| Entry: | Wood and Charcoal Team consolidated diary entries
We were called on site to examine the first in situ carbonized wood find for 2012: a charcoal spread that looked like burnt timber [20458], floating in what seemed to be building infill in space 1003. We followed our standard procedure. Clean, as much as possible, by brush and then blower, and define the edges and shape of the spread. Then, using a small leaf trowel we try to expose as much as possible of the charcoal without removing it, so that we get the best picture possible of what is that we have found BEFORE attempting to remove it. Measurements, a narrative description of the material (e.g., shape, direction of the grain for single and/or clusters of large pieces, orientation, tilting, any traces of processing or paint, etc.) are taken after each round of cleaning in order to have full picture of the item. Interpretations do change depending on what can see, and this is even more so the case with charcoal, that very rarely survives beyond a day or two after its exposure. It may be already fragmentary and friable, it may be poked or over-brushed, dug up accidentally or intentionally by an otherwise well-intentioned excavator because it is "charcoal". It takes patience and a bit of pedantry too to make the charcoal "speak", let it tell its story.
When we first cleaned the piece, it looked like as if it had a rhomboidal, shield-like shape, being surrounded by whitish plaster. Ian was passing by, consulting with Burcu, and he suggested it might be a "plate" like those found by Mellaart. I wasn’t convinced. I asked Ceren to bring out her leaf trowels, and we started cleaning it. We were debating, is it one or two pieces? Half way through cleaning it was already evident that far from having an artificial rhomboidal shape, what we were dealing with was a wooden plank that had been split from a single trunk about 40-50 cm in diameter (based on measurements and morphology of the plank observed macroscopically while exposing it; to be confirmed by further laboratory analysis). When we finished cleaning it we also realized that the plank had been reduced from a whole trunk and not its radius alone, and was following the shape of the grain (wavy). Moreover, while the piece appeared to be set in the whitish-cream coloured plaster, it was actually sitting on a layer of burnt dark gray coloured clay. We decided this was no vessel, but might have been part of roof armature, which was dumped in this space. The most exciting thing was realizing the shape and dimensions of the original piece of wood that was dumped there after its carbonization. It felt like looking at a snapshot of a Neolithic tree itself.
We followed a similar interpretive process with the recording and interpretation of another wooden artefact deposited inside bin F.3649. When the excavators called us, it was suggested that it is a wooden plank deposited inside bin F. 3649, possibly as part of its armature (set vertically against the wall of the bin, possibly for reinforcing it. Again, part of the southern end of the object had been dug up before it was realized that the charcoal represents a distinct object. When we cleaned it with light brushing and the blower, it became immediately obvious that it was not a plank. The object was clearly shaped with a pointed northern end, and an oval-shaped base. It is a point made of Pistacia (terebinth) wood; after looking at the pictures we took, Lilian from the lithics lab (currently doing her PhD on obsidian projectile points from the site) said that it looks very similar to obsidian points. The object was not in contact with the bin wall, just lay parallel to it, with its pointed end facing its northeast corner. Again, had we not uncovered it and sought its edges by carefully exposing them, we would have never been able to deduce a likely function for it.
We were also called to examine a cluster of charcoal [19568] preserved in situ in (late, as in post-Neolithic) burial F. 3685. A lot has been said about this burial but we still have not found any evidence (or clues) as to what this charcoal (identified as Salicaceae, i.e. willow/poplar family) may represent. Originally it was suggested by the excavators that it might have been part of a coffin. But very quickly it became evident that if this was the case then they should have found charcoal over other parts of the skeleton too. Yet this was not the case. This was just a single very thin piece of wood that covered the face of the woman that was buried there. What’s more, there was no sign of burning on the skull, or in the burial context as a whole. We have tried to find references on folk traditions of burial customs in late Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, but so far without success. There has been a suggestion that the woman was of a non-local origin, and her burial somehow prestigious by way of burial gifts that is, especially the bottles that had been deposited under her head. Perhaps she was a healer, or a person with exceptional skills in dealing with medicinal or other substances. Whatever the case, one possible interpretation for the presence of a thin carbonized wooden “cover” over her face is that something was burnt in it and then the still burning item was placed in the grave over her face. Sounds highly improbable, but it is the only “interpretation” that can account for most of our field observations.
The last memorable find during our time here was the mustard seed bag from F.3650. We were called again to the North shelter to look at a large piece of charcoal that seemed to be protruding from the northern side of plaster bin adjacent to the one in which the terebinth wooden point was found (but likely postdating it). It looked kind of polished and curved, and my first thought was that it might be an object such as those found by Mellaart (the lid of a wooden box for example). We lifted a tiny fragment that had been already chipped off it, and when we looked at it we knew it was not wood charcoal. We took it to the lab and Dorian confirmed our initial hunch that it was made from different types of plant materials including seeds. He identified mustard seeds. I and Ceren returned to the field, recorded the item in full, measured it and photographed it in situ, and then lifted and transported it back to the lab. There must have been thousands of oily mustard seeds in it, which when burned produced this smooth surface inside the perishable container. The bag had been deposited in the fill of the bin and there was some charcoal concentrated right above it, in a tilted position, which suggests that it might have been hanging from the roof and fell into the bin when burnt.
Of the handpicked charcoals representing wood crafts at Çatalhöyük, this season the wooden beads retrieved from the North shelter [20419] were the most spectacular, and added considerably to the ever expanding woodworking repertoire of the site. Round beads and flat ones made out of wood had not been found before at the site (which is probably why they were originally presented to us with a question mark as to whether they might be … peas). Eleni who recorded them in full felt really excited about one of them that seemed to be a failed attempt yet it was apparently still worn, as it was found in the same bead cluster with the rest of them in space 40, near the mandible to the first skeleton that was excavated in this space. The same nagging question exists however as with the late burial. Why were these beads burnt? Are they linked to the burial itself? And if they do, is there any evidence for burning in other types of materials associated with this particular burial context? Or they were deposited there as intrusions? The fact that the four round bead halves can be refit to re-assemble two whole beads, alongside the general characteristics of the wooden bead cluster (discussed in detail in the archive report) would seem to suggest that this is a primary deposit. We do need more information when the materials (especially the human remains) from this context have been processed in order to be able to understand the history of this particular context and the burials contained in it.
This is a small sample of our work besides the laboratory element of it (i.e. onsite and off-site microscope work) which can be of use for the site’s interpretive process, as it can inform, and be informed from, other people’s perspectives. This is why we decided to focus on these aspects of our work for the diary entry rather than describing and discussing every type of analytical activities undertaken this year.
Priority tours
Eleni’s notes: we had split the priority tours between the two of us, so as to enhance Ceren’s understanding of the site and the interaction of specialists and excavators, as well as maximizing the efficiency of our work pattern. I do not have much to report by way of interpretive process regarding the priority tours, as this was pretty straightforward. We went up to the site, excavators talked to us and we reported back on our finds. There was at some point some tension building up within the team leaders "club" as some individuals had got the wrong end of the stick when complaining that there should be only one person per lab, that we should not discuss in detail with the excavators what we find etc. in order to save time, and so on. But such issues were resolved on the spot without much fuss, and more importantly without allowing individuals with patronizing (intentional or unintentional attitudes) to take control of the group. Other issues raised also in the last team leaders meeting about being more creative in our interaction with the excavation team, e.g. though seminars etc., will be tackled more effectively from next year.
Interpretative challenges I encountered only with the investigation and discussion of priority materials from the last set of units examined, which came from the TPC area. The botanical materials were all "Neolithic" with regard to sample composition (both the seed bot and the charcoal assemblages). However, because about 30% of the pottery assemblage was late, there was the suggestion that the entire deposit might be late and hence intrusive. The animal bone team had decided not to look at these priority units at all. This was a good example of creative discussion in the field with Arek and his team, and dialogue with them and between the specialists present in the field, whereby originally diametrically opposed opinions and views were creatively integrated into a new direction. Hence the animal bone team will return to these materials to try and assess bone taphonomy and assemblage formation processes. It may be the case that there have been some later intrusions given that the deposit sits so close to the surface, and its general characteristics. However both us and Dorian are sticking by our guns that botanically speaking the midden [20215] is Neolithic by and large, and are looking forward to exploring further its history and content as it represents the latest episode of midden deposition in this area during a period in the lifetime of the site for which we know very little from current excavations. |
