Take Me to Your Leader: The Power of Place in Prehistoric Anatolian Settlements Author(s): Sharon R.

Steadman Reviewed work(s): Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 363 (August 2011), pp. 1-24 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.363.0001 . Accessed: 27/04/2012 00:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

Take Me to Your Leader: The Power of Place in Prehistoric Anatolian Settlements

Department of Sociology/Anthropology 2120 Moffett Center State University of New York College at Cortland Cortland, NY 13045 sharon.steadman@cortland.edu

Sharon R. Steadman

During the Early Bronze Age in central Anatolia (ca. 30002000 b.c.e.), a change in the residential location of houses belonging to elites and/or leaders occurred. In the fourth and early third millennia, various sites feature settlement plans in which village leaders, or higher-ranking residents, inhabited homes in close proximity to main gates. By the later third millennium the trend was to locate homes away from the gates, sometimes behind physical barriers. These changes are concomitant with several plateauwide phenomena, including increases in population and settlement size at emerging regional centers, and the establishment of international trade networks. The reasons underlying this residential adjustment lie in the need for protection against outsiders while also desiring to impress both outsiders and those living within the community. An additional motivating factor, however, was the erosion of trust between community members, i.e., a fear of the insiders factor as societies experienced internal changes.

introduction

y intended goals in launching this research project were twofold. First, I wished to ascertain whether a shift in the location of houses identified as belonging to elites or leaders occurred at any particular point in Anatolian prehistory. Specifically, I wanted to confirm my casual observations that as Anatolian settlements grew larger and societies more complex, leaders (or elites) moved away from main gates and instituted greater boundaries to separate their homes from other residents. Second, if such shifts in residential location corresponded with changes in societal structure (i.e., increasingly complex sociopolitical and economic systems), then I wished to discern why residential positioning changed: why was it advantageous, or necessary, to locate a residence in one place or another within the community? The first goal was reasonably achievable using straightforward research strategies; the examination of excavated prehistoric sites on the Anatolian plateau dated to periods when rapid socioeconomic change and urbanization processes were restructuring settlements was a fruitful method for acquiring the nec1

essary data. However, the second goal was far more difficult. Identifying the human motives, the human agency, involved in such a residential shift in later prehistoric Anatolian society has a much less sure methodology. Tracking how fourth- and third-millennium Anatolians viewed their world and the possible risks associated with the selection of home sites in their changing villages and towns is not a straightforward process, to say the least. Nonetheless, an attempt can be made using interpretive frameworks targeting social interaction within the community, combined with architectural models for understanding societal structures. Although she is dealing with architecture at a different complexity level than that in the present article, Elizabeth Stones statement is entirely apropos here: If we can find a way to understand the nature of the link between space and society in cities so very different from our own, it would enhance our endeavors to interpret the archaeological record of early complex societies (2008: 141). It is in the Early Bronze Age, essentially spanning the third millennium b.c.e., that a change in residential location, particularly regarding houses belonging to elites, appears to occur at sites on the Anatolian

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

Black Sea
Sa ka rya

Black Sea
R.

Marmara

Kzl Irm

Troy

Demircihyk
Por

suk

ak

Klloba

R.

adr Hyk

Beycesultan Gvercinkayas Haclar Kuruay Karata Bademaac Kok Hyk

Tuz Gl

Kltepe
R.
Seyhan

Deirmentepe Arslantepe
a yh nR .

Mersin

Ce

Hassek Hyk

Orontes R.

Mediterranean Sea rr
0
CYP RUS

Euphrates R.

100

200 km

Fig. 1. Map of sites discussed in the text.

plateau (fig. 1). In the Chalcolithic and earlier Early Bronze Age (table 1), sites feature settlement plans in which village leaders, or at least high-ranking residents, inhabited homes in close proximity to main gates. By the later third millennium, the trend was to locate homes away from the gates, sometimes behind physical barriers. These changes are concomitant with several plateau-wide phenomena, such as increasing population and settlement size at newly developing regional centers, and the establishment of international trade networks. The forces guiding this residential adjustment include a need for protection against outsiders (visitors, attackers) while simultaneously seeking to impress both outsiders and those living within the community. An additional motive, however, is the erosion of trust between community membersthat is, a fear of the insiders factor as societal structures underwent internal changes.

here on leaders, or at least on elites, seeks to treat their initial appearance in Anatolian communities and to define what internal and external forces impacted important decisions, such as residential location, undertaken by the communitys higher-ranking members. Identifying the Leaders House Picking out the residence that belongs to a village or town leader, archaeologically, requires skill, intuition, luck, and steadfast resolve that your identification is correct. First, it must be recognized that rank is not always visible through architecture (Wason 1994). Leaders and elites may use non-tangible status markers that do not remain in the architectural footprint. Conversely, houses may appear to the modern researcher to be elite residences when actually they are not. Despite these obstacles, the methods to identify specific elite/leader residences can be outlined. Wason notes that major size differences frequently represent ranked status differences (1994: 137). A settlement that boasts a residence that is substantially larger than others is usually believed to have belonged to an elite

why leaders? why houses?

The answer to the questions in this section can be found in Stones quote above. Understanding the prehistoric (or any periods) use of space enhances our abilities to interpret ancient societies. The focus

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER TAbLe 1. Anatolian Chronological Periods and Date Ranges of Sites Discussed in the Text

Chronological Periods on the Anatolian Plateau

Early Bronze III 23002000 b.c.e. Early Bronze II 2700/26002300 b.c.e. Early Bronze I 30002700/2600 b.c.e. Late Chalcolithic 42503000 b.c.e. Middle Chalcolithic 55004250 b.c.e. Early Chalcolithic 61005500 b.c.e. Neolithic 6100 b.c.e. Source: Based on Steadman 2011; Schoop 2011. * Sites with houses at the gates # Sites with houses away from the gates Demircihyk* adr Hyk* Kuruay 6A* Mersin* Gvercinkayas* Haclar IIa* Kok Hyk*

Sites Discussed in the Text

Kltepe#

Bademaca # adr Hyk#

Troy II#

Klloba#

Karata #

of some sort. The large size may stem from the residents ability to muster the resources (and labor) to build such a domicile, but it may also signal the need to carry out duties requiring large areas of space, such as housing community surpluses and possibly subsequent public redistributive events, storage of gifts from visitors or traders, hosting feasts, or conducting public (religious or secular) ceremonies (Hayden 1995; Helms 1992; Helwing 2003; Pollock 2003; Potter 2000). There are other critical indicators beyond size, however, that help to identify, archaeologically, houses belonging to community leaders/elites. Wason asserts that if a settlement boasts a few distinctly energy-intensive dwellings, we can safely infer inequality. Energy will correlate with rank (1994: 138). Naturally, a larger house requires more labor investment. However, smaller-size houses can differ in the amount of effort put into their construction. At the central Anatolian site of adr Hyk, for instance, the Early Bronze I (EB I) settlement featured a number of single-room structures that were exceedingly poorly built, with thin walls and packed

mud floors (Steadman et al. 2008). Recent excavations at the site revealed an EB I house that was far better built (wider mudbrick walls, plaster flooring), constructed on a platform that artificially elevated it above the other houses. There was a substantial differentiation in labor investment between the majority of the adr EB I houses and this single structure (which was almost certainly domestic in nature). Labor investment can be an invaluable tool for singling out special-status buildings. Material culture located within the houses is, of course, another critical indicator (Ames 2008; Blanton 1994: 820; Netting 1982; Steadman 1996; 2000). Elites will want, or even need, to engage in conscious power-building activities, including material culture acquisition, to proclaim and maintain their societal positions (Bird and Smith 2005; Boone 2000; Robb 1999); these actions result in archaeologically identifiable distributions of differentiated material culture contents in individual households across the community (Gardner 2008; Steadman 2010). The contents of an elite house may include a higher percentage of local

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

fine wares; and if feasting is a social positioning activity, a generally higher quantity of ceramics may be present in an elite house. Elites may exert preferential control over community trade interactions, achieving benefits from greater access to exotic goods and thereby maintaining higher-ranking positions through their association with materials from afar (Helms 1992). Managed control of the extra-domestic production of crafts and their distribution can also be a sign that residents in a household have effective control of resources (Bender 1990; Costin 1991; 2001; Hastorf 1990; Peregrine 1991; Stein 1996; Stein and Blackman 1993). Such control often translates to power and wealth within the community. One additional indicator cannot stand alone, but combined with those noted above, can help legitimate the identification of an elite/specialized residence. In general, the spatial location and boundary maintenance of a residence can be relevant in the quest for special-status houses. Houses of leaders may be set on higher ground or built upon platforms, demarcated by fences or other barriers, or be built on a different plan from other residences (Wason 1994: 13943, 150), the latter to accommodate visitors or public ceremonies (see Mehrer 2000 for similar discussion). These structures may be in proximity to other important community locations, such as religious buildings, community storage areas, or, as is argued here, the gate (see discussion in Steadman 2010). The structures discussed below demonstrate some or all of the indicators outlined above. Why the Location of the Leaders House Matters Developing methodologies that aid archaeological identification of elite structures and residences benefits the field as a whole. However, it is perhaps relevant to ask whether researching where such houses exist within the community is really useful or is just a picayune item of interest to the present author. In fact, this study can be situated in the realm of the archaeology of community (e.g., Canuto and Yaeger 2000). Marcus offers the profoundly broad, but accurate statement that somewhere between household and empire lies the community (2000: 231). Furthermore, and germane to the present study, is Pauketats assertion that we should recognize that all communities have a political aspect (2000: 19) in which community members forge a type of solidarity (vaguely or overtly political in nature) with a group or individuals within the community. The investigation undertaken

