Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Perspectives from the silica skeleton...

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 292–305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jaa

Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Perspectivesfrom the silica skeleton artifactual remains at Çatalhöyük

Philippa Ryan *

Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, The British Museum, Great Russell Street, WC1B 3DG, United KingdomInstitute of Archaeology, UCL, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 29 October 2010Revision received 1 June 2011Available online 25 June 2011

Keywords:PhytolithNeolithicAnatoliaBasketMudbrickMaterial cultureÇatalhöyükStorageArchaeobotanyNear East

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jaa.2011.06.002

⇑ Address: Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 31-34 Go0PY, United Kingdom.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Investigating plants used for building and craft activities is important for understanding how environ-ments surrounding archaeological settlements were exploited, as well as for considering the social prac-tices involved in the creation and use of plant objects. Evidence for such plant uses has been observed atmany Near Eastern Neolithic sites but not widely discussed. Survival may occur in a number of ways,including as impressions in clay, and as charred or desiccated macroremains. Another, less well-known,way in which plant artifacts can be found is as silica skeletons (phytoliths). Formed by the in situ decay ofplants, their analysis may tell us about taxa exploited, and locations in which plant artifacts were used ordiscarded. At Çatalhöyük, an abundance of silicified traces of plants used in building materials and forcraft activities survive, and are found in domestic and burial contexts. Their analysis demonstrates theroutine use of wild plants, especially from wetland areas, for basketry (mats, baskets and cordage) andconstruction, as well as the secondary use of cereal husk chaff in certain types of building materials.The numerous finds suggest that plant-based containers played an important role as an artifactual class,even after the adoption of early pottery.

� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

From a material culture point of view, little is known about theuse of plants as artifacts. In contrast to our understanding of theiruse as foods, far less is known about the plants exploited for con-struction and craft activities in prehistory. Studying the non-foodplant uses can inform us about the role of objects made from suchmaterials, as well as some of the social processes involved in theirproduction. Identifying the taxa used can illuminate the relation-ship between the inhabitants of archaeological settlements andtheir surrounding environments. For instance, much research hasfocused upon identifying cultivation during the Near Eastern Neo-lithic, and less is known about the uses of wild plants and the hab-itats in which they are found.

Evidence of plants present in building materials and examplesof basketry are noted at many Near Eastern Neolithic sites but havenot been widely discussed. It is nonetheless possible that thesenon-food uses may have been major categories of plant exploita-tion. Indeed, despite a general under representation in the archae-ological record, basketry was possibly the main type of container

ll rights reserved.

rdon Square, London WC1H

prior to pottery (Banning, 1998). The continued importance ofthese skills into the later Neolithic is suggested by Mellaart(1967) who, based upon the numerous finds at Çatalhöyük in the1960s, argues that weaving and woodwork may have been morehighly esteemed than the early pottery.

A lack of information about plant-based material culture incomparison to other artifactual categories is not surprising sinceorganic artifacts survive less well in the archaeological record incontrast to items made from more durable substances, such asstone and clay. Despite this problem, evidence for plant artifactsmay be preserved in a number of ways, such as impressions in clay,in anaerobic conditions (in very dry caves and in submerged/waterlogged sites), or through charring. Another less well knownand rarer way in which traces of plant artifacts can survive is asmacroscopically visible silica skeletons (phytoliths). Phytolithsare silt sized silica bodies that form in or between epidermal plantcells. Depending upon environmental conditions, such as aridityand poorly draining soils, entire areas of epidermal tissue canbecome silicified creating ‘silica skeletons’ (Rosen, 1992). A usefuldistinction can be made between phytoliths which can only beseen with a microscope and the large numbers of conjoined phyto-liths which can be seen macroscopically. Formed through thein situ decay of certain plants, these whitish remains are silicaskeletons of entire plant parts, and can provide direct evidencefor specific types and locations of plant use.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2011.06.002

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2011.06.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

P. Ryan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 292–305 293

Whilst evidence for plants as material culture is often fragmen-tary and infrequent, numerous silicified and occasional charredexamples are preserved at Çatalhöyük, a Neolithic ‘mega-site’ inCentral Anatolia, and are located in a wide range of archaeologicalcontexts. Matting, basketry and cordage are often recognisable bydistinctive patterning, and sometimes silicified plant materialsare preserved in their three dimensional form within burnt mudb-ricks (see Figs. 1–4). This paper will present new data from thevisible silicified remains at Çatalhöyük, and will discuss theirformation, preservation, appropriate sampling methods as well asthe interpretative scope of data obtained. The examination of

Fig. 1. Cordage on tibia of skeleton SK12875, Building 56. Photograph by JasonQuinlan.

Fig. 2. Matting from platform surface, unit 10,319 Building 51. Photograph by JasonQuinlan.

Fig. 3. Coiled basket from unit 13,360, Building 65. Photograph by Jason Quinlan.

Fig. 4. Section of a burnt mudbrick from unit 14,825 showing silicified chaffremains. Photograph by Jason Quinlan.

silicified plant artifacts was part of a broader study carried out atÇatalhöyük (East) in which phytoliths were also extracted fromsediments to investigate diversity of plant and land use strategies(Ryan, 2010). Results from quantifiably analysed phytoliths ex-tracted from sediment samples are also discussed in relation tothe possible presence of phytoliths deriving from disintegratedplant artifacts. Together these analyses present an opportunity toexplore the types of taxa exploited, taphonomic pathways of plantsinto archaeobotanical assemblages, as well as the social and arti-factual use of plants in the context of an early agricultural village.

Background: the use of plants during the Near Eastern Neolithicfor basketry and construction

Basketry, wooden objects and textiles

In this article the term basketry includes baskets, mats andcordage. Additionally, basketry is taken to refer to items made withplant parts such as branches, leaves or stems, whilst textiles to ob-jects made with thread created from plant or animal fibres. For fur-ther discussion of basketry definitions see Wendrich (1999, 2000).

The 23,000 years old charred twisted fibres from Upper Palaeo-lithic Ohalo II, and the later Proto-Neolithic basketry from ShanidarCave demonstrate the antiquity of such technologies in the NearEast (Nadel, 2002; Nadel et al., 1994; Solecki, 1963). A long historyis also suggested by the well-developed range of forms and tech-niques existing during the Near Eastern Neolithic (Adovasio,1975). There is also early evidence for basketry and textiles fromUpper Palaeolithic Europe (Adovasio et al., 1996; Soffer et al.,2000).

Perhaps the best known plant artifacts in the Near East are theabundant examples from Nahal Hemar, a Pre Pottery Neolithic B(PPNB) cave site near the Dead Sea. This site provides the mostobvious comparison to Çatalhöyük in terms of the numerous finds,but the types of remains and the information they can provide arefundamentally different. Nahal Hemar has been interpreted as un-fit for habitation and a possible store for cultic items (Bar-Yosef,1985; Schick, 1988). In contrast, the examples from Çatalhöyükprovide information about the use of basketry in the setting ofan agricultural village.

The objects from Nahal Hemar are important because theirpreservation through desiccation has preserved the actual originalappearance of objects. The intact nature of these finds provides de-tailed evidence about the range of plants and methods used, forexample some matting was made with split reeds, cordage wasmade to variable thickness, some baskets were lined on the outsideor inside with bitumen, and several baskets were decorated with

294 P. Ryan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 292–305

stones, beads or shells. The main methods used included twining,coiling, and plaiting. Although these techniques were widespread,Bar-Yosef (1985) points out that most basketry found at NahalHemar is twined, whilst in contrast coiled examples are morecommonly found at other sites. Items were mainly made fromgrasses (Gramineae) or sedges (Cyperaceae), and there were alsotextiles made from flax, as well as a possible wooden box(Bar-Yosef, 1985; Schick, 1988).

The other examples from Near Eastern Neolithic sites generallyprovide far fewer remains but do indicate that the use of plants forsuch purposes was widespread (Fig. 5). During the Pre Pottery Neo-lithic, examples of matting include clay impressions from Çayönüin south-east Anatolia, visible phytoliths on floors at Boncuklu inCentral Anatolia, and the more unusual spiral matting impressionsfound on floors and courtyard surfaces at Jericho in the SouthernLevant (Baird, 2006; Kenyon, 1955; Özdogan, 1999). Some basketryimpressions in bitumen, plaster or clay have been interpreted asevidence for the lining of basketry, possibly for waterproofing,including at Ali Kosh on the Deh Luran Plain in Iran (Hole et al.,1969, 30), in the Southern Levant at Beidha, Jarmo, Gilgal(Adovasio, 1975; Helbaek, 1966; Noy, 1989), in the NorthernLevant at Tell Sabi Abyad II (Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003, 81),and at Domuztepe in southern Anatolia (Kansa et al., 2009). Theuse of bitumen for lining baskets in the Levant has been associatedwith its abundant availability from the Dead Sea (Nissenbaum,1993). More occasionally there is evidence for basket contents,for instance Prosopis seeds at Ali Kosh, and pistachios at Beidha(Helbaek, 1966; Hole et al., 1969, 46), whilst a basket containingflint artifacts was found at Gilgal (Noy and Kozłowski, 1996). Evi-dence for matting or baskets has been found in burial contexts,for example at Ali Kosh, Çayönü, Domuztepe, and at Abu Hureyra2 and Tell Halula in the northern Levant (Estebaranz et al., 2007;Hole et al., 1969, 349; Kansa et al., 2009; Moore and Molleson,2000; Özdogan, 1999). In addition to the presence of basketryimpressions at Abu Hureyra, tooth wear patterns have been associ-ated with weaving (Molleson, 2007). There are fewer examples ofwooden artifacts than basketry, and well known finds includethose from Ohalo II (Nadel et al., 2006), Nahal Hemar (Bar-Yosef,

Fig. 5. Map showing locations of sites discussed in the text. 1. Ilipinar, 2. Catalhoyuk, 3. B9. Jerf el Ahmar, 10. Mureybet, 11. Abu Hureyra, 12. Shillourokambos, 13. Kefar-Samir, 14Jarmo, 21. Ali Kosh.

1985, 9; Schick, 1988), Beidha (Kirkbride, 1968), and the Late Neo-lithic submerged site of Kefar-Samir (Galili and Schick, 1990). Sim-ilarly, there are limited numbers of Near Eastern Neolithic siteswith surviving evidence for textiles, and the best known examplesare those studied from Çatalhöyük, Çayönü, Jarmo and NahalHemar (Adovasio, 1975; Bar-Yosef, 1985; Burnham, 1965; Schick,1988; Vogelsang-Eastwood, 1993). From the Late Neolithic thereare examples of basketry impressions on pottery bases, andhundreds of impressions on clay sealings at Tell Sabi Abyad I(Banning, 1998; Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003, 131). At Domuz-tepe, there are also examples of pottery sherds with patterningimitating basketry, and Kansa et al. (2009) suggest that, althoughfinds were rare, it is likely that the use of basketry was extensiveduring the Late Neolithic, and that potentially wetland areas near-by the site may have provided suitable raw materials.

In general, there are few indications from the examples dis-cussed here about the types of plants used for basketry. Withdue caution, ethnographic work can help to clarify the possiblepast uses of plants. Studies in modern Turkish communities showplants that can be used in basketry include reeds and rushes, andalso branches from trees such as willow and hazelnut (Ertug,2006). In these communities there are four main weaving tech-niques, and tough stems, such as those belonging to Phragmites,can be split and flattened to make mats or screens. Additionally,the uses of these items can be studied, and notably, until the1970s baskets were still used for carrying agriculture produce(Ertug, 2006).

Construction materials

Plants may have been used for construction in various waysincluding as temper in mudbricks and pisé, for making internalscreens within buildings or as part of temporary structures. Thereare only a few detailed studies of these sorts of botanical remains,and in particular, silicified remains in building materials like thosefound at Çatalhöyük, are infrequently distinguished from clayimpressions. Brush huts were found at Upper Palaeolithic OhaloII and are the earliest evidence for plants used in construction in

oncuklu, 4. Yumuktepe, 5. Domuztepe, 6. Çayönü, 7. Tell Sabi Abyad II, 8. Tell Halula,. Ohalo II, 15. Gilgal, 16. Jericho, 17. Nahal Hemar, 18. Beidha, 19. Shanidar Cave, 20.


the Near East (Nadel and Werker, 1999). Silicified grass husks usedas temper in building materials at PPNA Jerf el Ahmar and Murey-bet in northern Syria were identified as wild grasses, includingfrom wild cereals which were possibly cultivated or managed(Willcox and Fornite, 1999; Willcox et al., 2008). Impressions ofreeds, straw and unidentifiable cereal chaff in mudbricks survive,for example at Abu Hureyra 2 (De Moulins, 2000), and plants usedin a ‘wattle and daub’ technique have been noted at numerous sitesin Anatolia, including at Çayönü, Yumuktepe and Ilipinar (Ertug,2006). Temper at Domuztepe was found to be from emmer wheatchaff (Triticum dioccocum) (Campbell et al., 1999). Emmer and ein-korn (Triticum monococcum), and occasionally barley (Hordeum sp.)chaff were identified in the mudbricks from Jericho (Hopf, 1983). InCyprus, wild barley husks were used in pisé during early levels atShillourokambos, whilst later on chaff came from emmer wheatas well as possibly einkorn and domesticated barley (Willcox,2000).

The potential economic importance of chaff and straw for con-struction materials at archaeological sites in North Africa andnorthwest Europe is discussed by Van der Veen (1999), and hercomments may equally apply to Near Eastern Neolithic settle-ments. It may be useful to distinguish which types of chaff/plantparts are represented, both to infer ‘meaning’ of temper use andas evidence of plant husbandry, for example, straw is preservedpoorly by charring but may be preserved as impressions/silica skel-etons in mudbrick.

The role of plants in roofing is more problematic to determinesince roofing material itself is frequently difficult to identifyarchaeologically. It is possible reeds, such as Phragmites australis(common reed), were used in roofing at Abu Hureyra (Moore etal., 2000, 502). Clay impressions from roofing material at Domuz-tepe suggest the use of branches and rushes, and some clayimpressions of reedy grasses and wooden beams have been inter-preted as possible roofing material at Çatalhöyük (Stevanovic,2008; Kansa et al., 2009). Today Phragmites, Typha (cattail), andJuncus (rushes) are all seen in roofing in the Konya region of CentralAnatolia (Erkal, 1999).

Çatalhöyük: introduction to the site

Based in the Konya Basin of Central Anatolia (Fig. 5), Çatalhöyükconsists of a larger Neolithic East mound and a smaller ChalcolithicWest mound which were situated on either side of the, now under-ground, Çarsamba River. Çatalhöyük was first excavated during the1960s, and excavations were renewed at the site from 1993(Hodder, 1996; Mellaart, 1967). The Neolithic East Mound wasoccupied between 7400 and 7100 cal BC to 6200 and 5900 cal BCfor between 900 and 1300 years (Cessford, 2005), and using datesfrom Goring-Morris et al. (2009) was roughly contemporary withthe Levantine Late Pre Pottery Neolithic B (7500–6750 cal BC)through to the early part of the Late Neolithic I (6400–5600 calBC). The East Mound is well known for its large size (approximately13 ha), long occupation and densely packed houses which weretypically accessed via the roof (Cutting, 2005; Hodder, 2006).Although regional traits have been identified (During, 2006), thesite can also be compared with some of the Levantine ‘mega-sites’(Bogaard et al., 2009; Simmons, 2007) and many symbolic prac-tices identified at Çatalhöyük are found all across the Near Eastthroughout the Neolithic (Hodder, 2007).

The Central Anatolian climate is semi-arid, although it seemsthere was higher precipitation during the time of site occupation(Kuzucuoglu, 2002; Roberts et al., 2001; Rossignol-Strick, 1999).The Kopal geoarchaeological investigations to the north of the siteduring the 1990s indicated marshy conditions at the time of siteoccupation (Roberts et al., 2007). Sediments analysed from cores

taken in different locations around the site since 2007 have sug-gested a mosaic of dry and wet microenvironments, which mayhave included interconnected seasonally joined ponds (Dohertyet al., 2007, 2008). These varied micro-habitats are reflected inthe wide range of plant taxa in the macrobotanical record(Fairbairn et al., 2005).

The use of plants in construction materials and for basketry atÇatalhöyük: finds and previous work

Basketry, wooden objects and textiles

During excavation, silicified traces of baskets, matting and cord-age are most frequently found on occupation surfaces in buildingsand within burials. Burials are commonly located in platformswithin buildings, and include examples of matting, coiled neonateor infant baskets, and cordage binding flexed skeletons. Cordage isoccasionally found on other artifacts, such as animal bones. Moresporadic charred examples of basketry are also found. Exceptionalexamples of wooden vessels and textiles were found during Mella-art’s excavations (Mellaart, 1967, 215; Burnham, 1965), but sincethen only tiny fragments of textiles have been found (Farid,2008). Silica skeleton traces of basketry have been found by exca-vators in buildings from all site levels and excavation phases, butsome buildings have greater amounts of finds than others whilstmany have none. There also seems to be a greater number of findsin some of the earlier site levels, and from the 1990s excavations incomparison to the 2000s.

Previous work has included ethnoarchaeological analyses of thevisible patterning of basketry (Wendrich, 2005). Two main types oftechniques were identified: plaiting (tabby and twill) mainly usedfor matting and coiling for baskets. For these methods, only simpletools, such as bone awls, would have been required. Wendrich(2005) has described the ways in which remains may survive asnegative impressions or as ‘split baskets’, and that when only bas-ket bases are found, it is possible that some coiled remains mayrepresent coasters, but also that top layers may have been lost dur-ing excavation. Differences in weave may have produced a varietyof matting types or containers. Bundle widths from coiled exam-ples suggested mainly fine weaving, and may have included water-tight and flexible storage baskets (Wendrich, 2005).

