KİŞİSEL SÜS EŞYALARI KİMLİKLER HAKKINDA NE SÖYLER? METODOLOJİK YAKLAŞIMLAR VE ANADOLU VE LEVANT’TAN ARKEOLOJİK ÖRNEKLER

Yıl 2022, , 1 - 44, 22.12.2022

Sera Yelözer

https://doi.org/10.36891/anatolia.1098690

Öz

Bu çalışma, tarihöncesinde kişisel süs eşyalarının bedende taşınan ve bireyler, topluluklar ve uzak mesafeler arasında dolaşımda olan objeler olarak sosyal kimlikleri simgelemedeki rolünü ele almaktadır. Bu yorumlamaların yapılabilmesinin ön koşulu, günümüzde arkeolojide gittikçe yaygınlaşan çeşitli metodolojik yaklaşımların uygulanmasıdır. Kişisel süs eşyalarının hammadde temini, üretim süreçleri ve kimlikler gibi tarihöncesi arkeolojisi için anahtar konular hakkında neler söyleyebileceğini çözümlemek için gerekli analitik yaklaşımlara ve yorumlama biçimlerimizi zenginleştirebilecek olan etnografik örneklere dair Türkçe literatüre de katkı sunmak amacıyla, çalışmanın ilk kısmında arkeolojide kişisel süs eşyalarına dair yaklaşımlar tartışılmakta, uygulanmakta olan analitik yöntemler ile Anadolu arkeolojisinde kişisel süs eşyası çalışmaları kısaca ele alınmakta ve ardından, kişisel süs eşyalarının kimlikler ve etkileşim kavramlarıyla iç içe geçmiş ilişkisi, çeşitli etnografik örneklerle vurgulanmaktadır. Bu arka planın ardından, Anadolu ve Levant’ta Paleolitik Dönem’den Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem sonuna dek uzun erimli bir bakışla, tarihöncesinde kimliklerin, deniz kabukları, taşlar ve minerallerden üretilmiş boncukların zamansal ve bölgesel dağılımında görülen devamlılık ve değişim eğilimleriyle ilişkisi ele alınmakta ve sosyal kimliği teknoloji ve uzmanlaşma kavramlarıyla birlikte nasıl okuyabileceğimiz tartışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tarihöncesi arkeolojisi, materyal kültür, kişisel süs eşyaları, kimlik, teknoloji ve uzmanlaşma

Destekleyen Kurum

İstanbul Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma İstanbul Üniversitesi Tarih Öncesi Arkeolojisi Anabilim Dalı’nda devam eden doktora tez çalışmama dayanmaktadır. Öncelikle tez danışmanım Mihriban Özbaşaran’a tüm desteklerinden ötürü minnettarım. Melis Uzdurum ve Güneş Duru’ya fikirleri ve destekleri için teşekkür ederim. Emma Baysal ve Hala Alarashi’ye, tarihöncesi boncuk teknolojileri üzerine gerçekleştirdiğim çalışmalarda desteklerini, tecrübelerini ve bilgilerini daima benimle paylaştıkları için teşekkür etmek isterim. Figür 2 ve 3’te yer alan görsellerin bir kısmı, Emma Baysal, Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer, Hala Alarashi ve Teresa Steele’in çalışmalarından yeniden üretilmiştir. Bu görselleri kullanmama izin verdikleri için kendilerine ve yayınevlerine teşekkür ederim.

WHAT CAN PERSONAL ORNAMENTS SAY ABOUT IDENTITIES? METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSIGHTS FROM ANATOLIA AND THE LEVANT

Öz

This study focuses on the role of prehistoric personal ornaments in signifying social identities as objects that were often carried on bodies and circulated between individuals, communities, and long distances. Interpreting how prehistoric personal ornamentation relates to issues of identity relies heavily on the application of several methodological approaches that are nowadays widely used in archaeology. Aiming to unravel what personal ornaments can say about some key questions of prehistoric archaeology, e.g., raw material acquisition, production processes, and identities, as well as contributing to the Turkish literature on the methods applied in the study of personal ornaments, this study starts with a discussion of approaches and introduces current analytical methodologies with a brief discussion of the state of research in Anatolian archaeology. This is followed by an ethnographic background on the centrality of personal ornaments in discussing identities and interaction. Finally, focusing on examples ranging from the Palaeolithic to the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period in Anatolia and the Levant, this study provides a long-term perspective on the relationship between identities and elements that endured and changed in the chronological and regional distributions of beads made from shells, stones and minerals. This is followed by a discussion of how concepts of technology and specialization can contribute to an understanding of social identities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Prehistoric archaeology, material culture, personal ornaments, identity, technology and craft specialization

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• H. Alarashi, La parure épipaléolithique et néolithique de la Syrie (12e au 7e millénaire avant J.-C.): Techniques et usages, échanges et identités. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Université Lumiére Lyon 2 (Lyon, 2014).
• H. Alarashi, “Butterfly Beads in the Neolithic Near East: Evolution, Technology and Socio-Cultural Implications”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26, 2016, 493-512.
• H. Alarashi, “New Insights into the Technological Management of the Neolithic Cowrie Beads in the Levant: An Experimental and Traceological Approach”, içinde: S. Beyries – C. Hamon – Y. Maigrot (ed.), Beyond Use-Wear Traces: Going from Tools to People by Means of Archaeological Wear and Residue Analyses. Sidestone Press (Leiden 2021) 171-184.
• H. Alarashi – A. Ortiz – M. Molist, “Sea Shells on the Riverside: Cowrie Ornaments from the PPNB site of Tell Halula (Euphrates, Northern Syria)”, Quaternary International 490, 2018, 98-112.
• G. Albrecht – B. G. Albrecht – H. Berke – D. Burger – J. Moser – W. Rahle – W. Schoch – G. Storch – H.-P. Uerpmann – B. Urban, “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Finds from Öküzini: A Contribution to the Settlement History of the Bay of Antalya, Turkey”, Paléorient 18(2), 1992, 123-141.
• E. Álvarez Fernández, “Personal Ornaments Made from Mollusc Shells in Europe during the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: News and Views”, içinde: C. Çakırlar (ed.), Archaeomalacology Revisited: Non-Dietary Use of Molluscs in Archaeological Settings. Proceedings of the Archaeomalacology Sessions at the 10th ICAZ Conference (Mexico City 2011) 1-18.
• A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge 1986).
• J. E. Arnold, “Detecting Apprentices and Innovators in the Archaeological Record: The Shell Bead-Making Industry of the Channel Islands”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19, 2012, 269-305.
• T. Arslan, Öküzini Mağarası Epi-Paleolitik Dönem Süs Objeleri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi (Ankara 2006).
• R. Bains, Social Significance of Neolithic Stone Bead Technologies at Çatalhöyük. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University College London (Londra 2012).
• R. Bains – M. Vasic – D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – N. Russell – K. I. Wright – C. Doherty, “A Technological Approach to the Study of Personal Ornamentation and Social Expression at Çatalhöyük”, içinde: I. Hodder (ed.), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. BIAA Monograph 48, British Institute at Ankara, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press (Londra 2013) 331-363.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant”, Paléorient 31(1), 2005, 176-185.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Archaeomalacological Research in Israel: The Current State of Research”, Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 2007, 191-206.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Dentalium Shells Used by Hunter-Gatherers and Pastoralists in the Levant”, Archaeofauna 17, 2008, 103-110.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Towards a Typology of Stone Beads in the Neolithic Levant”, Journal of Field Archaeology 38(2), 2013a, 129-142.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Mollusc Exploitation at Çatalhöyük”, içinde: I. Hodder (ed.), Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons -Vol. 8. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology (Los Angeles 2013b) 329-338.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Temporal Changes in Shell Bead Technologies Based on Levantine Examples”, içinde: K. Szabo – C. Dupont – V. Dimitrijevic – L. G. Gastélum – N. Serrand (ed.), Archaeomalacology: Shells in the Archaeological Record. BAR International Series 2666, Archaeopress (Oxford 2014) 91-100.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Nassarius Shells: Preferred Beads of the Palaeolithic”, Quaternary International 390, 2015, 79-84.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – M. D. Bosch (ed.), Early Personal Ornaments-Humans’ Earliest Personal Ornaments. PaleoAnthropology 2019.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – N. Porat, “Green Stone Beads at the Dawn of Agriculture”, PNAS 105(25), 2008, 8548-8551.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – B. Vandermeersch – O. Bar-Yosef, “Shells and Ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: Indications for Modern Behavior”, Journal of Human Evolution 56, 2009, 307-324.
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, C. Bonsall, A. M. Choyke (ed.), Not Just for Show: The Archaeology of Beads, Beadwork and Personal Ornaments. Oxbow Books (Oxford, 2017).
• D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, I. Groman-Yaroslavski, O. Bar-Yosef, I. Hershkovitz, A. Kampen-Hasday, B. Vandermeersch, Y. Zaidner, M. Weinstein-Evron, “On Holes and Strings: Earliest Displays of Human Adornment in the Middle Palaeolithic”, PLoS ONE 15(7), 2020, e0234924.
• E. Baysal, “A Tale of Two Assemblages: Early Neolithic Manufacture and Use of Beads in the Konya Plain”, Anatolian Studies 63, 2013a, 1-15.
• E. Baysal, “Epipalaeolithic Marine Shell Beads at Pınarbaşı. Central Anatolia from an Eastern Mediterranean Perspective”, Anatolica XXXIX, 2013b, 261-276.
• E. Baysal, “Will the Real Specialist Please Stand Up? Characterising Early Craft Specialization, a Comparative Approach for Neolithic Anatolia”, Documenta Praehistorica XL, 2013c, 233-246.
• E. Baysal, “A Preliminary Typology of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Beads of Barcın Höyük”, Anatolia Antiqua 22, 2014, 1-11.
• E. Baysal, “Neolitik Dönem Kişisel Süs Eşyaları: Yeni Yaklaşımlar ve Türkiye’deki Son Araştırmalar”, TÜBA-AR 18, 2015a, 9-23.
• E. Baysal, “Bir İletişim Ağı Perspektifinden Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Boncuk ve Bilezikleri Yorumlamak”, içinde: A. Baysal (ed.), İletişim Ağları ve Sosyal Organizasyon. TAS 2, Ege Yayınları (İstanbul 2015b) 95-109.
• E. Baysal, “Anadolu ve Levant Epi-Paleolitiği Işığında Direkli Mağarası Kişisel Süs Eşyaları”, Anadolu 42, 2016a, 137-154.
• E. Baysal, “Beadwork in a Basket: An Ornamental Item from the Last Halaf Level of Mersin Yumuktepe”, Adalya, 2016b, 17-30.
• E. Baysal, “Beads at the Place of White Earth – Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Aktopraklık, Northwestern Turkey”, BEADS 28(1), 2016c, 50-59.
• E. Baysal, “Personal Ornaments in Neolithic Turkey, the Current State of Research and Interpretation”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 155, 2017, 1-22.
• E. Baysal, Personal Ornaments in Prehistory. An Exploration of Body Augmentation from the Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age, Oxbow Books (Oxford & Philadelphia 2019).
• E. Baysal, “Pre-Pottery Neolithic Personal Ornamentation. Observations on the Beads of Canhasan III”, Anatolica XLVI, 2020, 13-27.
• E. Baysal, “Envisaging the Neolithic and Chalcolithic as a Connected World: Tracing Ornament Movement in Anatolia”, içinde: M. Mărgărit – A. Boroneant (ed.), Beauty and the Eye of the Beholder: Personal Ornaments across the Millennia. Cetatea de scaun (Târgoviște 2020) 55-70.
• E. Baysal, “Interactions, Communication and Tradition: The Personal Ornaments of Suluin Cave (Antalya, Turkey) in Late Neolithic Context”, Archaeological Research in Asia 29, 2022, 100342.
• E. Baysal – B. Erdoğu, “Frog in the Pond: Gökçeada (Imbros), and Aegean Stepping-Stone in the Chalcolithic Use of Spondylus Shell”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80, 2014, 363-378.
• E. Baysal – C. M. Erek, “Material Movement in the Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic: Implications of the Shell and Stone Beads of Direkli Cave, Turkey”, Journal of Field Archaeology 43(8), 2018, 591-603.
• E. Baysal – H. Miller, “Teoride Süs Eşyaları: Arkeolojik Kontekstlerde Prehistorik Boncukların Yorumu”, APAD 2, 2016, 11-28.
• E. Baysal – H. Sağlamtimur, “Sacrificial Status and Prestige Burials: Negotiating Life, Death and Identity through Personal Adornment at Early Bronze Age I Başur Höyük, Turkey”, American Journal of Archaeology 125(1), 2021, 3-28.
• E. Baysal – A. Baysal – A. Türkcan – A. Nazaroff, “Early Specialized Craft? A Chalcolithic Stone Bracelet Workshop at Kanlıtaş, Eskişehir, Turkey”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34(3), 2015, 232-254.
• H. C. Beck, “Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants”, Archaeologia 77, 1928, 1-76.
• A. Belfer-Cohen – O. Bar-Yosef, “Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Ride to Village Life”, içinde: I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Fundamental Issues in Archaeology Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers (New York 2002) 19-37.
• A. Belfer-Cohen – E. Hovers, “Prehistoric Perspectives on “Others” and “Strangers”, Frontiers in Psychology 10, 2020, 3063.
• N. Boivin, “From Veneration to Exploitation. Human Engagement with the Mineral World”, içinde: N. Boivin – M. A. Owoc (ed.), Soils, Stones and Symbols. Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World. UCL Press (London 2004) 1-22.
• S. Bonnardin, La parure funéraire au Néolithique ancien dans les Bassins parisien et rhénan : Rubané, Hinkelstein et Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. Mémoire XLIX de la Société Préhistorique Française (Paris 2009).
• A. Bouzouggar – N. Barton – M. Vanhaeren – F. d’Errico – S. Collcut – T. Higham – E. Hodge – S. Parfitt – E. Rhodes – J.-L. Schwenninger – C. Stringer – E. Turner – S. Ward – A. Moutmir – A. Stambouli, 82-000-Year-Old Shell Beads from North Africa and Implications for the Origins of Modern Human Behavior”, PNAS 104(24), 2007, 9964-9969.
• B. Bril – V. Roux – G. Dietrich, “Habiletés, impliquées dans la taille des perles en calcédoine: caractéristiques motrices et cognitives d’une action située complexe (Skills Involved in Knapping of Chalcedony Beads: Motor and Cognitive Characteristics of a Complex Situated Action)”, içinde: V. Roux (ed.), Cornaline de l’Inde. Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systèmes de l’Indus. Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme (Paris 2000) 211-239.
• A. Bursalı – H. Özbal – R. Özbal – B. Şimşek – C. Yağcı – Y. Akkaya – E. Baysal, “Investigating the Source of Blue Color in Neolithic Beads from Barcın Höyük, NW Turkey”, içinde: T. Pereira – X. Terradas – N. Bicho (ed.), The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory: Sourcing, Processing and Distribution. Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Newcastle upon Tyne 2017) 492-505.
• S. Calley – R. Grace, “Technology and Function of Micro-Borers from Kumartepe (Turkey)”, içinde: S. Beyries (ed.), Industries Lithiques: Tracéologie et Technologie, vol. 1: aspects archéologiques. BAR International Series (Oxford 1988) 69-81.
• A. K. Carter, “Circular or Half-Moon Marks on Old Beads”, The Bead Forum: Newsletter of the Society of Bead Researchers 69, 2016, 1-16
• A. M. Choyke, “The Bone is the Beast: Animal Amulets and Ornaments in Power and Magic”, içinde: D. Campana – P. Crabtree – S. D. DeFrance – J. Lev-Tov – A. Choyke (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity, and Animal Transformations. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2010) 197-209.
• C. L. Costin, “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organisation of Production”, Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 1991, 1-56.
• G. Coşkunsu, “Hole-making Tools of Mezraa Teleilat with Special Attention to Micro-Borers and Cylindrical Polished Drills and Bead Production”, Neo-Lithics 1(08), 2008, 25-36.
• E. Cristiani – D. Borić, “8500-Year-Old Late Mesolithic Garment Embroidery from Vlasac (Serbia): Technological, Use-Wear and Residue Analysis”, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012, 3450-3469.
• C. Çakırlar, “To the Shore, Back and Again: Archaeomalacology of Troia”, Studia Troica 18, 2009, 59-86.
