the importance of chert in central anatolia: lessons from the neolithic assemblage at Çatalhöyük,...

Research Article

The Importance of Chert in Central Anatolia: Lessons fromthe Neolithic Assemblage at Catalhoyuk, TurkeyAdam Joseph Nazaroff,1,* Adnan Baysal,2 and Yahya Ciftci3

1Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA2Archaeology Department, Faculty of Letters, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey3Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitusu, Universiteler Mahallesi Dumlupnar Bulvar, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey

Correspondence*Corresponding author;

E-mail: [email protected]

Received15 June 2012

Accepted28 February 2013

Scientific 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 CentralAnatolia. A previous dearth of research focused on locating and characterizingsuch raw material sources has incorrectly colored our view of prehistoric eco-nomic practices. To remedy this situation, we have conducted a survey of var-ious locales within Central Anatolia to test for the presence of artifact-qualitymaterials. We make use of Individual Attribute Analysis (IAA) and Energy Dis-persive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) analysis to discriminate among these ma-terials, and suggest their use by the Neolithic occupants of Catalhoyuk throughsimilar analyses of artifactual materials. We argue that the presence and char-acterization of these new sources allows us to better understand the intrica-cies of Neolithic practices by illustrating the ways in which the consumption ofthese materials was variably entwined with the exploitation of other resources,as well as embedded within social relations outside of Central Anatolia. C 2013Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

In the Middle East, the variable distribution of local re-sources has been viewed as one component for creat-ing contexts for the development of a diverse Neolithicworld (Gerard, 2002; Thissen, 2002; Hole, 2003; Asouti,2006). Case studies in Central Anatolia have shownhow local practices created multiple trajectories for dif-ferent social developments during the Neolithic (Ger-ard, 2002; Hodder, 2011). While research has focused onthe use of woodland catchments (Asouti, 2005; Fairbairnet al., 2005), pastoral environments (Pearson et al.,2007), ground stone (Baysal, 1998; Turkmenoglu et al.,2005), and clay deposits (Doherty, 2008), considerablyless attention has been given to understanding the con-sumption of chert, a sedimentary rock comprised of mi-crocrystalline or cryptocrystalline silica, generally in ex-cess of 90% (Luedtke, 1992; Lowe, 1999). Although acomparatively minor component of many lithic assem-blages, chert is ubiquitously present at Neolithic sites inCentral Anatolia (Bezic, 2007). Understanding the distri-bution and use of chert offers a more thorough perspec-tive on the role of diverse local practices in shaping theNeolithic.

At the Neolithic site of Catalhoyuk (74006000 B.C.)(Figure 1) in Central Anatolia, James Mellaart statedthat the fine-grained chert materials used in object pro-duction originated from locales in southeastern Anatoliaor northern Syria (Mellaart, 1967:213, 1975:103). Thistheory was not unreasonable given the state of knowl-edge at the time of Mellaarts writing. However, in re-cent years our understanding of Anatolian geology hasexpanded, and reports of chert materials are abundantin the geologic literature. So much so that archaeolo-gists currently working at Catalhoyuk have proposed thatartifact-quality sources may exist in the Western TaurusMountains much closer to Catalhoyuk than Mellaart hy-pothesized (Bezic, 2007; Doherty et al., 2007; see alsoOstaptchouk, 2011). These new ideas primarily relatethe presence of radiolarian chert-bearing ophiolite forma-tions common in regions adjacent to the Taurus Moun-tains. However, a review of the regional geologic liter-ature indicates several ophiolite deposits and radiolariancherts throughout the whole of Anatolia (Waldron, 1984;Valor & Tunay, 1996; Bozkurt et al., 1997; Tekin, 2002;Parlak & Robertson, 2004; Okay, 2008), suggesting addi-tional locations that may have been of use to Neolithic

340 Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362 Copyright C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

NAZAROFF ET AL. NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOYUK, TURKEY

Figure 1 Map of the Konya Basin, with local chert sources and Neolithicsites indicated (modified after Ylmaz, 2010, Figure 1).

populations. Other possible deposits of chert may ex-ist in the areas surrounding Ankara (Balkan-Atl, 1994),and concentrations of chert have been reported near theGoksu Valley (Reynolds, 2007). In order to move beyondconjecture, intensive survey of possible raw material lo-cales and thorough characterization of both artifactualand source material is necessary.

To date, no study has focused principally on the surveyand collection of chert raw materials in Central Anatolia.Research begun in 2011 by the Anatolian Archaeologi-cal Raw Material Survey (AARMS) has sought to rem-edy this problem. The explicit goals of AARMS relate tolocating, mapping, and characterizing a variety of rawmaterial sources of possible social and economic impor-tance to populations inhabiting Anatolia in prehistory.Further, it is a primary objective of AARMS to providethis information in conjunction with studies of artifactassemblages in order to posit ancient interactions withphysical and cultural landscapes as evidenced throughbehaviors of direct and indirect material procurement.In this paper, we limit our discussion to the introduc-tion of two newmaterial sources in Central AnatoliatheSuhut and Akdere Chert sourcesand the confirmationof a third chert source previously thought to exist alongthe western fringe of the Konya Basin (Bezic, 2007).Furthermore, we discuss the visual and geochemicalcharacterization of these sources, and utilize such data todiscriminate among them as best as possible. When us-ing the term source, we speak of a spatially discrete de-posit of a material type discovered during survey, and anaccompanying visual and geochemical signature derivedfrom systematic sampling at the locale. When we proposethat an artifact be assigned to a geologic source, we sug-

gest that the visual and geochemical characteristics of theartifact match those of the source to a greater or lesser de-gree of certainty. We have followed a framework offeredby Shackley (2008:197198; see also Luedtke, 1992) forlocating, sampling, characterizing, and presenting the re-sults of our study.

