early bronze age foodways in the aegean: social archaeozoology on the eastern side

STUDIA TROICAMonographien 8

2016

STUDIA TROICAMonographien 8

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Herausgeber

Ernst Pernicka Charles Brian Rose

Peter Jablonka

Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Tübingen May 8–10, 2009

VERLAG DR. RUDOLF HABELT GMBHBONN

Ernst Pernicka, Sinan Ünlüsoy and Stephan W. E. Blum (eds.)

Early Bronze Age Troy: Chronology, Cultural Development and Interregional Contacts

In memoriamHans Günter Jansen

1929–2013

Undertaken with the assistance of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) – Philadelphia, USA

Gefördert mit Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

408 Seiten mit 28 Farb- und 189 Schwarzweißabbildungen

Herausgeber

Ernst Pernicka Sinan Ünlüsoy Stephan W. E. Blum

Layout, Satz

SCHWEIZER. Grafik | Layout | Buchdesign, Göppingen

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

© 2016 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, BonnISBN: 978-3-7749-3980-6

Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigung, Übersetzung, Mikroverfilmung und die Speicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Ernst PernickaPreface 9

Chronology and Stratigraphy

Mariana ThaterWhite Painted Pottery in Early Bronze Age Troy 13

Mariya IvanovaStratigraphy and Architecture of Troy I: the Excavations in »Schliemann’s Trench« 39

Peter PavúkDating of the Pinnacle in square E4/5, Dörpfeld Stratigraphy and Formation Processes at Troy 49

Peter JablonkaBeyond the Citadel: A Map of Greater Early Bronze Age Troy 61

Göksel Sazcı and Devrim Çalış SazcıThe Troy III Period in Light of Recent Excavations 75

Stephan W. E. BlumThe Final Stages of the Early Bronze Age at Troy: Cultural Development, Chronology, and Interregional Contacts 89

Cultural Development and Interregional Contacts

Barbara Horejs – Bernhard WeningerEarly Troy and its significance for the Early Bronze Age in Western Anatolia 123

Halime HüryılmazYenibademli and Troy: Reflection of Troy I Culture in the Light of Archaeological Findings and Cultural Identity of Yenibademli 147

Hayat Erkanal and Vasıf ŞahoğluLiman Tepe, an Early Bronze Age Trade Center in Western Anatolia: Recent Investigations 157

Vasıf ŞahoğluEarly Bronze Age Cemeteries at Bakla Tepe: Changing Patterns 167

Göksel SazcıThe Metal Finds of the 3rd Millennium in Troy and their Counterparts in the Early Bronze Age World 183

Eylem ÖzdoğanKanlıgeçit – an Anatolian Model of an Urban Center in Eastern Thrace: an Overview 197

Contents

Content

Lydia Berger – Walter GaussEarly Bronze Age Aegina Kolonna: A View from a Southwest Aegean Centre 209

Martin G. HristovDubene and its Probable Contacts with the Aegaeo-Anatolian Region 229

Krassimir P. LeshtakovTroy and Upper Thrace: What Happened in the EBA 3?(Interrelations Based on Pottery Evidence) 239

Emergence of Stratified Societies

John BintliffEarly Bronze Age Troy and the Emergence of Complex Societies in the Aegean 259

Özlem Çevik – Mehmet SağırThe Rise of the Elites on both Sides of the Aegean Sea 267

Thomas ZimmermannEarly Bronze Age Elites: A fresh look at some old and new evidence from West and Central Anatolia 277

Economy and Trade

Canan ÇakırlarEarly Bronze Age Foodways in the Aegean: Social Archaeozoology on the Eastern Side 291

Diane Thumm-DoğrayanStorage Strategies in Early Bronze Age Troy 305

Simone Riehl and Elena Marinova

The Interplay of Environmental Change, Socio-political Stress and Human Resilience at Early to Middle Bronze Age Troy 319

Production and Distribution of Raw Materials and Craft Specialization

Christoph BachhuberThe Industry and Display of Textiles in Early Bronze Age Western Anatolia 339

Neyir Kolankaya-BostancıNew Interpretations of Early Bronze Age Obsidian Procurement and Distribution in Western Anatolia 365

Ivan Gatsov – Petranka NedelchevaEarly Bronze Age Lithic Assemblages from Troia 375

Maria GurovaTroy I–V Chipped Stone Assemblages: Functional Connotations 379

Sinan ÜnlüsoyTroy and the Aegean During the Third Millenium BC 397

8

Preface

Ernst Pernicka

Troy has been of outstanding importance for EBAarchaeology ever since the discovery and excavationof the site by Heinrich Schliemann. Partly due to thepaucity of archaeological research on EBA Anatolia,Troy has long been considered as the only key sitefor Western Anatolia and the Northern Aegean.However, as a result of recent excavations at othercontemporary sites (e. g., Liman Tepe, Yenibademli,Küllüoba), it has become clear that Troy was not theonly significant EBA settlement in this region andthat its position as a key site is due for a re-exami-nation. To explore the similarities and diversities ofEarly Bronze Age cultures across the Northern-Aegean and Western Anatolia, an international con-ference entitled »Early Bronze Age Troy: Chronol-ogy, Cultural Development and Interregional Con-tacts« was held in early May 2009 at the Universityof Tübingen. Besides the general aspects of chronol-ogy and stratigraphy, it addressed themes such as theemergence of stratified societies, concepts of EBAeconomy and trade, production and distribution ofraw materials and craft specialization with specialreference to Troy itself.

After the untimely death of Manfred Korfmannwho directed the new series of excavations until2005 I was asked by the university to resume the re-sponsibility for the research at Troy. This was not aneasy task although I was associated with the projectfrom the beginning in 1988, but rather from the out-side and more as an adviser than a true member ofthe team. I gratefully acknowledge the help of manycolleagues to get a grip of this enormous task butHans Günter Jansen in particular formed a solidrock for me whose advice was always welcome andimportant on which I could rely on in every aspect.Hans Günter served as director of the Troy Founda-tion at the University of Tübingen and accompaniedour research with deep knowledge and sympathyand, last not least, with outstanding generosity. It isfor this reason the editors as members of the exca-vation team dedicated this volume to his memory.

After a successful career as physicist in an interna-tional computer company Hans Günter Jansenbegan a new one in the field of applied physics in ar-chaeology. He took this very serious and indeedbegan formal studies of prehistoric archaeology atthe University of Tübingen in 1984 where he alsomet Manfred Korfmann. When the new excavationproject as one of the major goals of the research wasthe Lower City of Troy, whose existence was sus-pected since Heinrich Schliemann but was never re-ally confirmed in the field. It was Jansen who sug-gested a large-scale geophysical prospection of thearea south of the citadel of Troy and immediatelybegan himself with this enormous task in view ofthe instrumentation then available. In the years be-tween 1988 and 2001 an area of around 50 hectareswas surveyed by Jansen himself and other specialistin physical prospection. As a result it was possibleto outline the »city plan« with an orthogonal streetsystem with insulae of the Hellenistic and Romanperiods (Troy VIII and IX) together with the west-ern Hellenistic city wall over a length of 400 m. Butthe most important discovery was the outline of theLate Bronze Age (Troy VI and VIIa) Lower City,which is represented not by a wall as originally as-sumed but by a ditch of 4 m width that extends overa length of more than one kilometer as has later beenshown by excavations.

