THE PROBLEM OF CONTINUITY IN THE PPNA PERIOD ARCHITECTURE OF ÇEMKA HÖYÜK: SPACE, ARCHITECTURE, MEMORY AND CONTINUITY

Year 2024, Volume: 1 Issue: 32, 1 - 15, 30.04.2024

Ergül Kodaş Yunus Çiftçi Kazım Özkan Bahattin İpek Eşref Erbil

https://doi.org/10.51493/egearkeoloji.1389077

Abstract

The long-term use of space, which can be defined archaeologically and anthropologically as a fixed place/area inhabited by an individual, family or group, and the repeated construction of certain structures in the same area are interpreted archaeologically as an architectural continuity. It is argued that this continuity does not only represent a technical architectural continuity of buildings in the Near Eastern Neolithic. In this context, architectural continuity is associated with a possible sense of belonging that a place may have and is interpreted as the embodiment of the metaphorical immortality of a possible sense of belonging. Following the excavations at Çemka Höyük settlement in the Upper Tigris Valley, where architectural elements dating to the first phase of the Pottery-Free Neolithic Period (PPNA) were unearthed, new data on this spatial continuity were obtained. The data presented by Çemka Höyük provides important results in the associations between architecture and culture in early settlements, and reveals individual and public phenomena within the settlement area. The architecture of Çemka Höyük provides essantial information about Neolithic memory, especially when considered together with the formations such as space (individual and public), cultural belonging and belief. Likewise, the continuity of the settlement from the end of the Epi-Paleolithic Period to the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A phase will lead to a better understanding of this situation in early settlements

Keywords

Upper Tigris Valley, Neolithic Age, Çemka Höyük, Architectural Continuity, Space, Memory

Çemka Höyük PPNA Dönem Mimarisinde Devamlılık Sorunsalı: Mekân, Mimari, Hafıza ve Devamlılık

Abstract

Arkeolojik ve antropolojik açıdan bir birey, aile veya grubun yaşadığı sabit yer/alan olarak tanımlanabilecek olan mekânın uzun süreli kullanımı ve birtakım yapıların aynı alana tekrar tekrar inşa edilmesi arkeolojik açıdan bir mimari devamlılık olarak yorumlanmaktadır. Söz konusu devamlılık, Yakındoğu neolitiğinde, yapıların sadece teknik bir mimari sürekliliğini temsil etmediği öne sürülmektedir. Bu bağlamda mimari devamlılık, herhangi bir mekânın sahip olabileceği olası bir aidiyet duygusu ile ilişkilendirilmekte ve olası bir aidiyet anlayışının metaforik ölümsüzlüğünün somutlaştırılmış hali olarak yorumlanmaktadır. Yukarı Dicle Vadisi’nde bulunan ve Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem’in ilk evresine tarihlenen (PPNA) mimari öğelerin açığa çıkarıldığı Çemka Höyük yerleşim yerinde yapılan kazılar sonrası söz konusu mekânsal devamlılık üzerine yeni veriler elde edilmiştir. Çemka Höyük’ünün sunmuş olduğu veriler erken yerleşimlerde ortaya çıkarılan mimari ve kültür arasında ilişkilendirmelerde oldukça önemli sonuçlara değinmekle birlikte yerleşim alanı içinde bireysel veya kamusal olguları da gözler önüne sermektedir. Çemka Höyük’ü mimarisi, özellikle mekân (bireysel ve kamusal), kültürel aidiyet ve inanç gibi oluşumlarla birlikte düşündüğümüzde Neolitik hafıza konusunda önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır. Keza yerleşimin Epi-Paleolitik Dönem sonundan Çanak-Çömleksiz Neolitik A evresi sonuna kadar bir devamlılık sunmasından dolayı erken yerleşimlerde bu durumun daha iyi anlaşılmasına vesile olacaktır.

Keywords

Yukarı Dicle Vadisi, Neolitik Çağ, Çemka Höyük, Mimari Devamlılık, Mekân, Hafıza

Ethical Statement

söz konusu makale bizim bilimsel danışmanlığımızda yürütülen kazılar sonrası elde edilen verileri içermektedir.

