Eastern Anatolian obsidians at Catalhoyuk and the reconfiguration of regional interaction in the Early Ceramic Neolithic.

Eastern Anatolian obsidians at Catalhoyuk and the reconfiguration of regional interaction in the Early Ceramic Neolithic. Introduction Studies over the past 40 years have demonstrated that theinhabitants of Neolithic Catalh6yuk yuk?1? Informaln.1. An exuberant laugh.2. One, such as a joke, that causes such a laugh.tr. & intr.v. relied almost entirely on obsidianfrom its nearest sources in Cappadocia (some 200 linear km to thenorth-east; Figure 1), primarily East Gollu Dag and Nenezi Dag. Thissource of supply is entirely in keeping with data from other centralAnatolian sites (Carter et al. 2006a; Carter & Shackley 2007). Thispaper details the first evidence for peralkaline Eastern Anatolianobsidians at Catalhoyuk, this being the furthest west such materialshave been found. The artefacts, shown to be made of obsidian from themountains of Bing61 and/or Nemrut Dag, comprise five prismatic pris��mat��ic? also pris��mat��i��caladj.1. Of, relating to, resembling, or being a prism.2. Formed by refraction of light through a prism. Used of a spectrum of light.3. Brilliantly colored; iridescent. bladesfrom Early Ceramic Neolithic (ECN (Electronic Communications Network) A computerized, private financial trading system. Terra Nova Trading (www.terranovatrading.com) and Instinet (www.instinet.com) are examples. ) contexts on the East Mound(Catalh6yuk East; Figure 2). It is proposed that the presence of EasternAnatolian products at Catalhoyuk reflects a change in inter-regionalrelations in the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC, theobjects themselves providing new media for the creation of socialdistinction for certain members of the community. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Peralkaline obsidians at Catalhoyuk The basis of this paper is the elemental characterisation of 58obsidian artefacts from ECN Catalhoyuk, of which 40 (together withgeological samples from various Anatolian sources), were characterisedby partide induced x-ray emission (PIXE PIXE Particle-Induced X-Ray EmissionPIXE Proton Induced X-Ray Emission ) at the Accelerateur GrandLouvre Louvre(l`vrə), foremost French museum of art, located in Paris. The building was a royal fortress and palace built by Philip II in the late 12th cent. pour Analyses Elementaires facility of C2RMF RMF Resource Measurement FacilityRMF Rich Music FormatRMF Ren�� Moawad Foundation (Hazmieh, Lebanon)RMF Rich Map Format (Worldcraft Half-Life mapping tool)RMF Relativistic Mean Field , the remaining 18being analysed by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence (EDX EDX Energy Dispersive X-Ray (Spectroscopy)EDX Electronic Data ExchangeEDX Extended Data RegisterEDX Event-Driven Executive (IBM Series/1 OS)EDX Event-Based Data Exchange (UPNet)1LF)spectrometer at UC Berkdey's Archaeological XRF XRF X-Ray FluorescenceXRF X-Ray FlashXRF Cross ReferenceXRF Extended Recovery Facility (IBM)XRF Extended Reliability FeatureXRF Cross Reference FileXRF External Reference Lab. Themethodological specifics and elemental data will be reported elsewhere(for laboratory protocols see Shackley 2005: 193-95; Luglie et al.2007). Ina Zirconium zirconium(zərkō`nēəm), metallic chemical element; symbol Zr; at. no. 40; at. wt. 91.22; m.p. about 1,852°C;; b.p. 4,377°C;; sp. gr. 6.5 at 20°C;; valence +2, +3, or +4. vs. Zinc contents plot (Figure 3) 43 artefacts arelocated towards the low end of the diagram; these relate to Cappadociansources (cf. Poidevin 1998; Carter & Shackley 2007: Figure 4). Theremaining five artefacts are situated in the chart's upper rightdue to their significantly higher Zr and Zn contents. The chemicalsignatures of these pieces indicate that these are peralkalineobsidians, relatively rare and geochemically distinct volcanic products,whose sole occurrence in the Eastern Mediterranean is in south-eastAnatolia. They are sourced to Nemrut Dag and certain outcrops of theBingol massif mas��sif?n.1. A large mountain mass or compact group of connected mountains forming an independent portion of a range.2. (Poidevin 1998: 136-42), as represented on our graph byfour geologicai samples: one from Bingol-Karan