Besides his scientific achievements in archaeol-ogy, not only in Troy, Hans Günter Jansen was an in-dispensable member of the Troy team in a time whencomputers began to be applied at a regular and largescale also in archaeology. Here he could combine theknowledge of his two professional careers by creat-ing a homepage of the project for the internet andimproving its public visibility in every respect.

Finally, as managing director of the Troy Foun-dation he used his wide-ranging contacts to findsupporters and donators and actually made consid-erably donations himself. He continued to partici-pate in the excavation campaigns every summer and

Preface

was highly respected as archaeologist and geophysi-cist. He was awarded the honors medal of the Uni-versity of Tübingen and in 2002 also the Bundesver-dienstkreuz, an order of the Federal Republic ofGermany. He remained interested in the progress ofresearch at Troy until the last field campaign in 2012.He died on 25 February, 2013. We will remember

him as a warm-hearted friend and knowledgeablecolleague.

Finally, we want to express our gratitude to theDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for long-term support of the Troy project and the Institutefor Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) for financial sup-port for the publication of this volume.

10

Tübingen, March 2016

Abstract

Foodways are fundamental to cultural identities, making their analysis an essential component of anthropological investi-gations of past and present societies. In this paper I discuss the approaches to foodways research in Aegean archaeology,with particular reference to the contribution of archaeozoological studies to the anthropological debate around Early BronzeAge cultures in Northwestern Anatolia. First I provide a brief overview of past archaeozoological research in EBA Troia andits neighbors, and then I set to discuss the present archaeozoological data from and around Troia, with special emphasis onthe role of deer consumption in ritual. I conclude that neither the methods nor the approaches currently employed in main-stream archaeobiology in the eastern Aegean are completely satisfactory to achieve an anthropological understanding offoofways in EBA Troia and its neighbors. Finally I discuss possible directions for future research in this field.

Early Bronze Age Foodways in the Aegean:Social Archaeozoology on the Eastern Side

Canan Çakırlar

Introduction

One of the fundamentally defining components ofcultural groups and realms is foodways: procure-ment of food, processing, storage, consumption, ex-change, and refuse. In anthropology, foodways oftenfunction as a lens to analyze broader social and cul-tural patterns and processes (Gumerman 1997). Onthe other hand, foodways are always at least in partdetermined by ecological relationships. Because aclear dichotomy does not exist between the culturaland ecological aspects of obtaining and consumingfood, isolating the cultural factors in foodways be-comes particularly challenging. In prehistoric ar-chaeology, archaeobiological proxy data constitutethe primary source for the inferences about food-ways. How Aegean prehistoric archaeology dealswith the challenges of extracting the socio-culturalfrom the archaeobiological data, with special refe-rence to the contribution of archaeozoological stu-dies to anthropological debate around the EarlyBronze Age cultures in Northwestern Anatolia, isthe topic of this paper.

Archaeobiological investigations dealing withAegean prehistory are (a few exceptions aside) con-

ducted with the aim of reconstructing the environ-ment and the subsistence economy of individualsettlements, emphasizing the implications of analy-tical results in terms of human groups‹ adaptationsto their surrounding environment. In a sense, thisapproach implicitly applies the optimal foragingmodel of subsistence. While this approach is scien-tifically valid, it has not proved entirely satisfactoryin addressing anthropological questions of signifi-cance concerning the prehistoric cultures of the Ae-gean. The search for anthropological signatures infood remains requires the application of methodsand more importantly theoretical approaches addi-tional to those often employed in the archaeology ofthe prehistoric Aegean, also of the Early Bronze Age,a period representing a turning point for complexsocieties that has populated the region. Achievingthis shift towards an anthropological archaeology offoodways, however, is not at all solely up to the ›spe-cialist‹ who studies food remains. Achieving such ashift will have to involve a team effort in buildingnew hypotheses and testing them with appropriatemethodology.

The rise and role of the elite, emerging group affi-liations, dynamics of horizontal and vertical social

292

processes, cross-regional cultural contact and ex-change, center and periphery, and the role of tech-nological developments in shaping complex socie-ties make up some of the most important issues con-cerning the EBA in Aegean archaeology (see otherpapers, this volume). Attempts to tackle these issuesusing archaeobiological data are rare and are almostexclusively initiated by colleagues working in regi-ons falling within the boundaries of present dayGreece (e. g. Vaughan and Coulson 1999; Halsteadand Barrett 2004; Hamilakis 2003; Isaakidou 2007.For a recent imperfect attempt from northwest Ana-tolia, see Gündem in Efe and Fidan 2008). This is re-grettably the case despite the fact that anthropolo-gically informed hypotheses have been repeatedlytested by archaeobiological studies of complex so-cieties in other regions with success and considera-ble influence. In the pre- and proto-historic archae-ology of southwest Asia, Zeder investigated theurban dynamics of 3rd millennium cities in Iran(1991); Stein et al. (1996) and Bigelow (1999) wereable to see the differences between the foodways ofthe Uruk colonizers and the local population atHacınebi using archaeozoological methodology;Kansa et al. (2002) reflected on Egyptian cultural in-fluences on Early Bronze Age Palestine againthrough the lens of food remains (for comments onworldwide examples, see Crabtree 1990; Gumerman1997 among others). So, while Pullen’s (1992) claimthat the important role subsistence systems playedin the overall cultural system has been recognizedsince the publication of Renfrew’s Emergence of Ci-vilization (1972) might be true in theory, in practice,published studies do not seem to verify this claim, atleast not on the eastern side of the Aegean.

What kind of methodological and theoreticalprocesses led to this state of research? Are there anydormant data out there which we can pull out andawaken for our anthropological purposes? What dowe really know about animal-based food in EBAWestern Anatolia? What are some future methodo-logical directions and theoretical possibilities, if wewant to expand the anthropological capacity of ar-chaeobiological studies of EBA Western Anatolia? Inorder to answer these questions, in the followingsections of this paper I will first present a brief outlineof the history of archaeozoological research as practi-ced in the region. I will proceed with a broad sum-

mary of what we actually know about foodways inEBA Aegean, with special references to Troia, Yeni -bademli and Ulucak, which together represent awide array of environments that allowed the deve-lopment of a variety of subsistence systems, i. e. thecoastal zone, the island zone, and the hinterland ofthe Eastern Aegean. I will then conclude my paperby putting forward some suggestions on possible fu-ture directions in the study of EBA Aegean culturesby way of integrating the evidence on foodways, asopposed to neglecting it as it has mostly been thecase so far.

