wright, k. i. 2012. beads and the body: ornament technologies of the bach area buildings (chapter...

ISSUES AND METHODS IN THE STUDY OF ORNAMENTS

Using Ornaments: The Body and Individual Identity

Individuals use dress and personal ornaments to expressidentity in relation to the social structures in whichthey live. Dress contributes to the day-to-day construc-

tion of social categories such as gender, age-sets, status, eth-nicity, and group identities (Barnes and Eicher 1992; Eicher1995; Goffman 1956; Roach and Eicher 1979; Sciama andEicher 1998; Sorensen 1991, 1997). These categories changein the course of the life cycle of individuals. Dress is a non-verbal signal of a person’s stage in life: infancy, childhood,adolescence, marriage, parenthood, old age, widowhood,death, and, finally, burial or disposition of the dead body.Countless ethnographies document the uses of dress tomark rites de passage from one stage to another. In such rit-uals—naming ceremonies of infants, weddings, funerals,and the like—public displays of dress and body decorationreinforce, for wearer and viewer, social values, acceptanceof an individual into a new group, and new expectations ofthe individual (Barrett and Richards 2001; Carey 1998; Fiore2006; Green 2006; Lane 1998; Turner 1969).

Thus, personal ornaments and dress are an importantunspoken system of visual communication, via symbols,concerning where and how a person “fits in” to a social set-ting. Much anthropomorphic art in the Neolithic Near Eastcan be understood as representations of people shown indifferent stages of life—as members of hunting groups,women on the verge of motherhood, and so on. Variouselaborations of dress can be seen in these artworks, sug-gesting not necessarily “the gods” (Cauvin 2000), but peoplethemselves—or perhaps both (Wright 2006b).

A lively debate has emerged in anthropology and ar-chaeology concerning the degree to which the individual

human body is a symbol of social relations and an arenafor the imprinting of culture on individuals. Some see thebody as restricted by cultural rules—a vehicle for expressionof social ideals which are more or less enforced (Bourdieu1977; Butler 1993; Douglas 1966; Foucault 1977, 1978). Oth-ers argue that individuals play a much more active role inthe negotiation of identity between an individual and hisor her social world; “individuals matter” (Meskell 1999) andcan be agents of deliberate social change, not purely subjectto social constrictions (Bahrani 2001, 2002; Giddens 1987;Meskell 1999, 2001). Individuals use dress to make politicalstatements; such statements are taken very seriously by po-litical authorities (Carey 1998; Hallpike 1969; Layton 1989).Examples today include the wearing of traditional ethnicor tribal dress in states trying to replace those traditionswith national identity; or the failure to wear such dresswhere such attire is seen as acceptance of national laws.

These issues are important because they affect how weinterpret archaeological data on dress. Archaeologists likepatterns and they like to infer social rules from them. Forexample, in an analysis of personal ornaments associatedwith skeletons in graves, archaeologists will often go on asearch for patterning, defining group differentiations on thebasis of variability in mortuary treatment. Are there simi-larities between bead types and gender or age groups? Sup-pose we find such patterns? Many archaeologists will thentry to generalize (usually regretting the size of the availablesample and its representativeness). Patterns identified maybe inferred in terms of social rules about decoration of thebody of certain age-gender groups, at least in the context ofdeath and mourning. If there is little variability in body dec-oration from one individual to another in a given age-sexgroup (for instance, adult females), it is tempting to infer so-cial rules concerning dressing the deceased individual. We

423

CHAPTER 21

BEADS AND THE BODY: ORNAMENT TECHNOLOGIES OF THE BACH AREA BUILDINGS

Katherine I. Wright

might also be tempted to infer a relative egalitarianism ifvariability is low.

On the other hand, if there are wide disparities in or-naments within and between groups, we may be willing tocontemplate that individual preferences of the ancientmourners played a role in causing these wide differences.Or we may be tempted to consider the possibility of statusvariations or hierarchies. Traditionally, processual ap-proaches were very much concerned with identifying dif-ferences in access to exotic or precious items as an indicatorof rank and hierarchy. Despite critiques of this sort ofanalysis (Parker Pearson 1993, 1999), differential access toexotic goods would still have to be explained, and an appealto individual preference might simply not be enough.

These issues are central at Çatalhöyük, because manyof the personal ornaments do come from burials and or-naments constitute the single most common type of durablegrave goods. However, the body in death is only one specificcontext of personal ornamentation—one in which the dressof an individual has actually been chosen by others (mourn-ers). Choices concerning dress in life are much harder todetermine from archaeological remains. One classic meansis to study representations of dress in art and iconography.This too presents interpretive complexities, since such im-ages are produced for such a wide range of uses and mayhave all sorts of meanings. On the whole, how peopledressed in life is difficult to infer from available archaeo-logical evidence. One way of getting at this is to look closelyat production areas and compare them to contexts in burials.This might permit us to identify what was being producedroutinely—for use in life and exchange—and to identifythe extent to which materials and types so produced aresimilar to those we see in burials.

Magic, Symbolism, and Value

We tend to assume that beads were made primarily for usein body adornment, but ornaments serve a wide range ofpurposes in small-scale societies. Classic examples are theuses of beads as tokens of magic and as “money.” Beads arewidely used as amulets in connection with averting illness,aiding in pregnancy, and other such practices (Beck 1976;Carey 1998; Sciama 1998). A bead may actually representgoodness and the life force; its value may not be in the ma-terial of the bead but in how old it is and whether it was in-herited from ancestors (Janowski 1998). In the historicalNear East, “clothing the gods”—decorating statues of di-vinities with special dress and ornaments—was a crucialritual habit aimed at ensuring divine favor, and such adorn-ments were stored in temples (Oppenheim 1949). Like to-day’s “New Age” subcultures that ascribe healing propertiesto crystals, many early cultures had unpredictable beliefsabout magical effects and symbolic content of ornaments.

The use of beads as a medium of exchange is wellknown throughout the world and raises difficult questionsabout value systems and trade patterns. This has particularimportance for analysis of why people made beads andplaced them in graves and what value different types ofbeads may have had for the people of Çatalhöyük. Tradi-tional assumptions in archaeology about the value of ma-terials have tended to center on difficulty of access, exoticstatus (that is, imported materials), or the energy requiredto acquire a material and make an object from it. These as-sumptions are influenced by our own notions of value, butvalue systems are so divergent from one culture to anotherthat we can be easily misled (Appadurai 1986). Classic ex-amples from European contact with Native Americanshighlight these divergences dramatically. In exchange forbeads that Europeans offered as “trifles,” Native Americans“very willingly traded everything they had,” in the wordsof Christopher Columbus (Columbus 1969:55).

A central goal of the work on beads at Çatalhöyük wasto identify the range of materials used for personal orna-ments and their probable sources. Materials coming fromlong distances included marine shells and some rocks andminerals. Most bone and clay beads were probably of localorigin, although much further work is needed to verifythis. In the case of imported beads, we face a number ofquestions. Were the raw materials imported and thenworked on-site? Do we see evidence of manufacturing inmaterials that are rare as finished beads (perhaps suggestingexports)?

Production, Technology, Specialization: The Making of Ornaments

In the Near Eastern Neolithic, people began to make beads,pendants, and other items of adornment using a muchwider array of materials and techniques than in earlier pe-riods. This rise in diversity begins in the late Epipalaeolithic(for example, Natufian) and in the early aceramic Neolithic.By the time Çatalhöyük was occupied, the expansion ofbeadmaking was reaching new levels, with hints of craftspecialization by households in the southern Levant(Wright and Garrard 2003).

Beadmaking thus represents one strand of the vast ex-pansion in technology that characterized the Neolithic pe-riod generally. What underlay this expansion and how doesit relate to social changes? Some argue that the Neolithic isa case of people becoming entangled in material culture(Hodder 2004b, 2006a). Recently, archaeologists have beenlooking at technology from new perspectives that empha-size individuals, agency, and choices (Dobres 1998, 1999,2000; Dobres and Hoffmann 1994; Dobres and Hoffmann,ed. 1999; Dobres and Robb 2000; Robb 1999)—part of awider trend in acknowledging that the archaeological

424 KATHERINE I. WRIGHT

record is composed of millions of individual actions (Gam-ble and Porr 2005; Hill and Gunn 1977; Hodder 2000;Meskell 1999). In technology studies, there is particular in-terest in identifying individuals via chaînes opératoires,which can reveal artisans having different skills or makingdifferent choices (Balfet 1991). This approach contrastswith those that emphasize how whole groups of people or-ganize different technologies (for example, expedient vs.curated) (Nelson 1991). Although often presented as a de-bate, in fact the two approaches can complement eachother.

One goal of the bead studies at Çatalhöyük was to ex-plore tensions between the overall patterns of technologicalorganization in beadmaking and the role of the individualartisan in bead production. Study of material sources andwhole assemblages composed of raw materials, beadmakingtools, debitage, microartifacts, bead blanks, and finishedbeads can reveal aspects of both.

Analyses of personal ornaments in the Near East haveoften been either very broad overviews of types (Bahrani1995; Canby 1995; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971) or descriptiveanalysis of particular data sets from specific sites, often em-phasizing typology as opposed to technology. Studies ofwhole technologies of ornament manufacturing—raw ma-terial acquisition, workshops, chaînes opératoires, and discardpatterns—are still rather few and have mostly emerged inrecent years. Most detailed work of this kind has been con-cerned with Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sites, espe-cially in the Indus Valley, Iran, and Arabia (Gwinnett andGorelick 1981; Inizan et al. 1992; Kenoyer 1986, 1992a,1992b, 1994; Kenoyer et al. 1991; Piperno 1983; Roux 1999;Roux et al. 1995; Roux and Matarasso 1999; Tosi 1989; Tosiand Vidale 1990; Vanzetti and Vidale 1994; Vidale 1986,1989a, 1989b, 1995). Far fewer such studies have been donein the Levant and Turkey (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2004;Calley 1989; Grace 1989; Wright and Garrard 2003).

For the Palaeolithic and Neolithic Near East, studiesof shell beads outnumber those of other materials (Bar-Yosef Mayer 1991, 1997). For stone beads, there are manytypological studies (Hamilton 2005a, 2005b; Maréchal 1991;Talbot 1983). Analysis of stone bead technologies frompre-Chalcolithic sites are still few, but fortunately this ischanging (Barthelmy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1994;Berna 1995; Garfinkel 1987; Gorelick and Gwinnett 1990;Rollefson 2002; Wright 2008; Wright et al. 2007; Wrightand Garrard 2003).

A number of studies in Chalcolithic and Bronze Agesites have explored questions about craft specialization(Kenoyer 1992a; Piperno 1976; Roux and Matarasso 1999;Vidale 1989a). For the Neolithic, there is some evidencefor small-scale specialization in workshop sites (Wrightand Garrard 2003), but how beadmaking was played out

in terms of social organization in larger village sites is stilllargely an open question—partly due to excavations in thepast that did not always emphasize fine sieving and recoveryof micro-artifacts from heavy residues. These are essentialfor retrieving beadmaking refuse (and even beads, whichcan be as small as 2.5 mm in diameter).

Thus, investigation of specialization in beadmaking atÇatalhöyük is a central goal of the bead team. We havesome initial hints. There are indications that (1) some in-dividuals or households had access to a wider range of ma-terials for personal ornaments than other households (asindicated by variations in burials); and (2) some householdsand areas (such as Buildings 16, 17, 18, parts of the 4040Area) display extensive evidence for bead manufacturing,while others apparently do not (e.g., Building 3, discussedhere). Investigating these issues will require much researchon the non-obsidian micro-artifacts at Çatalhöyük, a projectthat has only just begun.

Ornament Studies at Çatalhöyük

A broad general typology of personal ornaments from Çatal-höyük was presented by Naomi Hamilton, and an overviewof raw materials was presented by Jackson (Hamilton 2005a;Jackson 2005). Based on a sample of ornaments from arange of areas excavated in the 1990s, these provided a foun-dation from which to launch a full, systematic analysis ofbeadmaking technologies, forms, production, and use.

This detailed work was begun in 2005 with the forma-tion of “Team Beads.” The most pressing tasks were (1)creation of a digital database for ornaments and relateditems, which did not exist earlier; (2) analysis of technology:beadmaking tools, manufacturing processes, chaînes opéra-toires, debitage, blanks, and finished ornaments; (3) creationof a coherent typology permitting comparisons with othersites; (4) raw material characterization and sourcing studies;(5) investigation of contexts in which beads were made,used, and discarded. As of summer 2006, some 4,500 beadshad been subjected to analysis along these lines. Materialswere initially identified by hardness, luster, transparency,specific gravity, and color. Samples were then chosen formore detailed analyses of materials and trace elements viaSEM, electron microprobe, and laser ablation ICPMS.

Building 3 and its surrounding structures permit usto explore a bead assemblage from one household andareas immediately adjacent to it. In some respects, Building3 appears to be a fairly “standard” Çatalhöyük house (tothe degree that there is such a thing), lacking unusual orexceptional features. As such, it is an excellent baselinefrom which to begin exploring beadmaking and use—andthe variations in these, from one house to another.

Methods of the study of personal ornaments ideallyinvolve investigation not only of finished ornaments but

425CHAPTER 21. BEADS AND THE BODY

also of all materials relating to beadmaking, including un-worked nodules of similar materials found on-site; mini-mally worked nodules (roughouts), unfinished beads(blanks), drills, possible saws, abrading tools, and micro-artifacts from heavy residues, which reveal the presence ofdebitage (for discussion of these methods, see Kenoyer2003; Wright and Garrard 2003).

However, the report presented here is preliminary.Some analyses are still in progress, including analysis ofheavy residues, debitage, trace elements, and many aspectsof the bone and shell beads. Analyses of heavy residuesgenerally at Çatalhöyük have thus far concentrated on ob-sidian and bone (Cessford and Mitrovic 2005). Obsidianbeads are extremely rare at Çatalhöyük (a single bead


Table 21.1. Stone Ornament Classification Scheme

MAJOR CLASSES SIZE CATEGORIES*mm 5.2 – 0.01sdaeBAmm 0.5 – 5.22stnadnePBmm 5.7 – 0.53stelecarBC

mm 0.01 – 5.74sgniRDmm 5.21 – 0.015stnemanro daeHEmm 0.51 – 5.216sgnirraEFmm 5.71 – 0.517secalkcen/srekohCGmm 0.02 – 5.718sniPHmm 0.52 – 0.029spsalc/selkcuBI

mm 0.52 >01rehtOJX Roughouts and blanks *Based on maximum dimension. For disk or ring beads,

this is diameter; for long beads, this is length.Y DebitageZ Related toolsA BEADS B PENDANTS

I1tnemgarf daeb etanimretednI1 ndeterminate pendant fragmenttnadnep ralugerrI2daeb ralugerrI2

tnadnep suoenallecsiM3daeb suoenallecsiM3)2 >( tnadnep noitarofrep elpitluM4)2 >( daeb noitarofrep elpitluM4

tnadnep noitarofrep elbuoD5daeb noitarofrep elbuoD5tnadnep ksiD6daeb ksiD6tnadnep gniR7daeb gniR7

tnadnep lacirehpS8daeb lacirehpS8tnadnep lavO9daeb lavO9

tnadnep pordraeT01daeb pordraeT01tnadnep ralugnairT11daeb ralugnairT11tnadnep ladiozeparT21daeb ladiozeparT21

tnadnep erauqS31daeb erauqS31 tnadnep ralugnatceR41daeb ralugnatceR41

tnadnep lacirdnilyC51daeb lacirdnilyC51tnadnep lerraB61daeb lerraB61

tnadnep lacinoC71daeb lacinoC71tnadnep lacinociB81daeb lacinociB81tnadnep ylfrettuB91daeb ylfrettuB91tnadnep norvehC02daeb norvehC02

21 Unperforated “scarab stone,” incised22 Lenticular / fusiform bead with convex sides23 “Axehead” bead Continued on facing page

Table 21.1. Stone ornament classification scheme

blank was found among 4,500 artifacts examined thus far).Thus, we need to investigate all of the other materials inthe heavy residues in order to locate beadmaking debitage.It is, however, clear that such debitage exists, especially incertain houses (Cessford and Mitrovic 2005; Hamilton2005a; S. Mitrovic, personal communication).

Thus, this report concerns mainly finished items,blanks, and artifacts that may have related to beadmaking.In addition, some artifacts in the Konya ArchaeologicalMuseum were unavailable for direct study at the time ofwriting. However, the vast majority of beads and blanksfrom the BACH Area were analyzed and are presentedhere.

Hamilton’s earlier typology for the Çatalhöyük orna-ments was descriptive and terminologically idiosyncratic(Hamilton 2005a), using terms not in common use else-where, complicating comparisons with other sites. Thenomenclature used here conforms broadly with commonterminologies developed in bead studies (Beck 1981; Dubin1995; Lankton 2003) but incorporating variations seen inthe Near East (Wright and Garrard 2003).

A basic typology of personal ornaments is thus beingdeveloped that may prove useful in comparative studies(Table 21.1). Although this is based on stone ornaments,aspects of this approach may be applicable to analyses ofclay, bone, and shell beads. This involves classification ofmaterials into broad technological classes based on stageor role in manufacturing: finished ornaments (A–J); blanks

and roughouts (X); debitage (Y), such as cores, flakes, andmicro-artifacts; and related tools (Z), such as drills orabraders.

Of the finished ornaments, broad functional categorieswere defined: A = individual beads (with symmetricallyplaced perforations); B = pendants (with asymmetricallyplaced perforations); C = bracelets (that is, individual arti-facts large enough to go on a human wrist); and D = fingerrings (that is, individual artifacts large enough to go on ahuman finger). In the first stage of classification, categoriesC–J refer to individual artifacts, not combinations of beads.Thus, a classification of an artifact as a “bracelet” meansone artifact (a bangle) suggesting that use. Combinationsof beads that also served as bracelets can only be deter-mined via analysis of placement within graves. This is asecond level of analysis beyond basic classification.

Within each class of finished ornaments (A–J), typesare numbered, beginning with indeterminates (irregularand miscellaneous categories), followed by formal typesbased on the shape in plan of the largest surface of thebead (e.g., disk-shaped, cylindrical, butterfly beads). Insome cases, the size of the perforation relative to the wholebead is considered (for example, the distinction betweendisk beads and ring beads; see below). Subtypes (not shownin Table 21.1) are based on variations such as shapes incross section (Wright and Garrard 2003).

Thus type A6 is a disk bead, circular in plan, with asmall perforation. The cross section is often rectangular,


C BRACELETS D FINGER RINGS (inner diameter > 10.5 mm)tnemgarf gnir etanimretednI1tnemgarf telecarb etanimretednI1

gnir ralugerrI2telecarb ralugerrI2gnir suoenallecsiM3telecarb suoenallecsiM3

dnab nialP4elgnab nialP45 Bangle with relief decoration6 Bangle with incised decoration7 Bangle with relief and incised decoration8 Bangle with scalloped edge

X ROUGHOUTS AND BLANKS Y DEBITAGE Z RELATED TOOLS1 Indeterminate 1 Undifferentiated 1 Microdrill

revargnE2seludoN2ksiD2waS3seroC3lerraB3

redarbA4sekalF4doR4livna/hcneb gnillirD5rehtO5

6 Other

Table 21.1 (continued). Stone ornament classification scheme

but it may also be trapezoidal, plano-convex, or othershapes. Type A7 (ring bead) is similar, but the perforationis larger relative to the whole bead. Other common typesare A15 (cylindrical beads), A16 (barrel-shaped beads),and A22 (lenticular/fusiform beads).

Within the class of roughouts and blanks (X), sub-classifications (only a few are shown in Table 21.1) arebased on the type of finished product of which the blankis an earlier stage (for example, a disk bead blank) and thestage of reduction reached at the time of abandonment(such as abraded but not drilled; or abraded and drilledbut broken during drilling). Classification of blanks ac-cording to reduction stages is essential for reconstructingchaînes opératoires in beadmaking (cf. Vidale et al. 1992;

Wright et al. 2007). These classifications are only discussedbriefly here, since so few bead blanks were found in theBACH Area.

MATERIALS, TECHNOLOGY, AND TYPOLOGYOF THE BACH BEADS

In all, 521 ornaments were recovered from the BACH ex-cavations, of which 477 were analyzed (Table 21.2). Mostwere made of stone (39.7 percent), clay (39.0 percent), orshell (14 percent), with smaller numbers of bone beads (6.3percent) (Figures 21.1, 21.2). A few copper beads (N = 3)and glass beads (N = 1) were found in late (post-Neolithic)contexts. Of the stone beads, 10 different materials wereidentified (discussed below).


Table 21.2. BACH Area personal ornaments by material

Material origin Material N% of all beads

and blanks

% of all rocks and minerals excluding clay

Rocks and minerals (excluding clay)

Sedimentary or metamorphic Limestone/marble: pink 108 22.6 56.8

Limestone/marble: white 15 3.1 7.9

Limestone/marble: gray-brown 6 1.3 3.2

Sedimentary Travertine: yellowish white 1 0.2 0.5

5.02.01neerg :trehC

Metamorphic Schist: gray-green to black 44 9.2 23.2

Serpentinite (?): black and green 3 0.6 1.6

Igneous Basalt/dolerite/diabase: gray to black 9 1.9 4.7

5.02.01etihw :lapo nommoClareniM

1.14.02cillatem yarg :anelaG

Subtotal Stone: All rock and mineral types 190 39.7

0.93681yalC

0.4176llehS

3.603enoB

6.03reppoC

2.01ssalG

Subtotal 477 100.0

Unclassified Not examined (Konya Museum) 44

TOTAL 521

All analyzed beads

Figure 21.1. Drawings of ornaments from the BACH Area. (a–e) Clay ring beads (type A7) from infant burial (8184.X2); light red (2.5YR 7/6). (f–j)Clay ring beads (type A7) from infant burial (8184.X1); dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4). (k) Clay disk bead (type A6) from F.634 burial fill (6323.H4);olive gray (5Y 5/2). (l) Chlorite schist ring bead (type A7) from F.634 burial fill (6693.H1); dark reddish brown (5 YR 3/2). (m) Clay lenticular bead(type A22; fragment of one end) from F.644 burial fill (6643.H1); light brownish gray (10YR 6/2). (n) Clay rectangular pendant with triangular longsection (type B14) (8594); very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1).

Figure 21.2. Drawings of ornaments from the BACH Area. (a) Galena barrel bead (type A16) from F.173 platform fill (2218.H1); bluish gray (Chart2 for Gley 6/10B). (b) Schist (talc schist/steatite) ring bead (type A7) from black debris, west side of F.601 screen wall (6116.H1); dark greenish gray(Chart 1 for Gley 4/10Y). (c) Bone ring bead from Space 158; very pale brown (10YR 7/4). (d) Shell ring bead from Space 158; pinkish white (5YR8/2). (e) Chlorite schist disk bead preform (type X2) from midden (6620.H2); greenish black (Chart 1 for Gley 2.5/10Y); see also Figure 21.7. (f ) Basaltdisk bead preform (type X2), possibly made on a basalt flake (8162h1); dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2).


Table 21.3. BACH Area bone, clay, and shell personal ornaments by type

*Nomenclature for bone and shell beads is provisional.

Material Type N

% of beads and blanks of same

material

Bone* A1 Irregular ring bead 1 3.3

A5 Rectangular bead with double perforation 1 3.3

0.026daeb gniR7A

A15 Cylindrical bead (fragment) 2 6.7

7.62daeb ralubuT22A

3.31telecarB1C

3.3301sgnir regniF4D

3.327rehtO1J

All bone ornaments and blanks 30 100.0

Shell* �eodotus 8 11.9

0.96muilatneD

1.9735denimretednU/rehtO

0.00176stnemanro llehs llA

Clay A1 Indeterminate fragment 2 1.1

1.851rehtO3A

1.12)etelpmoc( daeb ksiD6A

5.01)tnemgarf( daeb ksiD6A

5.5366)tnemgarf( daeb gniR7A

7.3244)etelpmoc( daeb gniR7A

A8 Subspherical bead (complete) 3 1.6

A8 Subspherical bead (fragment) 12 6.5

A22 Lenticular bead (complete) 15 8.1

A22 Lenticular bead (fragment: end) 17 9.1

A22 Lenticular bead (fragment: midsection) 5 2.7

B14 Rectangular pendant (complete) 3 1.6

5.01)lacirehpsbus( knalB5X

All clay ornaments and blanks 186 100.0

TOTAL 283


Bone and Shell Beads

Analyses of bone and shell beads are still in progress (Reese2005; Russell 2005), but we can make some preliminaryobservations (see Chapter 15: Figures 15.11–15.13).

Of 30 bone ornaments examined here, several provi-sional forms were identified (Table 21.3). Finger rings wereparticularly common (N = 10). Other types include smallring beads (N = 6) (Figures 21.2c, 21.3a, c); a few cylindricaland lenticular (fusiform) beads; a rectangular bead with adouble perforation (Figure 21.3b); a bracelet fragment; andother items not classified.

Of 67 shell beads, most are as yet unanalyzed, but theyinclude Theodoxus and Dentalium (identifications by DavidReese) (Table 21.3; Figures 21.2d, 21.3a, d).

Clay Beads

Clay beads were found in about the same numbers as stonebeads (N = 186; Table 21.3). Some were unbaked and otherswere fired very briefly, at poorly controlled low temperatures.All are fragile, even those that were baked, but the unbakedexamples are extremely soft and friable, easily broken if nothandled carefully. The colors of the baked clay beads aregenerally light red (Munsell 2.5YR 7/6). Unbaked (or onlyvery slightly baked) beads vary in color: from olive gray (5Y5/2) to light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), dark yellowish brown(10YR 3/4), or very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) (Figure 21.1a–k,m–n). Sometimes, black fireclouds are seen, usually on thelenticular/fusiform beads. Temper content varies. There areindications of both grit and chaff tempers included in theclays, but in all cases the material is coarse and appears tohave been added only casually, with minimal attempts tomake tempering particles homogeneous in size.

Apart from the evidence of light firing on finished beads,we have little evidence (so far) for clay bead productiontechnologies, but possibilities are suggested under each typediscussed below. Work on clay sources and composition hasonly just begun, but initial observations indicate that the fir-ing of these beads was usually at much lower temperaturesthan those suggested by vessels and figurines (Atalay 2005;Cessford and Near 2005; Last 2005; Nakamura and Meskell2006).

Clay beads occur in a variety of forms (Table 21.3).Most numerous (59.2 percent) are ring beads (complete orfragmentary). These are among the smallest beads in theBACH assemblage. Most are about 2.5 to 3 mm in diameter(across perforation), about 2 mm in height (= length alongaxis of perforation), with perforations of 1 to 2 mm in di-ameter. A very few are as large as 5 mm in diameter (Figures21.1a–j, 21.4a–c). Many ring beads came from the one bur-ial (F.757, an infant) that contained numerous grave goods(discussed below). These ring beads are among the mostcarefully baked clay beads, although some were either un-baked or only very slightly baked. The faces of these beads(the sides showing the perforation) are either flat or slightlyconcave. The edges (the outer walls) are usually very evenand straight, perpendicular to the faces. These beads arealso quite standardized in size (Figures 21.1, 21.4).

No unfinished bead blanks for clay beads were seen,and experiments in replication will need to be conducted.However, these preliminary observations suggest that onemeans of creating them may have been (1) forming asmooth clay cylinder; (2) piercing it with a long thin rod;(3) baking the cylinder; (4) sawing or slicing off individualbeads from the cylinder; (5) stringing the beads; and (6)rolling them on an abrasive stone such as fine sandstone.


Figure 21.3. Bone and shell ornaments from the BACH Area. (a) Shell disk bead (left); bone ringbead (right) (8108). (b) Bone rectangular bead with double perforation, 8307.H1. (c) Bone ringbead, 2335.F1. (d) Shell bead, Theodoxus, 6100.H1.


Such procedures have been observed in archaeology,ethnography, and experiments in the making of disk beadsfrom soft stones of Mohs hardness 1–3 (Barthelmy deSaizieu and Bouquillon 1994 on cylinder-drilling and saw-ing/slicing; Foreman 1978 on stringing and abrasion). Wedo not seem to have direct evidence from the BACH Areaconcerning the perforation tools; no such long, narrowitems appear in the obsidian-flint assemblage in the BACHArea (Chapter 19) or, thus far, elsewhere (Carter et al. 2005).However, elsewhere on the site, tiny drills made of diabasehave been found which might have served this purpose(Wright 2006a); bone or even wooden items could alsohave been used.

Similar to the ring beads are disk beads, of which onlya few were found; these have very small perforations (Figure21.1 k) and were usually well baked.

About 19.9 percent of the clay beads are lenticular orfusiform beads. Some are complete, and others are frag-ments of midsections or ends. These are tubular formswith convex sides compressed at the ends (Figures 21.1m,21.5a–c, e). They are the most fragile of the clay ornaments,usually fired only very slightly at extremely low tempera-tures; some seem to be almost unbaked. They are typically

light brownish gray or dark yellowish brown, sometimeswith black fireclouds. These are among the largest of allbeads (of any material) in the BACH assemblage. Unbro-ken specimens range in length (length = height of beadalong the axis of perforation) from 10 to 28 mm, with di-ameters (measured across the perforation) of 7 to 11 mm.Perforation diameters vary from 1 to 4 mm, suggestingvariations in the thickness of strings used to suspend suchbeads. These beads are extremely unstandardized, varyingwidely in size and shape. This, along with the evidence forlight firing, suggests the possibility that these beads wereformed around a thin rod or leather string, smoothed intoshape, and briefly subjected to heat before being consideredfinished.

The third most common clay beads are subspherical(8.1 percent). These are globular, roughly spheroid beadsusually found as fragments (Figures 21.5d–e). They rangefrom 8.5 to 17 mm in diameter (across the perforation)and 4.5 to 17 mm in height (length along the perforation).The perforations vary in diameter from 0.5 to 5 mm, againsuggesting variations in strings for suspension. Possibly asimilar procedure to that of the lenticular beads was usedfor these subspherical beads.

Figure 21.4. Clay ring beads (type A7) from infant burial (skeleton 8184): (a) 8184.X1; (b) 8184.X2; (c) 8184.X6.

Three rectangular clay pendants, all complete, werefound in the BACH Area (Figures 21.1n, 21.6a–d). Theseare a particular subtype of rectangular pendants, whichare triangular in the long section, so that one end of thebead forms an edge. The overall effect resembles an axwith a perforation in the center of the broad faces. Theseare among the largest ornaments from the BACH Area,with the longest diameter (across perforation) rangingfrom 12.5 to 29 mm. The short diameter ranges from 10to 17 mm. The perforations range from 2 to 5 mm, andremains of a clay “lip” or ridge can be seen around theperforations (e.g., Figure 21.7a). These were carefullyformed, well baked, and very dark gray in color, lackingfireclouds. The surfaces are smooth and may have beenabraded, but on the whole these beads—the most carefullyformed of all the larger clay beads—require further studyregarding manufacture.

Stone Beads

Materials and SourcesAmong 190 ornaments made from rocks and minerals, eightdifferent basic materials were identified (Table 21.4), withsome color variations within the materials (Table 21.5). Thematerials are mostly soft (Mohs 1–4) with rare exceptions(chert, common opal: Mohs = 7). The materials come fromsedimentary rocks (limestone, travertine, chert); metamor-phic rocks (marble, schist, serpentinite); igneous rocks(basalt/dolerite/diabase); and minerals (common opal,

galena) (Figures 21.2a–b, e–f, 21.7, 21.8). Initial identifica-tions were based upon such tests as Mohs hardness, reactionsto hydrochloric acid, specific gravity, luster, color, texture,and forms of visible crystals (if any). Magnifications of 10×to 40× were normally used for making observations in thefield. In comparison with identifications made by Jackson(2005), there was substantial agreement, although Jackson’ssummary rarely specified particular beads by context num-ber. Compositional analysis of Çatalhöyük beads (includingseveral from the BACH Area) via electron microprobe andother techniques has begun but at this writing is still inprogress.


Figure 21.5. Clay beads from BACH area. (a–c) Lenticular beads (typeA22): (a) 6211.X3; (b) 8652.H1; (c) end fragment, 8623.H1; (d) subspher-ical bead fragment (type A8), 6398.H3; (e) lenticular bead fragment(type A22), 8622.H1, and subspherical bead (type A8), 8622.H2.

Figure 21.6. Clay ornaments from the BACH Area: rectangularpendants with triangular cross sections (type B14). (a) 8594.H1, front view; (b) 8594.H1, side view; (c) 8621.H1,front view; (d) 8621.H1, side view.

Figure 21.7. Chlorite schist preform of a disk bead (type X2)(6620.H2). (a) Obverse; (b) reverse. Note the incomplete perfo-ration, which was begun from opposite faces of the pebble. Per-foration was begun after some abrasion, but final shaping cameafter perforation.

Full analysis of sources of stone beads from Çatalhöyükhas only just begun. Systematic site-catchment study ofpebble and rock sources immediately next to Çatalhöyükis still in progress. However, many of the materials usedfor stone beads could have been acquired locally (lime-stones, phyllites, and other materials brought in by streams;see below). A few materials may have been acquired froma greater distance and more intentionally (candidates in-clude serpentinite, galena from the BACH Area; turquoise,apatite, carnelian, and other materials from the wider Çatal-höyük assemblage).

In order to clarify the nature of rock and mineralsources for artifacts at Çatalhöyük, an overview of the re-gional geology is needed. Çatalhöyük lies in a zone of Qua-ternary alluvium and especially in an early Holocene alluvialfan characterized by clays, silts, alluvial gravels, sand, and—at the base—calcareous lacustrine marls (see Figure 1.3)(Hodder 2005d:Figure 1.1; Kuzucuoğlu 2002; Kuzucuoğluand Roberts 1997; Roberts et al. 1996). The lake marls areblocky, fine-grained, quite hard, pale gray to yellow. Theycan be seen and collected on and near the site today, and

unworked natural samples of these materials turned up inthe off-site KOPAL palaeoenvironment excavation (Baysaland Wright 2005; Roberts et al. 1996). Thus, the immediatevicinity of Çatalhöyük has only an extremely limited rangeof in situ beds of rocks. However, deposition of pebblesand gravels by the Çarşamba Çay and other streams wouldhave expanded the possible repertoire of stone sources forartifacts, if the desired artifacts were fairly small in size(Baysal and Wright 2005; Roberts et al. 1996; Türkmenogluet al. 2005; and see below).

This general area of Quaternary lacustrine and alluvialdeposits extends widely in all directions around Çatalhöyük(20–40 km from the site), and this zone includes marshes.Lake chalks and variants of calcareous sinter (tufas,travertines, and dripstone) are all theoretically possible infreshwater areas with lakes, marshes and springs (Schu-mann 1992) and may have been available in this zone (es-pecially to the north), but this needs further exploration.

The closest in situ sources of other rocks lie to the west,south, and southeast of Çatalhöyük. About 4.5 km south ofÇatalhöyük begins a narrow zone (Q-19-k) of Quaternary


Table 21.4. BACH Area: Stone beads by type and material, raw frequency, and percentage frequency (N = 190)

Lim

esto

ne/M

arbl

e

Trav

ertin

e

Che

rt

Schi

st

Serp

entin

ite

Basa

lt / d

oler

ite /

diab

ase

Com

mon

opa

l

Gal

ena

Tota

l

Type N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

A1 Bead (indetermi-nate fragment)

6.131.125.01

A6 Disk bead 7 3.7 2 1.1 2 1.1 11 5.8

3.582616.255.015.02936.16711daeb gniR 7A

A15 Cylindrical bead 1 0.5 1 0.5 2 1.1

6.135.015.015.01daeb lerraB 61A

B1 Pendant, indeter-minate fragment

1 0.5 1 0.5

B9 Oval pendant 1 0.5 1 0.5

X1 Blank (bead) indeterminate

1 0.5 1 0.5 2 1.1

6.255.015.016.13)daeb ksid( knalB 2X

TOTAL 129 67.9 1 0.5 1 0.5 44 23.1 3 1.6 9 4.7 1 0.5 2 1.0 190 100.0


Table 21.5. BACH Area stone ornaments by material, color, and type

Material origin Material Type N Percent

Sedimentary or metamorphic Limestone/marble: pink A6 Disk bead (complete) 1 0.5

A6 Disk bead (fragment) 1 0.5

A7 Ring bead (complete) 23 12.1

A7 Ring bead (fragment) 83 43.7

Limestone/marble: white A6 Disk bead (complete) 3 1.6



B9 Oval pendant 1 0.5

Limestone/marble: gray to brown A15 Cylindrical bead (fragment) 1 0.5

A6 Disk bead (complete) 2 1.1

X2 Blank (disk bead) 3 1.6

Sedimentary Travertine: yellowish white A1 Bead (indeterminate fragment) 1 0.5

5.01daeb lerraB 61Aneerg :trehCyratnemideS

Metamorphic Schist: gray-green to black A15 Cylindrical bead (fragment) 1 0.5

A6 Disk bead (complete) 2 1.1




X1 Blank (bead) indeterminate 1 0.5


Metamorphic Serpentine/Serpentinite (?): black & green A1 Bead (indeterminate fragment) 2 1.1

5.01daeb gniR 7A

Igneous Basalt/dolerite/diabase: black A6 Disk bead (complete) 1 0.5




B1 Pendant: indeterminate fragment 1 0.5


Mineral Common opal: white A16 Barrel bead 1 0.5

Mineral Galena: gray metallic A16 Barrel bead 1 0.5

X1 Preform (bead) indeterminate 1 0.5

TOTAL 190 100.0

sandstones (kumtasi), mudstones and claystones (çamurtasi),and karasal. This extends in a narrow band to the southwestalong the Çarşamba Çay, beyond Çumra to points south.Astride this zone are large exposures (Q1–18-k) of Quater-nary limestones (çaliktasi), sandstones (kumtasi), mud- andclaystones (çamurtasi), and karasal. Farther to the southwest(m3pl–20 k) are Miocene-Pliocene limestones, sandstones,mud- and claystones, and karasal (MTA 2002a). Thus, gooddeposits of limestones, sandstones, and mud- and claystoneswere available to artisans of Çatalhöyük, no more than 4.5km from the site. These deposits, at the mouth of theÇarşamba Çay to the southwest, are the beginnings of azone of limestone highlands composed of karstic, soft lime-stone Neogene lacustrine plateaus. Possibly associated withsome of these limestones—but this is still under investiga-tion by Chris Doherty and Tristan Carter—are various formsof chert, radiolarite, and lacustrine quartzite that appear inthe chipped stone assemblage (C. Doherty and T. Carter,personal communication).

Farther to the southwest lie the Taurus highlands andLake Sugla. The Çarşamba Çay stream travels southeast fromLake Sugla, turns toward the northeast near Bozkir, anddrains into the Konya Plain. It thus travels through depositsof continental clastic rocks (m3pl, m3, m2), Neritic limestones(t2k, jk, k2, t2j), carbonate and clastic rocks (p2), and tuffte,spilite, and basalt with, in some places, ophiolite sheets (tP)(MTA 2002b). Ophiolites are a collective term for green-colored basic and ultrabasic rocks—for example, serpentinite,periodotite, gabbro, and basalt (Schumann 1992:322).

About 40 km to the west of Çatalhöyük lies Alaçadag(in the Erenler Dagi), composed of massifs of old volcanoesand major deposits of Upper Miocene-Pliocene andesites(m3pla). A zone of continental clastic rocks (m3pl) lies be-tween the andesites and the alluvial zone of the KonyaPlain. From the Alaçadag volcanoes, a stream (the MayRiver) flows through these andesitic and clastic rocks, intothe Konya Plain at its southern edge, where the ÇarşambaÇay alluvial fan begins (MTA 2002b).

Thus, both the May and the Çarşamba streams pickup small rocks from rather distant areas and deposit themat various stages along the way, resulting in pebble dumpsthat can be seen in areas near and southwest of Çatalhöyük(cf. Türkmenoglu et al. 2005). That these streams depositpebbles of diverse materials from distant origins into aÇatalhöyük “catchment” can be seen in small rounded peb-bles—large enough for beadmaking—of gray limestones,red jasper, and other rocks incorporated into the locallymade mud bricks used to build the experimental house (Iam grateful to Chris Doherty for pointing this out).

About 35 km to the southeast of Çatalhöyük lies Karadag,part of the Acigöl eruptive complex, with Upper Mioceneandesites. In this general area also lie Jurassic-Cretaceous

marbles (mr), just north and east of Karadag; these are thenearest sources to Çatalhöyük of in situ true marbles.

In this general direction, but closer to Çatalhöyük (ca.25 km southeast of the site), are peridotites (y) with con-centrations of chromite and magnesium (MTA 2002b).These are ultramafic igneous rocks, rich in olivine, of whichone variant is harzburgite (Schumann 1992:224). About 50km northwest of Çatalhöyük, east of Alaçadag and justsouthwest of the town of Konya, lies another zone of peri-dotites (y) among limestones and various carbonate andclastic rocks (MTA 2002a). Alteration of peridotites bymetamorphic processes (high temperature and pressure)can result in serpentinization of olivine in the peridotite—this is one way in which serpentinites are formed (Pellant1992:194; Schumann 1992:322).

About 50 km northeast of Çatalhöyük are large marbledeposits (mr) of Palaeozoic/Mesozoic and Middle Trias-sic-Jurassic age (MTA 2002b).

Sources of schists and phyllites near Çatalhöyük aredifficult to determine. The phyllites are often very soft, onlypartially metamorphosed, with foliations that break easily,possibly suggesting that some sources lie among the clay-stones and mudstones found 4.5 km southwest of Çatal-höyük. This will need further investigation. Large depositsof true fully metamorphosed schists (P) occur northwestof Alaçadag (some marble also occurs there). Much largerdeposits of schists and phyllites occur far to the south, inthe Taurus Mountains close to the coast. These more distantregions to the south have significant sources of copper,turquoise, and lead (MTA 2002b).

Massive sources of serpentine and serpentinite inTurkey occur in the Taurus Mountains north of Adana andthe Gaziantep-Amanus area (far to the east of Çatalhöyük).Closer to Çatalhöyük, such materials would be unsurprisingin areas with other ophiolites, such as the ophiolite sheetssouthwest of Çatalhöyük (through which the Çarşambaflows) and peridotite outcrops southeast of Çatalhöyük(see above).

Sources of harder stones used for beads at Çatalhöyükwill need further exploration. Cherts are sometimes seen,but not in large numbers, and they appear to be somewhatdifferent from those that occur in the chipped stone (thelatter were inspected with the assistance of Tristan Carterand Chris Doherty). Sources of other hard stones (commonopal, quartz, agate, carnelian) are still under investigation.

Manufacture Techniques, Blanks, and Finished FormsFrom ethnographic, experimental, and archaeological evi-dence, tool kits and debris suggesting the making of beadsfrom soft stones should include drills and saws of hardmaterials (e.g., flint); anvils or benches; antlers for pressureflaking; possibly capstones (for stick drills) or perforated


weight stones (for pump drills); coarse and fine-grainedabrasive grinding slabs; shallow vessels to hold water; un-finished bead blanks; and debitage (flakes and other chipsor debris) (Foreman 1978; Kenoyer 2003; Wright 1982).Such items have been identified in workshops of meta-morphosed limestone beads of the same age as Çatalhöyük,but in Jordan (Critchley 2000; Wright 2008; Wright et al.2007; Wright and Garrard 2003).

Although items relating to bead manufacture havebeen found at Çatalhöyük, in the BACH Area specifically,we have few of them. Unfinished bead blanks (mostly ofdisk or ring beads) are rare (Table 21.4); no drills werefound; as yet we have no indication of debitage suggestingbeadmaking. Abrading slabs made of coarse and fine tex-tures (andesite, sandstone, schist, phyllite) occur in theÇatalhöyük ground stone assemblage generally (Baysal andWright 2005). However, few such items were recoveredfrom the BACH Area (Chapter 20). Possible manufacturetechniques are discussed below under each material.

The most common material in the BACH assemblageis limestone or marble, both composed primarily of calcite,a soft mineral (Mohs = 3) readily identifiable via Mohshardness test, reaction to hydrochloric acid, and other ob-servations. A strict distinction between sedimentary lime-stone, partially crystallized limestone, and true metamor-phic (fully crystallized) marble was difficult to draw, giventhe small size of most beads and restrictions on the use ofanalytical techniques that would damage them. Some ofthese beads revealed crystals (easy to see at 10× or less)suggesting marble (Schumann 1992:280, 324); others didnot. Consequently, it was decided to group these calcite-rich ornaments under the rubric of limestone/marble. Inhis summary study, Jackson (2005) described similar beadsas marble; in various reports, Mellaart alludes to the pres-ence of many limestone beads (e.g., Mellaart 1967:Plates103–104). Depending on the specific bead, either could becorrect. The sources of limestone and marble for thesebeads could have been either secondary sources—pebblesfrom the Çarşamba Çay—or primary bedrock sources far-ther away (see above). This will require further exploration.Limestone/marble beads vary in color. Most (by far) arepink (5YR 7/3), light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), or red(2.5YR 4/6). A few are white or pale gray to brown (Table21.5).

About 90.6 percent of the limestone/marble ornamentsare small ring beads; indeed, this is the most common typeof stone bead in general (61.6 percent). They are similar inform to the ring beads made of clay, except that the annularfaces are always flat (never concave); the sides are straight,perpendicular to the faces. These beads display extrememiniaturization and standardization. They almost alwaysrange from 2 to 4 mm in diameter and 1–2 mm in height,

with perforation diameters from 1 to 2 mm. Only rare ex-amples are larger.

A few disk beads, with smaller perforations relative tothe overall diameter, were also found in this material. Onlyone bead blank in limestone/marble was found, and it sug-gests a disk bead.

The BACH disk bead blanks and finished disk andring beads suggest two procedures for production. One isthe perforated cylinder and slicing procedure similar tothat described for clay beads, above, and observed in con-nection with steatite beadmaking at Neolithic Mehrgahr,Pakistan (Barthelmy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1994). TheBACH ring and disk beads are well abraded, carefullyformed, with sharp right angles at the interface betweenfaces and edges. The extreme consistency in thickness/height could suggest careful slicing of preforms from aperforated cylinder, followed by stringing and hand-rollingof the stringed beads across an abrading slab (Foreman1978). Not only does this produce straight upright edges,but abrasion of the beads against each other flattens thefaces and can contribute to standardized thicknesses.

The other possible procedure would be production ofindividual disk bead blanks before drilling, followed bydrilling of individual blanks, one at a time (Foreman 1978;Kenoyer 2003). The rare disk blanks seem to suggest thelatter procedure, since the preform was roughly shaped byflaking and chipping (possibly with an antler, on an anvil)and briefly abraded to smooth out the faces and edges.However, the abrasion was incomplete, and the bead re-mained irregular in plan, not circular. Other beads of lime-stone, notably cylinders and a pendant, suggest bead-by-bead production and individual drilling of this kind.

The second most common rocks used for beads areseveral varieties of schist (a group of metamorphic rocks).Schists account for about 23.1 percent of the stone beads(Table 21.4). Schists have a texture characteristic that Çatal-höyük artisans exploited in beadmaking—namely, schis-tosity, a kind of bedding or lamination that can result inthe breaking off of flat, leaf-like pieces. This feature is en-hanced when platy minerals (such as mica) are present, asthey often are. Schists allowed beadmakers a “quick” methodof acquiring flat faces with less grinding time (althoughedges still had to be abraded to evenness). The disadvantageis that this same feature resulted in easy breakage of beadsso that some schist beads appear to be much thinner thanthey originally were. Some schists are also very soft (e.g.,talc schist, or steatite, Mohs = 1–3).

The schist varieties at Çatalhöyük and at BACH includephyllite, a finely laminated material that is normally darkolive gray in color (5Y 3/2). This is a soft material subjectto easy fracture along the schist planes. Phyllites in generalare low-grade, slightly metamorphosed alterations of slates,


containing quartz, feldspars, mica, and chlorite. They havea silky luster and are gray-green in color. They form fromlow-grade metamorphism of pelitic (clayey) sedimentssuch as claystones, slates, shales, and mudstones (Pellant1992:210; Schumann 1992:312; Whitten and Brooks1972:33, 342, 349). Pelitic sediments of this kind occurabout 4.5 km south of Çatalhöyük (see above), but exactlocations of phyllites in the natural state need to be deter-mined. The Çatalhöyük beadmakers exploited the easycleaving of this material into flat faces. The drawback wasthat these beads break easily, also along the schistosityplanes. This results in bead fragments that preserve theshape of the bead in plan but have a thickness as low as 1mm or even less.

Other varieties include a paler green talc schist (alsoknown as soapstone or steatite), and purplish black chloriteschist. The talc schist (steatite) is a dark greenish gray colorwith waxy luster, a soapy feel, and very low hardness (Mohsranges from 2.5 to 3; the material can be made harder ifheated; cf. Kenoyer 2003:14) (Figures 21.2b, 21.8a). Chloriteschist has similar characteristics but ranges from a dark

purple-black to greenish brown (Chart 1 for Gley 2.5/10Y),and there is a gray streak when it is rubbed on a porcelainstreak plate (talc schist has no streak).

A disk bead blank of chlorite schist (Figures 21.2e,21.7) reveals that at least some preforms were drilled indi-vidually rather than sawn from perforated cylinders. Theblank shows an individual roughout that was chipped andabraded on faces and edges into a roughly rectangular diskshape. Drilling from opposite faces (bipolar drilling) wasbegun, but the drills were unaligned, so the artisan aban-doned the blank (Figure 21.2e). This procedure contrastswith steatite beadmaking techniques observed at Neolithicand Chalcolithic Mehrgahr (Pakistan), where sawing ofperforated cylinders was characteristic (Barthelmy deSaizieu and Bouquillon 1994).

Small ring beads are the most common form in schist(Table 21.4). As with limestone/marble ring beads, the sizesrange from 2 to 4 mm in diameter, 1–2 mm in height, 1–3mm in height/thickness, and 1–2 mm in perforation di-ameter. Again, extreme miniaturization is evident. Other,larger, beads include disks and cylinder beads.


Figure 21.8. Finished stone beads from the BACH Area. (a) Talc schist (steatite) ring bead, type A7 (6116.H1);(b) barrel bead (type A16) made of common opal (2235.D2); (c) galena barrel bead (type A16) (2218.H1).

At the moment, our evidence for heating of the talcschist and chlorite schist is equivocal. Heating of soapstonehardens it, from Mohs 3 to Mohs 5 (Kenoyer 2003:14). Allof the examples from BACH measured Mohs 3 or less, butthis does not necessarily rule out the possibility of heattreatment (Barthelmy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1994).

Remaining materials occur only in small numbers (Ta-bles 21.4, 21.5); we need only a few comments on thosethat might have been acquired from a greater distance (seediscussion of material sources, above).

Beads of galena are rare at Çatalhöyük, but both blanksand finished beads occur (both occur also in Building 3).That the material is galena and not hematite was confirmedby specific gravity, lack of streak, and testing with hydro -chloric acid which produced the characteristic hydrogensulfide odor; also, a galena blank displays stepped cleavageand a cubic crystal structure. A complete barrel bead ingalena was found (Figures 21.2a, 21.8c). Sources of thegalena are unknown, and it is not clear whether or notgalena might have been brought into the Konya Plain bythe Çarşamba or other streams. Major sources of lead dooccur in the Taurus to the south.

The identification of a few items as serpentine or ser-pentinite is tentative awaiting further testing, but the char-acteristics of these materials are consistent with the attri-bution: low hardness (Mohs = 2.5–4); greasy or waxy luster;white streak; opaqueness; and dark black, green, and whitecrystals (often easy to see with the naked eye) (Pellant1992:194; Schumann 1992:88, 322). Subject to the confir-mation of this identification, the nearest serpentine/ser-pentinite sources would be expected in (1) ophiolite sheets;and (2) outcrops of peridotite (for locations, see discussionof the geology, above).

Hard materials (Mohs 6 and higher) are rare amongÇatalhöyük’s beads. However, a few examples do occur. Inthe BACH Area, these hard rocks are represented by blackbasalt/dolerite/diabase (including a blank; Figure 21.2f); agreen chert bead fragment; and common opal (this last isnot the famous opalescent, precious variety, but an opaqueyellowish brown material; Figure 21.8b) (see also Jackson2005).

In the small numbers of these unusual materials, thereis a certain diversity in forms: ring beads occur, but thereare also relatively unusual types, such as pendants andbarrel beads, which are not common in the pink limestone/marble and schist materials.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

As noted, there was little in the way of production evidencein the BACH Area. Most beads came from use (consump-tion) contexts (e.g., burials) or discard contexts. Small num-bers of beads turned up in special contexts (e.g., bucrania;

scapularia). Also, small numbers of beads were clearlymoved around by disturbances of various sorts (cleaning,rebuilding activities, animal burrows, and the like.).

Unfinished beads turned up in interesting places; forexample, a galena blank, irregular in shape but perforated,emerged from the fill of burial F.634 (6323). One talcschist/steatite blank turned up in unit 8108 (floor unit),associated with Space 158—along with five other stonebeads (of diverse materials), a bone bead, and a clay bead.Unit 6393 (F.623), also of Space 158, revealed two furtherstone beads. Of possible craftworking areas, two finishedstone beads emerged from a midden in the F.606 centralfloor, which also revealed painted plaster fragments, grind-ing slab fragments, and unworked stone (2255).

Caches or special deposits of beads were suggested bya number of clusters. Of course, care is needed in docu-menting this, since rodents can move beads around in bur-rowing, and the BACH Area had numerous animal burrows.Some 37 shell beads turned up in association with a bin(F.1003) in Space 88, in packing on one side of the binwhere a number of plaster fragments also appeared (8505).In Space 89, four beads emerged from a burned area of fillaround the bucranium (2210), and two were associatedwith Cluster 1 (the “scapularium,” 3517) in Building 3. Anumber of beads were found in association with the F.167entry platform (2214: three stone, one clay, and one shell;6110: two stone and two shell, including Theodoxus andDentalium; 6192: two stone beads). An interesting numberof beads appeared in roof collapse contexts (e.g., 2238: fourstone beads and seven clay beads, all spherical). Collectively,some of these deposits may hint at the use of beads inritual activities—defined on the basis of other data such asanimal bones—associated with building and abandoninghouses.

Beads in Building 3 Burials

If production contexts are difficult to identify in the BACHArea, one context of use is readily discernible. By far therichest contexts with ornaments at Çatalhöyük are burials,of which there were several in and about Building 3. Thisdiscussion concerns only the Neolithic graves, which aremore fully described by Hager and Boz in Chapter 13.

Burial F.757 (Phase B3.3, Central Floor Area):Ornaments with Infant Skeleton and in FillThe earliest grave (F.757) in Building 3—and the richest interms of grave goods—was that of an infant (8184) interredin a basket with a lid (see Figures 5.52, 13.6; see also Chapters4, 13). The skull revealed traces of red pigment, a materialalso found in a shell behind the skull. Near the skull, a smallbone spatula was found inserted into a nodule of malachite;fragments of wood were found nearby (possibly remains of


a box). Baked clay beads of gray color were found aroundthe upper right arm (which was bent with the lower armnear the skull) (see Figure 5.53). Another set of clay beads(baked and unbaked, mainly pink) were found around theupper left arm (which was bent with the hand near the leftshoulder). A few white beads were also found here. No bonebeads were found in association with this skeleton.

All of the clay beads are very small, fragile ring beads(type A7), 3 mm in diameter or less, between 1 and 2.5 mmthick. These were collected in three groups. Group 1(8184.X1) consists of 12 complete and 12 fragmentary beadsmade of clay (Figures 21.1f–j, 21.4a). Most are dark yellowishbrown (10YR 3/4). Group 2 (8184.X2) consists of 14 completebeads made of pink baked clay, and 34 fragments of thesame type and material (Figure 21.4b). Also in this groupwere seven white beads (now housed in the Konya Archae-ological Museum and not yet evaluated) made of either shellor limestone/marble. Group 3 (8184.X6) consists of 18 clayring beads (type A7) 3.5 mm or less in diameter. Fourteenare gray-brown clay, unbaked or only lightly baked (eightcomplete, six fragments). Four are baked orange-pink claybeads (one complete, three fragmentary).

No beads were found as part of the basket (8373).However, in the burial fill (8183) were found 19 clay beads,all of the A7 ring bead type. They consisted of 7 beads,dark brown in color; 11 fragments of such beads; and 1gray clay bead which was larger than the rest, at 5 mm indiameter (but also very thin: only 1 mm in height). Noshell, bone, or stone beads were found in this fill. Relation-ships between the beads from this fill and any skeletonsare not clear, but beads turned up in burial fills elsewhere,and this is unlikely to be merely an accidental result of dis-turbances (e.g., by animal burrows).

