Households and communities in the central Anatolian Neolithic

Abstract

The neolithic communities of central Anatolia are generally reconstructed as being constituted by relatively autonomous and homologous households occupying discrete residences and performing most domestic activities in the house. In this reconstruction households are seen as the uniform and unproblematic basic component of society. This paper aims to problematize this modular conception of central Anatolian Neolithic societies, and wants to draw attention to the multiple forms in which households occurred and the manner in which they were embedded in larger social associations. It is argued that different levels of social association can only be understood in relation to each other. Further, the manner in which social configurations in central Anatolia changed over time is explored. This will be done by presenting evidence from two central Anatolian Neolithic sites: Aşıklı Höyük and Ç atalhöyük. In particular, we argue that households became autonomous and clearly bounded entities only towards the end of the central Anatolian Neolithic, and that too little consideration has been given to the neighbourhood and the local community encompassing individual households.

The Secondary Products Revolution: Empirical Evidence and its Current Zooarchaeological Critique

“…The multiscalar changes cannot be explained without understanding the significant social transformations that occurred in this period. These involved, in particular, the demise of communal organization in early farming groups, as represented by the clustered neighbourhood in Central Anatolia (see Düring and Marciniak 2006). The significance of communal arrangements in the Central Balkans was replaced in the fifth millennium BC by an increasing focus on the household as the primary unit of social and economic organization (Tringham et al 1985, p. 427;Bailey 2000, p. 165).…”

Communities, households and animals. Convergent developments in Central Anatolian and Central European Neolithic

“…As argued elsewhere (Düring and Marciniak 2006), the earlier Neolithic in Central Anatolia is characterized by the predominance of clustered neighbourhood communities. Local groups appear to be organized into a number of tightly nucleated neighbourhoods that shared a number of facilities and resources.…”

“…These significant changes in both regions in the postearly Neolithic period may be indicative of the emerging dominance of a domestic mode of production and consumption, with the associated development of the autonomous household as the paramount mode of social association (see more in Düring and Marciniak 2006). This increased autonomy of the household in the post-Early Neolithic was based on its durable and successful economy, in which crop and livestock husbandry were closely integrated and intensively managed.…”

Los Pescadores Tardíos De Cobija, Depósitos Domésticos Y Estrategias De Subsistencia

“…La discusión entre evidencias arqueológicas y menciones etnohistóricas nos habilitó para describir las estrategias de subsistencia tardías, identificándose una serie de transformaciones asociadas a un contexto regional con mayor integración económi-ca, migraciones al curso inferior del río Loa, aumento del caravaneo e intensificación de la producción excedentaria agrícola y también pesquera (Castro 2001 Los depósitos domésticos pueden considerarse el registro arqueológico de actividades cotidianas reiteradas (Souvatzi 2008;Tringham 2001), tanto de subsistencia como artesanales (Earle 1994), incluyendo la producción, la distribución y el consumo (Nash 2009). Dichas actividades serían obra del grupo co-residente en un área habitacional no limitada al interior de las viviendas (During y Marciniak 2006). Estos depósitos presentarían asociaciones significativas entre distintos tipos de evidencias, por ejemplo, entre restos alimenticios y los instrumentos usados en su procesamiento, permitiendo una aproximación a las prácticas económicas desde la producción al consumo (Earle 1994;Lynne 1997;Stanish 1997;Tringham 2001;Andrefsky 2008;Souvatzi 2008;Field et al 2010).…”

“…La tecnología correspondería al resultado dinámico de la interacción entre variables económicas, ideológicas, políticas y ambientales, entre otras (Elías 2008: 45). En específico, la tecnología lítica habría sido creada, reproducida o modificada en función del mencionado contexto, atendiendo a los cambios en las estrategias de subsistencia y sus requerimientos prácticos a lo largo de la secuencia (Earle 1994;Lynne 1997;Allison 1998;Tringham 2001;During y Marciniak 2006;Souvatzi 2008;Nash 2009). En nuestro caso, hemos desarrollado un análisis de los tipos de instrumentos líticos y sus modos de utilización, considerando sus principales asociaciones con otros tipos instrumentales y restos alimenticios.…”