Woodland vegetation, firewood management and woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük

Humans and Landscapes of ÇatalhöyükReports from the 2000–2008 Seasons

Humans and Landscapes of ÇatalhöyükReports from the 2000–2008 Seasons

Çatalhöyük Research Project Series Volume 8

Edited by

Ian Hodder

BRITISH INSTITUTE AT ANKARABIAA Monograph No. 47

COTSEN INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY PRESSMonumenta Archaeologica 30

Published by the British Institute at Ankarac/o The British Academy, 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH

and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA 308 Charles E. Young Dr. N, A163 Fowler, Los Angeles, CA 90095

UK distributor: Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HNUSA distributor: University of New Mexico Press, 1312 Basehart Road SE. Albuquerque, NM 87106

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978 1 898249 30 6

BIAA Monograph no. 47 ISSN 0969-9007 (British Institute at Ankara) Monumenta Archaeologica 30 (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA)

Copyright ©2013 British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; Regents of the University of CaliforniaAll rights reserved.

The British Institute at Ankara (BIAA), one of the British Academy’s overseas institutes, has promoted world-class research in Turkey and the Black Sea region in the fields of history, archaeology and related social sciences since its foundation in 1947. The BIAA publishes scholarly monographs relating to the archaeol-ogy and history of Turkey, with a particular emphasis on publishing the results of Institute-funded research.

The British Institute at Ankara Publications Editorial Board

Dr Gülnur Aybet Ms Gina Coulthard Dr Tamar HodosProfessor Roger MatthewsProfessor Stephen Mitchell Dr Claire Norton Dr Lutgarde Vandeput

Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc, 7300 West Joy Road, Dexter, MI 48130, USAFront Cover Illustration: Plan of the 4040 Area in Level 4040 G (Plan produced by Camilla Mazzucato)Back Cover Illustration: Reconstruction of burial F.1517 containing an adult female (11306) holding a plastered skull painted with ochre (11330) (Illustration by Kathryn Killackey)

The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press is the publishing unit of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. The Cotsen Institute is a premier research organization dedicated to the creation, dissemination, and conservation of archaeological knowledge and heritage. It is home to both the Interdepartmental Archaeology Graduate Program and the UCLA/Getty Master’s Program in the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethno-graphic Materials. The Cotsen Institute provides a forum for innovative faculty research, graduate education, and public programs at UCLA in an effort to positively impact the academic, local and global communities. Established in 1973, the Cotsen Institute is at the forefront of archaeological research, education, conservation and publication and is an active contributor to interdisciplinary research at UCLA.

The Cotsen Institute Press specializes in producing high-quality academic volumes in several different series, including Monographs, World Heritage and Monuments, Cotsen Advanced Seminars, and Ideas, Debates and Perspectives. The Press is committed to making the fruits of archaeological research accessible to profes-sionals, scholars, students, and the general public. We are able to do this through the generosity of Lloyd E. Cotsen, longtime Institute volunteer and benefactor, who has provided an endowment that allows us to subsi-dize our publishing program and produce superb volumes at an affordable price. Publishing in nine different series, our award-winning archaeological publications receive critical acclaim in both the academic and popular communities.

The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA

Charles Stanish, DirectorGregory Areshian, Assistant Director Willeke Wendrich, Editorial DirectorRandi Danforth, Publications Manager

Editorial Board of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology

Willeke Wendrich Area Editor for Egypt, North, and East AfricaRichard G. Lesure Area Editor for South and Central America, and MesoamericaJeanne E. Arnold Area Editor for North AmericaAaron Burke Area Editor for Southwestern AsiaLothar Von Falkenhausen Area Editor for East and South Asia and Archaeological TheorySarah Morris Area Editor for the Classical WorldJohn Papadopoulos Area Editor for the Mediterranean RegionEx-Officio Members: Charles Stanish, Gregory E. Areshian, and Randi Danforth External Members: Kusimba Chapurukha, Joyce Marcus, Colin Renfrew, and John Yellen

The following Çatalhöyük volumes, edited by Ian Hodder, are also available from these publishers:

Çatalhöyük Excavations: the 2000–2008 Seasons(Çatal Research Project vol. 7 ISBN 978 1 898249 29 0)

Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons (Çatal Research Project vol. 9 ISBN 978 1 898249 31 3)

Integrating Çatalhöyük: Themes from the 2000–2008 Seasons(Çatal Research Project vol. 10 ISBN 978 1 898249 32 0)

The John Templeton Foundation provided a grant in support of the project on which this book is based.

vii

ContentsContributors ix

Figures x Tables xix

Acknowledgements xxiii

Part 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction: Dwelling at Çatalhöyük 1Ian Hodder

Part 2 Dwelling at Çatalhöyük

Chapter 2 Sampling and Mapping Çatalhöyük 31Camilla Mazzucato

Chapter 3 Ecology, Diet and Discard Practices: New Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Middens through Integrating Micromorphological, Phytolith and Geochemical Analyses 65

Lisa-Marie Shillito, Wendy Matthews & Matthew J. Almond

Chapter 4 Integrated Geochemical and Microscopic Analysis of Human Coprolites, Animal Dung and Organic Remains in Burials 77

Lisa-Marie Shillito, Ian D. Bull, Wendy Matthews, Matthew J. Almond & Richard P. Evershed

Part 3 Dwelling in the Çatalhöyük Landscape

Chapter 5 Micro-freshwater Gastropods at Çatalhöyük as Environmental Indicators 81Burçin A. Gümüş & Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

Chapter 6 Unio shells from Çatalhöyük: Preliminary Palaeoclimatic Data from Isotopic Analyses 87Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Melanie J. Leng, David C. Aldridge, Carol Arrowsmith, Burçin A. Gümüş & Hilary J. Sloane

Chapter 7 The Archaeobotany of Mid-later Occupation Levels at Neolithic Çatalhöyük 93Amy Bogaard, Michael Charles, Alex Livarda, Müge Ergun, Dragana Filipovic & Glynis Jones

Chapter 8 Woodland Vegetation, Firewood Management and Woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük 129Eleni Asouti

Chapter 9 Plant Exploitation from Household and Landscape Perspectives: the Phytolith Evidence 163

Philippa Ryan

Chapter 10 Starch Granules and Complex Carbohydrates at Çatalhöyük 191Karen Hardy, Renee van de Locht, Julie Wilson & Osman Tugay

Chapter 11 More on the Çatalhöyük Mammal Remains 213Nerissa Russell, Katheryn C. Twiss, David C. Orton & G. Arzu Demirergi

viii

Chapter 12 The Çatalhöyük Microfauna 259Emma Jenkins & Lisa Yeomans

Chapter 13 Human and Animal Diets as Evidenced by Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis 271Jessica Pearson

Chapter 14 Oxygen Stable Isotope and Dental Microwear Evidence of Herding Practices at Çatalhöyük 299Elizabeth Henton

Chapter 15 The Exploitation of Fish at Çatalhöyük 317Wim Van Neer, Ronald Gravendeel, Wim Wouters & Nerissa Russell

Chapter 16 Mollusc Exploitation at Çatalhöyük 329Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

Part 4 Humans and their Lifestyles

Chapter 17 The Human Remains I: Interpreting Community Structure, Health and Diet in Neolithic Çatalhöyük 339Simon W. Hillson, Clark Spencer Larsen, Başak Boz, Marin A. Pilloud, Joshua W. Sadvari, Sabrina C. Agarwal, Bonnie Glencross, Patrick Beauchesne, Jessica Pearson, Christopher B. Ruff, Evan M. Garofalo, Lori D. Hager & Scott D. Haddow

Chapter 18 The Human Remains II: Interpreting Lifestyle and Activity in Neolithic Çatalhöyük 397Clark Spencer Larsen, Simon W. Hillson, Christopher B. Ruff, Joshua W. Sadvari, & Evan M. Garofalo

Chapter 19 Intramural Burial Practices at Çatalhöyük 413Başak Boz & Lori D. Hager

Chapter 20 The Çatalhöyük Burial Assemblage 441Carolyn Nakamura & Lynn Meskell

Bibliography 467

CD: see lists of Figures and Tables.

129

To date, Çatalhöyük contains the best preserved charcoal assemblage of any Neolithic site in Southwest Asia. This is mainly due to the burning environments associated with do-mestic fuel consumption and the discard and deposition of charred debris at the site. Çatalhöyük buildings had very few openings, being entered from the rooftop instead of having entrances at the ground level. In addition, domestic hearths were often closed (clay-made, plastered ‘ovens’), while fuel debris was also regularly cleaned and discarded in midden areas. Thus, charcoals were not reduced to ash, as is the case with the continuous re-use of hearths that are not regularly cleaned (Asouti 2005). These conditions contributed to the excellent preservation of carbonized plant remains, including wood charcoals, at Çatalhöyük.

Analytical work on the wood charcoal macro-remains began in 1999. The principal objectives of the earlier phase of the charcoal project were: (a) to reconstruct the compo-sition of the local and regional woodland vegetation at the time of the Neolithic habitation of the East Mound, (b) to obtain a data-informed understanding of fuel collection and consumption practices, and (c) to assess the taphonomic his-tories (from burning through to the discard of fuel debris and post-depositional alterations) and thus the representa-tiveness of charcoal samples derived from different context types (hearths, middens, etc.) Results were reported as work progressed (Asouti & Hather 2001; Asouti 2005), while its outcomes informed relevant publications on other Neolith-ic sites in the Konya Plain such as Pınarbaşı and Boncuklu (Asouti 2003; in press), and on the theory and practice of an-thracology (charcoal analysis), including the interpretation of prehistoric fuel management and related landscape practices (Asouti 2012; Asouti & Austin 2005; Picornell et al. 2011).

Building on earlier work, the aims of the more recent phase of the charcoal project reported in this chapter can be summarized as follows: (a) to expand the temporal range of charcoal samples with materials from the later levels of the site, in order to monitor shifts in sample composition that may have resulted from changes in vegetation and landscape practices during the late Neolithic (post-6500 BC), (b) to re-work pre-existing datasets that had been originally phased in accordance with Mellaart’s stratigraphy of the site (Levels I–XII; Mellaart 1967) in order to obtain a more precise picture

of changes in sample composition through the lifetime of the settlement, and (c) to examine in greater detail specific prac-tices associated with Neolithic wood use by applying previ-ously untested methodologies. These methodologies involve assessing the potential of the Çatalhöyük charcoal assem-blages to provide direct evidence for: (a) human uses of, and impacts on, woodland vegetation through signs preserved in growth rings for pollarding, coppicing and the browsing of woody plants, (b) wood use (wooden artifacts and wood carving, selection of timber species, timber preparation and shaping), and (c) the location of wood acquisition catchment areas, by identifying more precisely proximate as well as dis-tant wood source areas in the landscape.

In this chapter, the results of the analysis of charcoal samples from external (middens, fire-spots) and domestic (hearths, fire-spots, feature fills) contexts from late Neolithic layers and structures excavated in the South, 4040 and TP Ar-eas are presented for the first time. Work on samples from all these areas is ongoing as the quantity of the material was too high to permit full analysis of all or even the majority of the excavated units that were sampled by flotation. Apart from the quantity of the material, anthracological work was faced with a number of other challenges as well. Contrasting with the early phases of the site excavated in the South Area where no burnt structures were discovered, its later phases contain a number of individually burnt buildings. It is therefore pos-sible that charcoal fragments originating from the burning of structural timbers have entered the matrix of the excavated spaces, features and structures, especially midden contexts, thus skewing the signature of long-term patterns of domestic fuel use. Charcoal particles may also have moved vertically (between different layers) due to the disturbance of the site matrix by the quarrying of building rubble and colluvium from the slopes of the mound as well as midden materials for the manufacture of mud bricks (Volume 9, Chapter 3). These processes may have resulted in the mixing and re-deposition of charred wood remains from different contexts and layers.

In what concerns the identification of domestic firewood debris, the distinction traditionally drawn between ‘domestic fuel’ and ‘timber’ (see Chabal et al. 1999; Asouti & Austin 2005) is, in the case of Çatalhöyük, somewhat arbitrary. I have argued elsewhere that timber preparation waste and de-

Chapter 8

Woodland Vegetation, Firewood Management and Woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük

Eleni Asouti

Volume 8: Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük

130

funct timber were fuel sources in their own right, integrated with the firewood supply provided by other locally available sources (wet woodland vegetation, steppe shrubs, wild fruit-producing trees of the woodland steppe, dung fuel) (Asouti 2005). Furthermore, directional patterning is evidenced in sample composition across the different levels of the site (be-low), which can also be correlated to major temporal shifts observed in other classes of archaeological materials (e.g. pottery, ground stone, etc.) (Volume 9, Chapter 9, Chapter 20). It seems likely therefore that the trends observed in taxon representation reflect genuine trends of wood use, including both timber and fuel, through time at Çatalhöyük rather than having been overtly affected by fragmentation, depositional and/or post-depositional (e.g. stratigraphic disturbance) bi-ases.

Analytical methods on charcoal identification and the quantification of the charcoal data have been previously re-ported in detail (Asouti 2005). A number of methodological adjustments were made for the more recent phase of anthra-cological work. Density, diversity and fragmentation indices, as well as correspondence analysis, were discontinued. These methodologies provided few insights into temporal changes in sample composition linked to environmental or cultural filters that could not be obtained through the use of standard quantitative analysis methods (percentage fragment counts). Other previously untried methodologies were applied to the Çatalhöyük charcoals in pilot form in order to assess their potential for providing more precise insights into wood use and associated landscape practices. These include the meas-urement and counting of annual growth rings, and the re-cording of a suite of qualitative attributes for each charcoal fragment (ring deformation/damage, the presence of fungal hyphae as indicators of deadwood, curvature and woodwork-ing marks). Their application can be very time-consuming, as they require the recording of several different features for each charcoal fragment in tandem with botanical identifica-tion. For this reason, they were applied in pilot form, in order to explore suitable sub-sampling strategies that will permit their future routine application. Pilot results were promising, if somewhat uneven as regards the assessment of woodland management strategies and human impact. The reasons for the unevenness have to do mainly with the nature of the ma-terial. As noted already, a significant proportion of charcoals (particularly of oak and juniper, the major timber/fuel species used at Çatalhöyük) derived from structural wood (vertical posts and roof beams) which had long use-life histories due to timber recycling and various post-depositional disturbanc-es (Asouti 2005). By contrast, taxa used predominantly as fuel (i.e. with much shorter use-life histories) such as the wet woodland constituents (elm, ash, willows/poplars) appear to provide more tangible evidence for human impacts.

