A “New” Method in Archaeology: Architectural Energetics

Abstract

The question of how the ancient structures, which evoke admiration among visitors to excavation sites, ruins, and museums, came to be, has puzzled almost everyone. Although experimental studies have sought answers from time to time since the 1900s, many questions were answered with the introduction of the field of study of architectural energetics into archaeology in the 1980s. In this study, architectural energetics is used to answer many unanswered questions, such as how the labor force was calculated and whether the economy of the society could be understood with the resulting costs, what kind of social structure this society had, how the labor force was organized, the distribution of gender roles in the workforce, and how to calculate the population of the settlement. The goal is to find answers through the method and provide confirmation of the existing information. Although the use of this “new” method has been applied to specific architectural structures in many settlements in various parts of the world or to the texture of a city or settlement, this process has not yet been the case for Anatolian archaeology. The aim of this study is to practice the method of architectural energetics in Anatolia in the future.

Keywords

• Architectural Energetics
• Workforce
• Cost
• Ancient Architecture
• Archaeology

Arkeolojide "Yeni" Bir Yöntem: Mimari Enerji

Öz

Kazı alanlarında, ören yerlerinde ve müzelerde ziyaretçilerde hayranlık uyandıran antik dönem yapılarının nasıl yapıldığı sorusu hemen herkesin aklını kurcalamıştır. 1900’lerden itibaren zaman zaman deneysel çalışmalarla sorulara yanıt aransa da 1980’lerde mimari enerji çalışma alanının arkeolojiye girmesiyle birçok soru cevaplanmıştır. Bu çalışma, mimari enerji metodu aracılığıyla; iş gücünün nasıl hesaplandığı ve bunun sonucunda elde edilen maliyetlerle toplumun ekonomisinin anlaşılıp anlaşılamayacağı, bu toplumun nasıl bir sosyal yapısının olduğu, iş gücünün nasıl organize edildiği, iş gücündeki cinsiyet rollerinin dağılımı ve yerleşimin nüfusunun nasıl hesaplanabileceği gibi pek çok bilinmeyen soruya cevap bulmayı, var olan bilginin ise teyidini sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Söz konusu bu “yeni” metodun kullanımı dünyanın çeşitli yerlerindeki pek çok yerleşimde spesifik mimari yapılara ya da bir kentin veya yerleşimin dokusu üzerine uygulanmış olsa da bu durum Anadolu arkeolojisi için henüz başlamamıştır. Bu çalışma ilerleyen dönemlerde Anadolu’da mimari enerji yönteminin kullanılmasını temenni etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimari enerji
• maliyet
• antik mimari
• arkeoloji
• İş gücü

Kaynakça

1. Aaberg, Stephen ve Jay Bonsignore. “A Consideration of Time and Labor Expenditure in the Construction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Poverty Point Mound”. Three Papers on Mesoamerican Archaeology. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 24 (1975): 40–78.
2. Abrams, Elliot M. “Systems of Labor Organization in Late Classic Copan, Honduras: The Energetics of Construction”. Doktora Tezi, The Pennsylvania State University, 1984.
3. ––––––. “Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective”. Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 1 (1989): 47–88.
4. ––––––. How the Maya Built Their World. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994.
5. Abrams, Elliot M. ve Thomas W. Bolland. “Architectural Energetics, Ancient Monuments, and Operations Management”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol.6, No. 4 (1999): 263–91.
6. Abrams, Elliot M. ve Leah McCurdy. “Massive Assumptions and Moundbuilders: The History, Method, and Relevance of Architectural Energetics”. Architectural Energetics in Archaeology Analytical Expansions and Global Explorations, ed. by L. McCurdy & E. M. Abrams, 1–26. New York: Routledge, 2019.
7. Arnold, Jeanne E. ve Anabel Ford. “A Statistical Examination of Settlement Patterns at Tikal, Guatemala”. American Antiquity 2/3 (1980): 713–23.
8. Athens, J. S. “Theory Building and the Study of Evolutionary Process in Complex Societies”. For Theory Building in Archaeology, ed. by L. Binford, 353–84. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

