CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AT CHALCOLITHIC GÜLPINAR

Yıl 2024, , 17 - 32, 30.04.2024

Erkan Gürçal , Turan Takaoğlu

https://doi.org/10.51493/egearkeoloji.1424806

Öz

Archaeological excavations conducted at the late 6th and 5th millennia BC site of Gülpınar in coastal
northwestern Anatolia present an opportunity to examine the patterns of continuity and change in the social structure and the spatial use of the settlement. The excavated data from Gülpınar’s Early Chalcolithic (Phase II) and Middle Chalcolithic (Phase III) occupations reveal that settlement organization and architecture continued in a similar manner until the mid-5th millennium BC. This behavioral pattern, which continued for about 800 years, often using old foundations, must also be an important reflection of the inhabitants’ preservation of the social structure based on spatial references. However, by around 4500 BC, there had been significant changes in settlement organization, architecture, and spatial use. From this point on, the excavation data suggest a socio- spatial change in community structure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kalkolitik Dönem, Gülpınar, sosyal yapı, sosyal hafıza

Kalkolitik Gülpınar Sosyal Yapısında Süreklilik ve Değişim

Öz

Kuzeybatı Anadolu kıyılarında yer alan Gülpınar'ın MÖ 6. binyıl sonu ve 5. binyıl yerleşmesinde yürütülen arkeolojik kazılar, yerleşmenin kullanımı boyunca sosyal yapı ve mekânsal kullanımındaki süreklilik ve değişimin incelenmesi için bir fırsat sunmaktadır. Bu makale, Erken Kalkolitik Gülpınar (evre II) ve Orta Kalkolitik Gülpınar (evre III) yerleşimleri mimari kalıntılarının incelenmesi yoluyla şu üç soruya yanıt bulmaya çalışmaktadır: Yerleşimin sakinleri toplumsal hafızayı yerleşimlerini nasıl ve hangi pratiklerle yansıtmışlardır? Bu sembolik pratikler yerleşimin kullanımı boyunca nasıl bir seyir izlemiştir? ve bu yerleşimde yaşayan topluluklar bu pratikler aracılığıyla toplumsal yapılarının sürekliliğini nasıl sağlamışlardır? Gülpınar’ın Erken ve Orta Kalkolitik dönem kültür katmanlarında bazı pratiklerin sürekli tekrar edilmesi, yerleşimde yaşayanların yaklaşık bin yıllık zaman diliminin büyük bölümünde sosyal yapılarını koruduklarını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kalkolitik Dönem, Gülpınar, Sosyal Yapı, Sosyal Hafıza

