Ground-stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük
Transkript
Ground-stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük
Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts Chapter 13 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük Adnan Baysal & Katherine I. Wright This chapter is an interim report on ground stone To investigate what these artefacts can tell us about social relationships within and between households A second 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 (Baysal 2001)? A key issue concerns gender. Many archaeologists see milling in particular as an activity associated with adult women (e.g. Molleson 2000; Peterson 1997; 2002). What can the ground-stone analysis contribute to this debate? and related artefacts from the 1995–99 excavations at Çatalhöyük. The artefacts come from the 355 priority contexts. To these we have added a few more contexts, the better to convey the range of variation. These additional contexts are marked in tables (see CD) with an asterisk. Not included here are relevant artefacts from flotation residues (e.g. micro-artefacts and debitage from ground-stone manufacture). Also not included are hundreds of additional artefacts, from non-priority contexts in the Cambridge excavations and from the excavations of Mellaart, the BACH team, the Poznan@ team and Çatalhöyük West. These will be presented in a future report. Aims To establish a detailed typology and sequence of ground-stone artefacts for Çatalhöyük Final reports on ground-stone artefacts from Neolithic sites in western Asia are not as common as they should be. Early studies were of assemblages in Zagros sites (e.g. Hole et al. 1969). There are detailed reports on ground stone from Khirokitia in Cyprus (Cluzan 1984; Mouton 1984); from Jericho in Palestine (Dorrell 1983); from Netiv Hagdud and Munhata in Israel (Gopher 1997; Gopher & Orrelle 1995); and from sites in Jordan (Wright passim). There are detailed accounts for some sites in eastern Turkey and northern Mesopotamia, e.g. Çayönü (Davis 1982), Mureybet and Cheikh Hassan (Nierlé 1983), and Bouqras (Roodenberg 1986). For central Anatolia, the only extensive study so far is an unpublished PhD dissertation, by Hersh (1981), on ground stone from Suberde and Erbaba. Extensive assemblages have been recovered from other sites, but there is so far no published chronotypological sequence of ground-stone artefacts from any well-stratified Neolithic village in central Anatolia. One of our The Çatalhöyük ground-stone analysis has several long-term, closely-related aims: 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, such as grinding tools, vessels, maceheads, incised pebbles, figurines and beads. 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: ochre grinding, plaster polishing, and the making of pottery, figurines, beads and other items (cf. Wright 2000; in prep. a; Wright & Garrard 2003). 307 Chapter 13 — from quarry to manufacture, use, recycling and final abandonment — is essential for understanding how ground-stone assemblages form (Baysel in prep.; Wright 1992a). 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 show that in a number of village societies, some milling tools had very long use-lives and were passed from generation to generation (Baysal 2001; Ertuğ-Yaraş 1997; 1998; Hayden 1987; Hayden & Cannon 1984; Kramer 1982). We are keen to identify stylistic and functional patterns as individual houses evolved and were rebuilt. aims is to establish such a sequence 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 chaînes opératoires. Some researchers have addressed this issue (e.g. Gopher & Orrelle 1995) but the study of groundstone technology is still in its infancy. Static typologies of formal, ‘finished’ tools are not sufficient for ground stone. Debitage from ground-stone manufacture can and should be collected; ground-stone toolmaking often entailed flaking, whilst stone particles detached by grinding may be identifiable by micromorphology (Volume 4, Chapter 19). On-site manufacture has been identified in Neolithic sites, in the form of unfinished artefacts, cores, primary flakes, debitage and microdebris found in flotation residues (e.g. Wright 1992a; 1992b; 1993; in prep. a–d; Wright, in Garrard et al. 1994; Wright & Garrard 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. To conduct experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies in order to understand the lithic technology and the uses (practical and social) of ground-stone artefacts Relatively little ethnoarchaeological and experimental work has been done on manufacture and use of ground-stone tools. One of the best ethnographic studies is Hayden’s (1987) description of a specialist in Guatemala who uses chipped-stone tools to make grinding slabs. We have already begun experiments in replicating ground-stone artefacts and this work is continuing. There is a small literature on experiments in the productivity of food processing with groundstone tools (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. Several attempts at identifying organic residues on ground stone have been made. The results have been rather limited so far, but some successes have been reported (Procopiou & Treuil 2002). Microwear analysis has been attempted on ground-stone tools (Adams 1988; Dubreuil 2002). As with microwear studies of chipped stone, there are uncertainties about how the wear patterns and polishes form, and what they really mean. The most detailed work is by Dubreuil (2002) and centres on fine-grained basalt grinding tools. We do not yet know to what degree such methods may be possible for the relatively coarse-grained andesite and andesitic basalt commonly used at Çatalhöyük, but some of the Çatalhöyük artefacts are quite fine-grained. Consequently, we plan to explore the potential of microwear along the lines suggested by Dubreuil, but adapted to the local materials. By combining microwear and resi- To determine the sources of raw materials used for making these artefacts Source analysis of ground stone via petrography and other methods can inform on patterns of landscape use and exchange (Baysal 1998; 2004; Türkmenoğlu et al. 2001a,b; Philip & Williams-Thorpe 1993; Weinstein-Evron et al. 2001). For the people of Çatalhöyük, stone suitable for ground-stone tools would have been rather valuable, because the Konya plain is essentially alluvial and lacks substantial rock outcrops. Apart from soft marls and chalks, the only stones available in the immediate vicinity of Çatalhöyük are small, waterrolled pebbles in the Çarşamba Çay. These would have been useful for small items, but anything larger would have required quarrying in foothills and mountain ranges several dozen kilometres away, e.g. Karadağ, Bozdağ, and the Taurus mountains. Ground-stone quarry and manufacturing sites have been identified in the eastern Mediterranean (e.g. Roubet 1989; Rosen & Schneider 2001), and we hope to look for such sites in hilly areas surrounding the plain. We have already begun a programme of petrographic analysis (see below). 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 Analysis of the life histories of ground-stone artefacts 308 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts felt that context-by-context analysis was an essential prerequisite for understanding the ground-stone technologies and artefact types in the first place. The contexts of final abandonment shed important light on how the artefacts were made and used, and how they acquired their final forms. Many occurrences of reuse and recycling of artefacts, the final ‘types’ discovered in excavation, could not have been understood without considering context in the first instance. Thus, as excavation and analysis proceed, new artefact types will be encountered and the overall Çatalhöyük typology will be constantly updated. due studies together, it may be possible to ascertain something of the specific functions of ground-stone artefacts, subject to the caveat that these tools were probably multi-purpose. Methods of field collection and conservation To address these issues, we adopted certain procedures of artefact recovery, storage and analysis (see also Baysal 1998; 1999; 2000; Baysal & Wright 2002). In the field, all ground-stone artefacts were excavated and collected in consultation with a ground-stone specialist present on site. All artefacts potentially related to ground stone were collected, and many were recorded three-dimensionally. This applied to both worked and unworked stones. We adopted a policy that no ground-stone artefacts should be washed until we have consulted other specialists, e.g. conservators, micromorphologists, and organic chemists. Some artefacts have visible residues on them (e.g. ochre, plaster), and invisible residues may also be present (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. Soil samples were taken from a 30 cm radius around in situ groundstone 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 — or any analysis that requires the artefact to be completely cleaned — should be the last step in analysis, not the first. Each artefact was double-bagged (with the original field bags inside). Plastic bags were used initially, but in 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. Recording and classification The recording system is governed by the research issues listed above. Table 13.3 (on CD) shows the kinds of variables being developed for addressing these questions. The overriding purposes behind our classification scheme are to understand the technology and general functions of the artefacts. Concerning technology, the diverse raw materials involved mean that there are a considerable number of technologies (plural) in any ground-stone assemblage. Table 13.4 (on CD) shows those we have encountered so far. Numerically, volcanic rocks, especially andesite and basalt, dominate the 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. At this stage we are not yet ready to present any in-depth discussion of reduction sequences or chaînes opératoires involved in manufacture of artefacts from these materials. However, this work is in progress. Further discussion of raw materials and technology can be found below. Concerning typology, rock type is so fundamental to artefact production, use and final form, that we seriously considered incorporating raw material into the formal type names. 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. Most artefacts in our sample are utilitarian and undecorated. However, some broken fragments (notably of grinding Presentation In this report, we present the artefacts according to the contexts in which they were found. We also decided to present complete lists of inventories for all contexts (see discussion and tables on CD), instead of summarizing by artefact type or some other grouping. We felt that with this approach, variations between houses and between individual contexts would be easier for readers to see. In part, these decisions were pragmatic, the pace of excavation at Çatalhöyük is sedate, but we also 309 Chapter 13 located close to suitable stone sources, display much more expedient organization of ground-stone tools (Wright 1993; 1998; in prep. b–d; Wright, in Garrard et al. 1994; Wright, in Gebel & Bienert 1997). However, at Çatalhöyük there are variations in the degree of curation, according to specific rock types and the origins thereof. With this in mind, it seems best to discuss the artefacts in terms of possible stages of production and use, from acquisition of raw materials to final abandonment. slabs) display evidence that the original artefact had been extensively shaped into distinctive and elegant forms (e.g. corners of rectangular, flat-based grinding slabs with walls at 90 degrees to the base). Table 13.5 (on CD) presents the definitions of the types so far encountered. Terminology merits some discussion. Ground-stone artefact types have been called by 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 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. This difference turns out to be an important one for understanding the spatial organization, and possibly the physical effects, of using ground-stone tools. Another important distinction is between heavyduty 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 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 limestone or marble). Detailed building by building descriptions of the archaeological contexts of the ground stones are provided on the accompanying CD. These descriptions cover the North, South and KOPAL Areas. Properties, sources, transport and use of rock types Volcanic rocks Ethnoarchaeological studies suggest that materials for grinding tools are chosen on the basis of availability, transport ‘costs’, durability, surface roughness, and the degree to which surface particles detached during grinding interfere with the product being processed (that is, a compromise has to be made between enduring roughness and the ease with which grits will be detached, corrupting the ground material) (Baysal 2001). Among tools used for heavy-duty grinding, surface texture was clearly a central consideration. These considerations probably explain the very widespread use of volcanic rocks (especially basalt) in many societies, ancient and modern, for heavy millstones or grinding slabs, even when other rock types are available in abundance (Wright 1992b). Of the 359 Çatalhöyük artefacts presented here, 289 (80.5 per cent) are made of volcanic rocks, chiefly andesite and basalt, with a few occurrences of pumice and gabbro (Türkmenoğlu et al. 2001a,b). The nearest in situ volcanic outcrops to Çatalhöyük are those of Pleistocene age at Karadağ, some 40 kilometres distant. Other possible sources are Karacadağ (with andesites of Pliocene age) and Karapınar (rich in Pleistocene basalts). (All information on local geology, stone sources and petrography is from Chapter 17 on the accompanying CD.) Substantial supplies of andesite and basalt would have had to be quarried directly from these sources, although sporadic occurrences of volcanic rocks, transported by streams or slopewash into the plain, could have been exploited as well. Andesite and basalt would have been the most demanding rock types in terms of transport to Çatalhöyük. Not only are the sources quite distant, but the largest and heaviest artefacts (namely, grinding slabs) were made of these materials. The vast majority of artefacts made from volcanic stones are fragments of grinding slabs and/or handstones (milling tools). Mellaart’s reports likewise emphasize the prevalence of volcanic rocks amongst Ground stone at Çatalhöyük: curated technologies On the whole the Çatalhöyük ground-stone artefacts were highly curated, in the sense used by Binford (1977). That is, these artefacts were produced and maintained in anticipation of future use, with a heavy emphasis on reuse, recycling and adaptation of older tools to new forms and purposes (Binford 1979, 269–70). Highly-curated ground-stone assemblages have been observed in some seasonally-occupied Neolithic sites located far from the sources of stone used for grinding tools. By contrast, other Neolithic sites, 310 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts six artefacts made of gabbro, three are axes; one is a pestle-hammer, one is a mano, and one is a miniature vessel fragment. Lightweight, highly-vesicular pumice is rare in our samples (n = 2), and was used for small hand-held abrading tools (Fig. 13.4:6). the heavy-milling tools. Mellaart’s illustrations show a few unbroken grinding slabs found in situ (Mellaart 1962a, pl. 4b). From these, and from our own (as yet brief) examination of complete slabs from his excavations, we can see that the original artefacts from which the slab fragments came varied from simple saddleshaped slabs to more complex forms with flat bases and sides rising at 90 degrees from the base. In our sample, the artefacts made from volcanic rocks are very heavily curated and extensively recycled, which is not surprising in light of these observations. More research will be needed to investigate: 1) the probable sizes of blocks transported to Çatalhöyük; 2) the frequency of procurement trips to the sources; and 3) whether procurement trips changed through time. Nearly half of the 359 artefacts are made of andesite (n = 170, 47.3 per cent). Some andesite artefacts from Çatalhöyük were examined petrographically and were composed of hornblende-andesite and hornblendebiotite andesite. They match samples from KaradağKaletepe. Other artefacts were of dacitic andesite, matching samples from Karadağ-Kızıltepe. Coarse and naturally rough in texture, andesite is by far the most common material used for robust grinding slabs (of which we have only fragments) and handstones (for definitions of artefact types see Table 13.5 on CD) (e.g. Figs. 13.1:1, 4, 5 & 13.2:9). Andesite is somewhat less dense than massive basalt and therefore potentially easier to transport. Depending on texture, the andesite at Çatalhöyük was capable of being flaked, albeit often only very roughly. Ground surfaces tend to retain considerable roughness, whilst not producing large quantities of grit during grinding, no doubt a key reason for choosing this material for heavy-duty grinding stones. However, some of the andesite artefacts we examined were rather friable once burnt. An additional 30.9 per cent (n = 111) of all artefacts were made of basalt, sometimes with a rich component of andesite. Artefacts of this material were examined petrographically and were found to be composed of pyroxene basalts, matching samples from Karadağ. With only one or two exceptions, all of these basalts were massive, lacking vesicles characteristic of (for example) scoria. Massive basalt is eminently suited for shaping by flaking, having a conchoidal fracture. It is also dense, heavy, and resistant to breakage. The size and angularity of the inclusions vary greatly, affecting surface texture. In our sample, massive basalt was used for handstones, grinding slabs and robust pounding tools such as pestles and hammers (Figs. 13.2:11 & 13.5:7). Closely similar in its properties to massive basalt, gabbro was found in only small numbers (n = 6). Of Sedimentary rocks Sedimentary marls and chalks are the only rocks abundantly available in situ in the Konya plain. Massive outcrops of limestone occur at Bozdağ and around the southern edges of the Plain. However, the Çarşamba Çay streambed gravels contain rocks transported from surrounding areas, and relatively small stones of sedimentary origin would have been available here. Generally speaking, the artefacts made from these materials seem to display somewhat less evidence for storage, recycling and curation. Fewer of the tools made of these materials were broken, compared to items made of volcanic rocks. Only 9.5 per cent (n = 34) of the artefacts in our sample were made from sedimentary rocks. About half of these were made of sandstone (n = 18), of which the in situ origin is so far unknown, but which occurs in the Çarşamba Çay gravels. Sandstones of widely varying roughness were used for small hand-held abrading tools and rather petite abrading slabs, such as those found in Building 1 (Figs. 13.1:3, 6, 7 & 13.2:8). Artefacts made of limestone (n = 13), chalk (n = 2) and conglomerate (n = 1) account for only 4.5 per cent of the artefacts in our sample. These include polishing slabs and hand-held polishing pebbles; one vessel rim; an incised stone; and a bead (e.g. Figs. 13.3:13 & 13.5:2). In the 1960s excavations, stone bowls were rare, according to Mellaart. Those that are reported are fine and well made (as in the fragments we have seen) and a number are said to be made of limestone. Limestone vessels include flat ‘plates’ (of which we have a probable fragment) (Mellaart 1962b, fig. 17) (Fig. 13.3:13). We have not yet examined any stone figurines, but Mellaart reports a number that are made of limestone and chalk (cf. Mellaart 1962a, pl. VIIIc; 1963, pls. XXc, XXIa–b; 1964a, pls. XVIb, XVIIa; 1967, pls. 65, 69). Some limestone figurines appear to be unfinished, and the forms suggest that several were made from river pebbles, a possibility that needs further study (Mellaart 1963, pl. 19). Mellaart also reports the use of limestone for grooved polishers (cf. ‘shaft straighteners’), maceheads (of ‘blue’ limestone), beads and ‘marbles’ (Mellaart 1962a, 55 & pl. 4b–c). Of maceheads, Mellaart reports that they are ‘extremely common in all layers’ (1963, 101), but they did not appear in our sample although they have been recovered by the current excavations 311 Chapter 13 ished blanks sometimes find their way to habitation sites for further refinement into tools (e.g. Wright 1992a; 1993; 2000; in prep. d). The source areas for bulky non-local materials used for ground stone at Çatalhöyük have not been systematically surveyed (yet) for the presence of archaeological sites. So we do not know whether quarries or workshops existed there. We do have some evidence for on-site manufacture of ground-stone items at Çatalhöyük. That evidence is still sparse and so far there are no spatially-discrete production areas, with two possible exceptions (see below). In the 1995–99 sample, there is debitage from ground-stone artefacts. In every case so far, these are flakes with at least one ground surface, indicating refashioning of an older tool rather than primary manufacture (e.g. Figs. 13.4:4 & 13.5:6). No cores, blanks or half-finished artefacts appeared in our sample, although such artefacts are easy to identify. However, discerning manufacture and manufacturing areas will require not only larger samples but also examination of unworked stones (which were collected) and microdebris from flotation residues (cf. Wright & Garrard 2003). Mellaart reports two possible instances of ground-stone artefact production from his excavations. One is house A.III.2, which ‘produced a large number of stone tools as well as raw material and might have been a stoneworker’s shop’ (Mellaart 1962a, 55). Another possible stoneworking area is Mellaart’s ‘Second Shrine’, House E.VI.10. Here, 13 stone figurines of limestone and marble were found on the floor. Mellaart interpreted variations in these in terms of styles (from ‘schematic’ to more representational) (Mellaart 1963, 82–3). However, the photographs indicate that some of the ‘schematic’ figurines are actually unfinished (partly-worked). We see these finds as the remains of figurine-making activities, which is supported by the discovery of unworked limestone near the figurine group and the presence of mending holes in one figurine (Mellaart 1963, pls. XIX–XXI). (Volume 3, Part 3). Mellaart reports other bowls that were made of sandstone (of which we found no examples in our sample). Some of these are small, shallow and have spouts (Mellaart 1967, pl. 112). Metamorphic rocks In situ outcrops of metamorphic rocks do not occur in the Konya plain, but the Çarşamba Çay could have been a source of small transported stones of these materials (Türkmenoğlu et al. 2001a,b). Only 30 artefacts (8.4 per cent) in our sample were made from metamorphic rocks (marble and schist). Of the 18 artefacts made of marble (recrystallized limestone), the vast majority were small polishing slabs and handheld polishing pebbles (Figs. 13.3:14, 16 & 13.4:1, 7). In our sample, we encountered schist mainly in the form of small, rather flat rectangular palettes with one or two oval use surfaces; one or two of them had been fashioned into other items such as cutting or chopping tools (Figs. 13.2:10 & 13.5:3–4). Mellaart reports that marble was used for making fine bowls. One of these, found with a burial, is shallow, with two perforations close to each other (1964a, pl. XVIIIa). Marble was also used for figurines (Mellaart 1963, pls. XXa,b & d, XXIc & XXII). Some figurines are reported as alabaster (Mellaart 1962a, pl. 9; 1964a, pl. XVIa,c & d). Mellaart also found a flat plaque with carved figures, made of what he variously described as ‘greenish slate’ (1963, fig. 27) and ‘greygreen schist’ (1967, pl. 83), possibly the same material as used to make small flat palettes. Other rocks We have not yet identified firmly the composition of the ‘greenstone’ that appears only as axes in our sample (Fig. 13.5:5). Possibilities include serpentine and green apatitic limestone, but further investigation is needed. Mellaart reports artefacts made of apatite, such as beads (1963, pl. XXVIIb) as well as a number of other materials, including calcite and unspecified ‘black stones’, which were used for figurines (1964a, pl. XVIIb–d). In situ activity areas and contexts of use Most ground-stone artefacts in our sample came from discard contexts (e.g. external fills & middens) (Tables 13.1–13.2). Of all the priority contexts (including a few that we added), only 16.4 per cent of all contexts from floors and features contained any ground stone (Table 13.2). Of the 359 artefacts in our sample, only 88 (24.5 per cent) were found in association with house floors and specific features inside houses (Table 13.1). Within this group, the largest samples of ground stone came from fill above floor (n = 30); from general floor deposits (n = 16, including a grinding feature); from contexts Evidence for manufacture of ground-stone artefacts Workshops for initial reduction of heavy grinding tools have been found near sources of suitable stones, in ancient Israel and Egypt, and in latter-day Guatemala (Hayden 1987; Rosen & Schneider 2001; Roubet 1989). Such workshops characteristically have large numbers of half-finished ground-stone ‘blanks’, in which artisans use flaking to produce roughouts that are more manageable and easier to transport. Unfin312 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts associated with ovens (n = Table 13.1. Ground-stone artefacts by context type: the 355 priority contexts. 12); from pits (n = 12); and Context type Description Number of Percentage of all from bins (n = 10). Most of ground-stone ground-stone the items are fragments. As artefacts artefacts noted, some fragments were Floors and features themselves used as grinding Bin 10 2.8 Burial 1 0.3 tools, whilst others may have Fill above floor 30 8.4 been used for purposes such Floor 6 1.7 as providing heating eleGrinding feature on floor 10 2.8 ments or supports in ovens. Oven fill 9 2.5 Oven floor interface - oven use 2 0.6 Some artefacts found Oven floor rake-out 1 0.3 in these contexts may have Pit fill 12 3.3 been discarded rather than Platform floor 3 0.8 used or cached there, as in Fire spot 1 0.3 Wall 3 0.8 the case of fills of bins or Total - floors and features 88 24.5 ovens that had already gone Fills and middens associated with buildings out of use. Much of the eviFill building fill 5 1.4 dence for in situ activity arFill infill - access 1 0.3 Fill infill - building fill 12 3.3 eas involving ground-stone Fill infill - foundation/levelling 3 0.8 artefacts is somewhat ambigFill room fill 6 1.7 uous. The grinding feature Midden construction cut fill 4 1.1 F.27 (1423) in Building 1 is Midden foundation cut dump 27 7.5 Midden in abandoned building 25 7.0 one of the most conspicuous Midden room fill dump 1 0.3 candidates, but even here, Midden with collapse 1 0.3 there are nuances. The small Total - fills and middens associated with buildings 85 23.7 cluster of grinding slab and Fills and middens associated with external areas Alluvium and fill external deposit 27 7.5 fragmentary handstones Cut 2 0.6 is directly associated with Fill between walls 37 10.3 diverse plant remains, but Gully 2 0.6 two of these artefacts have Midden animal pen dump 2 0.6 Midden demolition 1 0.3 visible residues of ochre on Midden exterior 115 32.0 them, testifying to the probTotal - fills and middens associated with external areas 186 51.8 able use of these artefacts Grand total 359 100.0 for both food processing and paintmaking. However, the slab itself was found lying on its use surface and this tools at one time (see discussion of house variations, seems to have been deliberately placed in this way. below). Finds of ‘working toolkits’, such as paired slabs Mellaart’s reports suggest possible in situ activity and handstones deposited together, are few, but these areas, especially in later levels (Levels V–I) where the rare examples are informative. The collection of tools locations of ground-stone tools are recorded more often from the Building 1 grinding feature shows that comon the plans. (We do not know whether this reflects a plete abrading slabs and ad hoc handstones recycled true change from earlier levels or whether Mellaart from older broken tools were probably used together. simply recorded ground-stone artefacts less often in the A similar pairing appeared in the contemporary Phase plans of the lower levels: cf. Mellaart 1962a; 1966a). B1.2 ‘lentil bin’ nearby (which also held a complete Mellaart found complete grinding slabs and asslab and a similar ad hoc handstone). Thus, Phase B1.2 sociated tools in diverse places inside houses. In house in Building 1 revealed two complete kits for grinding E.VI.2, a grinding slab and a handstone were found in activities. Some of Mellaart’s finds may suggest that a room corner on a bench against a wall, with another pairs of grinding slabs (and associated handstones) grinding slab at the edge of the adjacent platform (Melwere sometimes abandoned together within houses laart 1962a, pl.IVb). In Levels I–III, a grinding slab (ap(see below). In early village sites in the Levant, caches parently complete) was found in a storeroom adjacent of two toolkits are sometimes seen (Wright 2000). Such to house B1, and next to an oven on the south side habits could suggest a need for backup tool sets, or of house A1 (Mellaart 1962a, fig. 3). In Level IV, two that more than one person might be using grinding querns are shown in the storeroom on the south side of 313 Chapter 13 Table 13.2. Presence/absence of ground-stone artefacts by context type: includes several contexts added to the 355 in the priority list. Context type Description Floors and features Bin base Bin bin fill Burial fill Fill above floor general Fill above floor collapsed plaster Floor general Floor artefact clusters Floor ashy spreads/rake-outs/dirty areas Floor exterior surface Hearth fill Hearth feature use Hearth rake-out Ladder Oven base Oven fill Oven interior deposits Oven floor rake-outs Oven superstructure Oven demolition - backfill Pit fill Platform fill - make-up/packing - basal building infill Platform floor Posthole/Stakehole Total Fills and middens associated with buildings Building fill arbitrary layer - basal building infill Building fill fill Fill between walls fill Fill between walls general Fill between walls ground-stone cluster Foundation Infill artefact cluster - obsidian cache Infill building fill Infill building fill between walls Infill foundation Infill general Infill general Infill levelling Midden artefact cluster - bones Midden construction cut fill - dump Midden cut fill Midden demolition Midden foundation cut - dump Midden in abandoned building Midden room-fill dump Midden with collapse Room fill burnt collapse Room fill fill Wall Total Fills and middens associated with external areas Alluvium and fill external deposit Cut fill Fire spot exterior dump (burnt) Firespot lime-burning area Firespot lime-burning area Firespot scorched area Gully fill Midden animal pen - dump Midden animal pen - dump; stabling deposit Midden exterior Midden exterior - construction/make-up/packing Midden exterior alluvium 314 Midden exterior dump Total Number of contexts with ground stone present Number of contexts with ground stone absent Total number of contexts Percentage with ground stone 1 4 1 10 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 35 2 13 7 31 1 37 6 11 2 8 2 1 1 9 4 4 3 3 1 11 1 9 12 179 3 17 8 41 1 38 7 12 4 8 2 1 1 10 6 4 4 3 1 18 1 12 12 214 33.3 23.5 12.5 24.4 0.0 2.6 14.3 8.3 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 33.3 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 38.9 0.0 25.0 0.0 16.4 0 2 3 6 1 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 7 1 1 0 4 2 41 5 0 0 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 8 45 5 2 3 10 1 1 2 8 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 8 1 1 1 15 10 86 0.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 62.5 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 0.0 26.7 20.0 47.7 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 18 1 4 5 37 0 2 0 2 3 1 0 0 6 5 0 0 3 22 4 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 6 23 1 4 8 59 100.0 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 78.3 100.0 100.0 62.5 62.7 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts house E4, with a third on the north side of the adjacent large room, next to a platform and a bench. In house E9, a slab was discovered next to a hearth in the larger room (Mellaart 1962a, fig. 4). No slabs are illustrated in the plan of Level V (Mellaart 1962a, fig. 5), but in the combined plan of Levels VI–IX (Mellaart 1962a, fig. 6), a slab lies on a platform near a bench in House E2 and in the centre of the main room of House E4. It is possible that these occurrences represent deliberate, structured abandonment, rather than places of use. On the other hand, Mellaart’s reports seem to indicate that the slabs were often found firmly set in place, with use surfaces facing upward. If we assume (for the sake of argument) that these are places where these slabs were routinely used, obviously depending on season or occasion, the diversity of locations tends to militate somewhat against the idea that there was a strict dichotomy between areas of ‘domestic’ activities and areas involving ‘ritual’ activities. That is, groundstone items occur not only in ‘kitchen’ and storage areas but in the largest rooms; on platforms, in room centres, and against northern walls. The co-occurrence of grinding stones with both plant remains and ochre grinding in the same context (Building 1) likewise tends to militate against such a strict division. There is also the fact that domestic activities are inherently also ‘rituals’, and important ones at that (Bourdieu 1977; Wright 2000). But more data and further analysis are needed to clarify these issues. Matthews (Volume 4, Chapter 19) suggests that some grinding activities may have been occurring on house roofs (e.g. Buildings 5 and 3), since oven remains and particles (possibly detached from grinding stones) appeared in roof collapse. We ourselves have not yet seen ground-stone artefacts from roof collapse contexts. However, certainly it would have been possible to conduct milling activities on rooftops. In contrast to the very heavy grinding tools (weighing as much as 50 kilograms) from some Neolithic villages (Wright 2000), the complete slabs we have seen so far from Neolithic Çatalhöyük are eminently portable tools, and could have been carried to rooftops without difficulty. We would not be surprised to discover grinding tools having fallen in from rooftops, although large clusters of heavy slabs on a single house roof might be somewhat unexpected, even given the strength of the original roofing. Again, contexts of ground-stone use undoubtedly varied seasonally and according to specific occasions. facts, even fragments, was a habit at Çatalhöyük. In our sample, ground-stone artefacts were found in four bins; in one case, we see a working toolkit cached in a bin fill (Building 1). Ground-stone artefacts also occur on the floors of small storerooms, where they may have been kept, rather than used. Ground-stone fragments occasionally appear inside ovens. In some cases, these are in fills deposited after an oven went out of use, but it is a possibility that broken items were used inside ovens, to distribute heat or support cooked items, a habit that is well-documented ethnographically. Similar fragments appear in pits and bins along with remains of wood (fuel?) and clay balls (pot-boilers?), possibly suggesting storage of supplies related to cooking (e.g. Buildings 2 & 6). Refashioning and recycling The vast majority of artefacts in our sample are either broken or display evidence of refashioning and recycling, even unto exhaustion. Flakes from previous ground-stone tools are often seen. The number of complete items is exceedingly low, and even these often display evidence for rejuvenation or transformation into new tools (e.g. Fig. 13.1:2). We also investigated all contexts for possible refits of fragments. On rare occasions we were successful (e.g. Fig. 13.3:12), but in many cases we were looking at clusters of artefacts from different originals. Several observations hint at different approaches to the use and maintenance of finer abrading tools relative to andesite-basalt grinding tools. Building 1 illustrates this phenomenon quite well. Here as elsewhere, the great majority of andesite and basalt tools are fragments. Some of these were clearly reused as handstones. Such fragments were found directly associated with sandstone abrading slabs, in burnt bin fill above lentils (1344) (Fig. 13.1:4, 7), and in the grinding feature (1423) (Figs. 13.1:5 & 13.2:8). 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 the house. By contrast, the finer 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 F.27, (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, one with ochre on its ground use surface. Storage It can be difficult to disentangle storage for later use from deliberate, structured abandonment. But the available data suggest that storing ground-stone arte315 Chapter 13 Figure 13.1. Ground-stone artefacts from Building 1, North Area: 1) andesite mano (2165); 2) gabbro axe (2165); 3) sandstone sander (1488); 4) andesite grinding slab or handstone fragment (1344); 5) andesite grinding slab fragment re-used as a handstone (1423); 6) sandstone abrader (1423); 7) sandstone abrading slab (1344). For further details see Table 13.6. (Drawn by Graham Reed.) 316 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts Figure 13.2. Ground-stone artefacts from Building 1, North Area: 8) sandstone abrading slab (1423); 9) basalt grinding slab fragment (1188); 10) schist palette (1192); 11) gabbro pestle-hammer (1267). For further details see Table 13.6. (Drawn by Graham Reed.) 317 Chapter 13 Figure 13.3. Ground-stone artefacts from Building 1, North Area: 12) andesite mano (1267); 13) limestone vessel rim (1126); 14) marble polishing slab (2525); 15) Basalt mano (3044); 16) marble polishing pebble (3044). For further details see Table 13.6. (Drawn by Graham Reed.) The complete artefacts recovered so far suggest that activities involving ground-stone tools 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 318 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts Figure 13.4. Ground-stone artefacts from Space 181, South Area: 1) marble polishing slab fragment (5326); 2) sandstone abrader (5315); 3) sandstone abrading slab (5290); 4) andesite flake (4874); 5) gabbro vessel rim fragment (4837); 6) pumice abrader (4836); 7) marble polishing pebble (4837). For further details see Table 13.7. (Drawn by Graham Reed.) These observations imply the multiple purposes of the grinding-slab fragments re-used as handstones and the abrading slabs found with them: ochre processing, certainly (e.g. (1423); and food processing, probably (1344)). Other artefacts deposited together also hint at activities such as polishing of small items (perhaps bone tools, beads and others), e.g. the palette 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). 319 Chapter 13 Figure 13.5. Ground-stone artefacts from the South Area: 1) sandstone abrading slab fragment (4518); 2) limestone bead blank (4921); 3) schist chopper made from palette (5053); 4) schist abrader (4102); 5) greenstone axe (1895); 6) limestone flake from ground-stone tool (1505); 7) gabbro axe (1668). For further details see Tables 13.8, 13.10 & 13.12. (Drawn by Graham Reed.) 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 some houses (e.g. Building 1), been used for a relatively brief period without recycling, and then carefully and deliberately abandoned. and abrader found in (1192); and polishing of walls, floors or small items (e.g. the polishing slab and pebble in (2525)). In all, the ground-stone artefacts from the selected contexts fit well with Martin & Russell’s (2000) impression that materials were arriving on the site and not leaving it. Assuming that the selected contexts 320 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts We do not yet know how the extensive recycling and refashioning of ground-stone tools relates to changes through time in the availability of rock types or frequency of procurement trips. Equally, our samples are too small yet to determine whether there was a tendency for ground-stone tools to be ‘recycled upward’, with older artefacts passing into the hands of later occupants, who used, recycled and then discarded them. This is, however, a question that has to be considered. A number of ethnographies of village societies indicate that carefully made ground-stone artefacts, particularly grinding slabs, typically have very long use-lives. In addition to practical considerations such as breakage, social factors such as inheritance can play a role in the history of such artefacts. For example, in a number of village societies, daughters inherit milling tools from their mothers (e.g. Hayden 1987; Hayden & Cannon 1984; Kramer 1982; Horne 1990; Watson 1979; Wright 1992b). Matrilineal inheritance of stone milling tools can be documented in Akkadian documents from second-millennium Mesopotamia (Wright 2000). In third-millennium Mesopotamia, legal texts used the expression ‘to transfer the pestle’ (in this case made of wood) to indicate the transfer of property (land, gardens, slaves) from person A to person B (Goetze 1966, 126–7; gis.ganna, obverse, line 4). Whilst it is obviously impossible to assume automatically that cultural practices of precisely this kind existed at Çatalhöyük, the ethnographic literature does suggest that we should be aware of the cultural as well as practical elements of artefact life-histories. appears to have been discarded with many other materials and items, often including plant remains. Some of the middens containing both grinding stones and plant remains may have been burnt in situ and could reflect processing (Volume 4, Chapter 8). In most cases the botanical material in contexts is probably residual and we cannot assume a direct link between it and the ground-stone artefacts. For some archaeologists, the throwing away of unwanted items is seen as governed mainly by practical, utilitarian considerations such as the effort involved, physical hindrances, and reuse value (Hayden & Cannon 1983; Schiffer 1976). On the other hand, rubbish can be discarded as part of ritual or symbolic acts, and discard may be closely related to culturally-specific ideas about cleanliness (Hill 1995; 1996; Hodder 1987; Richards & Thomas 1984; cf. Douglas 1966). Martin & Russell (2000) showed that there were different ways of disposing rubbish at Çatalhöyük, probably depending on a mix of practical and social concerns. Some outdoor middens displayed high densities of debris suggesting rubbish from household activities; other disposal episodes involved rapid filling of abandoned houses with prepared material; yet other rubbish deposits, notably (1873) in Building 2, may represent remains of feasting. Our own data do not display any clear patterns in the nature of rubbish discarded in the specific contexts discussed by Martin & Russell. The ranges of artefacts and their states of preservation are approximately similar in exterior middens and rubbish thrown into abandoned buildings, and we see no unusual evidence that sheds additional light on the ‘feasting’ interpretation of (1873). Still, one possible exception to the general homogeneity of groundstone rubbish may be in the exterior areas of Building 1, where several complete polishing tools were thrown away (this would support Martin & Russell’s interpretation of these middens as household debris). However, further analysis of more contexts may change this picture. Given the general absence of complete andesite and basalt grinding and pounding tools in middens and dumps, we have to consider whether such tools were deliberately broken before being thrown away. We cannot resolve this question, but there are some hints that deliberate breakage may have been practised. Chiefly, we suspect this because so many of the fragments are similar in size, mostly small and between 5 and 15 cm in diameter (Tables 13.6–13.14). However, we have no occurrences of conjoinable fragments from a single tool from any of the middens, so this question is still open. Discard Of all priority contexts selected for analysis, most contexts that contained ground-stone artefacts were middens and fills (Table 13.2). Almost half (47.7 per cent) of all middens and fills associated with buildings had some ground stone. Of fill and midden contexts from outdoor areas, 62.7 per cent had some ground stone in them. Of the 359 artefacts in our sample, 75.5 per cent come from middens and fills (Table 13.1). About half (51.8 per cent) of all artefacts derive from exterior fills, dumps and middens outside of houses. A full 42.3 per cent of the total came from generalized exterior midden deposits (32.0 per cent) and fills between house walls (10.3 per cent). A further 23.7 per cent of all artefacts were found in dumps and fills in abandoned buildings or in other fills inside buildings. Most of what was thrown away consisted of broken artefacts, but complete items (notably polishing tools and slabs) were also discarded. Ground stone 321 Chapter 13 Middle Palaeolithic if not earlier. However, a great wave of expansion in food-preparation technologies took place with the beginnings of farming in the Middle East. This expansion can be understood as intensification in production of prepared foods (Wright 1991; 1994, cf. Stahl 1989). From the very beginnings of this expansion, we can see very clear evidence for cultural variations between regions, in aesthetic choices surrounding food preparation and in customs of consumption (dining). By the time Çatalhöyük was occupied, the initial Neolithic technologies for cooking and dining, developed between 12,650 and 7550 cal BC, were undergoing rapid change all across the Middle East (Wright 2000; in prep. a). These changes began just before the main phases of the ‘secondary products revolution’ (Sherratt 1981), but anticipated that revolution in a number of respects. Among these changes were the development of more complex cooking facilities (e.g. elaborate closed ovens), technological changes in ground-stone processing tools, elaborations in vessel-production technologies (e.g. stone, plaster, ceramics), development of diverse forms of storage, and early stages in domestication of new species of animals (sheep, goat, cattle) and plants (olive, vine, dates, figs). Collectively, archaeological data from the period between 7550 and 4350 cal BC in western Asia point to entirely new approaches to food preparation, including the use of special food preparation procedures in emerging hierarchies (Wright in prep. a). The role of food preparation in social change has been discussed from a number of perspectives. Gender has been one concern (Hastorf 1991; 1998; Sherratt 1981; Wright 2000). A second issue centres on the degree to which feasting affected the initial beginnings of farming (Bender 1978; Hayden 2001). A third issue concerns the use of food preparation in negotiating political relations (the politics of gastronomy or commensal politics: Appadurai 1981; Dietler 1996; 2001; cf. Douglas 1972a; 1972b; 1984). Finally, questions have been raised about about the role of ‘haute cuisines’ in the emergence of socio-political hierarchies, and vice versa (Goody 1982; Joffe 1998; Wiessner & Schiefenhövel 1996). Detailed discussion of these issues in relation to the wealth of Near Eastern data can be found in Wright (in prep. a). For the most part, it is too soon to address in depth how Çatalhöyük sheds light on these issues. Our evidence for the use of the ground-stone tools in food preparation is still only very preliminary, pending residue studies, other analyses, and larger samples. However, we can make a few general, and very provisional, observations. Variations through time For the moment, we do not see any clear variations in materials or types of artefacts from the early levels to later ones. However, the range of types in our sample is rather narrow, so nuances about chronological change really must await additional study. Variations within and between structures In our sample, there are marked variations between structures, in the quantities of ground-stone artefacts and the circumstances of abandonment. Thus, some structures have substantial clusters whilst some buildings have extremely few. Tentatively, we can say that this picture is reinforced by Mellaart’s reports, which indicate that some houses were rich in ground-stone artefacts and others were not. But any clear picture of house-to-house variation must await further study. In some Neolithic villages, there are relatively standard household ‘toolkits’ of ground stone (cf. Wright 2000; in prep. d). So far it is not yet possible to speak of household toolkits at Çatalhöyük. However, some houses display sets of two to three unbroken grinding or abrading slabs (e.g. see Building 1 and finds discussed above from Mellaart 1962a). Our work on this issue is still in progress, but meanwhile, ethnographic data suggest some lines of research that we are pursuing (Esin 1991; Davis 1982; Duru 1998; Wright 2000; in prep. a–d). In Hopi villages, each household tended to contain sets of two or three grinding slabs (Bartlett 1933, 14). In an ethnoarchaeological study of a Maya village, Hayden & Cannon found that the number of grinding slabs in a given house correlated with: 1) the number of economically-active women; 2) craftspecialist households (especially potters); and 3) lineage heads (1984, 68–74). Ethnographic data also show that household toolkits also vary according to whether specialized milling has been introduced. When grain is sent to be processed elsewhere, the association of handmills with each household unit is not nearly as close. This is the situation documented by Kramer and Watson in Iranian villages; grain was sent to specialist millers and handmills were relatively rare and somewhat prized. Rotary querns were few and were widely shared (Kramer 1982, 33f; Watson 1979, 168). Further research on house to house variations may shed light on household production activities, social organization and specialization. Cooking and culture at Çatalhöyük Evidence for nutcracking with stone tools first appears in the Lower Palaeolithic, and cooking dates from the 1) Grinding and pounding of foodstuffs can serve 322 Cooking, Crafts and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts to have produced grits in prepared food that should show up as heavy wear in the human dentition. But dental-wear patterns from the Çatalhöyük skeletons seemingly do not indicate high levels of abrasion (Volume 4, Chapters 12 & 24). More research on relationships between food preparation and dentition is clearly needed. Meanwhile, dental and other evidence (see below) suggest that grinding and pounding of foodstuffs did not play quite the same role in food preparation at Çatalhöyük as it did in other Neolithic villages. a number of basic purposes in food preparation, of both plants and animals. Detailed discussion of these purposes can be found elsewhere and will not be repeated here (Hillman 1984; Hillman et al. 1989; Stahl 1989; Wright 1994). In our sample, grinding and abrading tools were found in the same contexts as plant remains, in a number of cases. The plant remains found in association with ground-stone artefacts are very diverse. They include cereals, acorns, lentils, tubers and hackberries. The contexts of these associations include bins and floors (e.g. Building 1) and midden deposits, some of which have evidence of in situ burning. Dietary diversity is also indicated by stable-isotope studies (Volume 4, Chapter 15). Our own view is that the grinding and pounding tools associated with diverse plant species (not to mention animal bones) at Çatalhöyük could have been used to process any and all of these species, although such processing was not required for any of them (Hillman 1984; Stahl 1989; Wright 1994). It is essential to assume, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, that individual grinding/pounding artefacts or types were unspecialized and multi-functional. Ethnographic and archaeological data overwhelmingly support this assumption (Wright 1991; 1992b; 1994). In prehistoric societies in the Near East, there is no clear link between grinding/pounding tools and particular plant foods (such as cereals), although in later, complex societies based on intensive grain cultivation, breadmaking is a central function of certain types of tools (e.g. rotary querns). Likewise, there is nothing to prevent a tool used for food processing being used also for craft making. 3) Ground-stone artefacts from across the Neolithic Near East display distinctive regional styles, cultural practices and attitudes concerning food preparation and consumption. The material from Çatalhöyük fits this general picture of diversity. Although we have yet to compare this material to other Neolithic sites in central Anatolia, differences between this assemblage and those of contemporary sites in the Levant are very marked. They include (but are not limited to) the use of grinding slabs that were very carefully fashioned with flat bases and upright walls; and the use of stone vessels that have spouts (a feature extremely rare to absent in most Neolithic stone-vessel assemblages). Such vessels may suggest consumption of liquids and anticipate changes that attended the secondary products revolution (Wright in prep. a; cf. Sherratt 1981). 4) It is not at all clear that grinding tools played the same role in food preparation here as in other sites, for example, broadly coeval sites in the Levant (Wright 2000; in prep. a). At some Neolithic villages in western Asia, usually those situated next to a good source of grinding stones, grinding tools are large and heavy. At such sites, one sees essentially immovable grinding slabs (weighing up to 50 kilograms), with large use surfaces; and large manos demanding two hands to operate. These items testify to heavy-duty milling and suggest arduous work (as discussed in Wright 1993; 1994; 2000). At some sites, this pattern can be attributed to close proximity to sources of suitable stones. But some of these same sites also lack ovens (e.g. Beidha: Wright in prep. a). The Çatalhöyük grinding tools are very different, with small grinding slabs and one-hand manos overwhelmingly dominating the heavier grinding equipment (so far). The Çatalhöyük grinding slabs are mostly small, light, and easily portable. (At least so far, very large slabs seem to come from later contexts: Çatalhöyük West and the Team Poznan@ area, where a very large slab was recovered along with loom weights and bone tools, in what appears to be a Chalcolithic context, (6948): Czerniak et al. 2001.) Undoubtedly 2) Contextual evidence suggests that sandstone artefacts as well as those of andesite and basalt were probably used in connection with food preparation. The heavy use of andesite and basalt conforms to the expectations of material choices as documented in ethnography; that is, these materials combine surface roughness and durability, with low rates of particle detachment that would introduce grits into prepared foods. However, the use of sandstone abrading slabs in food processing raises several conundrums. Sandstone, even relatively fine and dense sandstone, wears down heavily to very concave surfaces under conditions of extensive use over a long period (compare, for example, sandstone grinding slabs from PPNB Beidha, Jordan: Wright 1993; 2000). But the complete (Building 1) sandstone slabs are very shallow, as if not used over a long period. Sandstone also typically produces high rates of particle detachment under conditions of heavy grinding. One might therefore expect sandstone 323 Chapter 13 5) In general, the contextual evidence suggests smallscale, household-based units of food preparation. As previously discussed, for the moment we do not see evidence (one way or another) for the use of groundstone tools in feasting activities. There are no clusters suggesting large-scale group production of prepared food, and no indications of unusually large numbers of ground-stone artefacts discarded together. Nor do we see rare stone bowls associated with discard contexts that otherwise might suggest special consumption events. However, these observations are tentative and await further work. fine sandstone slab and fragmentary handstones recovered from the grinding feature in Building 1. Ochre milling can be related to a number of craft activities. One, of course, is paint making. We suspect that Çatalhöyük’s painters sought out very fine-grained sandstone in order to pulverize ochre and other coloured minerals to the finest possible degree. We are in the process of exploring the role of ground-stone technology in painting and residues from ochre smeared tools have been removed for scientific analysis and comparison with paints found on walls. However, ochre also has other uses. It is commonly used in treating and preserving hides, and manos and other ground-stone tools also figure in hideworking, as documented in ethnographies and in experiments (e.g. Adams 1988). Other artefacts that undoubtedly figured in craftmaking were various sandstone abraders; the fine marble and limestone polishing tools (e.g. for buffing plaster floors and walls); and the schist palettes (purpose unknown). That beads were being manufactured on site is evident from the occurrence of unfinished bead blanks. Neolithic stone-bead workshops in Jordan, dated to the same time range as Çatalhöyük, reveal that sandstone abraders and other small tools were an integral part of bead making (Wright & Garrard 2003). In addition, some of the fine bone tools were partly made by fine abrasion (Chapter 17) and we strongly suspect that small stone abraders are implicated here, too. For the most part, it is still too early to discuss the details of these technologies, but this work is in progress. Craft production Conclusions The Neolithic in western Asia involved an explosion in diversity of crafts produced in sedentary villages and this expansion is also part of the reason for the proliferation of ground stone in this period. Ground-stone artefacts clearly played a central role in the development of Neolithic craftsmanship. In addition to such items as stone bowls, figurines, and axes, all of which proliferated as the Neolithic began, ground-stone items were important in the rapid expansion of stone beadmaking at the beginning of the Aceramic Neolithic (Wright & Garrard 2003), whilst dressed masonry at some PPNB sites was obviously produced with robust hammers and axes. Ground-stone artefacts are central to the production of ceramics and other technologies (such as metalwork) that emerged later. It is clear that the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük used ground-stone artefacts for production of diverse crafts. Direct evidence for ochre processing comes from the The Çatalhöyük ground-stone assemblage is a case of a highly-curated technology. Compared to groundstone artefacts that we have studied from other Neolithic sites (both in Turkey and in the Levant), the assemblage from Çatalhöyük is an unusual one. The analysis of these artefacts is still at an early stage, so many questions are still being explored and cannot be resolved yet. this is a result, in part, of the fact that these artefacts were transported from as far away as Karadağ, some 40 km from Çatalhöyük. It may also relate to the fact that closed ovens are so common at Çatalhöyük. These slabs could have been used in a wide variety of positions; sitting, holding the slab in the lap, moving slabs from place to place, etc. This raises questions about whether food processing at Çatalhöyük would have resulted in particular functional stresses that would show up in skeletons, adult females in particular (see Molleson 2000; Volume 4, Chapter 12). An osteological analysis of some 100 Natufian and Neolithic skeletons in the southern Levant, where many ground-stone assemblages are consistent with very arduous milling, showed that sexual dimorphism was actually greater in the Natufian than in the Neolithic, when both sexes displayed indications of heavier workloads (Peterson 1997; 2002). Acknowledgements Adnan Baysal and Katherine Wright are grateful to Asuman Türkmenoğlu, Vedat Toprak and Cemal Göncüoğlu for their advice and assistance in understanding the raw materials. We also thank Graham Reed for inking the illustrations and preparing the figures. For useful discussions and general help, we are grateful to Ian Hodder, Shahina Farid, Craig Cessford, Douglas Baird, Louise Martin, Nerissa Russell, Wendy Matthews and Andrew Fairbairn. 324