Professional Documents
Culture Documents
u,
Universiteler
Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus
Mahallesi Dumlupnar Bulvar, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey
2
Correspondence
*
Corresponding author;
E-mail: nazaroff@stanford.edu
Received
15 June 2012
Accepted
28 February 2013
Scientic editing by Steve Kuhn
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
doi 10.1002/gea.21446
INTRODUCTION
In the Middle East, the variable distribution of local resources has been viewed as one component for creating contexts for the development of a diverse Neolithic
world (Gerard, 2002; Thissen, 2002; Hole, 2003; Asouti,
2006). Case studies in Central Anatolia have shown
how local practices created multiple trajectories for different social developments during the Neolithic (Gerard, 2002; Hodder, 2011). While research has focused on
the use of woodland catchments (Asouti, 2005; Fairbairn
et al., 2005), pastoral environments (Pearson et al.,
et al.,
2007), ground stone (Baysal, 1998; Turkmeno
glu
340
uk
At the Neolithic site of Catalhoy
(74006000 B.C.)
(Figure 1) in Central Anatolia, James Mellaart stated
that the fine-grained chert materials used in object production originated from locales in southeastern Anatolia
or northern Syria (Mellaart, 1967:213, 1975:103). This
theory was not unreasonable given the state of knowledge at the time of Mellaarts writing. However, in recent years our understanding of Anatolian geology has
expanded, and reports of chert materials are abundant
in the geologic literature. So much so that archaeolo uk
gists currently working at Catalhoy
have proposed that
artifact-quality sources may exist in the Western Taurus
uk
Mountains much closer to Catalhoy
than Mellaart hypothesized (Bezic, 2007; Doherty et al., 2007; see also
Ostaptchouk, 2011). These new ideas primarily relate
the presence of radiolarian chert-bearing ophiolite formations common in regions adjacent to the Taurus Mountains. However, a review of the regional geologic literature indicates several ophiolite deposits and radiolarian
cherts throughout the whole of Anatolia (Waldron, 1984;
Valor & Tunay, 1996; Bozkurt et al., 1997; Tekin, 2002;
Parlak & Robertson, 2004; Okay, 2008), suggesting additional locations that may have been of use to Neolithic
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Figure 1 Map of the Konya Basin, with local chert sources and Neolithic
sites indicated (modied after Ylmaz, 2010, Figure 1).
populations. Other possible deposits of chert may exist in the areas surrounding Ankara (Balkan-Atl, 1994),
and concentrations of chert have been reported near the
Goksu
Valley (Reynolds, 2007). In order to move beyond
conjecture, intensive survey of possible raw material locales and thorough characterization of both artifactual
and source material is necessary.
To date, no study has focused principally on the survey
and collection of chert raw materials in Central Anatolia.
Research begun in 2011 by the Anatolian Archaeological Raw Material Survey (AARMS) has sought to remedy this problem. The explicit goals of AARMS relate to
locating, mapping, and characterizing a variety of raw
material sources of possible social and economic importance to populations inhabiting Anatolia in prehistory.
Further, it is a primary objective of AARMS to provide
this information in conjunction with studies of artifact
assemblages in order to posit ancient interactions with
physical and cultural landscapes as evidenced through
behaviors of direct and indirect material procurement.
In this paper, we limit our discussion to the introduction of two new material sources in Central Anatoliathe
Suhut and Akdere Chert sourcesand the confirmation
of a third chert source previously thought to exist along
the western fringe of the Konya Basin (Bezic, 2007).
Furthermore, we discuss the visual and geochemical
characterization of these sources, and utilize such data to
discriminate among them as best as possible. When using the term source, we speak of a spatially discrete deposit of a material type discovered during survey, and an
accompanying visual and geochemical signature derived
from systematic sampling at the locale. When we propose
that an artifact be assigned to a geologic source, we sug-
UK
IN CONTEXT:
CATALHOY
BACKGROUND TO CHERT CONSUMPTION
IN NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA
uk
The Neolithic occupation of Catalhoy
commenced at
roughly 7480 B.C., and spanned approximately 1400
years (Cessford, 2001; Table I). The location of such a
large site at a substantial distance from Neolithic centers of domestication in the Middle East marks its importance in long-ranging social and economic networks
(Cauvin, 2000). However, it is likewise important to rec uk
ognize how Catalhoy
is a product of developments
which occurred in a more localized historical, social,
uk
East Mound chronology for South Area excavations
Table I Catalhoy
(modied after Love, 2012).
6000 B.C.
7400 B.C.
Mellaart Excavation
Levels
0-III
VIA
VIB
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
TP 6 Levels
T
S
R
Q
P
O
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
Pre-XII
Hodder Level
G1
G2
341
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
342
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
343
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
344
an ophiolitic melange
overlay these metamorphic rocks
(Okay, 2008). The Hatip Chert source reported herea
fine-grained radiolarian chertis most probably related
to such ophiolites.
