Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T23:29:15.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resilience and Redundance: Resource Networks and the Neolithic Chert Economy at Çatalhöyük, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Adam Joseph Nazaroff ,
Adnan Baysal ,
Yahya Çiftçi  and
Keith Prufer
Adam Joseph Nazaroff*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, USA
Adnan Baysal*
Affiliation:
Archaeology Department, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
Yahya Çiftçi*
Affiliation:
Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey
Keith Prufer*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, USA
*
[email: nazaroff@stanford.edu]
[email: Adnan.Baysal@KaraElmas.Edu.TR]
[email: yahyaciftci@gmail.com]
[email: kmp@unm.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The polycentric nature of Neolithic developments in the Middle East has prompted several discussions related to the processes driving regional diversification in the emergence of agglomerate societies. Archaeologists have recognized how diverse social, environmental, and material landscapes shaped various communities, resulting in a heterogenous Neolithic world. In this paper, we use portable x-ray fluorescence analysis to determine the use of different chert resources at the site of Çatalhöyük, Turkey, and question how their consumption affected, and was affected by, different social and material practices enacted within the community. We adopt a network perspective to examine the range of behaviours that consumed particular resources, and trace how alterations in these networks impacted the social fabric of Çatalhöyük. Ultimately, we conclude that different investments involved in the consumption of each resource either promoted or restricted their use through time. A more complete picture of Neolithic life, we suggest, takes note of the varied relationships that communities developed with nearby social and environmental landscapes, including nuances in the ways in which resources were incorporated into different facets of each community.

La nature polycentrique des développements néolithiques au Moyen-Orient a provoqué plusieurs débats sur les processus responsables de la diversification régionale lors de l'apparition de sociétés agglomérées. Les archéologues ont constaté comment les divers contextes sociaux, environnementaux et matériels façonnent les différentes communautés, résultant dans un monde néolithique hétérogène. Dans cet article, nous utilisons la spectrométrie fluorescente X portable (SFXp) pour déterminer l'usage de différentes ressources de chert sur le site de Çatalhöyük en Turquie, et nous étudions comment leur consommation affectait—et fût affectée par—les différentes pratiques sociales et matérielles promulguées au sein de la communauté. Nous adoptons une perspective de réseau pour examiner une série de comportements consommant des ressources particulières et recherchons quel impact des modifications dans ces réseaux avaient sur le tissu social de Çatalhöyük. Enfin nous concluons que différents investissements impliqués dans la consommation de chaque ressource soit encourageaient soit limitaient leur utilisation au fil du temps. Nous suggérons qu'une image plus complète de la vie néolithique tienne compte des relations diverses que les communautés développaient avec les contextes sociaux et environnementaux avoisinants, et y inclue les nuances dans la manière dont les ressources furent incorporées dans les différentes facettes de chaque communauté. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Die polyzentrische Natur der neolithischen Entwicklungen im Vorderen Orient hat verschiedene Diskussionen zu der im Zuge dieses Prozesses fortschreitenden regionalen Diversifikation bei der Entstehung agglomerierter Gesellschaften ausgelöst. Archäologen haben erkannt, wie verschiedene soziale, materielle und die Umwelt betreffende Landschaften unterschiedliche Gemeinschaften geformt haben, die zu einer heterogenen neolithischen Welt führten. In diesem Beitrag wird die Technologie der transportablen Röntgenfluoreszenzanalyse (RFA) genutzt, um die Nutzung verschiedener Feuersteinlagerstätten am Fundplatz Çatalhöyük, Türkei, zu eruieren und zu untersuchen, wie ihre Ausbeutung die Ausübung verschiedener sozialer und materieller Praktiken innerhalb der Gemeinschaft beeinflusste und durch diese beeinflusst wurde. Zur Untersuchung des Umfangs der Verhaltensweisen, die zur Ausbeutung bestimmter Ressourcen führten, nutzen wir eine Netzwerk-Perspektive und zeigen, wie Änderungen in diesen Netzwerken das soziale Gefüge in Çatalhöyük beeinflussten. Letztlich schließen wir, dass verschiedene Investitionen im Rahmen der Ausnutzung einer jeden Ressource entweder ihre Nutzung im Laufe der Zeit förderten oder behinderten. Ein kompletteres Bild des neolithischen Lebens, so schlagen wir vor, berücksichtigt die verschiedenen Beziehungen, die die Gemeinschaften mit nahegelegenen sozialen Landschaften sowie Landschaftsbildern der Umgebung etablierten, was Nuancen in Art der der Einbeziehung in verschiedene Facetten einer jeden Gemeinschaft einschließt. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Keywords

