ÇATALHÖYÜK 2000 ARCHIVE REPORT

Chipped Stone / İşlenmiş Taş

Tristan Carter with contributions by Ana Spasojevic and Heidi Underbjerg

Abstract

The 2000 study-season clarified that from the earliest occupation at the site we have evidence for a complex series of parallel chipped stone industries, with a range of products in obsidian and ‘flint’, some of which were imported as ‘ready-made’ implements. The early levels are notable for the wide range of raw materials (limno-quartzites, radiolarites, chert), the curation of projectiles and the number of sickles. Two Canhasan III type points with incised decoration came from the Pre-Level XII deposits and the phenomenon of obsidian ‘hoards’ can be documented from as early as Level X.

Özeti

2000 senesi calışma mevsimi, höyüğün en erken yerleşiminden itibaren, obsidyen ve “çakmaktaşı”ından yapılmış karmaşık bir dizi paralel işlenmiş taş endüstrisinin varolduğunu kanıtlamıştır. Bunlardan bazılarının “hazır yapılmış” ithal mal olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Erken evreler oldukça geniş ham madde ceşidi (kuvarzlar, radyolaritler, chert [bir tur kuvarz]), uçların yeniden kullanılmak üzere düzeltilmesi ve oraklarıyla ilgi çekmektedir. Tabaka XII atıkları içinde ele gecen iki adet çizi bezemeli Canhasan III ucu, kayda değer bulgulardan bir tanesidir. Obsidyen “kitleleri” olgusu, Tabaka X’dan itibaren kaydedilmiştir.

Introduction

This report offers a brief summary of the work on the Çatalhöyük chipped stone between 1999 and 2000. It will describe this summer’s study-season and the initiation of a multinational obsidian sourcing programme.

The 2000 Study-Season - Cambridge

The focus of this year’s work was to study for publication the chipped stone from excavations in the North and South areas, plus the material generated by the 1999 KOPAL trench. Preparatory work commenced in the Cambridge office in May, where the author was able to make significant progress in analysing the data recorded on-site in 1999. Specifically, much work was undertaken on the relative scale and density of chipped stone assemblages through considering their weights and counts in relationship to volumes of dry and water-sieved soil. It was thus possible to start comparing the distribution of chipped stone within and between individual structures and, for example, to contrast the quantities of detritus from the Space 181 midden sequence. Ultimately, the results of this data-analysis will be employed to challenge and / or validate the interpretative categories assigned deposits in the field.

For each archaeological context that produced chipped stone in 1999, the weight / L and number / L figures were calculated and added to the database. This information was then used to start work on interpreting the variant consumption of obsidian / ‘flint’ at the site through time and space. Some of the issues approached are mentioned above, others included an analysis of the obsidian recovered from burial fills excavated in 1999. Data-analysis was geared towards elucidating as to whether one could argue for a human intentionality behind the presence of this material in the grave. The question was approached through contrasting the amount of obsidian in the burial fill (quantified by weight and number per litre of soil), with that from the surrounding deposits that the grave had cut into. In the case of Building 6, Level VIII, it was possible to consider a large amount of data, given the number of burials and associated soil samples and the fact that for each context one could generate at least 6 figures for comparison, namely the quantity and weight of obsidian per litre – at >1mm, >2mm and >4mm. The results of these analyses (as shown in histogram form – Figure 31) indicated that obsidian was present in these graves in much the same amount as that in the surrounding soils the graves had dug into. The preliminary interpretation accorded this data, is that whilst obsidian, in certain forms and at certain times, is a recognised component of the burial record at Çatalhöyük (Hamilton 1996), the obsidian from the Building 6 graves was not intentionally included but is merely present as ‘background noise’, almost certainly from the re-deposition of sub-floor fill in the process of back-filling the grave and sealing the inhumation. It remains, however, that a pattern might emerge with regard to the kind of obsidian object that was included in these burial contexts. This information could only be factored into the preliminary interpretations accorded the Çatalhöyük material by studying it at first hand.