here endeavors to comprehend community relationships with regard to leadership and power structures as they are manifested in spatially-based choices by select (higher-ranking) residents. A study focusing on the (changing) spatial location of a leaders house crosscuts both of Isbells natural and imagined communities (2000, drawing in part on Anderson 1983). The community Isbell terms natural is based on Giddens structuration theory and is seated within the symbolic systems of Bourdieus practice theory (Giddens 1979; 1984; Bourdieu 1977; 1990) in which community residents reproduce behavior guided by their own world view (architecturally and otherwise) and this is then passed from one generation to the next (e.g., Hillier and Hanson 1984; Mehrer 2000; Portnoy 1981; Rapoport 1976; 1982; 1990). In contrast to the high degree of stability of the natural community, Isbells imagined community is volatile, characterized by dynamism rather than permanence; community members are never so secluded that their members are isolated from outsiders, and there are always cross-cutting allegiances (2000: 249). In other words, humans are not bounded by behaviorist models within the community, but act and react based on events, behaviors, and actions that take place in the local and larger world around them. The natural and imagined communities are not, it is suggested here, mutually exclusive as interpretive models, but rather, should be used as dual lenses to interpret community structure and individualistic behavior; they then become powerful tools for revealing insight into actions, in this case architectural alterations, motivated by the local (insider) and extracommunity (outsider) behaviors. It is argued here that emergent elites/leaders responded to the behaviors and demeanor of both insiders and outsiders, whether real or perceived, actual or anticipated, by effecting changes in their residential settings in concert with notable socioeconomic and political modifications. The individualistic placement of buildings, in this case residences, is relevant to archaeological study for the insights such investigation might offer on the subject of elite identity. It is here that one can find an intersection between individual agency and identity (see Ross and Steadman 2010 and references therein); elites or leaders place their residences in a location that conveys meaning about their status and identity, based on community comprehensions of spatiality (cf. Giddens and Bourdieu; see above). Dovey, among others, suggests that elites and leaders intentionally construct places to further specific agendas

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

(1999; 2010; see also Blanton 1994; Fisher 2006; Steadman 2010; Wason 1994). As Stone exhorts us in the quote cited in this articles introduction, identifying the places where elites and leaders construct their homes, and the forces that motivate them to choose those locations, allows archaeologists to more intimately understand the symbolic and ideological relationships between space and society (2008: 141). Archaeologists may begin to uncover the ideologies embedded in the development of social hierarchy which can then yield the barest glimpse of indigenous (emic) views of community (Marcus 2000). Living Leaders: Ethnographic Examples Extracting ethnographic examples from recent Turkish history is rather difficult, given the settlement history, including the numerous migrations and invasions, over the last millennium or so. It is perhaps more profitable to examine settlement patterns in regions such as Africa to identify village patterns relevant to the present study. The examples offered here are drawn from cultures that still have some control over how they might shape their housing pattern in temporary or permanent settlements (though such control is quickly ebbing in the present daye.g., Fratkin 2001; Smith 1998; Spencer 1997). In northern Kenya, the Rendille culture practices nomadic pastoralism, herding primarily camels and some cattle, sheep, and goat. Rendille settlements consist of large extended family units, with several clans or lineages represented in each settlement. Family units, or groups of lineages (which can consist of up to 50 houses), move about six times per year, setting up a new settlement after each move (Grum 1995: 150). Rendille social organization revolves around age-sets which, for males, begin with all the boys circumcised together. Following this, each age-set moves to the next stage at 14-year intervals. After the warrior stage, men may move on to the elder age-set and marry; at this stage they obtain considerable power over livestock and other economic and social issues in the community (Smith 1998: 311; Spencer 1973: 3340). All elders in the clan (and thus the community) have roughly the same social status. When the Rendille resettle after a move, they set up their homes so that the settlement is in a circular pattern with all house doors facing to the west. House placement is organized in the following way: houses are positioned clockwise in order of lineage seniority: the most senior house can be found immediately north of the west point with its

door facing southwest toward the principal entrance (Grum 1995: 150). In the Rendille culture, then, the prime location for the leader(s) is by the entrances to the (temporary) settlements. While this culture cannot in any way be said to resemble Late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age Anatolia, it does exemplify a societal structure that is not heavily ranked or stratified based on wealth and individualized power consolidation (but rather on age and gender), which might allow the Rendille to serve as an adequate comparative example for Anatolian settlement structure prior to urbanization and centralization processes. The Batammaliba of Togo offer an interesting example that illustrates both the principle of first family (or, a type of leader) and the importance of location, rather than architecture and house contents, to illustrate a residents importance within the community. The Batammaliba are agriculturalists, and their villages are not walled but rather spread out in a dispersed settlement pattern that essentially has two halves to it, the tail and the head of the village (Blier 1987: 92, 161). Symbolically, the head of the village is considered the center and is where the important religious areas are located. The Batammaliba do not recognize political leaders within their communities and prefer to operate on a basis of what they consider to be well-entrenched egalitarianism (Blier 1987: 162). While such egalitarianism may be found in the fact that most house plans are similar, there are distinct differences in wealth and power distribution among Batammaliba residents; those who have had greater successes in agriculture (that is, they are more wealthy) tend to have larger houses, sometimes twice as large as the poorer residents (Blier 1985: 163). It is not wealth, however, that is primarily at the root of power in Batammaliba villages. Rather, the most powerful families are those who are considered the village founders. Founding families have rights over important lands, and locate their houses next to sacred grounds such as the sacred groves of Butan (goddess of the earth) and Fawafa (an important deity associated with mens initiation) (Blier 1987: 902, 1012). These sacred groves are located at the village center (the head of the village), and it is here that village founders have their housing compounds (Blier 1985: 161). Founding families are viewed as having special protection from the important deities such as Fawafa, and since adjudication and other important decisions are made in the sacred groves, they have some control over access and participation in these village events. In the Batammaliba culture, in which sociopolitical

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

and religious power rests in the hands of the founding families, and social stratification can be determined through house location and house size, settlement at the symbolic center of the village is the prime location for village leaders. Once societies reach the chiefdom or kingship stage, the principal residence is located in the center of the settlements, often with protective walls or other barriers surrounding it. One need only examine traditional African cities in Yorubaland. Yoruba royal residences, known as the Afin and inhabited by the Obo (the chief), are typically found at the center of the settlement, as is the norm in the three cites of Ado Ekiti, Ife, and Ilesha (Ojo 1966: 2934; Krapf-Askari 1969: 3945). Ojo notes that the Afin is invariably the central area of traditional Yoruba towns and that it was often on higher ground in the city center to ensure, in the main, that no one would be able to spy on the privacy of the Oba and so that the Oba might look down towards his subjects (1966: 34). In Yorubaland, then, as in other parts of the world (a survey of ancient cities across the world finds that elites and leaders, as well as important religious and administrative buildings, are typically found in or near the city center [Cowgill 2004; Smith 2007]), a central position away from the gates offered privacy as well as a sense of elevation, not only physically but also symbolically, above the rest of the communitys inhabitants.

settlement data
Anatolian archaeology has not yet reached the point where we can identify the nature of the fourthor third-millennium Anatolian family, as Stone has done so effectively for Mesopotamia (2007). Larger generalizations about settlement layout, however, are becoming possible as more excavations have focused on prehistoric settlements across the Anatolian plateau and certainly in the southeastern Anatolian region. The main thrust of the settlement data in this section features sites on the plateau (fig. 1). Leaders at the Gate There are substantially fewer examples of settlements featuring a leaders house at the gate than there are in later community layouts described in the next section. This may simply be an accident of excavation, but there could be more socio-structural explanations as well. It is possible that an initial response to the rise of new leadership positions was a practice

of living at the center of activityi.e., at the gate during the first stages of socioeconomic and political change in Anatolian settlements. As the processes inherent in increasing social complexity continued, the desire, or need, for more exclusive locations overrode the previous practice of situating ones home at the village gates. The living at the gate stage may have lasted only a few centuries, or even just a few generations, before other factors, discussed below, instigated a change in residential habits. In the Lake District in the southern plateau, there is a cluster of sites that suggests elite residences were located at or near the gates. The best known, but least certain, of these is the site of Haclar, excavated by James Mellaart in the 1950s. Mellaart describes the Early Chalcolithic Haclar IIA phase as divided into western and eastern quarters, with a potters workshop quarter in the center; he estimated a village population of 100150 (Mellaart 1970: 2728, 37; and see Duru 2008: 3839). Mellaart describes Haclar II as a fortified settlement on account of the outer wall and possible towers near the southern gate and at the corners (1970: 25). The two structures of interest in this settlement are the buildings labeled Rooms Q2Q7 (using Mellaarts system). Mellaart identifies Rooms Q2Q4 (fig. 2) in the southwest corner of the village as a shrine, based on room furniture, painted walls, and the specialized contents (e.g., clay seal, beads, broken figurines, and finely painted pottery) (Mellaart 1970: 2930). There is some doubt as to whether Q2Q4 (as well as another building in the northeast area) should be identified as a shrine, given the presence of domestic contents, such as a storage bin and a hearth (Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 13033); further, Dring (2011: 17071) has suggested that the western and eastern quarters, given their very different architectural layouts, are not contemporary but represent slightly different phases. All these questions regarding the original settlement interpretations may be accurate, but they do not affect the simple fact that the house labeled Q5Q7 is one of the largest, if not the largest, in the settlement and rests next to the main entrance gate. These rooms had a large central hearth with an accompanying oven in the entry room; internal buttresses and postholes suggest the house may have had two stories (Mellaart 1970: 28). Contents are not itemized house by house, but Mellaart notes that the finest ceramics came from the Q excavation area, as did stone (some marble) bowls and a range of lithics, bone tools, and clothing items (1970: 115, 150, 15765). The only known main doorway into Q5Q7

