Lithic Studies: Anatolia and Beyond 1789699266, 9781789699265, 9781789699272

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright page
Contents Page
Authors
Foreword
Mehmet Özdoğan
Connecting Lithics: An Introduction to Lithic Studies in Anatolia and Beyond
Adnan Baysal
Raw Material Matters
Elizabeth Healey
Use-wear Analysis of Lithic Tools: Technical Processes and Cultural Developments in Anatolia
Laurence Astruc
The Projectile Points of Neolithic Çatalhöyük: A Contextual Multi-Attribute Analysis
Lilian Dogiama
The Importance of Lithics in Determining the Economic Models and Lifestyles of Prehistoric Societies: The Kanlıtaş Höyük Example
Neyir Kolankaya-Bostancı
The Lithic Assemblage of Suluin Cave in Antalya (sw Anatolia)
Zehra Fürüzen Taşkıran and Harun Taşkıran
Lithic Assemblages from the Marmara Region: 7th -3rd mill. BC
Ivan Gatsov and Petranka Nedelcheva
Yeşilova Höyük Neolithic Period Chipped Stone Industry
Betül Fındık and Zafer Derin
The Techno-Typology of The Projectile Points of the Neolithic Settlement of Ege Gübre (Izmir/Turkey)
Eşref Erbil
Interpreting Chipped Stone Assemblages of the Neolithic in Western Anatolia – A Conceptual View
Bogdana Milić
Looking West: Central Anatolian Obsidian in the Western Anatolian Peninsula and Eastern Aegean
Marina Milić
Viewing Melian Neolithic Obsidian Networks from the Western Side of the Aegean sea (Greece): Distribution Parameters and Data Reconsidered
Lia Karimali and Stella Papadopoulou
Stone Technology Under the Microscope: the Contribution of Microwear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools to the Understanding of Daily Activities
Christina Tsoraki
On the Function and Ethnographic Analogies of North East Aegean Ground Stone Tools
Abdulkadir Özdemir and A. Onur Bamyacı
General Assessment of the Ground Stone Industries of the Marmara Region
Emre Güldoğan
So Close, Yet So Far Away: the Ground Stone Tool Assemblages from the Two Neighbouring Settlements of Kleitos, North-western Greece
Danai Chondrou
Abrasive Stone Tools in the Neolithic of Serbia: from Recognition to Publication
Dragana Antonović and Vidan Dimić

Citation preview

Edited by

Adnan Baysal

Lithic Studies: Anatolia and Beyond

Lithic Studies: Anatolia and Beyond Edited by

Adnan Baysal

Archaeopress Archaeology

This book is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Dr. Nur Balkan-Atlı (2nd January 1953 - 10th April 2019).

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-926-5 ISBN 978-1-78969-927-2 (e-Pdf) © the individual authors and Archaeopress 2022 Ground stone tools from Neolithic Barcın Höyük. Photo: Fokke Gerritsen.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents Authors ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ii Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................................................v Mehmet Özdoğan Connecting Lithics: An Introduction to Lithic Studies in Anatolia and Beyond ........................................................1 Adnan Baysal Raw Material Matters................................................................................................................................................................11 Elizabeth Healey Use-wear Analysis of Lithic Tools: Technical Processes and Cultural Developments in Anatolia........................50 Laurence Astruc The Projectile Points of Neolithic Çatalhöyük: A Contextual Multi-Attribute Analysis.........................................58 Lilian Dogiama The Importance of Lithics in Determining the Economic Models and Lifestyles of Prehistoric Societies: The Kanlıtaş Höyük Example...............................................................................................................................73 Neyir Kolankaya-Bostancı The Lithic Assemblage of Suluin Cave in Antalya (sw Anatolia)...................................................................................86 Zehra Fürüzen Taşkıran and Harun Taşkıran Lithic Assemblages from the Marmara Region: 7th -3rd mill. BC...............................................................................110 Ivan Gatsov and Petranka Nedelcheva Yeşilova Höyük Neolithic Period Chipped Stone Industry............................................................................................122 Betül Fındık and Zafer Derin The Techno-Typology of The Projectile Points of the Neolithic Settlement of Ege Gübre (Izmir/Turkey)....131 Eşref Erbil Interpreting Chipped Stone Assemblages of the Neolithic in Western Anatolia – A Conceptual View............139 Bogdana Milić Looking West: Central Anatolian Obsidian in the Western Anatolian Peninsula and Eastern Aegean.............150 Marina Milić Viewing Melian Neolithic Obsidian Networks from the Western Side of the Aegean sea (Greece): Distribution Parameters and Data Reconsidered............................................................................................................164 Lia Karimali and Stella Papadopoulou Stone Technology Under the Microscope: the Contribution of Microwear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools to the Understanding of Daily Activities................................................................................................................213 Christina Tsoraki On the Function and Ethnographic Analogies of North East Aegean Ground Stone Tools...................................225 Abdulkadir Özdemir and A. Onur Bamyacı General Assessment of the Ground Stone Industries of the Marmara Region.........................................................237 Emre Güldoğan So Close, Yet So Far Away: the Ground Stone Tool Assemblages from the Two Neighbouring Settlements of Kleitos, North-western Greece................................................................................................................247 Danai Chondrou Abrasive Stone Tools in the Neolithic of Serbia: from Recognition to Publication................................................265 Dragana Antonović and Vidan Dimić

i

Authors on the ERC project ‘Prehistoric Anatolia’ initially based at the Austrian Archaeological Institute, and later at the OREA institute. Since 2016 she has been a researcher at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology (OREA) at the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Abdülkadir Özdemir Abdülkadir Özdemir received his M.A. and PhD. degree from Onsekiz Mart University (Çanakkale/Turkey) and currently works at the department of archaeology at Fırat/Euphrates University (Elazığ/Turkey). His interest and specialized focus is the archaeology of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages of western Anatolia. He has contributed to the excavation project of the Chalcolithic settlements of Gülpınar at the GrecoRoman sanctuary of Smintheion in northwest Anatolia and surveyed at the nearby Neolithic site of Coşkuntepe between 2004 and 2005. He has also recently been engaged in the Excavation of the Urartian site of Murat Tepe in eastern Anatolia.

Christina Tsoraki Christina Tsoraki specialises in prehistoric archaeology with a focus on material culture studies, lithic technology and microwear analysis. Her research interests include depositional practices, cross-craft interactions, object biographies and household archaeology. She is involved as a specialist researcher (specialising in ground stone technology) in many archaeological projects in Greece, Cyprus and Turkey ranging in date from the Early Neolithic to the Hellenistic period. Between 2012-2018 she was the leader of the Ground Stone Team for the Çatalhöyük Research Project (Turkey) directed by Prof. I. Hodder (Stanford University, USA).

Adnan Baysal Adnan Baysal specializes in the Anatolian Neolithic and has worked extensively on the social and economic implications of ground stone assemblages from Çatalhöyük and other contemporary Central Anatolia sites. He is currently lecturing and conducting his research in the Archaeology Department at Ankara University.

Danai Chondrou Danai Chondrou is currently a PostDoc Researcher in the Plantcult ERC project hosted by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Her main research interest lies in ground stone tool technology and its social, economic, cultural dimensions that can help explore the structure and evolution of past societies and the way people perceived and manipulated their world. Her work focuses on the macroscopic and use-wear analysis of stone tools, combined with experimental explorations and spatial analysis.

Betül Fındık Betül Fındık completed her undergraduate education at the Archaeology Department of Ankara University. She studied the Yeşilova Höyük Neolithic chipped stone industry as her doctoral thesis and received her PhD degree from Ankara University. She is currently employed in the Archaeology Department of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur/Turkey.

Dragana Antonović Dragana Antonović completed a degree in archaeology at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade and received her Ph.D. from the same University in 1998. She is a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Belgrade. The main areas of her research are raw materials for prehistoric ground stone implements (identification, procurement, production of tools, exchange), use-wear analysis and technology of production of ground stone implements, the beginnings of metallurgy in the Balkans (copper mines, copper tools – typology and technology of production) and prehistoric mining in Serbia. She has conducted archaeological field work at a number of Neolithic and Eneolithic sites in Serbia, has participated in several international and national research projects, published four books and more than 100 papers.

Bogdana Milić Bogdana Milić works on chipped stone assemblages in the process of Neolithisation in western Anatolia, the Near East (Zagros region, Iran), northern Greece and central Balkans (Serbia). Her BA and MA studies were completed in 2011 and 2012 respectively at the Department of Archaeology, Belgrade University. She held a scholarship from the EU commission at the Institute for Pre- and Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology at Ruprecht-Karls University Heidelberg (2011). Her PhD studies were completed at the Eberhard Karls University Tübingen in 2018. Between 2012–2016 she was a researcher at the Department of Prehistory, Istanbul University on the ‘BEAN’ project, a Marie Curie Initial Training Network Theme of the EU Commission’s FP7 programme. Meanwhile she was a guest researcher ii

Elizabeth Healey

and Caucasus regions during Late Prehistory. Over the last decades he has published many articles concerning the development of chipped stone technologies in the above mentioned areas.

Elizabeth Healey has spent her archaeological career working with stone tools in the UK and latterly in the Near East, especially Turkey. Much of her work is concerned with investigating choices of raw materials and how they were obtained and used. She is particularly interested in provenancing obsidian and interpreting its distribution.

Laurence Astruc Laurence Astruc is a CNRS researcher specializing in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Her research is focused on the lithic industries of villages and she is interested in using technology to identify the organisation of subsistance activities, craftsmanship within the communities, know-how, technical specialisations, and ancient exchange networks. She makes contemporary and diachronic comparisons of toolkits to identify the local and exogenous dynamics and the development of cultural identities.

Emre Güldoğan Emre Güldoğan studied ground stone artifacts of Aşıklı Höyük as his MA thesis topic then completed his PhD, ‘Origin and Distribution of the Comb-Printed ‘Impresso’ Pottery of Mezraa-Teleilat', in 2008 at Istanbul University. He has contributed to numerous projects in the Marmara Region through his career before finally establishing his archaeological exploration project in and around İstanbul (IstYA). Güldoğan is currently a member of Prehistory Section of the Archaeology Department at Istanbul University.

Lia Karimali Lia Karimali is a prehistoric archaeologist (Ph.D. Boston University), with specialization in lithic technology. She has been an external researcher at FORTH. She has studied and published several articles on Aegean and Mediterranean lithic collections (Platia Magoula Zarkou, Orgozinos, Pefkakia and other Neolithic Thessalian sites; Paximadi Peninsula, Euboea; Halai, Lokris).

Eşref Erbil Eşref Erbil completed his undergraduate and MA degrees in the Department of Prehistoric Archaeology at Ankara University and he is currently a PhD candidate in the same department. His research focus is on Paleolithic and Neolithic knapped stone techno-typologies. He has taken part in various excavations and research projects including Karain Cave Excavations (2005-2019), Suluin Cave Excavation (2007-2014), Uşak Province Banaz District Sürmecik Paleolithic Age Excavation (20162017), Sakarya Province Prehistoric Archaeology Survey (2013-2016), Eskişehir Province Prehistoric Archaeology Survey (2017) and Kızılin Project (2017-2019).

Lilian Dogiama Lilian Dogiama received her PhD in Anthropology from McMaster University. Her thesis explored the role of hunting in the Neolithic community of Çatalhöyük. She also has a Master’s in Prehistoric Archaeology from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and a Bachelor’s in Archaeology and History of Art from the National and Capodistrian University in Athens. She specializes in stone tool technology in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean and was the recipient of a Wenner-Gren Dissertation Fieldwork Grant for her work at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. She has participated in numerous excavation projects in Greece and Turkey spanning from the Palaeolithic to the Early Byzantine period. Lately, she has been applying her academic expertise to the publishing industry, working as an editor at Cambridge University Press, UK.

Harun Taşkıran Harun Taşkıran is Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Department of Archaeology, Ankara University. His research concentrates on Quaternary Archaeology in Anatolia, especially Lower and Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages. He conducted Palaeolithic surveys in the area of Karkamış and the Ilısu Dam Lake. He also directed the excavations at Suluin Cave, Antalya. He currently directs the archaeological excavations of Karain Cave, location of the most important Palaeolithic cave settlement known in Turkey. He has published over 100 articles, many of them presented at international and national congresses and meetings.

Marina Milić Marina Milić is currently an Irish Research Council Postdoctoral Fellow at School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, exploring Neolithic – Eneolithic transformations in the Balkans during the 5th millennium BC. Previously, she spent over 15 years working on chipped stone assemblages from Neolithic sites in Turkey, Greece and Serbia. During this research she focused on the sourcing and technology of obsidian

Ivan Gatsov Professor Ivan Gatsov is a lecturer in Archaeology at New Bulgarian University whose main focus of study is the Lithic assemblages in the South Balkans, Marmara Sea iii

artefacts as a means to understand aspects of interaction and connectivity between communities from the local to regional scale throughout the Neolithic period.

Archaeology. From the beginning of his studies he was interested in prehistoric periods, with a main focus on the Neolithic of the Central Balkans. At the end of the basic and during the master studies, the main focus of his research was archaeo-technology and the study of polished and abrasive stone tools. This interest has been extended to the exploration and understanding of the ‘chaîne opératoire’ from the exploitation of raw materials, through the production of artifacts, their use, repair, damage and discard. The knowledge and experiences that came from these studies have led him to choose experimental archaeology as the main topic of his PhD studies. Although the PhD topic is closely related to polished stone tools with a cutting edge, he previously had the opportunity to work on several projects with other materials such as bone and antler. Vidan is employed at the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade as a Research Associate. So far, he has published several works related to ground stone industries, abrasive stone tools, terminology in stone technology studies, use wear analyses, prehistoric copper mining technology, experiments with prehistoric sickles both individually and as part of a team.

Neyir Kolankaya-Bostancı Neyir Kolankaya-Bostancı completed her undergraduate degree at Ankara University, Prehistory Department in 1995. She received her MA and PhD degrees from Hacettepe University, Department of Archaeology. She worked as a Research Assistant between 1998-2009, as an Assistant Professor between 2009-2018 and as Associate Professor since 2018 in the same department. She works as a lithic expert in various excavations and surveys. In addition she has researched Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age chipped stone industries, obsidian exchange and trade systems, Palaeolithic art and symbolism. Onur Bamyacı Onur Bamyacı accomplished his PhD in Archaeology at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University in 2017. He holds the position of Assistant Professor at the same university. He has recently been working on the analysis of the ground stone assemblages of Western Anatolian prehistoric settlements and contributes to excavations as a ground stone specialist in Turkey. His other interest areas are Aegean archaeology, prehistoric economy and ethnoarchaeology.

Zafer Derin Zafer Derin studied archaeology and graduated from Atatürk University in 1979. He pursued his archaeological career and completed his MA degree in 1983 and PhD degree in 1986. He currently works in the Department of Archaeology at Ege University (İzmir/ Turkey). During his academic career he has participated in numerous archaeological projects and since 2005 has conducted the Yeşilova Höyük Excavations in İzmir / Turkey. He has published widely and is also the founder and curator of the Yeşilova Höyük Visitor Centre.

Petranka Nadelcheva Petranka Nedelcheva is an Assistant Director at the National Museum of History of Bulgaria and Assistant Professor of Archaeology at New Bulgarian University. She specialized on topics related to Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age lithic technologies in the Northern Aegean, Anatolia and Caucasus.

Zehra F. Taşkıran Zehra F. Taşkıran graduated from the Department of Prehistory of Ankara University in 1983. In 1993, she received her master’s degree with her thesis on ‘Techno-typological Analysis of Öküzini Cave cores’. She completed her PhD with her thesis on ‘Holocene Period Chipped Stone Industry of Suluin Cave’ in 2014. She has worked at numerous archaeological excavations and surveys conducted in Turkey. She also has expertise in drawing chipped stone tools. She has contributed to the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic chapters in the children’s book, ‘Anatolia Before You’, prepared by the Directorate of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations.

Stella Papadopoulou Stella Papadopoulou completed her PhD in Prehistoric Archaeology titled ‘Chipped stone industries from western Macedonia, Greece. The case of the Neolithic lakeside settlement Anarghiri IXb' in 2020 at the Institute of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bern. She is a highly experienced field archaeologist who has extensively contributed to excavation projects of Neolithic settlements in Greece. She is currently conducting analytical research on chipped stone artefacts from various sites in Greece. Vidan Dimić Vidan Dimić finished elementary and master studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, Department of

iv

Foreword Mehmet Özdoğan1 The1present volume, bringing together a fine selection of papers, is a most welcome contribution to lithic studies, covering not only chipped stone but also fine and coarse groundstone assemblages. In the historic development of archaeology the main concern in the study of artefactual assemblages has conventionally been based on typology and style with little concern either about the procurement or the characterisation of raw materials. Likewise, concern about technology had remained more or less in the domain of Palaeolithic and metallurgical studies. Colleagues working on other artefacts, either pottery or other materials, hardly showed any interest in the technologies employed in production. In this respect, groundstone artefacts, though being the most iconic tool of food-producing economies of later prehistory, were habitually overlooked, never mind any concern about the technology of their production, there was not even any available comprehensive typology of these tools; indeed, not many excavations bothered to collect them. Here, it is worth stressing that the editor of this volume was one of the first, at least in Turkey, to develop an interest in groundstone artefactual assemblages during the early years of his career, soon to play a leading role in promoting such undertakings. We are aware of the fact that it would be totally incomprehensible to the present generation of young scholars, now intent to recover every item coming out of the soil, to disregard a group of artefacts just because they don’t have the visual appeal of other finds; that is why we consider it necessary to take a look in retrospect at the years when young Baysal developed an interest in groundstones, to narrate why dealing with an unappealing assemblage sounded so unusual at that time.

and the bones. What was being done – the sorting and analysing chipped stone, bone artefacts and faunal remains – had appealed to our students, and they began volunteering to work with the guest experts, laying the foundations of present-day Turkish specialists in fauna, bone artefacts and chipped stone. However, we still had the problem of the groundstones – there were hundreds of them displaying a wide variety of shapes and of raw materials. None of us even considered being engaged, Braidwood’s team was also of no help, the only solution we devised was to label them by noting their find spots and then to put them on to the shelves of the excavation house, giving a few nice-looking ones to the museum. Through time the problem became more and more acute, we had to construct and add a new storeroom to the excavation house just to find a place for the steadily increasing number of groundstones. Finally, Michael Davis, one of our collaborators, and an ex-student of the Braidwood’s, took the initiative to study and to catalogue our groundstone assemblage, and though we were all very appreciative it was still considered as rather a peculiarity. He had no possibility at that time to get any help from anyone in the team either in categorizing or in assessing; he developed his approach by consulting other colleagues working in the southern Levant. For some time, his work stood as an exemplar in groundstone studies. Not too long ago, only 30-40 years previously, we could not envisage that one day there would be so many lithic experts working and publishing, as best displayed in this volume. The diversity of approaches covered by this volume, both on chipped and on groundstone assemblages, is worth noting, some going beyond the state of the art. Even a brief survey of the papers thus presented provides an insight into the current state of research, exemplifying the outstanding dynamics of research and the employment of new analytic technologies in the study of lithic artefacts. In this respect, the amazing advancement that took place within a few decades on sourcing and characterization of various raw materials is worth remembering. It was only in 1963 that pioneering work took place in the characterization of obsidian in North America, making it possible to determine the source volcanism of obsidian artefacts, and which a year later was implemented on Anatolian obsidians, though with considerable uncertainties. Soon after, with the advances taking place in methods in analysing raw materials, including optical spectrometry and

Many years ago, during late 1970s when our work at Çayönü was at its peak, we were faced with the serious problem of classifying, sorting, analysing and describing the finds. At that time Çayönü was the only Pre-Pottery Neolithic site under excavation in Turkey, and as the site was of the Pre-Pottery horizon, most of what we were encountering consisted of bone, chipped stone and groundstone. Çayönü was a joint project of our department in full collaboration with the Chicago Oriental Institute. There were several experts who came with the Braidwoods to work on chipped stone Emeritus Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan: Prehistory Section, Archaeology Department, Istanbul University, Istanbul / Turkey ([email protected])

1 

v

fission track, enabling more precise sourcing providing ample information that would not have been possible to dream of, our way of looking to the modalities of raw material procurement were revolutionised. Since then methods in defining particularities of raw materials, running from isotopic studies to geochemistry have been consistently developing, making possible new trajectories of research enabling us to look at materials with different approaches. While it is becoming possible to obtain much more precise data on technology, function and raw material characterization, each becoming a specialized field of research, at the same time we are also now developing a holistic approach considering all of these entities in relation with each other. What we were able to surmise previously about prehistoric trade being a unidirectional and simple mechanism has had to be considerably modified, as now at least we are aware of the complexity of past trading systems, even during prehistoric times.

fully established, each becoming a distinct field of research and developing their particular modalities and terminologies. As featured in some of the papers in this volume, we are just beginning to understand the importance of the boundaries among different raw materials, particularly in considering the types of stone tools to be employed in shaping other raw materials, such as in the making of bone or horn tools. Thus far we have tried to present a conspectus on the advancements taking place in the study of lithics, particularly pointing to the modalities brought by multidisciplinary practices, revolutionizing what we can learn from the procurement of raw materials to shaping and usage. However, it should still not be overlooked that archaeology is a social science bound by behaviour, thus necessitating an understanding of the process. Interdisciplinary studies providing detailed, precise data enabling accurate descriptions, still have to be considered as a tool and not as the eventual end in assessing archaeological materials. In this respect it should not be overlooked that even devising a simple typological chart necessitates taking arbitrary decisions that are solely bound by accumulated knowledge. To exemplify – if we want to sort an assemblage into two categories, small and big, setting the dividing line necessitates an arbitrary decision, which would reflect accumulated knowledge and insight of the researcher. Accordingly, the success of the categorization is defined by deciding on befitting criteria. Here, I want to conclude by stressing that in archaeology, as for all social sciences, to sort, to classify or even to generalize depends on being able to take correct decisions in assessing when all criteria are relative and this is bound by developing a mutual understanding of the materials. That is exactly why such works as this volume are a necessity.

In considering the contexts of some of the papers presented in this volume, I find it necessary to touch on the changing trajectories in the quest for defining the function of tools. In earlier years, the most convenient modality in guessing the function of lithic artefacts was, more or less, simple comparisons based on ethnographic documentation, which did not always reveal very convincing solutions. Even though there had always been some experiments with models to study the usage of tools, they were mostly sporadic efforts. The English translation of Semenov’s ground-breaking book in 1970, stirring considerable excitement, had stimulated a generation to detect the technologies employed in shaping, use-wear and experimentation, also given rise by the advancements in micro-photography. Within a decade or so, distinct fields of specialization including experimental archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, usewear analysis, technology and residue analysis became

vi

Connecting Lithics: An Introduction to Lithic Studies in Anatolia and Beyond Adnan Baysal Introduction Lithic artefacts are one of the mainstream research subjects in archaeology and are much valued in the construction of archaeological knowledge. One could argue that as increasingly more articles are published on either knapped or ground stone artefacts, and especially knapped stones, which are exhaustively studied in comparison to other artefact groups such as adornments, weapons, and bones, that we do not need another book on lithic artefacts. However, there is still much to learn, particularly to understand relationships and interregional interactions. In this case, this includes seeing how lithic research can be correlated between Anatolia, Greece, and the Balkans, especially when the borders, both natural and man-made, are removed. The results of the Neolithic research based on Anatolian sites and the Anatolian perspective convincingly argues that movement towards the west and into Europe takes place (Lichter 2005; Reingruber et al., 2017). Such arguments are also supported by evidence of material culture such as ceramics, lithic artefacts, agricultural activities, and the way of life (Özdoğan 2005; 2010; 2011; E. Özdoğan 2015; 2017; Karul 2017). There is no doubt that even genetic studies can vastly contribute to these arguments, but it is always good to see that other archaeological evidence contributes to these with its own texture. As a result, lithic studies from Anatolia, especially focusing on the Neolithic sites in the western part of the region provide an ideal place to start on comparative analysis with Greece and the Balkans. This volume has two main aims: the first is to test the degree to which the results of lithic analyses follow Neolithization theories. The second is to remedy the general lack of examination of lithic materials from Neolithic sites in Turkey exacavated since the 1960s. While the volumes of the ‘Neolithic in Turkey’ (Özdoğan et al., 2011a; 2011b; 2012a; and 2012b) series well illustrated the state of Neolithic research in Anatolia and volumes like ‘Going West?’ (Reingruber et al., 2017) prove the connected nature, continuities, interactions and influences from north west Anatolia to the Danube plains, this volume intends to show these relationalities from the perspective of lithic studies. Reingruber et al. (2017) opened a channel which can also be explored from the lithic point of view and this volume expands on that idea, based solely on lithic studies and evaluates

the connection with the Aegean world, Greece and the Balkans. However, the main incentive for this volume was to connect the loose ends of the perpetually increasing data created by excavations and surveys of the Neolithic in the western part of Anatolia (such as Yeşilova Höyük, Ulucak Höyük, Çukuriçi Höyük, Ege Gübre, Ekşi Höyük). Similarly, archaeological research in the Aegean Islands and mainland Greece and Bulgaria has also contributed to this new data. In order to understand technological exchange, cultural contacts and above all the Neolithization process from the perspective of lithic studies around the Aegean sea as a whole this volume’s interregional approach is ideal. Although it is limited to lithic research conducted by specialists, and the data are discussed from their avenues of research interest and each leads to one bigger boulevard of understanding of the Neolithic at a larger and more connected scale. Lithic research is constantly developing and renewing itself, especially with the introduction of new theoretical approaches and scientific analyses that enhance our knowledge of past technologies. It is a research area with versatile characteristics and endless opportunities to build technological knowledge of the production and use of these tools. This enables us to understand and reflect on the behaviour of past communities, their ways of living, need for trade, networks, reasoning, and the logic behind such behaviours. Lithic studies, from raw material analysis to experimental studies, offers us a way of constructing knowledge of technology, social organization, sense of value, survival, and existence. It also helps us to understand the importance of creativity, violence, cognitive formation, and the transference and teaching of skills in individuals and between people and groups. Lithic studies are not only based on typology or raw material analysis, they echo, blend, demand, enquire, reflect on and contribute to our understanding of past groups and communities’ ways of operation and, in the light of aDNA research, become more personal. Lithic studies have a complicated and equally inviting depth which has not yet been fully explored. The performances as part of social construction such as dominance, resistance, control, as well as ritual, religion and symbolism within and between communities indicate the dynamic and progressive process of culture

Lithic Studies: Anatolia and Beyond (Archaeopress 2022): 1–10

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond and technology where community establishment and social organisation demanded continuity. Although lithic studies can be perceived as research into technological progress in the past, it also explains to us the value of knowledge of the structural organisation of such performances and furnishes information about the actions of past communities. As part of material culture, lithic tools - both knapped and ground stones - have retained all this information securely within them. This information is waiting to be brought out, especially with the aid of analysis in the light of theoretical approaches in science. In this volume one of the aims is to synchronise the information that has been accumulated by the specialists during their long term engagements in lithics from either side of the Aegean and Balkans. Each paper helps to build a bigger picture of borderless cultural fluidity in Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans. As a result, this volume can be viewed as a confirmation of the decades of knowledge about Neolithization and its associated lifeways from the perspective of lithic studies.

have an idiom related to stone which indicates this entanglement, for example, ‘a rolling stone gathers no moss’ (English), ‘ekmeğini taştan çıkarmak’/ ‘getting the bread out of the stone’ (Turkish) or ‘Ein herz aus stein haben’ / having a heart like stone (German). The first strike of a rock resulted in a flake which over time gave way to highly sophisticated tool technologies. This strike also transformed humans from being a prey to being a predator. The tools and technological advancements in tool production and use enabled humans to become the most dangerous species on the planet. Based on the various transitions that occurred through time, human history is divided into several time segments which are identified by technological stages, again using the technological characteristics of stone tools i.e., Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic. In various geographies, the environment was at times harsh and unforgiving to humans. Lithic tools played a significant role in survival, being used in the exploitation and domination of the environment. The economic model in the early years of coping with environmental issues mainly related to hunting and gathering in which lithic tools, with either pointy ends or heavy chopping edges, were useful in activities such as hunting/scavenging or the gathering of plant or root foods. Technological progress in the production and use of lithic tools, especially in the Epipaleolithic, reflected an awesome achievement where rather than using bulky tools, small tools were fashioned. These were relatively quick to produce and when used in composite tools these very small items provided flexibility as well as efficiency in daily activities such as wild plant harvesting. The use of these tools increased the quantity of collected plant foods and with the aid of storage systems (Testart 1982) also meant more people could benefit from the collected food for a longer duration. Although the issue of time is always debated among archaeologists, collectively collected wild plants, with the efficiency provided with these micro tools, certainly increased the amount of food material, and served more people, but collected material had to be stored due to its seasonality. From a relational perspective, the technological advancement of lithic tools not only contributed to tool production and use but altered the way of living and even architectural development. The ‘revolutionary’ aspect of the Neolithic is put forward as the domestication of plants and animals. With the beginning of the Neolithic, lithic technology became more diversified, with the use of knapped stone and ground stone. Although ground stones had been in use since the Upper Palaeolithic, they firmly established their importance in Neolithic daily life. The importance of ground stones can be argued in two ways, the first is the importance to Neolithic people for producing

A relationship that has lasted forever Archaeological knowledge heavily depends on material studies and artefacts made from stone raw material are one of the best options for constructing archaeological knowledge, particularly for the prehistoric period. The properties of rocks are various, depending on their type, but the most common factor influencing their use is that they are among the most durable materials that humans can find in nature. As a result, humankind has built its civilizations based on stone - tools, decorative objects, architecture, sculpture and so on. These objects produced from stone have also been particularly important for the survival of humankind, especially in the last couple of million years. The human past is as tightly intertwined with stone as is the present. Although for many of us in the modern world this may not mean much unless related to precious stones or the sleek design of a kitchen. Stone is a commodity in our world and probably to a certain degree the same was true in the past. Humankind not only sought refuge in caves and rock shelters for protection, but also found a blank canvas on which to paint in deep dark corners, expressed its way of living, knowledge, and the ways of nature on the rock surfaces. Thus, humankind’s long and well-established relationship with stone raw material has brought out our creative side too. Creativity also resulted in making ‘things’ from the rocks i.e., tools, weapons, ornaments, ownership statements like seals and moulds in the metal ages. Regardless of technological advancements and achievements the relationship of humankind with stone has deepened with time. As a result, today there is probably no language on earth that does not 2

Adnan Baysal: Connecting Lithics food, paint, medicine, and other tools. The second is the perception of these tools by archaeologists. For a long time, ground stone tools were considered a sign of domestication of food plants and evidence to produce food from these plants. However, this approach did not help to set up systematic studies of the ground stone tools until the late 1970s, at least within Near Eastern archaeology. Since the 1980s, ground stones have become valuable for the construction of archaeological knowledge, mostly due to intensive studies of the Neolithic era.

In reality, archaeological developments that took place between 1930-1955 did not target the Neolithic period and that is possibly why Lloyd and other scholars shared this view on the absence of the Neolithic in the Anatolian Plateau. If one looks into the archaeological developments in Anatolia since the early stages of the Turkish Republic it is possible to identify the progress that has been registered in two main areas, one of them is the excavations of Bronze Age sites such as Alacahöyük and the other is on the prehistoric discoveries such as Kökten’s pioneering work (Kökten, 1943, 1944, 1947a, 1947b; 1952a, 1952b, 1955) on the prehistoric remains across Anatolia. During Kökten’s research, conducted between 1940-1955, in general, Anatolia has seen hardly any contribution made to understanding the presence of the Neolithic.

A brief overview While it is true that lithic studies have always witnessed the development of innovative approaches, these developments have always been related to the progress and influences of new ideas in archaeology. The obvious way to understand and register these advancements is to look at the historical development of archaeology itself and the way that research questions and programmes have developed. Since the studies presented here mainly focus on Anatolian lithics, here these issues are briefly reviewed in the Near Eastern perspective.

Under the strong influence of Childe, especially in archaeological theory, the 1955-1970 period can be called a turning point in archaeology. Binford (Binford, 1962; Binford, 1965) and his circle introduced a more positive and scientific approach in archaeological thinking and by questioning the old methods enforced the integration of science into archaeological practice. This became known as ‘new archaeology’ and showed widespread impact (Clarke, 1968; Kantman & Dinçol, 1969) even among people who may have been against Binford’s ideas. Opposing theories still brought new ideas and contributed to methods in archaeological research which gradually adopted the ideas of new archaeology, rejecting older approaches.

Childe’s approach to archaeology and the archaeological way of thinking in the first half of the 20th century set the direction of where archaeology has ended up now. Childe’s expressions about the Neolithic (Childe 1958) and his understanding of the roots of modern western civilization (Childe 1996) made a deep impact both on later archaeologists as well as his contemporaries. In the light of his own research and the data that was available to him at the time, Childe argued that there must be a core area or a centre from which civilization started. Childe’s view of the Neolithic was simple; he thought that western civilization stemmed from this core area where knowledge and technology developed and spread towards the west. This strong view surprised his contemporaries and resulted in debates, but also helped to structure archaeological research programmes to understand the origins of the Neolithic. Childe’s diffusionist idea was argued from different perspectives. Lloyd stated that ‘the greater part of modern Turkey, and especially the region more correctly described as Anatolia, shows no sign whatever of habitation during the Neolithic period’ (Lloyd 1956, 53). Although Lloyd related the absence of Neolithic cultures to the cold climate of Anatolia (Lloyd 1956, 53) Matthews (2002, 92) insisted on at least partial correctness in Lloyd’s hasty conclusion by pointing to the lack of Neolithic discoveries and evidence in the northern part of Anatolia. However, archaeological surveys conducted in the Black Sea region so far report at least the presence of late Neolithic in the region (Düring & Glatz 2009, 2010, 2015; Özdoğan et al., 1998, 1999; Özdoğan et al., 1997).

Anatolian Neolithic research Childe’s emphasis on the Neolithic period, particularly in the Near East, drew attention to the importance of the achievements registered by human beings. The domestication of plants and animals was described as a revolution by Childe. Childe’s theory, and his approach to prehistory, attracted other scholars who had different ideas into the area including R.J. Braidwood. Prior to Braidwood’s focus on the Zagros flanks (Braidwood and Howe 1960; Braidwood et al., 1983), the understanding and interpretation of the Neolithic had been completely different. Based on the theories of the location at which domestication took place, and therefore the origin of the Neolithic, i.e., oasis and later a single centre, the Braidwoods launched intense research on the Zagros mountains (Braidwood & Howe 1960). Although both views, the oasis and single centre, considered the ecological and environmental conditions, this was not satisfactory for scholars such as Braidwood. According to Braidwood, such ecological conditions can be matched in various places to provide such neolithization opportunities. The Braidwoods’ and 3

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond their team members’ long-term research in the Zagros Mountains and to the north of the Taurus Mountains (Çambel & Braidwood 1980) prepared a new platform for the theory known later as ‘multi centred’ or ‘multi core’ neolithization based on the evidence discovered by Braidwood and Braidwood of the Oriental Institute (Chicago University) and their colleagues. The initiation of the South Eastern Anatolian Survey Project of Istanbul and Chicago teams resulted in the discovery of numerous Neolithic sites including Çayönü and Göbeklitepe.

example, Mellaart (1963) asked a geologist from the British Museum to examine the stone raw material that he discovered during the Çatalhöyük excavations. David French conducted excavations at the Canhasan sites where he introduced the flotation system for archaeobotanical studies in the 1960s. Renfrew and his colleagues (Cann et al., 1969; Cann & Renfrew, 1964; Dixon et al., 1968; Renfrew et al., 1965; Renfrew et al., 1968; Renfrew & Dixon, 1976; Renfrew et al., 1966) focused on obsidian and initiated massive research on obsidian sources and the origins of obsidian’s use in the Aegean and Anatolia. All these new approaches and the interdisciplinary progress in archaeology had a profound impact on Anatolian archaeology in both methodological and practical respects. These impacts can be loosely divided into two – those internal to Turkish archaeology and those affecting archaeological knowledge more broadly. This international and interdisciplinary work resulted in new areas for young Turkish archaeologists to study. The ground stone studies by Hersh (1981) on Erbaba’s (Beyşehir/Turkey) Neolithic assemblages and ongoing studies on the ground stone assemblages of the Çayönü project (Davis, 1982) were influential and as a result the first ground stone study by a Turkish scholar appeared (Baykal, 1980).

As a result of the debates regarding the origin of domestication, agriculture, and the start of the Neolithic, in the economic sense, archaeological research programmes, particularly those carried out in Anatolia in the 1950s and 1960s, presented us with new insights about the topic. This period represents the Neolithization of Anatolian archaeology. James Mellaart’s research in Anatolia resulted first in the discovery and excavation of the Neolithic settlement of Hacılar (Burdur/Turkey). Mellaart continued his research and, having discovered Çatalhöyük (Konya/ Turkey) during a survey in 1953, revisited the site in 1958, starting to excavate in the early 1960s. R. Braidwood also executed a joint project in 1963 with Halet Çambel of İstanbul University at Çayönü Tepesi in Diyarbakır, Turkey.

Obsidian sources and their related technologies, especially tool production, use and associated artefact analyses were seriously considered in the mid 1980s by the Prehistory Department of Istanbul University and under the leadership of N. Balkan-Atlı (Balkan-Atlı, 1993, 1994, 2001, 2005; Balkan-Atlı et al., 1999; BalkanAtlı & Der Aprahamian, 1998; Balkan-Atlı et al., 2013; Nur Balkan-Atlı et al., 2010; Balkan-Atlı et al., 2011) a research program in cooperation with international colleagues was started and included a training scheme for junior archaeologists. Balkan-Atlı’s integrated work at Aşıklı Höyük and Kaletepe with international archaeologists and specialists was very productive in every sense, resulting in better understanding of tool production, use and distribution of raw material via networks, both short and long distance, as well as resulting in highly trained specialists.

The results of these excavations were phenomenal for their time. The discoveries not only ended certain arguments, such as Lloyd’s view about the absence of the Neolithic on the Anatolian Plateau permanently, but also triggered new potential research focused on Anatolia. Erbaba, Suberde, Canhasan III, Cafer Höyük, Gritille and Hallan Çemi were among the excavation projects that gradually appeared during the following period. The neolithization of Anatolia and its impacts are still widely debated amongst scholars (Balkan-Atlı 1994; Çilingiroğlu, 2005; Özdoğan, 1999a, 1999b, 2011; M. Özdoğan 2014; M. Özdoğan, 2014; Reingruber et al., 2017). New and continuing research

In the early 1990s, the Çatalhöyük project re-started for a further twenty-five years of excavation led by Ian Hodder. The Çatalhöyük project marked another new era for Anatolian archaeology and archaeology itself. Hodder’s operation at Çatalhöyük with numerous specialized archaeologists even created new research areas and new specialists to study the new research subjects, as well as giving a chance to continue past research such as the obsidian work of Renfrew. Ground stone studies (Baysal, 2010; Baysal & Wright, 2005, 2006; Wright et al., 2013) and their raw materials (Türkmenoğlu et al., 2005), chert (Nazaroff, 2012;

While targeting theoretical problems relating to the Neolithic, the research projects executed on the Anatolian Plateau and in the Near East also exposed some practical problems. The excavations at Hacılar, Çatalhöyük, Canhasan and Çayönü in the 1960s highlighted the necessity of interdisciplinarity in the study of archaeological finds and in the construction of knowledge about past communities. Particularly in the archaeological projects conducted in Anatolia this was perceived as diversification from specialist studies of lithic artefacts (Bialor, 1962) and raw materials. For 4

Adnan Baysal: Connecting Lithics Nazaroff et al., 2013; Nazaroff et al., 2015; Nazaroff et al., 2016; Ostaptchouk 2009, 2014) and obsidian (Carter, 2011; Carter 2014; Carter et al., 2008; Carter & Milić, 2013a; Carter & Milić, 2013b; Conolly, 1999; Milić, 2014, 2016; Milić et al., 2013) were all established during the project. Carter’s work at Çatalhöyük can be viewed as an extension of the work by Renfrew and colleagues on obsidian and again Milić’s studies in western Anatolia and the Aegean were complimentary to analysis of Anatolian obsidian sources. There are also obsidian studies conducted outside Anatolia, especially source related analysis by Frahm (Frahm, 2020; Frahm & Brody, 2019; Frahm et al., 2016; Frahm et al., 2019; Frahm & Tryon, 2018). Projects benefitted from technological advances, especially newly emerging tools such as pXRF in contrast to obsidian studies the lack of chert raw material source research had been a major gap that pXRF has been able to address (Baysal et al., 2015; Nazaroff, 2012; Nazaroff et al., 2013; Nazaroff et al., 2015; Nazaroff et al., 2016). In a similar vein, raw material studies and fundamental research into material sources has been facilitated by portable analysis technology enabling a more nuanced view of human-environment interaction to be developed in recent years (Frahm & Hauck, 2017; Frahm et al., 2019; Milić 2014)

Wider approaches, unity and comparability of the data was almost inconceivable due to lack of necessary data integration. In the last two decades rapid progress in archaeological research and analytical thinking has bridged this gap and enabled us to unify the data and its interpretations, as can be seen in this volume. Serving a purpose For almost 100 years, archaeological research has been systematically practiced in Anatolia. In the light of the results of this research, particularly on lithic artefacts, we can see some trends in the outcomes produced. Until the 1990s research largely still related to typological analysis, combined with technological interpretation. The shift from typology towards a more technologyoriented approach was fuelled by Nur Balkan-Atlı’s work in Central Anatolia. New approaches have allowed a renewed focus on understanding the sites from which the artefacts were recovered and correlations and comparisons drawn with other artefacts from different sites. This work has cumulatively contributed to, and enhanced, our understanding of the sites and their vicinities. Although this has made much sense of the situation at different sites, and helped to build localized typologies, understanding of technologies and inter-regional interactions in the past, there will always be a need for further research and integration. This volume intends to answer, at least partially, the need for a united perspective on lithic studies of both knapped and ground stones in Anatolia and beyond.

