ÇATALHÖYÜK 1999 ARCHIVE REPORT

Animal Bone Report

Hayvan Kemiği Raporu

Sheelagh Frame with Nerissa Russell and Louise Martin

Abstract

Özeti

Introduction

The primary focus of the extended 1999 season at Çatalhöyük was to examine the earliest levels of the tell in the South area and this emphasis is reflected in the faunal analysis: of the 123,840 pieces of bone recorded by the faunal team this year, 115,948 were from the South area. Work was also carried out during the regular season by the BACH and KOPAL teams and samples of material from each of these areas were fully analyzed and recorded. Due to the excellent preservation of bone material and the large area excavated in 1999, these figures represent only a small percentage of the total bone retrieved. The sampling strategy used was that of choosing ‘priority units’ and is described in reports from previous seasons. This year particular emphasis was placed on deposits associated with floors and ovens, and on the lower strata from the south area, especially space 181. These early levels were a series of horizontal strata that contained evidence for a wide range of activities. The lowest levels were primarily midden–like deposits that may have been formed at the edge of the contemporaneous site. Material from previous seasons is included in discussions of general patterns at the site and in comparisons between the different excavation areas.

The results presented below are preliminary and are more in the nature of identifying questions to be further examined than a formal analysis. The quantification methods used are the same as in previous archive reports and fuller discussions of our decisions regarding this perennially debated topic can be found there.

General Trends

The range of mammalian taxa found at Çatalhöyük continues to grow and to previous years’ lists of sheep, goat, cattle, wild horses, two species of wild ass, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, foxes, wolves, dogs and bear, we can now add fallow deer, wild cat, gazelle, badger and hedgehog, as well some small mustelid species (Table 19). Non-mammalian taxa include bird, frog, tortoise and fish. All of these bones are awaiting detailed study, but general patterns are clear. Bird bone is very rare at Çatalhöyük, even allowing for its fragility. Fish and microfauna occur in small quantities in virtually every context throughout the site. These have not yet been identified to species but all of the fish bone appears to be from very small fish. Tortoise remains are limited to shell and carapace. This report will consider only the mammalian species.

As with previous years’ results, sheep and goat are the most common species overall and the most common in each excavation area on site. However, in the trench dug to the north of the site by the KOPAL project, a very different pattern emerged (see Table 20). The temporal relationship between the KOPAL trench and the site is currently uncertain, but there are some interesting similarities between the bone assemblage from KOPAL and the lowest levels of the 1999 excavations in the South area. These are discussed in more detail in the KOPAL section. Before considering the individual areas, there are some general comments to be made.

The question of whether the main taxa (sheep, goat, cattle) are of domestic or wild status still remains open. Despite the highly fragmented condition of the Çatalhöyük assemblage, osteometric data are increasing and we will soon be able to compare them to other databases. At the moment we can say that the presence of two markedly dissimilar sizes of cattle, noted in previous seasons, continues to be apparent in most excavation areas and throughout the sequence. It is not yet possible to say if this reflects the presence of both wild and domestic cattle or a single population with marked sexual dimorphism.

The two distinct sizes of cattle were also apparent in the horn cores excavated this year. Interestingly these horn cores were found in a variety of context types including house infill, middens, the KOPAL trench and in one case, plastered to a wall. The size and condition of the horn core did not obviously correlate with its location or with the type of faunal remains associated with it. The plastered horn core belonged to a large animal, but was broken in prehistory, and completely plastered over and attached to the wall in such as way that the horn core would not have been visible. By contrast, two enormous, complete horn cores were found in the ‘courtyard’ middens in space 115. It seems that, as with the postcranial remains, there is no apparent difference in the treatment of the ‘large’ and ‘small’ cattle horns, although there is a wide variety of pre and post-depositional treatment.