The Boyalitepe Triassic-Lower Jurassic platform
limestonesa series of oolitic rocks, algae and foraminiferous mudstones, and reddish, thin-layered limestones
are located further south within the Basin. This sequence
is overlain by a condensed, three-section sequence,
comprised of ammonite-bearing Jurassic marl, white
and red colored radiolarite-bearing limestones of Lower
Cretaceous age, and an Upper Cretaceous Globotruncanabearing stilolitic limestone interbedded with red-colored
silica (Valor & Tunay, 1996:1618). On a more general
level, present are the remains of oceanic accretionary
0284511
4261709
Suhut Chert
South
0447036
4180094
0462021
4142969
N/A
Hatip Chert
Carsamba
Gravels
Konya
Radiolarite
0307808
4347578
0290007
4278595
UTM
Suhut Chert
Subgroup
Name
Akdere Chert
Suhut Chert
Source
1023
1174
1204
1178
1312
Elevation (m)
Distinctive Visual
Characteristics
Nodule Size(s)
NAZAROFF ET AL.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
345
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
uk
research at Catalhoy
(Asouti & Hather, 2001; Asouti,
2005; Fairbairn et al., 2005) has provided evidence for
the use of various environments in the Konya Basin,
which contain chert sources. Other researchers work uk
ing at Catalhoy
have indicated that the Carsamba
River was also utilized during the Neolithic for a variety
of resources (e.g., Baysal, 1998; Asouti, 2005; Doherty,
2008), and was one source of radiolarian chert used at
uk
Catalhoy
(e.g., Carter et al., 2005; Bezic, 2007). Locally, the deposition of radiolarite nodules is variable in
quantity, quality, and size. We must consider that prehistoric procurement strategies would have been impacted
by this varied material distribution.
The following deposits have been previously documented in the Konya Basin (Akyol et al., 1963). Exact
UTM coordinates of sample locales are reported in
Table II.
Hatip chert
Affiliated with the abundant ophiolitic materials that occur throughout Central Anatolia, the Hatip Chert source
consists principally of radiolarian cherts disjointed from
an ophiolite matrix. Unlike other source-locales where
346
Carsamba gravels
The term Carsamba Gravels, as used here, refers to
radiolarian cherts located in secondary deposits south/
southwest of the Konya Plain. These materials have likely
eroded from deposits in the Western Taurides, and those
u (such as the Beysehir
directly south of Beysehir Gol
Hoyran Nappe) (Valor & Tunay, 1996), which have
subsequently been incorporated into the system of the
Carsamba River. Although the Carsamba River was not
surveyed to its full extent, various points along its course
within the Konya Basin were visited. Deposits 20 km east
of the gravels were surveyed, and materials similar to
the Carsamba Gravels were recovered in lesser proportions. Samples were collected from the rivers alluvial deposits at the southwestern edge of the Konya Plain. Additional samples were gathered along the banks of the
modern river, and at adjacent deposits. Two distinct types
of chert were present: nodular red Konya Radiolarite,
and a unique light gray nodular material with a distinctive rippled pale brown cortex. Both types were variable in their ability to produce artifact-quality material.
Principally, the radiolarian chert of the Carsamba Gravels is pale red to red in color, with higher quality orange chert sometimes present, especially in the bed of the
modern river. At some locales high-quality material only
appeared as nodules of unusable size. On average, nodules ranged from less than 17 cm in diameter. Although
the Carsamba River was extensively used during the
Neolithic (see above), no lithic reduction activities were
witnessed at any of the locations surveyed.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Survey results indicate that the Afyon-Eskisehir region offers an abundance of high-quality chert material,
a perfect medium for the production of chipped stone
tools. In addition to abundant siliceous resources, the
occurrence of volcanic materials that may have been
utilized for the production of ground stone implements
makes the region all the more attractive archaeologically
(Baysal, 2004). Limited evidence of erosion helps to demarcate the region into discrete source areas. The absence of chert witnessed in secondary contexts indicates
that material procurement would have been localized at
the primary deposits. The region appears easily accessible from the Konya Plain via a series of watersheds
and valleys that cut through the surrounding mountains.
Thissen (2002) has suggested that the Neolithic occupants
uk
of Catalhoy
interacted with populations in this region.
While little evidence from current archaeological excavations exists in support of this hypothesis, the presence of
uk
a single piece of meerschaum at Catalhoy
may indicate
some connection with the region surrounding Eskisehir,
as this area contains the only known source meerschaum
in the region (Baysal, 2004).
Suhut chert
The principle Suhut Chert deposit contained the largest
blocks of artifact-quality chert found during the survey.
This deposit occurs in a streambed roughly 20 km south
of Afyon and 12 km north of Suhut along the AfyonSuhut north-south road. The source is surrounded by
abundant volcanic materials (andesite, dacite, and volcanic tuff) overlain by a later carbonated component. It
is likely that the chert is a silicified form of the surrounding volcanic deposits. The remarkably high zirconium (Zr)
concentration within this material may further indicate
volcanic origins (Lowe, 1999). While macroscopic characteristics of this source are variable in relation to color,
the chert appears to have a very waxy sheen unknown
at the other sources discussed in this report. Color varies
between a pure and opaque white, to a pale pink, bright
orange, purple-red, and deep red. A common and distinctive visual characteristic of the red and purple-red material is the presence of crystal-shaped white inclusions.
These may be silicified phenocrysts present in the parent
volcanic material, which, after silicification, remained as
visual markers of the cherts previous form. Many other
blocks also appeared to contain cracks of dark color that
spread across the material surface. However, neither the
crystal-shaped inclusions nor the visual cracks have any
effect on knappability. Indeed, Suhut Chert is as good a
raw material as any for the production of stone tools. The
inclusion-free material offers the perfect high-quality material for the production of sharp and durable edges. The
Figure 3 Various chert blocks present at the Suhut Chert source (A) large
block of white and pink chert, (B) small boulder of orange chert, (C) close-up
of (A). Photograph by Adam Joseph Nazaroff.
347
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Akdere Chert appears principally as veins or small boulders within a surrounding carbonated matrix. Only on
the flanks and in the river can one find nodules of Akdere
Chert outside of its matrix, averaging 1020 cm in size.
Small nodules of red, orange, and green radiolarian chert
are also present, but few are of artifact quality. Such
chert is abundant throughout much of Central Anatolia
(cf. Okay, 2008), and is thus, as of now, not considered part of the Akdere Chert source. Rather, Akdere
Chert occurs as a range of opaque white, to milky
white, and finally translucent material, sometimes with
a very faint blue, pink, or brown hue, and most often with characteristic black snowflake inclusions.
Minimal lithic reduction was witnessed across the
outcrop.
Figure 4 View of the Akdere Chert source (A) and associated materials
(B). Photograph by Adam Joseph Nazaroff.
is assumed that this source is in fact the result of secondary deposition of the Suhut Chert nodules. In support
of this hypothesis, we noted that the Suhut South source
contained chert of similar visual characteristics to that
seen at the Suhut source. This included either the crystallike inclusions or uncanny sheen indicative of Suhut
Chert.
Akdere chert
The Akdere Chert source is the most northerly of all
sources reported here, and by far contains the most abundant high-quality chert raw material we witnessed. Although we discuss the Akdere locale as a chert source,
the material is most probably chalcedony. The Akdere
Chert source occurs on the summit and flanks of a hill
directly north of the village of Akdere, and in a nearby
streambed (Figure 4). Nestled in a highly metamorphic
region containing abundant marble and schist materials are a series of Upper Miocene and Lower Cretaceous sediments, at the southeastern edge of which is
located the Akdere Chert source. Unlike the nodular material and large blocks found at the Suhut Chert source,
348
we have undertaken an analysis of the visual characteristics and trace element concentrations of source materi uk
als and cultural objects from Catalhoy
and have used
a combination of these to provide evidence for the use
of these locales during the Neolithic. Using visual characteristics to discern the different chert types present
uk
at Catalhoy
offers an initial approximation of which
uk.
sources were used at Catalhoy
This is accomplished by
matching visual categories to corresponding samples collected from the Suhut, Suhut South, Akdere, and Konya
Radiolarite sources with similar visual attributes. Milne
et al. (2009) demonstrate the utility of visually characterizing chert materials, especially as a first step in
making qualitative sense of an otherwise diverse assemblage. Such approaches excel in regions where chert deposits are visually distinct from one another. This appears to be the case in Central Anatolia, where each
chert deposit thus far surveyed appears visually distinct
in relation to at least some of the IAA conducted. Regardless, a combined approach of visual, mineralogical, and geochemical characterization is often preferable
(Kendall, 2010). Accordingly, we have also used EDXRF
analysis to further characterize both cultural and source
materials.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Sampling Procedures
Cultural objects were sampled from levels GP of the
uk
South Area excavations at Catalhoy
(Table I) due to
the apparent greater diversity of chert material types
when compared with later levels. Such a sample therefore holds the greatest potential for capturing the vari uk.
ety of chert sources used at Catalhoy
In all, 686 ar uk
tifacts from the South Area excavations at Catalhoy
Visual Analysis
IAA included measures of color using the 2009 Geological Society of America Geological Rock-Color Chart,
opacity, luster, texture, fracture properties, and inclusions. Terminology for opacity, luster, and texture was
adopted from Luedtke (1992:6870). When samples contained multiple colors, each was recorded with its relative
proportion and character of distribution (e.g., banded,
mottled, etc.). Opacity, luster, texture, fracture properties, and inclusions were variable across both source and
artifact assemblages. As discussed below, IAA produces
visual categories that comprises multiple macroscopic attributes. Although many categories may share in common one or several attributes, the unique combinations
of several characteristics constitute each visual class. All
measurements were taken with the use of hand lenses
(1020).
EDXRF Analysis
Geochemical analysis was conducted using a ThermoFisher Scientific QuantX EDXRF instrument for bulk
chemical analysis. All samples were analyzed whole by
M. Steven Shackley at the Archaeological XRF Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sample placement insured that the largest amount of X-rays possible bombarded each sample. Analysis was conducted for major
oxides aluminum (Al2 O3 ), silica (SiO2 ), and iron (Fe2 O3 ),
and trace elements titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn), iron
(as FeT), copper (Cu), zinc, (Zn), rubidium (Rb), strontium (Sr), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr), and thorium (Th).
Additional information on procedures and instrument
specifications is available at http://www.swxrflab.net.
When choosing a suite of elements for provenance assessments, it is important to consider the possible origins and diagenetic processes affecting each element.
During chert formation and diagenesis, inclusions incorporated from the surrounding environment (e.g., clays,
carbonates, iron oxides, or organic matter) may alter
trace element geochemistry (Luedtke, 1992:38; Murray,
1994:214). This process is often important for provenance research, as inclusions unique to each locale may
be used to fingerprint particular deposits. Murray (1994)
used multiple combinations of trace elements and elemental ratios to discriminate among chert deposits that
formed under different environmental conditions. Chertsourcing programs often utilize these geologic histories,
manifest in the mineralogy and chemistry of chert, to
make provenance assessments (Malyk-Selivanova et al.,
1998; Lowe, 1999; Doherty et al., 2007; Milne et al.,
2009; Parish, 2011). Mineral and chemical indicators provide information on characteristics unique to a materials
349
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
uk
assemblage, South Area excavations levels GP. Note that groups 20, 21, and
Table III Visual attributes of 22 chert types discerned from the Catalhoy
22 have probable correlations with the Akdere, Konya Radiolarite, and Suhut chert groups.
Chert
Group
Possible Geochemical
Group
Primary Color
Range (Munsell)
Visual Characteristics
N/A
5Y 5/66/6; 10 YR 4/26/2
N/A
5 YR 3/24/2; 10 YR 4/2
3
4
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 YR 4/1; N6, N7
5 YR 2.5/23/2
N13; N67
N/A
5 YR 5/1; 5 Y 6/1
N/A
5 BG 3/2, 5/2
8
9
10
11
12
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 YR 2/2; N4
5 YR, 3/1, 3/2, 4/1; 10 YR 3/2
N1
5 YR, 4/4, 5/6; 10 YR 6/2
5 Y 4/2; 10 YR 4/2, 7/2
10 YR 4/2
14
15
N/A
N/A
5 R 3/6
10 YR 5/2, 6/2, 7/2
16
17
18
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
20
N/A
Akdere Chert
21
Konya Radiolarite
5 YR 5/6; 5 R 3/22/2; 10 YR
5/4, 6/6 7/6; 10 R 2/4
22
Suhut Chert
23
N/A
5 RP 2/2, 4/2
5 YR 4/1; 10 YR 6.5/2, 6/6; N8
Variable
host sediment. This informs researchers of palaeoenvironmental processes, or the parent material (dacite, volcanic ash, sandstone, etc.) of secondary silica deposits.
Analysis of more mobile elements can also offer data
on localized environmental conditions, diagenetic processes, or other local mineralogical and chemical variability, which may leave an imprint on a particular portion
of a formation (Murray, 1994).
In this study, we use concentrations of Zr, aluminum
oxide (Al2 O3 ), and iron oxide (Fe2 O3 ) normalized
to silica (SiO2 ), to discriminate among chert sources
350
Number in Artifact
Subsample
n = 89
n = 63
n = 15
n=9
n=7
n = 25
n=1
n=1
n = 15
n = 10
n = 13
n=6
n=5
n=1
n=8
n=2
n=1
n=1
n=2
n = 232
n = 117
n = 18
n = 45
62
53
9
3
16
18
21
34
40
63
14
19
2
22
28
30
31
33
35
Source Sample
Number
0.93
2.56
3.05
<LOD
0.65
<LOD
<LOD
<LOD
<LOD
<LOD
<LOD
1.00
<LOD
4.51
<LOD
<LOD
<LOD
<LOD
0.06
Al2 O3 (%)
87.73
88.57
91.50
98.74
97.32
98.52
96.09
98.62
98.50
97.57
98.10
92.53
94.06
90.12
97.03
97.77
96.42
89.58
96.54
SiO2 (%)
6.70
0.38
0.51
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
4.03
0.23
1.07
1.04
0.55
1.58
8.52
0.98
Fe2 O3 (%)
735.07
789.86
826.45
659.83
659.83
665.10
688.61
659.83
675.66
659.83
1261.80
3471.82
2515.65
2863.67
3169.23
687.30
2419.46
3809.55
3399.21
Ti (ppm)
246.20
247.36
133.74
121.90
125.28
122.47
123.25
131.53
138.06
174.41
161.32
121.90
128.99
155.81
121.90
223.69
121.90
121.90
121.90
Mn (ppm)
17946.85
6426.17
6946.26
4922.69
5262.95
4972.24
4963.53
4962.53
4948.34
4977.61
5024.12
25069.47
5254.17
9256.40
9418.91
6746.70
11490.36
63214.48
9340.91
Fe (ppm)
8.40
0.24
3.61
1.85
1.27
0.55
5.96
1.37
0.18
0.88
1.16
20.18
3.52
6.67
8.12
0.36
8.82
16.13
15.00
Cu (ppm)
20.42
5.86
4.52
7.34
3.40
7.29
38.89
3.40
5.41
4.47
3.40
14.06
22.60
4.65
10.34
9.37
3.90
4.02
5.48
Zn (ppm)
0.78
0.30
0.68
0.79
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.58
1.25
0.31
3.33
3.19
0.31
2.59
0.47
0.31
Rb (ppm)
37.06
9.71
7.64
8.48
12.78
12.49
13.33
12.05
16.02
13.02
29.43
584.89
54.31
36.15
40.49
9.08
16.57
19.87
21.89
Sr (ppm)
6.59
2.72
3.68
0.51
0.51
1.42
1.58
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
7.68
0.51
1.92
2.52
0.51
4.14
3.88
2.48
Y (ppm)
13.48
10.23
9.07
9.45
12.68
9.07
9.07
16.51
9.07
10.63
234.40
301.13
266.63
294.11
310.59
63.92
228.50
237.46
373.55
Zr (ppm)
4.03
6.79
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
5.15
3.05
3.05
7.92
39.44
3.05
21.57
13.75
3.05
18.17
14.90
15.05
Th (ppm)
Carsamba
Hatip
Hatip
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Suhut
Geochemical
Source Group
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Visual Source
Group
Table IV Geochemistry for source and artifact materials analyzed in this study, with probable geochemical and visual provenance assignments for all artifact materials. <LOD = Below level of detection.
* = Uncertain visual categorization due to possible heat treatment.
NAZAROFF ET AL.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
351
352
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Artifact Sample
Number
0.70
0.87
<LOD
0.41
0.58
0.78
0.29
1.23
0.82
1.41
0.44
0.77
0.27
0.87
0.43
0.51
1.70
0.03
0.43
1.04
1.16
0.65
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.96
1.43
<LOD
Al2 O3 (%)
Table IV Continued
83.98
78.54
89.70
94.53
97.20
75.46
93.41
6.58
88.99
87.49
87.77
3.32
90.32
91.74
72.60
96.06
88.47
92.75
73.82
93.65
92.66
91.86
93.58
86.87
93.53
83.38
90.08
98.24
SiO2 (%)
1.77
0.42
0.32
0.20
0.33
0.74
0.60
1.37
1.33
0.32
0.15
0.98
0.16
0.29
0.15
0.03
1.11
0.10
0.28
0.61
0.08
0.16
0.28
5.32
0.09
1.29
1.37
0.03
Fe2 O3 (%)
1070.57
1006.89
761.43
740.97
670.65
834.93
786.51
1220.94
891.79
767.61
841.96
901.43
775.74
754.75
850.33
780.55
1032.60
710.27
782.66
729.60
749.85
711.10
721.01
876.13
909.88
1134.94
1030.16
725.35
Ti (ppm)
136.77
151.42
121.90
138.48
213.19
155.20
132.11
218.33
150.11
138.44
167.94
367.25
135.79
391.94
141.82
130.84
142.18
152.78
247.81
152.39
160.62
141.61
139.47
160.93
170.28
182.97
175.92
123.26
Mn (ppm)
8043.04
5738.80
5517.93
5428.44
6199.61
5974.98
6039.62
7910.44
7720.45
5438.30
5194.13
6920.85
5246.49
5471.41
5128.89
5085.71
7172.46
5078.19
5460.16
6106.30
6532.18
5212.44
5341.45
13463.57
9307.40
7834.76
7790.20
5039.21
Fe (ppm)
9.29
10.92
10.98
2.38
2.35
8.40
4.67
14.23
15.63
5.05
9.28
12.99
8.37
6.07
7.29
4.53
30.77
61.43
10.93
3.54
6.03
7.44
4.19
12.55
7.61
87.81
10.18
1.67
Cu (ppm)
102.17
78.68
130.47
9.91
8.69
65.60
44.89
68.20
96.10
39.00
96.47
90.68
73.58
41.12
84.62
21.41
74.30
68.63
113.03
21.39
30.19
45.14
18.09
40.65
41.13
96.20
44.53
13.20
Zn (ppm)
6.96
1.09
2.40
0.31
1.24
1.13
6.78
6.70
10.07
0.31
0.31
8.57
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
17.33
0.31
0.96
0.39
0.31
0.31
0.31
7.70
15.60
23.12
17.94
0.31
Rb (ppm)
49.75
88.44
24.63
14.72
8.61
33.22
26.29
440.05
29.20
96.67
43.67
279.41
10.28
12.93
18.29
359.00
50.55
29.82
112.73
12.59
21.68
10.79
11.93
29.08
44.17
46.61
56.87
18.08
Sr (ppm)
3.49
0.51
0.51
1.52
0.51
1.47
4.51
2.82
4.59
0.51
0.51
18.01
2.08
1.25
0.51
1.49
9.49
1.22
7.14
2.71
0.84
0.51
2.46
8.70
7.04
3.19
8.43
1.91
Y (ppm)
12.06
11.90
9.07
13.60
9.07
14.53
15.56
17.34
22.62
9.11
12.25
14.53
13.62
11.48
10.72
12.15
27.93
9.07
12.11
11.62
15.04
13.31
10.85
19.87
22.25
29.96
26.61
9.07
Zr (ppm)
3.05
3.05
10.04
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
6.42
10.18
7.61
3.76
3.05
3.05
3.79
3.05
3.05
5.76
3.87
3.53
5.59
3.05
3.05
3.20
3.05
4.68
5.72
3.05
3.10
Th (ppm)
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Unknown
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Carsamba
Akdere
Hatip
Akdere
Akdere
Geochemical
Source Group
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere or Suhut
Akdere
Akdere
Unknown
Unknown*
Unknown
Unknown
Akdere
Akdere
Hatip
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Akdere
Radiolarite (general)
Akdere
Akdere
Unknown*
Suhut
Akdere
Akdere
Konya Radiolarite
Konya Radiolarite
Konya Radiolarite
Unknown
Akdere
Visual Source
Group
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
RESULTS
From visual analysis, we identified a series of characteristics among the Akdere, Suhut, and Konya Radiolarite
sources (Table II). We were unable to differentiate the
Suhut and Suhut South sources visually; however, we do
find distinct visual differences within the Konya Radiolarite group, which correlate with the Hatip Chert source
and the Carsamba Gravels. Distinctive visual characteristics of the Akdere Chert source include a milky white to
translucent color, with possible brown, pink, or blue hues
at depth, and a high concentration of black flecking.
For the Suhut Chert sources, unique visual attributes
included a characteristic waxy appearance that occurs
across a wide range of colors (purple, red, white, and orange). Several samples also contained large white inclusions, or dark cracks, neither of which actually affects
the materials breakage properties. These inclusions are
most probably silicified components of the parent material. Finally, visual indicators of the Hatip Chert source included a pale orange to translucent orange color, at times
containing miniature black spots. This can be compared
with other radiolarite sources, which oftentimes occur as
red or green materials, neither of which contain the black
speckling of the Hatip source.
uk
In reference to the Catalhoy
chert materials, we
discerned that 22 visual types were present in the assemblage from Levels GP (Table III). An additional category (group 23) encompasses those materials with obvious thermal alteration (severe cracking, pot-lid fractures,
or apparent discoloration) or objects with significant
amounts of patination, which would produce questionable visual classifications. While the number of groups
could have been larger, our knowledge of the aforementioned chert sources allowed us to group materials that
may have otherwise appeared as visually discrete chert
types. It is important to note that among the 22 visual
chert-types, there is often significant overlap in one or
several of the visual attributes. Some of the most defining visual characteristics included ranges in color and luster. Multiple textures were present, including fine- and
353
354
Artifact Samples
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
0.99
0.98
0.15
0.51
0.93
0.89
0.59
1.38
1.14
1.58
0.49
0.86
0.32
0.99
0.48
0.57
1.99
0.05
0.48
1.29
1.30
0.73
0.35
2.41
1.40
2.24
1.78
0.10
Akdere
Akdere
0.96
0.97
0.10
0.49
0.89
0.88
0.56
1.38
1.11
1.58
0.49
0.86
0.31
0.99
0.48
0.57
1.97
0.03
0.48
1.27
1.30
0.73
0.32
2.36
1.40
2.23
1.76
0.05
Akdere
0.48
0.25
0.73
0.28
0.54
0.15
0.55
0.65
0.58
0.85
0.25
0.16
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.18
1.25
0.70
0.26
0.61
0.57
0.03
0.46
2.13
0.68
1.50
1.09
0.73
0.98
0.98
0.14
0.50
0.92
0.88
0.58
1.38
1.13
1.58
0.49
0.86
0.32
0.99
0.48
0.57
1.98
0.04
0.48
1.28
1.30
0.73
0.34
2.40
1.40
2.24
1.78
0.08
Akdere
0.96
0.97
0.12
0.48
0.89
0.88
0.54
1.37
1.10
1.58
0.49
0.86
0.31
0.99
0.48
0.57
1.96
0.09
0.48
1.26
1.30
0.73
0.32
2.35
1.40
2.23
1.76
0.09
Akdere
0.97
0.97
0.12
0.50
0.91
0.88
0.57
1.38
1.12
1.58
0.49
0.86
0.31
0.99
0.48
0.57
1.98
0.04
0.48
1.27
1.30
0.73
0.33
2.38
1.40
2.24
1.77
0.07
Akdere
0.96
0.97
0.11
0.49
0.90
0.88
0.56
1.37
1.11
1.58
0.49
0.86
0.31
0.99
0.48
0.57
1.97
0.04
0.48
1.27
1.30
0.73
0.32
2.36
1.40
2.23
1.76
0.05
Akdere
3.73
4.07
4.20
4.03
3.73
4.01
3.84
4.08
3.60
4.07
4.16
4.10
4.13
3.99
4.16
4.14
3.72
4.27
4.16
3.75
4.09
4.08
4.08
2.85
4.05
3.85
3.52
4.24
Suhut
2.63
2.66
2.50
2.50
2.63
2.60
2.47
2.79
2.58
2.96
2.53
2.60
2.47
2.67
2.53
2.54
3.02
2.51
2.52
2.75
2.77
2.57
2.50
3.27
2.76
3.18
2.88
2.50
Suhut
5.06
4.93
5.77
5.34
5.19
4.99
5.43
4.58
4.89
4.45
5.34
5.01
5.48
4.92
5.35
5.27
4.07
5.75
5.35
4.75
4.65
5.13
5.51
5.24
4.53
3.84
4.31
5.77
Suhut
Source Samples
3.30
3.58
3.44
3.40
3.27
3.50
3.23
3.70
3.21
3.79
3.52
3.56
3.45
3.53
3.52
3.53
3.62
3.51
3.51
3.43
3.69
3.52
3.41
2.96
3.68
3.81
3.40
3.47
Suhut
1.20
1.68
1.33
1.34
1.10
1.57
1.05
1.97
1.22
2.06
1.51
1.66
1.40
1.60
1.51
1.53
2.10
1.44
1.50
1.51
1.92
1.55
1.30
1.29
1.97
2.40
1.74
1.38
Suhut
2.93
3.33
3.16
3.12
2.88
3.24
2.89
3.48
2.85
3.53
3.27
3.32
3.19
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.34
3.25
3.26
3.09
3.46
3.26
3.12
2.20
3.46
3.57
3.05
3.20
Suhut
4.64
5.12
4.99
4.94
4.59
5.04
4.67
5.25
4.57
5.24
5.11
5.14
5.03
5.03
5.11
5.11
4.94
5.10
5.11
4.77
5.23
5.08
4.94
3.28
5.23
5.14
4.64
5.04
Suhut
3.72
3.92
3.82
3.78
3.71
3.85
3.65
4.01
3.63
4.11
3.86
3.89
3.81
3.89
3.87
3.87
3.96
3.87
3.86
3.82
4.01
3.86
3.79
3.58
3.98
4.12
3.79
3.84
Suhut
2.35
2.36
2.18
2.19
2.35
2.30
2.18
2.51
2.32
2.69
2.21
2.29
2.16
2.38
2.22
2.23
2.80
2.18
2.21
2.49
2.49
2.26
2.19
3.13
2.49
2.97
2.66
2.18
Suhut
2.12
1.89
2.86
2.40
2.27
1.99
2.56
1.49
2.01
1.29
2.37
2.01
2.56
1.89
2.38
2.29
1.05
2.83
2.38
1.74
1.57
2.14
2.58
2.91
1.47
0.75
1.41
2.86
Hatip
2.63
2.44
3.41
2.95
2.77
2.54
3.08
2.05
2.51
1.83
2.92
2.56
3.11
2.43
2.93
2.85
1.53
3.38
2.93
2.25
2.13
2.68
3.12
3.21
2.03
1.23
1.87
3.41
Hatip
2.49
2.99
3.11
2.93
2.45
2.94
2.69
3.06
2.42
2.98
3.09
3.05
3.08
2.87
3.10
3.08
2.68
3.21
3.10
2.54
3.05
3.00
2.97
0.86
3.07
2.89
2.37
3.16
Carsamba
