GROUND STONE STUDY
ADNAN BAYSAL AND KATHERINE WRIGHT
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.
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.
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 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.
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.