Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:36:53.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visualizing Neolithic Landscape: The Early Settled Communities In Western Anatolia and Eastern Aegean Islands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Burçin Erdoğu
Burçin Erdoğu*
Affiliation:
University of Durham, UK
*
[email: [email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An early Neolithic settlement with western Anatolian-type material was recently found on the island of Gökçeada (Imbroz). None of the colonization models indicate that Gökçeada is the most promising island for early colonization. In this article I suggest that the importance of islands may also lie in their symbolic significance. The early Neolithic communities built up place-myths about the islands. Place-myths are closely related to place-images, which are generally derived from visual experiences. Myths enabled a Neolithic community to establish a sense of belonging to the islands. This might have led to permanent settlement of some of the islands.

Un village du néolithique ancien avec du matériel de type anatolien occidental a récemment été découvert sur l'île de Gökçeada (Imbroz). Aucun des modèles de colonisation ne laisse à penser que les conditions à Gökçeada pouvaient encourager une colonisation précoce. Dans ce papier, je suggère que l'importance d'une île peut aussi reposer sur sa signification symbolique. Les hommes du néolithique ancien établissaient autour des îles des mythes étroitement liés à des images dérivés d'expériences visuelles. Ces mythes permettaient à des communautés néolithiques d'établir des sentiments d'appartenance avec certaines îles, ce qui pouvait conduire à leur colonisation permanente.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Auf der Insel Gökçeada (Imbroz) wurde vor kurzem eine neolithische Siedlung mit westanatolisch geprägtem Fundmaterial entdeckt. Allerdings lässt keines der bisherigen Kolonisierungsmodelle vermuten, dass Gökçeada eine besonders bevorzugte Rolle bei der frühen Kolonisierung gespielt hat. Im vorliegenden Aufsatz schlägt der Autor daher vor, dass die Wichtigkeit der Inseln dafür auch in ihrer symbolischen Bedeutung gelegen haben könnte: die frühneolithischen Gemeinschaften entwickelten dort Platz-Mythen. Diese sind eng mit Platz-Bildern verknüpft, die sich generell aus visuellen Eindrücken herausbildeten. Mythen ermöglichten es einer neolithischen Gemeinschaft ein Zugehörigkeitsgefühl für die Inseln aufzubauen. Dies könnte zur permanenten Besiedlung einiger der Inseln geführt haben.

Gökçeada'da son yillarda yapilan araştirmalar sonucunda Bati Anadolu malzemesi içeren bir İlk Neolitik Çağ yerleşmesi bulunmuştur. Adalarin kolonizasyonu ile ilgili teorileri göz önünde bulundurduğumuzda, hiç bir teori Gökçeada'daki İlk Neolitik Çağ yerlesşmesinin varliğini açikliyamamaktadir. Adalar ayrica erken yerleşik toplumlar için sembolik bir değer taşimiş olabilirler. Bu makalede adalarin kolonizasyonunda sembolizimin etkisi incelenmektedir.

Keywords

early Neolithiceastern Aegean islandssymbolic landscapevisual structurewestern AnatoliaAnatolie occidentaleîles égéennes orientalesnéolithique ancienpaysage symboliquestructure visuelleFrühneolithikumostägäische Inselnsymbolische Landschaftvisuelle StrukturWestanatolienİlk Neolitikbati Anadoludoğu Ege adalarisembolik çevreyapinin görselliği
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 2003 , pp. 7 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akdeniz, Engin, 1997. 1995 yili Büyük Menderes Ovasi ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştirmalari. XIV. Araştirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi II. Ankara: 233–254.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Broodbank, Cyprian, 1999. Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean. In Halstead, P. (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece: 15–41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
Broodbank, Cyprian, 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carmichael, David, 1997. Places of power: Mescalero Apache sacred sites and sensitive areas. In David, Carmichael, Jane, Hubert, Brian, Reeves and Audhild, Schanche (eds), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places: 89–98. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carmichael, David, Jane Hubert, Brian Reeves and Audhild, Schanche, eds, 1997. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chapman, John, 1998. Objectification, embodiment and the value of places and things. In Bailey, D. (ed.). The Archaeology of Value. Essays on Prestige and the Processes of Valuation: 106–130. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 730).Google Scholar
Cherry, John F., 1984. The initial colonization of the western Mediterranean islands in the light of island biogeography and paleogeography. In Waldren, W.H., Chapman, R., Lewthwaite, J. and Kennard, R.-C. (eds), The Deya Conference of Prehistory: Early Settlements in the Western Mediterranean Islands and the Peripheral Areas: 7–23. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 229).Google Scholar
Cherry, John F., 1985. Islands out of stream: isolation and interaction in early east Mediterranean insular prehistory. In Knapp, A.B. and Stech, T. (eds), Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean: 12–29. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cherry, John F., 1990. The first colonisation of the Mediterranean Islands: a review of recent research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3(2):145–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Jack L., 1992. Review of Aegean prehistory I: the Islands of the Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 96:699–756.Google Scholar
Davis, Stephen, 1989. Customary sea territories in western Oceania. In Cordell, J. (ed.), A Sea of Small Boats: 33–59. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, Inc.Google Scholar
Derin, Zafer and E. Öner, 1997. Ulucak Höyük Kazilari ve Paleo-Coğrafya Araştirmalari 1995. XVIII. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi I. Ankara:411–439.Google Scholar
Duru, Refik, 1999. The Neolithic of the Lake District. In. Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization: 165–191. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.Google Scholar
Eliade, Mircea, 1958. Patterns in Comparative Religion. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Erdoğu, Burçin, 2000. The problems of dating prehistoric axe factories and neolithisation in Turkish Thrace. Documenta Praehistorica 27:155–166.Google Scholar
Evren, Adil, 1999. Efes Çukuriçi Höyüğü 1996 Yili Kazisi. Arkeoloji ve Sanat: 22–31.Google Scholar
French, David, 1965. Early pottery sites from western Anatolia. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 5:15–24.Google Scholar
Gibson, James J., 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Greaves, M. Alan and Barbara, Helwing, 2001. Archaeology in Turkey: the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages, 1997–1999. American journal of Archaeology 105:463–511.Google Scholar
Haddon, Alfred C., 1912. Science. In Haddon, A.C. (ed.), Reports of Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits 6:218–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harmankaya, Savaş, Oğuz, Tanindi and Mihriban, Ózbaşaran, 1997. Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerlesmeleri II - Neolitik. Istanbul: Ege.Google Scholar
Harmankaya, Savaş and Burçin, Erdoğu, 2001. Prehistoric survey at Gökçeada, Turkey in 1999. University of Durham and Newcastle Upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1999/2000:28–35.Google Scholar
Higuchi, Tadahiko, 1989. The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hood, Sinclair, 1981. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. London: The British School of Athens.Google Scholar
Keegan, William F. and Jared, M. Diamond, 1987. Colonisation of islands by humans: a biogeographical perspective. In Schiffer, M. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 49–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Knapp, A. Bernard and Wendy, Ashmore, 1999. Archaeological landscapes: constructed, conceptualized, ideational. In Knapp, A.B. and Ashmore, W. (eds), Archaeologies of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives: 1–30. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lambeck, Kurt, 1996. Sea-level change and shore-line evaluation in Aegean Greece since upper Palaeolithic time. Antiquity 70:588–611.Google Scholar
McArthur, Robert H. and Edward, O. Wilson, 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Meriç, Recep, 1993. Pre-Bronze Age settlements of west-central Anatolia. Anatolica 19:143–150.Google Scholar
Özdoğan, Mehmet, 1997. The beginning of Neolithic economies in Southeastern Europe? An Anatolian perspective. journal of European Archaeology 5(2):1–33.Google Scholar
Özdoğan, Mehmet, 1998. Hoca Çeşme: an early Neolithic Anatolian colony in the Balkans? In Anreiter, P., Bartosiewicz, L., Jerem, E. and Meid, W. (eds), Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sandor Bökönyi: 435–451. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Özdoğan, Mehmet, 1999. Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia. In Özdoğan, M. and Başelen, N. (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization: 203–224. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.Google Scholar
Patton, Mark, 1996. Islands in Time: Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Perlès, Catherine, 1992. Systems of exchange and organisation of production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5:115–164.Google Scholar
Perlès, Catherine, 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: the First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Relph, Edward, 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Dion.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, Cann, J. and Dixon, J., 1965. Obsidian in the Aegean. Annual of the British School at Athens 60:225–247.Google Scholar
Robb, John, 2001. Island identities: ritual, travel and the creation of difference in Neolithic Malta. European Journal of Archaeology 4(2):175–202.Google Scholar
Sampson, Adamantios, 1987. I Neolithiki periodos sta Dodekanisa. Athens: Tamaio Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotriosion.Google Scholar
Schama, Simon, 1995. Landscape and Memory. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Seeher, Jurgen, 1990. Coşkuntepe-anatolisches Neolithikum am Nordostufer der Agais. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 40:9–15.Google Scholar
Shields, Rob, 1991. Places on the Margin. Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn, 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Theodoratus, J. Dorothea and Frank, Lapena, 1997. Wintu sacred geography of Northern California. In David, Carmichael, Jane, Hubert, Brian, Reeves and Audhild, Schanche (eds), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places: 20–31. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thissen, Laurens, 2000a. Early village communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500–5500 cal. BC. Studies in chronology and culture contact. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Thissen, Laurens, 2000b. Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: Clues to the Neolithisation of Greece? Documenta Praehistorica 27:141–154.Google Scholar
Tilley, Christopher 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Place, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Tilley, Christopher 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tuan, YI-FU, 1977. Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Zachos, Kostantinos L., 1996. The Cyclades and the northeastern Aegean islands. In Papathanassopoulos, G.A. (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece: 85–87. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation.Google Scholar