Although the Anatolian Neolithic has been explored in a limited number of sites, the excavation results and final overviews of these explorations are invaluable. The results have been collected within the series of volumes entitled ‘The Neolithic in Turkey’ by Özdoğan et. al. (Özdoğan et al., 2011a, 2011b; Özdoğan et al., 2012a; Özdoğan et al., 2012b). Özdoğan’s achievement has been to make the Anatolian Neolithic better understood and conceptualised from east to west. These volumes are limited by the borders of Turkey but the Neolithic way of life and its cultural progress of course did not share such political limits. On the other side of the borders archaeologists were also exploring archaeological remains. An important example is Perlès’s rich work elucidating the Greek Neolithic (2001). Perlès and her colleagues’ continuing research into Greece’s Neolithic and earlier periods (Galanidou 2000; Galanidou 2011; Galanidou & Perlès, 2003; Kotsakis, 2003; Sampson et al., 2003) indicates that despite the Aegean Sea cultural contact, exchange and movement took place between Greece and Anatolia.

This volume brings together scholars involved in Anatolian lithic studies and the scholars whose research foci are based outside Anatolia - Greece and the Balkans (ie. Bulgaria, Serbia). The results of this evaluation and the perspectives it has provided on the lithics is invaluable in how the regions, Anatolia and Greece and Balkans, contribute to and compliment to each others’ lithic data. In the light of this, comparing notes, re-evaluating the lithic technology, raw material exchange, cultural contacts and to a certain degree movement in the regions has become a realistic prospect. This combination of studies also allows crossreferencing of lithic data from different directions and wider reflection on problems and grey areas in research in order to understand cultural relations and possible trade and exchange during the Neolithic period. Lithic studies from Çatalhöyük to the Aegean coast and from the south coast to the Marmara region give a broad view of Anatolian lithic research.

The research on the Neolithic and earlier periods mainly inspired discoveries and evidence of chronological continuities in the earliest sites in Greece, Turkey and in the Balkans. Since the 1960s the research conducted on the Neolithic, at least in Anatolia, was targeted towards the discovery of early sites in order to discover the beginning of the first settled life ways and the traces of domestication. The results inevitably remained at the site level or at most a regional structuring of data.

In this volume Healey’s long-term engagement with Anatolian lithics and knowledge of the subject provides a survey of raw material sources in Turkey. Although 5

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond obsidian sources are well studied, as mentioned above, research on chert sources are still in their infancy as Healey has emphasized. Likewise, with a similar perspective, Astruc takes us into the world of use wear, explaining the method of her work and reporting on examples from the sites of Kumartepe, Arslantepe and on obsidian artefacts from central Anatolia. These two chapters set up a background for past and current research focused on raw materials and use wear analysis in Anatolia. The following chapters by Dogiama, Z. Taşkıran and H. Taşkıran and Kolankaya-Bostancı provide us firstly with information on the projectile points from the southern central Anatolian World Heritage listed Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük (Dogiama). Meanwhile, Z. Taşkıran and H. Taşkıran open the doors to the lithic assemblage of a much less known Neolithic site of Suluin Cave on the southern coast of Turkey. Z. and H. Taşkıran’s new data raises interesting questions such as the Neolithization along the coast, and the relationship between the coast and inland locations. Kolankaya-Bostancı’s work defines an economic model using lithic studies and introduces us to the lithics of Kanlıtaş from a border area between the Aegean coast and central Anatolia. The three papers above which are derived from different types of site show different characteristics, represent the various technological progress and interactions of Anatolian lithic types and the structure of economic practices. Therefore, these three sites can also indicate the differences between the east and west parts of the Anatolian lithic traditions if we consider the Anatolian neolithization in three categories/stages - east-south east, central and west - including the raw material engagement, transferred technologies and skills such as pressure technique.

to focus on certain levels of the site. Although this may seem limited to the reader within the broader scale of regional data, it stands out as a valuable account of the coastal lithic technologies. Each of these three papers give us a solid platform for comparisons with both the Aegean islands and Central Anatolia with the promise of helping to understand wider connections. An analytical view derived from an expanded pXRF analysis of raw materials by M. Milić who is engaged in research on lithics on both sides of the Aegean is not limited to the analysis of the raw material but also gives an account of the network and technology transfers seen in the lithic assemblages. Overall, both B. Milić and M. Milić with Gatsov and Nedelcheva contextualize the Aegean and Marmara regions’ lithic technology roots and interactions further afield with Greece and the Balkans. In their very detailed contextualized account of the lithic studies in Greece and the islands, Karimali and Papadopoulou also review and reflect on the similarities and connections with Anatolia. Analytical views from both sides of the Aegean and Marmara Sea help us to develop a better understanding of the lithic technologies, cultural interactions and networks during the Neolithic between Anatolia, the Aegean islands, Greece, and the Balkans. One of the purposes of this volume, by bringing together knapped and ground stones, is to put an emphasis on ground stones as a progressive continuum of knapped stone technologies. Tsoraki evaluates daily activities based on the micro wear analysis of ground stones from Çatalhöyük. Özdemir and Bamyacı introduce us to the ground stones of the North East Aegean (Anatolia) and their functionalities by cross comparative analysis within the setting of ethnographic research. Their analogical comparisons reach as far as the US to investigate the use of artefacts specific to the North East Aegean coast. Güldoğan provides a broad and simple preliminary overview of the results of his research on the Marmara Region’s ground stones found during surface survey and excavation at sites including Hocaçeşme, Aşağıpınar, Kanlıgeçit and Aktopraklık. Chondrou focuses on the ground stones assemblages of the Neolithic sites of Kleitos I and II in north-western Greece. Chondrou’s thorough analysis of these assemblages also provokes us to reconsider ground stone typologies within a large geography rather than on a small scale. Finally, Antonović and Dimić give an account of the ground stones from Neolithic Serbia. Antonović and Dimić’s survey evaluates and cross compares amongst the Neolithic sites of Serbia providing a broad regional overview.

While providing us with a detailed overview of Northwest Anatolian lithic technologies from the type sites in the Marmara region, the following chapter by Gatsov and Nedelcheva also emphasizes the connections with the Balkan Neolithic and with lithic technologies. With their view of both sides of the Marmara Sea, Gatsov and Nedelcheva explore lithic technologies between the Balkans and Anatolia and link the Neolithization processes by indicating the possible cultural contacts. The following chapters shed light on the little-known lithic technologies of the Aegean coastal Neolithic sites of Çukuriçi (B. Milić), Ege Gübre (Erbil) and Yeşilova (Fındık and Derin). B. Milić not only presents an overview of the Çukuriçi lithic assemblages but also offers us a view of large-scale connections of Çukuriçi’s lithic technology with other regions including links with the Marmara region discussed in the previous chapter. Erbil’s paper focuses on the Ege Gübre Neolithic projectile points, giving us a technotypological view of these assemblages and considering their regional context. Fındık and Derin offer a more specific view of the Yeşilova lithic industry by choosing

Lithic studies in Anatolia have mainly been in the form of site reports or analysis of the assemblage of 6

Adnan Baysal: Connecting Lithics a single site, which were often difficult to correlate and compare even locally. Although the specialists that work on the lithic assemblages of each site had a larger-scale understanding of the technology, typology, use and raw material, the site-based studies always remained somewhat isolated. The collection of papers in this volume brings into one place a wide variety of lithic assemblages creating a larger context and views that stretch across and beyond Individual regions helping us to understand networks, cultural interactions and technology transfers and raw material trade/exchange on a larger scale. The aim is to give an account of lithic research in the last decades as carried out in and beyond Anatolia. It certainly shows the value of united, large, contextual evaluation of lithic studies in both knapped and ground stones for parallels in cross cultural technological progress in the Neolithic way of life from Anatolia to the Balkans. Changes are not only apparent in the lithic tools through time, but also in their diversity from knapped stone tools to ground stones, from preference in raw materials to the methods of their production and utilization. All these apparent radical changes took place due to the gradual process of different groups learning how to deal with stone raw material and accumulating and transferring the knowledge and skills that they accrued. It is a positive development to see evidence of these traceable changes, interactions, exchanges, and communications through time and follow them across time and landscape to understand the spread of technological knowledge among prehistoric communities.

Arasında Yapılan Kazıların Sonuçları: 130-137. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., & Cauvin, M. C. (1999). Obsidian: Sources, Workshops and Trade in Central Anatolia. In M. Özdoğan (Ed.), Neolithic in Turkey:133-146. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., & Kuzucuoglu, C. (1999). L’atelier neolithique de Komurcu-Kaletepe: fouilles de 1998. Anatolia Antiqua, 7 : 231-243-. Balkan-Atlı, N., & Der Aprahamian, G. (1998). Les Nucléus de Kaletepe et deux ateliers de taille en Cappadoce. In M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, J. L. Poidevin, G. Poupeau, & C. Chataigner (Eds.), L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient. Du volcan à l’outil (Vol. 738 : 241-258. Archaeopress. Balkan-Atlı, N., Kayacan, N., Balcı, S., Astruc, L., & Erturaç, K. (2013). Göllüdağ obsidian project. In F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez, & M. Moist (Eds.), Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East: 456-474. University Autònoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicaions. Balkan-Atlı, N., Kuhn, S., Astruc, L., Kayacan, N., Dinçer, B., Balcı, S., Erturaç, K., & Grenet, M. (2011). Göllü Dağ Survey 2010. Anatolia Antiqua, XIX : 259-278. Balkan-Atlı, N., Kuhn, S., Astruc, L., Kayacan, N., Dinçer, B., & Çakan, G. (2010). Göllü Dağ Survey 2009. Anatolia Antiqua, XVIII : 191-202. Baykal, A. L. (1980) Demirci Höyük Sürtme Taş Buluntu Topluluğu. Unpublished MA Dissertation. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı. Baysal, A. (2010). Social and Economic Implications of the Life Histories of Ground Stone at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Liverpool: Liverpool University. Baysal, A., & Wright, K. I. (2005). Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground Stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük; Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons (pp. 307-324). Cambridge and Ankara: Mc Donald Institute and Briitish Institute in Ankara. Baysal, A., & Wright, K. I. (2006). Cooking and Crafts: Grinding Stones and Related Artefacts from Çatalhöyük. In M. Haydaroğlu (Ed.), Topraktan Sonsuzluğa / From Earth to Eternity.: 28-33. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Baysal, E., Baysal, A., Türkcan, A. U., & Nazaroff, A. J. (2015). Early Specialized Production? A Chalcolithic Stone Bracelet Workshop at Kanlitaş, Turkey. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 34(3): 235-257. Bialor, P. A. (1962). The Chipped Stone Industry of Çatal Hüyük. Anatolian Studies, 12: 67-110. Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity, 28(2): 217-225. Binford, L. R. (1965, 1965/10//). Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity, 31(2Part1), 203-210.

