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

Shillito, Lisa-Marie ; Ryan, Philippa

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

Catalhoyuk was continuously occupied from the aceramic to ceramic Neolithic, c. 7400-6000 BC (Cessford et al. 2005), and provides an important case study for understanding the development of settled communities in central Anatolia. Although the scale of the settlement has led it to be termed the earliest town' (Mellaart 1967), the socioeconomic organisation resembles a village rather than an urban society (Hodder 2006). Early Neolithic settlements in this region are characterised by a clustered settlement pattern, where several buildings back onto each other with no streets or paths between them (During 2005). These clusters of buildings form 'neighbourhoods' which are separated by large open areas, where midden material accumulates.

During early excavations these midden areas were termed 'courtyards' (Mellaart 1967). Although this term was rejected in later excavations (Hodder 2006), there is evidence for the use of some external spaces for activities including bonfires (Shillito et al. 2011) and animal penning (Matthews 2005). This has parallels in ethnographic studies of courtyard usage (Ozkan 2006; Makachia 2011). During (2005) suggests that neighbourhood clusters were social groups and the midden areas between them acted to separate these groups, a pattern that changes in the later Neolithic when open spaces increase and neighbourhoods break down into individual household social units. Recent excavations have also shown that distinct 'yard-like' outdoor areas became increasingly common in the mid-late Neolithic (Bogaard et al. in press b).

Developments in architecture and settlement patterns are central to our understanding of societies, particularly how people moved in and used space and the distinction between private and communal areas. Identifying 'street' areas is problematic in early settlement sites such as Catalhoyuk where there may be no macroscale evidence such as paving to distinguish the function of an external area as a place of movement. Similarly the identification of occupation surfaces and activity areas at the macroscale can be problematic because day to day activities may only leave microscopic traces (Goldberg et al. 2009). By employing microstratigraphic methods these problems are overcome since such methods allow us to distinguish between deliberately laid surfaces and those which have accumulated naturally or through dumping (Matthews et al. 1997). It is also possible to distinguish the effects of reworking and compaction through trampling from other post-depositional processes such as animal burrowing (Courty et al. 1989). This provides a snapshot into the movement of livestock and people over these surfaces. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of using microstratigraphic methods to identify formation processes and activity areas in early settlement sites (Ge et al. 1993; Matthews et al. 1997; Matthews 2001, 2005; Shahack-Gross et al. 2005).

At Catalhoyuk micromorphology has been used to study the multiple fine layers of wall and floor plastering within buildings (Matthews 1995, 2005). Its importance for understanding plant taphonomy has also been demonstrated (Matthews 2010). These previous studies have found only limited evidence for deliberately constructed external surfaces in the earlier phases at the site (Matthews 2005), or indeed trampling in these areas (Matthews et al. 2004). Tringham (2012), however, argues that some of these areas may have been utilised for movement, even if evidence for heavy trampling is not present.

Phytolith analysis has been applied at Catalhoyuk to investigate the food and non-food use of plants (Rosen 2005; Ryan 2011 in press). Phytoliths are silica bodies that form in and between the cells of certain plants, especially monocotyledons. A large volume of the plant remains from ashy deposits are in the form of phytoliths. Phytoliths can help us understand the use of plants as fuel and animal fodder through providing information about plant parts such as leaves and stems that infrequently survive ashing, and where macroremains have been destroyed by high temperatures.

At Tel Dor, an Iron Age site in Israel, a combination of micromorphology and phytolith analysis revealed that deposits that had been thought to be plaster floors were actually compressed layers of grasses and animal dung (Shahack-Gross et al. 2005; Albert et al. 2008). Such distinctions are crucial for interpreting how space was used in settlements, and how this changed over time. By integrating phytolith analysis and micromorphology we can provide more reliable interpretations than by using these techniques separately (Shahack-Gross et al. 2003; Albert et al. 2008, 2012).

