Upload
oezlem-cevik
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Emergence of Different Social Systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Urbanisation versusCentralisationAuthor(s): Özlem ÇevikSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 57, Transanatolia: Bridging the Gap between East and West inthe Archaeology of Ancient Anatolia (2007), pp. 131-140Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455398 .
Accessed: 05/07/2014 12:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AnatolianStudies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anatolian Studies 57 (2007): 131-140
The emergence of different social systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia:
urbanisation versus centralisation
Ozlem (;evik University of Trakya, Edirne
Abstract The second half of the third millennium BC has generally been accepted as the period in which urbanisation took place
in Anatolia. Prominent sites of this period are described by scholars as 'towns', 'town-like settlements', 'city-states' and 'proto-city-states'. The use of a variety of terms for the same type of site implies that there is no clear consensus
on the conceptualisation of this transformational process. It is generally accepted that, from the Neolithic period
onwards, Anatolia did not display a great degree of cultural homogeneity, both in terms of material culture and social
systems. The topography of Anatolia is divided by deep river valleys and high mountain chains, and this may well
have been a crucial factor in stimulating cultural regionalism. This article suggests that Early Bronze Age populations
in Anatolia did not just experience the process of urbanisation, but also centralisation. Furthermore, it has been argued that certain areas of Anatolia at this time experienced neither urbanisation nor centralisation, but remained rural. This
paper utilises archaeological evidence, such as settlement patterns, settlement layouts and types of material culture that
have social implications, to explain these phenomena.
Ozet MO UCtinci binyilin ikinci yarisi, genel olarak Anadolu'da kentle?me siireci olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bununla
birlikte, bilim insanlari, soz konusu doneme ait onemli yerle?im yerlerini, 'kasabalar', 'kasaba benzeri yerle?im yerleri', 'kent-devletleri' ve 'on kent-devletleri' olmak uizere qe?itli isimlerle tanimlamaktadir. Ayni yerle?im yerleri icin farkli atiflarin kullanilmasi, bu d6nu0sumsel suirecin kavramsalla?tirilmasi konusunda hentiz kesin bir fikir
birliginin bulunmadigini dolayli olarak i?aret etmektedir. Bilindigi gibi, arkeolojik kayitlar, Neolitik Donem'den itibaren, hem materyal kiiltiirti hem de sosyal sistemler a?isindan, Anadolu'nun, kiilttirel bir birliktelige taniklik etmedigini gostermektedir. Anadolu'nun derin vadiler ve yuiksek dag silsileleriyle bblfinmtiu olan topografyasi, kuiltiirel agidan bblgeselle?meye te?vik eden onemli bir etmen olabilir. Bu makalede yazar, Anadolu'da Erken Tun?
Cagl'ni kentle?me olmak tizere sadece tek bir siirecin degil, ayni zamanda merkezile?me de olmak tizere farkli stireG
lerin temsil ettigini one stirmektedir. Ayrica ayni donemde Anadolu'nun bazi boluimlerinin kentle?me ve merkezile?me stireclerini deneyimlemeyerek kirsal kaldigi da ileri suiriilmektedir. Yerle?im ?ablonlari, yerle?im planlari ve sosyal
anlam iceren diger maddi kuiltuir kanitlari ele alinarak, yukarida bahsedilen bu stirecler aqiklanmaya qali?ilmaktadir.
A natolia is a geographical setting where it is difficult,
'f not impossible, to find evidence of cultural unity
over the entire peninsula for any given period. Anatolian topography, with its deep river valleys and high mountain chains, has created patterns of cultural regionalism both in the present and in the past. This is seen most clearly
in the differences between eastern and western Anatolia
where, beginning as early as the initial appearance of
sedentary life, namely the Neolithic period onwards, both the quality and quantity of archaeological evidence for monumental buildings, settlement layouts and presti gious goods is so different for each area that they must
reflect not just differences in material culture itself, but contrasting social systems.
131
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anatolian Studies 2007
Although social complexity of one kind or another
prevailed from time to time in various places within
Anatolia before the Early Bronze (EB) Age, it is the
second half of the third millennium BC which has
generally been accepted as the period of the emergence
of cities in Anatolia. However, the use of a variety of terms, such as 'town', 'town-like settlement' (Yakar 1998: 101; Duru 1997: 57-58), 'city-state' (Efe 1998:
298), 'proto city-state' (Bintliff 2002: 173), to describe these manifestations of early complexity is an indication
that there is not yet a clear consensus on the significance
of this transformational period.
When one compares this view of the development of
complexity with that for Mesopotamia, where sequences
of social complexity have long been relatively well
defined, the lack of a consensus on the comparable
developments in Anatolia becomes clear. This apparent
discrepancy between the Mesopotamian and Anatolian
scenarios may be attributed not only to the contrasting
geographies of the two regions, as well as their social
systems, but also to the nature of the evidence itself.
Moreover, the lack of consensus regarding the devel
opment of social complexity in Anatolia has led to the
use of quite different terminology for the classification
of the same. For example, whereas Titri, HoyUk, a 43ha
site in southeastern Anatolia, is considered to be a 'small
urban centre' by its excavator (Algaze, et al. 1995: 13
16), the western Anatolian site of Limantepe, covering
less than lOha, is described as a large city (Erkanal
1997: 76-79). I believe that Early Bronze Age Anatolia, especially
in the latter half of the third millennium BC, did not
experience a single process of transformation. It is this
diversity that has led to the confusion in social termi
nology described above, as archaeologists have
attempted to understand Anatolia's development as a
single process, namely urbanisation. I argue instead that
these processes should be seen to be characterised by a
combination, a patchwork, of urbanisation and centrali
sation (fig. 1). Furthermore, during a single period some
areas within Anatolia may have witnessed urbanisation
whilst others experienced centralisation but remained
primarily rural. By examining the settlement patterns,
settlement layouts and other types of material evidence
with social implications, these different processes in
Anatolia will be described in the following pages.
It is in southeastern Anatolia where we see the rise of
the first cities. Both surface surveys and excavations
show that the shift from small self-sufficient villages to
urban agglomerations took place during the mid third
millennium BC (fig. 2). Although Kazane Hoyik in
Urfa province, at 100ha, is the largest urban centre in the
region (Wattenmaker, Misir 1994: 179), this transforma
tional period is also well documented in the Karababa
basin and the Bozova district of Urfa. During the first
half of the third millennium BC the largest site in the
Karababa basin seems to have been Samsat, at ca 10ha
(Ozdogan 1977: 84-117; Wilkinson 1990: 82, 149-92;
Lupton 1996: 85). However, a dramatic change in
settlement pattern occurred in the latter part of the third
millennium BC in the region, witnessed by the devel
opment of a four-tiered settlement system. While
Samsat, together with its secondary centres and other
smaller sites, forms the urban cluster in the Karababa
basin (Ozdogan 1977: 122; Wilkinson 1994: 488;
Wattenmaker 1998: 124), a second conglomeration is
formed by Titri? Hoyuk and its surrounding sites within a
4km2 area in the Bozova district (Algaze, et al. 1992: 42).
04~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~k Es OtdwKj: iss ybkt ^<I= <~'55H
Kosot
;<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' 4A i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Gldi byko~t
Fig. 1. Different social systems in Anatolia
132
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(7evik
< 7/~~~~~~~~~~~.
0 5km
~~ C - .lO~~~~~~10ha EBA I - 11 >4/ .3-5 ha
01 - 1.0 ha.
x
( s 0 ', ''\ , ~~~~ Tt-_5k
.~ ~ ~~~ 6f1 ha*
EBA lIII. < . .011oh
Fig. 2. Settlement patterns in the Karababa basin during
the Early Bronze Age
At 43ha, Titria Hoyuik is the key site for under
standing the urban layout in the region. The city dates to
between 2,1500 and 2,200 BC, and is made up of several
differing sectors including the acropolis (or high mound), lower town, outer town, suburbs and cemetery areas
(Algaze, et al. 1995: 16-17; Matney, et al. 1997: 185;
Algaze, Poumelle 2003: fig. 1). Domestic buildings were
found both in the lower town and the outer town (Algaze,
Poumelle 2003: figs 6, 7). Although their plans are
similar, the houses in the lower town are larger than those
in the outer town. Given the physical proximity to the
acropolis, the lower town may have been inhabited by the
higher status members of the city (Matney, et al. 1997:
63-655 70-71). The massive walls which have been
partly recovered indicate that the outer town was
included within the fortifications. Both excavations and
magnetometry have demonstrated that large public buildings were not only built in the acropolis area but also in the outer town (Algaze, et al. 1996; 2000: 146
47; Matney, et al. 1999: 188-89). Although no excava
tions have been conducted on the acropolis, a number of
features Drovide evidence for the activities of the central
auhoit (atey e a. 99:19; lgze200:15) Thee ncud siilriie inth hus plnsreovre
from different parts of the city, the substantial streets,
some of which had been constructed before the houses
were built, the large-scale levelling and terracing activ
ities which preceded the construction of the residential
neighbourhoods, the sewage system underlying the house
floors, the symmetry seen in the house walls and the
arrangements of the entryways.
Among the specialised activities attested in the
domestic areas of Titri, are the production of wine,
textiles and Canaanite blades (Algaze, et al. 1995: 18
19; Matney, et al. 1997: 65; 1999: 190-93). The
ubiquitous recovery of sickle blades in the houses shows
that, as in other pre-industrial cities, all, or nearly all,
inhabitants of this city were still engaged in agricultural activities. That Titri? was engaged in inter-regional trade
is indicated by the recovery of Syrian bottles, cylinder
seals, depa, violin-shaped marble idols and early
Transcaucasian ceramics, both from the settlement and
from the cemetery area (Algaze, et al. 1995: 28-39).
The function of secondary centres in the settlement
hierarchy is less well understood, since it is very rare to
find both city and town settlements excavated within the
same urban complex in the Near East. Luckily, the
excavations carried out at Kurban and Lidar Hoyuks help to fill this gap. At 6ha in size, the population of Kurban
IVB is estimated at 1,000. Although the site consists of
different sectors - including a fortified area attributed to
the ruling elite, small domestic buildings beyond the
walls and work areas associated with the larger houses -
it is not clear what services Kurban provided for, or were
supplied by, the surrounding settlements (Algaze, et al.
