Early specialized production? A Chalcolithic stone bracelet workshop at Kanlitaş, Turkey

EMMA BAYSAL, ADNAN BAYSAL, ALI UMUT TÜRKCAN AND ADAM NAZAROFF

EARLY SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION? A CHALCOLITHICSTONE BRACELET WORKSHOP AT KANLITAS, TURKEY

Summary. An assemblage of marble bracelets, at various stages ofmanufacture, recovered during surface survey of the site of Kanlıtas in Turkey,indicates that there was specialized production activity at the site during theChalcolithic period. In this article we present the assemblage, evidence aboutmaterial procurement, technology and manufacturing processes. We discussthe significance of the assemblage in relation to other sites in the area and asan example of production intended for inter-site trade or exchange. We alsoaddress the wider issues of both the production of stone bracelets as awidespread practice in Anatolia from the Neolithic onwards, and thephenomenon of early specialized production.

INTRODUCTION

The site of Kanlıtas lies in the Inönü region of Eskisehir province in north-west Anatolia(Fig. 1). The site was originally surveyed by T. Efe in a project started in 1988 (Efe 1989–90, 31),during which the largely Chalcolithic character of the settlement was established. The site hasbeen subject to intensive surface survey by a team from Anadolu University, led by Ali Türkcan,between 2008 and 2012. The results of the survey show that the ceramics of the prehistoricoccupation phase of the mound resemble those of the Chalcolithic period of the Porsuk area ofnorth-west Anatolia and have also established clear material cultural links with the nearby site ofOrman Fidanlıgı (Efe 2001; Türkcan 2011).

Among the artefacts recovered by the survey was an assemblage of apparently discardedbroken stone bracelet (or ring) pieces in various stages of manufacture, ranging from blanks tonearly complete products, and an associated tool. The presence of a marble bracelet industry inthe area during the Chalcolithic period is known from Orman Fidanlıgı (Ay-Efe 2001), and theproduction of stone bracelets in Anatolia is known to have been well established by the Neolithicperiod (Maréchal 1985).

Here we present the marble bracelet assemblage and consider what it can tell us aboutraw material procurement, manufacturing practices and the organization of specializedproduction to fulfill inter-site demands. This article looks first at the composition of theassemblage and the various production processes used, then moves on to discuss materialprocurement and exploitation of raw material sources, incorporating data acquired from portable

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 34(3) 235–257 2015© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 235

x-ray fluorescence (pXRF) analysis. We ask whether the manufacturing carried out at Kanlıtasmay represent the consistent exploitation of local raw material sources, based on a demand forproducts that was external to the settlement itself. In comparing the Kanlıtas assemblage withother stone bracelet manufacturing areas, particularly Orman Fidanlıgı, and the wider evidenceof bracelet consumption from the Neolithic onwards, we place these artefacts within their widercultural and social context in order to understand their possible social significance. Lastly, to thisend, we consider the identification of early, specialized, manufacturing within archaeologicalassemblages and consider some other early, and broadly comparable, examples of specializedproduction activities.

THE SITE OF KANLITAS

The small settlement mound, variously known as Kanlıtas or Kanlıkavak, is located nearthe village of Asagı Kuzfındık at the edge of a mountainous region almost on the border withKütahya Province (Fig. 1) (Efe 1989–90, 34; Türkcan 2011). The mound is situated in a smallvalley. Between the road and the stream it follows, the mound appears to lean against a sharpoutcropping of rock (Fig. 2). The mound is approximately 100 m in diameter and over 15 m inheight. The actual depth of the cultural deposit may be somewhat less, depending on the

Figure 1Location of Kanlıtas.

EARLY SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION?

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.236

configuration of the rock upon which the settlement lies. The nature of the surface survey meansthat it cannot be presumed that material from all cultural levels has been recovered. Nevertheless,it seems fairly certain that the principal phase of habitation on the mound corresponds to theexcavated and published type-site of Chalcolithic Orman Fidanlıgı in Eskisehir (Efe 2001).

Dating

The dating of Kanlıtas to the Chalcolithic derives from the ceramic assemblagerecovered during the survey. The surface area of the mound was divided into 12 sectors (A–L)(Fig. 3) for the purpose of systematic surface collection. Ceramic distributions show that thehighest concentrations of the ceramics on which the dating is based are in sectors A and F.

It is clear that from the end of the Early Chalcolithic period onward, certain ceramiccharacteristics existed over the Upper Porsuk region stretching from inside the bend of thePorsuk river and south of Bilecik at least as far as the area to the north of Kütahya (Efe 1989–90;1990; 1996a; 1996b; 2000; 2001; Türkcan 2009, 149) (Fig. 1). In the absence of C14 dates fromKanlıtas or any of the sites in the surrounding area, reliance on relative ceramic chronologies isessential. The dating of the occupation is based on the pottery assemblage collected from thesurface of the site, originally studied by Efe (1989–90; 1990; 1996a; 1996b; 2000) during hisassessment of the Porsuk region in the Eskisehir area and confirmed by Türkcan’s recent andmore detailed assessment of the Kanlıtas survey materials. The local ceramic chronology wasestablished on the basis of the excavated material from Ilıpınar, Yarımburgaz and OrmanFidanlıgı, dating from around 5700 BC onwards (Efe 2001, 50; Roodenberg 1995; Özdogan1998).

Figure 2The site of Kanlıtas.


OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 237

There is a strong correlation between the Chalcolithic elements of the Kanlıtasassemblage and the established chronology of the excavated type-site of Orman Fidanlıgı (Efe2001) (Figs. 1 and 4). The relative dating of the Kanlıtas survey material is based on this materialcultural similarity and is reinforced by the similarities between the assemblages of stonebracelets from Kanlıtas and Orman Fidanlıgı discussed in this article. The constitution of thePorsuk ceramic sequence itself is part of a complex story involving forms derived from Fikirtepe(Istanbul) and first explored at Demircihöyük, Eskisehir. Porsuk ceramics are manifested atOrman Fidanlıgı initially with simple open bowl forms, deep carinated bowls, and necked

Figure 3Contour plan of Kanlıtas showing high densities of bracelet wasters.

Figure 4Kanlıtas Chalcolithic ceramic characteristics, left, Orman Fidanlıgı Chalcolithic ceramic typology, right (adapted

from Efe 2001, 32, with permission).



vessels with horizontal or vertical handles. The early phase shows influences from the site ofHacılar in its high proportion of painted wares (Türkcan 2009, 149) (Fig. 4).

Middle Chalcolithic pottery dominates the Kanlıtas assemblage, although there is alsoa high proportion of Early Chalcolithic material; the Late Chalcolithic, however, is much lesswell represented. The Middle Chalcolithic shows characteristic ties with the Vinca culture of theeast Balkan peninsula (Türkcan 2009). Although it is possible to determine that the Kanlıtasbracelet production wasters are attributable to the Chalcolithic phase of occupation at the site onthe basis of the comparable excavated ceramic and bracelet material from Orman Fidanlıgı, it isnot clear to which phase of the Chalcolithic habitation at Kanlıtas the bracelet material belongs.On the basis of the excavated sequence from Orman Fidanlıgı, which indicates that there werebracelet remains from Levels II to VII, but with a greater number coming from II (Ay-Efe 2001,144), it can be suggested that, if contemporary with the production at Orman Fidanlıgı, theKanlıtas material may relate to the earlier phases of the former site.

