Private pantries and celebrated surplus: storing and sharing food at Neolithic Catalhoyuk, Central Anatolia.

Bogaard, Amy ; Charles, Michael ; Twiss, Katheryn C. 等

Introduction

Food storage practice has often played a key role in accounts of early farming. In a seminal paper, Flannery (1972) identified household storage as the defining characteristic of early agricultural villages; through private storage, households formally took on the risks and rewards of producing for their own use (see also Rollefson 1997; Flannery 2002; Banning 2003). This generalised understanding anticipates the emergence of modular farming households with their own storage space in different parts of the world, but it does not account for fundamental differences in the nature of the two dietary mainstays, plants and animals.

For practical reasons, plant- and animal-derived foods tend to be stored differently. In the absence of refrigeration, animals, especially large ones (e.g. cattle-size), are commonly shared beyond the co-residential household (e.g. Schneider 1957; Binford 1978; Ertug-Yaras 1997: 355; Hayden 2003; Halstead 2007). By contrast, the particulate nature and long shelf-life of seeds, nuts, dried fruits and other plant parts suits them to piecemeal consumption and individualised storage (e,g, Lee 1973; Kramer 1982: 100; Imamura 1996: 104; Ertug-Yaras 1997: 89-92). We suggest that the combination of plant storage and animal sharing was a fundamental strategy for negotiating the conflicting social and economic demands of sedentism in south-west Asia and elsewhere, and one that was variously reinterpreted and formalised as populations shifted towards farming and herding (cf. Byrd 1994; Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002; Banning 2003; Kuijt 2004).

Across the south-west Asian agricultural transition, it is possible to discern continuity in plant storage/animal sharing alongside increasing formalisation of storage (Table 1, Figure 1). A good baseline is Hallan Cemi, a sedentary hunting-gathering site in eastern Anatolia, where display of an aurochs skull and arrangement of wild sheep crania may reflect animal sharing, while concentrations of almonds suggest small-scale plant storage and/or consumption (Rosenberg et al. 1995; Rosenberg & Redding 2000). In the contemporaneous southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), as cultivation became integral to food production strategies, rarely-preserved direct evidence confirms significant plant storage at the household level: House 11 at Gilgal I contained baskets of seeds/grains including likely cultivated oats and barley (Noy 1989; Weiss et al. 2006). However, storage appears to have been variably scaled and formalised. Built features (bins, raised floor 'granaries') potentially dedicated to plant storage were irregularly scattered both inside and outside dwellings, and not all houses had them; enigmatic structures found at Jericho, Jerf el Ahmar and Mureybet mayor may not have served for 'communal' storage (Stordeur et al. 2001; Kuijt & GoringMorris 2002: 373; Twiss 2008; Kuijt & Finlayson 2009). Evidence for direct storage of meat is lacking, but storage in the form of social sharing is suggested by display of aurochs crania at Mureybet and Jerf el Ahmar (Cauvin 1994: 46; Helmer et al. 2004: 151; Twiss 2008).

Greater formalisation of household storage is evident in the proliferation of built storage features (day bins, 'silos') as reliance on agriculture intensified during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) (e.g. Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002). Increasingly 'private' storage is evident as well, with southern Levantine bins migrating from Middle PPNB transitional porch- or anteroom-like spaces to the inner recesses of Late PPNB compartmentalised houses (Wright 2000). Bin contents are generally not preserved, but occasional charred plant stores confirm this trend. At 'Ain Ghazal, lentils, peas and barley were stored in a corner near the door of Middle PPNB House 12, whereas lentils and peas in the Late PPNB Terraced House are associated with its collapsed upper storey (Rollefson & Simmons 1986: 152, Figure 9; Rollefson 1997: 291), Meanwhile, evidence for animal sharing is extensive: at least eight aurochsen were packed into a single, capped pit at Kfar HaHoresh, Other features potentially symbolising meat-sharing include deposits such as four goat crania and one Bos skull in a building at Ghwair I (Simmons & Najjar 2006; Goring-Morris & Horwitz 2007). Such displays are not a new phenomenon: Ozdogan (1999: 52, Figure 24) has specifically suggested that display of an aurochs skull in a supposed public building at late PPNB Cayonu reflects continuity of practice from Hallan Cemi. Finally, combined private storage of plants and display of animal parts is suggested at PPNB Yiftahel by indoor storage of pulses (broad beans in a clay 'silo' and lentils in a perishable container) and placement of gazelle horn cores in an adjacent courtyard (Garfinkel 1987: 205-6, Figure 6).