Oaks and junipers dominate the composition of late mid-den samples in proportions even greater than those of the ear-lier middens. At the same time, primary deposition contexts (hearths, fire spots) often show higher diversity not just of taxa but also of wood forms (round/twig wood) compared to late midden samples. The abundance of burnt structural debris may be the main reason for the overall low diversity of the late midden samples, and was probably further com-pounded by post-depositional disturbances and the inter-mix-ing of midden layers. The different nature of the late middens should also be noted, as they are more closely identified with individual buildings and/or clusters of neighboring buildings compared to the more ‘communal’ function of the midden spaces excavated in pre-Level VII deposits, which retain pri-marily the charred debris of daily discarded domestic fuel debris (Asouti 2005). For these reasons, sample selection did not focus only on middens but also targeted primary burning contexts as well, including fire-spots, burning layers, hearths, etc. The aim was to maximize the chances for the retrieval of taxa other than oak and juniper, thus enhancing the rep-resentativeness of the reconstructed fuel selection and con-sumption patterns. Furthermore, the results of the analysis of these samples suggest particular ways through which newly applied recording methodologies could be adjusted to reflect more accurately the impact of context-related variation on sample composition and the taphonomic histories of indi-vidual contexts. These propositions and their implications for further research at Çatalhöyük and other sites are also dis-cussed in this chapter.

The structure of the chapter is organized thematically by dividing it in two main sections: ‘Woodland vegetation and firewood management’ and ‘Woodcrafts’. In the first section I present the results of the quantitative (percentage fragment counts) and qualitative (see above) analyses of charcoal sam-ples spanning the excavated sequence. I then discuss the ob-served patterns with regard to temporal changes in sample composition and context-related variation, and reconstruct timber use and procurement through time and between differ-ent buildings. Discussion of timber use is limited to the later phases of the site where in situ burnt timbers were preserved (an extensive discussion of the individual buildings, the tech-nical characteristics of timber shaping and its structural use is presented in the thematic chapter on building construction in (Volume 10). Section II details the results of the analysis of carved wood and wooden artifacts, which to date have de-rived from external hearths (fire spots) and associated midden deposits. The concluding section includes a discussion of the interpretative and methodological implications of the present study for future work at Çatalhöyük and other sites that may provide adequately preserved and retrieved macro-charcoal assemblages.

Chapter 8: Woodland Vegetation

131

Section I: woodland vegetation and firewood management

Temporal changes in sample compositionTables 8.2–8.3 and Figures 8.1–8.3 present the percentage fragment counts of charcoal samples by taxon and major groups of taxa across the sampled sequence at Çatalhöyük (for a complete list of the charcoal taxa see Table 8.1; for a detailed discussion of the new phasing of the site see Volume 7, Chapter 4.

During the earliest (aceramic) levels (Level South G) at Çatalhöyük, fuel collection was overwhelmingly focused on the local wet woodland vegetation (willow/poplar, elm, ash) followed by undifferentiated Ulmaceae (elm/hackberry), Celtis (hackberry) and a significant (by comparison to the later phases) component of woodland steppe fruit-producing taxa such as Amygdalus (almond), Pistacia and members of the Maloideae family. The latter cannot be positively identi-fied beyond the family level on the basis of their wood anat-omy alone; their most characteristic representatives in the local flora are the Anatolian hawthorn (Crataegus orientalis) and the wild pear (Pyrus eleagrifolia).

The first important disjunction observed in the charcoal sequence falls within Levels South G and H (equivalent to the stratigraphic division previously reported as Level pre-XIID-Pre-XIIA (4846); see Asouti 2005). At this point, two major changes are observed in sample composition. First, the abrupt rise of oak charcoal frequencies (from ~2 per cent to >60 per cent) and second, the apparent reduction in the contribution of the wet woodland taxa (below; see also Tables 8.2–8.3, Figs. 8.1–8.3). This shift predates the occurrence in the exca-vated sequence of the earliest known mud brick structures at Çatalhöyük in Level XII in the South Area. The contribution of oak charcoals to sample composition (~60 per cent) re-mains remarkably stable through Levels South I-M. The first noticeable reduction of oak occurs in Level South P (at ~40 per cent), thereafter dropping to ~30 per cent (Level South Q), while it is further reduced by Level South S when oak values drop to ~8 per cent. Juniper follows a different trend. In Levels South G-I its values are negligible (<1 per cent), but begins to increase from Levels South L-M. Level South P registers the second major shift in the Çatalhöyük charcoal sequence, with juniper charcoals reaching values just below those of oak (~36 per cent). From Level South Q, juniper becomes the dominant charcoal taxon.

After an initial peak in the aceramic Level South G (~36 per cent), the values of the wet woodland taxa (predominantly constituted by willow/poplar, elm and ash) drop but fluctuate between ~11-21 per cent through the rest of the South Area sequence, except for its latest sampled phase (Level South S at ~3 per cent). Hackberry (Celtis) also registers higher val-ues in Levels South G-H (~10 per cent) but drops thereafter

to <5 per cent and <1 per cent in Levels South P-Q. No hack-berry charcoal was found in Level South S samples. Pistacia also registers very low (<1 per cent) values in Levels South Q-S. Collectively, minor components of the charcoal samples (Pistacia, hackberry, shrubs and members of the Rosaceae-Maloideae families such as almond, plum, hawthorn, etc.) register higher values in Levels South L-M compared to the other midden samples. Their regular presence in these sam-ples contributes to the perception of the Levels South L-M midden deposits as taxonomically ‘more’ diverse by compar-ison to both earlier and later middens, while some very rare taxa such as maple (Acer) and fig (Ficus) are also present in these charcoal samples.

It is possible to link samples from the northern zone to the South Area sequence on the basis of charcoal frequencies (see Tables 8.2–8.3; Figs. 8.1–8.3). These linkages generally agree with the stratigraphic correlations between the South and 4040 Areas tentatively established through pottery analy-sis. According to the pottery sequence (Volume 9, Chapter 9), Level 4040 G appears to be stratigraphically equivalent to Levels South N/O. In terms of charcoal sample composition, Level 4040 G is very similar to Level South M (especially as regards oak charcoal values, its relative proportions to juni-per and the representation of minor taxa), while Levels 4040 H/I sample composition is almost identical with that of Level South Q samples. A component of Level 4040 G samples comprise midden units, which (as noted earlier) might have contained a significant input of oak charcoal resulting from timber burning. Still, the fact that it is possible to establish correlations between the Levels 4040 G-H/I and the Level South M and later South Area charcoal assemblages suggests that they are likely to represent comparable temporal trends in wood use between the two areas (no Levels South N/O samples were analyzed at this stage. Work on the available materials continues in order to obtain a more detailed pic-ture of temporal changes in sample composition). The B.1 charcoal assemblage also correlates with that of Level 4040 G, which also suggests that the two assemblages represent broadly the same temporal horizon of Neolithic activities re-lating to wood use.

In the TP Area (see Table 8.3, Figs. 8.1-8.3) it is possible to observe the third major temporal disjunction in the char-coal sequence. Sample composition changes completely by comparison to the trends observed in both the South Area and the northern zone. While oak drops to its lowest values (<5 per cent) since the aceramic Neolithic (Level South G), juniper also shows a significant reduction compared to Lev-els South P-S and Levels 4040 H/I. By contrast, there is an increase in the values of the wet woodland taxa and undif-ferentiated Ulmaceae, which reach their highest values since the Level South G aceramic levels; together they account for >70 per cent of the sample composition. Overall, TP Area charcoal sample composition resembles very closely that of


132

the aceramic levels (Level South G). The sole difference is that a significant part of the wet woodland taxa in the case of the TP Area consists of elm charcoal, while positively identi-fied hackberry charcoals appear very infrequently in TP Area samples. It is therefore possible that a substantial proportion of the TP Ulmaceae undifferentiated charcoals have derived from elm rather than hackberry wood.

Context-related variation in taxon representation: fire spots, domestic hearths and middensTable 8.4 shows taxon representation in non-midden units sampled in the 4040 Area and the late levels of the South Area (see also Figs. 8.4–8.5). Of these, (17722), (17723), (13142), (14132), (12984) and (13165) – from the 4040 Area

– and (16250), (16265), (15772), (17084), (17334), (17322), (17307) and (17308) – from the South Area – represent ex-ternal burning deposits (including fire spots, burning layers and fire pits), while there are also some units representing do-mestic burning events: (14460) (ashy cluster on platform of B.49), (13373) (B.65 oven charcoal deposit), (15741) (B.68 fire spot in room fill) and (16268) (hearth surface in B.75).

As Table 8.4 and Figs. 8.4–8.5 show, there seems to be no particular patterning regarding taxon representation and diversity in these burning contexts. There are both domes-tic and external firing events that contain diverse fuel wood taxa (e.g. (14460), (17723), (14132), (17084)), and others that have low taxonomic diversity (e.g. (13373), (17525), (17307), (17308)). (14460) is of uncertain origin; excavators

Table 8.1. List of the wood taxa found in the charcoal samples of Çatalhöyük (including taxa reported in Asouti 2005; Asouti & Hather 2001). XXXX=present in almost all samples, XXX=present in the majority of samples, XX=regularly present, X=occasionally present, x=very rare.

Latin name Common English name Turkish name Frequency of occurrence

Quercus

(deciduous)

oak mese ağacı XXXX

Juniperus juniper ardıç XXXX

?Pinus cf. nigra black pine karaçam x

Salicaceae willow, poplar söğüt, kavak XXXX

Alnus alder kızılağaç x

Vitex chaste tree - x

Tamarix tamarisk ılgın x

Fraxinus ash dişbudak ağaçı XXX

Platanus plane tree çınar ağaçı, doğu çınarı x

cf. Clematis? clematis klemetis x

cf. Vitis? wild vine asma x

Ulmaceae (elm, hackberry) - XXXX

Ulmus elm karaağaç XXX

Celtis hackberry çitlenbik/çitlambik XXX

Pistacia terebinth melengiç, çitlembik XX

Maloideae hawthorn, pear, apple alıç, armut ağaçı, elma ağaçı X

Amygdalus almond acı badem ağaçı XX

Prunus wild plum/cherry dağeriği, kiraz ağaçı X

Rosa rosebush gülpüntü/kuşburnu X

Ficus cf. carica fig incir ağaçı X

Acer maple akçaağaç X

Chenopodiaceae goosefoot family kazayağıgiller X

Compositae wormwood, sagebrush papatyagiller X

Artemisia “ “ yavşan X

Labiatae mint family shrubs ballıbabagiller x

Leguminosae leguminous shrubs baklagiller x

Capparis caper şimşek x

Caprifoliaceae honeysuckle family kebere, hanımeli x

Cornus cornelian cherry, dogwood kızılcık, kızıl çubuk x


133

have proposed that it may represent redeposited midden or the outcome of a single dumping event of primary domestic hearth debris. Given its composition, with the predominance of ash wood (Fraxinus) charcoal and the concentration of several other taxa that appear in low frequencies across the late levels of the site, it is possible that it represents a one-off episode of hearth use and discard of fuel debris. A few of the

Figure 8.1. Percentage fragment counts of all the taxa and major groups of taxa positively identified in the South Area (grouped according to level) and in the TP Area midden charcoal samples (see also Tables 8.2–8.3, Table 8.10).

Figure 8.2. Percentage fragment counts of all the taxa and major groups of taxa positively identified in charcoal samples from the North and 4040 Areas grouped according to level (see also Tables 8.3; 8.10).

samples with low taxonomic diversity may represent ‘noise’ from burnt building material (e.g. (13165)) and/or secondar-ily burnt waste (e.g. (17722)). There are also burning deposits which appear to contain waste from one-off activity events (e.g. the wood working debris in (12984) discussed at length in Section II). Altogether, the more diverse charcoal samples from external and internal burning events also appear to be

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Shrubs & steppe

Pistacia

Rosac/Mal

Celtis

Ulmaceae

0%

10%

20%

30%

North ?G 4040H/I 4040 GLevel

Wet woodland

Juniperus

Quercus


134

Tabl

e 8.

2. P

erce

ntag

e fr

agm

ent c

ount

s of a

ll th

e ta

xa p

ositi

vely

iden

tified

in th

e So

uth

Area

mid

den

char

coal

sam

ples

gro

uped

acc

ordi

ng to

leve

l (fr

agm

ent

coun

ts e

xclu

de u

nide

ntifi

able

cha

rcoa

l pie

ces;

the

latte

r do

not r

epre

sent

uni

dent

ifiab

le ta

xa b

ut p

iece

s tha

t wer

e no

t pos

itive

ly id

entifi

ed d

ue to

smal

l siz

e or

an

over

abun

danc

e of

min

eral

incl

usio

ns).

Lev

elSo

uth

G

%

Lev

elSo

uth

G/H

%

Lev

elSo

uth

I/J

%

Lev

elSo

uth

L

%

Lev

elSo

uth

M

%

Lev

elSo

uth

P

%

Lev

elSo

uth

Q

%

Lev

elSo

uth

S %

Que

rcus

32

2.44

72

4 60

.99

514

61.3

4 61

4 56

.49

353

60.5

5 22

0 39

.78

131

30.9

7 28

8.

46

Juni

peru

s 9

0.69

6

0.51

3

0.36

28

2.

58

48

8.23

20

3 36

.71

197

46.5

7 25

5 77

.04

Ace

r -

- -

- -

- 5

0.46

2

0.34

-

- -

- 2

0.60

Cap

rifo

liace

ae

6 0.

46

- -

- -

- -

1 0.

17

- -

- -

- -

Salic

acea

e 39

0 29

.75

200

16.8

5 15

4 18

.38

148

13.6

2 63

10

.81

41

7.41

8

1.89

2

0.60

Aln

us

- -

- -

- -

1 0.

09

2 0.

34

- -

- -

- -

Vite

x 2

0.15

2

0.17

-

- 4

0.37

1

0.17

-

- -

- -

-

Tam

arix

4 0.

31

- -

- -

1 0.

09

4 0.

69

1 0.

18

- -

- -

Fra

xinu

s 2

0.15

1

0.08

13

1.

55

6 0.

55

6 1.

03

13

2.35

61

14

.42

7 2.

11

Pla

tanu

s -

- -

- -

- 1

0.09

0

- -

- -

- -

-

Ulm

us81

6.

18

4 0.

34

9 1.

07

38

3.50

18

3.

09

6 1.

08

12

2.84

4

1.21

Ulm

acea

e 53

1 40

.50

90

7.58

11

4 13

.60

62

5.70

11

1.

89

38

6.87

3

0.71

3

0.91

Cel

tis

133

10.1

4 10

8 9.

10

15

1.79

53

4.

88

21

3.60

5

0.90

2

0.47

-

-

Pis

taci

a 38

2.

90

19

1.60

2

0.24

22

2.

02

16

2.74

4

0.72

3

0.71

3

0.91

Mal

oide

ae

23

1.75

13

1.

10

8 0.

95

17

1.56

11

1.

89

- -

- -

- -

Am

ygda

lus

27

2.06

-

- 2

0.24

9

0.83

1

0.17

13

2.

35

5 1.

18

27

8.16

Pru

nus

2 0.

15

- -

- -

10

0.92

3

0.51

-

- -

- -

-

Ros

a 3

0.23

-

- -

- 1

0.09

1

0.17

-

- -

- -

-

Ficu

s ca

rica

-

- -

- -

- 1

0.09

-

- 1

0.18

-

- -

-

Leg

umin

osae

-

- 6

0.51

-

- 30

2.

76

14

2.40

-

- -

- -

-

Che

nopo

diac

eae

7 0.

53

3 0.

25

2 0.

24

18

1.66

3

0.51

-

- 1

0.24

-

-

Com

posi

tae

16

1.22

10

0.

84

- -

11

1.01

2

0.34

2

0.36

-

- -

-

Lab

iata

e 5

0.38

-

- 2

0.24

7

0.64

2

0.34

2

0.36

-

- -

-

Cap

pari

s -

- 1

0.08

-

- -

- -

- 4

0.72

-

- -

-

Tot

al

1311

10

0.0

1187

10

0.0

838

100.

0 10

87

100.

0 58

3 10

0.0

553

100.

0 42

3 10

0.0

331

100.

0


135

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ulmaceae

Wet woodland

Juniperus

0%

10%

20%

30%

South G South H/G South I/J South L South M South P South Q South S TPLevel

Quercus

taxonomically more diverse compared to the midden samples retrieved from the same levels (compare Tables 8.2–8.3, 8.4). This is because the burning contexts contain a number of mi-nor taxa which are not ubiquitous and their fragment counts register very low values in midden samples (ash wood, mem-bers of the Rosaceae family, Pistacia, hackberry and shrubs).

In previous work it had been observed that the midden samples from the South Area were uniformly diverse, in that sample composition was largely replicated between samples. Primary burning contexts (e.g. domestic hearths and external, one-off burning events) on the other hand, were dominated by one or two taxa or were taxonomically diverse but with taxa proportions that did not correspond to those recorded for midden samples, depending on the choice of the species fuel-ling these short-lived hearths; this is expected for deposits containing fuel debris accumulated in the short term (Asouti 2005; Asouti & Austin 2005). The taxonomic diversity of the earlier midden samples had been interpreted as the outcome of the use of communal spaces for the disposal of refuse gen-erated by several buildings, likely on a daily basis (Asouti 2005). This does not appear to be the case with the later mid-dens, which seem to be identified in some cases with individ-ual buildings (e.g. ‘yards’ containing the waste of activities associated with particular buildings) or clusters of buildings, and might also have been subject to more trampling and/or mixing of the trash which was disposed of there (Volume 7

Chapter 1). In addition, the pace of economic, material cul-ture and architectural change also appears to be much faster in the later levels of the site (especially from Level South P onwards) compared to early levels (Volume 7 Chapter 1). It is therefore possible that such shifts and their underlying so-cial processes might also have affected previously observed routine practices of fuel consumption and the discard of fuel debris. The impact of culturally determined practices cannot be excluded in the light of patterns revealed by the analysis of dung fuel remains which indicate that fuel use was likely spa-tially differentiated, with overall more dung burnt in external areas compared to domestic hearths (Chapter 7).

Recording of qualitative characters: dendroecology and evidence for Neo;ithic woodland management practicesTables 8.5–8.6 present the results of the pilot analysis of select qualitative characters of the wood charcoals (see also Figures 8.6–8.8). Such records had not been previously obtained from the charcoal samples of the South Area, except for a limited attempt to measure the frequency of oak deadwood (Asou-ti 2005). The presence of fungal hyphae is one of the most commonly identified signals for deadwood in archaeological charcoals (see Asouti & Austin 2005; Moskal-del Hoyo et al. 2010; Picornell et al. 2011) and can be recorded with relative ease and speed compared to other qualitative characters such as ring curvature, average ring width and types of ring defor-

Figure 8.3. Comparison of frequencies for oak (Quercus), juniper (Juniperus), elm/hackberry (Ulmaceae, including Ulmus and Celtis) and wet woodland taxa (mainly Salicaceae, Fraxinus) between the South and TP Areas.


136

mation (worked wood is discussed below). A major limitation in the recording of qualitative characters as a whole is that it must take place in tandem with botanical identification and fragment counts. This is because in most cases there is no way of knowing the type of wood (e.g. through the initial sorting of diagnostics from non-diagnostics, as happens with animal bone) before each fragment has been sectioned and examined under the microscope. Therefore, the increase in the time spent recording each fragment results in the expo-nential increase of the total time spent analysing, counting and recording each >4mm flotation sample fraction, hence prohibiting the examination of a representative number of fully analyzed charcoal samples. Another limitation for the study of qualitative characters has to do with charcoal frag-ment size. For estimating ring curvature (and thus the size of the unburnt log: stem, large/small round wood), average ring width and the frequency of occurrence of different types of

Table 8.3. Percentage fragment counts of all the taxa positively identified in the North, 4040 and TP Areas midden charcoal samples grouped according to level (fragment counts exclude unidentifiable charcoal pieces; the latter do not represent uni-dentifiable taxa but pieces that were not positively identified due to small size or an overabundance of mineral inclusions).

LevelNorth ?G %

Level4040 H-I %

Level4040 G % TP %

Quercus 1403 65.50 307 28.24 624 54.83 20 4.02

Juniperus 172 8.03 466 42.87 124 10.90 73 14.66

Acer 4 0.19 - - - - - -

Caprifoliaceae - - - - - - - -

Salicaceae 232 10.83 45 4.14 55 4.83 77 15.46

Alnus - - - - - - - -

Vitex 1 0.05 - - - - - -

Tamarix 1 0.05 3 0.28 3 0.26 3 0.60

Fraxinus 4 0.19 36 3.31 37 3.25 10 2.01

Platanus 1 0.05 - - - - - -

Ulmus 46 2.15 60 5.52 64 5.62 68 13.65

Ulmaceae 102 4.76 100 9.20 165 14.50 197 39.56

Celtis 42 1.96 7 0.64 20 1.76 13 2.61

Pistacia 25 1.17 23 2.12 17 1.49 22 4.42

Maloideae 4 0.19 - - - - - -

Amygdalus 10 0.47 38 3.50 13 1.14 13 2.61

Prunus - - - - 2 0.18 - -

Rosa 4 0.19 - - - - - -

Ficus carica 8 0.37 - - - - - -

Leguminosae 53 2.47 1 0.09 - - 2 0.40

Chenopodiaceae 2 0.09 - - 3 0.26 - -

Compositae 9 0.42 1 0.09 9 0.79 - -

Labiatae 15 0.70 - - 1 0.09 - -

Capparis 4 0.19 - - 1.00 0.09 - -

Total 2142 100.00 1087 100.00 1138 100.00 498 100.00

ring deformation (both indicative of human and/or environ-mental impacts on wood anatomy), charcoal fragments must be large enough to enable a realistic and reliable assessment of the original attributes of the wood from which they de-rived. Although the anatomical structure of the Çatalhöyük charcoals is generally very well preserved (Asouti 2005) the frequency of fragments >10mm is low (~1-5 per cent of the >4mm flot sample fraction, when available at all). For all of these reasons, a reliable estimation of the frequency of oc-currence of qualitative characters for each sample (expressed as numbers of fragments displaying each character or com-binations thereof) is not feasible. What is feasible is, at best, informed speculation and, at worst, the likelihood that only one or two reliable records per sample with otherwise fully recorded qualitative attributes will be produced, if any.

Despite these limitations, the pilot application of quali-tative analysis methodologies produced informative results


137

Tabl

e 8.

4. A

bsol

ute

char

coal

frag

men

t cou

nts f

or n

on-m

idde

n un

its sa

mpl

ed in

the

4040

Are

a an

d th

e la

te le

vels

of t

he S

outh

Are

a (B

RK=

bark

pie

ces)

.

Uni

t 13

373

1574

1 17

308

1730

7 17

322

1733

4 17

084

1577

2 16

268

1626

5 16

250

1413

2 13

165

1298

4 13

142

1752

5 14

460

1772

2 17

723

Spac

e 29

7 11

8 30

5 29

9 34

4 33

3 32

9 37

1 32

8 33

3 32

9 27

9 27

9 27

9 27

9 33

6

334

133

133

Phas

e So

uth

Q

Sout

h

Q

Sout

h

Q

Sout

h

Q

Sout

h P

Sout

h P

Sout

h P

Sout

h P

Sout

h P

Sout

h P

Sout

h P

4040

I 40

40 I

4040

I 40

40 H

4040

G?

4040

G

4040

G

4040

G

Que

rcus

11

30

25

32

35

10

9

5 26

57

58

19

13

15

17

57

3 33

Juni

peru

s 73

4

9 8

14

17

5 35

2

4

14

25

15

7

9 4

1

Salic

acea

e

2

5

12

2 17

9

2 6

10

2

11

1

Fra

xinu

s 46

2 1

2

1

2

1

Ulm

us

12

3

3

8 2

4 21

6

12

1 3

Ulm

acea

e

1

3 12

2 11

12

4 13

4

38

5

Cel

tis

2

1

3

2

12

3

Pis

taci

a

3

3

1

Am

ygda

lus

1

Pru

nus

1

Che

nopo

diac

eae

1

3

Com

posi

tae

2

1

1 1

Labi

atae

2

Cap

pari

s

4

Phr

agm

ites

2

1

Inde

t.

1

1

2

1

Inde

t. tw

ig

1

2

1

Bar

k

1

Tota

l 13

0 36

50

50

50

31

55

40

36

90

70

62

50

45

50

23

15

0 10

47

Tot

al (-

inde

t.,

Phra

gm. &

BR

K)

130

36

50

50

50

31

51

40

36

89

70

60

50

43

49

23

148

10

46


138

Figure 8.5. Absolute charcoal fragment counts for non-midden units sampled in the 4040 Area (see also Table 8.4).

Figure 8.4. Absolute charcoal fragment counts for non-midden units sampled in the South Area (see also Table 8.4).

140

120

80

100Shrubs & steppe

Pistacia

Celtis

60

Celtis

Ulmaceae

Ulmus

Fraxinus

40

Fraxinus

Salicaceae

Juniperus

Quercus

0

20Q

013373 15741 17308 17307 17322 17334 17084 15772 16268 16265 16250

Unit

160

120

140

Shrubs & steppe

100

pp

Prunus

Amygdalus

Pistacia

60

80

Pistacia

Celtis

Ulmaceae

Ulmus

40

60 Ulmus

Fraxinus

Salicaceae

Juniperus

20

Juniperus

Quercus

014132 13165 12984 13142 17525 14460 17722 17723

Unit


139

Table 8.5. Absolute fragment counts of twigs, small roundwood, deadwood and worked wood (Results of the pilot analysis of select qualitative characters of the wood charcoals).

Twigs Flot no #7107 #8328 #8470 #8398 #8375 #6556

Quercus

3

1

Salicaceae

8

Ulmus 1

Ulmaceae 8 9

1

cf. Celtis 1

Pistacia

2

Compositae 1 2

Indet. 2 1

Total 13 25

2

Small roundwood

Flot no #7107 #8328 #8470 #8398 #8375 #6556

Quercus

1

Juniperus

2

Ulmus

5

Ulmaceae 6 1

Celtis 1 1

Total 7 3

2 5

Deadwood

Flot no #7107 #8328 #8470 #8398 #8375 #6556

Quercus 7 1

2

Juniperus 1

Ulmus 4

Ulmaceae 1 2

Pistacia

1

Fraxinus 1

2

Total 14 4 2

2

Worked wood

Flot no #7107 #8328 #8470 #8398 #8375 #6556

Quercus 2

Juniperus 2

15

Salicaceae

10

Fraxinus

1

Ulmus

4

Ulmaceae 3

12

Twig

1

Indet.

1

Total 7

44


140

Seasonality

Flot no #7107 Flot no #8328

Season Years Season Years

Ulmus twig winter 6 Salicaceae winter 3

Ulmaceae twig winter 5 Salicaceae spring 1

Indet. twig winter 2 Salicaceae (x2) spring 2–3

Salicaceae (x3) spring 1–2

Ulmaceae winter 13

Ulmaceae (x2) winter 8

Ulmaceae winter 2

Indet winter 1

Defoliation in hardwoods

(NR=narrow rings; UFW=unlignified fibre walls; CT=callus tissue; CR=compressed rings)

Flot no #8328

Quercus (x3) NR interspersed

Ulmaceae NR interspersed in 3 bands of 3 (13 rings)

Ulmaceae All NR

Ulmaceae NR; UFW; CT

Ulmus NR interspersed

Flot no #8470

Quercus CR

Fraxinus (x2) DW; NR

Defoliation in conifers (Juniperus)(TC=traumatic canals; DT=deformed tracheids; NR=narrow rings; WR=wavy rings; RC=ring

compression)

Flot no #7107

Juniperus TC

Flot no #8470

Juniperus TC; some DT

Juniperus large WR, followed by series of NR with TC

Juniperus WR abundant; TC

Juniperus Distinctly DT; a few TC

Juniperus RC; NR; all growth rings compressed in the middle

Juniperus RC; NR; all growth rings compressed in the middle; 2 WR

Juniperus (x12) RC

Juniperus RC; NR

Juniperus WR

which help to devise appropriate sub-sam-pling protocols, which will be intensively ap-plied in future work which will be undertaken separately from routine charcoal identifica-tion and fragment counts (below, Conclusions section). With the exception of the ubiquitous deadwood signs, especially in oak charcoals, concentrations of identifiable qualitative at-tributes derived mostly from primary burning contexts (short-lived events) rather than mid-dens, which contain secondarily deposited charred debris. Fragments preserving quali-tative characters which could be recorded in meaningful numbers originated mostly in fire-spots and burnt layers rather than mid-dens that (as discussed already) contained abundant burnt structural timber debris and are also likely to have undergone substantial post-depositional disturbances, resulting in further charcoal fragmentation. These factors may be the reason why middens appear to contain a much more diluted signature of cer-tain forms of wood (e.g. round or twig wood), woodworking debris or fragments with signs of ring deformation, the latter resulting from woodland management practices and other forms of human impact such as overgrazing, or variance in growing conditions and mois-ture availability. The rarity of twig fragments has also been previously noted for midden samples retrieved from the earlier levels of the South Area (Asouti 2005). Primary burn-ing contexts, such as the fire-spots of the late levels, appear to have preserved more tangible evidence for the types and form of the wood burnt in them, probably because they were not subjected to recurrent episodes of post-depositional disturbance and charcoal frag-mentation. They have thus provided a more complete picture of the selection of taxa and wood sizes/types which were routinely used as fuel at Çatalhöyük compared with midden samples.

One such deposit is flotation (flot) sam-ple #7107 (14132) derived from a burnt layer in Sp.279. This sample (discussed in detail in Section II) contained a small quantity of charred worked wood debris, a substantial (by Çatalhöyük standards) quantity of twigs (some of which preserved terminal rings in-dicating their collection during winter), some small round wood, plus fragments of oak, ju-niper and elm deadwood. Another unit with

Table 8.6. Results of the pilot analysis of qualitative tree ring features from select charcoal samples at Çatalhöyük.


141

a high proportion of twig wood is flot sample #8328 (17084) (see Tables 8.5–8.6). Its seasonality signature is more mixed, with an assortment of spring-cut young shoots of Salicaceae (willow/poplar 1–2 year-old) and winter-cut Ulmaceae twigs. The co-existence in the same sample of wood collected in different seasons may indicate either the use of stored fuel or, alternatively, the secondary consumption of twigs originally collected as leafy fodder. The relatively advanced age (eight years) of several of the winter-cut twig fragments may indi-cate their primary consumption as stored fuel rather than fod-der. The same unit has provided some indicators for the pol-larding of oaks possibly in a three year cycle. In broadleaves (i.e. non coniferous species), signs of defoliation due to pol-larding may appear as sequences of extremely narrow growth rings, often co-occurring with fungal hyphae (deadwood) (as in flot sample #8328); in other instances, defoliation may be deduced from poorly developed (false) rings and/or com-pressed vessels (Schweingruber 2007). Of all the potential identifiers of pollarding, oak charcoals display only the suc-cession of bands of ‘normal’ growth rings by extremely nar-row ones in association with abundant fungal hyphae (flot sample #8328). On the other hand, elm charcoals preserved in addition to these features unlignified fibre walls and cal-lus tissue as well. In a few instances, such signs were also observed in fragments of ash and Ulmaceae round wood (e.g. flot sample #6753, flot sample #8470).

Traumatic resin canals, deformed tracheids, false, narrow and/or wavy growth rings and compressed middle sections of growth rings are some of the characteristic signs of defo-liation in conifers (Schweingruber 2007) (see also Fig. 8.8). These attributes are sometimes preserved in juniper charcoals (e.g. flot sample #6753, flot sample #8470). There are a num-

ber of potential explanations for their occurrence. Browsing and/or lopping of juniper branches for goat fodder is one (Chaudhari 2010, 264). The growing habit of juniper trees may also lead to defoliation due to die-back and the loss of the upper branches with increasing tree age and/or seasonal moisture stress (Chaudhari 2010, 264)

Analysis of tree ring width (see Table 8.7 on CD, Figs. 8.9–8.10) has informed the reconstruction of the ecology of individual tree taxa. Although variation in ring width is de-pendent on many factors including climate, slope, elevation, as well as the autecology and growth habit of individual spe-cies and plants (Schweingruber et al. 2008), ring width can provide at least some measure of the general growing condi-tions of trees (e.g. in ‘dry’ as opposed to ‘moist’ habitats). The method of calculating average ring width is simple: the radial longitudinal axis (X) of the freshly exposed transverse plane of each fragment is measured with digital callipers, the num-ber of rings counted (Z), and X/Z provides the estimated av-erage tree ring width (AVG) for each charcoal fragment. This method was tested on samples from three units for which all qualitative characters were recorded. These are (17525) Lev-el 4040 G, (14535) Level South Q and (15280) TP Area. Re-sults from (17525) do not demonstrate clear patterning apart from the apparent clustering of oak values around the median for the population of all measured fragments. This particular sample was dominated by oak charcoal and contained a num-ber of round wood fragments (marked in the scatter plot as RW – curvature class 2, following the curvature classification system proposed by Marguerie & Hunot 2007; see also Table 8.7 on CD). Round wood is generally considered as unre-liable for evaluating ring width; charcoal fragments should normally derive from stem wood as this alleviates the effect

Figure 8.6. Top: Ulmaceae 2 yr old twig, winter-cut (flota-tion sample #7107); bottom: Salicaceae 1/2 yr old twig, spring cut, with partially collapsed/deformed vessel walls (flotation sample #8328).

Figure 8.7. Ulmaceae 8 yr old twig, winter-cut (deadwood, callus tissue and partially deformed vessel walls present) (flotation sample #8328).


142

of age-derived influences on growth rates, hence ring-width. This underlines the limita-tions of the method, as the extent of record-ing depends on the availability of sufficiently large fragments to allow estimation with the required degree of ring curvature confidence. A single fragment of oak (curvature class 1: potential stem wood) registered a value of <0.5mm AVG, with others ranging between 1-1.8mm. The same pattern for oak AVG is also observed in measurements for the other units (Table 8.7 on CD, Figs. 8.9–8.10). The results of these preliminary measurements in-dicate that while most oak fragments cluster around the median for each sample, outliers also exist (i.e. fragments with very narrow or very thick rings) in the same samples. Two possible explanations can be proposed: first, that oak charcoals have derived from plants that were growing on two or three different habitats characterized by divergent levels of effective moisture availability (e.g. wetland, dryland and/or intermediate) or, second, that the pattern of growth of individual oak trees is variable enough to produce mixed AVG signatures.

In contrast, juniper fragments demonstrate uniformly low AVG values, which are furthermore well below the median for all fragments measured for each sample (Figs. 8.9-8.10). This suggests that juniper charcoals derived from the wood of trees growing in moisture-deficient habitats, most likely at distant locations in the uplands. As expected, the wet-wood-land taxa shows the opposite trend overall, with high AVG values (although variation is also observed). Growth habit (especially for the fast growing Salicaceae), however, limits the utility of AVG measurements for assessing more precisely the growing conditions of this ubiquitous taxonomic group. Furthermore, AVG measurements for other members of the

wet-woodland group (ash, elm) may have been affected by other factors: the regular collection of locally available elm, and ash leafy fodder may also cause the development of nar-row rings, which will in turn affect estimations of AVG; the same is of course true for oaks and, to a lesser extent, juni-pers. The values obtained for minor taxa (e.g. the almonds) are even less reliable as they have derived from too few measurements and/or have been obtained from carbonized fragments of round wood. It is nonetheless interesting to note that the values for almond (Amygdalus) appear to be in the same range as those obtained from juniper charcoals.

Another interesting observation has to do with the ubiq-uity and abundance of gummy deposits (tyloses) in the vessel elements of certain dicotyledonous taxa, especially oak, Sali-caceae and Ulmus/Ulmaceae. While wood affected by fun-

5.19

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

1.140.84

1.61

0.41

0.600.55

0.20

0.72 0.86

0.32

1.03

0.300.20

1.15 0.96

1.49

2.37

1.42

0.40

1.39

2.30

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Median (excl. point

25)(0.86 mm)

Figure 8.9a. Average ring width measurements (AVG) from flotation sample #7232, Level South Q (14535) (see also Table 8.7 on CD).

1 671.70 1.74 RW

1 61 RW1.82

3.28 RW

1.78 1.74 RW

3.29 RW

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1.67

1.20 RW1.35

1.50

1.231.09

1.31

1.61 RW1.43

1.06

0.44

1.01 1.161.38

0.57 RW

0.52 RW

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Median(1.38 mm)

Figure 8.9b. Average ring width measurements (AVG) from flotation sample #8641, Level 4040 G (17525) (see also Table 8.7 on CD).

Figure 8.8. Juniperus stem wood frag-ment with traumatic canals, false rings and partially collapsed, thinned tracheid walls (flotation sample #6841).


143

oaks, including the armature of a clay-made screen wall that closed off part of the main room of the building; the sole ex-ception was post 16466, which supported an elaborate plaster feature on the northeast corner of B.77, and was made of ju-niper (Fig. 8.11). The dimensions and curvature of the screen wall timbers indicate that an enormously large oak tree with diameter >1m was likely reduced to timber by splitting and shaping its trunk in several different structural elements (Figs. 8.12–8.13). Given the size and possible height of the original tree trunk it is not unreasonable to speculate that a single tree could have provided the entire assemblage of vertical timber elements for B.77. By contrast, in B.80 all vertical timbers were made of juniper. There was only one instance of oak use: that of the ladder post.

The dimensions of the postholes, where preserved, suggest that the diameters of oak and, in a few instances, elm timbers too, were substantially larger than those of juniper. The screen wall of B.97 (Fig. 8.14) illustrates best this difference in size: the size of the round postholes indicates small wood calibres, while the size and curvature of the much larger squared timbers (elm) suggest the shaping of very large (>1m diameter) trunks. Although at the time of writing this chapter the analysis of burnt timbers was still in progress, the current working hypoth-esis is that, overall, fewer oak and elm trunks were harvested, as selected trees were probably large enough to provide a suf-ficient number of vertical timber elements for each building. On the other hand, it is possible that more juniper trunks were harvested as their diameters were substantially smaller. If this

Figure 8.10. Average ring width measurements (AVG) from (15280) TP Area (see also Table 8.7 on CD).

6.18

8.64

4.97

6.14

4.90

7.95

4.774.65

5.214.83

6.31

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

2.73

1.71 1.67

3.14

0.36 0.34

4.11

0.69

3.44

3.92

2.38

2.47

2.51

0.24

1.12

0.62

3.95

2.25

0.340.35

1.32

2.60

1.47

0.42

0.320.71

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Median(2.51 mm)

gal or viral pathogens may develop abundant tyloses, there are other possible causes as well, including the occurrence of heartwood, death of sapwood through felling, senescence (ageing), mechanical damage including pruning, flooding and variations in the chemistry of individual species (Ek et al. 2009, 57; Sun et al. 2007). Tyloses also tend to form in felled and stored hardwood stems when harvested during the growth season (Murmanis 1975). Based on the evidence for the presence of fungal hyphae, especially in oak charcoals, it is possible that, at least for oak, fungal decay alongside oak wood storage and the curation of old stems might be the principal determining factors, while for the locally available wet woodland taxa (especially the fast growing Salicaceae) the combined impacts of disturbances introduced by wood cutting, frost damage and intermittent flooding events cannot be excluded as major contributing factors.

Timber selection and sizeTables 8.8–8.9 present the results of the analysis of in situ preserved burnt timbers and fallen burnt roof debris from B.77 and B.80 (the full results of the study of burnt timbers are presented and discussed in detail in Volume 9 Chapter 6). As mentioned already, the late phases of the site contain a number of individually burnt buildings which preserved car-bonized vertical timbers as well as roof collapse. Charcoal identifications from these contexts suggest that timber use was overall very structured, although it varied from build-ing to building. In the case of B.77 all vertical posts were


144

hearth F.3090 basin F.3091

bin F.3092 bin F.3092 platform F.6062platform

F.6051

platform F.6052

platform F.6058

hearth F.6064

wall F.3094

wall F.3096

wal

l F.3

097

wall F.3095

platform F.6053

post F.6055

post F.6055

bin F.6050

wall F.3099

wal

l F.3

098

niche F.6063

N

0 1 2 m

post F.6056

platform (17558)

moulding F.6056

bin (17504)

bench F.6059

Building 77

Q post (17542)

post (17541)

post (17543)

post (17540)

Q

Q

Q

QpostF.6054

Q

Q

J

F.3093

socket

Figure 8.11. Location of in situ timber posts in B.77 (Q=oak, J=juniper).


145

Figure 8.14 . In situ timber posts in the screen wall (‘timber partition’) of B.97.

Figure 8.12. In situ oak timber posts in the screen wall of B.77 (see also Figs. 8.11; 8.13).

Figure 8.13. Measurements of the in situ oak timber posts in the screen wall of B.77 (see also Figs. 8.11–8.12).


146

short of the roof level, while they were often integrated into the wall fabric of individual buildings through their encasement in plaster (Volume 7 Chapter 1).

Discussion: long-term changes in woodland vegetation and management practicesTable 8.10 presents in summary form the vegetation units identified for the 9th–7th millennia in the western Konya Plain based on previous anthracological work and the available off-site palynological and micro-charcoal analyses (Asouti

pattern of timber consumption is upheld by further analysis, a possible explanation for it may lie in the growth habit of the central Anatolian juniper (Juniperus excelsa) a slow growing species, producing very dense and often twisted lumber. For this reason its trunk would have been more difficult to split with simple adzes in the direction of the grain compared to both oak and elm. The durability and hardness of juniper might also explain its apparent preferred use for roof beams. It is also interesting to note here that vertical timber posts do not seem to have had an obvious structural function. They stopped well

Table 8.8. Botanical identifications and measurements of timber posts from Sp.336.

Table 8.9. Botanical identifications and measurements of timber posts from Sp.135.

Lab no Taxon Unit Space Feature Description Length Width Height

s11 Juniperus 18946 135

Construction wood/roof collapse 0.20 m 0.26m


Construction wood/roof collapse 0.24m 0.48m






Construction wood/roof collapse

0.16m


Construction wood/roof collapse - - -

s18 Juniperus 18959 135 3431 Post/Pillar 0.18m 0.12m 0.27m


Collapsed roof

0.13m


Collapsed roof 0.12m 0.21m




Collapsed roof

0.15m




Collapsed roof - - -


Collapsed roof

0.14m


Collapsed beam

0.4m





Juniperus 18951 135 3432 Post/Pillar 0.35m 0.10m 0.75m

Quercus

135 3438 Ladder post 0.24m 0.18m 0.15m

Lab no Taxon Unit Space Feature Description Length Width Height s2 Quercus 17541 336 F.6050 Timber post in partition wall 0.40m 0.10m 0.08m

s3 Juniperus 17544 336 F.6057 Wooden support of F6057 - - -

s4 Quercus 17537 336 F.6055 Timber post 0.20m 0.19m 0.40m

s5 Quercus 17543 336 F.6050 Timber post in partition wall 0.30m 0.14m 0.40m

s6 Juniperus 16466 336 - Timber in B77 fill - - -

s7 Quercus 17540 336 F.6050 Timber post in partition wall 0.30m 0.14m 0.27m

s9 Quercus 17538 336 F.6056 Timber post, part of engaged

pillar

0.30m 0.17m 0.12m

s10 Juniperus 16466 336 - Timber in B77 fill - - -


147

2003; 2005; Asouti & Hather 2001; Bottema & Woldring 1986; Eastwood et al. 2007b; Roberts 2002; Roberts et al. 2001; Turner et al. 2009; Woldring 2002; Woldring & Bot-tema 2001; 2002). The results of the more recent phase of charcoal work do not add new taxa to these earlier recon-structions. They have, however, contributed an important temporal dimension previously unavailable due to the then limited temporal scope of the anthracological work covering the aceramic levels up to Levels South I-M.

What has also changed compared to earlier work is the detail of the geomorphological information available com-pared to previous years, especially for the immediate sur-roundings of the site. This information has enabled building up a more dynamic picture of the local landforms and their history and how they might have affected vegetation cover

Table 8.10. Summary of landforms/habitats, vegetation catchments and reconstructed woodland composition in the Konya Plain based on the charcoal evidence (available from the present study and previous analyses at Çatalhöyük, Pınarbaşı and Boncuklu), modern ecological analogues, and recent vegetation fieldwork on Karadağ and the southern borders of the Konya Plain (Asouti & Kabukcu in preparation) (modified after Asouti 2005).

Water availability Habitat type Vegetation type Species composition

seasonal inflows from upland

runoff and meltwater

saline depressions, grassland

meadows,

seasonal watercourses

halophytic communities chenopods (Chenopodiaceae), tamarisk

(Tamarix)

permanent/seasonal water

bodies

water pools, marshes,

periodically flooded depressions

marsh and halophytic

communities

reeds (Phragmites), tamarisk (Tamarix),

alder (Alnus), chenopods (Chenopodiaceae)

edges of rivers and springs springs, permanent watercourses,

alluvial surfaces

riparian vegetation willow/poplar (Salicaceae), ash (Fraxinus),

elm (Ulmus), plane (Platanus), chaste tree

(Vitex), clematis (Clematis), tamarisk

(Tamarix), fig (Ficus), hackberry (Celtis)

~400-600 mm p.a. well-drained foothill slopes, terra rosa

soils, Neogene terraces, colluvial

slopes, volcanic slopes with good root

penetration

oak-juniper woodland deciduous oak (Quercus), juniper

(Juniperus), maple (Acer), legume shrubs

(Leguminosae), wild plums (Prunus),

rosebush (Rosa), hackberry (Celtis),

pears/hawthorns (Maloideae), honeysuckle

family (Caprifoliaceae), caper (Capparis),

mints (Labiatae)

~300 mm p.a. limestone/chalk and rocky outcrops,

edges of foothill zone, moist steppe at

the margins of alluvium

woodland steppe almond (Amygdalus), terebinth (Pistacia),

hackberry (Celtis), wormwood (Artemisia,

Compositae), caper (Capparis), mint family

(Labiatae)

<250 mm p.a. Konya Plain interiors: grasslands and

marl steppe with poor root penetration

treeless steppe, low shrubs wormwoods (Compositae, Artemisia),

chenopods (Chenopodiaceae), mint family

(Labiatae)

and dynamics. Previous geomorphological work (Boyer et al. 2006) proposed that the site was founded on a natural marl elevation that protected it from the annual seasonal flooding caused by the early spring overflows of the Çarşamba River which deposited a nearly uniform layer of ‘backswamp clay’ across the site environs. More recent work (Volume 9, Chap-ter 3) has suggested instead that the site was located at one of the lowest points of a broad, shallow depression bordered by low marl ridges to the north and south. Instead of being subjected to regular and widespread flooding its environs consisted of wet grassland habitats that were intersected by small channels, permanent pools and marshes occupying spa-tially delimited depressions, while low-energy, shallow water flows deposited dark silts very gradually over the surround-ing grasslands. Such a wetland habitat mosaic, characterized


148

Figure 8.15 (a). Satellite image of the Konya Plain showing landforms and the distribution of major rivers and water bodies (empty white shapes indicate the location of dried up wetlands and lakes; white dashes dried up and/or dammed/channeled river courses; white squares the location of excavated early Neolithic sites; dark dots the location of major towns. (Image source: Google Earth).

by variable and highly seasonal incidences of water flows and diverse sedimentary environments comprising marl outcrops, organic-rich (marsh) clays, sands and dark alluvial silts, could have supported willow-poplar-ash-elm-alder-hackber-ry woods on its moister parts away from the impenetrable to tree root stocks lake marl, and open terebinth-almond-Maloideae-hackberry woodland steppe on better-drained, lime-rich loamy/sandy soils. The spatial distribution of the Neolithic wet woodland habitats was likely fluctuating, their dynamics being controlled not only by seasonal/spatial vari-ations in surface and ground water availability but also by the frequency and intensity of Neolithic mangagement (e.g. through vegetation clearance for cultivation, clay extraction for mud-bricks, firewood gathering, etc.). However, such re-source management strategies would not necessarily have re-sulted in a net reduction of woodland cover over time. One must also consider the high dead wood productivity of wet woodland vegetation (dead wood being a readily available

source of firewood), the fast regeneration rates of its constitu-ent species, especially the Salicaceae, and the fact that (with the exception of hackberry that prefers well-drained sandy/loamy soils) they can grow on drier as well as wet/boggy ground (for a detailed discussion of Neolithic woodland ecol-ogy in the Konya region see Asouti 2005, Asouti & Kabukcu in preparation).

The oak-juniper component of the aceramic (Level South G) charcoal samples is, as noted already, minimal. While it cannot be excluded altogether that isolated patches of oak woodland grew locally (e.g. to the north of the site on the better-drained loams that run towards the modern village of Küçükköy) the autecology of the central Anatolian oaks and junipers is nonetheless very specific, being predominantly determined by the distribution of soil types: upland lime-stone slopes, deep volcanic sediments, well-drained deep clays, terra rossa soils and clayey loams (Asouti 2005, ref-erences therein). Both the available ecological descriptions


149

and recent vegetation fieldwork by the author (Asouti 2005, 2012, Asouti & Kabukcu in preparation) confirm this link-age. At present, the distribution of both oaks and junipers growing on the north-facing lower foothill zone of the Tau-rus is effectively limited to the upland limestone and terra rossa soils (Asouti 2012, Asouti & Kabukcu in preparation) while oaks may also abound on the volcanic slopes and the colluvial foothills of Karadağ (Fig. 8.15). Yet, this does not imply that during the early Holocene oak woodlands were not available closer to the Konya Plain. Nowadays the dis-tribution of oak and juniper woodlands reaches its limit at a notional line which runs parallel to the Konya Plain from Sille to the south-west through to Gökyurt (Kilistra-Lystra) (May River catchment), Hatunsaray, Çatören, Karahüyük, Apa and Dinek (Çarşamba River catchment) to the southeast. North of this line, on the undulating terrace soils and the sand ridges bordering the Konya plain there is virtually no wood-land vegetation left apart from willow pollards and coppices growing along field boundaries and canalized watercourses,

poplar plantations managed by local villages and munici-palities, isolated wild fruit and oak trees left standing amidst cultivated fields, orchards, and conifer plantations grown in public parks or maintained for commercial exploitation. Both the limestone terraces and the loams are denuded of naturally growing woodland vegetation due to the pressures exerted by intensive cultivation and livestock herding. In addition, early Holocene average annual precipitation was higher than at present (Roberts et al. 2001). It is thus likely that the dis-tribution of oak and juniper woodlands was much more ex-tensive in the Neolithic period, possibly extending right onto the borders of the marl-dominated Konya plain (Fig. 8.15).

Rare finds of oak and juniper charcoal have also derived from domestic contexts at the 9th millennium aceramic cul-tivator-forager habitation site of Boncuklu, located near the centre of the Konya Plain, ~9km north of Çatalhöyük, in what was a very sparsely wooded, reed-dominated marshland (Asouti in press). Such finds seem to confirm that the tradi-tion of wood acquisition from distant locations in the uplands

Figure 8.15 (b). Satellite image of the Konya Plain showing the present-day limits of oak-juniper woodland on the southern edge of the plain (hill zone and Taurus northern facing slopes) and of oak woodland on Karadağ (dashed white line indi-cates the potential extent of oak-juniper woodland minus modern human impacts on woodland vegetation. The GPS loca-tions of vegetation fieldwork and survey undertaken in 2010 and 2011 are also indicated. (Image source: Google Earth).


150

had a long ancestry in the early Neolithic habitation of the Konya Plain. They are also corroborated by the results of re-cent pilot strontium isotope analyses, suggesting that junipers were procured from at least two different locations on the Çarşamba and May River catchments (Bogaard pers. comm.) The very low frequencies of oak and juniper in the Boncuklu samples approximate the representation of these taxa in the charcoal samples from Level South G at Çatalhöyük. Non-local wood species appear thus to have had minimal contri-bution to the composition of the aceramic charcoal assem-blages at both sites. Although no architecture dating to the mid-eight millennium has been excavated at Çatalhöyük, the structures excavated at Boncuklu have indicated very limited use of wood for construction purposes (Baird pers. comm.) It seems possible therefore that during the aceramic Neolithic both oak and juniper were procured primarily as construction timber from distant locations, they were used sparingly being a smaller component of the superstructure of buildings, and were also intensely curated through timber re-cycling and re-use. This would explain their low contribution to charcoal sample composition. To date, however, no identifiable dwell-ing structures have been excavated in the aceramic phases of Çatalhöyük. Thus the question of the nature of its earliest dwellings and the potential use of timber in them could be resolved only through further excavation.

The evidence for the gradual substitution of oak by ju-niper through the South Area sequence is more difficult to evaluate. Assuming, as it has been argued already, that both taxa were procured from distant locations in the upland zone, the most parsimonious explanation would be that the over-exploitation of oaks in the earlier phases of the settlement led over time to the encroachment of oak woodlands by juniper and thus to a switch from oak to juniper as the preferred tim-ber/fuel species. However, the credibility of this explanation is constrained by the available palynological data. The evi-dence in the regional pollen records for substantial early Hol-ocene vegetation impacts is largely negative (Roberts et al. 2001). Willis & Bennet (1994) have previously commented on this phenomenon which has also been observed in pollen sequences from the Balkans. Roberts (2002) hypothesized

that it might be explained by the occurrence of low-level im-pacts that did not register in pollen sequences through the traditional indicators of large-scale vegetation clearance and overgrazing. For central and eastern Anatolia in particular, he proposed that the slow re-advance of oak during the early Holocene might be attributed to the management of oak park-woodlands through burning (including a higher frequency of wildfire burning; Turner et al. 2009), timber extraction and the collection of leafy fodder, while early grazing impacts on grassland vegetation have also been proposed for Cappado-cia, in the vicinity of Aşıklı Höyük (Woldring 2002; Woldring & Bottema 2001/2). Whatever their individual character-istics, such low-level impacts did not hinder oak woodland expansion; AP (arboreal pollen) values continued to increase until the mid-Holocene AP maximum, which in central Ana-tolia is currently dated at ~6000 BC, i.e. coevally with the end of the Neolithic habitation at Çatalhöyük; oak pollen values continued to increase until ~2500–2000 BC at which point significant human impacts in vegetation cover and woodland composition are detected in the central Anatolian pollen re-cords (Roberts et al. 2001).

Juniper registers overall low values in pollen diagrams from Cappadocia (Roberts et al. 2001; Woldring 2002) and in the few pollen sequences available from the Konya Plain (Eastwood et al. 2007b). This may be due to the distance of the Konya Plain pollen sampling locations from the foothill zone. Contrary to the dispersal behaviour of pine and oak pol-len, that of Juniperus excelsa is reportedly characterized by very short dispersal distances (Khalique & Perveen 1997). Furthermore, analyses of modern pollen rain in open juniper woodlands in southeast Anatolia (van Zeist et al. 1970) and northeastern Iran (Djamali et al. 2009) have suggested that juniper is relatively under-represented in pollen rain when it forms mixed woodlands with oak, in transitional communi-ties of steppe woodland and scrub, and in monospecific juni-

Figure 8.16. (from top): Ulmaceae worked wood (possibly a handle or pin end); wooden bead (Salicaceae) from external burning/activity layer in Sp.181 (4845) (Photo-graph by Jason Quinlan).

Figure 8.17. Ulmaceae ‘hook’ (13103.x21) from Sp.279 (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).


151

per stands that are surrounded by dense deciduous woodland vegetation. The likelihood that juniper is under-represented in the pollen cores alongside the continuous, if gradual, in-crease in oak pollen values throughout the early Holocene, and the ubiquity of both taxa in the charcoal samples sug-gest that during the Neolithic mixed oak-juniper woodlands formed the dominant vegetation association in the lower up-land zone extending south of the Konya Plain (Asouti 2012, Asouti & Kabukcu in preparation). Moreover, it is unlikely that the shift observed in the charcoal record from oak to ju-niper, particularly from Level South P onwards, can be ex-plained predominantly as the result of changes in the avail-ability of these taxa in the natural vegetation, as it presents the inverse trend from that observed in the pollen sequences. Recent fieldwork and research on the historical ecology of the Konya region oak woodlands has revealed the complexity

of the potential responses of vegetation to woodland manage-ment practices, which renders problematic the inference of unidirectional human impacts from both macro-charcoal and off-site pollen records (Asouti & Kabukcu in preparation).

The eventual substitution of oak by juniper over time may instead be better explicable as the result of changes in the pre-vailing practices of wood (especially timber) harvesting. The longevity and durability of juniper timber may justify its pref-erential use for roof timbers, which were furthermore re-used on a regular basis (an obvious choice in the case of unburnt buildings). Oak timbers were also recycled, while the inten-tional selection of sizeable oak trunks (manifested, for exam-ple, in B.77) also suggests that fewer oak trees were actually harvested from the natural vegetation, possibly in irregular time intervals. Further support for assuming the prevalence of cultural choice over net taxon availability offers the fact that

Table 8.13. Worked wood diagnostics and twig fragments preserving terminal rings from flotation sample #7107.

ID Taxon L (mm) W (mm) T (mm) Additional measurements Description

1 7107.4.43 Ulmaceae 30.46 3.03 (base) 1.57

(tip)

n/a n/a Twig with cut marks along its distal edge. 5 yr, winter cut.

2 7107.4.45 Ulmaceae 16.68 4.37 (tip)

4.99 (base)

4.58 (mid) Incision L3.48, D (at base) 1.8 Whole twig with cut marks; bevelled end; likely shaping debris.

3 7107.4.48 Quercus 16.01 4.06 (base) 2.51 (base) Cut mark notch: L2.68, W1.57 Wood chip with cut mark notch.

Season Years

Elm twig winter 6

Ulmaceae twig winter 5

Twig indet. winter 2

Twig indet. winter 3

Types of carved wooden artifacts reported in the 1960s by J. Mellaart Evidence published by J. Mellaart

Shallow round vessels (‘dishes’) 1964: Fig. 35.3, Plate XXIa

Deep round vessels (‘bowls’) with flat, disc or ring bases 1964: Fig. 35.1, 36.2

‘Sauceboats’ on a foot 1964: Fig. 36.3–4

Boat-shaped vessels with straight-sided ends and flat bases 1964: Fig. 35.2, 4, Plates XX, XXIb

Oval vessels (‘dishes’) with wide ledge-handles at the narrow ends 1964: Fig. 37.3, 5, Fig. 38.1-2, Plate XIXb

Circular flat-based vessels (‘bowls’) – ‘Egg-cup’ 1964: Fig. 39.4-5

Wooden spoons 1964: Fig. 37.2, Plate XVIIIb

Boxes (oblong, oval) with lids bearing lugs and knobs 1964: Figs. 37.1, 4, 38.3–5, 39.3, Plates XIAa, c,

XXIc-d

Table 8.14. List of wooden artifacts reported by James Mellaart (1964a; 1967).


152

Figure 8.18a. 6556.4.6 (a-b) (Fraxinus): Clockwise: view of the finished frontal surface of 6556.4.6a showing a post-depositional crack around the neck and the deep incision cut diagonally along its posterior edge. 6556.4.6b is shown posi-tioned in relation to 6556.4.6a; frontal view of the anterior edge of 6556.4.6a; schematic representation of the unworked log used for the carving of 6556.4.6 showing the orientation of the artifact (deduced from the positioning and curva-ture of the growth rings on its upper edge) on the transverse plane of the round wood piece used as raw material; plan view of the upper edge of 6556.4.6a with visible growth rings (for the full list of dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11 on CD).

Figure 8.18b. Top: view of the finished frontal surface of 6556.4.6a; Bottom: view of the rough worked rear surface of 6556.4.6a with stepped cut marks visible along its anterior edge, from the head down to the base of the neck and the curved rendering of the front leg area (see also Figure 8.18a; Table 8.11 on CD).

vertical timbers (at least during the later phases of the South Area for which direct evidence for timber use is available) do not appear to have had an obvious structural function. It is therefore possible that at Çatalhöyük timber use (and by impli-cation the domestic consumption of timber preparation waste as firewood) was overall culturally determined.

The over-abundance of oak and juniper charcoal, both de-rived mostly from burnt structures, in the late phases of the South Area offers a potential explanation for the depressed values of the wet woodland taxa. The alternative explanation of a significant reduction of wet woodland habitats due to firewood cutting and clearance is less plausible, considering also the abrupt rise in their values in the TP Area that bridges the gap with the Chalcolithic habitation of the West Mound. At this point, wet woodland taxa, especially elm and undif-ferentiated Ulmaceae, reach their peak in the East Mound charcoal sequence. If wet woodland vegetation had been de-pleted in earlier phases then this negative trend would have

been even more pronounced in the TP Area charcoal samples. The archaeological record has also indicated the limited use of timber in the TP Area buildings by comparison to earlier phases; there is very little evidence for postholes inside build-ings, thus suggesting that roof structures were much lighter by comparison to earlier periods, while the use of buttresses is also attested (Marciniak pers. comm.) It is therefore un-likely that the TP Area charcoal record has been biased by the preferential use of elms as timber or, conversely, that the harvesting of elm trunks in earlier periods had exerted signifi-cant, long-term impacts on the availability of this taxon in the local vegetation. Although phytolith evidence (Chapter 9) for the increasing use of Phragmites through time would seem to suggest that wetland plant communities were progressively encroached by reeds, the increased abundance of the latter on site need not be interpreted as an indicator of the regres-sion of the wet woodland vegetation. Invasive reed stands are more likely to have occupied former marshes, abandoned


153

Figure 8.19. 6556.4.1 (Juniperus) Possible bentwood box fragment (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11 on CD).

Figure 8.20. 6556.4.2 (Juniperus) Possible fireboard (‘hearth’) component of a bow drill: Clockwise: basal surface view; plan view of upper surface with stub mortise and lateral and vertical cracks possibly caused by drill-ing pressure from above; lateral view of rear surface with cracks; lateral view of the stub mortise (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11 on CD).

channels and seasonally wet saline depressions, while reed growth could have also been intentionally managed through the seasonal burning of reed beds to improve cattle pasture. Likewise, in view also of the available pollen evidence, there is little ground to sustain the argument that timber use de-clined during the latest phases of the East Mound (TP Area) due to the depletion of timber supplies in the uplands.

The identification and even more so the quantification of the impacts of woodland management practices on prehis-toric vegetation from archaeological charcoals can be very problematic by comparison to waterlogged wood, due to the burning and fragmentation of the wood remains. However, the presence of charcoals with such characters in primary burning contexts at Çatalhöyük suggests that the management of Neolithic woodlands for the production of fuel wood and leafy fodder was routinely practiced. Although the frequency of occurrence of management indicators is overall low, their ubiquity in samples from the late levels of the site is notable, especially on charcoals derived from locally growing wet woodland taxa such as elm. This observation alongside the increasing frequency of elm charcoals in the TP Area, might suggest that elm lopping was intensively practised, possibly for the provisioning of domesticated cattle with leafy fod-der. Such a scenario is consonant with the evidence for cattle domestication from Level South P (Chapter 11) and will be explored further through the systematic examination of the qualitative attributes of charcoals derived from both the early and the later phases of Neolithic Çatalhöyük.

Section II: woodcrafts at Çatalhöyük: domestic wooden artifacts and woodworking debris

BackgroundIn temperate and arid environments, perishable wooden ar-tifacts are preserved only under anoxic, waterlogged or ex-tremely dry, moisture-deficient conditions. The preservation of such materials from the prehistoric periods is generally rare. The oldest known finds of artifactual wood have been reported from Palaeolithic sites in Africa and Europe (Clark 1969; Oakley et al. 1977; Thieme 1997) and the Near East (Goren-Inbar et al. 2002; Nadel et al. 2006). For the Neo-lithic and later prehistoric periods, several sites, mostly in temperate Europe, have provided diverse assemblages of fin-ished artifacts and woodworking debris, normally preserved in waterlogged contexts (Rozoy 1978; Earwood 1993). In the Near East, finds of cordage, basketry, fabrics, bark beads and various small, wooden objects have been discovered at the Neolithic desert cave site of Nahal Hemar in Israel (Bar-Yosef & Alon 1988). Çatalhöyük is exceptional in that it provides the first evidence for the preservation of domestic wooden artifacts and woodworking debris in carbonized form (that is, after their incomplete burning in hearths). Wooden artifacts were first reported by James Mellaart (1964a; 1967) in association with burnt contexts which preserved domestic utensils (food and drink serving vessels) as well as various


154

two-piece wooden boxes (see Discussion below; also Table 8.14, Figs. 8.28–8.29).

Wooden artifacts have not previously been reported to any significant extent from the current excavations at Çatal-höyük. The sole evidence for wood uses other than timber or fuel was previously known from burial F.492 (Sp.163, South Area) which contained a partially carbonized, partially mineralized hackberry/elm (Ulmaceae) plank no more than 20mm thick (Farid 2005a, 275, Fig. 7.33). Occasional finds of artifactual wood have been recovered in previous excava-tion seasons such as a wooden bead (Salicaceae) and a very small fragment of shaped Ulmaceae wood (possibly a handle

Figure 8.21. 6556.4.5 (Juniperus) Possible figurine fragment (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11 on CD).

Figure 8.22. 6556.4.42 (Juniperus) Wooden pendant with carved edges and an artificially drilled hole (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11 on CD).

Figure 8.23. 6556.4.18 (Salicaceae) Possible shaft straight-ener fragment: Top: plan view of upper surface with two lateral grooves separated by a central ridge; bottom: frontal view of the lower narrow edge showing oblique bi-directional sawing marks (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11 on CD).

or pin end), both originating from the same external burning/activity layer in Sp.181 (4845) (Fig. 8.16).

The woodworking assemblage described in this section has derived from external burning/activity layers and associ-ated midden deposits in the 4040 and South Areas. To date, (12984) in Sp.279 has provided the densest concentration of artifactual wood and woodworking debris encountered at the site. A ‘hook’ (13103.x21; Ulmaceae) was also found in the course of the excavation of Sp.279 (Fig. 8.17). Occasional finds have been discovered in flot sampleation samples from (14132), (14535) and (17525). In the following sections, the methodology devised for analysing the Çatalhöyük carbon-ized woodworking assemblages is presented alongside the description, discussion and proposed interpretation of the re-sults of the analysis.


155

MethodologyGiven that there is no precedent in the literature for prehis-toric carved wood and woodworking debris preserved in car-bonized form, a methodology had to be devised which could be adjusted to the particularities of the material at hand. Artifact charcoals are often of small size (with the largest items found at Çatalhöyük not exceeding a few centimetres), due to the shrinkage and fragmentation caused by burning, which may be further exacerbated by secondary deposition, trampling and other post-depositional disturbance. For these reasons, it was necessary to examine surviving fragments of artifactual wood under a microscope in order to separate be-tween signs of recent damage and prehistoric tool marks, and observe more precisely the nature of the latter as well as the shaping features specific to each artifact. In order to facilitate this process, charcoals were separated into different generic categories: diagnostic items and large fragments.

Diagnostic items include all identifiable artifacts, frag-ments of artifacts and wood chips/twigs bearing distinctive tool marks. Each diagnostic item was examined under a high-power Meiji MX8530 epi-illuminating, darkfield mi-croscope following the same procedure for routine charcoal identification in order to botanically determine the raw mate-rial. Because all artifacts were preserved in charred form, it was not feasible to retrieve with a razor blade a small fleck from an inconspicuous part of the object as happens with the identification of waterlogged and dry wood artifacts. In or-der to avoid causing mechanical damage to charcoals, each item was placed on a sand bath inside a petrie dish and all surfaces were examined under high magnifications (x100–

Figure 8.24. 8641.4.16 (Ulmus) Possible hafting implement (L25.59 x W24.06 mm; notch depth: 17.62 mm).

Figure 8.25. Schematic representation of the three anatomi-cal planes: transverse (TS), radial longitudinal (RLS) and tangential longitudinal (TLS).

x600) to determine the botanical taxon using reference mate-rials reported in Asouti (2005) and Asouti & Hather (2001). High-power, reflected-light microscopy was also used for examining any tool marks and working traces preserved on the surface of very small items in relation to the orientation of the grain. The few larger diagnostics were examined under a low-power binocular microscope with magnifications up to x80. This was essential for determining raw-material size and form (round wood, twig, etc.) and assessing the technology of production for each item. All diagnostics were measured three-dimensionally, photographed, and their morphology described. Given the overall small size and fragmentary na-ture of most artifacts, and their opaque surfaces caused by carbonization, high-resolution digital scan images were pre-ferred to traditional illustration (line drawings) in order to achieve reasonably precise reproductions of their shapes and surface features.

The second category comprises large fragments (>15mm) which, albeit not classifiable as artifacts, preserve some evi-dence of tool marks and could therefore be considered to rep-resent unmodified and/or partly modified raw material and/or woodworking waste (e.g. larger off-cuts). Large fragments were recorded following the same procedure for diagnostics. The rest of the material was sorted into different categories under a low-power binocular microscope: twigs, small off-cuts, flat wood chips, curved wood chips and irregularly shaped wood chips. As ‘twigs’ were classified otherwise un-modified twig fragments. These are likely to represent debris from the trimming of wood for carving (i.e. the removal of bark and twigs) and/or fuel waste. The remaining four cate-gories classify items that were either too small for full record-ing (5-4mm) or they preserved minimal and/or ambiguous tool marks. Apart from fragment counts, three-dimensional measurements and botanical identifications have not yet been attempted for these items.


156

Figure 8.26b. Examples of wood chips with characteristic shapes and/or tool marks: (a) 6556.4.36 (Ulmus) irregularly shaped wood chip with chiseling marks (possibly resulting from percussion with a mallet) on its vertical (tangential) and upper (transverse) surfaces; (b) 6556.4.11 (Ulmaceae) whole twig with knife marks along its surface and bevelled end; (c) 6556.4.35 (Ulmaceae) halved twig with cut marks on both ends; (d) 6556.4.26 (Ulmaceae) whole twig with oblique cut marks along its tangential surface and chop marks on its lower end; (e) 6556.4.39 (Juniperus) flat carv-ing chip (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11).

Figure 8.26a. Possible pin/handle end fragments: (a) 6556.4.15 (Ulmus), (b) 6556.4.20 (Ulmaceae), (c) 6556.4.10 (Salicaceae); (d) 6556.4.7 (Salicaceae) fragment of a squared and pointed wooden implement with blunt tip; (e) 6556.4.13 (Ulmus) curved twig (possibly a fragment of a wooden pin) with flattened bevelled tip; (f) 6556.4.9 (Juni-perus) shaped twig (possibly a fragment of a roughly shaped wooden pin or needle) (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11).

Contextual information

(12984), Sp.279 (Level 4040 I – 279.A)(12984) (flot sample #6556) is a concave-shaped external fire-spot located above midden deposits (12988), which had accu-mulated over B.64 after its abandonment. The heat of the fire had slightly affected the smooth surface of the hearth. Char-coal was concentrated at the base of the hearth, which sug-gests that it probably represents a single burning episode of primary woodworking waste and discarded wooden artifacts. This interpretation is further strengthened when considering the nature of the charcoal materials, which include a dense concentration of artifactual wood and woodworking debris, to date unprecedented in the Çatalhöyük charcoal assemblages.

Carbonized worked wood and woodworking debris was not recognized as such in the field during excavation. The content of the hearth was sampled for flot and the charcoals were sorted from the rest of the botanical remains in the laboratory before they became available for anthracological

analysis. When the charcoal sample bag was opened in the laboratory, it was immediately evident that flot sample #6556 was very different from the samples previously analyzed. Apart from the obvious presence of shaped pieces, there was also a higher than usual concentration of small round wood and twigs, and an abundance of carving and shaping debris (flat, curved and irregularly shaped wood chips). The >4mm fraction of the dry sieved flot was sorted in its entirety for the retrieval of all seven generic categories (diagnostic items, large fragments, twigs, off-cuts, flat wood chips, curved wood chips and irregularly shaped wood chips) (Tables 8.11–8.12


157

on CD; Figs. 8.18–8.23).

(14132), Sp.279 (Level 4040 I – 279.A)(14132) (flot sample #7107) represents a burnt area in the midden of Sp.279, possibly an external hearth/fire-spot com-parable in function to (12984). Although both contexts can be categorized as fire-spots, they differ both in the density of the woodworking debris as well as the diversity of the wood taxa retrieved from them (see Section I, ‘Woodland vegetation and firewood management’). Flot sample #7107 contained more taxa and much less artifactual wood and woodworking waste compared to flot sample #6556. This may indicate the pres-ence of secondary or tertiary woodworking waste (i.e. burnt debris redeposited from a domestic hearth and/or the in situ burning of artifacts which had already been discarded in the midden). The diagnostic items from this sample are listed in Table 8.13. No other categories were present in flot sample #7107, except for a relative abundance of twig fragments, some of which preserved terminal rings (Table 8.13; Fig. 8.26) indicating they were cut during the winter season. If flot sample #7017 represents in situ burnt debris, their presence suggests the burning of midden waste in the winter.

(14535), Sp.314 (Level South Q)(14535) (flot sample #7232) contains ash and activity depos-its associated with areas of burning. It contained only four pieces of woodworking waste of which only one (7232.4.16) was recorded as a diagnostic due to the presence of character-istic tool marks (Fig. 8.27).

(17525), Sp.336, B.77 (Level 4040 G?)(17527) (flot sample #8641) is from a layer of primary burnt fill in the interior of B.77. It contained burnt structural tim-bers, degraded burnt brick fragments and a number of finds including an antler tool, antler fragments and a cattle jaw. 8641.4.16 (a wooden bone/antler/stone adze-mounting; be-low, Fig. 8.24) is the sole diagnostic wooden artifact retrieved from a flotation sample (#8641) derived from this layer. Be-cause its exact location in the layer is unknown, it is uncertain whether it had originally been deposited on the floor of B.77 prior to its burning.

Diagnostic itemsForty-six diagnostic items were retrieved from the >4mm fraction of flot sample #6556. The sole complete artifact is a figurative carved item (6556.4.6) which represents a zoomor-phic figurine (Fig. 8.18)

6556.4.6a is carved from a single piece of ash wood (Fraxinus sp.) The orientation and curvature of the growth rings located along its upper edge shows that it was carved in the most expedient manner, by shaping a piece of wood which was cut along the tangential longitudinal plane of a round wood log. 6556.4.6a was carved following the direction of

the grain with a simple obsidian or flint knife that was hafted length-wise on a wooden handle. Such simple knapped-stone knives are known from prehistoric sites in Britain and Swit-zerland and, judging from their shape, they could have been used for woodworking (cf. Earwood 1993, 203 & Fig. 126). The absence of facial characteristics in the animal head (e.g. horns, ears, muzzle) contrasts with other clay-made zoomor-phic figurines, but can be explained by the limitations of the raw material lacking the plasticity of clay and the small size of the artifact which likely made greater precision impossible without a more advanced wood-carving technology.

6556.4.6b (Fraxinus sp.) (Fig. 8.18) is the only other ash wood-shaped fragment found in flot sample #6556. In its general dimensions, as well as grain orientation, it matches

Figure 8.27. (a) 7107.4.45 (Ulmaceae) fragment of wooden needle or pin shaped from a twig; (b) 7107.4.42 (Ulmace-ae?) twig with cut marks along its distal edge; (c) 7232.4.16 (Quercus) irregularly shaped wood chip with rectangular-tipped chiseling marks on its upper edge and pointed chiseling marks with squarish rectangular tip (larger one) and sideways tool tip (smaller one) on its tangential surface (L15.43 x W10.43 x D6.35 mm); (d) 7107.4.48 (Quercus) flat and curved wood chip with cut mark near its base; (e) 6556.4.16 (indet.) irregularly shaped large twig: both ex-tremities bevelled, with distinctive cut on the upper extremity and chopping marks on the lower one (for dimensions and measurements see also Table 8.12 on CD).


158

sample #6556 is likely to represent the work of a single indi-vidual. In this sense, it may be an example of an early form of craft specialization, i.e. “a production activity performed on a part-time basis by relatively few individuals for the benefit of the larger population” of the kind usually associated with non-stratified societies (Quintero & Wilke 1995, 26).

Discussion: choice of raw materials and technology of production

Most of the wooden artifacts recovered from the recent ex-cavations at Çatalhöyük are carved implements shaped from branches or straight rods. With the exception of 6556.4.1, they were all fashioned in the most expedient manner from single pieces of wood which were shaped following the trim-ming of twigs and bark. Based on their preserved ring cur-vature, most of the flot sample #6556 Ulmaceae large frag-ments came from round wood. They are likely to represent at least two different branches judging from the number of an-nual growth rings and the ring width measurements for each piece (Table 8.11 on CD). Furthermore, twigs are relatively abundant in both flot samples #6556 and #7107. They were probably trimmed with a sharp stone tool as suggested by the cut/chopping marks, the striations and the bevelled ends of several twig fragments (Figs. 8.26–8.27). Grain orientation on the charcoal fragments indicates that for the larger items pre-forms were obtained by splitting the wood with an adze perpendicularly to the transverse plane following the direc-tion of the tangential longitudinal plane (for an explanation of the wood anatomical planes and their location see Fig. 8.25). The shape of 6556.4.2 (‘fireboard’) also indicates that the raw material was sometimes squared and shaped into straight rods

the posterior edge of 6556.4.6a. In contrast to 6556.4.6a, it displays a higher standard of finish (possibly effected with a sandstone abrader or another mineral medium). This differ-ence in the quality of finish and the smoothness of its edges suggest that its separation from 6556.4.6a occurred before burning. It thus leaves open a range of different possibilities for the intention of the woodworker. Perhaps his/her origi-nal purpose was to carve an item with a zoomorphic han-dle end (e.g. a spoon or ladle), and the lack of fine finishing was intentional, in order to achieve a more realistic rendering of the animal body volume by taking advantage of the ash wood grain effect. Alternatively, the woodworker might have changed his/her mind and cut off 6556.4.6b at some point during the shaping of the artifact. Whatever the original in-tention was, it seems likely that 6556.4.6a had a short life-time, as it bears no traces of long-term curation. It is possible that it was discarded (‘killed’?) in the fire shortly after it was carved. In this case, its life history from creation to discard would be similar to those of the clay-made figurines found at Çatalhöyük (Volume 9, Chapter 12).

Besides 6556.4.6, a range of incomplete or fragmentary artifacts were recovered from flot sample #6556. These are likely to represent the remains of a bentwood box (6556.4.1; Fig. 8.19), a poorly preserved fragment of a wooden haft (6556.4.4), the fragmentary components of a possible bow drill (Fig. 8.20), a (hafted?) figurine (Fig. 8.21), a wooden pendant (6556.4.42; Fig. 8.22) and a fragmentary wooden shaft straightener (6556.4.18; Fig. 8.23). Due to the absence of comparable assemblages from other excavated contexts, and the small number of the artifacts recovered from the site as a whole, is impossible to speculate if flot sample #6556 is representative of the work of a specialist craftsperson. The range of the artifact types, however, including tools (bow drill, shaft straightener), items of personal adornment (pendant) and at least one figurine, and the co-occurrence of woodworking waste in the same context suggest that flot

Figure 8.28. Finds of carbonized wooden vessels from Mel-laart’s Level VI (after Mellaart 1967: Plates 105–108).

Figure 8.29. Artistic reconstructions of wooden vessels retrieved “mainly from burials” in Mellaart’s Level VI (after Mellaart 1964a: Figs. 35–39).


159

before further modification. In other cases, natural wood shapes were used: 8642.4.16, for example, was fashioned from the base of a large elm branch where it joined the main tree trunk (Fig. 8.28). The branch served as the handle, while the timber around the joint formed the mounting for the hafted imple-ment (bone? antler? stone? adze/axe).

As mentioned previously, very little is known (particularly in the absence of de-tailed use wear studies for both knapped and ground stone industries at Çatalhöyük) about the tools used for wood cutting and the shap-ing of pre-forms for carving. The large frag-ments from flot sample #6556 (Table 8.12 on CD) give very few indicators of substan-tial modification which could provide more precise information. Ground stone analyses from Çatalhöyük have demonstrated that axes and adzes were generally very small in size (Baysal 2009). This indicates that they may have been components of composite hafted tools. It is possible that ax-ing/adzing hafts were the main tools used for woodcutting and the initial shaping of the raw material, while finer carving was effected mainly with chisels, hafted knives and mallets. Adzes must also have been used for the splitting of wood prior to its reduction into pre-forms and the shaping of indi-vidual wooden artifacts.

Most of the artifacts were finely crafted, with the major-ity of the items surviving as finished or nearly finished im-plements, possibly through the use of a sandstone abrader or other suitable polishing materials (e.g. 6556.4.6b, 6556.4.3, 6556.4.5; 7107.4.45). Finishing tends to obliterate all but the last few marks on the surface of the artifacts (Orme & Coles 1983). For this reason, it is often difficult to deduce from tool marks the carving method and the types of tools used. The abundance of flat wood chips in flot sample #6556, despite their limited chances of surviving firing due to their small size, suggests that carving debris produced by knifing must have formed a substantial part of woodworking waste. Hardier and more compact forms of debris such as small off-cuts, irregular wood chips and curved chips, some of which preserve distinctive tool mark signatures (Fig. 8.27) also sug-gest that a variety of other types of woodworking tools were used, including stone and bone chisels (both flat-tipped and pointed) and mallets (e.g. 8642.4.16, 6556.4.36).

6556.4.6 represents the sole case of the survival of dis-tinctive tool marks on a complete artifact. The pre-form was most likely roughly shaped with a flat-tipped chisel and a mallet. Chiseling marks are preserved on the frontal edge of 6556.4.6a in the form of a deep incision positioned on the no-tional location of the face of the animal, and in stepped form across the length of its torso (Fig. 8.18). The finish on the

frontal surface and its upper edge were probably carved with an obsidian and/or flint knife. A similar knife must have been used to cut the deep incision which runs diagonally across the animal’s posterior (Fig. 8.18). The lack of polish on the frontal surface of 6556.4.6a (maintaining instead the rough natural effect of the ash wood grain which was further ac-centuated by knifing) suggests that the wood worker had an intimate knowledge of the natural properties of ash wood and that he/she could use the visual effect of its grain very skil-fully in order to achieve a sufficiently realistic rendering of the animal’s body volume and physical movement.

An exceptional item in terms of its shaping is 6556.4.1 (Fig. 8.19). The flat and slightly concave, thin walls and the orientation of the grain indicate that it is unlikely to be the fragment of a two-piece solid box such as those described by Mellaart (1964a, 86). Instead, it may represent the remains of a lightweight bentwood box which was constructed from more than one piece of finely split wood that was bent to form a container. Examples of such containers, shaped from bark or split wood and sewn or pegged to a flat base, are known from Neolithic and later prehistoric sites in Central and Western Eu-rope (Earwood 1993, 164). The notch preserved on one of the edges of 6556.4.1 suggests the use of some kind of cordage for fastening together a composite container. The fragility of such items meant that they could be very easily crushed or broken and this may explain their rare preservation at archaeological sites, even under waterlogged conditions (Earwood 1993, 42).

Tool marks may also provide insights into the life histories of individual artifacts. A characteristic example is 6556.4.8 (Fig. 8.23). Its shape resembles very closely that of ground stone shaft straighteners known from both Çatalhöyük and the earlier, aceramic Neolithic site of Boncuklu (Baysal 2009). Although the size of 6556.4.18 (c.10mm length and

Figure 8.30. Reconstruction of bow drill; A: 6556.4.2 (Juniperus) possible fireboard fragment (see also Fig. 8.20); B: 6556.4.3 (Juniperus) possible spindle fragment of a bow drill (B1: surface bearing smooth parallel grooves; B2: surface bearing possible signs of compaction damage) (for dimensions and measurements see Table 8.11) (Illustration by Kathryn Killackey).

a

b

b1

b2


160

13mm width) is substantially smaller than the average dimen-sions of comparable ground stone tools and, probably, even below the reduction in size expected as a result of shrinkage due to burning, it is worth noting the sawing marks across its base. These indicate that the wooden tool was likely discard-ed in a fire after becoming unusable (possibly as a result of its continuous abrasion), while previously its thinning end was sawn off regularly in order to prolong its effective use life.

The last category of artifacts which merit special atten-tion here are those identified as potential components of composite artifacts. 6556.4.3 (Fig. 8.30) is the most likely candidate, with eight smooth, parallel grooves running across the width of the wooden shaft. Although no similar use wear traces are reported for wooden bow drills in the woodwork-ing and ethnographic literature, the most parsimonious expla-nation is that they derived from high-speed cordage friction. Such marks could not have been caused by wood compres-sion resulting from tenon or mallet use, while their regularity also suggests that they are artificial rather than derived from some natural defect and/or modification of the wood. It seems likely therefore that 6556.4.3 may represent a fragment of a spindle component of a bow drill. The shape of 6556.4.2 indi-cates that it may represent the fireboard component of a bow drill used for fire-making, with the stub mortise securing the tip of the spindle before turning (Figs. 8.20, 8.30).

6556.4.5 (Fig. 8.21) may represent part of an (anthropo-morphic?) figurine, whereby its upper segment was remov-able; perhaps being fashioned from clay and/or bone and secured on the wooden lower part by some kind of tight cordage. Alternatively, its finer (compared to 6556.4.2) and much more closely spaced grooves, alongside the existence of a vertical notch on its upper edge, might indicate its func-tion as a socketed implement (perhaps on a hollow bone) of a pressure drill with a fine cord secured to it. Such drills are ethnographically known to be used for the precision drilling of bead holes. The presence in the same sample of a wooden pendant with a very small artificial hole (6556.4.42) corrob-orates the possibility that a small pressure drill could have been used for its piercing. Given the small size of the wooden implement, however, its use as part of a composite figurine seems more likely.

Mellaart (1964a) had previously recorded a number of wooden vessels derived mostly from burials, but also occa-sionally from the floors of buildings from Level VIA. These in-cluded mainly vessels that could have been used for the serving of food and drink, and two-piece boxes (Mellaart 1964a, 86; see also summary in Table 8.14; Fig. 8.28). Mellaart claimed to have recovered no less than 20 wooden vessels from Shrive E VI 10, some of which bore traces of red paint. According to his reports, there was never any evidence for the use of joints, pegs, dowels or glue, and he did not find any evidence either for bentwood vessels. Finds of complete vessels permitted the artistic reconstruction of about 15 vessel and box shapes which

were included in his 1964 preliminary report. He has reported that ‘numerous small fragments’ (e.g. of wooden boxes) were also found, an observation in accord with the nature of the finds recovered in the recent excavations.

Although Mellaart never described these vessels in great detail, the published photographs and artistic reconstructions (Figs. 8.28–8.29), alongside studies of similar wooden arti-facts from European prehistoric sites (summarized in Ear-wood 1993), suggest that they were likely reduced from suit-ably long trunk wood and/or large straight branches. Once the bark and twigs had been trimmed off, the rough trimming of the exterior would have produced a regular shape which was then hollowed with an axe/adze, following the direction of the grain, and then carved further with a chisel/gouge and a mallet. Suitably large examples of such bone tools (1873.x1; 1889.F20; 5286.F290) have previously been described by Russell (Russell 2005, 346–347 & Fig. 16.7). Scrapers and/or hafted flint knives could have been used to further straighten the inner and outer surfaces of the vessel, while sandstone abraders were probably used for their final smoothing.

Conclusion

Recent anthracological work at Çatalhöyük has expanded substantially our knowledge of early Holocene woodland ecology in the Konya Plain and its environs, as well as pro-viding an unprecedented wealth of information on Neolithic wood use and woodworking. The charcoal record comple-ments existing pollen archives in order to provide a more complete picture of the long-term environmental history of the site, Neolithic woodland vegetation ecology and the com-plexity of people-landscape interactions.