1990: 61, 37-48, 185-190). However, the discovery of 19 kilns along with a large amount of baked and unbaked
pottery at Lidar strongly suggest that it served as a
pottery production centre (Hauptmann 1987: 206). No
potters' workshops have been reported from Titri? and
Kurban, though they may have been located in the
unexcavated parts of the sites. However, the ceramic
remains include the same ware types (metallic wares,
painted wares and combed wares) as at Lidar. On the
basis of the information at hand, we do not know whether
Lidar supplied pottery to the larger centre, or just to the
smaller settlements in the area.
The public buildings and administrative tools found
at Hacinebi and Arslantepe (VII-VIA) clearly show that
regional centres only a few hectares in size had already
been established in the early fourth millennium BC and
continued during the late Uruk period both in south
eastern Anatolia and the Elazig-Malatya region
(Frangipane 2001a; 2001b; Stein 2001). Recent archae
ological evidence has increasingly shown that the social
systems in the region may not have totally collapsed at the end of Uruk expansion. The presence of large
133
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anatolian Studies 2007
amounts of metal artefacts in the Birecik cemetery area
(Sertok, Ergec 1999: 87-94) and the 'royal tomb' with
rich burial goods followed by occupation within a
citadel-like walled area at Arslantepe, both of which
date to the beginning of the third millennium BC
(Frangipane 1998: 294-97; 2001b: 6-8), may well be
manifestations of the re-organisation of the commu
nities in these regions. The change in the settlement
layout from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze
Age at Arslantepe has been assessed by Frangipane as a
shift from a Mesopotamian oriented temple economy to
an Anatolian citadel-based social system (Frangipane
2001b: 8-9). It is not known whether the emergence of cities
during the mid third millennium in southeastern Anatolia
was due to internal or external dynamics. More
precisely, we need to determine whether these cities
resulted from a gradual transformation of regional
centres into urban agglomerations, or if the phenomenon
should be assessed within the context of Syro
Mesopotamian urbanisation. Nevertheless, whichever model is correct, it must be emphasised that southeastern
Anatolia was always different from the rest of Anatolia,
and experienced more complex socio-economic and
political patterns, at least until the second millennium BC
(Cevik 2004). Excluding southeastern Anatolia, the latter half of the
third millennium BC saw the emergence of regional
centres in all parts of Anatolia except the east. In eastern
Anatolia neither excavations nor surface surveys have
shown any evidence for social complexity during the
Early Bronze Age. Throughout the third millennium BC,
this highland region is characterised by a dispersed
settlement pattern in which the largest site is smaller than
3ha. Other than a few sporadic metal finds and a number
of trade items, no public buildings or enclosure walls
indicating wealth accumulation have so far been found in
the excavated Early Bronze Age sites of this area.
Indeed, in this region citadel based polities only emerged
in the Early Iron Age, and 'true cities' were not estab
lished until much later, at the time of the Urartian state
(Qevik 2005). Except for the Elazig-Malatya region and a few
plains in western Anatolia, the survey reports record
neither the size of the mounds nor the internal periodis
ation of the Early Bronze Age occupation. This makes
it very difficult to understand the spatial shifts that may
have occurred from one sub-period to another in the
settlement patterns of the third millennium BC, although
a general perspective for the size ranges of the Early
Bronze Age settlements in a regional scale can still be
obtained. Therefore, the focus here will be on the size
ranges rather than the spatial relations between the Early
Bronze Age sites, with these data supported by the
layouts of the settlements.
The surface surveys on the Altinova plain in the
Elazig region indicate that Norsuntepe, 3.2ha in size,
represents the largest site in the plain during the EB I and
II periods (fig. 3, number 18). Although based on the
distribution of the surface material, it has been reported
that the size of Nor?untepe shrunk to 0.8ha during the EB
III. The excavations there show that the EB IIIB is the
most complex period at the site (Whallon 1979). Lupton
(1996: 83-84) has argued for a three-tiered settlement
system in Altinova based on distinctions between sites of
ca 0.5ha and ca 3ha in size. However, in the absence of
secondary centres and clear functional differentiation
among the sites, this approach seems to be forcing
Anatolian data into schemes originally developed to
describe Mesopotamian settlement systems. It therefore
seems more appropriate to treat the data in their own
terms, and interpret them as indicating a two-tiered
settlement pattern made up of a single regional centre
surrounded by village- or hamlet-like small settlements.
.~~~, K. 1 : 2<o 4' .,
*01 lOh *~ 0. -.Oh * o1-10h
1414
* __*i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/-~~~~~~35 34 I~~~~~~~~~3 4
0 5km 250 5km 5k
33 27-lha* 1O-llh * 1O-35ha
EBA I 2,0 l-l3O2ha EB*1. O-l3O2ha EB*I . O-l2 ha:
Fig. 3. Settlement patterns in the A ltinova plain during the Early Bronze Age
134
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(7evik
As was the case for Altinova, no Early Bronze Age settle
ments larger than 4ha, other than Arslantepe, have been
identified in the Malatya plain and along the Euphrates
(fig. 4) (Conti, Persiani 1993; Ba?tiirk, Konakcl 2005).