Our research focus is Catalhoyuk in Central Anatolia: this extensive settlement dates primarily to the Late (Pottery) Neolithic (LN) (Table 2), but in size and density of occupation it more closely resembles Late PPNB megasites than it does contemporaneous occupations such as the isolated farmstead of Tabaqat al-Buma or dispersed LN 'Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1997: 298; Banning 1998: 218, 221-2). The best Late Neolithic comparison is Sha'ar HaGolan (Garfinkel & Miller 2002), but here courtyard-house complexes with storerooms suggest large-scale private storage for extended families, in distinct contrast to the small houses (c. 30[m.sup.2] on average) and households at Catalhoyuk (e.g, During 2007).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Food storage at Catalhoyuk: the available dataset

Two lines of archaeological evidence are commonly used to infer storage practice: ecofactual concentrations and built storage facilities. In situ concentrations of plant and animal remains constitute direct evidence of ancient storage practice; built facilities are indirect evidence. Additional inferences regarding storage may derive from the nature and scale of food preparation activities such as plant processing or animal dismemberment and distribution.

Excavation of the 13ha mound at Catalhoyuk East has revealed a long-lived community of houses densely packed into neighbourhoods, groupings that presumably reflect shared social ties/affiliation, with open midden areas between them (Mellaart 1967; During 2006; Hodder 2006). Built storage features--clay bins of various forms--occur in most houses (Mellaart 1967: 62; Cessford 2007; Farid 2007). The architecture and storage features pose immediate questions regarding the negotiation of domestic storage and inter-house sharing.

At the end of their use-life, houses at Catalhoyuk were often scoured out, symbolically important features (such as horned cattle skulls and other animal installations) dismantled, structural posts removed, walls levelled and rooms filled in with relatively clean soil. In some cases, abandonment included the placement of artefacts (Hodder 2007: 32-3). Cleaned and abandoned buildings provide sparse evidence (e.g. dirty floors, oyen rake-outs) of plant- and animal-related activities during the life of the house. Some buildings, however, burned with animal installations and other high-density animal and plant deposits in situ. While it is possible that such buildings' primary deposits reflect abandonment behaviour, their placements of cattle horn installations, collections of bone-working materials, and plant stores provide insight into the cultural principles that guided actual practice (Twiss et al. 2008).

One recently uncovered burned house, Building 52, provides the best opportunity so far found at the site for using spatial distribution of in situ plant and animal remains to investigate storage practice (Figure 2) (Twiss et al. 2008, in press). In the same neighbourhood as Building 52, Building 1 was partially burnt in several phases (Cessford 2007) and also offers relevant insights. 1960s excavations in the South Area uncovered a number of burnt structures (Mellaart 1967). Analysis of the distribution of animal installations in these buildings, together with re-analysis of samples taken from botanical concentrations (Fairbairn et al. forthcoming), adds valuable spatial and chronological breadth.

The socioeconomic significance of Catalhoyuk's household storage capacities (bin volume, floor space) is illuminated by comparison with ethnographic data from Central Anatolia (Ertug-Yaras 1997; Yalman 2005a & b) and beyond (Watson 1979; Kramer 1982). Due to the complexity of this enquiry, we rely on buildings documented by the current excavations, though new research into buildings from Catalhoyuk's 1960s excavations is ongoing.

[FIGURE 2a OMITTED]

This ethnoarchaeological approach reveals important similarities and differences between Neolithic and present-day contexts.

Building 52

Building 52's layout (Figure 3) and distribution of in situ plant and animal deposits have been detailed elsewhere (Twiss et al. 2008, in press); they are summarised here (Table 3). Primary deposits of plant and animal remains were recovered from the western half of the main space (94) and from a bin-lined room, space 93, to its north. The building's other spaces were cleared out of badly eroded. GIS mapping of the densities of botanical and faunal remains in spaces 93 and 94 (Figure 4) reveals similarities and differences in their distribution. In situ botanical deposits occur only in space 93 and are concentrated in the bins; additional concentrations on the floor and in the overlying room fill appear to reflect bundles that hung overhead (Table 3). Animal deposits consist largely of concentrations of raw materials in space 93 and cattle horn core displays in space 94 (Table 3). The use of plants and animals, as food or as raw materials, consumable versus non-consumable, appears to have guided their placement in these two spaces (Figure 5). Considering the probable location of the house entrance (Figure 3), it appears that storage of consumables was relatively inaccessible and invisible, whereas the horned bench and bucranium were positioned to be seen immediately by those entering the room.

[FIGURE 2b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Space 94's cattle installations can be interpreted as a way of 'storing up' and representing past consumption events--given the size of the animals concerned, as well as overrepresentation of cattle in the site's feasting deposits, almost certainly including the sharing out of meat beyond the co-residential household (Russell & Martin 2005). Plant stores and other materials in the bin-lined room were likely intended for use by the household; total bin volume of the room is consistent with this inference (see below). In Building 52, we thus discern literal storage of plant foods in a secluded part of the house alongside symbolic storage of cattle in its main occupation space.

Building 1

Like Building 52, Building 1 belongs to the middle of Catalhoyuk's occupation sequence. Its exceptionally high number of subfloor burials (>60 individuals, many more than would have inhabited the house) suggest a special status in its neighbourhood (Cessford 2007: 405-530). Burning in Building 1 was more episodic and complex than in Building 52, but patterning of plant and animal remains in the main burning phase is in some ways comparable (Figure 6). A single cattle horn was set into the wall of a central room, where the remains of a dismantled bucranium were also found, while plant concentrations including lentils, acorns and wild mustard seeds were primarily found in side rooms (Fairbairn et al. 2005: 157-9; Russell & Martin 2005: 48; Cessford 2007: 455-89, Figures 12.49, 12.52, 12.59-60). A layer of lentils was also found in a bin-like feature in a central space, together with a caprine scapula and at least 13 wild goat horns; two cattle bones were subsequently placed there as well (Fairbairn et al. 2005: 159; Russell & Martin 2005: 77-8; Cessford 2007: 479-82, Figure 12.55). Fragments of lentil pod and stalk are interspersed with these lentils, indicating that they were not fully cleaned (Filipovic unpublished data). Such co-occurrence of plant and animal remains recalls the mixed contents of the bins in Building 52, as do the cattle crania in a central space and the plant concentrations in side rooms, Building 1 appears to diverge from Building 52's pattern in the central-space storage of partially processed pulses; the bin's form and construction were also unusual. Intriguingly, the excavator viewed the 'bin' contents as deliberate abandonment placements, not in situ stores (Cessford 2007: 479-82).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Plants and animals in Mellaart's burnt structures

How typical, then, is Building 52 of the mid-Neolithic sequence at Catalhoyuk, or of the site as a whole? James Mellaart excavated a number of burnt buildings with in situ horned installations, usually from cattle and variously placed in the main room (1967; Russell & Meece 2005). These tend to duster in certain buildings and are particularly numerous towards the middle of the Neolithic sequence. Mellaart also encountered a number of plant stores burnt in situ. The information available for each sample is variable, but several burnt buildings sampled by Mellaart can be usefully compared with Buildings 52 and 1 (Table 4). Most significant plant stores occur in side rooms of multi-roomed structures, and well-sampled buildings contain a range of plant foods, including cereals, pulses, wild mustard and/or wild fruits/nuts such as acorn and almond. Here again, a general contrast between concealed plant stores and displays of cattle horns is evident. Though most of these structures belong to Mellaart's Level VI, a Level II building appears to indicate continuity in the common pattern. Yet there are also exceptions: a significant pulse store in the main room of one Level VI building (Table 4) echoes the deposition of partially processed lentils in the main space of Building 1.

Bins and side rooms at Catalhoyuk

Clay bins area feature of most houses throughout the occupation sequence, tending to occur in side rooms and often in clusters of three or more, though there are exceptions (Figure 7, Table 5) (Mellaart 1967: 62; Cessford 2007; Farid 2007). Bin form is variable: some appear to have had permanent openings that could be 'plugged', while others were sealed over with day when new harvests were cached. Sealed/plugged bins were well protected from mice, attested by microfaunal analysis and the widespread occurrence of charred mouse pellets elsewhere (e.g. in open bins of Buildings 52 and 1--Twiss et al. 2008; Filipovic unpublished data).

Yet bins only represent a portion of potential plant storage. Phytolith traces and plaster impressions indicate the use of perishable storage containers (Rosen 2005), both inside and outside bins (Figure 8), while occasional botanical clusters appear to derive from suspended bundles that fell from the rafters (Atalay & Hastorf 2006). In Building 52, caching of wild mustard seed in a sealed bin coincided with concentrations of the same seeds outside the bin, suggesting that a sealed cache would be opened when other supplies ran out. The contents of storerooms would have changed through the year as different foods became available and stores were used up (Ertug-Yaras 1997: 89-92; Atalay & Hastorf 2006).

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Though bin volume is inevitably an underestimate of storage capacity, it is notable that the average bin volume for houses excavated by the current project centres around 1[m.sup.3] (Table 5). Volume estimates depend on original bin height, which is usually not preserved, but an assumed diameter: height ratio (c. 1:1.25) approximating the fully preserved bin dimensions of Building 5 gives an average of 1200 litres (1.2[m.sup.3]), with most houses exceeding 800-1000 litres. A cubic metre would accommodate nearly a ton of cereal grain of similarly concentrated plant food, which approximates the annual staple requirement of a small-scale family (c. 57 people) (Clark & Haswell 1966: 49; Forbes 1982: 356; Kramer 1982: 37, 121, Table 2.3; Yalman 2005a). Individual bins at Catalhoyuk are generally smaller than the large wheat bins (individually around 1[m.sup.3]) in Carol Kramer's ethnoarchaeological study of a village in western Iran (1982: 121). The clusters of smaller bins at Catalhoyuk, and their diversity of in situ plant stores, suggest that the diet was based on a range of wild and cultivated species rather than on a single staple. The plain appearance of the Catalhoyuk bins also contrasts with decorated examples in western Iran (Watson 1979: 262, Figure 5.42; Kramer 1982: 100, Figure 4.11), as well as with recent eastern Anatolian containers for wheat flour (Figure 9). This lack of decorative elaboration is consistent with avoidance of botanical display, in distinct contrast to the site's extensive faunal iconography.

Houses at Catalhoyuk show significant variation in bin capacity, ranging from less than 200 to over 2000 litres (Figure 10a, Table 5). Such interhousehold variation in capacity is not inherently surprising: ethnoarchaeological studies of village communities in Anatolia and elsewhere have documented considerable variation in number of bins per household and total storage capacity, depending on the life history of the occupying family and the rate at which they 'update' their bins (Kramer 1982: 120-1, Table 4.1; Yalman 2005a).

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

Since bin volumes virtually never reflect total domestic storage capacity, we also consider the total amount of space plausibly dedicated to storage. Figure 10b shows the floor area potentially devoted to storage in side rooms at Catalhoyuk compared with floor space devoted to various types of storage in present-day households of the surrounding Konya region (Cumra Plain and Aksehir) documented by Yalman (2005a & b). Though the extended modern households are almost certainly larger than those at Catalhoyuk, there is overlap in the amount of floor space given over to food storage for daily consumption, particularly in the 5-10[m.sup.2] range. Where the modern households dearly differ is in the additional large space(s) devoted to storing surplus, seed corn, and animal fodder. The implication is that large-scale surpluses and animal fodder were not anticipated in built storage features at Catalhoyuk.

Nevertheless, modest levels of overproduction--e.g. 'normal surpluses' of c. 50-100 per cent of the anticipated annual requirement (Forbes 1982: 356-75, Figure 47; Halstead 1989, 1990b)--could be accommodated intramurally in a combination of bins and perishable containers, or externally on roofs, in abandoned buildings, pits and so on (cf. Ertug-Yaras 1997: 91-2). Animal fodder could also have been stored in some of these areas.

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

The restricted capacity of built storage features and side rooms in comparison with modern farmers producing for sale as well as for their own use (Yalman 2005a) likely reflects, amongst other factors, the relatively small scale of manual cultivation at Catalhoyuk. Moreover, seed corn storage would have been negligible relative to modern extensive agriculture given high seed:yield ratios in an intensive manual cultivation regime (Halstead 1990a). The limited scale of storage may also be linked with social obligations amongst densely packed houses to mobilise surplus food beyond the household.

Conclusion

It is possible to discern at Catalhoyuk a local version of the formalised and concealed household storage that emerged in other regions of south-west Asia through the PPNB, and that is commonly interpreted as evidence of household 'economic autonomy'. In this local iteration of the process, concealment of stored plant food within the house was balanced against visible installations of animal parts that plausibly refer to the sharing of meat beyond the household. In the particular historical context of the mid-Neolithic sequence, when the community apparently reached its maximum size, displays of animal remains--particularly cattle heads and horns--may reflect intensifying social negotiations surrounding food consumption on the site as well as rights of access to resources in the wider landscape. We propose that the divisive effects of private storage were subverted through sharing of cattle and other surpluses. The existence of consumption units greater than the household may also reflect the necessity of supra-household cooperation in the wider productive landscape.

