Scholarly article on topic 'Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük'

Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük Academic research paper on "History and archaeology"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Domestication / "Near East" / Neolithic / Çatalhöyük / "Ground stone" / Agriculture / Inequality / Households / Feasting / "Complex society"}

Abstract of research paper on History and archaeology, author of scientific article — Katherine I. (Karen) Wright

Abstract Questions about the early Near Eastern Neolithic include whether domestic groups were autonomous and self-sufficient; whether they had access to similar goods; whether households were competitive; whether specialization existed; and how domestic units articulated with corporate groups. Feasting models emphasize household competition and complexity, but wide-ranging ethnographic studies show that hoe-farming societies in areas of land abundance are usually egalitarian, with little material wealth, little inequality, and little wealth transmission (inheritance). This paper explores inequality at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey), via ground stone artefacts, which were central to food preparation and craft production. Analysis of 2429 artefacts from 20 buildings and 9 outdoor yards reveals a mix of egalitarian features and emerging social complexity. Households had private property and relatively equal access to cooking features and some ground stone tools, but ground stone toolkits do not indicate self-sufficiency. In particular, large millstones (querns) were expensive to procure and were possibly shared between households. Most were deliberately destroyed, suggesting taboos on transmission (inheritance). Lorenz curves for features and ground stone artefacts suggest that storage units, unbroken querns and unfinished quern roughouts were the most unequally distributed food preparation facilities. There are indications of subsistence intensification, craft specialization, and emerging factional competition.

Academic research paper on topic "Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük"

Anthropological Archaeology

ELSEVIER

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic £atalhöyük q

CrossMark

olithic Çatalhôyiik^

Katherine I. (Karen) Wright

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO

Article history: Received 23 June 2013 Revision received 25 September 2013 Available online 23 November 2013

Keywords:

Domestication

Near East

Neolithic

^atalhoyuk

Ground stone

Agriculture

Inequality

Households

Feasting

Complex society

ABSTRACT

Questions about the early Near Eastern Neolithic include whether domestic groups were autonomous and self-sufficient; whether they had access to similar goods; whether households were competitive; whether specialization existed; and how domestic units articulated with corporate groups. Feasting models emphasize household competition and complexity, but wide-ranging ethnographic studies show that hoe-farming societies in areas of land abundance are usually egalitarian, with little material wealth, little inequality, and little wealth transmission (inheritance). This paper explores inequality at ^atalhoyuk East (Turkey), via ground stone artefacts, which were central to food preparation and craft production. Analysis of 2429 artefacts from 20 buildings and 9 outdoor yards reveals a mix of egalitarian features and emerging social complexity. Households had private property and relatively equal access to cooking features and some ground stone tools, but ground stone toolkits do not indicate self-sufficiency. In particular, large millstones (querns) were expensive to procure and were possibly shared between households. Most were deliberately destroyed, suggesting taboos on transmission (inheritance). Lorenz curves for features and ground stone artefacts suggest that storage units, unbroken querns and unfinished quern roughouts were the most unequally distributed food preparation facilities. There are indications of subsistence intensification, craft specialization, and emerging factional competition.

© 2013 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

As early agrarian households evolved in the Neolithic of the Near East, how soon did differentials emerge between households in access to material "wealth"? Do we see precocious emergence of privileged households with unusual accumulations of prestige items, atypically large storage features, or exceptional capacities for feasting?

The Near East has a rich record of the evolution of agrarian societies, from the Late Epipalaeolithic (cf. Natufian) to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, B and C periods (=PPNA, PPNB, PPNC), corresponding to the Early Central Anatolian I—III (Ozbasaran and Buitenheis, 2002) (Table 1). This time range witnessed the emergence of semiseden-tary foraging (Late Epipalaeolithic/Natufian); pre-domestication cultivation (PPNA); true plant domestication (Early-Middle PPNB) (Fuller et al., 2011); sheep-goat domestication (Middle PPNB) and hyper-growth of some villages to 15 hectares (Late PPNB-PPNC). Many have debated whether early Neolithic societies were egalitarian or not, and in what ways (Asouti, 2005, 2006; Banning,

q This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. E-mail address: k.wright@ucl.ac.uk

1996, 2003, 2011; Banning and Chazan, 2006; Bienert, 2001; Bogaard et al., 2009; Byrd, 1994, 2000, 2005a,b; Düring, 2005, 2006, 2007; Flannery, 1972, 2002; Goring-Morris, 2000; 2005; Hodder and Cessford, 2004; Kuijt, 2000a,b, 2002, 2012; Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002; Kuijt et al., 2011; Pearson et al.,2013; Rollef-son, 2000; Schmidt, 2006; Verhoeven, 2004, 2006; Watkins, 2008; Wright, 2000).

