Food Production Modes in Neolithic Anatolia and the Neolithization of the Balkans
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lolita Nikolova, Marco Merlini and Alexandra Comºa, eds. Circumpontica in Prehistory: Western Pontic Studies CHAPTER 3 FOOD PRODUCTION MODES IN NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA AND THE NEOLITHIZATION OF THE BALKANS JAK YAKAR (ISRAEL) The Anatolian Neolithic, one of the most fascinating episodes in ber of sites provide reasonably well preserved subsistence the socio-economic history of the Near East, continues to be related documentation (Garrad 1999). These are: Hallan Çemi investigated in each of the four geographically distinct regions (Rosenberg 1999), Demirci, Çayönü (Özdoðan, A. 1999), of Turkey. The Urfa-Diyarbakir steppe country watered by the Nevali Çori (Hauptmann 1999), Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt Euphrates and Tigris river systems in southeast, the Konya- 1998), Gürcütepe (Schmidt 1995), Cafer Höyük (Cauvin, et Aksaray plains in the southern Anatolian plateau, the Lakes Dis- al. 1999), Mezraa Teleilat (Karul, Ayhan and Özdoðan 2002). trict in west-central Anatolia, and the Marmara basin and Turk- Taken together they illustrate the long process of develop- ish Thrace in the northwest (Yakar 1991; 1994; Özdoðan, M. ment from incipient cultivation to broad-spectrum farming. 1999; Özdoðan and Basgelen 1999). Moreover, these sites shed important light on the internal The process referred to by some scholars as “Neolithization” and external dynamics that sparked the Neolithization in this or “Neolithic way of life” could be defined as a slow socio-eco- part of Anatolia. Pinarbaºi, Aºikli (Esin and Harmankaya nomic course that evolved parallel to the climatic improvement 1999), Musular (Özbasaran 1999), Kösk Höyük (Öztan felt during the early Holocene. As early as 10000 BP experi- 2002), Çatalhöyük (Hodder 1999; 2003; Yakar 1991), Can mentations with sedentarization started. The reflections of these Hassan III and I (French 1998; Yakar 1991), Erbaba (Yakar experimentations are hidden, among other records, in the sub- 1991), Suberde (Yakar 1991), Hacilar (Mellaart 1970), sistence related activities of the respective communities. In Höyücek (Duru 1999), Bademaðaci (Duru 1999), Kuruçay Anatolia, roughly delimited by the upper Tigris and lower (Duru 1994) are the principal sites of the southern Anatolian Euphrates, the eastern Mediterranean, the eastern Aegean, the Plateau, including the Lakes District to its west. Yumuktepe- Marmara and the Black Sea, climatic conditions favorable to Mersin retains its importance as the representative site of the dry farming first transformed the eastern Taurus piedmont be- densely settled Cilician plain. fore spreading in other directions, including the southern As for the presence of an Aceramic phase of the Neolithic Anatolian plateau. The climatic improvement that started with in western Anatolia, there is as yet some meager evidence the early Holocene subsequently reached the Aegean coast and from sites such as Çalca in the mountainous region of Can later encompassed the more northerly regions of western Anatolia. east of Çanakkale, and Muºlu Çeºme and Tepetarla in the Neolithization in Anatolia may have followed different tracks Bandirma plain (Özdoðan and Gatsov 1998). from its incipient stages. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Orman Fidanligi, Ilipinar, Menteºe Höyük, Fikirtepe, and its stabilization and progress may have followed a different pace Pendik are the main prehistoric sites that provide a rather in each region. For instance in Cappadocia in the central pla- limited insight into the northwest Anatolian Neolithization teau there is a clear connection between a change in the natural process. environment and sedentism in the late ninth millennium BC. The Additional sites such as Keçiçayir and Kabakli are be- start of a change from an arid steppe to grassland vegetation in lieved to represent the Aceramic phase of the Neolithic pe- ca 10800 BP was due to increased humidity, which eventually riod in the Eskiºehir province (Efe 1996:217). The location saw the emergence of farming villages (Woldring 2002:63). of most of these sites in high terrain away from alluvial plains Archaeologically often undetectable inter-communal prob- indicates that their inhabitants were more involved in hunt- lems to unfavorable changes in the natural environment could ing and gathering rather than cultivation of food plants or have slowed down this process. One should take into consider- animals (Özdoðan 1997:18; Özdoðan and Gatsov 1998). ation that economic and health related demographic problems Together with Hoca Çeºme and Aºaði Pinar in Turkish Thrace, may have caused temporary reversals, interruptions and renewed they illustrate the nature and intensity of cultural and eco- beginnings in a different