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

Q2

Western Quarter Eastern Quarter Q3 Q5 Q6 Q7

0 10 m

Q4

Main (?) Gate

Excavated areas discussed in text Other excavated areas Unexcavated architecture projected by excavator

Fig. 2. Plan of Haclar IIA village (adapted from Mellaart 1970: 2627, fig. 20).

is far from the settlement gate; however, the east wall of Q5Q7 may have featured an opening (window, small doorway?) allowing household residents access to the gate area and those passing through it. We know little about the socioeconomic or sociopolitical structures of Early Chalcolithic Haclar II, but the proximity of the gate and the large house is relevant in the present study, as is the possibility that this house was conjoined with what may have been a community religious building. Also in the Lake District is the site of Kuruay, where the Late Chalcolithic 6A settlement, dating to the fourth millennium b.c.e., offers some relevant evidence (Duru 1996a; 1996b; 2008). Approximately 23 structures were excavated, 18 of which were identified as residential. The excavator suggests that the earliest Level 6A settlement was planned (Duru 2008: 123), thereby allowing residents to lay out the settlement according to their ideas of appropriate patterns. Of the three entrances to the settlement, the East Gate, identified as the settlements main entrance, is certainly the most elaborate. Gated at both ends, a

passageway is flanked by two houses, one of which (House 1; fig. 3) has a doorway into the passageway. Passing through the entry, one entered a small gated courtyard, the western wall of which was created by House 2 (fig. 3). It is possible that a doorway or window allowed House 2 residents to engage new arrivals in the small courtyard in some way. Houses nearer to the East Gate were slightly larger, while those ringing the settlement were somewhat smaller; houses had similar contents, including hearths, ovens, and domestic materials (Duru 2008: 127; 1996b: 115). Building 3 was designated a shrine by the excavator, due to the presence of unusual architectural features, including wooden columns, an earthen table, and an elaborate hearth (Duru 1996b: 11516; note that Dring [2011: 227] is not convinced this building was anything other than a residential structure). Finally, the excavator suggests that House 2 was the home of a dignitary, but this designation is based on its location near the gate and shrine rather than on other indicators such as house size, labor investment, or contents, as the latter were similar to the domestic/utilitarian items

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

5 meters

Gate House 1

4 2 1 3
East Gate

0
Fig. 3. Plan of Kuruay 6A (adapted from Duru 1996b: pl. 32).

20 m

Fig. 4. Plan of EB II Demircihyk (adapted from Korfmann 1983: 190, with the kind permission of the Deutsches Archologisches Institut).

found in smaller houses. By the same token, House 4 at the East Gate may have been an elite house. While the evidence at Kuruay Level 6A is not absolute, indicators do suggest that there is a convergence of main gate/important house with the added factor of a nearby special-function building (see Steadman 2010 for additional discussion). Somewhat clearer evidence comes from the northwestern site of Demircihyk near modern Eskiehir, best defined as a small agricultural village of roughly 2526 structures and well under 200 inhabitants (Korfmann 1983: 21819). Seventeen stratigraphic levels, spanning the EB III periods, reveal an elliptical village with slightly trapezoidal houses arrayed around a central open area; house doorways opened into the village center, and the village was accessed by several gates (Korfmann 1983: 19194). Significant erosion, and lots of mixing due to erosion and extensive pit construction in the latest Demircihyk levels (Korfmann 1983: 25), complicated the process of identifying house contents in the five most fully excavated structures. In general, all houses contained a similar

array of stone and ceramic goods sufficient for household use (Baykal-Seeher 1996; Seeher 1985); it is, in general, architectural differences that suggest the presence of more prominent community members. Houses were built on the megaron plan and usually featured two rooms. Two fully excavated residences were threeroomed. The largest house, in the northwest area of the settlement (House 1; fig. 4), was situated next to one of the main gates; the other three-room house was next to the other gate. Both of these multiroom structures received greater labor investment than their two-room neighbors, including more solid foundations; and their floor plans were larger as well (Korfmann 1983: 18993, 243). The excavator suggests these homes belonged to higher-ranking members of the community based on house size and contents and proximity to the gates (Korfmann 1983: 193, 243). There is some indication that a greater number of the external storage areas (located in the central courtyard) belonged to these houses as well. The carefully excavated Early Bronze Demircihyk village strongly suggests that those who held higher rank in such a small village may

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

Gate

10 m

Gate area and largest house Other excavated areas Unexcavated architecture projected by excavator

Fig. 5. Plan of Middle/Late Chalcolithic Mersin, Level 16 (adapted from Garstang 1953: 129, fig. 79, by kind permission of Oxford University Press).

have commanded a living space directly adjacent to a main entrance to the settlement. A fourth example may be found at Middle/Late Chalcolithic Mersin, on the southern Mediterranean coast in the region later known as Cilicia. Mersin Level 16 demonstrates some of the best-preserved architecture at the site. Only the gate area was excavated, but architectural evidence suggests that one structure stands out from the others as possibly belonging to residents of higher rank or elite status. The original excavator, John Garstang, termed this settlement the village fortified (1953: 131); a substantial meter-wide exterior wall formed the back wall to interior structures, and the gated entry was flanked by two small rooms deemed guard rooms (1953: 133). More

recent excavations have found additional walls in the southern portion of the village that suggest some of the fortification walls might instead be better interpreted as terrace walls (Caneva and Sevin 2004: 5759). Whether fortification or terrace or a mixture of both, the walls in Level 16 seem to form an entryway into the village. The houses to the left of the main gate were two-roomed, the back rooms of which featured substantial amounts of domestic materials, including copper and stone tools, ceramics, storage bins, and hearths (Garstang 1953: 13437). Some of these houses were larger than others, but certainly the largest was to the right of the gate (fig. 5). The multiroom structure featured a courtyard with a large oven, flanked by four rooms containing a variety of domestic materials and

10

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

furniture (Garstang 1953: 13841). Garstang interpreted this structure as an elite residence (1953: 133); the size of the structure, labor investment (with central room pillars indicating a substantial roof and possibly an upper story), and material contents would also suggest that this residence fits the criteria outlined above for identifying elite residences. Continuing work on the Anatolian plateau has revealed other sites whose architecture may fit the settlement pattern outlined in this section. Not far from the modern town of Aksaray is the later Middle Chalcolithic site of Gvercinkayas (Glur and ayl 2008; Glur and Kiper 2006; Glur and Frat 2005) where a small village has what appears to be a defensive wall around the settlement. Further excavation will reveal whether several larger residences not far from the gate demonstrate contents suggesting more high-ranking occupants. Near the modern town of Nide, the Neolithic/Chalcolithic site of Kok Hyk has produced substantial architectural remains (e.g., Oztan and Faydal 2003) with fascinating material culture, including plastered skulls (Erdou 2009; zbek 2009), elaborately decorated pottery, and numerous small figurines (ztan 2002; 2003). Although the entire settlement has not been exposed, excavations have revealed that in both the late Neolithic (Level 1) and Chalcolithic (Levels IIIV) settlements, one or two substantially larger residences sat not far from what may have been an entrance into the village (ztan 2003; zkan, Faydal, and ztan 2002). Hints of this settlement pattern are also found at the north-central plateau site of adr Hyk, where a substantial Late Chalcolithic residence rested in close proximity to the gated entry to the settlement. The residence was very well stocked with household goods and had a very large courtyard (ca. 6 6 m). The structure has been identified as a potential candidate for an elite residence (Steadman, McMahon, and Ross 2007; Steadman et al. 2008; Steadman 2010), though this designation is tentative, pending the recovery of additional residential data away from the gate. As noted at the outset of this section, the number of (excavated) settlements featuring the at the gate pattern is more limited than the alternative layout discussed below. This may be due to several factors, including the circumstance that current excavations have not (yet) exposed gate areas or substantial residential neighborhoods that fit this pattern. It is also quite possible that this settlement choice, to live at or near the gate, was relatively short-lived and thus is harder to track archaeologically. At present, extant

data appears to support the argument that the leaders living at the gate was a (possibly short-lived) residential reality in central Anatolian settlements in the Chalcolithic and very early Early Bronze periods on the plateau. Leaders, Gate Avoidance, and Architectural Seclusion The residential pattern that places the elite/leaders homes well away from any gated entrances to the outside world is fairly common. In fact, excavators of large towns and cities place trenches on the highest reaches of the mound, or near the center of the perceived settlement, when they are searching for the main temple or the palace. It is this more expected norm that begins to occur on the plateau as well. By the middle of the Early Bronze Age on the plateau, and even earlier in the southeast (where urbanization occurred in the fourth rather than the third millennium), there is a noticeable adjustment in the placement of residences thought to have belonged to high-ranking individuals. The gate was no longer the preferred locale; rather, such residences are found either at the back or center of the settlement, sometimes set apart by a barrier, or separated altogether from the main residential neighborhood. Perhaps the best example of the latter arrangement, where the leaders house is set well away from the rest of the residential neighborhood, is found at the EB I site of Karata-Semayk (Levels IIII) in southwestern Anatolia near the modern town of Elmal. A central mound at this site is surrounded by a lower terrace; it is on the lower terrace where the majority of the population lived, first in circular huts (Level I) and quickly followed by apsidal and rectangular megaron-style houses (Levels IIIII) of roughly equal size and equipage (Warner 1994: 13641). On the central mound was a large palisaded structure (fig. 6) outfitted with extensive storage units, constructed with superior building techniques (Warner 1994: 178), and surrounded by a courtyard. This central structure may have been two-storied; the lower level contained large storage jars, and the upper level boasted some of the finer pottery found in Levels III. By contrast, occupants of the smaller surrounding homes had only medium-sized vessels and apparently had less to be stored (Eslick 2009: 247). The excavators note that this central mound structure belonged to a prominent leading resident, and that this residents social status differed substantially from that of the village

