SpringerLink
Log in

Kerpiç production and environmental dynamics in an early sedentary community: micromorphological evidence from Aşıklı Höyük, Central Anatolia (Turkey)

  • Research
  • Published:
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article illustrates how changes in the sediment source, tempering strategies, and sha** process in early Neolithic earthen architecture in Aşıklı Höyük have a major impact on many aspects of techno-environmental know-how traces. Archaeological micromorphology analyses of sun-dried mudbricks (in Turkey, called a specific term: kerpiç), mortars, daub, and their paleoenvironmental contexts were used to examine the tempo and modes of exploitation of the local environment, and chaîne opératoire of kerpiç and mortar recipes, and the possible reasons behind the relationships among material choices, building forms, and wall construction techniques of the earlier inhabitants in Central Anatolia during the establishment of the early settlement, i.e., 8400–7750 BCE. The nature of and changes in the built environment can be traced especially through the mortar recipes that provide various insights into the agro-pastoral activities at the site, including middens, open areas, and penning deposits. During the early Neolithic occupation at Aşıklı Höyük, vegetal tempering occurred as a micro-invention and was developed in relation to the management of fecal and domestic waste used in construction materials. Furthermore, the variability of tempering strategies can be regarded as a cognitive development that resulted from the long-term learning and experimentation background of the Aşıklı people in kerpiç production. The main motivation behind these changes and testing of the recipes was the need for more durable and long-lasting construction of earthen buildings as used by this early sedentary community in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Natural sedimentary deposits beneath the archaeological deposits encountered at − 13.55 m below datum (the highest point on the mound is set to 0.00 m) (Özbaşaran et al. 2018: 58). Approximately depths of the test pit units from the top downwards are Unit 7, − 13.55 m; Unit 6b, − 13.60 m; Unit 6a, − 13.90 m; Unit 5, − 14.00 m; Units 4e, 4d, 4b, 4a, − 14.20/14.25 m; and Units 3b, 3a, 14.30/14.50 m. Gravel deposits were reached at − 15.62 m. The modern water table of the river was reached in 1991 in the first sounding at − 16.03 m (Esin and Harmankaya 1992: 5).

  2. Here, the term “aggregate” is used to mean a sand- to gravel-sized fragment of sediment with internal cohesion and a composition, texture, or fabric that is different from the surrounding matrix. In some cases, the preservation of the original depositional fabric provides clues to the source of the aggregate. For example, an aggregate might contain internal laminations and diatoms that are consistent with nearby lagoonal deposits, while an aggregate containing voids with clay coatings might source from a nearby soil argillic horizon. With regard to the process of kerpiç production, in general, more aggregates are present when less time is invested in the mixing of the material with water. This should not be confused with the term “aggregate” as it is used in the study of lime-, hydraulic lime-, or gypsum-based mortars. In these types of mortars, the aggregate phase is typically composed of rock fragments or mineral grains.

  3. Turves (or sods) are usually shaped by cutting a surface soil perpendicularly into rectangles or strips, after removing the compact rooted portion of the topsoil horizon. Since the root mats of the standing vegetation play a role to keep the turves together, soils with vegetation that form dense and shallow roots are suitable for turve cutting. Turves have been used for several purposes, including fertilization, greenhouse, or seedling cultivation, adjuvant water kee** capacity, and built structures (Huisman and Milek 2017: 113).

References

  • Abell JT, Quade J, Duru G, Mentzer SM, Stiner MC, Uzdurum M, Özbaşaran M (2019) Urine salts elucidate early Neolithic animal management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. Sci Adv 5(4):eaaw0038. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astruc L (2018) Obsidian use during the level 4 occupations at Aşıklı Höyük. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 345–362

  • Baird D (2012a) Pınarbaşı from Epi-paleolithic camp-site to sedentarising village in Central Anatolia. In: Özdoğan M, Başgelen N, Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey: Central Turkey. Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul, pp 181–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird D (2012b) The late Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic of the Anatolian plateau, 13,000–4000 BC. In: Potts DT (ed) A companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near East. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 431–466

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baird D, Fairbairn A, Martin L, Middleton C (2012) The Boncuklu project. In: Özdoğan M, Başgelen N, Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, new excavations, new research, Central Turkey. Archaeology and Art, Istanbul, pp 219–244