This analysis focuses on a sequence of 'midden' deposits in the South Area at Catalhoyuk (Figure 1). These deposits accumulated in an external area located to the south of a series of buildings. The first of these was B.75, later followed by a sequence of buildings (B.65, B.56, B.44 and B.10) re-built in the same location (Regan et al. 2008). Fire-spots and fire-pits have been identified in this external area, close to B.75 and B.65. These deposits are significant as they form the basis of the stratigraphic sequence currently being used to revise the chronology of Catalhoyuk (Bayliss & Farid 2008). Hodder Levels South P, Q, R and S are successive phases within the deposits illustrated in Figure 2, corresponding approximately with Mellaart's Levels V, IV, III and II respectively. A combination of thin section micromorphology and targeted phytolith analysis enabled examination of the sediments at a high resolution to address, first, whether compacted layers of sediment are deliberately constructed external surfaces, and secondly, whether the use of this midden area changes over time, in association with the successive building phases.

Ten blocks c. 150 x 70mm were collected from the east-facing section to provide an overlapping sequence from the earliest to latest deposits (Figure 2). Blocks were impregnated with crystic polyester resin and 30[micro]m-thin sections prepared. Slides were observed under plane (PPL) and cross-polarised light (XPL) from x5 to x400 magnification with a Leica DMLP microscope and described according to standard terminologies (Stoops 2003). Phytoliths were collected from fire-spots in the field and from bulk deposits collected during excavation (Table 1). Phytoliths were extracted following Rosen (2005) and observed with an Olympus BH-2 at x400 magnification. Several hundred phytoliths were counted per slide. (Tables S1 and S2 summarising field observations and micromorphology descriptions are available as online supplementary material. Phytolith raw data is available on the site database [Catalhoyuk n.d.]).

Finely stratified midden layers in Level South P

The earliest midden deposits (Figure 2, Block 1) in Space 333 are located within a pit (17339) and are composed of alternating lenses of grass-derived phytoliths and charcoal with a parallel orientation, and calcitic ashes ranging from 2-23mm thick (Figure 3A & B). The undulating boundaries and microlaminated structure are characteristic of trampled animal dung (Shahack-Gross 2011). The presence of highly degraded, cracked bone fragments (Figure 3C) is also a feature of trampled sediments (Miller et al. 2010). However, the compaction is restricted to the dung layers, which could indicate the dung was trampled elsewhere and collected for subsequent use as fuel before being deposited in this space. Later deposits in the pit lose the clear laminated structure; the boundaries are diffuse and the inclusions more mixed, with an increase in burnt bone fragments, sub-rounded brown aggregate particles, and omnivore coprolites. Fragments of finely laminated wall or floor plasters within mixed ashy deposits indicate the dumping of floor sweepings (Figure 3D). These lowermost deposits do not indicate the presence of an external courtyard, animal pen or routeway at this initial stage, but instead a space where midden debris was deposited.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

There is a clear, truncated boundary between these lowermost deposits and the overlying sediments, which have a massive structure and embedded, unorientated inclusions. In contrast to the lowermost deposits which have up to 50 per cent plant remains, phytoliths and microcharcoal become sparse, with <5 per cent abundance, and mineral inclusions increase in abundance to c. 10 per cent. The material comprises broken up, compacted mud-brick (Figure 3E), similar to packing material observed within buildings at Catalhoyuk (Matthews 2005; Matthews et al. in press). Embedded in this homogenised material is a lens of animal dung. This suggests an episode when the deposits were deliberately levelled with a mix of crushed building debris and midden material, as is seen in the closing and levelling of buildings (Eddisford 2006). There is one layer of fine sorted material (Figure 3F) with graded bedding which could be water-laid (Friesem et al. 2011). This suggests periods when the area was exposed to the elements (Simpson & Barrett 1996) and, significantly, such fine material is absent from the earlier deposits. The pattern of plant voids impressed into the fine sediment has regular intervals and could represent matting (Figure 4A & B). Exposure to water is also supported by the presence of silty-clay coatings in the voids within the bone fragments. A band of poorly sorted mineral grains overlying the fine sediment could also have been water-laid. Hence the upper part of the midden contains coarse material deposited to create a routeway or courtyard.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Transition to reworked, trampled deposits, Level South P/Q

The deposits that fall towards the end of the South P (Figure 2, Block 2) have a massive bedding structure with discontinuous banding of coprolites and grass microcharcoal, and highly degraded bone. Although all the sub-units are similar in structure, differences in percentages and types of inclusions, and diffuse boundaries suggest distinct episodes of deposition which have become more homogenised through post-depositional activity such as trampling.

