From settled villages to mega-sites: a micro-geoarchaeological approach towards understanding the origins of urbanism in Anatolia
This chapter considers the transition from village to urban-quality prehistoric settlements during the early Holocene in Anatolia. Here, the development of sedentism, increasingly complex social practices, and ecological strategies reliant on agriculture and animal husbandry, resulted in the emergen...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | otro |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/388849 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/388849 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Neolithic Anatolia sedentism stratigraphy built environment floor plaster midden micromorphology |
| Sumario: | This chapter considers the transition from village to urban-quality prehistoric settlements during the early Holocene in Anatolia. Here, the development of sedentism, increasingly complex social practices, and ecological strategies reliant on agriculture and animal husbandry, resulted in the emergence of densely populated settlements. The so-called ’mega-site’ of Çatalhöyük (7,100-5,950 cal. BC) displays a continuous 10 metre deep occupation sequence, reminiscent of urban contexts in later periods. This large site represents the climax of a process of increasing settlement size that originated with smaller settled communities in the Konya Plain. Recent work at the early agricultural settlement of Boncuklu (8,300-7,800 cal. BC), located 9.5 km from Çatalhöyük and predating this larger site, is beginning to shed light into the complexities and transformations of the earliest urban expressions. Micromorphological approaches to these two sites have contributed to issues key to our understanding of what constitutes urban space and how it developed, including intensity of occupation, construction techniques and concepts of space. Comparative results point towards continuity in the treatment of space inside structures, manifested in clearly demarcated areas, and in the rebuilding of houses on the same locations. Dissimilarities in the use and organisation of communal open areas at these two sites suggest divergent concepts of discard, accessibility and management in open spaces, likely a refl ection of diff erences in community building and socialisation practices related to intensity of population agglomeration. |
|---|