ÇATALHÖYÜK 2000 ARCHIVE REPORT

Ground Stones

Öğütme Taşları Raporu

Adnan Baysal

Abstract

This year’s study season on the stone assemblages from excavation in the North, South Areas of the East Mound and West Mound has raised numerous questions. These questions range from tool technology to social organization. These tools may also further interpretation of the use-life and/or life-history of mobile and immobile artefacts, from bins to buildings. However, before this can be achieved a well established recording system and accessibility has to be developed. Therefore, the main focus point of the study is developing this system. In addition to this, also important to keep this system up to date by adding new parts due to raised issues within the methodology.

Özeti

Bu yılki çalışma sezonunda Kuzey, Güney ve Batı tepesinden (Kalkolitik) kazılar sonunda çıkarılmış malzeme üzerine odaklanıldı. Bu çalışma sonunda üzerinde düşünülmesi gereken bir çok soru ortaya çıktı. Bu soruların içeriği alet teknolojisinden sosyal organizasyona kadar değişiklik göstermektedir. Bu aletler aracılığı ile mobil ve mobil olmayan buluntuluarın, örneğin depolardan ocaklara ve hatta evlerin kendilerine kadar, kullanım tarihi ve süreçleri hakkında daha geniş çaplı yorumlar yapmak mümkün olacaktır. Bununla birlikte, böyle bir çalışma gerçekleştirilmeden önce çok iyi geliştirilmiş bir belgeleme ve buna ulaşılabilirlik geliştirilmelidir. Bundan dolayı, bu çalışmanın ana ana amaçlarından bir taneside böyle bir sistemi hazırlamak ve çalışır vaziyete getirmektir. Böyle bir sistemi kurmak yeterli olmayacağı açık olmakla birlikte sürekli olarak bunu geliştirmek ve yeni bilgiler ekleyerek canlı tutmak da çok önemlidir. Bu da sürekli olarak gelişen ve ortaya çıkan yeni konular üzerinde çok boyutlu düşünme ve analiz yapma imkanı sağlayacaktır.

Introduction

Excavations at Çatalhöyük, situated on the Konya Plain, Turkey, have yielded a considerable amount of stone material and artefacts. The first excavations on the site were directed by James Mellaart between 1961 – 1965 and Mellaart listed some of the stone types in his reports and books (Mellaart 1975) as well as suggesting some sources. This stone typology is also listed by Ian Todd in ‘Çatal Hüyük in Perspective’ (Todd 1976) .These publications provide a typology and source but do not give contextual information about the deposits.

The current excavations under the direction of Professor Ian Hodder of Cambridge University, has created a new opportunity to undertake a more detailed research into the types of contexts and stone tool assemblage. This research methodology has been introduced briefly in a previous provisional report (Baysal 1999). The following report deal with some additional aspects of the study conducted this season.

Natural Context / Environment of the Site

Çatalhöyük is situated in an alluvial plain (Konya Plain) which is watered by the Çarşamba River (Neil Roberts et. al. 1996) where natural stone is scarce. The current site assemblage is fully recorded in order to explain the site’s cultural affinities and with the raw material sources. The geological context of stone at Çatalhöyük is therefore not plentiful due to its location. Mellaart suggested raw material sources for different types of stone but these suggestions were not based on the local geological analysis and comparisons of stone types from the site. In 1998 and 1999 two geological surveys were undertaken by colleagues from METU (Middle Eastern Technology University) in Ankara and the author(Baysal 1998), in order to visit the sources Mellaart had suggested to compare with the material found at the site.

Study of the Stones at Çatalhöyük

Ground stone is present in large quantities on most Neolithic sites in Anatolia. However, a little has been studied and generally ground stone classified as a product of agricultural activities, food processing or similar simplistic categories that provides data about past societies and but does not allow for typological comparisons or the in daily activities. Basically, stone is not considered as important as other material such as pottery and flint stone tools. The study of ground stone is therefore lagging behind the analysis of other material assemblages in terms of terminology, typology and methodology. The significance of a complete and in-depth study of the stones therefore is crucial on the site.

Terminology

One of the important aspects of the study of ground stone is establishing a categorisation and universal terminology for tool types those that multifunctional in character. Terminology is a common problem to most artefact studies but has hardly been addressed. Kraybill (1977) and Wright (1992) have brought this problem to the attention of archaeologists. Unfortunately this study has not yet managed to develop a universal terminology for similar objects, forms and designs. The problem of developing a universal terminology or describing similar artefacts universally presumably stems from regional, cultural, chronological and linguistic points. However, the necessity for universalist terminologies should be an advantage to anyone studying the material.

The terminology used at ground stone stud at Çatalhöyük will be based on terminologies established in Anatolia and that Near East. This will result in a fluidity and unity of terminological references based on a historical platform of the original ground stone.

Typology

Typological analysis of the ground stone at Çatalhöyük is still in its early stages. However, the once a stone methodology is achieved stone material recovered from the 1960’s excavations will also be analysed and published in the same format. This analysis will permit a historical background and guidance to the current work on site.

The current analysis on the stone assemblages has indicated that until now there are no new additions to the typology of rocks and minerals as listed by Mellaart. However, the stone assemblage is now analysed and categorised into geological groups of dimension and use variation. In general, the stone types are defined in three main groups: metamorphic, sedimentary and igneous rock. The current stone types include limestone, sandstone, traverten, dolomite, schist, marble, flintstone, andesite, basalt, gabbro, greenstone, rhyolite type. Quartz is also present but in small quantities.

Methodology

In order to develop a better understanding of the ground stone tool technology related to food and other activities certain aspects have to be taken into consideration and methodologies adopted to the site assemblage . The methodology of the ground stone at the site has been briefly introduced in a previous provisional report. These methods are as follows:

Scalar Analysis

The stone material is categorised on a three dimensional system. One of them is scalar measuring and has been applied to the worked material (used surfaces of the worked stone). This records the dimensions of use-wear on the artefacts. The second is also based on worked stone tools but includes the dimensions of the stone itself rather than just the use area and finally the third records dimensions of the unworked or natural material. In this system the stones are separated into three groups : <2, 2-4 and >4 cm. All the unworked stone is also identified and registered on the site. Consequently there are two recording applications covering both worked and unworked stone.

Most specialists on site base their work on the measurements and weights of the material under analysis. Within the methodology these measurements have been converted into multi-dimensional analysis and therefore this method of analysis has been addressed as multi scalarity(Conolly 2000). All these small measurements are converted into maximized questions and answers through time and space. The ground stone study is also based on the same system but adopted to stone specific issues. This is also based on measurements of the artifacts and setting up relations within the archaeological units, features, spaces, buildings and so on. This dimensional analysis may help to understand various problems that have been defined recently that of the building-life and building life-history. This issue has been introduced by Mirjana Stevanovic a ‘Balkan Archaeologist’ who works with the BACH team (Tringham and Stevanovic 2000 : 111-12). The dimensional analysis of ground stone artifacts may contribute to the interpretation of this issue.

Database Entries

The stone database has been designed to create access to the multidimensional aspects of stones recovered on site. This contains all contextual and individual stone specific information such as dimensions, weight, fragmentation, storage etc. The stone database will contain almost every aspect of the stone as well as its associations with different material, storage areas and in the future will contain the information of any stone object gone museum and related museum information. This may also help individuals trace material further in museum depots and aid anyone wishing to study any aspect or type of stone material. The database can be adopted and updated as and when new analysis or information becomes apparent. Furthermore, every database entry is correlated with an individualised bag number. However, in this season digital photography of the stone tools started. As well as contextual and stone specific information digital images will also be available on the database.

Use Wear Analysis

Use wear on the stone tools can be grouped into two : macrowear and microwear. Macrowear on the tools are visible by eye but microscopes are used on site widely to see microwear on tools. Microscopic visibility defines small scratches , breakage's, where all identified and recorded. This is a slow process but it has been argued (Semenov 1964) that this type analysis will provide major information about tool usage. As the stone tools are processed on site some of them are viewed under the microscope and any use wear is photographically recorded. Fragmentation of the tools suggest reuse and micro use wear analysis can define absence and presence of the reuse on the stone tools and recycling of raw material. This methodological approach to the stone analysis is also reported in the 1999 archive report (Baysal 1999).

Sampling Strategy

The sampling strategy is also reported in the 1999 archive report. The main concerns of the sampling are focused on the provenance of the raw material and any organic residue analysis. The reason for organic residue sampling on the tools is based on two current ideas. One of them concerns the definition of content/s of food and diet. The other is relates to tool technology. In many cases ground stones are addressed as multifunctional tools (Wright 1992). Organic residue sampling will also further define ground stone tool typology and classification. The association of certain foodstuff with the certain type of tool while defining the process that it is applied to will also indicate a specific tool type that has been used in the process. Therefore, the residues can help identification of the tool types as well as defining the foodstuff consumed during the Neolithic at the site.

Experiments with Stone

During the season some attempts are made to understand ground stone tool production. These attempts were not particularly aimed to solve any aspects or problems of tool production but to understand the difficulties of tool production. Therefore two separate projects have been developed.

Hand stones and querns production is comparable to the techniques applied stone working and lithic reduction (Wright 1992).

Experimenting Stone Axe Production

Most of the stone axes discovered on site have good polished surfaces and are made of green stone. These characteristics raise questions of the technological production and lithic reduction techniques applied in order to achieve the final form and highly polished surfaces. What were their specific function, life span, significance of varied forms and sizes. To understand the production and maintenance of the axes an experiment was conducted. Although there was no specific technological research question, the difficulties of lithic reduction and the production of such tools was perceived.

First an appropriate shape and size stone had to be found. Due to the environmental limitation, a river rolled marble pebble was chosen. Despite not using the original material as used in the Neolithic period the technological process and difficulties were apparent.

The local name for the stone used is ‘Sille Tasi’, a pink-ish, fine grained andesite, was acting as a work bench. A marble pebble, chosen because its natural form was axe like and has used to work on the Sille tasi. These two dry stones were rubbed against each other for ten minutes. Due to their hardness and dry state the friction and lithic reduction was minimal. Although was wearing down the process was slow. However, the rubbing method improved with the use of water as a lubricator. This method was conducted on the reverse side of the marble in order to record the dimensions of reduction in both methods. The shaping of the stone was initially slow and with a reasonable amount of pressure on the andesite slab. This created more reduction on the stones surface. Friction was faster and easier when wet than the dry application. The desired shape was achieved almost within ¾ hour. This demonstrated that a method was more productive than a dry method. The final process was to polish the stone axe for which initially a leather was used (cloth, grease, and wood was also tried). Leather proved to be most successful which almost smoothed most of the fine scratches on the surface but it was a time consuming process of ½ hours on a small area of the tool.

This was only a small experiment on lithic reduction methods application to determine the amount of lithic reduction and to understand what type of reduction methods could have been used for stone tool production. Methods may have been adopted to different materials. Such experiments will continue in following seasons using variety of raw material. The results of such experimental work will be recorded in future archive reports.

Experiments on Quern and Hand stone Formation

Location of the suitable raw material for quern stones proved to be difficult. A large slab of andesite was eventually collected from the local village of Küçükköy but only after visits to village and discussions with locals. Initially villagers were visited where individuals were identified who still used this type of stone. During these visits it was clear that this type of stone was no longer frequently used , however, most of the village elders remembered the usage of these tools some had used them personally. Once identified, the raw material was collected and carried to site from a distance of 3 km. One fragment was 45 x 48 x 8.5 in rectangular shape with both sides almost flattened. It was obvious that sourcing a big slab and the transportation of it must have been difficult. This issue will be considered as the future geological surveys conducted in following seasons.

The method of working the stone surface was based on the wetting technique that softens the surface and makes it easier to work. In preparation for the grinding surface the same type of stone was used as a working tool. The aim of the work was try to understand a) how difficult it was to work this stone type b) how much time was required and c) how many lithic reduction techniques could be applied to this type of stone.

Flaking

An attempt to flake wet volcanic rock was not so productive. This method is more suitable by bashing and crushing the stone. However, the flaking method seemed more productive on dry parts. Flaking volcanic rock for the production of ground stones was far more successful. This would also be more affective when applied to large and bulky stones. This technique would be for primary shaping. This initial rough shaping would ease the methodology for the final tool. Such flakes have been identified from the current excavations. Analysis on the contextual information of these flakes is not yet completed but initial scanning shows that these flakes vary in size.

Grinding

For grinding both wet and dry methods is applied to the stone surface. In the experiments the dry method was not as affective and productive as wet method. Surface grinding applied to a wet stone produced tiny particles which had a sand paper effect on the stone surfaces. This method may have been used most commonly for smoothing and preparing new surface for the tools.

Pounding and Pecking

Pounding and pecking marks on ground stone surfaces indicate two functions. One is the result of preparation for new surface and the other is the result of pounding the food stuffs. Once again a wet surface produces more affective and productive results.

All the lithic reduction experiments indicated that the wet method was more productive in comparison to he dry method. These experiments were used on specific type of stones, as future experiments will expand to the other types of stone as well as using identified lithic reduction methods.

Geological Surveys

The importance of geological surveys in the environs of Çatalhöyük is described in previous report (Baysal 1998). A survey was undertaken in 1999 to the mountain region of Kara Dağ in order to collect various types of volcanic rocks. The aim of this trip was also to create a reference collection. From this collection some were kept for reference at the site and some sent to Middle Eastern Technical University (METU) for analysis. These stones will be compared to the stone assemblages excavated at the site.

Season of 2000

The season of 2000 was conducted within two months: in August and October. Within these two months the ground stone study concentrated on those units carefully selected to cover spatial, contextual and temporal aspects of the site and which all specialists will analyse. Also a new recording system was developed as well as photographic and illustration database of the stone assemblage. During the field season a symposium organized by Selçuk University, also took place where a paper was presented emphasizing the social and cultural importance of stone on the site.

Priority Units

The total of 355 units were carefully selected from the North and South areas excavated between 1995 – 1999 which produced roughly eight crates of stone. These stones were processed and will be analysed in the following season.

Çumra Symposium

The Çumra symposium was organised by the Selçuk University and local Çumra Municipality. The subject of the Çumra symposium was ‘Çumra : from Prehistory to Today’. A paper presented to this symposium outlines the social and cultural importance of stone at the site.

Pebbles

The groups of stones studied in 2000 are the pebbles. These group of stones analysed and briefly described. Preliminary observations are as follow;

Pebbles are classified as a stone - type at Çatalhöyük. These are described, identified and grouped based on roundness, smoothness and absence / presence of use wear. Pebbles are also divided into 3 dimensional group as well as geological groups of marble, greenstone, sandstone, small quartz fragments, and flintstone. These are sub-divided into worked and unworked groups on the basis of naturally river rolled and fragmented, and those deliberately used as polishers, hammer stones and hand stones for grinding or breaking foodstuffs, nuts, shells, minerals and paints. These usually occur in densities of >4 cm

Contexts where Pebbles are Discovered

The context types that pebbles occur in at Çatalhöyük are middens, building infill, (generally the result of eroded building material), re deposited infills of ovens and in abandoned areas.

Middens

In middens pebbles are relatively bigger (>2 and <10 cm) than pebbles from other contexts. Most pebbles are broken due to thermal changes and exposure to heat. Pebbles from midden deposits are generally fire scorched and blackened supporting the interpretation of domestic waste also supported by the presence of other burnt assemblages of animal bone, clay balls etc.

Re-Deposited Contexts

Pebbles are generally 2 - 4 cm. in size or slightly larger. This type of re-deposited context appears to serve a specific function, as identified in the infill of Building 5. Stone was also used in the construction of bases of some fire installations, possibly for better thermal conditions. This type of context is not very common at the site to date . Rarely, pebbles of <2 cm are mixed with floor packing material which is used in between the floors or floor repair.

Building Materials

Pebbles occur in mud bricks and other architectural elements such as platforms, fire installations, basins, ovens, bins, etc. Pebbles from these contexts occur in medium density but the size of the pebbles in mudbricks are very small in size (<1 cm.). This must be explained by either raw material collection from riverbeds where fine alluvial soil accumulates or screening prior to use.

Recovery Methods

Pebbles are recovered through two main excavation methods at the site. These methods can be listed as follow;

Flotation Samples

Pebbles are also recovered from the flotation system. Up to 40 litres of soil is collected from each context excavated for flotation. The quantity of pebbles from the flotation samples is comparatively high but in size the smallest group. (<2 cm.).

Dry Sieve

After all samples have been taken from an excavated context the remaining part of the deposit is dry sieved. This dry sieve method also produces pebbles in various sizes and quantity.

Accumulation of Pebbles on the Site

Much of the pebble assemblage regardless of size and shape, was brought to the site by the Çarşamba river. Pebbles also occur naturally on river banks therefore it is likely that some of the pebbles may have been hand collected and brought to the site for personal preference due to the colour and shape as well as visualising a specific function. However, pebbles would also have arrived at the site through the collection of alluvial soil for use in architectural construction as well as for the production of clay artefacts.

Overall, no contexts excavated to date represent a specific function or significance of pebbles. Most of the contexts that have produced pebbles indicate that they are a by-product to other activities and not brought to site for deliberate functions.

Other Sites in Anatolia

Other Neolithic sites in Anatolia such as Aşıklı Hoyuk also produce small stones and tools and small fragments. This aceramic Neolithic site is situated in central Anatolia, currently under excavation by Prof. Ufuk Esin of Istanbul University. This site has produced an early metalled surface formed by small size stone fragments and pebbles. The aceramic site of Hallan Cemi in South Eastern Anatolia region, excavated by Prof. Michael Rosenberg of Delaware University, has yielded small "8" shaped limestone pebbles. These pebbles may represent weights or a very primitive form of figurine. This may therefore represent deliberate collection of this type of pebble.

Features, such as ditches and pits, those exposed to weather conditions for a length of time, contain naturally accumulated small pebbles and stones. The contents of small stones and pebbles at the bottom of these open features can be the result of rainy seasons or drainage into these features. Consequently accumulation of the small size pebbles can also be interpreted as natural formation. However, current excavations on the site have not exposed this type of feature.

Rain wash also results in compact stoney areas. This is the result of movement of small stone and grit particles by rain and the deposition of heavier and larger pieces. This type of accumulation is often recorded an archaeological sites and some interpreted as either walkways or paths.

West Mound Material (Chalcolithic Period)

Excavations on the West Mound have yielded a considerable quantity of stone. Overall, provisional the evaluation of the material has defined the following aspects:

Size

The West Mound stone assemblage shows larger fragmentation in comparison to the East Mound stone material. This is especially noticeable in the grinding tools. Most of the grinding tools include hand stones, and pestles are larger in size. The material therefore has to be studied in conjunction with and compared to the East Mound material to understand these changes. In many cases, tool sizes can be correlated with the distance to the source. Therefore increments in size of the tools requires further source research.

Fragmentation

Most of the pieces have old breaks, however, these do represent the whole form of the tool. These fragments are roughly either 1/6 – 1/8 th of the whole tool. This may be the result of easy access to the raw material or somehow obtaining plenty raw material but the thickness (usually 3- 5 cm in Quern types) of the material contradicts this idea in many cases. Warn fragments or items used are long term may have been more fragile and easily breakable and the result would be breakages especially in large size tools which produced larger fragments. Therefore, the access to raw material and long term use is also another aspect that has to be investigated.

Raw Material

Raw material is scarce on Konya plain, around Çatalhöyük especially for volcanic stone types that were used in food grinding process. Transporting large raw material to the site must have been considerably difficult. Therefore, beside the transportation of the material a trade network must also be investigated Chalcolithic period, which West Mound of Çatalhöyük is.

Tool Types

Increments in quern and hand stone tools may be explained by an increase of agricultural activities and a dependency on agricultural food source. However, more excavation is required in order to assume these results and determining connections in tool types and the density of agricultural activities (or population).

The following units produced numerous worked stones: and their initial overview has given beside the units.

All these tools show density within these excavated units. As this is a provisional evaluation of the tools the above information is preliminary. Identification of the tool material based on brief impressions. Most of them the stone assemblage is of volcanic stone, probably andesite and basalt. These volcanic stones are found in the Kara Dağ region. The Kara Dağ region, while containing a plentiful raw material source for this kind of tools, is also considerable distance to the site and this distance brings up transportation problems.

Conclusions

This season the ground stone study has defined several directions in which further analysis should be investigated:

As the ground stone study is getting advanced on the site the issues that ground stones study should answer constantly increasing. These issues vary from technology to social organization. This also illustrates the importance of analysis on archaeological project.

The ground stone tools have shown very little typological differentiation over the years of analysis and within this differentiation form variability also show low profile. The reason for this may be their high functionality and effectiveness. Ground stone tools were probably the only tools that most of the cultures (Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age) commonly kept in their tool assemblages. Therefore, assuming that these tools should be one of the base line in explanation of the cultures, population increments, and economic models as well as dietary habits, food consumption and other related issues. Other aspects of studying these tools can be argued on the basis of exception the ‘tool production is the result of mental template’ (Deetz 1967). In the light of Deetz’s argument these tool assemblages can also be interpreted as a by-product of social organization. In this case due to the slow changes in this template can we ask whether these tools were hard disks of the social memory of the societies and cultures?

References

Figures

Figure 32: Handstone

Figure 33: Pestle

Figure 34: Hammerstone

Figure 35: Axe

Figure 36: Quern