Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:41:24.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Least-cost pathway analysis and inter-regional interaction in the Göksu valley, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

James M.L. Newhard ,
Norm Levine  and
Allen Rutherford
James M.L. Newhard
Affiliation:
College of Charleston
Norm Levine
Affiliation:
College of Charleston
Allen Rutherford
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work in the Göksu river valley has brought questions of long-distance communication routes to the forefront of discussion. The valley has been long regarded as a potential conduit from the Anatolian plateau to the Mediterranean, yet no formal testing as to whether it was geographically suited to this use has taken place. The discovery of the site of Çömlek Tepesi in the upper Göksu valley and work at Kilse Tepe south of Mut has given further weight to the idea that the valley served as a communication route at points in time, and has encouraged testing the notion that a route through the valley would be attractive based on geography. Computerised modelling using least-cost pathway analysis (LCPA) was used to test whether the Göksu valley could serve as a communication route, and if so, the approximate location of that route based upon geographical constraints. In this paper, the methods of LCPA are reviewed and an example of its use is presented. Advocated as an exploratory rather than explanatory technique, the application of LCPA in the Göksu valley has strengthened current assumptions about regional and extra-regional interaction and raised new questions that refined the project's research design.

Özet

Göksu Vadisinde yürütülen son çalışmalar, uzun mesafe iletişim yolları ile ilintili soruları tartışma gündemine getirmiştir. Vadi uzun bir süredir Anadolu platosunu Akdeniz'e bağlayan potansiyel yol olarak değerlendirilmekle birlikte, şimdiye kadar vadinin coğrafi bakımdan böyle bir kullanım için uygunluğu resmen sınanmamıştır. Yukarı Göksu Vadisindeki Çömlek Tepesi'nin keşfi ve Mut'un güneyindeki Kilise Tepe'de yürütülen çalışmalar, vadinin zaman içinde bazı noktalarda iletişim yolu olarak kullanılmış olması fikrine daha da ağırlık kazandırmış, vadiden geçen bir yolun coğrafi olarak da doğru bir seçim olduğunun sınanmasına zemin hazırlamıştır. Göksu Vadisinin iletişim hattı olarak kullanılıp kullanılmadığını sınamak ve eğer kullanılmış ise rota için yaklaşık olarak en uygun coğrafi konumu saptamak üzere en az maliyetli yol analiz (LCPA) yöntemi kullanılarak bilgisayar modeli hazırlanmıştır. Bu makalede LCPA yöntemleri ele alınmış, ve bir kullanım örneği verilmiştir. Göksu Vadisinde uygulanan LCPA yönteminin bulguları, bir araştırma tekniğinden ziyade bir araştırma olarak, bölge ve bölge dışı ilişkilerle ilgili halihazırdaki çıkarımları destekler niteliktedir. Bulgular projenin araştırma tasarımını yeniden şekillendiren yeni sorular sorulmasına da neden olmuştur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 58 , December 2008 , pp. 87 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, T., Wilson, A., Wickham, A. 2002: ‘Tracking the Samnites: landscape and communications routes in the Sangro valley, Italy’ American Journal of Archaeology 106: 169–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, J.R., Renfrew, C. 1964: ‘The characterization of obsidian and its application to the Mediterranean region’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 111–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Poupeau, G., Bressy, C., Pearce, N.J.G. 2006: ‘A new programme of obsidian characterization at Çatalhöyük, Turkey’ Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 893–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cauvin, M.-C., Gourgand, A., Gratuze, B., Arnand, N., Poupeau, G., Poidevin, J.L., Chataigner, C. (eds) 1998: L'Obsidienne au proche et Moyen Orient: du Volcan à l'Outil (Maison de 1'Orient Méditerranéen, BAR International Series 738). LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H.P. 2003: ‘Rudston “Cursus A” – engaging with a Neolithic monument in its landscape setting using GIS’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22: 345–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conolly, J., Lake, M. 2006: Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E.J. 1879: Life in Asiatic Turkey: A Journal of Travel in Cilicia (Pedias and Tracheia), Isauria and Parts of Lycaonia and Isauria. LondonGoogle Scholar
De Silva, M., Pizziolo, G. 2001: ‘Setting up a “human calibrated” anisotropic cost surface for archaeological landscape investigation’ in Stančič, Z., Veljanovski, T. (eds), Computing Archaeology for Understanding the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 28th Conference, Ljubljana, April 2000 (BAR International Series 931). London: 279–86Google Scholar
Defense Mapping Agency 1986: Defense Mapping Agency Product Specifications for Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) (2nd edition). St Louis, MissouriGoogle Scholar
Efe, T. 2007: ‘The therories of the “Great Caravan Route” between Cilicia and Troy: the Early Bronze Age III period in inland western Anatolia’ Anatolian Studies 57: 47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, H.W., Newhard, J.M.L. 2004: The Göksu Archaeological Project: Internet Edition. http://www.cofc.edu/~gapGoogle Scholar
French, D.H. 1965: ‘Prehistoric sites in the Göksu Valley’ Anatolian Studies 15: 177–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, M. 1985: ‘Alahan monastery and its setting in the Isaurian country side’ in Gough, M. (ed.), Alahan: an Early Christian Monastery in Southern Turkey. Toronto: 2–18Google Scholar
Gratuze, B. 1999: ‘Obsidian characterization by laser ablation ICP-MC and its application to prehistoric trade in the Mediterranean and the Near East: sources and distribution of obsidian within the Aegean and Anatolia’ Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 869–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headlam, A.C. 1892: Ecclesiastical Sites in Isauria (Cilicia Trachea). LondonGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1954: ‘Preclassical remains in southern Turkey’ Anatolian Studies 4: 175–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1958: ‘Second millennium pottery from the Konya plain and neighborhood’ Belleten 22: 311–45Google Scholar
Ökse, A.T. 2007: ‘Ancient mountain routes connecting central Anatolia to the upper Euphrates region’ Anatolian Studies 57: 35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 1998: ‘Between the plateau and the sea: Kilise Tepe 1994–1997’ in Matthews, R. (ed.), Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years' Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. London: 127–41Google Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 2007a: ‘Chapter 3: The Kilise Tepe area in pre-Classical and Hellenistic times’ in Postgate, N., Thomas, D. (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (BIAA Monograph 30, McDonald Institute Monographs). London: 15–18Google Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 2007b: ‘Chapter 5: The excavations and their results’ in Postgate, N., Thomas, D. (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (BIAA Monograph 30, McDonald Institute Monographs). London: 31–39Google Scholar
Postgate, N., Thomas, D. (eds) 2007: Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (BIAA Monograph 30, McDonald Institute Monographs). LondonGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, W. 1890: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. LondonGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J.E., Cann, J.R. 1966: ‘Obsidian and early culture contact in the Near East’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, T. 2007: ‘Chapter 44: Lithics’ in Postgate, N., Thomas, D. (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (BIAA Monograph 30, McDonald Institute Monographs). London: 545–58Google Scholar
Steadman, S.R. 1996: ‘Isolation or interaction: prehistoric Cilicia and the fourth millennium Uruk Expansion’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9: 131–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, D., Gillings, M. 2002: Spatial Technology and Archaeology: the Archaeological Applications of GIS. LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitely, T.G., Hicks, L.M. 2003: ‘A geographic information systems approach to understanding potential prehistoric and historic travel corridors’ Southeastern Archaeology 22: 77–91Google Scholar