Introduction
Microartifact studies utilise the systematic
recovery of small items of material culture from archaeological
deposits, by flotation or wet sieving, seeking to utilise information
on artifact density distributions. This is used primarily to consider
spatial patterning in floor deposits, to elucidate activities that
took place on these surfaces in the past. From the inception of
microartifact analysis on the Çatalhöyük Research
Project, which excavates and studies the world famous Early Neolithic
site in Anatolia previously excavated by James Mellaart in the 1960’s
(Mellaart 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1998; see also Hodder 1996,
2000) [Figure 1], it was anticipated that one
of the main applications of analysis of microartifacts would be
to examine patterning within floor deposits to attempt to identify
activities. This was perceived as being ‘needed because the
floors were carefully swept clean in antiquity’ (Hodder 1999:
159), and that ‘these tiny fragments probably reflect some
of the actual activities that took place on the floors, such as
food preparation, cooking and obsidian working’ (Martin and
Russell 2000: 61-63). Microartifact studies have concentrated upon
Building 1 [Figure 2] in the North Area, completely
excavated between 1995 and 1998, and it is on this structure, plus
the preceding structure in the area, Building 5, that attention
will focus for the purposes of this paper. The initial focus on
the spatial and temporal variability of material in floor deposits
fits well with the predominant focus of microartifact studies at
other sites (Courty et al. 1993; Dunnell and Stein 1989;
Fladmark 1982; Hassan 1978; Miller-Rosen 1989, 1993; Rainville 2000;
Sherwood and Ostley 1995; Sherwood et al. 1995; Stein and
Telset 1989).
Figure 1: Location map
Studies of microartifact patterning are primarily
based upon the premise that microartifacts are more likely to represent
traces of in situ activity than larger artifacts. The perception
is that microartifacts will be swept into corners, trampled into
floors, buried when floors are muddy or occur in build-ups of dust
or ash. They are therefore perceived of as becoming almost incidentally
incorporated into floor deposits rather than being moved around,
or even totally removed, in a more intentional manner as larger
artifacts might be. Essentially it is postulated that ‘depositional
sets’ as recovered in the archaeological record are more directly
related at the ‘micro’ level than the ‘macro’
level to ‘activity sets and areas’ that occurred in
the past (Carr 1984: 114). Additionally microartifacts may counteract
‘stereotypical designations for room function’ and allow
for multi-functionality and changeability (Özbal 2000). There
is no agreed methodology with regard to appropriate sample sizes,
what sizes constitute the upper or lower range of microartifacts
and which material types to consider (Dunnell and Stein 1989; LaMotta
and Schiffer 1999; Lass 1994; Miller-Rosen 1993; Özbal 2000;
Rainville 2000; Sherwood et al. 1995; Sherwood and Ostley
1995; Stein and Telset 1989). This is largely because of different
conditions at different sites, both in terms of the materials present
and pragmatic issues relating to time and resources, which necessitate
different strategies.
The fundamental premise that microartifacts in floors relate to
activities that took place on those surfaces is an attractive one,
but is a premise that needs to be rigorously investigated and critiqued
on a site-by-site basis, rather than simply assumed. This is particularly
true on highly stratified and densely occupied tell sites such as
Çatalhöyük, given their complex site formation
processes. In particular there is evidence for relatively frequent
disturbance of earlier deposits due to cut features and the recycling
of material that had been previously been dumped in outside midden
type areas.
Methodology
As part of the basic Çatalhöyük
Research Project methodology all deposits excavated are sampled
for wet sieving and flotation, usually with a single thirty-litre
sample. The material that sinks rather than floats during this process,
commonly referred to as ‘heavy residue’, is then separated
into different size ranges [>4mm (henceforth 4mm), <4mm and
>2mm (henceforth 2mm) and <2mm and >1mm (henceforth 1mm)].
These are then sorted, and various types of material culture collected
and weighed, allowing densities to be calculated.
