These deductions on Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age religion, mainly based on Hellenistic
and Roman evidence, also make sense when projected against the settlement pattern of the
period.
Until recently, evidence for the pre-Hellenistic period in Pisidia was extremely scarce. While the
earliest periods, the Neolithic to the EBA, are rather well known due to excavations (e.g. at
Hacilar (Mellaart 1970), Kuruçay (Duru 1994, 1996), Höyücek (Duru 1995a, 1995b) and
Bademagaci (Duru 2001)) and surveys in the region (Özsait 2001), the ‘Dark Ages’, as the
period spanning the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age has been termed,
remained a blank in the knowledge of the region’s occupation history. The period has mainly
been summarized as one of decline, if not outright depopulation (Mellaart 1968, 188-189;
Mellaart 1971a, 407; Mellaart 1971b, 682; Macqueen 1996, 28).
However, recent surveys in the northern part of Pisidia, centred on the territory which the city of
Sagalassos controlled in Roman times, have convincingly shown that this scenario is outdated. In
2002 a ‘ceramological’ survey has been initiated in the territory of Sagalassos, during which
known sites were revisited. These sites had been discovered during earlier, non-intensive,
surveys in the city’s territory (cf. Waelkens 1995; Waelkens et al. 1997; Waelkens et al. 2000;
Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2003).
The aim of this survey was to try to find (ceramic) evidence for important gaps in the settlement
history of the area, being the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ and the post-Early Byzantine period. Sites
which were supposed to have been occupied during one of these periods, for instance because
they had yielded very early or very late architectural remains or because the characteristics of
their location were markedly different from those known in prehistory and classical times, but
for which no firm evidence was available, were intensively surveyed for unknown ceramic
fabrics which, as was hoped, could be attributed to these badly known periods. Especially pottery
that was previously considered undiagnostic was sampled.
This survey and the study of the fabrics of the pottery collected lead to the identification of 7
probable LBA sites, and of 5 new EIA sites beside the 8 that had already been identified during
earlier surveys (cf. Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2003).
The sites attributed to the LBA (Fig. ) exhibit a very similar location and layout. They are to be
found on strategic mountaintops, towering high above the surrounding valleys, as for instance at
Taskapi (Fig. ), and consist of an extensive area surrounded by impressive walls made of large,
dry-mortared fieldstones. No other architectural remains are noticeable, however. The walls of
one of these sites, namely at Taskapi show strong resemblances to the walls of LBA
Bademgedigi Höyük near Metropolis in Western Anatolia, excavated by Recep Meriç and to be
identified with the Hittite Puranda (Greaves & Helwing 2001, 506), and the pottery collected
from this site most probably dates to the LBA as well, as it is not found in association with any
of the firmly dated decorated EIA wares. This may suggest that not only this site but all sites of
this type, consisting of large walled area with no traces of architecture inside the perimeter,
possibly date to the LBA (Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2003).
In view of the fact that a) very few pottery was found; b) that no traces remain of internal
structures (although these may have been erected in wood and/or fieldstones) and c) considering
the very large area surrounded by walls, these sites most probably functioned as (temporary)
refuge centres for the surrounding countryside population. Of the latter, no archaeological traces
have been found yet.
These LBA fortified mountaintop centres were established at regular distances, hinting at some
kind of territorial organization. The social organization of these mountaintop-centred
communities can best be described as one of chiefdoms, communities generally characterized by
a strong sense of territoriality and inherent warfare (Johnson & Earle 1987, 195-196, 210-211,
245; Earle 1997, 121). While these communities must have been supported by agricultural and
pastoral activities, archaeological evidence of sites involved in the latter have as yet not come to
light. Most probably, only very systematic and intensive surveys will be able to achieve this. The
emergence of this completely new settlement configuration in the region can possibly be linked
to the immigration of Indo-European tribes and to the insecurity of the period (Vanhaverbeke &
Waelkens 2003).
The 2002 ceramological survey also led to a denser settlement pattern for the early EIA than was
previously assumed (Fig. ). However, sometime during this period the mountaintop centres were
being replaced by sites at more accessible locations, that were either unwalled or provided with a
system of concentric walls, the aim of which does not seem to have been primarily defence,
possibly an indication for somehow more stable political and military conditions. While on some
of these sites no evidence for social stratification has been observed, others clearly were the seats
of local rulers as for instance the site of Tepecik at Seydiköy (Fig. ), with several circuit walls
and one structure on top of the hill and that of Yarimada near Düver with a megaron and a rockcut tomb just west of the territory of Sagalassos (Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2003).