The phytoliths from some of the basketry excavated during the1990s have already been analysed by Rosen (2005). Phytolithspresent in matting were commonly from Cyperaceae (sedges),and those from baskets were from a wider range of plants, includ-ing from a wild panicoid grass that was frequently found in associ-ation with neonate burial baskets. This previous work has pointedto potential important conclusions, and now these remains can beconsidered more comprehensively in light of the vast amount ofdata produced by new excavations. In particular, a shift in excava-tion strategy has moved from a targeted strategy in the 1990swhere a small number of houses were examined in detail, to exca-vations with a broader spatial and temporal scope (Farid, 2004).

Construction materials

There is far less information at present about the plants used inconstruction materials. It is possible that the site may not onlyhave been made of clay, but also of plant materials (Atalay andHastorf, 2006). However, there has been little discussion relatingto the less visible materials used in construction (Stevanovic,2008) and not much is known about what plants were present inthe building materials from the charred macrobotanical assem-blages (Fairbairn et al., 2005). Variations in the shape and sedi-ments of brick and pisé are investigated by Stevanovic (2008)


who has recorded evidence for impressions of wooden planks andother plants in these materials. The wood taxa used for supportposts have been reported by Asouti (2005).

So far, little is known about how phytoliths may offer usefuldata on construction practices at the site. There are, however,macro silica skeletons and impressions of plants present withinbuilding materials. In some instances the three dimensional shapeof whole plant parts is preserved in mudbricks potentially allowingboth macrobotanical and phytolith identification. These types offinds are commonly present in mudbricks from houses that wereburnt in antiquity, but do not survive so well from other buildings.Whilst plant impressions in clay were occasionally seen in otherconstruction materials, such as the plaster used for making housefeatures including oven bases and platforms, macro silicified rem-nants were rarely present.

Preliminary analyses of some of the phytolith samples studiedduring the 2006–2009 field seasons from basketry remains and

Fig. 6. Photographs of phytoliths from modern plant reference material, scale bars 100 l(sedge) stem, c Row of cone shaped phytoliths from Cyperus sp. (sedge) leaf, d SpodograPhragmites sp. (common reed) leaf, f Silica skeleton from Phragmites sp. (common reed)

construction materials have been presented in the annual Çatal-höyük archive reports (Bogaard and Charles, 2007, 2008; Ryanand Rosen, 2006; Ryan, 2007, 2008, 2009; Stevanovic, 2008).

Methods

Silica skeleton analysis

Phytoliths are formed from the soluble silica Si (OH)4 taken upby plants in groundwater and silica is deposited in certain intracel-lular and extra-cellular locations (Piperno, 2006). Depending uponenvironmental conditions, such as aridity and water availability,whole areas of epidermal tissue may become silicified, and thesesheets of adjoining phytoliths are referred to as ‘silica skeletons’(Renfrew, 1973; Rosen, 1992). Phytoliths are released into soilswhen plants decay or are burnt, and the visible macro silica

m. a Silica skeleton from Triticum sp. (wheat) husk, b Silica skeleton from Carex sp.m of Scirpus sp. (sedge) leaf showing asymmetrical long cells, e Silica skeleton fromstem.


skeletons seen at Çatalhöyük can be regarded as the in situ loca-tions of where plants have decayed. Macro silica skeletons are ex-tremely fragile and can easily disarticulate into microscopic silicaskeletons and individual phytoliths. Once visible silica skeletonsdisarticulate they become mixed with the surrounding sediments,and the individual phytolith signal will be lost because the sedi-ments will contain phytoliths from multiple sources.

Large amounts of phytoliths are formed in grasses and sedges(Fig. 6a–f), and to a lesser extent some trees and shrubs. Differenttypes of phytoliths allow varying degrees of taxonomic identifica-tion, and additionally can frequently distinguish between plantparts. Large silica skeletons enhance the ability to identify differentgenera, particularly within certain grasses, and multicell analysisof Old World cereals and grasses was pioneered by Rosen (1992).

Sampling strategy and protocols

Sampling was based upon the identification of visible silicifiedremains in the field during regular visits of the excavations andby the excavators. This reflects an attempt to recover as compre-hensive and systematic an assemblage of surviving silica imprintsof plants used in construction materials and basketry as possible.The majority of samples examined in this paper were taken duringthe 2006–2009 field seasons. Many silicified remnants of basketryexcavated in earlier seasons, from the 1990s and 2000s, are kept inthe on-site storage facilities and some of these were also sampled.The items in storage represent better preserved examples success-fully removed from the site by excavators for conservation. Sam-ples were taken from 42 examples of basketry. Samples analysedfrom building materials were taken from the visible silica skeletonspresent in burnt mudbricks, and more occasionally from other con-texts where large amounts of plant materials seem to have beendeposited. 30 samples were analysed from 16 burnt mudbricks.These bricks were chosen for analysis from archive deposits in col-laboration with Mira Stevanovic, and were selected mainly fromburnt buildings including Buildings 52 and 77 4040 Area, andBuilding 63 Istanbul Area.

Sampling protocols for visible silicified remains aimed toachieve removal of phytoliths from any grains of sediment to avoidcontamination. Samples were taken using a scalpel and either takendirectly in the field, or where possible, a small lump of sedimentwith adhering phytoliths was removed for sampling in the labora-tory. In some instances samples were taken directly from varioustypes of artifacts, human and faunal remains. If samples cannotbe analysed immediately, it is important to try and put the phyto-liths into a sample tube, or sediments into a small box instead ofa plastic bag. Two to three samples were analysed from each plantartifact in order to assess whether more than one type of plant wasused. Analysing a few samples is important since the basketry ‘bun-dle’ is more visible than the ‘winder’ (Wendrich, 2005, 333). Whenpossible, entire plant parts were removed from the bricks.

Sediment samples discussed in this paper were taken as ‘spotsamples’ from across occupation surfaces and features in buildings,in particular from storage bins. These ‘spot samples’ are essentiallymicro units taken from broader excavation units, and typically3–5 g of sediments were scraped from surfaces.

Laboratory and analytical methods

Sample weights of approximately 0.5–1 mg phytolith were ana-lysed from plant artifacts. Carbonates were removed with 10% HCl,the phytolith sample dried and then mounted onto a slide withentallin. These slides will generally contain the phytoliths from asingle plant, and the phytoliths present can be analysed with alight transmitting microscope at X400 and directly compared withreference material. The processing of sediment samples to extract

phytoliths followed procedures outlined by Rosen (2005). Approx-imately 300–400 phytoliths were counted per slide, and the abso-lute counts per gram sediment of different types of phytoliths andtheir relative abundances (percentages) calculated.

Results

The baskets, matting and cordage

The results indicated that many of the plant objects were madefrom the leaves and stems of wild plants, including from wetlandareas (Tables 1 and 2). It seems that some associations betweenplant materials and categories of basketry can be made (Fig. 7).Matting was most commonly made from Cyperaceae (sedges),but three examples were made from Phragmites (common reed)(Fig. 8a). These sedges and reeds would have grown in wettermicroenvironments. Most cordage was made from stem materialidentifiable as probable sedge (cf. Cyperaceae). The presence ofpredominantly rod-shaped phytoliths in samples from cordagemay suggest the specific use of the inner part of Cyperaceae (sedge)stems (Fig. 8b), and this inference is supported by phytolith analy-ses from modern plant reference material. Other cordage exampleswere made from wild grass stems. Phytoliths indicated that manycoiled baskets were made from a bilobe-producing panicoid grass(Fig. 8c), and phytoliths from this plant type were not present inany matting or cordage samples. Panicoid genera have varyingenvironmental affiliations, and the taxa used may have been awet or dry land species. However, generally this grass sub-familyprefers warm moist conditions (Twiss, 1992), has a low speciesdiversity in the Near East, and it is possible that the panicoid taxaused for the basketry grew in wetter areas around Çatalhöyük(Dorian Fuller pers comm., 2009). Baskets were also made fromother wild grasses, which may have derived from varying dry orwetter habitats, and sedge; no examples found were made fromPhragmites reeds.

Whilst previously baskets made of the bilobe-producing grasshad been found in particular association with burial contexts (Ro-sen, 2005), several of the baskets found in domestic contexts fromrecent excavations were also found to be made from this grass. Oneburial basket, in unit 16,556, was made from Cyperaceae (sedge),indicating that burial baskets could be made from various plantmaterials in addition to the bilobe-producing grass. The presenceof baskets made from the same materials in both domestic andburial contexts suggests the possible reuse of domestic basketsas opposed to the special use of specific plants.

Some baskets sampled were interpreted by excavators as asso-ciated with clusters of other objects. For instance, the coiled basketin unit 13,360 and possible basketry remains in unit 13,370 werepart of two clusters including horn cores, stone and bone toolsfound in a small room Space 299 located behind the oven in Build-ing 65 (Regan, 2006). Another example was the coiled basket inunit 13,931 from Building 63, which was found beneath the floor,resting upon an antler and containing several small grindstones.These examples were all made with the same wild panicoid grass.

There were also several deposits of compressed silicified re-mains of cereal husks and cordage in association with wild animalbones. Antler 14,460 � 2 provided the best example, with densepatches of compressed silicified Triticum sp. (wheat) and Hordeumsp. (barley) husks and cordage surrounding the whole object in acriss-cross pattern (Fig. 8d). Cordage and wheat husk silica skele-ton remains were found on a horn core in unit 11,898, and phyto-lith remains were also identified on a horn core from unit 13,153but could not be adequately sampled. These examples suggestthe use of cordage to tie ears of cereals onto the animal bones,and possibly in connection with ritual deposits.

Table 1Phytolith results from the basketry (baskets, matting and cordage).

Unit Location Archaeological context Description Phytoliths

1 15,924 Sp1006 4040 Area Burial Phytoliths around shell Panicoid grass leaf/stem2 4862 B23 Sp178 F554 South Area Infant burial Coiled basket (with lid) Unidentified Monocot leaf/stem3 14,460 B49 Sp334 F4006 4040 Area Platform fill Cordage on antler Multicell with rods cf. Cyperaceae

stem4 Dense areas of phytoliths between

cordageTriticum sp.(wheat) and Hordeum sp.(barley) husks

5 16,686 B49 F4007 Sp100 4040 Area Platform surface Possible matting or spread of plantmaterial

Cyperaceae (sedge) leaf/stem

6 16,637 B49 Sp100 F4013 4040 Area Child burial Phytoliths present around skeletonSK16638

Panicoid grass leaf/stem

7 14,429 B49 Sp100 F4000 4040 Area Burial Matting or plants laid on skeletonsSK14440, SK14441

Cyperaceae leaf/stem

8 17,415 B49 Sp100 F4022 4040 Area Child burial Visible cordage on SK16698 Cyperaceae stem9 17,456 B49 Sp100 F4023 4040 Area Burial Matting above SK15457 Cyperaceae leaf/stem

10 17,456 B49 Sp100 F4023 4040 Area Burial Matting below SK15457 Cyperaceae leaf/stem11 17,485 B49 Sp100 F4024 4040 Area Burial Ochre on mat or basket (description

unclear)Cyperaceae leaf/stem

12 17,912 B49 Sp334 4040 Area Plaster basin Coiled mat or basket base Wild grass leaf/stem13 10,319 B51 Sp98 4040 Area Platform Matting Indeterminate14 12,875 B56 Sp121 F2082 South Area Burial Possible matting or plants placed

above skeletonPhragmites sp. (common reed) leaf/stem

15 12,875 B56 Sp121 F2082 South Area Burial Cordage on skeleton Multicell with rods cf. Cyperaceaestem

16 12,806 B56 Sp122 South Area Platform surface Coiled basket, association withcluster of objects

Indeterminate

17 13,470 B60 Sp278 4040 Area Burial Coiled basket, unclear which skeletonassociated with

Indeterminate

18 13,100 B60 Sp278 4040 Area Infant burial Phytoliths on skull, artifactualremains?

Indeterminate

19 13,931 B63 Sp283 Istanbul Area Beneath floor Coiled basket placed on antler andcontaining cluster of smallgrindstones

Panicoid grass leaf/stem

20 12,438 B63 Sp284 Istanbul Area Floor Coiled basket on floor by hearth inassociation with clay balls

Cyperaceae leaf/stem and cerealhusks

21 13,158 B64 Sp286 4040 Area Floor Coiled basket Panicoid leaf/stem22 13,153 B64 Sp287 4040 Area Horn core Possible matting beneath horn core Phragmites leaf23 15,746 B65 South Area Child burial Cordage on skeleton SK15748 Unidentified wild grass stems24 13,386 B65 Sp298 F2502 South Area Bin floor Clay impressions: possible matting or

‘soft pouch’cf. monocot leaf

25 13,360 B65 Sp299 South Area Space behind oven Coiled basket retaining 3D shape Panicoid grass leaf/stem26 16,556 B75 Sp328 South Area Neonate burial Possible basket Cyperaceae leaf/stem27 17,063 B75 Sp328 South Area Burial Cordage on lower legs cf. Cyperaceae stem28 17,528 B77 Sp336 4040 Area Platform Coiled basket, carbonised Indeterminate29 17,506 B77 Sp336 4040 Area Floor Coiled mat/basket base, associated

with object clusterCyperaceae leaf/stem

30 15,466 Sp 1006 South Area Juvenile burial Possible basketry with SK15467 Panicoid grass leaf/stem31 17,532 Sp1003 4040 Area Burial fill Possible basket Cyperaceae leaf/stem32 12,471 Sp253 Istanbul Area Floor Cordage on ground stone Indeterminate33 3860 B5 Sp157 North Area Floor Matting Cyperaceae leaf/stem34 2047 Sp113 South Area Pit Basket or mat Wild panicoid grass leaf/stem35 8151 Sp86 Bach Area Burial Coiled basket with clear 3D shape,

found with blue pigmentWild panicoid grass leaf/stem

36 4807 B6 Sp173 F488 Floor by bin Coiled basket Cereal husk silica skeletons &monocot leaf/stem

37 16,590 Sp339 South Area Midden Matting Indeterminate38 6522 Trench1 West Mound Possible floor Matting Phragmites leaves39 15,107 Trench7 West Mound Plaster surface Matting Cyperaceae leaf/stem40 13,158 Sp286 4040 Area Floor Coiled basket Panicoid grass leaf/stem41 12,101 Sp1002 4040 Area Midden between walls Cordage within bone bead Wild grass cf. Alopecurus42 13,370 Sp299 4040 Area Space behind oven Distintegated basket? Wild panicoid grass leaf/stem43 11,898 F1980 Istanbul Area Horn-core Patches of phytoliths Triticum sp. husk & cf. Cyperaceae

stems

B = building, F = feature, Sp = space.More information about individual units can be found on www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal.


Evidence for the use of basketry was also found in storage con-texts. Clear impressions in clay were present in unit 13,386 frombin Feature 2502 in Building 65. Phytoliths present were asymmet-rical smooth long cells and long cells with projections. These arecommonly found in grass and sedge leaves, but are not taxonomi-cally distinctive and are referred to hereafter as phytoliths of prob-

able (cf.) monocot leaves. The same phytolith morphologies werepresent in sediments analysed from several other bins. Phytolithswere extracted from 18 sediment samples taken from across floorsand features in Building 65, including from unit 13,386, andamounts of phytoliths cf. monocot leaves were compared withnumbers of smooth long cells which have symmetrical sides.

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal

Table 2Summary of results from basketry samples showing numbers of items made fromdifferent taxa.

Coiledbasket/mat

Matting Cordage Possiblebasketry

Wild panicoid grass 7 3Sedge leaf/stem 4 6Sedge stem 4 1Monocot 5Indeterminate 1 3 3Wild grass 1 2Phragmites (reeds) 3


Smooth long cells are found in all grass plant parts including husks,and most numerously in stems. The results showed morphologiescf. monocot leaves were only present in higher relative proportionsthan the smooth long cells in samples from bins, and in one in-stance from the surface of a platform (Fig. 9). It seems likely thatthe same type of plant material was present in all the bins in Build-ing 65. Sediments from 24 bins from a range of buildings were alsoanalysed, and the higher relative abundance of phytoliths cf.monocot leaves occurred in around half the samples (Fig. 10) againsuggesting the presence of the same plant material.

An association was found between baskets in domestic contextsand cereals. Two coiled baskets, which were made from the leavesor stems of Cyperaceae and an unidentified monocot (units 12,438and 4807), also had phytoliths present from cereal husks. In quan-tified analysis of phytoliths extracted from sediments sampledfrom occupation surfaces and features in buildings, there was ahigh correlation coefficient (0.97) between bilobe phytoliths froma wild panicoid grass and Triticum sp. (wheat) husk silica skeletons.This relationship was previously observed by Rosen (2005) fromthe analysis of Buildings 1 and 5. Whilst potentially presentthrough more than one taphonomic pathway, bilobe phytolithswere generally present in low numbers in sediments. It seemslikely that the coiled basketry made from the panicoid grass wastheir main route into sediments. The association with wheatstrongly suggests many coiled baskets made from the panicoidgrass were in some way connected with cereal processing orconsumption.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Coiled basket/mat Matting

Wild panicoid grass Sedge Leaf/StemIndeterminate Wild grass

Fig. 7. Graph comparing the different taxa u

The construction materials

The results indicated the common use of wild wetland plantsand cereal chaff (from husks) for construction materials (seeTable 3). Temper present within burnt mudbricks either consistedmainly of thin monocot leaves and stems (from wild grasses andsedges), thin monocot leaves and stems and cereal chaff, or Phrag-mites (common reed) leaves and stems. Even in instances whereonly clay impressions were discernable, bricks tempered withreeds were clearly distinguishable by the thicker stem impressions.Other monocot stem impressions, where phytoliths were not visi-ble, were not so easily distinguishable. As well as showing varia-tion in the type of temper used, many burnt bricks did notcontain visible phytoliths or plant impressions. It is also importantto note that some plant materials may have been incorporatedthrough their unintentional capture in clay, but such instanceswould be likely to leave less clear three dimensional impressions.

The husk chaff present in the mudbricks was predominantlyidentified in the phytolith record as Triticum sp. (wheat), and threedimensional forms were identified to both free threshing andglume wheat (by Dr. Amy Bogaard and Dr. Mike Charles). Examplesof barley (Hordeum sp.) husks and rachis were also present. Cerealstraw was not present. Instead, leaves and stems from wild grasses,reeds, and sedges were used for tempering mudbricks. This is sur-prising given the quantities of cereal husks, and is further dis-cussed below.