The surface surveys carried out by several expedi
tions in a broad area of central Anatolia (fig. 5) have
shown that no Early Bronze Age site larger than 9.5ha
existed in the northern half of the plateau (Guneri 1990;
Sever, et. al. 1992; Omura 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996;
1997; Branting 1996; Senyurt 1999; 2000). It must be
stressed that the larger mound settlements were also
occupied in later periods. In the southern half of the
plateau, among three larger Early Bronze Age sites, the
10ha site was only occupied during the Late Chalcol
ithic and Early Bronze Age (Mellaart 1963; Bahar 1996;
1997). In additon, Ali?ar at 28ha, Acemhoyuk at 56ha,
and Karahoyuik and Kuiltepe at 50ha represent the
largest settlements in central Anatolia, although I
suspect that the sizes of the latter are likely to reflect
their sizes during the periods of the Assyrian colonies or
the Hittites. In western Anatolia (fig. 5) the size of Early Bronze
Age sites are only known from the northern part of the
region, including the plains of Bilecik, Eski,ehir and
Kutahya provinces (Efe 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996;
1997). The largest Early Bronze Age settlements range
between ca 13ha and 5ha, and all were occupied during
the later periods. Other larger Early Bronze Age settle
ments known from western Anatolia are Troy (9ha),
Limantepe and Karata? (6ha), and Beycesultan (around
30-40ha). Taking excavated Early Bronze Age sites into consid
eration, it seems that the size of the regional centres in
these regions ranges between 3ha and 10ha. It must be
stressed that the cities like Titris and Kazane seem to
have reached their urban size in a short span of time,
probably in a few centuries. Furthermore, from the Early
Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age the size of Troy
increased from 9ha to ca 40ha. Therefore, I believe that
the larger size of the settlements, like those in central and
western Anatolia, is related to the second millennium or
later occupations rather than the Early Bronze Age.
When it comes to settlement layout, although almost
all these regional centres are fortified, two distinct types
of settlement layout can be identified. In the first type,
densely clustered domestic buildings, occupying space
right up to the enclosure wall, form a radial shaped settlement. The use of common walls for adjacent
dwelling units is characteristic. This layout, which has
been called the 'Anatolisches Siedlungsschema' by
Korfmann (1983: 222-29) is found at Tarsus (Goldman 1956: 21-29), Ahlatlibel (Naumann 1991: fig. 23; TAY 2002), Demircihoyuik (Korfmann 1983: 245-46;
BOY-A
01
EBA I 1.5-3. ha - * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.1-lO0ha
the~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sz Eary BonzAg
95
56
:55
77
MALATYA ( 0 2.0-4.0 ha EBAt m ( 1 1.0-1.51h
0.1-1.0 ha
0 5km
- 824 ~~~~~36
7 51~~~~~~~l53
MI-ATYA EBA III * lO0-lO5ha
0.11.0 ha 0 5km
Fig. 4. Settlement patterns in the Malatya region during the Early Bronze Age
Schachner 1999: abb. 66), Karata?-Semaytik (Mellink 1964; 1973; Eslick 1988: fig. 111.12; Warner 1994), Ktilltioba (Efe, Ay 2001; Efe 2003: fig. 5), the Troy I-Ila
settlements (Blegen 1963: 44-48; Korfmann 1983: fig.
368) and Pulur-Sakyol (Ko?ay 1976). Although
135
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anatolian Studies 2007
n A *tb5:Gg~~~~~~~~
viK7i ha
C9 ha ; 4 p B a.d; a ;/h 9s . e z f^^w 'o V ' 9'Lfafg.
rX!:ti C i ~~~~~~~~~yeufI
Fig. 5. The largest sites in the survey regions
evidence for such rulers can only be attested at a few of
them. Central buildings at Karata,-Semayuik and
Kuilliioba - which can be distinguished from other
domestic buildings by location, construction technique and plan - leave little doubt that they belonged to the ruling elite. However, based merely on its larger size, it
has been suggested that a three-roomed dwelling unit
located on the eastern side of the main gate at Demirci
hoyiik may also have been the residence of a local ruler.
The second type has a fortified citadel with the
settlement extending under the shadow of the fortress. Arslantepe VI B2 (Frangipane 1993: 216; 2001b: fig. 23), Nor,untepe (Hauptmann 1979: 61-62; 1982: 17-28;
2000: 9), Troy II (Blegen, et al. 1950; Mellaart 1959;
Jablonka 2001: 391-93, fig. 437), Limantepe (Erkanal 1997: 76; 2000: fig. 1; 2001: 263-64; Erkanal, Guinel 1997: 243-46) and probably Ali,ar (von der Osten 1937: 112-22, 208-14, fig. 103) fall into this category.
Although the monumental structure called the 'palace
building' at Nor,untepe is not fortified, it is located at the
top of the mound, and thus overlooked the settlement.
Here, the fortified area only included public buildings,
and the ruling elite seems to have separated itself physi cally from the rest of the population.
Not much is known about the settlements beyond the
citadels since most attention has been directed to the
fortified areas. However, the wall traces discovered at
Ali,ar and Troy indicate that the area where domestic
buildings were located may have been partly or
completely surrounded by a second wall (von der Osten
1937: fig. 103; Jablonka 2001: fig. 437). These
settlement areas have only been excavated in
Nor,untepe and Arslantepe VI B2 (Hauptmann 2000: 9;
Frangipane 2001b: fig. 23). Neither demonstrate the
large, well-built streets, sewage systems or symmetri
cally-designed house plans implying central involvement as has been observed in Titri?. Indeed,
without the citadel walls and monumental buildings
these would look like villages.
