Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T06:00:21.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surfaces and streets: phytoliths, micromorphology and changing use of space at Neolithic Çatalhöyük (Turkey)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Lisa-Marie Shillito  and
Philippa Ryan
Lisa-Marie Shillito
Affiliation:
1School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK (Email: lmshillito@ed.ac.uk)
Philippa Ryan
Affiliation:
2Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, The British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG, UK (Email: pryan@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The site of Çatalhöyük occupies a key position within the development of larger settlements in south-west Asia, but the apparent absence of outdoor activity areas has challenged conceptions of social interaction within the site. Where did the inhabitants of this substantial settlement meet together if there were no public spaces? The identification of outdoor activity areas is difficult in such a densely patterned settlement, but micromorphology and phytolith analysis, when used together, can provide secure interpretations. The present study applies these methods to a stratigraphic sequence of deposits in the South Area, where a succession of open areas was located adjacent to a series of buildings. The analysis reveals that these open areas were gradually transformed from a place for the dumping or accumulation of midden material in the early phases, to an informal and then a formally laid surface in the later stages. This suggests that although streets or courtyards may have been rare or absent in the early centuries at Çatalhöyük, they were present in the later phases of the occupation.

Keywords

TurkeyÇatalhöyükNeolithicmicromorphologyphytolithssocial interaction
Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 337 , September 2013 , pp. 684 - 700
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akeret, O & Rentzel, P. 2001. Micromorphology and plant macrofossil analysis of cattle dung from the Neolithic lake shore settlement of Arbon Bleiche 3. Geoarchaeology 16: 687—700.Google Scholar
Albert, R.M., Shahack-Gross, R., Abanes, D., Gilboa, A., Lev-Yadun, S., Ortillo, M., Haron, I., Boaretto, E. & Weiner, S.. 2008. Phytolith-rich layers from the Late Bronze and Iron ages at Tel Dor (Israel): mode of formation and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 57–75.Google Scholar
Albert, R.M., Berna, F. & Goldberg, P.. 2012. Insights on Neanderthal fire use at Kebara Cave (Israel) through high resolution study of prehistoric combustion features: evidence from phytoliths and thin sections. Quaternary International 247: 278—293.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A. & Farid, S. 2008. Reassessment of the dating of the East Mound — a progress report. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008: 281—282.Google Scholar
Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Ivarda, A., Ergun, M., Filipovic, D. & Jones, G.. In press a. The archaeobotany of mid-later Neolithic Catalhoyuk, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000 — 2008 seasons (Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.Google Scholar
Bogaard, A., Ryan, P.Alman, N.Souti, E.Twiss, K.Azzucato, C. & Farid, S..In press b. Assessing outdoor activities and their social implications at Çatalhöyük, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000 — 2008 seasons (Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.Google Scholar
Çatalhöyük. n.d. Database searching. Available at: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/Search.asp (accessed 9 May 2013).Google Scholar
Cessford, C., Blumbach, M., Akoglu, G., Higham, T., Kunihom, P.Manning, S., Newton, M., Özbakan, M. & Özer, A.M. 2005. Absolute dating at Çatalhöyük, in Hodder, I.(ed.) Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995 — 1999 seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P. & Mcphail, R.. 1989. Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.Google Scholar
Düring, B.. 2005. Building continuity in the central Anatolian Neolithic: exploring the meaning of buildingsatAşikli Höyük and Çatalhöyük. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 3—29.Google Scholar
Düring, B.. & Marciniak, A. 2005. Households and communities in the central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 12(2): 165—187.Google Scholar
Eddisford, D. 2006. Building 49. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2006: 71—78.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, A. 2005. A history ofagricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37: 197—210.Google Scholar
Friesem, D., Boaretto, E., Liyahu-Behar, A., & Shahack-Gross, R.. 2011. Degradation of mud brick houses in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological model. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 1135—1147.Google Scholar
Gé, T., Courty, M.A., Matthews, W. & Wattez, J.. 1993. Sedimentary formation processes of occupation surfaces, in Goldberg, P., Nash, D.T. & Petraglia, M.D. (ed.) Formation processes in archaeological context. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, P., Miller, C.E., Schiegl, S., Ligouis, B., Berna, F., Conard, N. & Wadley, L.. 2009. Bedding, hearths, and site maintenance in the Middle Stone Age of Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 1: 95—122.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2006. The leopard's tale: revealing the mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London & New York: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2007. Çatalhöyük in the context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 105—120.Google Scholar
Jenkins, E.. 2009. Phytolith taphonomy: a comparison of dry ashing and acid extraction on the breakdown of conjoined phytoliths formed in Triticum durum. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2402—2407.Google Scholar
Karkanas, P., Efstratiou, N. 2009. Floor sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: micromorphology reveals cycles of renovation. Antiquity 83: 955—967.Google Scholar
Kenyon, K. 1981. Excavations at Jericho. Volume 3: the architecture and stratigraphy of the tell. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Makachia, P. 2011. Evolution of urban housing strategies and dweller-initiated transformations in Nairobi. City, Culture and Society 2:219—234.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 1995. Micromorphological characterisation and interpretation of occupation deposits and microstratigraphic sequences at Abu Salabikh, Iraq, in Barham, A.J. & MacPhail, R.I. (ed.) Archaeological sediments and soils: analysis, interpretation and management: 41—76. London: Archetype.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 1998. Micromorphological analysis of occupation sequences at the aceramic Neolithic settlement of Aşikli Höyük: an assessment, and comparison to depositional sequences at Çatalhöyük. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 1998: Appendix 2.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 2001. Micromorphological analysis of occupational sequences, in Matthews, R. & Postgate, N. (ed.) Contextual analysis of the use oof space at two Near Eastern Bronze Age sites [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor]. doi:10.5284/1000206Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 2003. Microstratigraphic sequences: indications of uses and concepts of space, in Matthews, R.J.(ed.) Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 4: exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre, 1994 — 96: 377—388. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 2005. Micromorphological and microstratigraphic traces of uses and concepts of space. Hodder, I. (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995 — 1999 seasons: 355—399. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 2010. Geoarchaeology and taphonomy of plantremains and micromorphological residues in early urban environments in the ancient near east. Quaternary International 214: 98—113.Google Scholar
Matthews, W., French, C.A.I., Lawrence, T., Cutler, D. & Jones, M.K.. 1997. Microstratigraphic traces of site formation processes and human activities. World Archaeology 29: 281—308.Google Scholar
Matthews, W., Shillito, L.M. & Almond, M.J.. 2004. Micromorphology: investigation of Neolithic social and ecological strategies at seasonal, annual and life-cycle timescales. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2004.Google Scholar
Matthews, W., Almond, M.J., Anderson, E., Wiles, J., Williams, H. & Rowe, J.. In press. Biographies of architectural materials and buildings: integrating high-resolution micro-analysis and geochemistry, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000 — 2008 seasons. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.Google Scholar
Mees, F. & Tursina, T.V 2010. Salts and salt crusts, in Stoops, G., Marcelino, V. & Mees, F. (ed.) Interpretation oof micromorphological features of soils and regoliths:441—469. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Milek, K. 2012. Floor formation processes and the interpretation of site activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of turf buildings at Thverá, northeast Iceland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 119—137.Google Scholar
Miller, C.E., Conard, N.J., Goldberg, P. & Berna, F.. 2010. Dumping, sweeping and trampling: experimental micromorphological analysis of anthropogenically modified combustion features, in Théry-Parisot, I., Chabal, L. & Costamagno, S. (ed.) The taphonomy of burned organic residues and combustion structures in archaeological contexts (proceedings of the round table, Valbonne, May 27 — 29 2008, CEPAM) (Palethnologie Review 2010/2): 25—37. Toulouse: Palethnologie.Google Scholar
Osterrieth, M., Madella, M., Zurro, D. & Fernanda Alvarez, M. 2009. Taphonomical aspects of silica phytoliths in the loess sediments of the Argentinean Pampas. Quaternary International 193: 70—79.Google Scholar
Özkan, S. 2006. Foreword — Courtyard: a typology that symbolises a culture, in Edwards, B., Silby, M., Hakmi, M. & Land, P. (ed.) Courtyard housing:past, present and future. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Regan, R., Sadarangani, F. & Taylor, J. 2008. Building 75 and assoc. spaces and middens. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008: 62—72.Google Scholar
Rosen, A.M. 2005. Phytolith indicators of plant and land use at Çatalhöyük, in Hodder, I.. (ed) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995 — 1999 seasons: 110—119. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Russell, N., Twiss, K. 2008. Çatalhöyük animal bones. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008: 110—119.Google Scholar
Russell, N., Twiss, K.C., Orton, D. & Demirergi, G.A. In press. More on the Catalhoyuk mammal remains, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Humans and landscapes of Catalhoyuk: reports from the 2000 — 2008 seasons (Monographs of the Cotsen institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.Google Scholar
Ryan, P. 2011. Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: perspectives from the silica skeleton artifactual remains at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: 292—305.Google Scholar
Ryan, P. In press. Plant exploitation from household and landscape perspectives: the phytolith evidence, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000 — 2008 seasons.(Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.Google Scholar
Shahack-Gross, R. 2011. Herbivorous livestock dung: formation, taphonomy, methods for identification, and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 205—218.Google Scholar
Shahack-Gross, R., Marshall, F. & Weiner, S. 2003. Geo-ethnoarchaeology of pastoral sites: the identification of livestock enclosures in abandoned Maasai settlements. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 439—459.Google Scholar
Shahack-Gross, R., Albert, R.M., Gilboa, A., Nagar-Hilman, O., Sharon, I. & Weiner, S. 2005. Geoarchaeology in an urban context: the uses of space in a Phoenician monumental building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1417—1431.Google Scholar
Shillito, L.M., Matthews, W., Bull, I.D. & Almond, M.J. 2011. The microstratigraphy of middens: capturing daily routine in rubbish at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Antiquity 85: 1024—1038.Google Scholar
Simpson, I.A. & Barrett, J.H. 1996. Interpretation of midden formation processes at Robert's Haven, Caithness, Scotland, using thin section micromorphology. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 543—556.Google Scholar
Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for analysis and descriptions of soil and regolith thin sections. Madison (WI): Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 2012. Sensing the place of Çatalhöyük: the rhythms of daily life, in Tringham, R. & Stevanović, M. (ed.) House lives: building, inhabiting excavating a house at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Reports from the BACH Area, Catalhoyuk, 1997 — 2003. Los angeles (CA): Cotsen institute.Google Scholar
Yalman, Y., Gültekin, H. & Tarkan, D. 2008. Pottery archive report. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008: 167–193.Google Scholar