We begin this paper with a discussion of the charac-teristics of chert consumption during the Central Anato-lian Neolithic period (10,0006000 B.C.) (Ozbasaran &Buitenhuis, 2002), with particular emphasis on work pre-viously conducted at Catalhoyuk. Next, we broadly re-view the geology of Central Anatolia, which aided us inisolating regions for survey. Following this, we presentthe results of our survey and a description of locatedchert sources. Finally, we use Individual Attribute Analy-sis (IAA) and Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Anal-ysis (EDXRF) to match artifact materials from the earlyNeolithic levels at Catalhoyuk to located sources.

CATALHOYUK IN CONTEXT:BACKGROUND TO CHERT CONSUMPTIONIN NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA

The Neolithic occupation of Catalhoyuk commenced atroughly 7480 B.C., and spanned approximately 1400years (Cessford, 2001; Table I). The location of such alarge site at a substantial distance from Neolithic cen-ters of domestication in the Middle East marks its im-portance in long-ranging social and economic networks(Cauvin, 2000). However, it is likewise important to rec-ognize how Catalhoyuk is a product of developmentswhich occurred in a more localized historical, social,

Table I Catalhoyuk East Mound chronology for South Area excavations

(modified after Love, 2012).

Mellaart Excavation Hodder Excavation Levels,

Levels South Area

6000 B.C. 0-III TP 6 Levels

T

S

R

Q

P

VIA O

VIB N

VII M

VIII L

IX K

X J

XI I

XII H

7400 B.C. Pre-XII G1

Hodder Level G2

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28 (2013) 340362 Copyright C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 341

NEOLITHIC CHERT AT CATALHOYUK, TURKEY NAZAROFF ET AL.

environmental, and economic context (Thissen, 2002;Asouti, 2006:117; Hodder, 2011). While much effort hasbeen expended in understanding the procurement andconsumption of other materials at Catalhoyuk, less con-sideration has been given as to how the acquisition anduse of chert operated alongside these other practices.

The Neolithic chert assemblage at Catalhoyuk con-sists of more than 4000 samples from excavations of theNeolithic occupation in the south and north areas ofthe East Mound (Conolly, 1999). Brief commentaries onthese materials have been offered by Bezic (2007), Carteret al. (2005), and Conolly (1999). Many of these indicatethat the use of chert was intimately entwined in a rangeof other practices, and differed substantially from theuse of other chipped stone materials, particularly obsid-ian (Bezic, 2007). For example, elaborate bone-handledknives recovered at Catalhoyuk are made of fine-grainedchert materials, and find no correlation in the obsidian as-semblages (Conolly, 1999; Hodder, 2006). Chert is rarelycached at Catalhoyuk, while obsidian is frequently de-posited in such contexts. Ratios of obsidian and chertknapping debris also suggest that some obsidian indus-tries focused on household production, while chert wasoften brought to site in the form of preforms and blanks(Bezic, 2007:82). At the nearby sites of Can Hasan andSuberde, chert was used for the exclusive manufacture

of sickle blades. Variable ethnographic and ethnohistoricaccounts have suggested that the processes underwritingthe variable uses of such materials often relate to the dif-ferential 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 thearchaeological literature of Anatolia (Figure 2). These in-clude ophiolite-related radiolarian chert deposits in theWestern Taurus Mountains, similar radiolarian chertssouth of Beysehir Golu and surrounding the moderncity of Mersin, and high-quality chert sources in east-ern Anatolia adjacent to Kahramanmaras and Gaziantep(Sakcagoz) (Bezic, 2007; Doherty et al., 2007; see alsoReynolds, 2007). Other than the latter two deposits, theexact locations, depositional character, and macroscopic,petrographic, and chemical characteristics of these mate-rials is unknown.

Bezic (2007:7076) has offered an excellent reviewof chert consumption during the Central AnatolianNeolithic. In Central Anatolia, chert consistently com-prises less than 5% of chipped stone assemblages, whilesites in the Lake District and Urfa-Diyarbakir Regionoften have lithic assemblages principally composed ofchert during the Neolithic (up to 99%). The site ofPnarbas A (90008000 B.C.) is the one exception, with

Figure 2 Mapof Anatolia with Central Anatolian Neolithic sites, and chert sources discussed in paper (modified after Bezic, 2007; Doherty,Milic, & Carter,2007). Archaeological sites: (1) Catalhoyuk; (2) Pnarbas; (3) Can Hasan; (4) Mersin; (5) Askl Hoyuk; (6) Musular.



a chipped stone assemblage consisting of 40% chert.Concerning sources of chert raw material, Bezic dis-cusses the presence of three source locales, only one ofwhich is located in Central Anatolia. These are depositseast of Beysehir Golu, and two locales in SoutheasternAnatoliaKahramanmaras and Sakcagoz (ibid, Map 1).In spite of this, she is unable to provide much informa-tion regarding actual raw material procurement.

Doherty et al. (2007) take us one step closer to un-derstanding chert provenance through their case studyof the materials recovered from the earliest levels ofCatalhoyuk. To Bezics list, they add the ophiolite depositsin the Antalya and Mersin regions. Furthermore, the au-thors present the results of visual and elemental analy-ses of chert artifacts from the excavations at Catalhoyuk.They note the presence of 23 visual chert groups, andfurther reduce these groups to six or seven chert-typesbased on the formation processes at the origin of eachmaterial. Environments with similar processes reportedin geologic maps were used to hypothesize chert pro-curement at ophiolitic deposits affiliated with the TaurusMountains, and at volcanic areas north of Catalhoyuk.

While chert-sourcing programs in Central Anatolia andat Catalhoyuk have generated thought-provoking discus-sions concerning Neolithic chert procurement and use,none of these have, as of yet, actually conducted anythorough raw material survey to test the many hypothe-ses they have generated. Until now, provenance inter-pretations have been primarily derived from publishedreferences. Many issues may exist when only lookingto geologic maps or reports in an attempt to discernsource locales, as the interests of geologists and archae-ologists often differ. Discrete chert deposits that would beof importance to archaeologists may not find their wayinto the geologic literature. Moreover, Central Anato-lia contains several environments where chert may haveformed. Simply referring to those environments closest toCatalhoyuk as possible procurement locales ignores thecomplexities of prehistoric procurement strategies. Whilesuch approaches may be an adequate first step in identi-fying potential areas of chert deposition, pedestrian sur-vey is required to make adequate statements of chert rawmaterial provenance.

GEOLOGIC SURVEY METHODOLOGYAND RESULTS

Survey Methodology

Chert artifacts studied at Catalhoyuk were made ofmaterials formed from lacustrine, marine, deep ma-rine, radiolarian, and volcanic-related chert (cf. Dohertyet al., 2007). Our survey targeted geological environ-

ments likely to have produced these materials. A reviewof geologic reports and maps (e.g., Akyol et al., 1963;Waldron, 1984; Robertson & Ustaomer, 2009) facilitatedthis process. Chert formation often involves the additionof silica into carbonated environments. This silica mayoriginate from siliceous oozes formed from the collectionof organisms with silica-rich skeletal materials. Alterna-tively, hydrothermal systems can introduce silica fromvolcanism or the upper mantle into lake or oceanic en-vironments, wherein the Si oxidizes into SiO2. So calledsecondary cherts develop when silica replaces pre-existing sediments, although some of the visual or min-eral components of the parent material are maintained.This happens through a variety of mechanisms, includ-ing silicification resulting from the addition of silica fromnearby volcanism (Lowe, 1999:8592). As a result, whenlooking at the geologic history of Central Anatolia, ourattention was drawn to locations where microfauna mayhave increased silica solution in marine environments,and to locales where hydrothermal systems could haveacted as sources of silica for the formation of chert in shal-lowmarine environments, or for the alteration of primarysediments.

Geologically, Anatolia is divided into three primarytectonic unitsthe Pontides, the Anatolides-Taurides,and the Arabian Platformcurrently separated by su-tures marking the separation of these units prior to theOligocene by the Neo-Tethys and Paleo-Tethys oceans.(Robertson et al., 2004; Okay, 2008). These oceans areessential for understanding the distribution of radiolar-ian chert in Turkey. Ophiolites, the preserved relics ofthe Tethys oceans, generally represent former oceanicaccretionary complexes (Okay, 2008:23). These forma-tions often contain radiolarian cherta highly siliceousmaterial mainly formed by the alteration of radiolar-ian oozes (Calvert, 1971), which themselves are theresult of oceanic silica-secreting organisms (Luedtke,1992:23)which were utilized by the Neolithic occu-pants of Catalhoyuk (Bezic, 2007). During the mid-Cretaceous, the emplacement of ophiolitic melange andoverlying ophiolites over the Anatolide-Tauride terrainresulted in an expansive distribution of these materials.As a result, ophiolitic melanges are a frequent occurrencethroughout much of Anatolia. It is therefore understand-able that previous projects have looked at ophiolite-richregions (Antalya, Mersin, and Beysehir) as possible lo-cations for prehistoric raw material procurement (e.g.,Doherty et al., 2007).

Central Anatolia is demarcated by the Taurus Moun-tains to the south, to the west by the Lake Dis-trict beyond Egirdir, the hills north of the HaymanaPlateau, and to the east by the eastern edge ofCappadocia. The region encompasses several sections



of the Menderes-Tauride Block, including the Tavsanland Afyon Zones, and the eastern portions of the Ly-cian nappes (Bozkurt et al., 1997; Okay, 2008). Dur-ing the Paleocene, continental collision initiated the di-vision of the Anatolide-Tauride terrain, which resultedin a south to southeast thrust pile. The lower sectionsof this thrust pile were regionally metamorphosed in thenorth, while the upper portions in the south formed largecover nappes. There exists a subdivision of the Anatolide-Taurides based on different metamorphic features, thethree primary zones include the Tavsanl Zone in thenorth, a Cretaceous blueschist belt, the Afyon Zone oflower grade high-pressure metamorphism in the cen-ter of the Anatolide-Taurides, and finally the MenderesMassif in the south, a region comprised of deformeduppermost Cretaceous-Palaeocene flysch with Triassic toCretaceous limestone. In spite of such variability, theseregions all have in common a late Precambrian crystallinebasement, followed by a mixed clastic-carbonated Paleo-zoic succession, and an Upper Triassic to Upper Creta-ceous carbonated sequence (Okay, 2008:30). The regionhas been the site of extensive carbonate platforms duringthe Mesozoic, resulting in the deposition of shallow ma-rine carbonates several thousand meters thick (Yalcn &Ciftci, 2002).

It was decided that two general regions held great po-tential for locating raw materials of archaeological in-terest. First was the western edge of the Konya Basin(Figure 1). Abundant ophiolite deposits in this region in-dicated the possible presence of radiolarian cherts. Sec-ond was the region surrounding the modern city ofAfyon south of Eskisehir (including the Sultan Daglar,the Sandkl Dag, the Karakus Daglar, and the YazlkayaPlateau). It was believed that local volcanism mighthave promoted the silicification of pre-existing sedi-ments, resulting in the formation of secondary chert de-posits. Note that, for the sources reported below, wegroup Suhut Chert and Suhut South Chert into a sin-gle source (see above; Table II), and similarly considerHatip Chert and the Carsamba Gravels as a single chertsource.

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 theObruk and Cihanbeyli Plateaus, and deposits affiliatedwith the Carsamba River which enters the Basin fromthe southwest. Three chert raw material sources ofpossible archaeological importance were located: (1)deposits of chert around Gedik Tepe north of Konya,(2) ophiolite deposits adjacent to the modern village

of Hatip, and (3) radiolarian cherts located along themodern Carsamba River. Only the latter two producedevidence of knappable material of sufficient size for likelystone tool production. Although we use the term KonyaRadiolarite as an umbrella-term for all radiolarites foundwithin the Basin and its immediate vicinity, we havefurther divided this group to account for differencesbetween Hatip Chert and the Carsamba Gravels. Whilethese materials broadly relate to ophiolite depositsdiscussed in geologic literature (cf. Okay, 2008), a morefine-grained approach is required to better understandhumanlandscape interactions.

The western Konya Basin contains sections ofthe Afyon-Bolkardag zone (Robertson & Ustaomer,2009:114), a lower grade high-pressure metamorphicbelt, which is related to the Anatolide-Tauride block(Okay, 2008:30). The Afyon-Bolkardag zone exhibits ageological sequence typical of the Tauride region, includ-ing a mixed carbonate-clastic Paleozoic series that is over-lain by Mesozoic marbles. The region shows a low-grademedium to high-pressure metamorphism. This is charac-terized by a common occurrence of carpholite and localsodic amphibole (Candan et al., 2005). Ophiolites andan ophiolitic melange overlay these metamorphic rocks(Okay, 2008). The Hatip Chert source reported hereafine-grained radiolarian chertis most probably relatedto such ophiolites.

The Boyalitepe Triassic-Lower Jurassic platformlimestonesa series of oolitic rocks, algae and foraminif-erous mudstones, and reddish, thin-layered limestonesare located further south within the Basin. This sequenceis overlain by a condensed, three-section sequence,comprised of ammonite-bearing Jurassic marl, whiteand red colored radiolarite-bearing limestones of LowerCretaceous age, and an Upper Cretaceous Globotruncana-bearing stilolitic limestone interbedded with red-coloredsilica (Valor & Tunay, 1996:1618). On a more generallevel, present are the remains of oceanic accretionarycomplexes, now ophiolitic melanges, which are com-prised in part of radiolarian cherts of Triassic, Jurassic,and Cretaceous ages (Tekin, 2002). Both geologists andarchaeologists have suggested that Jurassic sedimentshold some of the greatest potential for containing artifact-quality cherts (Hein & Parrish, 1987; Duke & Steele,2010).

Regionally, the Konya Basin appears to contain vari-able types of raw materials similar to those recovered atnearby Neolithic sites, including not only chert but schist,diabase, and andesite used in the production of groundstone objects (Baysal, 2004, 2009). Previous projects,such as the Konya Plains Survey (KOPAL) (Baird, 2002),have visited much of the region and reported on geo-logic and archaeological materials. Recent paleobotany



Table

IIDescriptiv

einform

ationpertainingto

chertsou

rces

discu

ssed

intext.

Subgrou

pDistin

ctiveVisua

lGen

eralDescriptio

nof

Dep

osit

Source

Nam

eUTM

Elevation(m

)Color

Ran

ge(M

unsell)

Cha

racteristic

sNod

uleSize(s)

andLo

calG

eology

Suhu

tChe

rtSu

hutC

hert

0290

007

4278

595

1312

5R3/4,4/6;5RP4/2,6/2;5

YR5/6,

6/6,

8/1;

5Y8/1;

10R4/2,

4/6;,6

/2,8

/2;

10YR

6/6,

8/2;

N6-N9

Materialhas

avery

waxyluster,

oftenwith

white

spottin

gor

darkgray

cracks,thou

gh

neith

erof

theseinflu

ences

breakag

epatterns.

Blockscanexceed

5m

in

diameter,w

hile

disartic

ulated

nodules

canha

veadiameter

of

upto

47cm

.

Che

rtoc

curs

aslargeblocksinthestream

exposurewesto

fthe

mainroad

andno

rthof

thesideroad

.Blocksareov

erlainbycarbon

ate

sedim

ents,and

occu

rad

jacent

tovariou

s

volcan

icmaterials(and

esite

,dacite

).

Suhu

tChe

rt

South

0284

511

4261

709

1178

5YR

4/6,5/6,7/4;10

YR9/2

Similarto

theprimarySu

hut

dep

osits.

13cm

diameter

in

cong

lomerate,pluson

e

0.5m

disartic

ulated

noduleinfield.

Aseco

ndarydep

osition

ofch

ertn

odules,m

any

occu

rringinaco

nglomeratelocatedon

the

hillsidewesto

fthe

Afyon

-Suh

utroad

(sou

thof

Suhu

t),b

utothe

rno

dules

arepresent

inthe

nearbyfield.N

oduleden

sity

isextrem

elylow.

Thech

ertsho

wssimilarvisualch

aracteristicsto

Suhu

tChe

rt.The

surrou

ndingland

scap

eisa

lake

bed

with

older

volcan

ism

tothesouth.

This

volcan

ism

may

have

caused

such

seco

ndary

dep

osition

.

Akd

ereChe

rtN/A

0307

808

4347

578

1204

5YR

6/6,

8/1;

10R5/4,

7/4;

10YR

6/2;

tran

sluc

ent;

N7-N9

Tran

sluc

ento

rmilkywhite

materialw

ithahigh

freq

uenc

y

ofblack

flecking.

Asilkyluster,

somematerialsha

ving

blue,

pink,or

brownhu

esat

dep

th.

Diameter

ofno

dules

rang

e

from

5cm

20cm

,while

materialoccurring

as

veinsem

bed

ded

with

in

thesurrou

nding

limestone

scanha

vea

width

ofup

to20

cm.

Asource

ofno

dular

andveinch

ert,seen

in

tran

sitio

nfrom

lake-bed

limestone

sinseveral

places.Man

yno

dules

occu

rwith

inthe

limestone

matrix,an

dman

yof

thoseerod

ing

outm

aintainsomeof

thismaterialasa

cortex.Nod

uleden

sity

isextrem

elyhigh

,with

artifactq

ualitymaterialoccurring

throug

hout

thesurvey

region

(hillsidean

dne

arbystream

).

Kony

a

Rad

iolarite

HatipChe

rt04

4703

6

4180

094

1174

5R2/2,

4/2,

5/4;

5YR

3/2,

4/2,

4/4,

5/6;

10YR

7/6;

N3-

N5

Opaq

ueor

semitran

sluc

ent

oran

geco

lor,with

some

instan

cesof

minim

alblack

flecking.

Nod

ules

rang

efrom

a

diameter

of1cm

40

cm.

Assum

edto

also

beaffiliatedwith

Kony

a

Rad

iolarite,a

materialw

idelydispersed

throug

hout

theregion

.How

ever,m

ore

high

-qua

litymaterialoccursat

thislocale,

certainlycapab

leof

produc

ingartifactual

material.Sa

mplelocaleisad

jacent

toparen

t

ophiolite

s,aco

mmon

presenc

earou

ndthe

fringe

oftheKo

nyaBasin.

Carsamba

Gravels

0462

021

4142

969

1023

5G4/1;

5YR

3/2,

3/4,

4/4;

10R3/4;

N5-N7

Stan

dardredan

doran

geco

lor

forAna

tolianradiolarites,with

someinstan

cesof

gree

n.

Nod

ules

rang

efrom

a

diameter

ofless

than

1

cm7

cm.

Localesinclud

eroad

cutsad

jacent

tothemod

ern

course

oftheCarsambariver,someno

dules

retrievedfrom

theCarsambaitself.Nod

ule

den

sity

isge

nerally

high

eron

theban

ksof

the

Carsamba.Afewno

dules

have

bee

nreco

vered

from

grea

terdistanc

esaw

ayfrom

theriver,

mostp

robab

lyaffiliatedwith

thealluvialfan

derived

from

theCarsamba.



research at Catalhoyuk (Asouti & Hather, 2001; Asouti,2005; Fairbairn et al., 2005) has provided evidence forthe use of various environments in the Konya Basin,which contain chert sources. Other researchers work-ing at Catalhoyuk have indicated that the CarsambaRiver was also utilized during the Neolithic for a varietyof resources (e.g., Baysal, 1998; Asouti, 2005; Doherty,2008), and was one source of radiolarian chert used atCatalhoyuk (e.g., Carter et al., 2005; Bezic, 2007). Lo-cally, the deposition of radiolarite nodules is variable inquantity, quality, and size. We must consider that prehis-toric procurement strategies would have been impactedby this varied material distribution.

The following deposits have been previously docu-mented in the Konya Basin (Akyol et al., 1963). ExactUTM coordinates of sample locales are reported inTable II.

Hatip chert

Affiliated with the abundant ophiolitic materials that oc-cur throughout Central Anatolia, the Hatip Chert sourceconsists principally of radiolarian cherts disjointed froman ophiolite matrix. Unlike other source-locales whereradiolarian cherts are embedded within a melange ma-trix, Hatip Chert is located directly adjacent to its parentophiolites. The source-locale is a series of hills directlywest/northwest of the village of Hatip, 13 km southwestof Konya. Modern quarrying activity occurs below oneoutcrop from which samples were collected. The mate-rial occurs as a bright orange color that is almost translu-cent, and as an opaque orange radiolarite. Several nod-ules contain a series of small black flecks. While orangeradiolarian cherts are present at other locales adjacentto the Konya Basin, the unique black flecking in HatipChert may be used to distinguish it from similar deposits.High-quality nodules, easily capable of producing chippedstone objects, average 815 cm in diameter, althoughlarger nodules were witnessed. Only the most minimalerosion was observed. In general, fewmaterials were seendeposited in secondary contexts outside their primary lo-cations. This has important implications for modeling ma-terial procurement (Shackley, 2002). We can assume thatthe procurement of such materials must have taken placeat or nearby those deposits mapped by the project. Lithicreduction in the form of small bifacial cores was wit-nessed at the source. This suggests that prehistoric ex-ploitation of Hatip Chert did occur. It is also worth not-ing that the source lies only 37 km west/northwest ofCatalhoyuk, with no natural features to block the lineof sight. The only other source with such close proxim-

ity is the Carsamba Gravels that are 35 km southwest ofCatalhoyuk.

Carsamba gravels

The term Carsamba Gravels, as used here, refers toradiolarian cherts located in secondary deposits south/southwest of the Konya Plain. These materials have likelyeroded from deposits in the Western Taurides, and thosedirectly south of Beysehir Golu (such as the BeysehirHoyran Nappe) (Valor & Tunay, 1996), which havesubsequently been incorporated into the system of theCarsamba River. Although the Carsamba River was notsurveyed to its full extent, various points along its coursewithin the Konya Basin were visited. Deposits 20 km eastof the gravels were surveyed, and materials similar tothe Carsamba Gravels were recovered in lesser propor-tions. Samples were collected from the rivers alluvial de-posits at the southwestern edge of the Konya Plain. Ad-ditional samples were gathered along the banks of themodern river, and at adjacent deposits. Two distinct typesof chert were present: nodular red Konya Radiolarite,and a unique light gray nodular material with a distinc-tive rippled pale brown cortex. Both types were vari-able in their ability to produce artifact-quality material.Principally, the radiolarian chert of the Carsamba Grav-els is pale red to red in color, with higher quality or-ange chert sometimes present, especially in the bed of themodern river. At some locales high-quality material onlyappeared as nodules of unusable size. On average, nod-ules ranged from less than 17 cm in diameter. Althoughthe Carsamba River was extensively used during theNeolithic (see above), no lithic reduction activities werewitnessed at any of the locations surveyed.