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

11

Central Mound

Fence Houses
0 20 m

Lower Terrace

Fig. 6. Plan of Karata-Semayk, Levels IIIII (adapted from Warner 1994: pl. 8; permission to reproduce the plan was kindly given by the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology, Bryn Mawr College).

inhabitants (Warner 1994: 17778). That an important personage may have inhabited the house is further supported by the discovery of a single elaborate tomb (designated AQ) in the sites extramural cemetery. Though tomb contents may have been robbed out in antiquity, gold and silver items still remained inside, scattered around the burial (Eslick 2009: 170; Mellink 1969: 32427). To reach the resident in the central structure, community members had to climb up to the central mound structure and navigate through a substantial enclosure wall. The EB I settlement plan at Karata-Semayk, built just above the bedrock, clearly indicates an Anatolian trend toward a more secured living situation for local elites. The site of Bademaac (Duru and Umurtak 2007; 2008; 2009) is located in southwestern Anatolia about 50 km north of the coastal city of Antalya. This EB II site offers a number of similarities to contemporary Demircihyk in its elliptical plan in which the backs of megaron-style houses abut the outer wall, with doorways facing into the settlement center (Duru 2004; 2008). It is, however, at least twice to three times the size of Demirci, and it offers evidence of a residence substantially larger than those along the outer wall, located inside the settlement and away from the known gates (fig. 7). While the excavators term this central structure a palace (Duru 2008: 146, 150), it is perhaps more prudent to describe it as a far larger, multiroom residence with ample courtyard

space. Stratigraphic difficulties prevented the excavators from securely associating this structure with the megaron houses surrounding it (Dring 2011: 282; Duru 2008: 150), but its apparent long life suggests it either partially overlapped or was completely contemporary with the EB II occupation at the site. Proximity to the surface prevented the recovery of extensive household contents; there were numerous vessels (over 30) found in two of the rooms in this complex (Duru 2008: 151), some of them quite fine in quality. The larger size and requisite labor investment in this central multiroom structure would suggest that this may have been a residence belonging to a higherranking member of the settlement. A similar situation can be found at the EB II settlement of Klloba (Efe and Ay-Efe 2001; 2007; Efe 2005; 2007a; 2007b) located in the northwestern region of the plateau. The Early Bronze Age settlement consists of an upper and lower town, the latter not yet significantly investigated archaeologically. In the upper town, the majority of domestic structures were arrayed around the boundary of the settlement, the back walls creating the settlement boundary; the upper settlement features a wall and at least two gates (fig. 8). In the interior of the settlement, surrounded by streets and courtyards and away from the gates, were two multiroom structures (Complex I and Complex II, in black on fig. 8) consisting of large megaron-style buildings flanked by smaller rooms (Efe 2007a; 2007b). Extensive storage facilities and substantial kitchens associated with these structures suggest several scenarios, one being that these were central storage/administrative centers for the settlement, another that these were the residences of village elites who hosted large gatherings. The excavator believes that Complex I was more likely administrative (or at least nondomestic), while Complex II was the more likely to have functioned as a residence (Efe and Fidan 2008). In the central room of Complex II, a raised hearth probably sat atop a raised wooden floor, explaining the need for a staircase ascending from the outer rooms into the central one; substantial wooden beams and internal support walls suggest this structure was two-storied (Efe and Fidan 2008: 7274). The rooms surrounding the central room of Complex II included those the excavator believes were used for storage, others as sleeping quarters, and at least one kitchen (Efe and Fidan 2008). Though the site is not yet thoroughly published, contents in the structure indicate the existence of long-distance trade (with areas to the south and west), early wheel-made ceramics,

12

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

Fig. 7. Plan of EB II Bademaac (adapted from Duru 2008: 146, fig. 292).

and a full complement of tablewares and storage wares (Efe and Fidan 2008). Whether domestic or dedicated to other functions, Complexes I and II seem to have been of some importance to Klloba residents; it was perhaps their importance that dictated their placement at the center of the village away from any potential risks at the public entrances. Also in the northwest region is the well-known site of Troy, where the Level II settlement features a very large megaron (Megaron IIA) built on a platform (Blegen et al. 1950; Jablonka 2011). The function of this central large structure has not been settled (palace being one of the more common designations), but there is general agreement that it was a structure of some importance. It is located at the center of this fairly small settlement, away from the two known gated entries within the substantial exterior wall. Two other sites are worth noting here. In the EB III levels at Kltepe, at least one substantial structure, termed a palace by the excavator, was located in what would later be the center of the settlement (Kulakolu 2011; zgu 1986). Unfortunately, additional residential data is not available for this period, making the assessment of the relationship between

this structure, other neighborhoods, and town gates impossible. At EB I adr Hyk, the settlement layout has been altered from its Late Chalcolithic plan. As noted above, a rather impressive Late Chalcolithic house was located next to the main gated entry and in close proximity to what may have been a religious and public area (Steadman, McMahon, and Ross 2007; Steadman et al. 2008). By the EB I period, it is not the residence that has moved, but the gate. The EB I house (possibly belonging to a village elite or leader?), described above as the best built and most fully equipped residence in this period, and built on a platform that elevated it above its neighbors, was located in almost the same place as the earlier Late Chalcolithic house. However, by the EB I phase, the main gate had been completely blocked (Steadman et al. 2008). The new entrance to the adr settlement has not yet been located; it may be near the impressive EB I house (in, for instance, the area just to the east, as yet unexcavated), or it may have been moved much farther away from this house. While this study focuses on the Anatolian plateau, primarily targeting the changes in settlement patterns that took place during the third-millennium Early

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

13

20 m

East Gate

Complex I

Court

Complex II

South Gate Court

Fig. 8. Plan of EB II Klloba (adapted from Efe and Ay-Efe 2007: 265, fig. 6) (courtesy of Ege Publications).

Bronze Age in that region, evidence for the gate avoidance pattern can be found elsewhere in Anatolia, particularly in the southeast during the fourth millennium. In previous millennia, during the Ubaid period, sites such as Deirmentepe (ca. 54004500 b.c.e.), located on the upper Euphrates near the modern settlement of Malatya, demonstrate that residents arrayed themselves in houses built in agglutinative style with few open spaces between homes (Esin and Harmankaya 1987; 1988; Gurdil 2010; Stein and Ozbal 2007). This community layout is not dissimilar to Neolithic plateau settlements such as atal Hyk, Can Hasan, and possibly Akl Hyk, where agglutinative architecture reflected a type of neighborhood (and largely egalitarian) approach to community structure (see Dring 2006 for discussion) where there is little differentiation in house forms, whether they are located by the gate or in the village center. Similarly at Deirmentepe, though some structures were multiroomed and others were built on a tripartite plan, house contents suggest that the socioeconomic and political structure tended toward egalitarianism rather than hierarchy; house architecture and contents do

not suggest a leader was living either at or near the Deirmentepe gate, nor does one appear to have been ensconced well within the center of the settlement (Gurdil 2010). A millennium later, in the Middle and Late Chalcolithic, and particularly in the second half of the fourth millennium, rapid urbanization processes, including the development of long-distance trade, emerged in the Amuq, the upper Euphrates and Tigris valleys, and beyond (e.g., the Malatya region to the north). Towns such as Arslantepe and Hassek Hyk, among others, continued to feature elite residences placed well away from the main gates (Frangipane 1996; 2003), or on the higher reaches, above a lower city and ensconced behind fortification walls (Behm-Blancke 1992: table 31). By the time of the great ancient empires (e.g., the Hittite capital attua at Boazky), and similar to the Yoruba cities outlined above, no visitor would expect the palace to be located right next to the main gate, but rather to be seemingly unreachableperhaps on the high place in the town or city, or at its center behind boundaries and checkpoints through which

14

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

one must successfully pass to achieve access into the most elite residence (the palace at attua is on the acropolis, far above the lower town). Kolbs (1996) brief review of the Anatolian house, from Neolithic to Classical times, offers a visual and descriptive history of the emergence of the elite/rulers residence and its ultimate clear dominance over the residential quarters (1996: 153) in spite of its more remote location.

the anatolian early bronze age

The above examples describe an Anatolian plateau where elite houses were sometimes built near gates in the Chalcolithic and earliest Early Bronze periods. By the later Early Bronze phases, elite houses were more regularly located away from gates and also often separated from other residences. One of the goals of this study, therefore, has been achieved: it was during the Early Bronze Age, and mainly in the second half of the third millennium, that a residential shift away from the gate begins. The logical rejoinder to this is, of course, why then? Almost certainly, answers to this question include the emergence of urbanization trends and the establishment of long-distance trade. The Anatolian Early Bronze Age is far from well understood, though recent publications (Dring 2011; Sagona and Zimansky 2009; Steadman 2011) have offered the latest summaries of Early Bronze Age social, economic, and political structures across the plateau. One recognizable trend occurring during this millennium is what evik terms settlement centralization (2007) in which Early Bronze settlements grew in size and population, developing into regional centers. evik asserts that long-distance trade resulted not strictly from a need to access sources for raw materials, but rather as the result of the emergence of ruling elites in Anatolia (2007: 137). By the EB III period, not only had the size of settlements increased, but the number of settlements had as well (Matthews 2007; Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 17576; aholu 2005). Concomitant with these changes in settlement size, population density, and increase in trade connections are other factors that probably both resulted from them but also served to reinforce the trends. One important development is the dramatic increase in metallurgical technology and the use of, and trade in, metal goods (see Muhly 2011; Yener 2000). Beginning in the later EB II period (mid-third millennium), metal goods became commonplace at plateau sites, including Karata, Klloba, and elsewhere (Efe 2002; Efe and Fidan 2006; Mellink 1994; aholu 2004; 2005; 2008). In several cases, metal objects in the west are stylistically

nearly identical to those found in Cilicia (Efe 2003; 2007b), suggesting the importation of either the objects, metalworkers, or ideologies; western Anatolian goods (including ceramic types) are found in Cilicia at this time as well (Mellink 1989), further supporting the notion of a pan-plateau trade network. The existence of this exchange system, by some accounts stretching from the western Anatolian coast to northern Syria by the EB III period (Efe and Ay-Efe 2001; Erkanal 1996; Mellink 1986; 1989; 1998; kse 2007; zg 1986), has been linked to the settlement centralization on the plateau (Acar 1996; 2008; Efe 2003; 2007a; aholu 2005). It is also reasonable to suggest, as was already advanced by evik above, that the emergence of an elite rank at plateau settlements is related to these trends. As Frangipane has elegantly noted in her review of Chalcolithic Mesopotamian architectural trends (2007), the transition from a heterarchical social structure to one that is hierarchically ranked is reflected not only in the individual residence, but in the settlement form as a whole. It is this very process, though in far less dramatic fashion than was the case in Mesopotamia or even southeastern Anatolia, that is apparently the trigger for the Early Bronze Age adjustment of elite/higher-ranking residence location away from the gate to a more secluded setting.

the power of place

The study of architecure itself (form, style, function) is an important factor in societal interpretation. It is asserted here that location can be just as powerful an indicator for social practices, attitudes, and ideologies within a community. This study focuses on the forces that acted on village/town elites and leaders to guide the placement of their residences or, more accurately, to change those locations as socioeconomic, and possibly sociopolitical, configurations began to alter the nature of societal interactions within, and outside of, the community. As Diehl points out, social inequality, and social structures of all types, must be viewed as the consequence of a suite of competing interests and alliances that contest the control of power, economy, and ideology (2000: 25). It is the advent of increasing social inequality, and the constellation of evolving relationships inherent in that increase, that may be at the very heart of residential adjustments in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: at greatest risk are the basic bonds of trust, the reliance on village co-residents for protection and defense, and continued faith in support from neighbors in any circumstance. The less control a leader has over the daily life and production and consumption activities of neighbors,

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

15

the less he or she has to fear from them. When a settlement moves toward hierarchy and more direct control over the economy and other important community activities (e.g., ritual, social interaction), there is greater risk involved in exerting that control, and the potential for rancor between leader and village residents increases. Herein lies the need by a leader, who may also have engaged in competitive leadership activities (against fellow community members), to maintain or gain positions of social rank within a settlement, to take steps to ensure certain levels of security and protection. In these earliest stages of social change, village members can be described as living in a natural community (as discussed above; Isbell 2000) in which generations of behavior continued to be reproduced. Social behavioral codes based on trust, heterarchical relationships, and cooperative endeavors continued to endure; the village leader(s), even with their newly emerging status, maintained the same social ties with village members as their grandparents had. As time wore on, and socioeconomic and political hierarchical structures more firmly differentiated social groups, and the settlement expanded in both size and population, the community may have transitioned from a natural to a more volatile imagined one in which social behavioral codes eroded or were erased and individual agents made radically new decisions reflecting changing societal priorities. One archaeologically evident illustration of these changes may be the relocation of residences belonging to high-ranking community members away from the easily accessible, high-visibility placement at the main gate, to more guarded locales. Life at the Village Gate It is quite possible that Chalcolithic and early Early Bronze settlements where elites/leaders lived at or very near the main gate were peculiar to the Anatolian plateau. The by the gate choice seems to be a short-lived settlement pattern that occurred when a previously egalitarian, or staunchly heterarchical, socioeconomic and political structure began to transition into one reflecting individualized wealth and/ or power differentiation among community members. In the early stages of social change, which features these wealth and political stratification processes, a community retains heterarchical structures embedded with, most likely, kinship ties and cooperative liaisons based on generations of negotiated relationships (Boehm 1999; Chesson 2003; Crumley 1995; 2001; Emerson and Pauketat 2002; Feinman 2000; 2001).

In such settings, the manifestation of individualized social power may not correlate with overt expressions of dominance and representations of hierarchical markers; rather, ideologies of social and kin-based bonds between village members in a natural community would persist. Factors such as trust and reliance on one another, crucial components in a village bound in mutual cooperation for the successful flourishing of all its members, would still be at the root of social relationships in the earliest stages of social, political, and economic change. Such perceptions may extend to those living in nearby communities with whom trade and other economic relationships began to develop. New leaders in these villages may have chosen, or been encouraged (by village members), to live at or near the gateto be the first encountered by any visitor (outsider) and to generally keep abreast of village activities (especially as village markets were often located just inside, or outside, the main gates). With little to fear from outsiders, and the luxury of reliance on village insiders based on foundations of trust and long-term relationships, a leader might not have had any qualms about living in a home located front and center at the main gate. This location affords high visibility for the resident and makes it possible for him or her to be cognizant of every visitors business, especially if it involves items for trade, market issues or disputes, the need for inter-community negotiations (marriage, exchange, territorial issues, etc.), or, indeed, the bringing of gifts. The high-ranking resident who first encounters an outsider may be the one most likely to receive the gift, make the best trades, or establish the basis for any inter-community negotiations. That affords such a resident considerable power and control over fellow community members. While speculative, these would seem to be some of the logical reasons why a new village leader might choose, or even be encouraged by the community, to live by the gate. This settlement scenario, however, appears to extend only through a few generations; as social, economic, and political change became more intense, and perhaps as the community shifted from natural to imagined, elites and leaders made far different residential choices. Avoiding the Outsiders: Residences Located Away from the Gate As site size, population, and socioeconomic and political complexity increase, why would elites and leaders seek residential locations away from village/ town/city gates and entrances? One subject worth consideration is the environmental setting: the city gate

16

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

might be a noisy and even odiferous place, an unfit location for a community VIP. Furthermore, locating ones home on a high point (if it falls at the center of town) might allow for greater access to the sun on chilly winter mornings and stronger breezes on a hot summer day. A second, and perhaps quite straightforward answer is a need for security, coupled with a desire for privacy. Privacy concerns, however, may also be accompanied by a motivation to impress visitors with a grand but difficult-to-access residence. As a society grows in size and complexity, the need for defense (or for aggressive expansion) becomes greater (Carniero 1970; Earle 2000; Renfrew 2008). As fear of raiding or attack (whether retaliatory or unprovoked) and the need for substantial defensive architecture become more commonplace, those who feel they have the most to losethat is, the elitesmay not wish to function as the first line of defense just inside the gate. Elite residences may also be viewed, by both their residents and those from outside, as prime targets, due to the perception that finer goods are to be found in such homes. Therefore, the repositioning of elite houses, and particularly that belonging to the highest-ranking resident, to locations with greater boundary control within an expanding town, which also features more strangers arriving for trade purposes, may simply reflect a rational and logical desire for protection and defense. A second incentive for relocation has two seemingly contradictory but actually intertwined motives: the structured control of outsiders access to the residence, thereby maintaining privacy, while simultaneously impressing visitors with the difficulty of gaining access to a leaders home. There is no lack of research equating increased levels of privacy with growing socioeconomic and political complexity (e.g., Aslan 2006; Fisher 2006; Lawrence and Low 1990; Portnoy 1981; Rapoport 1982; Steadman 2000). This can be accomplished through physical barriers such as the palisade that surrounded the house at Karata, placement on a platform requiring a (gated?) stairway (perhaps the case at Troy II), or access by a complicated entryway such as may have been the case at Kltepe. One need only think of the finest mansions in American or European cities, surrounded by tall walls with impressive (and locked) gates, barring entry to all but those specifically allowed access. Such residents consciously construct these built environments as displays of costly status signaling in order to increase social positioning in their community (Bird and Smith 2005; Boone 2000; Robb 1999). While the

difference between an American elite mansion and a middle-income home with its entrance 20 feet from the public sidewalk may not have been quite as dramatically rendered in a prehistoric Anatolian town, visitors to that town most likely noticed the disparity between access to regular homes on the street and those belonging to elite residents. Such differences set the elite homes apart as more important (i.e., harder to gain access to); that factor, combined with other indicators of wealth such as size, decoration, and accoutrements, were sure to make a strong impression. The control of access to elite/leaders houses has added importance if public events or surplus storage is a standard function on the residential grounds. Hosting feasts for visiting dignitaries using goods from resident-controlled surplus storage areas adds to the costly status signaling and helps to continually ensure the prominent position of the feast organizer/ host within the community (Cobb 2003; Dietler 1996; Hayden 1995; 1996; Helwing 2003; Pollock 2003). Boundary controls limit who may attend the feasts and who has access to the storage of surplus (communityprovided?) goods, highlighting the importance of the resident who has ultimate authority over who gets in. If residents of elite houses also control access to important public areas, such as venues for ritual activity, this can also serve as a means of demonstrating sociopolitical power (Potter 2000). The more remote, away from the gate location of houses inhabited by the elites and leaders is thus guided by three differing but intertwined responses to outsiders: the desire to impress them, the need to control their access to residential and associated spaces, and fear of them. This last refers both to the need to protect against attack by hostile forces, but also the desire to be careful about revealing how much Ive got to lose while simultaneously needing to amaze curious outsiders. Dealing with Insiders: The Erosion of Trust While fear of outsiders, along with the other factors described above, is probably more than sufficient to induce higher-ranking residents to locate residences in less public places, it is suggested here that there is an additional concern that ensures that relocation: fear of insiders. Drawing on Foucault, Anne Haour notes that [s]ociety and power are inextricably linked: a society without power relations can only be an abstraction (Foucault 2000: 343) (2005: 552). Power relations among settlement members shift

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

17

as socioeconomic and sociopolitical structures change and result in an erosion of kinship bonds and long-held foundations of trust. It is best to avoid terms such as tribal headman and chief in reference to Anatolian settlements, since data, as yet, do not permit us to define the exact nature of the political structures existing in the Early Bronze Age. It is perhaps possible, however, to suggest that in the first stages of the Bronze Ageat, for instance, Haclar, Kuruay, or Demircihyksettlements could be described as autonomous in that governance, however it was structured, was limited to the community itself. A leader or leaders may have used kinship relationships, generosity, and verbal cajoling to influence village decisions (Ames 2008; Carneiro 2002). This type of leader came by his or her position because the residents deemed that person to be trustworthy, rational, a good spokesperson to negotiate internal settlement concerns, and able to handle dealings with visitors (i.e., outsiders). In this type of settlement, kinship is probably the primary social relationship, the armature around which autonomous communities are organized, as well as the glue that holds its members together (Carneiro 2002: 45). Whether an autonomous village had individualized leadership (one member of a kin group) or a more corporate structure featuring sociopolitical heterarchy, kinship relationships were likely at the core of any social interaction (Arnold 1996; Feinman 2000; Renfrew 2001; 2008). If, as evik has advanced, the larger and more populous Anatolian settlements had become regional centers by the second half of the third millennium, with at least a two-tiered settlement hierarchy (2007), this would have had an impact on internal social structure within these settlements. As Kovacik has noted, households and communities are formed at the level of human interaction: person to person. . . . understanding households and communities is essentially about understanding social relations and the power within and creating these relations (2002: 52). As stratification occurs within societal structures, other types of relationships begin to supersede kin ties (Berreman 1981; Johnson and Earle 1987) and social relationships become more impersonal; societal position is based more on achievement than on the thread of family relationships. As stratification and ranking increase, socioeconomic intensification strategies also often deepen (Ames 2008; Bentley and Maschner 2008; Haas 2001), as can more competitive practices between various (non-kin and kin-based) residents vying for

higher-ranking positions within the community (Dietler 1996). Those wishing to gain or maintain their elite status may endeavor to exert more control over external trade interactions, especially in an effort to gain access to exotic goods (Diehl 2000; Feinman 1995; Helms 1992). They may seek to regulate public events that are religious or secular in nature. If events such as the hosting of feasts are subsidized by the stockpiled surplus goods obtained through tribute or donated by community members, control of that surplus, and the need to protect it once secured, also comes into play as a stress factor that may express itself in residential location and setting. As these processes intensify, an erosion of trust and a lessening of elite reliance on coresidents may slowly permeate the community. Kin and neighborly bonds become less important as social positioning practices begin to dominate (e.g., Cobb 2003; Meher 2000; Peebles and Kus 1977; Roscoe 2000). These behavioral patterns may have been manifest in prehistoric central Anatolian communities. Reliance on neighbors, who were close or more distant kin, may have become more risky as those neighbors sought higher-ranking social positioning in competition with established elites/leaders. Alternatively, those neighbors perhaps wished to rely on elites for favors as their wealth and social position in the community increased that is, neighbors may have expected higher-ranking kin to share the wealth as previous generations had done. A third possibility is that as the control over socioeconomic concerns increased, neighbors became resentful, even jealous or hostile to the control exerted by elites/leaders. In all these cases, distancing oneself both socially and physically from these threats may have become quite desirable, eventually becoming the norm not only in Anatolia, but across the Near East and beyond.

conclusion
As noted at the outset of this study, two goals were advanced: to determine whether any residential adjustments took place during periods of socioeconomic/ sociopolitical change in Anatolia, and to attempt an explanation for why such modifications might have been deemed necessary. Definitive results are seldom possible in archaeological studies, and the conclusions reached here are speculative but suggestive. As social forces on the Anatolian plateau transformed societal structures in the later third millennium, so too did residential patterns change in small

18

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

and medium-size (but expanding) settlements. Elites and leaders who had previously lived at one of the busiest nodes in the settlementthat is, the main gate (where, often, the market was also located)removed themselves and their homes to more secluded and protected positions within the interior of their settlements. Reasons for this residential repositioning may have been a mixture of practicalities: protective measures against the increased risk of hostile action by outside forces, as well as more socio-emotional and ideological factors such as an erosion of trust and erasure of

close bonds with co-residents. Intrar-community behavioral codes, established over multiple generations of co-residential living, were put asunder by relatively abrupt societal changesthe community transformed from natural to imaginedand new residential patterns, with far longer histories were established. At that moment in Anatolian prehistory, the power of place in Anatolian settlements, once located at the most public of locations, shifted forever more to the most private.

acknowledgments
I thank Dr. Jennifer Ross who offered valuable comments on an early version of this manuscript. This study was also significantly improved through advice and direction given by two anonymous reviewers on the penultimate manuscript. Finally I would like to offer a sincere note of gratitude to Dr. James Weinstein, who has offered unfailing support and encouragement through many years of collaboration.

references
Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: From Prehistoric Ages to the End of the Bronze Age. Pp. 38094 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective, ed. Y. Sey. Ankara: Tarih Vakf Yaynlar. Ames, K. M. 2008 The Archaeology of Rank. Pp. 487513 in Handbook of Archaeological Theories, ed. R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner, and C. Chippendale. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Anderson, B. R. OG. 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Arnold, J. E. 1996 Organizational Transformations: Power and Labor among Complex Hunter-Gatherers and Other Intermediate Societies. Pp. 5973 in Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of Intermediate Societies, ed. J. E. Arnold. Archaeological Series 9. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Aslan, C. 2006 Individual, Household, and Community Space in Early Bronze Age Western Anatolia and the Nearby Islands. Pp. 13339 in Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, ed. E. C. Robertson, J. D. Seibert, D. C. Fernandez, and M. U. Zender. Calgary: University of Calgary. Baykal-Seeher, A. 1996 Demircihyk: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19751978, Vol. 4A: Die Kleinfunde. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Acar, E. 1996 Behm-Blancke, M. R. 1992 Hassek Hyk, Vol. 1: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie. Istanbuler Forschungen 38. Tbingen: Wasmuth. Bender, B. 1990 The Dynamics of Non-Hierarchical Societies. Pp. 24763 in The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, ed. S. Upham. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Bentley, R. A., and Maschner, H. D. G. 2008 Complexity Theory. Pp. 24570 in Handbook of Archaeological Theories, ed. R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner, and C. Chippendale. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Berreman, G. D. 1981 Social Inequality: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Pp. 340 in Social Inequality: Comparative and Developmental Approaches, ed. G. D. Berreman. New York: Academic. Bird, R. B., and Smith, E. A. 2005 Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital. Current Anthropology 46: 22148. Blanton, R. E. 1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. New York: Plenum. Blegen, C. W.; Caskey, J. L.; Rawson, M.; and Sperling, J. 1950 Troy: General Introduction: The First and the Second Settlements, Vol. 1. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University. Blier, S. P. 1987 The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba Architectural Expression. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

19

Boehm, C. 1999 Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Boone, J. L. 2000 Status Signaling, Social Power, and Lineage Survival. Pp. 84110 in Hierarchies in Action. Cui Bono?, ed. M. W. Diehl. Occasional Papers 27. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. R. Nice, from French. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1990 The Logic of Practice. Trans. R. Nice, from French. Stanford: Stanford University. Caneva, I., and Sevin, V., eds. 2004 Mersin-Yumuktepe: A Reappraisal. Collana del Dipartimento (Universit degli studi di Lecce, Dipartimento di beni culturali) 12. Galatina: Congedo. Canuto, M. A., and Yaeger, J., eds. 2000 The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London: Routledge. Carneiro, R. J. 1970 A Theory of the Origins of the State. Science 169: 73338. 2002 The Tribal Village and Its Culture: An Evolutionary Stage in the History of Human Society. Pp. 3452 in The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, ed. W. A. Parkinson. Archaeological Series 15. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. evik, . 2007 The Emergence of Different Social Systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Urbanisation versus Centralisation. Anatolian Studies 57: 13140. Chesson, M. S. 2003 Households, Houses, Neighborhoods and Corporate Villages: Modeling the Early Bronze Age as a House Society. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16: 79102. Cobb, C. R. 2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 6384. Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 156. 2001 Craft Production Systems. Pp. 273327 in Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, ed. G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Cowgill, G. L. 2004 Origins and Development of Urbanism: Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 52549. Crumley, C. L. 1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Pp. 15 in Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, ed. R. Ehrenreich, C. Crumley, and J. Levy. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. 2001 Communication, Holism, and the Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity. Pp. 1933 in From Leaders to Rulers, ed. J. Haas. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Diehl, M. W. 2000 Some Thoughts on the Study of Hierarchies. Pp. 1129 in Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?, ed. M. W. Diehl. Occasional Papers 27. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Dietler, M. 1996 Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy: Food, Power and Status in Prehistoric Europe. Pp. 87126 in Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhvel, Providence: Berghahn. Dovey, K. 1999 Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. London: Routledge. 2010 Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. London: Routledge. Dring, B. S. 2006 Constructing Communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic, ca. 85005500 Cal. bc. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 105. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2011 The Prehistory of Asia Minor: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies. New York: Cambridge University. Duru, R. 1996a The Neolithic Transition from Village to Town in the Lake District. Pp. 4959 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective, ed. Y. Sey. Ankara: Tarih Vakf Yaynlar. 1996b Kuruay Hyk II: Results of the Excavations 19781988. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Settlements. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar. 2004 Bademaac Kazlar 2002 ve 2003 Yllar alma Raporu. Belleten 68: 51960. 2008 From 8000 bc to 2000 bc. Six Thousand Years of the BurdurAntalya Region. Antalya: Suna-nan Kra Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Aratrma Enstits.

20

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

Duru, R., and Umurtak, G. 2007 Bademaac Kazlar, 2005. Kaz Sonular Toplants 28: 63946. 2008 Bademaac Kazlar, 2006. Kaz Sonular Toplants 29: 18796. 2009 Bademaac Kazlar 2007 yl almalar. Kaz Sonular Toplants 30: 25568. Earle, T. 2000 Archaeology, Property, and Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 3960. Efe, T. 2002 The Interaction between Cultural/Political Entities and Metalworking in Western Anatolia during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. Pp. 4965 in Anatolian Metal II, ed. . Yaln. Verffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 109. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. 2003 Klloba and the Initial Stages of Urbanism in Western Anatolia. Pp. 26582 in From Village to Cities: Early Villages in the Near East: Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, Vol. 1, ed. M. zdoan, H. Hauptmann, and N. Bagelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar. 2005 Klloba 2003 Yl Kaz almalar. Kaz Sonular Toplants 26: 2944. 2007a The Theories of the Great Caravan Route between Cilicia and Troy: The Early Bronze Age III Period in Inland Western Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57: 4764. 2007b Klloba 2005 Yl Kaz almalar. Kaz Sonular Toplants 28: 7190. Efe, T., and Ay-Efe, D. . M. 2001 Klloba: Kuzeybat Anadoluda Bir lk Tun a Kenti, 19962000 Yllar Arasnda Yaplan Kaz almalarnn Genel Deerlendirmesi. TUBA-AR 4: 4378 (Turkish and English). 2007 The Klloba Excavations and the Cultural/ Political Development of Western Anatolia before the Second Millennium bc. Pp. 25167 in Belkis Dinol ve Ali Dinola Armaan, ed. M. Alparslan, M. Doan-Alparslan, and H. Peker. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar. Efe, T., and Fidan, E. 2006 Pre-Middle Bronze Metal Objects from Inland Western Anatolia: A Typological and Chronological Evaluation. Anatolia Antiqua 14: 1543. 2008 Complex Two in the Early Bronze II Upper Town of Klloba near Eskiehir. Anatolica 34: 67102. Emerson, T. E., and Pauketat, T. R. 2002 Embodying Power and Resistance at Cahokia. Pp. 10525 in The Dynamics of Power, ed. M. ODonovan. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.

Erdou, B. 2009 Ritual Symbolism in the Early Chalcolithic Period of Central Anatolia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 5: 12951. Erkanal, H. 1996 Early Bronze Age Urbanization in the Coastal Region of Western Anatolia. Pp. 7082 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective, ed. Y. Sey. Istanbul: Trkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf. Esin, U., and Harmankaya, S. 1987 1985 Deirmentepe (Malayta-Imaml Ky) Kazs. Kaz Sonular Toplants 8/1: 95138. 1988 Deirmentepe (Malayta) Kurtarma Kazs 1986. Kaz Sonular Toplants 9: 79126. Eslick, C. 2009 Elmal-Karata V: The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karata: Habitation Deposits. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College. Feinman, G. M. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes. Pp. 25579 in Foundations of Social Inequality, ed. T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman. New York: Plenum. 2000 Corporate/Network: New Perspectives on Models of Political Action and the Puebloan Southwest. Pp. 3151 in Social Theory in Archaeology, ed. M. B. Schiffer. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. 2001 Mesoamerican Political Complexity: The CorporateNetwork Dimension. Pp. 15175 in From Leaders to Rulers, ed. J. Haas. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Fisher, K. D. 2006 Messages in Stone: Constructing Sociopolitical Inequality in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Pp. 12331 in Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, ed. E. C. Robertson, J. D. Seibert, D. C. Fernandez, and M. U. Zender. Calgary: University of Calgary. Foucault, M. 2000 Power, ed. J. Faubion. Trans. R. Hurley and others, from French. New York: New. Frangipane, M. 1996 Models of Urbanization in Eastern Anatolia. Pp. 6070 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective, ed. Y. Sey. Ankara: Tarih Vakf Yaynlar. 2003 Development in Fourth Millennium Public Architecture in the Malatya Plain: From Simple Tripartite to Complex and Bipartite Pattern. Pp. 14769 in From Village to Cities: Early Villages in the Near East. Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, Vol. 1, ed. M. zdoan, H. Hauptmann, and N. Bagelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar.

2011
2007

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in Early Mesopotamia. World Archaeology 39: 15176.

21

Fratkin, E. 2001 East African Pastoralism in Transition: Maasai, Boran, and Rendille Cases. African Studies Review 44: 125. Gardner, A. 2008 Agency. Pp. 95108 in Handbook of Archaeological Theories, ed. R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner, and C. Chippendale. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Garstang, J. 1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Ymk Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford: Clarendon. Giddens, A. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity. Grum, A. 1995 Rendrille Habitation. Pp. 15069 in African Nomadic Architecture: Space, Place and Gender, ed. L. Prussin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Glur, S., and ayl, P. 2008 Gvercinkayas 2007 Yl Kazs. Kaz Sonular Toplants 30: 26784. Glur, S., and Kiper, Y. 2006 Gvercinkayas 2005 Yl Kazs n Raporu. Kaz Sonular Toplants 28: 11124. Glur, S., and Frat, C. 2005 Spatial Analysis of Gvercinkayas, a Middle Chalcolithic Hilltop Settlement in Northwestern Cappadocia: A Preliminary Report. Anatolia Antiqua 13: 4152. Gurdil, B. 2010 Exploring Social Organizational Aspects of the Ubaid Communities: A Case Study of Deirmentepe in Eastern Turkey. Pp. 36175 in Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East, ed. R. A. Carter and G. Philip. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Haas, J.
2001

Haour, A. 2005 Power and Permanence in Precolonial Africa: A Case Study from the Central Sahel. World Archaeology 37: 55265. Hastorf, C. A. 1990 One Path to the Heights: Negotiating Political Inequality in the Sausa of Peru. Pp. 14676 in

Cultural Evolution and Political Centralization. Pp. 318 in From Leaders to Rulers, ed. J. Haas. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Hayden, B. 1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. Pp. 1586 in Foundations of Social Inequality, ed. T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman. New York: Plenum. 1996 Thresholds of Power in Emergent Complex Societies. Pp. 5058 in Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of Intermediate Societies, ed. J. Arnold. Archaeological Series 9. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Helms, M. W. 1992 Long-Distance Contacts, Elite Aspirations, and the Age of Discovery in Cosmological Context. Pp. 15774 in Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction, ed. E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban. New York: Plenum. Helwing, B. 2003 Feasts as a Social Dynamic in Prehistoric Western AsiaThree Case Studies from Syria and Anatolia. Palorient 29/2: 6385. Hillier, W., and Hanson, J. 1984 The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Isbell, W. H. 2000 What We Should Be Studying: The Imagined Community and the Natural Community. Pp. 24366 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, ed. M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger. London: Routledge. Jablonka, P. 2011 Troy in Regional and International Context. Pp. 71733 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, ed. S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon. New York: Oxford University. Johnson, A. W., and Earle, T. 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford: Stanford University. Kolb, F. 1996 The Role of Dwelling Houses in Larger Anatolian Settlements of Antiquity. Pp. 14654 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective, ed. Y. Sey. Ankara: Tarih Vakf Yaynlar. Korfmann, M. O. 1983 Demircihyk: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19751978, Vol. 1: Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde. 2 vols. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Kovacik, J. J. 2002 Radical Agency, Households, and Communities: Networks of Power. Pp. 5165 in The Dynamics of Power, ed. M. ODonovan. Occasional Papers