Supporting Institution

Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler genel Müdürlüğü ve DSİ 16. Bölge müdürlüğü söz konusu kazıları desteklemiştir.

References

• Abel 2017: T. Abel, “The Iroquoian Occupations of Northern New York: A Summary of Current Research” The Iroquoian Occupations of Northern New York. Electronic document, 65-75.
• Allen 2009: K. M. S. Allen, “Temporal and Spatial Scales of Activity among the Iroquois: Implications for Understanding Cultural Change”. In Iroquoian Archaeology and Analytic Scale, edited by L. E. Miroff and T. D. Knapp, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 153-177.
• Aurenche 1981: O. Aurenche, “La maison orientale”. La Maison Orientale: L'Architecture Du Proche-Orient Ancien Des Origines Au Milieu Du 4e Millenaire: 109 (Bibliotheque Archeologique Et Historique), Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
• Banning 1998: E. B. Banning, “The Neolithic Period. Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art”, Near Eastern Archaeology 61/4, 188–237.
• Banning 2003: E. B. Banning, “Housing Neolithic Farmers”, Near Eastern Archaeology 66/1–2, 4–21
• Banning 2010: E. B. Banning, “Houses, Households, and Changing Society in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant”, Paléorient 36/1, 49–87
• Banning ve Byrd 1987: E.B. Banning, B.F. Byrd, “Houses and the Changing Residential Unit. Domestic Architecture at PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53/1, 309–325
• Barański 2017: M. Z. Barański, Późnoneolityczna architektura Çatalhöyük. Kontynuacja i zmiana u schyłku 7 tysiąclecia p.n.e. (Ph.D. diss. Gdańsk University of Technology) . Beck 2007: R. A. Beck, The Durable House. House Society Models in Archaeology, Carbondale, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.
• Belfer-Cohen ve Bar-Yosef 2000: A. Belfer-Cohen, O. Bar-Yosef, “Early Sedentism in the Near East. A Bumpy Ride to Village Life”, in: I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, New York, Published by Springer, 19–38.
• Carleton vd., 2013: W. C. Carleton, J. Conolly, M. Collard, “Corporate Kin-Groups, Social Memory, and »History Houses«? A Quantitative Test of Recent Reconstructions of Social Organization and Building Function at Çatalhöyük During the PPNB”, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1816–1822 Carsten ve Hugh-Jones 2014: J. Carsten, S. Hugh-Jones, About the House. Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, Cambridge University Press.
• Cauvin 1994 : J. Cauvin, Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture. La révolu- tion des symboles au Néolithique, Paris, CNRS.
• Cessford 2005: C. Cessford, “Absolute Dating at Çatalhöyük”, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, BIAA Monograph 39, Cambridge, 65–99.
• Çiftçi 2022: Y. Çiftçi, “Çemka Höyük, Late Epipaleolithic and PPNA Phase Housing Architecture Chronological and Typological Change”. Near Eastern Archaeology 85/1 : 12-23.
• Çiftçi vd. 2020: Y. Çiftçi, E. Kodaş, B. Genç, “Çemka Höyük’te Açığa Çıkarılan Çanak-Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem A Evresi Radyan Planlı Yapılar”. Anatolia/Anadolu 46:25–48.
• Clare vd., 2019: L. Clare, M. Kinzel, D. Sönmez, C. Uludağ, “Göbekli Tepe: UNESCO Dünya Miras Alanı ve Değişen Yaklaşımlar”, Mimarlık 56, fasc. 405, 14-18.
• Dietrich ve Notroff 2015: O. Dietrich, J. Notroff, “A Sanctuary, or so Fair a House? In the Defence of an Archaeology of Cult at Göbekli Tepe”, in: N. Laneri (ed.), Defining the Sacred. Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 75-89.
• During 2005: B. S. During, “Building Continuity in the Central Anatolian Neolithic. Exploring the Meaning of Buildings at Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 18/1, 2005, 3-29. Duru 2013: G. Duru, Tarihöncesinde İnsan- Mekân, Topluluk-Yerleşme İlişkisi. MÖ 9. Bin Sonu – 7. Bin Başı, Aşıklı ve Akarçay Tepe (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul.