With the exception of Nor?untepe, the lack of
storage facilities, like magazines with pithoi, seems to
be characteristic of these regional centres. Indeed, no
seals or sealings - usually interpreted as indicating the
frequent circulation of goods - have been found in
Nor,untepe itself. Given their relatively small number
and contextual evidence, seals and sealings appear to be
used for marking personal property at these Early
Bronze Age Anatolian sites and not as administrative
tools. Furthermore, unlike southeastern Anatolia, most
pottery seems to be hand-made. Although wheel
thrown ceramics are seen in certain sites like Troy,
Kulluoba and Tarsus in the later part of the third
millennium BC, their production appears to be restricted to specific forms like plates and depa. The persistence
of this trend as late as the last quarter of the third
millennium BC is further supported by the hand-made
imitations from Kuiltepe of imported ceramics like
Syrian bottles (Ozguia 1986: 34-42).
The population density in the small (type 1) fortified settlements ranges between 50 and 150 people. By
taking the estimates for Kurban and Karata? into consid
eration, both of which are 6ha in size and are thought to
have been occupied by 1,000 and 640 individuals respec
tively (Wattenmaker 1998: 152; Warner 1994: 176-77), the population of the settlements surrounding the (type 2) citadels may be estimated at around 500 to 1,000/1,500.
136
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(7evik
The date for the rise of the small polities in the
regions discussed above is a complex issue. The relatively well-organised fortified settlements with or without central public buildings (classified as type 1 here) have been identified in the EBA I and II periods; more
precisely, during the first half of the third millennium. Indeed, settlements with enclosure walls have been dated in Anatolia as early as the fifth millennium BC at sites
like Mersin-Ytimuiktepe (Garstang 1953: 131-40) and Hacilar I (Mellaart 1970: 76-85). The enclosure walls
from Kulliuoba (Efe, Ay 2001: 46) and (adir Hoyuik
(Gorny, et al. 1999: 150, 166) indicate that this trend
continued in the late fourth millennium. If the wall
uncovered in Arslantepe VI B2 really represents a citadel
wall, then the rise of spatially isolated elites may go back
to as early as the first quarter of the third millennium BC
as well. However, given the monumental nature of both
the public buildings and the walls surrounding them, as
seen in Troy II, Limantepe, Nor?untepe and probably
Ali?ar, the emergence of citadels that imply the presence
of more powerful elites cannot be dated earlier than the
mid third millennium BC. This is also the time when
trade items began circulating between the east and west,
and both the quality and the quantity of metal goods
sharply increased. According to some, the citadel-based polities in these
regions resulted from the circulation of goods within a
wider network between the east and west in the later third
millennium BC. Although I do not deny that inter
regional exchange patterns increased during the period in question, and some technologies such as wheel-made
ceramic technology were transmitted from the east via
these contacts, I believe that the rise of the elite's power
is due more to internal dynamics than to trade. The small
size of regional centres, the rare use of the wheel for
pottery production, the lack of wide-scale storage activ
ities, sporadic use of seals and sealings, and the secular
character of the monumental buildings are components of
a culture which remained Anatolian. Furthermore, from
the Neolithic to the mid third millennium Anatolia seems
to have played a rather passive role in inter-regional
exchange systems. We know that the demand for obsidian
and later copper from the Syro-Mesopotamian world was
probably a stimulating factor for pulling Anatolia into a
wider interaction network. However, from the mid third
millennium onwards, increasing demands from newly established ruling elites to reinforce their power with
exotic goods may well have placed Anatolia in a more
active partnership with its neighbours. From my point of
view, the intensification of the inter-regional exchange
system in the late third millennium was the result of the emergence of ruling elites in Anatolia rather than a reaction to the demand for raw materials from outside.
To sum up, apart from southeastern and eastern
Anatolia, the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia is typified by
the emergence of regional centres with a two-tiered
settlement hierarchy. Given the lower degree of institu tionalisation and integration, this process is better described as 'centralisation' rather than 'urbanisation'. These small polities seem to have been based on rather
loose relations between the ruling class and other members of the community in terms of mutual social and
economic services. These centres do not appear to have
controlled their hinterland sufficiently, as was the case of
the urban agglomerations found further south and east;
an indication of limitations on the power of the elite.
Centralisation may be seen as a vertical transformation
whereby the material culture signature of the rise of these
ruling elites is prestigious goods associated with public buildings isolated behind fortification walls. This can be contrasted with urbanisation which involves a horizontal transformation whereby all members of the community benefited from central managements and/or socio economical developments.
I would like to stress that we need to be careful about
the terminology we employ, especially how we use the
term 'town', since this term has been used to describe
some relatively well-organised Neolithic and Chalcol ithic settlements in Anatolia. It seems to me that the
confusion of terminology noted at the beginning of this
paper derives from this misuse of the term 'town' to
describe both secondary settlements within an urban
context and the apices of settlement hierarchies before
true urbanisation.1
It is difficult to explain why these regional centres did
not transform into the larger population centres that we
would all call cities. Perhaps the topography of Anatolia,
characterised by relatively small plains divided one from
another by rivers and mountain chains, combined with
dry farming encouraged dispersed rather than concen
1 The application of the term 'town' for secondary settlements
within an urban context is exemplified by Kurban H?y?k in the Karababa basin during the Early Bronze Age. However, in
Anatolia, not only certain Early Bronze Age sites, like Troy and
Norsuntepe (Yakar 1998: 101), but also Chalcolithic sites such as Kuru?ay (Duru 1997: 57-58) have been classified as towns.
