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. 3000–2000 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.

M

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 Stone’s 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

” or at least on elites. houses may appear to the modern researcher to be elite residences when actually they are not. First. Mediterranean Sea rr 0 CYP RUS Euphrates R. Seyhan Değirmentepe Arslantepe a yh nR . plateau (fig. requires skill. the methods to identify specific elite/leader residences can be outlined. is the erosion of trust between community members—that is. Leaders and elites may use non-tangible status markers that do not remain in the architectural footprint. the trend was to locate homes away from the gates. seeks to treat their initial appearance in Anatolian communities and to define what internal and external forces impacted important decisions.2 SHARON R. such as increasing population and settlement size at newly developing regional centers. These changes are concomitant with several plateau-wide phenomena. Map of sites discussed in the text. here on “leaders. 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 Stone’s quote above. Mersin Ce Hassek Höyük Orontes R. 1). however. STEADMAN BASOR 363 Black Sea Sa ka rya Black Sea R. The focus . In the Chalcolithic and earlier Early Bronze Age (table 1). An additional motive. Despite these obstacles. a “fear of the insiders” factor as societal structures underwent internal changes. Conversely. Marmara Kızıl Irm Troy Demircihöyük Por suk ak Küllüoba R. undertaken by the community’s higher-ranking members. such as residential location. The forces guiding this residential adjustment include a need for protection against outsiders (visitors. By the later third millennium. and the establishment of international trade networks. sometimes behind physical barriers. archaeologically. Understanding the prehistoric (or any period’s) use of space enhances our abilities to interpret ancient societies. sites feature settlement plans in which village leaders. intuition. luck. it must be recognized that rank is not always visible through architecture (Wason 1994). attackers) while simultaneously seeking to impress both outsiders and those living within the community. 1. Çadır Höyük Beycesultan Güvercinkayası Hacılar Kuruçay Karataş Bademağacı Koşk Höyük Tuz Gölü Kültepe R. and steadfast resolve that your identification is correct. Wason notes that “major size differences frequently represent ranked status differences” (1994: 137). inhabited homes in close proximity to main gates. Identifying the Leader’s House Picking out the residence that belongs to a village or town leader. 100 200 km Fig. or at least high-ranking residents.

c.e. constructed on a platform that artificially elevated it above the other houses. Helms 1992.e.c. Material culture located within the houses is.c. Elites will want. houses belonging to community leaders/elites. Pollock 2003.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER TAbLe 1.e. Schoop 2011. Wason asserts that “if a settlement boasts a few distinctly energy-intensive dwellings. but it may also signal the need to carry out duties requiring large areas of space. There was a substantial differentiation in labor investment between the majority of the Çadır EB I houses and this single structure (which was almost certainly domestic in nature). to proclaim and maintain their societal positions (Bird and Smith 2005.e. Anatolian Chronological Periods and Date Ranges of Sites Discussed in the Text 3 Chronological Periods on the Anatolian Plateau Early Bronze III 2300–2000 b. or even need. Blanton 1994: 8–20. Neolithic  6100 b.e. Robb 1999). that help to identify. 2008). Boone 2000. these actions result in archaeologically identifiable distributions of differentiated material culture contents in individual households across the community (Gardner 2008. Naturally. However. Early Bronze II 2700/2600–2300 b. to engage in conscious power-building activities. Steadman 2010). however.c.c. we can safely infer inequality. There are other critical indicators beyond size. with thin walls and packed mud floors (Steadman et al. Potter 2000). Early Chalcolithic 6100–5500 b. Recent excavations at the site revealed an EB I house that was far better built (wider mudbrick walls. such as housing community surpluses and possibly subsequent public redistributive events. Source: Based on Steadman 2011. The contents of an elite house may include a higher percentage of local .e. Early Bronze I 3000–2700/2600 b. 2000). another critical indicator (Ames 2008. At the central Anatolian site of Çadır Höyük. including material culture acquisition. Labor investment can be an invaluable tool for singling out special-status buildings. hosting feasts. Helwing 2003. of course. smaller-size houses can differ in the amount of effort put into their construction. a larger house requires more labor investment. archaeologically. Energy will correlate with rank” (1994: 138). Late Chalcolithic 4250–3000 b. for instance. or conducting public (religious or secular) ceremonies (Hayden 1995. The large size may stem from the resident’s ability to muster the resources (and labor) to build such a domicile.c.c. plaster flooring). * Sites with houses at the gates # Sites with houses away from the gates Demircihöyük* Çadır Höyük* Kuruçay 6A* Mersin* Güvercinkayası* Hacılar IIa* Koşk Höyük* Sites Discussed in the Text Kültepe# Bademacağı # Çadır Höyük# Troy II# Küllüoba# Karataş # of some sort. Middle Chalcolithic 5500–4250 b. Netting 1982. the Early Bronze I (EB I) settlement featured a number of single-room structures that were exceedingly poorly built. Steadman 1996. storage of gifts from visitors or traders.e.

STEADMAN BASOR 363 fine wares. Houses of leaders may be set on higher ground or built upon platforms. but combined with those noted above. These structures may be in proximity to other important community locations. The structures discussed below demonstrate some or all of the indicators outlined above. Why the Location of the Leader’s House Matters Developing methodologies that aid archaeological identification of elite structures and residences benefits the field as a whole. The individualistic placement of buildings. Stein 1996. or be built on a different plan from other residences (Wason 1994: 139–43.4 SHARON R. and germane to the present study. Elites may exert preferential control over community trade interactions. Giddens and Bourdieu. It is here that one can find an intersection between individual “agency” and “identity” (see Ross and Steadman 2010 and references therein). such as religious buildings.g. Stein and Blackman 1993). it is suggested here. should be used as dual lenses to interpret community structure and individualistic behavior. One additional indicator cannot stand alone. Bourdieu 1977.. Canuto and Yaeger 2000). humans are not bounded by behaviorist models within the community. they then become powerful tools for revealing insight into actions. and there are always cross-cutting allegiances” (2000: 249). demarcated by fences or other barriers. The “natural” and “imagined” communities are not. actual or anticipated. The community Isbell terms “natural” is based on Gidden’s structuration theory and is seated within the symbolic systems of Bourdieu’s practice theory (Giddens 1979. motivated by the local (insider) and extracommunity (outsider) behaviors. in this case residences. Mehrer 2000. However. elites or leaders place their residences in a location that conveys meaning about their status and identity. Furthermore. 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. Such control often translates to power and wealth within the community. based on community comprehensions of spatiality (cf. Dovey. Hillier and Hanson 1984.g. community members are “never so secluded that their members are isolated from outsiders. but act and react based on events. behaviors. the latter to accommodate visitors or public ceremonies (see Mehrer 2000 for similar discussion). see above). Isbell’s imagined community is “volatile. Hastorf 1990. Costin 1991. and if feasting is a social positioning activity.. in this case architectural alterations. In contrast to the “high degree of stability” of the natural community. a generally higher quantity of ceramics may be present in an elite house. as is argued here. 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. is relevant to archaeological study for the insights such investigation might offer on the subject of elite identity. 1984. community storage areas. In general. achieving benefits from greater access to exotic goods and thereby maintaining higher-ranking positions through their association with materials from “afar” (Helms 1992). Portnoy 1981. It is argued here that emergent elites/leaders responded to the behaviors and demeanor of both insiders and outsiders. drawing in part on Anderson 1983). 2001. Rapoport 1976. 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. but rather. In other words. is Pauketat’s 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 spatial location and boundary maintenance of a residence can be relevant in the quest for special-status houses. Peregrine 1991. or. the gate (see discussion in Steadman 2010). whether real or perceived. 1990). this study can be situated in the realm of the “archaeology of community” (e. A study focusing on the (changing) spatial location of a leader’s house crosscuts both of Isbell’s “natural” and “imagined” communities (2000. mutually exclusive as interpretive models. 150). but accurate statement that “somewhere between household and empire lies the community” (2000: 231). suggests that elites and leaders intentionally construct places to further specific agendas . among others. by effecting changes in their residential settings in concert with notable socioeconomic and political modifications. and actions that take place in the local and larger world around them. Marcus offers the profoundly broad. 1982. In fact. can help legitimate the identification of an elite/specialized residence. 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. characterized by dynamism rather than permanence”.

Steadman 2010. It is not wealth. and the forces that motivate them to choose those locations. identifying the places where elites and leaders construct their homes. including the numerous migrations and invasions. All elders in the clan (and thus the community) have roughly the same social status. The Batammaliba of Togo offer an interesting example that illustrates both the principle of “first family” (or. in which sociopolitical . As Stone exhorts us in the quote cited in this article’s introduction. a type of leader) and the importance of location. Family units. Fisher 2006.g. given the settlement history. The Batammaliba are agriculturalists. In northern Kenya.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 5 (1999. 2010. 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 day—e. Living Leaders: Ethnographic Examples Extracting ethnographic examples from recent Turkish history is rather difficult. sheep. begin with all the boys circumcised together. or groups of lineages (which can consist of up to 50 houses). After the warrior stage. 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). Following this. 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 men’s initiation) (Blier 1987: 90–2. While such egalitarianism may be found in the fact that most house plans are similar. It is perhaps more profitable to examine settlement patterns in regions such as Africa to identify village patterns relevant to the present study. see also Blanton 1994. and their villages are not walled but rather spread out in a dispersed settlement pattern that essentially has two halves to it. Wason 1994). allows archaeologists to more intimately understand the symbolic and ideological relationships between “space and society” (2008: 141). Spencer 1997). and goat. at this stage they obtain considerable power over livestock and other economic and social issues in the community (Smith 1998: 311. Smith 1998. rather than architecture and house contents. Fratkin 2001. to illustrate a resident’s importance within the community. setting up a new settlement after each move (Grum 1995: 150). the “head” of the village is considered the center and is where the important religious areas are located. there are distinct differences in wealth and power distribution among Batammaliba residents. however. men may move on to the “elder” age-set and marry. While this culture cannot in any way be said to resemble Late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age Anatolia. the most powerful families are those who are considered the village founders. they are more wealthy) tend to have larger houses. the prime location for the leader(s) is by the entrances to the (temporary) settlements. they set up their homes so that the settlement is in a circular pattern with all house doors facing to the west. and it is here that village founders have their housing compounds (Blier 1985: 161). each age-set moves to the next stage at 14-year intervals. Spencer 1973: 33–40). the “tail” and the “head” of the village (Blier 1987: 92. 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). Rendille settlements consist of large extended family units. move about six times per year. which might allow the Rendille to serve as an adequate comparative example for Anatolian settlement structure prior to urbanization and centralization processes. Symbolically. that is primarily at the root of power in Batammaliba villages. When the Rendille resettle after a move. with several clans or lineages represented in each settlement. Founding families have rights over important lands. 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).. 101–2). and since adjudication and other important decisions are made in the sacred groves. 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). sometimes twice as large as the “poorer” residents (Blier 1985: 163). then. Founding families are viewed as having special protection from the important deities such as Fawafa. for males. In the Batammaliba culture. These sacred groves are located at the village center (the “head” of the village). those who have had greater successes in agriculture (that is. herding primarily camels and some cattle. over the last millennium or so. Rendille social organization revolves around age-sets which. In the Rendille culture. Rather. they have some control over access and participation in these village events. the Rendille culture practices nomadic pastoralism. 161).

” given the presence of domestic contents. in the settlement and rests next to the main entrance gate.. as Stone has done so effectively for Mesopotamia (2007). Once societies reach the chiefdom or kingship stage. instigated a change in residential habits. “at the gate”— during the first stages of socioeconomic and political change in Anatolian settlements. Smith 2007]). for more exclusive locations overrode the previous practice of situating one’s home at the village gates. 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. above the rest of the community’s inhabitants. Leaders at the Gate There are substantially fewer examples of settlements featuring a “leader’s house at the gate” than there are in later community layouts described in the next section. then. as in other parts of the world (a survey of ancient cities across the world finds that elites and leaders. It is possible that an initial response to the rise of new leadership positions was a practice of living at the center of activity—i. settlement data Anatolian archaeology has not yet reached the point where we can identify the nature of the fourthor third-millennium Anatolian family. and finely painted pottery) (Mellaart 1970: 29–30). as is the norm in the three cites of Ado Ekiti. Krapf-Askari 1969: 39–45). and clothing items (1970: 115. The “living at the gate” stage may have lasted only a few centuries. As the processes inherent in increasing social complexity continued. and the specialized contents (e. The main thrust of the settlement data in this section features sites on the plateau (fig. further. in the main. This may simply be an accident of excavation. discussed below. a central position away from the gates offered privacy as well as a sense of “elevation. In the Lake District in the southern plateau. as did stone (some marble) bowls and a range of lithics. are typically found in or near the city center [Cowgill 2004. are not contemporary but represent slightly different phases. beads. painted walls.. internal buttresses and postholes suggest the house may have had two stories (Mellaart 1970: 28). All these questions regarding the original settlement interpretations may be accurate.” not only physically but also symbolically. but least certain. are becoming possible as more excavations have focused on prehistoric settlements across the Anatolian plateau and certainly in the southeastern Anatolian region. 157–65).g. and social stratification can be determined through house location and house size. but Mellaart notes that the finest ceramics came from the Q excavation area. but they do not affect the simple fact that the house labeled Q5–Q7 is one of the largest. Mellaart describes Hacılar II as a “fortified” settlement on account of the outer wall and possible towers near the southern gate and at the corners (1970: 25). Larger generalizations about settlement layout. Ife. 150. settlement at the symbolic “center” of the village is the prime location for village leaders. 37. Düring (2011: 170–71) has suggested that the western and eastern quarters. but there could be more socio-structural explanations as well. the principal residence is located in the center of the settlements. if not the largest. before other factors. are typically found at the center of the settlement. In Yorubaland. STEADMAN BASOR 363 and religious power rests in the hands of the founding families. One need only examine traditional African cities in Yorubaland. and see Duru 2008: 38–39). Yoruba royal residences. The two structures of interest in this settlement are the buildings labeled Rooms Q2–Q7 (using Mellaart’s system). The only known main doorway into Q5–Q7 . however. There is some doubt as to whether Q2–Q4 (as well as another building in the northeast area) should be identified as a “shrine. 1).” with a potter’s workshop quarter in the center. 2) in the southwest corner of the village as a “shrine. often with protective walls or other barriers surrounding it. These rooms had a large central hearth with an accompanying oven in the entry room. such as a storage bin and a hearth (Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 130–33). Mellaart identifies Rooms Q2–Q4 (fig. clay seal. 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). Contents are not itemized house by house.e. the desire. or even just a few generations.” based on room furniture.6 SHARON R. excavated by James Mellaart in the 1950s. Mellaart describes the Early Chalcolithic Hacılar IIA phase as divided into western and eastern “quarters. known as the “Afin” and inhabited by the Obo (the chief). as well as important religious and administrative buildings. given their very different architectural layouts. there is a cluster of sites that suggests elite residences were located at or near the gates. bone tools. he estimated a village population of 100–150 (Mellaart 1970: 27–28. broken figurines. or need. and Ilesha (Ojo 1966: 29–34. of these is the site of Hacılar. The best known.

Houses nearer to the East Gate were slightly larger.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 7 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. the East Gate. the western wall of which was created by House 2 (fig. is certainly the most elaborate. Building 3 was designated a “shrine” by the excavator. including hearths. a passageway is flanked by two houses. offers some relevant evidence (Duru 1996a. 3). is far from the settlement gate. We know little about the socioeconomic or sociopolitical structures of Early Chalcolithic Hacılar II. one entered a small gated courtyard. houses had similar contents. 3) has a doorway into the passageway. one of which (House 1.” but this designation is based on its location near the gate and shrine rather than on other indicators such as house size. Finally. as the latter were similar to the domestic/utilitarian items . 18 of which were identified as residential. where the Late Chalcolithic 6A settlement. or contents. and domestic materials (Duru 2008: 127. small doorway?) allowing household residents access to the gate area and those passing through it.c. 2008).. ovens. Plan of Hacılar IIA village (adapted from Mellaart 1970: 26–27. fig. note that Düring [2011: 227] is not convinced this building was anything other than a residential structure). 20). Gated at both ends. while those ringing the settlement were somewhat smaller. Approximately 23 structures were excavated. identified as the settlement’s main entrance. 2. thereby allowing residents to lay out the settlement according to their ideas of appropriate patterns. 1996b. an earthen table. due to the presence of unusual architectural features. It is possible that a doorway or window allowed House 2 residents to engage new arrivals in the small courtyard in some way. fig. as is the possibility that this house was conjoined with what may have been a community religious building. labor investment. Of the three entrances to the settlement.e. dating to the fourth millennium b. Also in the Lake District is the site of Kuruçay. but the proximity of the gate and the large house is relevant in the present study. Passing through the entry. the excavator suggests that House 2 was the home of a “dignitary. The excavator suggests that the earliest Level 6A settlement was planned (Duru 2008: 123). 1996b: 115). the east wall of Q5–Q7 may have featured an opening (window. however. including wooden columns. and an elaborate hearth (Duru 1996b: 115–16.

the other three-room house was next to the other gate. Seventeen stratigraphic levels. Houses were built on the megaron plan and usually featured two rooms. in the northwest area of the settlement (House 1. it is. Somewhat clearer evidence comes from the northwestern site of Demircihöyük near modern Eskişehir. 3. including more solid foundations. The carefully excavated Early Bronze Demircihöyük village strongly suggests that those who held higher rank in such a small village may . The largest house. Two fully excavated residences were threeroomed. architectural differences that suggest the presence of more prominent community members. 243). 32). Significant erosion. 20 m Fig. fig. all houses contained a similar array of stone and ceramic goods sufficient for household use (Baykal-Seeher 1996. in general.8 SHARON R. and lots of mixing due to erosion and extensive pit construction in the latest Demircihöyük levels (Korfmann 1983: 25). was situated next to one of the main gates. In general. and the village was accessed by several gates (Korfmann 1983: 191–94). By the same token. Plan of Kuruçay 6A (adapted from Duru 1996b: pl. spanning the EB I–II periods. Seeher 1985). 243). 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). complicated the process of identifying house contents in the five most fully excavated structures. and their floor plans were larger as well (Korfmann 1983: 189–93. 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. 4). House 4 at the East Gate may have been an elite house. 4. Plan of EB II Demircihöyük (adapted from Korfmann 1983: 190. reveal an elliptical village with slightly trapezoidal houses arrayed around a central open area. found in smaller houses. Both of these multiroom structures received greater labor investment than their two-room neighbors. While the evidence at Kuruçay Level 6A is not absolute. with the kind permission of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut). house doorways opened into the village center. There is some indication that a greater number of the external storage areas (located in the central courtyard) belonged to these houses as well. STEADMAN BASOR 363 5 meters Gate House 1 4 2 1 3 East Gate 0 Fig. best defined as a small agricultural village of roughly 25–26 structures and well under 200 inhabitants (Korfmann 1983: 218–19).

the back rooms of which featured substantial amounts of domestic materials. and the gated entry was flanked by two small rooms deemed guard rooms (1953: 133). have commanded a living space directly adjacent to a main entrance to the settlement. ceramics.” Mersin Level 16 demonstrates some of the best-preserved architecture at the site. by kind permission of Oxford University Press). The original excavator. the walls in Level 16 seem to form an entryway into the village. fig. A fourth example may be found at Middle/Late Chalcolithic Mersin. 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 houses to the left of the main gate were two-roomed. 5). on the southern Mediterranean coast in the region later known as “Cilicia. flanked by four rooms containing a variety of domestic materials and . 79. 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: 57–59). 5. Plan of Middle/Late Chalcolithic Mersin. including copper and stone tools. storage bins.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 9 Gate 0 10 m Gate area and largest house Other excavated areas Unexcavated architecture projected by excavator Fig. Some of these houses were larger than others. a substantial meter-wide exterior wall formed the back wall to interior structures. and hearths (Garstang 1953: 134–37). Whether fortification or terrace or a mixture of both. John Garstang. Level 16 (adapted from Garstang 1953: 129. The multiroom structure featured a courtyard with a large oven. termed this settlement the “village fortified” (1953: 131). but certainly the largest was to the right of the gate (fig.

2003). and material contents would also suggest that this residence fits the criteria outlined above for identifying elite residences. Gate Avoidance. Garstang interpreted this structure as an elite residence (1953: 133). On the central mound was a large palisaded structure (fig. Perhaps the best example of the latter arrangement. Faydalı. the size of the structure. there is a noticeable adjustment in the placement of residences thought to have belonged to high-ranking individuals. 6) outfitted with extensive storage units. including plastered skulls (Erdoğu 2009. This central structure may have been two-storied. and Ross 2007. the Neolithic/Chalcolithic site of Koşk Höyük has produced substantial architectural remains (e. and Öztan 2002). In fact. Özkan. to live at or near the gate. rather. The structure has been identified as a potential candidate for an elite residence (Steadman. though this designation is tentative. was relatively short-lived and thus is harder to track archaeologically. it is on the lower terrace where the majority of the population lived. It is also quite possible that this settlement choice. excavators of large towns and cities place trenches on the highest reaches of the mound. including the circumstance that current excavations have not (yet) exposed gate areas or substantial residential neighborhoods that fit this pattern. 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. Not far from the modern town of Aksaray is the later Middle Chalcolithic site of Güvercinkayası (Gülçur and Çaylı 2008. excavations have revealed that in both the late Neolithic (Level 1) and Chalcolithic (Levels II–IV) settlements. where the “leader’s” house is set well away from the rest of the residential neighborhood. It is this more expected “norm” that begins to occur on the plateau as well. occupants of the smaller surrounding homes had only medium-sized vessels and “apparently had less to be stored” (Eslick 2009: 247). the number of (excavated) settlements featuring the “at the gate” pattern is more limited than the alternative layout discussed below.10 SHARON R. Oztan and Faydalı 2003) with fascinating material culture. By contrast.” and that this resident’s “social status differed substantially from that of the village . sometimes set apart by a barrier. Although the entire settlement has not been exposed. By the middle of the Early Bronze Age on the plateau. The excavators note that this central mound structure “belonged to a prominent leading resident. and numerous small figurines (Öztan 2002. Gülçur and Kiper 2006.. constructed with “superior building techniques” (Warner 1994: 178). Steadman et al. Hints of this settlement pattern are also found at the north-central plateau site of Çadır Höyük. where a substantial Late Chalcolithic residence rested in close proximity to the gated entry to the settlement. Leaders. Continuing work on the Anatolian plateau has revealed other sites whose architecture may fit the settlement pattern outlined in this section. Steadman 2010). elaborately decorated pottery. is found at the EB I site of Karataş-Semayük (Levels I–III) in southwestern Anatolia near the modern town of Elmalı. McMahon. A “central mound” at this site is surrounded by a lower terrace. labor investment (with central room pillars indicating a substantial roof and possibly an upper story). Near the modern town of Niğde. STEADMAN BASOR 363 furniture (Garstang 1953: 138–41). or separated altogether from the main residential neighborhood. The residence was very well stocked with household goods and had a very large courtyard (ca. As noted at the outset of this section. one or two substantially larger residences sat not far from what may have been an entrance into the village (Öztan 2003. 2008. the lower level contained large storage jars. and the upper level boasted some of the finer pottery found in Levels I–II. 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. and even earlier in the southeast (where urbanization occurred in the fourth rather than the third millennium). Further excavation will reveal whether several larger residences not far from the gate demonstrate contents suggesting more high-ranking occupants. This may be due to several factors. first in circular huts (Level I) and quickly followed by apsidal and rectangular megaron-style houses (Levels II–III) of roughly equal size and equipage (Warner 1994: 136–41). The gate was no longer the preferred locale. and surrounded by a courtyard. or near the center of the perceived settlement.g. pending the recovery of additional residential data away from the gate. At present. Gülçur and Fırat 2005) where a small village has what appears to be a defensive wall around the settlement. when they are searching for the main temple or the palace. such residences are found either at the back or center of the settlement. Özbek 2009). 6 × 6 m).

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. some of them quite fine in quality. one being that these were central storage/administrative centers for the settlement. substantial wooden beams and internal support walls suggest this structure was two-storied (Efe and Fidan 2008: 72–74). Proximity to the surface prevented the recovery of extensive household contents. The site of Bademağacı (Duru and Umurtak 2007. however. another that these were the residences of village elites who hosted large gatherings. The Early Bronze Age settlement consists of an upper and lower town. 2007b). Though the site is not yet thoroughly published. Stratigraphic difficulties prevented the excavators from securely associating this structure with the megaron houses surrounding it (Düring 2011: 282. the majority of domestic structures were arrayed around the boundary of the settlement. In the central room of Complex II. explaining the need for a staircase ascending from the outer rooms into the central one. The EB I settlement plan at Karataş-Semayük. inhabitants” (Warner 1994: 177–78). the upper settlement features a wall and at least two gates (fig. 2008). permission to reproduce the plan was kindly given by the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology. built just above the bedrock. Duru 2008: 150). and at least one kitchen (Efe and Fidan 2008).2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 11 Central Mound Fence Houses 0 20 m Lower Terrace Fig. clearly indicates an Anatolian trend toward a more secured living situation for local elites. This EB II site offers a number of similarities to contemporary Demircihöyük in its elliptical plan in which the backs of megaron-style houses abut the outer wall. Mellink 1969: 324–27). . Levels II–III (adapted from Warner 1994: pl. Though tomb contents may have been robbed out in antiquity. with doorways facing into the settlement center (Duru 2004. surrounded by streets and courtyards and away from the gates. and it offers evidence of a residence substantially larger than those along the outer wall. early wheel-made ceramics. A similar situation can be found at the EB II settlement of Küllüoba (Efe and Ay-Efe 2001. In the interior of the settlement. the back walls creating the settlement boundary. but its apparent long life suggests it either partially overlapped or was completely contemporary with the EB II occupation at the site. it is perhaps more prudent to describe it as a far larger. 2007b) located in the northwestern region of the plateau. multiroom residence with ample courtyard space. at least twice to three times the size of Demirci. 150). While the excavators term this central structure a “palace” (Duru 2008: 146. That an important personage may have inhabited the house is further supported by the discovery of a single elaborate tomb (designated “AQ”) in the site’s extramural cemetery. gold and silver items still remained inside. 8) consisting of large megaron-style buildings flanked by smaller rooms (Efe 2007a. 2009) is located in southwestern Anatolia about 50 km north of the coastal city of Antalya. Bryn Mawr College). To reach the resident in the central structure. 7). were two multiroom structures (Complex I and Complex II. a raised hearth probably sat atop a raised wooden floor. The excavator believes that Complex I was more likely administrative (or at least nondomestic). community members had to climb up to the central mound structure and navigate through a substantial enclosure wall. 8. scattered around the burial (Eslick 2009: 170. In the upper town. while Complex II was the more likely to have functioned as a residence (Efe and Fidan 2008). contents in the structure indicate the existence of long-distance trade (with areas to the south and west). there were numerous vessels (over 30) found in two of the rooms in this complex (Duru 2008: 151). Efe 2005. 2008. 6. the latter not yet significantly investigated archaeologically. Extensive storage facilities and substantial kitchens associated with these structures suggest several scenarios. 2007a. 2007. in black on fig. located inside the settlement and away from the known gates (fig. It is. 8). Plan of Karataş-Semayük. The rooms surrounding the central room of Complex II included those the excavator believes were used for storage. others as sleeping quarters.

292). as yet unexcavated). or it may have been moved much farther away from this house. away from the two known gated entries within the substantial exterior wall. As noted above. However. the area just to the east. was located in almost the same place as the earlier Late Chalcolithic house. and Ross 2007. where the Level II settlement features a very large megaron (“Megaron IIA”) built on a platform (Blegen et al. Whether domestic or dedicated to other functions. additional residential data is not available for this period. by the EB I phase. 2008). Complexes I and II seem to have been of some importance to Küllüoba residents. but the gate. Also in the northwest region is the well-known site of Troy. for instance. Jablonka 2011). termed a “palace” by the excavator. Plan of EB II Bademağacı (adapted from Duru 2008: 146. the settlement layout has been altered from its Late Chalcolithic plan. It is located at the center of this fairly small settlement. fig. primarily targeting the changes in settlement patterns that took place during the third-millennium Early . and town gates impossible. described above as the best built and most fully equipped residence in this period. and a full complement of tablewares and storage wares (Efe and Fidan 2008). Two other sites are worth noting here. 2008). The EB I house (possibly belonging to a village elite or leader?). but there is general agreement that it was a structure of some importance. Steadman et al. it is not the residence that has moved. While this study focuses on the Anatolian plateau.12 SHARON R. STEADMAN BASOR 363 Fig. 7. 1950. In the EB III levels at Kültepe. McMahon. making the assessment of the relationship between this structure. and built on a platform that elevated it above its neighbors. the main gate had been completely blocked (Steadman et al. The new entrance to the Çadır settlement has not yet been located. was located in what would later be the center of the settlement (Kulakoğlu 2011. By the EB I period. other neighborhoods. at least one substantial structure. Özguç 1986). Unfortunately. The function of this central large structure has not been settled (“palace” being one of the more common designations). 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. At EB I Çadır Höyük. it may be near the impressive EB I house (in. it was perhaps their importance that dictated their placement at the center of the village away from any potential risks at the public entrances.

In previous millennia. house architecture and contents do not suggest a “leader” was living either at or near the Değirmentepe gate. the Hittite capital Ḫattuša at Boğazköy). 6) (courtesy of Ege Publications).. and possibly Aşıklı Höyük. during the Ubaid period. though some structures were multiroomed and others were built on a tripartite plan. whether they are located by the gate or in the village center. no visitor would expect the palace to be located right next to the main gate. 1988. located on the upper Euphrates near the modern settlement of Malatya. This community layout is not dissimilar to Neolithic plateau settlements such as Çatal Höyük. demonstrate that residents arrayed themselves in houses built in agglutinative style with few open spaces between homes (Esin and Harmankaya 1987. By the time of the great ancient empires (e. continued to feature elite residences placed well away from the main gates (Frangipane 1996. 2003). among others. the Malatya region to the north)..g. Stein and Ozbal 2007).). or at its center behind boundaries and checkpoints through which . emerged in the Amuq. in the Middle and Late Chalcolithic. fig. including the development of long-distance trade. the upper Euphrates and Tigris valleys. or on the higher reaches.g. particularly in the southeast during the fourth millennium. Bronze Age in that region. and beyond (e. Can Hasan. evidence for the “gate avoidance” pattern can be found elsewhere in Anatolia. nor does one appear to have been ensconced well within the center of the settlement (Gurdil 2010). sites such as Değirmentepe (ca. Plan of EB II Küllüoba (adapted from Efe and Ay-Efe 2007: 265. where agglutinative architecture reflected a type of “neighborhood” (and largely egalitarian) approach to community structure (see Düring 2006 for discussion) where there is little differentiation in house forms. Gurdil 2010. 8. house contents suggest that the socioeconomic and political structure tended toward egalitarianism rather than hierarchy.e.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 13 0 20 m East Gate Complex I Court Complex II South Gate Court Fig. Towns such as Arslantepe and Hassek Höyük. and particularly in the second half of the fourth millennium. and similar to the Yoruba cities outlined above. but rather to be seemingly unreachable––perhaps on the high place in the town or city. 5400–4500 b. Similarly at Değirmentepe. rapid urbanization processes.c. A millennium later. above a “lower city” and ensconced behind fortification walls (Behm-Blancke 1992: table 31).

By the later Early Bronze phases. The less control a leader has over the daily life and production and consumption activities of neighbors. 2008). STEADMAN BASOR 363 one must successfully pass to achieve access into the most elite residence (the palace at Ḫattuša is on the acropolis. One recognizable trend occurring during this millennium is what Çevik terms settlement “centralization” (2007) in which Early Bronze settlements grew in size and population. Küllüoba. This study focuses on the forces that acted on village/town elites and leaders to guide the placement of their residences or. Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 175–76. Efe 2003. answers to this question include the emergence of urbanization trends and the establishment of long-distance trade. or ideologies. including Karataş. has been linked to the settlement centralization on the plateau (Acar 1996. style. Steadman 2011) have offered the latest summaries of Early Bronze Age social. far above the lower town). Şahoğlu 2005). Mellink 1986. why then? Almost certainly. to change those locations as socioeconomic. and political structures across the plateau. and trade in. elite houses were more regularly located away from gates and also often separated from other residences. that a residential shift away from the gate begins. 2005. 1989. 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. As Frangipane has elegantly noted in her review of Chalcolithic Mesopotamian architectural trends (2007). the community. 2008. therefore. but in the settlement form as a whole. Mellink 1994. metal goods (see Muhly 2011. and outside of. attitudes. and possibly sociopolitical. further supporting the notion of a pan-plateau trade network. though in far less dramatic fashion than was the case in Mesopotamia or even southeastern Anatolia. metal goods became commonplace at plateau sites. Erkanal 1996. Yener 2000).14 SHARON R. Şahoğlu 2004. 2007b). 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. configurations began to alter the nature of societal interactions within. Sagona and Zimansky 2009. “social inequality. It is this very process. 1998. The Anatolian Early Bronze Age is far from well understood. Çevik asserts that long-distance trade resulted not strictly from a need to access sources for raw materials. Şahoğlu 2005). must be viewed as the consequence of a suite of competing interests and alliances that contest the control of power. as was already advanced by Çevik above. metalworkers. The logical rejoinder to this is. . offers a visual and descriptive history of the emergence of the elite/ruler’s residence and its ultimate “clear dominance” over the “residential quarters” (1996: 153) in spite of its more remote location. and increase in trade connections are other factors that probably both resulted from them but also served to reinforce the trends. Ökse 2007. but rather as the “result of the emergence of ruling elites in Anatolia” (2007: 137). By the EB III period. One of the goals of this study. The existence of this exchange system. It is asserted here that location can be just as powerful an indicator for social practices. and continued faith in support from neighbors in any circumstance. that the emergence of an elite rank at plateau settlements is related to these trends. from Neolithic to Classical times. by some accounts stretching from the western Anatolian coast to northern Syria by the EB III period (Efe and Ay-Efe 2001. Beginning in the later EB II period (mid-third millennium). the reliance on village co-residents for protection and defense. and ideologies within a community. more accurately. and the constellation of evolving relationships inherent in that increase. though recent publications (Düring 2011. In several cases. the transition from a heterarchical social structure to one that is hierarchically ranked is reflected not only in the individual residence. As Diehl points out. and social structures of all types. not only had the size of settlements increased. Efe and Fidan 2006. but the number of settlements had as well (Matthews 2007. suggesting the importation of either the objects. Concomitant with these changes in settlement size. and mainly in the second half of the third millennium. It is the advent of increasing social inequality. and ideology” (2000: 25). the power of place The study of architecure itself (form. that may be at the very heart of residential adjustments in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: at greatest risk are the basic bonds of trust. metal objects in the west are stylistically nearly identical to those found in Cilicia (Efe 2003. function) is an important factor in societal interpretation. and elsewhere (Efe 2002. developing into regional centers. has been achieved: it was during the Early Bronze Age. economic. One important development is the dramatic increase in metallurgical technology and the use of. 2007a. population density. of course. Kolb’s (1996) brief review of the Anatolian house. It is also reasonable to suggest. western Anatolian goods (including ceramic types) are found in Cilicia at this time as well (Mellink 1989). economy. Özgüç 1986).

This location affords high visibility for the resident and makes it possible for him or her to be cognizant of every visitor’s business. and perhaps as the community shifted from “natural” to “imagined. even with their newly emerging status. and political change became more intense. The high-ranking resident who first encounters an outsider may be the one most likely to “receive” the gift. or been encouraged (by village members). In these earliest stages of social change. social interaction). Emerson and Pauketat 2002. or. to live at or near the gate––to 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. these would seem to be some of the logical reasons why a new village leader might choose. and the luxury of reliance on village insiders based on foundations of trust and long-term relationships. heterarchical relationships. Such perceptions may extend to those living in nearby communities with whom trade and other economic relationships began to develop. especially if it involves items for trade. however. 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 . While speculative. to maintain or gain positions of social rank within a settlement. the village leader(s). Factors such as trust and reliance on one another. Avoiding the Outsiders: Residences Located Away from the Gate As site size. which features these wealth and political stratification processes. and the settlement expanded in both size and population. and socioeconomic and political complexity increase. socioeconomic and political structure began to transition into one reflecting individualized wealth and/ or power differentiation among community members. to live by the gate. the bringing of gifts. The “by the gate” choice seems to be a short-lived settlement pattern that occurred when a previously egalitarian. kinship ties and cooperative liaisons based on generations of negotiated relationships (Boehm 1999.g. territorial issues.” elites and leaders made far different residential choices. With little to fear from outsiders. Feinman 2000. village members can be described as living in a “natural” community (as discussed above. political. the need for inter-community negotiations (marriage. to more guarded locales. or staunchly heterarchical. This settlement scenario. 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. and socioeconomic and political hierarchical structures more firmly differentiated social groups. Isbell 2000) in which generations of behavior continued to be reproduced. Social behavioral codes based on trust. market issues or disputes. there is greater risk involved in exerting that control. and cooperative endeavors continued to endure. exchange.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 15 the less he or she has to fear from them. economic. who may also have engaged in competitive leadership activities (against fellow community members). the main gates). crucial components in a village bound in mutual cooperation for the successful flourishing of all its members. 2001). Chesson 2003. Crumley 1995. When a settlement moves toward hierarchy and more direct control over the economy and other important community activities (e. high-visibility placement at the main gate. or even be encouraged by the community. most likely. would still be at the root of social relationships in the earliest stages of social.). maintained the same social ties with village members as their grandparents had. a community retains heterarchical structures embedded with. appears to extend only through a few generations. or establish the basis for any inter-community negotiations. Herein lies the need by a leader. In the early stages of social change. the manifestation of individualized social power may not correlate with overt expressions of dominance and representations of hierarchical markers. ideologies of social and kin-based bonds between village members in a “natural” community would persist. etc. population. That affords such a resident considerable power and control over fellow community members. New leaders in these villages may have chosen. ritual. In such settings. 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. make the best trades. and the potential for rancor between leader and village residents increases. a leader might not have had any qualms about living in a home located front and center at the main gate. As time wore on.. indeed. 2001. rather. and economic change. to take steps to ensure certain levels of security and protection. as social. One archaeologically evident illustration of these changes may be the relocation of residences belonging to high-ranking community members away from the easily accessible. or outside.

however. thereby maintaining privacy. Renfrew 2008)..16 SHARON R. Hayden 1995. This can be accomplished through physical barriers such as the palisade that surrounded the house at Karataş. STEADMAN BASOR 363 might be a noisy and even odiferous place. Lawrence and Low 1990. while simultaneously impressing visitors with the difficulty of gaining access to a leader’s home.. were sure to make a strong impression. or access by a complicated entryway such as may have been the case at Kültepe. As fear of raiding or attack (whether retaliatory or unprovoked) and the need for substantial defensive architecture become more commonplace. Rapoport 1982. combined with other indicators of wealth such as size. Power relations among settlement members shift . surrounded by tall walls with impressive (and locked) gates. Steadman 2000). the elites—may not wish to function as the first line of defense just inside the gate. that factor. such as venues for ritual activity. may also be accompanied by a motivation to impress visitors with a grand but difficult-to-access residence. Dealing with Insiders: The Erosion of Trust While “fear of outsiders. it is suggested here that there is an additional concern that ensures that relocation: “fear of insiders. highlighting the importance of the resident who has ultimate authority over “who gets in. and particularly that belonging to the highest-ranking resident. Pollock 2003). 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. Boundary controls limit who may attend the feasts and who has access to the storage of surplus (communityprovided?) goods.” If residents of elite houses also control access to important public areas. placement on a platform requiring a (gated?) stairway (perhaps the case at Troy II). due to the perception that finer goods are to be found in such homes. and accoutrements. Such differences set the elite homes apart as “more important” (i. but also the desire to be careful about revealing “how much I’ve got to lose” while simultaneously needing to amaze curious outsiders. A second. Robb 1999). Boone 2000. Furthermore. “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. may simply reflect a rational and logical desire for protection and defense. this can also serve as a means of demonstrating sociopolitical power (Potter 2000). locating one’s 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. Fisher 2006. As a society grows in size and complexity. Portnoy 1981. There is no lack of research equating increased levels of privacy with growing socioeconomic and political complexity (e. A second incentive for relocation has two seemingly contradictory but actually intertwined motives: the structured control of outsiders’ access to the residence. Aslan 2006. Earle 2000.” Drawing on Foucault. Dietler 1996. the repositioning of elite houses. 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). by both their residents and those from outside.g. Elite residences may also be viewed.e. barring entry to all but those specifically allowed access. 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. Helwing 2003. visitors to that town most likely noticed the disparity between access to “regular” homes on the street and those belonging to elite residents. 1996. One need only think of the finest mansions in American or European cities. harder to gain access to). 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. an unfit location for a community VIP. to locations with greater boundary control within an expanding town. coupled with a desire for privacy. Therefore. Privacy concerns. and fear of them. as prime targets. and perhaps quite straightforward answer is a need for security.” along with the other factors described above. those who feel they have the most to lose—that is. the need for defense (or for aggressive expansion) becomes greater (Carniero 1970. which also features more “strangers” arriving for trade purposes. decoration. is probably more than sufficient to induce higher-ranking residents to locate residences in less public places. This last refers both to the need to protect against attack by hostile forces. 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. The more remote.

especially in an effort to gain access to exotic goods (Diehl 2000. Meher 2000. for instance. Carneiro 2002). Helms 1992). as yet. If. to suggest that in the first stages of the Bronze Age—at. control of that surplus. As social forces on the Anatolian plateau transformed societal structures in the later third millennium. the larger and more populous Anatolian settlements had become regional centers by the second half of the third millennium. . however. . If events such as the hosting of feasts are subsidized by the stockpiled surplus goods obtained through tribute or donated by community members. neighbors became resentful. A third possibility is that as the control over socioeconomic concerns increased.e. and the conclusions reached here are speculative but suggestive. As stratification occurs within societal structures. or Demircihöyük—settlements could be described as “autonomous” in that governance. also comes into play as a stress factor that may express itself in residential location and setting. 2008). was limited to the community itself. These behavioral patterns may have been manifest in prehistoric central Anatolian communities. Roscoe 2000). an erosion of trust and a lessening of elite reliance on coresidents may slowly permeate the community. conclusion As noted at the outset of this study. kinship is probably the primary social relationship. socioeconomic intensification strategies also often deepen (Ames 2008. and the need to protect it once secured. As stratification and ranking increase. other types of relationships begin to supersede kin ties (Berreman 1981. Alternatively.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. societal position is based more on achievement than on the thread of family relationships.g. outsiders). It is perhaps possible. eventually becoming the norm not only in Anatolia. “households and communities are formed at the level of human interaction: person to person. Feinman 1995. Reliance on neighbors. may have become more risky as those neighbors sought higher-ranking social positioning in competition with established elites/leaders. Kuruçay. It is best to avoid terms such as tribal “headman” and “chief” in reference to Anatolian settlements. as can more competitive practices between various (non-kin and kin-based) residents vying for higher-ranking positions within the community (Dietler 1996). as well as the glue that holds its members together” (Carneiro 2002: 45). and able to handle dealings with visitors (i. since data. This type of leader came by his or her position because the residents deemed that person to be trustworthy. as Çevik has advanced. kinship relationships were likely at the core of any social interaction (Arnold 1996. however it was structured. Peebles and Kus 1977. two goals were advanced: to determine whether any residential adjustments took place during periods of socioeconomic/ sociopolitical change in Anatolia. rational. who were close or more distant kin. As these processes intensify. Renfrew 2001. In this type of settlement. and verbal cajoling to influence village decisions (Ames 2008. a good spokesperson to negotiate internal settlement concerns. In all these cases. generosity. They may seek to regulate public events that are religious or secular in nature. Definitive results are seldom possible in archaeological studies. Johnson and Earle 1987) and social relationships become more impersonal. Cobb 2003. this would have had an impact on internal social structure within these settlements. understanding households and communities is essentially about understanding social relations and the power within and creating these relations” (2002: 52). but across the Near East and beyond. distancing oneself both socially and physically from these threats may have become quite desirable. Bentley and Maschner 2008. A leader or leaders may have used kinship relationships. Whether an autonomous village had individualized leadership (one member of a kin group) or a more corporate structure featuring sociopolitical heterarchy. neighbors may have expected higher-ranking kin to “share the wealth” as previous generations had done. Haas 2001)... even jealous or hostile to the control exerted by elites/leaders. do not permit us to define the exact nature of the political structures existing in the Early Bronze Age. Hacılar. and to attempt an explanation for why such modifications might have been deemed necessary. “the armature around which autonomous communities are organized. Those wishing to gain or maintain their elite status may endeavor to exert more control over external trade interactions. with at least a two-tiered settlement hierarchy (2007). As Kovacik has noted. . Kin and neighborly bonds become less important as social positioning practices begin to dominate (e. Feinman 2000. those neighbors perhaps wished to rely on elites for favors as their wealth and social position in the community increased— that is. so too did residential patterns change in small .

ed. 2006 Individual. Pp. W. Caskey. Pp. Bentley. STEADMAN BASOR 363 and medium-size (but expanding) settlements. D. Cambridge: Cambridge University. A. J. R. S. acknowledgments I thank Dr. E. Strategic Interaction. James Weinstein.. R. 1996 Organizational Transformations: Power and Labor among Complex Hunter-Gatherers and Other Intermediate Societies. J. G. and Maschner. A. the market was also located)—removed themselves and their homes to more secluded and protected positions within the interior of their settlements. G. and C. Bird.. Rawson. 1987 The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba Architectural Expression. Princeton: Princeton University. Robertson. R. Anderson. Baykal-Seeher. A. and C. and M. 133–39 in Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Arnold. 3–40 in Social Inequality: Comparative and Developmental Approaches. as well as more socio-emotional and ideological factors such as an erosion of trust and erasure of close bonds with co-residents. Chippendale. D. D. ed. C. U. D. ed. D. Ames. P. E. Bender. the main gate (where. C. E. 1992 Hassek Höyük. Tübingen: Wasmuth. J. Fernandez. Jennifer Ross who offered valuable comments on an early version of this manuscript. Vol. 1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. ed. Archaeological Series 9. Calgary: University of Calgary. New York: Academic. G. M. London: Verso. O’G. A. 1: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie. with far longer histories were established. G. Seibert. and Smith. J. Berreman. established over multiple generations of co-residential living. MD: AltaMira. Bentley. 1996 Demircihüyük: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. At that moment in Anatolian prehistory. Chippendale. Blanton. Pp. R. C. Vol. the “power of place” in Anatolian settlements. Sey. Upham. 380–94 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective. H. Arnold. S. J.18 SHARON R. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Maschner. and Community Space in Early Bronze Age Western Anatolia and the Nearby Islands. Blier. Y. Bentley. Cambridge: Cambridge University. once located at the most public of locations. Elites and leaders who had previously lived at one of the busiest nodes in the settlement—that is. R. who has offered unfailing support and encouragement through many years of collaboration.. Aslan. 59–73 in Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of Intermediate Societies. Household. ed. . references Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: From Prehistoric Ages to the End of the Bronze Age. 1990 The Dynamics of Non-Hierarchical Societies. shifted forever more to the most private. 1981 Social Inequality: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Maschner. were put asunder by relatively abrupt societal changes––the community transformed from “natural” to “imagined”––and new residential patterns. MD: AltaMira. E. 487–513 in Handbook of Archaeological Theories. often. H. R. 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. 2008 Complexity Theory. H. ed. G. M. 245–70 in Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Finally I would like to offer a sincere note of gratitude to Dr. Current Anthropology 46: 221–48. Berreman. Lanham. 247–63 in The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies. Zender. B. K. A. L. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. M. Pp. 2005 Signaling Theory. Vol. B. 1. and Symbolic Capital. Istanbuler Forschungen 38. This study was also significantly improved through advice and direction given by two anonymous reviewers on the penultimate manuscript. C. D. Lanham.. New York: Plenum. R. Pp. Pp. Blegen. 2008 The Archaeology of Rank. 2 vols. D. 4A: Die Kleinfunde. B. Acar. 1996 Behm-Blancke. 1950 Troy: General Introduction: The First and the Second Settlements.. Intrar-community behavioral codes. E. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. ed. E. Pp. Reasons for this residential repositioning may have been a mixture of practicalities: protective measures against the increased risk of hostile action by outside forces. and Sperling.

and the Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. V. Diehl. Carneiro. M. Price. 49–59 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective. P. Haas. Nice. S. 2006 Constructing Communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic. Crumley. Social Power. Costin. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16. W. B. eds. London: Routledge.. 8500–5500 Cal. M. R. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16: 79–102. 1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Pp. ed. Ehrenreich. New York: Cambridge University. C. M. J. Occasional Papers 27. W. Dovey. Archaeological Series 15. 34–52 in The Archaeology of Tribal Societies. C. J. ed. . 2010 Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. 1999 Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. D. 2000 The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. P.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 19 Boehm. 2000 Status Signaling. Antalya: Suna-İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü. I. Dietler. Southern Illinois University.. Canuto. 2001 Craft Production Systems. Pp. Boone. J. Six Thousand Years of the Burdur–Antalya Region. Pp. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. 1996b Kuruçay Höyük II: Results of the Excavations 1978–1988. Schiefenhövel. 2004 Bademağacı Kazıları 2002 ve 2003 Yılları Çalışma Raporu. ed. 2000 Some Thoughts on the Study of Hierarchies. 2011 The Prehistory of Asia Minor: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies. A. Houses. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. 2007 The Emergence of Different Social Systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Urbanisation versus Centralisation. Documenting. eds. Çevik. Neighborhoods and Corporate Villages: Modeling the Early Bronze Age as a House Society. ed. Southern Illinois University. and Explaining the Organization of Production. 11–29 in Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?. C. L. L. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 525–49. R. Trans. R. Trans. and Yaeger. W. London: Routledge. 1990 The Logic of Practice. Chesson. Levy. 273–327 in Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. 2004 Mersin-Yumuktepe: A Reappraisal. Bourdieu. Occasional Papers 27. Power and Status in Prehistoric Europe. Diehl. ed. Crumley. Wiessner and W. from French. Dipartimento di beni culturali) 12. Belleten 68: 519–60. 1996a The Neolithic Transition from Village to Town in the Lake District. 2004 Origins and Development of Urbanism: Archaeological Perspectives. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 105. Anatolian Studies 57: 131–40. 2001 Communication. Pp. R. and Lineage Survival. Cowgill. London: Routledge. Holism. Düring. Duru. Pp. Cui Bono?. bc. Feinman and T. S. G. 1–5 in Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. ed. Nice. Science 169: 733–38. Parkinson. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining. L. C. ed. A. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. M. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Settlements. DC: American Anthropological Association. J. M. and Sevin. 2002 The Tribal Village and Its Culture: An Evolutionary Stage in the History of Human Society. Washington. from French. Cobb. Providence: Berghahn. Stanford: Stanford University. ca. 84–110 in Hierarchies in Action. 19–33 in From Leaders to Rulers. 1999 Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. and J. M. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. G.. Pp. R. R. 2008 From 8000 bc to 2000 bc. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. 1996 Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy: Food.. Diehl. Caneva. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. 2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 63–84. 1970 A Theory of the Origins of the State. Y. L. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. Sey. ed. M. MA: Harvard University. Galatina: Congedo. Cambridge. K. Ö. 87–126 in Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. C. Pp. 2003 Households. W. Collana del Dipartimento (Università degli studi di Lecce. Pp.

2006 Pre-Middle Bronze Metal Objects from Inland Western Anatolia: A Typological and Chronological Evaluation. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28: 71–90. and Harmankaya. 1988 Değirmentepe (Malayta) Kurtarma Kazısı 1986. Özdoğan. 2002 The Interaction between Cultural/Political Entities and Metalworking in Western Anatolia during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26: 29–44. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30: 255–68. 2007 Bademağacı Kazıları. ed. and Fidan. 2003 Küllüoba and the Initial Stages of Urbanism in Western Anatolia. 1996 Early Bronze Age Urbanization in the Coastal Region of Western Anatolia. Erdoğu. 2002 Embodying Power and Resistance at Cahokia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 5: 129–51. M. Anatolian Studies 57: 47–64. ed. Feinman. 2009 Ritual Symbolism in the Early Chalcolithic Period of Central Anatolia. M. 49–65 in Anatolian Metal II.20 SHARON R. Calgary: University of Calgary. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 109. Schiffer. and Umurtak. 2007a The Theories of the “Great Caravan Route” between Cilicia and Troy: The Early Bronze Age III Period in Inland Western Anatolia. Sey. Sey. Ş.. Esin. J. Anatolia Antiqua 14: 15–43. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2007b Küllüoba 2005 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları. 2000 Archaeology. 1987 1985 Değirmentepe (Malayta-Imamlı Köyü) Kazısı. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. R. Pp. D. 2008 Bademağacı Kazıları. 60–70 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective. Fisher. 1. 2000 Power. H. Özdoğan. D. S. O’Donovan. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Price and G. Feinman. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28: 639–46. D. 2006 Messages in Stone: Constructing Sociopolitical Inequality in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. R. TUBA-AR 4: 43–78 (Turkish and English). M. Pp. Vol. Peker. STEADMAN BASOR 363 Duru. 2000 Corporate/Network: New Perspectives on Models of Political Action and the Puebloan Southwest. G. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes. ed. ed. Pp. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Pp. C. Fernandez. 147–69 in From Village to Cities: Early Villages in the Near East. Y. and H. ed. R. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Pp. 2003 Development in Fourth Millennium Public Architecture in the Malatya Plain: From Simple Tripartite to Complex and Bipartite Pattern. 1996–2000 Yılları Arasında Yapılan Kazı Çalışmalarının Genel Değerlendirmesi. Pp. 1996 Models of Urbanization in Eastern Anatolia. and N. Robertson. Yalçın. 31–51 in Social Theory in Archaeology. New York: Plenum.. Başgelen. Anatolica 34: 67–102. Pp. Faubion.. Erkanal. ed. Southern Illinois University. J. Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı. H. B. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 8/1: 95–138. ed. M. and N. M. Property. Pp. J. and M. C. Emerson. G. Foucault. M. ed. U. Hauptmann. 2006. Pp. T. 2009 Elmalı-Karataş V: The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karataş: Habitation Deposits. C. from French. T. Trans. E. 2009 Bademağacı Kazıları 2007 yılı çalışmaları. ed. and Ay-Efe. . and Prehistory. Doğan-Alparslan. ed. E. T. T. Pp. Y. Seibert. 70–82 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective. M. K. U. M. Frangipane. 2008 Complex Two in the Early Bronze II Upper Town of Küllüoba near Eskişehir. Zender. T. M. Başgelen. D. E. Earle. 2001 Mesoamerican Political Complexity: The Corporate–Network Dimension. Pp. ed. H.. 123–31 in Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Efe. Ü. ed. and Pauketat. M. Eslick. M. 2007 The Küllüoba Excavations and the Cultural/ Political Development of Western Anatolia before the Second Millennium bc. Vol. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 9: 79–126. 1. Hurley and others. 151–75 in From Leaders to Rulers. Efe. T. Alparslan. Haas. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College. New York: New. B. D. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. 265–82 in From Village to Cities: Early Villages in the Near East: Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin. Hauptmann. Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin. 105–25 in The Dynamics of Power.. 2005. Efe. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. T. 255–79 in Foundations of Social Inequality. 251–67 in Belkis Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. 2005 Küllüoba 2003 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 39–60. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 29: 187–96. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. 2001 Küllüoba: İç Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Bir İlk Tunç Çağı Kenti.

Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28: 111–24. New York: Oxford University. Stanford: Stanford University. M. African Studies Review 44: 1–25. 146–76 in Cultural Evolution and Political Centralization. ed. A. Arnold. Pp. 2000 What We Should Be Studying: The “Imagined Community” and the “Natural Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University. L. Urban. Hayden. A. Prussin. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30: 267–84.. M. 3–18 in From Leaders to Rulers. 361–75 in Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. J. E. M. Structure. Helwing. Jablonka. Pp. Pp. W. Archaeological Series 9. Hillier. ed. Maschner. New York: Plenum.2011 2007 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in Early Mesopotamia. London: Routledge. 2001 Haour. W. O’Donovan. Y. P. and Communities: Networks of Power. and Fırat. C. 157–74 in Resources. Korfmann. Paléorient 29/2: 63–85. Stratigraphie und Befunde. D. Gülçur. Price and G. Households.. A. 21 Fratkin. M.. G. 51–65 in The Dynamics of Power. Philip. 95–108 in Handbook of Archaeological Theories. and Rendille Cases. 1992 Long-Distance Contacts. W. Pp. Pp. Haas. 2002 Radical Agency. Occasional Papers The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies. Vol. S. M.” Pp. R. 1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. ed. A. T. Carter and G. 1996 Thresholds of Power in Emergent Complex Societies. Pp. O. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. R. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action. Bentley. World Archaeology 39: 151–76. Pp. DC: Smithsonian Institution. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Elite Aspirations. S. New York: Plenum. C. J. Berkeley: University of California. H. B. W. Kovacik. S. 2010 Exploring Social Organizational Aspects of the Ubaid Communities: A Case Study of Değirmentepe in Eastern Turkey. ed. 2005 Spatial Analysis of Güvercinkayası. and the Age of Discovery in Cosmological Context. Boran. McMahon. M. .. J. ed. 2001 East African Pastoralism in Transition: Maasai. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63. 1: Architektur. 717–33 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. J. B. Place and Gender. 1983 Demircihüyük: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. B. T. A. Cambridge: Cambridge University. ed. 2011 Troy in Regional and International Context. 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Y. and Çaylı. A. Hastorf. Steadman and G. ed. and Interregional Interaction. and Contradiction in Social Analysis. 2003 Feasts as a Social Dynamic in Prehistoric Western Asia—Three Case Studies from Syria and Anatolia. S. 150–69 in African Nomadic Architecture: Space. Kolb. 1984 The Social Logic of Space. A. Washington. World Archaeology 37: 552–65. 2008 Güvercinkayası 2007 Yılı Kazısı. Yaeger. ed. a Middle Chalcolithic Hilltop Settlement in Northwestern Cappadocia: A Preliminary Report. 1990 One Path to the Heights: Negotiating Political Inequality in the Sausa of Peru. 243–66 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. H. A. 2 vols. R. Garstang. Pp. Gülçur. ed. Chippendale. 2008 Agency. Sey. and Hanson. ed. Haas. 50–58 in Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of Intermediate Societies. A. 2005 Power and Permanence in Precolonial Africa: A Case Study from the Central Sahel. J. Helms. 2006 Güvercinkayası 2005 Yılı Kazısı ön Raporu. Canuto and J. J.. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. ed. and C. Schortman and P. Pp. Anatolia Antiqua 13: 41–52. P. F. Gurdil. Feinman. Johnson. S. Upham. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. A. Grum. 1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. 1995 Rendrille Habitation. ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. Gardner. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. E. Cambridge: Polity. Pp. 15–86 in Foundations of Social Inequality. Isbell. and Earle. J. D. 146–54 in Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective. Lanham. Giddens. Pp. 1996 The Role of Dwelling Houses in Larger Anatolian Settlements of Antiquity. and Kiper. Gülçur. Power. MD: AltaMira.

2003 An Early Chalcolithic Building from Köşk Höyük. 2011 Kültepe-Kaneš: A Second Millennium Trading Center on the Central Plateau. E. Emre. London: Routledge. 1989 Anatolian and Foreign Relations of Tarsus in the Early Bronze Age. Oxford: Clarendon. 139–52 in The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean. F. S. Marcus. Özgüç. American Journal of Archaeology 73: 319–31. McMahon. J. S. and Low. J. 16–43 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. 31–47 in Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Cultural Development: Essays in Honor of Machteld J. London: Routledge. T. New Series 6. Pauketat. Center and Cemetery. M. S. M. 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. Cadogan and J. 858–76 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. ed. ed. 2002 Köşk Höyük: Anadolu Arkeolojisine Yeni Katkılar. . ed. Canby. J. T. Mellink. ed. 44–57 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. The Community Plan as Institution in Cahokia’s Polity. 1970 Excavations at Hacılar. A. Peebles. A. Anatolian Studies 57: 35–45. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 641– 62. J. 1991 Some Political Aspects of Craft Specialization. J. Ojo. 1986 The Early Bronze Age in West Anatolia: Aegean and Asiatic Correlations. New York: Oxford University. M. New York: Oxford University. Krapf-Askari. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 23/2: 335–42. and Faydalı. Öztan. T. ed. Anatolian Studies 57: 25–34. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. 1998 Anatolia and the Bridge from East to West in the Early Bronze Age. Özbek. Mellink. L. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 379–86. 2000 Toward an Archaeology of Communities. Steadman and G. STEADMAN BASOR 363 30. J. 1990 The Built Environment and Spatial Form. R. Pp. M. M... Cincinnati Classical Studies. TÜBA-AR 1: 1–8 (Turkish and English). R. Pp. E. K. Pp. E. World Archaeology 23: 1–11. G. TÜBA-AR 5: 55–69 (Turkish and English). McMahon. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. B. E. Steadman and G. and Kus. 1012–30 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Yaeger. A.22 SHARON R. 1969 Excavations at Karataş-Semayük in Lycia. Ridgeway. Pp. Kulakoglu. Muhly. London: Routledge. Pp. Pp. 2002 Köşk Höyük 2000 Yılı Kazıları. Peregrine. Anatolia): A New Appraisal in View of Recent Discoveries. Yaeger. Mehrer. Pp. W. Canuto and J. G. C. Canuto and J. Faydalı. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. M. 2007 An Arena for Cultural Contact: Paphlagonia (North-Central Turkey) through Prehistory. 1982 Some Home Truths on Household Size and Wealth. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 15: 457–59. 1968. Leiden: Brill. M. ed. Mellaart. A. Southern Illinois University. Belleten 67/248: 45–75. L. M. American Antiquity 42: 421–48. Porada. S.c. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Yaeger. S. 2 vols. 2000 Politicization and Community in the PreColumbian Mississippi Valley. S. Öztan. 1969 Yoruba Towns and Cities: An Enquiry into the Nature of Urban Social Phenomena. 2000 Heterarchy and Hierarchy. 1994 The EB II–III Transition at Karataş–Semayük: Village. 1986 New Observations on the Relationship of Kültepe with Southeast Anatolia and North Syria during the Third Millennium b. ed. A. R. Ökse. Colloquium Anatolicum II: 69–86. P. Canuto and J. Caskey. Hrouda. and Öztan. V. S. B. 319–31 in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Tahsin Özgüç. R. Mellink... Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453–505. 231–42 in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Matthews. and Tamara Stech. M. and N. Özgüç. R. A. ed. A. 2011 Metals and Metallurgy. Lawrence. Özkan. D. M. Pp. 2009 Remodeled Human Skulls in Köşk Höyük (Neolithic Age. A. 2007 Ancient Mountain Routes Connecting Central Anatolia to the Upper Euphrates Region. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 9–10.. Netting. 1966 Yoruba Palaces: A Study of Afins of Yorubaland. 2003 A Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlement in Anatolia: Köşk Höyük. London: University of London.

1976 Sociocultural Aspects of Man-Environment Studies. ed. S. P. ed. Rapoport. Ross. 3–15 in Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. W. Journal of Archaeological Research 4: 51–93. Symbiosis and Growth among the Rendille and Samburu of Kenya. 2 pts. W. 2010 Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward. P. 2001 Commodification and Institution in Group-Oriented and Individualizing Societies. ed. 153–73 in Crossing Borders: Proceedings of the 7th. Pp. Athens 1997–1999. Southern Illinois University. 1998 Farming. Pp. Pp. Pp. P. M. Marcus and J. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. C. A.. Journal of Planning History 6: 3–47. 1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. 8th and 9th International Workshops. E. Oxford: Oxford University.. 2007 Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New Approach to Ancient Urban Planning. Roscoe. U. S. Potter. Sjöberg.2011 TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER 23 Pollock. and Changes in the Authority of Elders among Pastoral Rendille and Ariaal. ed. W. Power.-D. 1981 A Microarchaeological View of Human Settlement Space and Function. Robb. K. London: Equinox. S. Schoop. Funerals. London: Routledge. 93–117 in The Origin of Human Social Institutions. The Hague: Mouton. 9–20 in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. J. Seeher. Robb. J. Steadman. Rapoport. J. 7–35 in The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment: A CrossCultural Perspective. 1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24: 339–61. Pp. 2000 Costs. C. J. Vol. Gould and M. 295–316 in Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?. Schiffer. 17–38 in The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. Occasional Papers 27. ed. R. M. Renfrew. 1–10 in Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 13: 309–22. Benefits. L. 213–24 in Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. G. M. S. Occasional Papers 27. W. and Power: The Evolution of Political Hierarchy. C. Şahoğlu. Oxford: Clarendon. E. 2000 Spatial Patterning and Social Complexity on Prehistoric Near Eastern Tell Sites: Models for . and Fast Food in Early Mesopotamian States. Pp. 2004 Interregional Contacts around the Aegean during the Early Bronze Age: New Evidence from the İzmir Region. Occasional Papers 26. 2003 Feasts. 113–33 in Hierarchies in Action. B. ed. Proceedings of the British Academy 110. R. Sävedalen: Aström. A. Pp. New York: Academic. 3: Die Keramik. Southern Illinois University. Spencer. Sabloff. Cui Bono?. A. Kent. Bray. V. Sagona. C. R. and Social Differentiation in Small-Scale Societies. Anatolia 27: 97–120. 1999 Secret Agents: Culture. Smith. J. Pp. Gillis and B. T. McMahon. Diehl. 2008 Crossing Borders. J. Pp. The İzmir Region as a Bridge between the East and the West during the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 2008 The City through Time and Space: Transformations of Centrality. Economy. ed. and Zimansky. Runciman. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research. 2005 The Anatolian Trade Network and the İzmir Region during the Early Bronze Age. 1997 The Pastoral Continuum: The Marginalization of Tradition in East Africa. A. Steadman and J. Ross. A. R. and Steadman. ed. Pp. 2009 Ancient Turkey. Beverly Hills: Sage. 150–73 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. New York: Oxford University. 29–51 in The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World. S. Diehl. Smith. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations. Marketing. ed. and Social Reproduction. Oxford: Oxford University. ed. 1973 Nomads in Alliance. E. 1996 Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundations. 2011 The Chalcolithic on the Plateau. Southern Illinois University. S. Portnoy. M. 2000 Ritual. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. A. Typologies. ed. 1985 Demircihüyük: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. Pp. Steadman and G. ed. R.

. Pp. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. R. Stone. 2007 A Tale of Two Iokumenai: Variation in the Expansionary Dynamics of ʿUbaid and Uruk Mesopotamia. G. L. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College. 2010 Agency. Marcus and J. Yener. Pp. Wason. Steadman and G. ed. and Gorny. 2007 The Late Chalcolithic at Çadır Höyük in Central Anatolia. and Ross. G. Research in Economic Anthropology 14: 29–59. Los Angeles. Architecture. J. L. Stone. Ross. B. Warner. C. McMahon.c. Patrons. Los Angeles. Pp. 27–46 in Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward. C. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 164–99. STEADMAN BASOR 363 Mounds. Journal of Field Archaeology 32: 385–406. J. S. C. 229– 59 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. 2008 Excavations on the North-Central Plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Occupation at Çadır Höyük. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 2008 A Tale of Two Cities: Lowland Mesopotamia and Highland Anatolia. Leiden: Brill. C. A. 1994 The Archaeology of Rank. S. . Sante Fe: School for Advanced Research. J. University Museum Monograph 93. 1994 Elmalı-Karataş II: The Early Bronze Age Village of Karataş. Wailes. 2000 The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. C.. New York: Oxford University. 329–41 in Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. University of Pennsylvania. R. E. E. E. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.. R. J. Stone. 1996 Producers. and Özbal. ed. ed. ed. Steadman. University of California. G. K. ed.. and Blackman. S. Pp. McMahon. 2007 The Mesopotamian Urban Experience.. A. K. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 4. J.. 25–38 in Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. R. J. London: Equinox. University Museum Symposium Series 6. Gordon Childe. Pp. Stein. Anatolian Studies 58: 47–86. J. Stein. and Prestige: Craft Specialists and Emergent Elites in Mesopotamia from 5500–3100 b. 213– 34 in Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. M. Ross. G. University of California. 141–64 in The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World. Steadman. Stein. R. ed. R. and Archaeology: Prehistoric Settlements in Central Anatolia. S. G. Sabloff. 1993 The Organizational Context of Specialized Craft Production in Early Mesopotamian States.24 SHARON R. Pp.. Steadman and J. P. McMahon. 2011 The Early Bronze Age on the Plateau.