habitat. nomic interaction between Anatolia and the southern Balkans The economic context of the beginnings of Neolithic pro- ever since the sixth millennium BC. cess that eventually led to broad-spectrum farming in Anatolia is In Southeastern Anatolia, as in the rest of the “Fertile generally speaking well recorded in most regions of Anatolia, Crescent” the beginning of the Neolithization process saw and especially in the south-central plateau (Buitenhuis 2002). its expression in the appearance of sedentary or semi-seden- In the southeast too, an integral part of Southwest Asia, a num- tary communities as early as in the late ninth/ early eighth 35 Jak Yakar millennium BC (Solecki and Solecki 1983; Yakar 1991; 1994). followed a single directional path leading from socio-economi- Floral and faunal records from Early Neolithic sites in the cally/ culturally to less developed regions, could lead to mis- southern Anatolian plateau and southeast Anatolia reflect a cer- conceptions in evaluating the process that led to the Neolithi- tain but not fundamental local diversity in subsistence prac- zation of the Balkans and the rest of southeastern Europe. tices prior to the appearance of fully-fledged farming econo- Colonization of the southern Balkans by Anatolian farm- mies. Initially, these basically hunter-gatherer semi-sedentary/ ers may be presumed if it can be demonstrated that the dis- sedentary communities derived their group-based subsistence semination of agriculture was in conjunction with spiritually requirements from hunting and gathering a wide variety of ani- significant new artistic expressions, introduction of pottery, ar- mals and wild plants. They also knew to supplement their food chitecture, and burial traditions, of Anatolian origin. Even stores by undertaking small-scale cultivation of pulses, as was within the semi continent of Anatolia, a comparison between the case for instance at Asikli Höyük, Çayönü and Cafer Höyük the Aceramic Neolithic material culture assemblages from the (Cauvin, et al. 1999:101). western and central “Fertile Crescent” settlements and those of Early agricultural villages in Anatolia were usually estab- the southern Anatolian plateau (e.g. Hallan Çemi, Demirci, lished on or close to hydromorphic soils and not on free-drain- Çayönü, Nevali Çori, Göbekli Tepe, Gürcü Tepe, Cafer Höyük ing drier terrains. Having the capacity to retain water these are versus settlements such as Aºikli Höyük or Can Hassan III), particularly suitable for cereal agriculture since they allow crops shows some outstanding differences in social organization, pro- to grow particularly in environments exposed to the Mediter- duction techniques and in the artistic expressions of spiritual ranean climate of warm, wet winters and hot, dry summers concepts. Moving in the direction of northwest Anatolia, ar- (Harris 1996:558). Neolithic sites in the Beysehir-Sugla and chaeological records from Demircihöyük, Findik Kayabaºi, Konya Basins demonstrate that they were all located on allu- Orman Fidanliði, Ilipinar, Menteºe Höyük, Fikirtepe, Pendik vial deposits, at the margins of fans and seasonal lakes. As indicate that despite varying forms and intensity of interaction already pointed out above, these locations were no doubt se- with the central Anatolian Neolithic farmers, the latter did not lected by agriculturalists because of water retentive soils. In have at least initially an outstanding cultural influence over many parts of the Balkans too, regional archaeological investi- their northern neighbors in the Marmara basin. In view of the gations show a consistent correlation between the distribution rather varied cultural entities so far recorded in Anatolia, one of early Neolithic sites and floodplains, river and lake mar- wonders if the emergence of farming communities in the gins.1 Balkans should be exclusively attributed to a westward dis- It is also possible that the earliest systems of small scale placement of central Anatolian farmers. In view of the rela- and locally intensive cultivation in the southeast Europe, as in tively late appearance of farming communities in the north- the early stages of farming in Anatolia, seasonal horticulture west, it is doubtful that the area extending from the Marmara most likely preceded cereal agriculture.2 basin to the Troad could be considered a parent or staging area As far as the archaeological survey evidence goes, in Greece that initiated the Neolithization of the Balkans. Yarimburgaz and in the southern Balkans, areas that saw the emergence of cave in eastern Thrace, is so far the only site that produced agricultural villages did not produce evidence that could be evidence for the existence of a Fikirtepe culture affiliated com- indicative of a Late Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic population sub- munity involved in farming (Özdoðan, Miyake and Özbasaran stratum.