1.0806 2.12 154 UchuyiikNorth 0.04097 37 1.0346 0.47 155 Velican Tepe 0.01801 70 1.0151 -0.23 156 Viransehir/ Soli 0.00346 130 1.0029 -0.67 157 Yalakozii 0.06357 17 1.0543 1.17 158 Yahhiiyuk 0.17011 2 1.1525 4.69 159 Yanik Hotami? 0.05562 26 1.0473 0.92 160 Yasil 0.02540 55 1.0213 -0.01 161 Yavjan 0.02170 64 1.0182 -0.12 162 Yelbeyli 0.02542 54 1.0213 -0.01 163 Yenikoy 0.00000 166 1.0000 -0.77 164 Yenice 0.00177 139 1.0014 -0.72 165 Yilan 0.03044 48 1.0256 0.15 166 Zeive II / Porsuk Zeive Tepe 0.02818 52 1.0237 0.08 167 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.05960 19 1.0508 1.05 168 Zeytinli 0.00890 97 1.0074 -0.51 169 Zoldura / Zordula 0.07727 10 1.0664 1.61

Table E.4 Descriptive Statistics for EBA I-II Betweenness scores

RawjSrares^ Mean 0.0251 Standard Error 0.0024 Median 0.0131 Mode 0 Standard Deviation 0.0318 Range 0.2028 Minimum 0 Maximum 0.2028 Sum 4.2571 N= 169 Table E.5 Betweenness Centrality for EBA III network ID Site Name Betweenness Rank Log Z-score 1 Attepe 0.13638 3 1.1045 0.66 2 Caputucu 0.04575 9 1.0339 -0.31 3 Cingantepe 0.01985 15 1.0146 -0.57 4 (Jomlek Tepesi 0.22040 2 1.1748 1.62 5 Eminler 0.06305 7 1.0470 -0.13 6 Hatunsaray 0.00097 18 1.0008 -0.76 7 Karahoyiik (Konya) 0.00694 17 1.0051 -0.70 8 Karahoyiik Akviran 0.00097 18 1.0008 -0.76 9 Kilise Tepe / Maltepe 0.09079 6 1.0684 0.17 10 Kiran Kayasi 0.11072 4 1.084 0.38 11 Mersin / Yumuktepe 0.10302 5 1.0779 0.30 12 Misis 0.04575 9 1.0339 -0.31 13 Orta Karaviran North 0.00000 20 1.0000 -0.77 14 Seydihan 0.01351 16 1.0099 -0.63 15 Sizma 0.04927 8 1.0365 -0.27 16 Tarsus 0.04575 9 1.0339 -0.31 17 Tekirkoy 0.03572 13 1.0264 -0.41 18 Ochiiytik North 0.03388 14 1.0250 -0.43 19 Viransehir / Soli 0.04079 12 1.0302 -0.36 20 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.37499 1 1.3185 3.59

Table E.6 Descriptive Statistics for EBA III Betweenness scores Raw Scores Mean 0.0719 Standard Error 0.0200 Median 0.0457 Mode 0.0457 Standard Deviation 0.0896 Range 0.3749 Minimum 0 Maximum 0.3749 Sum 1.4385 N= 20 E.2. Closeness

Table E.7 Closeness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network

ID Site Name Closeness Rank Log Z-score 1 Akca§ehir 0.28415 14 1.1077 0.78 2 Alibey I 0.26262 22 1.0876 0.30 3 Bayat 0.29545 10 1.1184 1.04 4 Bey§ehir C 0.23963 30 1.0666 -0.20 5 Beytepe 0.33986 2 1.1617 2.07 6 Boyali I (Tumegi) 0.29885 7 1.1217 1.11 7 Boyah II (East) 0.29213 11 1.1153 0.96 8 Burun 0.23853 31 1.0656 -0.22 9 Can Hasan 0.24644 28 1.0728 -0.05 10 Ceyhan III 0.22317 36 1.0518 -0.55 11 Cukurkent 0.16403 52 1.0004 -1.77 12 Cukur Koprti 0.19330 45 1.0255 -1.17 13 Cumra F (East) 0.27083 18 1.0952 0.48 14 Domuz Tepe 0.26130 23 1.0864 0.28 15 Eflatun Pinar 0.19548 43 1.0274 -1.13 16 Evregi 2 0.18118 50 1.0150 -1.42 17 Goztepe 0.24644 28 1.0728 -0.05 18 Hacilar (Cilicia) 0.18909 49 1.0219 -1.26 19 Homa 0.19847 42 1.0300 -1.07 20 Ibrahim 0.28260 15 1.1063 0.75 21 Kanal 0.20967 40 1.0398 -0.83 22 Karahoyilk (Konya) 0.31137 4 1.1337 1.40 23 Kazakh 0.25870 25 1.0840 0.22 24 Kepirce I 0.27368 17 1.0979 0.55 25 Kepirce II 0.26530 21 1.0901 0.36 26 Keyren 0.28108 16 1.1048 0.71 27 Kilise Tepe / Maltepe 0.23111 32 1.0589 -0.38 28 Kiran Kayasi 0.24880 27 1.0749 0.00 29 Koca II 0.26130 23 1.0864 0.28 30 Mersin / Yumuktepe 0.25000 26 1.076 0.03 31 Minareli 0.19475 44 1.0268 -1.14 32 Misis 0.16352 53 1.0000 -1.78 33 Molla Ahmet 0.26943 20 1.0939 0.45 34 Okcul 0.29885 7 1.1217 1.11 35 Pekmezli II 0.22807 33 1.0562 -0.44 36 Sahr 0.34437 1 1.1662 2.17 37 §amsin 0.19259 48 1.0249 -1.19 38 Sanhasantolu 0.30057 6 1.1233 1.15 39 Sarlak North 0.29213 11 1.1153 0.96 40 Seydihan 0.29885 7 1.1217 1.11 41 Silifke 0.21848 38 1.0476 -0.65 42 Sincirli 0.31325 3 1.1356 1.45 43 Sinneli 0.27083 18 1.0952 0.48 44 Sirkeli 0.22510 35 1.0535 -0.51 Table E.7 Closeness Centrality for Late Chalcolithic network (continued) ID Site Name Closeness Rank Log Z-score 45 Sultan Tepe 0.16507 51 1.0013 -1.75 46 Tarmil 0.22317 36 1.0518 -0.55 47 Tarsus 0.28888 13 1.1122 0.89 48 Tatarli 0.19330 45 1.0255 -1.17 49 Tekirkoy 0.20717 41 1.0376 -0.88 50 Tilan 0.22707 34 1.0553 -0.46 51 Toprak Tol. 0.19330 45 1.0255 -1.17 52 Velican Tepe 0.31137 4 1.1337 1.40 53 Viransehir / Soli 0.21399 39 1.0436 -0.74

Table E.8 Descriptive Statistics for Late Chalcolithic Closeness scores Raw Scores Mean 0.2477 Standard Error 0.0063 Median 0.2488 Mode 0.2988 Standard Deviation 0.0464 Range 0.1808 Minimum 0.1635 Maximum 0.3443 Sum 13.1289 N= 53 4*.4s.p,.|x.U)UJU)l>JU>U>l>JU)U)U>tOtOtOtOt010tOlOtOIO — — — — — — — — *. *. 4^ ^ — SOOO^lOsvfl^UilO — 0\ ^n 4^ U M - OlOO«^OiUl^WM» OsDOO~JOSs/)4^WIO — 0»0»vl3iU^UW tn ffl Pi m m o ODOOOOOOOOO'OOCdCOroCOCdD303COCdD3COCO>>>>>>>>>>> < £• 3 D a o o arte P ft ft ft 1 ft P 3 ?* M a" -* *T -S -S f ft- (i s a o o o ft - - — - P P =• -a ft- n> a 3 S-3 II& ft r> EL £L « O C •w — H ft. a 2. B I 3 N3 N3 «i UJ C C fl 3 gr *•—< c c ^_ ^ " 03 "fl O B 3 n 3 N P. £ 2 « gf > ft 2 * g d ft a i* 3 -d H a ^ 95 " 3 3 •£• a O. J. 3 75 n. 3 I. = 43 N S. " 3 c