STONE BRACELET ASSEMBLAGE

The assemblage of 36 items presented here, summarized in Table 1, was recoveredduring the surface survey of the site of Kanlıtas between 2009 and 2012. Thirty-five of theartefacts are wasters from the production of stone rings or bracelets (Figs. 5 and 6), and there isa single tool used in the production of these items (Fig. 7). The predominant material is whitemarble (33 items, 91.7 per cent, Fig. 5), with a secondary industry of apparently distinctmanufacture, and the single tool, all made from silicified magnezite (three items, 8.3 per cent,Figs. 6 and 7). There are no complete items within the assemblage; the average preservation isapproximately 30 per cent (equivalent to 107° of the ring/circle, Table 1). Only one item in theassemblage appears to have been fragmented after or close to completion (Table 1: 09 113), andit is on this basis that the assemblage has been identified as indicative of a production area.Although the artefacts presented here were recovered from across the surface of the site, sectorC (Fig. 3) contained the highest concentration of artefacts, with lower densities recovered ineroded downslope areas.

Despite the fact that most of the wasters would have produced stone rings of a sufficientsize to be worn on an adult wrist, and as such conform to more widespread patterns of themanufacture of stone rings, there is no evidence that this is, in fact, the way in which they wereemployed. The word ‘bracelet’ is used here with this caveat in mind.

CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TOOLS AND THE WORKSHOP AREA

Given that the Kanlıtas stone bracelet-related assemblage appears to include all phasesof production from blank to finished article, the identification of the production methodology isa real possibility. There are three different stone ring production processes represented withinthis assemblage. Two resulted in similar products and used marble as the raw material; the thirdprocess used silicified magnezite to produce much wider and more elaborate products. For thepurposes of discussion, the production processes of the stone rings have been broken down intophases of production, which can be distinguished using the naked eye, on the basis of thetechnologies and tools that were used. The technological processes that are discussed hereconsist of flaking, pounding, abrasion and polishing. The term ‘flaking’ is used in the same senseas in chipped stone technology – the removal of part of a piece of stone using percussion and



TAB

LE

1

Sum

mar

yof

data

from

the

ston

ebr

acel

etas

sem

blag

eof

Kan

lıtas

IDPr

oduc

tion

stag

eM

ater

ial

Len

gth

(mm

)W

idth

(mm

)T

hick

ness

(max

–min

,mm

)W

eigh

t(g)

Tech

nolo

gyPr

opor

tion

ofci

rcum

fere

nce

rem

aini

ngan

dno

tes

Mar

ble

brac

elet

s:Ty

pe1

–pr

oduc

tion

met

hod

109

A26

51

Mar

ble

76.6

36.3

15.5

–9.2

61Fl

aked

,po

unde

d<9

0°Fl

aked

edge

scl

earl

yvi

sibl

e,po

undi

ngm

ore

pron

ounc

edin

cent

re,b

ack

issm

ooth

edto

prov

ide

anev

ensu

rfac

efo

rpo

undi

ng08

C12

51

Mar

ble

79.7

44.4

17–9

.281

Flak

ed,

poun

ded

<150

°C

entr

alpo

undi

ngpr

onou

nced

from

both

side

s,ce

ntra

lar

eale

ftun

touc

hed

for

rem

oval

ofla

rge

cent

ralp

iece

08C

127

1M

arbl

e66

.734

.39.

2–6.

731

Flak

ed,

poun

ded

<150

°Po

unde

dfr

ombo

thsi

des

09C

292

1M

arbl

e53

.931

.19.

8–5

21Fl

aked

,po

unde

d<1

30°

Cen

tral

poun

ded

depr

essi

onon

both

side

s

1200

11

Mar

ble

73.7

52.5

15–5

.361

Flak

ed,

poun

ded

95°

Poun

ded

inte

nsel

yin

cent

rala

rea,

both

side

s

09D

121

1M

arbl

e45

.644

.913

.7–5

.237

Flak

ed,

poun

ded

90°

Inte

nsel

ypo

unde

din

cent

rala

rea

onon

esi

de

08C

126

2M

arbl

e68

.138

15.7

–7.3

51Po

unde

d90

°Sm

allu

neve

nho

lepi

erce

dth

roug

hce

ntra

lare

aby

poun

ding

from

both

side

s09

266

2M

arbl

e90

.747

.315

.2–2

.397

Poun

ded

<170

°V

ery

smal

lhol

ebr

oken

thro

ugh

cent

re(<

4m

mdi

amet

er),

oute

red

gere

lativ

ely

smoo

th09

268

2M

arbl

e49

.427

.312

.8–2

.228

Poun

ded

<180

°C

entr

alpi

erci

ngac

hiev

edby

poun

ding

from

both

side

s09

C29

52

Mar

ble

47.6

35.8

13.4

–428

Poun

ded

90°

Cen

tral

area

poun

ded

from

both

side

s,pr

obab

lybr

oke

duri

ngpi

erci

ng09

D12

52

Mar

ble

55.4

5118

–8.7

87Po

unde

d90

°C

entr

alpo

undi

ngco

ncen

trat

edon

one

side

,pro

babl

ybr

oke

whe

npi

erci

ngat

tem

pted

09A

120

3M

arbl

e72

.831

.517

.4–3

.161

Poun

ded

170°

Hol

ecl

earl

yac

hiev

edan

dho

leex

pans

ion

star

ted

08F

128

3M

arbl

e78

.332

.116

.1–4

.749

Poun

ded

90°

Hol

em

ade

and

slig

htly

expa

nded

from

depr

esse

dar

eaon

one

side

,sm

ooth

poun

ding

onre

vers

esi

de09

267

3M

arbl

e52

.133

.117

–3.6

35Po

unde

d11

0°H

ole

mad

eby

conc

entr

ated

poun

ding

from

one

side

,ot

her

side

poun

ded

flat

09C

294

4M

arbl

e37

.925

.114

.1–8

.317

Poun

ded,

abra

ded

<40°

Hol

em

ade

and

inte

rnal

edge

ssm

ooth

edan

dex

pand

ed,

hole

mad

efr

ombo

thsi

des

08A

442

4M

arbl

e71

30.6

15.4

–9.8

57Po

unde

d,ab

rade

d10

0°H

ole

mad

ean

dex

pand

ed,p

ound

ing

cont

inue

din

cent

ral

area

from

one

side

09C

123

4M

arbl

e51

.828

.214

.7–3

31Po

unde

d,ab

rade

d60

°H

ole

mad

efr

omon

esi

dean

dex

pand

edw

itha

com

bina

tion

ofpo

undi

ngan

dab

radi

ng09

273

4M

arbl

e38

.426

.413

.5–1

3.5

20Po

unde

d,ab

rade

d<6

0°H

ole

mad

efr

omon

esi

de,h

ole

wid

enin

gby

abra

sion

and

brea

king

0800

55

Mar

ble

81.7

3119

.6–7

.975

Abr

aded

110°

Hol

em

ade

bypo

undi

ngfr

ombo

thsi

des,

edge

sof

hole

smoo

thed

and

expa

nded

byab

rasi

on12

004

5M

arbl

e70

25.3

13.2

–4.5

46A

brad

ed10

0°H

ole

mad

eby

poun

ding

from

both

side

s,sm

ooth

ing

ofho

lean

dex

pans

ion

star

ted

byab

radi

nged

ges



TAB

LE

1C

ontin

ued

IDPr

oduc

tion

stag

eM

ater

ial

Len

gth

(mm

)W

idth

(mm

)T

hick

ness

(max

–min

,mm

)W

eigh

t(g)

Tech

nolo

gyPr

opor

tion

ofci

rcum

fere

nce

rem

aini

ngan

dno

tes

1200

65

Mar

ble

72.3

2616

.1–0

51A

brad

ed95

°H

ole

mad

efr

ombo

thsi

des

butw

ithm

ore

poun

ding

onon

esi

de.E

dges

ofho

lest

illsh

arp

from

brea

kage

09C

115

6M

arbl

e34

.918

.99.

