Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:20:19.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technical strategies and technical change at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

James Conolly
James Conolly*
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, England. j.conolly@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analysis of knapped obsidian and flint artefacts from the early ceramic Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük has shown that there were several strategies used for the production of knapped-stone tools, and that there was a profound change in the character of lithic production occurring approximately during the middle of the occupation sequence. This paper outlines the details of this technical change and, with reference to possible changes in subsistence strategies and the organization of production, offers some explanations for its occurrence.

Keywords

NeolithicÇatalhöyükobsidianlithic analysistechnology
Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 73 , Issue 282 , December 1999 , pp. 791 - 800
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1999

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.)

References

Ataman, K. 1988. A preliminary analysis of the upsilon blade tools from Hayaz Höyük, Anatolica 15: 81–5.Google Scholar
Ataman, K. 1989. The chipped stone assemblage from Can Hasan III: A study in typology, technology and function. Ph.D thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Balkan-Atli, N. 1994. La néolithisation de l’Anatolie. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Bialor, P. 1962. The chipped stone industry of Çatal Hüyük, Anatolian Studies 12: 67–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidwood, L. 1983. Further notes on obsidian, in Braidwood, L. Braidwood, B. & Howe, B. (ed.), Prehistoric archaeology along the Zagros Flanks: 287. Chicago (IL): Oriental Institute of University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Byrd, B.F. 1994. Public and private, domestic and corporate: the emergence of the Southwest Asian village, American Antiquity 59/4: 639–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T. 1994. Southern Aegean fashion victims: an overlooked aspect of Early Bronze Age burial practices, in Ashton, N. & David, A. (ed.), Stories in stone: 127–44. London: Lithic Studies Society. Occasional paper 4.Google Scholar
Carter, T. 1997. Blood and tears: a Cycladic case study in microwear analysis. The use of obsidian blades as razors?, in Bustillo, M.A. & Ramos-Millán, A. (ed.), Siliceous rocks and culture: 256–71. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
Carter, T. 1998. Through a glass darkly: obsidian and society in the Southern Aegean Early Bronze Age. Ph.D thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Clark, J.E. 1987. Politics, prismatic blades, and Mesoamerican civilisation, in Johnson, J.K. & Morrow, C.A. (ed.), The organisation of core technology. 261–84. London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Conolly, J. 1996a. The knapped stone, in Hodder (ed.): 173–98.Google Scholar
Conolly, J. 1996b. Lithic report, ×atalhöyük 1996 Archive Report, http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep96/content96.html Google Scholar
Conolly, J. 1997. The ×atalhöyük flint and obsidian industry: technology and typology in context. Ph.D thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Conolly, J. In press. The ×atalhöyük obsidian hoards: a contextual analysis of technology, in Moloney, N. & Shott, M. (ed.), Lithic studies for the next millennium. London: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Copeland, L. 1995. The phantom obsidian traders of the Jazirah, Neo-lithics: a newsletter of Southwest Asian lithics research 2/95: 5–6.Google Scholar
Haydon, B. 1980. Confusion in the bipolar world: bashed pebbles and splintered pieces, Lithic technology 9/1: 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1996a. Re-opening ×atalhöyük (with a note on building complexity by Tim Ritchey), in Hodder (ed.): 1–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (Ed.). 1996b. On the surface: Catalhbyuk 1993–1995. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/ British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.Google Scholar
Inizan, M.-L. 1986. Technologie et préhistoire récente en Mésopotamie: l’example du débitage par pression et de l’économie de l’obsidienne, in Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie: 305–15. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1988. Préhistoire á Qatar. Paris: ERC.Google Scholar
Kirkbride, D. 1966. Five seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Beidha in Jordan: a summary, Palestine exploration quarterly 98: 8–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, J. 1998. A design for life: Interpreting the art of ×atalhöyük, Journal of material culture 3/3: 355–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. 1996. The excavation of Building 1, North Area, ×atalhöyük 1996 Archive Report.Google Scholar
http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep96/rogmatthews96.html Google Scholar
Matthews, W. & Farid, S. 1996. Exploring the 1960s’ surface: the stratigraphy of ×atalhöyük, in Hodder (ed.): 271–300.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. et al. 1996. Multiple surfaces: the micro-morphology, in Hodder (ed.): 301–42.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1962. Excavations at ×atal Hüyük, Anatolian studies 12: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1964. Excavations at ×atal Hüyük, 1963, third preliminary report. Anatolian studies 14: 39–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1966. Excavations at ×atal Hüyük, 1965, fourth preliminary report. Anatolian studies 16: 165–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1967. ×atal Hüyük, a Neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1970. Excavations at Hacilar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, P. 1964. Notes on obsidian and flint from ×atal Hüyük 1961–1963. Unpublished manuscript provided courtesy of James Mellaart.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. & Hivernel-Guerre, F.. 1971. Nucléus sur éclat: technologie et utilisation par différentes cultures préhistoriques, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 71/4: 119–27.Google Scholar
Nishiaki, Y. 1992. Lithic technology of Neolithic Syria: a series of analyses of flaked stone assemblages from Douara Cave II, Tell Damishilyya, Tell Nebi Mend, and Tell Kashkashok II. Ph.D thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J. 1988. Débitage expérimental par pression ‘du plus petit au plus grand’, in Tixier, J. (ed.), Technologie prehistorique. CRA notes et monographies techniques 25: 37–53. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J. 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of research, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9/1: 116–25.Google Scholar
Perlés, C. 1981. Les industries lithiques de la grotte de Kitsos, in Lambert, N. (ed.), La grotte prehistorique de Kitsos (Attique): 129–222. Editions ADPF.Google Scholar
Perlés, C. 1989. From stone procurement to Neolithic society in Greece. Unpublished ms. David Skomp distinguished lectures in anthropology, February 1989, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Quintero, L. & Wilke, P.. 1995. Evolution and economic significance of Naviform core-and-blade technology in the southern Levant, Paléorient 21/1: 17–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollefson, CO. 1997. Changes in architecture and social organization at ‘Ain Ghazal, in Gebel, H.G.K. Kafafi, Z. & Rollefson, G.O. (ed.), The prehistory of Jordan: Perspectives from 1997: 287–307. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Studies in Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4.Google Scholar
Russell, N. & Martin, L.. 1998. ×atalhöyük animal bone report, ×atalhöyük 1998 Archive Report, http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/archive_reps.html Google Scholar
Tixier, J. 1963. Typologie de l’Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques. Meméoires Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques 2.Google Scholar
Tixier, J. 1984. Le débitage par pression, in Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 2: Economie du déitage laminaire: Technologie et expérimenation. IIIe table ronde de technologie lithique, Meudon-Bellevue, Octobre 1982: 57–70. Cercle de Recherches et d’Étude Préhistoriques.Google Scholar