Çatalhöyük 2002 Archive Report

ÇATALHÖYÜK 2002 ARCHIVE REPORT

Analysis of Ground Stone Artefacts from the Excavations of 1995-1999

1995-1999 Kazılarında Elegeçen Öğütme Taşı Buluntularının Analizi

Adnan Baysal - University of Liverpool, Department of Archaeology and Katherine I. Wright - University College London, Institute of Archaeology

Abstract

In August of 2002, Katherine Wright joined Adnan Baysal in the ground stone artefact analysis. Our main goals were: (1) to update and refine the ground stone database; (2) to draw and photograph as many artefacts as possible; (3) to write the report for the forthcoming publication, drawing on and adding to the data collected by Baysal since 1995; and (4) to define the goals for the ground stone study in the next phase of work at Çatalhöyük.

To these ends, much of our time was spent in going through the artefacts from the 355 priority contexts, context by context, in order to create systematic classification schemes for both raw materials and techno-typology. When this was achieved we set up a more detailed database, defining and recording a number of variables. We also drew and photographed as many artefacts as possible from the priority contexts. We then started writing the ground stone chapter for the forthcoming publication. Finally, we established a new system for storing the materials and decided on our goals and procedures for the next season (2003).

In this article we present an overview of our work in summer 2002. The details will be found in the forthcoming volume.

Özet

2002 yılının ağustos ayında, öğütme taşı buluntularının analizi üzerinde yürütülen çalışmalarda yer almak üzere Katherine Wright Adnan Baysal'a katıldı. Bu sezonki temel amaçlarımız şöyle idi: (1) öğütme taşı veritabanını güncellenmesi ve rafine edilmesi; (2) mümkün olduğu kadar çok buluntunun çizimlerinin yapılıp fotoğraflarının çekilmesi; (3) Baysal tarafında 1995'ten bu yana toplanan veriden yararlanarak ve yeni verinin de eklenmesiyle, hazırlanmakta olan yayında yer alacak raporun yazılması; ve (4) Öğütme taşı çalışmalarının kazıların bir sonraki aşamasında izlenecek amaçlarının tanımlanması.

Yukarıdaki amaçlar doğrultusunda, zamanımızın büyük kısmını, 355 farklı öncelik bağlamından (priority context) buluntuyu elden geçirip hammaddenin ve tekno-tipolojinin sistematik sınıflandırma şemalarını oluşturmak amacıyla kullandık. Bunun ardından bir seri parametrenin tanımlanması ve kaydedilmesiyle daha detaylı bir veritabanı oluşturduk. Ayrıca öncelik bağlamlarından mümkün olduğu kadar çok buluntunun çizilmesi ve fotoğraflanması için çalıştık. Ardından hazırlanan yayın için öğütme taşı bölümünü yazmaya başladık. Son olarak da buluntuların saklanmasına yönelik olarak yeni bir sistem kurduk ve gelecek sezon (2003) için amaç ve prosedürlerimizi kararlaştırdık.

Bu makalede 2002 yaz sezonundaki çalışmalarımızın genel bir özetini sunuyoruz. Detayları içeren daha kapsamlı bir yazı hazırlanmakta olan yayında yer alacaktır.

Methodology

Definition of Aims of the Ground Stone Project

The Çatalhöyük ground stone analysis has several long-term, closely related aims that are shaping our work:

To explore the role of ground stone artefacts in food preparation and craft production.

Ground stone assemblages consist of any artefacts in which abrasion played a central role in manufacture. As such, they encompass a wide range of types, from heavy grinding slabs to small maceheads and incised pebbles. Such items proliferated in the Neolithic across western Asia. One of our goals is to explore the use of ground stone artefacts in food preparation (e.g., milling), by investigating contextual relationships between the ground stone and other finds bearing on food (e.g., botanical and faunal remains, organic residues, ovens, hearths). A parallel aim is to investigate the use of ground stone technology in craft activities such as ochre grinding, plaster polishing, and the making of pottery, figurines, beads and other craft items.

To investigate what these artefacts can tell us about social relationships within and between households.

A second general aim is to explore the social organization of food processing and craft production involving ground stone tools, by means of spatial and contextual analysis. Did individual houses have similar 'toolkits' or did some houses possess more of these tools than others? Where could milling or other activities involving ground stone have taken place? Were individual households self-sufficient in food preparation and craft production, or do we see evidence for the use of the tools in communal spaces? A key issue concerns gender. Many archaeologists see milling in particular as an activity associated with adult women. What can the ground stone analysis contribute to this debate?

To establish a detailed typology and sequence of ground stone artefacts for Çatalhöyük.

Final reports on ground stone artefacts from Neolithic sites are not as common as they should be. There are detailed reports on ground stone from eastern Turkey and northern Mesopotamia, e.g. Cayonu (Davis 1982), Mureybet (Nierle 1983), and Bouqras (Roodenberg 1986). Further afield, there are reports on materials from Khirokitia in Cyprus (Cluzan 1984; Mouton 1984); from Jericho in Palestine (Dorrell 1983); from Netiv Hagdud and Munhata in Israel (Gopher 1997; Gopher and Orrelle 1995); and from Beidha and other sites in Jordan (Wright passim). At the present time, there are few published reports on ground stone artefacts from any Neolithic sites in central Anatolia. The most detailed study is an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, by Hersh (1981), on the technology and typology of ground stone from Suberde and Erbaba. One of our aims is to establish a chronotypological sequence of ground stone artefacts for Çatalhöyük.

To establish the lithic technology of ground stone tool production.

Like chipped stone, ground stone artefacts are the product of lithic reduction sequences and chaines operatoires. Some researchers have addressed this issue (e.g. Gopher and Orrelle 1995; Mouton 1984; Wright 1992a,b), but the study of ground stone technology is still in its infancy. We have argued elsewhere that static typologies of formal, 'finished' tools are not sufficient for ground stone and that debitage from ground stone tool manufacture can and should be collected, since ground stone manufacture often entailed flaking. Evidence for on-site manufacture of ground stone has been successfully identified in Neolithic sites in Jordan and elsewhere, in the form of unfinished artefacts, nodules, cores, primary flakes, debitage and microdebris found in flotation residues (Wright 1992a,b; 1993; Wright in Garrard et al. 1994; Wright and Garrard in press, 2003). One of our goals is to reconstruct the lithic technology of the Çatalhöyük ground stone by adopting these fine-scale methods of recovery and analysis. Thus, we are examining ground stone artefacts (complete and fragmentary), unworked stones, flakes and microdebris from flotation.

To determine the sources of raw materials used for making these artefacts.

Sourcing studies of ground stone artefacts are relatively rare, but they have been successfully conducted (e.g. Philip and Williams-Thorpe 1993; Weinstein et al. 2001). Ground stone is amenable to source analysis via petrography and other methods and such analyses can inform on patterns of landscape use and exchange. For the people of Çatalhöyük, stone suitable for making ground stone tools would have been a rather valuable commodity, because the Konya Plain is essentially alluvial and lacks substantial outcrops of rock. The only stones available in the immediate vicinity of Çatalhöyük are small, water-rolled pebbles in the Çarsamba Çay. These would have been useful for small items, but anything larger would have required quarrying in foothills and mountain ranges several dozen kilometers from the village, e.g. Karadağ, Boz Dağ, and the Taurus mountains. We have already begun an extensive programme of petrographic analysis to investigate sources (Turkmenoglu et al. 2002). We are especially interested in exploring variations in raw materials from house to house, and comparing raw material acquisition and exchange patterns to those of other artefacts (obsidian, etc.).

To document the life histories of ground stone artefacts, from quarry to final abandonment.

The taphonomy of ground stone assemblages has been discussed in connection with Neolithic sites in Jordan (Wright 1992). However, a full analysis of the life histories of ground stone artefacts -- from quarry to manufacture, use, recycling and final abandonment -- is essential for understanding how ground stone assemblages form (Baysal in prep.). For Çatalhöyük, this is especially important since (1) there is so much evidence for abandonment behaviour, refuse disposal, and caching; and (2) the artefacts appear to have been heavily curated and recycled. Ethnoarchaeological studies have shown that in a number of village societies, some milling tools (especially grinding slabs) had very long use-lives and were passed from generation to generation (usually from mother to daughter) (Hayden 1986; Hayden and Cannon 1984; Kramer 1981). We are keen to identify stylistic and functional patterns as individual houses evolved and were rebuilt.

To conduct experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies in order to better understand lithic technology and uses (practical and social) of ground stone artefacts.

Remarkably little work has been done on experimental manufacture and use of ground stone tools and equally little on the ethnoarchaeology of these items. One of the best existing ethnographic studies is Hayden's (1986) description of a metate-making specialist in Guatemala who uses traditional methods and chipped stone tools to make grinding slabs. There is a small literature on experiments in the productivity of food processing with ground stone tools (see Wright 1994 and references there).

Residue studies, widely applied to ceramics, have considerable potential for ground stone artefacts. Analysis of inorganic residues is particularly promising. Materials such as ochre, plaster and carbon have been found adhering to the surfaces of ground stone artefacts at Çatalhöyük and these have been sampled for purposes of identifying chemical composition. In additional, microwear studies may have potential (Adams 1988; Dubreuil 2002). By combining microwear and residue studies together, it may be possible to ascertain something of the specific functions of ground stone artefacts - subject, of course, to the caveat that these tools were probably multi-purpose.

Methods of Field Collection and Conservation

To address the above issues, we adopted certain procedures of artefact recovery, storage and analysis (see also Baysal 1998, 1999, 2000). Many of these procedures have been applied in other excavations, but not necessarily described in detail. In the field, all ground stone artefacts were excavated and collected in consultation with a ground stone specialist always present on site. All artefacts potentially related to ground stone were collected, and many were recorded three-dimensionally within each excavated unit. This applied to both worked and unworked stones.

We adopted a strict policy that no ground stone artefacts should be washed until we have consulted a number of other specialists, e.g. conservators, micromorphologists, and organic chemists. A number of the artefacts have visible residues on them (e.g., ochre, plaster), and invisible residues may also be present especially on heavily burned tools (e.g., organic compounds). We advised excavators to try not to touch the use surfaces but to handle artefacts from the edges where possible; in some cases, cotton gloves were used. Samples of soil were taken from a 30 cm. radius around in situ ground stone artefacts, as a control, in order to check whether any residues on the tools could have been simply derived from the surrounding matrix. The artefacts were also photographed and drawn in the unwashed state. Closer examination of wear patterns (with the naked eye and with microscopes) -- or any analysis that requires the artefact to be completely cleaned -- should be the last step in analysis, not the first.

Each individual artefact was double-bagged (with the original field bags inside). Plastic bags were used initially, but in the future, for artefacts that seem especially promising for residue studies, we will be using paper bags (polythene can interfere with chemical residue signals). Individually bagged artefacts from the same context were placed in larger bags and stored in numbered crates after study.

Raw Materials and Technology

The recording system is governed by the research issues listed above and will be presented in the forthcoming report. The over-riding purposes behind our classification scheme are to understand the technology and functions of the artefacts.

Concerning technology, each different raw material used to make ground stone artefacts forms a distinct group, so there are a considerable number of technologies (plural) in any ground stone assemblage. At this writing we have encountered a number of raw materials and associated ground stone technologies. Numerically, igneous rocks, especially andesite and basalt, dominate the ground stone artefacts, with sandstone, limestone, marble, schist and greenstone making up much of the rest. These materials were brought into the site from a number of sources (for detailed discussion, see the forthcoming reports by Baysal and Wright and Turkmenoglu et al.).

At this stage we are not yet ready to present any in-depth discussion of reduction sequences or chaines operatoires involved in manufacture of artefacts from these materials. However, this work is in progress.

Typology

Concerning typology, the nature of the raw material is so fundamental to ground stone artefact production, use and final form, that we seriously considered incorporating raw material into the formal name of each individual artefact type. After wrestling with this problem we decided not to do so.

Instead, we settled on a four-part approach to classification, in which each artefact was assigned to (1) a Material Group (andesite, basalt, schist, etc.); (2) an Artefact Class broadly reflecting very general functional categories (e.g., Vessel, Mortar, Pestle, etc.); (3) an Artefact Type based on somewhat more specific functions and traces of use; and (4) Subtypes 1 and 2 to account for specific variations relating to shape, use-life (e.g. number of use surfaces; degree of fragmentation) and other variables. For the moment, we are treating the presence of decoration as an attribute of function, but eventually it will be necessary to incorporate style variations.