The latter usage of the term 'town' for the settlements that are
more complex than villages but less complex than cities seems
to be problematic. We need to clarify whether 'town' is a
settlement type with a certain degree of social complexity which emerged before the rise of the cities or a type of
settlement which functions under the settlement system from
which cities had already emerged. My tendency is to apply the term to the urban context rather than an evolutionary model
seeking to explain archaeological sites with a certain level of
social organisation between villages and cities.
137
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anatolian Studies 2007
trated settlement patterns. Beyond this rather environ mentally deterministic approach, repeated destruction, documented in the archaeological sites of the time, may
have limited the ability of these small centres to grow. In
this sense, I do not see Anatolia as a bridge across which
peoples passed, but rather a country where newcomers settled down and, together with the local inhabitants,
inspired new types of socio-political organisation. Although the emergence of cities during the second
and first millennia BC is beyond the scope of this paper,
it may be suggested here that the city-state system in
general was not an integral part of Anatolia as it was in
Mesopotamia, and that cities were always fragile compo
nents of the landscape, flourishing only when under the control of powerful states. In conclusion, no investi
gation into the transformational process from regional
centre to city state and finally to territorial state will be
complete without including an examination of the
archaeological data from central Anatolia.
Bibliography
Algaze, G., Evins, M.A., Ingraham, M.L., Marfoe, L.,
Yener, K.A. 1990: Town and Country in South
eastern Anatolia, Volume 2: The Stratigraphie
Sequence at Kurban H?y?k (Chicago Oriental
Institute Publication 110). Chicago
Algaze, G., Misir, A., Wilkinson, T. 1992: '?anhurfa
Museum/University of California excavations and
surveys at Titri? H?y?k, 1991: a preliminary report' Anatolica 18: 33-60
Algaze, G., Goldberg, P., Honca, D., Matney, T., Misir,
A., Rosen A.M., Schlee, D., Somers, L. 1995:
'Titri? H?y?k, a small EBA urban center in SE
Anatolia: the 1994 season' Anatolica 21: 13-64
Algaze, G., Kelly, J., Matney, T., Schlee, D. 1996: 'Late
EBA urban structure at Titri? H?y?k, southeastern
Turkey: the 1995 season' Anatolica 22: 129-43
Algaze, G., Matney, T., Rozen, S.A., Erdal, D. 2000:
'Excavavations at Titri? H?y?k, ?anliurfa province:
preliminary report for the 1998 season' Kazi
Sonu?lan Toplantisi 21/1: 145-56
Algaze, G., Poumelle, J. 2003: 'Climatic change, environmental change, and social change at Early Bronze Age Titri? H?y?k: can correlation and
causation be untangled' in M. ?zdogan, H.
Hauptmann, N. Ba?gelen (eds), From Village to
Cities, Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin 1. Istanbul:
103-28
Bahar, H. 1996: 'Ilgin ?evresi H?y?kleri 1994'
Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 13/1: 153-82 ? 1997: 'Doganhisar, Ilgin, Kadinhani ve Saray?n?
Y?zey Ara?tirmalan 1995' Arastirma Sonu?lan
Toplantisi 14/2: 359-74
Ba?t?rk, M.B., Konak?i, E. 2005: 'Settlement patterns in
the Malatya Elazig region in the IV and III
millennium BC Altorientalische Forschungen 32/1: 97-114
Bintliff, J.L. 2002: 'Rethinking early Mediterranean
urbanism' in R. Asian, S. Blum, G. Kastl, F.
Schweizer, D. Thumm (eds), Festschrift f?r
Manfred Korfmann, Mauer Schau Band 1.
Remshalden-Grunbach: 153-77
Biegen, C. 1963: Troia and Trojans. London
Biegen, C, Caskey, J., Rawson, M., Sperling, J. 1950:
Troia I. Cincinatti
Branting, S.A. 1996: 'The Ali?ar regional survey 1993
1994; a preliminary report' Anatolica 22: 145-58
Conti, A., Persiani, C. 1993: 'When worlds collide:
cultural developments in eastern Anatolia in the
Early Bronze Age' in M. Frangipane, H.
Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, M. Mellink
(eds), Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains:
Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba
Palmieri Dedicata. Rome: 361-413
?evik, ?. 2004: Anadolu'da Kentlesme S?reci. Unpub lished PhD dissertation. Ege University, Izmir
? 2005: 'The change of settlement patterns in the lake
Van basin: ecological constrains caused by
highland landscape' Altorientalische Forschungen 32/1: 74-96
Duru, R. 1997: 'G?ller B?lgesinde Neolitik K?yden
Kasabaya Ge?i?' in Y. Sey (ed.), Tarihten
G?n?m?ze Anadolu'da Konut ve Yerle?me, HABITATII. Istanbul: 49-59
Efe, T. 1992: '1990 Yilmda K?tahya, Bilecik ve
Eski?ehir illerinde y apilan y?zey Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lari Toplantisi 9: 561-84
? 1993: '1991 Yilmda K?tahya, Bilecik ve Eski?ehir illerinde y apilan y?zey Ara?tirmalari' Arastirma
Sonu?lari Toplantisi 10: 345-64 ? 1994: '1992 Yilmda K?tahya, Bilecik ve Eski?ehir
illerinde y apilan y?zey Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma
Sonu?lari Toplantisi 11: 571-92 ? 1995: '1993 Yilmda K?tahya, Bilecik ve Eski?ehir
illerinde y apilan y?zey Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma
Sonu?lari Toplantisi 12: 245-66 ? 1996: '1994 Yilmda K?tahya, Bilecik ve Eski?ehir
illerinde y apilan y?zey Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma
Sonu?lari Toplantisi 13/1: 131-52 ? 1997: '1995 Yilmda K?tahya, Bilecik ve Eski?ehir
illerinde yapilan y?zey Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma
Sonu?lari Toplantisi 14/2: 215-32 ? 1998: 'New concepts of Tarsus-Troia relations at the
beginnings of the EB 3 period' in Uluslararasi
Assiriyoloji Kongresi 34 (Turk Tarih Kurumu
Yaymlan 36). Ankara: 297-304
138
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(7evik
? 2003: 'K?ll?oba and the initial stages of urbanism in
western Anatolia' in M. ?zdogan, H. Hauptmann, N. Ba?gelen (eds), From Village to Towns, Studies
in Honor of Ufuk Esin. Istanbul: 265-82
Efe, T., Ay, D.?.M. 2001: 'K?ll?oba: i? Kuzeybati Anadolu'da bir ETC Kenti, 1996-2000 Yillan
Arasinda Yapilan ?ali?malarm Genel Bir Deger lendirilmesi' T?rkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji
Dergisi A: 43-78
Erkanal, H. 1997: 'Eski Tun? ?agi'nda Bat? Anadolu
Sahil Kesiminde Kentle?me' in Y. Sey (ed.), Tarihten G?n?m?zeAnadolu'da Konut ve Yerlesme, HABITATII. Istanbul: 70-82
? 2000: '1998 Yili Limantepe Kazilan' Kazi Sonu?lan
Toplantisi 21/1: 251-62 ? 2001: '1999 Yili Limantepe Kazilan' Kazi Sonu?lan
Toplantisi 22/2: 265-79
Erkanal, H., G?nel, S. 1997: '1995 Limantepe Kazilan'
Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 18/1: 231-60
Eslick, C. 1988: 'Hacilar to Karata?: social organization in southwestern Anatolia' Mediterranean Archae
ology 1: 10-40
Frangipane, M. 1993: 'The results of the 1991 campaign at Arslantepe-Malatya' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 14/1: 213-29
? 1998: 'Arslantepe 1996: the finding of an EB-I royal tomb' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 19/1: 291-309
? 2001a: 'Centralization processes in greater
Mesopotamia: Uruk "expansion" as the climax of
systemic interactions among areas of the greater
Mesopotamian region' in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk,
Mesopotamia and Its Neighbours. Santa Fe: 307-47 ? 2001b: 'The transition between two opposing forms
of power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the beginning of the third millenium' T?rkiye Bilimler Akademisi
Arkeoloji Dergisi A: 1-24
Garstang, J. 1953: Prehistoric M er sin: Y?m?k Tepe in
Southern Turkey. Oxford
Goldman, H. 1956: Excavation at G?zl?kule, Tarsus II.
Princeton
Gorny R.L., Mcmahon, G., Paley, S., Steadman, S.,
Verhaaren, B. 1999: 'The 1998 Ali?ar regional
project season' Anatolica 25: 149-83
G?neri, S. 1990: 'Orta Anadolu H?y?kleri, Karapinar,
Cihanbeyli, Saray?n?, Kulu Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 7: 323-39
Hauptmann, H. 1979: 'Kalkolitik ?agdan ilk Tun?
?agi'mn bitimine kadar Nor?untepe'de Yerle? menin Geli?imi' Turk Tarih Kongresi 8: 55-64
? 1982: 'Nor?untepe Kazilan 1974' in Keban Projesi 1974-75 ?ahsmalan. Ankara: 13-40
?1987: 'Lidar H?y?k and Nevali ?ori, 1986' Anatolian
Studies 37: 203-06
Hauptmann, H. 2000: 'Zur Chronologie des 3.
Jahrtausends v. Chr. Am oberen Euphrat Aufgrund der Stratigraphie des Nor?untepe' in C. Marro, H.