NeolithicMiddle EastÇatalhöyüklithic provenancenetworksNéolithiqueProche-OrientÇatalhöyükprovenance lithiqueréseauxNeolithikumVorderer OrientÇatalhöyüklithische HerkunftNetzwerke
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , 2015 , pp. 402 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 the European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akridge, D.G. & Benoit, P.H. 2001. Luminescence Properties of Chert and some Archaeological Applications. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28 (2): 143–51.Google Scholar
Asouti, E. 2005. Woodland Vegetation and the Exploitation of Fuel and Timber at Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Report on the Wood-Charcoal Macro-Remains. In: Hodder, I., ed. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. BIAA Monograph No. 39. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeology and the British Institute at Ankara, pp. 213–60.Google Scholar
Asouti, E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Interaction Sphere. Journal of World Prehistory, 20: 87–126.Google Scholar
Asouti, E. 2013. Woodland Vegetation, Firewood Management and Woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I., ed. Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 8. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara Monograph and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 129–62.Google Scholar
Asouti, E. & Fairbairn, A. 2002. Subsistence Economy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic: The Archaeobotanical Evidence. In: Gerard, F. & Thissen, L., eds. The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, Internal Developments and External Relations During the 9th–6th Millennia Cal BC. Istanbul: Yayınları, pp. 181–92.Google Scholar
Baird, D., Asouti, E., Astruc, L., Baysal, A., Baysal, E., Carruthers, D., Fairbairn, A., Kabukcu, C., Jenkins, E., Lorentz, K., Middleton, C., Pearson, J. & Pirie, A. 2013. Juniper Smoke, Skulls and Wolves' Tails: The Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian Plateau in its South-West Asian Context; Insights from Pınarbaşı. Levant, 25 (2): 175–209.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. 2001. From Sedentary Foragers to Village Hierarchies: The Emergence of Social Institutions. Proceedings of the British Academy, 110: 1–38.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. & Meadows, R. 1995. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. In: Price, T.D. & Gebauer, A.B., eds. Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research, pp. 39–94.Google Scholar
Baysal, A. 2009. Social and Economic Implications of the Life Histories of Ground Stone at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. (, University of Liverpool).Google Scholar
Baysal, E. 2013. A Tale of Two Assemblages: Early Neolithic Manufacture and Use of Beads in the Konya Plain. Anatolian Studies, 63: 1–15.Google Scholar
Belfer-Cohen, A. & Goring-Morris, A.N. 2011. Becoming Farmers. Current Anthropology, 52 (S4): S209–20.Google Scholar
Bender, B. 1978. Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology, 10 (2): 204–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezić, A. 2007. Distribution of Flint in Turkey, From 10,000 to 6,000 Cal BC. Case Study—Çatalhöyük. In: Delage, C., ed. Chert Availability and Prehistoric Exploitation in the Near East. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1615. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 68–86.Google Scholar
Bıcakci, E. 2003. Observations on the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Architecture in the Near East: 1. New Building Materials and Construction Techniques. In: Özdoğan, M., Hauptmann, H. & Basgelen, N., eds. From Village to Cities: Early Villages in the Near East. Istanbul: Yayinlari, pp. 385–414.Google Scholar
Bogaard, A., Henton, E., Evans, J.A., Twiss, K.C., Charles, M.P., Vaiglova, P. & Russell, N. 2013. Locating Land Use at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey: The Implications of 87Sr/86Sr Signatures in Plants and Sheep Tooth Sequences. Archaeometry, 56 (5): 860–77.Google Scholar
Bustillo, M.A., Castaneda, N., Capote, M., Consuegra, S., Criado, C., Diaz-Del-Rio, P., Orozco, T., Perez-Jimenez, J.L. & Terradas, X. 2009. Is the Macroscopic Classification of Flint Useful? A Petroarchaeological Analysis and Characterization of Flint Raw Materials from the Iberian Neolithic Mine of Casa Montero. Archaeometry, 51 (2): 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T. 2011. A True Gift of Mother Earth: The Use and Significance of Obsidian at Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies, 61: 1–19.Google Scholar
Carter, T. & Milic, M. 2013. The Chipped Stone. In: Hodder, I., ed. Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 9. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara Monograph and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 417–78.Google Scholar
