Eur asian Pre his tory, 9 (1–2): 129–137.

LITHIC AS SEM BLAGES FROM THE PRE HIS TORICSET TLE MENT AT BARCIN HÖYÜK, NORTH WEST ERN

ANATOLIA. NEW RE SULTS

Ivan Gatsov1, Marvin Kay2 and Petranka Nedelcheva1

In Memoriam Lilyana Pernicheva

1 New Bul gar ian Uni ver sity, 1618 So fia, 21 Mon te vi deo Str., Bul garia; igatsov@ya hoo.com,pnedelcheva@nbu.bg

2 Uni ver sity of Ar kan sas De part ment of Antropology, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA; mkay@uark.edu

Ab stractThis pa per deals with the main tech no log i cal and ty po logi cal char ac ter is tics of the Neo lithic chipped stone as sem -

blages from the South Marmara and Aegean re gions of North west ern Anatolia. Those as sem blages are as signed to the 7–6mil len nia BC. On the whole the re search re veals un der lin ing uni for mity con cern ing lithic in dus try and the sys tem of pro -cure ment, which im plies that there is some ev i dence for com mon lithic tra di tions as well as the ex is tence of sim i lar en vi -ron men tal con di tions.

Key words: Neo lithic, Chipped stones, Use-wear

IN TRO DUC TION

The aim of this pa per is to pres ent the gen eralna ture of the lithic in dus try from ex ca va tions car -ried out at pre his toric set tle ments of BarcÏnHöyük site in light of new re sults, ac quired re -cently (Gatsov et al., 2009: 35–48), and a pre lim i -nary mi cro scopic use-wear anal y sis con ducted in2012. More over the lithic col lec tions from Akto-praklÏk (Karul and AvcÏ, 2011; BalcÏ 2011: 1–11), IlÏpÏnar (Roodenberg and Thissen, 2001;Roodenberg and Alpaslan Roodenberg, 2008),Menteºe (Roodenberg et al., 2003), Fikirtepe,Pendik, (ÖzdoÈan, 1983) are also dis cussed in thispa per. In ad di tion, in for ma tion is pro vided fromthe re search car ried out at the pre his toric set tle -ments of Ulucak, Izmir re gion (ÇilingiroÈlu andAbay, 2005: 5–21; ÇilingiroÈlu 2009: 3–27; 2011).

Since the 2005 ex ca va tions of Ja cob Rooden- berg, the BarcÏn set tle ment has been a point of in -ter est for the Neth er lands In sti tute in Tur key (Is -tan bul). From 2007 to the pres ent, the re search

has been con tin ued un der the di rec tion of FokkeGerritsen. And af ter the com ple tion of ex ca va -tions at IlÏpÏnar and Menteêe, the set tle ment ofBarcÏn Höyük has been se lected as the long-termre search pro ject of the In sti tute.

RAW MA TE RI ALS

Pro cure ment of flint is much more com monthan ob sid ian. The flint is di vided into un mod i fied and burnt; the lat ter iden ti fied by dif fer ences insur face luster, heat craz ing and char ac ter is ticpotlid frac tures. In the al ready stud ied lithic as -sem blages of IlÏpÏnar and Menteêe and those nowun der study at BarcÏn Höyük and AktopraklÏkflint va ri et ies are dom i nant, while the fre quencyof ob sid ian is quite lim ited (Gatsov, 2009). Ob -sid ian ar ti facts from BarcÏn Höyük are mostlysmall, nar row and thin blade frag ments, a crestedspec i men, a few small re touched flakes, and some end scrap ers.

The lo ca tion of the ac tual flint and ob sid iancore prep a ra tion and blade re duc tion is still notknown. Dur ing the ex ca va tions of IlÏpÏnar andMenteêe, no work shops have been found or iden -ti fied. BarcÏn Höyük flint and ob sid ian cores andcore frag ments as well as core de rived prod uctshave been re corded. Nev er the less, in terms of theex ca vated area of BarcÏn Höyük set tle ment it is

still im pos si ble to de ter mine def i nitely whether or not the prep a ra tion of flint and ob sid ian cores ac -tu ally took place in situ. How ever, it should betaken into ac count that once the ex ca va tion willbe en larged, a work shop or work shops might yetbe un cov ered (Fig. 1).

At the time be ing ca. 1600 Neo lithic flint andob sid ian pieces with se cure strati graphic con texts

130 I. Gatsov et al.

Fig. 1. Map of the re gion with site lo ca tion

Ta ble 1Dis tri bu tion by raw ma te rial types

and tech no log i cal cat e go ries

Ob sid ian Flint Oth ers To tal

Cores 1 23 2 26

Cor ti cal spec i mens 2 46 2 50

Crested spec i mens 11 35 3 49

De bris 11 288 30 329

Flakes 10 154 5 169

Blades 165 510 31 706

Re touched tools 15 206 24 245

To tal 215 1262 97 1574

Ta ble 2Dis tri bu tion of core types by raw

ma te rial va ri et ies

Ob sid ian Flint Oth ers To tal

Uni di rec tional 8 8

Uni di rec tional withrounded flak ingsur face

3 3

Core frag ment 1 7 2 10

Bul let core 4 4

Frag ment of bul letcore

1 1

To tal 1 23 2 26

have been pro cessed, with the dis tri bu tion by rawma te rial types and tech no log i cal groups (cat e go -ries) ob served and pre sented be low (Ta bles 1, 2).

Tech nol ogyThe core spec i mens com prise flint and ob sid -

ian uni di rec tional blade cores, quite ex hausted,core frag ments of sin gle plat form con i cal coresand bul let cores. Some of them bear traces ofprep a ra tion on their sides and back. The de tach -ment tech nique is mainly that of pres sure flak ing(prob a bly stand ing) re sult ing in flint and ob sid ianblades and bladelets.

Flint bladelets, which are less than 15 mm inwidth (AltÏnbilek-Algül et al., 2012) com prise ca.12% of all the flint blades prod ucts. Among theob sid ian blade prod ucts all 100% of them are lessthan 15 mm of width.

The 2011 sea son pro vided, among otherlithics, blade and bladelet uni di rec tional con i cal,subconical and bul let cores. The core re duc tionpro cess por trays three main tech niques: pres sure,punch or in di rect per cus sion and di rect per cus -sion. The pres sure tech nique was ob served mostly on the con i cal cores, in which re duc tion reached a high de gree of ex haus tion and re sult ing in roun-ded or semi rounded uni di rec tional flak ing sur -faces. Those pieces fea ture a flak ing sur face cov -er ing the en tire or al most the en tire cir cum fer ence of the nod ule vol ume. At the fi nal stage of pres -sure tech nique re duc tion the con i cal spec i mensbe came bul let cores (Fig. 2: 4, 6; Ta ble 3).

The BarcÏn Höyük lithic tech nol ogy is char -ac ter ized by blades and bladelets pro duced fromthe core types pre sented above. This re sulted intyp i cal tool as sem blages. Flint and ob sid ian pres -sure blades and bladelets dis play small butts,slightly curved pro files, and ex tremely reg u laredges but with out in ten tional re touch ing (Figs 2:3, 6; 3: 7).

The punch or in di rect per cus sion (i.e., thesec ond type of blade de tach ment) tech nique wasem ployed to pro cure “larger” blades. As a rule,the blades were ob tained dur ing the be gin ning ofthe core knapping pro cess and they are mostly rel -a tively thick, ir reg u lar and curved spec i mens. The prox i mal blade ends pre served a thick butt, of tenwith the part of the over hang.

The di rect per cus sion tech nique, the thirdvari ant ob served, was ap plied mostly to core pre-

paration ac tiv i ties and to flake de tach ment. Mostof these flakes are non-di ag nos tic and not used asa blank.

Pre lim i nary Use-wear Anal y sisAs a com ple ment to on go ing lithic tech no log -

i cal stud ies de scribed here, we ini ti ated a use-wear study of BarcÏn Höyük lithics in July, 2012.The fol low ing out lines the sam ple stud ied, meth -ods of study, and the re sults.

The in tent was to study Neo lithic pris maticblade ar ti facts from the BarcÏn Höyük col lec tionsob tained by the se nior au thor and Nedelcheva inFeb ru ary, 2012. Sam ple se lec tion fol lowed twocon sid er ations. First, a site ref er ence col lec tion of 30 flint and three ob sid ian ar ti facts was se lected;sec ond, ran dom sam ples were drawn of dif fer entarea of the site of flint and ob sid ian ar ti facts. Ul ti -mately, a sam ple of 116 lithic ar ti facts was ex am -ined for mi cro scopic wear traces com pris ing: onefrom Trench L11, 59 from Trench L13, sevenfrom Trench M10, and 49 from Trench M11.Only 23 ob sid ian ar ti facts were stud ied – onefrom trench M10 (a bul let core) and 22 fromtrench M11 (all are pris matic blades). The rest ofthe sam ple are flint items. The ac tual time pe riodrep re sented by the ex ca va tion trenches is still un -re solved, thus only the ar ti facts from Trench L13can be con sid ered as most likely of a Neo lithicage (Gerritsen per sonal com mu ni ca tion, July2012). Ac cord ingly, this sum mary em pha sizes the Trench L13 ar ti facts.

Over all, the re search is a pre lim i nary and first endeavour of mi cro scopic use-wear meth ods dis -cussed more broadly else where (Hardy et al.,2001; Kay, 1996; 1998) ap plied to col lec tionsfrom west ern Anatolia. The mi cro scopic use-wear as sess ment fol lows pro ce dures that bridge trace-ological (Semenov, 1964) and pol ish for ma tion(Keeley, 1980) ap proaches, and is an chored in ac -tual ex per i men ta tion with stone tool rep li cas.Most im por tant are striations and as so ci ated tra-ceological wear that of ten cross cut what are likely sil ica gel res i dues, or microplates, on tool sur -faces and edges (Fig. 4). The mi cros copy em ploys a re flected light bin oc u lar mi cro scope with po lar -ized light at mag ni fi ca tions of 100, 200, and 500di am e ters; most scans and iden ti fi ca tions are done at 100× and fur ther doc u men ta tion at 200x. Onlyrarely is 500× needed or used. The anal y sis addre-

Lithic as sem blages from the Pre his toric set tle ment at BarcÏn Höyük 131

132 I. Gatsov et al.

Fig. 2. 1, 4 – Macro end-scrap ers; 2, 7, 9 – Semi-cir cu lar end-scrap ers; 3 – Ob sid ian bladelet; 5 – Drill; 6 – Flintbladelet; 8 – Varia

Lithic as sem blages from the Pre his toric set tle ment at BarcÏn Höyük 133

Fig. 3. 1 – Macro end-scraper; 2, 8 – Drill; 3 – Re touched blade; 4 – Frag ment of ob sid ian bul let core; 5 – Per fo -ra tor; 6 – Bul let core; 7 – Flint bladelet

sses (1) dif fer en ti a tion be tween taphonomic al ter -ations and ev i dence of tool use or hafting; (2) de -ter mi na tion of pro duc tion stages of man u fac -ture-use-re cy cling; and (3) tool func tion and likelycon tact ma te rial for those ar ti facts em ployed astools. Key or ga niz ing con cepts of ex trac tive (i.e.,re source pro cure ment and ex ploi ta tion) and main -te nance (i.e., fab ri ca tion and re pair) tools are de -rived from Binford and Binford (1966); socio-tech nic (i.e., sta tus mark ers) and ideotechnic as so -ci a tions (i.e., rit u ally sym bolic and cos mo log i cal)are based on Binford (1962). The re sults of use-wear anal y ses are bal anced against other lines ofin for ma tion about the ar ti facts and the ar chae o log i -cal site from which they de rive.

Func tional groups are summed up ac cord ingto the ex ca va tion trenches in Ta ble 4. Those in -clude tool and non-tool groups. Among the non-

tools are debitage, or waste by-prod ucts, of pris -matic blade man u fac ture ac count ing for 30 items,four pre forms (un fin ished tools) and 25 in con clu -sive spec i mens. (Tech ni cally speak ing, the bul letcore would also be debitage.) For rea sons of ob -ject size or taphonomy, the ‘in con clu sive spec i -mens’ ei ther could not be eas ily viewed mi cro -scop i cally due to ob ject thick ness or had obscu-ring pseudo-wear that pre cludes a func tional as -sess ment, de rived most prob a bly from concho-idal frac ture or post-depositional al ter ation. Fol -low ing Binford and Binford (1966), the tools aredi vided fur ther into ex trac tive and main te nancegroups. The ex trac tive tools in clude ar row heads,in va sive cut ting tools, and sickle blades; all oth ers are main te nance, or fab ri cat ing, tools.

Us ing Trench L13 as a Neo lithic bench mark,the sam ple is dom i nated by main te nance tools plussickle blades. Trans verse ar row heads have but onerep re sen ta tive from this trench yet this type isbetter rep re sented in trenches M10 and M11.

CON CLU SIONS

Broad func tional sim i lar i ties ex ist be tweentrenches L13 and M11. Al though spec u la tive, this

134 I. Gatsov et al.

Ta ble 3Dis tri bu tion of re touched tools

and raw ma te rial types

Obsi-dian

Flint Oth ers To tal

End-scraper on blade 3 9 6 18

Dou ble end-scraper 4 4

End-scraper on flake 30 2 32

Cir cu lar end-scraper 3 3

Semi-cir cu lar end-scraper 5 5

Mi cro end scraper 1 1

Macro end scraper 12 12

Thick end-scraper 12 12

Core end scraper 1 1

Frag ment of end-scraper 23 23

Re touched blade 1 22 1 24

Notched blade 2 2

Denticulated blade 1 14 5 20

Per fo ra tor 2 17 1 20

Drill 1 9 2 12

Dou ble drill 1 1

Trun ca tion 2 8 10

Dou ble trun ca tion 1 1

Re touched flake 3 5 8

Splint ered piece 1 2 3

Frag ment of re touched tool 1 23 5 29

Varia 3 1 4

To tal 15 206 24 245

some of these tools are il lus trated ( Figs 2: 5, 8; 3: 2, 3, 5, 8)

Ta ble 4Func tional groups summed up ac cord ing

to the ex ca va tion trenches

TrenchTotal

L11 L13 M10 M11

In con clu sive 11 1 13 25

Debitage 16 14 30

Pre form 3 1 4

Ar row head 1 3 4 8

Per fo ra tor-drill 5 1 2 8

Cut ting non-in va sive 3 3

Cut ting in va sive 4 4

Scraper un used 1 1

Scraper-hide 4 1 1 6

Scraper-hard con tact 7 7

Sickle stage 1-2 4 4 8

Sickle stage 3+ 1 6 3 10

Wedge 1 1

Bul let core 1 1

To tal 1 59 7 49 116

cor re spon dence may be due ei ther to the same ac -tiv ity, to po ten tial time equiv a lence, or both. Most re mark able is the pro gres sive us age of sickleblades wit nessed by the two trenches. These in di -cate a well de vel oped tech nol ogy of her ba ceousplant har vest ing expectable with ce real grain ag ri -cul ture. Us age of sickle blades con tin ued un tilthey had been dulled to the point of ex haus tion.Or what would be ex pected in bal anc ing out lithicre source scar city with the econ omy of pris maticblade pro duc tion and largely suc cess ful at temptsto pro long tool use life.

Put to gether, the tech no log i cal and ty po logi -cal fea tures of the BarcÏn Höyük chipped stone as -sem blages por tray a tech nol ogy which over all issim i lar to a great ex tent with that from phases Xand IX in IlÏpÏnar, Menteºe, Fikirtepe and Pendik.

The re sem blance can be ob served in the sim i -lar core types with dil i gent prep a ra tion and the

sim i lar re duc tion tech niques tar get ing blades andbladelets. Among the for mal tools the flat semicir cu lar (Fig. 2: 2, 7, 9) or cir cu lar end-scrap ersof ten with a trace of cor tex on the dor sal side ap -pear in all the as sem blages listed above. Verycharacteristic are also the ‘thick’ end scrap ersmade on mas sive flakes, whose height var ies be -tween 15 to 24 mm with their fronts shaped by anir reg u larly steep re touch. The macro end scrap ersare dis tin guished by their sizes, i.e., more than 50mm in length or width (Fig. 2: 1, 4; Fig. 3: 1).

An other par al lel can be found in the pres enceof mi cro end scrap ers (length less than 25 mm),char ac ter is tic per fo ra tors and drills on ir reg u larblades, re touched blades with mar ginal par tial re -touch and denticulated ones.

Other char ac ter is tic fea tures are the lack ofburins, ar row heads, backed blades, re touched bla- delets, and seg ments. We should also men tion

Lithic as sem blages from the Pre his toric set tle ment at BarcÏn Höyük 135

Fig. 4. Ad vanced (stage 4) sickle sheen on pris matic blade BH 14709, Trench L11. Note, on the right, the sicklesheen over rides ear lier edge dam age whereas, on the left, it is trun cated by edge dam age that likely re sulted in re -jec tion of the blade

few tra pezes, or trans verse ar row heads, from un-se cure strati graphic con texts, which does notchange the gen eral pic ture as re gards the na ture of the chipped stone as sem blage de scribed herein.

The main tech no log i cal and ty po logi cal char -ac ter is tics of the BarcÏn Höyük lithic in dus try arein deed sim i lar to those of the as sem blages listedabove. This fact in di cates the ex is tence of sharedtech no log i cal tra di tions as well as sim i lar en vi -ron men tal con di tions be tween the set tle mentslocated south of Marmara on one hand and thecoastal ones on the other (ÖzdoÈan, 2011a; 2011b;Karul, 2011).

Chro no log i cally the ear li est ap pear ance ofcon i cal and bul let core tech nol ogy and cor re spond -ing tools is tes ti fied at the set tle ment of Ulucak,level V (ÇilingiroÈlu and Abay, 2005: 12; Çilin-giroÈlu, 2009: 7, fig.2) and Menteºe (Rooden-berg et al., 2003: 17–59). Thus the be gin ning ofthis tech nol ogy is as signed to mid 7th mil len niumBC, while its lat est ap pear ance is ob served inphase VB of IlÏpÏnar set tle ment – e.g. 5500– 5450BC (Roodenberg, 2001: 257–278). This par tic u lar tech nol ogy lasted for ca. one thou sand years with -out any sig nif i cant al ter ations as re gards the tech -no log i cal and ty po logi cal fea tures, which can becon sid ered as a su pra re gional phe nom e non. (Gat- sov and Nedelcheva, 2011: 93).

Ac knowl edg ments

We grate fully ac knowl edge fi nan cial and othersup port by the Amer i can re search cen ter in So fia andIn ter na tional Col lab o ra tive Ar chae o log i cal and Bio-archaeological Re search Pro gram (ICAB).

REF ER ENCESALTINBILEK-ALIIL C., ASTRUC L., BINDER D.,

PELEGRIN J. 2012. Pres sure Blade Pro duc tionwith a Le ver in the Early and Late Neo lithic of theNear East. In: P. Desrosiers (ed.) The Emer gence ofPres sure Blade Mak ing: From Or i gin to Mod ernEx per i men ta tion, Springer, New York-Dordrecht-Hei del berg-Lon don, 157–179.

BALCI S. 2011. The chipped stone in dus try of Akto-praklÏk C (Bursa): Pre lim i nary re sults. AnatoliaAntiqua 19, 1–11.

BINFORD L.R. 1962. Ar chae ol ogy as an thro pol ogy.Amer i can An tiq uity 28, 217–225.

BINFORD L.R., BINFORD S.R. 1966. A pre lim i naryanal y sis of func tional vari abil ity in the Mous terian

of Levallois faces. In: J.D. Clark and F.C. Howell(eds.) Re cent Stud ies in Paleoanthropology. Amer i -can An thro pol o gist Spe cial Pub li ca tion No. 68,238–295.

ÇILINGIRO(LU Ç. 2009. Of Stamps, Loom Weightsand Spin dle Whorls: Con tex tual Ev i dence on theFunc tion(s) of Neo lithic Stamps from Ulucak,Izmir, Tur key. Jour nal of Med i ter ra nean Ar chae ol -ogy 22(1), 3–27.

ÇILINGIRO(LU Ç. 2011. The cur rent stage of re -search at Ulucak, Izmir. Be gin nings – New re searchin the ap pear ance of the Neo lithic be tween North -west Anatolia and the Carpathian ba sin. In: D.Ciobotaru, B. Horejs and R. Krauss (eds.) Men-schen-Kulturen – Traditionen, Band 1. Verlag Ma -rie Leidorf Gmbh, Rahden, 67–76.

ÇILINGIRO(LU A., ABAY E. 2005. Ulucak Höyükex ca va tions: new re sults. Med i ter ra nean Ar chae ol -ogy and Archaeometry 5(3), Spe cial Is sue, 5–21.

GATSOV I. 2009. Pre his toric Chipped Stone As sem -blages from East ern Thrace and the South Marmara Re gion 7th–5th millenium BC. BAR In ter na tionalSe ries 1904. Archaeopress, Ox ford.

GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P., ÖZBAL R.,GERRITSEN F. 2009. Pre his toric BarcÏn Höyük:2007 Ex ca va tions and Chipped Stone Ar ti fact Anal -y sis. In: F. Drasovean (ed.) Ten Years Af ter: TheNeo lithic of the Bal kans as Un cov ered by the LastDe cade of Re search. Mu seum of Banat Pub li ca -tions, Timisoara, 35–48.

GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P. 2011. Neo lithic chip-ped stone as sem blages in North West ern Anatolia,Tur key. Eur asian Pre his tory 8(1–2), 89–95.

HARDY B.L., KAY M., MARKS A.E., MONIGAL K. 2001. Stone tool func tion at the Paleolithic Sites ofStarosele and Bu ran Kaya III, Cri mea: be hav ioralim pli ca tions. Pro ceed ings of the Na tional Acad emyof Sci ences of the United States of Amer ica 98(19),10972–10977.

KARUL N. 2011. The emer gence of Neo lithic life inSouth and East Marmara re gion. In: D. Ciobotaru,B.Horejs and R. Krauss (eds.) Menschen-Kulturen – Traditionen, Band 1. Verlag Ma rie Leidorf Gmbh,Rahden, 57–65.

KARUL N., AVCI B. 2011. Neo lithic com mu ni ties inthe East ern Marmara re gion: AktopraklÏk C. Ana-tolica XXXVII, 1–15

KAY M. 1996. Microwear anal y sis of some Clovis andex per i men tal chipped stone tools. In: G.H. Odell(ed.) Stone Tools: The o ret i cal In sights into Hu manPre his tory. Ple num Press, New York, 315–344.

KAY M. 1998. Scratchin’ the sur face: stone ar ti factmicrowear eval u a tion. In: M.B. Col lins (ed.) Wil -son-Leon ard An 11,000-year Ar che o log i cal Re cordof Hunter-Gath er ers in Cen tral Texas. Vol ume III:

136 I. Gatsov et al.

Ar ti facts and Spe cial Ar ti fact Stud ies. Stud ies in Ar -che ol ogy 31, Texas Ar che o log i cal Re search Lab o -ra tory, Uni ver sity of Texas at Aus tin and Ar che ol -ogy Stud ies Pro gram Re port 10, Texas De part mentof Trans por ta tion En vi ron men tal Af fairs Di vi sion,Aus tin, 743–794.

KEELEY L.H. 1980. Ex per i men tal De ter mi na tion ofStone Tool Uses: A Microwear Anal y sis. Uni ver sityof Chi cago Press, Chi cago.

ÖZDO(AN M. 1983. Pendik: A Neo lithic Site ofFikirtepe Cul ture in the Marmara Re gion. In: R.M.Boehmer und H. Hauptmann (eds.) Beitrage zurAltertumskunde Klei asien, Festschrift fur KurtBittel, Mainz, 401–411.

ÖZDO(AN M. 2011a. Ar chae o log i cal Ev i dence onthe West ward Ex pan sion of Farm ing Com mu ni tiesfrom East ern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Bal -kans. Cur rent An thro pol ogy 52, S415–S430.

ÖZDO(AN M. 2011b. An Ana to lian per spec tive on

the Neolithization Pro cess in the Bal kans. Newquestions, new pros pects. In: D. Ciobotaru, B.Hores and R. Krauss (eds.) Menschen-Kulturen –Traditionen, Band 1. Verlag Ma rie Leidorf Gmbh,Rahden, 23–33.

ROODENBERG J., THISSEN L. (eds.). 2001. TheIlÏpÏnar Ex ca va tions II. PIHANS 93, Leiden-Is tan -bul.

ROODENBERG J., van AS A., JACOBS L., WIJNENM. 2003. Early set tle ment in the plain of Yeniºehir(NW Anatolia). The basal oc cu pa tion lay ers atMenteºe. Anatolica 29, 17–59.

ROODENBERG J., ALPASLAN ROODENBERG S.2008. Life and Death in a Pre his toric Set tle ment inNorth west Anatolia. The IlÏpÏnar Ex ca va tions III.With con tri bu tions on Hacýlartepe and Menteºe.PIHANS 110, Leiden.

SEMENOV S. A. 1964. Pre his toric Tech nol ogy. Cory,Ad ams, & MacKay, Lon don.

Lithic as sem blages from the Pre his toric set tle ment at BarcÏn Höyük 137