Acknowledgements This volume has been realized through the generosity of the contributors and I owe a debt of gratitude to those who made it possible. Finally I thank Nur BalkanAtlı for always being there when I needed her guidance and help, she is sorely missed. References Balkan-Atlı, N. (1993). Aşıkl Höyük (Aksaray) Yontma Taş Endüstrisinin Teknolojik ve Tipolojik Açıdan İncelenmesi. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, 8, 213225. Balkan-Atlı, N. (1994). La Neolithisation de l’Anatolie. Institut Français d’Etude Anatoliennes d’Istanbul and de Broccard. Balkan-Atlı, N. (2001). Obsidian Research in Cappadocia and Kömürcü-Kaletepe Obsidian Workshop Excavation. In O. Belli (Ed.), İstanbul University›s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey 19322000: 27-31. Istanbul: İstanbul University Rectorate Publication. Balkan-Atlı, N. (2005). Yontmataş Endüstrisi. In R. Duru & G. Umurtak (Eds.), Höyücek, 1989-1992 Yılları 7

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond Braidwood, R., & Howe, B. (Eds.). (1960). Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago. Braidwood, L., Braidwood, R. J., Howe, B., Reed, C. A., & Watson, P. J. (Eds.). (1983). Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. The Oriental Institute Çambel, H., & Braidwood, R. J. (1980). Güneydoğu Anadolu Tarih Öncesi Araştırmaları I. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları. Cann, J. R., Dixon, J. E., & Renfrew, C. (1969). Obsidian Analysis and Obsidian Trade. In Science in Archaeology (Vol. 2nd: 578-591. London: Thames and Hudson. Cann, J. R., & Renfrew, C. (1964). The Characterisation of Obsidian and its Application to the Mediterranean Region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 30: 111133. Carter, T. (2011). A true gift of mother earth: the use and significance of obsidian at Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies, 61: 1-19. Carter, T. (2014). The contribution of obsidian characterization studies to early prehistoric archaeology. In Y. Yamada & A. Ono (Eds.), Lithic Raw Material Exploitation and Circulation in  Prehistory.  A Comparative Perspective in Diverse Palaeoenvironments: 23-33. ERAUL 138. Carter, T., Dubernet, S., King, R., Le Bourdonnec, F.X., Milić, M., Poupeau, G., & Shackley, M. S. (2008). Eastern Anatolian obsidians at Çatalhöyük and the reconfiguration of regional interaction in the Early Ceramic Neolithic. Antiquity, 82: 900-909. Carter, T., & Milić, M. (2013a). The consumption of obsidian at Neolithic Çatalhöyük: a long-term perspective. In F. Borrell, J. J. Borrell, & M. M. Ibáñez (Eds.), Stone Tools in Transition: From HunterGatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East : 495508. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Servei de Publicacions. Carter, T., & Milić, M. (2013b). The Chipped Stone. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons: 417-507. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Childe, V. G. (1958). Man Makes Himself. Mentor Books. Childe, V. G. (1996). The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Routledge. Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen and Co Ltd. Conolly, J. (1999). The Çatalhöyük Flint and Obsidian Industry: Technology and Typology in Context. Oxford: Archaeopress. Çilingiroğlu, Ç. (2005). The Concept of ‘Neolithic Package’: Considering its Meaning and Applicability. Documenta Praehistorica, 32: 1-13. Davis, M. K. (1982). The Çayönü Ground Stone. In R. Braidwood and L. Braidwood (Ed.), Prehistoric Village Archaeology in South Eastern Turkey: 73 - 174. BAR international Series 138. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Dixon, J. E., Cann, J. R., & Renfrew, C. (1968). Obsidian and the Origins of Trade. Scientific American, 218(3): 38-46. Düring, B. S., & Glatz, C. (2009). The Cide Archaeological Project 2009. Anatolian Archaeology, 15: 15-16. Düring, B. S., & Glatz, C. (2010). The Cide Archaeological Project 2009: First Results. Anatolia Antiqua, XVIII: 203-213. Düring, B. S., & Glatz, C. (Eds.). (2015). Kinetic Landscapes. The Cide Archaeological Project: Surveying the Turkish Western Black Sea Region. De Gruyter Open Ltd. Frahm, E. (2020). Variation in Nemrut Dağ obsidian at Pre-Pottery Neolithic to Late Bronze Age sites (or: all that’s Nemrut Dağ obsidian isn’t the Sıcaksu source). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 32: 102438. Frahm, E., Campbell, S., & Healey, E. (2016). Caucasus connections? New data and interpretations for Armenian obsidian in Northern Mesopotamia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 9: 543-564. Frahm, E., & Hauck, T. C. (2017). Origin of an obsidian scraper at Yabroud Rockshelter II (Syria): Implications for Near Eastern social network in the early Upper Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 13: 415-427. Frahm, E., & Tryon, C. A. (2018). Origins of Epipalaeolithic obsidian artifacts from Garrod’s excavations at Zarzi cave in the Zagros foothills of Iraq. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 21: 472-485. Frahm, E., Kandel, A. W., & Gasparyan, B. (2019). Upper Palaeolithic Settlement and Mobility in the Armenian Highlands: Agent-Based Modeling, Obsidian Sourcing, and Lithic Analysis at Aghitu-3 Cave. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2: 418-465. Frahm, E., & Brody, L. R. (2019). Origins of obsidian at the ‘Pompeii of the Syrian Desert:’ Sourcing lithic artifacts from the Yale-French excavations at DuraEuropos. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 24: 608-622. Galanidou, N. (2000). Patterns in Caves: Foragers, Horticulturalists and Use of Space. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19: 243-275-. Galanidou, N. (2011). Mesolithic Cave Use in Greece and the Mosaic of Human Communities. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 24(2): 219-242. Galanidou, N., & Perles, C. (Eds.). (2003). The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (Vol. 10). British School at Athens. Hersh, T. L. (1981). Grinding Stones and Food Processing Techniques of the Neolithic Societies of Turkey and Greece: Statistical, Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches to Archaeological Problem Solving [Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Columbia University]. Kantman, S., & Dinçol, A. M. (1969). Analitik Arkeoloji. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi. Karul, N. (2017). Northwest Anatolia. A Border or a Bridge Between Anatolia and the Balkans During the Early Neolithic Period? In A. Reingruber, Z. 8

Adnan Baysal: Connecting Lithics Tsirtsoni, & P. Nedelcheva (Eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians (pp. 7-18). Routledge. Kotsakis, K. (2003). From the Neolithic side: the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface in Greece. In N. Galanidou & C. Perlέs (Eds.), The Greek Mesolithic Problems and Perspectives: 217-220). Kökten, İ. K. (1943). Kars’ın Tarih Öncesi Hakkında İlk Kısa Rapor. Belleten, VII (27): 601-613. Kökten, İ. K. (1944). Orta, Doğu ve Kuzey Anadolu’da Yapılan Tarih Öncesi Araştırmaları. Belleten, VIII(32): 659-680. Kökten, İ. K. (1947a). 1945 Yılında Türk Tarih Kurumu adına yapılan Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları. Belleten, XI(43): 431-472. Kökten, İ. K. (1947b). Bazı Prehistorik İstasyonlar Hakkında Yeni Gözlemler. DTCF Dergisi, V(2): 223-236. Kökten, İ. K. (1952a). Anadolu Prehistorik Yerleşme Yerleri ve 1944-1948 Yıllarında Yapılan Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi, IV: 195209. Kökten, İ. K. (1952b). Anadolu’da Prehistorik Yerleşim Yerlerinin Dağılımı Üzerine bir Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, X, 167-207. Kökten, İ. K. (1955). Antalya’da Karain Mağarasında yapılan prehistorya araştırmalarına toplu bir bakış. Belleten, XIX (75): 271-293. Lichter, C. (Ed.). (2005). How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium Cal BC (Byzas Vol. 2). Ege Yayınları. Lloyd, S. (1956). Early Anatolia. Penguin Books. Matthews, R. (2002). Homogenity versus Diversity: Dynamics of the Central Anatolian Neolithic. In F. Gerard & L. Thissen (Eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: 91-104. Ege Yayınları. Mellaart, J. (1963). Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962: Second Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies, 13: 43103. Milić, M. (2014). PXRF characterisation of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41: 285-296. Milić, M. (2016). A Question of Scale? Connecting Communities through Obsidian Exchange in the Neolithic Aegean, Anatolia and Balkans. In B. P. C. Molloy (Ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities, Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours: 97-121. Oxford: Oxbow Books Milić, M., Brown, K., & Carter, T. (2013). A Visual Characterisation of the Çatalhöyük Obsidian (Appendix 21). In I. Hodder (Ed.), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons:1-7. California: Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles. Nazaroff, A. (2012). Chert sourcing (Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report). Catalhoyuk.com

Nazaroff, A. J., Baysal, A., & Çiftçi, Y. (2013). The importance of chert in Central Anatolia: lessons from the Neolithic Assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology, 28: 340-362. Nazaroff, A. J., Baysal, A., Çiftçi, Y., & Prufer, K. (2015). Resilience and redundance: resource networks and the Neolithic chert economy at Çatalhöyük,Turkey. European Journal of Archaeology, 18(3): 402-428. Nazaroff, A. J., Tsoraki, C., & Vasic, M. (2016). Aesthetic, social, and material networks: A perspective from the flint daggers at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 26: 65-92. Ostaptchouk, S. (2009). Chipped Stone from the West Mound: Towards a Characterization of the Chalcolithic Lithic Production (Çatalhöyük Archive Reports, Issue. Ostaptchouk, S. (2014). The contribution of chert knapped stone studies at Çatalhöyük to notions of territory and group mobility in prehistoric Central Anatolia. DigIt, Journal of the Flinders Archaeological Society, 2, 34-48. Özdoğan, A., Marro, C., & Tibet, A. (1998). Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1997 Yılı Çalışmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, XVI, 219-244. Özdoğan, A., Marro, C., & Tibet, A. (1999). Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1998 Yılı Çalışmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, XVII, 41-56. Özdoğan, A., Marro, C., Tibet, A., & Kuzucuoğlu, C. (1997). Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1996 Yılı Çalışmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, XV, 63-104. Özdoğan, E. (2015). Current Research and New Evidence for the Neolithization Process in Western Turkey. European Journal of Archaeology, 18(1), 33-59. Özdoğan, E. (2017). Anatolia and the Balkans. The Role of the Black Sea Between ‘East’ and ‘West’ During the Neolithic Period. In A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni, & P. Nedelcheva (Eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians:19-28. London: Routledge. Özdoğan, M. (1999a). Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia. In M. Özdoğan & N. Başgelen (Eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization: New Discoveries (pp. 203-224.). Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Özdoğan, M. (1999b). Redefining the Neolithic in Anatolia. A critical overview. In R. Cappers & S. Bottema (Eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East (pp. 153-158). Ex Oriente. Özdoğan, M. (2010). Westward Expansion Of The Neolithic Way Of Life: Sorting The Neolithic Package Into Distinct Packages. In P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, & N. Marchetti (Eds.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity: 883-893. WiesBaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Özdoğan, M. (2011). Archaeological Evidence on the Westward Expansion of Farming Communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthropology, 52(4): 415-430. 9

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond Özdoğan, M. (2014). Anatolia: From the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the End of the Early Bronze Age (10,500–2000 bce). In C. Renfrew & P. Bahn (Eds.), The Cambridge World Prehistory 3 Volume Set (pp. 15081544). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Özdoğan, M. (2014). A new look at the introduction of the Neolithic way of life in Southeastern Europe. Changing paradigms of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Documenta Praehistorica, 41: 3349. Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., & Kuniholm, P. (Eds.). (2011a). The Neolithic in Turkey: The Euphrates Basin (Vol. 2). Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., & Kuniholm, P. (Eds.). (2011b). The Neolithic in Turkey: The Tigris Basin (Vol. 1). Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., & Kuniholm, P. (Eds.). (2012a). The Neolithic in Turkey; Central Turkey (Vol. 3). Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., & Kuniholm, P. (Eds.). (2012b). The Neolithic in Turkey: Western Anatolia. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Perlès, C. (2001). The early Neolithic in Greece: the first farming communities in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reingruber, A., Tsirtsoni, Z., & Nedelcheva, P. (Eds.). (2017). Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians. London: Routledge. Renfrew, C., Cann, J. R., & Dixon, J. E. (1965). Obsidian in the Aegean. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 60: 225-247. Renfrew, C., Cann, J. R., & Dixon, J. E. (1968). Further Analysis of Near Eastern Obsidians. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, XXXIV: 319-331.

Renfrew, C., & Dixon, J. E. (1976). Obsidian in western  Asia: a review. In G. D. G. Sieveking, I. H. Longworth, K. E. Wilson, & G. Clark (Eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology: 137-150. Edinburgh: Duckworth. Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E., & Cann, J. R. (1966). Obsidian and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 32: 30-72. Reingruber, A., Tsirtsoni, Z., & Nedelcheva, P. (Eds.). (2017). Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians. London: Routledge. Sampson, A., Kozlowski, J. K., & Kaczanowska, M. (2003). Mesolithic chipped Stone industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the island of Youra (northern Sporades). In N. Galanidou & C. Perlès (Eds.), The Grek Mesolithic: problems and perspectives : 123-130). Athens: BSA Studies 10. Testart, A. (1982). The significance of food storage among hunter-gatherers: residence patterns, population densities, and social inequalities. Current Anthropology, 23(5): 523-537-. Türkmenoğlu, A., Baysal, A., Toprak, V., & Göncüoğlu, M. C. (2005). Ground - Stone Raw Material from Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük; Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons. (Vol. 5: 369-371). Cambridge and Ankara: McDonald Institute and BIAA. Wright, K. I., Tsoraki-Chan, C., & Sidle, R. (2013). The Ground stone technologies of Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000-2008 seasons (Vol. 9: 365-416). British Institute at Ankara and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA.

10

Raw Material Matters Elizabeth Healey Abstract: Decisions by prehistoric peoples about which lithic raw material to use for tool manufacture and for what purpose must have been circumscribed by many factors, tangible and intangible. In many assemblages different types of raw material are present, some local and easily accessible and used for everyday needs, and others (some of which are not local) which were used for particular purposes, most obviously blades which could be transformed into arrowheads or sickle elements, as well as obsidian which in many assemblages is a non-local material. As lithic analysts we need to try to get to the bottom of the reasons for the use of raw materials of different origins. This paper focuses on why raw materials matter. Drawing on a number of published studies it summarises what we know about the exploitation of raw materials by Anatolian communities. As well as looking at geographic distribution and possible trends in source preference through time, it emphasises the need to embed raw material studies into the discipline of lithic analysis as a matter of course. It also draws attention to the fact that lithic assemblages have tended to be treated in isolation, although they are only one facet of the activities of a community. To interpret them fully we need to understand how they articulate with the rest of material culture and socio-economic life.