The Afyon-Eskisehir Region

The Afyon and Eskisehir regions were surveyed after dis-cussions with local geologists suggested the presence ofhigh-quality chalcedony north of the city of Afyon. TheAfyon-Eskisehir region is part of the Afyon-Bolkardagmetamorphic zone. Abundant dacitic and andesitic vol-canism is present along the western margin of this re-gion. Such volcanism may have acted as a source of silica,which could promote the silicification of sediments, andthe formation of secondary cherts. Two sources of possi-ble archaeological significance were located in the region:(1) high-quality chert blocks near the modern village ofSuhut, and (2) nodular and vein chert adjacent to themodern village of Akdere. These sources have been pre-viously mapped by Akyol et al. (1963).



Survey results indicate that the Afyon-Eskisehir re-gion offers an abundance of high-quality chert material,a perfect medium for the production of chipped stonetools. In addition to abundant siliceous resources, theoccurrence of volcanic materials that may have beenutilized for the production of ground stone implementsmakes the region all the more attractive archaeologically(Baysal, 2004). Limited evidence of erosion helps to de-marcate the region into discrete source areas. The ab-sence of chert witnessed in secondary contexts indicatesthat material procurement would have been localized atthe primary deposits. The region appears easily acces-sible from the Konya Plain via a series of watershedsand valleys that cut through the surrounding mountains.Thissen (2002) has suggested that the Neolithic occupantsof Catalhoyuk interacted with populations in this region.While little evidence from current archaeological excava-tions exists in support of this hypothesis, the presence ofa single piece of meerschaum at Catalhoyuk may indicatesome connection with the region surrounding Eskisehir,as this area contains the only known source meerschaumin the region (Baysal, 2004).

Suhut chert

The principle Suhut Chert deposit contained the largestblocks of artifact-quality chert found during the survey.This deposit occurs in a streambed roughly 20 km southof Afyon and 12 km north of Suhut along the Afyon-Suhut north-south road. The source is surrounded byabundant volcanic materials (andesite, dacite, and vol-canic tuff) overlain by a later carbonated component. Itis likely that the chert is a silicified form of the surround-ing volcanic deposits. The remarkably high zirconium (Zr)concentration within this material may further indicatevolcanic origins (Lowe, 1999). While macroscopic char-acteristics of this source are variable in relation to color,the chert appears to have a very waxy sheen unknownat the other sources discussed in this report. Color variesbetween a pure and opaque white, to a pale pink, brightorange, purple-red, and deep red. A common and distinc-tive visual characteristic of the red and purple-red ma-terial is the presence of crystal-shaped white inclusions.These may be silicified phenocrysts present in the parentvolcanic material, which, after silicification, remained asvisual markers of the cherts previous form. Many otherblocks also appeared to contain cracks of dark color thatspread across the material surface. However, neither thecrystal-shaped inclusions nor the visual cracks have anyeffect on knappability. Indeed, Suhut Chert is as good araw material as any for the production of stone tools. Theinclusion-free material offers the perfect high-quality ma-terial for the production of sharp and durable edges. The

Figure 3 Various chert blocks present at the Suhut Chert source (A) largeblockofwhiteandpinkchert, (B) small boulderoforangechert, (C) close-up

of (A). Photograph by Adam Joseph Nazaroff.

largest blocks present can reach a vertical height of over2 m, and may have a diameter of more than 5 m (Fig-ure 3). Minimal erosion has resulted in materials scat-tered across the nearby slopes. No archaeological materi-als were witnessed at the source.

Suhut south chert

The Suhut South Chert source is located less than 5 kmsouth of the modern village of Suhut. The source is acces-sible via a dirt road that veers west from the main roadout of Suhut. The source lies north of this dirt road inan open field south of limestone and conglomerate out-crops that contain small (


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 sec-ondary deposition of the Suhut Chert nodules. In supportof this hypothesis, we noted that the Suhut South sourcecontained chert of similar visual characteristics to thatseen at the Suhut source. This included either the crystal-like inclusions or uncanny sheen indicative of SuhutChert.

Akdere chert

The Akdere Chert source is the most northerly of allsources reported here, and by far contains the most abun-dant high-quality chert raw material we witnessed. Al-though we discuss the Akdere locale as a chert source,the material is most probably chalcedony. The AkdereChert source occurs on the summit and flanks of a hilldirectly north of the village of Akdere, and in a nearbystreambed (Figure 4). Nestled in a highly metamorphicregion containing abundant marble and schist materi-als are a series of Upper Miocene and Lower Creta-ceous sediments, at the southeastern edge of which islocated the Akdere Chert source. Unlike the nodular ma-terial and large blocks found at the Suhut Chert source,

Akdere Chert appears principally as veins or small boul-ders within a surrounding carbonated matrix. Only onthe flanks and in the river can one find nodules of AkdereChert outside of its matrix, averaging 1020 cm in size.Small nodules of red, orange, and green radiolarian chertare also present, but few are of artifact quality. Suchchert is abundant throughout much of Central Anatolia(cf. Okay, 2008), and is thus, as of now, not consid-ered part of the Akdere Chert source. Rather, AkdereChert occurs as a range of opaque white, to milkywhite, and finally translucent material, sometimes witha very faint blue, pink, or brown hue, and most of-ten with characteristic black snowflake inclusions.Minimal lithic reduction was witnessed across theoutcrop.

PROVENANCE METHODOLOGY ANDRESULTS

Locating and mapping the above chert sources is aworthwhile endeavor as it demonstrates the presenceof artifact-quality materials west and northwest of theKonya Basin in regions not considered by previous prove-nance programs. Additionally, we have confirmed thepresence of artifact-quality radiolarite on the KonyaPlain. However, to provide evidence that these localeswere exploited by the Neolithic occupants of Catalhoyuk,we have undertaken an analysis of the visual character-istics and trace element concentrations of source materi-als and cultural objects from Catalhoyuk and have useda combination of these to provide evidence for the useof these locales during the Neolithic. Using visual char-acteristics to discern the different chert types presentat Catalhoyuk offers an initial approximation of whichsources were used at Catalhoyuk. This is accomplished bymatching visual categories to corresponding samples col-lected from the Suhut, Suhut South, Akdere, and KonyaRadiolarite sources with similar visual attributes. Milneet al. (2009) demonstrate the utility of visually char-acterizing chert materials, especially as a first step inmaking qualitative sense of an otherwise diverse assem-blage. Such approaches excel in regions where chert de-posits are visually distinct from one another. This ap-pears to be the case in Central Anatolia, where eachchert deposit thus far surveyed appears visually distinctin relation to at least some of the IAA conducted. Re-gardless, a combined approach of visual, mineralogi-cal, and geochemical characterization is often preferable(Kendall, 2010). Accordingly, we have also used EDXRFanalysis to further characterize both cultural and sourcematerials.



Chert sourcing programs have used a wide arrayof techniques to characterize material deposits. Amongthese, instrumental NAA (INAA) is often preferred inchert sourcing (e.g., Glascock, 2004; Kendall, 2010;Huckell et al., 2011) due in part to a greater preci-sion for several elements when compared to other tech-niques. However, because INAA necessitates a nuclearreactor, choice of laboratories for sample submission islimited, and analysis can be relatively time consumingwhen compared to XRF. Other techniques employed in-clude XRD (Malyk-Selivanova et al., 1998), inductivelycoupled plasma mass spectroscopy (Evans et al., 2010;Olofsson & Rodushkin, 2011), electron microprobe anal-ysis (Trogdon, 2006), thin-section petrography (Bustilloet al., 2009; Rodriguez-Tovar et al., 2010), visible/near-infrared (VNIR) reflectance spectroscopy (Hubbard et al.,2004; Parish, 2011), and chert luminescence properties(Akridge & Benoit, 2001). Our decision to use nonde-structive XRF analysis was based on instrument acces-sibility and future research objectives. Because of cur-rent legal constraints within Turkey, destructive analysisof cultural objects is often not an option. It is also diffi-cult to export samples from the country. At Catalhoyuk,it can even be problematic to remove artifacts from thesite. Because several geological and archaeological stud-ies that seek to discern the bulk chemistry of cherts havesuccessfully used XRF instrumental analysis (e.g., Girtyet al., 1996; Van Kranendonk & Pirajno, 2004; Olivareset al., 2009), we determined that XRF was an apt choicefor nondestructive analysis.

Sampling Procedures

Cultural objects were sampled from levels GP of theSouth Area excavations at Catalhoyuk (Table I) due tothe apparent greater diversity of chert material typeswhen compared with later levels. Such a sample there-fore holds the greatest potential for capturing the vari-ety of chert sources used at Catalhoyuk. In all, 686 ar-tifacts from the South Area excavations at Catalhoyukwere macroscopically analyzed with IAA and sorted into22 possible chert-types (not including debitage recoveredfrom flotation) (Table III). Of these, 28 artifacts visuallymatching the known chert sources were sampled for geo-chemical analysis. From the raw material sources, we vi-sually analyzed 96 samples: 24 from the Suhut source, 4from Suhut South, 30 from the Akdere source, and 38Konya Radiolarite from Hatip and the Carsamba Gravels.A subsample (n = 19) was taken for geochemical anal-ysis. It was insured that each sample analyzed was largeenough to produce reliable results following Davis et al.(1998).

Visual Analysis

IAA included measures of color using the 2009 Geo-logical Society of America Geological Rock-Color Chart,opacity, luster, texture, fracture properties, and inclu-sions. Terminology for opacity, luster, and texture wasadopted from Luedtke (1992:6870). When samples con-tained multiple colors, each was recorded with its relativeproportion and character of distribution (e.g., banded,mottled, etc.). Opacity, luster, texture, fracture proper-ties, and inclusions were variable across both source andartifact assemblages. As discussed below, IAA producesvisual categories that comprises multiple macroscopic at-tributes. Although many categories may share in com-mon one or several attributes, the unique combinationsof several characteristics constitute each visual class. Allmeasurements were taken with the use of hand lenses(1020).

EDXRF Analysis

Geochemical analysis was conducted using a Ther-moFisher Scientific QuantX EDXRF instrument for bulkchemical analysis. All samples were analyzed whole byM. Steven Shackley at the Archaeological XRF Labora-tory, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sample placement in-sured that the largest amount of X-rays possible bom-barded each sample. Analysis was conducted for majoroxides aluminum (Al2O3), silica (SiO2), and iron (Fe2O3),and trace elements titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn), iron(as FeT), copper (Cu), zinc, (Zn), rubidium (Rb), stron-tium (Sr), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr), and thorium (Th).Additional information on procedures and instrumentspecifications is available at http://www.swxrflab.net.

When choosing a suite of elements for provenance as-sessments, it is important to consider the possible ori-gins and diagenetic processes affecting each element.During chert formation and diagenesis, inclusions incor-porated from the surrounding environment (e.g., clays,carbonates, iron oxides, or organic matter) may altertrace element geochemistry (Luedtke, 1992:38; Murray,1994:214). This process is often important for prove-nance research, as inclusions unique to each locale maybe used to fingerprint particular deposits. Murray (1994)used multiple combinations of trace elements and ele-mental ratios to discriminate among chert deposits thatformed under different environmental conditions. Chert-sourcing programs often utilize these geologic histories,manifest in the mineralogy and chemistry of chert, tomake provenance assessments (Malyk-Selivanova et al.,1998; Lowe, 1999; Doherty et al., 2007; Milne et al.,2009; Parish, 2011). Mineral and chemical indicators pro-vide information on characteristics unique to a materials



Table III Visual attributes of 22 chert types discerned from the Catalhoyuk assemblage, South Area excavations levels GP. Note that groups 20, 21, and

22 have probable correlations with the Akdere, Konya Radiolarite, and Suhut chert groups.

Chert Possible Geochemical Primary Color Number in Artifact

Group Group Range (Munsell) Visual Characteristics Subsample

1 N/A 5Y 5/66/6; 10 YR 4/26/2 Sesame-colored brown chert with a greasy luster A white

siliceous cortex penetrates into some samples.

n= 89

2 N/A 5 YR 3/24/2; 10 YR 4/2 Translucent dark brown material with a disctinctive white

cortex that does not penetrate into the material (sensu

Group 1).

n= 63

3 N/A 5 YR 4/1; N6, N7 Fine-grained waxy gray chert, oftentimes with a blue hue. n= 154 N/A 5 YR 2.5/23/2 Opaque fine-grained medium-brown chert. n= 95 N/A N13; N67 Fine-grained waxy white material, most often found with

burned exterior surface.

n= 7

6 N/A 5 YR 5/1; 5 Y 6/1 Coarse medium-gray chert with a greasy luster and light-gray

speckling.

n= 25

7 N/A 5 BG 3/2, 5/2 Brilliant green or green-blue chert that has a waxy luster and

a medium-coarse grained texture.

n= 1

8 N/A 5 YR 2/2; N4 Dark fine-grained pearly gray chert. n= 19 N/A 5 YR, 3/1, 3/2, 4/1; 10 YR 3/2 Dark green-brown chert, at times mottled. n= 1510 N/A N1 True black fine-grained chert. n= 1011 N/A 5 YR, 4/4, 5/6; 10 YR 6/2 Dusty brown-red material with a grainy appearance. n= 1312 N/A 5 Y 4/2; 10 YR 4/2, 7/2 Coarse brown and yellow chert. n= 613 N/A 10 YR 4/2 Light reddish-brown fine-grained chert. Not radiolarite in

appearance.

n= 5

14 N/A 5 R 3/6 Grainy and coarse bright red chert. n= 115 N/A 10 YR 5/2, 6/2, 7/2 Coarse-grained brown chert with a dull appearance and

small, dark inclusions of unknown origin.

n= 8

16 N/A 5 YR 3/4; 5 YR 2/2; 5 YR 2/1 Mottled yellow-brown chert. n= 217 N/A 10 R 4/6 Translucent red chert. Not radiolarite in appearance. n= 118 N/A 5 YR 4/4; N9 Chalky white material with siliceous orange-brown

components.

n= 1

19 N/A 5 RP 2/2, 4/2 Fine-grained purple material. n= 220 Akdere Chert 5 YR 4/1; 10 YR 6.5/2, 6/6; N8 White or translucent chalcedonic material, with variable hues

(brown, yellow, pink, blue), and often black (Mg?)

inclusions.

n= 232

21 Konya Radiolarite 5 YR 5/6; 5 R 3/22/2; 10 YR

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

Variable radiolarite materials, consisting of orange, green,

red, and brown materials as evidenced on the surrounding

Central Anatolian landscape.

n= 117

22 Suhut Chert 5 YR 4/6; 10 YR 7/2; 10 R 4/4 Very waxy chert with a bright sheen, principally white,

burgundy, or orange.

n= 18

23 N/A Variable 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).

n= 45

host sediment. This informs researchers of palaeoenvi-ronmental processes, or the parent material (dacite, vol-canic ash, sandstone, etc.) of secondary silica deposits.Analysis of more mobile elements can also offer dataon localized environmental conditions, diagenetic pro-cesses, or other local mineralogical and chemical variabil-ity, which may leave an imprint on a particular portionof a formation (Murray, 1994).

In this study, we use concentrations of Zr, aluminumoxide (Al2O3), and iron oxide (Fe2O3) normalizedto silica (SiO2), to discriminate among chert sources

(Table IV). Murray (1994:216) states that alongwith Ti and rare earth elements (REEs), only Al andFe appear relatively unaffected during diagensis. Hesuggests that additional elements, such as Zr, mayalso remain relatively unaffected. We have thereforechosen this set of elements because of their relativeimmobility and their unlikeliness to be influenced bydiagenetic process (Murray, 1994; Lowe, 1999). Thebulk chemical analysis performed by XRF does notallow for the identification of the specific inclusionsthat account for the presence of a given element.



Table

IVGeo

chem

istryforsou

rcean

dartifactm

aterialsan

alyzed

inthisstud

y,with

probab

lege

oche

micalan

dvisualprovena

nceassign

men

tsfora

llartifactm

aterials.

the importance of chert in central anatolia: lessons from the neolithic assemblage at Çatalhöyük,...

Documents

neolithic practices

quality chert

sumption of chert

neolithic site of catalhoyuk

finegrained chert materials

sources of artifact

shownhow local practices

neolithic gerard