A brief history of archaeozoology in the region

Looking back at the history of archaeozoological re-search in the geography surrounding Troia, threemain stages can be identified:

During the early stage, when archaeology was stillin its infancy as a discipline, the sampling of organicmaterial took place, if at all, only arbitrarily. Organicremains were studied by ›naturalists‹. Virchow wasSchliemann’s ›naturalist‹, who, together with vonMartens, approached the bone and shell remainsfrom the Troad with knowledge and interest advan-ced well beyond their moment (von Martens 1879;Virchow 1881). These works resulted in incompletespecies lists, but correctly identified basic subsis-tence activities such as shellfish gathering and ani-mal husbandry. After the turn of the century, the pa-radigm shifted towards an emphasis on the historyof domestication and thereby on the remains of do-mestic animals. One of the pioneers was Gejvall,whose work (1938) was largely hampered, on theone hand by relatively more extensive but still veryselective sampling excavation strategies, and on theother a general lack of archaeological research ques-tions as a starting point.

After some hiatus, the field was powerfully do-minated by the Munich School (Institute for the His-tory of Veterinary Science and Domestication, Uni-versity of Munich) from the 1970s well through1990s. The scientific duo Boessneck and von denDriesch set the standard for the discipline of ar-chaeozoology with their widely known detailed fau-

Canan Çakırlar

293

nal reports on material from an incredibly large geo-graphy and covering all time periods spanning thehistory of domestication, including northwesternAnatolian sites such as EBA Beşik-Yassıtepe (vonden Driesch 1999), Sivritepe (Boessneck 1986), andEBA-MBA Demircihöyük (Rauh 1981). From atechnical point of view, the quality of studies produ-ced by the prolific Munich School has been indeedvery high, due to the proficiency of the veterinariananatomists in taxonomic identifications. MunichSchool archaeozoological monographs follow a for-mula: introduction to the site and the material, aquantified species list organized according to roughstratigraphic periods, presentation of the analyticalresults handling the species represented one by one,and concluding with a few general remarks on en-vironment and subsistence. Overloaded with rawdata presented in a way inaccessible to most ar-chaeologists, these monographs are indispensablyuseful for archaeozoologists but indecipherable fora wider audience.

As the Munich school dominated the archaeo-zoological paradigm in Europe, the Anglo-Saxontradition of archaeozoology was moving fast towardsusing osteological component of archaeozool ogymerely as a methodological ground to test anthro-pological hypotheses, sometimes at the expense ofbeing theory-laden and short in analytical sub-stance. Parallel to these developments, Uerpmann,while formally moving from veterinary science andosteoarchaeology to the discipline of prehistory, tur-ned the basic approach to archaeobiological researchinto a reconciliation of German and Anglo-Saxonapproaches aiming at reconstructions of past humanecology (Uerpmann 1973). For the region in ques-tion, Uerpmann became the first to handle archaeo-zoological data with a critical assessment of its rela-tionship with global palaeoclimatic fluctuations du-ring the Holocene (2003). Students and colleaguesexplored new scientific methodology to addressboth environmental and anthropological questionsconcerning Bronze Age Troia and its neighbors ineastern Aegean (e. g. Çakırlar 2009; Gündem 2010;Krönneck 1996; Uerpmann 2003; Uerpmann andvan Neer 2000). Still, from a great number of recentand ongoing EBA excavations on the eastern side ofthe Aegean, we have no archaeofaunal record (e. g.Limantepe, Iasos, Bakla Tepe, Tepecik etc.).

What we can gather from the research state of ar-chaeozoology in the Aegean and western Anatoliawithin a historical perspective, is then, firstly, thatboth the theoretical and methodological problemsbegin at the ›trowel’s edge‹ just like anywhere else;secondly, that there is an ever growing disparity bet-ween the approaches dominating the two sides ofthe Aegean and as a consequence between the bo-dies of knowledge available; and finally, that there isa general deficiency of anthropologically mindedproblem-oriented research in archaeozoology of theBronze Age Aegean.

What do we really know about EBA foodwayson the eastern side of the Aegean?

Let us now return to what we have learnt from thevaluable archaeozoological information that has ac-cumulated so far on the eastern side of the Aegean.

Societies of the EBA Aegean were involved withanimal husbandry, hunting medium and large sizegame including birds, fishing and shellfish gathe-ring. This was true for societies living on the main-land coasts, on the islands, and in the immediatehinterland. There is no evidence for the systematicexploitation of marine turtles or sea mammals.

Although animal husbandry undoubtedly madeup the most important sector of the animal-basedsubsistence economy, the primary production goalsof EBA herding systems of northwestern and wes-tern Anatolia have not been established very clearly(Gündem 2010; Uerpmann H.-P. 2003; UerpmannM. 2006; von den Driesch 1999). Settlements withpublished archaeozoological information, Beşiktepe,Yenibademli, Ulucak, and Troia I–III, appear to havehad generalized husbandry strategies, raising cattle,sheep, goat, and pigs. Reconstructed demographicprofiles of farm animals in EBA Troia, Beşiktepe andYenibademli attest for a mixture of different pro-duction goals (although comparability of publishedarchaeozoological data is a problem here). So farthere are no archaeozoological assemblages repre-senting pastoralist specialization (i. e. no assembla-ges predominated by sheep or goat remains with aclear culling profile indicating that a single product– meat, dairy or wool – was targeted). This situationmay well be a reflection of the similarity between the

Early Bronze Age Foodways in the Aegean: Social Archaeozoology on the Eastern Side

294

sites’ locations: They are all located on or just abovefertile plains, close to freshwater sources; three ofthem, Troia, Yenibademli and Beşiktepe are locatedon the coast, while Ulucak displays close relations-hip with the coastal landscape or the coastal dwellers(Çakırlar 2010). The island settlement of Yeniba-demli mimics the mainland in terms of its generalisthusbandry practices (Gündem 2010). If specialistpastoralist communities did exist around Troia andif they were at all sedentary or semi-sedentary, theirarchaeological remains are yet to be uncovered, pro-bably towards the hilly inland.

In most EBA sites of the eastern Aegean, wherenot only Number of Identified Specimens (NIS) butalso Weight of Identified Specimens (WIS) are avai-lable, thereby permitting more accurate estimationsof relative meat yields from closely-related species,domestic cattle appear to have been the most im-portant meat provider throughout the Early BronzeAge at all four settlements (Fig. 1). As much as thissituation has environmental bases which might bediscussed at length, one may also consider its possi-ble social implications. Large livestock such as cattlerepresent significant »live capital«, consequently astatus symbol for individuals, classes or kin groups(see Russell 1998 for an archaeologically relevantdiscussion of various ethnographic cases). The car-cass is more likely to be shared among a larger sectorof the community than medium-sized stock such assheep, goat and pig, which can be consumed at ahousehold level. Cattle are therefore more likely tobecome subjects of redistribution beyond the hou-sehold and possibly of communal feasting events.Archaeozoological evidence for food sharing, intra-site redistribution and feasting may consist diffe-rential representation of carcass parts in differentdeposits, butchery marks demonstrating completedismantling, and in situ partial or complete carcas-ses with few butchery marks. From EBA Troia andits neighbors, such evidence is lacking.

The use of cattle for traction and plow in the EBAAegean, which must have had a tremendous effectnot only on animal husbandry practices but also onobtaining the plant side of the diet, as well as longdistance exchange, has been satisfactorily proven forthe southwestern part of the region (Pullen 1992; seealso Isaakidou 2006 for even earlier evidence from5 th millennium BC Knossos). Matching ample evi-

dence either in the osteoarchaeological record or inmaterial culture in its classical sense is lacking fromthe eastern side of the Aegean Sea. Survival of cattleinto older ages (3,5 to 6) in EBA Troia were shown asevidence for the use of cattle for draught, but patho-logical deformations on cattle extremities, much lessambiguous evidence for animals that have been sub-ject to traction overload (Bartosiewicz et al. 1997; deCupere et al. 2000), were not recorded (Gündem2010). Older individuals of cattle may have been keptas ›live capital‹ despite their high cost.

Hunting in the EBA Aegean targeted mainly deerand to a much lesser extent wild boar. Views on therole of hunting in farming societies are varied: somesee hunting as a backward subsistence strategy; ot-hers see it as a risk-buffering strategy; while mostregard it as an elite activity (for a fuller discussion,see Hamilakis 2003). Exploitation of wild animalsor conflict with them is one of the most commonthemes in post-Middle Bronze Age iconography, in-cluding Mycenaean artistic imagery. Precursor tra-ditions may have already been in function duringthe EBA, a period from which hunting imagery isvirtually absent.

The archaeozoological data from the regionpoint toward a sharp increase in hunting activities,especially targeting fallow deer, from the Neolithicto the EBA of the western Aegean (e. g. Bökönyi andJànossy 1986; Hamilakis 2003; Hubbard 1995; Yan-nouli and Trantalidou 1999 for a general discussionon the subject). Hubbard (1995) is of the opinionthat this change in the archaeofaunal record, sinceunaccompanied by any significant change in bota-nical proxy records, must indicate a shift in the sta-tus of the fallow deer herds from being wild duringthe Neolithic to »ranched« in the EBA. Archaeo-zoological evidence for managed and/or tamed fal-low deer populations in EBA Aegean, however, forexample healed fractures that indicate that the ani-mals were cared for and protected (Reitz and Wing2008: 311) or changing population demographicsindicating managed fallow deer herds, is yet to bedemonstrated.

When we look at the Turkish side, evidence isscantier, but slowly accumulating. Clear evidence foran increase in hunting activities starting in the LateChalcolithic and peaking during the EBA comesfrom two western Anatolian sites where stratigra-

Canan Çakırlar

295

phy allows diachronic perspectives. This trend ismost clear in Ulucak (Kemalpaşa Plain near İzmir),where fallow deer are rarely represented in the fau-nal assemblages from the Neolithic layers (ca. 7050BC to 5500 BC), regularly in the (Late) Chalcolithiclayers, and reach 27 % (of the four most importantmeat providers) in the EBA layers (Figure 1;Çakırlar unpublished; Gündem 2010). The fre-quency of fallow deer increases from the Late Chal-colithic to the EBA layers in Çukuriçi (near Ephe-sus) as well (Galik 2008 in Horejs; no percentagesavailable). Similarly, while the archaeological depo-sits from Sivritepe (5th millennium BC) do not implythat hunting played a significant role at this ›settle-ment‹ (Boessneck 1986), hunting, especially of fal-low deer seems to have played a more important rolein EBA Troia and Beşiktepe (Gündem 2010; von denDriesch 1999; Uerpmann 2003; Figure 1), but not assignificantly as it appears in Ulucak. There is at leastone other anomaly: fallow deer have higher propor-tions in 5th millennium Kumtepe (Phase A at the be-ginning of the settlement), for example, than theyhave in the 3rd millennium phase of the settlement(Kumtepe C) or in Troia I (Uerpmann 2003). At Ye-nibademli on Imbros, the proportion of fallow deerremains is high during the EBA, but we have as yetno information about the situation prior to the be-ginning of the EBA on the island.

What is the cause and significance of thesechanges in the archaeozoological record from the

Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods, into the EBA(according to Gündem 2010, and here as shown inFigure 1)? Most interpretations are based on opti-mal foraging grounds: Galik (2008 in Horejs) preli-minarily interprets the increase in fallow deer hun-ting at Çukuriçi as a sign of deforestation, but wit-hout support from palynological and anthracologi-cal data from Central-Western Anatolia. For theTroad, the Kumtepe ›anomaly‹ complicates thepicture; although an environmental deteriorationtheory would find support from other archaeobio-logical proxy-data (Riehl and Marinova 2008).

Gündem (2010) considers seven different causesfor the apparent increase in the proportion of fallowdeer remains from Troia I to Troia III (2010: 161),but discusses two of them in length: One is that theincrease in the proportion of fallow deer in the ar-chaeozoological record reflects EBA Trojans‹ re-sponse to ›difficult‹ conditions which, among other›catastrophic‹ effects, brought the fires at the end ofTroia II (2010: 217). The second is, according toGündem (2010: 218), a consequence of the first pos-sibility : When red meat is scarce during difficulttimes, fallow deer becomes important in the beliefsystem of the Trojans. Both suggestions are plausible,but neither has archaeological or archaeozoologicalproof. Gündem attempts to support his argumentabout the sacredness of fallow deer (2010: 219–222)using examples from the material culture of BronzeAge Anatolia and Troia. Although these artistic re-

Fig. 1: WIS ( = Weight of Identified Specimens) proportions of major domesticates and fallow deer in EBA Troia, Beşiktepe, Yeniba-demli, and Neolithic,Chalcolithic, and EBA Ulucak.


296

presentations indisputably depict deer, I wouldargue that Gündem’s contemporary examples, thespindle whorl from Troia III (Balfanz 1995, Fig. 30.1and 2) and the bronze stands from Alacahöyük(Akurgal and Hirmer 1961: 1and 4), depict red deer(Cervus elaphus), not fallow deer (Dama dama).Even if the spindle whorl depictions from Troia IIIwere of fallow deer, one motif on a spindle whorl isnot sufficient to argue that fallow deer were ›sacred‹to the EBA Trojaner. As Gündem himself admits,»there is no archaeological material, apart from thebone remains, [to suggest] that fallow deer wasbrought to the settlement for ceremonies during theMaritime Troy Culture or were possibly tamed forthese events.»(2010: 218–219). Archaeozoologicalresearch has shown that, although frequently en-countered characteristics (e. g. reoccurrence of but-chery marks on the neck area) of ›bone‹ assemblagesmay be representing ritual and therefore cultic acti-vities, unless they are placed in archaeological con-text (e. g. pits containing fallow deer bones under-neath floors of cultic buildings, burnt deposits of fal-low deer heads etc.), they do not constitute sustai-nable evidence for ritual activity (Reitz and Wing2008: 285, Tab.8:1 and the references therein). Thisis why, for example, one cannot argue, even if thedeer depictions in the temple of Smyrna may need aBronze Age precursor, that the increase in fallowdeer in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages ofUlucak is related to cultic sacrifices.