9. Atkinson, Richard J. C. “Neolithic Engineering”. Antiquity XXXV (1961): 292–99.
10. Brysbaert, Ann. “‘Set in stone’? Constructed symbolism viewed through an architectural energetics’ lens at Bronze Age Tiryns, Greece”. Excerpta Archaeologica Leidensia, ed. by Corrie Bakels & Hans Kamermans, 91–105. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 45, Publication of The Faculty of Archaeology Leiden University, 2015.
11. Buccellati, Federico. Three-dimensional Volumetric Analysis in an Archaeological Context the Palace of Tupkish at Urkeshand its Representation. Urkesh/Mozan Studies 6, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica Vol. 30. Malibu: Undena Publications, 2016.
12. Cheek, Charles. “Construction Activity and Sociocultural Integration at Copan”. 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Denver, 1985.
13. ––––––. “Construction Activity as a Measurement of Change at Copan, Honduras”, The Southeast Maya Periphery, ed. by P. Urban & E. Schortman 50–71. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.
14. Childe, Gordon V. “The Urban Revolution”. Town Planning Review 111 (1950): 3–17.
15. Cordy, Ross H. A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
16. Curwen, Eliot. “On the use of scapulae as shovels”. Sussex Archaeological Collection 67 (1926): 139–45.
17. DeLaine, Janet. The Baths of Caracalla. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series No. 25. Portsmouth, 1997.
18. DeLuca, Anthony J. “Architectural Energetics and the Construction of Circle 2, Los Guachimontones, Jalisco”. Doktora Tezi, Department of Anthropology. University of Colorado Denver, 2017.
19. ––––––. “Dual labor organization models for the construction of monumental architecture in a corporate society”. Architectural Energetics in Archaeology Analytical Expansions and Global Explorations, ed. by L. McCurdy & E. M. Abrams, 182–204. New York: Routledge, 2019.
20. Devolder, Maud. Construire en Crète minoenne: Une approche énergétique de l’architecture néopalatiale. Aegaeum 35, Leuven: Peeters, 2013.
21. ––––––. “Manpower and Neopalatial Architecture the Architectural Project as a Meaningful Experience”. Minoan Archaeology Perspectives for the 21st Century, ed. by S. Cappel, U. Günkel-Maschek, D. Panagiotopoulos, 241–52. Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2015.
22. Durnin, John V. G. A. ve Reginald Passmore. Energy, Work and Leisure. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1967.
23. ECAFE. Manual Labor and Its More Effective Use in Competition with Machines for Earthwork in the ESCAFE Region. United Nations E/CN.ll/Conf. 3/L.L. Manila: Philippines, 1957.
24. Edholm, Otto G. The Biology of Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
25. Erasmus, Charles J. “Monument Building: Some Field Experiments”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21/4 (1965): 277–301.
26. Fitzsimons, Rodney D. “An Energetic(s) Approach to Late Helladic Tomb Construction: Funerary Architecture and State Formation at Bronze Age Mycenae”. Meditations on the Diversity of the Built Environment in the Aegean Basin and Beyond. Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Frederick E. Winter, 83–120. Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece, 2014.
27. ––––––. “Architectural Energetics and Archaic Cretan Urbanisation”. From Maple to Olive. Proceedings of a Colloquium to Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Canadian Institute in Greece, 345–83. Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece, 2017.
28. Fowke, Gerard. Archaeological History of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society. Ohio: Columbus, 1902.
29. Fried, Morton H. The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology. New York, 1967.
30. Harper, Charles, R. “Laboring with The Economics of Mycenaean Architecture: Theories, Methods, and Explorations of Mycenaean Architectural Production”. Doktora Tezi, Florida State University College of Arts and Sciences: Florida, 2016.
31. Heizer, Robert F. “Agriculture and the Theocratic State in Lowland Southeastern Mexico”. American Antiquity 26 (1960): 215–22.
32. Kaplan, David. “Men, Monuments, and Political Systems”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 19 (1963): 397–407.
33. Lacquement, Cameron H. “Landscape Modification at Moundville: An Energetics Assessment of a Mississippian Polity”. Doktora Tezi, University of Alabama, 2009.
34. ––––––. “Recalculating mound volume at Moundville”, Southeastern Archaeology 29/2 (2010): 341–55.
35. Lancaster, Jerard. “To house and defend: The application of architectural energetics to southeast Archaic Greek Sicily”. Architectural Energetics in Archaeology Analytical Expansions and Global Explorations, ed. by L. McCurdy & E. M. Abrams, 95–114. .New York: Routledge, 2019.
36. Lightfoot, Kent G. ve Gary M. Feinman. “Social Differentiation and Leadership Development in Early Pithouse Villages in the Mogollon Region of the American Southwest”. American Antiquity 47 (l), (1982): 64–86.
37. McCurdy, Leah. “Visualising Architecture: The Experience of Creating Virtual Reconstructions”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, University of York, 2010.
38. ––––––. “Building Xunantunich: Public Building and Labor Organization in an Ancient Maya Community”. Doktora Tezi, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2016.
39. ––––––. “Peopling monuments: Virtual energetics and labor impact analysis of monumental construction at Xunantunich, Belize”. Architectural Energetics in Archaeology Analytical Expansions and Global Explorations, ed. by L. McCurdy & E. M. Abrams 205–34. New York: Routledge, 2019.
40. McGuire, Randall H. “Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Heterogeneity”. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 6, ed. by M. Schiffer, 91–142. New York: Academic Press, 1983.
41. Morgan, Lewis Henry. Houses and House-Life among the American Aborigines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1881.
42. Morris, Earl H. Jean Charlot ve Ann Axtell Morris. The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 406. Washington D.C., 1931.
43. Remise, François. “An energetics approach to the construction of the Heuneburg: Thoughts on Celtic labor cost choices”. Architectural Energetics in Archaeology Analytical Expansions and Global Explorations, ed. by L. McCurdy & E. M. Abrams, 76–95. New York: Routledge, 2019.
44. Seeher, Jürgen. Hattuša Kerpiç Kent Suru Bir Rekonstrüksiyon Çalışması. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2007.
45. Service, Elman R. Primitive Social Organization, New York: Random House, 1962.
46. Smailes, Richard L. “Building Chan Chan: the Application of Construction Project Management to the Analysis of Ancient Architecture”. Doktora Tezi, University of Florida, 2000.
47. ––––––. “Building Chan Chan: A project management perspective”. Latin American Antiquity 22/1 (2011): 37–63.
48. ––––––. “A construction management approach to building the monumental adobe ciudadelas at Chan Chan, Peru”. Architectural Energetics in Archaeology Analytical Expansions and Global Explorations, ed. by L. McCurdy & E. M. Abrams, 235–65. New York: Routledge, 2019.
49. Wenke, Robert J. “Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Complexity: A Review”. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 4, ed by M. Schiffer, 79–127. New York: Academic Press, 1981.