Architectural Discourse and Social Transformation During the Early Neolithic of Southeast Anatolia
Architectural Discourse and Social Transformation During the Early Neolithic of Southeast Anatolia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10963-014-9070-4
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Atakuman, Cigdem
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Atakuman, Cigdem
在近东的研究规范中，新石器时代向久坐生活方式的转变往往被认为是经济上的必要性，与植物和动物的驯化、气候变化和人口压力有关。在这样一个框架中，可以假定，随着农业生产关系的日益复杂，社会结构也日益复杂。例如，一些研究人员认为，以宴会为基础的仪式成为社会控制的竞技场，一个日益复杂的社会开始围绕仪式领导和纪念性的仪式建筑出现。然而，在许多近东遗址进行的研究项目表明，定居主义既不能与农业的要求直接联系起来，也不能将纪念性建筑的存在与基于农业剩余不平等再分配的社会控制成功地联系起来。虽然仪式活动似乎是新石器时代的中心，但有两个重要的问题仍有待探讨：（1）鉴于所考虑的社会通常被认为具有“平等主义”的精神，仪式究竟控制了什么？（2）在PPNB的后半期，当仪式建筑完全从考古记录中消失而对农业的依赖增加时，仪式控制发生了什么？通过对“sedentiism”，“平均主义”和“仪式”等术语的使用的批判性评论，我认为新石器时代早期的建筑与通过象征性的场所制作活动管理社会关系有关。基于对埋葬活动、建筑连续性和象征性意象的使用的比较回顾，我考察了安纳托利亚东南部长期职业集中的一些最早的例子的象征性建筑，如Hallan Cemi、Demirkoy、Kortik Tepe、Hasankeyf Hoyuk、Gusir Hoyuk、Gobekli Tepe、Cayonu和NevalA +/-科里，试图了解新石器时代早期纪念性建筑出现和消亡背后的社会因素。上述遗址的证据表明，新石器时代早期的造地活动反映了不同规模的社区形成，其核心是不断重塑亲属观念。虽然一些墓葬集中的地点可能已经成为构建更亲密的地方网络的场所，但其他地点，如哥贝克力石阵，可能已经整合了扩展的网络。可以说，在PPNA期间形成的大规模网络对当地群体构成了威胁。因此，在PPNB早期，可能已经开始关注当地群体的形成和对社会交流的密切控制，而在这个过程中，像哥贝克力石阵这样的地方可能已经不再使用了。在象征意义和雕像的证据的背景下，我进一步认为，性和性别可能已经成为重要的问题，无论是在形成的地方社区在晚PPNA早期PPNB，并在出现自主的家庭在晚PPNB。
Within the Near Eastern research canon, the transition to more sedentary lifestyles during the Neolithic is often framed as an economic necessity, linked to plant and animal domestication, climatic change and population stress. In such a framework, an increasingly complex social structure, arising in response to the increasingly complex relations of agricultural production, is presumed. For example, some researchers would argue that feasting-based rituals became an arena of social control and an increasingly complex society began to emerge around ritual leadership and monumental ritual architecture. Yet the research projects conducted at many Near Eastern sites indicate neither that sedentism can be directly linked to the requirements of agriculture, nor that the presence of monumental architecture can be successfully associated with social control based on unequal redistribution of agricultural surplus. While ritual activity appears to be central during the Neolithic, two important questions remain to be explored: (1) what exactly did the rituals control, given that the societies under consideration are commonly perceived to have an 'egalitarian' ethos?; and (2) what happened to the ritual control in the second half of the PPNB, when ritual architecture completely disappears from the archaeological record at a time of increased reliance on agriculture? Through a critical review of the use of terms like 'sedentism', 'egalitarianism' and 'ritual', I argue that the architecture of the Early Neolithic is related to the management of social relationships through symbolic place-making activities. Based on a comparative review of burial activity, building continuity and the use of symbolic imagery, I examine the symbolic construction of some of the earliest examples of long-term occupational focus in southeast Anatolia, such as Hallan Cemi, Demirkoy, Kortik Tepe, Hasankeyf Hoyuk, Gusir Hoyuk, Gobekli Tepe, Cayonu and NevalA +/- Cori, in an attempt to understand the social factors behind the emergence and demise of Early Neolithic monumental architecture. The evidence from the above-mentioned sites suggests that Early Neolithic place-making reflects community formation at a variety of scales, at the center of which lay the continuous reinvention of kinship concepts. While some sites, with concentrations of burials, may have become the locus for construction of more intimate local place-based networks, other sites, such as Gobekli Tepe, may have integrated the extended networks. Arguably, the formation of large scale networks during the PPNA posed a threat to local groups. Thus, a focus on local group formation and close control of social exchanges may have begun during the early PPNB, and the places such as Gobekli Tepe may have fallen out of use during this process. In the context of the symbolism and figurine evidence, I further argue that sex and gender may have become important issues, both in the formation of place-communities during the late PPNA-early PPNB, and in the emergence of autonomous households during the later PPNB.