ANADOLU'DA İLK ? KENTLER KENT OLGUSU ÜZERİNE BİR TARTIŞMA
Öz
Various ideas have been put forward by many scholars concerning the notions of urban and urba-nisation, and through these ideas some questions have been tended to be answered such as what is an urban, what are the criteria that distinguish the village and urban from another and what are the main traits and leading factors in the development of an urban? "Morphological Approach' seems to be the closest one to the archaeological view among the numerous urban theories. According to this hypothesis, the differences between the village and urban settlements have to be defined by some structural features in lieu of sociological definitions. It states some criteria in defining an urban such as size and density, craft specialization, central management, social strafication and trade.Are there any misleading aspects of this idea? Are these criteria really adequate in defining urban that is the most complex habitation unit? Or do this idea comprise the qualitative and quantitative characteristics in explaining the real identites of the towns? In an effort to find answers to all the above questions and understand the early phases of the urbanization process in Anatolia by making use of these parameters, this paper will be evaluating two important settlements, Çayönü and Aşıklı Höyük, both good examples of societal changes in the Neolithic period. The evaluation will thus attempt to arrive at a conclusion about the controversial issue about whether these settlements were actually villages or towns.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Kaynakça Bulunmuyor