ÇATALHÖYÜK 2005 ARCHIVE REPORT

CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS REPORTS

Stone Bead Technology

Katherine  I. (Karen) Wright

Institute of Archaeology
University College  London

In 2005, a new phase in the study of stone bead technology began at Çatalhöyük, building on the previous work of  Naomi Hamilton and Brian Jackson, whose reports will appear in Volume 5 of the final report series (Hamilton 2005; Jackson 2005). Hamilton and Jackson completed an initial study of materials and typology of finished beads (mostly from burials). The sample with which they worked was composed of beads from the Mellaart excavations and from the current excavations, up to about 1999. 

However, a database for the stone beads (and beads generally) has yet to be created for these data. In addition, investigation of flotation residues for micro-artefacts related to beadmaking has not yet begun.  To date, detailed analysis of large micro-artefact assemblages containing debitage from stone beadmaking has been undertaken only at a very few Neolithic sites, mostly in Jordan (Wright and Garrard 2003; Wright et al. 2008, in preparation). 

Thus, a new phase of research on bead technology at Çatalhöyük began in the summer of 2005.   This initial focus was primarily on the beads made of stone. 

However, an urgent task, now in progress, is to organize collaboration with other project specialists who can address the technologies of beads made from shell, bone and clay (Reese 2005; Russell 2005). Some very brief discussions about this were held with Nerissa Russell (concerning bone beads) and John Last (concerning clay), but getting a full collaborative team and programme up and running will be a key task in the summer of 2006

Activities concerning beads in summer 2005 were as follows.

First, I undertook an initial inventory and assessment of the collections of beads from the Mellaart and current excavations, to see what data have been recorded thus far. At the present time the written and photographic archive on beads consists of (a) field photographs of beads in situ, in burials; (b) records of beads now housed in the Konya Museum, which has in its keeping beads from both the Mellaart excavations and some from the current project.  The latter records (of material in Konya Museum) were studied thoroughly and notes were made for purposes of creating the database on stone beads.

Second, the collections immediately available at the site for direct study were perused and it was found that these are in very good order. Using the publications of Hamilton and Jackson as a guide, I worked through the collection, to familiarize myself with the identifications of materials from which the beads were made.

The third task was to undertake comprehensive study of the stone beads from Building 3 excavated by the Berkeley team (BACH), and to build the database from this set of excavated beads (preparatory to the BACH publication, which is now in progress). Thus data on all stone beads were compiled (along with a brief inventory of other beads, eg of clay, shell and bone; full study of these will require collaboration with other specialists).  These data are now being entered into a database and from this core, the stone bead database will be built. In this process, some modifications are being made to the typology created by Hamilton. Interim results will appear in the BACH publication (Wright 2007, in preparation), but at the moment, one can say that the range of  bead types and raw materials is broadly the same as that of the sample studied by Hamilton and Jackson, with small disc beads of pink marble and greenish-brown schist being the dominant stone beads from Building 3.  In terms of both bead forms and raw materials, thus far the range of variation of stone beads from the current project is not as wide as the range of variation of the stone beads from Mellaart’s excavations. Mellaart’s stone bead finds were seemingly more diverse.

Investigations of possible ground stone artifacts or other artifacts that might have figured in stone beadmaking are still at an early stage, but this has already been shown to be an important line of enquiry for understanding stone beadmaking (Wright and Garrard 2003; Wright 2005). Discussions were also held with Tristan Carter, chipped stone analyst, concerning the presence or not of drills, micro-drills, drill bits on burin spalls, etc.,  in the Catalhoyuk chipped stone assemblages. In contrast to other Neolithic beadmaking sites (eg, those in Jordan), it does not appear that micro-drills – at least obsidian or flint micro-drills – were part of the Çatalhöyük repertoire (Tristan Carter, personal communication). However, there are plenty of other possibilities for how the stone beads of Çatalhöyük were made and study of these has begun in earnest.

A fifth activity was to prepare for the massive task (to come) of looking for debitage and other artifacts relating to stone beadmaking (and other crafts involving stone, not including obsidian and flint). This will require going through flotation residues (heavy and light fractions). These are already checked for other micro-artefacts eg bone, obsidian, flint, archaeobotanical remains, and the remaining ‘other’ stone microartifacts we have in hand, ready to be studied. It was decided to defer beginning the sorting of stone microartefacts from flotation residues until summer 2006. However, we will be targeting Buildings 16 and 17 in the first instance. These have given hints of possible stone beadmaking areas.

Studies of the full range of raw materials used for stone beads and the distributions of those materials will need to be undertaken and are planned.  There will be a need for investigating unfinished bead blanks (pre-forms) and finished beads under low and high power microscopes, taking photomicrographs to study wear patterns. This will go hand in hand with experiments in stone beadmaking.

Conclusion
Analysis of the stone bead technology will be integrated with studies on other bead technologies and studies of other stone technologies at Çatalhöyük (Baysal and Wright 2005; Wright and Baysal 2007, in preparation; Wright 2007, in preparation). Meanwhile, building the basic database and beginning to investigate manufacturing tools and debris will undoubtedly keep us busy for some time to come.

References
Baysal A, Wright KI (2005) Cooking, crafts and curation: the ground stone artefacts from Çatalhöyük, 1995-1999, in Hodder,I and Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams (eds) Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons, Cambridge and London:Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.

Hamilton N (2005) The beads, in Hodder,I and Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams (eds) Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons, Cambridge and London:Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.

Jackson B (2005) Report of bead material identification, in Hodder,I, (ed) Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons, Cambridge and London:Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.

Reese D (2005) The Çatalhöyük shells, in Hodder,I and Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams (eds) Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 4. Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons of the Çatalhöyük Research Project, Cambridge and London:Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, 123-128.

Russell N (2005) Çatalhöyük worked bone, in Hodder,I and Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams (eds) Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-1999 seasons, Cambridge and London:Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.

Wright KI (2007) (in preparation) Stone bead technology associated with Building 3 at Çatalhöyük, in Tringham,R and Stevanovic,M (eds) Catalhoyuk House 3: the Excavations of the University of California at Berkeley at Çatalhöyük (BACH), Los Angeles:Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles.

Wright KI (2005) (in press) Craft production and the organization of ground stone technologies, in Rowan,Y and Ebeling,J (eds) New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artefacts, London:Equinox Archaeology Books.

Wright KI, Baysal A (2007) (in preparation) Ground stone tools and technologies associated with Building 3 at Çatalhöyük, in Tringham,R and Stevanovic,M (eds) Çatalhöyük House 3: the Excavations of the University of California at Berkeley at Çatalhöyük (BACH), Los Angeles:Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles.

Wright KI, Garrard AN (2003) Social identities and the expansion of stone beadmaking in Neolithic western Asia: new evidence from Jordan, Antiquity 77: 267-284.

Wright KI, Garrard AN, Critchley P, Baird D, Groom S (2008) (in preparation) Stone bead production and exchange in Wadi Jilat and the Azraq Basin, in A.Garrard, (ed) Beyond the Fertile Crescent: Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic Communities of the Azraq Basin, London:British Academy Monograph Series.