Introduction It seems to be stating the obvious to say that a thorough understanding of the raw materials from which the tools in a chipped stone assemblage are made is fundamental for their satisfactory study and interpretation; surprisingly, however, (apart from a few notable exceptions which set out expressly to incorporate a study of raw materials), reports concerned with chipped stone assemblages pay little more than lip service to the raw materials involved and the focus is often on exotica. By this I mean that while it is usual to note that there are different raw materials present in an assemblage and perhaps to describe their appearance and physical characteristics, the origin of the toolstone is often only considered in a minimal fashion, and provenance analysis restricted to a few artefacts. However, we must beware of raw materials becoming a subject for scientific analysis so that they are in danger of being divorced from the people who searched for, acquired and used them. However at the moment, what data there is, is rarely developed or integrated with technological, functional and contextual studies of a complete lithic assemblage (Carter, 2014; Ostaptchouk, 2016, 2020), let alone considered in relation to other socio-economic activities of that community (see for example, Edmonds, 1995; Starzmann, 2013; van Gijn, 2010). The focus of this paper is on the raw materials available and used in Anatolia during and after the Neolithic, rather than on the techno-morphological charactertistics of the artefacts made. I make no apology for this because I want to draw attention to the interpretative potential of raw materials though

a full study is far beyond the scope of this paper. By summarising what we know (and it is clear that a range of raw materials were used, (Tables 1-6) should provide a basis for a more focused understanding; hopefully, subsequent studies will be able to address some of the lacunae as well as to find broader patterns in the data and tie in raw materials to techno-morphological, functional and contextual studies. Ultimately it ought to help to put lithics back into their wider social context. Before launching into the data it is perhaps useful to take a step back and remind ourselves of the main factors that are generally considered to affect the choice of a raw material. Things affecting raw material choices Stone in the pre-modern world For us, stone is a commodity used in much the same way as other economic goods. This makes it difficult to envisage a situation in which one would have to rely on stone to make a tool kit, or to see how one would set about selecting and obtaining the most appropriate raw material. It is made more difficult because there are no contemporary communities who depend on stone for everyday purposes from whom information might be obtained, though there is ethnographic information about communities who use stone (for example Hampton, 1999; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2020 and references below) which may elucidate our understanding of the acquisition and use particularly of exotic materials. They also show us that the demarcation between materials and people was much less marked in the premodern than it is for us. On a

Lithic Studies: Anatolia and Beyond (Archaeopress 2022): 11–49

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond more practical level there are some communities in Turkey (as elsewhere) which exploited flint in recent times but largely for threshing sledge inserts (Bordaz and Bordaz, 1973; Gebel, 1999; Weiner, 1999).

and taboos referred to above, as well as the need for practical decisions. Was it obtained by direct access or through middlemen or exchange? If direct then the scheduling of expeditions might have been constrained by practical as well as ritual concerns. Who was allowed to make those expeditions, did they have to be initiated? Who provided for those left behind? How far away was the source? Who knew the route? Were there social obligations that had to be fulfilled on the journey? How many people were required to transport the rock back home? How would the expedition be provisioned? Was the time of year a constraining factor (many sources of obsidian in Anatolia are in mountainous regions and can be inaccessible for up to six months of the year)? Did the rock have to be extracted by mining or quarrying or did it occur in accessible outcrops? Or was it pre-processed? Were the sources owned or managed in some way? Was it a free-for-all or was permission needed? How was it paid for? Many of these points are intangible but the archaeological reality demonstrated by the Göllü Dağı obsidian project shows palimpsest of activity and emphasises how complex activity at the sources must have been (Balkan-Atlı et al., 2013) and could have affected choice at any one moment in time.

In many pre-modern societies there is plenty of evidence that indicates that certain rocks and/or their sources were regarded as symbolically charged and that that symbolism becomes embodied in the rock extracted (Taçon, 1991); rocks and minerals can also be deeply entangled in the cosmological beliefs of a community (Boivin, 2004; Pétrequin and Pétrequin, 1993; Saunders, 2001, 2004; Stout, 2002, among others). The acquisition of rock was often associated with rituals and taboos (for example Brumm, 2004, 2010; Burton, 1984; Robinson, 2004; see also papers in Brewer-LaPorta et al., 2010 and Topping and Lynott, 2005, inter alia). The presence of non-local materials may also be the physical manifestations of social networks (Gould, 1980). While these examples provide much food for thought we must remember that they draw upon very different situations from those in pre- and early historic Anatolia and so are not directly transferable. Nevertheless they do remind us that choices made by other peoples may not conform to our own (modern) rationale. Indeed, some archaeologists have already drawn on ethnographic data in order to broaden their interpretations (for example Cooney, 2009; 2011; Edmonds, 1995, 1999; Edmonds and Ferraby, 2013) and the success of Project JADE in locating the source of jade was enlightened by approaches learnt from ethnographic observation (Pétrequin et al., 2017)

If by exchange then various models have been propounded by archaeologists although all too often on rather a small dataset. For example, there have been many suggestions about how to model the way obsidian was acquired (for example the supply zones and down the line trade (Renfrew et al., 1968; Renfrew and Dixon, 1976; Astruc et al. have suggested a number of different scenarios (Astruc et al., 2007); terrain modelling and least cost path analysis have been investigated in the Zagros region (Chataigner and Barge, 2008; Barge et al., 2018). Network analysis and agent based modelling provides another approach (Ibáñez et al., 2015, 2016; Ortega et al. 2014, 2016). A sort of catchment analysis which designates local, regional and distant zones for the location of different raw materials, though mostly applied to hunting and gathering communities may prove to be a useful tool for understanding the use of resources in the landscape (Bezić, 2007; Guilbeau et al. 2019; Ostaptchouk, 2014). In whatever way we choose to interpret the presence of exotic materials we can not realistically address these sorts of questions and build models until we know both the origin and the amount of material involved as well as the form it was circulating in.

More relevant to the prehistoric Near East, though often overlooked, is textual evidence, the earliest of which dates to about 2000 BC (Postgate, 1997). These texts describe how people in Mesopotamia classified and understood the properties and origins of certain stones and later (c 1000BC) produced a Handbook of Stones which orders the stones according to appearance and gives details of their properties (physical, natural and magical). Procurement Procuring suitable raw material likely involved many considerations and was presumably somewhat dependent on what it was to be used for. Acquiring stone for daily activities must have been very different from obtaining special and exotic rock. Mostly likely local sources fulfilled everyday needs and were accessed as a routine activity which was, at least on occasion, embedded within other activities (Nazaroff et al., 2013: 357). However, the acquisition of rock needed for a specific purpose or that had a particular significance often involved far away sources which may have been circumscribed by all sorts of rituals

Choosing rock The physical and mechanical characteristics of a rock likely also played a part in the selection process (Goodman, 1944) and perhaps even influenced how it was worked and used. We know, for example, that a certain type of flint was preferred for sickle blades 12

Elizabeth Healey: Raw Material Matters (Arimura, 2003:156, fig. 62) and that flint and obsidian were used in for different purposes at Çayönü and elsewhere (Iovino and Lemorini, 1999) though much more remains to be done in this field. However, some ethnographic evidence suggests other factors also come into play (Gould, 1980).

Bozkurt and Mittwede, 2001; Kayan, 1996; Okay, 2008; Türkiye Jeoloji Haritası). The main rocks used to make tools are flints, cherts and obsidians; other rocks such as jasper, chalcedonies, quartzes and quartzite are also occasionally used, but seemingly mostly opportunistically. They have been usefully described by Hauptmann (1999). We should also not forget that various volcanic and metamorphic rocks (serpentinite, nephrite, various greenstones, basalts and so on) were used for axe manufacture (Özbek, 2007, 2011), other ground-stone tools (e.g. Wright et al., 2013), vessels (Özkaya and Coşkun, 2011), and ornamentation and other objects (Alarashi and Chambrade, 2010; Baysal, 2019). Although these are not explored further here, they likely shared in the same traditions of procuring material and working methods (Gebel, 2013: 204).

Appearance and colour too, may have been a factor in choosing between raw materials (Cooney, 2002; Gaydarska and Chapman, 2008). Appearance could be altered and enhanced by smoothing and polishing as is the case of obsidian when used for items of personal adornment, mirrors and vessels (Saunders, 2001; Healey, 2007; 2013, forthcoming a). This is particularly obvious in the choice of stones used to make jewellery. Necklaces were sometimes composed of stone and other materials of contrasting colours (Khalidi, 2014). At Domuztepe we noted a preference for transparent greybrown obsidian for making beads despite the fact that green obsidian was the predominant type of obsidian in the immediate area (Healey and Campbell, 2014). Occasionally, objects made of distinctive materials, such as some of the knives and daggers at Çatalhöyük, were further embellished by the addition of elaborately carved bone handles (Nazaroff et al., 2016) thus drawing attention to the different flint used.

The geological occurrences of chert and flint in Anatolia have not been specifically mapped although the occurrence of limestone and to a lesser extent Upper Cretaceous chalk suggests that they must have been widely available; we tend to rely of survey related to archaeological sites to chart their occurrence, for example Balkan-Atlı (1994: 37-38), Bezić, (2007), Borrell, 2010; Coşkunsu (2007a:103-107) and Ostaptchouk, 2020, fig. 1). Flints and cherts are not always clearly distinguished as separate geological materials in the archaeological literature although see Luedekte (1992) This is further complicated because ‘flint’ is preferred by UK English speakers and ‘chert’ by Americans. In this paper I have largely retained the terminology used in a report. It is something that needs much more research before geological distinctions can be made with confidence.

Prehistoric people also knew how to ‘improve’ poor quality flint. If the quality of the flint was not up to scratch its flakeability could be altered by heat-treating (Inizan and Tixier, 2001 in relation to the Near East). This is often assumed to have been a highly controlled process but at Hasankeyf Höyük it seemed to have been much more casual (Maeda, 2017). There is also some anecdotal evidence that freshly mined flint flakes better than that which has been exposed for some time, and was preferred for blade manufacture (Bordaz and Bordaz, 1973; Braidwood et al., 1975). This may be one of the reasons for the use of freshly extracted flint in the production of Canaanean blades using lever pressure rather than stock-piling raw materials (although see Hartenberger et al., 2000).

Obsidian sources are much better known (Figure 1) and can be (mostly) geochemically separated on the basis of the ratio of Sr/Rb vs Zr/Rb (Figure 2) (cf. also Chataigner, 1998; Poidevin, 1998), which means that, given a few caveats, the obsidian from which artefacts are made can be matched to source through geochemical analyses. The main source areas are in southeastern Anatolia and Central Anatolia. The sources in the south-east include Bingöl, Nemrut Dağı, (Robin et al., 2016), Meydan Dağı (Akköprü et al., 2019) , Muş, Süphan Dağı and Tendürek Dağı; it is likely that the so far unlocated source of Group 3d obsidian is also in this region (Campbell and Healey 2016, in press). In Central Anatolia the sources are Göllüdağı, Nenezi Dağı and Acıgöl Binder et al. 2011; Mouralis et al. 2002). Other sources are known in northeastern Anatolia (Erzincan, Kars-Sarıkamış region, Pasinler, Erzurum, İkizdere (Chataigner et al., 2014)) and in northern Anatolia (Galatia (Keller et al., 1996)). Relevant sources in neighbouring regions include those in the trans-Caucasus (Arteni, Syunik and others; Chataigner and Gratuze, 2014a) and the Aegean (Melos and Yali; Milić 2014). The distribution of obsidian from

Even though many of these criteria are difficult to pin down archaeologically, they do provide some background to the things which might affect choice and it is one of the lithic analyst’s tasks to recognise and to try to take into account the intangible factors as well as the more practical and pragmatic evidence when considering why a particular lithic raw material (or selection of materials) was chosen. Geologic occurrence of flints, cherts and obsidian in Anatolia Anatolia is a large country and rich in rocks and minerals and its geology is complex (Altınlı, 1966; 13

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond each source region is fairly discrete but varies through time and there are overlaps between the obsidian from Central and SE Anatolia sources in Northern Mesopotamia and the northern Levant (Figure 3).

Also occasionally, but becoming more frequent as the number of artefacts provenanced increases, artefacts made of obsidian from far outside the region are recorded (Campbell and Healey, 2018).

Figure 1: Location of obsidian sources in Anatolia and surrounding regions 9 8 7 6

Bingöl A

5

Nemrut Dağ

4 3

2 Bingöl B

Zr/Rb

Meydan Dağ

1 0.9 0.8 0.7

Acigöl East: Boğazköy

Tendurek Diyadin

Nenezi Dağ

Suphan Dağ Göllüdağ West: Kayırlı

0.6

Acigöl East: Tulece

Hasan Dağ 2

0.5 0.4

Göllüdağ West: Bozköy

Göllüdağ East

0.3

Hasan Dağ 1

Acigöl West 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Sr/Rb

Figure 2: Sr/Rb vs Zr/Rb chart showing separation of sources using 95% confidence ellipses based on the analysis of 1495 source samples using pXRF by Manchester Obsidian Laboratory. Note that the y-axis uses a log scale. Chart prepared Stuart Campbell.

14

Elizabeth Healey: Raw Material Matters

Figure 3: Map showing extent of distribution of obsidian from each source. Note zones of overlap particularly with obsidian from Central Anatolia. This does not include occasional presence of artefacts made of obsidian from outside its main distribution zone.