The massive bedding structure continues into the following South Q phase (Figure 2, Blocks 3 and 4). Single grains of gypsum are present throughout, suggesting periodic drying out of the sediments (Mees & Tursina 2010). There are several fire-spots in this phase. The 'fire-spot' in the middle of this sample contains fragments of embedded herbivore dung that form discontinuous layers with fine-grained aggregate lenses, disaggregated omnivore coprolites and digested bone fragments. Fine panicle coatings in the bone voids indicate further movement of fine sediments by water. These massively bedded deposits correspond to trampled, but not intentionally laid, surfaces.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Trodden and constructed external surfaces, South R/S

The massive bedding structure continues into the South R (Figure 2, Blocks 5 and 6) with further fire-spots indicating considerable activity on the surface of the midden. The deposits are overlain by what is thought to be the first of a series of constructed surfaces. The fire-spot in the middle of Slide 5 contains a mix of pottery fragments, burnt alluvium and marl, burnt bone, wood charcoal and weed seeds. The boundary with the suspected surface in Space 339 is distinct, and contains 20 per cent angular quartz and other mineral inclusions, degraded bone and plant voids, with vertical cracking creating a moderately developed platey structure (Figure 4C). This is indicative of trampling (Courty et al. 1989; Milek 2012). Phytoliths seen in thin section in 17039 were very pitted and degraded. That too indicates exposure, physical erosion and dissolution (Osterrieth et al. 2009).

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Space 319 is the earliest phase of midden associated with building B.44, and respects its south wall. Deposits are compacted and reworked with occasional laminations of grass charcoal and abundant gypsum throughout. The lowermost part contains omnivore coprolites and highly degraded bone with fine particle coatings, and further vertical cracking indicating trampling, as in the underlying deposits in Space 339. There is a relatively high abundance of omnivore coprolites in this area (c. 20 per cent), perhaps indicating intermittent use as a latrine. The fire-spot from Space 319 (16520) contained 6 per cent phytoliths by weight, with monocot leaves/stems represented, but no husks (Figure 5). Macrobotanical analysis also identified this deposit as burnt fuel, with dung-derived wild seeds at much higher densities than in the surrounding midden (Bogaard et al. in press a).

Space 130 overlies Space 319 and is created by the construction of south wall F.2645. This is a relatively level deposit that is also suspected to be a trodden surface (16277). The boundary between the lower and upper 'trodden' deposits is cleat, with the two deposits marked by differences in the percentages of inclusions and also the inclusion size. The 'surface' unit has less fine material, which has been washed down the profile. Further bands of charred grasses are fragmented and partially orientated. The deposits have a massive structure and sparse charcoal inclusions.

Space 129 is located to the south of B.44, postdates its construction and is likely to be contemporary with its use. Analysis of faunal remains indicates bone in this space has weathered surfaces suggesting it was exposed for a period of time (Russell & Twiss 2008). The lowermost part of the unit in Slide 9 consists of a compacted calcareous groundmass with a low percentage of embedded charred plant inclusions, and a greater proportion of plant voids (Figure 4D and E). This appears to be a constructed surface, overlain by further coprolite deposits. The upper boundary with the aggregate layer is diffuse, and inclusions have a parallel orientation and random distribution, including bands of animal dung. The 'surface' deposit (16259) also has a very low percentage of phytoliths (<2 per cent) which fits with this being a trodden surface, and had the same appearance as a possible surface in unit (15702) that also contained <2 per cent phytoliths.

A deliberately levelled surface is observed in Space 129 that consists of calcareous aggregates containing plant voids, overlain by a very thin layer of highly articulated phytoliths (Figure 4C & D). This would suggest that these plant remains were whole when deposited (Matthews 2005; Jenkins 2009), and perhaps represented remains of matting or roofing which decayed in situ (Ge et al. 1993; Karkanas & Efstratiou 2009). Phytolith remains from matting have been observed on building floors and burials (Ryan 2011), though it is difficult to confirm whether these were in use in external areas, or were simply discarded there. In this case the association with a surface suggests that the mats were being used on that surface. Hence, the two layers of compacted deposits in Space 129 are trodden surfaces. In addition there are microstratigraphic indications in earlier units which suggest trampling; deposits from the end of Level South P onwards are highly compacted and reworked with frequent gypsum crystallisation, suggesting heavy trampling in dry conditions, similar to observations at other early urban sites (Ge et al. 1993; Matthews 2003).

Fire-spots and trampled animal dung

Features described as 'fire-spots' occur at intervals throughout this midden sequence, interspersed between the reworked massive deposits that occur towards the end of the South P phase. They are variable in thin section. One fire-spot in Space 339 consisted of wood charcoal and burnt mad, whereas another consisted of micro-laminated dung, with no underlying rubification of sediments to indicate extensive in situ burning. The layers are only partially charred, which suggests that burning was of short duration, although different locations within individual fires can burn for different periods of time and at different temperatures.

Identification of fire-spots can be complicated since trampled cattle dung, which is dark brown in colour, may resemble scorched sediment at the macroscale. The relatively shallow depth of the animal dung accumulations in thin section suggests that if this space was used as a pen, that use was intermittent. It may instead have been periodically used as a route-way for the movement of animals. The dung cakes that were identified could also have been brought here from penning areas elsewhere.

Phytoliths from fire-spots are similarly variable (Figure 5 & 6). Cereal husks are present but in relatively small quantities, with wild grass husks also in some samples. Most are dominated by the leaves and stems of grasses, sedges (Cyperaceae) and reeds (Phragmites sp.). For example, fire-spot 17046 (Figure 7) had a notably higher quantity of saddle phytoliths both as single cells and as part of conjoined tissue fragments, possibly from a chloridoid grass (Figure 4). Macrobotanical analysis of these deposits and pellets identified the wetland chloridoid grass Aeuroplus sp. as a possible candidate (Bogaard et al. in press a).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Cereal husk phytoliths may be crop-processing debris from routine de-husking of hulled cereals before consumption. Phytoliths from wild taxa may represent the burning of weedy grasses or animal dung. Crop-processing by-products could also have been used as animal fodder (Fairbairn 2005). In macrobotanical terms the fire-spots are characterised primarily by small wild plant seeds which survive sheep digestion (Bogaard et al. in press a). If cereals were used as animal fodder this would explain why the phytolith signature from the fire-spots is richer in crops than the macrobotanical remains would indicate, as cereal grains and chaff are unlikely to survive digestion in abundance.

Sheep/goat pellets are more often studied by archaeobotanists as they preserve better during flotation; cattle dung is more fragile and can be misidentified during excavation. Cow dung studied by Akeret and Rentzel (2001) from Neolithic Arbon Bleiche 3 showed a layered fabric and dense margins, with a light brown to beige colour, and contained diverse plant remains including wood fragments, leaves and grasses. The structure of the dung lenses in deposits from the midden spaces described here suggests cattle rather than the pellets associated with ovicaprids. It is likely therefore that many of the phytoliths are entering the fire-spot assemblage through animal dung.

Discussion

The distinction between construction, dumping episodes and accumulation through continuous deposition is an important one. The ability of micromorphology to distinguish between these formation processes has been discussed at other early urban sites in the Near East (Matthews et al. 1997; Shahack-Gross et al. 2005).

Social and ritual activities are considered an important part of the process that led to permanent sedentary societies (Hodder 2007). Determining how external areas at Catalhoyuk were used is hence a key part of understanding the development of societies in the Neolithic. Previous studies of midden sequences in the South (Level South P) and 4040 areas (Level 4040 I) noted the exceptional preservation and very fine stratification of the deposits, with very little post-depositional reworking (Shillito et al. 2011). Phytolith analysis demonstrated that some of these units contained very high concentrations of plant remains, including from reeds, wild grasses, sedges and some cereals (Ryan in press).

In the deposits studied here there is a clear shift in the use of the area through time. In South P, the earliest deposits (in Space 333 associated with B.75) are 'typical' midden and show little disturbance. Within this space, the pit 17339 also contains a high concentration of pottery fragments, including 10 conjoining sherds, which support its interpretation as primary rather than redeposited refuse (Yalman et al. 2008). The next phase of deposits associated with B.65 (end of South P phase and beginning of South Q) provides the first instance where the structure starts to become 'massive'. No longer used for the dumping of midden material it becomes a possible route-way or 'courtyard'. The massive deposits contain detritus from daily activities including bone fragments (largely degraded), charcoal and aggregate fragments including plasters. The random orientation of inclusions in some of the massive deposits suggest episodes when the area was levelled.

