re-starting at aşikli

Anatolia Antiqua XIX (2011), p. 27-37
Mihriban ÖZBAARAN*
RE-STARTING AT AIKLI
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a brief presentation of the actual
state of work at Aıklı Höyük, the 9th-8th mill cal
B.C. settlement of Cappadocia, in Central Anatolia.
The site has been under excavation on behalf of the
Istanbul University between 1989 and 2001 by
U. Esin, and during the succeeding two seasons by
N. Balkan Atlı. The fieldwork had a pause in 2004
and works in the following years focused basically
on the study of the archaeological material. Meanwhile, a protection and preservation program was
carried out under a heritage management project
that included the re-construction of a part of the domestic quarter of the settlement next to the mound,
as an archaeological park. The finalisation of site
management activities (Özbaaran et al. 2010) gave
rise to the re-excavations in 2010.
The results obtained from the first stage of excavations, when contextualized within the data of
the Neolithic sites in Central Anatolia, underscored
the importance of Aıklı in terms of chronology to
better understand the neolithisation of the region.
Radiocarbon samples dated the site to the late 9th
and early 8th mill cal B.C. with an uninterrupted sequence of ca. 1000 years. The data displayed a
series of transitional characteristics of a forager/producer community. The transition was from wild to
domestic in conceptual and practical terms as revealed
by important data on subsistence, as well as in architectural features and settlement pattern. The Aıklı
inhabitants founded the earliest settlement so far
known in the region in one of the rich environmental
micro-niches, the Melendiz valley, of the volcanic
landscape of Cappadocia (Esin 1998a). The 1000
years of continuous occupation showed the diachronic
evolution of the community. The data displayed
some distinctive local features and regional characteristics1. An overall assessment on the characteristics
of the Aıklı culture was published recently by U.
Esin and S. Harmankaya (2007), following annual
reports and papers on the first results of the study of
the archaeological material. The list of publications,
including the unpublished MA and PhD theses, is
given in the bibliography for the reader. These researches led to new fine-scaled and detailed questions.
Further analyses of the material are needed as well
as a re-evaluation of data in a wider context. Hence,
a micro-scale and problem-oriented project started
as the second stage of work at Aıklı. The methodology
was revised, new analyses were included and new
specialists joined the team. The aim of this paper is
to present the preliminary observations of the recent
excavation season outlining the questions put by the
new project.
AIKLI-THE STRATIGRAPHY
Aıklı is one of the most extensively excavated
sites in the Neolithic of Western Asia: the excavated
area measures ca. 12% of the 4,5 ha site. The large
exposures revealed basically the remains of the
well-preserved settlement of the 8th millenium (level
2). At present, there are four main levels identified,
1 to 4 from top to bottom (Esin 2007). The uppermost
level 1 was almost totally destroyed prior to the excavations. Partial floors and walls were documented,
however the building plans were incomplete and
the settlement layout was unclear. Level 2, is the
most widely known level with its 10 building phases.
The latest three phases (2A-2C) were excavated on
the top of the mound (Fig. 1) in an area of more
than 4000 m2, whereas the succeeding phases of
level 2 (2D-2K) and the lower levels (3 and 4) were
investigated in the deep trench 4GH on the northern
side of the mound. Another area where the early
phases of level 2 were also excavated was in the
northwestern slope, trench 2-3 JK (Fig. 2).
Two different methods of excavation were applied
in each of these areas to reach the early levels and to
*) Istanbul University.
1) For obsidian industry, see Balkan Atlı 1994; for settlement layout, see Esin 1996: 40.
28
MHRBAN ÖZBAARAN
Fig. 1 : The architectural remains of the 8th mill cal B.C. settlement exposed on top of the mound.
Level 2, building phases 2A-C.
fully understand the stratigraphy. In the deep trench
4GH, the architectural remains in each level were
totally removed after they had been excavated and
documented. This operation resulted in obtaining
conspicuous sections of more than 10 m in height
on the southern, eastern and western side of the excavated area (Fig. 3). They provided a highly readable
picture of the evolution through time of the area,
displaying changes in the use of space between
levels 3-4 and 2, and/or a strict building continuity
through level 2. On the northwestern slope, a different
strategy was applied. The architectural remains of
each level and building phase were excavated without
being removed, taking advantage from the slope
(Fig. 4). So far, the earliest building phases of level
2 have been exposed here, while the lower levels
have not yet been excavated.