• C. Çakırlar, “Adaptation, Identity, and Innovation in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Western Anatolia (6800-300 cal. BC): The Evidence from Aquatic Mollusk Shells”, Quaternary International 390, 2015, 117-125.
• G. Dardeniz – T. Yıldırım – C. Yıldırım – E. Çiftçi, “Techniques of Blue, Green, and White Faience Bead Production Used at the Early Bronze Age Central Anatolian Site of Resuloğlu (Turkey)”, Archaeometry 63(2), 2020, 327-342.
• F. d’Errico, L’art gravé azilien. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris 1989).
• F. d’Errico, “Identification des traces de manipulation, suspension, polissage sur l’art mobilier en os, bois de cervidés, ivoire”, içinde: P. C. Anderson – S. Beyries – M. Otte – H. Plisson (ed.), Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liége, Vol. 1, Service de Préhistoire (Liége 1993) 177-188.
• F. d’Errico – L. Backwell, “Earliest Evidence of Personal Ornaments Associated with Burial: The Conus Shells from Border Cave”, Journal of Human Evolution 93, 2016, 91-108.
• F. d’Errico – M. Vanhaeren, “Criteria for Identifying Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) Age and Sex from their Canines. Application to the Study of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Ornaments”, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 2002, 211-232
• F. d’Errico – M. Vanhaeren – N. Barton – A. Bouzouggar – H. K. Mienis – D. Richter – J.-J. Hublin – S. P. McPherron – P. Lozouet, “Additional Evidence on the Use of Personal Ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa”, PNAS 106(38), 2009, 16051-16056
• F. d’Errico – A. Pitarch Marti – C. Shipton – E. Le Vraux – E. Ndiema – S. Goldstein – M. D. Petraglia – N. Boivin, “Trajectories of Cultural Innovation from the Middle to Later Stone Age in Eastern Africa: Personal Ornaments, Bone Artifacts, and Ocher from Panga ya Saidi, Kenya”, Journal of Human Evolution 141, 2020, 102737.
• M.-A. Dobres, Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford 2000).
• H. Ekmen – C. Diker – F. G. Ekmen – C. Tunoğlu, “New Evidence of Chalcolithic Age Steatite Beads from İnönü Cave: Typology and Technology Aspects with Archaeometric Techniques”, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 20(2), 2020, 113-129.
• B. Erdoğu – T. Korkut – T. Takaoğlu – L. Atıcı – N. Kayacan – D. Guilbeau – M. Ergun – T. Doğan, “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Finds from the 2020 Trial Excavation at Girmeler, Southwestern Turkey”, Anatolica XLVII, 2021, 299320.
• A. Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, içinde: N. Başgelen (ed.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları (İstanbul 2011) 185-269.
• U. Esin, “Copper Beads of Aşıklı”, içinde: M. S. Mellink (ed.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbours – Studies in Honour of Nimet Özgüç. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (Ankara 1993) 179-183.
• J. E. Fairlie – L. S. Barham, “From Chaîne Opératoire to Observational Analysis: A Pilot Study of a New Methodology for Analysing Changes in Cognitive Task-Structuring Strategies Across Different Hominin Tool-Making Events”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26(4), 2016, 643-664.
• C. G. Falci, Indigenous Adornment in the Circum-Caribbean: The Production, Use, and Exchange of Bodily Ornaments through the Lenses of the Microscope. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Universiteit Leiden (Leiden 2020).
• C. Fowler, The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. Routledge (London & New York 2004).
• D. W. Frayer – J. Radovčić – D. Radovčić, “Krapina and the Case for Neandertal Symbolic Behavior”, Current Anthropology 61(6), 2020, 713-731.
• L. Gorelick – A. J. Gwinnett, “Innovative Lapidary Craft Techniques in Neolithic Jarmo”, Archeomaterials 4(1), 1990, 25-32.
• C. Gosden – Y. Marshall, “The Cultural Biography of Objects”, World Archaeology 31(2), 1999, 169-178.
• R. Grace, “The Use-Wear Analysis of Drill Bits from Kumartepe”, Anatolica XVI, 1989/1990, 145-155.
• I. Groman-Yaroslavski – D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer 2015, “Lapidary Technology Revealed by Functional Analysis of Carnelian Beads from the Early Neolithic Site of Nahal Hemar Cave, Southern Levant”, Journal of Archaeological Science 58, 2015, 77-88.
• M. Gurova – C. Bonsall, “Experimental Replication of Stone, Bone and Shell Beads from Early Neolithic Sites in Southeast Europe”, içinde: D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – C. Bonsall – A. M. Choyke (ed.), Not Just for Show: The Archaeology of Beads, Beadwork and Personal Ornaments. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2017) 159-167.
• M. Gurova – C. Bonsall – B. Bradley – E. Anastassova, “Approaching Prehistoric Skills: Experimental Drilling in the Context of Bead Manufacturing”, Bulgarian e-journal of Archaeology 3(2), 2013.
• A. Günal Türkmenoğlu – Ş. Demirci (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisinde Takı ve Boncuk: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar. V. ODTÜ Arkeometri Çalıştayı Bildiriler Kitabı, Ege Yayınları (İstanbul 2021).
• H. Gündoğdu, “Patterns of Black Amber Bead Making in Northeast Anatolia”, içinde: T. Takaoğlu (ed.), Investigations in Rural Anatolia. Ege Yayınları (İstanbul 2004) 115-126.
• A. J. Gwinnett – L. Gorelick, “Ancient Lapidary. A Study using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Functional Analysis”, Expedition 22(1), 1979, 17-32.