Table V Dissimilarity matrix derived from source and artifact geochemistry. Data is based on Euclidean distances; values have been standardized using z-scores. Bold values indicate the least dissimilarity
between artifact and source materials.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Figure 5 Source (top) and artifact (bottom) chert materials that share probable provenance based on visual attributes: Akdere Chert (A, D), Suhut Chert
(B, E), Konya Radiolarite (C, F).
Figure 6 Geochemical plot of chert source and artifact materials discussed in this study. Zirconium (Zr) is present as parts per million (ppm).
355
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
uk
Neolithic occupation of Catalhoy
suggest that at least
two sourcesAkdere Chert and the Carsamba Gravels
may have been utilized during the Neolithic. It is significant that, within the Konya Radiolarite group, we
were able to differentiate the Carsamba Gravels and Hatip
Chert locales, as these sources lay some 40 km from
one another (Figure 1). However, because of the minimal size of our samples from these locales, these results
are certainly subject to revision. For the Akdere Chert
uk
source, several artifacts from Catalhoy
were considered to have been produced from Akdere Chert based on
visual inspection. Our geochemical results further validated this assumption for many of the sampled artifacts.
It is therefore reasonable to look to the full suite of artifacts that have undergone visual analysis in order to
uk
study the diachronic use of Akdere Chert at Catalhoy
(Table III). By doing so, we see that Akdere Chert constitutes an overwhelming majority of the chert assemblage
in several levels. We are not the first to suggest the impor uk.
tance of this source at Catalhoy
Indeed, Bezic (2007)
says that a translucent chert with black inclusions is one
of the principle materials utilized during the Neolithic oc uk,
cupation of Catalhoy
250 km southeast of the Akdere
source. Whats more, Bezic claims that it is one of the few
material types found in abundance throughout the entire
uk.
Neolithic occupation at Catalhoy
It is the strong presence of Akdere material, and perhaps Konya Radiolarite,
uk
at Catalhoy
that we explore next.
there remains a large degree of complexity within others (Suhut). When the chemistry of artifacts assigned to
each source is considered alongside this data, the picture
becomes even more complex. At present, then, these results provide a framework through which we can begin to consider the nature of chert exploitation in Central Anatolia. Following others (e.g., Malyk-Selivanova
et al., 1998; Milne et al., 2009; Kendall, 2010), we suggest that it is most appropriate to use multiple techniques
to assess chert material provenance. While at times different techniques may produce contradictory results, a
combined approach holds the most potential for source
assignment, especially when results are complimentary.
Visual and geochemical data from newly discovered chert
sources in Central Anatolia and chert artifacts from the
356
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
The ephemeral use of Konya Radiolarite provides a different perspective of landscape interaction. The source
357
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
occurs on the fringe of the Konya Plain in the southwestern portion of the Basin (Figure 1). The Carsamba Gravels
specifically are located close to several other resources of
uk:
importance at Catalhoy
clay, ground stone, and timber (Baysal, 1998; Asouti, 2005; Doherty, 2008). One of
us (Nazaroff) has explained the noticeable decline in the
use of Konya Radiolariate as the result of interrelated
procurement with woodland resources (Nazaroff, 2012).
The exploitation of woodland resources shifts through
time, with the use of local catchments in or on the fringe
of the Konya Plain early in the sites occupations, and
a subsequent shift to zones further away later in time
(Asouti, 2005). If the use of Konya Radiolarite was embedded within the exploitation of local catchments, when
the use of woodland resources shifted to locales further
from site, there would have been a resonating effect in
uk,
the quantity of radiolarian cherts at Catalhoy
explaining their falloff in use. The nature of these radiolarian
cherts (small nodule size, and a mix of high and low quality nodules) (Table II) prevented the Konya Radiolarite
sources from being particularly attractive. Instead, their
use would have been dependent upon the procurement
of other nearby resources, and would have diminished in
response to a change in this related procurement.
What we see developing is a complex network of connections materialized from the flow of objects and resources in multiple directions (Appadurai, 1996). The
process of community production would have therefore
been dynamic, chert representing one material through
which groups could be brought together across variable
distances, as indicated by the presence of Akdere Chert
uk.
at Catalhoy
Alternatively, changes in the use of the
Konya Radiolarite sources remind us that economic practices are not simply reflections of social relationships, but
may indicate the embedded nature of resource use within
other economic and social realms. For the Konya Radiolarite case, the use of woodland resources was far more
uk
essential to life at Catalhoy
than the radiolarian cherts
in the Konya Basin. When practices affiliated with the use
of woodland catchments prompted a shift to other zones,
there was little reason for the continued procurement of
radiolarian cherts. By offering information on the presence and use of regional chert deposits in Central Anatolia, we support the idea that material procurement was
part of a dialectic of social development related to multiple social and physical landscapes.
CONCLUSIONS
Thus far, AARMS has revealed the presence of several
raw materials of possible economic and social importance in prehistory in areas of Central Anatolia previously thought to not contain such abundant resources.
358
This has been an essential first step in better understanding prehistoric interactions with both physical and cultural landscapes, as the procurement, and trade and exchange of raw materials arguably acted as a connection
between otherwise disparate communities during the Neolithic period (Asouti, 2006). By showing the presence of
artifact-quality chert west/northwest of the Konya Plain,
we have been able to challenge predominant interpretations of chert procurement, which suggest that individuals acquired chert from locales either south or east
of the Konya Plain (Mellaart, 1967, 1975; Bezic, 2007;
Doherty et al., 2007). Visual and geochemical data has
further bolstered the possibility of source exploitation by
uk.
the Neolithic occupants of Catalhoy
Though at times
provenance determinations have been problematic, it has
been our principle goal to stress the importance of providing information on the presence of artifact quality chert
in Central Anatolia. We have also presented some initial thoughts on the social relationships that chert acquisition may indicate. The different scales at which materials flowed challenge us to rethink the forces underlying
resource procurement both within and outside of Central
Anatolia. AARMS confidently increases the evidence for
the complexity of material procurement within Central
Anatolia. This offers an opportunity to explore how the
procurement and use of these resources may have differed among local communities. It can be assumed that
through expanding our knowledge of resource availability and use, we will acquire a greater understanding of
how the interactions with landscapes of varying scales facilitated variation in social developments, group dynamics, and technological practices.
Any manuscript is the result of countless peoples work. We have
benefited greatly from conversations with M. Steven Shackley,
Ian Robertson, Donald Lowe, and Gail Mahood. We are indebted
to Adnan Ozeren
for a valuable discussion on Anatolian Geology. For their helpful and thorough comments, and the many
hours they spent revising earlier versions of this paper, we would
like to thank Ian Hodder, the journal editors, as well as three
anonymous reviewers. Any discrepancies remaining are solely
of our own making. Funding for this research was provided by
the Stanford Archaeology Center, and the Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.
REFERENCES
Akridge, D.G., & Benoit, P.H. (2001). Luminescence
properties of chert and some archaeological applications.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 143151.
Akyol, I., Agalede, H., Akkus, M., Abdusselamoglu, S.,
Birand, S., Blumenthal, M., Bilgutay, U., Chaput, E., Colin,
H., Dager, Z., Erentoz, C., Erentoz, L., Egeran, N., Erol, O.,
Erk, S., Holzer, H., Kalafatcioglu, A., Kupfahl, H., Ketin, I.,
Tilev, N., Niehoff, W., Oztumer, E., Parejas, E., Pamir, H.,
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
from Kortik
Tepe (SE Anataloia). Journal of Archaeological
Science, 40, 556569.
Cauvin, J. (2000). The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of
Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cauvin, J., Aurenche, O., Cauvin, M., & Barkan-Atli, N.
uk.
(1999). The pre-pottery site of Cafer Hoy
In M.
359
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Doherty, C., Milic, M., & Carter, T., (2007). Characterizing the
uk.
non-obsidian chipped stone raw materials at Catalhoy
360
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Ozbas
aran, M., & Buitenhuis, H. (2002). Proposal for a
regional terminology for central Anatolia. In F. Gerard, &
L. Thissen (Eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia.
Internal developments and external relations during the
9th6th millennia cal BC (pp. 6778). Istanbul: Yaynlar.
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, 420439.
Parlak, O., & Robertson, A. (2004). Ophiolite-related Mersin
Melange,
southern Turkey: Its role in the
tectonic-sedimentary setting of Tethys in the Eastern
Mediterranean region. Geologic Magazine, 141, 257286.
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,
21702179.
Quintero, L. (2011). Evolution of lithic economies in the
Levantine Neolithic: development and demise of Naviform
core technology, as seen at Ain Ghazal. Ain Ghazal
Excavation Reports 2. Ex Oriente, Berlin.
Reynolds, T. (2007). Lithics. In N. Postgate, & D. Thomas
(Eds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 19941998: From Bronze
Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia (pp. 545558). BIAA
Monograph No. 30. Cambridge: The British Institute at
Ankara.
Robertson, A., Ustaomer, T., Pickett, E., Collins, A., Andrew,
T., & Dixon, J. (2004). Testing models of Late
uo
Turkmeno
glu,
A., Baysal, A., Toprak, V., & Gonc
M.
glu,
uk.
(2005). Ground-stone raw material from Catalhoy
In I.
uk:
Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Catalhoy
361
UK,
TURKEY
NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
362
Ankara Universitesi
Cevrebilimleri Dergesi, 2,
145163.