Yenibademli Höyük, which represents an insu-lar society, may have had a fundamentally differentsocial and environmental experience than the so-cieties on the mainland even if contact was regular.The studied portion of the archaeozoological re-mains from Yenibademli showed no evidence forlarge carnivores that would form a threat to the is-land’s thriving fallow deer population. The EBA fal-low deer populations on the island may be remnantof that time when the island was connected to themainland via the Saros Peninsula during the LastGlacial Maximum. But that would only be possibleif fallow deer did manage to survive as relict popu-lations in Thrace at this time (for a discussion of thepresence of relict fallow deer in Early Holocenesouthwest Europe, see Becker 1998 and Yannouliand Trantalidou 1999). Whether the fallow deer po-pulations existed on the island prior to the Early

Bronze Age may soon be answered by new investi-gations in a Neolithic mound on the southern coastof the island (Burçin Erdoğdu, pers. comm.).

Finally I will have to argue that the present evi-dence from eastern Aegean is not fit to sustain anysuggestions of social/ritual nature about the role offallow deer. All in all, after 30 years of research, weare not that far from Rauh (1981:164) who noted,not completely justifiably, that the proportion of evi-dence for hunting in EBA settlements is so small thatit cannot be handled as a signature of social diffe-rentiation within the settlements. Not completelyjustifiably, because the primary problem with hand-ling this data from an anthropological perspectiveis rooted in its de-contextualized nature, not in itsquantity: Publications discuss neither where the re-mains of hunted animals were uncovered nor whet-her such horizontal stratigraphic data were tested tosee if any patterns reveal.

Fishing activities, like other subsistence activi-ties, embody social aspects. Like hunting, patternsin fishing activities may reflect status, technologyand trade. For fishing practices and the role of fis-hing in the Aegean only a synthesis of the entireBronze Age could be produced in Rose 1994, whichis now an outdated publication. Most importantthroughout the Bronze Age was inshore coastal fis-hing (Rose 1994). Locally important was the exploi-tation of large pelagic species (such as tuna), forexample at EBA Troia and Beşiktepe (Uerpmannand van Neer 2000, von den Driesch 1999). Whereavailable, lagoons became the main fishing grounds.In northern Greece lakes and rivers were also of im-portance (Becker 1986). In general, the evidence wehave from the fish remains is fit only to depict somevery broad conclusions about subsistence-environ-ment interactions in EBA Aegean, but especially itseastern part. In Troia for example, only 439 fish spe-cimens have been recovered and studied in a faunalsample of ca. 162 thousand specimens (Uerpmannand van Neer 2000). The poor state of evidence forfishing in Troia and other eastern Mediterraneansites is merely a reflection of inadequate samplingtechniques –proven and written several times (in-cluding Uerpmann and van Neer 2000, but most re-cently by Van Neer et al. in 2005). For example onlyfive fish bones were retrieved out of ca. 9000 verte-brate remains studied from Yenibademli (Çakırlar

Canan Çakırlar

297

2009, Gündem 2010). One would expect a muchhigher amount of fish bones to have been recoveredat a coastal site where animal bones are generallywell preserved and shellfish gathering was one of theprimary subsistence activities. Even in EBA Ulucakin the hinterland, 3 fish bones were recorded out ofa total of about 5000 studied specimens from theChalcolithic and Early Bronze Age layers; at least oneof them belonging to a marine species (Sparus au-rata, gilt-head sea bream- personal data), indicatingthat fish had a meaning beyond calories and wasgiven enough value to be transported over some dis-tance from the coast. Although it is well-known thattrade in fish and the practice of aquaculture werepart of the Bronze Age economic system of the Eas-tern Mediterranean (van Neer et al. 2005), for theEastern Aegean EBA we are ill-equipped even to ad-dress questions regarding diachronic patterns in thedietary role of fish, let alone to test hypotheses aboutspecialized fishermen or the role fish may haveplayed in belief systems.

Marine shellfish (mollusks) were consumed inlarge amounts in the coastal settlements of the EBAAegean, both on the islands and on mainland (Ça -kır lar 2009). Like fish, shellfish were also importedto the hinterland. While information on shellfishconsumption during the Neolithic period is largelylacking from the Turkish Aegean, data from the wes-tern Aegean, including Neolithic Hocaçeşme in Tur-key (Buitenhuis 1995), is abundant. The importanceof shellfish consumption appears to decline from theLate Neolithic to the EBA in the Troad, and furtherdecrease in mollusk remains is evident from theEBA to the end of occupation in Troia (Çakırlar2009). For the EBA of Troia, Yenibademli and Ulu-cak, lack of integrated excavation databases thatwould allow systematic contextual analysis stronglyhinders interpretive possibilities about the social di-mensions of shellfish gathering and consumption atthese settlements.

Bird remains have also been attested in the EBAsites excavated in the eastern Aegean. They are notabundant (Krönneck 1996; von den Driesch 1999),but appear in sufficient diversity and quantity to per-mit environmental reconstructions. Yet still, to allowfor a discussion about the social and dietary role ofbird hunting, current evidence is far from vigorous(see Krönneck 1996).

So far, it seems that the archaeozoological evidencefor the EBA Troia and its neighbors in the easternAegean is fragmented beyond the usual partial na-ture of archaeological and archaeozoological evi-dence, allowing only some general conclusionsabout the subsistence economies of the period. Is thearchaeological evidence truly not fit to address ques-tions of anthropological nature or »are we really try-ing?« as Butzer (1975) asked 35 years ago about theachievements of environmental sciences within ar-chaeology? Certainly, dietary decisions in societieswhose increasing complexity has been well attestedwere not solely based on nutritional pragmatisms.But at present it seems that archaeozoological evi-dence for cultural phenomena beyond subsistence,e. g. for ritual in the form of animal sacrifices andcostly signaling represented by feasting deposits, isnot visible in the Early Bronze Age contexts of theeastern Aegean.