Hauptmann (eds), Chronologies Des Pays Du
Caucase et de L'Euphrate Aux IV-III. Mill?naires
(Institut Francais D ' etudes Anatololiens D'Istanbul,
Varia Anatolica XI). Paris: 419-37
Jablonka, P. 2001: '?ehrin Tahta Sudan: Troia II A?agi
?ehrinin Savunmasi' in M. Korfmann (ed.), D?? ve
Ger?ek Troia. Istanbul: 391-94
Korfmann, M. 1983: Demircih?y?k: Die Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen 1975-1978: Architecture, Strati
graphie und Befunde I. Mainz am Rhein
Ko?ay, H.Z. 1976: Keban Projesi Pulur Kazisi, 1968
1970. Ankara
Lupton, A. 1996: Stability and Change: Socio-Political
Development in North Mesopotamia and South
East Anatolia 4000-2700 BC. Oxford
Matney, T., Algaze, G., Pittman, H. 1997: 'Excavations
at Titri? H?y?k in southeastern Turkey: a prelim
inary report of the 1996 season' Anatolica 23: 61
84
Matney, T., Algaze G., Rosen, S.A. 1999: 'Early Bronze
Age urban structure at Titri? H?y?k, southeastern
Turkey: the 1998 season' Anatolica 25: 185-202
Mellaart, J. 1959: 'Notes on the architectural remains of
Troia I and II' Anatolian Studies 9: 131-62 ? 1963: 'Early cultures of the south Anatolian plateau
II: the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in
the Konya plain' Anatolian Studies 13: 199-236 ? 1970: Excavations at Hacilar I-II. Edinburgh Mellink, M.J. 1964: 'Excavations at Karata?-Semay?k in
Lycia 1963' American Journal of Archaeology 68:
269-78 ? 1966: 'Excavations at Karata?-Semay?k in Lycia
1965' American Journal of Archaeology 70: 245
57 ? 1973: 'Excavations at Karata?-Semay?k and Elmali,
Lycia, 1972' American Journal of Archaeology 11:
293-303
Naumann, R. 1991: Eski Anadolu Mimarhgi. Trans. B.
Madra. Ankara
Omura, S. 1992: '1990 Yih Orta Anadolu'da Y?r?t?len
Y?zey Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lari
Toplantisi 9: 541-60 ? 1993: '1991 Yih i? Anadolu'da Y?r?t?len Y?zey
Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lari Toplantisi 10:
365-86 ? 1994: '1992 Yih i? Anadolu'da Y?r?t?len Y?zey
Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lari Toplantisi 11:
311-36 ? 1995: '1993 Yih i? Anadolu'da Ara?tirmalan'
Arastirma Sonu?lari Toplantisi 12: 215-44
139
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anatolian Studies 2007
? 1996: '1994 Yili i? Anadolu'da Y?r?t?len Y?zey
Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 13:
243-72 ? 1997: '1995 Yili i? Anadolu'da Y?r?t?len Y?zey
Ara?tirmalan' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 14:
283-302
von der Osten, H.H. 1937: TheAlisharH?y?k, Seasons of 1930-32, Part I (Oriental Institute Publications
Volume 27). Chicago
?zdogan, ?. 1977: Lower Euphrates Basin, 1977 Survey. Istanbul
?zg?c, T. 1986: 'New observations on the relationship of
K?ltepe with southeast Anatolia and north Syria
during the third millenium BC in J.V. Canby, E.
Paroda, B. Ridgwey, T. Stech (eds), Ancient
Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Cultural Devol
opment, Essays in Honor of Matchteld J. Mellink.
Madison: 31-47
Schachner, A. 1999: Von der Rundh?tte zum
Kaufmannshaus (British Archaeological Reports International Series 807). Oxford
Sertok, K., Erge?, R. 1999: 'A new Early Bronze Age
cemetery: excavations near the Birecik dam, south
eastern Turkey -
preliminary report (1997-98)' Anatolica 25: 87-107
Sever, H., Bayram, S., ?e?en, S., Menek?e, ?. 1992: '1990
Yili Nev?ehir, Nigde ve Aksaray Illeri Y?zey
Ara?tirmasi' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 9: 523-40
Stein, G.J. 2001: 'Indigeneous social complexity at
Hacinebi (Turkey) and the organization of colonial
contact in the Uruk expansion' in M.S. Rothman
(ed.), Uruk Mezopotamia and Its Neighbours:
Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State
Formation. Sante Fe: 265-306
?enyurt, S.Y. 1999: 'Nev?ehir ?li 1997 Yili Y?zey
Ara?tirmasi' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 16/1: 451-66
? 2000: 'Nev?ehir lli 1998 Yili Y?zey Ara?tirmasi' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 17/2: 365-80
TAY 2002: T?rkiye Arkeolojik Yerlesmeleri 4c. S.
Harmankaya (ed.). Istanbul
Warner, J.L. 1994: Elmah-Karatas II: The Early Bronze
Age Village of Karatas. Bryn Mawr
Wattenmaker, P. 1998: Household and State in Upper
Mesopotamia: Specialized Economy and the Social
Uses of Goods in an Early Complex Society.
Washington DC
Wattenmaker, P., Misir,. A. 1994: 'Kazane H?y?k 1992'
Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 15/1: 177-92
Whallon, Jr. R. 1979: An Archaeological Survey of the
Keban Reservoir Area of East-Central Turkey
(Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology
University of Michigan 11). Michigan Wilkinson, T.J. 1990: Town and Country in Southeastern
Anatolia, Volume I; Settlement and Land Use at
Kurban H?y?k and Other Sites in the Lower
Karababa Basin. Chicago ? 1994: 'Structure and dynamics of dry farming states
in Upper Mesopotamia' Current Anthropology 35/5: 483-520
Yakar, J. 1998: 'Environmental factors affecting urban
ization in Bronze Age Anatolia' in J.G. Westenholz
(ed.), Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spritual Dimensions. Jerusalem: 99-109
140
This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:17:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions