Çatalhöyük 1996 Archive Report

ÇATALHÖYÜK 1996 ARCHIVE REPORT

Bone Tools

Nerissa Russell

During the 1996 field season at Çatalhöyük, I recorded 91 bone tools. Two were from the Kopal trench, 58 from the Mellaart area, and 31 from the North area. This includes all tools recognized in the field or found during faunal analysis. It is likely that more tools remain to be discovered in the fauna that has not yet been analyzed. The usual faunal information was recorded for each of the tools (although modification often makes identification difficult by removing diagnostic characters), and in addition to noting morphological data, the tools were examined for microwear under a binocular light microscope at 25-40X.

More than half the tools are points, which is quite typical for prehistoric bone tool assemblages. Most of the remaining artifacts appear to be ornaments: pendants, beads, and rings (see Table 1). Pendants are concentrated in the North area, rings in the Mellaart area. If this is not a temporal difference, it is an interesting contextual distinction. Although two pendants occurred as grave goods, no rings were found on fingers, or even in graves. In fact, one of the two rings from the North area was found outside the house in space 73.

Tool Types

Points

Most of the points are made on the metapodials of sheep/goat-size animals, most often sheep when the taxon can be determined. These are nearly all fairly casual tools. Of the 32 points with bases preserved, 21 have no modification to the base beyond splitting (where present), 8 have slight grinding on the base area, and only 3 have substantial base modification (two of these are on splinters with no articulation, so the base modification is of a broken end). On the other hand, in the 43 cases where this can be determined, 37 of the points are made on bones that have been split. There is no apparent difference between the Mellaart and North areas in these characters. Both splitting and base modification increase the labor investment in the tool. Splitting conserves the raw material, while base modification increases standardization and may facilitate hafting, especially in interchangeable handles. This kind of standardization is not apparent at Çatalhöyük, and indeed is not usually seen in Neolithic assemblages. Conserving the raw material does seem to be a concern, however. Not only are splitting rates high, but 31 of the 36 points where reuse can be determined have been resharpened (86%; again, the Mellaart and North areas do not differ). All of this is not unusual for Neolithic bone point assemblages (Russell 1995), although this is a particularly high level of both splitting and resharpening. What this tends to suggest is that the raw material for points was at a premium, in this case primarily sheep/goat metapodials. Either these animals were not killed very frequently, or it was not necessarily easy for everyone to get access to these bones when the animals were butchered.

Most of the point tips are quite slender and sharp. This suggests that they were used in piercing materials that are not too tough, possibly cloth or basketry rather than leather, for the most part. Some of the tips are rounded from use, others battered at the microscopic level. This surely results from two distinct functions or contact materials. Wear on the bases indicates that some were probably hafted (10), others hand-held (2), although these attributions are quite tentative.

There is one intriguing difference between the Mellaart and North bone point assemblages. In the Mellaart area, 22 of 29 points without modern breaks (76%) are complete, while in the North area, only 5 of 12 points (42%) are complete. Both these numbers are high for a well-collected sample such as this (although they may lower somewhat as fragments are discovered mixed with the general fauna). Moreover, the higher percentage of unbroken points in the midden deposits of the Mellaart area seems counter-intuitive.

Needles

Needles are points with perforations at the base end. In fact, all four needles (all of them from the Mellaart area) are missing their tips, so it is not certain that they were actually pointed, nor do we know how sharp they were. All are made on split ribs, and are quite broad and flat. They could not have been used in actual sewing, and are more likely to have been netting or weaving tools.

Plaster Tool

Four modified scapulae (cattle/large mammal) have been tentatively designated as tools for use in plastering. Scapulae or large fragments thereof are modified by forming a double bevel along one long edge. Except for breaking off the spine and perhaps some other parts of the scapula, this bevel is the only modification deliberately created. One of these was never used (1264.X1; although it gave the impression of being found in situ, on top of a small hearth). The others show striations from use on inorganic materials, closely resembling pottery polishing striations. In two cases, there seems to be a distinction between coarser-grained striations on the flat side of the scapula blade, with finer-grained striations near the beveled edge. Mellaart says that scapulae were often associated with hearths, and thought they were used to sweep ash. The microwear is inconsistent with this, however, and it is unclear why the bevel would be needed. The bevel is on the wrong edge to use as a hoe, and the shape would be very awkward to use in polishing pottery. The most plausible use would seem to be in shaping and smoothing mud bricks or plaster features. Constance Silver (pers. comm.) feels that the wall plaster was applied with brushes, and it is extremely fine, probably too fine to match the striations. These tools might have been used to form ovens, pillars, and other such features, which use a coarser plaster. The bevel might work well to slice mud bricks. Three out of four were found inside House 1.

Spoon

There is one fragmentary example of an antler spoon, probably made on a large tine. Both the base and the end of the blade are missing. The base is embellished with carved rounded barbs, three perforations, and incised lines, all on the outer surface. The blade is slightly concave on the inner side, and comes to quite a thin edge. There is little sign of use on the portion of the blade present.

Pendant

I have classified as pendants nine pieces that appear to have been worn suspended. Most are perforated, two notched. Of the six pendants from the North area, one was found in room fill, two on the floor, one in sub-floor packing, and two in burials. Most, then, appear to have been either lost in use or deliberately placed, rather than discarded.

The pendants are made in a variety of materials (bone, antler, boar's tusk) and in a variety of shapes. Most are roughly rectangular or trapezoidal, and fairly flat, with a perforation at the narrower end. One appears to be a ‘fake' red deer wolf tooth (upper canine) made of antler (1290.X1); two others (1092.H1 and 1360.H1) could be seen as more stylized versions of red deer wolf teeth. Red deer wolf teeth are a vestigial canine that occurs mostly in males and is sometimes absent. There are thus a maximum of two such teeth per animal. Their rarity and intriguing, rounded teardrop shape has made them a prized possession in many cultures, including ethnographically known Native American groups where marriage might be contingent on the groom providing the bride with enough of these teeth from elk (Cervus canadensis, the New World equivalent of red deer) he had killed to embroider her wedding tunic (McCabe 1982), and the Balkan Neolithic, where both genuine and ‘fake' pierced red deer wolf teeth are frequently found.

One pendant resembles a ring with an attached knob (1520.X1). If worn as a ring, it would have a brass knuckle effect; however, the wear indicates that it was probably worn as a pendant, with a fiber tied around the notches on the knob. Although the open round shape of the body of the pendant is similar to the bone rings at the site, the manufacturing technique is actually quite different. While the rings are made by cross-sectioning sheep-size long bone shafts, this specimen was carved out of a lengthwise segment of large mammal long bone shaft. This would require much more skill and effort than the bone rings. This very carefully finished and highly polished piece was found intact in the Mellaart area middens.

Both the pendants found with burials and apparently associated with the interred bodies are interesting pieces. One, found with a juvenile individual, is a roughly rectangular pendant of large mammal long bone that had been carefully finished and highly polished initially (1921.X1). It then broke lengthwise and was reworked and reperforated to repair it, but this time much less thoroughly smoothed and polished. One can imagine a parent hastily reworking a broken pendant for a child, or a child inexpertly adapting a cast-off broken pendant for his/her own use, among other scenarios. The other pendant was found in the rib cage of an adult male. It is the baculum, or penis bone, of a small mustelid, distorted by a pathology (1466.F1). A V-shaped notch plus a few stray marks have been cut into it, presumably to tie a fiber around. The bone is otherwise unmodified. It is hard not to see this piece as some kind of amulet. It is not particularly esthetically pleasing, nor visually striking. But the body part association is potentially quite symbolic. It could have been an amulet against impotence, or a fertility symbol.

Bead

The distinction between beads and pendants is not great. I include as pendants objects that are perforated or notched near one end, and label as beads objects that are perforated or notched in the middle. There are only two such objects, both slightly ambiguous as beads in any case. One, from the Mellaart area, is a tube formed by sectioning a sheep-size long bone (1023.F21). The cut edges and all outer surfaces have been ground smooth. It is, in fact, quite similar in manufacture and appearance to the bone rings, but is rather long, and has sharp rather than rounded edges. The other bead, from the North area, is a small piece with two sharp points and two small notches connected by grooves in the center. It may have been used as a bead or sewn onto clothing, or could also be a fishing gorge.

Ring

The rings were almost all found in the Mellaart area middens. Two ring fragments come from the North: one from outside the house (1347.F1), the other from room fill (1183.F2). The rings are made by cutting sheep-size long bone shafts cross-wise into segments, then grinding them smooth both inside and out, as well as smoothing and rounding the cut edges. In all cases where the body part is identifiable, it is a femur. Femora are well-suited to this use, having a fairly straight, round shaft. The rings vary from rather rough to quite carefully finished. They also vary in size; some are so small that they could only have been worn by children, others would fit adults. Although the shape matches finger rings, it is not certain that they were actually worn that way. None were found in the House 1 burials, although Mellaart (1967:209) mentions them as female grave goods. Rather all, both complete and fragmentary, come from what seem to be secondary deposits. It is possible that they were actually worn as beads, or sewn to clothing or textiles (curtain rings?) or used in some other way. Use wear occurs fairly evenly all over the rings, inside and out.