AIKLI 2010
With the re-start of the excavations in 2010,
fieldworks focused basically on level 4, in the deep
trench 4GH. The objective is to fully understand the
characteristics of the early occupation. The existence
of more archaeological deposits under level 4 is
known from the test sounding in trench 4 F, carried
out during the first two seasons in 1989 and 1990.
The sounding documented the presence of minimum
2.0 additional meters of archaeological fill (Esin Harmankaya 1999a: 118).
Levels 3 and 4 are radiocarbon dated to the end
of the 9th millenium cal B.C.2 (see Table 1, below)
and level 2 is dated to the first half of the 8th
millenium cal B.C. The dates obtained from level 2
were published by Esin (1995a: 75-76; 1998b: 103;
1999b: 21) whereas a compilation of them, in com-
2) Aıklı team is thankful to the C14 Lab at Gröningen State University for the dating. In 2009 and 2010, further sampling was
done; samples were charcoal, endocarps of Celtis, animal bones and seeds from each level/building phase, which are under process at
present at the Arizona University, USA.
RE-STARTING AT AIKLI
Fig. 2 : The topographical plan of Aıklı showing the excavated areas (re-drawn by G. Duru)
(each grid measures 10x10 m).
29
30
MHRBAN ÖZBAARAN
Fig. 3 : The deep trench of 4GH, levels 1-3.
Fig. 4 : The ‘slope trench’ on the northwest of the mound, level 2 with its building phases.
RE-STARTING AT AIKLI
Lab. No.
GrN-28624
GrN-28616
GrN-28621
GrN-28614
GrN-28622
GrN-28618
GrN-28623
GrN-28617
Level
3C/3D
3C
3D
3E/4
4
4
4
4
BP
8760 ± 25
8860 ± 60
8940 ± 40
8840 ± 50
8790 ± 60
8940 ± 40
8770 ± 60
8980 ± 40
cal B.C.
7940-7730
8210-7870
8250-7990
8190-7820
8170-7720
8250-7990
7960-7710
8280-8010
Table 1 : The recently dated samples of
levels 3 and 4. All are charcoal samples.
parison with the dates of the other Neolithic sites in
Central Anatolia, was published in Thissen 2002b:
301-302.
The results of the 2010 season presented below
are preliminary. Additional data will come in future
both from the deep trench 4 GH and from the slope
trench in grids 2-3JK with further investigations.
The present-day excavation area of level 4 in 4 GH,
measures 150 m2.
Although they were named separately, levels 3
and 4 can be considered together in terms of chronology and in use of space. Both are distinct in some
aspects from the 8th mill cal B.C. settlement of level
No real stratigraphical gap existed between levels 2.
3 and 2, but a thick sediment (an average of 0,20 m)
found in the entire area in 4 GH, defined the change
in the arbitrary levels. The macroscopic observations
during the fieldwork led to the hypothesis that this
sediment was formed as a result of a flood or the
washing of building materials after heavy rain (Esin Harmankaya 2007: 257). Further remarks on soil
micromorphology also suggested water stagnation
and/or moisture. This observation was supported by
the poorly preserved state and melted down walls of
the kerpiç buildings of level 3A. Micromorphological
analyses are ongoing and results are awaited before
any further interpretation. The ‘heavy rain sediment’
lies between the earliest building phase of level 2
(2K) and the latest building phase of level 3 (3A).
Level 3 showed similarities in building plans to
the 8th millenium settlement (level 2) and in use of
space to the 9th millenium (level 4). The characteristics
of the buildings, the building layouts and the archaeological material exposed in five building phases
of level 3 (3A-3E) were summarised by U. Esin and
S. Harmankaya (1999a: 119 and 2007: 257-258).
31
The rectangular buildings were all built with kerpiç
walls. Hearths found in these structures showed
similarities in the location and plan to level 2
(Özbaaran 1998). The buildings were located in an
open space that was used as an activity area. This
area would later be used basically as a midden in
level 2.
Excavations in 2010 evidenced a similar picture
in level 4, as regards the continuity in the use of
space as an activity area, however with a significant
difference in plans of the buildings. Three sub-oval
kerpiç buildings were exposed in level 4 (Fig. 5-6).
They stood separately from each other in a wide,
open space used as an external activity area. A rectangular building, similar in plan to the buildings of
level 2 or 3, was located in the same area, west of
the open space. The sub-oval buildings were seemingly
semi-subterranean: this statement stays open and
has to be confirmed by further excavation. Buildings
so far excavated in level 4 did not have any indoor
hearths. Fire installations were located in external
areas.
Another interesting feature was the methods of
construction of the kerpiç walls. The long blocks
that were used in the walls of two of the sub-oval
buildings were shaped by hand after they have been
placed on the wall (Fig. 7). Contrarily, the walls of
the third sub-oval structure in the same level, and of
the rectangular building, had regular moulded kerpiç
blocks. The third documented wall type was made
by pressing kerpiç soil in between two (probable
wooden?) plaques that defined the width of the
wall. The technique is known as dökme kerpiç3, a
technique also used even if rarely in level 2.
The open space surrounded by buildings covered
a large area and evidenced a variety of daily activities.
A shallow depression (Space 1), measuring ca.
2,5 m in diameter, located northwest of the open
space, was one of the well-defined activity areas
(Fig. 8). Its floor was earth plastered and renewed.
On its latest floor there were two pairs of post
bases. Preliminary study of the material from the
floor showed in situ manufacture and use of obsidian
tools, as well as use of bone tools. As working hypotheses the following technical operations could
be represented: harvesting of cereals (sickle brought
back to the area), cutting and scraping soft material
–meat/fresh hide, siliceous vegetal and fresh soft
wood, piercing of soft material and cutting soft/middle-soft worked material. The open space could
therefore be defined as a working area, with a light
3) This technique is known as pisé; however, pisé is also used to define hand-shaped kerpiç blocks. In order to avoid confusion,
we use the Turkish expression dökme kerpiç, a technique which is similar to the one described by Aurenche (1977: 138; fig. 371).
Fig. 6 : The sub-oval building 3, 2010.
Fig. 7 : Hand-shaped kerpiç blocks of the west wall of
building 3, 2010.
Fig. 5 : The 9th mill settlement, excavations in 2010.
32
MHRBAN ÖZBAARAN
RE-STARTING AT AIKLI
structure shelter, where a variety of activities was
conducted.
The rest of the open area did not show such
well-defined structures, but the fill and the concentration of the archaeological material on specific
patched areas (Fig. 8) allowed figuring out a preliminary interpretation of the different uses of the
space. In a burnt area dense remains of calcified
stones of Celtis (Fig. 9) were found. In another area,
a small pit full of burnt deposits (Fig. 10), and in another different area a concentration of phytoliths,
most probably remains of grass were identified.
The animal bones exposed in the area had a
quiet rich composition, Ovis/Capra being the most
common, followed by small game including birds,
turtles, fish and aurochs and equids. The archaeobotanical remains of the same level suggested harvesting
of a mixture of wild and domesticated emmer along
with gathered fruits such as pistachio, almond and
hackberry. This pattern is similar to the 8th mill settlement (van Zeist - de Roller 1995).
FURTHER QUESTIONS
Excavations of the early levels presented promising data about the changes in the sequence. The
continuity in the settlement layout and in the life
way was basically documented in level 2. The
changes that recently came into view though were
mainly between the 9th and the 8th mill, i.e. between
level 4 and 2. Such changes were, a) transition from
oval buildings to rectangular, b) transport of the external activity areas from the ground level to rooflevel, c) change in the layout, from isolated buildings
to clustered neighbourhood (cf. the actual data with
that of level 2 in Esin 1998a: 92; Esin - Harmankaya
1999a: 125). These revealed important data not only
on how the 8th millennium settlement evolved but
also on some debatable social and behavioural
aspects of the community. The characteristics of the
settlement, especially the strict building continuity,
the fixed location of the middens, the gradual change
in lithic industry at first sight had led previously to
consider the Aıklı community as traditional (Thissen
2002a: 14, 24) and conservative (Esin - Harmankaya
1999a: 130 and the discussions in p. 98, in Gérard Thissen 2002). Yet the 2010 data signaled shifts.
The changes remarked between levels versus the
steady state through the building phases in level 2
require further study and new readings on social
rules of the community.
Changes in other aspects of the culture, such as
in the obsidian industry, were also recognized,
however they were slight and gradual and happened
33
at different times. A general look to the technological
characteristics (Abbes et al. 1999; Balkan-Atlı 1994;
Yıldırım - Balcı 2007) indicated dominance of unidirectional knapping in levels 3 and 4 and bidirectional
knapping in level 2, although both were present
through the sequence. As for tool types, scrapers
were the most common through the whole sequence.
Yet, scrapers on blade/bladelets were dominant in
the early levels whereas scrapers on flakes replaced
them towards the end of the 8th mill (level 2B).
Truncated blades were common in the early levels
of 3 and 4 and they continued up to the early phases
of the 8th mill (2G). Microliths also existed all
through the sequence and displayed a variety of
forms, including geometrics. The change was in
size and in quantity. In early levels up to 2G, they
were smaller and numerous (Yıldırım - Balcı 2007:
364-375). The lithic studies of levels 3-4 are ongoing,
accompanied by use wear analysis that recently
started in 2010.
The preliminary investigations on the botanical
samples showed a mixture of wild and domestic cereals (mainly emmer) in the 9th mill settlement (level
4) that need to be tested with much larger samples
in the coming years. Domesticated cereals were in
cultivation in the 8th mill, although they were rare in
relation to the wild plants (van Zeist - de Roller
2003). Changes in subsistence, the scale of food
production, the importance of gathering plant resources
and the hypothesis of ‘proto-domestication’ (of sheep
and goat, Buitenhuis 1997) are some of the basic research questions that are currently under study. The
faunal composition of the early levels was consistent
with that of the late levels, with sheep being dominant,
but smaller animals were considerably more diverse
specifically in level 4. Small animals included hare
and game birds such as bustard and duck, hedgehog,
and small fish. Domestication of sheep/goat indicated
a transitional stage in level 2. The studies on age,
sex and size (of Ovis/Capra) suggested a high degree
of control over these animals. Dung remnants
observed by means of micromorphological analysis
strengthened the suggestion of animal captivity on
the site, although the wild morphometric characters
do not seem to have changed. The questions focus
on how widely the Aıklı community depended on
domestic food supply and what the motivation was
for the change. Hence, the diachronic evolution in
conceptual, technological and social manner through
the 1000 years of occupation was designated as one
of the research priorities of the new project.
Taking advantage from the wide exposures of
the 8th mill settlement, discussions on horizontal
levels focus on the social characteristics of the com-
Fig. 8 : An activity area with three post holes, 4GH, 2010.
Fig. 10 : A pit with burnt deposit
in the external open space in 4GH, 2010.
Fig. 9 : Concentration of Celtis remains in the
external open space, 4GH, 2010.
34
MHRBAN ÖZBAARAN
RE-STARTING AT AIKLI
munity. The uniform and repetitive data, the lack of
distinguished features and finds, the public character
of the special-function quarter had suggested to
define a community-level cooperative way of life at
Aıklı. Whether it is communality or cohesion, the
social mechanism that maintained to hold the community together and live together for hundreds of
years, is another important research question under
study. Population analysis has not yet been done,
and the early occupation is known only from a
limited area. Nevertheless there are indications of
an increase in population with the start of the 8th
millennium. A rough estimation (depending basically
on architecture) indicates hundreds of people that
lived at the same time. This brings back the problem
of the social organisation of the community and the
way they managed to live together. Evidence on
conflict, stress and/or risk did not show up at Aıklı.
The general picture presents a peaceful, site-inverted
way of living in direct reciprocity with the nature
through the entire sequence. The site was abandoned
around 7400/7000 cal B.C.4. The current data do not
have any indication about why they left the site.
The future work at Aıklı aims to focus on these
wide ranges of questions about one of the most remarkable periods in human history.
35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The new participants of the Project, to whom I
am thankful for their participation and their preliminary
results on the 2010 work, are as follows: L. Astruc,
CNRS, IFEA; R. Christidou, Wiener Institute, American School of Athens; D. Friesem, Bar Ilan University;
M. Grenet UMR 5608, Toulouse Le Mirail University;
D. Grimstead and S. Mentzer, University of Arizona;
J. Pelegrin UMR 7055, Paris X University; J. Peters
and N. Pöllath, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitaet;
J. Quade, University of Arizona; R. Shahack Gross,
Bar Ilan University; M. Stiner, University of Arizona,
M. Tengberg, MNHN, Paris I University; G. Willcox,
CNRS 5133, Lyon 2 University. I am also deeply
thankful to all of the ‘old’ members with whom we
work since 1989. The Aıklı Project 2010 was
carried out with the permission of Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlıı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüü and supported by Scientific Research Projects
Coordination Unit of Istanbul University, Project
number 6647. Last not least, I am thankful to I.