[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]

Comparison of Catalhoyuk storage with ethnographic examples from Central Anatolia suggests comparable scales of 'pantry' storage for daily consumption but contrasts in storage capacity for surplus crops. Differences also emerge in the decorative elaboration of bins in some modern examples, in comparison to the plan bins of Catalhoyuk. In regards to the first difference, the ability of Catalhoyuk farmers to produce significant crop surpluses was probably limited by the intensive nature of manual cultivation and hence by available labour. In regards to the second, we posit that communal social cohesion was a key issue for this densely packed settlement, and that extra-household sharing of meat, particularly from cattle, played an important role in its maintenance. Thus visual celebrations of private stores were socially provocative, but commemorations of communal festivities were desirable (and potentially competitive). Food sharing, rather than storage, thus became the focus of display.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0647131 and the Catalhoyuk Research Project. Analysis of the Mellaart archive was funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and The British Institute in Ankara. Bogaard's attendance at the Society for American Archaeology 73rd annual meeting in Vancouver, where this paper was presented, was supported by the Meyerstein Bequest, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford.

Received: 29 September 2008; Accepted: 27 November 2008; Revised: 16 January 2009

References

ATALAY, S. & C.A. HASTORF. 2006, Food, meals, and daily activities: food habitus at Neolithic Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 71: 283-319.

BANNING, E.B. 1998. The Neolithic period: triumphs of architecture, agriculture, and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61: 188-237.

--2003. Housing Neolithic farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 4-21.

BINFORD, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York (NY): Academic Press.

BYRD, B.F. 1994. Public and private, domestic and corporate: the emergence of the Southwest Asian village, American Antiquity 59: 639-66.

CAUVIN, J. 1994. Naissance des Divinites, Naissance de l'Agriculture. Paris: CNRS.

CESSFORD, C. 2007. Neolithic excavations in the North Area, East Mound, Catalhoyuk 1995-98, in I. Hodder (ed.) Excavating Catalhoyuk: South, North and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 345-549. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

CESSFORD, C., M.W. NEWTON, P.I. KUNIHOLM, S.W. MANNING, M. OZBAKAN, A. MELEK OZER, K. GOZE AKOLU, T. HIGHAM & P. BLUMBACH. 2005. Absolute dating at Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Changing materialities at Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 65-99. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

CLARK, C. & M. HASWELL. 1966. The economics of subsistence agriculture. London: Macmillan.

DURING, B.S. 2006. Constructing communities: clustered neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 cal BC. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten.

--2007, Reconsidering the Catalhoyuk community: from households to settlement systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20: 155-82.

ERTUG-YARAS, F, 1997. An ethnoarchaeological study of subsistence and plant gathering in Central Anatolia (PhD dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

FAIRBAIRN , A., D. MARTINOLI, A. BUTLER, G. HILLMAN & A. KENNEDY. Forthcoming. The Mellaart seed archive from Neolithic Catalhoyuk East, Turkey (British Archaeological Reports International Series). Oxford: Archaeopress.

FAIRBAIRN, A., J. NEAR & D. MARTINOLI. 2005. Macrobotanical investigation of the North, South and KOPAL area excavations at Catalhoylik East, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 137-201. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

FARID, S. 2007. Neolithic excavations in the South Area, East Mound, Catalhoyuk 1995-99, in I. Hodder (ed,) Excavating Catalhoyuk: South, North and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995-99 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 41-342, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

FLANNERY, K.V. 1972. The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: a comparative study, in R.T.P.J. Ucko & G.W. Dimbleby (ed.) Man, settlement and urbanism: 23-53. London: Duckworth.

--2002. The origins of the village revisited: from nuclear to extended households. American Antiquity 6: 417-33.

FORBES, H. 1982. Strategies and soils: technology, production and environment in the peninsula of Methana, Greece (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

GALILI, E., M. WEINSTEIN-EVRON, I. HERSHKOVITZ, A. GOPHER, M. KISLEV, O. LERNAU, L. KOLSKA-HORWITZ & H. LERNAU. 1993, Atlit-Yam: a prehistoric site on the sea floor off the Israeli coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 133-57.

GARFINKEL, Y. 1987. Yiftahel: a Neolithic village from the seventh millennium BC in Lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 199-212.

GARFINKEL Y. & M.A. MILLER (ed.), 2002. Sha'ar Hagolan 1: Neolithic art in context. Oxford: Oxbow.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N. & L.K. HORWITZ. 2007. Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. Antiquity 81: 1-17.

HALSTEAD, P. 1989. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece, in P. Halstead & J. O'Shea (ed.) Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty: 68-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--1990a Quantifying Sumerian agriculture--some seeds of doubt and hope. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 5: 187-95.

--1990b Waste not, want not: traditional responses to crop failure in Greece. Rural History 1: 147-64.

--2007. Carcasses and commensality: investigating the social context of meat consumption in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Greece, in C. Mee & J. Renard (ed.) Cooking up the past: food and culinary practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean: 25-49. Oxford: Oxbow.

HAYDEN, B, 2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 34: 458-69.

HELMER, D., L. GOURICHSON & D. STORDEUR. 2004. A l'aube de la domestication animale. Anthropozoologica 39: 143-63.

HODDER, I. 2006. Catalhoyuk: the leopard's tale. London: Thames & Hudson,

--2007. Summary of results, in I. Hodder (ed.) Excavating Catalhoyuk: South, North and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995-99 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 25-37. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/ London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

IMAMURA, K. 1996. Prehistoric Japan. London: UCL Press.

KRAMER, C. 1982. Village ethnoarchaeology. New York (NY): Academic Press.

KUIJT, I. 2004. When the walls came down: social organization, ideology, and the 'collapse' of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, in H.-D. Bienert, H.G.K. Gebel & R. Neef (ed.) Central settlements in Neolithic Jordan: proceedings of a symposium heM in Wadi Musa, Jordan, 21st-25th of July, 1997 (Studies in early Near Eastern production, subsistence, and environment 5): 183-99. Berlin: ex oriente.

KUIJT, I. & N. GORING-MORRIS. 2002. Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 361-440.

KUIJT, I. & B. FINLAYSON. 2009. Evidence for food storage and predomestication granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Vallesy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 10966-70.

LEE, R. 1973. Mongongo: the ethnography of a major wild food resource. Ecology of food and nutrition 2: 307-21.

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

NOY, T. 1989. Gilgal I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site, Israel. The 1985-1987 seasons. Paleorient 15: 11-18.

OZDOGAN, M. 1999. Cayonu, in M. Ozdogan & N. Basgelen (ed.) Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of civilization: 35-63. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari.

OZBASARAN, M. & H. BUITENHUIS. 2002. Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia, in F. Gerard & L. Thissen (ed.) The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC: 67-77. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari.

ROLLEFSON, G.O. 1997. Changes in architecture and social organization at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal, in H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi & G.O. Rollefson (ed.) The prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from 1997: 287-308. Berlin: ex oriente.

ROLLEFSON, G.O. & A.H. SIMMONS 1986. The Neolithic village of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan: preliminary report on the 1984 season. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 24: 145-64.

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 (McDonald Institute Monographs): 203-12. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

ROSENBERG, M. & R.W. REDDING. 2000. Hallan Cemi and early village organization in Eastern Anatolia, in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic farming communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation: 39-62. New York (NY): Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

ROSENBERG, M., R.M. NESBITT, R.W. REDDING & T.F. STRASSER. 1995. Hallan Cemi Tepesi: some preliminary observations concerning early Neolithic subsistence behaviors in eastern Anatolia. Anatolica 21: 1-12.

RUSSELL, N. & L. MARTIN. 2005. The Catalhoyuk mammal remains, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-99 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 33-98. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

RUSSELL, N. & S. MEECE. 2005. Animal representations and animal remains at Catalhoyuk, in I. Hodder (ed.) Catalhoyuk perspectives: themes from the 1995-99 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 209-30. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

SCHNEIDER, H.K. 1957. The subsistence role of cattle among the Pakot and in East Africa. American Anthropologist 59: 278-300.

SIMMONS, A.H. & M. NAJJAR. 2006. Ghwair I: a small, complex Neolithic community in Southern Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 31: 77-95.

STORDEUR, D., M. BRENET, G. DER APRAHAMIAN & J.-C. ROUX. 2001. Les batiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paleorient 26: 29-44.

TWISS, K. 2008. Transformations in an early agricultural society: feasting in the southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27: 418-42.

TWISS, K., A. BOGAARD, D. BOGDAN, T. CARTER, M.P. CHARLES, S. FARID, N. RUSSELL, M. STEVANOVIC, E.N. YALMAN & L. YEOMANS. 2008. Arson or accident? The burning of a Neolithic house at Catalhoyuk. Journal of Field Archaeology 33: 41-57.

TWISS, K.C., A. BOGAARD, M.P. CHARLES, J. HENECKE, N. RUSSELL, L. MARTIN & G. JONES. In press. Plants and animals together: interpreting organic remains from Building 52 at Catalhoyuk. Current Anthropology.

WATSON, P.J. 1979. Archaeological ethnography in western Iran. Tuscon (AZ): University of Arizona.

WEISS, E., M.E. KISLEV & A. HARTMANN. 2006. Antonomous cultivation before domestication. Science 312: 1609-10.

WRIGHT, K.I. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of Western Asia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2: 89-122.

YALMAN, E.N. 2005a. Cagdas Koylerde Yapilan 'Yerlesim Mantigi' Calismalarinin Arkeolojik Yerlesmelerin Yorumuna Katkisi. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Istanbul University.

--2005b. Settlement logic studies as an aid to understand prehistoric settlement organization: ethnoarchaeological research in Central Anatolia, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 329-42. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Amy Bogaard (1), Michael Charles (2), Katheryn C. Twiss (3), Andrew Fairbairn (4), Nurcan Yalman (5), Dragana Filipovic (1), G. Arzu Demirergi (3), Fusun Ertug (6), Nerissa Russell (7) & Jennifer Henecke (3)

(1) School of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford, OX1 2PG, UK

(2) Department of Archaeology, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK

(3) Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA

(4) The University of Queensland, School of Social Science, Michie Building, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia

(5) Caddebostan Cemiltopuzlu Cad. 79/5, Pinar Apt. Istanbul, Turkey

(6) Orhangazi caddesi, Kumbasi yolu no 109, Iznik Bursa, Turkey

(7) Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Table 1. Chronology of the Neolithic Levant, with comments on
subsistence and storage practice at selected sites. PPN =
'Pre-Pottery Neolithic'; LN = 'Late (Pottery) Neolithic'. Unless shown
below, site references are given in the text.

Southern and Calibrated [sup.14]C
northern Levant years BC Selected sites

Late 9700-8500 Hallan Cemi *;
 Epipalaeolithic/ Gilgal I
 PPNA
Early-Middle 8500-8100 Yiftahel, Kfar
PPNB (EPPNB) HaHoresh,
 Ghwair, 'Ain
 Ghazal,
 Cayonu
Middle PPNB 8100-7250
 (MPPNB)
Late PPNB 7250-6700
 (LPPNB)
PPNC 6600-6250 'Ain Ghazal,
 Atlit-Yam
LN 6250-5850 Sha'ar HaGolan

Southern and Plant and/or animal
northern Levant Subsistence storage evidence

Late Gathering, Caching of almonds,
 Epipalaeolithic/ cultivation at display of aurochs
 PPNA some sites; skull, arrangement
 hunting of wild sheep crania
 in open area at
 Hallan Cemi; plant
 storage in baskets
 inside house at
 Gilgal 1
Early-Middle Origins of an Display of cattle and
PPNB (EPPNB) integrated other animal skulls,
 farming feasting deposits;
 economy, with formalisation and
 increasing privatisation of
Middle PPNB reliance on plant storage
 (MPPNB) crop cultivation
Late PPNB and caprine
 (LPPNB) herding
 through time
PPNC Intensive reliance Built household
 on plant and storage but no in
 animal situ plant or animal
 domesticates evidence; coastal fish
 processing for
 storage (Galili et al.
 1993)
LN Built storage in
 courtyard house
 complexes but no in
 situ plant or animal
 evidence

* Sedentary hunter-gatherer site lacking evidence for cultivation/
domesticates.

Table 2. Chronology of Catalhoyuk in the context of the Central
Anatolian Neolithic (Ozbasaran & Buitenhuis 2002; Cessford et al.
2005). ECA = 'Early Central Anatolian'.

 Calibrated
Central Anatolia Catalhuyuk East Levels [sup.14]C years BC

ECA II Pre XIID-XII/IX 9000-7500
ECA III IIIA XII/IX-VIB 7500-G700/0000
 IIIB VIA-0 6700/0000-6000

Table 3. Summary of in situ plant and animal deposits in Building 52
(Twiss et al 2008, in press).

Space Feature Plants

93 Bin 2002 Naked barley grain, almonds
 and free-threshing wheat grain
 Bin 2003 Naked barley grain
 Bin 2044 Peas, wild mustard, other wild
 seeds and cereal material
 Bin 2005 Wild mustard
 Floor Cereal grain and wild mustard
 Room fill Cereal grain and wild mustard
94 Bucranium N/A
 Horned bench N/A

Space Feature Animals

93 Bin 2002 Antler tool
 Bin 2003 Worked antler piece (tool
 preform?); varied bones (raw
 material storage, meal
 consumption, perhaps ritual
 deposition)
 Bin 2044 In situ: wild boar mandible, red
 deer antler tine, five worked
 cattle-sized rib shaft fragments;
 charred mouse pellets and burnt
 mouse bones
 Collapse from abaue: wild boar
 mandible, antler tine
 Bin 2005 empty
 Floor Caprine metapodia cluster (raw
 materials for bone working)
 Room fill Cattle skull fragment, including
 horn core
94 Bucranium Partial skull of a large bull set into a
 niche
 Horned bench 3 left-hand horn cores set into one
 side of a plastered bench; no
 evidence for right hand-side
 horn-cores on the other side of
 the bench.

Table 4. Summary of charred plant stored and animal installations in
well documented burned buildings excavated by Mellaart (Fairbairn et
al. forthcoming). Teat in square brackets signifies only small
quantities were found.
 Location of plant stores

Level House Mellaart Main room with Side room
 status platforms etc

A II 1 Shrine [Grain in hearth; Grain
 other small
 deposits of grain
 and pulses]

A VI * 1 (main) & Shrine A corns, almonds,
 2 (ante) pulses, grain,
 wild seeds

E VI 1 Shrine Grain, acorns,
 mustard

E VI 14 (main) Shrine Pulses (Bitter Many grain and
 & 17 vetch) mustard samples
 (ante)

E VI 34 Pulses

E VI 44 Leopard [Wild mustard, Grain
 shrine grain]

E VII 24 (main) Grain
 25
 (ante)

A III^ 4 Grain and wild
 grasses

E VI^ 2 Wheat and pulses

 Location of animal art

Level Main room

A II Bull pillar

A VI * Horned bench

E VI Wall paintings

E VI Bucrania

E VI

E VI Leopard reliefs

E VII

A III^ Bull pillar

E VI^

* Later re-classified as E VI 61 and E VI 62.
^ Single room house.

Table 5. Bin and side room data for well documented buildings from
the current excavations at Catalhoyuk (for archive reports, see
www.catalhoyulc.com). [] = provisional since side rooms not excavated;
preserv = 'preservation', unexe = 'unexcavated'.

 Used for
 Used for bin room side No.
Area Building calculations? area? bins

4040 45 yes yes 2
 48 poor preserv yes n/a
 49 yes yes 3

 52 yes yes 4
 52, final yes yes 0
 phase
 (=B. 51)
 55 yes yes 3
 57 poor preserv yes n/a
 58 poor preserv yes n/a
 59 yes yes 10
 59 minus 7
 ?external
 bins
 64 poor preserv yes n/a

North 1, phase 1.2B yes yes 1
 1, phase 1.2C yes yes 2
 1, Phase 1.4 yes yes 0
 5, Phase B yes yes 6

South 6 yes yes 3
 18 yes yes 4
 23 side room unexe yes [1]
 G5 yes yes 5
 17, Phase B side room unexe yes [4]
 17, Phase C side room unexe yes
 17, Phase D side room unexe yes
 17, Phase E side room unexe yes
 2, Phase 2.2 side room unexe yes

Average

Average with B. 59 minus? external bins in space 276

 Internal bin
 floor area
Area Bin location ([mi.sup.2]) * Bin capacity (litres)

 height: height. height.
 diameter diameter diameter
 1.25:1 1:1 0.75:1

4040 side room 0.59 397 318 238
 n/a n/a n/a n/a
 side of 1.76 1685 1348 1011
 single room
 side room 1.82 1531 1225 919
 side room 0.95 670 536 402
 n/a n/a n/a n/a
 n/a n/a n/a n/a
 side rooms 4.17 3360 2688 2016
 side rooms 1.47 842 673 505
 n/a n/a n/a n/a

North side room 0.24 143 115 86
 side and main 1.00 889 711 534

 side room 1.99 1434 1148 861

South side room 1.46 1279 1023 767
 side room 0.82 468 375 281
 [main room] [0.39]
 side room 2.10 1703 1363 1022
 [main room] [1.29]

Average 1233 986 740

Average with B. 59 minus? 1004 803 602
external bins in space 276

 Side
 room area
Area ([m.sup.2]) Reference

4040 11.8 2004 archive report
 3.3 2004 archive report
 n/a 2004 & 2006 archive
 report Eddisford
 pets. comm. July 28
 2008
 10.0 2005 archive report
 n/a 2005 archive report
 5.0 2005 archive report
 6.0 2005 archive report
 6.7 2006 archive report
 24.4 2007 archive repott
 13.6 2006 archive report

North 1, Cessford 2007
 Cessford 2007
 Cessford 2007
 14.7 Cessford 2007

South 9.8 Farid 2007
 4.2 Farid 2007
 5.6 Farid 2007
 5.5 2007 archive report
 9.2 Farid 2007
 9.2 Farid 2007
 9.2 Farid 2007
 9.2 Farid 2007
 2.0 Farid 2007

Average

Average with B. 59 minus? external bins in space 276

* where unavailable, internal dimensions estimated by applying
correction factor of 0.8 to total bin floor area based on Bldg 5,
Phase B.