Features such as the coating of fine particles within bone voids indicates movement of the fine sediments through the sequence by water, as is seen in the partially waterlogged deposits of the early Deep Sounding (Matthews 2005), and two layers of sorted particles suggests these were water-laid. These features indicate the area was exposed to rainfall rather than being covered and that deposits remained exposed for extended periods rather than building up rapidly (Simpson & Barrett 1996). The crystallisation of gypsum indicates that these deposits periodically dried out. This contrasts with the rapid build-up seen in the earlier deposits and in other middens at Catalhoyuk (Shillito et al. 2011). It is also interesting to note that analysis of faunal remains associated with B.65 has identified sheep/goat pathology associated with penning injuries, and infected feet indicative of penning in muddy areas (Russell et al. in press). Space 299 may have been just such an area.

The presence of vertical cracking creating a platey structure in South Q/R is further evidence to support trampling of these deposits. This structure continues into Levels South R and S (associated with buildings 56 and 44), at which point we see constructed surfaces with vertical cracking and translocation of fine material, and gypsum crystallisation. The low percentages (<2 per cent) of phytoliths in the trampled surfaces is also a strong indication that the area stopped being used for general midden dumping, which gives a much richer phytolith signature.

Bulk sample analyses show an overall lower phytolith percentage in units from Spaces 129 through 339 in comparison with many other midden spaces in other site areas and phases (Ryan in press), suggesting something different about this particular sequence perhaps relating to less household waste dumping, and the reworking of these deposits as seen in thin section, where phytoliths are only concentrated in discrete areas. Bulk midden units were dominated by phytoliths from leaves and stems, particularly of reeds, with lower proportions from wild grass or cereal husks especially in Space 129. Spatial differences can be seen in the uppermost layers, with some areas returning to more finely stratified deposits with multiple ashy layers. Omnivore coprolites retain their morphology, unlike heavily compressed deposits earlier. This is also reflected in the greater percentage weight of phytoliths, and variations amongst these (Figure 5). Between 15702s3 and 16259, units 15702 and 15728 contained greater densities of phytoliths, but also contained high proportions of broken and unidentifiable phytoliths and predominantly single-cell forms.

The slumping of the earliest deposits has similarities to observations by Shahack-Gross et al. (2005), which are interpreted as the result of degrading organic matter decreasing the volume of material. They estimate a 94-98 per cent volume reduction for animal dung deposits, which means that 30mm of microlaminated deposits could have represented as much as lm before degradation. Decay of earlier animal dung layers could be the reason for this area needing to be levelled on a cyclical basis, and should also be considered when linking the midden deposits to different phases of building occupation.

Some of the earliest possible streets that have been defined as such are at Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) Jericho where there are external areas of alternating clay and mud floors and charcoal lenses (Kenyon 1981: 294). 'Streets' are also seen at PPNA Asikli Hoyuk, with paved areas distinguished from midden areas (Matthews 1998; During & Marciniak 2005). The first 'surface' studied in the sequence here appears towards the end of Level South P, as a levelling deposit overlying ashy midden with signs of trampling. This corresponds with observations from recent excavations of areas becoming more open from level South P onwards, and the increased presence of yard-like spaces containing fire-spots, fire-pits, ovens and hearths (Bogaard et al. in press b). The appearance of these trampled areas and external surfaces, which have still not been observed from earlier levels, may signal changes in the use of space and the start of significant social changes, and the beginning of Catalhoyuk having mote defined yard and street-like areas.

However, there are contemporary middens in the 4040 Area with much higher phytolith densities more characteristic of earlier middens. These observations suggest different categories of midden types, and it seems that different midden areas may have served different functions. Areas with finely preserved stratigraphy were not used as 'streets' and were 'rubbish dumps', whereas other areas were subject to reworking and trampling, and were the focus of intense outdoor activity. These functions could change over time.

There appear to be several activities occurring in the area: firstly, the fire-spots overlying these surfaces suggest the presence of small domestic fires; secondly, the trampling of deposits and exposure/water movement, and perhaps animal penning (though not the dense accumulation of dung that would be expected, so perhaps a route-way or intermittent pen/enclosure for a small number of animals). All of these functions see parallels in ethnographic studies on the function of 'courtyard' areas (Ozkan 2006; Makachia 2011).