Future Directions

So, if we are inclined to acknowledge that we are notlooking hard enough, what can we do to improve thissituation realistically; as scientists who want to un-derstand the social mechanisms of the EBA Aegeanand in order to reach that goal, who spend signifi-cant amounts of time, funds and brainpower to ex-cavate, sieve (although not often enough), wash,clean, transport, and analyze faunal remains? Oneof way of starting is to realize that archaeozoologicaldata can potentially offer more information thanspecies lists to contribute to investigations concer-ning foodways as part of social, economic, and cul-tural processes. Here I will briefly discuss the natureof archaeozoological information on food proces-sing, deposition of food refuse, and regional ex-change in livestock, with regard to the state of re-search in the eastern Aegean.

Common perceptions of cultural identifiers arenot only limited to what we eat (cf. species lists), butalso include how we eat –ways in which food is pro-cessed (e. g. national cuisines) and ways in which re-fuse is disposed (e. g. opinions about Medieval sani-tary habits and their relation to contagious diseases).Ample archaeozoological evidence about food pro-cessing commonly consists of butchery marks on


298

bone remains. Because the ways animals are but-chered largely vary among cultural groups, patternsrevealed through systematic analyses of butcherymarks constitute important evidence to detect cul-tural differences between contemporary societiesand changes that occur in this respect over time(e. g. Doll 2003; Ikram 1995). Butchery practices canalso be tightly regulated by central administrativeunits and may be formalized in accordance withrules of redistribution among the community ormay be conducted on a more ad hoc basis by indi-vidual households (Gumerman 1997; Zeder 1991).These are patterns which have a bearing on socialand economic organization within these communi-ties. Butchery marks are often noticed in Anatolianarchaeofaunas (this was how it was determined thatdogs constituted part of the food supply of both theEarly Bronze Age Lerna and Troia, Gejvall 1938 and1969; recently confirmed by Gündem 2010: 124),but rarely recorded in a systematic way that wouldbuild reproducible quantitative data.

Other than butchery marks, traces of burningmay indicate how carcasses were processed duringor after preparation, and may sometimes indicate ri-tual practices. The frequency of gnawing marks onbones and root etching marks can be useful in iden-tifying refuse patterns and in distinguishing betweenprimary and secondary refuse deposits, hence crea-ting firmer, more reliable contextual data as a basisfor investigations of horizontal social differentiation.

Short and long distance exchange is frequentlydiscussed as one of the most catalyzing mechanismsof the formation and development of the EBA cul-tural realm. Regional and inter-regional contact mayhave influenced foodways as well – and vice versa.Archaeozoology and related disciplines investigatethe routes of ›walking larder‹ (to use the title of anedited volume by C. Brock 1990). Osteomorphome-tric methods (i. e. methods used to reconstruct sizeand proportions of animal populations based on themetrics of their hard tissues) of archaeozoology haveproved to be one of the most useful tools in trackingthe dispersal of Neolithic way of life from its corearea towards Europe and western Mediterranean(e. g. Uerpmann 1979). Osteomorphometric inves-tigations can be used, not only to distinguish bet-ween smaller domestic and larger wild populations,but also to determine the appearance of domestic

populations. Osteomorphometrics has the potentialto identify different breeds of domestic animals,which began to be established at the beginning of 4th

millennium BC through controlled breeding. Thereare several examples in the literature which showhow archaeozoological investigations of domesticbreeds contribute to investigations of cultural con-tact, both in prehistorical and historical archaeolo-gical contexts (e. g. Davis 2008; Uerpmann andUerpmann 2008). In the archaeology of the Anato-lian Bronze Age, archaeozoological evidence for thedispersal and adoption of domestic breeds has beentackled before (Boessneck and von den Driesch 1975for EBA Korucutepe; Uerpmann 2001 for Chalcolit-hic Orman Fidanlığı and Kumtepe; Gündem 2010:211–214), but its discussion as part of cultural pa-ckages does not seem to be up and coming.

Merely the absence or presence of certain do-mestic animals may also have several cultural impli-cations, including contact or lack of it. Domestic hor-ses have received particular attention in the archae-ology of EBA Anatolia in this respect, but so far inthe closer and wider geographical area of Troia, do-mestic horses have only been attested in Kanlıgeçit(Kırklareli, Eastern Thrace) (Benecke 2009). This hasbeen rather puzzling because Kanlıgeçit’s cultural af-filiation with Anatolia, the expected origin of do-mestic horses at the site (Beneceke 2009), is well-at-tested (Özdoğan 1998).

The reason why the full potential of archaeozoo-logical data has not been realized in the eastern Ae-gean is largely a matter of supply and demand. Theburden of old excavations that swept through inva-luable archaeobiological remains is a problem wemust accept in the eastern Mediterranean. Thenthere are problems intrinsic to the nature of exca-vated deposits: most excavation units dating to theEarly Bronze Age represent post-primary deposits,due to disturbances through continuous buildingactivities that took place in multi-layered höyüktype settlements. These are factors that hamperfoodways research in the EBA Aegean, which wecannot control.

Lack of important data further arises from di-screpancies resulting from research design, from sitechoice to the addition of biomolecular methods foranalysis. For example, EBA sites that have been in-tensively investigated so far in the eastern Aegean

Canan Çakırlar

299

represent, more often than not, large settlementmounds on major crossroads located on naturaltrade routes. Satellites of these centers, which havelikely served as the supplier end of pastoral goods tothe larger centers in the EBA system of productioneconomies, are usually neglected.

In addition to mainstream osteoarcheaologicalanalysis, dietary, origin and mobility patterns re-vealed through stable isotopic analysis of humanskeletal remains may have implications about socialcomplexity among EBA communities. Althoughlarge prehistoric cemeteries (Kumtepe, Yortan, Ba-klatepe, Beşiktepe) have been uncovered in the eas-tern Aegean, there has been no attempts to investi-gate them with bimolecular methods. Micromor-phological analysis of (at least) floors and residueanalysis of pottery remains reveal important chemi-cal and physical data concerning the function of pla-ces and things, and can help answer food-related an-thropological questions.

Concluding remarks

The full potential of an integrated, multi-discipli-nary study of the role of animals in the prehistoricand historic societies of the Aegean, as well as thepotential of investigating foodways have by nomeans been realized. We do not live in an idealworld. While it is self-evident that not all the pu-blished archaeobiological data out there are repro-ducible, it also seems that the taphonomic biases thearchaeobiological material entails, including the me-thodological shortcomings of ongoing and recent

excavations, are mainly disregarded. Much attentionneeds to be given to the ethnoarchaeology of food.The ›generalist‹ archaeologist can ask more from the›specialist‹, but in order to do that, he/she also needsto provide more: active and intensive collaborationin research design, methods, and interpretation,data integration supported by no less than perfectcomputer databases, sustainable long-term projectsfueled by a continuous means of funding. Excava-tion methods that are currently in use are not fit toaddress questions relating to the social context offood. Differential recovery causes uncorrectable bia-ses in analytical results and interpretations.

The criticism I here pose of the practice of ar-chaeozoology in the Aegean, as practiced both by thearchaeologist and the archaeozoologist, has beenbrought by other colleagues – by Halstead in 1987and by Vaughan in 1999, to name only a couple. Itappears that stressing the need for well-planned re-search collaboration needs to be repeated at leastevery ten years or so, until we, those who are inte-rested in the anthropological archaeology of prehis-toric Aegean, get it right.

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to H.-P. and M. Uerpmann, my su-pervisors at Troia while I was a research trainee; toS. Ünlüsoy, S. Blum, and E. Pernicka, editors of thisvolume and our wonderful hosts in Tübingen; andto P. Halstead and D. Easton for comments and sug-gestions on the content and language of an earlierversion of this paper.


300

References Cited

Akurgal, E. and M. Hirmer. 1961Kunst der Hethiter. München, Hirmer Verlag.

Balfanz, K. 1995Bronzezeitliche Spinnwirtel aus Troia. Studia Troica 5: 117–144.

Bartosiewicz, L. W., Van Neer, and A. Lentacker. 1997Draught Cattle: Their Osteological Identification and History. Annales due Musee Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, SciencesZoologiques: Tervuren; 281.

Becker, C. 1986Kastanas: Die Tierknochenfunde. Berlin: Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess.

Becker, C. 1998New data on the distribution of Dama dama in Europe during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. In: H. Buitenhuis,L. Bartosiewicz und A.M. Choyke (eds.). Archaeozoology in the Near East III. Proceedings of the Third InternationalSymposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (ASWA):166–171. Groningen: ARC-Publicatie.

Benecke, N. 2009On the beginning of horse husbandry in the Southern Balkan peninsula –the horses from Kanlıgeçit, Kırklareli (Tur-kish Thrace). Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 12: 13–23.

Bigelow, L. 1999Zooarchaeological Investigations of Economic Organization and Ethnicity at Late Chalcolithic Hacinebi: a Prelimi-nary Report. Paléorient 25/1: 83–89.

Boessneck, J. 1986Weichtieresser vom Beşik-Sivritepe. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 329–338.

Boessneck, J. and A. Von den Driesch. 1975»Tierknochenfunde vom Korucutepe bei Elazig in Ostanatolien (Fundmaterial der Grabungen 1968 und 1969). In:M.N. van Loon (ed.), Korucutepe. Final report on the excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los An-geles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia 1968–1970, Vol. 1: 1–220. Studies in Ancient Civili-zation, Amsterdam & Oxford/New York: North-Holland/American Elsevier.

Bökönyi, S. and D., Jànossy. 1986Faunal remains. In: A.C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Lester (eds.). Excavations at Sitagroi 1: 63–132. Institute of Ar-chaeology, University of California. Monumenta Archaeologica 13.

Buitenhuis, H. 1995Chapter 9: the faunal remains. In: J. Roodenberd (ed.). The Ilıpınar Excavations 1: 151–156. Istanbul: Nederlands his-torisch-archaeologisch Institut.

Butzer, K.W. 1975The ecological approach to archaeology: are we really trying? American Antiquity 40/1: 106–111.

Çakırlar, C. 2009Mollusk shells in Troia, Yenibademli and Ulucak: An Archaeomalacological Approach to Environment and Eco-nomy in the Aegean. British Archaeological Reports, International Series no: 2051. Oxford: John and Erica HedgesPublishers.

Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.). 1990The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin and Hyman Pub.

Crabtree, P. J. 1990Zooarchaeology of complex societies: Some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status and ethnicity.In: M.B. Schiffer (ed.). Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2: 155–205. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Canan Çakırlar

301

Davis, S. 2008Zooarchaeological evidence for Moslem and Christian improvements of sheep and cattle in Portugal. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 35: 991–1010.

De Cupere, A. Lentacker, W. Van Neer, M. Waelkens, and L. Verslype. 2000Osteological evidence for draught exploitation of cattle: first applications of a new methodology. International Jour-nal of Osteoarchaeology 10: 254–267.

Doll, M. 2003Haustierhaltung und Schlachtsitten des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Eine Synthese aus archäozoologischen, bildlichenund schriftlichen Quellen Mitteleuropas.Internationale Archäologie, Band 78, Rahden/Westfalen.

Gejvall, N.-G. 1938The fauna of Troy: preliminary report, Kungliga Hujmanistika Vetenskapssamfundet Årsberättesle 1937–1938: 51–57.

Gejvall, N.-G. 1969Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid. Vol. I. The Fauna. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Gündem, C. Y. 2009Wild mammal spectrum in Troia and the Troas during the Maritime Troia Culture (2900–2200 BC). In: R. de Beau-clair, S. Münzel, and H. Napierala (eds.). Knochen pflastern Ihren Weg. Festschrift für Margarethe and Hans-PeterUerpmann. Bioarchaeologica 5: 93–101. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf Verlag.

Gündem, C. Y. 2010Animal Based Economy in Troia and the Troas During the Maritime Troia Culture (c. 3000–2200 BC) and a GeneralSummary for Western Anatolia. Dissertation available online at http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2010/4677/pdf/Diss_Guendem.pdf

Gumerman, IV G. 1997. Food and complex societies. Journal of Archaeological and Theory 4/2: 105–139.

Efe, T. and E. Fidan. 2008Complex II in the Early Bronze Age II Upper town of Küllüoba near Eskişehir. With an appendix on the faunal remainsby C.Y. Gündem. Anatolica 34: 67–102.

Horejs, B. 2008Erster Grabungsbericht zu den Kampagnen 2006 und 2007 am Çukuriçi Höyük bei Ephesos. With contributions byA. Galik and U. Thanheiser. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 77: 91–106.

Halstead, P. 1987Man and other animals in Later Greek Prehistory. The Annual of the British School at Athens 82: 71–83.

Halstead, P., and Barrett, J. C. (eds.). 2004Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece: 136–154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Hamilakis, Y. 1998Eating the dead: Mortuary feasting and the politics of memory in the Aegean Bronze Age societies. In Branigan, K.(ed.). Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age: 115–132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Hamilakis, Y. 2003The sacred geography of hunting: wild animals, social power and gender in early farming societies. In: E. Kotjabo-poulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti (eds.). Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances:239–247. London: British School at Athens.

Hubbard, R. N. L. B. 1995Fallow deer in prehistoric Greece, and the analogy between faunal spectra and pollen analyses. Antiquity: 527–38.

Ikram, S. 1995Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt, Peeters, Leuven.

Isaakidou V. 2006Ploughing with cows: Knossos and the secondary products revolution. In: D. Serjeantson and D. Field (eds.), Animalsin the Neolithic of Britain and Europe: 95–112. Oxford, Oxbow Books.


302

Isaakidou, V. 2007Cooking in the Labyrinth: Exploring ›cuisine‹ at Bronze Age Knossos. In C. Mee and J. Renard (eds.). Cooking Up thePast: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean: 5–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Kansa, E. C., S. Whitcher Kansa, and T. E. Levy. 2004Eat Like An Egyptian? – A Contextual Approach to an Early Bronze I »Egyptian Colony« in the Southern Levant. In:M. Maltby (ed.). Integrating Zooarchaeology: 76–91. 9 th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Krönneck, P. 1996Vogelknochen aus Troia: ein Beitrag zur Umweltrekonstruktion. Studia Troica 6: 229–238.