o o o o o o o o o o o o O O oooooooooo oooooooo oooooooo — MM" — to— — — — to to N) to — "— — to to to '— — '— to to to to to — — oo o to SO Ui oo o\ \o o\ o\ - —• — « oo c - _o 00 _ ~^J -O. OS tO OO *. to to oo io — OO ^ M O SO 00 O>O0 SVO \£0)0 oo u> a\ to to ^i so to to u> so oo OJ SoO U\*o w a 4*. o 4*. w a ui ^ ^ oo oo w -j ID •J N * oo oo as to o\ u> — — oo — o\ to -, -o. *. o\ — — to « ai - oo o\ — <-n to os o a\ oo to OOSOtOOOOsOOOsO — t^l OO O0 00 -J tOu\ o -P» O O 4*. U> U tO M tO U ^i - Ov oo o o

0\_,K-J — „OOW 4=> -J -O -J O W *> to 4i 4^ C 00 t. ^1 „ www l» so OS 4^ SO 42. OS O Ul OO W ,n o oo to 4*. SO s^«s=* VO ^1 VO OS to SO ppppooooop OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 'OOOOOOO oooooooooo — to '— '— io — — "— SD0\00O~J4^000Slyi00 asooso-o.soso^ioo-jo\oooooo lyi Ul SO SO' SO 00 OOsoOOOssOOss/i — SO -J O WIOUlOOO\ W —O t04^0004^00 — O OO 00 O W 00 OtOU>4^IO004^42.42.— 4i Is) 4^ - SOtOOOOs — so— — — StoO — <-—* u\^] t0o0 tOoS oO U) OS Ji l« to t 4i Is) 0\ 4^. 4*. to — to —

o p p o o P o PoPo — — P P P P opppopoo — op — — to P o p — A— Po — pr" Ife. — SO P 6 00 (j. l/i : , P " 4** j^ — —' w — kjl ^^ k) W W °° ^ ^ O so — SO ° Ih WUl js^tO^-tO^^-oQ^OS^-^-SO K * 2 - a-Sio^wio^

to o oo o

- K Ov ^t m O •

NO NO m ro oo + r^ooNor-ON^^NO'^-oro^ij^ONONooS'*"^—,-„ ro *

00 1/1 os — ON r-~ m ON fn VIOOCNOOONONO — ©r~-0OrocN>nTtCN© v~iN0r«"jm0NOOO00m t^- in c> — tt . m rj- 00 O Tf NO C". ). O NO 03 W » (N N >0 t — >/N NO "" "" — ONV-)t~-CNOONOO — NO r-~ ON NO NO ^fOOCOONOCNOON- 0O0O— — OONOOOOO ...wN^NOOOt'i-• — — _^_. N — ON ON CN — NO O —; CN (N —; CN CN — _,„_._ CN] CN CN — CN —< — CN CN CN CN — — — CNCN—'— CNCM— CN i- d d d d d d d o o ddddddddddd d d d d d ddddddddd dddddddd

83 i. C c U T3

c /—-, e (Konya ) Akvira n v 2 u I iri s yu k u _C o- Tep e

o Tule k za n

l u Eas t 3 J2 egirme i 13 (Cilici a i Bura n cu — U u VI o >M •o »0D _ U PQ O BU I O r^ o Nort h sini r irs a bula k cal l hisa r hoyii k hoyti k manh o pma r I pina r I c ca

©N :6 y I / K ra C3 ~3 C3 C3 C3 ca .- ca .c

del e ca ca ca ca ca ca rmi i o cila r i mz a sigi n -*5 •O tH i* t* t- kH tM C3 1) O 13 •* c c u ca u > O :3 ca ca u O a rt ca ca C3 ca ca ca ca ca ca ca1 ca ca c? £ o 5 Cfl crt N/< N/ K/1 N/ ^ <- V 1!!! — v/ V V syl s> — o O O O O a I X X K K X I •>/ ^/ ^ U U X l , ONO-™cNrn^iONor^ooc>o^^rNro^ nsor^ooONO'--CNro cf'n\or--ooONO^-CNro'nuo'nw^sosoNONosovoNONONosor^p^t^r^r^r^r--t^r^r^oooooooooooooooooo as ON ON 209

Table E.9 Closeness Centrality for EBA I-II network (continued) ID Site Name Closeness Rank Log Z-score 93 Kisecik 0.17815 131 0.1639 -0.71 94 Kizak 0.21510 33 0.1948 0.83 95 Kizil 1 0.18855 108 0.1727 -0.27 96 Kizilviran 0.20664 65 0.1878 0.48 97 Kizlar 0.19787 85 0.1806 0.12 98 Kocal 0.21319 40 0.1933 0.75 99 Koca II 0.22982 9 0.2069 1.43 100 Konya East 0.18961 104 0.1736 -0.23 101 Kozlubucak 0.21621 29 0.1957 0.87 102 Kubadabad 0.14189 165 0.1327 -2.25 103 KUftik 0.22489 15 0.2029 1.23 104 Kiifiik A§lama 0.20817 58 0.1891 0.54 105 Kuciikkoy Baraka 0.19811 84 0.1807 0.13 106 Kurtbaba 0.20413 69 0.1858 0.38 107 Liz 0.18006 129 0.1656 -0.62 108 Maltepe (Konya) 0.21319 40 0.1933 0.75 109 Mandasun 0.21593 32 0.1955 0.86 110 Mercin 0.14093 167 0.1319 -2.29 111 Mersin / Yumuktepe 0.16358 149 0.1515 -1.32 112 Minareli 0.16358 149 0.1515 -1.32 113 Misis 0.17301 135 0.1596 -0.92 114 Molla Ahmet 0.14532 164 0.1357 -2.1 115 Monastir 0.15512 158 0.1442 -1.68 116 Mut Kale 0.18421 117 0.1691 -0.45 117 Nergis 0.16184 155 0.1500 -1.4 118 Okcul 0.21346 39 0.1935 0.76 119 Orentepe 0.18103 128 0.1664 -0.58 120 Orta Karaviran North 0.23300 7 0.2095 1.55 121 Ortaoba 0.19580 93 0.1788 0.03 122 Oriinduku 0.21374 38 0.1937 0.77 123 Pamukcu II 0.18708 110 0.1715 -0.33 124 Pascu 0.16535 147 0.1530 -1.25 125 Reis Tumegi 0.17777 132 0.1636 -0.72 126 Sakalar 0.20921 54 0.1900 0.59 127 Saksak South 0.20689 62 0.1881 0.49 128 Sahr 0.18563 114 0.1703 -0.39 129 Samih 0.19626 91 0.1792 0.05 130 §am§in 0.15569 157 0.1447 -1.66 131 Sancak 0.19834 83 0.1809 0.14 132 Sarihasantolu 0.18666 112 0.1711 -0.35 133 Sarlak North 0.20388 70 0.1856 0.37 134 Sarlak South 0.20817 58 0.1891 0.54 135 Seydihan 0.19858 79 0.1811 0.15 136 Seydi§ehir 0.15483 160 0.1440 -1.69 137 Sigirci 0.22611 12 0.2038 1.27 138 Silifke 0.15498 159 0.1441 -1.69 Table E.9 Closeness Centrality for EBA I-II network (continued) ID Site Name Closeness Rank Log Z-score 139 Sirkeli 0.16200 153 0.1501 -1.39 140 Sivrice 0.19377 98 0.1771 -0.05 141 Sizma 0.18360 118 0.1686 -0.47 142 Tarmil 0.18983 103 0.1738 -0.22 143 Tarsus 0.21455 36 0.1944 0.81 144 Ta§agil 0.17038 139 0.1573 -1.03 145 Tekirkoy 0.17283 136 0.1594 -0.93 146 Tenevardi I 0.16766 142 0.1550 -1.15 147 Tepesidelik 0.16438 148 0.1522 -1.29 148 Tilan 0.21319 40 0.1933 0.75 149 Tilkili 0.17628 133 0.1624 -0.78 150 Tirmil 0.17628 133 0.1624 -0.78 151 Tomiikkale 0.20689 62 0.1881 0.49 152 Topraktepe 0.20869 55 0.1895 0.56 153 Tutup 0.21158 51 0.1919 0.68 154 UchiiyukNorth 0.21932 23 0.1983 1 155 Velican Tepe 0.20265 73 0.1845 0.32 156 Viransehir / Soli 0.18162 126 0.1669 -0.56 157 Yalakozii 0.19310 99 0.1766 -0.08 158 Yahhuyuk 0.24815 2 0.2217 2.16 159 Yamk Hotami§ 0.20314 72 0.1849 0.33 160 Yasil 0.19489 95 0.1781 0 161 Yav§an 0.21733 27 0.1967 0.92 162 Yelbeyli 0.22310 18 0.2014 1.15 163 Yenikoy 0.16986 140 0.1569 -1.05 164 Yenice 0.16766 142 0.1550 -1.15 165 Yilan 0.18181 125 0.1671 -0.55 166 Zeive II / Porsuk Zeive Tepe 0.19787 85 0.1806 0.12 167 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.22702 11 0.2046 1.31 168 Zeytinli 0.19047 102 0.1744 -0.19 169 Zoldura / Zordula 0.23496 6 0.2110 1.63

Table E.10 Descriptive Statistics for EBA I-II Closeness scores Raw Scores Mean 0.1952 Standard Error 0.0018 Median 0.1978 Mode 0.1985 Standard Deviation 0.0240 Range 0.1177 Minimum 0.1311 Maximum 0.2488 Sum 32.9954 N= 169 Table E.ll Closeness Centrality for EBA III network

ID Site Name Closeness Rank Log Z-score 1 Attepe / Artepe 0.46341 7 1.1338 0.15 2 Caputucu 0.44186 9 1.1149 -0.13 3 Cingantepe 0.39583 16 1.0757 -0.71 4 Comlek Tepesi 0.59375 1 1.2563 1.96 5 Eminler 0.54285 3 1.2067 1.22 6 Hatunsaray 0.44186 9 1.1149 -0.13 7 Karahoyiik (Konya) 0.43181 14 1.1062 -0.26 8 Karahoyiik Akviran 0.44186 9 1.1149 -0.13 9 Kilise Tepe (Maltepe) 0.36538 17 1.0506 -1.09 10 Kiran Kayasi 0.51351 5 1.1791 0.82 11 Mersin / Yumuktepe 0.35849 18 1.0450 -1.17 12 Misis 0.44186 9 1.1149 -0.13 13 Orta Karaviran North 0.43181 14 1.1062 -0.26 14 Seydihan Hoyiik 0.45238 8 1.1241 0 15 Sizma 0.52777 4 1.1924 1.01 16 Tarsus 0.44186 9 1.1149 -0.13 17 Tekirkoy 0.31666 19 1.0117 -1.66 18 Uchiiyuk North 0.51351 5 1.1791 0.82 19 Viransehir / Soli 0.30158 20 1.0000 -1.84 20 Zencirli / Sincirili 0.57575 2 1.2385 1.69

Table E.12 Descriptive Statistics for EBA III Centrality scores

Raw Score Mean 0.0719 Standard Error 0.0200 Median 0.0457 Mode 0.0457 Standard Deviation 0.0896 Minimum 0 Maximum 0.3749 Range 0.3749 Sum 1.43859 N= 20