The work on-site during the summer of 2000 was thus dedicated to describing the objects with regard to their form, size, position in a reduction sequence, life history / taphonomy, and technology responsible for their manufacture. In tandem, a representative sample of the material, level-by-level and context by context, was illustrated for publication. Miss Ana Spasojević was employed as the dedicated illustrator and in the course of four weeks work, drew over 400 pieces. The eventual chipped stone publication should, at least, draw praise for its lavish and detailed illustration.

The 2000 Study-Season - Çatalhöyük

Due to permit delays, some 7 weeks work was lost from an intended 12 week study-season. This loss will undoubtedly have an adverse affect on the depth of insight that it will be possible to offer upon the chipped stone assemblages of Çatalhöyük in the final report. There was also a reorganization of the material with reference to who will be publishing it. The intended structure of publication is as follows. Dr. James Conolly is responsible for the report on the material from the North Area; Miss Ana Spasojević will report on the chipped stone from Levels VIB-VIII in the South Area and Dr. Tristan Carter will publish that material from Levels IX to Pre-Level XII(D).

Levels IX to Pre-Level XII(D)

Five weeks intensive study time was thus spent working on the chipped stone from Levels IX to the base of the mound; the latter represented by the material from the Space 181 sondage. The focus of this work was to technologically and typologically characterize the assemblages and record incidences of use-wear. This information will then be compared through time and space at Çatalhöyük, and contextualized with reference to assemblages from other Anatolian Neolithic sites.

Pre-Level XII

The work commenced with the earliest material, from the basal levels. These early assemblages are not particularly large, thus all the chipped stone was included in the technological / typological / use-wear analysis, in order to boost the sample size. In practical terms this involved looking at the material from the >4mm and >2mm wet-sieve samples, of which there were a number due to the diligent and consistent sampling strategy accorded the archaeology of Space 181. It was also important to factor in the wet-sieve material because virtually all our microliths were found employing this method of recovery. Indeed, the number of elongated trapezes (backed and obliquely truncated microblades) is now larger than reported in the 1999 archive report, with most of the new examples coming from a closer examination of the >2mm samples.

It is apparent that from the earliest deposits onwards, the chipped stone assemblages of Çatalhöyük comprise a variety of products, deriving from a number of technologies and / or operational chains. In turn, whilst obsidian is the dominant raw material consumed in the manufacture of chipped stone implements, the relative quantity of ‘flint’ (a term which will hopefully be abandoned by the time of final publication) is higher than in later levels. This is not, however, the most striking aspect of the non-obsidian element, for it is comprised of a wide variety of raw materials, though what this implies in terms of geography and external contacts / modes of exchange, is currently difficult to ascertain. These raw materials include a variety of different coloured limno-quartzites, plus the occasional radiolarite and chert. One context in particular produced a notable quantity of ‘flint’, Unit 5290, a midden deposit within Pre-Level XII(B). However, this context also offers a cautionary tale with regard to the sampling strategy, employed by the Çatalhöyük team in their study of the finds excavated from 1996-99.

After last year’s inventory of the chipped stone, Unit 5290 had generated 344 pieces of chipped stone, of which 22 were ‘flint’, 6.4% of the assemblage. This was the largest non-obsidian component from a dry sieved assemblage of a size large enough not to skew the data. During the 2000 summer study season the faunal team processed the bone material from Unit 5290 as one of the team’s ‘priority units’. In the course of their work, which involved a level of study that was not possible in 1999 (including having the material completely washed), they discovered that a number of artefacts originally bagged as bone, were in fact chipped stone. By the time that they had completed processing this rich deposit, the author had been provided with a further 27 pieces of ‘flint’ (and 24 of obsidian). Thus the amount of ‘flint’ known from this context was doubled, with the relative quantity of the non-obsidian component of Unit 5290 rising from 6.4% in 1999, to 12.4% in 2000. The significant changes in this data are directly related to the amount of study time allotted to the material culture from this context. It should be noted that there are many contexts, not only in Space 181, which were not ‘priority units’ and thus did not receive this level of attention. This obviously has ramifications for the integrity of chipped stone data from other ‘non priority-units’.

Returning to the nature of the early assemblages, a number of obsidian implements with close parallels to the chipped stone from the aceramic Neolithic site of Aşıklı Höyük were recognised in the Pre-Level XII(C-D) deposits. This impression will eventually be quantified. A small amount was also noted in Unit 5290, the lowest deposit in the Pre-Level XII(B) sequence, an assemblage that one might have included with the Pre-Level XII(C) material, if one were subdividing the archaeology of Space 181 on the basis of its chipped stone. These implements included points on large opposed platform blades (including stemmed forms), circular scrapers, end-scrapers on blades and various other modified blades (cf. Balkan-Atlı 1994). It should be noted, however, that aside from one, or two pieces, the Çatalhöyük microliths are much smaller and finer than those from Aşıklı Höyük, more closely resembling those described from Pinarbaşı (Watkins 1996). Obsidian burins are rare, though a few ‘flint’ examples have been recorded.

It is important to stress, however, that the material akin to that from Aşıklı Höyük is a minority component in the early Çatalhöyük assemblages. In turn, most of these pieces appear to have been introduced into this (admittedly limited) area as ready-made implements. The Pre-Level XII(C-D) sequence produced no debitage associated with the manufacture of the large opposed platform blades, nor the circular scrapers on large flakes, nor indeed for the microblades upon which the microliths were formed. The mainstay production of these early Çatalhöyük industries was the manufacture of small, irregular blades and blade-like flakes from opposed platform cores. This technology is relatively simple and is well represented in most contexts; the final stage of the knapping sequence may have often involved anvil reduction, with pièces esquillées regularly documented.

A less common technique of blade manufacture appears to have involved a burin-like reduction of existing / ?exhausted implements, scrapers in particular. The end-products are distinguished by having two ventral surfaces (the earlier relating to the original blank) and retouch along one margin, which initially was confused as a form of cresting. This technique of manufacture is relatively rare, but is documented a number of times within the Pre-Level XII sequence of Space 181. This evidence for contemporary, parallel obsidian industries is characteristic of the Çatalhöyük chipped stone assemblages. The techniques represented may change through time, as indeed they do, but complexity is a theme within our material that can be viewed from the basal levels upwards.

The Pre-Level XII material has also generated some material that has parallels with some of the modified pieces from another aceramic Neolithic site, Can Hasan III (Ataman 1988). These links will be discussed fully in the final publication, however, two items are worthy of immediate mention. Two pieces of obsidian with incised decorations on their ventral surfaces were found in Space 181, one from Unit 5311 (Pre-Level XII(C)) and the other from Unit 4867 (Pre-Level XII(A)). The former piece was the tip of a ‘Can Hasan III type point’ (with impact damage from use), the latter a non-cortical flake (possibly a fragment of a much reworked point). This is the first time an inscribed ‘Can Hasan III type point’ has been found at Çatalhöyük and only the second time such an implement has been recovered outside of the eponymous site itself (Balkan-Atlı, pers. comm.). Whilst neither example’s decoration finds an exact parallel from Can Hasan III, they share design elements (triangles) and, as Ataman has commented, these piece’s modification appear to have been deliberately idiosyncratic (Ataman 1988: 265-66). The recovery of two such distinctive pieces obviously has implications for the dating of the Space 181 deposits and the nature of external contacts and inter-connectivity amongst the communities of Early Neolithic central Anatolia. These matters will be pursued in greater depth in the final publication.

A final few comments regarding the chipped stone from the early deposits, particularly with reference to the material from Pre-Level XII(C-D). The slightly higher relative amount of ‘flint’ and the variety of raw materials represented in these basal deposits has been mentioned. This likely indicates that the community at this early date enjoyed a much broader ‘worldview’ (either personal, or through a range of contacts), drawing upon variant resources, from disparate sources. These experiences and contacts may have also been felt / expressed through technology and modes of consumption.

It has also been noted that there are also a not inconsiderable number of projectiles from the Pre-Level XII deposits, in a variety of forms (some of which may have chronological associations). Whilst. projectiles are a feature of the obsidian (rarely ‘flint’, suggesting an interesting concept of appropriateness) assemblage at Çatalhöyük throughout its EN history, the early examples show a high incidence of use-wear and by extent curation. Many of the points from the Pre-Level XII deposits display snap-, fluted- and burin-scars of the form associated with impact damage (cf. Grace 1989). They had thus been retrieved after their use (on animal, or human) and brought back to the site, no doubt with associated tales to tell. Whilst projectiles bearing use-wear are not unknown in upper levels, they appear to be much rarer than in Pre-Level XII contexts. Such differential treatment of material culture likely reflects the associated significance accorded these implements’ use and attitudes towards ‘wild’ resources for the people of early Çatalhöyük.

The second point relates to the number of sickles from the pre-Level XII deposits, which is striking in comparison to higher levels. The recovery of such implements is a new and exciting discovery, because it had been claimed previously, that "there are almost no pieces with gloss or "sickle blades" at Çatal Hüyük" (Ataman 1988: 244). One could interpret their presence as relating to space, i.e. this is the first time that we have excavated an off-site area, though no such pieces were recovered from the KOPAL trench. Moreover, one would have to propose a reason as to why one might not keep such implements (embodying exotic raw material and non-local technical savoir-faire) within the household.

One wonders if we are seeing a distinctive attitude towards cereal cultivation at this stage of Çatalhöyük’s history? Might one consider that for the early community (perhaps not entirely sedentary), the harnessing and consumption of crops may have been a far from mundane occupation? As such one might propose that the associated implements of cultivation and harvesting, such as the sickles, would have equally been imbued with meaning, their manufacture / creation / procurement involving a strong concept of appropriateness. Certainly one can make good functional arguments as to why ‘flint’ was chosen over obsidian for the production of sickles, but such choices may have also involved notions relating to the exotic and ‘origins’, be that of the cereals / associated people and / or knowledge.

Eventually the requisite practice of making cereal harvesting implements from fine, imported ‘flint’ blades, ceased, or became much rarer (or we have not found them because we have not dug in the right places). At this juncture such tools may have been manufactured on the more easily accessible obsidian. Few obsidian sickles have been recognised, however, the ‘gloss’ that commonly forms the basis of flint sickle recognition, does not form on the surface of volcanic glass (due to the raw material’s different physical / mechanical properties). Theoretically there may be obsidian sickles that have yet to be recognised, due to the limited application of microwear analysis at the site, though it should be noted that denticulated obsidian blades are extremely uncommon. Alternatively, one might suggest that the later community developed a completely different harvesting technique, involving no stone tools. The latter is not for me to comment on, however, the point remains that, at present, the evidence suggests that after a while / certain point in time, there was a not insignificant shift in certain attitudes towards cereals and their cultivation.

Levels IX-XII

Aside from the upper sequence of middens, stabling deposits and fills in Space 181, most of the chipped stone from Levels IX-XII comes from within households. The complexity noted in the early obsidian assemblages remains a feature of these industries, albeit expressed in various different techniques and end-products. The relative quantity of ‘flint’ is slightly less than that of the Pre-Level XII sequence, but as noted above, the raw materials represented in the non-obsidian component are now far fewer.

Within the structures much of information is gleaned from the microdebitage recovered by wet-sieving. The exceptions to this include the hoard contexts, a phenomenon which dates back to at least Level X (Building 23, see 1999 archive report), plus some of the larger detritus within the ‘dirty areas’ near the fire-installations / ovens. There is also the occasional piece of knapped, ‘hoard-like’ material, within these buildings. Refitting has been attempted to try and elucidate the life history and circulation of such material, with little luck. With more time the author is sure that greater success would have been achieved in this matter; the significance of the lost 7 weeks cannot be understated. The life history of a single structure’s chipped stone, particularly in the case of such fine examples as Building 1 and 17, would make for an excellent future project (a Masters’ thesis perhaps?). It is a shame that such work cannot be undertaken within the current framework for publication.

In the course of studying the data collected over the past two years further patterns will emerge, hints of inter-spatial differences in consumption have already been noted (main room versus narrow room, for example), pertaining to quantity, type and raw materials. All further details will, hopefully, be provided in the final publication.

Obsidian Sourcing

A new component of our work at Çatalhöyük is that of obsidian sourcing, reinitiating the work of earlier scholars (Renfrew, Dixon and Cann 1966; Wright 1969; Keller and Seifried 1990). The aims of this project are manifold. They include investigating the history of obsidian exploitation through time, i.e. a diachronic appraisal of Çatalhöyük’s relationship with a source, or sources. We also wish to see if the variant industries represented at the site relate to different raw materials. For this reason, each piece of obsidian chose for analysis has been illustrated and will be published alongside the eventual results, an unfortunately all too rare an occurrence in this field. In turn, it is desirable to know whether, synchronically, each household has the same relationship with a distant source of obsidian. Many other issues will, no doubt, develop from these ideas and the subsequent results.

Such a broad range of questions necessarily involves sourcing numerous samples; in this instance we are most fortunate that the Project is so well funded, for such analyses are not cheap. In undertaking this project we are working with a number of different institutions and methodologies. Bringing together the various scholars and techniques has been a greatly enjoyable experience, both intellectually and personally, and hopefully will help the Çatalhöyük Research Project to develop further its multinational character. The laboratories and personnel currently associated with sourcing archaeological obsidian from Çatalhöyük are:

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Grenoble)

The major advance in the new sourcing programme has been undertaken by Dr. Gerard Poupeau of the Groupe de Geophysique Nucleaire, CNRS (Grenoble). At the time of writing, 100 pieces of obsidian from Çatalhöyük have been analysed by ICP-MS by Dr. Poupeau and his assistant Miss Céline Bressy. These samples were collected in 1998 and 1999, coming from both the Early Neolithic East mound and Chalcolithic West mound. The former included material from the North and South Areas, plus the Summit excavations, thus spanning Levels IX-V (Table 1, Table 2). One set of samples derived entirely from Building 1 of the North Area, the aim being to make an in-depth analysis of obsidian consumption (by source) in relationship to technology, typology, use-wear and context.

The data has yet to be fully processed, but initial results indicate that the Cappadocian sources of Göllü Dağ-east and Nenezi Dağ are the primary sources of Çatalhöyük’s obsidian. The results also suggest that there may be significant differences in the history of these obsidian’s exploitation: chronologically, technologically and contextually. The final results and their archaeological implications will be fully discussed in full course and in the appropriate formats. The work will, however, receive a preliminary discussion at the annual meetings of the American Association of Anthropologists, San Francisco (November 2000) and the Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego (January 2001).

Middle Eastern Technical University (Ankara)

During the 1999 season a programme of obsidian sourcing based at METU was initiated. Coordinated between the Departments of Chemistry and Archaeometry / Physics, it will involve the use of ICP-MS under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Osman Yavuz Ataman. The project team also involves Professor Dr. Ay Melek Ö zer, Professor Dr. Sahinde Demirci and the author, with updates on progress being relayed to the Çatalhöyük scientific committee via Dr. Wendy Matthews. The project has commenced in the form of a pilot-study, with the long-term hope that it will be possible to dedicate a Ph.D. student to work on obsidian from Çatalhöyük, using the above technique to approach a number of issues (chemical and archaeological).

A necessary stage in the development of this project has been the author’s liaising between METU and Dr. Gerard Poupeau of CNRS, to facilitate METU’s access to the collection of geological samples of Anatolian / Eastern Mediterranean obsidians. Dr. Poupeau’s generosity in sharing this material, thus allowing METU to generate its own database of ‘in-house’ calibrated chemical fingerprints, is gratefully acknowledged.

During the summer of 1999 the author selected 50 pieces of obsidian for the pilot-study to be conducted at METU. These samples were selected on the basis of their physical properties (colour, texture, inclusions) and their archaeological context. The material all came from the South Area of the East mound, focusing on deposits from Levels VIII-X excavated in 1999 (Table 3).

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Aberystwyth

One of the problems involved in the current sourcing programme(s) is the fact that the technique employed is destructive. We are thus restricted in what can be analysed, with bureaucracy setting the analytical agenda. Ultimately one has to hope that a non-destructive technique may be developed which would allow us to source any object from the site, be it flake, blade, projectile, or mirror. It is to this aim that the author has started a dialogue with two laboratories that work with Laser Ablation.

At present, contact with FORTH (Foundation of Research and Technology Hellas, Herakleion), is restricted to general discussions of technique, though the author is working with Dr. Demitris Anglos on characterizing obsidian from Aegean archaeological contexts. The technique employed at FORTH is that of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), with Dr. Anglos and his team working specifically on a portable version. The technique is non-destructive, but at present is not able to discriminate such a wide range of elements as the destructive techniques currently employed in obsidian characterization.

Work is, however, progressing with Dr. Nick Pearce of the Department of Earth Sciences, the University of Aberystwyth, who works with Laser Ablation ICP-MS. The range of elements discerned with this technique is very wide. As such, one eventual aim of using this technique is to discriminate between the various outcrops on Göllü Dağ, currently classified together as Göllü Dağ-east (Kayirli-east, Komürcü and Sica Deresi) and Göllü Dağ-west (Kayirli-village, north Bozköy and Gösterli). It should be noted, however, that other teams are also working on this issue, specifically Dr. Poupeau of CNRS.

Some 36 pieces of obsidian have been sent to Dr. Pearce to analyse as a pilot-study. The samples were collected in 1998 and come from the South Area of the East mound, deriving from a variety of contexts spanning Levels V/VI-VIII (Table 4).

South Area level VII and VIII lithics by Ana Spasojevic

Level VIII

This level is observed through spaces 163, 173 (building 6) , and 115 (midden). In space 163, unit 4416 had the majority of the assemblage. This unit represents room fill, its northeastern part of it. The total of 268 obsidian and "flint" pieces has been recorded and analyzed. 11.3% of obsidian were cortical pieces indicating that some sort of napping activities were happening. A similar situation was found for the "flint", 25% of the "flint was corticated but then again only 12 pieces of "flint" were discovered in this unit one of which is core. 50% of obsidian and 41.66% of "flint" was used. From the other quadrant of the same space, unit 4325, it has been recorded (cf. Carter 1999) that this unit was dominated by non-cortical flakes. The total of 20% of obsidian was used and over 50% of the assemblage was broken, which is in contrast to adjacent unit 4416 in which only 37.5% have been found to be broken.

Regarding the "flint", recovered from the space 163 (units 4173, and 4172), it is quite interesting to note that 3 pieces originate from the same raw material (limnoquarzite, white in colour with distinctively black plant fossils visible macroscopically). It is most likely, regarding the colour, that they were detached from the same core, unless exactly the same material has been used in a long period of time.. One piece of this raw material is from the space 115 (unit 4121). Exactly the same raw material, 4 pieces that were spotted this year, were found in the space 181 (units 4709, 4865, 5286, and 5325) and one piece from the space 171 (unit 4530). Here, I would like to argue about several interpretative possibilities. One of them is that the pieces from the upper levels are actually coming from the lower ones. In favour of this argument is that the majority of this type of raw material is coming from the lower levels, X and XII, and these levels represents a low percentage of the excavated area. This leaves me to challenge the idea that surrounding soil has been dug to be used for filling building 6 and making the base for fire installations. The other possibility would be that this type of "flint" has been used for a long period of time thus leaving us to search for plausible explanations. These pieces are more then likely coming from the same source. It is left to be seen in the course of further work, hopefully next year when all these pieces are on the table, whether refitting is possible and to star from there. A lot of weathered obsidian has been found in the building 6, the majority of it in space 173. This goes in favour of digging the soil theory.

In space 115, midden deposit, one of "flint" refit was possible. From the core, length 22mm, a flake was detached then broken (from use) and possibly discarded. The core was then retouched and used. Material from the priority units analyzed this year is mostly represented by flotation samples. Two "flint" cores were found, one rejuvenation piece and significant debris indicates that "flint" was napped in this midden deposit, or on the roof? It has been suggested (Carter 1999) by analyzing different units, that these contexts could represent a place of manufacture and consumption.

Level VIII

This level comprises spaces 159, 113, 112, 109, 108, 106, and 105. A total of 587 pieces was recorded of which 1.38% is "flint", two times declining in number in comparison with the underlying building horizon. The midden deposit in space 105 is considerably different from the midden deposit recognized in space 115 regarding lithics. A total of 297 pieces was recovered from this space that is half of the assemblage from this level of which 2.36% was "flint". In this space, a total of 21 cores was found of which 1 is made of "flint".

Two pieces of obsidian were joined from unit 2833 in space 113/115 underneath the wall F.266 and between the walls F.52 and F.75. This would be of not particular interest if these two pieces when joined were not making a core. I would try to talk more of a "life history" of this core. This was, in the beginning a large flake then discoidal core that was at one point broken. Then one of the broken piece was used; at least not visible traces of use on the other piece could be detected. They were both found in the same context that was described as a mixed deposit that accumulated gradually in situ. The bone specialist remarked about possible intrusions. It has been suggested that this might represent a "feasting" deposit situated in between the walls since a lot of animal bones were recovered from this unit. It is most likely that the core was used in this "feasting" activity, broken in the process (deliberately of accidentally) and then used again, and eventually discarded. Could we infer all the way to the individual behind this scenario. Can we argue that the single event is represented behind this deposit. Further work will demand use wear analysis not only of lithics, that will hopefully backup the feasting version. There were two more cores found belonging to this unit and both have shown to be used.

BACH 1 Lithic assemblage 2000 by Heidi Underbjerg

The preliminary interpretations of this season is based on 3391 pieces of obsidian and flint only account for 0.5% of the total assemblage. The lithics are from building 3 (spaces 86 & 158) and the midden West of space 158. A single fragment of an exhausted flake and three core preparation fragments have been found so far in the assemblage from this season. The assemblage from the dry sieve is composed of a total of 542 pieces of blanks and debitage, only 20 of these pieces showed any signs of further modification. Most of the dry sieved lithics came from the midden outside building 3.

The majority of the lithics came from the wet sieve and most of these were from either the 2mm or the 1mm fraction. The lithic assemblage in general reflects the units excavated this year, these have primarily been floors and packing between floor levels.

References

Ataman, K. (1988), The Chipped Stone Assemblage from Can Hasan III: A Study in Typology, Technology and Function. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

Balkan-Atlı, N. (1994), ‘The typological characteristics of the Aşıklı Höyük chipped stone’, in H.G. Gebel and S.K. Kozlowski (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1, Berlin: 209-21.

Carter, T. (1999) Chipped Stone Report / İşlenmiş Taş Raporu. In Çatalhöyük Archive Report 1999.

Grace, R. (1989), Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: the Quantification and Computerisation of Microwear Analysis. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 474.

Hamilton, N. (1996), ‘Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials’, in I. Hodder (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara: 215-70.

Keller, J. and Seifried, C. (1990), ‘The present state of obsidian source identification in Anatolia and the Near East’, in C. Albore Livadie and F. Wideman (eds), Volcanologie et Archéologie PACT 25, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe: 58-87.

Renfrew, C., Dixon, J.E. and Cann, J.R. (1966), ‘Obsidian and early culture contact in the Near East’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society XXXII: 30-72.

Watkins, T. (1996), ‘Excavations at Pinarbaşı: The early stages’, in I. Hodder (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara: 47-57.

Wright, G.A. (1969), Obsidian Analyses and Prehistoric Near Eastern Trade: 7500 to 3500 B.C. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 37, Ann Arbor.

Figures

Figure 31: Comparing quantity of obsidian from burial and surrounding fills in Building 6 (weight/L)

Tables

Table 1: Obsidian Samples for sourcing with ICP-MS at CNRS, Grenoble (1st set)

Table 2: Obsidian Samples for sourcing with ICP-MS at CNRS, Grenoble (2nd set)

Table 3: Obsidian Samples for sourcing with ICP-MS at METU, Ankara

Table 4: Obsidian Samples for sourcing with LA-ICP-MS at the Dept. of Earth Sciences, The University of Aberystwyth, Wales)

Table 1: Obsidian samples for sourcing with ICP-MS at CNRS, Grenoble (1^st set)

Table 2: Obsidian samples for sourcing with ICP-MS at CNRS, Grenoble (2^nd set)

Table 3: Obsidian samples for sourcing with ICP-MS at METU, Ankara

Table 4: Obsidian samples for sourcing with LA-ICP-MS at the Dept. of Earth Sciences, The University of Aberystwyth

© Çatalhöyük Research Project and individual authors, 2000