The result was that we created a systematic classification scheme and definitions of artefact types. Terminology merits some discussion. In general, ground stone artefact types have been called by vastly disparate names, some of which are widely used (e.g. handstone, mano), and some of which are idiosyncratic to specific scholars (e.g. processor). In general, we have tried to adhere to widely used terms, whilst stating as explicitly as we could what we mean by them.

We adopted certain conventions for the sake of conveying the nature of artefact use. For example, in the case of handstones, we decided to emphasize whether such items could be easily picked up and manipulated with one hand, or required two hands to operate effectively. Borrowing the term mano from New World archaeology, we settled on a distinction between one-hand and two-hand manos.

Another important distinction is between heavy-duty grinding tools (typically made of andesite or basalt) and artefacts apparently used for finer abrading activities (items made of finer-grained stones such as fine sandstone, marble, schist). The Çatalhöyük artefacts display a wide diversity of small tools clearly aimed at finer abrasion at different grades of coarseness (like sandpaper). These include both passive and active abrading tools (i.e. slabs and hand-held abrading tools) such as abrading slabs and abraders (of medium-grained sandstone); sanding slabs and sanders (made of fine-grained sandstone); and polishing slabs and polishing pebbles (made of marble). We have therefore made a distinction between the 'rough' tools clearly used for quite coarse grinding (e.g. grinding slabs and handstones), and these finer abrading tools. It seems clear that some of these abrading tools were used in both food preparation and craft production (e.g. ochre milling and other activities) (see discussion of Building 1).

Presentation

We decided to present all results of analysis by certain units of observation: individual contexts, features, floors, spaces, phases, buildings and areas outside of buildings. Most ground stone reports begin by presenting a synthesis of artefact types based on all of the material recovered from all seasons of excavations (to that point). The result is a 'site-wide' (really 'excavation-wide') typology or classification scheme that is then used to describe the variations between houses or contexts, often by means of tables.

We decided to reverse this 'top-down' procedure in favour of a 'bottom-up' approach, treating each house or outdoor area as a 'mini-site' and presenting the typology this way. We also decided to present complete lists of inventories for all of the priority contexts, instead of summarizing the evidence by artefact type or by some other grouping. In part this decision was pragmatic -- the pace of excavation at Çatalhöyük is sedate -- but we also felt that with this approach, variations between houses and between individual contexts would be easier for readers to see. In short, this procedure would more readily convey spatial and temporal differences at the level of (1) the house and (2) the smaller units within it (phases, spaces, features, contexts). As excavation proceeds, new artefact types may be encountered and therefore the overall Çatalhöyük typology will be constantly updated.

North Area:

Building 1

The forthcoming report will present details of artefacts and their contexts from Building 1, so here we present only a few general points. In Building 1, some 85 artefacts were recovered from the 355 priority contexts, with a few additional items from contexts that we added. Phase 1 produced only 5 ground stone artefacts. These were found in association with a pit, a wall and other contexts.

Some fifteen artefacts were recovered from Phase 2. Collectively, the most numerous artefacts are andesite and basalt fragments, either unidentifiable or originating from grinding slabs (N = 11); several display evidence of re-use as handstones. The remaining 4 artefacts are abrading tools made of medium- or fine-grained sandstone. These include very fine-grained sanders and small sanding slabs.

Phase 3 produced some 31 ground stone artefacts. They include andesite and basalt fragments of grinding slabs and/or handstones found inside an oven. In fill above the floor in Space 187, an unbroken schist palette was found (cf. Mellaart 1962: Fig. 18). This could be held in one hand during use A small sandstone fragment was found in association with it. Other items from this phase include fragments, either unidentifiable or from grinding slabs, made of andesite or basalt; a discoidal plano-convex one-hand mano (of andesite); a pestle-hammer made of gabbro.

In Phase 4, the layers above the floor of Space 111 produced 4 grinding slab fragments (andesite and basalt). In Phase 5, a limestone vessel rim fragment was recovered. The original artefact may have been a flat platter or tray (cf. Mellaart 1962: Fig. 17).

In the exterior area, characterized by refuse middens, basalt grinding slab fragments were found in Phase E1, along with a small cluster of polishing tools found in fill between walls. These consisted of a hand-held polishing pebble, made of marble, and a marble polishing slab.

Phase E2 yielded 27 ground stone items. Most are fragments of andesite or basalt grinding slabs or handstones. Three complete handstones were found, of which 2 are one-hand manos, subrectangular and plano-convex and made of basalt and gabbro. A basalt hammerstone, a marble conical pestle fragment, and a pair of marble polishing pebbles round out the inventory of artefacts from this phase.

Discussion: Building 1

Although samples are small, we can say that the ground stone artefacts from the Building 1 are relatively consistent in the range of materials and types from the various phases. Artefact types represented in Phase 1 (e.g. one-hand subrectangular plano-convex manos) are also represented in later phases (e.g., Phase E2). There are some variations, though. Sandstone abrading tools are concentrated in Phases 2 and 3 within the building and do not appear in the exterior midden contexts.

Several observations hint at very different approaches to the use and maintenance of fine-grained abrading tools relative to the andesite-basalt grinding tools. The great majority of andesite and basalt tools are fragments. Some of these were clearly re-used as handstones. Such fragments were found directly associated with sandstone abrading slabs. Some fragments were left in oven fills, perhaps for aiding in the dissemination of heat or for use as supports for grilling. And many were thrown away outside of the house.

By contrast, the abrading tools occur more often as complete items. In addition, the use surfaces of the abrading slabs are shallow. There is no evidence for recycling of sandstone abrading tools, whilst there is much evidence suggesting recycling of andesite and basalt grinding slab fragments into other uses.

In the case of the grinding feature F27 (Unit 1423), someone made a final use of a sandstone abrading slab (for ochre processing) and then carefully turned the slab over onto its face. Scattered around the slab were several grinding slab fragments, some with ochre.

The complete artefacts suggest that these activities were conducted on a small scale. That is, the abrading slabs are very small and shallow, implying use with a one-hand mano or small abrader (the only complete handstones and hand-held abraders found are all petite, usable with one hand). To produce large quantities of processed material on these rather petite artefacts would have required quite a bit of time (we plan to conduct experiments to investigate productivity). In addition, the complete slabs are amenable to being picked up and moved around without difficulty (for a contrasting situation see Wright 2000).

These observations imply the multiple purposes of the grinding slab fragments used as handstones and the abrading slabs found with them. The combined evidence of contexts and artefact associations suggest that the ground stone artefacts served a number of purposes: paintmaking; food processing; polishing of walls, floors or small items.

In all, the ground stone artefacts from the selected contexts in Building 1 fit well with Martin and Russell's (2000) impression that materials were arriving in this house and not leaving it. Assuming that the selected contexts are fully representative of the building as a whole, andesite, basalt and gabbro seem to have arrived and been intensively recycled. Sandstone and a few other materials (schist, marble) seem to have arrived in the house, used for a relatively brief period without recycling, and then carefully and deliberately abandoned.

Building 5

Of the 3 artefacts from the selected contexts in Building 5, one unidentifiable basalt fragment came from the fill (?) of Bin F235 (Unit 3251). Two handstone fragments (andesite and basalt) came from Wall F231, which sealed a floor with in situ artefacts.

South Area:

Deep Sounding, Space 181, pre-Level XII

In the Deep Sounding, just above the natural marls, the alluviated dumps of domestic refuse found in Phase D produced some 25 fragments of diverse gound stone tools. Of the identifiable tools, most are grinding slab fragments made of andesite or andesitic basalt, but several fragments of finer abrading tools were also found here. From the Phase C refuse dumps, which were less affected by alluviation and lay above the Phase D dumps, fewer ground stone items were retrieved, but they are likewise mainly fragments of grinding slabs; a few flakes struck from ground stone tools were also thrown away here.

Occupants of Çatalhöyük threw out many diverse ground stone artefacts -- again, all fragmentary -- in the extensive middens of Phase B in this area. Grinding slab fragments and flakes were particularly common here, but a number of abrading-tool fragments (notably sanding slabs and polishing slabs) were also tossed out. The ground stone from Phase B comes entirely from midden dumps and is apparently not associated with the limeburning contexts that were found here.

The widest range of ground stone artefact types in this area emerged from the latest phase of midden dumping (Phase A). The fragmentary grinding slabs and other artefact types seen in the earlier phases also occurred here, but the middens also produced a miniature vessel rim fragment, a complete hand-held polishing pebble, and three different types of abrading slabs.

South Area: Deep Sounding, Space 199, Level XII

In Space 199, ground stone items were recovered only from a foundation raft for Level XII constructions (Unit 4518, one fragment each of a sanding slab and a schist palette); from a midden (Unit 4824, a grinding slab fragment); and from an area fired in situ (Unit 4826, a fragment of either a grinding slab or handstone). No ground stone artefacts were found in the deposits interpreted as animal pens.

South Area Deep Sounding, Space 198, Level XI

Space 198, located just above Space 199, appears to have been an animal pen enclosed by walls, possibly roofed, and with spreads of clay, coprolites and perhaps straw. Only one ground stone item was recovered from Space 198, and it is from one of the 'stabling' deposits (Unit 4850); the item is a fragment of a schist palette.

South Area: Building 18, Level X

Only one ground stone artefact was found in the selected contexts from Building 18. It is a grinding slab fragment found in an oven 'rakeout' deposit.

South Area: Building 9, Level X

Four ground stone artefacts were found in the fill of Building 9, all from the same unit (4205):. two grinding slab fragments, one hand-held abrader made of pumice, and one unbroken cube-shaped hammerstone.

South Area: Building 17, Level IX

In Building 17, apart from a handstone fragment recovered from a pit in Phase D, the earliest of the selected contexts to have ground stone items were in Phase B, the last occupation of the building, when many features in the house were re-organized A grinding slab fragment and a handstone fragment were found together (in Unit 5021) on a rakeout floor associated with Hearth F538 in the south-east corner of Space 170 (the larger, main room). In the north-east corner of the same room, someone left a complete chopping tool at the base of Bin F547 (Unit 5053); made of schist, this appears to be a small palette that was re-fashioned into a tool with a cutting edge. On the latest floor of the small adjacent room (Space 182, Unit 5240), two grinding slab fragments were found, associated with phytoliths and a number of in situ artefacts (including conjoinable pot-sherds).

Building 17 was filled in and closed, and some roof debris was falling in on it, in Phase A. Diverse items were thrown into these fills, including grinding slab and handstone fragments, a sanding slab fragment, an unbroken but unfinished bead, and a complete sandstone chopper.

South Area: Building 2, Level IX

In Building 2, two grinding slab fragments were found in Bin F257. Otherwise, all ground stone items from this building came from makeup/packing contexts, dumps, or building fills. Most of these items are fragments of grinding slabs or handstones, with a few other items such as small abrading tools, flakes from ground stone tools, and a fragment of a greenstone axe.

South Area: Building 4, Level VIII

Only two ground stone tools were found in the selected contexts of Building 4. Both are from the same infilling context of the building (Unit 2006) and both are grinding slab fragments.

South Area: Building 6, Level VIII

In Phase 2 of the larger room (Space 163) in Building 6, three ground stone artefact fragments were found in the fill (Unit 4290) of Pit 440, in the south-central part of Space 163 near several fire features. The pit, which also contained clay balls (possible 'potboilers'), held one grinding slab fragment, one handstone fragment and one pestle fragment (the pounding end). In a later phase of this same room (Phase 3) a handstone fragment and an unidentifiable ground stone fragment were found at the base of the oven (F416) built against the centre of the south wall.

In the adjacent small room (Space 173), a series of bins were constructed in the north-east corner, but the bins could not be firmly attributed to Phase 2 or 3 as described above. In the fill of Bin F520, someone left behind four grinding slab fragments, each from a diferent original artefact. The remaining two ground stone artefacts from the Building 6 contexts were grinding slab fragments found in the infilling deposits (Phase 5) of Space 173.

South Area: Space 115, Level VIII

Space 115 is an external area south of Building 4, characterized almost entirely by dense midden deposits. Inhabitants of Çatalhöyük threw out a great miscellany of ground stone artefacts into the earlier of these middens (Phase B). These items are dominated numerically by unidentifiable fragments, grinding slab fragments, and debitage, with a few smaller tools, e.g., an unbroken elongated abrader (probably made from a worn-out schist palette) and a greenstone axe fragment. A similar range of items was tossed out in the later middens (Phase A); the only unbroken item is an oval axe made of gabbro.

South Area: Space 105, Level VII

Above Space 115, Space 105 consisted of walls, middens, dumps and building fills that formed part of Mellaart's Courtyard 15 of Level VII. The wide range of ground stone artefact types seen in other refuse-dumping areas also occurred here. As before, most are fragments, especially of grinding slabs, handstones or unidentifiables, but a smaller number of more delicate tools also appeared in these deposits.

South Area: Space 113, Level VII

Three fragmentary artefacts (including a segment of a marble bracelet) were found in fill between building walls in Space 113. One unidentifiable fragment of ground limestone was recovered from a pit.

South Area: Space 117, Level VII

Three ground stone items were found in fills between walls in Space 117; all are handstone or grinding slab fragments.

South Area: Space 165, Level VII

One grinding slab fragment was found between walls in Space 165.

Discussion: South Area

The complex stratigraphy of the south area precludes much discussion of spatial patterning at this stage, but a few points do emerge. First, the vast majority of all ground stone artefacts from the selected contexts in the south area derive from middens, dumps, or fills. Of the artefacts from these secondary and teritary deposits, the vast majority are also fragments, especially of heavy grinding tools. However, when ground stone items were found on floors, in bins, in pits, or in ovens, they were likewise fragmentary and likewise dominated by broken grinding slabs and handstones. This fact tends to reinforce the picture (established for Building 1) of Çatalhöyük's inhabitants using and re-using 'old' andesite and andesitic basalt grinding tools even after these items were broken. This observation is further buttressed by the rather frequent occurrence of ground stone debitage (flakes) in the midden deposits, as well as the re-fashioning of older tools into new tools (e.g. chopping tools made from schist palettes). In all, we can see in these materials good evidence for conservation and re-use of ground stone materials even unto 'exhaustion.' This seems to apply particularly to andesite and basalt.

Conclusion

The foregoing summary represents the provisional, interim results of the ground stone analysis. More detailed discussion and analysis of the ground stone artefacts from Çatalhöyük are still in progress and will appear in the forthcoming report.

References

Adams, J. 1988. Use-wear analysis on manos and hide-processing stones. Journal of Field Archaeology, 15:307-315.

Baysal, A. 1998. Provisional report on geological surveys in relation to ground stone study - Çatalhöyük 1998. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 1998: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/Archive_rep98/baysalstone98.html.

Baysal, A. 1999. Ground stones. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 1999: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/Archive_rep99/baysal99.html.

Baysal, A. 2000. Ground stones. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2000: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/Archive_rep00/baysal00.html.

Baysal, A. and Wright, K. forthcoming. Çatalhöyük rocks: ground stone and related artefacts from the excavations of 1995-1999. In Çatalhöyük Excavations of 1995-1999 (ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge: Monographs of the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

Cluzan, S. 1984. L'outillage et les petits objets en pierre. In Fouilles Récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1977-1981 (ed. A. LeBrun). Paris:Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, pp. 111-144.

Davis, M. 1982. The Çayönü ground stone. In Prehistoric Village Archaeology in Turkey (eds. L. Braidwood and R. Braidwood). Oxford:BAR International Series 138, pp. 73-174.

Dorrell, P. 1983. Appendix A: Stone vessels, tools and objects. In Jericho V (eds. K. Kenyon and T. Holland). London:British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, pp. 485-575.

Dubreuil, L. 2002. Étude fonctionelle des outils de broyage natoufiens: nouvelles perspectives sur l'émergence de l'agriculture au proche-orient. Bordeaux: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bordeaux (Specialité Préhistoire et Géologie du Quaternaire).

Garrard, A., Baird, D., Colledge, S., Martin, L., and Wright, K. 1994. Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: An interim report on the 1987 and 1988 excavation seasons. Levant, 26:73- 109.

Gopher, A. 1997. Ground stone tools and other stone objects from Netiv Hagdud. In An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley (eds. O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher). Cambridge, Massachusetts:American School of Prehistoric Research, pp. 151-176.

Gopher, A. and Orrelle, E. 1995. The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley, Israel: A Report. Paris: Cahiers des Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Israel, Association Paléorient.

Hayden, B. 1987 Traditional metate manufacturing in Guatemala using chipped stone tools. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya (ed. B. Hayden). Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 8-119.

Hayden, B. and A. Cannon 1984.The Structure of Material Systems: Ethnoarchaeology in the Maya Highlands. Society of American Archaeology Papers No. 3. Washington: Society of American Archaeology.

Hersh, T. 1981. Grinding Stones and Food Processing Techniques of the Neolithic Societies of Turkey and Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

Kramer, C. 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Martin, L. and Russell, N. 2000. Trashing the rubbish. In Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the Example at Çatalhöyük (ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge: Monographs of the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

Mellaart, J. 1962. Catalhoyuk. The Illustrated London News.

Mouton, M. 1984. La vaisselle en pierre. In Fouilles Récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1977-1981 (ed. A. LeBrun). Paris:Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, pp. 97-116.

Nierlé, M.-C. 1983. Mureybet et Cheikh Hassan (Syrie): Outillage de mouture et de broyage. Cahiers de l'Euphrate, 3:177-216.

Philip, G. and Williams-Thorpe, O. 1993. A provenance study of Jordanian basalt vessels of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I periods. Paleorient, 19(2):51-63.

Roodenberg, J. 1986. Le Mobilier en Pierre de Bouqras. Leiden: Nederlands Institut Voor het Nabije Oosten.

Turkmenoglu, A., Baysal, A., Toprak, V., and Goncuoglu, M. 2002. Raw material types of groundstones from Çatalhöyük. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2002: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/Archive_rep02/baysalstone02.html.

Weinstein-Evron, M., Kaufman, D., and Bird-David, N. 2001. Rolling stones: Basalt implements as evidence for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Mitekufat Haeven, 31:25-42.

Wright, K. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Paléorient, 17(1):19-45.

Wright, K. 1992a. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient, 18(2):53-81.

Wright, K. 1992b. Ground Stone Assemblage Variations and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000 to 5,500 B.P. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, Dept. of Anthropology. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.

Wright, K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant, 25:93-111.

Wright, K. 1994. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: Implications for the transition to farming. American Antiquity, 59(2):238-263.

Wright, K. 1998. Dhuweila: Ground stone. In The Harra and the Hamad: Excavations and Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Volume 1 (ed. A.V.G. Betts). Sheffield:Sheffield Archaeological Monographs, 9, pp. 121-134.

Wright, K. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66:89-121.

Wright, K. and Garrard, A. in press, 2003. Neolithic social personae and the expansion of stone beadmaking in western Asia. Antiquity.

Wright, K. in Gebel, H. and Bienert, H. 1997. Ground stone industry, in Ba'ja Hidden in the Petra Mountains. In The Prehistory of Jordan II (eds. H. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G. Rollefson). Berlin:Ex Oriente, pp. 247-249.

Wright, K. in prep. (a) Ground stone technology and Late Paleolithic adaptations in the eastern Jordanian desert. In Beyond the Fertile Crescent: Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic Communities of the Azraq Basin (ed. Andrew Garrard). London:British Academy Monograph Series.

Wright, K. in prep.(b) Neolithic ground stone assemblages from the Azraq Basin and their implications. In Beyond the Fertile Crescent: Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic Communities of the Azraq Basin (ed. A. Garrard). London:British Academy Monograph Series.

Wright, K. in prep. (c) The Beidha ground stone assemblage: Technologies, space and activities. In The Neolithic Village of Beidha: Architecture, Occupation History and Spatial Organization (ed. B. Byrd). Oxford:British Academy Monograph Series.

Wright, K., Qadi, N., Ibrahim, K. and Mustafa, H. in press. Ground stone tools and vessels from Abu Hamid. In Fouilles à Abou Hamid (Jordanie) (eds. Geneviève Dollfus and Zeidan Kafafi). Paris:Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.