9–5

9A

brad

ed50

°Po

unde

dfr

ombo

thsi

des

tom

ake

hole

,flak

ing

and

poun

ding

scar

sar

ele

ssob

viou

sth

anin

othe

rex

ampl

es09

A11

86

Mar

ble

5320

.914

.3–4

.622

Abr

aded

65°

Poun

ded

from

both

side

sto

mak

eho

le.H

ard

abra

sion

toin

ner

edge

sof

hole

resu

lted

inch

ippi

ngof

edge

09C

124

6M

arbl

e34

.324

.411

.4–5

.614

Abr

aded

60°

Hol

eac

hiev

edby

poun

ding

from

one

side

,abr

asio

nto

insi

deof

hole

,clo

seto

achi

evem

ento

ffin

alsh

ape

09C

296

6M

arbl

e30

.318

.96.

4–5.

36

Abr

aded

60°

Ver

yth

inpr

ofile

,bot

hsi

des

rela

tivel

yfla

t,no

flaki

ngsc

ars

visi

ble

09C

119

7M

arbl

e25

.914

.49.

8–7.

56

Abr

aded

30°

All

surf

aces

are

smoo

thed

,one

side

rem

ains

flat,

alth

ough

final

profi

leis

near

lyac

hiev

ed12

005

7M

arbl

e44

.915

.110

.5–9

.816

Abr

aded

70°

Alm

ostfi

nish

ed,h

ighl

yab

rade

dex

ampl

e,pr

ofile

sub-

rect

angu

lar,

perh

aps

finis

hed

prod

ucti

nten

ded

tobe

rect

angu

lar

0911

38

Mar

ble

22.6

8.4

7.6–

7.6

2A

brad

ed30

°Fi

nish

edbr

acel

etfr

agm

ent,

circ

ular

profi

leM

arbl

ebr

acel

ets:

Type

1–

prod

ucti

onm

etho

d2

0927

00

Mar

ble

119.

283

.335

.3–1

2.9

511

Flak

edB

lank

for

brac

elet

prod

uctio

n,ve

ryro

ugh

shap

e,fla

ked

and

chip

ped

roun

dth

eed

ges

1200

31

Mar

ble

104.

162

.421

–2.4

180

Flak

ed,

poun

ded

120°

Rou

ghou

tbut

with

anat

tem

ptat

pier

cing

with

outa

nypr

ior

shap

ing

0912

22

Mar

ble

70.9

38.4

16.6

–7.3

66Po

unde

d70

°H

ole

mad

ean

dsm

ooth

edto

expa

ndit;

how

ever

,out

side

edge

sre

mai

nco

mpl

etel

yun

shap

edan

dre

ctan

gula

r09

293

4to

6M

arbl

e75

.931

.519

.6–4

.692

Flak

ed,

poun

ded,

abra

ded

110°

Bot

hsi

des

flat,

hole

mad

ean

dex

pand

edby

abra

sion

,m

aybe

inte

nded

for

rect

angu

lar

profi

le

09C

144

–M

arbl

e66

35.7

10–6

.635

Poun

ded,

abra

ded

120°

Ver

yhe

avily

abra

ded,

acro

ssw

hole

surf

ace,

with

ath

inpr

ofile

.Evi

denc

eof

prio

rpo

undi

ng.S

hape

sugg

ests

rem

oval

ofce

ntre

was

imm

inen

twhe

nbr

eaka

geoc

curr

edM

arbl

ebr

acel

ets

Type

212

002

2Si

licifi

edm

agne

zite

97.3

51.1

40.6

–13.

824

8Po

unde

d,ab

rade

d14

0°W

orke

dfr

ombo

thsi

des,

shap

eof

conc

ave

surf

ace

sugg

ests

com

bina

tion

ofpo

undi

ngan

dab

rasi

on.P

rofil

ein

dica

tes

inte

nded

wid

eba

ndsh

ape

with

slig

htly

conc

ave

long

edge

0927

55

Silic

ified

mag

nezi

te64

.923

.325

.5–8

.168

Poun

ded,

abra

ded

190–

200°

Hol

eha

sbe

enpi

erce

dth

roug

hce

ntre

ofw

ide-

profi

led

brac

elet

roug

hout

.Dia

met

eris

smal

l,su

gges

ting

use

ofa

child

orin

susp

ensi

onB

race

let

prod

ucti

onto

ol12

007

Tool

Silic

ified

mag

nezi

te55

.346

.653

.6–3

7.8

171

Poun

ded,

abra

ded

Tool

used

rota

tiona

llyin

the

abra

sion

ofth

ece

ntra

lare

asof

brac

elet

s,th

eta

pere

dsh

ape

coul

dbe

used

toex

pand

the

brac

elet

’sho

le.C

ould

also

beus

edm

ore

gene

rally

inpo

undi

ng,u

sing

the

rela

tivel

yla

rge,

curv

eden

dsu

rfac

e



resulting in a removal scar on the surface of the material. Pounding refers to the percussion of theblank by another stone item, although on the basis of this assemblage it is not generally clearwhat form the pounding tool took. Any rock of a harder material than those being worked wouldhave been effective for this task. As only one tool has been associated with the assemblage, it isnot clear whether this was mostly achieved using expedient ground-stone tools (Baysal 2009) orwith more formalized and specifically produced tools. Abrasion would have involved the use ofanother stone, either on its own or with water, to grind the surface of the blank. Polishing wouldonly have been carried out in the final stages of manufacture; materials used for this purpose arenot yet known (future use-wear analysis by microscope/SEM may help to define this).

Process 1 (Table 1; Fig. 8)

This process was used to produce rings of either round or rectangular profile from whitemarble (Moh’s approximately 3). A piece of marble was flaked using a hammer-stone to producea large, sub-circular slab with very rough edges (Stage 0). The blank was then pounded withanother stone, either on all surfaces or with an emphasis on one side, to even out the shape andremove the flaking scars. At this stage, the central part was pounded sufficiently to create aconcave area where the intended hole was to be broken through (Fig. 8: Stage 1). The central areacontinued to be intensively pounded until a hole of about 10 mm was achieved (Fig. 8: Stage 2).The small central hole was then expanded using continued pounding in combination withabrasion, possibly using a rotational movement (Fig. 8: Stage 3). The hole was expanded to agreater extent using abrasion and the rough edges of the piercing area were reduced, therebymaking the profile more compact (Fig. 8: Stage 4). The pounding marks were nearly completelyremoved by abrasion and the profile was much reduced (Fig. 8: Stage 5). Abrasion was used to

Figure 5Examples of marble bracelet wasters from Kanlıtas.



continue the thinning process; the intended shape began to become apparent (Fig. 8: Stage 6).Finer abrasion was used as the ring neared its final profile (Fig. 8: Stage 7), and finer abrasionand polishing were used to achieve the finished product (Fig. 8: Stage 8).


