Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-2bw5x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-30T00:16:05.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A true gift of mother earth: the use and significance of obsidian at Çatalhöyük

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

Tristan Carter
Tristan Carter
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reviews 50 years of obsidian studies at Neolithic Çatalhöyük in the Konya plain, central Anatolia. A number of key issues are addressed: (1) the source of the site's raw materials, the means and forms by which the obsidian was introduced to the site and the role of Çatalhöyük in the supra-regional dissemination of these raw materials; (2) the alleged gender associations of certain obsidian goods in the burial record and beyond; (3) a more general consideration of the social significance of the circulation and consumption of obsidian at the site, including the phenomena of hoarding and gifting, plus the important role of projectiles in the creation of social identities and various forms of ritual behaviour, not least the termination of the life of a building/individual; (4) the technotypological and raw material variability through time; (5) the use of obsidian in daily practice and craft-working.

Özet

Bu makalede, Orta Anadolu'da, Konya ovasında bulunan Neolitik dönem merkezi Çatalhöyük'te 50 yıldır yapılan obsidiyen çalışmaları incelenmiştir. Makalede, konuyla ilgili bir dizi temel sorun ele alınmıştır: (1) yerleşim yerinde bulunan hammaddenin kaynağı, yerleşimde kullanılan obsidiyen aletler ve biçimleri, ayrıca Çatalhöyük'ün bu hammaddenin bölgesel ve ötesinde yaygınlaştırılması açısından önemi; (2) mezar kayıtlarında ve diğer kayıtlarda bulunan bazı obsidiyen eşyaların iddia edilen cinsiyet ilişkileri; (3) yerleşimdeki obsidiyen tüketimi ve dağılımının sosyal açıdan öneminin daha genel bir değerlendirmesi, depolama ve hediye etme fenomeni dahil, ayrıca bir bina veya bireyin yaşamının sona ermesiyle sosyal kimliklerin ve bazı ritüel davranışların oluşmasında tasarıların önemi; (4) zaman içinde tekno-tipolojik ve hammadde değişkenliği; (5) günlük uygulamada ve zanaat çalışmalarında obsidiyenin kullanımı.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 61 , December 2011 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2011

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, P., Molleson, T., Boz, B. 2005: ‘The human burials at Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 261–78Google Scholar
Appadurai, A. 1986: ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’ in Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Cambridge: 3–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astruc, L. 2002: L'Outillage Lithique Taillé de Khirokitia: Analyse Fonctionelle et Spatiale. ParisGoogle Scholar
Ataman, K. 1986: ‘A group of projectile points from Can Hasan III’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 4: 339–46Google Scholar
Baird, D. 1996: ‘The Konya plain survey: aims and methods’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 41–46Google Scholar
Baird, D. 2002: ‘Early Holocene settlement in central Anatolia: problems and prospects as seen from the Konya plain’ in Gérard, F., Thissen, L. (eds), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations During the 9th–6th Millennia Cal BC. Istanbul: 139–52Google Scholar
Baird, D. 2006: ‘The history of settlement and social landscapes in the Early Holocene in the Çatalhöyük area’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Themes from the 1995–99 Seasons. Cambridge: 55–74Google Scholar
Baird, D. 2007a: ‘The Boncuklu Project: the origins of sedentism, cultivation and herding in central Anatolia’ Anatolian Archaeology 13: 14–18Google Scholar
Baird, D. 2007b: ‘Pinarbaşı. Orta Anadolu'da Epi-Paleolitik konak yerinden yerlesik köy Yaşamına’ in Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds), Türkiye'de Neolitik Dönem. Istanbul: 285–311Google Scholar
Baird, D. 2010: ‘Was Çatalhöyük a centre? The implications of a Late Aceramic Neolithic assemblage from the neighbourhood of Çatalhöyük’ in Bolger, D., Maguire, L.C. (eds), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: 207–16Google Scholar
Balkan-Atlı, N. 1994a: La Neolithisation de l'Anatolie. ParisGoogle Scholar
Balkan-Atlı, N. 1994b: ‘The typological characteristics of the Aşıklı Höyük chipped stone’ in Gebel, H.G., Kozlowski, S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: 209–21Google Scholar
Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D. 2001: ‘Obsidian exploitation and blade technology at Kömürcü-Kaletepe (central Anatolia)’ in Caneva, I., Lemorini, C., Zampetti, D., Biagi, P. (eds), Beyond Tools. Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant. Berlin: 1–16Google Scholar
Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., Cauvin, M.-C. 1999: ‘Obsidian: sources, workshops and trade in central Anatolia’ in Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. Istanbul: 133–45Google Scholar
Balter, M. 2005: The Goddess and the Bull: Çatalhöyük: An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization. New YorkGoogle Scholar
Barber, E.J.W. 2010: ‘Yet more evidence from Çatalhöyük’ American Journal of Archaeology 114.2: 343–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayman, J.M. 1995: ‘Rethinking “redistribution” in the archaeological record: obsidian exchange at the Marana Platform Mound’ Journal of Anthropological Research 51.1: 37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialor, P. 1962: ‘The chipped stone industry of Çatal Hüyük’ Anatolian Studies 12: 67–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caneva, I., Conti, A.M., Lemorini, C., Zampetti, D. 1994: ‘The lithic production at Çayönü: a preliminary overview of the Aceramic sequence’ in Gebel, H.G., Kozlowski, S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: 253–66Google Scholar
Carter, T. 1994: ‘Southern Aegean fashion victims: an overlooked aspect of Early Bronze Age burial practices’ in Ashton, N., David, A. (eds), Stories in Stone. London: 127–44Google Scholar
Carter, T. 2007: ‘Of blanks and burials: hoarding obsidian at Neolithic Çatalhöyük’ in Astruc, L., Binder, D., Briois, F. (eds), Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities. Antibes: 343–55Google Scholar
Carter, T. 2008: ‘Cinnabar and the Cyclades: body modification and political structure in the late EBI southern Aegean’ in Erkanal, H., Hauptmann, H., Şahoğlu, V., Tuncel, R. (eds), The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Ankara: 119–29Google Scholar
Carter, T. 2009: ‘Elemental characterization of Neolithic artefacts using portable X-ray fluorescence [PXRF]’ in Çatalhöyük 2009 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Conolly, J., Spasojević, A. 2005a: ‘The chipped stone’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 221–83, 467–533Google Scholar
Carter, T., Poupeau, G., Bressy, C., Pearce, N.J.P. 2005b: ‘From chemistry to consumption: towards a history of obsidian use at Çatalhöyük through a programme of inter-laboratory trace-elemental characterization’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 285–305, 535–57Google Scholar
Carter, T., Poupeau, G., Bressy, C., Pearce, N.J.P. 2006a: ‘A new programme of obsidian characterization at Çatalhöyük, Turkey’ Journal of Archaeological Science 33.7: 893–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Kayacan, N., Milić, M., Waś, M., Doherty, C. 2006b: ‘Chipped stone report’ in Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Milić, M., Doherty, C. 2007: ‘Chipped stone report’ in Çatalhöyük 2007 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Dubernet, S., King, R., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Milić, M., Poupeau, G., Shackley, M.S. 2008a: ‘Eastern Anatolian obsidians at Çatalhöyük and the reconfiguration of regional interaction in the Early Ceramic Neolithic’ Antiquity 82.318: 900–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Milić, M., Kayacan, N., Ostaptchouk, S., MacDonald, B.L. 2008b: ‘Chipped stone report’ in Çatalhöyük 2008 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Kartal, M., Poupeau, G., Moretto, P. in prep.: ‘Marginal perspectives: sourcing obsidian from the Öküzini Cave (SW Turkey)’ Paléorient July 2012Google Scholar
Carter, T., Shackley, M.S. 2007: ‘Sourcing obsidian from Neolithic Çatalhöyük (Turkey) using Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence’ Archaeometry 49.3: 437–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cauvin, J. 2000: The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Cauvin, M.-C., Balkan-Atlı, N. 1996: ‘Rapport sur les recherches sur l'obsidienne en Cappadoce, 1993–1995’ Anatolica Antiqua 4: 249–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cauvin, M.-C., Chataigner, C. 1998: ‘Distribution de l'obsidienne dans les sites archéologiques du Proche et Moyen Orient’ in Cauvin, M.-C., Gourgaud, A., Gratuze, B., Arnaud, N., Poupeau, G., Poidevin, J.-L., Chataigner, C. (eds), L'Obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du Volcan à l'Outil. Oxford: 325–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessford, C. 2001: ‘A new dating sequence for Çatalhöyük’ Antiquity 75: 717–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessford, C. 2005: ‘Estimating the Neolithic population of Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 323–26Google Scholar
Cessford, C. with contributions from Blumbach, P., Akoğlu, K. Goze, Higham, T., Kuniholm, P.I., Manning, S.W., Newton, N.W., Özbakan, M., Özer, A. Melek 2005: ‘Absolute dating at Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 65–99, 449–50Google Scholar
Cessford, C., Carter, T. 2005: ‘Quantifying the consumption of obsidian at Çatalhöyük’ Journal of Field Archaeology 30.3: 305–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessford, C. with contributions by Mitrović, S. 2005: ‘Heavy-residue analysis’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 4–61, 411–48Google Scholar
Chataigner, C. 1998: ‘Sources des artefacts néolithiques’ in Cauvin, M.-C., Gourgaud, A., Gratuze, B., Arnaud, N., Poupeau, G., Poidevin, J.-L., Chataigner, C. (eds), L'Obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du Volcan à l'Outil. Oxford: 273–324Google Scholar
Clark, J.E. 1987: ‘Politics, prismatic blades, and Mesoamerican civilisation’ in Johnson, J.K., Morrow, C.A. (eds), The Organisation of Core Technology. Boulder: 259–84Google Scholar
Conolly, J. 1996: ‘The knapped stone’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 173–98Google Scholar
Conolly, J. 1999a: The Çatalhöyük Flint and Obsidian Industry. Technology and Typology in Context. OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conolly, J. 1999b: ‘Technical strategies and technical change at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey’ Antiquity 73: 791–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conolly, J. 2003: ‘The Çatalhöyük obsidian hoards: a contextual analysis of technology’ in Moloney, N., Shott, M. (eds), Lithic Studies for the New Millennium. London: 55–78Google Scholar
Coşkunsu, G. 2008: ‘Hole-making tools of Mezraa Teleilat with special attention to micro-borers and cylindrical polished drills and bead-production’ Neo-Lithics 1.08: 25–36Google Scholar
Crabtree, D.E. 1968: ‘Mesoamerican polyhedral cores and prismatic blades’ American Antiquity 33.4: 446–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewbury, A.G., Russell, N. 2007: ‘Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks produced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach’ Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 354–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duru, R. 1999: ‘The Neolithic of the Lake District’ in Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization, New Discoveries. Ankara: 165–92Google Scholar
Fagan, B.M. 2007: People of the Earth: An Introduction to World Prehistory. New JerseyGoogle Scholar
Farid, S. 2007: ‘Level VIII: Space 161, Space 162, Building 4, Space 115, Buildings 21 & 7, Building 6 and relative heights of Level VIII’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Cambridge: 227–82Google Scholar
Fowler, C. 2004: The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, N.H. 1981: ‘Mediterranean obsidian source characterisation by strontium isotope analysis’ Archaeometry 23: 41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.M. 1989: ‘Assessing social information in material objects: how well do lithics measure up?’ in Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge: 92–105Google Scholar
Godelier, M. 1999: The Enigma of the Gift. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Goring-Morris, A.N. 1994: ‘Aspects of the PPNB lithic industry at Kfar HaHoresh near Nazareth, Israel’ in Gebel, H.G., Kozlowski, S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: 427–44Google Scholar
Goring-Morris, A.N., Goren, Y., Kolska Horwitz, L., Bar-Yosef, D., Hershkovitz, I. 1995: ‘Investigation at an Early Neolithic settlement in the Lower Galilee: results of the 1991 season at Kfar HaHoresh’ Atiqot 27: 37–62Google Scholar
Grace, R. 1990: ‘Limitations and applications in use-wear analysis’ in Gräslund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., Taffinder, J. (eds), The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. Uppsala: 9–14Google Scholar
Hamilton, N. 1996: ‘Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 215–63Google Scholar
Hardy, B.L, Raff, R.A., Raman, V. 1997: ‘Recovery of mammalian DNA from Middle Paleolithic stone tools’ Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 601–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1990: The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1996: On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.) 2005a: Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.) 2005b: Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 2006: Çatalhöyük: the Leopard's Tale, Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey's Ancient ‘Town’. LondonGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 2007a: Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 2007b: ‘Çatalhöyük in the context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic’ Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 105–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 2010: ‘Probing religion at Çatalhöyük: an interdisciplinary experiment’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. Cambridge: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., Cessford, C. 2004: ‘Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük’ American Antiquity 69.1: 17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., Pels, P. 2010: ‘History houses: a new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. Cambridge: 163–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, J. 2006: ‘Agency, biography and objects’ in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M., Spyer, P. (eds), The Handbook of Material Culture. London: 74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, W. 2010: ‘Marked, absent, habitual: approaches to Neolithic religion at Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. Cambridge: 187–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, J., Seifried, C. 1990: ‘The present state of obsidian source identification in Anatolia and the Near East’ in Livadie, C. Albore, Wideman, F. (eds), Volcanologie et Archéologie. Strasbourg: 58–87Google Scholar
Larick, R. 1991: ‘Warriors and blacksmiths: mediating ethnicity in east African spears’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 299–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarri, I. 2005: ‘The texture of things: objects, people and landscape in northwest Argentina (first millennium AD)’ in Meskell, L. (ed.), Archaeologies of Materiality. Oxford: 126–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1922: Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipielagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. LondonGoogle Scholar
Marciniak, A., Czerniak, L. 2007: ‘Social transformations in the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic periods in central Anatolia’ in Fletcher, A., Greaves, A.M. (eds), Transanatolia. Proceedings of the Conference Held at The British Museum, 31 March to 1 April 2006 (Anatolian Studies 57): 115–30Google Scholar
Mauss, M. 1990: The Gift. New YorkGoogle Scholar
Meece, S. 2006: ‘A bird's eye view — of a leopard's spots: the Çatalhöyük “map” and the development of cartographic representation in prehistory’ Anatolian Studies 56: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1962: ‘The beginnings of mural painting’ Archaeology 15.1: 2–12Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1963: ‘Deities and shrines of Neolithic Anatolia. Excavations at Çatal Hïyük 1962’ Archaeology 16.1: 29–38Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1964a: ‘Earliest of Neolithic cities: delving deep into the Neolithic religion of Anatolian Chatal Huyuk. Part 2 – shrines of the vultures and the veiled goddess’ Illustrated London News: 194–97Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1964b: ‘A Neolithic city in Turkey’ Scientific American April 1964: 94–104Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1964c: ‘Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963: third preliminary report’ Anatolian Studies 14: 39–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1966: ‘Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1965: fourth preliminary report’ Anatolian Studies 16: 165–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1967: Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. LondonGoogle Scholar
Meskell, L., Nakamura, C., King, R., Farid, S. 2008: ‘Figured lifeworlds and depositional practices at Çatalhöyük’ Journal of Archaeological Theory and Method 16: 205–30Google Scholar
Mortensen, P. 1970: ‘Chipped stone industry’ in Mellaart, J. (ed.), Excavations at Hacılar. Edinburgh: 153–57Google Scholar
Munn, N. 1986: The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, C., Meskell, L. 2009: ‘Articulate bodies: forms and figurines at Çatalhöyük’ Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18.2: 139–61Google Scholar
Nazaroff, A. 2010: ‘Central Anatolian archaeological chert survey (CAACS)’ in Çatalhöyük 2010 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Özdoğan, M. 1994: ‘Çayönü: the chipped stone industry of the Pottery Neolithic layers’ in Gebel, H.G., Kozlowski, S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: 267–77Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J. 1988: ‘Débitage expérimental par pression “Du plus petit au plus grand”’ in Tixier, J. (ed.), Technologie préhistorique (Notes et Monographies Techniques du CRA25). Paris: 37–53Google Scholar
Pernicka, E. 1992: ‘Herkunftsbestimmung späturukzeitlicher Obsidianfunde vom Hassek Höyük’ Istanbuler Forschungen 38: 124–31Google Scholar
Poidevin, J.-L. 1998: ‘Les gisements d'obsidienne de Turquie et de Transcaucasie: géologie, géochemie et chronométrie’ in Cauvin, M.-C., Gourgaud, A., Gratuze, B., Arnaud, N., Poupeau, G., Poidevin, J.-L., Chataigner, C. (eds), L'Obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du Volcan à l'Outil. Oxford: 105–203Google Scholar
Poupeau, G., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Carter, T., Delerue, S., Shackley, M.S., Barrat, J.A., Dubernet, S., Moretto, P., Calligaro, T., Milić, M., Kobayashi, K. 2010: ‘The use of SEM-EDS, PIXE and EDXRF for obsidian provenance studies in the Near East: a case study from Neolithic Catalhoyiik (central Anatolia)’ Journal of Archaeological Science 37.11: 2705–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2007: Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. New YorkGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J.E., Cann, J.R. 1966: ‘Obsidian and early culture contact in the Near East’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchey, T. 1996: ‘Note: building complexity’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 7–17Google Scholar
Rosen, S.A. 1997: Lithics After the Stone Age. Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
Russell, N., Düring, B.S. 2006: ‘Worthy is the lamb: a double burial at Neolithic Çatalhöyük (Turkey)’ Paléorient 32.1: 73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, N., Martin, L. 2005: ‘The Çatalhöyük mammal remains’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: 33–98Google Scholar
Shanks, O.C., Kornfeld, M., Hawk, D.D. 1999: ‘Protein analysis of Bugas-holding tools: new trends in immunological studies’ Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 1183–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testart, A. 2006: ‘Interpretation symbolique et interpretation religieuse en archéologie. L'exemple du taureau à Çatal Höyük’ Paléorient 32.2: 23–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tixier, J. 1984: ‘Le débitage par pression’ in Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée 2: Économie du Débitage Laminaire: Technologie et Éxpérimentation. Paris: 57–70Google Scholar
Twiss, K.C., Bogaard, A., Bogdan, D., Carter, T., Charles, M.P., Farid, S., Russell, N., Stevanović, M., Yalman, E.N., Yeomans, L. 2008: ‘Arson or accident? The burning of a Neolithic house at Çatalhöyük’ Journal of Field Archaeology 33.1: 41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twiss, K.C., Bogaard, A., Bogdan, D., Charles, M.P., Henecke, J., Russell, N., Martin, L., Jones, G. 2009: ‘Plants and animals together. Interpreting organic remains from Building 52 at Çatalhöyük“ Current Anthropology 50.6: 885–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A. 1992: Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1983: ‘Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points’ American Antiquity 48.2: 253–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilke, P.J., Quintero, L.A. 1994: ‘Naviform core-and-blade technology: assemblage character as determined by replicative experiments’ in Gebel, H.G., Kozlowski, S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: 33–60Google Scholar
Wright, G.A. 1969: Obsidian Analyses and Prehistoric Near Eastern Trade: 7500 to 3500 BC. Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar