Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Architecture as material culture: Building form and materiality

in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Anatolia and Levant
Serena Love
School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Mudbrick technology and permanent architecture are Neolithic hallmarks but their origins are not well
Received 5 November 2012 understood. By adopting a symmetrical approach to the examination of building materials, and contex-
Revision received 17 April 2013 tualizing these materials within a cultural knowledge of resources and other concurrent social practices,
Available online 21 June 2013
this paper challenges environmentally determined approaches to explain the adoption of mudbrick tech-
nology during the PPNA in Anatolia, Upper Euphrates and the Levant. This research illustrates the weak
Keywords: correlation between architectural form and building material, suggesting that although nature provides
Mudbrick
resources, it is culture that dictates architectural form and material use. It is argued that the human-con-
Architecture
Neolithic
structed environment became normalized throughout the PPNA and the social complexities of village life
Anatolia created a conceptual shift towards an articial environment, supported by other changes in symbolic
Material culture behavior. If building materials, such as mudbricks, were considered objects reexive of human behavior,
Materiality then we can access the complex and entangled relationship between people and things. Furthermore, the
atalhyk choice of building materials and their use in architecture can be considered codes of social practice and
Microartifacts even ideology. As material culture, architecture becomes a metaphor for human engagement and sym-
Levant bolic communication.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

pre-fabricated building materials, specically the mudbrick. While

Indeed, the archaeological record makes it look almost as though
the idea of mud-brick manufacture descended miraculously from
heaven, and this alone demands some explanation (Hodges,
1972: 525).
Introduction
Permanent domestic dwellings were common throughout the
Levant and Southwest Asia well before the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
A (ca 96008500 BC), but the adoption and implementation of
mudbrick technology was something new. The abundance of circu-
lar stone structures from the Epipaleolithic suggests that the origin
of architecture is no longer synonymous with the transition to the
Neolithic period (Watkins, 1990), and some even argue that there
was a well-established built environment by the Natuan and
Harian cultures (Banning, 1996). The difference between Paleo-
lithic hunters and gatherers and later settled societies is perma-
nent architecture or what Wilson (1988: 57) terms an
architecturally modied environment. Parallel with these archi-
tectural developments was an innovation in building materials,
from organic, readily available materials to the development of
E-mail address: Serena.love@uq.edu.au
domestic architecture may not have been a Neolithic invention, the
use of pre-fabricated building materials, such as mudbricks, was
certainly a Neolithic hallmark.
Neolithic social life is characterized by a dramatic increase in
sedentism and village life, with signicant changes in the architec-
ture itself. Architectural change is typically thought to be moti-
vated either by the need for a new type of building or the
invention of new techniques (Schirmer, 1990). However, by situat-
ing mudbrick production within a larger social sphere of Neolithic
cultures, it becomes apparent that architectural changes, such as
structural shape from oval to rectangular, has little correlation
with adoption of new building materials and is not entirely depen-
dent on environmental conditions as previously assumed. Simi-
larly, the transition from subterranean structures to freestanding
walls insufciently explains the appearance of mudbricks. I argue
that materials do not dictate form nor is material selection exclu-
sively dictated by resource availability. By examining the interme-
diary developments that precede mudbrick technology, using
examples where stones and mudbricks were used together and
where (and when) clay balls and pis appear as mudbrick anteced-
ents, it becomes clear that the adoption of this technology is not
linear and lacks a single precedent. Despite resource availability,
several examples exist in Central Anatolia where choices of build-
ing materials prevail over resource practicality, thus dismissing the

0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.05.002
 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
environmentally-determinist notion that mudbrick manufacture
resulted from necessity, when stone-less regions were settled.
I advocate that building materials, the types of materials used in
prehistoric architecture are not only reections of available re-
sources but also of specic and intentional cultural choices. Recent
research on Neolithic architecture throughout Europe and South-
west Asia (e.g. Hoffman and Smyth, 2013) has established architec-
ture as material culture, where architecture can be considered an
active participant in any society. This research aims to further
these ideas by focusing on the fabric of the architecture, speci-
cally mudbricks, advocating that these materials be independently
investigated and integrated with overall site interpretations. This
approach combines material culture, materials properties, and
materiality for a holistic interpretation of prehistoric architecture.
I propose that as the human-constructed environment became
normalized and social complexities of village life created a concep-
tual shift towards an articial environment, supported by other
changes in symbolic behavior. Through an identication of the
underlying social conditions present in the greater region in asso-
ciation with mudbrick architecture, I attempt to create a different
conceptual framework for understanding the parallel emergence of
mudbrick architecture and Neolithic social life.
The invention of mudbrick technology is situated within broad-
er regional developments in material culture, food production and
ritual behavior. Increasing regional demographics and growing vil-
lage sizes may have provided the necessary labor to support initial
mudbrick manufacturing practices. Typically, Near Eastern domes-
tic architecture has been studied as static and compared in terms
of temporal or regional typology (Banning and Byrd, 1987). How-
ever, architecture is a dynamic component of material culture that
should not be studied in isolation from other material assemblages.
By exploring the temporal trajectory behind this historical devel-
opment in the Upper Euphrates, Levant and Anatolia, during the
Epipaleolithic and PPNA, this paper questions the potential concep-
tual sources and, perhaps more important, examines the preceding
social conditions that contributed to the technological innovation
behind mudbrick architecture.
Historical development of mudbrick architecture
The most extensive use of clay throughout Anatolia is in archi-
tecture (Schmandt-Besserat, 1977), and the Neolithic has been
called the Age of Clay (Stevanovic, 1997), but technologically it
is not clear why this practice was initially instituted. A change oc-
curred in the Neolithic that supported, and perhaps even encour-
aged, mudbrick technology such that it became the standard
building material in the region by the Early Bronze Age. The
domestication of plants and animals is a fundamental characteris-
tic of the Neolithic but also paramount to this period is the domes-
tication of humans through architecture (Hodder, 1990; Wilson,
1988). Architectural developments paralleled the social develop-
ments of community life (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 2000), and
large-scale communal or ritual activities seen at sites such as Kfar
Hahoresh (Goring-Morris and Horwitz, 2007) and Gbelki Tepe
(Schmidt, 2011). Large villages began appearing throughout the
Jordan Valley, Upper Euphrates and Anatolia, such as Jericho, Abu
Hurerya and Cafer Hyk (Fig. 1), which dramatically and perma-
nently altered the physical and social landscape during the Neo-
lithic period.
As with any technological innovation, there are several ques-
tions concerning the rst appearance of mudbricks. The use of clay
in architecture was known during the Epipaleolithic, as clay and
mud mixtures were used as oor and wall plasters and as mortar
for stone architecture (Biaki, 2003). Some of these early mud-
plastered oors were painted red, such as Ain Mallaha (Byrd,
747
2000). Other examples of the early uses of mud were for internal
features such as storage bins, hearths, benches and the lining of
pits. However, despite the various uses of clay during the Epipaleo-
lithic in the Middle Euphrates region, no shaped, sun-dried mudb-
ricks or manufactured building materials appear before the PPNA
(Biaki, 2003; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2008). The prac-
tice of using mud continued sporadically throughout the PPNA
but at some sites in the Jordan Valley and Upper Euphrates, such
as Jericho (Kenyon, 1981), Nemrik (Kozlowski and Kempisty,
1990), and Mlefaat (Kozlowski, 1998), hand-shaped mudbricks be-
gin to replace stone for the construction of outer walls. The shift to
mudbricks was subtle and gradual, appearing to move slowly north
to Central Anatolia during the Aceramic period at sites such as
Pnarbas and Boncuklu. Neolithic structures at Pnarbas were con-
structed with stones and pebbles set in a mud matrix, structures
with three courses of white marl blocks and a later deposit of mud-
brick collapse (Watkins, 1996) and Boncuklu house walls were
constructed with hand-molded plano-convex bricks (Baird, 2006).
What motivated the transition from clay being used as secondary
product to a principle product in architecture?
Mudbricks are often thought to appear at the end of a long tem-
poral sequence, transitioning from eldstone, to worked stone and
wattle and daub (Goring Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2008: 240).
Intermediary stages of clay, pis (packed or rammed earth) and
hand-molded bricks all precede the arrival of standardized mold-
formed bricks (Aurenche, 1993). Wright (1985: 26) suggests that
stacking stable lumps of clay to make storage bins, in the same
manner of stones, contributed to the technological innovation be-
hind mudbricks. When examining the hand-shaped hog-backed
mudbricks from Jericho, Wright (2003: 97, cf. Wright, 1985: 350)
concludes, the appearance of the bricks suggests that they were
conceived originally as ersatz eld stones. Houses found under
the PPNA layer at Jericho had walls constructed with very primi-
tive bricks of balls of clay (Kenyon, 1981). The walls were built up
with these clay balls, leading Kenyon to conclude that these balls
of clay represent the most rudimentary form of bricks (1981:
224225).
A curious parallel is the simultaneous appearance of dressed
loaf-shape limestone, at Mureybet II and IIIB, Cheikh Hassan and
Jerf el Ahmar, and cigar-shaped mudbricks at the PPNA sites of
Nemrik, Netiv Hagdud, Mlefaat and Jericho (Biaki, 1998). The
blocks were of the same shape, of a similar concept, but made from
different materials. Supercially, it would appear that the simulta-
neous emergence of loaf-shaped limestone blocks and cigar-
shaped mudbricks supports Wrights (2003) idea that stones were
antecedents for mudbricks. However, it needs to be considered
that these different brick types developed in distinct areas, one
not always replacing the other.
Further speculating on the motivations behind mudbrick tech-
nology, it is misleading to assume that a blanket adoption of mud-
brick building materials swept through the region, replacing stone
at every village site. Mudbrick technology was a regionally specic
development and the process was not universal (Aurenche, 1993).
Several contemporary PPNA sites in the region continue their
building traditions in stone. For example, the Neolithic sites in Jor-
dan never transition to mudbrick (Rollefson, 2001) arguably due to
the ready availability of stone materials. Further north, Hallan
emi and Neval ori continue to build in stone, while neighboring
sites, ayn and Cafer Hyk, transition to mudbricks. To the east,
the northern Iraqi site of Gining had walls constructed entirely
with pis (Campbell and Baird, 1990), Qermez Dere had subterra-
nean structures with mud-plastered oors (Watkins, 1990), while
the neighboring sites of Nemrik and Mlefaat transitioned to
mudbrick. Just in the same way that not all Natuan sites
transitioned to or embraced sedentism (Boyd, 2006), not all PPNA
villages transitioned to mudbrick architecture.
748 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
Fig. 1. Regional map of all sites mentioned in the text. Map by Jeff Depta.
The temporal development of building materials may rst ap-
pear like a simple evolutionary progression, where the concept
for mudbricks evolved from stone antecedents. However, this sim-
plistic approach assumes humans were static agents reacting to
external stimuli, imitating what was observed in stone. This pas-
sive approach neglects human agency and denies technological
innovation or creativity. Furthermore, there is an underlying
assumption that these early Neolithic sites reect a monolithic
society with shared cultural traits, often using artistic representa-
tions and iconography as supporting evidence (Cauvin, 2000):
more recent scholarship acknowledges the cultural complexity
and regional diversity present throughout the PPNA (e.g. Belfer-
Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2010). The Neolithic interaction sphere
was large and elaborate (Asouti, 2006), with established long-dis-
tance trade routes throughout the region (Carter et al., 2008),
where cultural traits were being shared along with goods and
materials (Watkins, 2008). It would seem more appropriate to as-
sume a greater cultural diversity throughout this region, rather
than seeking uniformity. Such diversities would be directly re-
ected in site-specic architectural traditions. The architectural
examples presented here illustrate subtleties and variations in
the different types of building materials, demonstrating the non-
linear and inconsistent transition from one material type to an-
other. This inconsistency is also illustrated in the architectural
form.
Architectural form and building materials
One common assumption regarding the adoption of mudbrick
technology is the transition in architectural form from circular huts
to rectangular structures that occurs during the Epipaleolithic
Neolithic transition. Initially, the change was attributed to house-
hold composition and social structure, where rectangular struc-
tures increased the living space with internalized storage
facilities, independent food processing equipment and indoor prac-
tice of domestic activities, designed to accommodate emerging
concepts of nuclear families (Flannery, 1972). However, recent
analysis has shown little correlation between architectural form
and social structure (Banning, 1996; Steadman, 2004), based on re-
vised evidence of Natuan household compositions and ethno-
graphic observations from Pygmy, Navajo and Bedouin societies
(Saidel, 1993). While it is mostly true that Epipaleolithic houses
were semi-subterranean with some use of stone and PPNA houses
were rectangular structures with free-standing mudbrick walls,
the division between these two types of architectural forms does
not neatly correlate with the types of building materials or the
introduction of mudbrick technology.
The PPNA witnessed signicant architectural change from sub-
terranean to structures with freestanding walls. Several sites with
subterranean and semi-subterranean structures lack pre-fabri-
cated building materials for the walls, such as Qermez Dere,
Mureybet, Mlefaat and Phase I at Nemrik (Kozlowski and Kempi-
sty, 1990; Kozlowski, 1998). The architecture at these two sites is
characterized by semi-subterranean structures which were dug
out and often had oors and walls plastered with clay. It could
be suggested that this transition in form necessitated a change in
building materials but this conclusion is unfounded, as there is
no correlation between freestanding walls and mudbricks. Simi-
larly, freestanding walls of ayn, Hallan emi and Neval ori
were all made of stone, and not mudbrick (see Table 1). In examin-
ing the Aceramic architecture of Southeast Anatolia, Biaki (1998)
argues that the transition from circular to rectangular structures
 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758 749

Table 1
Regional and chronological documentation of sites illustrating the discrepancy between architectural form and type of building materials.

Date Site name Materials Shape Semi-subterranean Free standing walls

Anatolia
PPNA ayn Wattle-daub Circular x
Gbekli Tepe Stone Circular and rectangular x
Hallan emi Stone Rectangular x
Pinarbas Wattle-daub Circular x
Neval ori Stone Rectangular x
PPNB ayn Mudbrick on stone Rectangular x
Gritille Stone Rectangular x
Cafer Hyk Mudbrick Rectangular x
Upper Tigris
PPNA Qezem Dere Pise Circular x
Mlefaat Mudbrick Circular x
Nimrik Mudbrick Circular x
Ginning Pise Rectangular x
Upper Euphrates
PPNA Abu Huryera Mudbrick Rectangular x
Mureybet III Shaped stone Rectangular x
Jerf al-Ahmar Stone Circular and rectangular x
Tell Sabi Abyad Mudbrick on stone Rectangular x
Hatoula Mudbrick Circular x
Tell Aswad Pise Circular x
PPNB Tell Aswad Mudbrick Circular x
Tell Halula Mudrick Rectangulara x
Djade al-Mughara Stone Rectangular x
Tell Sabi Abyad Mudbrick Circular (tholi) x
Khirbet esh-Shenef Mudbrick Circular x
Jordan Valley
PPNA Dhra Mud and stone Circular x
Netiv Hagdud Mudbrick Circular x
Gesher Mudbrick Circular x
Jericho Mudbrick Rectangular x
PPNB Shkarat Msaied Stone Circularb
Biehda Stone Rectangularb x
Ain Ghazal Stone Rectangularb x
Basta Stone Rectangular x
a
Evidence of monumental stone wall.
b
Evidence of second storey.

afforded a change in building materials. However, Biakis argu-
ment fails to reconcile that the only site in this region to fully tran-
sition to mudbricks is Cafer Hyk; although the partial use of mud
at ayn, the neighboring sites of Neval ori and Hallan emi
continue rectangular forms with stone materials.
The shift from circular stone structures to rectangular mudbrick
does not directly correlate with the adoption of mudbricks technol-
ogy (Aurenche, 1993), since there are several examples of circular
structures made with mudbricks and rectangular structures built
with stone (Table 1). Furthermore, it has been well documented
that building materials do not hinder or adversely inuence the
shape or style of structure (Hodges, 1972; Oliver, 2003; Rapoport,
1969). Circular structures constructed with mudbricks built during
the PPNA have been found at Dhra (Kuijt and Mahasneh, 1998),
Jericho (Kenyon, 1981), Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef and Gopher,
1997; Bar-Yosef et al., 1991), Gesher (Garnkel, 1989), Tell Aswad
(Stordeur, 2010), Hatoula (Byrd, 2000), and at Nemrik (Kozlowski
and Kempisty, 1990) and Mlefaat (Kozlowski, 1998) in Northern
Iraq. In Anatolia, oval shaped buildings were recently identied
in the earliest 9th millennium levels of Askl Hyk (Level 4)
(zbasaran, 2012) and Baird (2006, 2008) has reported both pla-
no-convex and rectangular molded mudbricks in the oval buildings
at Boncuklu. Conversely, stone-built rectangular structures were
discovered at Ain Ghazal, Basta, Beidha, (Byrd, 2005), Baja, Hallan
emi and Neval ori in Southeastern Anatolia (zdogan, 1999;
Schirmer, 1990). These combined examples weaken arguments
for a functional relationship between structural form and building
materials and increase doubt that materials enabled and afforded
the change in architectural form. Additionally, these examples
demonstrate how the rectangular form precedes the full adoption
of mudbrick technology.
These examples demonstrate the common assumption that
materials are the sole determinant of architectural form. While
materials make some forms possible, the availability and choice
of materials will inuence the architectural form, not determine
form (Rapoport, 1969; see also Johnson, 2010). Rapoport argues
that construction and materials have relatively little effect on the
ultimate form of a building. As the examples from Central Anatolia
will show (see below), there is little correlation between form and
building materials (Table 2).
The examples presented in these two tables demonstrate how
the same materials produced different forms. Stone materials were
used to construct both round and rectangular houses, while mudb-
ricks were also used to construct both round and rectangular
houses. The built form possesses a certain degree of inuence in
mediating behaviors, in time and space, and social actors will al-
ways exert their individualism. Clearly, materials do not dictate
form.
Environment and choice in Anatolia
Having dismissed the relationship between architectural form
and building materials, the relationship between environmental
750 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
Table 2
List of Central Anatolian sites, listed in westeast geographic order, chronicling the types different types of building materials and architectural forms. Dates from Yakar 2011.
setting and the use of materials will be explored, using examples
from Central Anatolia. Given the surrounding availability, access
and abundance of natural resources, the examples below illustrate
discrepancies between resource availability and actual use, dem-
onstrating how informed choices prevail over pragmatics and
undermine functionalist explanations for the selection of building
materials. Since the intention of this paper is to challenge the re-
ceived wisdom that certain materials were used exclusively for
practical reasons, this section demonstrates how the choice of
building materials is not environmentally determined by resource
availability.
Previous studies of Anatolian architecture have relied on envi-
ronmentally-based explanations for the choice and use of specic
building materials (i.e. Duru, 1999, 2002; Esin, 1991; zdogan,
1999). Several authors agree that types of materials used in archi-
tecture were a direct result of the local environment, where re-
source choice was restricted to abundance and availability
(Braidwood and Braidwood, 1982; Woldring, 2002; Yakar, 1991).
This discourse describes the form, function and fabric of architec-
ture and how it was adapted from the surrounding environment,
yet multiple examples exist from Central Anatolia, such as Askl
Hyk, Musular, Bademagac, Suberde and Eraba (see Fig. 1), that
illustrate the discrepancies between resource availability and ac-
tual use.
The Aceramic site of Askl Hyk is situated in a stone-rich
landscape of western Cappadocia, where volcanic rocks are the
most abundant material. Duru (2002: 18) argues that the Capp-
adocian traditional architecture is an adaptation to the environ-
ment, given the local geology. However, although stone material
was easily available, abundant and accessible for architecture,
the domestic architecture is exclusively constructed with mudb-
ricks, with a limited amount of stone in some non-domestic struc-
tures (Esin, 1991; Esin and Harmankaya, 1999; zbasaran, 1998,
2012). Situated in a predominately stony landscape, mudbricks
could be considered a greater labor investment, considering the
work involved in the initial manufacture and annual upkeep.
Askl receives up to 385 mm of rainfall annually (Todd, 1980),
requiring constant maintenance of mudbrick walls (Kuzucuoglu
comment in Duru (2002: 178)). Yet despite the heavy rainfall,
mudbrick was used throughout all 1000 years of Askls occupa-
tion sequence. Recently, a 20 cm thick deposit of silt was found
separating Levels 2 and 3, with evidence of damaged buildings
and broken down mudbrick walls, which micromorphology work
suggests is indicative of prolonged standing water (zbasaran,
2012: 137). If this early settlement had been constructed with
stone, water damage could feasibly have been prevented. If the
people of Askl selected their building material based on environ-
mental availability then it is far more logical and convenient to
use stone than mud.
A similar scenario presents itself in the neighboring site of
Musular, 400 m west of Askl (Duru and zbasaran, 2005;
zbasaran, 2000), where mudbrick architecture was built on a nat-
ural bedrock foundation. Duru (2002) argues that the bedrock
foundation at Musular was intentionally selected because of the
lessons learned from the Askl water damage. However, building
with mudbrick seems like a less cost-effective choice, when situ-
ated in stone-rich Cappadocia. The mudbrick tradition continued
despite resource availability. The occupation at Musular could have
built out of stone, as it was abundant and easily available, assum-
ing logic and convenience were principle motivators for prehistoric
builders. But they did not; they continued to build with mud.
Clearly what we may deem as important and practical reasoning
was less important to the Neolithic people when they chose their
building materials.
Several sites in the Lake District, including Bademagac, Kur-
uay, Suberde, and Erbaba, further undermine the environmen-
tal-determinism approach to the selection of Neolithic building
materials. Bademagac was constructed entirely from mudbricks,
despite being surrounded by mountains on all sides, lying 5 km
north of a natural gorge. In the Early Neolithic phase, the walls
had an unusual construction, where two rows of clay slabs seven
to eight centimeters wide had been laid parallel with an interval
between them which was then packed with earth (Duru, 1999:
180). No stone foundations were found at Bademagac, instead,
 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
the foundations consisted of several layers of straw-tempered
mud. Given the mountainous location, stone was as equally avail-
able and accessible as mud yet the principle construction material
was mudbrick. Similarly, the sites of Suberde and Kuruay, both lo-
cated near substantial lakes and stone outcrops, the primary build-
ing material was mudbrick with a clay mortar, although stone
foundations are known (Bordaz, 1969; Duru, 1996).
However, the opposite scenario is true at Erbaba, where the pri-
mary construction material is limestone set in a mud mortar (Bor-
daz, 1969; Duru, 1996, 1999), despite being 1.5 km from Lake
Beysehir (Bordaz and Bordaz, 1982). A stone quarry was located
500 m southwest from the site leading Duru (1999: 183) to suggest
that stone represented a unique local practice attributed to its po-
sition within the landscape. This statement again relies on the local
availability of stone materials to explain the architecture, while
overlooking the proximity of Erbaba to a lake for potential clay re-
sources. The example from Erbaba represents a deliberate choice of
one material over another, since quarrying stone had potential for
a larger labor investment than clay.
These Anatolian examples demonstrate that materials em-
ployed in construction are not only indicative of what resources
were available but also of deliberate choices. Throughout these
examples, a choice of building materials was always present, be
it stone, mud, reeds, timber or some combination thereof. The
types of available materials are just one of the many factors which
determine the set of possibilities available to the imagination of
the builder. Available building materials should be considered en-
abling, as a set of resources, not simply as a set of limitations
(Johnson, 2010). Why are prehistoric builders constantly perceived
as being uncreative and limited by their resources, instead of
inhabiting a bountiful landscape full of choice? Archaeological
interpretations have been strongly inuenced by capitalistic beliefs
that regard natural resources as commodities to be exploited (Boi-
vin, 2004; Tilley, 2004). And by the Biblical notion of mans domi-
nation over the earth implicitly underlying capitalist cosmology
(Gen.1: 26; Sahlins, 2000). Our understanding and relationship
with the physical environment is socially constructed (Evans,
2003; Ingold, 2012; Rival, 1998); how and why resources are used
(or avoided) is cultural.
The intentional selection of one material over another is socially
informed. As Lucas (2001) suggests, nature provides the problem
and culture provides the solution. Technical choices are more rep-
resentative of social constraints than of the availability of types of
materials (Chilton, 1999; Lemonnier, 1993; Sillar and Tite, 2000;
Stark, 1998); thus social conditions have equal, if not greater, inu-
ence on the material outcome than do the type, availability or
abundance of raw materials. While acknowledging that prehistoric
builders were partially constrained by the types of suitable mate-
rials with which to build, I argue that material choices and agency
should be given primacy over resource availability, maintaining
that the intentional selection of one material over another is so-
cially informed. The residents of Erbaba could have built out of
mud but they chose stone. The Askl inhabitants could have built
their houses using the local stone, but they chose mud. Each of
these choices in building materials are socially informed and not
a sole reection of environmental conditions.
Furthermore, it is often assumed that mudbrick architecture is
somehow less impressive than stone monuments. But what if
mudbrick were considered just as much a symbolic and socially
meaningful expression as the movement of large stones? Evans
(2003: 72) proposes that deliberate movement of soil can be as
equally monumental when used to construct a large village, con-
sidering the sheer quantity of materials needed. Volumetrically,
the construction of earthen architecture was a very signicant
industry (Nodarou et al., 2008). For example, Matthews (2005)
estimates that a single house at atalhyk required 50 m3 of soil,
751
in addition to quantities of water, vegetal stabilizers, and timbers.
Aller and Aller (1948) estimates that 0.028 m3 of earth is needed to
make two bricks measuring 30  45  10 cm and Keefe (2005: 31,
see also Clark, 2003) predicts that a single-story dwelling requires
between 125 and 150 tons of soil for the external and internal
walls. Considering that Mellaart (1967) exposed over 30 contem-
porary structures at atalhyk (Level VII/South M), the quantity
of soil required just to construct all the houses in this small portion
of the site would exceed 1500 m3 or 4050 tons of soil. These gures
become more impressive, taking Stevanovics (2013) nding of a
second story in two buildings at atalhyk. In this regard, mud-
brick architecture can be seen having greater impact than previ-
ously considered, not only for its permanence and scale but also
as an investment of human and material resources.
Materiality of materials
These examples from Central Anatolia illustrate regional diver-
sity and the incongruence between resource availability and the
building materials used for Neolithic construction, further demon-
strating the tenuous relationship between form, materials and
environment. The materials employed in construction are not only
indicative of what resources were available but illustrate how cul-
ture has a more signicant impact on the built form and choice of
materials. Marcel Otte (comment in Duru (2002: 178)) favors the
social and ideological use of materials by suggesting, it is just a
question of tradition and values deep inside their minds. Its not
a question of raw materials. Because the way of building is the
way also of conceiving the self as a society and towards the oth-
ers. This approach more appropriately places emphasis on cul-
tural practices over resource availability.
I advocate that more attention is needed on the actual building
materials, where the fabric of a building becomes a subject for
investigation. Recent research on the archaeology of architecture
(e.g. Banning and Chazan, 2006; Steadman, 1996), in combination
with developments integrating artifacts and materiality (Conneller,
2011; Hurcombe, 2007; Ingold, 2007; Jones, 2004) provides the
necessary theoretical framework to illustrate how domestic archi-
tecture and associated material culture can act as a context for so-
cial actions (Bailey and McFadyen, 2010; Parker Pearson and
Richards, 1994; Riggs, 2001; Tringham, 1991). As the examples
from Anatolia have demonstrated, building materials receive dis-
proportionately small attention in contrast with assemblages of
Neolithic lithics, gurines, or plant, animal or human remains.
Understandably, the archaeological discourse is more focused on
the use, arrangement and decoration of space, than the fabric of
the architecture itself. However, this is not to advocate for a study
of architecture in isolation but rather a situated exploration that
includes every aspect of the phenomena that contribute to the
materialization of its nal form (Turan, 1996).
Considering architecture as material culture and integrating
building materials with interpretations of the built environment
and architectural space can help us to understand how people built
houses but also how houses also build people. It also allows access
to this social sphere, with a tremendous potential to enhance our
understandings of Neolithic culture and society through material
choices, technology, labor investments, craft specialization, territo-
riality and ownership of resources (Love, 2012). For example, Riggs
(2001) studied the technical style and technological choices of
builders at the Grasshopper Pueblo in the American Southwest
and was able to identify distinctions between ethnic groups that
manifested in architectural differences among separate room
blocks. Thus, examining both the architectural features, technical
choices and material properties can contribute to larger social is-
sues. This approach becomes especially relevant when studying
752 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
sites with stratigraphy that span major social transitions, such as
the Pre-Pottery to Pottery Neolithic or the Halaf period in northern
Syria (e.g. Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003). Not only did the shape
of the architecture change but so did the technology of construc-
tion, both of which are socially informed.
A greater understanding of prehistoric architecture can be
achieved through a combined focus on material culture, materials,
and materiality. As Vellinga (2007: 763) suggests it has become
clear that it is really no longer possible to study the house and
understand its cultural meaning without looking at its material,
architectural aspects. The materiality of architecture can be
understood through the active position of objects that actively de-
nes subjects and explores both the practical and socio-symbolic
aspects of objects.
One way to access the materiality of architecture is to examine
the quality of ceratin materials and to question the degree of inten-
tionality. A buildings character is partially dictated by the types of
materials used in its construction (Johnson, 2010; Morris, 2004;
Norberg-Schulz, 1980). Textures of building materials physically
alter both the appearance and experience, even if all the materials
originate from the same source. Evans (2003) suggests textures
help a person think: they are a medium for social agency and
expression". When thinking about inclusions added to pottery,
Evans suggests that all source materials have meaning because of
their social context and reference, which is extended to include
waste material, such as midden. In fabric analysis, Evans empha-
sizes that the way a material feels (how it crumbles, its consis-
tency, and the surface roughness) relates more closely to the
design and intent of the material than to its particle size. All this
speaks to deliberate and intentional mixing of materials to create
certain feelings, textures and appearances. Perhaps this is how
the different use of materials can be understood for Neolithic
architecture.
One venue to explore is out perceptions and categories concern-
ing differences between natural and cultural resources. House and
village construction is not just about the transformation from nat-
ural materials into cultural objects. If we consider that nature is
culturally dened (Ingold, 2012; Rosen, 2007; Tilley, 2004), then
the distinction between natural and cultural resources dissolves.
Everything in the so-called natural environment has been social-
ized (Bradley, 2000; Evans, 2003; Tilley, 1994), including the
weather, sky, sun, moon, and stars (Ingold, 2007). Cultural knowl-
edge is mindful of landscape, dictating both the selection of mate-
rials, and where and how materials are employed in the creation of
cultural objects. Environmental motivations might contribute to
the selection of clay materials but I argue that the choices for clay
sources were initially socially informed and were already per-
ceived as cultural through an embodied social knowledge (after
Dobres, 2000, see also Bradley, 1998). Thus, material choice is more
indicative of culture than it is of environmental conditions.
The separation of culture from nature is distinctive of post-
Enlightenment, modernist thinking (Thomas, 2004). Following Ol-
sens (2003) symmetrical approach, the physical properties of
materials can be considered alongside those of humans, plants
and animals. To deny the inuence of materials on people assumes
materials are static and inert, ignoring the reciprocal inuence of
materials on people and dismissing material agency. Boivin
(2004: 64) argues that material world itself is a long unrecognized
agent; this is not to over-animate raw materials by suggesting
that clays somehow possessed its own agency, but rather to sug-
gest that materials were active in their unmodied, unaltered state
(Bradley, 2000; Knappett and Malafouris, 2008). Therefore
so-called natural materials are inseparable from the cultural land-
scape. If the categories of material culture and landscape were
collapsed (Gosden, 1999), and the mineral world was considered
an integrated component of the social world, not separate from it
(following Ingold, 2007), then particular uses of clay can contribute
to the meaning and function of the object. This is not to claim that
all raw materials, such as stones, soil and trees, were active agents
imbued with free will, but to consider the possibility that culturally
specic meaning is attached or associated with raw materials that
extends beyond practicality, without having to explicitly dene
what that meaning is. Therefore, to hide clay under a blanket of
landscape is to deny part of its meaning, leaving part of the objects
biography untold.
Creating an articial environment
The combined focus on architecture as material culture and the
symmetrical use of building materials can provide a new frame-
work to interpret Neolithic architecture. Shelter is a basic human
need; however, towards the nal Epipaleolithic and early Neolithic,
these basic shelters transitioned into articially constructed cul-
tural environments that constituted a new way of living. Peoples
relationship with one another changed with the construction of
permanent structures and created spatial boundaries (Wilson,
1988), which irreversibly affected communities, altered percep-
tions and impacted social interactions, creating new situations
and problems. Watkins (2004a: 105) argues, to live in a built envi-
ronment is to inhabit a symbolic world at multiple levels. This hu-
man-constructed environment became normalized during the
Neolithic, where permanent villages appeared with increasing reg-
ularity and the manufactured built world became an important
transition within the PPNA (Kuijt and Finlayson, 2009: 10969). I
suggest that the invention and implementation of pre-fabricated
building materials, such as mudbricks, created an articial envi-
ronment, as well as creating physical, spatial boundaries.
A manufactured boundary between people may have been pres-
ent in the smaller, self-contained domestic units that characterize
some PPNA villages, in contrast with the semi-sedentary and large
dwellings at open-aired Epipaleolithic sites. Boyd (2006: 171) ar-
gues that a change in early Natuan architecture does not neces-
sarily reect a new social organization or a way of life but rather
represents a developing social technology that facilitated particu-
lar forms of understanding and action. Boyd suggests that the
extensive use of stone xed Natuan people to certain locales
and played a role in the creation of permanence, be it seasonally
or annually occupied, but he is cautious about assuming perma-
nence or sedentism simply from the appearance of stone architec-
ture. Biaki (2003) suggests that living in rectangular, cubical
boxes with at roofs and smooth walls is in opposition to the nat-
ural form. During the Neolithic, structures were no longer sunken
into the earth and were now constructed with freestanding walls
made with pre-fabricated materials. The overall Neolithic society
moved away from an imitation of nature, to appropriating some-
thing more articial, more constructed. For the rst time, a concept
of manufactured may have been present. The invention and
implementation of mudbrick technology may have contributed to
the creation of an articial, or a fabricated society, one that no
longer mimicked nature in form and materials, but rather blurred
the boundaries.
The increasing commonality of the built environment during
the PPNA also created a cognitive shift from a house to a home
(Watkins, 1990, 1992, 2004a). Watkins advocates for altering our
perception from the house as a shelter to the house as a home,
characterized by repeated re-modeling, house elaboration and con-
stant maintenance, treatment of the dead (in-house burials) and
superimposed re-building phases. As is common at several Neo-
lithic sites, there is evidence for constant maintenance, a cleanli-
ness of the oors and multiple re-plastering events (Watkins,
1992). Cauvin (2000) suggests that the Neolithic was a revolution
 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
of symbols with the dominant symbols being a female deity and a
divine male principle. Watkins (2004a,b, 2006) furthers this notion,
suggesting that in addition to this goddess and the bull symbol-
ism, that architecture acted as a mode of symbolic representation,
using settlements with elaborate design and ritualized, symbolic
behavior, such as Jerf el Ahmar, Qermez Dere, Jericho, Gbekli
Tepe, and ayn. Watkins furthers Cauvins discussion about
the formulation of a new ideology by associating the explosion of
symbolic imagery with architecture. Architecture acts as a storage
vessel for symbolic meaning, non-verbal communication and sym-
bolic representation. Early architecture codies information and
was a vehicle for symbolic storage, becoming almost as important
as writing in later times (Banning and Chazan, 2006). A whole new
symbolic world is represented in architecture and the built
environment.
During the Neolithic, architecture played a signicant role in
the domestication of humans (Hodder, 1990, 2004a; Wilson,
1988). Hodder argues that as houses and villages become more
complex and elaborate, domestic architecture assumes a special
importance at the same time as agricultural practices evolve to-
wards domestication. Hodders (1990: 30) thesis is twofold: the so-
cial units were constructing themselves into collections of
domestic units (i.e. households) while the house, or domus, be-
comes a metaphor for the domestication of society. Wilson
(1988) suggests that architecture creates a separation from nature,
as well as separating and creating boundaries between people, be-
tween us and other. Wilson sees architecture as a barrier but I
suggest that building materials, as a mosaic of materials, mediates
between these categories of us and other. In this instance, the
role of manufactured materials, specically the mudbrick, contrib-
utes to the creation of socialized space, or in Wilsons terms a cul-
tural space as distinct from nature.
Discussions of domestication tend to include binary oppositions
culture and nature; wild and domestic. Hodder (1990) argues
that the domestication process was a way to tame wild things.
Constructing houses separated and protected people from the wild
outdoors by creating a whole new social space, indoors. People
were responsible for transforming and converting their world. By
extending this discussion towards building materials, I consider
the idea that (wild) stone was primarily utilitarian but could also
be regarded as taking the wild into the house. Perhaps this was a
mechanism for taming or domesticating the landscape, the physi-
cal environment, the mineral world, in tandem with the natural
plant and animal worlds.
However, mudbricks were pre-fabricated, manufactured ob-
jects, a total assembly of all the elements earth, water, air, and
re (in the form of burnt material inclusions sourced from midden)
that were combined to create a social space of dwelling. The wild
landscape (soils, plants, water) was combined with domestic as-
pects (midden and chaff from cultivated crops). The creation of
the mudbrick unied these disparate aspects into a fabricated so-
cial space. Dwelling within a house constructed from manufac-
tured materials create a different experience of dwelling than
stone.
Using an example from the mudbricks at atalhyk (Love,
2012, 2013), microartifacts were targeted in the heavy residue
database to investigate the inclusions recovered from otation
and heavy residue analysis (for methodology, see Cessford and
Mitrovic, 2005). The microartifacts included three size fractions
(>4 mm, >2 mm, >1 mm) from the interpretative categories of
bricks, mortar and wall (a combination of bricks and mortar). A to-
tal of 627 units were studied, which represented over 220 walls in
35 buildings from ve different occupational phases (Levels X-VI/
South L-N). The dominant mircoaritfact categories were digested
animal bone (Russell and Martin, 2005), shells (mollusc and egg-
shell), stone, (including int, obsidian, worked stone and generic
753
Fig. 2. Relative quantities of microartifacts from bricks and mortar units (n = 627)
at atalhyk.
stone) (Fig. 2). Other materials with a less than 1% presence in-
cluded beads, sh scales, clay objects, building material, gurines,
pottery, and plant remains. Phytolith evidence suggests the pres-
ence of sedge plants and wood ash (Rosen, 2005; Ryan, 2011)
and micromorphology has shown evidence of dung temper (Mat-
thews, 2005). Plant impressions can be seen throughout uninten-
tionally red bricks and plant voids are visible in thin section
(Tung, 2005). Analysis of landsnails (Bar-Yosef Mayer, in press)
has determined that their presence is largely attributed to con-
struction materials, being present in the natural sediments.
The microartifact analysis illustrates how mudbricks are a blend
of naturally sourced sediments combined with culturally sourced
midden temper, in which the process of mudbrick manufacture be-
comes a combination of nature and culture. The mixing of materi-
als had a strong history at atalhyk, where strict rules were
observed about how the landscape was used, about what materials
were allowed on the mound, possibly reecting social rules about
the mixing of wild and domestic plants and animals (Hodder,
2004b, 2006). For example, ceramic residue analysis shows no evi-
dence of plant food stored in pots, but an abundance of animal fat,
grease and possibly marrow (Copley et al., 2005; see also Pitter
et al., 2013). In contrast, the phytolith evidence suggests that bas-
kets were used to store plants, mainly cereal grains (Rosen, 2005).
As these categories were stored differently, they were also con-
sumed differently. As death mirrors life, ceramic vessels were ab-
sent from human burials. Young individuals were often buried in
baskets or on reed mats and some adults were found with cordage
(Hamilton, 2005; Ryan, in press). In rare instances, animal bones
have been recovered in burial contexts, such as sheep, boar, weasel,
bird and duck (Russell and Meece, 2005; Russell and During, 2006).
If art imitates life, then social rules may also be inferred from the
presence and absence of plants and domestic animals in wall
paintings. Wild animals, such as bear, wild boar, and deer, are more
commonly depicted than domestic sheep and goats, and depictions
of plants are rare (Meece, 2006). Also, the horns from wild sheep
and goat became ritualized objects whereas horns from domestic
species were commonly recovered from refuse deposits (Russell
and Martin, 2005; Russell and Meece, 2005). These avoidances re-
ect social rules at atalhyk, which regulated material combina-
tions. However, despite the prohibition of the mixing of these
domains, all these elements converge at the point of the house.
In connecting the building materials with the house, I want to
highlight how all aspects of the physical surroundings were com-
bined within the house: water and earth, re and air, plant and ani-
mal, wild and domestic, sacred and profane. These avoidances
were combined, mixed and fused at the point of the house. In this
regard, mudbricks could represent an ontological metaphor,
blurring the line between nature and culture. Mudbricks literally
754 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
combine the physical traits of opposing spheres, the wild and
domestic, plant and animal, off-and on-site source materials to cre-
ate a whole new mediating object. Of course, chaff is needed to en-
hance brick strength and prevents cracking. Grit, sand or midden
also contributes to the tensile qualities of the nal product. Yet, I
argue, choices were present in the selection of materials that are
not haphazard, careless or purely functional. Furthermore, these
combinations of materials created a mosaic quality that created
the texture and quality of the structure.
Socially situating mudbrick technology
Having dismissed the prevailing extrinsic explanations for the
emergence of mudbricks and arguing for mudbricks as creating
an articial, fabricated environment for dwelling, I will now later-
ally situate mudbrick technology with contemporary socio-cul-
tural developments. Various social practices that signify the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic were already in place prior to the appearance of
mudbricks, such as in-house burials, skull removal and plastered
skulls, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic carved and sculpted g-
ures, elaborate stone tool kits and plastered and red painted walls
and oors (Rollefson, 2001). However, there are other develop-
ments unique to the Neolithic, such as increased architectural
complexity, settlement density, individual food storage facilities,
morphological plant and animal domestication, in which molded
mudbricks were wholly adopted. There appears to have been a
trend that shifted focus from the group to an emphasis on the indi-
vidual or smaller groups. Agreeing with Stordeur (2010), I argue
that no single factor accounts for the invention of mudbrick tech-
nology, but that its inception and implementation is nested within
a larger more complex web of interrelated social conditions.
Continually occupied villages with permanent architecture
were more common by the PPNA, when villages became larger,
partly a result of increasing regional demographics (Bar-Yosef,
2001). Advances in architectural technology become visible in
the increased building size, elaborate storage facilities (Kuijt,
2009; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2009), and complexity of internal space
(Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2008). Communal architecture
rst appeared at Jericho and cult or special purpose buildings begin
to appear at places like Gbelki Tepe (Schmidt, 2011), Neval ori
(Hauptmann, 1999), Jerf Ahmar (Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003)
and Kfar Hahoresh (Goring-Morris, 2000). Signicant architectural
developments precede economic changes, such as the domestica-
tion of plants and animals (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002; Verho-
even, 2004). Hodder (1990: 31) suggests that social domestication
occurs before economic domestication, based on ample evidence
dismissing agriculture as a predecessor to sedentism (Bar-Yosef,
2001; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989). It is in this context that
mudbricks begin to appear, again, with no single causal factor.
Cereal chaff was used to temper building materials in the PPNA,
yet plant morphology indicates wild species (Wilcox and Fornite,
1999). Plant impressions from burnt pis from Jerf Ahmar and
Mureybet give evidence of morphologically wild seeds, such as ein-
korn, barley and rye, and arable weed seeds. The temper used in
mudbricks was exclusively cereal chaff, with little evidence of
stems and leaves. Abundant spikelet bases and fragments imply
processing by crushing and pounding, which suggests that the
temper was sourced from the de-husking process, and not from
winnowing. These results suggest that crops were rst used as a
food source and the chaff byproduct used for temper (I. Hodder,
personal communication, 2009). Could it be possible that architec-
ture unintentionally contributed to domestication of plants?
During the Neolithic, a transition occurred from gathering cer-
eal grains, and leaving the plant intact in the eld, to cutting cere-
als at the base of the stalk. These practices illustrate a sudden
interest in the chaff, and a focus on the whole plant, and not just
the food-producing grains, may have been motivated by a new
need for chaff to temper mudbricks. Cutting plants at the base
unintentionally selected plants with a more robust rachis (Harris
and Hillman, 1989; Hillman and Davies, 1990a,b), keeping the
grains in place. If seeds were saved and re-sowed, this scenario
could possibly explain how plant domestication emerged congru-
ently with the adoption of clay and mudbrick architecture, both
of which precede animal husbandry.
Given these developments, it is tempting to ask: what was pres-
ent during the PPNA, which was previously absent, that led to the
technological advancement of mudbrick architecture? One notable
spatial distinction between Natuan and Neolithic sites is a transi-
tion from open to closed space and an internal division of space,
creating a conceptual shift including notions of privacy, boundary
and territory. According to Wilson (1988), people in open settle-
ments knew the whereabouts of other people (focus) as opposed
to sedentary villages were boundary was prevalent. Open settle-
ments encouraged sharing and public visibility, where privacy
would have been an unfamiliar concept. Wilson suggests that pri-
vacy was an inherent component of domestication, an inten-
tional manipulation of space, expressing authority over space and
things, and creating boundaries. Villages of rectilinear houses re-
stricted mobility, decreased the amount of available space, and cre-
ated previously unknown physical and social boundaries, visible in
architectural features such as doors and walls (Saidel, 1993; Stead-
man, 2000). Banning (2003) argues that enclosed architecture en-
hanced concepts of privacy and promoted secrecy, envy and
suspicion.
Visible changes in food storage facilities further support a shift
away from the communal social group in favor of smaller, more
independent social units. Little direct evidence of food storage ex-
ists during the Natuan, except for some tangential evidence of si-
los or plastered storage pits outside the structures of Ain Mallaha
(Boyd, 2006). The implication is that food was shared throughout
the community and low-levels of food storage was practiced. Clear
evidence for independent food storage begins to emerge during the
PPNA, where plastered storage facilities are now found inside
house structures, further emphasizing an individualized, house-
based strategy (Hodder, 2005; Kuijt, 2009). Kuijt and Finlayson
(2009: 10966) argue that the change from external, communal
storage to intramural storage reects evolving systems of owner-
ship and property. These PPNA storage practices apparently freed
ones family from having to share with less-productive neighbors
(Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2002) and only sharing with co-
habitants and/or close relatives.
Furthermore, the transition from communal to individual can
be seen in reduced quern size, as the massive size and weight of
Natuan mortars were gradually replaced by smaller, more indi-
vidual querns and mortars common in Neolithic assemblages (Bel-
fer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2002: 146). The non-portable
bedrock mortars present at some Natuan sites were external to
the residence and were likely communally shared. This pattern of
individualization is further illustrated by a reduction in size and
weight of groundstones, pestles (Wright, 1991) and stone bowls,
allowing each household to possess their own food processing
materials.
These examples demonstrate a conceptual shift during the Neo-
lithic towards a focus on smaller, more independent social units,
shifting away from large communal groups. This trend is also
visible in a reduced labor investment for architectural construc-
tion, although it is commonly perceived that rectangular mud con-
structions are more labor intensive than circular (Aurenche, 1992;
Saidel, 1993). Thomas (2005: 24) argues that making mudbricks is
less labor intensive than building rammed earth, pis or mudwall
constructions, based on an experimental archaeology project in
 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
Cyprus. Observations of modern brick-makers (Facey, 1997; Kemp,
2000; Jerome et al., 1999) estimate that a simple 4.5 square meter
structure can be completed, from start to nish, in less than
1 month. A crew of 35 people, working 8 h per day, can mix and
mold upwards of 300500 bricks per day (Houben and Guillaud,
2005; Keefe, 2005), and a small crew of three people can lay
300350 bricks in 8 h. The labor investment is estimated at 207
person hours per square meter therefore a 4.5 square meter house
should take 932 h to build. Matthews (2005) estimates that an
average house at atalhyk, measuring 4.32 square meters had
between 14 and 21 brick courses in a wall ranging between 2
and 3 m, thus requiring 500750 bricks per house. With these esti-
mates, a typical atalhyk house could have been built in about
2 weeks with a crew of 5 people or less, after dedicating 1 week
to making and drying the bricks.
Considering these minimal labor investments reinforces the no-
tion of small-scale production, which can also be seen in a case
study from atalhyk. The compositional analysis of mudbricks
from atalhyk concluded that mudbrick production was not a
communal or centralized activity but that the organization of labor
appears to be household-based, where mudbrick manufacture was
performed independently and on an as-needed basis (Love, 2013).
This conclusion was based on brick recipes from 18 contemporary
structures (at Level VII/ South M) that each displayed a unique
mudbrick recipe (Love, 2012). Although raw materials were shared
between houses, the mudbrick recipe varied signicantly enough
to suggest that each group had constructed its own house. Further-
more, it is clear that mudbricks were not made in large batches or
pre-manufactured and stored long-term. This example from atal-
hyk demonstrates how mudbrick technology can be integrated
into a larger discourse of conceptual shifts during the Neolithic, to-
wards a focus on smaller, more independent social units, shifting
away from large communal groups.
Conclusion
Architecture represents the social choices made by the people
who built these villages. Nature provided the resources but culture
decided the architectural form and choice of materials. It is fairly
clear that resource availability was not the exclusive or even the
dominant motivation behind the selection of construction materi-
als. There are many different means to build a house, all of which
achieved the same functional goal. But these differences cannot all
be explained by differences in material properties of clay, wood or
stone. House and village construction is not just about how or why
these structures were built but also about who built them (Steva-
novic, 1997).
While it is mostly true that Epipaleolithic-circular-stone transi-
tioned to Neolithic-rectangular-mudbrick, there are too many
exceptions to ignore. These exceptions demonstrate regional varia-
tion that is not geographically dependent and the choice of materi-
als is not environmentally determined. The transition to mudbrick
was gradual but not inevitable, with several intermediary stages.
Rather than looking for a blanket technological adoption, where
mudbrick replaces stone, we should focus on site-specic dia-
chronic trends. The evidence suggests more individuality and inno-
vation than simply imitating observations in stone. We should not
consider prehistoric builders as having been limited by their envi-
ronment but nested within a plethora landscape of choice, as the
examples from Central Anatolia show that resource availability
does not dictate use. Furthermore, types of building materials did
not afford the transition from circular architecture to implementa-
tion of the rectangular form. Here again, the architectural shape and
types of materials used in construction are not correlated, espe-
cially given that the earliest evidence for molded mudbricks rst
755
appear in circular structures (at Nemrik, Mlefaat, Hatoula, Gesher
and Netiv Hagdud), with the exception being Jericho.
The architectural traits discussed here, specically the choice of
building materials and their use in architecture, are essentially
codes of social practice and even ideology. Architecture created a
manufactured environment, which increasingly became reied
into daily life. It can be argued that these traits are an expression
of a social code of practice, since there are social mechanisms dic-
tating the construction and layout of structures. This social expres-
sion of materials can be also seen as communication through
architecture. As a cultural artifact, architecture is a metaphor for
human engagement and symbolic communication. If we consider
that houses embody cultural meanings, then they can be a means
of expressing and communicating these meanings to a broader
audience.
The aim of this paper has been to consider building materials as
objects reexive of human behavior. Recent scholarship has estab-
lished architecture as material culture, dismissing the previous
interpretations of building materials as exclusively functional re-
sources to be exploited for the construction of shelter. Develop-
ments in material culture studies have demonstrated the
complex and entangled relationship between people and things
that can be extremely fruitful when applied to Neolithic architec-
ture, to understand the construction of prehistoric villages as a ser-
ies of socially informed practices. Integrating building materials
into archaeological interpretations allows an understanding of
the use of materials as situated cultural knowledge.
By culturally dening natural resources, the materials used in
construction can be seen to have greater meaning. Cultural knowl-
edge of resources dictates the use of materials and may have had a
stronger inuence over material choices than their simple practi-
cality. Saidel (1993) and Aurenche (1992) both argue that rectan-
gular mudbrick architecture requires more material and human
effort to construct than eldstone structures, which do not man-
date constant and regular maintenance. Then why build out of
mud when stone was available? This question assumes capitalistic
perceptions of resource exploitation and landscape use, while
overlooking human agency and technological innovation. Equally,
assuming a symmetrical approach considers the active inuence
of materials and the deliberate choice of materials in the construc-
tion of a house and village.
Great attention is placed on Neolithic village life but little schol-
arship actually considers the total sensory impact of living and
dwelling within an articially created environment. Asarchitecture
is accepted as active material culture then we can understand the
role architecture played in shaping a new spatial awareness and
emerging concepts of privacy, individuality and territoriality. The
mudbrick is a mosaic, or a mixture of elements, plant and animal,
wild and domestic, combining offsite and onsite materials. At
atalhyk, these categories are strictly segregated but come to-
gether in brick-making, contributing to the materiality of the
house. All of these combined activities are the processes by which
Neolithic houses were made and illustrate the role mudbricks had
in that process.
Acknowledgments
This paper was revised from my doctoral research at Stanford
University and written while a post-doctoral fellow at Joukowsky
Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World at Brown Univer-
sity, where thanks is owed to Sue Alcock and John Cherry for such
an opportunity. Heartfelt thanks to Mac Marston, Tim Earl and Ian
Lilley for their suggestions and criticism on earlier drafts of this pa-
per. This research was funded by grants from the Wenner Gren
Foundation for Anthropological Research and the American
Research Institute in Turkey.
756 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
References
Akkermans, P.M.M.G., Schwartz, G., 2003. The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex
HunterGatherers to Early Urban Societies. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Aller, P., Aller, D., 1948. Build Your Own Adobe. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Asouti, E., 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic interaction sphere. Journal of
World Prehistory 20, 87126.
Aurenche, O., 1992. Theoretical archaeology and rhetorical archaeology: towards a
history of architecture in the Ancient Near East. In: Gardin, J.-C., Peebles, C.
(Eds.), Representations in Archaeology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington,
pp. 196204.
Aurenche, O., 1993. Lorigine de la brique dans le proche orient ancien. In:
Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. (Eds.),
Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. University of Rome, Rome, pp. 71
85.
Bailey, D., McFadyen, L., 2010. Built objects. In: Hicks, Dan, Beaudry, Mary (Eds.),
Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 556581.
Baird, D., 2006. The Boncuklu project: the origins of sedentism, cultivation and
herding in Central Anatolia. Anatolian Archaeology 12, 1114.
Baird, D., 2008. The Boncuklu project: the origins of sedentism, cultivation and
herding in Central Anatolia. Anatolian Archaeology 14, 1113.
Banning, E.B., 1996. Houses, compounds and mansions in the prehistoric Near East.
In: Coupland, G., Banning, E.B. (Eds.), People Who Lived in Big Houses:
Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures. Prehistory Press,
Madison, pp. 165185.
Banning, E.B., 2003. Housing Neolithic farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, 421.
Banning, E.B., Byrd, B.F., 1987. Houses and the changing residential unit: domestic
architecture at PPNBAin Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
53, 309325.
Banning, E., Chazan, M., 2006. Structuring interactions, structuring ideas:
domestication of space in prehistoric near East. In: Banning, E., Chzan, M.
(Eds.), Domesticating Space. Construction, Community, and Cosmology. Ex
Orient, Berlin, pp. 514.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2001. From Sedentary Foragers to Village Hierarchies: the emergence
of social institutions. Proceedings of the British Academy 110, 138.
Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1989. The origins of sedentism and farming
communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3, 447498.
Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., 1997. An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I:
The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., Tchernov, E., Kislev, M., 1991. Netiv Hagdud: an early
Neolithic village site in the Jordan Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 18, 405
424.
Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., in press. Mollusc exploitation at atalhyk. In: Hodder, I.
(Ed.), Humans and Landscapes of atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008
Seasons. Cotsen Institute, Los Angeles.
Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2000. Early sedentism in the Near East: a bumpy ride
to village life. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Communities: Social
Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York, pp. 1937.
Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2002. Recent developments in Near Eastern
Neolithic research. Palorient 28, 143156.
Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2010. The initial Neolithic in the Near East: why
is it so difcult to deal with the PPNA. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society
40, 118.
Biaki, E., 1998. An essay on the chronology of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
settlements of the east-Taurus region, with building remains and the 14C
dates. In: Arsebuk, G., Mellink, M., Schirmer, W. (Eds.), Light on Top of a
Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Cambel. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp.
137150.
Biaki, E., 2003. Observations on the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic architecture in the
Near East: 1. New building material and construction techniques. In: zdogan,
M., Hauptmann, H., Basgelen, N. (Eds.), From Villages to Cities: Early Villages in
the Near East. Archeoloji ve Sanat Publications, Istanbul, pp. 385414.
Boivin, N., 2004. Mind over matter? Collapsing the mindmatter dichotomy in
material culture studies. In: DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., Renfrew, C. (Eds.),
Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World.
MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 6371.
Bordaz, J., 1969. The Suberde excavations, Southwestern Turkey: an interim report.
Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi 17, 4371.
Bordaz, J., Bordaz, L.A., 1982. Erbaba: the 1977 and 1978 seasons in perspective.
Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26, 8592.
Boyd, B., 2006. On sedentism in the Later Epipaleolithic (Natuan). World
Archaeology 38, 164178.
Bradley, R., 1998. The Signicance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human
Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledge, London.
Bradley, R., 2000. The Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London.
Braidwood, L., Braidwood, R., 1982. Prehistoric Village Archaeology in Turkey British
Archaeological Reports. Oxford.
Byrd, B., 2000. Households in transition: Neolithic social organization within
Southwest Asia. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Communities: Social
Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York, pp. 6397.
Byrd, B.F., 2005. Early Village Life at Beidha, Jordan: Neolithic Spatial Organization
and Vernacular Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Campbell, S., Baird, D., 1990. Excavations at Ginning, the aceramic to early ceramic
Neolithic sequence in North Iraq. Palorient 16, 6578.
Carter, T., Dubernet, S., King, R., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Milic, M., Poupeau, G.,
Shackley, M., 2008. Eastern Anatolian obsidians at atalhyk and the
reconguration of regional interaction in the Early Ceramic Neolithic.
Antiquity 82, 900909.
Cauvin, J., 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Cessford, C., Mitrovic, S., 2005. Heavy residue analysis. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing
Materialities at atalhyk: Reports from the 199599 Seasons. McDonald
Institute of Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 4564.
Chilton, E. (Ed.), 1999. Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation
of Material Culture. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Clark, D.R., 2003. Bricks, sweat, and tears: the human investment in constructing a
four-room house. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, 3443.
Conneller, C., 2011. An Archaeology of Materials: Substantial Transformations in
Early Prehistoric Europe. Routledge, London.
Copley, M., Clark, K., Evershed, R., 2005. Organic-residue analysis of pottery vessels
and clay balls. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing Materalities at atalhyk: Reports
from 199599 Seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge, pp. 169174.
Dobres, M.A., 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell, Oxford.
Duru, R., 1996. The Neolithic transition from village to town in the Lake District. In:
Sey, Y. (Ed.), Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective.
Turkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vak, Istanbul, pp. 4959.
Duru, R., 1999. The Neolithic of the lake district. In: zdogan, M., Basgelen, N. (Eds.),
Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve
Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 165191.
Duru, G., 2002. Some architectural indications for the origins of Central Anatolia. In:
Grard, F., Thissen, L. (Eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal
Developments and External Relations during the 9th6th Millennia cal BC.
Ege Yaymlan, Istanbul, pp. 171180.
Duru, G., zbasaran, M., 2005. A non-domestic site in Central Anatolia. Anatolian
Antiquia 13, 1528.
Esin, U., 1991. Salvage excavations at the pre-pottery site of Askl Hyk in Central
Anatolia. Anatolica 17, 124135.
Esin, U., Harmankaya, S., 1999. Askl. In: zdogan, M., Basgelen, N. (Eds.), Neolithic
in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 115132.
Evans, J., 2003. Environmental Archaeology and Social Order. Routledge, London.
Facey, W., 1997. Back to Earth: Adobe Building in Saudi Arabia. Al-Turath, London.
Flannery, K., 1972. The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesopotamia
and the Near East. In: Ucko, P., Tringham, R., Dimbleby, G. (Eds.), Man,
Settlement and Urbanism. Academic Press, New York, pp. 2353.
Garnkel, Y., 1989. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic a site of Gesher. Mitekufat Haeven 22,
145.
Goring-Morris, N., 2000. The quick and the dead: the social context of Aceramic
Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar Hahoresh. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life
in Neolithic Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 103136.
Goring-Morris, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2008. A roof over ones head: developments in
Near Eastern residential architecture across the EpipalaeolithicNeolithic
transition. In: Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Neolithic
Demographic Transition and Its Consequences. Springer, Berlin, pp. 239286.
Goring-Morris, N., Horwitz, L., 2007. Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B of the Near East. Antiquity 81, 902919.
Gosden, C., 1999. Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship.
Routledge, London.
Hamilton, N., 2005. Social aspects of burial. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting
atalhyk: Reports from the 199599 Seasons. McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 301306.
Harris, D., Hillman, G., 1989. Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant
Exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London.
Hauptmann, H., 1999. The Ufra region. In: zdogan, M., Basgelen, N. (Eds.), Neolithic
in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 6486.
Hillman, G., Davies, M., 1990a. Measured domestication rates in wild wheats and
barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications.
Journal of World Prehistory 4, 157222.
Hillman, G., Davies, M.S., 1990b. Domestication rates in wild-type wheats and
barley under primitive cultivation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 39,
3978.
Hodder, I., 1990. Domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford.
Hodder, I., 2004a. The domus: some problems reconsidered. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.),
Archaeology beyond Dialogue. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 99
109.
Hodder, I., 2004b. Neo-thingness. In: Cherry, J., Scarre, C., Shennan, S. (Eds.),
Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew. MacDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 4252.
Hodder, I., 2005. Memory. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), atalhyk Perspectives: Reports
from the 199599 Seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge, pp. 183196.
Hodder, I., 2006. The Leopards Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of atalhyk. Thames
and Hudson, New York.
 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
Hodges, H., 1972. Domestic building materials and ancient settlements. In: Ucko, P.,
Tringham, R., Dimbleby, G. (Eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Duckworth,
London, pp. 523530.
Hoffman, D., Smyth, J. (Eds.), 2013. Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe:
Sedentism, Architecture and Practice. Springer, New York.
Houben, H., Guillaud, H., 2005. Earth Construction: A Comprehensive Guide. ITDG
Publishing, Bourton-on-Dunsmore.
Hurcombe, L., 2007. A sense of materials and sensory perception in concepts of
materiality. World Archaeology 39, 532545.
Ingold, T., 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14, 1161.
Ingold, Tim., 2012. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description.
Routledge, London.
Jerome, P., Chiari, G., Borelli, C., 1999. The architecture of mud: construction and
repair technology in the Hadhramaut region of Yemen. Association for
Preservation Technology International Bulletin 30, 3948.
Johnson, M., 2010. English Houses 13001800: Vernacular Architecture, Social Life.
Pearson, London.
Jones, A., 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materials-based analysis in theory
and practice. Archaeometry 46, 327338.
Keefe, L., 2005. Earth Building: Methods and Materials, Repair and Conservation.
Taylor & Francis, London.
Kemp, B., 2000. Soil (including mud-brick architecture). In: Nicholson, P., Shaw, I.
(Eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 78103.
Kenyon, K., 1981. Excavations at Jericho. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the
Tell, vol. III. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.
Knappett, C., Malafouris, L., 2008. Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric
Approach. Springer, Berlin.
Kozlowski, S., 1998. MLefaat: Early Neolithic Site in Northern Irak. Cahiers de
lEuphrates 8.
Kozlowski, S., Kempisty, A., 1990. Architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
settlement in Nemrik, Iraq. World Archaeology 21, 348362.
Kuijt, I., 2009. What do we really know about food storage, surplus, and feasting in
preagricultureal communities. Current Anthropology 50, 641644.
Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., 2009. Evidence for food storage and predomestication
granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 106, 1096710970.
Kuijt, I., Goring-Morris, N., 2002. Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal of
World Prehistory 16, 361440.
Kuijt, I., Mahasneh, H., 1998. Dhra: an early Neolithic village in the southern Jordan
Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 25, 153161.
Lemonnier, P., 1993. Technical Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since
the Neolithic. Routledge, London.
Love, S., 2012. The geoarchaeology of mudbricks in Architecture: a methodological
study from atalhyk. Geoarchaeology 27, 140146.
Love, S., 2013. An archaeology of mudbrick houses from atalhyk. In:
Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from
the 200008 Seasons. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp.
8196.
Lucas, G., 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical
Archaeological Practices. Routledge, London.
Matthews, W., 2005. Micromorphological and microstratigraphic traces of uses and
concepts of space. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting atalhyk: Reports from the
199599 Seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge,
pp. 355398.
Meece, S., 2006. A birds eye view- of a leopards spots the atalhyk map and the
development of cartographic representations in prehistory. Anatolian Studies
56, 116.
Mellaart, J., 1967. atal Hyk: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.
Morris, R., 2004. The Archaeology of Buildings. Tempus, Stroud.
Nodarou, E., Frederick, C., Hein, A., 2008. Another (mud)brick in the wall: scientic
analysis of Bronze Age earthen construction materials from East Crete. Journal
of Archaeological Science 35, 29973015.
Norberg-Schulz, C., 1980. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture.
Rizzoli, New York.
Oliver, P., 2003. Dwellings: The House across the World. Phaidon, Oxford.
Olsen, B., 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 36, 87104.
zbasaran, M., 1998. The heart of a house: the hearth. In: Arsebuk, G., Mellink, M.,
Schirmer, W. (Eds.), Light on Top of a Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet
Cambel. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 555561.
zbasaran, M., 2000. The Neolithic site of Musular Central Anatolia. Anatolica 26,
129151.
zbasaran, M., 2012. Asikli Hyk, in The Neolithic in Turkey. In: zdogan, M.,
Basgelen, N., Kuniholm, P. (Eds.), New Excavations and New Research: Central
Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 135158.
zdogan, M., 1999. Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic cultures in between the
Balkans and Anatolia. In: zdogan, M., Basgelen, N. (Eds.), Neolithic in Turkey:
The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari,
Istanbul, pp. 203224.
Parker Pearson, M., Richards, C. (Eds.), 1994. Architecture and Order: Approaches to
Social Space. Routledge, London.
Pitter, S., Yalman, N., Evershed, R., 2013. Absorbed lipid residues in atalhyk
Pottery. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports
757
from the 200008 Seasons. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp.
189196.
Rapoport, A., 1969. House Form and Culture. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Riggs, C.R., 2001. The Architecture of Grasshopper Pueblo. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Rival, L. (Ed.), 1998. The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives on Tree
Symbolism. Berg, Oxford.
Rollefson, G.O., 2001. The Neolithic period. In: MacDonald, B., Adams, R.,
Bienkowski, P. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan. Shefeld Academic Press,
Shefeld, pp. 67109.
Rosen, A., 2005. Phytolith indicators of plant and land use at atalhyk. In: Hodder,
I. (Ed.), Inhabiting atalhyk: Reports from the 199599 Seasons. McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 203212.
Rosen, A., 2007. Civilizing Climate: Social Responses to Climate Change in the
Ancient near East. Altamira Press, Landham.
Russell, N., During, B., 2006. Worthy is the lamb: a double burial at Neolithic
atalhyk (Turkey). Paleorient 32 (1), 7384.
Russell, N., Martin, L., 2005. atalhyk mammal remains. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.),
Inhabiting atalhyk: Reports from 199599 Excavation Seasons. MacDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 3398.
Russell, N., Meece, S., 2005. Animal representations and animal remains at
atalhyk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), atalhyk Perspectives: Reports from the
199599 Seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge,
pp. 209230.
Ryan, P., 2011. Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: perspectives
from the silica skeleton artifactual remains at atalhyk. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 30, 292305.
Ryan, P., in press. Plant exploitation from household and landscape perspectives:
the phytolith evidence. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Humans and Landscapes of
atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Sahlins, M., 2000. The sadness of sweetness, or the native anthropology of Western
cosmology. In: Sahlins, M. (Ed.), Culture in Practice: Selected Essays. Zone
Books, New York, pp. 527583.
Saidel, B., 1993. Round house or square? Architectural form and socio-economic
organization in the PPNB. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6, 65108.
Schirmer, W., 1990. Some aspects of building at the AceramicNeolithic settlement
of ayn Tepsi. World Archaeology 21, 363387.
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1977. The beginnings of the use of clay in Turkey. Anatolian
Studies 27, 133150.
Schmidt, K., 2011. Gbekli Tepe: a Neolithic site in southeastern Anatolia. In:
Steadman, S., McMahon, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia
(10,000323 BCE). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 917933.
Sillar, B., Tite, M., 2000. The challenge of technological choices for material science
approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 42, 220.
Stark, M., 1998. Technical choices and social boundaries in material culture
patterning: an introduction. In: Stark, M. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 111.
Steadman, S., 1996. Recent research in the archaeology of architecture: beyond
foundations. Journal of Anthropological Research 4, 5193.
Steadman, S., 2000. Spatial patterning and social complexity on Prehistoric
Anatolian Tell Sites: a model for mounds. Journal of Archaeological
Anthropology 19, 164199.
Steadman, S., 2004. Heading home: the architecture of family and society in early
sedentary communities on the Anatolian Plateau. Journal of Anthropological
Research 60, 515558.
Stevanovic, M., 1997. The age of clay: the social dynamics of house destruction.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 334395.
Stevanovic, M., 2013. New discoveries in house construction at atalhyk. In:
Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the
200008 Seasons. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp. 97112.
Stordeur, D., 2010. Bricks: the pre-history of an invention. In: Becker, J.,
Hempelmann, R., Rehm, E. (Eds.), Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum Und
Peripherie. Ugarit-Verlang, Munster, pp. 553577.
Thomas, J., 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. Routledge, London.
Thomas, G., 2005. The Prehistoric Buildings of Chalcolithic Cyprus; The Lemba
Experimental Village. British Archaeological Review, London.
Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments.
Berg, Oxford.
Tilley, C., 2004. Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology.
Berg, Oxford.
Todd, I., 1980. The Prehistory of Central Anatolia I: The Neolithic Period. P. Astroms
Forlag, Gotenborg.
Tringham, R., 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric
architectural remains. In: Conkey, M. (Ed.), Engendering Archaeology: Women
and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 93131.
Tung, B., 2005. A preliminary investigation of mudbrick in atalhyk. In: Hodder, I.
(Ed.), Changing Materialities at atalhyk: Reports from the 199599 Seasons.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 215220.
Turan, M., 1996. Anthropology and architecture. Journal of Anthropological
Research 52 (3), 355359.
Vellinga, M., 2007. Anthropology and the materiality of architecture. American
Ethnologist 33, 756766.
Verhoeven, M., 2004. A tale of two tells comparing Neolithic lifestyles at Tell Sabi
Abyad II and Tell Sabi Abyad I, Northern Syria. In: Aurenche, O., Miere, M.L.,
Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), From the River to the Sea: The Paleolithic and the Neolithic
758 S. Love / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 746758
on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant. British Archaeological Reports,
London, pp. 367382.
Watkins, T., 1990. The origins of house and home? World Archaeology 21, 336347.
Watkins, T., 1992. The beginning of the Neolithic: search for meaning in material
culture change. Palorient 18 (1), 6375.
Watkins, T., 1996. Excavations at Pnarbas: early stages. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), On the
Surface: atalhyk 19931995. British Institute of Archaeology, Ankara, pp.
4757.
Watkins, T., 2004a. Building houses, framing concepts, constructing worlds.
Palorient 30 (1), 524.
Watkins, T., 2004b. Architecture and theaters of memory in the Neolithic
of Southwest Asia. In: DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., Renfrew, C. (Eds.),
Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material
World. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp.
97106.
Watkins, T., 2006. Architecture and the symbolic construction of new worlds. In:
Banning, E., Chazan, M. (Eds.), Domesticating Space: Construction, Community,
and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East. Ex Orient, Berlin, pp. 1524.
Watkins, T., 2008. Supra-Regional Networks in the Neolithic of Southwest Asia.
Journal of World Prehistory 21, 139171.
Wilcox, G., Fornite, S., 1999. Impressions of Wild Cereal Chaff in Pise from the 10th
Millennium uncal B.P. at Jerf Ahmar and Mureybet: Norther Syria. Vegetation
History and Archaeobotany 8, 2124.
Wilson, P., 1988. Domestication of the Human Species. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Woldring, H., 2002. Climate change and the onset of sedentism in Cappadocia. In:
Grard, F., Thissen, L. (Eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal
Developments and External Relations during the 9th6th Millennia Cal BC.
Ege Yaymlan, Istanbul, pp. 5966.
Wright, G.H., 1985. Ancient Building in south Syria and Palestine. E.J. Brill, Leiden.
Wright, K., 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in Late
Pleistocene southwest Asia. Palorient 17, 1945.
Wright, G.H., 2003. Survey of preclassical architecture in the Levant. In: Richard, S.
(Ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, pp. 88
104.
Yakar, J., 1991. Prehistoric Anatolia: The Neolithic Transformation and the Early
Chalcolithic Period. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Yakar, J., 2011. Anatolian chronology and terminology. In: Steadman, S., McMahon,
G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook for Ancient Anatolia. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 5698.