The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, ed. S. Upham. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

22

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

30. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Krapf-Askari, E. 1969 Yoruba Towns and Cities: An Enquiry into the Nature of Urban Social Phenomena. Oxford: Clarendon. Kulakoglu, F. 2011 Kltepe-Kane: A Second Millennium Trading Center on the Central Plateau. Pp. 101230 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, ed. S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon. New York: Oxford University. Lawrence, D. L., and Low, S. M. 1990 The Built Environment and Spatial Form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453505. Marcus, J. 2000 Toward an Archaeology of Communities. Pp. 23142 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, ed. M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger. London: Routledge. Matthews, R. 2007 An Arena for Cultural Contact: Paphlagonia (North-Central Turkey) through Prehistory. Anatolian Studies 57: 2534. Mehrer, M. W. 2000 Heterarchy and Hierarchy. The Community Plan as Institution in Cahokias Polity. Pp. 4457 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, ed. M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger. London: Routledge. Mellaart, J. 1970 Excavations at Haclar. 2 vols. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 910. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Mellink, M. J. 1969 Excavations at Karata-Semayk in Lycia, 1968. American Journal of Archaeology 73: 31931. 1986 The Early Bronze Age in West Anatolia: Aegean and Asiatic Correlations. Pp. 13952 in The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, ed. G. Cadogan and J. L. Caskey. Cincinnati Classical Studies, New Series 6. Leiden: Brill. 1989 Anatolian and Foreign Relations of Tarsus in the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 31931 in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Tahsin zg, ed. K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N. zg. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi. 1994 The EB IIIII Transition at KarataSemayk: Village, Center and Cemetery. Kaz Sonular Toplants 15: 45759. 1998 Anatolia and the Bridge from East to West in the Early Bronze Age. TBA-AR 1: 18 (Turkish and English).

Muhly, J. 2011 Metals and Metallurgy. Pp. 85876 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, ed. S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon. New York: Oxford University. Netting, R. M. 1982 Some Home Truths on Household Size and Wealth. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 641 62. Ojo, G. J. A. 1966 Yoruba Palaces: A Study of Afins of Yorubaland. London: University of London. kse, A. T. 2007 Ancient Mountain Routes Connecting Central Anatolia to the Upper Euphrates Region. Anatolian Studies 57: 3545. zbek, M. 2009 Remodeled Human Skulls in Kk Hyk (Neolithic Age, Anatolia): A New Appraisal in View of Recent Discoveries. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 37986. zg, T. 1986 New Observations on the Relationship of Kltepe with Southeast Anatolia and North Syria during the Third Millennium b.c. Pp. 3147 in Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Cultural Development: Essays in Honor of Machteld J. Mellink, ed. J. V. Canby, E. Porada, B. S. Ridgeway, and Tamara Stech. Madison: University of Wisconsin. zkan, S.; Faydal, E.; and ztan, A. 2002 Kk Hyk 2000 Yl Kazlar. Kaz Sonular Toplants 23/2: 33542. ztan, A. 2002 Kk Hyk: Anadolu Arkeolojisine Yeni Katklar. TBA-AR 5: 5569 (Turkish and English). 2003 A Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlement in Anatolia: Kk Hyk. Colloquium Anatolicum II: 6986. ztan, A., and Faydal, E. 2003 An Early Chalcolithic Building from Kk Hyk. Belleten 67/248: 4575. Pauketat, T. R. 2000 Politicization and Community in the PreColumbian Mississippi Valley. Pp. 1643 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, ed. M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger. London: Routledge. Peebles, C. S., and Kus, S. M. 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42: 42148. Peregrine, P. 1991 Some Political Aspects of Craft Specialization. World Archaeology 23: 111.

2011

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

23

Pollock, S. 2003 Feasts, Funerals, and Fast Food in Early Mesopotamian States. Pp. 1738 in The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, ed. T. L. Bray. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Portnoy, A. W. 1981 A Microarchaeological View of Human Settlement Space and Function. Pp. 21324 in Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us, ed. R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiffer. New York: Academic. Potter, J. M. 2000 Ritual, Power, and Social Differentiation in Small-Scale Societies. Pp. 295316 in Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?, ed. M. W. Diehl. Occasional Papers 27. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Rapoport, A. 1976 Sociocultural Aspects of Man-Environment Studies. Pp. 735 in The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment: A CrossCultural Perspective, ed. A. Rapoport. The Hague: Mouton. 1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage. 1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. Pp. 920 in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, ed. S. Kent. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Renfrew, C. 2001 Commodification and Institution in Group-Oriented and Individualizing Societies. Pp. 93117 in The Origin of Human Social Institutions, ed. W. G. Runciman. Proceedings of the British Academy 110. Oxford: Oxford University. 2008 The City through Time and Space: Transformations of Centrality. Pp. 2951 in The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World, ed. J. Marcus and J. A. Sabloff. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research. Robb, J. E. 1999 Secret Agents: Culture, Economy, and Social Reproduction. Pp. 315 in Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb. Occasional Papers 26. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Roscoe, P. 2000 Costs, Benefits, Typologies, and Power: The Evolution of Political Hierarchy. Pp. 11333 in Hierarchies in Action. Cui Bono?, ed. M. W.

Diehl. Occasional Papers 27. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Ross, J. C., and Steadman, S. R. 2010 Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward. Pp. 110 in Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward, ed. S. R. Steadman and J. C. Ross. London: Equinox. Sagona, A., and Zimansky, P. 2009 Ancient Turkey. London: Routledge. aholu, V. 2004 Interregional Contacts around the Aegean during the Early Bronze Age: New Evidence from the zmir Region. Anatolia 27: 97120. 2005 The Anatolian Trade Network and the zmir Region during the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24: 33961. 2008 Crossing Borders, The zmir Region as a Bridge between the East and the West during the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 15373 in Crossing Borders: Proceedings of the 7th, 8th and 9th International Workshops, Athens 19971999, ed. C. Gillis and B. Sjberg. Svedalen: Astrm. Schoop, U.-D. 2011 The Chalcolithic on the Plateau. Pp. 15073 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, ed. S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon. New York: Oxford University. Seeher, J. 1985 Demircihyk: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19751978, Vol. 3: Die Keramik. 2 pts. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Smith, K. 1998 Farming, Marketing, and Changes in the Authority of Elders among Pastoral Rendille and Ariaal. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 13: 30922. Smith, M. E. 2007 Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New Approach to Ancient Urban Planning. Journal of Planning History 6: 347. Spencer, P. 1973 Nomads in Alliance. Symbiosis and Growth among the Rendille and Samburu of Kenya. Oxford: Clarendon. 1997 The Pastoral Continuum: The Marginalization of Tradition in East Africa. Oxford: Oxford University. Steadman, S. R. 1996 Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundations. Journal of Archaeological Research 4: 5193. 2000 Spatial Patterning and Social Complexity on Prehistoric Near Eastern Tell Sites: Models for

24

SHARON R. STEADMAN

BASOR 363

Mounds. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 16499. 2010 Agency, Architecture, and Archaeology: Prehistoric Settlements in Central Anatolia. Pp. 2746 in Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward, ed. S. R. Steadman and J. C. Ross. London: Equinox. 2011 The Early Bronze Age on the Plateau. Pp. 229 59 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, ed. S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon. New York: Oxford University. Steadman, S. R.; McMahon, G.; and Ross, J. C. 2007 The Late Chalcolithic at adr Hyk in Central Anatolia. Journal of Field Archaeology 32: 385406. Steadman, S. R.; Ross, J. C.; McMahon, G.; and Gorny, R. L. 2008 Excavations on the North-Central Plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Occupation at adr Hyk. Anatolian Studies 58: 4786. Stein, G. J. 1996 Producers, Patrons, and Prestige: Craft Specialists and Emergent Elites in Mesopotamia from 55003100 b.c. Pp. 2538 in Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe, ed. B. Wailes. University Museum Monograph 93; University Museum Symposium Series 6. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Stein, G., and Blackman, M. J. 1993 The Organizational Context of Specialized Craft Production in Early Mesopotamian States. Research in Economic Anthropology 14: 2959.

Stein, G. J., and zbal, R. 2007 A Tale of Two Iokumenai: Variation in the Expansionary Dynamics of Ubaid and Uruk Mesopotamia. Pp. 32941 in Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, ed. E. C. Stone. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Stone, E. 2007 The Mesopotamian Urban Experience. Pp. 213 34 in Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, ed. E. C. Stone. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 2008 A Tale of Two Cities: Lowland Mesopotamia and Highland Anatolia. Pp. 14164 in The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World, ed. J. Marcus and J. A. Sabloff. Sante Fe: School for Advanced Research. Warner, J. L. 1994 Elmal-Karata II: The Early Bronze Age Village of Karata. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College. Wason, P. K. 1994 The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Yener, K. A. 2000 The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 4. Leiden: Brill.