Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:30:14.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological identification and significance of ÉSAG (agricultural storage pits) at Kaman-Kalehöyük, central Anatolia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Andrew Fairbairn  and
Sachihiro Omura
Andrew Fairbairn
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Sachihiro Omura
Affiliation:
The Middle East Culture Center inJapan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence for the presence of storage pits described in Hittite texts by the Sumerogram ÉSAG is presented from Kaman-Kalehöyük, a multi-period tell site in central Turkey occupied during the second and first millennia BC. Small earthen pits matching the description of ÉSAG were part of the normal suite of domestic installations at the site throughout the period. Similar to pits seen across western Eurasia, they were probably used to store seed corn or seed for trade. Large earthen pits (>7m in diameter) were also present that matched the description of the ÉSAG form, and in some cases contained archaeological cereal remains. Evidence from Kaman shows ÉSAG were part of Anatolian life for at least 4,000 years and suggests that the term was generic for lined, earthen storage pits. The presence of so many small pits at Kaman-Kalehöyük showed that it was an agricultural production site for much of its existence. The appearance of the large pits, confined to the Hittite period, reflects centralised control of grain supply, probably by the Hittite Kingdom, and fits a pattern seen at other sites in the region during the second millennium BC.

Özet

Hitit metinlerinde Sumerogram ÉSAG ile tanımlanan depo çukurlarının varlığına dair kanıt, Orta Anadolu'da M.Ö. ikinci ve Birinci binde iskan edilmiş çok dönemli bir yerleşim alanı olan Kaman-Kalehöyük'ten tanınmaktadır. Küçük toprak çukurlar ÉSAG' in tanımlamasına uygun olarak bu dönem süresince normal ev düzeninin bir parçası olarak karşımıza çıkmıştır. Çakurlar, Batı Avrasya'daki benzer çukurlar gibi olasılıkla ticaret maksadı ile mısır tohumu ya da tohum muhafaza etmişlerdir. ÉSAG formunun tanımına uyan büyük toprak çukurlara (çapi 7m. den büyük) rağmen bunların tahıl depolama ile ilgili bağlantıları tam olarak belirlenmemiştir. Kaman'daki delil, ÉSAG' in en az 4,000 yıldır Anadolu yaşamının bir parçası olduğunu ve bu sözcüğgün sıvanmış toprak çukurlar için kullanıldığını işaret etmektedir. Kaman-Kalehöyük'te ele geçen birçok küçük çukur, yerleşimin varlığını sürdürdüğü sürecin büyük bir bölümünde zirai üretim yapıldığını göstermektedir. Hitit Döneminde büyük çukurların ortaya çıkması muhtemelen Hitit Krallığı tarafından gerçekleştirilen tahıl tedarikinin merkezi kontrolünü yansıtmakta ve M.ö. İkinci binde bu bölgedeki diğer yerleşim alanlarında görülen şekle uymaktadır.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 55 , December 2005 , pp. 15 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2005

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

Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1993: Villages in the Steppe: Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria. MichiganGoogle Scholar
Beal, R.H. 1992: The Organization of the Hittite Military. HeidelburgGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T.R. 1998: The Kingdom of the Hittites. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T.R. 2002: Life and Society in the Hittite World. OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, M.C., Paley, S.M. 1998: ‘Dynamics of cereal production at Tell el Ifshar, Israel during the Middle Bronze Age’ Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 397–416Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1993: Danebury. LondonGoogle Scholar
Ertuğ-Yaraş, F. 1997: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Subsistence and Plant Gathering in Central Anatolia. St LouisGoogle Scholar
Fairbairn, A. 2002: ‘Archaeobotany at Kaman-Kalehöyük 2001’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 11: 201–12Google Scholar
Fairbairn, A. 2003: ‘Archaeobotany at Kaman-Kalehöyük 2002’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 12: 151–62Google Scholar
Fairbairn, A. 2004: ‘Archaeobotany at Kaman-Kalehöyük 2003’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 13: 107–20Google Scholar
Gregg, S.A. 1988: Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural Expansion in Prehistoric Europe. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Gorny, R.L. 1989: ‘Environment, archaeology and history in Hittite Anatolia’ Biblical Archaeologist 58: 78–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, H. 1974: Alimenta hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. New HavenGoogle Scholar
Hole, F. 1999: ‘Economic implications of possible storage structures at Tell Ziyadeh, NE Syria’ Journal of Field Archaeology 26: 267–83Google Scholar
Hongo, H. 1997: ‘Patterns of animal husbandry, environment, and ethnicity in central Anatolia in the Ottoman Empire period: faunal remains from Islamic layers at Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Japan Review 8: 275–307Google Scholar
Hongo, H. 1998: ‘Patterns of animal husbandry at Kaman-Kalehöyük, Turkey: continuity and changes during the second and first millennia BC’ in Mikasa, T. (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC. Tokyo: 239–78Google Scholar
Jones, G., Wardle, K., Halstead, P., Wardle, D. 1986: ‘Crop storage at Assiros’ Scientific American 254: 96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, M., Matsunaga, M., Nakai, I. 1998: ‘Chemical study of white materials in the pits, soil materials and mudbricks from Kaman-Kalehöyuk’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 7: 305–24Google Scholar
Makal, M. 1954: A Village in Anatolia. LondonGoogle Scholar
Mikami, T., Omura, S. 1988: ‘1986 Yılıh Kaman-Kalehöyük Yüzey Araştırmaları’ Kazı Sonucları Toplantısı 9: 1–20Google Scholar
Mori, M., Omura, S. 1995. ‘A preliminary report on the excavations at Kaman-Kalehöyük in Turkey (1989–1993)’ Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Center Japan 8: 1–42Google Scholar
Neef, R. 2001: ‘Getreide im Silokomplex an der Poternenmauer (Boğazköy) — Erste Aussagen zur Landwirtschaft’ Archäologischer Anzeiger Heft 3: 335–41Google Scholar
Nesbitt, M. 1993: ‘Ancient crop husbandry at Kaman-Kalehöyük: 1991 archaeobotanical report’ Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Center Japan 7: 75–97Google Scholar
Nesbitt, M. 1995: ‘Recovery of archaeological plant remains at Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Center Japan 8: 115–30Google Scholar
Omura, S. 1992: ‘Architecture of phase II of Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 1: 1–19Google Scholar
Omura, S. 1995: ‘Iron Age in central Anatolia’ Annual Symposium on the Archaeological Projects in Turkey 1994. Tokyo: 1–48Google Scholar
Omura, S. 2001: ‘Preliminary report on the 15th excavation at Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 10: 1–35Google Scholar
Omura, S. 2002: ‘Preliminary report on the 16th excavation at Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 11: 1–43Google Scholar
Omura, S. 2003: ‘Preliminary report on the 17th excavation at Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 11: 1–36Google Scholar
Reynolds, P.J. 1974: ‘Experimental Iron Age storage pits: an interim report’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 118–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, K.W. 1988: After Eden: The Behavioural Ecology of Early Food Production in the Near East and North Africa (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 391). OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeher, J. 2000: ‘Getreidelagerung in unterirdischen Grossspeichern: Zur Methode und ihrer Anwendung im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. am Beispiel der Befunde in Hattuša’ Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42: 261–301Google Scholar
Seeher, J. 2002: Hattusha Guide: A Day in the Hittite Capital. IstanbulGoogle Scholar
Twilley, J. 2002: ‘Scientific analysis of plasters from Kaman-Kalehöyük’ Anatolian Archaeological Studies 11: 213–42Google Scholar