Solhan/Cavuslar and threefrom Nemrut Dag-inside of caldera/ 'lakeside'. The geochemicalsimilarity of these volcanoes peralkaline raw materials means that weunfortunately cannot tell which specific source(s) supplied the rawmaterials to make these blades, despite Bing61 and Nemrut Dag being150km apart (Chataigner 1994; Poidevin 1998: 141-2). Here it issufficient to highlight that these implements were made from obsidianthat originated 650-825km distant and that the recovery of this materialat Catalhoyuk extends the western distribution of these obsidians by300km.The five peralkaline obsidian blades have a greenish hue (Figure4), and sometimes an oily texture, characteristics that make them standout from the dominant Cappadocian obsidians (Figure 5). The bladesappear to have been pressure-flaked from unipolar unipolar/uni��po��lar/ (u?ni-po��ler)1. having a single pole or process, as a nerve cell.2. pertaining to mood disorders in which only depressive episodes occur. cores, their variantwidths suggesting the use of more than one production technique (Figure6). The remnant cresting scars on OB315 are noteworthy, as thisdistinctive mode of core preparation is not something associated withCappadocian obsidian blade technologies at ECN Catalhoyuk, suggestingthat the peralkaline products were likely made by outsiders employingdifferent traditions. Each displayed use-wear and four were retouched,including a piercer/perforator (OB313). The widest blade OB312 has adenticulated profile and the kind of intense edge damage (Figure 7)associated with harvesting/cereal processing (cf. Hurcombe 1992: 42-3,Plates 27-34). Such tools are also attested in the Cappadocian bladeassemblage; thus, while these blades were made by non-locals, theirsubsequent modification likely occurred at Catalhoyuk. While visuallydistinctive, these Eastern Anatolian obsidians have much the sameflaking quality, strength and cutting edge as those made fromCappadocian obsidian, i.e. they did not appear to fulfil any particularpractical function. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] Context The five artefacts were recovered from excavations on the EastMound (Cessford et al. 2005): no. OB308 from the 1960s excavation (LevelIV), and nos. OB312-OB315 from the current Istanbul Team (I5T Area)excavations (Level V?) (Figure 2). While a few other blades of greenishobsidian have been noted from later ECN assemblages (Levels II-VII),such material appears to be absent from earlier ECN and AceramicNeolithic contexts (Levels VIII-Pre-Level XII.D). These EasternAnatolian products comprise a minute proportion of the overallCatalhoyuk assemblage, some 0.11 per cent of the obsidian inventoriedfrom the IST Area (N. Kayacanpers. comm.). Of the four blades from the IST Area, three were from a midden middendungheap. (OB313-OB315) and the other (OB312) from Building 63, a large two-phaseburnt ECN structure dated tentatively to Levei V (Ozbasaran & Duru2006). OB312 was one of a number of artefacts that were intentionallyleft/placed on the floor prior to the building's deliberatedestruction by fire, others including a broken stalagmite stalagmite:see stalactite and stalagmite. , some stonemace-heads and one of Catalhoyuk's rare steatopygous ste��at��o��pyg��i��a?n.An extreme accumulation of fat on the buttocks.[steato- + Greek pug femalefigurines. The inclusion of such interesting objects in theconflagration is considered a part of a deliberate and ritualisedabandonment process (cf. Cessford & Near 2006: 172-5; Twiss et al.2008). Given OB312's likely function as a sickle, it is intriguingthat the adjacent room contained two storage bins, one filled withbarley. In total the IST Area has so far produced six blades of thisgreen obsidian (two from disturbed contexts were not analysed), astriking concentration when one considers its small size and the factthat numerous later ECN contexts of the 4040 and south areas (Figure 2)have yet to produce any such material (though the latter area didgenerate a handful of peralkaline blades in the 1960s). It is thussuggested that certain individuals and/or kin-groups, enjoyedpreferential access to these long-distance imports. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] Discussion This small group of peralkaline obsidians reached Catalhoyuk duringthe ECN (7000-6300 cal BC), Period 5 in the Maison del'Orient's Near Eastern chronological scheme (Aurenche et al.2001), likely during the latter centuries of this period. Theirproduction is so far known to have occurred at only a few ECN sites insoutheast Anatolia, and then only at relatively modest levels, as forexample at Cayonu (Ozdogan 1994: 268-70) and Tell Kashkashok II(Nishiaki 2000: 191, Figure 190), with most communities procuring theirperalkaline obsidians in the form of ready-made implements (cf.Kozlowski 1999: 163-4; Nishiaki 2000:189; Arimura 2003:160; Coskunsu2007: 37-8, Table 1). Catalhoyuk's procurement of peralkalineobsidians in the form of unipolar prismatic blades is thus in keepingwith how most people were accessing this material in Period 5. [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] While Bingol and Nemrut Dag obsidians were exploited from the UpperPalaeolithic onwards (Renfrew et al 1966:40-41), it was not untilearly-middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Period 3, 8700-7500 cal BC) thatthey were used on any significant scale (Chataigner 1998: 298-303,Figures 16a-b). During the ECN the use of these raw materials was almostexclusively in the hands of those living to the south and south-east ofthe sources, making their recovery at Catalhoyuk highly anomalous.During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN PPN - Project-Programmer Number.A user-ID under TOPS-10 and its various mutant progeny at SAIL, BBN, CompuServe and elsewhere. Old-time hackers from the PDP-10 era sometimes use this to refer to user IDs on other systems as well. ) obsidians from Cappadocia (mainlyEast Gollu Dag and Nenezi Dag) were used primarily in central Anatolia,Cyprus and the Levant Levant(ləvănt`)[Ital.,=east], collective name for the countries of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean from Egypt to, and including, Turkey. , while those from Bingol and Nemrut Dag wereprocured by communities in south-eastern Anatolia, Upper Mesopotamia andthe Zagros region. Only in the northern Levant does one find sites withraw materials from both regions (Cauvin & Chataigner 1998: 336-40). Over 40 years ago Renfrew et al. (1966: 48) suggested that these'trade' patterns changed in the Chalcolithic (latersixth/fifth millennia BC) becoming 'more casmopolitan andwidespread' in nature. The Catalhoyuk peralkalines suggest thatthis reconfiguration of exchange networks may have had an earlierheritage, in the middle/late seventh millennium BC (Levels VI/V-II atCatalhoyuk), linked in part to the major shifts in Neolithic settlementpatterns and cultural discontinuity at the end of the PPN in south-eastAnatolia and southwest Asia (cf. Ozdogan 2002: 255; Kuijt 2004; Asouti2006: 99; Simmons 2007: 184-94). Up until this moment Catalhoyuk hadlain on the frontier On the Frontier: A Melodrama in Two Acts, by W. H. Auden and Christopher Isherwood, was the third and last play in the Auden-Isherwood collaboration, first published in 1938. of the 'western expansion of theNeolithic' (Ozdogan 2002: 256), but from about this time onwards wewitness the first appearance of farming economies in western andnorth-west Anatolia, a process that is considered to have involved acertain amount of demic diffusion (Ozdogan 2002: 261). Catalhoyuk likelyrepresented one of the parent communities whose members budded-offwestwards, arguably part of a larger dispersal of population groups fromthe east (we make no claims here as to the numbers involved). Ozdogan (2002: 255-57), has commented upon the appearance of newand increased levels of cultural interaction between central Anatoliaand regions to the east in the ECN, as represented by the emergence ofcommon elements in pottery, stamp seals, bone tools and chipped stone(see also Carter et al. 2006b). Highly skilled pressure-flaked bladetechnologies became the primary modes of working obsidian at Catalhoyukaround this time (Conolly 1999), replacing a much simpler percussive per��cus��sive?adj.Of, relating to, or characterized by percussion.per��cussive��ly adv. blade-like flake industry (Carter et al. 2005). We believe thisfundamental shift in production to be the result of the community'sengagement with people from south-east Anatolia and the northern Levant,where such technologies had been practiced for the previous 2000 years(cf. Ozdogan 1994; Nishiaki 2000). This must have involved theintroduction of new people into the community. The appearance ofBingol/Nemrut Dag obsidians at Catalhoyuk thus has irs context in aprofound change in obsidian working, along with roughly contemporarychanges in ceramic, cooking and building technologies (Carter et al.2006a), which together should signal the arrival of newcomers from theeast. The distribution of obsidian has been seen as divided into a'supply zone' where obsidian represented the dominant rawmaterial (> 80 per cent or a chipped stone assemblage), and a'contact zone' in which, at a distance of about 250-350km fromthe sources, the relative quantity of obsidian at any site began todecrease exponentially, with communities at a distance of some 600kmfrom the outcrops having only 1 per cent of their chipped stonecomprised of obsidian (Renfrew et al. 1968:326-31). The inhabitants ofthis 'contact zone' region were considered to be reliant uponintermediaries for access to their obsidian through a process of'down-the-line' exchange, where, having procured a quantity ofthe material they would use a portion, then exchange the remainder tovillages further away (Renfrew 1975: 46-8). At face value the Catalhoyuk peralkaline obsidian figures seem tofit this model, with the site located 650-825km from Bingol/Nemrut Dag,their products comprising c. 0.1 per cent of the IST Area obsidianassemblage (cf. Renfrew et al. 1968: Figure 328). However, since we lackthe intermediary sites between these sources and Catalhoyuk with whichto plot the expected fall-off in obsidian consumption, these exoticobsidians could equally be indicative of what Renfrew (1975: 48-9)termed a directional mode of exchange, where goods were intentionallytaken to a community, rather than making their way to the site'down-the-line'. Questions of agency offer additional kinds of explanation for theeastern obsidians: for example the specific desires of certaininhabitants or targeted gifts by non-locals. Catalhoyuk is an ECN'super site,' located in splendid isolation in the Konya Plain(Baird 2006: 66) with an estimated population of anywhere between3500-8000 people (Cessford 2005). Given its extraordinary size one couldsuggest that the site acted as a magnet, drawing to it non-localsseeking to engage in a variety of social relations, not least marriage,and perhaps at rimes even forms of pilgrimage (cf. Baird 2006:69-71 ;Hodder 2006: 100, 107-8). While previous interpretations ofCatalhoyuk's role in the 'obsidian trade' have largelyconceptualised the site as a node of procurement and redistribution(Mellaart 1967: 23, 176-7), it might be more profitable to think of thecommunity as a centre of consumers (cf. Day & Wilson 1998). It mighttherefore follow that some of the Eastern Anatolian obsidian arrived atthe site as bride-wealth, or other types of gifts/offerings (cf.Bar-Yosef 2001). An inhabitant INHABITANT. One who has his domicil in a place is an inhabitant of that place; one who has an actual fixed residence in a place. 2. A mere intention to remove to a place will not make a man an inhabitant of such place, although as a sign of such intention he of Catalhoyuk used to handling obsidianon a daily basis, would have immediately appreciated the distinctivecolour and texture of these Eastern Anatolian objects as exotic. Conclusion The importance of these exotic blades at Catalhoyuk lies in thefact that they reflect a reconfiguration of regional interaction in theAnatolian ECN. The handful of implements forms part of a range of newideas, raw materials, technologies and objects that served to linkcommunities in the south-east with those living in the Konya Plain,relations that may have been partly initiated through populationmovement. The exact mechanisms and routes by which these connectionswere articulated remain largely unclear. For the inhabitants of thesite, these distinctive implements represented something immediate,personal and meaningful, their distinct visual and haptic haptic/hap��tic/ (hap��tik) tactile. hap��ticadj.Of or relating to the sense of touch; tactile.haptictactile. characteristics enabling their use as media for the encoding andtransmission of social information. These blades could thus in certaincontexts be employed as 'active agents in the maintenance ofcomplex social relations' (Gero 1989: 103), whose procurement andconsumption represented one means of distinguishing their owners fromothers at Catalhoyuk. Acknowledgements The AGLAE analyses were funded by Eu-ARTECH European Grant 07/21(C2RMF), while the UC Berkeley analyses were funded by a grant from theDepartment of Geological and Environmental Sciences, StanfordUniversity. T. Carter's time writing up this project at CRP C-reactive protein (CRP)A protein present in blood serum in various abnormal states, like inflammation.Mentioned in: Pelvic Inflammatory DiseaseCRP,n.pr See C-reactive protein. 2A wasfunded by an Initiative Award from the FranceStanford Center forInterdisciplinary Studies, Stanford University and a grant from theScientific Service, French Embassy in Canada. Nurcan Kayacan of theIstanbul University team at Catalhoyuk first drew attention to theunusual character of the peralkaline obsidians, and we are grateful toher for providing the specimens and to Katsuji Kobayashi for sourcesamples. We further acknowledge Ian Hodder and Shahina Farid forlongterm support, Yasar Yilmaz our on-site government representative andthe staff of Konya Museum. Our work at AGLAE was undertaken under thedirectorship of Thomas Calligaro and involved invaluable help from BriceMoignard, Laurent Pichon and Joseph Salomon, while Claude Ney helpedwith the artefact See artifact. photography. Thanks also to Makoto Arimura, GunerCoskunsu, Gunes Duru, Elizabeth Healey, Osamu Maeda and MihribanOzbasaran for access to unpublished data, advice and critical feedback,while the detailed comments of Craig Cessford, Camilla Mackay and ourAntiquity reviewers greatly improved our text. Any mistakes remain oursalone. References ARIMURA, M. 2003. The lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" production system in the northwesternLevant from the LPPNB to the Early Pottery Neolithic: a view from Tellel-Kerkh 2, in T. Iwasaki & A. Tsuneki 2003 (ed.) Archaeology of theRouj Basin: a regional study of the transition from village to city innorthwest Syria. Volume 1: 155-65. Tsukuba: Department of Archaeology,Institute of History and Anthropology, University of Tsukuba The current university was established in October, 1973. A forerunner of this university was Tokyo University of Education (東京教育大学 . AURENCHE, O., P. GALET, E. REGAGNON-CAROLINE & J. EVIN. 2001.Proto Neolithic and Neolithic cultures in the Middle East--the birth ofagriculture, livestock raising and ceramics: a calibrated [sup.14]Cchronology 12 500-5500 cal BC. Radiocarbon 43:1191-1202. ASOUTI, E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interactionsphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 87-126. BAIRD, D. 2006. The history of settlement and social landscapes inthe Early Holocene in the Catalhoyuk area, in I. Hodder (ed.) Catalhoyukperspectives: themes from the 1995-99 seasons (Catalhoyuk ResearchProject 6/British Institute at Ankara Monograph 40): 55-74. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research is a research institute of the University of Cambridge in England. HistoryThe Institute was established in 1990 through a generous benefaction from the late Dr D. M. McDonald, a well-known and successful industrialist. BAR-YOSEF, O. 2001. Lithics and the social geographicalconfigurations identifying Neolithic tribes in the Levant, in I. Caneva,C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti & P. Biagi (ed.) Beyond tools: redefiningPPN lithic assemblages of the Lepant: 437-48. Berlin: Ex Oriente. CARTER,, T. & M.S. SHACKLEY. 2007. Sourcing obsidian fromNeolithic Catalhoyuk (Turkey) using Energy Dispersive dispersive/dis��per��sive/ (-per��siv)1. tending to become dispersed.2. promoting dispersion. X-ray Fluoresence.Archaeometry 49(3): 437-54. CARTER, T., J. CONOLLY & A. SPASOJEVIC. 2005. The chippedstone, in I. Hodder (ed.) Changing materialities at Catalhoyuk: reportsfrom the 1995-99 seasons (Catalhoyuk Research Project 5/BritishInstitute at Ankara Monograph 39): 221-83, 467-533. Cambridge: McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research. CARTER, T., G. POUPEAU, C. BRESSY & N.J.G. PEARCE. 2006a. A newprogramme of obsidian characterization at Catalhoyuk, Turkey. Journal ofArchaeological Science 33(7): 893-909. CARTER, T., N. KAYACAN, M. MILIC MILIC Moderately Indebted Low Income Country , M. WAS & C. DOHERTY. 2006b.Chipped stone report (Catalhoyuk 2006 Archive Report). Available athttp://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006.pdf. CAUVIN, M.-C. & C. CHATAIGNER. 1998. Distribution del'obsidienne dans les sites archeologiques du Proche et MoyenOrient, in M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau,J.L. Poidevin & C. Chataigner (ed.) L'obsidienne au Proche etMoyen Orient: du volcan a l'outil (British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 738): 325-50. Oxford: Archaeopress. CESSFORD, C. 2005. Estimating the Neolithic population ofCatalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: reports from the1995-99 seasons (Catalhoyuk Research Project 4/British Institute atAnkara Monograph 38): 323-6. Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research. CESSFORD, C. & J. NEAR. 2006. Fire, burning and pyrotechnologyat Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Catalhoyuk perspectives: themes fromthe 1995-99 seasons (Catalhoyuk Research Project 6/British Institute atAnkara Monograph 40): 171-82. Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research. CESSFORD, C. with contributions from P. BLUMBACH, K. GOZE AKOgLU,T. HIGHAM, P.I. KUNIHOLM, S.W. MANNING, M.W. NEWTON, M. OZBAKAN & A.MELEK OZER. 2005. Absolute dating at Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.)Changing materialities at Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-99 seasons(Catalhoyuk Research Project 5/British Institute at Ankara Monograph39): 65-99, 449-50. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch. CHATAIGNER, C. 1994. Les proprietes geochimiques des obsidiennes etIa distinction des sources de Bingo1 et Nemrut Dag, Paleorient 20(2):9-17. -1998. Sources des artefacts neolithiques, in M.-C. Cauvin, A.Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.L. Poidevin & C.Chataigner (ed.) L'obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: du volcana l'outil (British Archaeological Reports International Series738): 273-324. Oxford: Archaeopress. COSKUNSU, G. 2007. Obsidian assemblage of Mezraa Teleilat: evidenceof cultural and chronological continuation from Late Pre-PotteryNeolithic to Pottery Neolithic. Neo-Lithics 2/07: 36-42. DAY, EM. & D.E. WILSON. 1998. Consuming power: Kamares Ware inProtopalatial Knossos. Antiquity 72: 350-58. GERO, J.M. 1989. Assessing social information in material objects:how well do lithics measure up?, in R. Torrence (ed.) Time, energy andstone tools: 92-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . HODDER, I. 2006. The leopard's tale: revealing the mysteriesof Catalhoyuk. London: Thames & Hudson. HURCOMBE, L. 1992. Use wear analysis and obsidian: theoryexperiments and results (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4).Sheffield: R. Collis Publications, Department of Archaeology andPrehistory, University of Sheffield The University of Sheffield is a research university, located in Sheffield in South Yorkshire, England. ReputationSheffield was the Sunday Times University of the Year in 2001 and has consistently appeared as their top 20 institutions. . KOZLOWSKI, S.K. 1999. The eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent:late prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian lithic industries (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 760). Oxford: Archaeopresss. KUIJT, I. 2004. When the walls came down: social organisation,ideology, and the 'collapse' of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, inH.-D.Bienert, H.G.K. Gebel & R. Neef (ed.) Central settlements inNeolithic Jordan: 183-99. Berlin: Ex Oriente. LUGLIE, C., F.-X., LE BOURDONNEC, G. POUPEAU, E. ATZENI, S.DUBERNET, P. MORETTO & L. SERANI. 