This methodology is relatively common in Near Eastern prehistoric
archaeology. The main difference as practised by the Çatalhöyük
Research Project is that all deposits are sampled, rather than just
those deposits that appear ‘significant’, typically
defined as those particularly rich in material or floors. This allows
the material from floors to be more fully contextualised. The ‘heavy
residue’ processing system is also integrated into the general
system of specialist analysis of material. This methodology has
served to challenge the naively simplistic, but rarely explicitly
stated, assumption underpinning most microartifact analyses, including
that undertaken initially by the Çatalhöyük Research
Project itself, that all material recovered from floor deposits
relates to in situ activity patterns. By examining a wider
range of deposits it can reasonably be inferred that the material
recovered from floor deposits relates to a wider range of depositional
factors. In particular, the deliberate or incidental inclusion of
material during initial deposit creation, rather than when deposits
are being utilised, would mean that much of the material does not
relate to in situ activities. Nonetheless it does appear
that some of the material recovered from floor deposits does relate
to in situ activities, for example where microartifact density
evidence is supported by specialist identification of in situ
bone working and obsidian knapping. A consideration of microartifact
patterning is therefore still potentially useful with regard to
identifying in situ activities, although it must be undertaken
with due caution. There are a number of potential avenues for addressing
the question of whether microartifacts in floor deposits relate
to in situ activities. These include the application of absolute
dating techniques, comparisons with other deposit types and specialist
analysis of material. It is also crucial to address the issues of
the floor hardness and coverings plus the relative duration of floor
deposits.
Floors and floor coverings
One obvious factor with regard to the relationship
between microartifacts in floor deposits and activities that occurred
on them is how likely it is that microartifacts would become incorporated
into the floor deposits. At Çatalhöyük this appears
to relate to two main factors, the hardness of the floor and the
presence of floor coverings. The recent excavations have revealed
a range of floor types that have been broadly categorised as baked,
white clay, non-white laid, occupation and mixed. With the exception
of baked, which relates mainly to the bases of ovens and hearths,
all the other floors are relatively soft and it appears that microartifacts
could, at least potentially, become incorporated into all these
types of floor deposit relatively easily. Hard red painted fired
lime plaster floors were found in early levels at Çatalhöyük
in the 1960’s (Mellaart 1966: 169 and fig. 2). Although no
in situ examples of these have been found during the more
recent excavations numerous fragments have been found in the early
levels, along with evidence of lime burning (Farid forthcoming).
Such floors are known from a range of sites in the Near East such
as Aşıklı Höyük (Hauptmann and Yalin 2000)
and activities on such hard surfaces would clearly be less likely
to lead to the incorporation of microartifacts.
Figure 2: General plan of first occupational phase of Building 1
Another factor with regard to the incorporation
of microartifacts in floor deposits is the presence of floor coverings.
A combination of evidence, including micromorphology, phytolith
analysis and macroartifacts, suggests that a range of floor coverings
were in use. Some parts of buildings appear to have been completely
covered with plaited matting of varying degrees of fineness; whilst
other areas had no such coverings although in some instances smaller
spirally coiled mats were used. Such differences, which occur within
individual structures, may well have had an impact upon the incorporation
of microartifacts into underlying floor deposits.
Duration
If microartifact remains in floors do relate
to activities that occurred on them, then an assessment of the temporal
duration of different floor deposits is crucial. A variety of approaches
including analysis of radiocarbon dates, ethnographic analogies
and the counting of wall plasters, believed to possibly occur annually,
suggest that buildings at Çatalhöyük were occupied
for between fifty and a hundred years (Cessford forthcoming; Mellaart
1964: 117, 1967, 50; Newton and Kuniholm 1999). Within this, however,
the length represented by different floor deposits varies. Some
floor deposits might survive for the entire occupation of a structure,
whereas others are of shorter duration lasting for only a specific
phase. Floors in different areas of a structure were replaced at
different points in time, meaning that different sets of floor deposits
do not represent the same lengths of time. Comparing densities of
material in different floor deposits is therefore made problematic
by the fact that higher densities might simply represent floors
of longer temporal duration. Given the apparent impossibility of
precisely estimating the temporal duration of different floor deposits
this severely compromises approaches based upon density.
Absolute dating
One possible mechanism for determining if
microartifacts in floor deposits relate to in situ activities
or not is absolute dating. Material from several sets of plastered
floors in Building 1 were dated using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
(AMS), in particular charred seeds and faunal material from the
same floor deposits. AMS determinations, where there is a good relationship
between the material being dated and the archaeological event it
is derived from, such as those from in situ food storage
contexts, show that determinations from charred seeds in floor deposits
are either slightly earlier than or broadly contemporary with the
occupation of Building 1. Although it is not possible to definitively
demonstrate that any of the charred seeds from floor deposits are
older than the context in which they occur Bayesian statistical
analysis, using the program BCal (Buck et al. 1999), demonstrates
that it is statistically probable that a substantial minority are.
The likelihood is that around a fifth to a quarter of the charred
seeds from floor deposits that were dated are residual. Comparison
of two sets of paired determinations from floor deposits, where
both charred seeds and faunal material were dated, show that there
is a 62.9% and 83.8% level of probability that the faunal material
is earlier than the charred seeds. Although not conclusive this
strongly suggests that the faunal material is residual.
The discrepancy between determinations on charred seeds and faunal
material can be partially explained by a number of factors. Determinations
on bone relate not to the precise time of death, but more broadly
to the lifetime of the animal. This is likely to have had a relatively
minor impact, especially given the mortality profile, which shows
almost 70% of the sheep and goats were immature when they died.
Small amounts of contamination from the surrounding matrix are possible
given the poor survival of collagen at Çatalhöyük
(pers.comm. Tom Higham). Comparing the determinations on faunal
material from floors with other determinations on faunal material
and human skeletal remains indicates that this factor cannot account
for the whole discrepancy. Reservoir effects sometimes found in
human bone (Cook et al. 2002; Lanting and van der Picht 1998)
are unlikely to have had an impact on animal bones. Another possibility
is that the faunal material was deliberately curated. This certainly
occurred at Çatalhöyük, with certain animal bones
such as cattle skulls and horns being used as wall installations.
Such bones did occasionally eventually end up in floor deposits.
These assemblages are, however, recognisable and there is no indication
that this has occurred in the floor deposits under consideration.
The determinations on faunal material are not from single entities
but from a number of fragments, probably from different animals.
As such they are problematic in terms of dating evidence (Ashmore
1999), but this does not invalidate the conclusion that at least
some of the faunal material from these floors was residual when
it was deposited. In contrast the charred seeds were broadly contemporary
with the floor deposits they were found in, although this in no
sense demonstrates that they relate to in situ activities
and it is probable that some are older.
Other deposit types
Another method for determining if microartifacts
in floor deposits relate to in situ activities is to compare
the material found in them to similar non-floor deposits. The white
plaster floors found at Çatalhöyük are visually
similar to white plasters found on walls and micromorphological
examination indicates that both are made of similar white calcareous
clay sediments (Matthews et al. 1996: 304). This phenomenon
is known from other Near Eastern sites where wall and floor plasters
are made of similar materials (Matthews et al. 1994). Given
that microartifacts in wall plasters are unlikely to relate to in
situ activities taking place on vertical surfaces, a comparison
of these two deposit types should prove useful. Results are available
from two excavation areas, referred to as North and South [Table
1], which allow us to compare the median densities of chipped
stone and bone at three different fraction sizes, expressed as grams
per litre. The results show that the wall plasters often contain
a substantial percentage of the density of materials found in the
white plaster floors, and in some instances, actually have higher
densities of material. While these results suggest that some of
the material found in white clay floors may relate to in situ
activities, they clearly indicate that a substantial proportion
of the material does not.
Detailed specialist analysis of faunal material from wall plasters
in Building 1 revealed that in general they have low densities of
material and the fragments are small, usually not exceeding two
centimetres. Beyond this general pattern there is a good deal of
variation. Some plasters include digested bone indicative of dog
faeces while some do not, some have very fresh bone whilst others
have worn pellets. The profiles of the different wall plasters variously
resemble assemblages from ‘clean’ floors, ‘dirty’
floors, ‘low traffic’ floors, and ‘empty’
fills. They are not very different from what is found in other kinds
of constructional material such as brick, mortar and packing, except
that some of these at least sometimes have higher densities or larger
pieces. The general impression is that ‘floor assemblages’
are largely the contents of the floor construction material. At
any rate, the wall plaster assemblages are not strikingly different
from floor assemblages.
Specialist analysis
Microartifact studies are generally based
upon densities of material. More detailed specialist analysis of
materials is crucial to understanding if this material relates to
in situ activities on floors or not. Botanical material should
provide a good example, as AMS dating has demonstrated that botanical
material is at least broadly contemporary with the floor deposits
in which it is found. This makes it preferable to faunal material,
which is likely to be residual. Chipped stone, the only other category
of material that occurs frequently enough to warrant such analysis,
suffers from the problem that very little specialist analysis was
undertaken of the microartifacts from the North Area.
Analysis of the composition of the archaeobotanical assemblages
indicates that over half of the samples from the North Area can
be said to fit into one of two ‘standard sample profiles’
for relative material composition (Julie Near pers.comm; Fairbairn
et al. forthcoming). The first ‘standard sample profile’
comes from a wide variety of types of deposit, including construction
materials, fills and floor deposits. It is also found in a wide
variety of stratigraphic locations and the range of material represented
includes virtually all of the types of archaeobotanical material
found at Çatalhöyük. On the basis of this it is
interpreted as representative of tertiary or very mixed deposits
and can be thought of as ‘background noise’, rather
than relating to in situ activities. The second ‘standard
sample profile’ contains a much more limited range of materials
and probably represents material from less fully mixed deposits.
Nonetheless it still occurs in a variety of depositional contexts
and stratigraphic locations and contains a wide enough range of
material that it does not appear to relate to in situ activities.
Floor deposits that conform to the two ‘standard sample profiles’
are therefore highly unlikely to relate to in situ activities.
A number of floor samples diverge somewhat from the ‘standard
sample profile’. When this occurs it is often impossible to
tell if this difference relates to in situ activities or
some other factor. Comparison with nearby samples from other types
of context or with other floor deposits in similar spatial locations
can indicate if this divergence is likely to relate to in situ
activities. Higher than typical densities of nutshell in floor deposits
near to fire installations are one example of this. Although these
only represent a relatively minor divergence from the ‘standard
sample profile’ their repeated occurrence in successive phases
suggests they do represent in situ activities. This is supported
by the discovery of clusters of acorns in a similar spatial location
in Building 1. Possibly nuts were stored and shelled near to fire
installations, or were taken there to be burnt. A small number of
floor deposits demonstrate unique botanical compositions that diverge
markedly from the ‘standard sample profile’. These are
likely to be derived from in situ activities although it
is impossible to rule out the existence of some other factor.
Beyond the visible
Another method by which it is possible to
determine if botanical materials relate to in situ activities
is to utilise a range of specialist studies. Examples of complimentary
techniques include analysis of phytoliths (microscopic silt-sized
particles usually composed of opaline silica that form in the cells
of certain plants) (Miller-Rosen 1999) and the elemental composition
of floor deposits as determined by ICP AES (Middleton and Price
1996). When these were applied to the floors of Building 5 they
demonstrated the storage of wheat and barley in bin structures and
the storage in baskets and processing of cereals in a nearby area
(Miller-Rosen forthcoming). Analysis of several botanical samples
from floor deposits in this area produced ‘standard sample
profiles’, that gave no indication of the activities taking
place, presumably because there was nothing in these areas to char
the material.
One obvious potential source of comparative data is between microartifact
analysis and information on inclusions gleaned from soil micromorphology.
Plant, bone, groundstone and obsidian have all been identified micromporphologically
at Çatalhöyük, although they are mainly found in
contexts such as external middens that are richer in inclusions
than floors (Matthews forthcoming; Matthews et al. 1996: 306-11).
There are a number of issues with comparing microartifact and micromorphology
data. The microartifact densities in floor deposits are often relatively
low and the materials in question, such as obsidian, are very rarely
revealed by micromorphology. This is because the micromorphological
evidence covers an extremely limited part of the deposit. When such
relatively rare materials are present this appears to be largely
fortuitous and the micromorphological presence and absence of these
cannot realistically be utilised as evidence. The limited part of
a deposit revealed by micromorphology means that it is necessary
to extrapolate this data to compare it to microartifact data, which
covers the entire deposit. This assumes a homogenous spread of inclusions
throughout a deposit. Microartifact analysis of deposits that have
been subdivided for sampling purposes shows that this assumption
is unwarranted, as there is often strong spatial variation within
deposits. Whilst micromorphology can provide extremely precise data
for a restricted part of a deposit microartifact data provides more
general data at a larger scale for deposits as a whole. Another
issue is that microartifact densities based on weight and volume
are effectively a three-dimensional value, whereas micromorphological
quantification of density is essentially a two-dimensional measure.
This means that straightforward comparisons are problematic. Many
of the inclusions revealed in floor deposits by micromorphology,
such as charred plant remains, are smaller than 1mm in size and
would therefore not been recovered during microartifact processing
at Çatalhöyük. As deposition of microartifacts
can be shown to be a strongly scalar phenomenon this means that
micromorphological and microartifact data on different sizes of
inclusions cannot be easily related. These issues mean that detailed
comparison of microartifact and micromorphological data is complicated.
It is perhaps preferable to think of the two techniques as complimentary
and able to provide insights on each other rather than as being
directly comparable.
If not the floors then where?
If the relationship between the microartifacts
in floor deposits at Çatalhöyük and in situ
activities is a problematic one, are there any other contexts that
might produce microartifact assemblages that do relate to nearby
activities inside buildings? One possibility is a number of relatively
short-lived features, such as shallow scoops and stakeholes. Unfortunately
these do not occur in all occupational phases and are not found
in all areas of buildings so their usefulness is limited, but it
does appear that the microartifacts they contain relate to activities
that occurred on nearby floor surfaces just prior to these features
being filled.
The clearest example at Çatalhöyük is a group of
three stakeholes (1390), (1391) and (1392) forming an arc around
the southern side of a small circular hearth F.369 during phase
B1.4 [Table
2; Figure 3], which contained a range of
microartifacts. Stakehole (1392) contained fifty-five pieces of
obsidian, mainly unretouched small flakes and debris and a
fragmentary projectile/biface tip [Figure 4].
By density this is the second highest 4mm heavy residue value and
the third highest at 2mm. The obsidian appears to be related to
knapping activities linked to the hearth, a conclusion supported
by the fact that ashy deposits frequently contain high densities
of obsidian, and the end of the projectile point is unused and possibly
unfinished. What is particularly notable is the high degree of variation
in the obsidian in the three stakeholes: (1392) contained over thirteen
grams of obsidian, (1390) had around a third of a gram and (1391)
had none. In contrast, stakehole (1390) had a high density of faunal
and botanical material. Almost all of the faunal material seems
to be derived from a single very young sheep/goat and has similar
surface conditions and colour, with the exception of a burnt phalanx
from a more mature sheep/goat. The material originates throughout
the body and is highly fragmented, with only tiny fragments of each
bone surviving. It appears the stakehole contains part of a consumption
event, which was rapidly buried. The botanical assemblage from stakehole
(1390) contains an unusually high concentration of hackberry (such
concentrations are often found associated with fire installations),
plus some charcoal that is atypically dominated by willow/poplar,
as opposed to oak, usually the most common element. Stakehole (1390)
is dated by a determination on included cereal chaff and grain (OxA-11031
[7675±50]), a result that suggests that this material is broadly
contemporary with this occupation phase.
Figure 3: Material in stakeholes (1390), (1391) and (1392)
As well as lacking obsidian (1391) contained
no faunal material but had a high density of botanical remains,
with very little cereal and more herbaceous material than is usual
for the site. The identifiable charcoal from (1391) was pure oak.
The densities of microartifacts in these stakeholes and the nature
of the material that they contain vary markedly from the patterns
that can be identified as ‘background noise’. Each individual
stakehole appears to represent a discreet assemblage. Whilst it
is impossible to be certain, the most probable conclusion is that
these relate to activities in the immediate vicinity. In contrast,
the obsidian, faunal, botanical and charcoal assemblages from both
the nearby floor deposits and the hearth itself do not appear to
be related to in situ activities as they fit the standard
profiles and appear to simply represent ‘background noise’.
Figure 4: Obsidian from stakehole (1392)
A number of shallow scoops have also produced
reasonably convincing evidence for microartifact concentrations
that are distinctive enough to be reasonably construed as the residues
from contemporary activities on nearby floors. For instance (1328),
the fill of scoop [1453], has a botanical assemblage that diverges
markedly from the ‘standard sample profiles’. Approximately
one third of the sample is parenchyma, a slightly smaller percentage
is plant stem material and the remainder is composed of wood and
cereal. This composition is very atypical for fills and it seems
likely that this fill is related to activities that took place on
nearby floors. The trends in this assemblage are similar to those
in a nearby set of floor deposits (1422), by considering a wider
range of deposit types than just floors it is possible to make a
stronger case for the identification of in situ activities.
The faunal assemblage from (1328) is quite high in density but lacks
coherence with a mixture of burning and weathering. It appears that
the scoop may be catching the smaller fragments that are kicking
around the floor and often get cleaned up more elsewhere.
Conclusion
Microartifact studies clearly have a great
deal to contribute to our understanding of archaeological sites.
The case study of Çatalhöyük has indicated that
here at least, and potentially at many other sites as well, the
traditional focus of microartifact studies on attempting to discern
in situ activities on floors is problematic. Variations in
floor types, depositional practices and other factors between sites
mean that the lessons from Çatalhöyük can not simply
be applied to other sites, but they do highlight potential issues
and the need to critique the underlying assumptions of microartifact
analysis on a site by site basis. The particular issues raised that
are of more general applicability include:
- The importance of studying as wide a range of depositional contexts
as to understand microartifacts in floor deposits.
- The role of floor hardness, coverings and duration in the incorporation
of microartifacts into floor deposits.
- The usefulness of absolute dating techniques in determining
the contemporaneity of microartifacts and the deposits in which
they occur.
- The importance of integrating microartifact analysis with as
wide a range of other forms of specialist analysis as possible.
Densities of material appear to represent
a rather blunt instrument for approaching this question, although
they may be more applicable on stratigraphically simpler sites.
The focus upon quantity of material, whereby relatively disparate
categories of material are treated as single entities, rather than
the composition, taphonomy, or diversity of assemblages may not
be the most useful approach to the detection of activities. The
methodology adopted by the Çatalhöyük Research
Project, whereby the microartifacts from a wide range of types of
depositional context were studied has allowed those from floor deposits
to be more richly contextualised. This challenges the assumption
that these can be easily related to in situ activities and
indicates that much of the material is unlikely to do so. It could
be argued that this represents an academic ‘straw man’,
by portraying microartifact studies as uncritically assuming that
all floor material relates to in situ activities, while most
studies accept the existence of a level of ‘background noise’
and that it is the differences in density that are assumed to relate
to activities. If the latter is true, it is rarely explicitly stated
and in any case is itself a problematic proposition. It assumes
that ‘background noise’ is a spatially and temporally
constant factor that can be ‘filtered’ out, by assuming
that the lowest density observed equates to the level of ‘background
noise’.
This analysis has focussed primarily upon archaeobotanical and to
a lesser extent faunal microartifacts. This is largely because these
are among the most common microartifactual inclusions in floor deposits.
Archaeobotanical material was preferred over faunal material due
to the results of the AMS dating which suggest that the faunal material
is residual. The only other relevant material that occurs with a
similar frequency is chipped stone, this has not been considered
as specialist analysis of this material in the North Area has focussed
almost exclusively on larger artifacts so comparative data was not
available. It could be argued that archaeobotanical material is
amongst the most easily and frequently disturbed types of inclusion
in deposits. Whilst this perception may be true in certain contexts
the results of the AMS dating in the North Area and elsewhere (Cessford
2001, forthcoming) and archaeobotanical analysis (Fairbairn et
al forthcoming) suggest that this is not true at Çatalhöyük.
Whilst it is true that archaeobotanical material is frequently found
in secondary and tertiary contexts this appears to be due to specific
disturbance rather than more generalised factors such as bioturbation.
Analysis of the wide range of contexts sampled at Çatalhöyük
and the patterning within units where there should be no impact
from activities suggests that the level of microartifactual inclusions
is highly variable and, at a practical level, it is almost impossible
to distinguish the ‘background noise’ element. The application
of absolute dating techniques to this material, comparison of floor
deposits with wall plasters, specialist analysis of the composition
of assemblages, the application of complimentary forms of analysis
such as phytolith and chemical composition all indicate that microartifact
densities can not be taken as simply indicative of in situ
activities. This work also suggests ways whereby this can be assessed,
and elements within larger assemblages that may relate to such activities
can be identified. The analysis of a wider range of context types
also leads to the identification of other depositional contexts,
such as a range of transient features, which may preserve microartifactual
evidence of activities.
Acknowledgements
The work presented here derives from the
efforts of the entire Çatalhöyük Research Project
team, in particular those who studied the faunal material [Louise
Martin and Nerissa Russell], botanical material [Julie Near], phytoliths
[Arlene Miller-Rosen], charcoal [Eleni Asouti], ICP/AES [William
Middleton], who were very generous with their data. I would also
like to thank Anja Wolle, Sarah Cross, Shahina Farid and Ian Hodder.