As noted already, both the macro-charcoal record and the regional pollen records have not demonstrated signifi-cant negative impacts on woodland vegetation. On the basis of the available pollen evidence, large-scale human impacts are not attested in the region before the Bronze Age. Overall, the suite of woodland management practices proposed for the period corresponding to the Neolithic habitation of the East Mound is consistent with the ethnographic record available for pre-modern (in the economic sense of the term) farming societies. The latter are characterized by the integration of firewood and timber collection to other subsistence activities such as foddering, cultivation and gathering, the medium- to long-term curation of wood supplies through timber re-cycling, and the burning of defunct structural wood, timber preparation by-products and old wooden implements, the use of complementary energy sources such as dung, and the regular collection of dry deadwood as fuel (Asouti & Aus-tin 2005). Several studies on the interplay of socioeconomic structures with environmental impacts among pre-modern farming societies (e.g. Al-Bakri et al. 2001; Ali & Benjamin-


161

sen 2004; Becker 2001; Briscoe 1979; Ellis 2000; Reid et al. 2000; Saheli et al. 2008; Schweik et al. 1997) provide a basic heuristic framework against which the sustainability of Neolithic firewood collection strategies can be evaluated. This research has indicated that switches in the choice of fuel species are not directly linked to net species availability in the natural vegetation. Instead, they are conditioned by rights of access to the land and its resources. In areas where commu-nal controls are strong enough to ensure the sustainability of wood collection strategies, their ecological footprint is often limited in scale. It is the disruption of such controls in peri-ods of major socio-political and economic change that may trigger large-scale environmental impacts and shifts in the prevailing wood gathering and consumption practices. Wood shortages often emerge and may eventually become irrevers-ible when the energy demands of specialized craft industries (pottery manufacture, metalworking) must be accommodat-ed, secondary products economies with distinctive ecologies (e.g., upland pastures, orchards established in cleared forest land, large-scale cereal cultivation) and market dependencies develop, and access to the land and its resources is restricted by centralized systems of political and administrative control (Asouti in press; Picornell et al. 2011).

The evidence discussed in section I on the temporal de-velopments observed in the East mound charcoal sequence, suggests that wood collection practices evolved from a pat-tern of predominantly local procurement characterising the late 8th millennium BC aceramic Neolithic, to a complex pat-tern of local and distant collection that was closely associated with the seasonal rhythms and paths of movement of sev-eral other landscape practices (house building, ground stone and shell sourcing, clay extraction, hunting, foddering, etc.) through the 7th millennium ceramic Neolithic sequence. At the beginning of the Chalcolithic it is possible to observe a re-turn, once more, to a predominantly local pattern of resource management that focused on wet woodland habitats. This is predated by the increasing frequency of potential indicators for the lopping of elms, possibly for cattle fodder, almost co-evally with the first appearance of domesticated cattle at the site. The charcoal record of the late phases of the South Area is consistent with several changes observed during the same chronological horizon in caprine herd size and herding strate-

gies (Chapters 11, 13, 14), material culture production (Vol-ume 9) and architecture (Volume 9, Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7). It is likely that these developments reflect changes in the struc-ture and composition of the Çatalhöyük households through time, possibly related to increasing household autonomy dur-ing the later phases of the site, which were linked to changes in material culture, the built environment, the organisation of subsistence production, and ultimately the ownership of and/or access to the land and its resources.

Methodologically, the work reported in this chapter has helped evaluating the potential and the applicability of sev-eral analytical methods previously untried at this scale in a Near Eastern prehistoric charcoal assemblage. These include both woodworking and the qualitative aspects (wood size and form, distance from the site, nature of human impacts) of Neolithic woodland management practices in the Konya Plain. It thus provides a baseline for further research, be-yond the standard quantitative analysis of taxon frequencies. Future work will focus on: (a) the systematic sub-sampling of all >1cm charcoal fragments from each >4mm flotation fraction, and the systematic analysis and recording of their qualitative attributes (wood size, ring width and morphol-ogy, etc.), (b) the scanning of all >4mm fractions (both future and previously recorded) for woodworking remains, (c) the completion of the analysis of non-diagnostic woodworking remains and the experimental replication of wooden artifacts, in order to study at greater depth production technology and the impacts of charring on the preservation of woodworking remains (pre-forms, artifacts and production waste), and (d) further exploring the potential offered by strontium isotope analyses for the precise characterization of wood procure-ment catchments and woodland habitats.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Amy Bogaard, Chris Doherty, Shahina Farid, Ian Hodder, Ceren Kabukcu, Arek Marciniak, Neris-sa Russell, Nurcan Yalman and members of the Çatalhöyük team for informative discussions, comments and feedback received during field and laboratory work, and while writing this chapter.

Table 8.11 (on CD): Results of the analysis of diagnostic worked wood specimens from flotation sample #6556.


6556.4.1 Juniperus 26.86 24.48 5.10 Notch maximum W2.23,

D4.66

Flat, slightly curved, rectangular piece with an angular notch cut

into one long side; wood was split parallel to the radial longitudinal

plane, possibly with an adze; likely fragment of a bentwood box.

6556.4.2 Juniperus 22.33 15.54 12.56 Rectangular stub mortise:

L9.42, W 4.72 min-7.79 max,

D8.75

Squared piece of wood; likely fragment of the "hearth" (fireboard)

component of a bow drill used in fire making.

6556.4.3 Juniperus 28.12 22.14 15.71 Distal (broad) edge

dimensions:

L24.88xW23.56xT18.05;

grooved surface area W21.10;

groove D3.64 (approx.)

8 smooth artificial grooves running perpendicularly to its long axis;

likely generated through friction by thick cordage; possible bow

drill spindle.

6556.4.4 Salicaceae 25.33 16.39 17.95 Lower edge T=9.55 Axe/adze hafting (bone/tooth/antler/stone?)

6556.4.5 Juniperus 18.16 12.30 12.04 n/a 15 smooth, very narrow, artificial grooves running perpendicularly

to its long axis; romboid base, likely socketed into a hollow shaft

(bone?); grooves likely generated by thin cordage wrapped around

the shaft and secured at the notch of the curved upper edge;

possible component of a pressure drill?

6556.4.6a Fraxinus 22.15 13.66 5.68 Frontal edge L14.52; Rear

edge T7.58

Zoomorphic figurine bearing post-depositional (modern) crack

around the neck area and a deeply carved incision that runs

obliquely across its rear edge; carved from a piece of ash wood that

had been cut parallel to the tangential longitudinal plane of a round

wood log.

6556.4.6

b

Fraxinus 12.35 6.84 6.10 Minimum T5.05 Shaped with stone knife and finished by abrasion to a fine-grained

mineral medium (sandstone abrader?)

6556.4.7 Salicaceae 24.31 16.90 13.92 n/a Fragment of a squared and pointed wooden implement with blunt

tip; possible bow drill spindle tip fragment?

6556.4.8 Salicaceae 16.75 16.17 11.24 n/a Polygonal shaped piece; possible handle end fragment.

6556.4.9 Juniperus 17.21 4.63

(base)

3.52 Maximum W: 6.13; Tip

W:3.09

Roughly shaped twig; possible fragment of a wooden pin or needle.


6556.4.10 Salicaceae 14.2 9.71 3.48 n/a Possible handle fragment?

6556.4.11 Ulmaceae 19.20 8.12

(base)

n/a Tip W=1.97 Whole twig with cut marks; bevelled end; likely shaping debris.

6556.4.12 Ulmus 13.83 20.30 9.95 n/a Axe/adze hafting (bone/tooth/antler/stone?) fragment.

6556.4.13 Ulmus 20.55 5.95 4.97 Max W: 7.12 Curved twig with flattened bevelled end.

6556.4.14 Juniperus 14.09 12.07 2.05 n/a As 6556.4.1 - small.

6556.4.15 Ulmus 13.72 10.38 6.43 n/a Flat piece with rounded slightly distended edges; handle end

fragment?

6556.4.16 Indet. 21.67 9.00 5.16 n/a Irregularly shaped large twig; botanical taxon indeterminate

without sectioning due to high degree of abrasion; both extremities

bevelled, with distinctive cut on the upper extremity and chopping

marks on the lower one.

6556.4.17 Juniperus 20.42 14.80 7.86 n/a Rectangular flat-shaped piece with rounded edges.

6556.4.18 Salicaceae 10.63 12.92 6.49 n/a Fragment of a wooden shaft straightener; worked surface is shaped

with two lateral parallel grooves separated by a central ridge; the

lower narrow edge bears oblique bi-directional sawing marks

(obsidian/flint saw?)

6556.4.19 Salicaceae 18.42 10.39 6.40 n/a Halved twig; shaped; handle/pin fragment?

6556.4.20 Ulmaceae 17.15 8.19 5.31 n/a Halved twig; shaped; handle/pin fragment?

6556.4.21 Ulmaceae 10.23 9.24 4.01 n/a Oval-shaped, curved piece.

6556.4.22 Juniperus 14.92 6.63 5.03 Minimum T=1.40 Pin/needle fragment, curved.

6556.4.23 Ulmaceae 12.06 17.54 10.47 n/a Large round wood off-cut, carved along the tangential longitudinal

plane.

6556.4.24 Salicaceae 13.82 11.68 6.74 n/a Large halved twig with cut marks on the tangential longitudinal

plane.

6556.4.25 Ulmaceae 16.47 7.48 3.85 n/a Same as 35; halved twig; chopping marks on both ends.

6556.4.26 Ulmaceae 13.12 7.32 n/a Whole twig with chopping/cut marks.

6556.4.27 Ulmaceae 12.60 9.77 4.77 n/a Halved twig; tear striation along the tangential longitudinal plane.

6556.4.28 Salicaceae 13.48 12.45 8.04 n/a Halved large twig (or small round wood) with cut marks.

6556.4.29 Ulmaceae 17.83 7.94 4.60 n/a Fragment of halved twig, with cut mark.


6556.4.30 Salicaceae 9.11 7.55 4.77 n/a Flat chip with a vertical groove running across its tangential

longitudinal plane, likely a chiselling mark.

6556.4.31 Ulmaceae 11.41 8.29 4.71 n/a Halved twig with chopping/cut marks, bevelled on one extremity.

6556.4.32 Ulmaceae 14.32 15.83 9.46 n/a Round wood fragment with shaped lower end; cut marks.

6556.4.33 Ulmaceae 15.84 9.41 5.67 n/a Halved twig with cut marks, shaped (pointed) on one extremity.

6556.4.34 Ulmaceae 16.39 9.99 5.72 n/a Same as 35.

6556.4.35 Ulmaceae 13.87 7.63 4.43 n/a Halved twig with obliquely cut ends.

6556.4.36 Ulmus 13.83 10.77 6.78 Vertical notch maximum

D9.32, maximum W2.07;

Lower notch: L2.77, W4.86,

D1.35

Wood chip with chiselling marks.

6556.4.37 Salicaceae 12.42 6.47 2.90 n/a Twig flat chip (pith still visible) cut along the tangential

longitudinal plane.

6556.4.38 Ulmaceae 9.26 15.03 9.17 n/a Round wood off-cut with cut marks.

6556.4.39 Juniperus 16.88 5.33 1.86 n/a Flat carving chip.

6556.4.40 Salicaceae 10.31 9.18 3.04 n/a Flat and slightly curved wood chip.

6556.4.41 Juniperus 9.28 10.12 9.04 n/a Fragment of squared piece of wood. Matches features of 6556.4.2;

a shallow incision runs across the tangential longitudinal plane.

6556.4.42 Juniperus 11.34 6.59 3.46 n/a Flat, slightly curved fragment with some traces of finishing

(polish); wooden pendant with artificially drilled hole near its upper

edge; shallow notches along the edges of its vertical sides.

6556.4.43 Juniperus 9.99 5.70 3.74 n/a Wood chip with a vertical chiselling mark on its upper extremity.

6556.4.44 Juniperus 10.34 6.61 2.69 n/a Flat wood chip with a chiselling mark on one side and a fine

incision on the other (resembling that of 41).

6556.4.45 Juniperus 6.70 4.86 3.17 n/a Rectangular-shaped wood chip with a chiselling mark.

Table 8.12 (on CD): Large fragments preserving some evidence of tool marks and could therefore be considered to represent unmodified and/or partly

modified raw material and/or woodworking waste (e.g. larger off-cuts), plus fragment counts for twigs, small off-cuts, flat wood chips, curved wood chips

and irregularly shaped wood chips from flotation sample #6556.

Taxon

Ring

curvature

Rings

(count)

Total ring

width (mm)

Average

ring

width

(mm) Tool marks Signature

Signature dimensions

1 Ulmus

(25.70x33.76x18.27)

3 40 25.7 0.64 Yes Rectangular cut on the

upper edge of the piece,

possibly originating from

the use of a flat-tip chisel

and a mallet.

8.29 x 5.35 x 4.70

2 Ulmus

(22.52x21.73x20.21)

2 27 22.52 0.83 Off-cut? Ambiguous n/A

3 Ulmus

(17.17x13.43x16.73)

3 25 17.17 0.68 Yes Rectangular facet on the

radial surface of the piece

bearing 2 grooves (stepped

at one end) that may

originate from the use of a

point-tip chisel; point-tip

chiselling mark on the

tangential longitudinal

plane; flat-tip chiselling

mark on the transverse

plane.

Radial longitudinal plane: 11.05 x

10.11; 10.69 x 5.69; Transverse plane

tool mark: preserved jam curve=

7.08, preserved side feature=4.16

4 Ulmus

(15.85x20.11x10.60)

2 20 15.85 0.79 Off-cut Ambiguous n/A

5 Ulmus

(16.12x25.02x15.76)

2 >18 16.12

(NR)

n/A Off-cut v-shaped notch on the

interface of the radial

longitudinal and the


planes.

Notch right leg 3.69, left leg: 4.04;

thickness ~1.18)

6 Ulmus

(13.33x9.30x13.90)

2 8 13.33 1.67 Yes 1 sub-rectangular pointed

chisel mark on the upper

edge of the transverse

surface; 1 squarish shallow

chisel mark adjacent to the

previous one.

3.12x1.88 x ~2.86 (D); 2.94 x 1.98 x

0.78 (D).

7 Ulmus

(15.29x8.86x8.30)

? ? n/A n/A Possible

wood chip

n/A n/A

Taxon

Ring

curvature

Rings

(count)

Total ring

width

(mm)

Average

ring width

(mm) Tool marks Signature

Signature dimensions (mm)

8 Ulmus

(7.68x17.22x13.70)

1 6 7.68 1.28 Off-cut, sub-

rectangular

in section

with smooth

edges

(possibly produced by an

axe; signature smooth with

parralel fine ridges across

one tangential surface; TS

is not flat but is bevel-

stepped across the middle,

thus producing two sub-

surfaces)

(height at the middle: 13.78; height at

one extremity: 11.50; height at

opposite extremity: 8.66)

9 Ulmus

(18.12x10.10x15.61)

2 >12

(NR)

18.12 n/A Yes 1 sub-rectangular pointed

chisel-made hole mark on

the side edge of the

tangential surface, parallel

to it; the hole is open on its

lower side: it appears as if

the hammering removed

the lower side altogether;

flat chiseling mark on the


plane oriented vertically

against the grain.

max width: 4.33-0.98 - max height:

5.14

10 Ulmus

(18.49x17.19X11.70)

2 >30

(NR)

18.49 n/A n/A

(deadwood:

boreholes,

collapsed

grain)

n/A n/A

Generic categories Fragment counts

Twigs 31

Off-cuts 79

Flat wood chips 80

Curved wood chips 87

Irregularly shaped wood chips 61

Woodland vegetation, firewood management and woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük

Documents

Transcript of Woodland vegetation, firewood management and woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük