Ritual Practice and Architecture at Chalcolithic Çadır Höyük in Anatolia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
religions Article Not Seeing Is Believing: Ritual Practice and Architecture at Chalcolithic Çadır Höyük in Anatolia Laurel Darcy Hackley 1,*, Burcu Yıldırım 2 and Sharon Steadman 3 1 Department of Classics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 2 Department of Settlement Archaeology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06800, Turkey; [email protected] 3 Department of Sociology/Anthropology, College at Cortland, State University of New York, New York, NY 13045, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Chalcolithic religious practice at the site of Çadır Höyük (central Anatolia) included the insertion of ritual deposits into the architectural fabric of the settlement, “consecrating” spaces or imbuing them with symbolic properties. These deposits are recognizable in the archaeological record by their consistent use of ritually-charged material, such as ochre, copper, human and animal bone, and certain kinds of ceramics. During the 800-year period considered in this paper, the material practice of making these ritual deposits remained remarkably consistent. However, the types of spaces where the deposits are made change as shifting social organization reforms the divisions between private and public space. Keywords: Chalcolithic; prehistory; Anatolia; foundation deposits; ritual; material practice; in- fant burial Citation: Hackley, Laurel Darcy, Burcu Yıldırım, and Sharon Steadman. 2021. Not Seeing Is 1. Introduction Believing: Ritual Practice and Architecture at Chalcolithic Çadır The guest editors for “Housing the Sacred” identified themes that are applicable to Höyük in Anatolia. Religions 12: 665. virtually any location in the world that existed at any time in the past. It is not surprising, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080665 therefore, that the present authors immediately recognized that the buildings and spaces at Late Chalcolithic Çadır Höyük, on the central Anatolian plateau, were contexts that fit Academic Editor: Claude Stulting snugly into the framework outlined for this thematic issue. In particular, the guest editors ask, “what makes a building [and the authors here would add, ‘a space’] religious, and Received: 8 July 2021 further, do “buildings [and spaces] ‘capture’ the sacred and root it in place”? The guest Accepted: 16 August 2021 editors invite authors to investigate the notion of “visibility,” and whether, in effect, seeing Published: 20 August 2021 is believing. While the site of Çadır Höyük offers insights into all of these questions, the latter two themes are most intriguing and are the focus here. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral The Chalcolithic period (Table1) in Anatolia is a critical but rather poorly understood with regard to jurisdictional claims in span of three millennia (ca. 6100–3000 BCE) that sees the transition from hunting-gathering published maps and institutional affil- and early farming settlements in the previous Neolithic period to the rise of urban centers iations. in the following Early Bronze Age (Bertram and Bertram 2021; Düring 2011). The dynamic changes through these millennia are only fleetingly glimpsed at Chalcolithic sites across the Anatolian peninsula. Furthermore, Turkey’s geographical position, which earned it the nickname of “the crossroads” between Europe and Asia, is equally evident in the Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Chalcolithic. The material culture found at sites dotting the western coast contains elements, Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and likely represented ideologies, more commonly found on Aegean islands, while sites in This article is an open access article the northwestern region of Turkey are often included in discussions treating the Chalcolithic distributed under the terms and of southeastern Europe. The southeastern region of Anatolia is frequently intertwined, both conditions of the Creative Commons in scholarship and in Chalcolithic reality, with peoples and places in northern Mesopotamia. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// This might suggest that the central plateau, within which Çadır Höyük rests, would then creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ exist as its own regional and cultural entity, but the ceramic evidence does not confirm this 4.0/). Religions 2021, 12, 665. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080665 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2021, 12, 665 2 of 29 (Schoop 2005). The complicated patchwork that is Chalcolithic Anatolia remains a work in progress for scholars devoted to this time and place. Table 1. Chalcolithic periodization used in the text (based on Schoop 2011a). Early Chalcolithic ca. 6100–5500 BCE Middle Chalcolithic ca. 5500–4250 BCE Late Chalcolithic ca. 4250–3000 BCE Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 30 Çadır Höyük rests within the bend of the Kızılırmak (river) in the province of Yozgat (Figures1–3). Since 1994, continuous excavations have revealed 6000 years of occupation on the Çadır mound, spanning the late sixth millennium BCE to the 14th century of this Höyük rests, would then exist as its own regional and cultural entity, but the ceramic era (Cassis et al. 2019; Ross et al. 2019a; Steadman et al. 2019a). Excavations on all four evidence does not confirm this (Schoop 2005). The complicated patchwork that is Chalco- slopes of the mound, as well as on the North Terrace, have revealed the fortifications built lithic Anatolia remains a work in progress for scholars devoted to this time and place. by residents during the second millennium BCE Hittite age (Ross et al. 2019b; Steadman and McMahon 2015), and the various industries undertaken during the Iron Age (first Table 1. Chalcolithic periodization used in the text (based on Schoop 2011a). millennium BCE) Phrygian and later empires (Steadman et al. 2019b, forthcoming). Work at Çadır HöyükEarly has Chalcolithic also contributed significantly to the understandingca. 6100–5500 of BCE the Late Antique and ByzantineMiddle hinterland Chalcolithic over the last two millennia (Cassisca. 5500 and– Steadman4250 BCE 2014; Cassis and LauricellaLate 2021 Chalcolithic). The present study on religion andca. space 4250– is3000 focused BCE on the Late Chalcolithic settlement (3800–3000 BCE). InÇadır particular, Höyük werests focus within on two the ofbend the of themes the Kızılırmak in this Special (river) Issue: in the How province sacredness of Yozgat may be(Figures “captured” 1–3). Since in the 1994, built continuous environment, excavations and the degreehave revealed to which 6000 this years may of be occupation displayed oron concealedthe Çadır bymound, the inhabitants spanning the ofa late place. sixth In millennium view of the firstBCE ofto thesethe 14th themes, century we of argue this thatera (Cassis ritual practiceset al. 2019; within Ross theet al settlement. 2019a; Steadman consecrated et al. both 2019a). domestic Excavations and public on all space, four effectivelyslopes of the materializing mound, as well and as “storing” on the North memories Terrace, and have symbolic revealed ideas the about fortifications social life built and theby residents family in during the architectural the second fabricmillennium of the BCE settlement. Hittite age We (Ross also discusset al. 2019b; how Steadman residents dealtand McMahon conceptually 2015), with and the the destruction various industries and ultimate undertaken abandonment during of the these Iron consecrated Age (first spaces.millennium The BCE) consideration Phrygian ofand the later second empires and related(Steadman theme, et al. visibility, 2019b, forthcoming). allows us to Work chart theat Çadır changing Höyük social has relationships:also contributed rising significantly social complexity to the understanding at the site appears of the Late to have An- createdtique and a desire Byzantine among hinterland the elite to over conceal the last their two own millennia ritual practices, (Cassiswhile and Steadman simultaneously 2014; compellingCassis and Lauricella the rest of 2021). the group The present to move study their observanceon religion and from space the domestic is focused to on the the public Late sphere.Chalcolithic settlement (3800–3000 BCE). Figure 1. Map of Anatolia showing ÇadırÇadır HöyükHöyük asas wellwell asas otherother prominentprominent ChalcolithicChalcolithic sitessites (map courtesy(map courtesy of A. J.of Lauricella). A. J. Lauricella). ReligionsReligions 20212021,, 1212,, 665x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 303 of 29 Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30 FigureFigure 2. 2. (Top(Top) V)iew View of ofÇadır Çadır Höyük Höyük looking looking south; south; (Bottom (Bottom) Topographic) Topographic map of map Çadır of ÇadırHöyük Höyük showing areas of excavation. Trenches and areas discussed are labeled and highlighted. showingFigure 2. areas (Top) of V excavation.iew of Çadır Trenches Höyük looking and areas south; discussed (Bottom are) Topographic labeled and map highlighted. of Çadır Höyük showing areas of excavation. Trenches and areas discussed are labeled and highlighted. Figure 3. Aerial view of Çadır Höyük showing location of Lower and Upper (Chalcolithic) Towns on southern slope. FigureFigure 3.3.Aerial Aerial viewview ofof ÇadırÇadır Höyük showing location of of Lower Lower and and Upper Upper (Chalcolithic) (Chalcolithic) Towns Towns on on southern slope. southern slope. Religions 2021, 12, 665 4 of 29 2. The Late Chalcolithic Lower Town at Çadır Höyük As noted above, the Late Chalcolithic is a poorly understood period in Anatolian prehistory, mainly due to the dearth of excavated sites. There