One other note on animal size - although samples are still small, there are relatively large specimens of cattle and especially boar both from the lower levels of space 181 and from the KOPAL trench, which are both potentially site-edge/off-site areas. There were also a several postcranial bones of red deer and roe deer, which until this season have been extremely rare on the site (although antler is fairly common). Carbon 14 dates or chronotypological studies will help to determine whether this reflects a temporal change, or reflects social practices which dictate an off-site location for the processing or discard of these animals. It is important to note that although there are some large cattle bones from KOPAL, there is still a range in size.

Sheep and goat remain the most common animals on site, with a clear majority of sheep where the two taxa can be separated (see Table 21). Changes in the ratio of cattle to other taxa, and in the ratio of sheep to goat in different contexts, seems strongly related to the nature of the individual deposits rather than to changes in animal management. This is one of the most fascinating, as well as one of the most frustrating issues in the analysis of the Çatalhöyük bone assemblage and one that is constantly returned to throughout this report.

South Area

The South area was the focus of the extended 1999 season and produced the vast majority of animal bone analyzed in the field laboratory. The large area exposed allowed us to investigate the pattern of animal bone discard over a wide range of contexts within a single area. Particular attention was paid to potential occupation units and to the deep midden layers from space 181. Within these categories distinct types of bone deposits were identified, some of which corresponded to observations made in the field i.e. clean floor, vs. dirty floor or fill vs. midden. Others were distinguished on the basis of the laboratory analysis, i.e. the distinct types of midden layers in space 181 or primary fill vs. redeposited midden.

Close examination of the tiny ashy spread/rakeout units in which bone was poor proved to be extremely labour intensive but produced some interesting preliminary results. Of particular note were two articulated felid paws, probably from wildcat, found in a hollow in the floor of Building 2. Taphonomic evidence indicates that they were complete paws when deposited, either part of a skin, or as individual paws. A badger paw was found in a similar context in Building 7, in a ‘dirty’ area, near an oven. These can be added to the bear paw that was found in Space 159 during the 1998 season. Given what is know about the paleoenvironment (see paleoenvironmental report) it seems likely that the bear and the wild cat were not local and may have been brought from a considerable distance. It is possible that only the skins of these animals were normally brought to the site. In the case of wildcat, the only other bones identified were the left and right mandibles from a single individual in 4878 and 4879 and aside from the paw, only one piece of bear bone, also in 4879, has been identified. This does tend to suggest that only the skins were ever brought on site. Badger bones are slightly more common, including one badger jaw found in association with several beads in a hoard in Building 7. The badger is certainly much more likely to have been locally abundant, although it generally prefers open woodland environments.

Rakeouts

This year for the first time we examined a number of so-called 'oven rake-out' or 'trample' contexts from the South area (see Table 22). Both these terms seem to be misnomers, as what these deposits seem to represent is general floor sweepings that include material from the ovens and elsewhere. What we find seems to be what is left after the big pieces of bone are picked up and taken outside. Some pieces are very fresh, and some are quite weathered, and many are worn, probably from being trampled and kicked around. Some have quite clearly been embedded in the floor for a while and walked on. So perhaps the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük did not sweep every day, but at longer intervals. Most of the bone is unburnt and so presumably not derived from the ovens.

As floor sweepings, these deposits contain the best information at the macro-level about domestic activities, much better than the floor units, which have usually been swept clean. As might be expected, they are quite variable in content, although the bone is almost always overwhelmingly from sheep-size animals. Thus they may for the most part reflect daily consumption, as other evidence leads us to believe that this size of animal (principally sheep) made up the majority of the daily meat diet, while larger animals were chiefly consumed in a feasting context. In addition to preparing meat for meals, two rake-out units (5038 and 5041) show clear evidence of bone grease preparation. There are a lot (for a small unit) or fragments of articular ends that have been broken in a way that could only result from deliberate smashing. These are very fresh, suggesting that these bits are ones that escaped the bone grease pot and were not cooked, then swept up later. Other activities that took place inside the houses, as indicated by the rake-outs, include bead-making (see bone tool report) and obsidian-working.