The social system behind the EIA sites with indications for social stratification can possibly be
identified with individualizing chiefdoms (Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2003). Individualizing
chiefdoms are societies where a marked disparity in personal possessions and in other material
indications of prestige appears to document a personal ranking. Group-oriented chiefdoms on the
other hand are societies where personal wealth in terms of valuable possessions is not
impressively documented, but where the solidarity of the social unit was expressed most
effectively in communal or group activities (such as the erection of fortification walls) (Renfrew
1974, 2001). While this latter social system seems to have been predominant in the mountaintop
centred communities of the LBA, individualizing chiefdoms may have been determinant in the
EIA.
The basic characteristics of both societies are, however, similar, since they can both be subsumed
under chiefdoms. These communities were generally characterized by a strong sense of
territoriality and an own identity. This seems to have been translated on the religious plane in the
close links of local weather/mountain gods with certain communities attested from the
Hellenistic period onwards. Chiefdoms are also charactertised by inherent warfare. The
importance of indigenous war-deities observed in later times may be a reflection of this aspect of
chiefdom communities. Finally, these communities must have been supported by agricultural and
pastoral production. It is in this sphere that the importance of the fertility-goddess can be placed
Duru, R.: 1994. Kuruçay Höyük, I: 1978-1988 Kazılarının sonuçları Neolitik ve erken Kalkolitik
çağı yerleşmeleri/Results of the Excavations 1978-1988. The Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic
Periods, Ankara.
Duru, R.: 1995a.
Duru, R.: 1995b.
Duru, R.: 1996. Kuruçay Höyük, II: 1978-1988 Kazılarının sonuçları Neolitik ve erken
Kalkolitik çağı yerleşmeleri/Results of the Excavations 1978-1988. The Neolithic and Early
Chalcolithic Periods, Ankara.
Duru, R.: 2001.
Earle, T.: 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power, Stanford.
Greaves, A.M. & B. Helwing: 2001. Archaeology in Turkey. The Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages,
in: American Journal of Archaeology 105, 463-511.
Johnson, A.W. & T. Earle: 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to
Agrarian State, Stanford.
Macqueen, J.L.: 1996. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor, New York.
Mellaart, J.: 1968. Anatolian trade with Europe and Anatolian geography and culture provinces
in the Late Bronze Age, in: Anatolian Studies 18, 187-202.
Mellaart, J.: 1970. Excavations at Hacılar, Edinburgh.
Mellaart, J.: 1971a. Anatolia c. 4000-2300 BC, in: Edwards, I.E.S., C.J. Gadd & N.G.L.
Hammond (eds.): The Early History of the Middle East (CAH I.2), 3rd ed., Cambridge, 363-340.
Mellaart, J.: 1971b. Anatolia, c. 2300-1750 BC, in: Edwards, I.E.S., C.J. Gadd & N.G.L.
Hammond (eds.): The Early History of the Middle East (CAH I.2), 3rd ed., Cambridge, 681-703.
Özsait, M.: 2001.
Renfrew, C.: 1974. Beyond a subsistence economy: The evolution of social organization in
prehistoric Europe, in: Moore, C. (ed.): Reconstructing Complex Societies (BASOR 20),
Cambridge (Mass.), 69-85.
Renfrew, C.: 2001. Commodification and institution in group-oriented and individualizing
societies, in: Runciman, W.G. (ed.): The Origin of Human Social Institutions, Oxford, 93-117.
Vanhaverbeke, H. & M. Waelkens: 2003. The Chora of Sagalassos. Evolution of the Settlement
Pattern from Prehistoric until Recent Times (Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 5),
Turnhout (in press).
Waelkens, M.: 1995. The 1993 survey in the district south and east of Sagalassos, in: Waelkens,
M. & J. Poblome (eds.): Sagalassos III. Report on the Fourth Excavation Campaign of 1993
(Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 7) Leuven, 11-22.
Waelkens, M., E. Paulissen, H. Vanhaverbeke, I. Öztürk, B. De Cupere, H.A. Ekinci, P.M.
Vermeersch, J. Poblome & R. Degeest: 1997. The 1994 and 1995 surveys on the territory of
Sagalassos, in: Waelkens, M. & J. Poblome (eds.): Sagalassos IV. Report on the Survey and
Excavation Campaigns of 1994 and 1995 (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 9)
Leuven, 11-102.
Waelkens, M., H. Vanhaverbeke, E. Paulissen, J. Poblome, J. Reyniers, W. Viaene, J. Deckers,
B. De Cupere, W. Van Neer, H.A. Ekinci & M.O. Erbay: 2000. The 1996 and 1997 surveys in
the territory of Sagalassos, in: Waelkens, M. & L. Loots (eds.): Sagalassos V. Report on the
Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997 (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia
Monographiae 11 A) Leuven, 17-216.