Özdoğan, M. 1998Recent Excavations in Eastern Thrace and Contact Between the Prehistoric Cultures of Anatolia and the Balkans, Tür-kiye Bilimler Akademisi- Arkeoloji Dergisi 1: 63–93.

Pullen, D. J. 1992Ox and plow in the Early Bronze Age Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 96: 45–54.

Rauh, H. 1981Knochenfunde von Säugetieren aus dem Demircihüyük (Nordwestanatolien). Ph.D. Dissertation. München, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat.

Reitz, E. and E. Wing. 2008Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renfrew, C. 1972The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. London.

Riehl, S. and E. Marinova. 2008Mid-Holocene vegetation change in the Troad (W Anatolia): man-made or natural? Vegetation History and Archaeo- botany 17: 297–312.

Rose, M. J. 1994With Line and Glittering Bronze Hook: Fishing in the Aegean Bronze Age. PhD dissertation, Indiana University,Indiana.

Russell, N. 1998Cattle as wealth in Neolithic Europe? Where is the beef? In: D. Bailey (ed.) The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Pres-tige and the Processes of Valuation: 42–53. British Archaeological Reports 730.

Stein, G. J., R. Bernbeck, C. Coursey, A. McMahon, N. F. Miller, A. Misir, J. Nicola, H. Pittman, S. Pollock, H. Wright.1996Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992–1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey.American Journal of Archaeology 100/2: 205–260.

Uerpmann, H.-P. 1973Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a critical study of »osteoarchaeological method«. World Archaeology4/3: 307–322.

Uerpmann, H.-P. 1979Probleme der Neolithisierung des Mittelmeerraums. Beihefte zum Tu¨ binger Atlas des vorderen Oriente, B 28. Wies-baden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Uerpmann, H.-P. 2001Remarks on faunal remains from the Chalcolithic site Orman Fidanlığı and Kes Kaya near Eskişehir in northwesternAnatolia. In: T. Efe (ed.). The Salvage Excavations at Orman Fidanlığı, A Chalcolithic Site in Inland NorthwesternAnatolia: 187–211. Istanbul: TASK Vakıf Yayınları.

Uerpmann, H.-P. 2003Environmental aspects of economic changes in Troia. In: G.A. Wagner, E. Pernicka, and H.-P. Uerpmann (eds.), Troiaand the Troad: Scientific Approaches: 251–262. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Canan Çakırlar

303

Uerpmann, H.-P. and M., Uerpmann. 2008Trading Mesopotamian Sheep to the Lower Gulf and Beyond? In: E. Olijdam and R.H. Spoor (eds.). Intercultural re-lations between South and Southwest Asia. Studies in commemoration of E.C.L. During Caspers (1934–1996): 72–77. Society for Arabian Studies Monographs No. 7. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1826. Oxford:Archaeopress.

Uerpmann, M. Uerpmann, M. 2006Von Adler bis Zahnbrassen – Der Beitrag der Archäozoologie zur Erforschung Troias.In: M.O. Korfmann (ed.), Ar-häologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz Philipp Zabern: 283–296.

Uerpmann, M. and W., Van Neer. 2000Fischreste aus den neuen Grabungen in Troia (1989–1999). Studia Troica 10: 145–179.

Vaughan, S. and W. Coulson (eds.). 1999Palaeodiet in the Aegean.Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Vaughan, S., 1999A review of palaeodietary research in the Aegean and introduction to the monograph. In: S. J. Vaughan and W. Coul-son (eds.). Palaeodiet in the Aegean: 1–9. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Van Neer, W., I. Zohar, and O. Lernau. 2005The emergence of fishing communities in the eastern Mediterranean region: a survey of evidence from pre- and pro-tohistoric periods. Paleorient 31/1: 131–157.

Virchow, R. 1881Fauna der Troas, in: Schliemann, Heinrich, Ilios: Stadt und Land der Trojaner. 130–135.Leipzig.

Von den Driesch, Angela. 1999Archäozoologische Untersuchungen an Tierknochen aus dem dritten und ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend vomBeşik- Yassıtepe, Westtürkei, Studia Troica 9: 439–474.

Von Martens, E. 1879Conchylien, welche Geh. Rath. Professor Virchow von Troas mitgebracht hat. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Na-turforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1879: 86–93.

Yannouli, E. and K., Trantalidou. 1999The fallow deer (Dama dama Linnaeus 1758): the archaeological presence and representation in Greece. In: N. Ben-ecke (ed.). The Holocene History of the European Vertebrate Fauna: Modern Aspects of Research: 274–81. Rahden:Marie Leidorf Verlag.

Zeder, M. A. 1991Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.


Studia Troica Monographien

Maureen A. Basedow Beşik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld. Studia Troica Monographien 1 (Mainz am Rhein 2000).

Donald F. Easton Schliemann’s Excavation at Troia 1870–1873. Studia Troica Monographien 2 (Mainz am Rhein 2002).

Peter PavúkTroia VI Früh und Mitte. Keramik, Stratigraphie, Chronologie. Studia Troica Monographien 3(Bonn 2014)

Stephan W. E. Blum Die ausgehende frühe und die beginnende mittlere Bronzezeit in Troia: Archäologische Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fundkomplexen der Perioden Troia IV und Troia V. Studia Troica Monographien 4 (Darmstadt 2012).

Ernst Pernicka/C. Brian Rose/Peter Jablonka (eds.)Troia 1988–2008: Grabungen und Forschungen I. Forschungsgeschichte, Methoden und Landschaft. Studia Troica Monographien 5 (Bonn 2014).

Ernst Pernicka/Stephan W. E. Blum/Mariana Thater (eds.) Troia 1987–2012: Grabungen und Forschungen II. Troia I bis Troia V. Studia Troica Monographien 6(in preparation).

ErnstPernicka/PeterJablonka/PeterPavúk/MagdaPieniążek-Sikora/DianeThumm-Doğrayan(Hrsg.)Troia 1987–2012: Grabungen und Forschungen III. Troia VI bis Troia VII. Studia Troica Monogra-phien 7 (in preparation).

Ernst Pernicka/Sinan Ünlüsoy/Stephan W. E. Blum (eds.) Early Bronze Age Troy: Chronology, Cultural Development, and Interregional Contacts. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Tübingen, May 8–10, 2009. Studia Troica Monographien 8 (Bonn 2016).

P. A. MountjoyTroy VI Middle, VI Late and VII. The Mycenean Pottery. Studia Troica Monographien 9(Bonn 2016).

early bronze age foodways in the aegean: social archaeozoology on the eastern side

Documents