These deposits are interesting in themselves. They seem to indicate a concern with cleanliness that impels periodic sweeping of the floors, yet tolerates a 'dirty' corner into which things are swept, and which appears otherwise unused (since the deposits seem not to be trampled). Of course, they didn't have the option of sweeping it out the door, so sweeping it 'under the rug' may have been a reasonable compromise.

Food refuse

Analysis of the large-scale discard of food refuse in the South area provides support for some of last years work as well as introducing a whole new set of questions. The recognition of two apparently different modes of consumption - ‘domestic’ and ‘feasting’- continues to be visible in the archaeological record. This year we identified two types of specialized discard and several distinct types of middens, which may relate to different modes of consumption or to seasonal fluctuations in animal butchering practices. It seems apparent that ‘courtyard’ middens such as those found in space 115 are a mixture of several different processing and discard events, at multiple stages. It also seems that the use of these open spaces as middens, may be only one stage in the history of their occupation. Space 181, discussed below, produced a very different set of data than previously examined exterior spaces.

No units of house infill were fully analyzed this year, although some interesting points can be made on the basis of field observations. In buildings 2, 6 and 23 there were five separate sets of 5-7 articulated vertebra with the proximal ribs attached. One ‘rack’ of lamb- or kid- size was found directly on the floor of Building 23. The other four sets were all cattle size and were found in the fills of Buildings 2 (in a pit fill), 6 (1) and 23 (2). They included cervical, thoracic and lumber vertebrae. Although some of the meat could have been removed from these joints, significant amounts might have been left on them. These are odd deposits to find in any discard area and are particularly striking at Çatalhöyük, where the normal degree of fragmentation in middens and fill is very high. In addition to these sets of articulated vertebrae, the fill of Building 6 appeared to have many large, complete vertebrae, ribs and scapulae. This is particularly interesting in light of the limited amount of axial skeleton parts from many of the midden layers in space 181. There may be some indication of racks of meat inside the house while primary butchery remains and processed long bones are outside. Complete analysis of the fill material will confirm or disprove this impression.

In 1999 two deposits resembling last year’s ‘feasting deposits’ were found in the fills between two exterior walls. These deposits seem to have been rapidly deposited and seem to contain significant amounts of bone potentially from a single individual. In unit 4465 a number of cattle bones from what appeared to be a single young adult cow were so closely deposited there was not any matrix between them. In units 4225 and 4465 we can also say that there is a very limited variety of taxa and that cattle are much more common than in midden contexts (see Table 23). The fragmentation size is much larger than similar remains in the middens (see Table 24) and these bones do not appear to have been processed for bone grease. Not surprisingly given their protected location, they have also less evidence for carnivore ravaging. All of the above is true not only for the cattle bones but also for the sheep and goat bones which are on average larger than in the midden units (see Table 25) and have little evidence for bone grease processing. Element distribution is also unusual although not always consistent. For instance in 4465, there were humeri from five different cattle, but very little axial skeleton or hind limb pieces. It is important to note that although cattle seem to be disproportionably favoured in these situations, sheep and goat do occur in significant amounts. The special nature of these deposits seems related to the limited number of individuals and the particular methods of processing and distributing the animals rather than a straightforward list of taxa.

Although in 1999 these special deposits were all found between exterior house walls it seems likely that they occur in other contexts with less obviously demarcated boundaries. There appeared to be at least one and possibly two examples of similar deposits in the SE and SW corner of space 115. The distinctive nature of these areas was noted upon excavation, but both were subsumed in the 4121 midden unit, and it is not possible to separate out the material from these separate events for analysis. Perhaps significantly, both the between-wall fills, as well as the SW and SE corner of 4121, contained complete caprine and cattle horn cores and significant cranial remains. Two of these cattle horn cores were consolidated and lifted for further examination.

Space 181

Space 181 is an exterior area that lies underneath the series of buildings that included Mellaart’s Shrine 8. It is possible that this area was on the edge of the built site at these lower levels. At present, the temporal depth of these deposits is unknown. It seems likely that both temporal and spatial considerations will be necessary in the interpretation of the patterns identified in the bone assemblage. The area was used for a variety of different activities over time including animal pens and lime-burning. The earlier levels are middens and perhaps places for the butchering and processing of animal carcasses. Unlike the jumbled middens analyzed in other spaces such as 115, the units in space 181 show both a great deal of internal coherence and a significant variation between strata.

Animal Pens

Some of the most exciting developments in our understanding of animal management at the site did not come directly from the analysis of the animal bones but from the identification of a possible penning area in space 181. The area was originally identified on micromorphological basis by Wendy Matthews (see micromorphological report). Osteological evidence for this interpretation is scanty but supportive. This includes a higher than normal proportion of heavily worn deciduous molars from lambs and/or kids. These teeth are shed by young animals at approximately 18 months and concentrations are usually interpreted as evidence for animal pens. Additionally, two complete perinatal or neonatal skeletons, one of which was definitely a lamb or kid, were found in these deposits. The significance of these burials is uncertain, but it may support the association of the area with ewes or young animals. This space was not used exclusively as an animal pen – hoards of antler and large long bone pieces were also found in this area as well as lithic production material (see lithic report). There is little in the way of midden-like accumulation in these alternating penning/stabling units and the area, although similar structurally to space 115 ‘courtyard’, was clearly used in a very different manner, perhaps related to the different stages of occupation of the neighbouring buildings.

The Middens

Most of the several metres of midden deposits found in space 181 can be characterized as domestic refuse. However, despite the uniformity, there are significant differences within those 32 units that have been studied in detail. In general, there are very few bone tools or other bone artifacts. Most of the material seems like waste products from the primary butchery and bone grease processing of animal carcasses. There is little variation in the average fragment size which is consistently around 3 cm. There is evidence for a moderate amount of carnivore ravaging, but the generally good condition of the bone surfaces suggests that the material was not exposed for long periods of time.

What is interesting is the variation in ratios between taxa in different layers (Table 26). Some of these strata were remarkable for the huge percentage (80-90%) of sheep remains. In these units, element distribution was skewed towards foot and cranial bones, and highly fragmented long bone shafts. The axial skeleton was under-represented. In other strata sheep and goat remain common but significant numbers of either cattle or equids were present – never significant amounts of both in a single unit. In the case of 4878 and 4879, there are an unusual number of carnivores including foxes and wild cats and bear. In the lowest levels the bone assemblage becomes much less dense and red deer, pig and dog become more common. The last several units (5328, 5329) show distinctly different processing and weathering and are in many respects similar to the KOPAL material.

Clarifying the temporal relationship of these strata to each other and to other parts of the site is essential to any detailed interpretation, as is comparison of the bone assemblage with the botanical remains. At the moment we also have no idea of the horizontal variability of these midden deposits. However, given the evidence for the continuity of sheep as the primary animal and the consistency in processing and discard, it is possible that the variation in the other animals represented is related to seasonal variation among either the animal or human population. Alternatively, the lower, and hence earlier, levels may represent another mode of production that included a broader base of animals.

KOPAL

Excavations in this area to the north of the mound produced a quantity of animal remains, amongst other finds, which allow a glimpse of activities taking place off-site. There is no stratigraphic link to levels on the mound, and as yet no dates for deposits in this area (see KOPAL report), so the temporal position of the KOPAL material has yet to be determined.

Animal bone from these deposits was generally in excellent condition. Bone surfaces showed very little weathering, no burning or digestion, although carnivore gnawing was noted. The good condition may have been due to the surrounding matrix – interpreted as backswamp deposits – aiding bone preservation. That some bone was gnawed, however, does demonstrate that carnivores had access to the material at some stage, and that bones may not have been buried/immersed immediately after discard.

A single unit – 6025 – was selected for detailed recording. This unit represents an arbitrary spit (equivalent to 6028 from the southern half of the trench, and stratigraphically equal to units 6029-34 below it). It was selected because it was rich in animal bone, and was seemingly representative in character of the general horizon.

The material from other units (than 6025) was scanned quickly, and two finds from 6001 are noteworthy: firstly, a bone point, worked on a cattle metapodial, which is unusual for Çatalhöyük, where points tend to be manufactured on sheep-sized longbones; secondly, an equid phalanx showed cut marks indicative of skinning.

Unit 6025

The bone remains from unit 6025 (as with other KOPAL units) were uniformly dark orange/brown in colour, which differs from material deriving from on-site contexts. The colour perhaps results from the bone having been in water, or at least wet deposits. One fragment (F37) has signs of being water-worn, indicating that it had moved around in water. Generally bone surfaces are very smooth and unweathered.

The range and relative proportions of taxa are shown in Table 27. The range of taxa is similar to that from on-site deposits, with cattle, equids, boar/pig, sheep, goat and dog represented. In addition, however, there is a notable presence of large cervid remains and a single bone from roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), which is rare at Çatalhöyük. Deer appear to be better represented here than in many on-site assemblages. The presence of so many human bones in and amongst the other animal remains is also unusual and this will be discussed below.

Following the total number of fragments count (NISP), the assemblage is dominated by material which could only be identified to animal size category, rather than to genus/species. Sheep-size fragments constitute 61%, while cattle-size are 28% of the total. What is immediately apparently, however, is that these relative proportions are not mirrored by the material which could be identified to genus (e.g. cattle, equid, sheep, goat). Indeed, there are relatively few bones identified as sheep and goat (2% by NISP) and almost as few identified to cattle and equid (3.1%). This picture is likely to reflect the fragmented nature of the assemblage, and also suggests that sheep-size material was more fragmented than cattle sized (see Table 28).

Quantification of diagnostic zones (DZs) attempts to remove the effects of fragmentation and the potential inter-relatedness of bone fragments; it is hence likely to be a more accurate measure of taxonomic abundance. The DZ percentages (Table 27) show cattle bones to dominate (45%), followed by dog (16%), large cervid and sheep/goat (both 9%), and then medium-sized artiodactyls (sheep/goat/roe - 7%) and human bones (7%). This is an unusual pattern compared to on-site contexts. The proportion of cattle is particularly high, and the significant percentages of dog and cervid bones (which are not antler since these are not counted as DZs) are unusual.

The cattle bones are from large animals, seemingly of wild size (although this needs demonstrating with osteometrics). The complete range of body-parts is represented – skulls, horncores, ribs and vertebrae, forelimb and hindlimb elements, metapodia and phalanges. Indeed, it is possible that some derive from the same individuals. Large cervids (either red or fallow deer) are represented by forelimb bones (humerus, radius, ulna); the roe deer by a distal tibia. The Sus sp. bones – scapulae and humeri - are large and likely to represent wild boar.

These body part patterns are interesting in two ways. First, for cattle, the presence of skulls and horncores shows that these elements were not treated in ‘special’ ways. That they are present at all in off-site deposits suggests that they were not selected for installation in buildings on-site. As discussion of the South area also suggests, the deposition of horncores and skulls on and around Çatalhöyük was clearly varied. Second, the element representation is not representative of butchery waste or primary processing activities, where heads and extremities (lower limbs and feet) might be expected. Instead, the elements of ‘wild’ animals are meat-bearing limb bones, which suggests consumption activities.

A preliminary observation is that the cattle and maybe other bones from 6025 (and other KOPAL units) seemed to be present as larger pieces than those found on site. Although bones tended not to be found complete – indeed most were broken in half at least, as if for marrow extraction – it seemed that further smashing or rendering down of bone for grease extraction had not taken place. This observation was investigated firstly by calculating the average bone fragment lengths of the various taxa from unit 6025 (Table 29). If these are compared to the fragment lengths presented in Table 25, which show the data for South area midden and feasting deposits, the KOPAL deposit seems to resemble the pattern for the feasting deposits more closely than the midden deposits (although variations are seen). In addition, Table 30 shows the average fragment sizes of KOPAL bones to be much larger than those from other deposit types, where all taxa are treated together. These patterns clearly need further exploration, but a preliminary interpretation is that the material which was deposited in this off-site area was less intensively processed (for bone nutrients/grease) than much of that found on site, including, perhaps, even the bone from on-site which we argue derives from feasting.

There are several possible explanations for these patterns. Firstly, if we consider that there may be relatively few individual animals represented, with a high proportion of cattle which are not intensively processed, we may be seeing a mode of consumption/feasting not witnessed on site. The significant amounts of deer and boar, and high proportion of dog bones (including some articulated limbs) also suggests that this mode of consumption may be somewhat distinct from that seen on-site. Perhaps there was a social context for groups of people to feast away from houses and middens? Another possibility is that the practical problems associated with the butchering and processing of large animals made this a more general off-site activity, with some joints being taken onto the site for consumption and eventual discard. The animal body part patterns from KOPAL, however, indicate that this exact area was not a primary butchery/processing place: meat-rich elements are present and these would tend to result from consumption. A final consideration is that the bone material resulted from on-site consumption activities, and was then dumped into the off-site backswamp area which the KOPAL trench sampled. If this was the case, the dumped bone has a character not yet seen from deposits excavated on site. Perhaps it is characteristic of levels/areas not yet encountered. It is, of course, possible that the assemblage resulted from combinations of the above scenarios and built up over a length of time, although the bone condition and potential coherence of some skeletal parts tends to argue against this.

The fragments of human bone in 6025 (and elsewhere in Kopal) are intriguing. Skull fragments, longbones and ribs were found, not in articulation, but mixed in with the other animal bones. Their surface condition (patina, weathering) is similar to that of the animal bones, and some bones appear to have been broken in antiquity. It therefore seems that the deposition of the human bone took place alongside that of the animal bone, although the history of this material is far from clear.

BACH

Space 86

Most of the contexts excavated in the Bach area in 1999 were associated with the floor levels in space 86. The contexts analyzed include deposits on floors and platforms, the substructures of small hearths, and the contents of small, shallow pits. None of these contained much animal bone, but had mostly the tiny fragments likely to have been left behind after sweeping. Larger pieces seem mostly to have been part of the lower fill on top of the floors. Our conclusion is that faunal remains are not very useful for learning about these kinds of deposits.

There are a few points of interest in these lower deposits in space 86, however. One relates to the puppy skeleton that was excavated as cluster 3553 within unit 3551 on feature 173, the platform in the northeast corner of space 86. One half of this deposit was excavated in 1998 with a different unit number. Unit 3553 contains much of the spine and ribs through the neck and the two forelimbs of the puppy. Most of this is completely articulated, but the head and atlas and axis are missing except for one loose tooth. The left forelimb was detached at the elbow and the lower part was found, articulated, about 20 cm. away. This might have resulted from a large rodent/burrowing animal causing disturbance relatively soon after deposition, when the limb was still held together by tissue. There was no sign of a burrow, however, and there were large lumps of brick where the head should have been. This suggests that the puppy may have been partially dismembered, but certainly not eaten, before it was deposited. Was the head then removed for some purpose? But then how did the one loose tooth come to be in this deposit? Is there any significance to the puppy lying on top of a platform in a corner where people are often buried? Is it some kind of offering, or a slightly disturbed body of a puppy that died there of natural causes after the house was abandoned, perhaps even caught in the roof fall? If placed as an offering, or simply disposed of, it must have been one of the last events that took place during or after the abandonment of the house.

The most interesting feature of the central floor area of space 86 is the microfauna, which has not yet been studied, so we have only impressionistic observations at this point. There is a relatively high quantity of microfauna in this area (units 3562, 3563, 3566, 3582), and most of it is frog. Some of the frog bone is burnt, probably associated with the hearths and areas of burning in this zone. This suggests that the bones were already present when the burning occurred. What accounts for this unusual concentration of frog bones? Did they come in with reeds or some other marsh material? It is not impossible that they were eaten; some of them are very large, bullfrog-size, although these are mostly not burnt. The burning on the frog bones really looks postdepositional rather than culinary.

Unit 6118 was considered to be an unusual occurrence of a small midden layer between layers of floor in the northeast of space 86. The faunal remains, however, do not resemble what we think of as 'midden' (abundant remains chiefly of daily post-consumption discard). It looks more like the pattern seen in deposits termed 'dirty floor': low densities of small fragments (mostly less than 1 cm) of poorly preserved bone, what is left behind after most is removed and discarded elsewhere. From a faunal perspective, this deposit would be better characterized as a particularly dirty floor.

During the 1999 season, the following scapulae excavated at the end of 1998 from the ‘scapularium’ area in space 86 were examined: 2289.x4 and x9; 2296.x2, x4, x6, x9, x11, x12, x17 and x22. None of them show any signs of being worked or used. While it remains possible that this remarkable accumulation of scapulae was a stockpile of raw material for tool manufacture, if so they were abandoned (caught in the roof collapse?) without being used. Meanwhile, more complete scapulae continue to be found in House 3 in 1999, although these were of sheep. The association of complete or nearly complete scapulae with this building remains intriguing.

Space 158

The only unit analyzed from this space on the west of House 3 was 3533, the fill of a niche in the southern end. It was thought that this might be part of the midden with feasting remains (2250) excavated from the southern end of this space in 1998. However, both the animal bones and further investigation in the field confirmed that this was not the case. The bone was mixed, fragmented, and rather weathered. It seemed to derive from fill, probably a secondary deposition of daily post-consumption discard.

Space 89

Animal bone was analyzed the from two units (3545, 3548) that are both part of the same burnt deposit that contained the large bucranium, human skull, and dagger further to the west in this space (2210). This deposit rests on a burnt, thin floor (3580). The burning was clearly in situ and according to Wendy Matthews the matrix consists almost entirely of burnt mixed plant material: reeds, weeds, wood. Virtually all of the bone is burnt at low temperatures. The faunal assemblage has a sense of coherence: there are many large pieces, including a whole sheep/goat radius and large sections of rib. While there are only a few bones that articulate, much could come from a few animals. There are roughly equal proportions of cattle, equid, and sheep/goat bones, including at least two sheep/goat individuals, although most of the sheep/goat bone probably comes from one sheep (chiefly forelimbs). The deposit contains chiefly meaty bones, with minimal processing (mostly broken for marrow). There is a certain repetition of body parts across taxa (radius of sheep and cattle, scapula of sheep and cattle, pelvis and distal tibia of cattle and equid). These are not meat offerings, because they were deposited in an already-processed state. There is a little gnawing on a few of the bones, but it is clearly not a deposit that has been worked over by dogs in any extensive fashion. Rather, remains of a meal were gathered up and placed together, rescuing some bits from the dogs. It seems to be a primary post-consumption deposit that represents a single event. If these are the remains of a single meal, it would be a feast. It suggests that at some kinds of feasts, at least, animals are divided out for consumption in individual houses.

A possible scenario would be that ceremonies related to the closing of this end of the house included feasting. The remains of the feast were carefully placed on the floor below the bucranium and other wall installations, along with a human skull and the dagger further west. Plant materials were piled thickly on top: perhaps paraphernalia from the feast/ceremony (mats, bowls, etc.), perhaps gathered to serve as fuel. The room was then fired, possibly after knocking the bucranium and horns off the wall onto the top of the pile. During the fire, the upper walls/roof either collapsed or were pushed onto it. If this burning was deliberate, or even if it wasn't, it is reminiscent of the burning and walling off of the south end of House 1. In any case, the deposition of the bones and plant material must have been rapid, as the bones have not been worked over and seem in primary depositional position. This is really strikingly similar to the 3035/3036/3037 feasting event outside the walls of House 1: in species composition, in the careful horizontal placement of the bones, in the overlying ash layer. Do these represent a particular kind of feast?