Silicified plant materials from other construction contexts in-cluded visible layers of Phragmites reeds leaves and stems under-neath the first floor layers of Building 68 and Building 65 (units15,703 and 14,072). These may potentially suggest a constructionpurpose relating to the building foundations, or debris from reedsused in roofing (Regan, 2007). Silicified impressions found within awall of Building 65 (unit 15,732) had originally been interpreted byexcavators as timber due to the size and shape of the indentation,however the phytoliths present were actually from Cyperaceaeleaves and stems. Impressions of finely chopped monocot leaf orstem plant material could also be seen in some examples ofwall plaster provided by Prof. Liz Pye, and occasionally in theplaster make up material used in the construction of architecturalfeatures such as platforms. However, in these instances macro sil-ica-skeletons did not generally survive, but in one exception visible

Cordage Possible basketry

Sedge Stem MonocotPhragmites (reeds)

sed for matting, basketry and cordage.

Fig. 8. Photographs of phytoliths from archaeological samples, scale bars 100 lm. a Phragmites leaf phytolith from matting 13,153, b Rod phytoliths cf. Cyperaceae fromcordage samples, c Panicoid grass phytoliths from basket 13,158, d Wheat husk phytoliths from antler 14,460.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13388s3

13385s3

13386s3

13387s3

13384s3

13383s7

13383s8

13383s4

13383s8

13377s4

13378s3

13376s4

14556s3

13381s4

14557s5

13358s3

13373s3

14537s2

Unit no.

Smooth long cells Long cells cf. Monocot leaf

Bins Floor in front of Bins Floors/Platforms Oven/Hearth Contexts

PlasterControl

Fig. 9. Relative abundances (percentages) of long cell phytolith categories within sediments from Building 65.


flecks of phytoliths in wall plaster were from Cyperaceae leavesand stems.

Discussion

Processes that may affect the archaeological record: taphonomy

Prior to discussing the results, the taphonomy of the archaeo-logical finds needs to be considered. For instance, even thoughexamples of plant-based material culture were frequent, several

points suggest that amounts of plants brought onto the site forweaving or construction may be underestimated. Generally, onlyfragments of basketry were found, reflecting their fragility. Manyof the samples taken since 2006 have been from remains too deli-cate for removal to on-site archive storage. For instance, phytolithremnants found upon artifacts cannot be preserved. For thesetypes of ephemeral finds specific sampling techniques, describedpreviously, can enable future analysis should a phytolith specialistnot be present on-site.

A number of factors affect the likelihood of finding macroscopicphytolith remains. The fundamental requirement for visibility is

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13388s3

11866s3

11956s2

11900s6

17502s3

4796s4

14962s1

13385s3

13387s3

13355s4

13383s8

13383s4

Unit no.

Long cells cf. Monocot leaf Smooth long cells

Charred Contexts Non-charred Contexts

Floor in front of Bins

Plaster Control

Fig. 10. Relative abundances (percentages) of long cell phytolith categories within sediments from bins.

Table 3Phytolith results from the burnt mudbricks.

Brick No Unit Site location Plant part Macro IDa Phytolith ID

1 14,825 Sp132 South area Stem Wild grassHusk Tritium aestivum (bread wheat) Triticum sp. (wheat) husk

2 10,286 B52 Sp94 4040 Area Stem Cyperaceae (sedge) leaf/stemFragments Cyperaceae leaf/stemStem Cyperaceae leaf/stemHusk Triticum monococcum (einkorn) Retained by macro-team

3 11,864 IST Area Stem Phragmites (reed) stemFragments Phragmites leaf

4 10,286 B52 Sp94 4040 Area Spikelet Possibly Triticumsp. (wheat) Triticum sp. husk5 10,286 B52 Sp94 4040 Area Husk Indeterminate

Awn IndeterminateHusk Triticum sp. husk

6 10,286 B52 Sp93 4040 Area Fragments Triticum sp. husk7 1042 Sp160 South Area Rachis Possibly barley (Hordeum sp.) Retained by macro-team

Spikelet fork New type wheat spikelet fork Retained by macro-team8 16,425 B77 4040 Area Stem Cyperaceae leaf/stem9 16,402 B77 4040 Area Husk Indeterminate

Stem Unidentifed monocot10 16,469 B77 4040 Area Stem Phragmites stem

Husk Wheat husk11 16,408 B77 4040 Area Leaf/stem Indeterminate12 16,425 B77 4040 Area Leaf/stem Cyperaceae leaf/stem

Leaf/stem Wild grass cf. Phalaris13 10,286 B52 Sp94 4040 Area Leaf/stem Monocot

Husk Triticum sp. husk14 16,425 B77 4040 Area Husk Triticum sp. husk

Husk Triticum sp. husk15 10,286 B52 Sp94 4040 Area Stem Wild grass leaf/stem16 18,592 B79 South Area Leaf/stem Cyperaceae leaf/stem

Husk Barley husk

B = building, F = feature, Sp = space.a Macroremains analysed by Bogaard and Charles (2007, 2008).


the silicification of entire areas of epidermal plant tissue, and thiswill be affected by growing conditions, the age of the plant, andwill further vary between plant taxa. Plants growing in wetterareas are likely to leave a clearer record than plants growing indryland areas due to the possible enhanced production of visiblesheets of conjoined cells. It is also important to emphasise thatthere are plant genera used for weaving today, such as Juncusand Typha, that do not produce taxonomically identifiable phyto-liths. Furthermore, conjoined phytoliths are extremely fragile, willeasily disintegrate upon touch, and are therefore easily missed, ordestroyed during excavation.

The survival of the occasional charred examples is related to theartifacts coming into contact with fire. Not surprisingly possibleexamples are typically found in burnt buildings, however their sur-vival is arbitrarily determined by whether or not temperatureswere low enough to prevent destruction. The unique range of ob-jects, including items made from wood, found in the 1960s, werepossibly preserved by smoke halting organic decay (Mellaart,1967, 215; Burnham, 1965).

Although no longer macroscopically visible, it was possible toinfer the presence of silicified plant artifacts in some archaeologicalcontexts, in particular storage bins, through the analysis of


sediment samples. Obviously one problem is that the identificationof phytolith remains as plant artifacts relies on the presence of vis-ible patterning. However, comparing micro-distributions of differ-ent morphologies present in sediment samples taken fromoccupation surfaces may inform us about locations of plant usage,and particularly when associated contextually with specific typesof architectural features. In this study, the examination of theimpressions found in bin feature F2502 allowed a more secureinterpretation of the phytolith morphologies identified in otherbin sediments.

In the case of the mudbricks, survival of clear plant impressionsand silicified plant parts depends largely upon whether the brickswere burnt in antiquity (during building conflagrations) as thisseems to have created the necessary structural solidity. Poor pres-ervation of visible silicified remains in plaster where plant impres-sions were present may be in part because the high PH of the whitemarl plasters is unfavourable to phytolith preservation. At siteswhere visible phytolith remains or impressions do not survive, itshould be possible to investigate plant temper content by extract-ing phytoliths from sediments.

Plant artifacts and the environment

It is clear that diverse microenvironments around Çatalhöyük,and especially wetland areas, were routinely exploited for craftand construction purposes. Additionally crop processing by-prod-ucts, in particular cereal husk chaff, were commonly incorporatedinto building materials. It is also apparent that large quantities ofplant material were used for these purposes. These points suggestthe exploitation of certain plants, and the environmental habitatsin which they grew, can be underestimated or overlooked, unlesssuch contexts and materials are considered.

Given the presence of the cereal chaff, it was surprising that cer-eal straw was not found in any of the samples analysed frommudbricks. However, this is consistent with the generally lowamounts of phytoliths from cereal straw found in the phytolithcontent of sediments sampled from floors, ovens, hearths, middensand archaeological dung pellets (Ryan, 2010). If straw was beingused routinely for fuel or fed to animals it is likely that phytolithsfrom straw would be found more commonly within ashy fuel re-mains. Straw phytoliths would be most likely present in fuel re-mains if straw was used as tinder, fed to animals whose dungwas used for fuel, or if added as temper to dung cakes. The analysisof construction materials helps to clarify whether or not the lowamount of straw found in other archaeological contexts is explain-able by the past inclusion of straw within mudbricks.

Whilst cereal husk chaff seems to have been economicallyimportant, it is possible that straw was not being brought ontothe site in large amounts and potentially that cereals were har-vested high on the stem. One reason for straw not being routinelyused for craft activities, construction, fuel or fodder, may be thepast availability of leaves and stems from abundant wetland plantsin close proximity to the site. Additionally, these wild plants wouldhave been available for exploitation throughout the year, whilst incontrast, the timing of cereal straw harvesting is very specific.There also would have been a greater availability of cereal huskchaff than cereal straw throughout the year. Free-threshing cerealspikelet waste and straw would need to be collected at harvesttime, however, de-husking waste from glume cereals could havebeen collected throughout the year if stored as spikelets and pro-cessed on a piecemeal basis. This possibility is supported by the di-rect evidence in Building 77 for glume wheat spikelet storage(Bogaard and Charles, 2008).

It seems that cereal husk chaff and the leaves and stems fromwild plants, in particular from wetland areas, may have been con-sidered more highly ranked resources than cereal straw for non-

food purposes. Decision making may have included consideringthe distance of plant habitats from the site, timing of resourceavailability, the nature of task organisation and how procurementmay have fitted within the ‘seasonal round’. There does not seemto be a clear distinction made between the use of specifically wildor domestic plants, but rather choices made about the use of par-ticular plant parts or crop-processing by-products in relation tothe costs and benefits associated with their exploitation.

The daily and symbolic life of plants

Ingold emphasises the socially situated transformation in whichbaskets are created from raw materials during the activity of weav-ing, and that this process instills meaning into objects (Ingold,2000, 339–348). These comments may potentially be applied toother forms of plant based material culture. It is also possible thatsince the use of plants as resources includes the skills and schedul-ing involved in their sourcing, some connotation may still exist be-tween the original plant habitats and the final artifact. The slowprocess of weaving fits well within the theme of repetitive activi-ties, as well as social and material entanglements at Çatalhöyük(Hodder, 2006, 126). This idea of recurring processes has also beendiscussed in regards to the transformation of clay into buildingmaterials used for the ongoing rebuilding or remodelling of houses,and this concept may also be extended to include the incorporationof plant materials (Stevanovic, 2008).

The data have helped to provide further indications of thedomestic uses of basketry. The relationship found between thepanicoid grass and Triticum sp. (wheat) husk silica skeletons inthe present study, as well as in Rosen’s (2005), suggests a clearassociation between coiled basketry and cereals in domestic con-texts. Furthermore, coiled baskets made from other materials alsocontained phytolith evidence for cereal husks. Uses may have in-cluded transporting cereals between buildings as part of food shar-ing practices, the collection of day to day de-husking waste, orcooking. Clay balls may have been used for cooking food in baskets(Atalay, 2005; Wendrich, 2005). Although impressions on clay ballsare mainly from matting, these may have derived from the ballsbeing placed on mats whilst drying (Wendrich, 2005). Many build-ings, for example Building 49, have few storage bins as well assmall side rooms without clear architectural features, and it is pos-sible baskets may have been used as additional storage. Wendrich(2005) has suggested the average bundle width of coiled examplesmeans that any large coiled storage baskets were most likely flex-ible sacks.

Evidence for plant artifacts within storage bins may either re-flect their use as lining to protect bin contents, or as soft sacks tocreate separate storage compartments within individual bins. Theweave of the impressions in bin feature F2502 in Building 65 issuggestive of a soft sack or pouch (Ertug pers comm., 2006). Thispossibility is strengthened by the presence of distinct clusters ofdifferent plant foods found together within individual bins, andone way of subdividing the storage space may have been throughthe use of containers (Bogaard et al., 2009; Twiss et al., 2009).

Matting may have been used for warmth, cleanness, comfort, aswell as separation of spatial functions within buildings. Examplesof matting found during recent excavations were sporadic, andsome possible spreads of phytoliths across platform areas couldnot be confirmed as matting because clear patterning did not sur-vive. Building 5, in the North Area, provides the best example ofmore than one type of matting in an individual house, and it is pos-sible that these objects acted like a social map of the building(Cessford, 2007, 376; Hodder, 2006, 187).

The association of particular plants with different types of bas-ketry may reflect the properties inherent within plant materialsthat made some taxa more suitable for certain types of containers


or matting. For example coiled examples commonly derive from awild panicoid grass, and matting and cordage from Cyperaceae(sedges). Distinctions between the ritual and prosaic do not appearto have been expressed through the plants chosen for domestic orspecial purposes.

The similarity in plants used for the domestic and neonate or in-fant burial baskets suggests reuse rather than specially createditems. Indeed, the length of time involved in weaving would haveeither necessitated the recycling of baskets or that they were madein advance (Wendrich, 2005). Nevertheless, the use of plant objectsin burial contexts may suggest these items were special objects. Aswell as any associated ‘meaning’ imparted into the objects throughthe process of weaving, burial objects may have been associatedwith memories (Ingold, 2000, 346; Hodder, 2006, 189).

Phytolith traces of cordage attaching cereals to wild animalbones suggest the ritual offering of domesticated plants. The clear-est example discussed was the antler 14,460 � 2 which was en-tirely surrounded by the silicified remains of cordage in a crisscross pattern and compressed cereal husks (Fig. 11). These findingare perhaps analogous to the silica skeleton remains of wheathusks identified by E Jenkins which seem to have been stuffed intothe back of the mouth belonging to a modified boar skull (Twiss,2006). In other instances, basketry remains have been associatedwith clusters of objects which also do not necessarily reflect dayto day practices. For instance, space 299 in B65 included two pos-sible baskets in association with objects possibly deliberatelydeposited prior to house closure (Regan, 2006). Similarly, artifactsfound within the same excavation unit as antler 14,460 � 2 havebeen discussed as potentially connected with the closing of oneoccupation phase within the evolution of Building 49 (e.g. Carteret al., 2008; Russell and Twiss, 2008).

The incorporation of cereals and wild plants together within‘special deposits’ in buildings, as well as together within construc-tion materials, implies there may not have been a symbolic distinc-tion between wild and domestic plants. A similar point has beenmade in relation to the presence of both charred wild and domes-ticated plant foods within individual storage bins (Twiss et al.,2009). The inclusion of wild and domesticated plants within build-ing materials may indicate an expedient use of the most suitableavailable materials to undertake specific tasks. Previously, theincorporation within buildings of wild animal bone installationshas been taken to either suggest a possible symbolic separationbetween the wild and domesticated world, or instead that theseinstallations may indicate a veneration of dangerous animals

Fig. 11. Reconstruction of antler (14,460 � 2) with cordage and cereals. Illustrationby Kathryn Killackey.

(Hodder, 2006, 201). Another perspective is that there was a spatialseparation within buildings between the display of animal partsand plant storage based upon consumability (Bogaard et al.,2009), and that the cereal material tied to wild animal parts wasalso not necessarily ‘consumable’ for humans.

Temporal changes in plants as material culture

Amounts of plants used to create material culture cannot bequantified and compared between site levels or areas. The tapho-nomic factors behind the survival of visible silica skeleton orcharred plant artifacts are too randomised. However, despite inter-pretative problems, the possibility of temporal change has to beaddressed in light of the broader implication this has for plantexploitation strategies, and the daily life practices involved in theproduction and use of plant objects.

There seems to be fewer examples of basketry from later site lev-els. For instance, more isolated examples were found in recentexcavations of later site levels in the south-west corner of the SouthArea and, in particular, no coiled baskets were found in Space 144which contained eight neonate burials. In the 4040 Area, in thenorthern part of the mound, there were generally fewer finds incomparison with the South Area, and many of the buildings are des-ignated to one site level 4040.G, which is roughly analogous tempo-rally to later levels in the South Area. Notable exceptions in the4040 Area with many examples of basketry are Building 5, whichis from earlier level 4040.F, Building 77, which is not stratigraphi-cally related to the other buildings, and Building 49 which has manyrebuilding phases. Previously during the 1990s, there seemed to besome differences in basket and matting examples found betweenthe southern and northern parts of the mound, with greater num-bers in burial contexts found in the South Area (Wendrich, 2005).With greater numbers of buildings now excavated this seems notto be the case, for instance Building 49 in the 4040 Area hasnumerous examples of basketry from burial contexts.

Fewer finds in later levels may be a function of better preserva-tion in earlier site levels, changes in excavation strategies betweenthe 1990s and 2000s, or a temporal change in the amounts of bas-ketry used for certain functions. Furthermore, matting or basketsfound on final occupation surfaces within buildings may be con-nected with house closure and abandonment practices, whichthemselves may have been subject to temporal change or variabil-ity between building category.

Several factors lend weight to the possibility of a reduction inthe creation of plant artifacts over time. Given the time it may havetaken to produce baskets it would not be surprising if pottery be-gan to replace some of the functions of basketry during the laterNeolithic, and it seems possible that this transition occurred duringthe occupation of Çatalhöyük. The disappearance of clay balls androughly contemporaneous developments in pottery technologyimplies pottery replaced basketry for cooking purposes (Atalay,2005; Atalay and Hastorf, 2006; Last, 2005). Greater amounts ofpottery over time, and the increasing complexity of ceramics dur-ing the latest East Mound levels and the West Mound, suggest alikely increase in the range of uses (Last, 2005). It is possible the in-crease in pottery mirrored a decrease in basketry with, in effect,pottery replacing some types of basketry (Ingmar Franz perscomm., 2010). Hodder suggests the various types of baskets, woo-den items and pots are examples of social and material ‘entangle-ments’, where the objects play a role in structuring daily routines(Hodder, 2006, 186). If pottery began to replace some of the func-tions of basketry this would have altered some of the social inter-actions that revolved around the activity of weaving and thecollection of necessary plant materials.

At present, temporal changes in the role of plants as temper inbuilding materials is unclear, although distinctive architectural


changes in later site levels and the West Mound certainly makethis a possibility. To investigate this further, burnt buildings froma wide span of site levels from the East Mound would need to befound and excavated. However, many of the burnt buildings seemto be from the middle site occupation levels. It would be interest-ing to know whether any changes in plant temper reflect the intro-duction of a new barley species, two row hulled barley, from thelatest levels of the Neolithic East Mound.

Any changes in these types of plant based material culturewould have resulted in changing patterns of plant use and disposalwithin the settlement, as well as in the nature of the interactionsbetween the site’s inhabitants and the surrounding environment.If basketry became less important, it is possible that the role ofwetland and riparian areas, from which many of the plants weregathered, became less significant from both practical and symbolicperspectives. The availability of particular plant materials mayhave altered over time, for instance if marshy areas became dryer.However, there are phytoliths from wetland plants present in sed-iments throughout the Neolithic East Mound, and also in the sub-sequent West Mound (Ryan, 2008b, 2010). Raw plant materialavailability may have been affected by other environmentalchanges, including the impact a millennium of exploitation mayhave had on biodiversity (Butzer, 1982).

Conclusions

The in situ nature of the silica skeleton plant artifacts has pro-vided insight into the use of plant based material culture in sym-bolic and domestic archaeological contexts within an earlyagricultural village. The study of temper in construction materialhas emphasised that the site was made of plants as well as clay,and the numerous silica skeleton remains at Çatalhöyük East sug-gest the importance of basketry as an artifactual class during theNeolithic, and even after the adoption of early pottery.

The data from Çatalhöyük suggest large amounts of plant mate-rial were used for both construction and craft activities, and thatcertain environmental habitats may be reflected in these types ofmaterial cultures. Investigating phytolith traces of plant artifactshas broadened what is known about the wide ranging uses ofplants by the site’s inhabitants, and the types of micro-environ-ments from which they were collected. For example wild plantswere exploited from the diverse wet and dry land habitats sur-rounding Çatalhöyük for weaving and building, and cereal huskchaff collected for secondary re-use in certain building materials.

The study of plants used for construction and basketry is impor-tant for investigating diversity of plant and land use at archaeolog-ical sites. The possible investigation of silica skeleton plant artifactsis potentially relevant to sites from any time period, and particu-larly in sites from semi-arid environments where they are mostlikely to be found.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Arlene Rosen, Dr Andrew Bevan(Institute of Archaeology, University College London) and Dr AmyBogaard (University of Oxford) for reading this article and theirhelpful comments. Many thanks to Dr Amy Bogaard, Dr MichaelCharles (The University of Sheffield) and Dr Mira Stevanovic (Stan-ford University) for their assistance with the mudbrick analysesdiscussed in this paper. Many thanks also to Prof. Liz Pye for pro-viding plaster samples and to Ingmar Franz for helpful discussionsrelating to this article. I would also like to thank Stuart Laidlaw(Institute of Archaeology, University College London) for his helpwith image preparation, Kathryn Killackey (Çatalhöyük) for artifactillustration, and Jason Quinlan (Çatalhöyük) for his help photo-

graphing artifacts on-site. From the Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity College London, I would also like to thank my Doctoralsupervisors Prof. Arlene Rosen, Dr Dorian Fuller, and Dr KarenWright, as well as Sandra Bond for technical support. I am also verygrateful for the help of Prof. Ian Hodder (Stanford University),Shahina Farid (Institute of Archaeology, University College Lon-don), and all of the Çatalhöyük Team.

References

Adovasio, J.M., 1975. The textile and basketry impressions from Jarmo. Paléorient 3,223–230.

Adovasio, J.M., Soffer, O., Kléma, B., 1996. Upper Palaeolithic Fibre Technology:Interlaced Woven Finds from Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 Years Ago.Antiquity 70 (269), 526–534.

Akkermans, P.M.M.G., Schwartz, G.M., 2003. The Archaeology of Syria: FromComplex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC).Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Asouti, E., 2005. Woodland vegetation and the exploitation of fuel and timber atNeolithic Çatalhöyük: report on the wood-charcoal macro-remains. In: Hodder,I. (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük, Reports From the 1995–1999 Seasons. McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, and British Institute atAnkara, London, pp. 213–260.

Atalay, S., 2005. Domesticating clay: the role of clay balls, mini balls, and geometricobjects in daily life at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing Materialities atÇatalhöyük: Reports From the 1995–99 Seasons. McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Cambridge and British Institute at Ankara, London,pp. 139–168.

Atalay, S., Hastorf, C.A., 2006. Food, meals, and daily activities: food habitus atNeolithic Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 71, 283–319.

Baird, D., 2006. The Boncuklu project: the origins of sedentism, cultivation andherding in Central Anatolia. Anatolian Archaeology 12, 13–16.

Banning, E., 1998. The neolithic period: triumphs of architecture, agriculture andart. Near Eastern Archaeology 61, 188–237.

Bar-Yosef, O., 1985. A Cave in the Desert, Nahal Hemar: 9000-Year-Old Finds. TheIsrael Museum, Jerusalem.

Bogaard, A., Charles, M., 2007. Macrobotanical Remains. Çatalhöyük Archive Report,199–208. <http://www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007>.

Bogaard, A., and Charles, M., 2008. Macrobotanical Remains. Çatalhöyük ArchiveReport, 139–145. <http://www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008>.

Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Twiss, K.C., Fairbairn, A., Yalman, N., Filipovic, D., Demirergi,G.A., Ertug, F., Russell, N., Henecke, J., 2009. Private pantries and celebratedsurplus: storing and sharing food at Neolithic Çatalhöyük Central Anatolia.Antiquity 83, 649–668.

Burnham, H.B., 1965. Çatal Hüyük – the textiles and twine fabrics. Anatolian Studies15, 169–174.

Butzer, K.W., 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for aContextual Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Campbell, S., Carter, E., Healey, E., Anderson, S., Kennedy, A., Whitcher, S., 1999.Emerging Complexity on the Kahramanmaras Plain, Turkey: the DomuztepeProject, 1995–1997. American Journal of Archaeology 103, 395–418.

Carter, T., Milic, M. and Kayacan, N. 2008. Chipped Stone Report, 4040 Area.Çatalhöyük Archive Report, 212–215. <www.catalhoyuk.com>.

Cessford, C., 2005. Absolute dating at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), In ChangingMaterialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, and British Institute atAnkara, London, pp. 65–100.

Cessford, C., 2007. Building 5. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating Çatalhöyük. South,North and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995–99 seasons. McDonald Institutefor Archaeological Research, Cambridge, and British Institute at Ankara, London,pp. 361–404.

Cutting, M., 2005. The Neolithic and early Chalcolithic Farmers of Central andSouthwest Anatolia: household, community and the changing use of space. BarInternational Series, 1435, Archaeopress, Oxford.

De Moulins, D., 2000. Abu Hureyra 2: plant remains from the Neolithic. In: Moore,A.M.T., Hillman, G.C., Legge, A.J. (Eds.), Village on the Euphrates: From Foragingto Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 399–416.

Doherty, C., Charles, M., Bogaard, A., 2007. Preliminary Sediment Coring to Clarify‘Clay’ Sources and Potential Land Use Around Çatalhöyük. Çatalhöyük ArchiveReport, 381-390. <http://www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007>.

Doherty, C., Charles, M., and Bogaard, A., 2008. Landscape coring. ÇatalhöyükArchive Report, 263–272. <http://www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008>.

During, B., 2006. Constructing Communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlementsof the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500–5500 Cal. BC.. Nederlands Instituutvoor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden.

Erkal, A., 1999. Experimental Work at Çatalhöyük 1999. Çatalhöyük Archive Report.<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1999>.

Ertug, F., 2006. An overview of the plaited crafts of Turkey (Anatolia and Thrace). In:Ertug, F. (Ed.), ‘‘Ethnobotany: At the Junction of the Continents and the

http://www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007



http://www.catalhoyuk.com





http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1999


Disciplines’’: Proceedings for the Fourth International Congress of Ethnobotany(ICEB 2005) 21–26 August 2005. Yainlari, Istanbul, pp. 297–306.

Estebaranz, F., Martínez, L.M., Anfruns, J., Pérez-Pérez, A., 2007. Tell Halula (Syria),seasons 1992–2005. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 1, 65–67.

Fairbairn, A., Near, J., Martinoli, D., 2005. Macrobotanical investigation of the North,South, and Kopal Area Excavations. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük,Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, Cambridge, and British Institute at Ankara, London, pp. 137–202.

Farid, S., 2004. Overview. Çatalhöyük Archive Report. <www.catalhoyuk.com>.Farid, S., 2008. Woven and twisted fibres. Çatalhöyük Archive Report, 146. <http://

www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008>.Galili, E., Schick, T., 1990. Basketry and a wooden bowl from the Pottery Neolithic

submerged site of Kefar-Samir. Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the IsraelPrehistoric Society 23, 142–151.

Goring-Morris, N., Hovers, E., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2009. The dynamics of Pleistoceneand Early Holocene settlement patterns and human adaptations in the Levant:an overview. In: Shea, J.J., Lieberman, D.E. (Eds.), Transitions in Prehistory:essays in honour of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 185–252.

Helbaek, H., 1966. Pre-pottery Neolithic farming at Beidha. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly 61, 66.

Hodder, I., 1996. (Ed.) On the Surface, Çatalhöyük 1993–95. McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Cambridge, and British Institute at Ankara.

Hodder, I., 2006. The Leopard’s Tale. Thames & Hudson, London.Hodder, I., 2007. Çatalhöyük in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annual

Review of Anthropology 36, 105–120.Hole, F., Flannery, K.V., Neely, J.A., 1969. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh

Luran Plain: An Early village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Museum ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Hopf, M., 1983. Jericho plant remains. In: Kenyon, K., Holland, T. (Eds.), Excavations atJericho, vol. 5. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London, pp. 576–621.

Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment, Essays on Livelihood, Dwellingand Skill. Routledge, London.

Kansa, S.W., Kennedy, A., Campbell, S., Carter, E., 2009. Resource exploitation at LateNeolithic Domuztepe: faunal and botanical evidence. Current Anthropology 50,897–914.

Kenyon, K., 1955. Excavations at Jericho, 1955. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108,117.

Kirkbride, D., 1968. Beidha: early Neolithic village life south of the Dead Sea.Antiquity 42 (168), 263–274.

Kuzucuoglu, C., 2002. The environmental frame in Central Anatolia from the 9th tothe 6th millennia cal. BC. In: Gérard, F., Thissen, L. (Eds.), The Neolithic ofCentral Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th–6th Millennia Cal BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table RondeIstanbul, 23–24 November 2001. Istanbul, Ege Yayinlari, 33–58.

Last, J., 2005. Pottery from the East Mound. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ChangingMaterialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 seasons. McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, and British Institute atAnkara, London, pp. 101–138.

Mellaart, J., 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson,London.

Moore, A.M.T., Hillman, G.C., Legge, A., 2000. Village on the Euphrates. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Moore, A.M.T., Molleson, T.I., 2000. Disposal of the dead. In: Moore, A.M.T., Hillman,G.C., Legge, A.J. (Eds.), Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming atAbu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 77–299.

Molleson, T., 2007. A method for the study of activity related skeletal Morphologies.Bioarchaeology of the Near East 1, 5–33.

Nadel, D., 2002. Ohalo II–a 23, 000 Year-Old Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers’ Camp on theShore of the Sea of Galilee. Hecht Museum, Haifa.

Nadel, D., Danin, A., Werker, E., Schick, T., Kislev, M.E., Stewart, K., 1994. 19, 000-year-old twisted fibres from Ohalo II. Current Anthropology 35, 451–458.

Nadel, D., Werker, E., 1999. The oldest ever brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II,Jordan Valley, Israel (19, 000 BP). Antiquity 73 (282), 755–764.

Nadel, D., Grinberg, U., Boaretto, E., Werker, E., 2006. Wooden objects from Ohalo II(23, 000 cal BP), Jordan Valley, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 50, 644–662.

Nissenbaum, A., 1993. The Dead Sea – an economic resource for 10 000 years.Hydrobiologia 267, 127–141.

Noy, T., 1989. Gilgal I – A Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site Israel – The 1985–1987 Seasons.Paléorient 15, 11–18.

Noy, T., Kozłowski, S.K., 1996, A basket of flint artefacts from House 11 at Gilgal I,Locus 37/42. In: Kozłowski S.K. and Gebel H.G. (Eds.) Neolithic Chipped StoneIndustries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in AdjacentRegions, proceedings of the Second Workshop on PPN Chipped LithicIndustries, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, 3rd-7th April, 1995.Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3, ExOriente Free University of Berlin, Berlin, 271–288.

Özdogan, A., 1999. Çayönü. In: Özdogan, M., Bas�gelen, N. (Eds.), Neolithic in Turkey:The Cradle of Civilization: New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları,Istanbul, pp. 35–64.

Piperno, D.R., 2006. Phytoliths: A comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists andPaleoecologists. Altamira Press, Lanham.

Regan, R., 2006. Buildings 56 & 65. Çatalhöyük Archive Report, 89–104. <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006>.

Regan, R., 2007. Building 65 Sequence. Çatalhöyük Archive Report, 100–112.<www.catalhoyuk.com>.

Renfrew, J.M., 1973. Paleoethnobotany: The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near Eastand Europe. Methuen, London.

Roberts, N., Reed, J.M., Leng, M.J., Kuzucuoglu, C., Fontugne, M., Bertaux, J., Woldring,H., Bottema, S., Black, S., Hunt, E., Karabiyikoglu, M., 2001. The tempo ofHolocene climatic change in the eastern Mediterranean region: new high-resolution crater-lake sediment data from central Turkey. The Holocene 11,721–736.

Roberts, N., Boyer, P., Merrick, J., 2007. The KOPAL On-site and Off-site excavationsand sampling. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating Çatalhöyük: Reports from the1995–1999 Seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,Cambridge, and British Institute at Ankara, London, pp. 553–570.

Rosen, A.M., 1992. Preliminary identification of silica skeletons from NearEastern archaeological sites: an anatomical approach. In: Rapp, G.,Mulholland, S. (Eds.), Phytolith Systematics. Plenum Press, New York andLondon, pp. 129–148.

Rosen, A.M., 2005. Phytolith indicators of plant and land use at Çatalhöyük. In:Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük, Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons.McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Cambridge, and BritishInstitute at Ankara, London, pp. 203–212.

Rossignol-Strick, M., 1999. The Holocene climatic optimum and pollen records ofsapropel 1 in the eastern Mediterranean, 9000–6000 BP. Quaternary ScienceReviews 18, 515–530.

Russell, N., Twiss, K., 2008. Çatalhöyük Animal Bones. Çatalhöyük Archive Report,110-119. <http://www.Catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008>.

Ryan, P., 2007. The Phytoliths. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2007, 209-213. <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007>.

Ryan, P., 2008. The Phytoliths. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008, 147–152. <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008>.

Ryan, P., 2008b. West Mound: Phytoliths Analysis. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008,102. <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf>.

Ryan, P., 2009. The Phytoliths. Çatalhöyük Archive Report, 82–83. <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006>.

Ryan, P., 2010. Diversity of plant and land use during the Near Eastern Neolithic:Phytolith Perspectives from Çatalhöyük. Unpublished PhD Thesis, UniversityCollege London.

Ryan, P., and Rosen, A., 2006. The phytoliths. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2006, 174–181. <http://www.Çatalhöyük.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006>.

Schick, T., 1988. Nahal Hemar Cave: Cordage, Basketry and Fabrics. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,Alon, D. (Eds.), Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiquot 18, Jerusalem, 31–43.

Simmons, A.H., 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming theHuman Landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Soffer, O., Adovasio, J.M., Illingworth, J.S., Amirkhanov, H.A., Praslov, N.D., Street, M.,2000. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent. Antiquity 74 (286), 812–821.

Solecki, R., 1963. Prehistory in Shanidar Valley, Northern Iraq. Science 139 (3553),179–193.

Stevanovic, M., 2008. Clay building materials. Çatalhöyük Archive Report, 210–212.<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008>

Twiss, K., 2006. A modified boar skull from Çatalhöyük. Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 342, 1–12.

Twiss, K., Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Henecke, J., Russell, N., Martin, L., Jones, G., 2009.Plants and animals together: interpreting organic remains from building 52 atÇatalhöyük. Current Anthropology 50 (6), 885–895.

Twiss, P., 1992. Predicted world distribution of C3 and C4 grass phytoliths. In: Rapp,G., Mulholland, S. (Eds.), Phytolith Systematics. Plenum Press, London, pp. 113–128.

Van der Veen, M., 1999. The economic value of chaff and straw in arid andtemperate zones. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8, 211–224.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.M., 1993. One of the oldest textiles in the world?Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 16, 4–6.

Wendrich, W., 1999. The World According to Basketry; an ethnoarchaeologicalinterpretation of basketry production in Egypt, CNWS Publication Series no. 83.

Wendrich, W., 2000. Basketry. In: Nicholson, P.T., Shaw, I. (Eds.), Ancient Egyptianmaterials and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254–267.

Wendrich, W., 2005. Çatalhöyük Basketry. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ChangingMaterialities: reports from the 1995–99 seasons: Cambridge, and BritishInstitute at Ankara. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, London,pp. 333–339.

Willcox, G., 2000. Présence des céréales dans le Néolithique précéramique deShillourokambos à Chypre: résultats de campagne 1999. Paléorient 26, 129–135.

Willcox, G., Fornite, S., 1999. Impressions of wild cereal chaff in pisé from the10thmillennium uncal B.E at Jerf el Ahmar and Mureybet: northern Syria. VegetationHistory and Archaeobotany 8, 21–24.

Willcox, G., Fornite, S., Herveux, L., 2008. Early Holocene cultivation beforedomestication in northern Syria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17,313–325.




http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006








http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf




Date post:	21-Oct-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	philippa-ryan
View:	229 times
Download:	10 times

Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Perspectives from the silica skeleton...

Documents