The radiocarbon determinations presented were part of a larger group
funded by NERC and undertaken at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator
Unit of the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History
of Art, where I would particularly like to thank Tom Higham. I would
also like to thank Caitlin Buck for her help with BCal.
Tables
| 0.2107 |
0.3219 |
0.2615 |
0.1376 |
| 0.0012 |
0.0045 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| 0.0261 |
0.0175 |
0.0383 |
0.0200 |
| 0.0021 |
0.0016 |
0.0033 |
0.0007 |
| 0.0168 |
0.0038 |
0.0106 |
0.0147 |
| 0.00 |
0.0013 |
0.0005 |
0.00 |
| 0.30g |
none |
13.34g
knapping debris |
| 14.0g mainly
very young sheep/goat |
none |
none |
| Hackberry
concentration 0.09g |
Herbaceous
material 0.02g |
none |
| Dominated
by willows/poplars 34 out of 63 identifiable fragments |
Pure oak
60 out of 60 identifiable fragments |
none |
Bibliography
Ashmore, P.J. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding
mixed samples. Antiquity 73: 124-30.
Buck, C.E. Christen, J. A. and James, G. N. (1999). BCal: an on-line
Bayesian radiocarbon calibration tool. In Internet Archaeology
7 [Online]. Available from http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue7/buck_toc.html
[Accessed 21.03.2002].
Carr, C. 1984. The Nature of organization of intrasite archaeological
records and spatial analytic approaches to their investigation.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 103-222.
Cessford, C. forthcoming: Absolute Dating at Çatalhöyük.
In Hodder, I. forthcoming.
Courty, G.M-A, Matthews, W. and Wattez, J. 1993. Sedimentary Formation
Processes of Occupation Surfaces. In: Goldberg et al. 1993,
149-163.
Cook, G.T. Bonsall, C. Hedges, R.E.M McSweeney, K. Boroneant, V.
Bartosiewicz, L. and Pettitt, P.B. 2002. Problems of dating human
bones from the Iron Gates. Antiquity 76: 77-85.
Dunnell, R.C. and Stein, J.K. 1989. Theoretical issues in the interpretation
of microartifacts. Geoarchaeology 4: 31-41.
Fairbairn, A. Near, J. and Martinoli, D. forthcoming. Archaeobotany
of the North and South Area excavations at Çatalhöyük
East. In: Hodder, I. forthcoming.
Farid, S. forthcoming. Excavations in the South Area 1995-1999.
In: Hodder, I. forthcoming. Excavations at Çatalhöyük
1995-1999.
Fladmark, K.R. 1982. Microdebitage analysis: initial considerations.
Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 205-20.
Goldberg, P. Nash, D.T. and Petraglia, M.D. (eds.). 1993. Formation
Processes in Archaeological Context. Monographs in World Archaeology
17.
Hassan, F.A. 1978. Sediments in archaeology: methods and applications
for paleoenvironmental and cultural analysis. Journal of Field
Archaeology 5: 197-213.
Hauptmann, A. and Yalin, Ü. 2000. Lime plaster, cement and
the first puzzolanic reaction. Paléorient 26:
61-68.
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1996: On the Surface Çatalhöyük
1993-95. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research / British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph No.22.
Hodder, I. 1999. Renewed work at Çatalhöyük. In:
Özdoğan, M.
and Başgelen, N. (eds.). 1999. Neolithic in Turkey:
the Cradle of Civilization. Ankara: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari.
157-64.
Hodder, I. (ed.) 2000: Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology:
The Example at Çatalhöyük. McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research / British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara Monograph No.28.
Hodder, I. forthcoming. Excavations at Çatalhöyük
1995-1999.
LaMotta, V.M. and Schiffer, M.B. 1999. Formation processes of house
floor assemblages. In: Allison, P.M. (ed.). The Archaeology of
Household Activities. London: Routledge, 19-29.
Lanting, J.N. and van der Plicht, J. 1998. Reservoir effects and
apparent ages. Journal of Irish Archaeology 9: 151-65.
Lass, E.H.E. 1994. Quantitative Studies in Flotation at Ashkelon,
1986 to 1988. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
294: 23-30.
Martin, L. and Russell, N. 2000. Trashing Rubbish. In: Hodder 2000.
Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research / British Institute
of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph No.28, 57-69.
Matthews, W. forthcoming. Micromorphological and microstratigaphic
traces of uses and concepts of space. In: Hodder, I. Forthcoming.
Excavations at Çatalhöyük 1995-1999.
Matthews, W. French, C. Lawrence, T. and Cutler, D. 1996. Multiple
surfaces: the micromorphology. In: Hodder, I. 1996. On the Surface
Çatalhöyük 1993-95. McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research / British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
Monograph No.22, 301-42.
Matthews, W. and Postgate, J.N. with, Payne, S. Charles, M.P. and
Dobney, K. 1994. The imprint of living in a Mesopotamian city: questions
and answers. In: Luff, R. and Rowley Conwy, P. (eds.). Whither
Environmental Archaeology? Oxbow Monograph 38, 171-212.
Mellaart, J. 1962. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük,
first preliminary report, 1961. Anatolian Studies 12: 41-65.
Mellaart, J. 1963. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük,
second preliminary report, 1962. Anatolian Studies 13: 43-103.
Mellaart, J. 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük,
third preliminary report, 1963, Anatolian Studies 14: 39-119.
Mellaart, J. 1966. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük,
fourth preliminary report, 1965, Anatolian Studies 16: 15-191.
Mellaart, J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic
Town in Anatolia. London, Thames and Hudson.
Mellaart, J. 1998. Çatal Hüyük: the 1960’s
Seasons. In: Matthews, R. (ed). Ancient Anatolia. Fifty Years’
Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. (Ankara,
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara), 35-41.
Middleton, W. D. and Price, T. D. 1996. Chemical analysis of modern
and archaeological house floors by means of inductively coupled
plasma- atomic emission spectroscopy, Journal of Archaeological
Science 23: 673-687.
Miller-Rosen, A. 1989. Ancient town and city sites: a view from
the microscope. American Antiquity 54: 564-78.
Miller-Rosen, A. 1993. Microartifacts as a reflection of Cultural
Factors in Site Formation. In: Goldberg et al. 1993. Formation
Processes in Archaeological Context. Monographs in World Archaeology
17:141-148.
Miller-Rosen, A. 1999. Phytolith analysis in Near Eastern Archaeology.
In: Pike and Gitin. 1999. The Practical Impact of Science on
Aegean and Near Eastern Archaeology. London: Archetype Press,
86-92.
Miller-Rosen, A. forthcoming. Phytolith indicators of plant and
land use at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I. forthcoming.
Excavations at Çatalhöyük 1995-1999.
Newton, M. W. and Kuniholm, P. I. 1999. Wiggles worth – watching
– making radiocarbon work. The case of Çatal Höyük.
In Betancourt, P.P. Karageorghis, V. Laffineur, R. and Niemeier,
W-D. 1999. Meletemata. Studies in Aegean archaeology presented
to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th year.
Aegaeum 20: 527-537.
Özbal, R. 2000. Microartifact Analysis – 1999. In Yener,
K.A. Edens, C. Casana, J. Diebald, B. Ekstrom, H. Loyet, M. and
Özbal, R. The Kurdu excavation 1999. Anatolica 26: 31-117
(pp. 49-55).
Pike, S. and Gitin, S. (eds.). 1999. The Practical Impact of
Science on Aegean and Near Eastern Archaeology. London, Archetype
Press.
Rainville, L. 2000. Microdebris analysis in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamian
households. Antiquity 74: 291-92.
Sherwood, S.C. and Osley, S.D. 1995. Quantifying Microartifacts
Using a Personal Computer. Geoarchaeology 10: 423-28.
Sherwood, S.C. Simek, J.F. and Polhemus, R.R. 1995. Artefact Size
and Spatial Process: Macro- and Microartifacts in a Mississippian
House. Geoarchaeology 10: 429-55.
Stein, J.K. and Teltset, P.A. 1989. Size Distributions of Artefact
Classes: Combining Macro and Micro-Fractions. Geoarchaeology
4: 1-30.
Wagner, G.E. 1982. Testing flotation recovery rates. American
Antiquity 47: 127-32.
Craig Cessford
Craig Cessford studied archaeology at Newcastle
University before becoming a full time field archaeologist. He became
involved with the Çatalhöyük Research Project in
1997 and has been employed by them full time since 1999 with responsibility
for post-excavation and publication work on the North Area of the
site which was excavated between 1995 and 1998, absolute dating
and analysis of heavy residue.
He can be contacted at:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge
and cc250@cam.ac.uk.
|