2007. Early Neolithic obsidians inSardinia (Western Mediterranean): the Su Carroppu case. Journal ofArchaeological Science 34: 428-39. MELLAART, J. 1967. Catal Huyuk: a Neolithic town in Anatolia.London: Thames & Hudson. NISHIAKI, Y. 2000. Lithic technology of Neolithic Syria (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 840). Oxford: Archaeopress. OZDOGAN, M. 1994. Cayonu: the chipped stone industry of the PotteryNeolithic layers, in H.G. Gebel & S.K. Kozlowski (ed.) Neolithicchipped stone industries of the Fertile Crescent: proceedings of thefirst workshop on PPN chipped lithic industries: 267-77. Berlin: ExOriente. -2002. Defining the Neolithic of Central Anatolia, in E Gerard& L. Thissen (ed.) The Neolithic of central Anatolia: internaldevelopments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC:253-61. Istanbul: Eye Yayinlari. OZBASRAN, M. & G. DURU. 2006. IST Area (Catalhoyuk 2006 ArchiveReport). Available at http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2006. POIDEVIN, J.-.L. 1998. Les gisements d'obsidienne de Turquieet de Transcaucasie: geologie, geochemie et chronometrie, in M.-C.Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.L. Poidevin& C. Chataigner (ed.) L'obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient:du volcan a l'outil (British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 738): 105-203. Oxford: Archaeopress. RENFREW, C. 1975. Trade as action ar a distance: questions ofintegration and communication, in J.A. Sabloff & C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.) Ancient civilisation and trade: 3-60.Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press The University of New Mexico Press, founded in 1929, is a university press that is part of the University of New Mexico. External linkUniversity of New Mexico Press . RENFREW, C., J.E. DIXON & J.R. CANN CANN Canadian Association of Neuroscience Nurses . 1966. Obsidian and earlyculture contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society32: 30-72. -1968. Further analysis of Near Eastern obsidians. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 34:319-31. SHACKLEY, M.S. 2005. Obsidian: geology and archaeology in the NorthAmerican southwest. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona (body, education) University of Arizona - The University was founded in 1885 as a Land Grant institution with a three-fold mission of teaching, research and public service. Press. SIMMONS, A.H. 2007. The Neolithic revolution of the Near East:transforming the human landscape. Tucson (AZ): University of ArizonaPress. TWISS, K.C., A. BOGAARD, D. BOGDAN, T. CARTER, M.P. CHARLES, S.FARID, N. RUSSELL, M. STEVANOVIC, E.N. YALMAN & L. YEOMANS. 2008.Arson or accident? The burning of a Neolithic house at Catalhoyuk.Journal of Field Archaeology 33(1): 41-57. Tristan Carter (1), Stephan Dubernet (2), Rachei King (3),Francois-Xavier Le Bourdonnec (2), Marina Milic (4), Gerard Poupeau(2,5) & M. Steven Shackley (6) (1) Department of Anthropology, CNH CNH Carteira Nacional de Habilita??oCNH Centro Nacional de Huracanes (Spanish)CNH California Nevada Hawaii (a district of Kiwanis International)CNH Club N��utico Hacoaj 524, McMaster University, 1280Main Street West, Hamilton, LS8 4L9, Ontario, Canada (2) IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR UMR Unite Mixte de Recherche (French: Mixed Unit of Research )UMR University of Missouri - RollaUMR Upper Mississippi RiverUMR Uniform Methods and Rules (US Department of Agriculture)UMR Unit Manning Report 5060 CNRS-Universite Bordeaux 3, Maison del'Archeologie, Esplanade des Antilles, 33607 Pessac, France (3) Archaeology Center, Building.500, Stanford University,Stanford, CA 94305, USA (4) Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade The University of Belgrade (Serbian: Универзитет у Београду or Univerzitet u Beogradu) is the oldest and most important higher education institution in Belgrade , Cika Ljubina18-20, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia (5) UMR 5198 CNRS-Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle,Departement de Prehistoire, Musee de l'Homme, 17 Place duTrocadero, 75016 Paris, France (6) Department of Anthropology/Berkeley Archaeological XRF Lab,University of California, Berkeley The University of California, Berkeley is a public research university located in Berkeley, California, United States. Commonly referred to as UC Berkeley, Berkeley and Cal , CA 94720-3710, USA