Braidwood holds a distinctive place in the history of archaeology. Not only because of their work in the field, but even more for their innovative contributions to our mode of looking at the past. Unlike many other colleagues of their time, the Braidwoods never totally rejected "traditional" archaeology; instead, they tried to upgrade the vision and methods of archaeology without deflecting its essence. Actually, the Braidwoods looked for means that would propitiously convey the data thus made available by traditional approaches to a new format, that would comply with them current research strategies. In the earlier part of their careers the Braidwoods were involved in the Protohistoric cultures of the Near East; it seems evident that they wanted to test their new vision through a simpler culture. At that time the Neolithic Period seemed like an ideal candidate. As a time period, it was of utmost importance, representing the most significant turning point in human history, yet is was the time of apparently simple societies, devoid of monumental buildings, temples, military installations, object of art or of prestige all of which the Braidwoods were trying to avoid. Moreover, the problems involved with the Neolithic Period clearly necessitated the extensive cooperation of natural sciences. Thus, the Braidwoods bravely formulated their narrative by incorporating hitherto elusive aspects such as habitat, subsistence and assemblage, and tested it all in the field. The outcome was of such success that it stimulated a whole generation of archaeologists to take to the field in the hope of further elaborating Braidwoods' results. However, soon this gave way to a new bias; the "neolithic" came to be identified with a certain subsistence pattern, overshadowing "culture".
The Braidwoods at Çayönü, their final venture in the field. were betrayed by the archaeological yield of the site. Çayönü, even by the first season gave clear indication that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic community living there, aside being a simple one, was rather sophisticated. It had monumental special building reserved for cult practices, art and prestige objects, complex technologies etc.; it all implied the presence of a well organized stratified society. Moreover, evidence of similar nature came pouring in from other excavated sites such as Nevali Çori, all implying that subsistence pattern was not enough by itself to define that period. Now, the picture drawn through the most recent excavations, such as Göbeklitepe or Jerf el-Ahmar, is radically different from what the Braidwoods envisaged for the Neolithic Period so many years ago. However, we should still keep in mind that, what they proposed was true for their time much more true and scientifically -based then their contemporaries- but especially for now. Specifically, if there had not been the "Braidwood impetus", we would never have attained our present level of knowledge.
Braidwood holds a distinctive place in the history of archaeology. Not only because of their work in the field, but even more for their innovative contributions to our mode of looking at the past. Unlike many other colleagues of their time, the Braidwoods never totally rejected "traditional" archaeology; instead, they tried to upgrade the vision and methods of archaeology without deflecting its essence. Actually, the Braidwoods looked for means that would propitiously convey the data thus made available by traditional approaches to a new format, that would comply with them current research strategies. In the earlier part of their careers the Braidwoods were involved in the Protohistoric cultures of the Near East; it seems evident that they wanted to test their new vision through a simpler culture. At that time the Neolithic Period seemed like an ideal candidate. As a time period, it was of utmost importance, representing the most significant turning point in human history, yet is was the time of apparently simple societies, devoid of monumental buildings, temples, military installations, object of art or of prestige all of which the Braidwoods were trying to avoid. Moreover, the problems involved with the Neolithic Period clearly necessitated the extensive cooperation of natural sciences. Thus, the Braidwoods bravely formulated their narrative by incorporating hitherto elusive aspects such as habitat, subsistence and assemblage, and tested it all in the field. The outcome was of such success that it stimulated a whole generation of archaeologists to take to the field in the hope of further elaborating Braidwoods' results. However, soon this gave way to a new bias; the "neolithic" came to be identified with a certain subsistence pattern, overshadowing "culture".
The Braidwoods at Çayönü, their final venture in the field. were betrayed by the archaeological yield of the site. Çayönü, even by the first season gave clear indication that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic community living there, aside being a simple one, was rather sophisticated. It had monumental special building reserved for cult practices, art and prestige objects, complex technologies etc.; it all implied the presence of a well organized stratified society. Moreover, evidence of similar nature came pouring in from other excavated sites such as Nevali Çori, all implying that subsistence pattern was not enough by itself to define that period. Now, the picture drawn through the most recent excavations, such as Göbeklitepe or Jerf el-Ahmar, is radically different from what the Braidwoods envisaged for the Neolithic Period so many years ago. However, we should still keep in mind that, what they proposed was true for their time much more true and scientifically -based then their contemporaries- but especially for now. Specifically, if there had not been the "Braidwood impetus", we would never have attained our present level of knowledge.
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Archaeological Science, Neolithic Age Archeology |
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | August 10, 2004 |
| Submission Date | February 13, 2004 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2004 Issue: 7 |
Publisher
Vedat Dalokay Caddesi No: 112 Çankaya 06670 ANKARA
TÜBA-AR Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology (TÜBA-AR) does not officially endorse the views expressed in the articles published in the journal, nor does it guarantee any product or service advertisements that may appear in the print or online versions. The scientific and legal responsibility for the published articles belongs solely to the authors.
Images, figures, tables, and other materials submitted with manuscripts must be original. If previously published, written permission from the copyright holder must be provided for reproduction in both print and online versions. Authors retain the copyright of their works; however, upon publication in the journal, the economic rights and rights of public communication -including adaptation, reproduction, representation, printing, publishing, and distribution rights- are transferred to the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), the publisher of the journal. Copyright of all published content (text and visual materials) belongs to the journal in terms of usage and distribution. No payment is made to the authors under the name of copyright or any other title, and no article processing charges are requested. However, the cost of reprints, if requested, is the responsibility of the authors.
In order to promote global open access to scientific knowledge and research, TÜBA allows all content published online (unless otherwise stated) to be freely used by readers, researchers, and institutions. Such use (including linking, downloading, distribution, printing, copying, or reproduction in any medium) is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, provided that the original work is properly cited, not modified, and not used for commercial purposes. For permissions regarding commercial use or licensing exceptions, please contact the journal.