Carter, T. & Underbjerg, H.M. 2012. The Flaked Stone Assemblage from the BACH Area. In: Tringham, R. & Stevanović, M., eds. Last House on the Hill. BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 11, Monumenta Archaeologica 27. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 391–414.Google Scholar
Carter, T., Conolly, J. & Spasojevic, A. 2005. The Chipped Stone. In: Hodder, I., ed. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs and the British Institute at Ankara, pp. 221–83.Google Scholar
Carter, T., Grant, S., Kartal, M., Coşkun, A. & Özkaya, V. 2013. Networks and Neolithization: Sourcing Obsidian from Körtik Tepe (SE Anatolia). Journal of Archaeological Science, 40: 556–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cauvin, J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cauvin, M. & Chataigner, C. 1998. Distribution de l'obsidienne dans les sites archéologiques du Proche et Moyen Orient. In: Cauvin, M.C., Gourgaud, A., Gratuze, B., Arnaud, N., Poupeau, G., Poidevin, J.L. & Chataigner, C., eds. L'Obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du Volcan à l'Outil. British Archaeological Reports International Series 738. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 325–50.Google Scholar
Cessford, C. & Carter, T. 2005. Quantifying the Consumption of Obsidian at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology, 30 (3): 305–15.Google Scholar
Conolly, J. 1999. Technical Strategies and Technical Change at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Antiquity, 73: 791–800.Google Scholar
Coward, F. 2010. Small Worlds, Material Culture, and Ancient Near Eastern Social Networks. In: Dunbar, R., Gamble, C. & Gowlett, J. eds. Social Brain, Distributed Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 449–80.Google Scholar
Coward, F. 2013. Grounding the Net: Social Networks, Material Culture and Geography in the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the Near East (∼21,000–6000 Cal BCE). In: Knappett, C., ed. Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Regional Approaches to Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 247–80.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 2008. Clay Sourcing. Çatalhöyük 2008 Archive Report [online] [accessed 12 August 2013]. Available at: <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/>.Google Scholar
Doherty, C., Milic, M. & Carter, T. 2007. Non-Obsidian Characterization Studies: 2007 Chipped Stone Report. Çatalhöyük 2007 Archive Report [online] [accessed 12 August 2013]. Available at: <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/>..>Google Scholar
Düring, B. 2011. The Prehistory of Asia Minor: From Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, A., Langer, J., Donahue, R., Wolframm, Y. & Lovis, W. 2010. Lithic Raw Material Sourcing and the Assessment of Mesolithic Landscape Organization and Mobility Strategies in Northern England. Holocene, 20 (7): 1157–63.Google Scholar
Frahm, E. 2013. Is Obsidian Sourcing about Geochemistry or Archaeology? A Reply to Speakman and Shackley. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2): 1444–48.Google Scholar
Fuller, D., Allaby, R. & Stevens, C. 2010. Domestication as Innovation: The Entanglement of Techniques, Technology and Chance in the Domestication of Cereal Crops. World Archaeology, 42 (1): 13–28.Google Scholar
Gauthier, G., Burke, A.L. & Leclerc, M. 2012. Assessing XRF for the Geochemical Characterization of Radiolarian Chert Artifacts from Northeastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39 (7): 2436–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebel, H. 2004. There Was No Center: The Polycentric Evolution of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Neo-Lithics, 1 (4): 28–31.Google Scholar
Girty, G., Ridge, D., Knaack, C., Johnson, D. & Al-Riyami, R. 1996. Provenance and Depositional Setting of Paleozoic Chert and Argillite, Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 66 (1): 107–18.Google Scholar
Glascock, M. 2004. Neutron Activation Analysis of Chert Artifacts from a Hopewell Mound. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 262 (1): 97–102.Google Scholar
Godelier, M. 1999. The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goring-Morris, N. & Belfer-Cohen, A. 2011. Neolithization Processes in the Levant: The Outer Envelope. Current Anthropology, 52 (54): S195–208.Google Scholar
Graham, S. 2006. Networks, Agent-Based Models and the Antonine Itineraries: Implications for Roman Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19: 45–64.Google Scholar
Hamilton, N. 2005. The Beads. In: Hodder, I., ed. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project 5. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and the British Institute at Ankara, pp. 325–32.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1990. Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 9: 31–69.Google Scholar
Henton, E. 2012. The Combined Use of Oxygen Isotopes and Microwear in Sheep Teeth to Elucidate Seasonal Management of Domestic Herds: The Case Study of Çatalhöyük, Central Anatolia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39 (10): 3264–76.Google Scholar