Like Process 1, this methodology was also used to produce rings of either round orrectangular profile from white marble (Moh’s approximately 3). Although this process is largelysimilar to Process 1, there are some areas in which the chaîne opératoire is clearly distinct; thepiercing of the hole was attempted before much exterior pounding to shape the blank (Stage 2 ofProcess 1 precedes Stage 1; Fig. 8) and central shaping was continued with little attention to theouter edges. The use of abrasion in this process is also different; rough abrasion was used overthe top and bottom surfaces of the whole artefact, creating flatter faces than in Process 1. A singleexample indicates that whole-surface abrasion was employed even during the pounding of thecentral depression for piercing. The smaller number of artefacts indicating the employment ofthis technique, and the apparently less methodical order of processes, may indicate that this wasthe result of the work of less skilled craftspeople, or of those in the process of learning, possiblyapprentices.

Figure 6Examples of silicified magnezite bracelet wasters from Kanlıtas.




This process was used to produce wide ‘ribbon’ rings from silicified magnezite, aconsiderably harder material than marble (Moh’s 6 vs. Moh’s 3), which therefore would haverequired more effort to work. The techniques and tools that were employed were essentiallysimilar to the other two processes; however, the shape of the blank and the desired artefact wereconsiderably different and would have required both more work and probably greater skill toachieve. The depth of the bracelet required that a much deeper depression be made in order tocreate the initial hole, and this would have been all the more challenging as a result of the hardmaterial. The indications of intended profile that can be seen in the two unfinished examplessuggest the desired finished articles to be similar to the wider bracelets from Orman Fidanlıgıand/or Cafer Höyük (Ay-Efe 2001, 153, fig. 7, 84, 86; Maréchal 1985, 114, fig. 2, d). There areno early-stage blanks or wasters from this process, so it is not clear how the initial shaping wascarried out. The examples that were recovered (Table 1: 12 002 and 09 275; Fig. 6) showextensive pounding of every surface to produce a neat outline of the final product at an earlierstage than in Processes 1 and 2. The thickness of the blank necessarily led to piercing occurringat a more advanced point in the production process.

Overall, the Kanlıtas assemblage indicates the intensive exploitation of one raw materialtype (marble) with a consistent set of technological processes, and probably a consistent set oftools, although this is less clear on the basis of current evidence. The secondary industry usingsilicified magnezite also makes use of a local raw material type, and essentially similartechnologies, although slightly different methodologies, to the main industry. On the basis ofsurvey data, it is difficult to ascertain whether these technological processes were carried out

Figure 7Bracelet manufacturing tool, silicified magnezite, from Kanlıtas.



Figure 8Production stages of the marble bracelets from Kanlıtas.



simultaneously and in a single area of the site, or whether this was a pattern of household-levelsite-wide specialization and possibly diachronic variation in manufacturing practices. Thepossible implications of these different scenarios will be discussed in more detail below withregard to early craft specialization.

MATERIAL ANALYSIS (XRF)

The identification of raw materials and their association both with each other and withraw material sources may shed light on the consistency of production in an assemblage such asthis. In 2012, as part of the larger Anatolian Archaeological Raw Material Survey (AARMS)(Baysal 2012; Nazaroff et al. 2013), a series of marble (n = 3) artefacts were analysed via pXRF.The purpose was to ascertain the geochemistry of each object, and compare these data betweenobjects, as well as between objects and known sources of marble in central Anatolia. Thesecomparisons stand to inform us of the origins (provenance) of materials used in the productionof these artefacts, and whether one or more sources of material were used in the production ofthe assemblage. Analysed artefacts were chosen from different stages of the manufacturingprocess, eliminating the possibility that all pieces from a single production phase derived froma certain source while others may not. When using the term ‘source’, we refer to a uniquechemical signature likely to be representative of a particular geological deposit (Shackley 2008).

Methodology

All samples were analysed whole, using a Bruker Tracer III-V Portable X-rayFluorescence instrument, in the laboratory of Dr Ali Türkcan at Anadolu University in Eskisehir,Turkey. An in-depth discussion of the technique is available in Nazaroff et al. (2010) (see alsoNazaroff 2012).

Parameters of marble pXRF analysis

Marble is a non-foliated metamorphic rock comprised of recrystallized carbonatematerials. The material is a common medium for the production of ground-stone items, one ofthe largest sources in the region occurring in the Konya Basin in central Anatolia (Baysal 2004;2009), although other sources are present throughout Anatolia (cf. Manfra et al. 2007). Samplesanalysed included one bracelet fragment, and two unfinished bracelets. The materials appearedvisually similar to one another, thus raising the question of whether or not they were producedfrom a single source of marble.

In this study, two conditions were used during analysis: the first designed to acquireinformation on lighter oxides, which may be present in the materials, the second focusing onmid-Z trace-element acquisition. This was designed for the acquisition of major oxides Na2O,MgO, Al2O3, K2O, CaO, TiO2, MnO and Fe2O3. Through the second condition, trace elementstitanium, manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), copper, zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), thorium (Th), rubidium (Rb),strontium (Sr), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr) and niobium (Nb) were acquired.

Results

Acquired energy counts from the pXRF instrument were processed using the S1PXRFprogram developed by Bruker. Conversion to parts per millionth (ppm) elemental concentrations,



as well as weight per cent, was achieved through an empirical calibration designed using a seriesof geological samples of known geochemistry (see Nazaroff 2012). The geochemical datadiscussed here are presented in Table 2. While significant variation occurs in three of thepresented elements – lead, thorium and strontium – there is good correspondence in theremaining nine elements, as well as all major oxides analysed.

Implications of pXRF results

The three marble objects analysed appear to have been produced from marble acquiredfrom a single locale. As it stands, we are not able to provide information regarding where thismarble source was located. However, the use of only a single source in the production of marblebracelets, as well as the multiple stages of production represented in the samples, raises thequestion of a standardized economic practice. The fact that this behaviour encompasses both theacquisition and processing of materials speaks to the uniformity of this process, whether it beconducted by a single or by multiple artisans. The suggested raw material sources for the site ofOrman Fidanlıgı, which had a similar marble industry, are the village of Zemzemiye (north ofDemircihöyük) or to the west of Inönü (Ay-Efe 2001, 137). Recorded mineralogical data suggesta number of possible locations (Fig. 9). Future extension of the XRF survey should help toelucidate whether either or both of these is correct.

THE STONE RINGS/BRACELETS OF ORMAN FIDANLIGI

The stone bracelet manufacturing at Kanlıtas was first mentioned by Ay-Efe in the 2001publication of Orman Fidanlıgı, a site 30 km from Kanlıtas, where a very similar assemblage hasbeen found. An assemblage of 23 marble items relating to the various stages in the manufactureof bracelets, as well as a further selection of small rings, was reported from Orman Fidanlıgı(Fig. 10). Ay-Efe (2001, 136) suggests that both sites shared the same source of raw materials.The presence of two sites with such similar and apparently broadly contemporary manufacturingpractices in relatively close proximity to each other provokes questions about possible micro-regional manufacturing practices and the demand for, and export of, the products to other areas.Although the Orman Fidanlıgı assemblage results from a rescue excavation, there is no

TABLE 2

Geochemistry of marble artefacts analysed in this study. Major oxides (top) are reports of weight in per cent, whiletrace-elemental quantities (bottom) are reported in parts per million (ppm). Negative concentrations indicate values

below XRF levels of detection

MARBLES Na2O (%) MgO (%) Al2O3 (%) K2O (%) CaO (%) TiO2 (%) MnO (%) Fe2O3 (%)

Sample 1 1.02 0.09 0.00 −0.15 96.46 −0.63 −0.01 0.67Sample 2 1.02 0.08 0.00 −0.20 93.87 −0.62 −0.01 0.61Sample 3 1.02 0.09 0.00 −0.17 94.53 −0.61 −0.01 0.62

MARBLES (cont.) Ti Mn Fe Cu Zn Pb Th Rb Sr Y Zr Nb

Sample 1 2575.19 127.87 5424.20 4.70 8.59 −102.58 1.37 0.18 20.73 1.37 12.03 −8.74Sample 2 2427.08 127.95 5575.94 4.61 8.54 270.43 6.49 0.18 117.25 1.84 10.68 −8.18Sample 3 2612.65 128.09 5579.54 3.88 8.65 96.36 3.15 0.18 14.56 1.56 12.84 −8.27



contextual information that might shed light on the manufacturing or disposal areas at the site.The distribution of the artefacts throughout the phases of habitation, although with bias to LevelII (Ay-Efe 2001, 140), suggests that this industry was a consistent part of activity at thesettlement.

Comparison of the two assemblages reveals that there are a number of similarities intheir composition and features. According to Ay-Efe (2001, 137), the items listed as bracelets inthe Orman Fidanlıgı industry are, on average, large enough to fit on an adult wrist (7–8 cm indiameter). In terms of profile, most of the Orman Fidanlıgı assemblage are closer to their finalform than those from Kanlıtas and are predominantly round in profile (Ay-Efe 2001, 153)(Fig. 10, examples with round profile). On the basis of the single example of a finished marblebracelet from Kanlıtas (Table 1, 09 113), we can say with some certainty that the intended endproduct was almost identical. As at Kanlıtas, there are a number of examples with a much widerprofile (four, Ay-Efe 2001, 153, fig. 7, 85, 86, 87, 88) (Fig. 10) and a degree of elaboration inconvex internal and concave external profiles, some with a central external depression, giving theimpression of two joined bands or ‘ribs’ (Ay-Efe 2001, 153). The production sequence fromOrman Fidanlıgı is not completely clear, partly because there are only six examples of unfinishedbracelets from the assemblage. However, it can be assumed that the process was broadly similarwith, if not exactly the same as, Processes 1 and 2 at Kanlıtas, described above. A significantvariation between the two assemblages is that marble seems to be the only material used atOrman Fidanlıgı, marking out the use of silicified magnezite at Kanlıtas as a phenomenonperhaps belonging to a different tradition or to that site alone.

Figure 9Marble sources in the vicinity of Kanlıtas and Orman Fidanlıgı based on data provided by Dr Yahya Çiftçi, Mineral

Research and Exploration General Directorate, Turkey.



Figure 10The marble bracelet assemblage from Orman Fidanlıgı (adapted from Ay-Efe 2001, 153, fig. 7, with permission).



THE WIDER SPHERE OF STONE BRACELETS, RINGS AND DISCS

For further information about stone bracelets/rings, it is necessary to move beyond theimmediate vicinity of Kanlıtas, both geographically and temporally. There are a variety of stonebracelets reported from the Neolithic period in Anatolia (Yumuktepe, Caneva 2012, 27; KöskHöyük, Öztan 2012, 56; Akarçay Tepe, Özbasaran and Duru 2011, 199). The evidence fromAkarçay Tepe suggests that manufacturing was carried out at the site using limestone (Özbasaranand Duru 2011, 176). Finely finished marble bracelets were recovered from Cafer Höyük, wherethe seventh millennium settlement has yielded ten finished stone bracelets, six of which are ofwhite marble and four of fine-grained basalt (Maréchal 1985, 109). The internal diameters of thebracelets vary from 6.5 to 8 cm, with bias towards the smaller size, and would have beensufficient to fit a small adult female. There is no evidence of manufacturing at the site. Theconsistent recovery of varied bracelet forms from different layers and the quality of theirmanufacture suggest, according to Maréchal (1985, 110), that these items were part of along-lived tradition. As a result of lack of evidence, Maréchal has difficulty identifying how thistradition may have developed in this region. In terms of form, the simple Cafer Höyük braceletsare generally much deeper and more elliptical in profile than the simple Type 1 form fromKanlıtas (although Maréchal 1985, 114, fig. 2, f is comparable to Kanlıtas 09 113, Table 1);however, the complex forms may be readily comparable to Kanlıtas Type 2 (Table 1; Fig. 6)(Maréchal 1985, 114, fig. 2, d, e). Overall, the Cafer Höyük assemblage is notable for the varietyof different profiles that were created and the quality of the products.

Moving further afield, the late PPNB site of Ba’ja has produced one of the mostextensively documented examples of specialized bracelet/stone ring manufacturing. The siteshows a consistent exploitation of sandstone sources for the production of rings ranging between30 and 90 mm in inner diameter. Indications of locales of production suggest that all processesin the chaîne opératoire were carried out in the same location and were household-based, ratherthan in specific production facilities (Gebel and Bienert 1997, 252). Gebel and Bienert (1997,254) have identified six stages in the manufacturing process of the rings: sourcing of raw materiallocally; fracturing and bifacial shaping; further flaking to produce a perfect circle; concentricgraving of the interior of the disc; removal of the centre; and several stages of grinding. The mostcommon point of breakage of the Ba’ja rings was during the preparation for the removal of thecentral portion and thereafter, showing the vulnerability of the ring shape as opposed to the disc(Gebel and Bienert 1997, 257). Interestingly, there is dissonance in the use of raw material atdifferent sites; for example, at Ba’ja all stone rings were made from one of three types ofsandstone found in the direct vicinity of the site (Starck 1988, 138). However, at nearby Basta avariety of materials, including limestone and a plaster-like substance, were employed (Starck1988, 138). The profiles of these examples are predominantly flattened rather than round andthere are examples at Ba’ja of the use of pigment to decorate the finished products (Starck 1988,139). Carved ornamentation does not seem to have been common at Ba’ja, unlike the AnatolianNeolithic examples where more complex profiles are not uncommon, as discussed above. TheNear Eastern examples suggest that form may have been more important than material in somecases.

Although such annular stones have largely been identified as bangles, the size rangeindicates that they varied from rings, through sizes that may fit sub-adults as bangles, to sizeslarge enough for adult bangles (Starck 1988, 137; see also Ay-Efe 2001). Gebel and Bienart(1997) express uncertainty about the purpose of the stone rings of Ba’ja, and suggest that they



were not necessarily intended as bracelets, although most of them would have been of a suitablesize for the modern sub-adults in the area. There is an element in the selection of raw materialat Ba’ja that indicates that value was attributed to the qualities of the raw materials, in caseswhere preference was given to stone with layers of red and white colouring.

The value attributed to stone bangles, as well as being made clear by the high levels ofproduction in certain settlements and the demand that this production indicates, is also supportedby the piercing of some bracelet fragments to make them usable as pendants (at Ba’ja, Starck1988, 137; at Boncuklu Höyük, Baird, pers. comm.). This indication of secondary use-lifesuggests that they may have remained in use on or around the human body even when damaged.

While the manufacture of stone bracelets and rings is known to have been widespreadduring the Neolithic in Anatolia and the Near and Middle East (Starck 1988, 145), anotherphenomenon, possibly related to this industry, was the manufacture by flaking of stone discs.These occur in the Neolithic and probably continue through the Chalcolithic over anapproximately similar geographical area (Rosenberg et al. 2008). The materials from whichthese discs were manufactured, and the technology that was used, show a strong correlation withthe earlier stages in the chaîne opératoire of the stone bracelet industries of the Neolithic andChalcolithic periods, and the bracelet blanks found at Kanlıtas. It is for this reason that they areconsidered here as part of a potentially similar technological and material procurement process,and, indeed, as a potential part of the same production process. Similarities can be seen in theillustrated examples from Çayönü (Davis 1982, 145, fig. 3.13, 12–13), Beisamoun and NahalZehora I and II (Rosenberg et al. 2008, 140–4), and these examples fall into a similar sizecategory, with consistency in raw material selection. The discovery of a large number (nearly100) of these artefacts in a single location at Çayönü (Davis 1982, 119) may be indicative ofeither ‘mass’ production or storage in preparation for further working. The examples of ‘blanks’for the production of sandstone rings found at Ba’ja are very similar to those described as discsby Rosenberg et al. (2008; compare Rosenberg et al. 2008, 141, fig. 3 and Gebel and Bienert1997, 255, fig. 13).

One common factor shared by these disparate examples of stone ring/braceletmanufacture is their apparently relatively specialized production, in terms of consistenttechnology, specific locales of manufacture and production quantity. Below we consider, usingthe example of Kanlıtas, how stone bracelets/rings might be seen in many areas as an exampleof incipient craft specializations.

KANLITAS BRACELETS AND EARLY CRAFT SPECIALIZATION

One of the questions raised by a production-related assemblage such as the stonebracelets recovered from Kanlıtas is the social circumstances under which production took place,whether this production was specialized, and, if so, to what degree. Craft specialization in itsearly forms has been thought to be synonymous with the manufacture of prestige goods and isoften reported as such (for example Gebel and Bienert 1997). However, the concept of thesettlement specializing in large-scale manufacture of a single product dates, in Anatolia, at leastto the exploitation of the central Anatolian obsidian sources during the early Neolithic period(Balkan-Atlı 2001). The social organization necessary for the development of specializedproduction has been much debated, and, indeed, it was long assumed that specialization was notpossible before the development of societies with a considerable level of centralizedorganization. However, archaeological evidence of the last decades has increasingly shown that



craft specialization did not follow a linear pattern of development interdependent withconcurrent ‘progressions’ in social structure. Instead it waxed and waned for several millenniabefore institutionalized, centrally organized, consistent and long-lived production becamecommonplace (Baysal 2013; Twigger 2009).

There has been an array of attempts to define craft specialization in specificarchaeological examples, as well as in a purely theoretical setting, the latest of these being thecollected works published by the American Anthropological Association (2007). A selection ofthe definitions previously used by others quickly highlights their lack of detail; ‘. . . variabilityin output per capita for a given product within the population sampled’ (Tosi 1984, 23), ‘. . . theregular, repeated provision of some commodity or service in exchange for some other’ (Costin1986, 328), ‘regular production for supplying people or groups beyond the household or near kinunit’ (Rosen 1989, 107), ‘the production of goods and services for a broad consumer population,on a (usually) full-time basis, in order to earn a livelihood’ (Stark 1991, 64). Even the seminalwork of Costin which defined specialization as ‘. . . a differentiated, regularised, permanent, andperhaps institutionalised production system in which producers depend on extra-householdexchange relationships at least in part for their livelihood, and consumers depend on them foracquisition of goods they do not produce themselves’ (Costin 1991, 4) has recently beencriticized by the author herself for focusing on the dominance of elites (Costin 2007, 145).

Using a set of criteria for specialization derived from previous discussions, and based onthe available evidence, the likelihood and nature of specialization in the case of Kanlıtas’sbracelets can be assessed. In the context of the assemblage under discussion here, it isappropriate to start from a basic understanding of early specialized craft, characterized by Rosenas ‘. . . incipient and sporadic specialization, not yet institutionalized nor widespread’ (Rosen1989, 111). The main prerequisites for specialization are value, surplus and payment. Artefactsmust be attributed a value for the item to have an equivalency; this value can be flexibleaccording to demand, season and other factors. There must be a surplus of the item in questionand there must be a system by which payment can be made for the product, whether in the formof subsistence items, or exchange in kind. These prerequisites are not necessarily easy to identifyon the basis of archaeological evidence; however, the remaining criteria are designed to relate tofactors with archaeological visibility.

Technology and manufacturing are an important aspect of craft specialization, and thereare a number of facets that should be present in order for a production sequence to be consideredas specialized. The modification of raw materials, with the use of necessary knowledge orknow-how, should be used in repeated production, which is based on demand. In addition to thepractical considerations of production, the social aspects are also important. For production to bespecialized, there must be more consumers than there are producers, the product must beperceived to have a function, whether that is practical or social, and the object must be culturallycongruent in some way and also form part of a socially specific typology (Twigger 2009, 82–6;Baysal 2013). None of these parameters are without flexibility, and, depending on the specificcontext and even varying social conditions, they may be met to a greater or lesser extent. Thepresence of a number of these indicators, in conjunction with the context from which anassemblage is recovered, indicates whether or not production was likely to have been specialized,and, indeed, the degree to which it was specialized.

Despite being recovered in a survey context, the Kanlıtas assemblage meets a number ofthe criteria for specialization. The repeated modification of two different raw materials forms thecore of the industry at the site. The relatively complex series of processes required to produce a



stone ring, in conjunction with considerable evidence of wastage, indicate that a degree of bothknowledge and skill was required to achieve a successful result. Although there are no completefinished products within the assemblage, repeated production can be assumed if the number ofsuccessful products was greater than the number of wasters. The demand for the products isharder to identify on the basis of survey data. However, in conjunction with the evidence of asimilar production pattern at the nearby site of Orman Fidanlıgı, and the conspicuous lack offinished products, production to fulfill demand outside the settlements in question is suggested.

Identifying the importance of this manufacturing process within the economic sphere ofthis community is difficult given the nature of survey data, especially when it is considered thatorganic materials and subsistence practices are not understood. However, second only toceramics, the stone ring-related assemblage dominates the preserved artefactual remains of thisperiod at the site. The perceived function of the products, which are presumed to have been wornas bracelets or upper arm bands, given their size range, is reinforced by the apparentlywidespread manufacture and use of similar items across Anatolia and the Near East from theNeolithic onwards, as discussed above.

Consistent manufacture of stone bracelets from a variety of raw materials across a widetemporal and spatial span, discussed in the previous section, indicates that the idea of the stonebracelet took precedence over the material from which it was made. Indeed, the various examplesof manufacturing areas that have been found indicate that exploitation of locally available rawmaterial sources was the norm for these products. The stone bracelets recovered from sites acrossAnatolia from the Neolithic onwards do not, as yet, indicate any temporally or spatiallyconsistent variation in either raw material or form. Current evidence suggests therefore that thestone bracelet was a widely recognized item of material culture but that exact form and rawmaterial were less important, and did not necessarily have localized cultural congruence. Thefunction of decorative items and personal ornaments can be extremely variable from one culturalenvironment to another. While they may be purely decorative, they can also have religious orritual associations, or be signifiers of different life stages or social positions (for exampleWilliams 1987).

Early examples of specialization are few in Anatolia. One of the only cases ofspecialized stone working in the Chalcolithic is from Kulaksızlar in western Anatolia, whereTakaoglu (2002) has approached the question of marble working as an early industry usingsurvey evidence. The site is dated to the late Middle–early Late Chalcolithic period on the basisof the ceramics (Takaoglu 2002, 72). Takaoglu offers the location of the site, in close proximityto sources of a number of rock types, as a possible catalyst for the start of specialized production.Unlike Kanlıtas, the raw material exploitation strategy at Kulaksızlar appears to have been basedon expediency rather than on consistent materials; variations in colour and quality are significant(Takaoglu 2002, 73). The range of items being produced was considerable, including figurinesand a variety of vessel forms. The technologies that were used are similar in both methodologyand tools to those identified at Kanlıtas (Takaoglu 2002, 76). The distribution of the finishedproducts from Kulaksızlar indicates that the products could have been in demand as much as400 km from the site, although it is not clear whether this was a result of direct procurement ordown-the-line exchange (Takaoglu 2002, 80).

Another possible candidate for early spcialization is the manufacture of copper artefactsin north-west Anatolia. At Orman Fidanlıgı two finished items and part of a crucible are reported(Ay-Efe 2001, 139), although with no further evidence of where, or to what degree, manufacturemight have been carried out. Broadly contemporary Anatolian metal finds from sites such as



Beycesultan (Lloyd and Mellaart 1962), Bagbası (Eslick 1992, 40) and Kuruçay (Umurtak 1996,56) show a similar level of complexity in finished products.

The use of hammered copper is recorded in Anatolia from the Neolithic onwards forvery small items such as beads (Esin 1993; 1995). The forms of the Chalcolithic examples ofmetalworking, when compared to their Neolithic counterparts, indicate that skill levels advancedsignificantly as time went on. Metal sources are recorded in north-west Anatolia (Wagner et al.1989, 300), although whether they were exploited during the Neolithic or Chalcolithic is notclear because of the limited evidence.

Indications are that, although metalworking did not become common until the BronzeAge, the level of technology and skill was already advanced well before usage becamewidespread. Together with the examples of specialization in stone working, the exploitation ofmaterial sources for specialist production in areas capable of sustaining the subsistence needs ofa population without supplementary economic activity can be argued to have been an integralpart of the Chalcolithic economy. The motivation for developments such as these, including thebracelet manufacture at Kanlıtas, may have derived from considerations that were not entirelyeconomic.

CONCLUSIONS

The assemblage of fragmented stone bracelet production pieces from Kanlıtas indicatesrepeated production of a single artefact type from consistent materials and using three distinctproduction processes. The results of the pXRF analysis indicate a high probability that themarble industry was based on the exploitation of a single source of raw material. There alsoappears to be a distinction between the use of different raw materials (marble and silicifiedmagnezite) for the production of different styles of the same artefact type. The use of the harder,and thereby more difficult to work, material to make apparently more elaborate products, andtheir appearance in lesser numbers than the main marble industry, perhaps indicate that thesewere attributed different values according to difficulty of manufacture. It is not clear on the basisof survey data whether these manufacturing processes were contemporaneous or whether therewas temporal variation in bracelet manufacture.

The association of different raw materials with different products, marble with narrowbands of round or rectangular profile, harder silicified magnezite with wider, more elaborate,products, is to some degree reflected in marble bracelet use at other sites. Indications are that thebracelet manufacture at Kanlıtas is part of a long-lived and widespread tradition of theproduction and use of similar items. The general pattern of raw material exploitation seen inexamples from other sites, particularly at Orman Fidanlıgı, supports the hypothesis ofopportunistic exploitation of local raw material sources in varying degrees of repeatedproduction. Whether any, or all, of these instances constitutes specialized production reliesheavily on our understanding of the circumstances in which manufacture took place. Survey dataand limited excavation results from other sites limit comment on this subject at the moment,although initial indications are that stone bracelet/ring manufacture fulfills many of the criteriafor specialization (Twigger 2009, 85).

Although there is a long and widespread tradition of the manufacture of stone rings inthe prehistory of Anatolia and the Near East, it remains unclear how they were used, andevidence of differing diameters and materials indicates that caution should be exercised inproposing a single universal use for this class of artefact. It has been suggested that the rings



could have been suspended rather than worn on the wrist, an idea supported by examples offragments of bracelets that were pierced for suspension after breakage.

Overall, the Kanlıtas assemblage indicates consistent manufacture of a particularproduct following a pattern that derives at least from the Neolithic and is widespread throughoutAnatolia and the Near East. The specific nature of the materials and the product are morelocalized, showing a considerable resemblance to the practices at nearby Orman Fidanlıgı, andprobably making use of the local rock sources. The different production processes at the site, andthe unusual number of artefacts discovered during the survey process, indicate that a number ofindividuals, possibly over a considerable period of time, were involved in the production process.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkeyfor permission to carry out the Kanlıtas Survey Project. Professor Turan Efe kindly gave permission forreproduction of images from his Orman Fidanlıgı excavation project. Dr Yahya Çiftçi of the TurkishGeneral Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration generously provided information on marblesources. The pXRF analysis was supported by grants from Stanford University. Ali Umut Türkcan wouldlike to extend his thanks to his team members during research between 2008–9 in the Kanlıtas Höyük andEnvirons Survey Project. We owe special thanks to Zeki Barıs Beyoglu who made the drawings, YunusEmre Demirbilek who made the graphics and Ferhat Erikan who took the photos of the objects. ThisProject was supported during 2008–10 by Anadolu University (Eskisehir) Project Unit (Project No.0810818).

(EB) Trakya UniversityDepartment of Archaeology

Balkan CampusEdirne

[email protected]

(AB) Trakya UniversityEdirne

TURKEY

(AT) Archaeology DepartmentAnadolu University

EskisehirTURKEY

(AN) Department of AnthropologyStanford University

StanfordCalifornia

USA

REFERENCES

AY-EFE, D. 2001: The small finds of Orman Fidanlıgı. In EFE, T. (ed.), The Salvage Excavations at OrmanFidanlıgı, a Chalcolithic Site in Inland Northwestern Anatolia (Istanbul), 127–58.



mailto:[email protected]

BALKAN-ATLI, N. 2001: Obsidian research in Cappadocia and Kömürcü-Kaletepe obsidian workshopexcavation. In BELLI, O. (ed.), Istanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000) (Istanbul), 130–45.

BAYSAL, A. 2004: Ground stone reports. In Çatalhöyük 2004 Archive Report (http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/).

BAYSAL, A. 2009: Social and Economic Implications of the Life Histories of Ground Stone at NeolithicÇatalhöyük (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Liverpool).

BAYSAL, A. 2012: AARMS 2012 Sezonu Çalısma Raporu (Report on file with the Turkish Ministry ofCulture).

BAYSAL, E. 2013: Will the real specialist please stand up? Characterising early craft specialization, acomparative methodology for Neolithic Anatolia. Documenta Praehistorica 40, 233–46.

CANEVA, I. 2012: Mersin-Yumuktepe. In ÖZDOGAN, M., BASGELEN, N. and KUNIHOLM, P. (eds.), TheNeolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3 (Istanbul), 1–29.

COSTIN, C. 1986: From Chiefdom to Empire State: Ceramic Economy among the Prehispanic Wanka ofHighland Peru (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles).

COSTIN, C. 1991: Craft specialisation: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organisation ofproduction. In SCHIFFER, M. (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory (Tucson), 1–56.

COSTIN, C. 2007: Thinking about production: phenomenological classification and lexical semantics.Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 17, 143–62.

DAVIS, M. 1982: The Çayönü ground stone. In BRAIDWOOD, L. and BRAIDWOOD, R. (eds.), PrehistoricVillage Archaeology in South-eastern Turkey (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 138), 73–174.

EFE, T. 1989–90: Three early sites in the vicinity of Eskisehir: Asmainler, Kanlıtas and Kes Kaya. Anatolica16, 31–60.

EFE, T. 1990: An inland Anatolian site with pre-Vinca elements: Orman Fidanlıgı, Eskisehir. Germania 68,67–113.

EFE, T. 1996a: Orman Fıdanlıgı’nda 1992–1994 yılları arasında yapılan kurtarma kazıları. XVII. KazıSonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara, 95–107.

EFE, T. 1996b: The excavations at Orman Fidanlıgı, an inland site with pre-Vinca elements. In DRASOVEAN,F. (ed.), The Vinca Culture: Its Role and Cultural Connections, Timisaora (Timisaora), 41–58.

EFE, T. 2000: Recent investigation in inland northwestern Anatolia and its contribution to early Balkan–Anatolian connections. In HILLER, S. and NIKOLOV, V. (eds.), Karanovo III. Das NeolithikumimSüdesteuropa (Wien), 171–84.

EFE, T. (ed.) 2001: The Salvage Excavations at Orman Fidanlıgı, a Chalcolithic Site in InlandNorthwestern Anatolia (Istanbul).

ESIN, U. 1993: Copper beads of Asıklı. In MELLINK, M., PORADA, E. and ÖZGÜÇ, T. (eds.), Aspects of Art andIconography: Anatolia and its Neighbours. Studies in Honour of Nimet Özgüç (Ankara), 179–83.

ESIN, U. 1995: Early copper metallurgy at the pre-pottery site of Asıklı. In Readings in Prehistory. StudiesPresented to Halet Çambel (Istanbul), 61–78.

ESLICK, C. 1992: Elmalı-Karatas I. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods: Bagbası and Other Sites (BrynMawr).

GEBEL, H.K. and BIENERT, H.-D. 1997: Ba’ja hidden in the Petra mountains. Preliminary report on the 1997excavations. In GEBEL, H.K., KAFAFI, Z. and ROLLEFSON, G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II.Perspectives from 1997 (Berlin), 221–62.

LLOYD, S. and MELLAART, J. 1962: Beycesultan I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels (London).MANFRA, L., MASI, U. and TURI, B. 2007: Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios of marbles from some ancient

quarries of western Anatolia and their archaeological significance. Archaeometry 17(2), 215–19.MARÉCHAL, C. 1985: Les bracelets néolithiques en pierre de Cafer Höyük (Turquie). Cahiers de l’Euphrate

4, 109–15.NAZAROFF, A. 2012: Chert sourcing. In Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report (http://www.catalhoyuk.com/

archive_reports/).NAZAROFF, A., PRUFER, K. and DRAKE, B. 2010: Assessing the applicability of portable X-ray fluorescence

spectrometry for obsidian provenance research in the Maya Lowlands. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 37(4), 885–95.

NAZAROFF, A., BAYSAL, A. and ÇIFTÇI, Y. 2013: The importance of chert in central Anatolia: lessons fromthe Neolithic assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology 28(4), 340–62.



http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/




ÖZBASARAN, M. and DURU, G. 2011: Akarçay Tepe, a PPNB and PN settlement in the Middle Euphrates –Urfa. In ÖZDOGAN, M., BASGELEN, N. and KUNIHOLM, P. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 2(Istanbul), 165–202.

ÖZDOGAN, M. 1998: Recent excavations in eastern Thrace and contact between the prehistoric cultures ofAnatolia and the Balkans. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi (TÜBA-AR) 1, 64–93.

ÖZTAN, A. 2012: Kösk Höyük, a Neolithic settlement in the Nigde-Bor Plateau. In ÖZDOGAN, M., BASGELEN,N. and KUNIHOLM, P. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3 (Istanbul), 31–70.

ROODENBERG, J. (ed.) 1995: The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in NW Anatolia,1987–91 (Istanbul).

ROSEN, S.A. 1989: The origins of craft specialization: lithic perspectives. In HERSCHKOVITZ, I. (ed.), Peopleand Culture in Change (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 508), 107–14.

ROSENBERG, D., ASSAF, A., GETZOV, N. and GOPHER, A. 2008: Flaked stone discs of the Neolithic andChalcolithic periods in the southern Levant. Paléorient 34(2), 137–51.

SHACKLEY, M. 2008: Archaeological petrology and the archaeometry of lithic materials. Archaeometry 50,194–215.

STARCK, J. 1988: Comparative analysis of stone-ring artefacts from Baga and Basta. In GARRARD, A. andGEBEL, H. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, the State of Research in 1986 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser.396(i)), 137–74.

STARK, M. 1991: Ceramic production and community specialisation: a Kalinga ethnoarchaeological study.World Archaeology 23, 64–78.

TAKAOGLU, T. 2002: Chalcolithic marble working at Kulaksızlar in western Anatolia. Türkiye BilimlerAkademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi (TÜBA-AR) 5, 71–84.

TOSI, M. 1984: The notion of craft specialization and its representation in the archaeological record of earlystates in the Turanian Basin. In SPRIGGS, M. (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology (Cambridge),22–52.

TÜRKCAN, A. 2009: Preliminary remarks on Kanlıtas (Eskisehir) Chalcolithic pottery. Seres 09, I.International Ceramic, Glass, Porcelain, Enamel Glaze and Pigment Congress, 148–53.

TÜRKCAN, A. 2011: Kanlıtas Höyük ve civarı (Inönü, Eskisehir) yüzey arastırması. Arastırma SonuçlarıToplantısı 28, 303–28.

TWIGGER, E. 2009: The Question, Nature and Significance of Neolithic Craft Specialization in Anatolia(Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Liverpool).

UMURTAK, G. 1996: Maden eserler. In DURU, R. (ed.), Kuruçay II (Ankara), 56–8.WAGNER, G., ÖZTUNALI, Ö. and EIBNER, C. 1989: Early copper in Anatolia. Archaeo-metallurgical field

evidence. In HAUPTMANN, A., PERNICKA, E. and WAGNER, G. (eds.), Old World Archaeometallurgy,Proceedings of the International Symposium ‘Old World Archaeometallurgy’, Heidelberg 1987(Bochum), 299–306.

WILLIAMS, S. 1987: An ‘archaeology’ of Turkana beads. In HODDER, I. (ed.), The Archaeology of ContextualMeaning (Cambridge), 31–8.



Documents

Early specialized production? A Chalcolithic stone bracelet workshop at Kanlitaş, Turkey