The material from the floor underlying this deposit (3580) seems large compared to most floor samples, and more like fill. It lacks the coherence of the overlying deposit, and consists mostly of sheep-size bones. This may represent mostly what was present before the special deposit and burning event on top.

Conclusions

There is now no question that sheep are the most common animal at Çatalhöyük and there is increasing evidence that they are intensively managed if not fully domesticated. The high ratio of sheep to goat in all of those instances where it is possible to separate the two species is remarkable everywhere on site. The importance of cattle and the wild ass species was established in previous seasons, but interesting questions are raised by their alternating presence in the stratified midden deposits. It is possible that there is a seasonal component to the choice of animal used in domestic contexts, when sheep are not appropriate. It is also seems that the rarer carnivores such as foxes, wild cat, bear were hunted at particular times, rather than scattered throughout the sequence. Botanical analysis may help to determine a seasonal component to these deposits, and relative and absolute dates are also critical to the analysis.

We are also beginning to refine our understanding of the different modes of consumption identified in previous years. The deposits excavated this year from between exterior house walls, and the deposits found in the KOPAL trench seem to be the remains of two very different, but unusual contexts of consumption. Understanding the different discard patterns, as well as the different taxa, seems to be critical to understanding the social context of these events and will be a general focus of analysis in the forthcoming season.

We are also coming to a clearer understanding of household consumption. Sheep/goat are overwhelmingly dominant here, in every manner of assessment. In the South area we now have an outline of the spatial distribution of these activities. It seems that the animals were butchered in or very close to open spaces such as 181 – which may have been at the edge of the site, or may have been a large exterior area. Joints of meat were then brought into the domestic areas, either the roofs or the houses where they were cooked and eaten. The long bones were then processed for marrow and grease extraction, probably inside the houses if the current analysis of the rakeouts is substantiated. The remains were then swept up with the rubbish and carried out to the middens where they were chewed upon by dogs before being buried under the next layer of domestic rubbish. This seems to have been a very structured procedure, both spatially and in terms of the lack of variability in these domestic middens. What is particularly interesting is that cattle in domestic middens are treated like domestic products and that sheep and goats in ‘feasting’ deposits are treated like ‘feasting’ products.

Acknowledgements

The more than 100,000 bone fragments, couldn’t have been processed without the help of Kathy Twiss, Stephanie Meece, Robert Symmons, Duşan Boric and Banu Aydınoğlugi

Table 19: Identified Mammals NISP and Diagnostic Zones

Table 20: The percentages of the three main taxa (or groups) by excavation area, shown as percentages of total diagnostic zones

NB: In KOPAL dog is as common as sheep and goats, and deer are as common as equids in the overall pattern (11.1%). Furthermore if the human bone in Kopal is included in the faunal assemblage it makes up 7.8% of the diagnostic zones.

Table 21: Ratio of sheep to goat bones based on diagnostic zones.

Table 22: So-called ‘oven rake-out' contexts from the South area, showing both the NISP and percentages of Small mammals (including hare size), Medium mammals (sheep size), Large mammals (cattle size) and Bird.

Table 23: The percentages of main taxa for sampled context types in the South area:
Units 4465, 4225 – Between-Wall Fills
Units 4837 and 4838 – Midden 1 type
Units 4878/4879 – Midden 2 type

Table 24: The average bone fragment lengths (in cms) for different context types

Table 25: Average length of bone fragments (in cms) in different types of deposits by taxa

Table 26: NISP for taxa from midden units in Space 181

Table 27: The representation of taxa from unit 6025 from KOPAL, expressed as NISP (and percentages) and Diagnostic Zones (and percentages)

Table 28: The percentages of bones from KOAL belonging to different sized mammals (cattle size, boar/pig size, sheep size) expressed as NISP% and DZ%

Table 29: KOPAL – compare to Table 24.

Table 30: The average bone fragment lengths (in cms) from KOPAL and South area deposit types, with all taxa treated together