The Importance of Chert in Central Anatolia: Lessons From The Neolithic Assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey

Research Article
The Importance of Chert in Central Anatolia: Lessons from

the Neolithic Assemblage at Catalhoy
uk,
Turkey
Adam Joseph Nazaroff,1 ,* Adnan Baysal,2 and Yahya Ciftci3
1
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Archaeology Department, Faculty of Letters, Bulent

Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
3
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
This paper is a presentation of three sources of artifact-quality chert in Central

Anatolia. A previous dearth of research focused on locating and characterizing
such raw material sources has incorrectly colored our view of prehistoric economic practices. To remedy this situation, we have conducted a survey of various locales within Central Anatolia to test for the presence of artifact-quality
materials. We make use of Individual Attribute Analysis (IAA) and Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) analysis to discriminate among these ma uk
terials, and suggest their use by the Neolithic occupants of Catalhoy
through
similar analyses of artifactual materials. We argue that the presence and characterization of these new sources allows us to better understand the intricacies of Neolithic practices by illustrating the ways in which the consumption of
these materials was variably entwined with the exploitation of other resources,
C 2013
as well as embedded within social relations outside of Central Anatolia.
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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
2005), and clay deposits (Doherty, 2008), considerably

less attention has been given to understanding the consumption of chert, a sedimentary rock comprised of microcrystalline or cryptocrystalline silica, generally in excess of 90% (Luedtke, 1992; Lowe, 1999). Although a
comparatively minor component of many lithic assemblages, chert is ubiquitously present at Neolithic sites in
Central Anatolia (Bezic, 2007). Understanding the distribution and use of chert offers a more thorough perspective on the role of diverse local practices in shaping the
Neolithic.
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
C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362 Copyright
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-
Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362
gest that the visual and geochemical characteristics of the

artifact match those of the source to a greater or lesser degree of certainty. We have followed a framework offered
by Shackley (2008:197198; see also Luedtke, 1992) for
locating, sampling, characterizing, and presenting the results of our study.
We begin this paper with a discussion of the characteristics of chert consumption during the Central Anato
lian Neolithic period (10,0006000 B.C.) (Ozbas
aran &
Buitenhuis, 2002), with particular emphasis on work pre uk.
viously conducted at Catalhoy
Next, we broadly review the geology of Central Anatolia, which aided us in
isolating regions for survey. Following this, we present
the results of our survey and a description of located
chert sources. Finally, we use Individual Attribute Analysis (IAA) and Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Analysis (EDXRF) to match artifact materials from the early
uk
Neolithic levels at Catalhoy
to located sources.
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.

Copyright
Mellaart Excavation
Levels
Hodder Excavation Levels,

South Area
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
NAZAROFF ET AL.
environmental, and economic context (Thissen, 2002;

Asouti, 2006:117; Hodder, 2011). While much effort has
been expended in understanding the procurement and
uk,
consumption of other materials at Catalhoy
less consideration has been given as to how the acquisition and
use of chert operated alongside these other practices.
uk
The Neolithic chert assemblage at Catalhoy
consists of more than 4000 samples from excavations of the
Neolithic occupation in the south and north areas of
the East Mound (Conolly, 1999). Brief commentaries on
these materials have been offered by Bezic (2007), Carter
et al. (2005), and Conolly (1999). Many of these indicate
that the use of chert was intimately entwined in a range
of other practices, and differed substantially from the
use of other chipped stone materials, particularly obsidian (Bezic, 2007). For example, elaborate bone-handled
uk
knives recovered at Catalhoy
are made of fine-grained
chert materials, and find no correlation in the obsidian assemblages (Conolly, 1999; Hodder, 2006). Chert is rarely
uk,
cached at Catalhoy
while obsidian is frequently deposited in such contexts. Ratios of obsidian and chert
knapping debris also suggest that some obsidian industries focused on household production, while chert was
often brought to site in the form of preforms and blanks
(Bezic, 2007:82). At the nearby sites of Can Hasan and
Suberde, chert was used for the exclusive manufacture
of sickle blades. Variable ethnographic and ethnohistoric

accounts have suggested that the processes underwriting
the variable uses of such materials often relate to the differential use of material sources (e.g., Gould et al., 1971;
McBryde, 1978, 1984, 2000; Binford & OConnell, 1984;
Gould & Saggers, 1986).
Five sources of chert are commonly discussed in the
archaeological literature of Anatolia (Figure 2). These include ophiolite-related radiolarian chert deposits in the
Western Taurus Mountains, similar radiolarian cherts
u and surrounding the modern
south of Beysehir Gol
city of Mersin, and high-quality chert sources in eastern Anatolia adjacent to Kahramanmaras and Gaziantep
(Bezic, 2007; Doherty et al., 2007; see also
(Sakcagoz)
Reynolds, 2007). Other than the latter two deposits, the
exact locations, depositional character, and macroscopic,
petrographic, and chemical characteristics of these materials is unknown.
Bezic (2007:7076) has offered an excellent review
of chert consumption during the Central Anatolian
Neolithic. In Central Anatolia, chert consistently comprises less than 5% of chipped stone assemblages, while
sites in the Lake District and Urfa-Diyarbakir Region
often have lithic assemblages principally composed of
chert during the Neolithic (up to 99%). The site of
Pnarbas A (90008000 B.C.) is the one exception, with
2007; Doherty, Milic, & Carter,

Figure 2 Map of Anatolia with Central Anatolian Neolithic sites, and chert sources discussed in paper (modied after Bezic,
uk;
(2) Pnarbas; (3) Can Hasan; (4) Mersin; (5) Askl Hoy
uk;
(6) Musular.
2007). Archaeological sites: (1) Catalhoy
342

UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
a chipped stone assemblage consisting of 40% chert.

Concerning sources of chert raw material, Bezic discusses the presence of three source locales, only one of
which is located in Central Anatolia. These are deposits
u,
east of Beysehir Gol
and two locales in Southeastern
(ibid, Map 1).
AnatoliaKahramanmaras and Sakcagoz
In spite of this, she is unable to provide much information regarding actual raw material procurement.
Doherty et al. (2007) take us one step closer to understanding chert provenance through their case study
of the materials recovered from the earliest levels of
uk.
Catalhoy
To Bezics list, they add the ophiolite deposits
in the Antalya and Mersin regions. Furthermore, the authors present the results of visual and elemental analy uk.
ses of chert artifacts from the excavations at Catalhoy
They note the presence of 23 visual chert groups, and

further reduce these groups to six or seven chert-types
based on the formation processes at the origin of each
material. Environments with similar processes reported
in geologic maps were used to hypothesize chert procurement at ophiolitic deposits affiliated with the Taurus
uk.
Mountains, and at volcanic areas north of Catalhoy
While chert-sourcing programs in Central Anatolia and

uk
at Catalhoy
have generated thought-provoking discussions concerning Neolithic chert procurement and use,
none of these have, as of yet, actually conducted any
thorough raw material survey to test the many hypotheses they have generated. Until now, provenance interpretations have been primarily derived from published
references. Many issues may exist when only looking
to geologic maps or reports in an attempt to discern
source locales, as the interests of geologists and archaeologists often differ. Discrete chert deposits that would be
of importance to archaeologists may not find their way
into the geologic literature. Moreover, Central Anatolia contains several environments where chert may have
formed. Simply referring to those environments closest to
uk
Catalhoy
as possible procurement locales ignores the
complexities of prehistoric procurement strategies. While
such approaches may be an adequate first step in identifying potential areas of chert deposition, pedestrian survey is required to make adequate statements of chert raw
material provenance.
GEOLOGIC SURVEY METHODOLOGY

AND RESULTS
Survey Methodology
uk
Chert artifacts studied at Catalhoy
were made of
materials formed from lacustrine, marine, deep marine, radiolarian, and volcanic-related chert (cf. Doherty
et al., 2007). Our survey targeted geological environ-
ments likely to have produced these materials. A review

of geologic reports and maps (e.g., Akyol et al., 1963;
Waldron, 1984; Robertson & Ustaomer,

2009) facilitated
this process. Chert formation often involves the addition
of silica into carbonated environments. This silica may
originate from siliceous oozes formed from the collection
of organisms with silica-rich skeletal materials. Alternatively, hydrothermal systems can introduce silica from
volcanism or the upper mantle into lake or oceanic environments, wherein the Si oxidizes into SiO2 . So called
secondary cherts develop when silica replaces preexisting sediments, although some of the visual or mineral components of the parent material are maintained.
This happens through a variety of mechanisms, including silicification resulting from the addition of silica from
nearby volcanism (Lowe, 1999:8592). As a result, when
looking at the geologic history of Central Anatolia, our
attention was drawn to locations where microfauna may
have increased silica solution in marine environments,
and to locales where hydrothermal systems could have
acted as sources of silica for the formation of chert in shallow marine environments, or for the alteration of primary
sediments.
Geologically, Anatolia is divided into three primary
tectonic unitsthe Pontides, the Anatolides-Taurides,
and the Arabian Platformcurrently separated by sutures marking the separation of these units prior to the
Oligocene by the Neo-Tethys and Paleo-Tethys oceans.
(Robertson et al., 2004; Okay, 2008). These oceans are
essential for understanding the distribution of radiolarian chert in Turkey. Ophiolites, the preserved relics of
the Tethys oceans, generally represent former oceanic
accretionary complexes (Okay, 2008:23). These formations often contain radiolarian cherta highly siliceous
material mainly formed by the alteration of radiolarian oozes (Calvert, 1971), which themselves are the
result of oceanic silica-secreting organisms (Luedtke,
1992:23)which were utilized by the Neolithic occu uk
pants of Catalhoy
(Bezic, 2007). During the mid
Cretaceous, the emplacement of ophiolitic melange
and
overlying ophiolites over the Anatolide-Tauride terrain
resulted in an expansive distribution of these materials.
As a result, ophiolitic melanges

are a frequent occurrence
throughout much of Anatolia. It is therefore understandable that previous projects have looked at ophiolite-rich
regions (Antalya, Mersin, and Beysehir) as possible locations for prehistoric raw material procurement (e.g.,
Doherty et al., 2007).
Central Anatolia is demarcated by the Taurus Mountains to the south, to the west by the Lake Dis
trict beyond Egirdir,
the hills north of the Haymana
Plateau, and to the east by the eastern edge of
Cappadocia. The region encompasses several sections

Copyright
343
UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
of the Menderes-Tauride Block, including the Tavsanl

and Afyon Zones, and the eastern portions of the Lycian nappes (Bozkurt et al., 1997; Okay, 2008). During the Paleocene, continental collision initiated the division of the Anatolide-Tauride terrain, which resulted
in a south to southeast thrust pile. The lower sections
of this thrust pile were regionally metamorphosed in the
north, while the upper portions in the south formed large
cover nappes. There exists a subdivision of the AnatolideTaurides based on different metamorphic features, the
three primary zones include the Tavsanl Zone in the
north, a Cretaceous blueschist belt, the Afyon Zone of
lower grade high-pressure metamorphism in the center of the Anatolide-Taurides, and finally the Menderes
Massif in the south, a region comprised of deformed
uppermost Cretaceous-Palaeocene flysch with Triassic to
Cretaceous limestone. In spite of such variability, these
regions all have in common a late Precambrian crystalline
basement, followed by a mixed clastic-carbonated Paleozoic succession, and an Upper Triassic to Upper Cretaceous carbonated sequence (Okay, 2008:30). The region
has been the site of extensive carbonate platforms during
the Mesozoic, resulting in the deposition of shallow marine carbonates several thousand meters thick (Yalcn &
Ciftci, 2002).
It was decided that two general regions held great potential for locating raw materials of archaeological interest. First was the western edge of the Konya Basin
(Figure 1). Abundant ophiolite deposits in this region indicated the possible presence of radiolarian cherts. Second was the region surrounding the modern city of
Afyon south of Eskisehir (including the Sultan Daglar,

the Karakus Daglar,
the Sandkl Dag,

and the Yazlkaya
Plateau). It was believed that local volcanism might
have promoted the silicification of pre-existing sediments, resulting in the formation of secondary chert deposits. Note that, for the sources reported below, we
group Suhut Chert and Suhut South Chert into a single source (see above; Table II), and similarly consider
Hatip Chert and the Carsamba Gravels as a single chert
source.
The Western Konya Basin

Survey of the western Konya Basin (Ylmaz, 2010)
focused around the modern villages of Sille, Szma,
and Hatip, the western and southern sections of the
Obruk and Cihanbeyli Plateaus, and deposits affiliated
with the Carsamba River which enters the Basin from
the southwest. Three chert raw material sources of
possible archaeological importance were located: (1)
deposits of chert around Gedik Tepe north of Konya,
(2) ophiolite deposits adjacent to the modern village
344
of Hatip, and (3) radiolarian cherts located along the

modern Carsamba River. Only the latter two produced
evidence of knappable material of sufficient size for likely
stone tool production. Although we use the term Konya
Radiolarite as an umbrella-term for all radiolarites found
within the Basin and its immediate vicinity, we have
further divided this group to account for differences
between Hatip Chert and the Carsamba Gravels. While
these materials broadly relate to ophiolite deposits
discussed in geologic literature (cf. Okay, 2008), a more
fine-grained approach is required to better understand
humanlandscape interactions.
The western Konya Basin contains sections of
the Afyon-Bolkardag zone (Robertson & Ustaomer,

2009:114), a lower grade high-pressure metamorphic
belt, which is related to the Anatolide-Tauride block
(Okay, 2008:30). The Afyon-Bolkardag zone exhibits a
geological sequence typical of the Tauride region, including a mixed carbonate-clastic Paleozoic series that is overlain by Mesozoic marbles. The region shows a low-grade
medium to high-pressure metamorphism. This is characterized by a common occurrence of carpholite and local
sodic amphibole (Candan et al., 2005). Ophiolites and
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
complexes, now ophiolitic melanges,

which are comprised in part of radiolarian cherts of Triassic, Jurassic,
and Cretaceous ages (Tekin, 2002). Both geologists and
archaeologists have suggested that Jurassic sediments
hold some of the greatest potential for containing artifactquality cherts (Hein & Parrish, 1987; Duke & Steele,
2010).
Regionally, the Konya Basin appears to contain variable types of raw materials similar to those recovered at
nearby Neolithic sites, including not only chert but schist,
diabase, and andesite used in the production of ground
stone objects (Baysal, 2004, 2009). Previous projects,
such as the Konya Plains Survey (KOPAL) (Baird, 2002),
have visited much of the region and reported on geologic and archaeological materials. Recent paleobotany

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

Copyright
1023
1174
1204
1178
1312
Elevation (m)
Distinctive Visual
Characteristics
Nodule Size(s)
General Description of Deposit

and Local Geology
5 R 3/4, 4/6; 5 RP 4/2, 6/2; 5 Material has a very waxy luster,

often with white spotting or
YR 5/6, 6/6, 8/1; 5 Y 8/1;
dark gray cracks, though
10 R 4/2, 4/6;, 6/2, 8/2;
neither of these inuences
10 YR 6/6, 8/2; N6-N9
breakage patterns.
5 YR 4/6, 5/6, 7/4; 10 YR 9/2 Similar to the primary Suhut
deposits.
Blocks can exceed 5 m in

diameter, while
disarticulated nodules
can have a diameter of
up to 47 cm.
13 cm diameter in
conglomerate, plus one
0.5 m disarticulated
nodule in eld.
Chert occurs as large blocks in the stream

exposure west of the main road and north of
the side road. Blocks are overlain by carbonate
sediments, and occur adjacent to various
volcanic materials (andesite, dacite).
A secondary deposition of chert nodules, many
occurring in a conglomerate located on the
hillside west of the Afyon-Suhut road (south of
Suhut), but other nodules are present in the
nearby eld. Nodule density is extremely low.
The chert shows similar visual characteristics to
Suhut Chert. The surrounding landscape is a
lake bed with older volcanism to the south. This
volcanism may have caused such secondary
deposition.
Diameter of nodules range A source of nodular and vein chert, seen in
5 YR 6/6, 8/1; 10 R 5/4, 7/4; Translucent or milky white
transition from lake-bed limestones in several
from 5 cm20 cm, while
material with a high frequency
10 YR 6/2; translucent;
places. Many nodules occur within the
material occurring as
of black ecking. A silky luster,
N7-N9
limestone matrix, and many of those eroding
veins embedded within
some materials having blue,
out maintain some of this material as a
the surrounding
pink, or brown hues at depth.
cortex. Nodule density is extremely high, with
limestones can have a
artifact quality material occurring throughout
width of up to 20 cm.
the survey region (hillside and nearby stream).
Assumed to also be afliated with Konya
Nodules range from a
5 R 2/2, 4/2, 5/4; 5 YR 3/2, Opaque or semitranslucent
Radiolarite, a material widely dispersed
diameter of 1 cm40
orange color, with some
4/2, 4/4, 5/6; 10 YR 7/6;
throughout the region. However, more
cm.
instances of minimal black
N3- N5
high-quality material occurs at this locale,
ecking.
certainly capable of producing artifactual
material. Sample locale is adjacent to parent
ophiolites, a common presence around the
fringe of the Konya Basin.
Locales include roadcuts adjacent to the modern
Nodules range from a
5 G 4/1; 5 YR 3/2, 3/4, 4/4; Standard red and orange color
course of the Carsamba river, some nodules
diameter of less than 1
10 R 3/4; N5-N7
for Anatolian radiolarites, with
retrieved from the Carsamba itself. Nodule
cm7 cm.
some instances of green.
density is generally higher on the banks of the
Carsamba. A few nodules have been recovered
from greater distances away from the river,
most probably afliated with the alluvial fan
derived from the Carsamba.
Color Range (Munsell)
Table II Descriptive information pertaining to chert sources discussed in text.
NAZAROFF ET AL.
UK,
TURKEY
345
UK,
TURKEY
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
radiolarian cherts are embedded within a melange

matrix, Hatip Chert is located directly adjacent to its parent
ophiolites. The source-locale is a series of hills directly
west/northwest of the village of Hatip, 13 km southwest
of Konya. Modern quarrying activity occurs below one
outcrop from which samples were collected. The material occurs as a bright orange color that is almost translucent, and as an opaque orange radiolarite. Several nodules contain a series of small black flecks. While orange
radiolarian cherts are present at other locales adjacent
to the Konya Basin, the unique black flecking in Hatip
Chert may be used to distinguish it from similar deposits.
High-quality nodules, easily capable of producing chipped
stone objects, average 815 cm in diameter, although
larger nodules were witnessed. Only the most minimal
erosion was observed. In general, few materials were seen
deposited in secondary contexts outside their primary locations. This has important implications for modeling material procurement (Shackley, 2002). We can assume that
the procurement of such materials must have taken place
at or nearby those deposits mapped by the project. Lithic
reduction in the form of small bifacial cores was witnessed at the source. This suggests that prehistoric exploitation of Hatip Chert did occur. It is also worth noting that the source lies only 37 km west/northwest of
uk,
Catalhoy
with no natural features to block the line
of sight. The only other source with such close proxim-
346
ity is the Carsamba Gravels that are 35 km southwest of

uk.
Catalhoy
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.
The Afyon-Eskisehir Region

The Afyon and Eskisehir regions were surveyed after discussions with local geologists suggested the presence of
high-quality chalcedony north of the city of Afyon. The
Afyon-Eskisehir region is part of the Afyon-Bolkardag
metamorphic zone. Abundant dacitic and andesitic volcanism is present along the western margin of this region. Such volcanism may have acted as a source of silica,
which could promote the silicification of sediments, and
the formation of secondary cherts. Two sources of possible archaeological significance were located in the region:
(1) high-quality chert blocks near the modern village of
Suhut, and (2) nodular and vein chert adjacent to the
modern village of Akdere. These sources have been previously mapped by Akyol et al. (1963).

UK,
TURKEY
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.
largest blocks present can reach a vertical height of over

2 m, and may have a diameter of more than 5 m (Figure 3). Minimal erosion has resulted in materials scattered across the nearby slopes. No archaeological materials were witnessed at the source.
Suhut south chert

The Suhut South Chert source is located less than 5 km
south of the modern village of Suhut. The source is accessible via a dirt road that veers west from the main road
out of Suhut. The source lies north of this dirt road in
an open field south of limestone and conglomerate outcrops that contain small (<5 cm) high-quality chert nodules. Volcanic tuff is visible to the west and south of the
source area. Only a few nodules of sizes large enough
for the production of stone tools were witnessed at the
source. These included two nodules that measured more
than 25 cm in diameter. Given the conglomerate context
of much of the Suhut South Chert, and the presence of
larger nodules in eroded context in the nearby field, it

Copyright
347
UK,
TURKEY
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.
PROVENANCE METHODOLOGY AND

RESULTS
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
Locating and mapping the above chert sources is a

worthwhile endeavor as it demonstrates the presence
of artifact-quality materials west and northwest of the
Konya Basin in regions not considered by previous provenance programs. Additionally, we have confirmed the
presence of artifact-quality radiolarite on the Konya
Plain. However, to provide evidence that these locales
uk,
were exploited by the Neolithic occupants of Catalhoy
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
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Chert sourcing programs have used a wide array

of techniques to characterize material deposits. Among
these, instrumental NAA (INAA) is often preferred in
chert sourcing (e.g., Glascock, 2004; Kendall, 2010;
Huckell et al., 2011) due in part to a greater precision for several elements when compared to other techniques. However, because INAA necessitates a nuclear
reactor, choice of laboratories for sample submission is
limited, and analysis can be relatively time consuming
when compared to XRF. Other techniques employed include XRD (Malyk-Selivanova et al., 1998), inductively
coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (Evans et al., 2010;
Olofsson & Rodushkin, 2011), electron microprobe analysis (Trogdon, 2006), thin-section petrography (Bustillo
et al., 2009; Rodriguez-Tovar et al., 2010), visible/nearinfrared (VNIR) reflectance spectroscopy (Hubbard et al.,
2004; Parish, 2011), and chert luminescence properties
(Akridge & Benoit, 2001). Our decision to use nondestructive XRF analysis was based on instrument accessibility and future research objectives. Because of current legal constraints within Turkey, destructive analysis
of cultural objects is often not an option. It is also diffi uk,
cult to export samples from the country. At Catalhoy
it can even be problematic to remove artifacts from the

site. Because several geological and archaeological studies that seek to discern the bulk chemistry of cherts have
successfully used XRF instrumental analysis (e.g., Girty
et al., 1996; Van Kranendonk & Pirajno, 2004; Olivares
et al., 2009), we determined that XRF was an apt choice
for nondestructive analysis.
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
were macroscopically analyzed with IAA and sorted into

22 possible chert-types (not including debitage recovered
from flotation) (Table III). Of these, 28 artifacts visually
matching the known chert sources were sampled for geochemical analysis. From the raw material sources, we visually analyzed 96 samples: 24 from the Suhut source, 4
from Suhut South, 30 from the Akdere source, and 38
Konya Radiolarite from Hatip and the Carsamba Gravels.
A subsample (n = 19) was taken for geochemical analysis. It was insured that each sample analyzed was large
enough to produce reliable results following Davis et al.
(1998).
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

Copyright
349
UK,
TURKEY
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
5 YR 3/4; 5 YR 2/2; 5 YR 2/1

10 R 4/6
5 YR 4/4; N9
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
5 YR 4/6; 10 YR 7/2; 10 R 4/4
23
N/A
5 RP 2/2, 4/2
5 YR 4/1; 10 YR 6.5/2, 6/6; N8
Variable
Sesame-colored brown chert with a greasy luster A white

siliceous cortex penetrates into some samples.
Translucent dark brown material with a disctinctive white
cortex that does not penetrate into the material (sensu
Group 1).
Fine-grained waxy gray chert, oftentimes with a blue hue.
Opaque ne-grained medium-brown chert.
Fine-grained waxy white material, most often found with
burned exterior surface.
Coarse medium-gray chert with a greasy luster and light-gray
speckling.
Brilliant green or green-blue chert that has a waxy luster and
a medium-coarse grained texture.
Dark ne-grained pearly gray chert.
Dark green-brown chert, at times mottled.
True black ne-grained chert.
Dusty brown-red material with a grainy appearance.
Coarse brown and yellow chert.
Light reddish-brown ne-grained chert. Not radiolarite in
appearance.
Grainy and coarse bright red chert.
Coarse-grained brown chert with a dull appearance and
small, dark inclusions of unknown origin.
Mottled yellow-brown chert.
Translucent red chert. Not radiolarite in appearance.
Chalky white material with siliceous orange-brown
components.
Fine-grained purple material.
White or translucent chalcedonic material, with variable hues
(brown, yellow, pink, blue), and often black (Mg?)
inclusions.
Variable radiolarite materials, consisting of orange, green,
red, and brown materials as evidenced on the surrounding
Central Anatolian landscape.
Very waxy chert with a bright sheen, principally white,
burgundy, or orange.
Samples were in various state of burning (evidenced in the
presence of severe cracking, pot-lid fractures, or
discoloration), or weathering (determined through visual
patination).
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
(Table IV). Murray

(1994:216) states that along
with Ti and rare earth elements (REEs), only Al and
Fe appear relatively unaffected during diagensis. He
suggests that additional elements, such as Zr, may
also remain relatively unaffected. We have therefore
chosen this set of elements because of their relative
immobility and their unlikeliness to be influenced by
diagenetic process (Murray, 1994; Lowe, 1999). The
bulk chemical analysis performed by XRF does not
allow for the identification of the specific inclusions
that account for the presence of a given element.

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

Copyright
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
NAZAROFF ET AL.

UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
However, this does not necessarily detract from the

utility of the approach. Bulk chemical components allow
for the discrimination of cherts from different formations (Murray, 1994; Malyk-Selivanova et al., 1998),
although they cannot necessarily provide the
fine-grained information necessary to distinguish cherts
from different locales within a particular geologic unit.
Because the chert sources discussed here derive from
different geologic formations, the use of XRF analysis is
likely a viable technique for provenance determinations.
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
coarse-grain materials. Evidence of cortical material was

absent on the majority of samples, and was therefore
not a definitive characteristic of most groups. However,
there was substantial overlap in the colors, luster, and
texture of groups 1 and 2, in which case cortical characteristics became a defining feature in distinguishing these
chert-types. Note that it is the combination of attributes
that form a distinct visual signature for each group. In
some instances a group was defined by only a single sample (groups 7, 8, 14, 17, and 18). These samples may
have been misidentified and instead belong to another
group but did not contain sufficient visual information for
proper group assignment. However, we found substantial
correlation between the visual attributes of three of the
uk
Catalhoy
chert types (groups 20, 21, and 22) and the
sampled sources (Figure 5, Table III).
Geochemical results for source and artifact samples are
presented in Figure 6 and Table IV. Notably, source samples from the Akdere locale have extremely low concentrations of Al2 O3 (often below levels of detection),
especially in comparison to the radiolarite sources. It
has been demonstrated that Al2 O3 concentrations may
vary substantially between different types of chert (Hein
et al., 1983; Murray, 1994; Lowe, 1999), making it an important indicator of provenance. While the Suhut source
likewise contains minor concentrations of Al2 O3 , a high
concentration of Zr distinguishes it from other cherts.
Concerning the use of Fe in source discrimination, both
Konya Radiolarite sources appear to contain a higher
concentration than other locales, apart from comparable
results with one sample from the Suhut source.
In addition to raw geochemical data, a scatter plot was
used to make visual distinctions between source-groups,
and to assign artifacts to individual sources (Figure 6).
In archaeological provenance studies, such procedures
are often sufficient for making provenance assessments
(Shackley, 2008). Hierarchical cluster analysis based on a
dissimilarity matrix (Figure 7; Table V) was used to further validate these assignments (Baxter, 1994; Glascock
et al., 1998:2728), and was particularly useful when artifact chemistry placed a sample between multiple source
groups.
By far the majority of artifacts analyzed matched the
Akdere geochemical group. Of the 25 samples assigned to
the Akdere group via geochemical analysis, 16 contained
attributes placing them in the Akdere chert visual category, the remainder either producing uncertain visual
provenance (n = 6) or an incorrect assignment to another chert group (n = 3) (Table IV). Three samples were
visually assigned to the Konya Radiolarite group writ
large, one sample geochemically similar to the Carsamba
source, and another to the Hatip source. Visual data from
two final samples indicated that they were of a radiolarite

Copyright
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
NAZAROFF ET AL.

UK,
TURKEY
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).
source, one being Hatip, the other unknown. Neither was

confirmed based on geochemical data, the former being
most likely Akdere in origin, while the other belongs to
an unknown source group. Visual misidentifications may
have resulted from a sample not containing sufficient
visual information to produce an adequate assignment.
This is especially problematic with small blades, chips, or
drills, which often present limited visual data for source
assignment. Another likely possibility is that heat treatment that went undetected during visual analysis may
have further altered the visual appearance (or geochem-
istry) of the cultural samples (cf. Luedtke, 1992:7677).

Indeed, two samples geochemically similar to the Akdere
source, but with uncertain visual provenance, may have
been visually altered due to thermal alteration. Both samples have a waxy sheen and minute subsurface cracks
suggestive of heat treatment.
What these results suggest is a great degree of variability among the sampled sources, so much so that we are
even able to discriminate between the two Konya Radiolariate sources. However, while some sources appear
quite discrete in relation to their geochemistry (Akdere),
Figure 6 Geochemical plot of chert source and artifact materials discussed in this study. Zirconium (Zr) is present as parts per million (ppm).

Copyright
355
UK,
TURKEY
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.
Figure 7 Dendrogram displaying results of hierarchical cluster analysis of

geochemistry from source (bold) and artifact samples. Euclidean distance
calculations were based on z-score transformations of data for Zr, Al2 O3 ,
and Fe2 O3 normalized to SiO2 .
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
CHERT CONSUMPTION AT CATALHOYUK:

A NEW VIEW IN LIEU OF RECENT
RESEARCH
In the Middle East, regional and local variants of the Neolithic required a material basis upon which variation
could develop and promulgate. If we use lithic-sourcing
programs to look at the relationships among people, objects, and local environments illustrated through the acquisition and circulation of resources, we can demonstrate how different resource distributions created unique
contexts for the development of diversity during the Neolithic (Gerard, 2002; Hole, 2003; Watkins, 2008; Barzilai, 2010; Quintero, 2011; Carter et al., 2013). Cauvin
& Chataigner (1998) have proposed that particular attitudes toward lithic materials existed during the Neolithic, which would have dictated community preferences for different raw materials (obsidian, chert, etc.)
and would have been based on local circumstances,
such as what materials were or were not available,
the intended use(s) of a given resource, and the social networks of which a community was part. Kuijt
and Goring-Morris (2002:402) have also suggested that

UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
inter and intra-assemblage variation may be dependent

upon access to raw materials, the location of individual
settlements, and the nature and spatial location of economic activities within communities.
For Anatolia, Bezic (2007) discusses both regional and
temporal variation in the choice of lithic materials. For
example, Neolithic sites in the Lake District on the western periphery of Central Anatolia have significant chert
components, and only minimal contributions from obsidian. The exception is Suberde, where obsidian represents
5090% of the lithic assemblage (Bordaz, 1965, 1966). At
uk
u in southseveral sites, such as Cafer Hoy
and Cayon
eastern Anatolia, obsidian is all but absent throughout the
earliest levels, but represents the main lithic material in
later Neolithic levels (Cauvin et al., 1999; Bezic, 2007). In
Central Anatolia in the Konya and Aksaray regions, Neolithic lithic assemblages are overwhelmingly dominated
by obsidian materials. While this is to be expected at
sites with obsidian sources located nearby, such as Askl
uk,
Hoy
the situation is more complex at other locales,
uk,
such as Catalhoy
located 190 km from the nearest
obsidian source (Carter et al., 2005). By understanding
the relationships that directed the use of different chert
sources within Central Anatolia, we can more adequately
understand the nature of these differences, thus better
addressing how variation in local practices was important for the development of the Neolithic (e.g., Hodder,
2011).
Here, we elaborate on the use of two chert sources
uk:
at Catalhoy
Akdere Chert and Konya Radiolarite.
Following others (e.g., Lichter, 2002; Thissen, 2002;

Baysal, 2004), we propose that resource procurement at
uk
Catalhoy
occurred at multiple spatial scales, both locally within the Konya Basin and further abroad. This
would have involved acquiring some resources through
embedding their procurement within larger rounds of resource acquisition (Binford, 1979), and through multiple social relationships (Sahlins, 1972). Different procurement behaviors, directed by a range of variables, would
have resulted in variation in the presence of different
uk
sources on-site. The Catalhoy
chert assemblage from
levels GP is dominated by Akdere Chert and radiolarian materials (Figure 8; Table III). However, while Akdere
Chert is present in significant quantities throughout these
early levels (cf. Bezic, 2007), the Konya Radiolarite material noticeably declines through time, with its highest
concentration in Level G, and reducing to a negligible
percent by Level P. Ranking the abundance of each material across stratigraphic contexts allows us to measure
if there is a correlation in the amounts of each material
using a Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (rs ). The
coefficient may range from a value of 1 (there is no
correlation between the abundances of these materials)
Figure 8 Counts (top) and percentages (bottom) of Neolithic chert objects

uk
with probable material provenance of Akdere Chert or Konya
at Catalhoy
Radiolarite.
and +1 (a complete concordance between abundances).

Looking at stratigraphic depth, where N = 7, the test further verifies that there was no concordance between the
amount of these materials used on-site (rs = 0.857, an
insignificant correlation at both 5% and 1% levels). Such
differences should prompt us to question what variable
relationships directed the consumption of Akdere Chert
and Konya Radiolarite.
Akderes strong presence through time may be explained by the sources location northwest of the Konya
Basin. Thissen (2002) has suggested a relationship be uk
tween Catalhoy
and populations in northwest Anatolia during the sites later Neolithic occupation. The occurrence of Akdere Chert (located in between these re uks
gions) in Catalhoy
earlier levels indicates interactions
with this region, and perhaps with such groups, earlier

than Thissen had proposed. While social relationships can
develop through a variety of mechanisms, they must be
materialized in some form in order to become part of a
social reality (Godelier, 1999:27). If material acquisition
was a part of these relations, Akderes continued use may
indicate the relative importance of the northwestern re uk.
gion to the people of Catalhoy
The ephemeral use of Konya Radiolarite provides a different perspective of landscape interaction. The source

Copyright
357
UK,
TURKEY
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
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Sirel, E., Sayar, A., Stchepinsky, V., Topkaya, M., Tokay,

M., Wirtz, D., Weingart, W., Yalcinlar, I., & Yazlak, O.
(1963). Geologic Map of Turkey (1:500,000). Ankara: The
Institute of Mineral Research and Exploration.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural
Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Asouti, E. (2005).Woodland vegetation and the exploitation
uk:
of fuel and timber at Neolithic Catalhoy
Report on the
wood-charcoal macro-remains. In I. Hodder (Ed.),
uk:
Changing Materialities at Catalhoy
Reports from the
19951999 Seasons (pp. 213260). BIAA Monograph No.
39. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeology
and the British Institute at Ankara.
Asouti, E. (2006). Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
interaction sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20,
87126.
Asouti, E., & Hather, J., (2001). Charcoal analysis and the
reconstruction of ancient woodland vegetation in the
Konya Basin, south-central Anatolia, Turkey: Results from
uk
the Neolithic site of Catalhoy
East. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany, 10, 2332.
Baird, D. (2002). Konya plain survey. Anatolian Archaeology,
8, 19.
Balkan-Atl, N. (1994). La neolithisation

de lAnatolie. Paris:
Institut francaise detudes

anatoliennes, De Broccard.
Barzilai, O. (2010). Social complexity in the southern
Levantine PPNB as reflected through lithic studies: the
bidirectional blade industries. BAR International Series
2180. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Baxter, M. (1994). Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in
Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Baysal, A. (1998). Provisional report on geologic surveys in
uk
relation to groundstone studyCatalhoy
1998.
uk
Catalhoy
1998 Archive Report http://www.catalhoyuk.
com/archive reports/
uk
Baysal, A. (2004). Ground stone reports. Catalhoy
2004
Archive Report http://www.catalhoyuk.com/
archive reports/
Baysal, A. (2009). Social and Economic Implications of the
uk.
Life Histories of Ground Stone at Neolithic Catalhoy
Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Liverpool.

Bezic, A. (2007). Distribution of flint in Turkey, from 10,000
uk.
to 6,000 cal BC. Case studyCatalhoy
In C. Delage
(Ed.) Chert Availability and Prehistoric Exploitation in the
Near East (pp. 6886). BAR International Series 1615.
Binford, L. (1979). Organization and formation processes:
Looking at curated technologies. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 35, 255
273.
Binford, L., & OConnell, J. (1984). An Alyawara day: the
stone quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research, 40,
406432.
Bordaz, J. (1965). Suberde excavations, 1964. Anatolian
Studies, 15, 3032.
Bordaz, J. (1966). Suberde excavations, 1965. Anatolian

Studies, 16, 3233.
Bozkurt, E., Holdsworth, B., & Koyyigit, A. (1997).
Implications for Jurassic chert identified in the Tokat
Complex, northern Turkey. Geologic Magazine, 134,
9197.
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,
175196.
Calvert, S. E. (1971). Composition and origin of North
Atlantic deep sea cherts. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, 33, 273288.
Candan, O., Cetinkaplan, M., Oberhansli, R., Rimmele, G., &
Akal, C. (2005). Alpine high-P/low-T metamorphism of the
Afyon Zone and implications for the metamorphic
evolution of Western Anatolia, Turkey. Lithos, 84,
102124.
Carter, T., Conolly, J., & Spasojevic, A. (2005). The chipped
stone. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at
uk:
Catalhoy
Reports from the 19951999 Seasons (pp.
221283). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs
and the British Institute at Ankara.
Carter, T., Grant, S., Kartal, M., Coskun, A, & Ozkaya,

V.
(2013). Networks and Neolithization: Sourcing obsidian
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.
(Ed.) Neolithic in Turkey (pp. 86103). Istanbul:

Ozdo
gan
Akreoloji ve Sanat Yay.
Cauvin, M., & Chataigner, C. (1998). Distribution de
lobsidienne dans les sites archeologiques du Proche et
Moyen Orient. In M. C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze,
N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.L. Poidevin, & C. Chataigner
(Eds.), LObsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du
Volcan a` lOutil (pp. 325350). BAR International Series
738. Oxford: Archaeopress.
uk.
Cessford, C., (2001). A new dating sequence for Catalhoy
Antiquity, 75(290), 717725.

Conolly, J. (1999). Technical strategies and technical change
uk,
at Neolithic Catalhoy
Turkey. Antiquity, 73, 791800.
Davis, M., Jackson, T., Shackley, M., Teague, T., & Hampel, J.
(1998). Factors affecting the Energy-Dispersive X-Ray
Fluorescence (EDXRF) analysis of archaeological obsidian.
In M. Shackley (Ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies:
Method and Theory (pp. 159180). New York: Plenum
Press.
uk
Doherty, C. (2008). Clay sourcing. Catalhoy
2008 Archive
Report http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive reports/

Copyright
359
UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Doherty, C., Milic, M., & Carter, T., (2007). Characterizing the
uk.
non-obsidian chipped stone raw materials at Catalhoy
2007 Archive Report http://www.catalhoyuk.com/

archive reports/
Duke, C., & Steele, J. (2010). Geology and lithic procurement
in Upper Palaeolithic Europe: a weights-of-evidence based
GIS model of lithic resource potential. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 37, 813824.
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. The Holocene, 20, 1157
1163.
Fairbairn, A., Near, J., & Martinoli, D. (2005). Macrobotanical
investigation of the North, South and KOPAL area
uk
excavations at Catalhoy
East. In I. Hodder (Ed.),
uk:
Changing Materialities at Catalhoy
Reports from the
19951999 Seasons (pp. 137202). Cambridge: McDonald
Institute Monographs and the British Institute at Ankara.
Gerard, F. (2002). Transformations and societies in the
Neolithic of 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. 105118). Istanbul: Yayinlari.
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, 107118.
Glascock, M. (2004). Neutron activation analysis of chert
artifacts from a Hopewell mound. Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 262, 97
102.
Glascock, M., Braswell, G., & Cobean, R. (1998). A systematic
approach to obsidian source characterization. In M.
Shackley (Ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method
and Theory (pp. 1566). New York: Plenum Press.
Godelier, M. (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gould, R.A., Koster, D.A., & Sontz, A.H.L. (1971). The lithic
assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia.
American Antiquity, 36, 149169.
Gould, R.A., & Saggers, S. (1986). Lithic procurement in
central Australia: A closer look at Binfords idea of
embeddedness in archaeology. American Antiquity, 50,
117136.
Hein, J.R., Kuijpers, E.P, Denyer, P., & Sliney, R.E. (1983).
Petrology and geochemistry of Cretaceous and Paleogene
cherts from western Costa Rica. Developments in
Sedimentology, 36, 143174.
Hein, J.R., & Parrish, J.T., (1987). Distribution of siliceous
deposits in space and time. In J.R. Hein (Ed.), Siliceous
Sedimentary Rock-Hosted Ores and Petroleum (pp. 1057).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Hodder, I. (2006). The Leopards Tale: Revealing the Mysteries
uk.
of Catalhoy
London: Thames and Hudson.
360
Hodder, I. (2011). Human-thing entanglement: Towards an

integrated archaeological perspective. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 17, 154177.
Hole, F. (2003). Centers in the Neolithic? Neo-Lithics, 2,
3335.
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, 119129.
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, 965976.
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, 821.
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, 361440.
Lichter, C. (2002). Central Western Anatoliaa key region in
the neolithisation of Europe? In F. Gerard & L. Thissen
(Eds.) The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal
Developments and External Relations During the 9th6th
Millennia cal BC (pp. 161169). Istanbul: Yayinlari.
Love, S. (2012). The geoarchaeology of mudbricks in
uk,
architecture: A methodological study from Catalhoy
Turkey. Geoarchaeology, 26, 140156.

Lowe, D. (1999). Petrology and sedimentology of cherts and
related silicified sedimentary rocks in the Swaziland
Supergroup. In D. Lowe & G. Byerly (Eds.), Geologic
Evolution of the Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa
(pp. 83114). Geological Society of America Special Paper
329. Boulder: Geological Society of America.
Luedtke, B. (1992). An Archaeologists Guide to Flint and
Chert. Los Angeles: UCLA Archaeological Research Tools 7,
University of Los Angeles, California.
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, 673708.
McBryde, I. (1978). Where do axes come from? Mankind, 11,
354382.
McBryde, I. (1984). Kulin greenstone quarries: The social
contexts of production and distribution for the Mount
William site. World Archaeology, 16, 267285.
McBryde, I. (2000). Travelers in storied landscapes: A case
study in exchanges and heritage. Aboriginal Histories, 24,
152174.
Mellaart, J. (1967). Catal Huy
uk:
A Neolithic Town in
Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson.
Mellaart, J. (1975). The Neolithic of the Near East. London:
Thames and Hudson.

UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Milne, S.B., Hamilton, A., & Fayek, M. (2009). Combining

visual and geochemical analyses to source chert on
Southern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Geoarchaeology,
24, 429449.
Murray, R. (1994). Chemical criteria to identify the
depositional environment of chert: General principles and
applications. Sedimentary Geology, 90, 213232.
Nazaroff, A. (2012). Social complexity and
source-entanglement in Anatolia: a case-study from the
uk,
Neolithic chert assemblage at Catalhoy
Turkey. Paper
presented at the International Congress on Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East, Warsaw, Poland.
Okay, A. (2008). Geology of Turkey: A synopsis. Anschnitt,
21, 1942.
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,
492497.
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), 11421170.
Ostaptchouk, S. (2011). Chipped stone from the West
uk
Mound, Trench 5, season 2011. Catalhoy
2011 Archive
Report http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive reports/
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
Palaeozoic-Early Mesozoic orogeny in Western Turkey:

Support for an evolving open-Tethys model. Journal of the
Geological Society, London, 161,
501511.
Robertson, A., & Ustaomer,

T. (2009). Formation of the Late
Palaeozoic Konya Complex and comparable units in
southern Turkey by subduction-accretion processes:
Implications of the tectonic development of Tethys in the
Eastern Mediterranean region. Tectonophysics, 473,
113148.
Rodriguez-Tovar, F., Morgado, A., & Lozano, J. (2010). Using
ichnofossils to characterize chert tools: a preliminary study
from southern Iberia. Geoarchaeology, 25,
514526.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. London: Routledge.
Shackley, M. (2002). More than exchange: Pre-ceramic
through ceramic period obsidian studies in the greater
North American Southwest. In M.D. Glascock (Ed.),
Geochemical Evidence for Long-Distance Exchange (pp.
5388). Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey.
Shackley, M. (2008). Archaeological petrology and the
archaeometry of lithic materials. Archaeometry 50,
194215
Tekin, U.K., (2002). Lower Jurassic (Hettangian-Sinemurian)
radiolarians from the Antalya Nappes, Central Taurids,
Southern Turkey. Micropaleontology, 42,
177205.
Thissen, L. (2002). Time trajectories for the Neolithic of
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. 1326). Istanbul: Yayinlari.
Trogdon, M. (2006). Prehistoric chert quarries in Oaxaca,
Mexico and implications on stone tool production: A
geochemical approach. Paper presented at the Geologic
Society of America meeting, Philadelphia.
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
Reports from the 199599 Seasons (pp. 369372). BIAA

Monograph No. 39. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for
Archaeology and the British Institute at
Ankara.
Valor, B., & Tunay, G. (1996). Description and internal
structure of the condensate series: An example from the
Beysehir-Hoyran Nappe. Mineral Res Expl Bull, 118,
1524.
Van Kranendonk, M., & Pirajno, F. (2004). Geochemistry of
metabasalts and hydrothermal alteration zones 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, 253278.
Waldron, J. (1984). Stratigraphy and sedimentary evolution
of the NE Antalya Complex: Isparta Province, Turkey. The

Copyright
361
UK,
TURKEY
NAZAROFF ET AL.
Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration Institute

of Turkey 97/98, 120.
Watkins, T. (2008). Supra-regional networks in the Neolithic
of southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory, 21,
139171.
Yalcn, M., & Ciftci, E. (2002). Mineralogic and genetic
investigation of Pb-Zn vein-type deposits occurring in the
east of Camard (Nigde-Central

Anatolia)a new genetic
362
model. 16th International Conference on Basement

Tectonics, Rolla, MO.
Ylmaz, M. (2010). Karapnar cevresinde yeralt
imlerinin yaratms oldugu
cevre
suyu seviye degis
sorunlar (Environmental problems caused
by ground water level changes around Karapinar).
Ankara Universitesi
Cevrebilimleri Dergesi, 2,
145163.


The Importance of Chert in Central Anatolia: Lessons From The Neolithic Assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Importance of Chert in Central Anatolia: Lessons From The Neolithic Assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article

The Importance of Chert in Central Anatolia: Lessons from

Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Archaeology Department, Faculty of Letters, Bulent

This paper is a presentation of three sources of artifact-quality chert in Central

2005), and clay deposits (Doherty, 2008), considerably

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362

gest that the visual and geochemical characteristics of the

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Hodder Excavation Levels,

environmental, and economic context (Thissen, 2002;

of sickle blades. Variable ethnographic and ethnohistoric

2007; Doherty, Milic, & Carter,

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

a chipped stone assemblage consisting of 40% chert.

They note the presence of 23 visual chert groups, and

While chert-sourcing programs in Central Anatolia and

GEOLOGIC SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362

ments likely to have produced these materials. A review

Waldron, 1984; Robertson & Ustaomer,

As a result, ophiolitic melanges

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

of the Menderes-Tauride Block, including the Tavsanl

Afyon south of Eskisehir (including the Sultan Daglar,

the Sandkl Dag,

The Western Konya Basin

of Hatip, and (3) radiolarian cherts located along the

the Afyon-Bolkardag zone (Robertson & Ustaomer,

complexes, now ophiolitic melanges,

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

General Description of Deposit

5 R 3/4, 4/6; 5 RP 4/2, 6/2; 5 Material has a very waxy luster,

Blocks can exceed 5 m in

Chert occurs as large blocks in the stream

Color Range (Munsell)

Table II Descriptive information pertaining to chert sources discussed in text.

radiolarian cherts are embedded within a melange

ity is the Carsamba Gravels that are 35 km southwest of

The Afyon-Eskisehir Region

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362

largest blocks present can reach a vertical height of over

Suhut south chert

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PROVENANCE METHODOLOGY AND

Locating and mapping the above chert sources is a

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Chert sourcing programs have used a wide array

it can even be problematic to remove artifacts from the

were macroscopically analyzed with IAA and sorted into

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

5 YR 3/4; 5 YR 2/2; 5 YR 2/1

5 YR 4/6; 10 YR 7/2; 10 R 4/4

Sesame-colored brown chert with a greasy luster A white

(Table IV). Murray

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.