Burial F.756 (Phase B3.3, Central Floor Area): Beads in Burial Fill at Edge of PitBurial F.756 is a child of about 7 years of age. No ornamentsor other grave goods were found in direct association withskeleton 6682. One black basalt disk bead fragment (abouthalf remaining) was found in the fill (8167) at the edges ofthis burial (8167.H1). This is a disk bead of type A6, arather large bead, at 6 mm in diameter, with a thickness of2.80 mm and a perforation diameter of 2 mm.

Burial F.644 (Phase B3.4A, North-Central Platform[F.162]): Beads in Burial FillF.644 was a burial in a pit placed in the north-central plat-form. No ornaments or other goods were found in directassociation with this skeleton of a young adult (8113) orits burial lid (6602). In the fill (6603) of the burial pit, twoornaments were found. One is a stone ring bead (type A7)probably made of pink limestone (it is in the Konya Ar-

chaeological Museum) (6603.H3). This has a diameter of3 mm and a height/thickness of 1 mm. The second is abroken bone finger ring (6603.X1). The diameter of theoriginal was 16 mm and the thickness is 4 mm.

Burial F.647 (Phase B3.4A, North-Central Platform[F.162]): Beads in Burial FillFeature 647 was a burial pit later cut by burial F.634. Nobeads were found in direct association with its skeleton(8114) of a young adult or in burial lid units (6617, 6632).In the burial pit fill (6633), a fragment of a tiny schist ringbead (type A7) was found. Although too small to measure,this was undoubtedly under 3 mm in diameter, and the pre-served height/thickness is 1 mm (6633.H1). One clay orna-ment fragment came from a slightly lower layer of pit fill(6643), consisting of one end of a lenticular fusiform bead(6643.H1). The bead was broken approximately in half.

Burial F.634 (Phase B3.4A, North-Central Platform[F.162]): Beads in Burial FillFeature 634 was a burial that disturbed both F.644 and F.647.No beads were found in immediate association with its skele-ton (8115) of a mature female or the burial lid units (6308,6309, 6310, 6311). The burial pit fill (6323, 6623) containedhuman bones, disturbed and scattered, and four relativelylarge beads. Of the three stone beads, one is a complete darkgray-green schist disk bead (type A6), measuring 7 mm indiameter, with a height of 3 mm and a perforation diameterof 1 mm (6323 H4). A second bead is a large, complete ringbead (type A7), material unknown (housed in the KonyaArchaeological Museum); this has a diameter of 6 mm anda height of 2 mm (6623.H5). The third stone item is a galenabead blank, irregular in plan, flat in section, with a completeperforation. The final product intended is unclear, so it is anindeterminate preform (type X1). The blank is 22 mm indiameter and 18 mm in height/thickness (6623.X8). Oneclay bead was found in this fill: a disk bead fragment, with adiameter of 6.43 mm, a height/thickness of 3.28 mm, and aperforation diameter of 0.88 mm (6323.H4).

Nine beads—two stone beads, six clay beads, and onebone finger ring—were found in the lower level of burialpit fill (6693) that was shared with F.644 and F.647. Onestone bead is a complete, black ring bead (type A7) madeof basalt/dolerite/diabase (6693.H1). This is 3 mm in di-ameter, with a height/thickness of 1.5 mm and a perforation1.5 mm wide. The second stone bead (6693.H2) is of thesame material and the same dimensions but is a fragment.The bone finger ring is oval, with diameters of 14 and 8mm and a thickness of 2 mm. It is polished on all sides,and there are striations from manufacture on the innerface. Six clay beads (in the Konya Archaeological Museum)were also found in this fill (6693.X3).


Burial F.631 (Phase B3.4B, Northeast Platform [F.173]):Beads in Burial FillIn the burial F.631, no beads were found in direct associa-tion with the adult male skeleton (6303). In the burial pitfill (6288), there were two stone beads. One is a ring bead(type A7), 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height. Theother is an indeterminate. In a slightly lower layer of pit fill(6279), there were four beads. Two are small stone ringbeads, one of which is complete; this measured 3 mm indiameter and 1 mm in height. Two fragments of clay lentic-ular beads were also found, one being the midsection of abead and the other an end fragment.

Burial F.617 (Phase B3.4B, North-Central Platform[F.162]): Beads in Burial FillThe child skeleton (6237) in burial F.617 was buried in abasket with a shell (but not a bead) that was found nearthe pelvis. Four beads were found in the burial pit fill(6211): two stone ring beads (material unknown), one claybarrel bead, and one shell bead (Theodoxus; David Reese,personal communication).

Beads Found in Burials from Space 87

Primary burials of nine individuals (seven of which wereexcavated) were discovered in Space 87, south of Building3 (Chapter 13). Skeletons were in various conditions ofpreservation as a result of disturbances from sequentialburials and animals.

Burial F.1005: Bead in FillNo beads were found with the juvenile skeleton (8423) inF.1005. The burial pit fill (8421) produced a fragment of asmall pink limestone ring bead.

Burial F.1002: Beads in FillFeature 1002 contained the burial of two skeletons: onewas an adolescent (8409) slightly disturbed by a maturemale skeleton (8410). Neither skeleton revealed any directlyassociated beads or grave goods. However, in the upperburial fill (8385), possibly associated with 8409, a bone belthook and eye were found along with two unbroken stonebeads (Chapter 13). These are (1) a small, complete whitemarble ring bead (type A7), measuring 3.3 mm in diameter,1.5 mm in height, and 1 mm in perforation diameter; and(2) a likewise complete ring bead made of schist (4 mm indiameter, 1 mm height, 1.5 mm in perforation diameter).

Discussion of Contextual Analysis

What emerges from the ornaments in the BACH Areagraves is how lacking in diversity they are. The great ma-jority are very small, type A7 ring beads, mostly in lime-stone/marble or dark gray-green schist. Even the excep-

tions are modest—dark in color (e.g., basalt/dolerite/dia-base), not large, not “showy.” Materials are simple and manycould have been collected from the Çarşamba, not faraway, with perhaps a few possible exceptions (galena, basalt,serpentinite). Nearly all are made of soft materials (Mohs2–4).

Although the number of burials here was small, andseveral were disturbed, some general observations are pos-sible. First, it is evident that personal ornaments were centralto burial practices, even if not all graves contained largenumbers of beads, and even though we find beads imme-diately next to a skeleton only in the case of F.757 (skeleton8184). More common was the situation of finding smallnumbers of beads in burial fill deposits. In some cases, thisprobably resulted from disturbances (later burials, animalactivity). In other cases, there is a possibility that beadswere deliberately deposited in fills as part of mortuary rit-ual—for example, in the case of the substantial number ofbeads from the fill of the essentially undisturbed infantburial F.757, which also had many ornaments directly linkedto the skeleton (8184).

Among the small number of graves within Building 3,there are differences that are not readily explained. Whydid infant burial F.757 (8184) have so many more beadsthan other individuals? The only thing that seems to standout in connection with 8184 is that this was the first burialto take place in the building. Consequently, emotional mo-tivations (a child, the first death during the occupation ofthe house) may have led to this grave being given someelaborate decoration (Chapter 13).

It has been noted that at Çatalhöyük generally, burialswith ornaments were often infants and children (Hamilton2005c) and that fewer adults seem to have had decorations.This provisional generalization is not statistically valid(in light of available samples), and there are importantexceptions.

Within Building 3, it is noteworthy that apart fromskeleton 8184, there was little to distinguish the adults fromthe children. Within this particular house, among this smallgroup of presumably kin-related people, age seems not tohave been the driving rationale for differences of decorationin burial. In short, status achieved in the course of one per-son’s life cycle seems not to have been marked strongly indeath, in this case. This tends to militate against the ideathat all variations in burial in Neolithic societies can be at-tributed to variations of age, sex, and achieved status, andwe may have to look elsewhere for reasons for grave goodvariations.

This raises the question, then, of prestige hierarchies.Insofar as access to exotic, elaborate, or unusual ornamentsis a reflection of social prestige or other indicators of rank,the Building 3 inhabitants appear not to have been blessed


with special access of this kind, with the single possible ex-ception of the occurrence of galena as both an unfinishedblank and as a finished bead. Most materials are over-whelmingly simple, locally available, manufactured by sim-ple techniques, and so on.

The “plain and simple” ornaments of Building 3 are asubstantial contrast to some other graves, notably fromthe SOUTH Area, where both Mellaart and the currentexcavations have revealed some comparatively spectacularburials laden with large beads in bright colors, conspicuousshapes, and exotic or special materials. For example, Mel-laart excavated some graves with large turquoise beads,pink limestone or marble barrel beads, substantial bonebeads, and miniature limestone ring beads, the latter serv-ing as fillers separating the large conspicuous beads andpendants (Mellaart 1967:Plate XV, 103–104). In anotherexample, skeleton 1860 in the SOUTH Area (10529) wasthe body of a young child of about 12 years of age. Here,the ornaments included many of the small, type A7 pinklimestone ring beads—but accompanying these were largewhite marble beads of diverse forms, beads of serpentine/serpentinite, and a butterfly bead in steatite (K. Wright,work in progress).

Interpreting such contrasts will require a larger sampleand more detailed data on grave goods. Possibilities that needto be explored are differences due to age and life transitionsof individuals. Yet another set of issues concerns burial as aprocess of ritual enactment, considerably more complexthan the mere placing of ornaments on the body of the de-ceased. Very possibly, other occurrences of beads in unusualcontexts (bucrania, scapularia, entry platforms) suggest thatbeads and pendants figured in abandonment habits or rit-uals, of which clothing the dead was only one aspect.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SITES INANATOLIA AND THE NEAR EAST

The BACH Area ornaments represent only a limited rangeof the ornament types seen at Neolithic Çatalhöyük as awhole. However, it may be useful to comment briefly oncomparisons with contemporary Neolithic sites (see Figure1.2).

Concerning stone bead techno-typology, many sites ofthis age have beads shaped like disks, rings, cylinders, andbarrels, which seem to be fairly universal shape choices.However, there appear to be differences between Neolithicsites in terms of more elaborate or larger beads and pen-dants, and many contrasts in materials. Çatalhöyük’s largerornaments in stone tend to be butterfly beads, rectangularpendants shaped like elongated celts, and beads shaped likeshaft-hole axes (none of which occur in the BACH Area).The butterfly bead is a widespread form in Neolithic westernAsia, found at Abu Hureyra and many other sites (cf. Lank-

ton 2003; Moore 2000). The situation for the “ax” shapes(also absent from BACH) is less clear. Published illustrationsof beads from other Anatolian sites display forms not seenat Çatalhöyük: Aşıklı (large oval agates); Çayonü (biconicalbeads); Çafer Höyük (elaborate bracelets) (e.g., Cauvin 1989;Cauvin and Aurenche 1982; Cauvin et al. 1999; A. Özdoğan1999; Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999).

These and other Neolithic sites seem to emphasize lo-cally available rocks and minerals for stone beadmaking,albeit some exchange was undoubtedly going on (Wrightand Garrard 2003). In all, shell beads testify more readilyto long-distance contacts than do stone beads, but muchfurther work is needed on this. Generally, the pattern ofidiosyncratic village-specific bead styles, combined withemphasis on local materials, appears to match the situationin contemporary sites in the Levant.

One comparative issue arising from the Çatalhöyükdata concerns beads in burials. It is frequently stated thatin sites of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in the Levant, mor-tuary practices did not normally include personal orna-ments. Instead, these practices emphasized manipulationof the skeleton via decapitation, plastering, pigments, andso on. However, a few PPNB sites have revealed beads fromburial contexts, or ritual contexts with mortuary remains(e.g., Nahal Hemar, Israel) (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988).

The Çatalhöyük burials do seem to be somewhat un-usual in the large numbers of personal ornaments foundin some of them. However, the Çatalhöyük data also suggestthat extreme care has to be taken in looking for beads—which can be as tiny as 2 mm in diameter and as few asthree or four together—in burials and grave fills. In short,it is important to consider the possibility of subtle “gravegoods” in the form of a few ornaments being deposited asgraves were filled. Simply because we do not always seelarge numbers of beads next to skeletons does not meanthat beads were not part of mortuary ritual. This underlinesthe importance of subjecting all burial-related deposits toflotation and searching for micro-artifacts in heavy residues.

CONCLUSIONS

Craft technologies expanded in diversity and complexityin the Neolithic, and indeed this is the hallmark of the pe-riod. But crafts are not only interesting in terms of techno-logical histories. In fact, they are central to the expressionand creation of social identities (Costin et al. 1998). Likeother crafts, ornaments were clearly a central means ofdefining social identities at Çatalhöyük. Initial indicationsare that these identities were complex and worked on theindividual, household, community, and regional levels.

There is every indication that beadmaking at Çatal-höyük was a classic example of a prestige technology (Hay-den 1998). The precise practices of how this was played out


in personal ornamentation are still under study. But alreadyit is clear that between households, there were different de-grees of access to materials, varying levels of expertise, andat least hints of small-scale, household-level specialization,as defined by Costin (1991) and as indicated elsewhere inthe Neolithic Near East (Wright and Garrard 2003).

Hodder suggests that Neolithic Çatalhöyük was be-coming entangled in material culture (Hodder 2005a). It isdifficult to disagree. Skeletons at Çatalhöyük suggest thatpeople may have been literally, physically bound up incords for burial. For the living, personal ornamentationwas very possibly also a crucial vehicle for construction ofsocial relationships in early villages—a visible binding ofthe social contract. If, as some suggest, the body is a mapof the social order (Douglas 1966), the general Neolithicproliferation of diverse materials for clothing and adorn-ment suggests that Neolithic societies recognized a widerange of definitions of “seemly” presentation of the self (cf.Goffman 1956).

Neolithic anthropomorphic art—statues, figurines,paintings, sculptures, stelae—delineates highly specificmodes and variations in dress on people so displayed—clothed hunters in the bull hunt paintings, details of dress(or not) on statues and figurines (Wright 2000). Ornamentsand dress are often media for reinforcing status and role,enforcing social codes, defining age-related transitions (e.g.,to adulthood). Was Neolithic jewelry so abundant and di-verse because sedentary life demanded a raft of detaileddefinitions of correct social behavior in various contexts?

Or was it a medium for lively expressions of individuality(Meskell 1999)? Did some households have greater accessto special materials and crafts made from them? Were somehouseholds specializing in ornament production? Theseand other questions are being addressed in studies of beadsat Çatalhöyük and beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to a number of people for discussions andcomments on various subjects covered in this chapter. OnÇatalhöyük and BACH: deepest thanks to Ian Hodder(Stanford University), Ruth Tringham and MirjanaStevanović (University of California at Berkeley), andShahina Farid (McDonald Institute, Cambridge) for grant-ing me permission to study this material and for solvingpractical problems. I am very grateful to the Departmentof Antiquities of the Ministry of Culture of Turkey for per-mission to export geological samples and bead fragmentsfor mineral-chemical analysis. On geological matters: manythanks to Chris Doherty (University of Oxford); AndrewGarrard and Simon Groom (University College London);and Vedat Toprak and Asuman Turkmenoglu (Middle EastTechnical University). On bead studies generally, I thankPat Critchley, Simon Groom, James Lankton, and StephenMerkel (University College London). On bone and shellbeads, I thank Nerissa Russell, Rebecca Daly, and DavidReese. I am grateful to Stephen Merkel for commenting onthe clay bead section. In general, as usual I am deeply in-debted to Andrew Garrard for inspiration.


LHotH Chapter 21 1

Bibliography Appadurai, A. 1986 The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge. Atalay, Sonya 2005 Domesticating Clay: the Role of Clay Balls, Mini Balls, and Geometric Objects in Daily

Life at Çatalhöyük. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 139-168. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research and /British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge, UK.

Bahrani, Z. 1995 Jewelry and personal arts in ancient western Asia. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near

East, edited by J. Sasson, pp. 1635-1646. vol. III. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Bahrani, Z. 2001 Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. Routledge, New York. Bahrani, Z. 2002 Sex as symbolic form: erotism and the body in Mesopotamian art. In Sex and Gender in

the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6, 2001, edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, pp. 53-58. The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.

Balfet, H. 1991 Observer l'action technique: des chaines opératoires, pour quoi faire? Centre National de

Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., N. Porat, Z. Gal, Shalem, D. and H. Smithline 2004 Steatite beads at Peqi'in: long distance trade and pyro-technology during the Chalcolithic

of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(4):493-502. Bar-Yosef, O. and D. Alon 1988 Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot : journal of the Israel Department of Antiquities 18. Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D. 1991 Changes in the selection of marine shells from the Natufian to the Neolithic. In The

Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla, pp. 629-636. Prehistory Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D. 1997 Neolithic shell bead production in Sinai. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(2):97-111. Barnes, R. and J. B. Eicher 1992 Dress And Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Contexts, Oxford. Barrett, J. and C. Richards 2001 Bodies Encountered: Archaeological and Cultural Studies of Embodiment. Routledge,

London.

LHotH Chapter 21 2

Barthelmy de Saizieu, B. and A. Bouquillon 1994 Steatite working at Mehrgarh during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods: quantitative

distribution, characterization of material and manufacturing processes. In South Asian Archaeology 1993, Volume I. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki University 5-9 July 1993, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, pp. 47-59. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki.

Baysal, Adnan and Katherine Wright 2005 Cooking, Crafts, and Curation: Ground-stone Artefacts from Çatalhöyük. In Changing

Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 seasons (Catalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 307-324. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.

Beck, H. C. 1976 The magical properties of beads. Bead Journal 2(4):32-39. Beck, H. C. 1981 Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants, York, Pennsylvania York,

Pennsylvania Shumway Publications. Berna, F. 1995 La lavarazione dell'amazzonite nel villagio neolitico di Jebel Ragref (Giordania

meridionale). L'ecologia del Quaternario 17:41-54. Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Butler, J. 1993 Bodies That Matter: On Discourse and the Limits of Sex. Routledge, London. Calley, S. 1989 L'atelier de fabrication de perles de Kumartepe: quelques observations technologiques.

Anatolica XVI:157-184. Canby, J. V. 1995 Jewelry and personal arts in Anatolia. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Volume

III, edited by J. Sasson, pp. 1673-1682. vol. III. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Carey, M. 1998 Gender in African beadwork: an overview. In Beads and Bead Makers: Gender, Material

Culture and Meaning, edited by L. D. Sciama and J. Eicher, pp. 83-93. Berg, Oxford and New York.

Carter, Tristan, James Conolly and Ana Spasojevic 2005 The Chipped Stone. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99

seasons (Catalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 221-284, 467-533. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.

Cauvin, J. 1989 Le stratigraphie de Cafer Höyük-Est (Turquie) et les origines du PPNB du Taurus.

LHotH Chapter 21 3

Paléorient 15(1):75-86. Cauvin, J. 2000 The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. New studies in archaeology.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cauvin, J. and O. Aurenche 1982 Le Néolithique de Cafer Hüyük (Malatya, Turquie). Cahiers de l'Euphrate 3(1):123-128. Cauvin, J., O. Aurenche, M. C. Cauvin and N. Balkan-Atli 1999 The pre-pottery site of Cafer Hoyuk. In Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization,

edited by M. Özdogan and N. Basgelen, pp. 87-104. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul. Cessford, Craig and Slobodan Mitrovic 2005 Heavy-residue Analysis. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the

1995-99 seasons (Catalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 45-65. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.

Cessford, Craig and Julie Near 2005 Fire, burning and pyrotechnology at Çatalhöyük. In Çatalhöyük perspectives: themes

from the 1995-9 seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.6), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 171-182. Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 6, I. Hodder, general editor. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge.

Columbus, C. 1969 The Four Voyages, Edited and translated by J.M. Cohen. Penguin Classics, London. Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of

production. Archaeological Method and Theory 1:31-56. Costin, C. L., R. P. Wright and E. M. Brumfiel 1998 Craft and Social Identity. Archeological papers of the American Anthropological

Association. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Va. Critchley, P. 2000 Stone Bead Production at Wadi Jilat 25, a Neolithic Site in Eastern Jordan, Institute of

Archaeology, University College London, London,. Dobres, Marcia-Anne 2000 Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Malden,

Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Dobres, M. A. 1998 Gender and prehistoric technology: on the social agency of technical strategies. World

Archaeology 27(1):25-49. Dobres, M. A. 1999 Technology's links and chaînes: the processual unfolding of technique and technician. In

The Social Dynamics of Technology, edited by M. A. Dobres and C. Hoffmann, pp. 124-146. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

LHotH Chapter 21 4

Dobres, M. A. and C. R. Hoffmann 1994 Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 1(3):211-258. Dobres, M. A. and C. R. Hoffmann (editors) 1999 The Social Dynamics of Technology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK. Dobres, M. A. and J. E. Robb (editors) 2000 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London. Douglas, M. 1966 Natural Symbols. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Dubin, L. 1995 The History of Beads, 30,000 B.C. to the Present. Thames and Hudson, London. Eicher, J. 1995 Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and Time. Oxford, Berg. Fiore, D. 2006 Painted genders: the construction of gender roles through the display of body painting by

the Selk'nam and the Yámana from Tierra Del Fuego (Southern South America). In Archaeology and Women, edited by S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse and K. I. Wright, pp. 373-403. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,CA.

Foreman, R. 1978 Disc beads: production by primitive techniques. Bead Journal 3:17-22. Foucault, M. 1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon, New York. Foucault, M. 1978 The History of Sexuality Volume One: the Will to Knowledge. Penguin, London. Gamble, C. and M. Porr (editors) 2005 The Individual Hominid in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle

Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales, and Artefacts. Routledge, Abingdon,UK. Garfinkel, Y. 1987 Bead manufacture on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site of Yiftahel. Mitekufat Haeven,

Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 20(1):79-90. Giddens, A. 1987 Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge. Goffman, E. 1956 The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh. Gorelick, L. and A. J. Gwinnett 1990 Innovative lapidary craft techniques in Neolithic Jarmo. Archaeomaterials 4(1):25-32.

LHotH Chapter 21 5

Grace, R. 1989 The use-wear analysis of drill bits from Kumartepe. Anatolica XVI:145-155. Green, J. D. M. 2006 Anklets in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant: evidence from iconography and burials. In

Archaeology and Women, edited by S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse and K. I. Wright, pp. 283-311. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,CA.

Gwinnett, A. J. and L. Gorelick 1981 Beadmaking in Iran in the Early Bronze Age derived by scanning electron microscopy.

Expedition 23(1):10-23. Hallpike, C. 1969 Social hair. Man 4(256-264). Hamilton, N. 2005 Social aspects of burial. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 seasons

(Çatalhöyük vol.4), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 301-306. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge, UK.

Hamilton, Naomi 2005 The Figurines. In Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995-99

seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 187-214. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge.

Hamilton, Naomi 2005 The Beads. In Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995-99 seasons

(Çatalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 325-333. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge.

Hayden, B. 1998 Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution of material systems. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 5(1):1-55. Hill, James N. and Joel Gunn (editors) 1977 The Individual in Prehistory: studies of variability in style in prehistoric technologies.

Academic Press, Inc., New York. Hodder, I. 2000 Agency and individuals in long-term processes. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.

A. a. R. Dobres, John, pp. 21-33. Routledge, London. Hodder, I. 2004 Material entanglement and the Neolithic in the Middle East. Hodder, Ian 2005 Changing entanglements and temporalities. In Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük:

Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons, (Çatalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1-22. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge, UK.

LHotH Chapter 21 6

Hodder , Ian 2005 Peopling Catalhöyük and its Landscape. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the


Hodder, Ian 2006 The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. Thames and Hudson,

London, UK. Inizan, M., M. Jazim and F. Mermier 1992 L'artisanat de la cornaline au Yémen: premières données. Techniques et Culture 20(155-

174). Jackson, Brian 2005 Report on bead material identification. In Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports

from the 1995-99 seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 373-376. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge.

Janowski, M. 1998 Beads, prestige and life among the Kelabit of Sarawak, east Malaysia. In Beads and Bead

Makers: Gender, Material Culture and Meaning, edited by L. D. Sciama and J. Eicher, pp. 213-246. Berg, Oxford and New York.

Kenoyer, J. M. 1986 The Indus bead industry: contributions to bead technology. Ornament 10(1):18-23. Kenoyer, J. M. 1992 Craft specialization and the question of urban segregation and stratification. Eastern

Anthropologist 45(1-2):39-54. Kenoyer, J. M. 1992 Lapis lazuli beadmaking in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ornament 15(3):70-87. Kenoyer, J. M. 1994 Experimental studies of Indus Valley technology at Harappa. In South Asian

Archaeology 1993, Volume I. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki University 5-9 July 1993, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, pp. 345-362. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki.

Kenoyer, J. M. 2003 The technology of stone beads: bead and pendant making techniques. In A Bead Timeline,

Volume I: Prehistory to 1200 CE, edited by J. Lankton, pp. 14-19. The Bead Society of Greater Washington, Washington, DC.

Kenoyer, J. M., M. Vidale and K. Bhan 1991 Contemporary stone beadmaking in Khambat, India: patterns of craft specialization and

organization of production as reflected in the archaeological record. World Archaeology 23(1):44-63.

LHotH Chapter 21 7

Kuzucuoglu, C. 2002 The environmental frame in central Anatolia from the 9th to the 6th millennia cal BC. In

The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relationsduring the 9th-6th Millennia cal BC, edited by F. Gerard and L. Thissen, pp. 33-58. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Kuzucuoglu, C. and N. Roberts 1997 Évolution de l'environment en Anatolie de 20,000 à 6000 BP. Paleorient 23 12(7-24). Lane, P. 1998 Engendered spaces and bodily practices in the Iron Age of southern Africa. In Gender in

African Prehistory, edited by S. Kent, pp. 179-203. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Lankton, J. 2003 A Bead Timeline, Volume I: Prehistory to 1200 CE. The Bead Society of Greater

Washington, Washington, DC. Last, Jonathan 2005 Pottery from the East Mound. In Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük. Reports from the

1995-99 seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 101-139. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge.

Layton, R. 1989 The political use of Australian Aboriginal body painting and its archaeological

implications. In The Meanings of Things, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1-11. vol. One World Archaeology 6. HarperCollins, London.

Maréchal, C. 1991 Elements de parure de la fin du Natoufien. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited

by O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla, pp. 589-612. Prehistory Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1971 Western Asiatic Jewellery, ca. 3000-612 BC. Methuen, London. Mellaart, James 1967 Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London. Meskell, L. 1999 Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt. Social

archaeology. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Meskell, L. 2001 Archaeologies of identity. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 187-

213. Polity Press, Cambridge. Moore, A. M. T. 2000 Stone and other artefacts. In Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu

Hureyra, edited by A. M. T. Moore, G. Hillman and A. Legge, pp. 165-187. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

MTA 2002 Geological Map of Turkey, Konya region (1:500,000). General Directorate of Mineral

LHotH Chapter 21 8

Research and Exploration (Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürüglü), Ankara. MTA 2002 Geological Map of Turkey, Konya region (1:100,000) - M29. General Directorate of

Mineral Research and Exploration (Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürüglü), Ankara. Nakamura, Carolyn and Lynn Meskell 2006 Figurines. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports. Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report. Nelson, M. 1991 The study of technological organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 1:357-100. Oppenheim, A. L. 1949 The golden garments of the gods. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8(3):172-193. Özdogan, Asli 1999 Çayonü. In Neolithic in Turkey, edited by M. Ozdogan and N. Başgelen, pp. 35-64.

Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul. Őzdogan, Mehmet and Nezih Basgelen (editors) 1999 Neolithic Age in Turkey: The cradle of civilization. 2 vols. Archeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari,

Istanbul. Parker Pearson, M. 1993 The powerful dead: archaeological relationships between the living and the dead.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2):203-229. Parker Pearson, M. 1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton Publishing, Stroud,UK. Pellant, C. 1992 Rocks and Minerals. Dorling Kindersley Handbooks, London. Piperno, M. 1976 Grave 77 at Shahr-i-Sokhta: further evidence of technological specialization in the third

millennium BC. East and West 26(1-2):9-12. Piperno, M. 1983 Beadmaking and boring techniques in third millennium BC Indo-Iran, edited by M. Tosi.

vol. . Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Reports and Memoire 19 vols. Rome, Prehistoric Sistan I.

Reese, D.S. 2005 The Çatalhöyük shells. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 seasons

(Çatalhöyük vol.4), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 123-128. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge, UK.

Roach, M. E. and J. B. Eicher 1979 The language of personal adornment. In The Fabrics of Culture: The Anthropology of

Clothing and Adornment, edited by J. M. Cordwell and R. A. Schwarz, pp. 7-21. Mouton Publishers, New York.

LHotH Chapter 21 9

Robb, J. E. (editor) 1999 Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Center for

Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. Roberts, Neil, Peter Boyer and Romola Parish 1996 Preliminary Results of Geoarchaeological Investigations at Çatalhöyük In On the surface:

Çatalhöyük 1993-95, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 19-41. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.

Rollefson, G. O. 2002 Beadmaking tools from LPPNB al-Basit, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2(02):5-7. Roux, V. 1999 Cornalines de l'Inde. Editions de la Maison de l'Homme, Paris. Roux, V., B. Bril and G. Dietrich 1995 Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone-knapping: the case of stone bead

knapping in Khambat, India. World Archaeology(27):1. Roux, V. and P. Matarasso 1999 Crafts and the evolution of complex societies: new methodologies for modelling the

organization of production, a Harappan example. In The Social Dynamics of Technology, edited by M. A. Dobres and C. Hoffmann, pp. 146-170. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Russell, Nerissa 2005 Çatalhöyük Worked Bone. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the


Schumann, W. 1992 Rocks, Minerals and Gemstones. HarperCollins, London. Sciama, L. D. 1998 Gender in the making, trading and uses of beads: an introductory essay. In Beads and

Bead Makers: Gender, Material Culture and Meaning, edited by L. D. Sciama and J. Eicher, pp. 1-46. Berg, Oxford and New York.

Sciama, L. D. and J. Eicher 1998 Beads and Bead Makers: Gender, Material Culture and Meaning. Berg, Oxford and New

York. Sorensen, M. L. S. 1991 Gender construction through appearance. In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of

the Twenty-second Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. Walde and N. Willow, pp. 121-128. University of Calgary, Calgary,AB.

Sorensen, M. L. S. 1997 Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe.

Journal of European Archaeology 5(1):93-114.

LHotH Chapter 21 10

Talbot, G. 1983 Appendix K : beads and pendants from the tell and tombs. In Jericho V, edited by K. M.

Kenyon and T. Holland, pp. 788-801. British School of Archaeology Jerusalem, London. Tosi, M. 1989 The distribution of industrial debris on the surface of Tappeh Hesar as an indication of

activity areas. In Tappeh Hesar, Reports of the Restudy Project 1976, edited by R. H. Dyson and S. M. Howard, pp. 13-24. Monographie di Mesopotamia 2, Firenze.

Tosi, M. and M. Vidale 1990 Fourth millennium BC lapis lazuli working at Mehrgarh, Pakistan. Paléorient 16(2):89-99. Türkmenoglu, A. G., A. Baysal, V. Toprak and M. C. Göncüoglu 2005 Raw material of ground stone from Çatalhöyük Neolithic site in Turkey. In Changing

Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 seasons (Catalhöyük vol.5), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 369-372. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological, Cambridge, UK.

Turner, V. 1969 The Ritual Process. Aldine, Chicago. Vanzetti, A. and M. Vidale 1994 Formation processes of beads: defining different levels of craft skill among the early

beadmakers of Mehrgarh. In South Asian Archaeology 1993, Volume I. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki University 5-9 July 1993, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki.

Vidale, M. 1986 Some aspects of lapidary craft at Mohenjo Daro. In Reports on Fieldwork carried out at

Mohenjodaro, Pakistan, 1983-1984, edited by M. a. U. Jansen, G., pp. 113-149. IsMEO-Aachen University Mission, German Research Project at MohenjoDaro, Rome.

Vidale, M. 1989 A steatite cutting atelier on the surface of Mohenjo Daro. Annali dell'Istituo Universitario

Orientale di Napoli (49):1. Vidale, M. 1989 Specialized producers and urban elites: on the role of craft industries in mature Harappan

urban centres. In Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia, edited by J. M. by Kenoyer, by Kenoyer, J. M., pp. 171-181. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Vidale, M. 1995 Early beadmakers of the Indus tradition: the manufacturing sequence of talc beads at

Mehrgahr in the fifth millennium BC. East and West 45:45-80. Vidale, M., J. M. Kenoyer and K. Bhan 1992 A discussion of the concept of the chaine operatoire in the study of complex societies. In

Ethnoarchéologie: justifiction, problèmes, limites, edited by A. Gallay, Juan-les-Pins.

LHotH Chapter 21 11

Whitten, D. G. A. and J. R. V. Brooks 1972 The Penguin Dictionary of Geology. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK. Wright, K. I. 2000 The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia. Proceedings of

the Prehistoric Society 66(1):89-121. Wright, K. I. 2006 Bead technology studies. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports.

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2006. Wright, K. I. 2006 Women and the emergence of urban society in Mesopotamia. In Archaeology and

Women, edited by S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse and K. I. Wright, pp. 199-245. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,CA.

Wright, K. I. 2008 Craft production and the organization of ground stone technologies. In New Approaches

to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artefacts, edited by Y. Rowan and J. Ebeling, pp. 130-143. Equinox Archaeology Books, London.

Wright, K. I., P. Critchley, A. N. Garrard, D. Baird and S. Groom 2007 Neolithic stone beadmaking technologies in Wadi Jilat and Azraq Oasis, eastern Jordan.

Paléorient 18(1):47-62. Wright, K. I. and A. N. Garrard 2003 Social identities and the expansion of stone beadmaking in Neolithic western Asia: new

evidence from Jordan. Antiquity 77(296):267-284. Wright, P. 1982 The bow-drill and the drilling of beads, Kabul, 1981. Afghan Studies 3-4(95-101).

wright, k. i. 2012. beads and the body: ornament technologies of the bach area buildings (chapter...

Documents