Caneva, L. Astruc and G. Arsebük who kindly accepted to review the text.
M.Ö.
4) Cf. the sattelite sites around Aıklı dating to the end of its occupation; specifically Musular. Excavation results of Musular
allowed to interpret the site as one of the sattelite sites (Duru - Özbaaran 2005; Özbaaran 2003) that emerged during the latest
occupational phases of Aıklı. Further research on the other ‘sattelites’ will test the present hypothesis as well as extending the
abandonment date of Aıklı to 7000 cal B.C.
36
MHRBAN ÖZBAARAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The sign * indicates additional publications of Aıklı,
which are not referred in the text.
Abbes, F., Balkan Atlı, N., Binder, D. and Cauvin,
M.C., 1999 : “Etude Téchnologique Préliminaire de I’Industrie Lithique d’Aıklı Höyük”, TÜBA-AR II : 117137.
Aurenche, O., 1977 : Dictionnaire Illustré Multilingue
de L’architecture du Proche Orient Ancien. Maison de
L’Orient Méditerranaéen Ancien. Lyon.
Balkan Atlı, N., 1992* : “Aıklı Höyük : un Asentamiento en Anatolia Central”, Arquelogia Prehistórica
del Próximo Oriente, U.A.B. 1989, 1990, 1991 (eds. M.
E. Aubet-M Molist) : 43-49.
– 1993* : “Aıklı Höyük (Aksaray) Yontma Ta
Endüstrisinin Teknolojik ve Tipolojik Açıdan ncelenmesi”,
VIII. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı : 213-225.
– 1994 : “The Typological Characteristics of Aıklı
Höyük Chipped Stone Industry”, Neolithic Chipped Stone
Industries of the Fertile Cresent (eds. H. G. Gebel-S. K.
Kozlowski), Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN
Chipped Lithic Industries (1993) : 209-221.
Bıçakçı, E. and Özbaaran, M., 1991* : “Aıklı Höyük
1989, 1990 : Building Activities”, Anatolica XVII : 136145.
Buitenhuis, H., 1996* : “Archaeozoology of Holocene
in Anatolia : A Review”, Archaeometry’94, (eds. . Demirci,
A. M. Özer, G. D. Summers) : 411-421. Tübitak, Ankara.
– 1997 : “Aıklı Höyük : a protodomestication site”,
Anthropozoologica 25-26 : 655-662.
Bulur, E., Wieser, A., Özer, A. and Göksu, H.Y.,
1996* : “Electron Spin Resonance and Thermoluminescence
Studies of Tooth Enamels and Obsidians from Aıklı
Höyük, Turkey”, Archaeometry’94 (eds. . Demirci, A.
M. Özer, G. D. Summers) : 643-654. Tübitak, Ankara.
Büyükarakaya, A.M. and Erdal, Y.S., 2006* : “Çayönü
ve Aıklı Neolitik Toplumlarında Büyüme Bozuklukları”,
21. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı : 63-78.
Dede, Y., 1997* : Aıklı Höyük Kerpiç Yapılarının
Korunması Üzerine Çalımalar. stanbul Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamı Yüksek Lisans
Tezi.
Duru, G., 2002* : “Some architectural indications for
the origins of Central Anatolia”, The Neolithic of Central
Anatolia (eds. F. Gérard - L. Thissen) : 171-180.
– 2005* : Yakındou Neolitiinde Orta Anadolu
Bölgesi Neolitik Dönem Mimarlıının Yeri. stanbul
Teknik Üniversitesi, Yayımlanmamı Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Duru, G. and Özbaaran, M., 2005 : “A non-domestic
site in Central Anatolia”, Anatolia Antiqua XIII : 15-28.
Ertu, F., 1997* : An Ethnoarchaeological Study of
Subsistence and Plant-Gathering in Central Anatolia.
Washington University, Unpublished PhD thesis.
Esin, U., 1991* : “Aıklı Höyük (Kızılkaya-Aksaray)
Kurtarma Kazısı 1989”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi XXIX :
1-34.
– 1992* : “1990 Aıklı Höyük Kazısı (Kızılkaya
Köyü-Aksaray li)”, XIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I :
131-153.
– 1993a* : “Zum Ursprung der Kastenbauweise in
Anatolien”, Istanbuler Mittelungen 43 : 123-128.
– 1993b* : “Copper Beads of Aıklı”, Aspects of Art
and Iconography : Anatolia and Its Neighbors. Studies in
Honor of Nimet Özgüç : 179-183.
– 1993c* : “1991 Aıklı Höyük Kazısı (Aksaray li,
Kızılkaya Köyü) Kurtarma Kazısı”, XIV. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I : 131-146.
– 1994a* : “Akeramik Neolitik Evrede Aıklı Höyük”,
XI. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi : 29-38.
– 1994b* : “1992 Aıklı Höyük (Kızılkaya-Aksaray)
Kurtarma Kazısı”, XV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I : 77-95.
– 1995a : “Early Copper Metallurgy at the Pre-Pottery
Site of Aıklı”, Readings in Prehistory, Studies Presented
to Halet Çambel : 61-77. Graphis Yayınları, Istanbul.
– 1995b* : “Aıklı Höyük ve Radyo-Aktif Karbon
Ölçümleri”, . Metin Akyurt - Bahattin Devam Anı Kitabı,
Eski Yakın Dou Kültürleri Üzerine ncelemeler (eds. A.
Erkanal, H. Erkanal, H. Hüryılmaz, A. T. Ökse) : 135146.
– 1996 : “On Bin Yıl Öncesinde Aıklı : ç Anadolu’da
Bir Yerleim Modeli”, Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da
Konut ve Yerleme. Habitat II : 31-42.
– 1998a : “Aıklı Kültürü”, Cappadocia/Kapadokya
(ed. M. Sözen) : 83-95. Ayhan ahenk Vakfı, stanbul.
– 1998b : “The Aceramic Site of Aıklı and its Ecological Conditions Based on its Floral and Faunal Remains”,
TÜBA-AR 1 : 95-103.
– 1998c* : “Hunted animals at Aıklı and the environment”, Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Antropology and Paleolinguistics in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi (eds. P. Anreiter,
L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem, W. Meid) : 215-226.
– 1999a* : “Die Akeramischen Siedlungen von Aıklı
Höyük in Zentralanatolien”, Çalar Boyunca Anadolu’da
Yerleim ve Konut Uluslararası Sempozyumu 5-7 Haziran
1996 : 175-187. Ege Yayınları, stanbul.
– 1999b : “Some Archaeological Evidence from the
Aıklı Excavations for Climatic Fluctuations in Central
Anatolia During the early Holocene 10./9.Mill. BP”,
Anadolu Aratırmaları XV : 1-26.
– 1999c* : “Copper Objects from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Aıklı (Kızılkaya Village, Province of
Aksaray, Turkey)”, The Beginnings of Metallurgy (eds.
A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, T. Rehen, Ü. Yalçın) : 22-30,
Bochum.
– 2000* : “1998 Aıklı Höyük (Aksaray li) Kurtarma
Kazısı Raporu”, 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1 : 71-80.
– 2000* : “Aıklı Höyük Kurtarma Kazıları”, Türkiye
Arkeolojisi ve stanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999 ) (ed. O.
Belli) : 80-86, stanbul.
– 2007 : “Aıklı Höyük”, Die aeltesten Monumente
der Menschheit/nsanlıın En Eski Anıtları : 114, 458.
Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe.
Esin, U. and Harmankaya, S., 1992 * : “Aıklı
Höyük : Akeramik Neolitik Evre’de Yeni Bir Kültür
Modeli”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 54/55 : 2-12.
RE-STARTING AT AIKLI
– 1999a : “Aıklı”, Neolithic in Turkey, The Cradle
of Civilisation (eds. M. Özdoan-N. Bagelen) : 115132. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, Istanbul.
– 1999b* : “Aıklı Höyük Kazısı 1997”, XX. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı I : 101-114.
– 2007 : “Aıklı Höyük”, Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem
(eds. M. Özdoan-N. Bagelen) : 255-272. Arkeoloji ve
Sanat, Istanbul.
Esin, U., Bıçakçı, E., Özbaaran, M., Balkan Atlı,
N., Berker, D., Yamur, . and Atlı, A.K., 1991* : “Salvage
Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Site of Aıklı Höyük of
Central Anatolia”, Anatolica XVII : 123-174.