• A. J. Gwinnett – L. Gorelick, “A Brief History of Drills and Drilling”, Beads, 10/11, 1999, 49-56.
• B. L. Hardy – M.-H. Moncel – C. Daujeard – P. Fernandes – P. Bearez – E. Desclaux – M. G. Chacon Navarro – S. Puaud – R. Gallotti, “Impossible Neanderthals? Making String, Throwing Projectiles and Catching Small Game during Marine Isotope Stage 4 (Abri du Maras, France)”, Quaternary Science Reviews 82, 2013, 23-40.
• E. Healey – S. Campbell, “Producing Adornment: Evidence of Different Levels of Expertise in the Production of Obsidian Items of Adornment at Two Late Neolithic Communities in Northern Mesopotamia”, Journal of Lithic Studies 1(2), 2014, 79-99.
• I. Hodder, Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge 1982).
• J. Hoskins, Biographical Objects. How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives. Routledge (New York & London 1998).
• F. Ifantidis, Practices of Personal Adornment in Neolithic Greece. Archaeopress (Oxford 2019).
• A. Iliopoulos, “Early Body Ornamentation as Ego-Culture: Tracing the Co-Evolution of Aesthetic Ideals and Cultural Identity”, Semiotica 232, 2020, 1-47.
• M. Iovino – C. Lemorini, “Lithic Industry at Çayönü: Different Raw Material Used, Different Function(s) Done? The Lithic Assemblage of the Channelled Building DI. TÜBA-AR 2, 1999, 139-153.
• S. Karampelas – L. Kiefert – D. Bersani – D. Vandenabeele, Gems and Gemmology: An Introduction for Archaeologists, Art-Historians and Conservators. Springer (Cham 2020).
• J. M. Kenoyer, “Using SEM to Study Stone Bead Technology”, içinde: A. Kanungo (ed.), Stone Beads of South & South-East Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography and Global Connections. Indian Institute of Technology – Gandhinagar & Aryan Press (Ahmedabad & Delhi 2017) 405-433.
• J. M. Kenoyer – M. Vidale, “A New Look at Stone Drills of the Indus Valley Tradition”, içinde: P. Vandiver – J. R. Druzick – G. S. Wheeler – I. Freestone (ed.), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III. Materials Research Society (Pittsburgh 1992) 495-518.
• S. Kılıç, “A New Interpretation of Beads in their Archaeological and Cultural Context”, içinde: E. Kozal – M. Akar – Y. Heffron (ed.), Questions, Approaches, and Dialogues in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of Marie Henriette and Charles Gates. Ugarit-Verlag (Munich 2017) 849-856.
• C. Knappett – L. Malafouris (ed.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer (Boston, MA 2008).
• S. L. Kuhn, “Signaling Theory and Technologies of Communication in the Paleolithic”, Biological Theory 9, 2014, 42-50
• S. L. Kuhn – M. C. Stiner, “Paleolithic Ornaments: Implications for Cognition, Demography and Identity”, Diogenes 214, 2007a, 40-48.
• S. L. Kuhn – M. C. Stiner, “Body Ornamentation as Information Technology: Towards an Understanding of the Significance of Early Beads”, içinde: P. Mellars – K. Boyle – O. Bar-Yosef – C. Stringer (ed.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2007b) 45-54.
• A. Kurzawska – D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – H. K. Mienis, “Scaphopod Shells in the Natufian Culture”, içinde: O. Bar-Yosef – F. R. Valla (ed.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant: Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 19 (Ann Arbor, Michigan 2013) 611-621.
• E. Kvavadze – O. Bar-Yosef – A. Belfer-Cohen – E. Boaretto – N. Jakeli – Z. Matskevich – T. Meshveliani, “30,000-Year-Old Wild Flax Fibers”, Science 325(5946), 2009, 1359.
• M. C. Langley, “Symbolic Material Culture in the Late Pleistocene: Use in Prehistory, Appearance in the Archaeological Record and Taphonomy”, içinde: B. Putova – V. Soukup (ed.), The Genesis of Creativity and the Origin of the Human Mind. Karolinum Press, Charles University (Prague 2015) 57-75.
• P. Lemonnier, “Introduction”, içinde: P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. Routledge (London & New York 1993) 1-35.
• A. Leroi-Gourhan, Evolution et techniques: L’homme et la matière. Albin Michel (Paris 1943).
• G. J. Ludvik – J. M. Kenoyer – M. Pieniazek – W. Aylward, “New Perspectives on Stone Bead Technology at Bronze Age Troy”, Anatolian Studies 65, 2015, 1-18.
• L. A. Maher – D. A. MacDonald – E. Pomeroy – J. T. Stock, “Life, Death, and the Destruction of Architecture: Hunter-Gatherer Mortuary Behaviors in Prehistoric Jordan”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 61, 2012, 101262.
• M. Mărgărit, “Testing the Endurance of Prehistoric Adornments: Raw Materials from the Aquatic Environment”, Journal of Archaeological Science 70, 2016, 66-81.
• M. Mărgărit – A. Boroneant (ed.), Beauty and the Eye of the Beholder: Personal Adornments across the Millennia. Cetatea de Scaun (Târgoviște 2020).
• M. Mărgărit – V. Radu – A. Boroneant – C. Bonsall, “Experimental Studies of Personal Ornaments from the Iron Gates Mesolithic”, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10(8), 2018, 2095-2122.
• F. Martínez-Sevilla – E. Baysal – R. Micheli – F. Ifantidis – C. Luglie, “A Very Early ‘Fashion’: Neolithic Stone Bracelets from a Mediterranean Perspective”, Open Archaeology 7(1), 2021, 815-831.
• H. V. Mattson, “Ornaments as Socially Valuable Objects: Jewelry and Identity in the Chaco and post-Chaco Worlds”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42, 2016, 122-139.
• H. V. Mattson (ed.), Personal Adornment and the Construction of Identity: A Global Perspective. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2021).
• L. E. McAdam, Beads across Australia: An Ethnographic and Archaeological View of the Patterning of Aboriginal Ornaments. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of New England (New England 2008).
• L. Meskell, Archaeologies of Social Life, Age, Sex, Class et cetera. in Ancient Egypt. Blackwell (Oxford 1999).
• R. Micheli, “Personal Ornaments, Neolithic Groups and Social Identities: Some Insights into Northern Italy”, Documenta Praehistorica 39, 2012, 227-256.
• H. K. Mienis, “When Shells Begin to Talk. Archaeomalacology: An Important Tool for the Archaeologist with Examples from the Excavation of Mallaha, Hula Valley, Israel”, içinde: B. Öztürk – A. Salman (ed.), I. Ulusal Malakoloji Kongresi, 1-3 Eylül 2004, İzmir – Türkiye, Turkish Journal of Aquatic Life 2, 2004, 111-116.
• M. Minotti, “Ornaments and Use-Wear Analysis: Methods of Study Applied to the Adaïma Necropolises”, içinde: J. Marreiros – N. Bicho – J. F. Gibaja (ed.), International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis: Use-Wear 2012. Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Newcastle upon Tyne 2014) 80-89.
• O. M. Moro Abadia – A. Nowell, “Paleolithic Personal Ornaments: Historical Development and Epistemological Challenges”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22, 2015, 952-979.
• T. Moutsiou – V. Kassianidou, “Geochemical Characterization of Carnelian Beads from Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus Using Portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (pXRF)”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 25, 2019, 257-265.
• R. R. Newell – D. Kielman – T. S. Constandse-Westermann – W. Van Der Sanden – A. B. Van Gijn, An Inquiry into the Ethnic Resolution of Mesolithic Regional Groups: The Study of Their Decorative Ornaments in Time and Space (Brill 1990).
• Y. Nishiaki – Y. Kanjo – S. Muhesen – T. Akazawa, “Newly Discovered Late Epipalaeolithic Lithic Assemblages from Dederiyeh Cave, the Northern Levant”, içinde: E. Healey – S. Campbell – O. Maeda (ed.), The State of Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. ex oriente (Berlin 2011) 79-87.
• M. Otte – I. Yalçınkaya – J.-M. Leotard – M. Kartal – O. Bar-Yosef – J. Kozlowski – I. L. Bayón – A. Marshack, “The Epi-Palaeolithic of Öküzini Cave (SW Anatolia) and its Mobiliary Art”, Antiquity 69, 1995, 931-944.
• S. V. Örnek, Türk Halk Bilimi. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları 1629, HAGEM Yayınları 210, Gelenek, Görenek ve İnançlar Dizisi 20 (Ankara 1995).
• K. Özçelik, “Türkiye’de Üst Paleolitik Dönem: Çeşitli Yaklaşımlar ve Problemler”, APAD 1, 2015, 123-137.
• C. Perlés – P. Pion, “The Cerastoderma Bead Production at Franchthi (Greece): A Case of Apprenticeship?”, içinde: M. Mărgărit – A. Boroneant (ed.), Beauty and the Eye of the Beholder: Personal Ornaments across the Millennia. Cetatea de scaun (Târgoviște 2020) 223-245.
• C. Pickard – U.-D. Schoop, “Characterization of Late Chalcolithic Micro-Beads from Çamlıbel Tarlası, North-Central Anatolia”, Archaeometry 55(1), 2012, 14-32.
• M. Poulmarc’h – R. Christidou – A. Balaşescu – H. Alarashi – F. Le Mort – B. Gasparyan – C. Chataigner, “Dog Molars as Personal Ornaments in a Kura-Araxes Child Burial (Kalavan-1, Armenia)”, Antiquity 90(352), 2016, 953-972.
• C. P. Quinn, Vital Sings: Costly Signaling and Personal Adornment in the Near Eastern Early Neolithic. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Washington State University (Washington DC 2006).
• D. R. Raad – C. A. Makarewicz, “Application of XRD and Digital Optical Microscopy to Investigate Lapidary Technologies in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Societies”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 23, 2019, 731-745.
• D. Radovčić – A. O. Srsen – J. Radovčić – D. W. Frayer, “Evidence for Neandertal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina. PLoS ONE 3, 2015, e0119802.
• D. Radovčić – G. Birarda – A. O. Srsen – L. Vaccari – J. Radovčić – D. W. Frayer, “Surface Analysis of an Eagle Talon from Krapina”, Scientific Reports 10, 2020, 6329.
• G. Rapp, Archaeomineralogy (Springer 2009).
• D. Reese, “Marine Shells in the Levant: Upper Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic”, içinde: O. Bar-Yosef – F. Valla (ed.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory (Michigan 1991) 613-628.
• A. Richardson, “Material Culture and Networks of Bestansur and Shimshara”, içinde: R. Matthews – W. Matthews – K. R. Raheem – A. Richardson (ed.) The Early Neolithic of the Eastern Fertile Crescent: Excavations at Bestansur and Shimshara, Iraqi Kurdistan. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2020) 533-566.
• T. Richter – A. N. Garrard – S. Allock – L. A. Maher, “Interaction before Agriculture: Exchanging Material and Sharing Knowledge in the Final Pleistocene Levant”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(1), 2011, 95-114.
• J. Ridout-Sharpe, “Changing Lifestyles in the Northern Levant: Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic Shells from Tell Abu Hureyra”, Quaternary International 390, 2015, 102-116.
• S. Rigaud, La parure: Traceur de la géographie culturelle et des dynamiques de peuplement au passage Mésolithique-Néolithique en Europe. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Université Bordeaux 1 (Talence, Bordeaux 2011).
• S. Rigaud – F. d’Errico – M. Vanhaeren, “Ornaments Reveal Resistance of North European Cultures to the Spread of Farming”, PLoS ONE 10(4), 2015, e0121166.
• V. Roux – B. Bril – G. Dietrich, “Skills and Learning Difficulties Involved in Stone Knapping: The Case of Stone-Bead Knapping in Khambat, India”, World Archaeology 27(1), 1995, 63-87.
• H. C. Schechter – N. Getzov – H. Khalaily – I. Milevski – A. N. Goring-Morris – D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Exceptional Shell Depositions at PPNB Yiftahel”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 37, 2021, 102944.
• D. Shaham – A. Belfer-Cohen, “The Natufian Audio-Visual Bone Pendants from Hayonim Cave”, içinde: D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – C. Bonsall – A. M. Choyke (ed.), Not Just for Show: The Archaeology of Beads, Beadwork and Personal Ornaments. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2017) 95-102.
• M. Soressi – J.-M. Geneste, “The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to Lithic Analysis: Studying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutionary Perspective”, içinde: G. B. Tostevin (ed.), Reduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Special Issue: PaleoAnthropology, 2011, 334-350.
• A. J. Spatz, “Ornamental Shell Beads as Markers of Exchange in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Southern Levant”, içinde: D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – C. Bonsall – A. M. Choyke (ed.), Not Just for Show: The Archaeology of Beads, Beadwork and Personal Ornaments. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2017) 69-80.
• A. J. Spatz – D. E. Bar-Yosef-Mayer – A. Nowell – D. O. Henry, “Ornaments of Shell and Stone: Social and Economic Insights”, içinde: D. O. Henry – J. E. Beaver (ed.), The Sands of Time: The Desert Neolithic Settlement at Ayn Abu Nukhayla. Bibliotheca Neolithica Asiae Meridionalis et Occidentalis, ex oriente (Berlin 2014) 245-258.
• T. E. Steele – E. Álvarez Fernández E. Hallett-Desguez, “A Review of Shells as Personal Ornamentation during the African Middle Stone Age”, PaleoAnthropology 2019, 24-51.
• M. C. Stiner, “Finding a Common Band-Width: Causes of Convergence and Diversity in Paleolithic Beads”, Biological Theory 9, 2014, 51-64.
• M. C. Stiner – S. L. Kuhn – E. Güleç, “Early Upper Paleolithic Shell Beads at Üçağızlı Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the Socioeconomic Context of Ornament Life-Histories”, Journal of Human Evolution 64, 2013, 380-398.
• A. Strathern – M. Strathern, Self-Decoration in Mount Hagen. Duckworth (London 1971).
• F. Tátá – J. Cascalheira – J. Marreiros – T. Pereira – N. Bicho, “Shell Bead Production in the Upper Paleolithic of Vale Boi (SW Portugal): An Experimental Perspective”, Journal of Archaeological Science 42, 2014, 29-41.
• J.-M. Tejero – G. Bar-Oz – O. Bar-Yosef – T. Meshveliani – N. Jakeli – Z. Matskevich – R. Pinhasi – A. Belfer-Cohen, “New Insights into the Upper Palaeolithic of the Caucasus through the Study of Personal Ornaments. Teeth and Bones Pendants from Satsurblia and Dzudzuana Caves (Imereti, Georgia)”, PLoS ONE 16(11), 2021, e0258974.
• J. Thomas, “Assembling Adornment and Assembling Identity”, içinde: H. V. Matson (Ed.), Personal Adornment and the Construction of Identity: A Global Archaeological Perspective. Oxbow (Oxford 2021) 201-214.
• A. Van Gijn, “New Perspectives for Microwear Analysis”, içinde: C. Bakels – H. Kamermans (ed.), Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 43/44, 2012, 275-282.
• A. Van Gijn, “The Materiality of Funnelbeaker Burial Practices: Evidence from the Microscope”, içinde: J. Marreiros – N. Bicho – J. F. Gibaja (ed.), International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis: Use-Wear 2012. Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Newcastle upon Tyne 2014a) 693-701.
• A. Van Gijn, “Science and Interpretation in Microwear Studies”, Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 2014b, 166-169.
• A. Van Gijn, “Bead Biographies from Neolithic Burial Contexts: Contributions from the Microscope”, içinde: D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – C. Bonsall – A. M. Choyke (ed.), Not Just for Show: The Archaeology of Beads, Beadwork and Personal Ornaments. Oxbow Books (Oxford 2017) 103-114.
• M. Vanhaeren, “Speaking with Beads: The Evolutionary Significance of Bead Making and Use”, içinde: L. Backwell – F. d’Errico (ed.), From Tools to Symbols. From Early Hominins to Modern Humans. Witwatersrand University Press (Johannesburg 2005) 525-535.
• M. Vanhaeren – F. d’Errico, “The Body Ornaments Associated with the Burial”, içinde: J. Zilhão – E. Trinkaus (ed.), Portrait of the Artist as a Child: The Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context. Trabalhos de Arqueología (Lisboa 2002) 154-186.
• M. Vanhaeren – F. d’Errico, “Grave Goods from the Saint-Germain-la-Riviére Burial: Evidence for Social Inequality in the Upper Palaeolithic”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 2005, 117-134.
• M. Vanhaeren – F. d’Errico – K. L. Niekerk – C. S. Henshilwood – R. M. Erasmus, “Thinking Strings: Additional Evidence for Personal Ornament Use in the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa”, Journal of Human Evolution 64(6), 2013, 500-517.
• M. Vasić, Personal Adornment in the Neolithic Middle East: A Case Study of Çatalhöyük. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 22, ex oriente (Berlin 2020).
• M. Vasić – M. Siebrecht – C. Tsoraki – R. Veropoulidou (V. Garcia-Diaz’ın katkılarıyla), “Beads and Pendants in Life and Death: Insights into the Production, Use and Deposition of Ornamental Technologies at Çatalhöyük”, içinde: I. Hodder (ed.), The Matter of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2009-2017 Seasons. British Institute at Ankara, Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 14, Monograph 54, Oxbow Books (London 2021) 215-246.
• R. Veropoulidou, “The Shell Artefact Assemblage at Neolithic Çatalhöyük”, içinde: I. Hodder (ed.), The Matter of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2009-2017 Seasons. British Institute at Ankara, Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 14, Monograph 54, Oxbow Books (London 2021) 247-264.
• H. Wallaert, “Apprenticeship and the Confirmation of Social Boundaries”, içinde: W. Wendrich (ed.), Archaeology and Apprenticeship. Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice. The University of Arizona Press (Tucson 2012) 20-42.
• R. White, “Technological and Social Dimensions of ‘Aurignacian-Age’ Body Ornaments Across Europe”, içinde: H. Knecht – A. Pike-Tay – R. White (ed.), Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. CRC Press (Boca Raton 1993) 277-299.
• R. White, “Systems of Personal Ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological Challenges and New Observations”, P. Mellars – K. Boyle – O. Bar-Yosef – C. Stringer (ed.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2007) 287-302.
• S. Williams, “An ‘Archae-logy’ of Turkana Beads”, içinde: I. Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge 1987) 31-38.
• K. I. Wright, “Beads and the Body: Ornament Technologies of the BACH Area Buildings”, içinde: R. Tringham – M. Stevanovic (ed.), Last House on the Hill. BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series Vol. 11, Monumenta Archaeologica 27, Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California (Los Angeles 2012) 429-449.
• K. I. Wright – A. Garrard, “Social Identities and the Expansion of Stone Bead-Making in Neolithic Western Asia: New Evidence From Jordan”, Antiquity 77(296), 2003, 267-284.
• K. I. Wright – P. Critchley – A. Garrard – D. Baird – R. Bains – S. Groom, “Stone Bead Technologies and Early Craft Specialization: Insights from Two Neolithic Sites in Eastern Jordan”, Levant 40(2), 2008, 131-165.
• I. Yalçınkaya – M. Otte – B. Kösem, “La Grotte d’Öküzini: Objets de parure”, içinde: I. Yalçınkaya – M. Otte – J. Kozlowski – O. Bar-Yosef (ed.), La Grotte d’Öküzini: Evolution du Paléolithique Final du Sud-Ouest de l’Anatolie. Université de Liége, Service de Préhistoire (Liége 2002) 333-338.
• S. Yelözer, Aşıklı Höyük Boncukları: Tipoloji, Tanım ve Sosyal Açıdan Değerlendirme. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi (İstanbul 2016).
• S. Yelözer, “The Beads from Aşıklı Höyük”, içinde: M. Özbaşaran – G. Duru – M. C. Stiner (ed.), The Early Settlement at Aşıklı Höyük: Essays in Honor of Ufuk Esin. Ege Yayınları (İstanbul 2018) 383-404.
• S. Yelözer – H. Alarashi, “Yaşamda ve Ölümde” – Akeramik Neolitik Dönem’de Boncuklar ve Kimlikler, Aşıklı Höyük Örneği”, içinde: A. Günal Türkmenoğlu – Ş. Demirci (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisinde Takı ve Boncuk: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar. V. ODTÜ Arkeometri Çalıştayı Bildiriler Kitabı, Ege Yayınları (İstanbul 2021) 81-93.
• S. Yelözer – R. Christidou, “The Foot of the Hare, the Tooth of the Deer and the Shell of the Mollusc: Neolithic Osseous Ornaments from Aşıklı Höyük (Central Anatolia, Turkey)”, içinde: M. Mărgărit – A. Boroneant (ed.), Beauty and the Eye of the Beholder: Personal Ornaments across the Millennia. Cetatea de scaun (Târgoviște 2020) 197-222.
• S. Yelözer – M. Özbaşaran, “Entangled at Death: Beads, Gender, and Life Cycles during the Central Anatolian Early Neolithic; Aşıklı Höyük as a Case Study”, içinde: K. De Graef – A. Garcia-Ventura – A. Goddeeris – B. Alpert Nakhai (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Gender, Methodology, and the Ancient Near East – GeMANE3. wEdge Series (Zaphon baskıda).
• J. Zilhão – D. E. Angelucci – E. Badal-Garcia – F. d’Errico – F. Daniel – L. Dayet – K. Douka – T. F. G. Higham- M. J. Martinez Sanchez – R. Montes-Bernandez – S. Murcia-Mascaros – C. Perez-Sirvent – C. Roldan-Garcia – M. Vanhaeren – V. Villaverde – R. Wood – J. Zapata, “Symbolic Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pigments by Iberian Neandertals”, PNAS 107(3), 2010, 1023-1028.