  • Balkan-Atlı N, Cauvin MC (1997) 1995 yılı Aksaray, Niğde ve Nevşehir illeri obsidiyen yüzey araştırması. 14. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1:293-311

  • Balkan-Atlı N, Kuhn S, Astruc L, Kayacan N, Dinçer B, Çakan G (2009) Göllü Dağ 2008 survey. Anatolia Antiqua XVII:293–312

  • Buitenhuis H, Peters J, Pöllath N, Stiner MC, Munro ND, Sarıtaş Ö (2018) The faunal remains from levels 3 and 2 of Aşıklı Höyük: evidence for emerging management practices. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 281–323

  • Cammas C (2018) Micromorphology of earth building materials: toward the reconstruction of former technologies processes (protohistoric and historic periods). Quatern Int 30:160–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.01.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirikure S (2017) The metalworker, the potter, and the Pre-European African “laboratory.” In: Mavhunga CC (ed) What do science, technology, and innovation mean from Africa? MIT press, Cambridge, pp 63–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Courty MA, Goldberg P, Macphail RI (1989) Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dix LA (1996) Characterization and analysis of prehistoric earthen plasters, mortars, and paints from mug house Mesa Verde National Park Colorado. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania

  • Doğan U, Koçyiğit A, Yılmaz E (2019) Geomorphological evolutionary history of the Melendiz river valley, Cappadocia, Turkey. Mediterr Geosci Rev 1(2):203–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42990-019-00012-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duru G (2013) Tarihöncesinde insan-mekan, yerleşme-topluluk ilişkisi: MÖ 9. bin sonu – 7. bin başı, Aşıklı ve Akarçay Tepe. Dissertation, Istanbul University

  • Duru G (2014) Deneysel arkeoloji yoluyla Neolitik bir ev yapımı. Colloq Anatolicum 23:131–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Duru G (2018) Sedentism and solitude, exploring the impact of private space on social cohesion in the Neolithic. In: Hodder I (ed) Religion, history, and place in the origin of settled life. University Press, Colorado, pp 162–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duru G, Kayacan N (2018) Volkanik Kapadokya’da epipaleolitik toplulukların izinde: ilk değerlendirmeler. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 45:91–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Duru G, Özbaşaran M, Yelözer S, Uzdurum M, Kuijt I (2021) Space making and home making in the world’s first villages: reconsidering the circular to rectangular architectural transition in the Central Anatolian Neolithic. J Anthropol Archaeol 64:101357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergun M, Birçek E, Tengberg M, Willcox G (2010) Aşıklı Höyük unpublished archeobotanical report

  • Ergun M (2016) People and plant interaction in Central Anatolian Early Neolithic communities: plant consumption and agriculture at Aşıklı Höyük. Dissertation, Istanbul University

  • Ergun M (2018) Where the wild things are. contextual insights into wild plant exploitation at aceramic Neolithic Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. Paléorient 44(2):9–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergun M, Tengberg, M, Willcox G, Douché C (2018) Plants of Aşıklı Höyük and changes through time: first archaeobotanical results from the 2010–14 excavation seasons. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 191–219

  • Ergun M (submitted) Plant food related activities in an early neolithic sedentary community in Volcanic Cappadocia: An archaeobotanical glimpse into daily occupations. In: Dietrich L, Ergun M, Galik A, Lehnig S (eds) Food in Anatolia and its neighbouring regions, Byzas Series, German Archaeology Institute (DAI) Istanbul Department, Zero Books/Ege, Istanbul

  • Esin U (1996) On bin yıl öncesinde Aşıklı: İç Anadolu’da bir yerleşim modeli. Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme: 31–42

  • Esin U, Harmankaya S (2007) Aşıklı Höyük. In: Özdoğan M, Başgelen, N (eds) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Archaeology and Art, Istanbul, pp 255–272

  • Esin U, Bıçakçı E, Özbaşaran M, Balkan-Atlı N, Berker D, Yağmur I, Atlı AK (1991) Salvage excavations at the pre-pottery site of Aşıklı Höyük of Central Anatolia. Anatolica XVII:123–174

  • Esin U, Harmankaya S (1992) Aşıklı Höyük: Akeramik Neolitik evrede yeni bir kültür modeli. Arkeoloji Ve Sanat 54(55):2–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontugne M, Kuzucuoğlu C, Karabıyıkoğlu M, Hatté C, Pastre J-F (1999) From Pleniglacial to Holocene. A 14C chronostratigraphy of environmental changes in the Konya Plain, Turkey. Quaernary Sci Rev 18(4/5):573–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forget MC, Regev L, Friesem DE, Shahack-Gross R (2015) Physical and mineralogical properties of experimentally heated chaff-tempered mud bricks: implications for reconstruction of environmental factors influencing the appearance of mud bricks in archaeological conflagration events. J Archaeol Sci Rep 2:80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.01.008b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French CAI (1984) A sediments analysis of mudbrick and natural features at El-Amarna. In: Kemp BJ, Appleyard HM (eds) Amarna reports 1. Egypt Exploration Society, London, pp 189–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Friesem DE, Boaretto E, Eliyahubehar A, Shahack-Gross R (2011) Degradation of mud brick houses in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological model. J Archaeol Sci 38:1135–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesem DE, Karkanas P, Tsartsidou G, Shahack-Gross R (2014) Sedimentary processes involved in mud brick degradation in temperate environments: a micromorphological approach in an ethnoarchaeological context in northern Greece. J Archaeol Sci 41:556–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesem DE, Wattez J, Onfray M (2017) Earth construction materials: inclusions. In: Nicosia C, Stoops G (eds) Archaeological soil and sediment micromorphology. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 99–107

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg P (1979) Geology of late bronze age mudbrick from Tel Lachish. Tel Aviv 6(1–2):60–67. https://doi.org/10.1179/033443579788497478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Elgar M (2008) The devolution of mudbrick: ethnoarchaeology of abandoned earthen dwellings in the Bolivian Andes. J Archaeol Sci 35(12):3057–3071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield HJ (2010) The secondary products revolution: the past, the present and the future. World Archaeol 42(1):29–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haaland MM, Czechowski M, Carpentier F, Lejay M, Vandermeulen B (2019) Documenting archaeological thin sections in high-resolution: a comparison of methods and discussion of applications. Geoarchaeology 34(1):100–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamard E, Cammas C, Lemercier B, Cazacliu B, Morel JC (2020) Micromorphological description of vernacular cob process and comparison with rammed earth. Front Archit Res 9(1):203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homsher RS (2012) Mud bricks and the process of construction in the middle bronze age southern Levant. Bull Am Sch Orient Res 368:1–27. https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.368.0001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman DJ, Milek KB (2017) Turf as construction material. In: Nicosia C, Stoops G (eds) Archaeological soil and sediment micromorphology. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 113–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Itahashi Y, Stiner MC, Erdal ÖD, Duru G, Erdal YS, Miyake Y, Güral D, Yoneda M, Özbaşaran M (2021) The impact of the transition from broad-spectrum hunting to sheep herding on human meat consumption: multi-isotopic analyses of human bone collagen at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. J Archaeol Sci 136:105505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan F (2017) Tarihöncesi mekanlarında işlev belirlenmesinde kullanılan yöntemler: Aşıklı Höyük örneği. Dissertation, Istanbul University

  • Kalkan F, Özbaşaran M, Özbal R (2020) Tarihöncesi mekanlarda gerçekleştirilen faaliyetlerin tanımlanmasında toprak kimyası analizinin rolü: Aşıklı Höyük örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 50:240–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkanas P, Goldberg P (2019) Reconstructing archaeological sites: understanding the geoarchaeological matrix. Wiley Blackwell, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayacan N, Goring-Morris AN, Duru G, Özbaşaran M (2022) A prehistoric survey in Cappodocia and a new early Holocene site, Balıklı: preliminary insights into the local chipped stone industries. In: Nishiaki Y, Maeda O, Arimura M (eds) Tracking the Neolithic in the Near East lithic perspectives on its origins, development and dispersals. Sidestone, Leiden, pp 387–396

  • Kemp B (2000) Soil (including mud-brick architecture. In: Nicholson P, Shaw I (eds) Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzucuoğlu C (2002) The environmental frame in Central Anatolia from the 9th to the 6th millenia cal BC. In: Gerard F, Thissen L (eds) The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC. Ege, Istanbul, pp 33–58