• Erim-Özdoğan 2011: A. Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”. in The Neolithic in Tur- key: New Excavations and New Research; The Euphrates Basin, ed. Mehmet Özdoğan. Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications, 185–269.
• Flannery 2002: K. V. Flannery, “The Origins of the Village Revisited. From Nuclear to Ex- tended Households”, American Antiquity 67/3, 417–433. Hodder 1990: I. Hodder, The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hodder 1998: I. Hodder, “The Domus. Some Problems Reconsidered”, in: M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North- Western Europe, Glasgow, Cruithne Press, 84-100.
• Hodder 2016: I. Hodder, “More on History Houses at Çatalhöyük. A Response to Carle- ton et al.”, Journal of Archaeological Science, 67, 1–6.
• Hodder 2022: I. Hodder, ‘‘Staying Egalitarian and the Origins of Agriculture in the Middle East.’’ Cambridge Archaeological Journal 32/4, 1-24.
• Hodder ve Pels 2020: I. Hodder, P. Pels, “History Houses. A New Interpretation of Architectural Elaboration at Çatalhöyük”, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, Cambridge, 163-183.
• Kinzel vd., 2020: M. Kinzel, G. Duru, M. Z. Barański, “Modify to Last. A Near Eastern Perspective on Rebuilding and Continuation”. Umbau-, Umnutzungs- und Umwertungsprozesse in der antiken Architektur.
• Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 21. Februar 2018 veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI. Kinzel ve Clare 2021: M. Kinzel, L. Clare L, “Monumental – Compared to What? A Perspective From Göbekli Tepe”, in: A. B. Gebauer – L. Sørensen – A. Teather – A. de Valera (eds.), Monumentalizing Life in Neolithic Europe. Narratives of Continuity and Change, Oxbow Books, 29-48.
• Kodaş vd., 2020: E. Kodaş, B. Genç, Y. Çiftçi, C. Labendan-Kodaş, Ç. Erdem, “Çemka Höyük: A Late Epipalae- olithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia”. Neo-Lithics 20.1:40–46.
• Kuijt 2000: I. Kuijt, “People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages. Exploring Dai- ly Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 2000, 75-102.
• Kuijt 2001: I. Kuijt, “Place, Death, and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic”, in: M. S. Chesson, Social Memory, Identity, and Death. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, Washington, 80–89.
• Matthews 2005: W. Matthews, “Life-Cycles and Life-Courses of Buildings”, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Çatalhöyük Perspectives. Themes from the 1995–99 Seasons, BIAA Monograph 40, Cambridge, 125–150.
• Ökse 2021: Ayşe T. Ökse, “Ambar Dam Salvage Excavations 2018-2020: Ambar Höyük, Gre Filla and Kendale Hecale”. The Archaeology of Anatolia, Volum IV, eds. Steadman R. Sharon and McMahon Gregory. London, 4-20.
• Özbaşaran 2011: M. Özbaşaran, “Aşıklı 2010”, Anatolia Antiqua 19, 27-37.
• Özdoğan 1999: M. Özdoğan, “The Transition from Sedentary Hunter Gatherers to Agricultural Villages in Anatolia- Some Considerations”. Çağlar Boyunca Anadolu'da Yerleşim ve Konut Uluslararası Sempozyumu (Bildiriler), ed. Dinçol, Ali. İstanbul, 311-319.
• Schirmer 1990: W. Schirmer, “Some aspects of building at the ‘aceramic‐neolithic’ settlement of Çayönü Tepesi”, World Archaeology, 21/3 : 363-387.
• Schmidt 2012: K. Schmidt, Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia, Berlin, Ex Oriente e.V.
• Simmons 2007: A. H. Simmons, The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape, Tucson, University of Arizona Press.
• Waterson 1990: R. Waterson, The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia, Oxford, Tuttle Publishing.
• Watkins 2006: T. Watkins, “Architecture and the Symbolic Construction of New Worlds”, in: E. J. Banning – M. Chazan (eds.), Domesticating Space. Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 6 (Berlin 2006) 15-24
• Wilson 1998: P. J. Wilson, The Domestication of the Human Species, Yale University Press.