SOME PROBLEMS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY

Yıl 2004, Sayı: 7, 21 - 30, 10.08.2004

Ufuk Esin

Öz

Among many new ideas, concepts and approches in the Near Eastern Archaeology such as interdisciplinary studies for surface surveys and excavations, we owe to the BRAIDWOODS also the problem-oriented research projects. The aim of those projects is to enlighten the questions about the origin and beginning of food-producing stage or in other words to solve the problem of the introduction of Prepottery Neolithic cultural affairs in human history. Such inter-disciplinary and problem-oriented archaeological research projects have been undertaken by BRAIDWOODS first in Irak, in the piedmont valleys of Zagros Mountains and then in southwestern Iran, in the natural habitat zones of wild cereals and animals to be domesticated. They have been carried out with the goal to discover the beginning of a new style of social life in preliminary permenant villages within an environment where incipient agricultural productions and domestication of animals could be achieved.

The Joint Istanbul-Chicago Universities Prehistoric Research Project in South-Eastern Turkey con- ducted by BRAIDWOODS and Halet ÇAMBEL followed them in the neighbourhood of those countries with the same task. This region lies southward of the Taurus Mountains, in the fertile plains between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers in Asia Minor where the famous Prepottery Neolithic Çayönü, on the shore of Boğazçay (a small tribute of Tigris) has been successfully excavated from 1964 to 1991 by the joint-teams of the Istanbul and Chicago universities under the direction of ÇAMBEL and BRAIDWOODS and then of Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN (cf. Here see the bibliographies of J.R. and L. Braidwood; A. Özdoğan 1999, 35-63).

In the meantime, the difficult goal of this kind of research projects became one of the main subject and interest of many collaegues of Braidwoods belonging to the old and young generations of archaeologists/anthropologists who worked in South-Western Asia as well as in the New World (Esin 1999; T.G. Price, A.B. Gebauer 1995; J. Cauvin 1994, 1996; F. Gérard, L. Thissen 2002).

On the other hand, because of his dissatisfaction of using the traditional classification and nomenclature of cultural levels in archaeology, R.J. Braidwood (1960) suggested a terminology with a new anthropological concept. His classification of the cultural levels in human history was based on a paper of Beardsley, Meggers et al. (1956) and on writings of Childe (1956). His new classification and nomenclature of cultural levels covered the time-span between Paleolithic and Proto-Literate Period in Mesopotamia. With his new schema and nomenclature for past cultural levels he tried to build up a new model for the whole world. It was "for the consideration of the evidence for levels of subsistence-settlement types, multiliniear evolution, environment and diffusion, in human prehis- tory" (Braidwood 1960, 146-147, fig. 1).

Many archaeologists and cultural anthropologists who were followers of the research goals of Braidwoods in the field of archaeology, tried to adopt also his suggested classification with his terminology and nomenclature in their writings. Often they used it with some modifications under the influence of New Archaeology current (cf. Renfrew 1973).

Beginning in 1960'ies L.R. Binford published a few papers and book, prepared together with his wife, titled New Perspectives in Archaeology (L.R. Binford 1962, 1964, 1965; S.R. and L.R. Binford 1968). Binford's papers and especially that book were accepted with great enthusiasm mostly by young generations of archaeologists and anthropologists and considered as a revolutionary new model called New Archaeology (Bayard 1969; P.J. Watson 1973; Esin 1979, 17 ff). The New Archaeology members and their followers brought to life also a new classification with a new terminology and nomenclature for explanation and description of social lives and cultural events in the past (cf. I. Hodder 1992). According to both trends to use new classifications and nomenclatures for cultural levels - many times even with some modifications- caused a lot of confusion particularly for the beginners in archaeology. Because of modifications it became difficult to establish the correct place of the new classification models in human history, in comparison to the traditional, archaeological classification, terminology or nomenclature for the superficial divisions of the past (cf. Smolla 1967; Esin 1979, 12-28; I. Hodder 1992).

For better understanding the Braidwoods intellectual concepts and works about the cultural developments in the past, the main goal of this paper is to memorise his classification of cultural levels with his new terminology and nomenclature for cultural history. It is also aimed to discuss in order to find out why the traditional archaeological classification, terminology or nomenclature are still in use and preferred mostly by many young and old archaeologists..

Anahtar Kelimeler

Braidwoods , archaeology , terminology , problems

ARKEOLOJİK TERMİNOLOJİDE BAZI SORUNLAR

Öz

Among many new ideas, concepts and approches in the Near Eastern Archaeology such as interdisciplinary studies for surface surveys and excavations, we owe to the BRAIDWOODS also the problem-oriented research projects. The aim of those projects is to enlighten the questions about the origin and beginning of food-producing stage or in other words to solve the problem of the introduction of Prepottery Neolithic cultural affairs in human history. Such inter-disciplinary and problem-oriented archaeological research projects have been undertaken by BRAIDWOODS first in Irak, in the piedmont valleys of Zagros Mountains and then in southwestern Iran, in the natural habitat zones of wild cereals and animals to be domesticated. They have been carried out with the goal to discover the beginning of a new style of social life in preliminary permenant villages within an environment where incipient agricultural productions and domestication of animals could be achieved.

The Joint Istanbul-Chicago Universities Prehistoric Research Project in South-Eastern Turkey con- ducted by BRAIDWOODS and Halet ÇAMBEL followed them in the neighbourhood of those countries with the same task. This region lies southward of the Taurus Mountains, in the fertile plains between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers in Asia Minor where the famous Prepottery Neolithic Çayönü, on the shore of Boğazçay (a small tribute of Tigris) has been successfully excavated from 1964 to 1991 by the joint-teams of the Istanbul and Chicago universities under the direction of ÇAMBEL and BRAIDWOODS and then of Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN (cf. Here see the bibliographies of J.R. and L. Braidwood; A. Özdoğan 1999, 35-63).

In the meantime, the difficult goal of this kind of research projects became one of the main subject and interest of many collaegues of Braidwoods belonging to the old and young generations of archaeologists/anthropologists who worked in South-Western Asia as well as in the New World (Esin 1999; T.G. Price, A.B. Gebauer 1995; J. Cauvin 1994, 1996; F. Gérard, L. Thissen 2002).

On the other hand, because of his dissatisfaction of using the traditional classification and nomenclature of cultural levels in archaeology, R.J. Braidwood (1960) suggested a terminology with a new anthropological concept. His classification of the cultural levels in human history was based on a paper of Beardsley, Meggers et al. (1956) and on writings of Childe (1956). His new classification and nomenclature of cultural levels covered the time-span between Paleolithic and Proto-Literate Period in Mesopotamia. With his new schema and nomenclature for past cultural levels he tried to build up a new model for the whole world. It was "for the consideration of the evidence for levels of subsistence-settlement types, multiliniear evolution, environment and diffusion, in human prehis- tory" (Braidwood 1960, 146-147, fig. 1).

Many archaeologists and cultural anthropologists who were followers of the research goals of Braidwoods in the field of archaeology, tried to adopt also his suggested classification with his terminology and nomenclature in their writings. Often they used it with some modifications under the influence of New Archaeology current (cf. Renfrew 1973).

Beginning in 1960'ies L.R. Binford published a few papers and book, prepared together with his wife, titled New Perspectives in Archaeology (L.R. Binford 1962, 1964, 1965; S.R. and L.R. Binford 1968). Binford's papers and especially that book were accepted with great enthusiasm mostly by young generations of archaeologists and anthropologists and considered as a revolutionary new model called New Archaeology (Bayard 1969; P.J. Watson 1973; Esin 1979, 17 ff). The New Archaeology members and their followers brought to life also a new classification with a new terminology and nomenclature for explanation and description of social lives and cultural events in the past (cf. I. Hodder 1992). According to both trends to use new classifications and nomenclatures for cultural levels - many times even with some modifications- caused a lot of confusion particularly for the beginners in archaeology. Because of modifications it became difficult to establish the correct place of the new classification models in human history, in comparison to the traditional, archaeological classification, terminology or nomenclature for the superficial divisions of the past (cf. Smolla 1967; Esin 1979, 12-28; I. Hodder 1992).

For better understanding the Braidwoods intellectual concepts and works about the cultural developments in the past, the main goal of this paper is to memorise his classification of cultural levels with his new terminology and nomenclature for cultural history. It is also aimed to discuss in order to find out why the traditional archaeological classification, terminology or nomenclature are still in use and preferred mostly by many young and old archaeologists..

Anahtar Kelimeler

Braidwood , arkeoloji , terminoloji , sorunlar Key

Kaynakça

• BAYARD, D.T., 1959 "Science, theory and reality in the 'New Archaeology'". American Antiquity 34, 376-384.