Ground-stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük

Ground-stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük

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