  • Kuzucuoğlu C (2013) Geomorphology of the Melendiz river in Cappadocia (Turkey): setting of Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites of Aşıklı and Musular, and climate reconstruction during the onset of the Holocene. Geogr Fis Din Quat 36:95–105. https://doi.org/10.4461/Gfdq.2013.36.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzucuoğlu C, Özbaşaran M, Dumoulin JP, Saulnier-Copard S (2020) Geoarchaeological and chronological reconstruction of the Aşıklı PPN site spatial development (Central Anatolia, Turkey). In: Tsirtsoni Z, Kuzucuoğlu C, Nondédéo P, Weller O (eds) Different times? Archaeopress, Paris, Archaeological and environmental data from intra-site and off-site sequences, pp 43–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzucuoğlu C (2019) Geomorphological landscapes in the Konya plain and surroundings. In: C Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı N (eds) Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey. Springer, Berlin, pp 353–358

  • Kuzucuoğlu C, Mouralis D, Türkecan A (2013) Geomorphological map** as an illustration of geomorphological evolution reconstruction: the example of the Çiftlik plain in Cappadocia (Niğde). In: Öner E (ed) Profesör Doktor İlhan Kayan’a armağan. Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, Bornova, pp 133–144

  • Kuzucuoğlu C, Dumoulin JP, Saulnier-Copard S (2018) Geomorphological and palaeoenvironmental setting of Aşıklı Höyük. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 15–43

  • Lorenzon M (2021) From chaff to seagrass: the unique quality of Minoan mudbricks. A geoarchaeological approach to the study of architectural craft specialization in Bronze Age Crete. J Archaeol Sci: Rep 40:103122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzon M, Nitschke JL, Littman RJ, Silverstein JE (2020) Mudbricks, construction methods, and stratigraphic analysis: a case study at Tell Timai (ancient thmuis) in the egyptian delta. Am J Archaeol 124(1):105–131. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.124.1.0105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love S (2012) The geoarchaeology of mudbricks in architecture: a methodological study from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology 27(2):140–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love S (2013) Architecture as material culture: building form and materiality in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Anatolia and Levant. J Anthropol Archaeol 32(4):746–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love S (2017) Field methods for the analysis of mud brick architecture. J Field Archaeol 42(4):351–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1345222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews W (2012) Household life histories and boundaries: microstratigraphy and micromorphology of architectural surfaces in Building 3 (BACH). In: Tringham R, Stevanovic M (eds) Last house on the hill BACH Area reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 205–222

  • Matthews W (2016) Humans and fire: changing relations in early agricultural and built environments in the Zagros, Iran, Iraq. Anthropocene Rev 3(2):107–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616636134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHenry PG (1984) Adobe and rammed earth buildings: design and construction. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcintosh RJ (1974) Archaeology and mud wall decay in a West-African village. World Archaeol 6:154–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1974.9979599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer SM (2018) Micromorphological analyses of anthropogenic materials and insights into tell formation processes at Aşıklı Höyük, 2008–2012 field seasons. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 105–128

  • Mouralis D, Pastre J-F, Kuzucuoğlu C, Türkecan A, Atıcı Y, Slimak L, Guillou H, Kunesch S (2002) Les complexes volcaniques rhyolitiques quaternaires d’Anatolie centrale (Göllüdağ et Acıgöl, Turquie): genèse, instabilité, contraintes environnementales. Quaternaire 13(3/4):219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouralis D, Aydar E, Türkecan A, Kuzucuoğlu C (2019) Quaternary landscapes and prehistoric sites in Southern Cappadocia: Göllüdağ, Acıgöl and Hasandağ. In: Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı N (eds) Landscapes and landforms of Turkey. Springer, Verlag, pp 551–565

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nicosia C, Stoops G (eds) (2017) Archaeological soil and sediment micromorphology. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Nodarou E, Frederick C, Hein A (2008) Another (mud) brick in the wall: scientific analysis of bronze age earthen construction materials from east Crete. J Archaeol Sci 35:2997–3015. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAS.2008.06.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norby LV (2006) Archaeological site conservation at Mesa Verde national park. In: Rainer L, Rivera AB (eds) The conservation of decorated surfaces on earthen architecture. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp 36–48

  • Özbaşaran M (2011) Re-Starting at Aşıklı. Anatolia Antiqua 19:27–37. https://doi.org/10.3406/anata.2011.1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özbaşaran M (2012) Aşıklı. In: Özdoğan M, Başgelen N, Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, new excavations, new research, Central Turkey. Archaeology and Art, Istanbul, pp 135–158

  • Özbaşaran M, Duru G (2015) The early sedentary community of Cappadocia: Aşıklı Höyük. In: Beyer D, Henry O, Tibet A (eds) La Cappadoce méridionale, de la préhistoire à la période Byzantine. Institut français d’études anatoliennes, Istanbul, pp 43–51

  • Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Uzdurum M (2018) Architecture of the early settlement and trends through the cultural sequence. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 57–103

  • Pearson JA, Buitenhuis H, Hedges REM, Martin L, Russell N, Twiss KC (2007) New light on early caprine herding strategies from isotope analysis: a case study from Neolithic Anatolia. J Archaeol Sci 34:2170–2179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters J, Neuberger F, Wiechmann I, Zimmermann M, Balasse M, Pöllath N (2018) Sha** the sheep: human management and decision-making at Aşıklı Höyük, Central Anatolia. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 325–344

  • Portillo M, García-Suárez A, Matthews W (2020) Livestock faecal indicators for animal management, penning, feddering and dung use in early agricultural built environments in the Konya plain, Central Anatolia. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 12(40):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00988-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quade J, Shanying L, Stiner MC, Clark AE, Mentzer SM, Özbaşaran M (2014) Radiocarbon dating, minerology, and isotopic composition of hackberry endocarps from Neolithic Aşıklı Höyük, Central Turkey. Radiocarbon 56(4):17–25. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rc.56.18322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quade J, Stiner MC, Copeland A, Clark AE, Özbaşaran M (2018) Summary of carbon-14 dating of the cultural levels of Aşıklı Höyük. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 43–56

  • Roberts N, Reed J, Leng M, Kuzucuoğlu C, Fontugne M, Bertaux J, Woldring H, Bottema S, Black S, Hunt E, Karabıyıkoğlu M (2001) The tempo of Holocene climatic change in the eastern Mediterranean region: new high-resolution crater-lake sediment data from central Turkey. Holocene 11(6):721–736. https://doi.org/10.1191/09596830195744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen AM (1986) Cities of clay: the geoarchaeology of tells. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux V (2010) Technological innovations and developmental trajectories: social factors as evolutionary forces. In: O’Brien MJ, Shennan SJ (eds) Innovation in cultural systems, contributions from evolutionary anthropology. MIT, Massachusetts, pp 217–233

  • Schumacher ML (2018) Biomolecular and micromorphological analyses of suspected fecal deposits at Neolithic Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. Dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tübingen

  • Shahack-Gross R, Finkelstein I (2008) Subsistence practices in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological investigation in an iron age site, the Negev highlands, Israel. J Archaeol Sci 35(4):965–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAS.2007.06.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherratt AG (1981) Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In: Hodder I, Isaac G, Hammond N (eds) Pattern of the past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 261–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterry N (ed) (2000) Terra 2000: eighth international conference on the study and conservation of earthen architecture. James and James, London

  • Stiner MC, Buitenhuis H, Duru G, Kuhn SL, Mentzer SM, Munro ND, Pöllath N, Quade J, Tsartsidou G, Özbaşaran M (2014) A forager–herder trade-off, from broad-spectrum hunting to sheep management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. PNAS 111(23):8404–8409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322723111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiner MC, Özbaşaran M, Duru G (2022a) Aşıklı Höyük: the generative evolution of a Central Anatolian PPN settlement in regional context. J Archaeol Res 30:497–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-021-09167-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiner MC, Munro ND, Buitenhuis H, Duru G, Özbaşaran M (2022b) An endemic pathway to sheep and goat domestication at Aşıklı Höyük (Central Anatolia, Turkey). PNAS 119(4):e2110930119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2110930119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiner MC, Bailey Ks, Munro ND, Christidou R (2018) Spatial and zooarchaeological evidence of human-animal interactions in the Early PPN settlement at Aşıklı Höyük. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 219–258

  • Stoops G (1984) Petrographic study of mortar and plaster samples. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 22:164-170

  • Stoops G (2003) Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections. Soil Science Society of America, Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  • Torraca G, Chiari G, Gullini G (1972) Report on mud brick preservation. Mesopotamia 7:259–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsartsidou G (2018) The microscopic record of Aşıklı Höyük: phytolith analysis of material from the 2012–2016 field seasons. In: Özbaşaran M, Duru G, Stiner MC (eds) The early settlement of Aşıklı Höyük: essays in honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege, Istanbul, pp 147–189

  • Tung B (2005) A preliminary investigation of mudbrick at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder I (ed) Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük reports from the 1995–99 seasons, vol 5. BIAA, Cambridge, pp 215–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzdurum M (2018) Live together around fire: hearths and the use of space at the onset of sedentism. Aşıklı Höyük (Turkey), a case study. In: Douché C, Pichon F (eds) From the Caucasus to the Arabian Peninsula: domestic spaces in the Neolithic. Routes de l’orient, Paris, pp 11–49

  • Uzdurum M (2019) MÖ 9. ve 8. bin yıl kerpiç mimarisine mikroarkeolojik bir yaklaşım: Aşıklı Höyük’te kerpiç ve harç tarifleri. Dissertation, Istanbul University

  • Uzdurum M, Duru G (2021) Arkeolojik hayvan dışkısı çalışmalarına çok-göstergeli yaklaşım: Orta Anadolu, Akeramik Neolitik Dönem yerleşmesi Aşıklı Höyük’ten yeni bulgular. Anadolu Araştırmaları-Anatolian Research 24:33–66. https://doi.org/10.26650/anar.2021.24.914913

  • Van der Veen M (2010) Agricultural innovation: invention and adoption or change and adaptation? World Archaeol 42(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240903429649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh MJ, Riede F, O’Neill S (2019) Cultural transmission and innovation in archaeology. In: Prentiss AM (ed) Handbook of evolutionary research in archaeology. Springer, Cham, pp 49–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann M, Pöllath N, Özbaşaran M, Peters J (2018) Joint health in free-ranging and confined small bovids. Implications for early stage caprine management. J Archaeol Sci 92:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Andrew Cohen and Georgia Tsartsidou for diatom and phytolith observations, Mustafa N. Tatbul for preparing the topographic map, Panagiotis Kritikakis for help with thin section production, and Shira Gur-Arieh for productive discussions on dung. We also wish to thank colleagues, students, and workers of the Aşıklı Research Project for their contribution. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü has been most helpful in providing excavation and sample export permissions.

Funding

Analyses performed during this work were supported by research grants to Melis Uzdurum from the American Research Institute in Turkey (ARIT) and Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (RCAC); National Science Foundation Grants (BCS-09121418 and BCS-1354138) to Mary C. Stiner; a German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) research grant to Susan M. Mentzer; Ludwig Maximilian University-Istanbul University Funding to Joris Peters (6647); and the ENVIMED, ARCHEOMED, and GOWEST Programmes of the INEE Department of the CNRS in Paris as well as the ARTEMIS Programme of the LSCE Laboratory in Orsay to Catherine Kuzucuoğlu (LGP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Melis Uzdurum

  2. Department of Geosciences, Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, Institute for Archaeological Sciences, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany

    Susan M. Mentzer

  3. Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts, Istanbul, Turkey

    Güneş Duru

  4. Laboratoire de Géographie Physique: Environnements Quaternaires Et Actuels (LGP), UMR 8591, CNRS, Paris 1 and Paris 12 Universities, Paris, France

    Catherine Kuzucuoğlu

  5. Department of Prehistory, Faculty of Letters, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mihriban Özbaşaran

Authors
  1. Melis Uzdurum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan M. Mentzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Güneş Duru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Kuzucuoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mihriban Özbaşaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.U.: conceptualization, methodology, sample collection, formal analysis and investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, visualization. S.M.M.: conceptualization, methodology, sample collection, formal analysis and investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, visualization. G.D.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—review and editing, project administration, supervision. C.K.: conceptualization, sample collection, formal analysis and investigation, writing—review and editing, visualization. M.Ö.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—review and editing, project administration, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melis Uzdurum.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competig interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 13 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uzdurum, M., Mentzer, S.M., Duru, G. et al. Kerpiç production and environmental dynamics in an early sedentary community: micromorphological evidence from Aşıklı Höyük, Central Anatolia (Turkey). Archaeol Anthropol Sci 15, 204 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01904-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01904-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation