SA 521 WORLD ROCK ART : FROM PALAEOLITHIC TO PRESENT

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Didier Boukaze-Khan

Continuity in (Rock) Art of Southeast Anatolia

in the context of

Symbolic Coding in the Social Realm

from Palaeolithic to the End of Early Neolithic

by
Beste Dilara Aksoy
Middle East Technical University
M.S. Program in Settlement Archaeology

Ankara, Fall 2015

'Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an’ tho’ a cloud’s shape nor hue nor size don’t stay the same, it’s
still a cloud an’ so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud’s blowed from or who the soul’ll be ’morrow? ..the
east an’ the west an’ the compass an’ the atlas, yay, only the atlas o’ clouds..'

David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas, p. 308.

 Continuity/Change in (Rock) Art of Southeast Anatolia
in the context of
Symbolic Coding in the Social Realm
from Palaeolithic to the End of Early Neolithic

Beste Dilara Aksoy

Abstract
This paper tries to understand the general structure; spatial and social organization of Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic in
Anatolia, and the role of ‘depiction’ and social coding through social agents like rock art, cult places, monumental
architecture and then to discuss whether there is a continuum or not in the context of the social realm throughout the
periods of Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic (PPNA, PPNB and PPNC) in Southeastern Anatolia.

Prologue

Why does the humankind need to depict something? Why, for generations, in different styles, using
different materials and in various contexts has the man expressed something, left a trace behind
him? Cave paintings, monumental structures, temples, figurines, decorated pottery, painted skulls,
stamps.. Can all they have a meaning in a social discourse? Can they be the social agents to
provide the continuity of the social unity, cohesion?

This paper briefly tries to discuss whether there is a continuity or a change or not through
Palaeolithic to Early Neolithic in the context of creating art, artistic objects or depictions. That is, it
tries to answer a question: do these efforts in different social, temporal, cultural and climatic
contexts have a continuity/change in their purpose? Do they all have a common point?

Southeast Anatolia is chosen as the study area, firstly because both Palaeolithic and Neolithic can
be observed here. Thus the rock art can be traced although its representation is scant, and it is the
region where the first attempts of sedentary life can be seen as well as the continuity in hunter-
gather lifestyle. Also, the first monumental architecture (of PPN) such as Göbeklitepe and Nevali
Çori and more local-scale cult structures like the skull building in Çayönü emerged here.

The study is composed of mainly four parts. First part includes the general information about
general overview of the Anatolian Palaeolithic, its climate, sites and dating while second part
explains rock art in Palaeolithic Anatolia. Third part gives more specific information about
Southeast Anatolia, Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic with respect to their symbolic world,
spatial and possible social organization structures, and briefly explains the related social theories.
The final part discusses on questions and tries to find firstly if there is a continuum or not and
secondly why the groups needed such social agents to consolidate their existence.
PART I

Palaeolithic Anatolia

Overview

Anatolia has always been a place for movements of humankind as it is a geographic bridge
between Eastern Europe, the Levant, the Caucasus and Central Asia. These movements, from
Africa to Eurasia and possibly the in the opposite way surely have left traces in Anatolia’s
archaeological record (Kuhn, 2002: 197). Thus, the studies of Palaeolithic in Anatolia, can give
significant contribution to the world history, especially in the travels of Home erectus and his
relatives. As the anatomically modern human migrated from Africa to central Asia and to Europe
through Near East, the role of Anatolia is undeniably crucial. That is, to exemplify, the earliest
known hominid site in Dmanisi, Southern Georgia, dated to 1.7 – 1.8 million years ago, should
have been reached by passing through Anatolia (Zimansky, Sagona, 2009:10).

Climatic Setting

Climates were warm and humid on the Anatolian Peninsula during Palaeolithic times defining the
Plio-Pleistocene boundary. Although the Late Pliocene and early Pleistocene were warm and
humid, they had also dry intervals and the later Pleistocene episodes were thought to be colder
and drier. During these climatic episodes, multiple large, shallow and saline lakes formed in Central
Anatolian region (Kuhn, 2002: 198).

Palaeolithic Sites

Research of Anatolian Palaeolithic sites continued through 1940s and 1950s and gradually
increased over the past two decades (Kuhn, 2002: 199). According to TAY (Turkish Archaeological
Settlements) projects, there are more than 200 Palaeolithic localities, yet findings form only a small
number of them were excavated and reported, and fewer than 25 of those sites were only subject
to test excavation. There are Palaeolithic site clusters in Anatolia also with the gaps in distribution
(Fig. 1). The sites that have been reported are from Marmara region- Istanbul and Bosporus,
Antalya region, Hatay region- coast next to the Syria border and upper Euphrates and Tigris region
in southeastern Anatolia. Besides, the large gaps are seen in the eastern and northeastern
Anatolia where there has only been little research have been made. Also the largest gap in the
distribution is the Central Anatolian region. This scarcity is both the consequence of inadequate
research conducted and geological factors. Although there is an extensive Miocene record of
hominoid fossils, Pleistocene layers are mostly absent where deposits of Miocene are exposed at
the surface because of the tectonic activities. Furthermore, the deep accumulations of late
Pleistocene and Holocene sediments covered the early deposits in other parts of the region (Kuhn,
2002: 199, 200).
 Fig.1 Map of Turkey showing the Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic sites.

Lower Palaeolithic in Anatolia (1 000 000 – 250 000)

Despite of the Lower Palaeolithic surface finds being numerous, only a small number of sites have
been excavated (Fig 2). There has not been found any localities in Anatolia dates earlier than 1
million years ago. However as there have been found the much older deposits in Dmanisi, it is
expected that older Plio-Pleistocene remains in Anatolia should exist, especially in the Eastern Part
of the region (Kuhn, 2002: 200).

Fig.2 Distribution of Lower Palaeolithic Sites in Anatolia. 1. Dursunlu,

2. Yarımburgaz Cave, 3. Karain Cave and Öküzini

The recent discoveries in Kaletepe Deresi 3 which is located in the Göllüdağ volcanic complex (fig.
3) revealed that the earliest human occupation in Central Anatolia which dated back to 1 million
years ago (Slimak et al. 2008) Phase II of Kaletepe Deresi 3 with its flake dominated stone industry
which is produced from obsidian, is parallel with Yarımburgaz and Karain E). Yarımburgaz Cave, in
Marmara region and Karain Cave near Antalya are other two Lower Palaeolithic sites in Anatolia
(Sagona, Zimansky, 2009:13. Dursunlu, dated back to 900 000 – 780 000 years, located on the
Konya basin has a rich deposit of faunal and floral remains and stone artefacts (Kuhn 2002: 201).
Also, calvaria of a Homo erectus was found accidentally in a travertine stone block at Denizli,
Kocabaş location and dated to 500 000 – 490 000 years ago (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009:12).

Fig.3 Location of Kaletepe Deresi 3 and other sites, 1. Kalederesi 3,

2. Karain Cave, 3. Dursunlu, 4. Yarımburgaz Cave, 5. Latamne

Middle Palaeolithic in Anatolia (250 000 – 45 000 BC)

The Middle Palaeolithic is best-known with Karain Cave. Mousterian assemblages are found in the
cave and those assemblages are characterized by extensively reshaped and resharpened tools
such as sidescrapers, points and convergent scrapers. Different than the Lower Palaeolithic, non-
local raw materials are used and Levallois technology appears for the first time- in layer F. In the
The leaf-shaped points found in the upper levels are similar to the ones in Middle Palaeolithic
central Europe and Balkans (Kuhn, 2002: 201). The closest parallels to Karain Mousterian tools
can be found in Kocapınar, Beldibi-Kumbucağı and Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Fig.4), yet they have not
been well documented and studied (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 19).

Fig. 4 Distribution of Middle Palaeolithic Sites. 3. Karain Cave and Öküzini,

4. Beldibi-Kumbucağı, Belbaşı and Kocapınar, 5. Merdivenli and Tıkalı Caves
Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic in Anatolia (45 000 – 9 600 BC)

During the beginning of Upper Palaeolithic, between 45 000 – 40 000 BC, stone tool industries in
Near East represents an important element as the Levallois features continued and additionally
they produces blades which were struck off prismatic cores. However in Anatolia the initial phases
of Upper Palaeolithic are not well-known. That is, as there are more sites ascribed to Lower and
Middle Palaeolithic periods and Epipalaeolithic period during which the blade technologies were
replaced by microliths, we know fewer sites representing initial Upper Palaeolithic (Sagona,
Zimansky, 2009: 21).

The best evidence for early Upper Palaeolithic can be found in Üçağızlı and Kanal Caves which
are both located near the Mediterreanean shore of Hatay (Fig. 1). Üçağızlı cave lithic assemblages
resemble the ones in the Levant, particularly Lebanon. The earliest levels are dated between 41
000 – 43 000 years ago, having the latest range from 28 000 – 33 000 years BC (Sagona,
Zimansky, 2009: 22).

Fig. 5 Distribution of Upper Palaeolithic Sites. 3. Karain Cave and Öküzini,

4. Beldibi-Kumbucağı, Belbaşı and Kocapınar, 6. Üçağızlı Cave, 7. Kanal Cave

Moreover, when the quantity of modified shell remains is taken under consideration, it can suggest
that the Üçağızlı inhabitants used personal ornaments. Together with Ksar Akil site, the beads and
pendants which are made from marine gastropods coming from Üçağızlı cave demonstrate the
earliest evidence of jewellery usage in the Near East and they can be comparable in date to the
similar objects coming from eastern Europe and Africa. It is noteworthy to mention that the
abundance and widespread use of personal ornaments shows that the external human behaviour
has emerged (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 23).

Epipalaeolithic or late Upper Palaeolithic evidence is found in the warm Mediterranean coast and
Southeastern region. The cluster of cave sites with greatest density is located in the Antalya region
–Beldibi, Belbaşı, Karain B, and most importantly Öküzini all together represents a picture towards
the end of the Ice Age (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 23).

In the Southeast part of Anatolia, some groups started to change their way of lives, they built
houses for the first time in Anatolia and lived in them. The earliest sedentary communities in
Southeast are found at Hallan Çemi, Demirköy, Körtiktepe, and the Çayönü’s earliest level. Also, in
central Anatolia, there is Pınarbaşı mound dating around 8500 – 8000 BC by its microlithic
assemblages.
PART II

Rock Art, Symbolic World

Rock Art in Anatolia is located in three mountaneous regions. First one is the Taurus mountains
starting in the Hakkari Region- Tirşin, Şat and Çatak and to the west- Palanlı, Adıyaman and to
Antalya- decorated caves of Beldibi and Öküzini. Secondly, the Eastern highlands of North of Van-
Put Köyü and Başet Dağı, Pasinler- Yarnak/Yazılı Cave and Kars- Kağızman, Azat, and Katran
Kazanı. Third one is the ancient mountain Latmos, located in West Anatolia. In those sites,
pictographs, petroglyphs and engravings are found. Unfortunately, no dating techniques have been
applied to Anatolian Rock Art (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 28).

In the Near East, there can be found one of the largest concentrations of rock art on the Tirşin
Plateau located in the Hakkari Region. Images carved or incised on the andesite blocks and
spread through a large area (Fig. 6a, 6b). The representations are mostly composed of animals:
wild cattle, bison, ibexes, deer, wild goats. They are depicted in a stylized or realistic fashion.

Fig. 6a Rock engravings from Palanlı Cave (1, 2, Fig. 6b Animal figures from Palanlı
5), near Adıyaman, on the Tirşin Plateau (3, 4,
6), in the Hakkâri region

Humans are depicted rarely, and in various schematic manner with ribs, fingers, toes and genitelia
as we can see in Adıyaman, Tirşin Plateau (Fig. 6a). Recent dating of the Tirşin rock art falls into
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period. The dating is based on the stylistic resemblance of Göbeklitepe,
especially in the depiction of the bull (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 29). Anati compares the rock-art in
the second and third phases to the wall-paintings in the Kumbucagi Rock Shelter (Beldibi) and to
the Gevaruk Valley Wall-Paintings and believes that it belongs Neolithic in date. Bostancı, on the
other hand argues that the rock-art belongs to the Epipalaeolithic and the Early Neolithic because it
is stylized. Mellaart however believes that the animal figures and other depictions of the rock-art in
this cave resemble Halaf painted pottery and assigns the paintings to the Chalcolithic Period
instead (TAY project, 2016).

Another region of cave cluster is Antalya where probably the earliest rock art of the Middle East is
found. In that region traces of a local Epipalaeolithic culture can be found in many caves and rock
shelters. (Whitley, 2001:793). In Beldibi, there are numerous artworks, ranging from a carved fish,
to an incised bull image head turned back and a running stag. Also, at Beldibi cross-formed figures,
anthropomorphic crosses and schematic human figures (Fig. 7) were found (TAY project, 2016).

Fig. 7 Superimposed images at Beldibi/Kum Bucağı

At Öküzini on the other hand, there is a large rendered bull, realistic in style, depicted with red
paint on the wall, and near of that there is a cluster of humans in stick figures and a schematically
depicted ibex (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 29). An interesting artefact category dated to both the
early Epipalaeolithic and Late Epipalaeolithic includes decorated pebbles and a decorated bone
object. Such incised pebbles were found both in Karain and Öküzini and some of them have
geometric decorations and others have human and animal depictions in a figurative style. The
most interesting among these decorated pebbles coming from Öküzini is the one that shows a
large animal, most probably a bovid which has been argued that is being attacked by a human (Fig
8). Moreover, a bone hook with a human face modelled on was found and pebbles with red paint
geometric decoration were found in Karain (During, 2011:38).

An important point should be emphasized here is that as the bovids are depicted in the art, the
bovid bones are almost completely missing in the faunal remains. Besides, the species like deer,
goat, sheep which are the main faunal assemblages of Karain and Öküzini are missing in the art
depicted. The reason can be because of the worship of bovids has been associated with Neolithic
revolution of the Near East, whose manifestations firstly appeared in the Levant and then spread to
other regions. However, the depiction of the bovids in Antalya region shows that this specie is
important symbolically also in pre-Neolithic societies of Asia Minor (During, 2011:39). Also, with the
microscopic study on the pebble depiction shows that symbolic weapons and the wounds
demonstrate different hands at work and they were incised in different times. It can be interpreted
as the renewal of a ritual killing act and though the renewal of the prehistoric art which will be seen
also in Neolithic, namely in Çatalhöyük (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 29).

Fig. 8 Renderings of the pebble from Öküzini

Van Region has four caves decorated with paintings out of 60 caves in total. The richest one is
called the Cave of Maidens which has more than 90 figures depicted in red or in brown paint. The
red painted ones are realistic and the brown painted ones are stylized and they sometimes
superimpose the red figures (Fig. 9).

Fig.9 Rock Painting from the Cave of Maidens, Van Region

Wild goats are the deer are the most common species depicted. Humans, on the other hand have
smaller size and depicted schematically in both male and female form and usually with the arms
outstretched above their heads- dancing. They can also be depicted with exaggeration in their
thighs and legs and the phallus. The general arrangement of the galleries does not show an order
which can be interpreted as the art was depicted in different times and wherever the space
allowed. Another location for figurative art in Van Region is Put Köyü or Yeşilalıç. The paintings and
engravings consist of humans, animals (most common one is the goat) and cross motif (Sagona,
Zimansky, 2009: 33).
In Kars Region, several districts have rock art. One is Kağızman which is also known as Çamışlı or
Yazılıkaya (Fig.10). The depictions includes animal images depicted with precision, particularly
stags with massive antlers. Another location is Çallı, the sites of Büyük Pano and Küçük Pano
demonstrate engraved ibexes with sweeping horns, a lattice motif. An at Azat location, the mostly
painted are the animals. In Pasinler district there is Yazılı or Yarnak Cave which has decorations of
red stylized human and animal figures and an abstract motif (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 33).

Fig.10 Rock face with engravings from Çamılı, Kars Region

PART III

Southeast Anatolia
Art, Monumentality, Temples, Ritual Practices

PPN or Early Neolithic can be categorized in two phases: PPNA dates between 10 000 – 8500 cal
BC and PPNB dates between 8500 – 7000 cal BC. PPNC on the other hand, in southeast
Anatolian context refers to the continuous phases connects the PPNB to PN. PPNA in the Near
East context is shaped by the initial forms of sedentary lifestyle. The following period, PPNB is the
time of the larger communities, intensification in ritual practices. Besides, during PPNA and most of
PPNB, a hunter-gatherer mode of life has been in the center of socio-economic context. At the end
of PPNB, a complete self-sustaining mode of subsistence (agricultural package) and a landscape
of distributed settlement pattern more in coherence with that mode of production/consumption has
occurred (Atakuman, 2014).

In Southeastern Anatolia, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, we see monumental cult places like Göbeklitepe,
Nevaliçori in Şanlıurfa are appearing as well as the new local-scale ritual activities are borning in
Diyarbakır, Körtiktepe- the city of death and Diyarbakır, Çayönü- skull building and flagstone
building (Fig. 11, 12).

Fig. 11 Pre-Pottery Neolithic occupation

 Fig. 12 Southeast Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites

Göbeklitepe, dating 9 600 – 8 000 BC together with the Nevali Çori dating 8 600 – 7900 BC
emerged in the lower slopes of the Taurus mountains and have a significant role in understanding
the PPN ritual practices which can be attributed to the special and monumental building built by
sedentary hunter-gatherer communities. As in Nevali Çori we can see both houses and temples in
Göbeklitepe we see a site dedicated to only ritual practices (Fig 13, 14, 16).

Fig 13. Nevali Çori site Fig. 14 Plan of Göbeklitepe

With the T-shaped pillars in a monumental size (even reaching 5 m), Göbekllitepe demonstrates
the earliest temples of the earth (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 60). T-shaped pillars are decorated with
low relief art (Fig. 15) and the decorations including mostly animals, rampant lions, wild cattle,
foxes, donkeys, pigs, birds of prey, cranes, scorpions and snakes (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 61).
 Fig. 15 T-shaped pillars of Göbeklitepe Fig. 16 Aerial view of Göbeklitepe

The cult structures in Nevali Çori include 13 monolithic pillars with T-shaped capitals, podium which
is thought to have a cult statue and a niche. With having one exception all the eleven pieces of
sculptures are decorated with mostly animal-human compositions (Fig. 17). The intention of
making these can either be apotropaic or had a utilitarian function used as another building block is
not certain (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 61).

Fig. 17 Lime sculptures from Nevali Çori

At Çayönü there are two special buildings- skull building and flagstone building (Fig. 18, 19).
Flagstone building is a rectangular building with flat large stones functioned as a pavement and on
the north wall has two buttresses. Flagstone structure also has three undecorated stele which were
broken before it is intentionally buried (Sagona, Zimansky, 2009: 63).
 Fig. 18 1987 Plan of Çayönü, showing the basic alignments of three cult buildings

Fig. 19 Reconstructed plans of the cult buildings at Çayönü, in 1963. From left to right the Terrazzo Building,
Skull Building and Flagstone Building

Skull building (Fig. 20) on the other hand is located on the eastern part of the site and inside the
building, there are skulls lying on the ground including two human skeletons. 40 burnt human skulls
have been located also in the later phases of the building. Monumental standing stones are
thought to be used in the skull building. In its last phase 49 burnt and crushed skulls were found on
the floor, thought to be stored before the building’s destruction- as a closing ritual (Sagona,
Zimansky, 2009: 64).
 Fig. 20 Skull Building at Çayönü

Continuity with transformation, social theories

Monumental building construction is not present in the ethnographies in hunter-gatherers today,

and also some authors link that phenomenon with the emergence of ritual leadership. According to
Hayden, sedentary hunter gatherers can easily affected by the resource fluctuations which is
occurred by climatic changes or conflicts in the communities. Thus in the times of environmental
and social stress they build cooperation networks. To build alliance can be by food sharing as an
integral part of multiple social events like ceremonies or celebrations. Also, a large scale feasts are
competitive events in which the aggrandizing families display their adequate capacity to produce
large surpluses of food and which as a result promotes their power and prestige. Moreover, those
large scale feasts require an organization, control of labor and consequently leadership roles
(Atakuman, 2014:3).

According to another perspective by Mark Aldendenfer, elders within kinship lineages are sources
for such leadership status. For instance, the males having more wives are more likely to have
higher positions as they guarantee the social continuity by reproduction. Tim Ingold explains the
leadership concept of prehistoric societies with coalescence. For him, the power concept of the
hunter-gatherers transformed into the forms of physical strength, skill or wisdom that makes people
clustered around individuals for one or more of these qualities. The hunter gatherer group can be
formed as a social structure sharing mutual knowledge which came into being with the intertwined
relations of stories, places, animals, plants and all other features of the landscape. Thus the so-
called ritual leaders or schamans are the social agents and their role in the society is not simply
accumulating power in their hands, but rather to provide social coherence and provide continuity by
bringing the individuals in the group together (Atakuman, 2014:6).
For Chapman and Bailey who are the first researcher tried to find connections between the
symbolic meaning and the tell occupations (conceptually continuous occupation of a place) which
brings the concept or territorial claim (Atakuman, 2014:6). And which in my opinion It can be
thought as similar to the palimpsest of drawings, superimposed depictions in the context of rock
art.

PART IV
Conclusion and Discussion

I argue here that the changing style of living in the transition of Epipalaeolithic to PPN has also
reflected on the change of style and place of ritual gathering activities. In other words, along with
the cave art we see a rise in the monumental cult places more like temples which can demonstrate
that the ritual leadership gains a more materialistic way of practice, and also have a more regional
control over populations such as Göbeklitepe. But the important point here is that, whatever the
scale or the type of spatialization it is people continued to practice such activities which similarly
before they performed at the caves. It shows that some kind of social agency has always been
required to provide social continuum. This social agent can be a space; can be a ritual leader
brought the forces together to consolidate the continuity of the groups. This phenomenon also can
be seen in domestic context in PPNB in Southeast Anatolia, as in Çayönü skull building where
probably the collective identities of the region has brought together. Moreover, the cultic imagery
and practice in this transitional period when taken together with the social lifestyles as hunting
gathering and (semi) sedentary can be a result of sharing and communal work which can be
explained by feasting theory but it should also be noted that new social codes were started to
assign to the place and collective identity. In this respect, rock art, can too be seen as a social
agent which brings maybe smaller groups together in the context of alliances, food sharing and
social cooperation. I also believe that in the rock art concept it is not the competition or
discrimination through ethnicity, and to leave a trace to mark the territory that makes the groups
create, spatialize one place, open for public use. Instead, under the hard conditions of Late
Palaeolithic, it is the coalescence that brings the people around a cultic place. Additionally, I can
suggest that the creators of rock art may be in some respect in challenge with each other, depicting
art can be used as examinations of leadership, to provide the continuity in crafts, skills and
wisdom.

In sum, although we cannot see an enormous exact physical continuity in rock art, depicted on the
rocks (partly because of the lack of research studies), except the examples from Göbeklitepe and
Nevaliçori we see the continuity of the tradition itself- create art and use it for the benefits of the
cultural togetherness and we see the continuity in site selection (it can also be related with the
changing climate- which offers a more suitable environment to transform the lifestyles into more
sedentary). In other words, as the climate and the cultural choices change the place making, way
of thinking about cosmos and ways of manipulating it interrelatedly change, but the concept that
has continued through ages is to be in contact with the context in which the humankind is and the
phenomenon of the need of establishing bonds both within the group and with the place.
Source Material

1. Zimansky, P., Sagona, A.(2009). Ancient Turkey. Routledge, New York. pp. 1-81

2. Steadman, S., McMahon, G. (eds.)(2011). Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Oxford, New
York. Chapters 2, 42, 43.

3. TAY project. Archaeological Sites of Turkey database.

accessed at: http://www.tayproject.org/trhome.html, accessed on: 03.01.2016

4. During, B. (2011). Prehistory of Asia Minor. Cambridge Press, New York

5. Kuhn, S. L. (2002) Palaeolithic Archaeology in Turkey. Evolutionary Anthropology. Issue 5, Vol.

11, pp. 198 - 210.
accessed at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.10033/abstract, accessed on: 08.01.2016

6. Slimak, L. Et al. (2008) Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): Archaeological evidence for early human
settlement in Central Anatolia. Journal of Human Evolution, 54, pp. 99-111
accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6015804_Kaletepe_Deresi_3_Turkey, accessed on:
17.01.2016

7. Atakuman, Ç. (2014) Architectural Discourse and Social Transformation during the Early
Neolithic of Southeast Anatolia. Journal of World Prehistory, 27, pp. 1-42

8. Whitley, D., S. (2001) Handbook of Rock Art Research. AltaMira Press, California. pp. 793 - 295