Fish Hook

There is one example of a beautifully made fish hook with a sharp point and a barb, the top of the shank broken off in excavation, found on the floor of House 1 (1415.X1). While split boar's tusk is an unusual material for a fish hook, it should work. Mellaart found a number of artifacts he describes as belt hooks in the earlier excavations. However, this artifact does not fit that use: it is too thin and delicate, too sharp, and the barb would not make sense. It does pose a bit of a mystery, though, since we have not recovered any bones of fish large enough to be caught with a hook.

Soft Hammer

Two antler tines, one each from the Mellaart and North areas, have scars that indicate use as soft hammers (perhaps also as pressure flakers) in working chipped stone. The one from the North area (1306.F39) was found in space 73, outside of House 1.

Preform

In addition to the unused (and possibly unfinished) plaster tool noted above, a fragment of a rough-out for a bone ring (1033.F1) is the only unfinished artifact found this year. It has been cut at both ends to sever it from the shaft, and there is a little abrasion on the outside, but no working of the inner surface or the cut edges. The length of this piece in comparison to the finished rings suggests that the rings start out considerably larger than their final size, unless this was destined to be a bead similar to 1023.F21. The breaks are old, so it may have been abandoned when it broke during manufacture.

Indeterminate

Four bone artifacts could not be classified. One is a piece of antler that seems cut, but is too poorly preserved to be sure (1320.F21). 1230.F8 consists of two fragments of worked boar's tusk that seem to come from the same tool, possibly a knife. 1347.F72 is a fragment of a highly polished flat tool made on split rib, with a rounded tip or base. It might have been used to burnish leather, or could be part of a small spatula. 1832.F1 is a fragment of the beveled end of a split rib tool. While such tools are often used as pottery polishers, the high polish on this artifact is not the result of ceramic burnishing. It may have been used on hides or some other organic material.

Manufacture

Mellaart (1967) bases his argument that the area of the site he excavated was a priestly quarter in part on the lack of manufacturing waste, which he felt must be loacte in a craft quarter in another part of the site. His observation is partially supported by the bone tool assemblage from the 1996 excavation. There is only one preform and no manufacturing waste, but that preform comes from the Mellaart area, implying that bone rings were at least occasionally made nearby. It is not clear how much recognizable waste one would find, though, apart from the left-over ends of femora sectioned for rings. While long bones are frequently split to make points using a groove-and-split technique that leaves many waste pieces with traces of grooves, there is no sign (either in waste or in traces on the finished artifacts) that this technique was used at Çatalhöyük. Many points clearly were not made this way, but were apparently split by simple fracture.

Discussion

Some distributional points perhaps should be underlined. It is interesting that the ‘midden' deposits of the Mellaart area should contain both an extraordinarily high proportion of complete bone points and numerous complete (as well as fragmentary) rings and pendants. While useful items are occasionally lost accidentally, this pattern seems striking enough to suggest deliberate deposition of items that had not reached the end of their use potential. The fact that among ‘ornaments', it is primarily rings and ring-like objects that are so deposited, in contrast to the pendants found mostly in primary contexts in House 1, also suggests deliberate deposition, unless there was a spatial or temporal distinction in their use. We should also note the complete lack of knucklebones (worked astragali) in the excavated sample, in sharp contrast to the surface assemblage, where they were second in numbers only to the points (Martin and Russell 1997). Mellaart (1967:78) does mention them in Neolithic contexts, so we could be dealing with either a temporal or a spatial distinction.

REFERENCES CITED

Martin, Louise, and Nerissa Russell 1997 Surface Material: Animal Bone and Worked Bone. In On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95. I. Hodder, ed. McDonald Institute Monographs, No. .

McCabe, Richard E. 1982 Elk and Indian: Historical values and perspectives. In Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. J. W. Thomas and D. E. Toweill, eds. Pp. 61-123. Harrisburg: Stackpole.

Mellaart, James 1967 Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.

Russell, Nerissa 1995 Neolithic relations of production in southeast Europe and south Asia: Insights from the bone industry. Paper presented at the meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego.

TABLE 1 — Tool types by area

TABLE 2 — Tool types by taxon

TABLE 3 — Tool types by body part