Gérard, F. and Thissen, L., 2002 : The Neolithic of
Central Anatolia. Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Gülçur, S., 1994* : “Aıklı Höyük Çitlenbikleri”, IX.
Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı : 101-109.
Güldoan, E., 2002* : Aıklı Höyük Sürtme Ta
Endüstrisi ve Sorunları. stanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamı Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Kaya, M., 2002* : Aıklı Höyük 4GH Derin Sondaj
Açması Kemik Buluntuları. stanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamı Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Özbaaran, M., 1998 : “The Heart of a House : The
Hearth-Aıklı Höyük, a Pre-pottery Neolithic Site in
Central Anatolia”, Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies
Presented to Halet Çambel (eds. G. Arsebük-M. J. MellinkW. Schirmer) : 555-566, stanbul.
– 2003 : “Musular-Aıklı likisinde Kireç Tabanlı
Yapılar”, Ufuk Esin’e Armaan, Köyden Kente, Yakındou’da lk Yerleimler, (eds. M. Özdoan, H. Hauptmann,
N. Bagelen) : 2. Cilt : 361-372.
Özbaaran, M., Duru, G., Teksöz, D., Omacan, S.,
2010 : “Yaayan Geçmi : Aıklı Höyük”, TÜBA Kültür
Envanteri Dergisi 8 : 215-228.
Özbek, M., 1992* : “Aıklı Höyük Neolitik nsanları”,
VII. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı : 145-160.
– 1993a* : “Aıklı Höyük Neolitik Ça nsanları”,
VIII. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı : 201-212.
– 1993b* : “Antropologia de les Poblacions Neolítiques
de Çatal Höyük, d’Aıklı ı de Çayönü (Turqia)”, Cota
Zero 9 : 31-35, Barcelona.
– 1994* : “Aıklı Höyük nsanları (1990 ve 1992 Buluntuları)”, IX. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı : 23-31.
37
– 1996* : “Aıklı Neolitik Ça nsanlarında Aız
Salıı ve Beslenme”, 1995 Yılı Anadolu Medeniyetleri
Müzesi Konferansları : 82-93.
– 1998* : “Human Skeletal Remains From Aıklı, a
Neolithic Village Near Aksaray, Turkey”, Light on Top
the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel (eds.
G. Arsebük, M. J. Mellink, W. Schirmer) : 567-579,
Istanbul.
– 1999* : “Aıklı (Aksaray) Neolitik Ça Erkeinde
Demir Eksikliinden Kaynaklanan Rahatsızlık”, Belleten
LXX/234 : 391-402.
Thissen, L., 2002a : “Time trajectories for the Neolithic
of Central Anatolia”, The Neolithic of Central Anatolia
(eds. F. Gérard - L. Thissen) : 13-26. Ege Yayınları,
Istanbul.
– 2002b : Appendix I. CANeW 14C databases and 14C
charts, Anatolia, 10,000-5000 cal B.C., The Neolithic of
Central Anatolia (eds. F. Gérard - L. Thissen) : 299-337.
Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Yalçın, Ü. and Pernicka, E., 1999* : “Frühneolithische
Metallurgie von Aıklı Höyük”, The Beginnings of Metallurgy. Der Anschnitt 9 (eds. A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka,
T. Rehen, Ü. Yalçın ) : 45-54. Bochum.
Yıldırım, B.S., 2007 : Orta Anadolu Obsidyen Teknolojisi : Aıklı Höyük Modeli, Tekno-Kültürel Kökeni ve
Evrimi. stanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Yayımlanmamı Doktora Tezi.
Yıldırım, S., 1999* : Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik
Dönemde Ok ve Mızrak Uçlarının Geliimi, Aıklı Höyük
Örnei. stanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,
Yayımlanmamı Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Yılmaz, Y., 2002* : Aıklı Höyük skeletlerinin Morfolojik Olarak Karılatırmalı ncelenmesi. stanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamı Yüksek
Lisans Tezi.
van Zeist, W. and Jan de Roller, G., 1995 : “Plant
Remains from Aıklı Höyük, A Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Site in Central Anatolia”, Vegetation History and Archaebotany 4 : 179-185.
– 2003 : “Some Notes on the Plant Husbandary of
Aıklı Höyük”, Reports on Archaeobotabical Studies in
the Old World (ed. W. Van Zeist) : 115-142. Gröningen.