Henton, E. 2013. Oxygen Stable Isotope and Dental Microwear Evidence of Herding Practices at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I., ed. Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 8. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara Monograph and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 299–316.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2006. The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2007. Çatalhöyük in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36: 105–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 2011. Human-Thing Entanglement: Towards an Integrated Archaeological Perspective. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17: 154–77.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. in press. Temporal Trends: The Shapes and Narratives of Cultural Change at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I., ed. Integrating Çatalhöyük: Themes from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 10. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara Monograph and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Google Scholar
Hodder, I. & Cessford, C. 2004. Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity, 69 (1): 17–40.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. & Meskell, L. 2011. A ‘Curious and Sometimes Trifle Macabre Artistry’. Current Anthropology, 52 (2): 235–63.Google Scholar
Hole, F. 2003. Centers in the Neolithic? Neo-Lithics, 2 (3): 33–35.Google Scholar
Hubbard, M., Waugh, D. & Ortiz, J. 2004. Provenance Determination of Chert by VIS/NIR Diffuse Reflectance Spectrometry. Journal of Earth Sciences Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 78 (3): 119–29.Google Scholar
Huckell, B., Kilby, J., Boulanger, M. & Glascock, M. 2011. Sentinel Butte: Neutron Activation Analysis of White River Group Chert from a Primary Source and Artifacts from a Clovis Cache in North Dakota, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38 (5): 965–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against Materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Kendall, H. 2010. To Measure or Not to Measure: Geochemical Analysis of Siliceous Materials in the Interior Plateau of British Columbia. Explorations in Anthropology, 10 (2): 8–21.Google Scholar
Knappett, C. 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knappett, C. 2013. Introduction: Why Networks? In: Knappett, C., ed. Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Regional Approaches to Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Knappett, C. & Malafouris, L. eds. 2008. Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kuijt, I. & Goring-Morris, N. 2002. Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory, 16 (4): 361–440.Google Scholar
Luedtke, B. 1992. An Archaeologist's Guide to Flint and Chert. UCLA Archaeological Research Tools 7. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Malyk-Selivanova, N., Ashley, G.M., Gal, R., Glascock, M.D. & Neff, H. 1998. Geological-Geochemical Approach to ‘Sourcing’ of Prehistoric Chert Artifacts, Northwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology, 13 (7): 673–708.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, A. 2009. Entanglement and Tinkering: Structural History in the Archaeology of the Northern Tsimshian. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9 (1): 59–91.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., Nakamura, C., King, R. & Farid, S. 2008. Figured Lifeworlds and Depositional Practices at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18 (2): 139–61.Google Scholar
Mills, B., Roberts, J.M., Clark, J., Haas, W., Huntley, D., Peeples, M., Borck, L., Ryan, S., Trowbridge, M. & Breiger, R. 2013. The Dynamics of Social Networks in the Late Prehispanic US Southwest. In: Knappett, C., ed. Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Regional Approaches to Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–202.Google Scholar
Milne, S.B., Hamilton, A. & Fayek, M. 2009. Combining Visual and Geochemical Analyses to Source Chert on Southern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Geoarchaeology, 24 (4): 429–49.Google Scholar
Murray, R. 1994. Chemical Criteria to Identify the Depositional Environment of Chert: General Principles and Applications. Sedimentary Geology, 90: 213–32.Google Scholar
Nazaroff, A. 2012a. Social Complexity and Source-Entanglement in Anatolia: A Case-Study from the Neolithic Chert Assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Unpublished paper presented at the International Congress on Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Warsaw, Poland, May 1, 2012.Google Scholar
Nazaroff, A.J. 2012b. Chert Sourcing. Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report [online] [accessed 12 August 2013]. Available at: <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/>..>Google Scholar
Nazaroff, A. & Shackley, M.S. 2009. Testing the Size Dimension Limitation of Portable XRF Instrumentation for Obsidian Provenance. Unpublished poster presented at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, 21 October 2009.Google Scholar
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 (4): 340–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivares, M., Tarrino, A., Murelage, X., Baceta, J., Castro, K. & Etxebarria, N. 2009. Non-Destructive Spectrometry Methods to Study the Distribution of Archaeological and Geological Chert Samples. Spectrochimica Acta Part A, 73: 492–97.Google Scholar
Olofsson, A. & Rodushkin, I. 2011. Provenancing Flint Artefacts with ICP-MS Using REE Signatures and Pb Isotopes as Discriminants: Preliminary Results of a Case Study from Northern Sweden. Archaeometry, 53 (6): 1142–70.Google Scholar
Özbaşaran, M. & Buitenhuis, H. 2002. Proposal for a Regional Terminology for Central Anatolia. In: Gerard, F. & Thissen, L., eds. The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, Internal Developments and External Relations During the 9th–6th Millennia Cal BC. Istanbul: Yayınları, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Parish, R. 2011. The Application of Visible/Near-Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) Spectroscopy to Chert: A Case Study from the Dover Quarry Sites, Tennessee. Geoarchaeology, 26 (3): 420–39.Google Scholar
Pearson, J., Buitenhuis, H., Hedges, R., Martin, L., Russell, N. & Twiss, K. 2007. New Light on Early Caprine Herding Strategies from Isotope Analysis: A Case Study from Neolithic Anatolia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34 (12): 2170–79.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 2008. Neuroscience, Evolution and the Sapient Paradox: The Factuality of Value and of the Sacred. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363: 2041–47.Google Scholar
Reynolds, T. 2007. Lithics. In: Postgate, N. & Thomas, D., eds. Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994–1998: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia. BIAA Monograph No. 30. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeology and the British Institute at Ankara, pp. 545–58.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Tovar, F., Morgado, A. & Lozano, J. 2010. Using Ichnofossils to Characterize Chert Tools: A Preliminary Study from Southern Iberia. Geoarchaeology, 25 (4): 514–26.Google Scholar
Russell, N., Twiss, K., Orton, D. & Demirergi, A. 2013. More on the Çatalhöyük Mammal Remains. In: Hodder, I., ed. Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 8. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara Monograph and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 213–58.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. 2008. Archaeological Petrology and the Archaeometry of Lithic Materials. Archaeometry, 50: 194–215.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. 2007. Symmetrical Archaeology. World Archaeology, 39 (4): 589–96.Google Scholar
Speakman, R. & Shackley, M. 2013. Silo Science and Portable XRF in Archaeology: A Response to Frahm. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2): 1435–43.Google Scholar
Stout, D. 2002. Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production: An Ethnographic Case Study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43 (5): 693–722.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 1998. Social Relations and the Idea of Externality. In: Renfrew, C. & Scarre, C., eds. Cognition and Material Culture. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 135–47.Google Scholar
Trogdon, M. 2006. Prehistoric Chert Quarries in Oaxaca, Mexico and Implications on Stone Tool Production: A Geochemical Approach. Unpublished paper presented at the Geologic Society of America meeting, Philadelphia, 23 October 2006.Google Scholar
Türkmenoğlu, A., Baysal, A., Toprak, V. & Göncüoğlu, M. 2005. Ground-Stone Raw Material from Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I., ed. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. BIAA Monograph No. 39. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeology and the British Institute at Ankara, pp. 369–72.Google Scholar
Van Kranendonk, M. & Pirajno, F. 2004. Geochemistry of Metabasalts and Hydrothermal Alteration Cones Associated with c. 3.45 Ga Chert and Barite Deposits: Implications for the Geological Setting of the Warrawoona Group, Pilbara Craton, Australia. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 4: 253–78.Google Scholar
Watkins, T. 2008. Supra-Regional Networks in the Neolithic of Southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory, 21: 139–71.Google Scholar
Wright, K.I. (with contributions by Tsoraki, C. & Siddall, R.) 2013. The Ground Stone Technologies of Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I., ed. Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 9, British Institute at Ankara Monograph 48. Monumenta Archaeologica 30. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara Monograph/Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 365–416.Google Scholar
Zeder, M. 2009. The Neolithic Macro-(R)evolution: Macroevolutionary Theory and the Study of Culture Change. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17: 1–63.Google Scholar