Kaynakça

• Bachelard 196: G. Bachelard, The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Basso 1996: K. H. Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Blanton 1994: R. E. Blanton, “Houses and Households: A Comparative Study, Springer Science”, Business Media, New York.
• Cannon 1989: A. Cannon, “Historical Dimensions in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment”, Current Anthropology 30: 437–58.
• Chesson 2001: M.S. Chesson, “Social memory, identity, and death: An introduction”, Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, M.S. Chesson (ed.). Arlington: American Anthropological Association, 1-11.
• Düring 2005: B. S. Düring, “Building Continuity in the Central Anatolian Neolithic: Exploring the Meaning of Buildings at Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 3-29.
• Edmonds 1997: M. Edmonds, “Taskscape, Technology and Tradition”, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 99-110.
• Erdal ve Takaoğlu 2021: Y.S. Erdal, T. Takaoğlu, “Mortuary behavior in Chalcolithic Anatolia: A view from Gülpınar.” Arkeoloji Bilimler Dergisi 1: 42-66.
• Garrow 2006: D. Garrow, Pits, Settlement and Deposition During the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in East Anglia. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 414, Oxford.
• Giddens 1984: A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Gutiérrez 2011: E. M. Gutiérrez, “Memories without a place.” International Social Science Journal 62: 19–31. Hackley vd. 2018: L. D. Hackley, S. Selover, S. Steadman, “The persistence of social and spatial memory at prehistoric Çadır Höyük.” The International Journal of the Constructed Environment 9: 1-20.
• Halstead 1995: P. Halstead, “From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neolithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society”, Politeia: Society and State in Aegean Bronze Age, I R. Laffineur, W. D. Niemeier (eds.), (Aegaeum 12), University of Liège, Liège, 11-22.
• Hendon 2010: J. A. Hendon, Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life in Mesoamerica. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Hodder ve Pels 2010: I. Hodder, P. Pels, “History Houses: A new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhoyük”, Religion in the Emergence of Civilization, Çatalhoyük as a Case Study, I. Hodder (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163-186.
• Hodder ve Cessford: I. Hodder, C. Cessford, “Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatal Höyük”, American Antiquity 69: 17-40.
• Kuijt 2002: I. Kuijt, “Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching, and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic”, Life in Neolithic Farming Communities Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, I. Kuijt (ed.), New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 137-164.
• Kuijt 2008: I. Kuijt, “The regeneration of life Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting”, Current Anthropology 49: 171-197.
• Lawrence ve Low 1990: D. L. Lawrence, S.M. Low, S. M. “The Built Environment and Spatial Form”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 453–505
• Pearson ve Richards 1994: M. P. Pearson, C. Richards, “Ordering the world: Perceptions of architecture, space and time”, Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, P. P. Michael & C. Richards (eds.), London: Routledge, 1-37.
• Pollard 1999: J. Pollard, “These places have their moments: thoughts on settlement practices in the British Neolithic”, Making Places in the Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology, J. Brück & M. Goodman (eds.), London: University of California Press, 76-93. Özdemir 2017: A. Özdemir, A. (2017), Kalkolitik Gülpınar (Smintheion) Mimarisi ve Mekânsal Kullanımı. (Doktora Tezi) Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Çanakkale.
• Remizova 2020: O. Remizova, “Architectural memory and forms of its existence”, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 44: 97-108.
• Russell vd.: N. Russell, K. I. Wright, T. Carter, S. Ketchum, P. Ryan, N. Yalman, R. Regan, M. Stevanović, M. Milić. “Bringing Down the House: House Closing Deposits at Çatalhöyük”, Bringing Down the House: House Closing Deposits at Çatalhöyük, vol. 32, Ian Hodder (ed.), Los Angeles: University of California, 109–21.
• Schiffer 1987: M.B. Schiffer, Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Schiffer 1995: M.B. Schiffer, Behavioral Archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
• Steadman 2005: S. Steadman, “Reliquaries on the Landscape: Mounds as Matrices of Human Cognition”, Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives, S. Pollock & R. Bernbeck (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 286–307.
• Takaoğlu 2021: T. Takaoğlu, “Erken Kalkolitik Gülpınar’da Depolama Davranışı”, Anadolu Arkeolojisiyle Harmanlanmış Bir Ömür: Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu'na Armağan, M. A. Yılmaz, B. Can, M. Işıklı (eds.). Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 713-727.
• Takaoğlu ve Özdemir 2018: T. Takaoğlu, A. Özdemir, “Middle Chalcolithic period in the Troad: A new look from Gülpınar”, Communities in Transition. The Circum-Aegean Area in the Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC, S. Dietz, F. Mavridis, Ž. Tankosić, T. Takaoğlu (eds.), Oxford: Oxbow Books, 479-90.
• Tang vd. 2020: Z. Tang, A. Lu, Y. Yang, “Design research in the practice of memory place-making”, Open House International 45: 55-68.
• Van Dyke 2019: R. M. Van Dyke, “Archaeology and Social Memory”. Annual Review of Anthropology 48: 207-225.
• Van Dyke ve Alcock 2003: R. M. Van Dyke, S. E. Alcock, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction”, Archaeologies of Memory, R. M. Van Dyke & S. E. Alcock (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, –13
• Watkins 2004: T. Watkins, "Architecture and ‘Theatres of Memory’ in the Neolithic South-West Asia”, Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World. E. De Marrais, C. Gosden, C. Renfrew (eds.), Cambridge: Mc Donald Institute Monographs, 97 – 106.
• Wilson 2008: G. D. Wilson, “The Archaeology of Everyday Life at Early Moundville”, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
• Wilson 2010: G. D. Wilson, “Community, Identity, and Social Memory at Moundville.” American Antiquity 75: 3–18.