The use of raw materials for chipped stone tool manufacture in Anatolia

Southeastern Anatolia (Upper Tigris region) In the south-east of Anatolia ‘flint’ occurs in outcrops and in secondary deposits in river terraces and is readily accessible by most settlements. In the Tigris valley high grade material is reported in situ on Raman Dağı (Kartal et al., 2018; Maeda, 2018 and others) and possibly another source in the mountains west of Raman Dağı (Kartal, 2007: 99). There are also secondary deposits of cobbles in the Tigris river terraces and its tributaries,

For the purposes of manageability, I have subdivided Anatolia into a number of regions (Figure 4). Under each section I summarise the main raw materials known to be available and give a brief resume of their use; the main sites are detailed in Tables 1 to 5. Since ongoing research is constantly bringing in new data the tables and discussion should be regarded as work in progress.

Figure 4: Map showing the location and extent of the regional zones.

15

16

PPNA

PN

Demirköy Höyük

Salat Camı Yanı

c 5000

7938

60%

91%

Rosenberg 1994

40%

9%

58%

Maeda 2011; pers com.

Round river cobbles (less than 10cm diameter) various colours, some 0.5% finer flint whitish beige lustrous, some matt, most and lustrous and only as poor quality, but some matt blades grey with orange yellow cortex better. Available in Salat Cay and Tigris

Heat treatment of Maeda 2018 some flint in lastest and on going. phase

Peasnall and Rosenberg 2001

Peralkaline Bingöl B Sarkamış Group 3d

Nemrut Dağ Bingöl A Bingöl B

Peralkaline

from limestone deposits in region. (Raman Dağ 20km to south). Some (small) unused quartzite Wide range of colours, from nodules on site which are purposefully good to poor quality from smaller than those from flaked bed of Batman Cay Raman Dağ so may be from different source. Better quality than river cobbles

76

16

42%

10,600 10,000 BP

Hallan Çemi

Large nodules of greyish flint eroding out of limestone strata

Varying quality and collected from of sources. Includes diverse coloured river pebbles/cobbles in channel of Sason Cayı

4340

AltınbilekAlgül 2013

Cream coloured, brown and Light chocolate brown flint in grey, prob. local but not yet very low proportions investigated.

91%

PPNA 9746787 8798 cal BC

Gusir Höyük

9%

Raman Dag, 2km north; seams of nodules brownish grey with 14 blue-grey fossil inclusions

Cobbles c. 0.3m in length from fluvial terrace of the Tigris.Grey to brown often with greyish purple hue

Carter et al. 2012; Kartal et al. 2018

100,000 chipped PPNA 9600stone of which 94,70% 5,30% 9100 cal BC 18379 analysed.

120 obsidian provenance published

Hassankeyf Höyük

Nemrut Dağ Bingöl A Bingöl B Group 3d Muş

From Raman Dağ. Also high quality blades of milky-brown 235 flint not-local. Summary of potential radiolarite sources.

Reference

2.5% Nodules, rougly knapped (radiolarite) and not used economically

Notes

52,50% 45,00%

Sources

28,087 of which 9267 analysed

Obsidian analysed

Epal/PPNA

Other flint source

Körtik Tepe

Main flint source

% flint

Total lithics

Date

Site

% % other obsidian

Table 1: Use of raw materials at selected sites in SE Anatolia

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond

50%

67%

5303

221

104, 580 (only one season analsyed)

125

Ubaid

PN

PPNB

Halaf

?

Kenan Tepe

Hakemi Use

Boncuklu Tarla

Tilkitepe

Ayngerm

85%

% % other obsidian

17

much

dominant

32%

50%

75,28% 25,00%

15%

?

PPNB and PN

Sumaki Höyuk

% flint

Total lithics

Date

Site

5

13

Abundant flint in the Seyhhan stream 2 to 4km to SW imported blade cores of brown flint

Raman Dag 2km to east, and good quality flint tranparent brown and grey in mountains to west

River cobbles (local) ; various colours

local

semi translucent cherts esp for blades. Two others orange brown semi-translucent 882 and one chocolate (no assoc debitage)

Obsidian analysed

A few fine brown and grey flints imported

Other flint source

Local

Main flint source

Peralkaline

Peralkaline Meydan Dağ Group 3d Unknown

Nemrut Dağ Bingöl A Bingöl B Meydan Dağ Group 3d Muş Sarikamış Pasinler Arteni Syunik Unknown

Sources

Reference

black obsidian dominant

Wright 1969; Gratuze et al. 1993

Korfmann 1982

Kartal et al. 2014

Kartal 2007

Campbell and Healey 2016; Healey forthcoming b

obsidian poss brought in in raw state (cortex) or part incipinet cores Erim-Özdoğan bullet cores. Larger 2011 blades may have been acquired ready made. Some Cayonu tools.

Notes

Elizabeth Healey: Raw Material Matters

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond for example the Batman Çayı (Peasnall and Rosenberg, 2001). Radiolarite has been recorded at Çermik in Diyarbakır region and in the Gercüş formation in Batman, at Tunceli and Bingöl, as well as just outside the immediate area north of Malatya in Hekimhan and Ergani-Elazığ, though none have been characterized (Kartal et al., 2018).

Group 3d obsidian at Kenan Tepe which though present in other assemblages (Körtik Tepe (Kartal et al.2018) and Salat Cami Yanı (Campbell et al., in press) is unusual (Campbell and Healey, 2016, in press).The use of Muş obsidian is rare - found only at Körtik Tepe (Carter et al. 2013; Kartal et al., 2018) and Kenan Tepe (Campbell and Healey 2016) and outside the region at Domuztepe, Tell Mozan and Hassek Höyük (Frahm 2014). In addition occasional examples of obsidian from far away sources have been identified in assemblages within the region – for example from Armenian sources at Kenan Type and possibly Salat Cami Yanı.

There are several obsidian sources in the area, though three seem to have been the focus of attention, Nemrut and Bingöl A which are peralkaline and of distinctive green colour and Bingol B which is calcalkaline. Meydan Dağı obsidian is quite widely exploited but in small amounts; the use of Muş obsidian on the other hand is rare (eg Körtik Tepe) and Süphan Dağı and Tendürek Dağı obsidians are not documented in Anatolia, but are found outside the region; for the use of Tendürek obsidian see Campbell and Healey, 2017 and for Süphan Dağı obsidian see Carter et al., 2013).

Northeastern Anatolia (Ezrurum and Kars) The region is largely composed of volcanic rocks (basalts, high silica rhyolites and obsidians (Brennan, 2000; Chataigner et al., 2014)). Flint has been reported at Ağın, near Elazığ and flinty schist in the region of Gümüşhane (Balkan-Atlı, 1994: 37-38). Several obsidian sources have been identified in the Erzincan, İkizdere, Erzurum-Pasinler and the Kars-Sarıkamış areas; obsidian is also often carried some distance down rivers in both areas and so is also found in secondary contexts (Chataigner et al., 2014).

Perhaps not unexpectedly, flint tends to dominate assemblages and is often used profligately; in many cases it seems to have been collected as raw nodules likely by each household or local community and was used to fulfil its immediate needs so beyond showing a common understanding that local material was sufficient for most purposes it has little interpretative potential, also the debris from primary production may exaggerate its importance. In most assemblages the regular but relatively rare use of better quality flintusually for blade manufacture – may indicate some intersite connections or at least knowledge of sources and provenancing of such artefacts would help to elucidate this. The practice of heat treating flint may also indicate some commonality but the evidence we have so far only comes from Hasankeyf Höyük where it seems to have been carried out in an idoiosyncratic way (Maeda, 2017; 2018). The use of other raw materials such as radiolarite (Körtik Tepe) and quartzite (Demirköy Höyük ) are also documented.

Interest in this region has focused on obsidian. In the Bayburt plain (Sagona and Brennan, 1994) obsidian varies greatly in quantity between sites although the provenanced obsidian comes from the Erzurum sources; İvikler Tepe in the Erzurum region has one artefact which is similar to the obsidian in the Erzincan region (Brennan, 2000; Kobayshi and Sagona, 2008). At Sos Höyük obsidian from the Pasinler region predominates but comes from different contexts; in LCEBA I levels it was mostly obtained from river deposits and used profligately, but in EBA II-MBA levels was most obtained from outcrops and used conservatively (Kobayashi, 2006). A few artefacts made of obsidian originating from the sources in this region have been found at sites a considerable distance away, for example Pasinler obsidian was found at Tell Kurdu (Chataigner et al., 2014) and from Pasinler, Kars Apaçay and Sarıkamış at Domuztepe (Campbell and Healey, 2018); a flake of obsidian from Sarıkamış was found in Epipalaeolithic context at Shanidar cave (Campbell and Healey, 2019) and unspecified north eastern source at Göbekli Tepe (Notroff et al., 2016).

Potential connections are more likely to be tracable through obsidian, simply because its origins are more easily determined. Obsidian can constitute a substantial proportion of the raw materials in an assemblage (over 40% at Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe, Sumaki, Hakemi Use, Salat Cami Yanı) even though the nearest sources are about 150 km from most sites. Only three sites, Demirköy Höyük, Gusir and Hasankeyf Höyük, have less that 10% obsidian. The reason for the big differences is not obvious but may be due to different contexts and purposes of the assemblages (see for example, Peasnall and Rosenberg, 2001). Source use also varies from source to souce with fluctuating proportions particularly noticeable between the Nemrut Dağı and Bingöl sources (Figure 7) which are also found outside the immediate region. There is also a large proportion of

The Euphrates valley including the Urfa/Harran region (Table 2) This is a large, flint-rich area and I have divided into in smaller sub-regions (Table 2). These include the Harran-Urfa area, the Euphrates valley south of Birecik, 18

19

PPN

Halaf

Kazane

PPN

Yeni Mahalle, Urfa

Karahan Höyük

PPN

Hamzan Tepe

1255

591

254

134 6%

97,30% 2,70%

91,50% 8,50%

94%

94,40% 1% v rare

small nos

thousands and 99% thousands’

Göbekli Tepe

PPN

5.116

Mezraa Teleilat

Fıstıklı Höyük Halaf

PPN-PN 19.498

Akarçay Tepe

ranges from 15 - 28% depending on phase

8951 flint analysed

MPPNPN

5000+ (c 1020% in each phase)

< 1%

Local river terraces

Local river terraces

Local flint opaque banded (cream, brown grey) or white medium grained ; translucent tan or brown fine grained chert

4.2% ?

coarse fossiliferous chert (mostly flakes); some tabular thin cortex and others

good quality local (flint deposits 1 km away))

local : nodules embedded in limestone

grey (most) brown, black, cream. good quality local (flint deposits immediately adjacent to site )

dark brown; importedfrom neaby valleys.

Bingöl and Van sources; Göllüdağ; Gutansar

Sources

fine textured dark grey grey outcrops locally in hills

Borrell 2005; 2010; 2011; 2015 Maeda, 2007; obsidian anal. Delerue, 2007

Flint characterised in thin section. Borrell noted less selection of flint though time. Obsidian mirror.

?

?

transparent black

central Anatolia souteast Cortical flint Anatolia pieces carved into masks northeast Anatolia

Bernbeck et al, 1999

Çelik 2011a

Çelik, 2000, 2011b

Çelik 2000,

Schmidt 2000; Notroff et al 2016; Dietrich et al. 2017. (see also Carter et al. 2012)

Starzmann, 2013

Coşkunsu, 2007a and b, 2011

Edens, 2000a; Obsidian analysed by Blackman.

Reference

Canaanean blades made on medium grained flint; other blades on medium and and fine grained.

Notes

Peralkaline (domiinant); beads and Characterised other sources visually probably include pendants Bingöl B and Göllüdağ-east

Göllüdağ-east 18 (also all Nemrut Dağ some Eocene in situ characterised Bingöl A Bingöl visually) B

fine dark grey flint often with powdery chalk cortex possibly imported a few pieces from Syria ; also tabular scrapers cf types from S.Levant.

obsidian analysed

Other flint source

Main flint source

quartz and basalt ? in small nos

minor

% flint % obsidian % other

24,000 plus 99%

Total lithics

Uruk

Date

Hacinebi

Sub Site Region

Birecik area

Urfa region

Table 2: Use of raw materials at selected sites in the Euprhrates valley

Elizabeth Healey: Raw Material Matters

Samsat region

Malatya area

20

99%

‘huge quantities’

320,00

several hundred thousands. 4600 analysed

PPN

Arslantepe

Cafer Höyük

c. 5000

8915 (excav. 199-2001), LC-EBA 2043 flint (excav. 2006-2008)

5%

99%

almost none and only in pits Chalco to EBA

95%

1 to 40%

quartz, basalt

rich flint resouces adjacent to site. olive green and dark brown high quality.

2,50%

0,36%

Excellent fine grained dark grey and brown. Found in Kalburcu river - Large nodules on river bank 3km upstream unrolled flint used for Canaanean blades

Fine textured, nut brown to buff, ewhite inclusion. 388 Opaque bigger pebbles with chalky cortex

21

Coarse textures with chaff-ike inclusuion light brown, opaque or translucent ; mainly large Canaanean blades but some flakes too.

Silex A: high quality m three sub groups/ chalky cortex, blocks 27 30-40 cm and 1020kg. imported.

obsidian analysed

very fine texutred, brown, yellow grey translucent medium sized pebbles from river gravel; mainly used for small implements and flakes

Silex B: flint cobbles from gravels (max. 20cm long); opaque banded (cream, brown, grey) and a translucent brown or tan fine grained chert. Domestic industry.

Tabular high quality and nodular tan/ nodular dark brown expedient and grey . Acquired as a small amount of tabular flint large chunks upto 50cm in length , domestic poss source about 4km from site.

80% local -good quality flint in local limestone outcrops.

fine grained tabular flint

carnelian coarse grained flint in form of in bead small river pebbles in Euphrates workshop

5%

c.1%

Other flint source

Main flint source

% flint % obsidian % other

24,000 out 95% of 1000,000

5997 (sample_

Total lithics

Hassek Höyük LC/EBA 13432

LC/EBA

Titris Höyük

PPN

Hayaz Höyük

PPN

PPN

Gritille

Nevali Çori

PN

Date

Kumartepe

Sub Site Region

Bingöl A Bingöl B

Göllüdağ-east Nemrut Dağ Bingöl A Bingöl B Meydan Dağ Sarikamış Paslinler Arteni

Nemrut Dağ Bingöl A Bingöl B Acigol -west unidentified

Sources

Caneva 1993; Mouralis et al. 2018

Otte and BehmBlanke 1992 p.166 table 1; Pernicka 1992

Hartenberger et al. 2000

Schmidt 1988

Roodenberg, 1989

Davis i1988

Roodenberg et.al. 1984 et al.; Roodenberg 1989; Calley 1989

Reference

Cauvin and Balkan 1985; 91% of arrowheads Cauvin 1991; in obsidian Cauvin, J. et al. 2011

Fornaseri et al. 1974 also provenanced 38 obsidain artefacts using X-ray fluourescence and indexes of diffraction

Notes

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond

Keban Dam and upper valleys

cobble and cell 4187 MPPNB

Çayönü

899

5%

PPNB

Boy Tepe

21 0.35% -62%

94%

30%

70%

4932

Halaf

Girikihaciyan

96%

6%

97,07% 2.93%%

0-26%

94%

1%

% flint % obsidian % other

ChalcoDeğirmentepe 23,298 Ubaid

Chalco- 125,540 MBA plus

Norşuntepe

5380

Total lithics

Chalco

Date

Tülintepe

Sub Site Region

Pressure reduction, flint (local and imported and obsidian) ‘ Blocks of flint stored.

Semi fine texture, light brown to whitish with ine black inclusions, opaque used fo long blades in EBA 1 but never in Chalco.

poor quality

Tabular dark and liht brown (4.49%)

small water worn pebbles, coarse granualr texture. From bed of Euphrates high lustre and brownish tint; mainly used for baldes

tabular knives . Canaanean blades

Other flint source

Flint, Quartzite and tabular flint

local

Main flint source

63

2

13

all

obsidian analysed Notes

Reference

On-going -ErimÖzdoğan 2011b;. Redman 1982; Caneva et al. 1994; 1996, 2001 2006; Caneva et al. 1996; Binder 2008; Obsidian: Bigazzi et al. 1984. Oddone et al. 2003. Nemrut Dağı Bingöl B and possibly Meydan beads Dag, Mus and Kars

Watson and Leblanc, 1990

Balkan-Atlı 1994; Yeğingil and Lünel 1990

Balkan 1989

in form of round balls 2.4-3.0 cm diameter, black grey and green in colour

Schmidt, 1996

Bingöl B

Bingol B Bingöl A

separated some found in macroscopically nearby river into 6 groups gravels

vessel and hooked pendant (with both flint Arsebük 1974, and obsidian evidence for its 1983, available locally manufacture in Room B).

Sources

Elizabeth Healey: Raw Material Matters

Lithic Studies - Anatolia and Beyond the middle Euphrates valley, and the Keban dam region and the high valleys to the north.

standardized blades from naviform cores. The massive amount of debitage (80,000 pieces in one pit) has led to the settlement being described as blade production site (Roodenberg, 1989). However, the PN site of Kumartepe, only 15 km away, most of the flint used was coarsegrained small pebbles from the talus of the river bed and only a few pieces of fine-grained tabular flint noted.

Flint of varying quality is abundant, both in situ and in secondary deposits throughout the wider region, although of lesser quality in the north. The nearest obsidian sources are in Erzincan and Bingöl regions (Chataigner et al., 1998); but it has also been reported in riverine deposits in the Keban Dam area and further north.

In the Uruk and Early Bronze Age, the high quality in situ flint was exploited exclusively for the manufacture of Canaanean blades at Hassek Höyük (Behm-Blanke et al.,1992), Titriş Höyük (Hartenberger et al., 2000) and Hacinebi (Edens, 2000a), a specialized technology involving the use lever pressure for which it is particularly suited (Chabot and Pelegrin, 2012). At Titriş Höyük large rectangular chunks (50 cm in length) were brought to the site for reduction. They appear to have been roughed out at the outcrop - a possible source is about 4 km distant (Hartenberger et al., 2000). The freshness of this flint, its fine grain and the size and shape of the nodules greatly facilitated the production of blades and it was used exclusively for blade manufacture; river cobbles seem to have been adequate for everyday use and used alongside it. Blades were produced in vast numbers, (estimated to be in the region of 30,000 at Titriş) some of which were used within the community for elements for sickles, but the scale of production suggests that some may also have been exported (Hartenberger et al., 2000: 55). Several sites have Canaanean blades, for example at Arslantepe (Caneva, 1993), Norşuntepe (Schmidt, 1996), in the Amuq (Crowfoot-Payne, 1960) as well as sites in Syria (Chabot and Eid, 2007) and it has been suggested they may have exported from the manufacturing sites. Characterization of the sources of the raw flint and the blades might help to resolve this issue.

In the Harran plain flint outcrops on the limestone plateau (Çelik, 2011) and predominates in the Neolithic assemblages of Karahan, Hamzan, etc., and at Gürcütepe and Göbekli Tepe where it is described as being of high quality and dark in colour (Schmidt, 2000). In the Euphrates valley south of Birecik, flint is plentiful in the river terraces and in outcrops near Birecik. It has been studied petrographically by Borrell, (2005) in relation to the assemblage and macrocospically at Mezra Teleilat (Coșkunsu, 2007a). At Akarçay Tepe Borrell was able to show that only two of the nine types he identified were regularly used during the PPNB occupation (Borrell, 2005), largely for blade manufacture. Two different techniques were practiced, each for specific purposes; unidirectional blades were produced for sickle elements and bidirectional blades for Byblos points. Because of his detailed technological analysis in conjunction with raw material choice Borrell was able to identify a few Byblos points made of a nonlocal flint and produced using the off-set bi-directional strategy. Because there was no other evidence for the use either of this flint or of this strategy at Akarçay he suggested that the blades and perhaps even the finished arrowheads may come from a nearby site such as Halula where that strategy was practiced and similar flint used (Borrell, 2011). He also noted that by the end of the PPNB and into the PN much less care was exercised in choice of raw materials and blade production also dramatically declined, a feature noted elsewhere (Astruc, 2011; Coșkunsu, 2007a, 2011; Ibáñez and Urquijo, 2011).

Flint use in the area north of Malatya is more varied. Ostaptchouk has suggested that the flint around Malatya may be dolomitic and thus characterizable (Ostaptchouk, 2016, 82-84). At Cafer Höyük flint probably came from the river terraces upstream (Cauvin and Balkan, 1985). At Çayönü, for example, local poor quality flint is used for everyday tool manufacture, but two other types of flint are considered to have been ‘imported’ for specific purposes and obsidian takes over from flint. At the same time reduction by pressure is introduced both for flint and obsidian (Figure 5) (Binder, 2008).

The flint in the middle Euphrates valley around Samsat is of exceptionally high quality and embedded in the limestone (Masch and Weiner, 1992: 26-27, fig. 2). It is of both tabular and nodular form, measuring 30-40 cm and weighing 10-25 kg. In the early Neolithic period flint was used in huge quantities and profligately at sites like Gritille and Hayaz Höyük. At Gritille the low proportion of cores and pieces with cortex suggested that preliminary production and blank manufacture took place at source, probably at an outcrop 3km from the site (Davis, 1988). At Hayaz Höyük advantage was taken of the ‘excellent fine-grained flint’ in the form of large nodules to produce, in high numbers,

Obsidian use is very varied in this region, forming only a relatively small proportion of most assemblages, likely because of the ready availability of hight quality flint. At Akarçay Tepe in the Birecik area, it contributes between 10 and 20% and can be attributed to both central and southeastern sources, at Mezraa Teleilat, distinction based on appearance suggests similar sources and that 22

Elizabeth Healey: Raw Material Matters

70 60 50 40

ian sid b O

Percent

30 20 10 0 Round houses Flint A1 Flint B1 Flint B2 Obsidian

62

Early grill buildings

Middle grill buildings

Channel buildings

cell buildings

39 22

42 18

10

12

20 4 5 33

16 2 7 59

Figure 5: Chart showing the decline in the use of flint and the increase in the use of obsidian over time at Çayönü (based on numbers given in Binder 2008). Note that the use of reduction by pressure is first identified in the Channel Building phase which is also the time that the use of obsidian increases.

Nemrut Dağı (Cauvin et al., 1986); it also predominates at Boy Tepe (95%) although some may have come from the local river gravels (Balkan, 1989; Balkan-Atlı, 1994; Schmidt, 1996). A handful of artefacts from a number of sites were provenanced by Renfrew et al., (1966) and attributed to the sources in the south-east and, though hardly representative, do not contradict the pattern.

green peralkaline obsidian predominated (Coșkunsu, 2007b). In the flint rich area around Samsat obsidian use decreases to less than 10% and where provenanced also comes from southeastern sources. In the Keban region there is slightly more obsidian; some obsidian could be local, perhaps from Elazığ and Mastardağ (Atlınova) (although it has not been geochemically tested) or transported by the River Murat from Bingöl (Schmidt, 1996). At Arslantepe, where a large number of artefacts have been provenanced, obsidian from Central, southeastern and Armenian sources has been identified, reflecting both the date of the settlement and probably the large number of artefacts provenanced (Mouralis et al., 2018). In the Urfa region it usually amounts to less than 10%, despite the small numbers present at Göbekli Tepe (less than 400 artefacts or 2%) provenance analysis identified seven geochemical groups from four different source regions including central Anatolia, southeastern Anatolia and northeast sources which may reflect the nature of the site rather than regular practice (Notroff et al., 2016; Dietrich et al., 2017). Further north, where flint of lesser quality was available obsidian use during the PPN obsidian increases to over 60% at Çayönü (Binder, 2008) and is mainly from Bingöl and Nemrut Dag (Bigazzi et al. 1994). At Cafer it reaches 99% and has been sourced to Bingöl B and

Non-tool use of obsidian is evidenced in the PPNB by the insertion of obsidian blade fragments into the eye sockets of a statue from Yeni Mahalle, Urfa (Çelik, 2011b). Ground and polished objects include a mirror from Akarçay Tepe (Borrell, pers. com.) PPNC/PN levels, a bowl fragment from Tülintepe dated to early Chalcolithic, as well as evidence for the manufacture of ‘hooks’ (Arsebük, 1974; 1983). Gaziantep and Hatay area This area is quite flint-rich although sources are sparsely documented (Table 3). In the Eocene limestone in the Gaziantep area archaeological survey located bands of nodular flint extending over 15 km northwest/ southeast of Sakçe-Gözü (Garrard et al., 1996). Sites like Domuztepe just over 20 km to the north, and which used a wide range of flints and cherts, may well have 23

24

Amuq D, E,

Amuq F-H 573

LBA

Tell Judaidah

Tell Judaidah

Atchana

461

935

122

Amuq C

255

Tell Judaidah

Tell Kurdu

2534

Amuq A , B and first 2059 mixed range

Chalco

Tell Kurdu

Tell Judaidah

Amuq C/ Halaf

c. 58,000

Domuztepe Halaf

Total no. of artefacts

1779

Date

Sakça Gözü PPNB 4/5

Site

95%

83,1

67,9

64

76,6

c.76%

c 77%

84%

c 94%

Flint

5%

16,90%

32,10%

36%

23,40%

24%

great variety , milky white quartzy to matt ochre coloired to fine grained lustrous

coarse grained chert, varieyin in colour from dark buff to brown . Some dark brown or grey flint

buff coloured chert , some brown and brown flint

various. probably from local Afrin gravels. Fine grained.medium flint medium pale grey fossiliferous flint which may come from Amanus mountains 15km distant.

23

1

blades 50%; most on fossiliferous flint 9 ; fine flint mostly flakes and shatter.

18

as below

Notes Conolly in Garrard et al, 1996

Reference

Healey 2004; Delerue 2007 and on going

obsidian beads

obsidian pendants

obsidian beads

Crowfoot-Payne 1960 Table V

Crowfoot-Payne 1960 Table V

Crowfoot-Payne 1960 Table V

Crowfoot-Payne 1960 Table V; Renfrew et al. 1966

obsidian bead Göllüdağ-east Nenezi and bowls. Frahm in Healey Dağ Acigöl east Nemrut Obsidian blocks 2020a Dağ Bingöl B unknown stored

Göllüdağ east

Edens 2000b; Edens Göllüdağ-east Bingöl B obsidian beads, and Yener 2000 fig. Bingöl A Meydan Dağ discs and 22.12. Bressy et al Pasinler handle 2005.

Göllüdağ east Bingöl A/ obsidian beads Nemrut Dağ Bingöl B and link Sarikamış

obsidian beads, Healey 2007, 2013; 15 sources Cappadocia (3) SE Anatolia (4) NE pendants bowls, pers obs and on going Anatolia (4) Armenia (3) mirrors

obsidian no. Sources analysed

c 23% (varies between 9 and 42%

nodular (rather than tabular flint. basalt (one biface) 6 tyoes . Brown ranges form fine to quartzite and coarse, grey quite fine. greenstone

other

Variety , mostly beige and grey, chocolate flint with 1120 some green quartzy. Probably local. chalky cortex