Conclusions

Microstratigraphic analysis, combining micromorphology with microbotany, is an essential tool for testing hypotheses suggested during excavation, and for investigating changes in the use of space over time. Micromorphology provides an important contextual background and a means of linking different lines of information, narrowing possible interpretations for macroremains and artefacts. It provides insight into whether deposits represent palimpsests or less mixed events, and can distinguish between undisturbed, trampled and deliberately constructed surfaces (Ge et al. 1993; Shahack-Gross et al. 2005; Matthews 2005). In the external area at Catalhoyuk investigated here, microarchaeology has distinguished between earlier episodes when there was rapid build-up of ash and organic remains, that were followed by repeated episodes of reworking from exposure, trampling and human activity. The generally low phytolith concentrations in these units compared to other middens at Catalhoyuk and the homogenised nature of the deposits in the later part of the sequence indicates a change from dumping of ash-rich deposits that are rapidly buried, to a highly trampled, re-worked area which functioned variably over time as a route-way/midden/street/courtyard or a holding area for cattle. Several layers show features indicative of deliberately prepared surfaces similar to those observed in later prehistoric settlements in the Near East (Matthews et al. 1997; Matthews 2001). This marks a significant change from earlier levels where such features have so far not been identified.

The lack of communal spaces in earlier levels at Catalhoyuk (During 2005) and the absence of streets between buildings has been seen as a feature of the settlement, though it has been acknowledged that open areas between building clusters may have functioned as 'streets'. Perhaps some of these areas, rather than acting to separate neighbourhoods, functioned as places where communal activities could occur, facilitating social interaction. The interest of the sterile compacted surfaces is that they provide examples of a new category of external space that appears in the later levels of the site. These external spaces are linked to a specific household, and the evidence indicates a high level of fluidity in their use over time, from yards to middens and back to yards. Finally these observations remind us that the term 'midden' should be used with caution. This generic classification must not mask the fact that they have different formation processes and represent a diverse set of activities that also change over time.

Acknowledgements

Micromorphology was conducted by LMS as a visiting researcher at the University of Washington, funded by WUN and the Department of Archaeology Research Committee, University of York. As always we are indebted to Shahina Farid for providing support, and to the rest of the research and excavation teams, particularly Freya Sadarangani who led the excavations in the spaces studied here and identified the suspected trodden surfaces. Thank you to Camilla Mazucatto for producing Figure 1. Thank you to Earthslides for preparing the thin sections. Thank you to Amy Bogaard who provided information of macrobotanical remains and comments on a draft: of this paper, and to Robyn Inglis for commenting on the micromorphology. Thank you to Charly French and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions.

References

AKERET, O. & P. Rentzel. 2001. Micromorphology and plant macrofossil analysis of cattle dung from the Neolithic lake shore settlement of Arbon Bleiche 3. Geoarchaeology 16: 687-700.

ALBERT, R.M., R. SHAHACK-GROSS, D. CABANES, A. GILBOA, S. LEV-YADUN, M. PORTILLO, I. SHARON, E. BOARETTO & S. WEINER. 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.

ALBERT, R.M., F. BERNA & R GOLDBERG. 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: 278-93.

BAYLISS, A. & S. FARID. 2008. Reassessment of the dating of the East Mound--a progress report. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2008: 281-82.

BOGAARD, A., M. CHARLES, A. LIVARDA, M. ERGUN, D. FILIPOVIC & G. JONES. In press a. The archaeobotany of mid-later Neolithic Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and landscapes of Catalhoyuk: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons (Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.

BOGAARD, A., P. RYAN, N. YALMAN, E. ASOUTI, K.C. TWISS, C. MAZZUCATO & S. FARID. In press b. Assessing outdoor activities and their social implications at Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Integrating Catalhoyuk: themes from the 2000-2008 seasons (Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.

Catalhoyuk. n.d. Database searching. Available at: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/Search.asp (accessed 9 May 2013).

CESSFORD, C., M. BLUMBACH, G. AKOGLU, T. HIGHAM, P.I. KUNIHOM, S.W. MANNING, M.W. NEWTON, M. OZBAKAN & A.M. OZER. 2005. Absolute dating at Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Changing materialities at Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

COURTY, M.-A., P. GOLDBERG & R. MCPHAIL. 1989. Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DURING, B.S. 2005. Building continuity in the central Anatolian Neolithic: exploring the meaning of buildings at Asikli Hoyuk and Catalhoyuk. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 3-29.

DURING, B.S. & A. MARCINIAK. 2005. Households and communities in the central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 12(2): 165-87.

EDDISFORD, D. 2006. Building 49. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2006: 71-78.

FAIRBAIRN, A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Catalhoyuk East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37: 197-210.

FRIESEM, D., E. BOARETTO, A. ELIYAHU-BEHAR & R. SHAHACK-GROSS. 2011. Degradation of mud brick houses in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological model. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 1135-47.

GE, T., M.-A. COURTY, W. MATTHEWS & J. WATTEZ. 1993. Sedimentary formation processes of occupation surfaces, in P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash & M.D. Petraglia (ed.) Formation processes in archaeological context. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.

GOLDBERG, P., C.E. MILLER, S. SCHIEGL, B. LIGOUIS, F. BERNA, N.J. CONARD & L. WADLEY. 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.

HODDER, I. 2006. The leopard's tale: revealing the mysteries of Catalhoyuk. London & New York: Thames & Hudson.

--2007. Catalhoyuk in the context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 105-20.

JENKINS, E.L. 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: 2402-407.

KARKANAS, P. & N. EFSTRATIOU. 2009. Floor sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: micromorphology reveals cycles of renovation. Antiquity 83: 955-67.

KENYON, K.M. 1981. Excavations at Jericho. Volume 3: the architecture and stratigraphy of the tell. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

MAKACHIA, P.A. 2011. Evolution of urban housing strategies and dweller-initiated transformations in Nairobi. City, Culture and Society 2: 219-34.

MATTHEWS, W. 1995. Micromorphological characterisation and interpretation of occupation deposits and microstratigraphic sequences at Abu Salabikh, Iraq, in A.J. Barham & R.I. MacPhail (ed.) Archaeological sediments and soils: analysis, interpretation and management: 41-76. London: Archetype.

--1998. Micromorphological analysis of occupation sequences at the aceramic Neolithic settlement of Asikli Hoyuk: an assessment, and comparison to depositional sequences at Catalhoyuk. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 1998: Appendix 2.

--2001. Micromorphological analysis of occupational sequences, in R. Matthews & N. Postgate (ed.) Contextual analysis of the use of space at two Near Eastern Bronze Age sites [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor]. doi:10.5284/1000206

--2003. Microstratigraphic sequences: indications of uses and concepts of space, in R.J. Matthews (ed.) Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 4: exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre, 1994-96: 377-88. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

--2005. Micromorphological and microstratigraphic traces of uses and concepts of space. I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons: 355-99. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

--2010. Geoarchaeology and taphonomy of plant remains and micromorphological residues in early urban environments in the ancient near east. Quaternary International 214: 98-113.

MATTHEWS, W., C.A.I. FRENCH, T. LAWRENCE, D.F. CUTLER & M.K. JONES. 1997. Microstratigraphic traces of site formation processes and human activities. World Archaeology 29: 281-308.

MATTHEWS, W., L.-M. SHILLITO & M.J. ALMOND. 2004. Micromorphology: investigation of Neolithic social and ecological strategies at seasonal, annual and life-cycle timescales. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2004.

MATTHEWS, W., M.J. ALMOND, E. ANDERSON, J. WILES, H. WILLIAMS & J. ROWE. In press. Biographies of architectural materials and buildings: integrating high-resolution micro-analysis and geochemistry, in I. Hodder (ed.) Substantive technologies at Catalhoyuk: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.

MEES, F. & T.V. TURSINA. 2010. Salts and salt crusts, in G. Stoops, V. Marcelino & F. Mees (ed.) Interpretation of micromorphological features of soils and regoliths: 441-69. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

MELLAART, J. 1967. Catal Huyuk: a Neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.

MILEK, K. 2012. Floor formation processes and the interpretation of site activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of turf buildings at Thvera, northeast Iceland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 119-37.

MILLER C.E., N.J. CONARD, P. GOLDBERG & F. BERNA. 2010. Dumping, sweeping and trampling: experimental micromorphological analysis of anthropogenically modified combustion features, in I. Thery-Parisot, L. Chabal & S. Costamagno (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.

OSTERRIETH, M., M. MADELLA, D. ZURRO & M. FERNANDA ALVAREZ. 2009. Taphonomical aspects of silica phytoliths in the loess sediments of the Argentinean Pampas. Quaternary International 193: 70-79.

OZKAN, S. 2006. Foreword--Courtyard: a typology that symbolises a culture, in B. Edwards, M. Silby, M. Hakmi & P. Land (ed.) Courtyard housing: past, present and future. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

REGAN, R., F. SADARANGANI & J. TAYLOR. 2008. Building 75 and assoc. spaces and middens. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2008: 62-72.

ROSEN, A.M. 2005. Phytolith indicators of plant and land use at Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder. (ed) Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons: 110-19. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

RUSSELL, N. & K. TWISS. 2008. Catalhoyuk animal bones. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2008: 110-19.

RUSSELL, N., K.C. TWISS, D.C. ORTON & G.A. DEMIRERGI. 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.

RYAN, P. 2011. Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: perspectives from the silica skeleton artifactual remains at Catalhoyuk. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: 292-305.

--In press. Plant exploitation from household and landscape perspectives: the phytolith evidence, in I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and landscapes of Catalhoyuk: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. (Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology). Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.

SHAHACK-GROSS, R. 2011. Herbivorous livestock dung: formation, taphonomy, methods for identification, and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 205-18.

SHAHACK-GROSS, R., F. MARSHALL & S. WEINER. 2003. Geo-ethnoarchaeology of pastoral sites: the identification of livestock enclosures in abandoned Maasai settlements. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 439-59.

SHAHACK-GROSS, R., R.-M. ALBERT, A. GILBOA, O. NAGAR-HILMAN, I. SHARON & S. WEINER. 2005. Geoarchaeology in an urban context: the uses of space in a Phoenician monumental building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1417-31.

SHILLITO, L.-M., W. MATTHEWS, I.D. BULL & M.J. ALMOND. 2011. The microstratigraphy of middens: capturing daily routine in rubbish at Neolithic Catalhoyuk, Turkey. Antiquity 85: 1024-38.

SIMPSON, I.A. & J.H. BARRETT. 1996. Interpretation of midden formation processes at Robert's Haven, Caithness, Scotland, using thin section micromorphology. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 543-56.

STOOPS, G. 2003. Guidelines for analysis and descriptions of soil and regolith thin sections. Madison (WI): Soil Science Society of America.

TRINCHAM, R. 2012. Sensing the place of Catalhoyuk: the rhythms of daily life, in R. Tringham & M. Stevanovic (ed.) House lives: building, inhabiting, excavating a house at Catalhoyuk, Turkey. Reports from the BACH Area, Catalhoyuk, 1997-2003. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute.

YALMAN, Y., H. GULTEKIN & D. TARKAN. 2008. Pottery archive report. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2008: 167-93.

Received: 10 December 2012; Accepted: 3 April 2013; Revised: 22 April 2013

Lisa-Marie Shillito (1) & Philippa Ryan (2)

(1) School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK (Email: lmshillito@ed.ac.uk)

(2) Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, The British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG, UK (Email: pryan@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk)

Table 1. Micromorphology samples, in order from earliest to latest
deposits.

Slide Field unit(s) Sample Building

1 (17339) / (17036) 17339 S3 75
2 (16549) / (17335) 16549 S3 75
3 (16246) / (16247) 16247 S8 65
4 (15717) / (15743) 15717 S6 65
5 (17039) / (17057) / (17071) 17039 S3 56
6 (16590) / (17017) 16590 S31 56
7 (16534) / (16568) 16568 S22 44
8 (16277) / (16507) 16277 S3 44
9 (16260) / (16262) 16262 S26 44
10 (16259) / (16260) 16259 S4 44

Slide Space Hodder level Mellaart level

1 333 South P V
2 333 South P V
3 299, 333 South Q IV
4 299, 305 South Q IV
5 339 South R III
6 339 South R III
7 319 South S II
8 130 South S II
9 129 South S II
10 129 South S II