One of the largest Late PPNB-PPNC sites is Neolithic £atalhöyük East (Turkey), where recent excavations revealed more than 50 buildings, along with outdoor yards and middens (Hodder, 2007, 2014) (Figs. 1 and 2) and detailed information on artefacts (e.g., Bains et al., 2013; Bogaard et al., 2013; Carter et al., 2005; Carter and Milic, 2013; Hodder, 2014; Nakamura and Meskell, 2013; Russell and Martin, 2005; Russell and Griffitts, 2013; Twiss et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013; Yalman et al., 2013). The 1960s excavations (Mellaart, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967) were confined to the South Area, a deep trench revealing diachronic change. There, Mellaart defined 13 'levels,' from 'Pre-XII' (at the base) to I and 0 (at surface), with some of the best preserved finds coming from Levels VIA and VIB, in the middle of the sequence. The recent excavations (Hodder, 2007, 2014) opened several areas (Figs. 2 and 3), each with area-specific level designations (Table 1). In the South Area, these begin with G (at the base); the latest are South T, Area TP and the Istanbul Area. Area 4040 (in the north) encompasses a narrower time range and is a wide exposure, revealing neighborhood

0278-4165/$ - see front matter © 2013 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/joaa.2013.09.007

Fig. 1. Location of ^atalhoyuk in relation to rock and mineral resources (Hodder, 2005a: Fig. 1.1; for further details of regional geology, see MTA, 2002).

relationships. Five levels (F-J) were defined for Area 4040, from Level F (earlier) to Level J (later), of which Levels G and H are best known at present. These probably correspond to South Area Levels N through Q(and to Mellaart's Levels VIB, VIA and V) (Table 1). In this paper, the term 'Area 4040' is used as a shorthand for all exposures in the north i.e. Area 4040 sensu stricto; the BACH area; and the North area (see Fig. 2).

^atalhoyuk East dates to between ca. 7400 cal BC (South Area, base of mound) and ca. 6000 cal BC at the surface (Cessford et al., 2005: table 4.1; Hodder, 2005b: fig. 1.6, 2013: 1, 10). In terms of schemes established for the Levant, it is coeval with the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C, and the beginnings of the Pottery Neolithic (or Late Neolithic) (Table 1)(seealso Hodder, 2005b,fig. 1.5). In terms of schemes suggested for central Anatolia, it belongs to the later part of the Early Central Anatolian (ECA) II and the ECAIII (Table 1) (Asouti, 2006; Ozbasaran and Buitenheis, 2002). Its closest contemporaries are Can Hasan III, Suberde and Erbaba (central Anatolia); later levels at £ayonu (eastern Anatolia); Bouqras and Abu Hureyra II (north Euphrates); Ramad, Ain Ghazal and Basta (the Levant); and Ali Kosh, Guran and Jarmo (Zagros Mountains and adjacent valleys) (Hodder, 2013, fig. 1.1; Zeder, 2011).

Near Eastern Neolithic villages are very diverse, both within regions and between them. ^atalhoyuk East is not typical of the PPNB, PPNC or early ceramic Neolithic and cannot be understood as representative. It is unusually large; it appears to be isolated within its region (Baird, 2005); and it has distinctive architecture, material culture and unusually well-preserved art works. Largely as a result

of the site's size and the elaborate art, ^atalhöyük East has long been suspected of precocious social differentiation. While its buildings all appear to be domestic - there are no idiosyncratic, obviously corporate structures - the buildings vary. Hodder has identified four building types based on building form, contents or stratigraphy (Hodder, 2013): (1) elaborate/large houses, of unusual size and/or with paintings, reliefs or bukrania; (2) burial houses, with burial numbers exceeding those expected of one domestic group; (3) ''history houses'' built directly on top of other houses, with continuity in feature placement; and (4) relatively undistinguished houses.

Of these four types, Hodder defined types 1-3 (elaborate/decorated houses, multiple-burial houses, history houses) as ''special buildings,'' which, although they have indications of domestic use (hearths, ovens, bins), nonetheless hint at either differential household status or special functions (Hodder, 2013). Variously, the elaborate or unusual structures have been interpreted as shrines (Mellaart, 1967); as foci for lineages and/or neighborhood-based corporate groups (Düring, 2005, 2006, 2007); as ''dominant houses invested particularly in the construction and control of social memory'' (Hodder and Cessford, 2004: 36); and as households engaged in competitive or cooperative feasting (Atalay and Hastorf, 2006; Bogaard et al., 2009; Russell and Martin, 2005). These interpretations, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, are based on architecture, burials, art, faunal and botanical remains, storage and cooking facilities.

Ground stone artefacts are essential for understanding social organization, food sharing and craft production. They inform on

residential-group composition, social units of production-consumption, subsistence intensification, surplus production, access to resources and landscapes, material value, and craft specialization. Detailed data on ground stone artefacts from ^atalhoyuk East were unavailable when the aforementioned interpretations were written. These data are now in hand (Tables 2 and 3) (Wright et al., 2013).

One aim here is to explore household equality/inequality, via spatial/contextual distributions of ground stone artefacts recovered from the East Mound. The focus is 2061 artefacts from 20 buildings and a further 368 from external yards (Tables 4-6) These derive from the South Area and Area 4040 (Figs. 2 and 3). Comprehensive recovery methods were used, to identify not only finished tools but also manufacturing debris (Table 2) (Wright et al., 2013; cf. Baysal and Wright, 2005).

A second aim is to address wider questions about food consumption, food production and the emergence of early inequality. Food preparation tools have much to tell us about these issues. It has been argued that feasting is central to the development of social hierarchies (Dietler and Hayden, 2001) and that the early Near Eastern Neolithic displays evidence for both. But wide-ranging ethnographic studies assert that many or most societies engaged in low-intensity agriculture involving simple technologies (eg hoe farming) are egalitarian (Goody, 1976; Gurven et al., 2010; cf. Shenk et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2010a). However, ethnographic studies also sugest that animal herding is associated with inegali-tarian wealth distributions (Borgerhoff Mulder et al. 2010). £atal-hoyuk East was an early hoe-farming society with domestic caprines (sheep-goat) and indications of feasting on wild cattle. It thus provides a test case.

Ground stone artefacts proliferated in the Neolithic. While they had ancient antecedents (Wright, 1994), the Neolithic expansion

was of a different order of magnitude (Wright, 1993). These artefacts are examples par excellence of changes in the human use of material culture (Hodder, 2005a, 2012, 2013); they were critical not only to subsistence but to production of crafts, which also proliferated, e.g. stone beads (Bains, 2012; Wright and Garrard, 2003), stone vessels, axes, sculptures (Schmidt, 1997), plaster and painted plaster (^amurcuoglu, 2013), and eventually pottery.

Ground stone artefacts are any in which abrasion plays a key role in manufacture They include millstones (=querns, grinding slabs, metates), handstones (=manos, grinders) but also many other types (Fig. 4; Table 2). The largest are usually millstones. These encompass grinding slabs (passive grinding tools involving linear motions) and querns (passive grinding tools involving oval motions). For brevity, I use here the term "quern" to discuss both. These tools are made of coarse-textured rocks (e.g., andesite, vesicular basalt) and differ from abrading and polishing tools made of finer materials (Table 2).

Archaeology and debates on Neolithic social inequality

Many questions about Neolithic social organization remain unanswered: the autonomy and self-sufficiency of residential groups; whether residential groups had similar access to similar materials; whether and how domestic groups shared resources (Byrd, 2005a); how domestic units articulated with corporate groups (lineages, sodalities, neighborhoods, networks) (Wright, 2000; cf. Byrd, 1994; Düring, 2007; Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt et al., 2011; Watkins, 2008); how much power and authority resided in corporate groups (Kuijt, 2002); and whether certain elaborate buildings were corporate (Schmidt, 2006) or a continuum with

Fig. 3. GIS plan of ^atalhoyuk East, Area 4040, in (a) Level G and (b) Level H, showing major clusters of ground stone artefacts from floors and other use contexts. Note: materials were found on the floor of Building 3 but are not included on this plan (see Tringham and Stevanovic 2012; Wright and Baysal, 2012).

domestic structures (Banning, 2011). Some propose that social-eco- 2003, 2004, 2009), although many disagree (Asouti and Fuller, nomic inequality preceded plant domestication (Hayden, 2001b, 2013; Kuijt,2009; Munro,2004; ZederandSmith,2009).Someargue

Chronology. Levantine periodization and calibrations based on Garrard and Edinborough (2013); Reimer et al. (2004) ( = INTCAL, 2004); and Weninger et al. (2005) ( = CALPAL, 2005). Central Anatolian periodization based on Özbasaran and Buitenheis (2002) (see also Hauptmann and Özdogan, 2007: 28; Gérard and Thissen, 2002). Chronology for Çatalhoyûk is based on Cessford et al. (2005), Hodder (2005b: figs. 1.5-1.6), and Hodder (2011). Note, however, further discussions in Bayliss et al. (2014) and Hodder (2013). Abbreviations: TP = Team Poznan Area; IST = Istanbul Area.

Levant Catalhoyuk Anatolia Comment

Levantine terminology C14 YEARS BP CAL BP CAL BC Catalhoyuk E Catalhoyuk E Catalhoyuk E Early Central Anatolia (ECA) Trends

South area South Area Hodder Area 4040 Hodder terminology - CAL BC (regionally

Mellaart levels levels levels variable)

Chronology

Upper Palaeolithic 45,000-20,000 48,120-23,970 46,170-22,020

Epipalaeolithic - Early 20,000-14,500 23,970-17,400 22,020-15,450

Epipalaeolithic - Middle 14,500-12,500 17,400-14,730 15,450-12,780

Epipalaeolithic - Late (Early Natufian) 12,500-11,250 14,730-13,130 12,780-11,180 ECA I: 12,000-9,000 Semisedentary foraging

Epipalaeolithic - Late (Late Natufian) 11,250-10,250 13,130-11,990 11,180-10,040

Pre-pottery Neolithic A 10,250-9600 11,990-10,890 10,040-8940 Pre-domestication cultivation

Pre-pottery Neolithic B - Early 9600-9200 10890-10410 8940-8460 ECA II: 9000-7000 Plant domestication

Pre-pottery Neolithic B - Middle 9200-8500 10,410-9510 8460-7560 Sheep-goat domestication

Pre-pottery Neolithic B - Late 8500-8000 9510-8890 7560-6940 Pre-XII G Megasites

XII-XI H-I

Pre-pottery Neolithic C 8000-7500 8890-8350 6940-6400 X-IX J-K ECA III: 7000-6000 Megasites

(='Late/Final PPNB') VIII L F

VII M F Ceramics in Anatolia, Syria

VIB N G

VIA O G

Late Neolithic 7500-6500 8350-7430 6400-5480 V P H

Q H Ceramics in south Levant

IV R I

III S T J J

ca. 6000 cal BC II-0 TP

IST ECA IV: 6000-5500

Catalhoyuk West

Chalcolithic 6500-5500 7430-6290 5480-4340 Catalhoyuk West ECA V: 5500-4000

Early Bronze Age 5500-4000 6290-4470 4340-2520

^atalhoyuk East: raw frequency of ground stone artefacts by type and raw material, total assemblage of all artefacts recovered since 1995. Includes surface and offsite materials. Key: a = igneous rocks; b = sedimentary rocks; c = metamorphic rocks; d = minerals. Note the dominance of volcanic rocks, especially andesite and basalt. Limestones shown (b2) are not local lake limestones. For details, see Wright et al. (2013). Note: * = quartzitic sandstone.

a 1 a 2

Andesite Basalt

a 3 a 4 a 7 b 1 b 10

Pumice Gabbro Diabase Sandstone Slate

b 11 b 2 b 3

Travertine Limestone Marl

b 4 Chalk

b 5 Chert

b 9 Sed. Quartzite

b 99 Other sedimentary

c 4 c 5 c6 c 7 c 8 d 4 Other or

Marble Schist Serpentinite Metaquartzite Steatite Pigment undifferentiated

Total Percent

Ground scone artefacts by type and raw material, all contexts Class and type A - Percussion tools A1 Worktable/ 1 3

A 2 Hammerstone 10 125 1

A 3 Mortar 1

A 4 Pestle 9 4

B - Coarse grinding tools B 1 Quern 1920 107

B 1.1 Quern 23 2

roughout

B 2 Handstone 99 31 1 3

C - Fine abrading tools C 1 Abrading slab 3

C 1.3 Sanding slab 3 C 1.5 Palette 1

C 2 Abrader 12 1 4

C 2.2 Abrader-

knife C 2.3 Sander D - Polishing tools D 1 Polishing slab

D 2 Polisher 2 1

E - Grooved tools E 1 Grooved abrader E 1.1 Shaft 1

straightener E 2 Incised pebble E 99 Grooved other 1

F - Cutting tools F 1 Axe/celt F 1.1 Axe/celt

preform F 2 Chopper F 3 Stone hoe G - Perforated tools G 1 Macehead G 2 Weight G 99 Perforated

other H - Vessels H 1 Stone vessel

(gen) H 2 Stone bowl H 3 Stone tray H 4 Stone platter X - miscellaneous X 1 Stone ball X 3 Mineral X 4 Pigment X 5 Figurine-related? X99 Misc. worked

Y - Cores and debitage

Y 1 Core

Y 2 Debitage Tools + Debitage,

Tools + Debitage,i

Z - Unworked, N

379 2490

62 1042

102 23

4 35 4

16 155

2 2 68 42 58

172 394

10 23084

2037 51 25 1

29 74 102 62

124 25

15 109 104 22

599 15 3999 100

100 27957

Material

Note:*= quartzitic sandstone

that embryonic social complexity existed in the early Neolithic (Bar-zilai,2010; Bienert, 2001; Pearson et al., 2013; Rollefson, 2000). Others see PPNB-PPNC societies as egalitarian, on the basis of architecture and burials; some argue that social constraints prevented household inequality (Kuijt, 1996, 2000a, 2009; cf. Byrd, 2005a; Düring, 2007; Hodderand Cessford, 2004; Verhoeven, 2006).

Of many nuances in the data, one concerns private property. I argue (Wright, 2000) that increasingly private storage and food preparation can be documented in Levantine Neolithic houses, from open easy-access patterns of the PPNA; to visible kitchen-porches bridging house and neighborhood, in the mid-PPNB; to a retreat of cooking and storage facilities to more sheltered, private spaces in larger, more enclosed households, in the Late PPNB (see now also Kadowaki, 2006; Kuijt, 2012). These trends are illustrated at multi-phase sites (Byrd, 2005a: Figs. 143, 154, 258, 302, 347, 372). In central Anatolia, storage rooms at Late PPNB-PPNC £atal-höyük were extremely secluded (Bogaard et al., 2009: 653), while earlier sites may have had more visible storage and food preparation (Asouti and Fuller, 2013; Esin, 1991; Esin and Harmankaya, 1999; Özbasaran, 1998). In northern Mesopotamia, too, PPNA food preparation patterns were perhaps visible (Asouti and Fuller, 2013; cf. Stordeur, 2000; Willcox and Stordeur, 2012; Yartah, 2005), while storage spaces in later PPNB houses are notably private (Banning, 1996; cf. Akkermans et al., 1981; Moore, 2000b).

Other nuances concern corporate groups and how to interpret nondomestic buildings, e.g. those of Göbeklitepe, seen as temples (Schmidt, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006) or as houses (Banning, 2011). Non-domestic buildings do not automatically signify inequality, but raise questions about corporate authority. Some have specific burial types, possibly of people with special food consumption patterns (Özdogan and Özdogan, 1989; Pearson et al., 2013). Corporate buildings occur in sites which also have domestic architecture (Byrd, 2005a; Düring, 2005; Esin, 1991; Esin and Harmankaya, 1999; Hauptmann, 1988, 1993, 1999; Özbasaran, 1998; Rollefson, 2000; Schmidt, 2000, 2002,2005, 2006). There are also sites suggesting regional rituals (Bar-Yosef and Alon, 1988; Goren et al., 1993, Goring-Morris, 2000,2005). Finally, ''megasites,'' including ^atalhöyük, raise questions about integration of large populations. Though models of proto-urbanism or ranking (Bienert, 2001; Mellaart, 1967; Wason, 1994) have been dismissed (Düring, 2007), village hyper-growth requires explanation and it is intriguing that ^atalhöyük East had few/ no contemporaries nearby (Baird, 2005).

Food processing and ground stone tools are key to identifying the domestic from the non-domestic - or determining whether this distinction is applicable. Ground stone tools from idiosyncratic corporate buildings may display very distinctive patterns (Wright, 2013; cf. Byrd, 2005a: e.g., figs. 302, 317). Also, artworks are sometimes seen as indicators of the nondomestic. But ground stone tools were used for making art in domestic contexts (Wright, 2008; Wright et al., 2013; cf. Bains et al., 2013; ^amurcuoglu, 2013; Wright and Garrard, 2003; Wright et al., 2008) and ''ordinary'' ground stone tools can be iconic (e.g., Edwards and Webb, 2013; Garrard et al., 1994; Gopher, 1997; Mithen et al., 2005; Perrot, 1966; Rosenberg and Gopher, 2010; Rosenberg and Redding, 2000; Wright, 1993).

Thus, the evidence for equality vs. hierarchy remains ambiguous. Also unclear is the degree to which domestic groups were constrained by community social controls, or conversely, the extent of domestic group agency. One approach is to explore whether ^atalhöyük East fits expectations of models relating inequality to food production and consumption; and how processing tools inform on these.

Food consumption and social inequality

Feasting models posit that ambitious aggrandizing households intensify food production to hold feasts and place other households

in debt, leading to spiralling competitive surplus production and economic inequality (Dietler and Hayden, 2001; Jones, 2007). This draws on ethnographies of Melanesia (Sahlins, 1974) and other societies (Hayden, 2001a,b, 2003, 2004, 2009). Feasting has been identified in the Neolithic, on the basis of large-mammal remains; large quantities of plant foods said to imply group processing or special consumption events; and suggestions of production of alcoholic drinks (beer). Views vary on whether such data indicate hierarchies (Asouti and Fuller, 2013: 299; Bogaard et al., 2009: 664665; Dietrich et al., 2012: 674; Goring-Morris and Horwitz, 2007: 902; Russell and Martin, 2005: 97). Some argue that stable isotope data from burials indicate differential food consumption patterns and may indicate PPNB social complexity (Pearson et al., 2013).

Feasting interpretations sometimes assume that clusters of milling tools indicate mass food preparation (Asouti and Fuller, 2013: 320-321; Hayden, 2009: 597; Willcox and Stordeur, 2012: 99). This may sometimes be so, but such clusters can result from household toolkits with several grades of millstones (e.g., Bartlett, 1933); sharing of spaces by task groups in routine food preparation; storage habits; or secondary deposition (Wright, 2013; cf. Byrd, 2005a: fig. 290). Tool distributions are affected by household life cycles, e.g. fissioning of domestic groups and life-stages of individuals (e.g., Goody, 1971: 80-81, figs. 1-2; cf. Banning and Byrd, 1987; Folorunso, 2007; Kadowaki, 2006). Also, culturally-driven processing practices deeply affect preservation of archaeobotanical remains (Wright, 2000; cf. Hillman, 1984a, 1984b; Hillman et al., 1989), so inferences from archaeobotanical remains need scrutiny in light of details of hearths and processing tools.

We can concede that feasting played a role in the development of hierarchy (Schmandt-Besserat, 2001) and that true feasting events may be detectable. But Neolithic feasting has to be placed in a wider background of day-to-day ''politics of gastronomy" (Appadurai, 1981), otherwise we risk misinterpreting relevant data or entering a problematic realm of ''too many feasts and not enough habitus'' that encourages interpretations that emphasize competition and hierarchy, to the detriment of other possibilities. In any case, feasting alone is a narrow frame of reference for exploring social inequality. Some discussions avoid these traps, e.g. analysis of storage, archae-obotany and fauna at ^atalhoyuk indicated that feasting may have been cooperative, subverting household inequality (Bogaard et al., 2009; see also Atalay and Hastorf, 2006).

Food production systems and social inequality

Recent ethnographic studies explored correlations between subsistence and wealth inequalities (Borgerhoff Mulder et al., 2009, 2010; Bowles et al., 2010; Gurven et al., 2010; Shenk et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2010a,b). The studies expanded and reinforced Goody's earlier work, which linked the intensity of agricultural systems to inheritance regimes and wealth inequality, drawing contrasts between (1) societies practicing low-intensity, simple-technology agriculture (e.g., extensive agriculture; shifting cultivation; cultivation with hand tools and digging sticks) and (2) societies practicing intensive agriculture (e.g., plough or irrigation farming, involving more complex technologies) (Goody, 1976, 1990; Goody and Tambiah, 1973). Goody's analysis drew, in turn, on that of Boserup (1966), who pointed out the effects, on social and economic equality, of shifts from lower-intensity systems to labor- or capital-intensive agricultural regimes (agricultural intensification). Goody concluded that low-intensity systems, common in Africa, tended to be egalitarian, with little material wealth, and tended to be associated with exogamy, polygamy, bridewealth, corporate land tenure, and little emphasis on inheritance of land or personal property. By contrast, intensive agricultural regimes, common in Eurasia, encouraged wide economic differentiations,

Chronological distribution of ^atalhoyuk ground stone artefact types: raw frequency, by Area and Level. Surface and offsite materials are excluded. Data include a sample from ^atalhoyuk West. For temporal relationships between the levels of the South and 4040 areas, see Table 1. Note that andesite trays and maceheads appear only in the middle of the sequence (4040 G-H) and later (South TP, Istanbul, West). Mellaart's discoveries of additional maceheads appear to have derived from his levels VI to III (Mellaart, 1963,1964,1966,1967). For further data on ^atalhoyuk West see Brady (Brady, 2012).d

South G South H South I South J South K South L South M South N South O South P South Q South R South S South T South TP South IST 4040 F 4040 G 4040 ?G 4040 H 4040 I West Total

Chronological distribution of ground stone artefacts by type, area, level

A 1 Worktable/Anvil 4 4

A 2 Hammerstone 1 1 1 1 2 4 12 2 7 1 1 71 4 6 1 3 118

A 3 Mortar 1 1 2

A 4 Pestle 1 3 3 4 1 3 4 19

B 1 Gr. slab/quern 63 4 4 32 51 35 73 185 47 69 6 68 1 323 29 63 6 70 1129

B 1.1 Gr. slab/q roughout 1 1 2 6 14 2 26

B 2 Handstone 3 1 9 7 5 7 14 2 16 3 5 3 37 12 5 3 36 168

C 1 Abrading Slab 1 2 3 2 7 2 2 21

C 1.3 Sanding Slab 2 1 2 1 1 2 13 1 3 1 27

C 1.5 Palette 1 1 1 1 1 2 12 4 6 4 4 1 14 3 9 7 2 73

C 2 Abrader 5 1 1 1 3 12 10 7 19 1 4 18 1 3 6 9 101

C 2.2 Abrader-Knife 1 1 1 6 8 2 11 3 9 9 3 2 2 3 61

C 2.3 Sander 1 1 2 12 1 2 19

D 1 Polishing Slab 5 1 1 2 1 10

D 2 Polisher 1 2 1 5 7 8 1 8 2 8 2 23 10 8 3 9 98

E 1 Grooved abrader 1 3 2 6

E 1.1 Shaft straightener 1 2 2 2 2 9

E 2 Incised Pebble 1 1

E 99 Grooved Other 1 1 1 3

F 1 Axe/Celt 1 7 7 4 1 14 12 3 10 1 12 1 25 2 15 7 20 142

F 1.1 Axe/Celt preform 1 1 2 3 2 1 11 1 1 2 2 27

F 2 Chopper 1 1 1 3

F 3 Stone Hoe 1 1

G 1 Macehead 2 1 2 5

G 2 Weight 1 1

G 3 Disc 1 1

G 99 Perforated other 1 1 2 4

H 1 Stone vessel (general) 1 1 4 1 10 2 1 6 26

H 2 Stone bowl 1 1 1 1 6 10

H 3 Stone tray 3 1 3 7

H 4 Stone platter 1 1

X 1 Stone ball 1 1 1 1 3 5 2 1 15

X 3 Mineral 1 4 2 13 3 14 1 1 4 5 2 50

X 4 Pigment 6 1 1 4 2 1 3 6 1 2 13 3 4 8 55

X 5 Figurine-related? 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 3 6 28

X99 Misc. worked 1 3 4 1 4 2 78 31 2 8 1 7 142

Y 1 Core 3 1 4

Y 2 Debitage 31 3 7 13 26 5 14 21 7 13 1 7 3 87 17 3 7 23 288

Total 122 10 1 16 79 105 76 1 2 149 319 86 196 25 226 5 8 742 95 155 59 228 2705

which were perpetuated via endogamy or close marriage (e.g. cousin marriage); monogamy; dowry; familial land tenure; and elaborate rules of devolution / transmission of property through time (including diverging devolution, the endowment of both male and female heirs). Thus, "these differences are related to the high productivity of the plough, the specialization that this permits, the scarcity of land which it creates or aggravates, and the differential holdings of land and capital which then become important" (Goody 1976:97). In the more recent studies, low-intensity, simple-technology farming systems were collectively labelled as 'horticulture' and the findings were that most such societies are egalitarian, with little or no material wealth or inheritance thereof, and that ''domestication alone does not lead to inequality'' (Gurven et al., 2010: 49, 61). Gurven et al. noted that some of these societies do display greater complexity. They relate this to scarce resources (e.g. circumscribed land) requiring defense, leading to labor intensification, competitive feasting and circulation of prestige goods, e.g. the Melanesian big-man societies (Gurven et al., 2010: 5253) that are emphasized in feasting models (Hayden, 2001b). On the other hand, these studies concluded that pastoralism is associ-

ated with "substantial levels of intergenerational transmission and marked inequality" (Borgerhoff Mulder et al. 2010:35), while ''the combination of intensive agricultural technologies [defined as plough or irrigation farming] with heritable wealth is a precondition [for] social complexity." (Shenk et al., 2010: 70, 80), an echo of Goody's (1976) results. In contrast to models that invoke selective ethnographic analogies (see critique by Spriggs, 2008), Goody's study was based on 592 societies (Goody, 1976: Table 1, p. 12); the work by Gurven et al. was based on 83 societies.

Ethnographic data cannot address origins; anthropologists acknowledge it (e.g., Bowles et al., 2010: 8; Fortunato et al., 2006; Goody, 1990). Modern small-scale societies may be affected by contact with industrialized complex societies (Calderaro, 2011: 265; Smith etal., 2011: 579); Neolithic data have no such problem. Goody himself, following Mellaart (1967), guessed that ^atalhoyuk had ''craft specialization...internal stratification...and intensive agriculture'' (Goody, 1976: 24). Intensive agriculture (in Goody's sense) does not apply to ^atalhoyuk - Bogaard et al. (2009) describe the ^atalhoyuk regime as 'horticulture,' modest in scale -but questions of differentiation and specialization are still open.

Table 4

Exterior yard inventories: raw frequency of ground stone artefacts, broken and complete, from exterior yards in the South Area. Spaces are shown in chronological order from earlier (Level South P) to later (South T). For definitions of terms (broken, complete, ubiquity, diversity, number of types), see caption to Table 5. Number of spaces refers to the number of spaces containing a type.

South P South P South P South Q South Q South Q South R South S South S Total No. spaces Ubiquity (%)

External yard inventories, south area: all contexts

Space no. 329 333 371 299 314 427 339 129 319

Broken (B)

B 1 Quern fragment 21 10 19 17 28 18 11 67 6 197 9 100

Y 2 Debitage 11 3 1 3 1 2 23 5 49 8 89

B 2 Handstone 4 1 2 1 1 3 12 6 67

C 2 Abrader 5 1 1 1 20 28 5 56

C 2.2 Abrader-Knife 1 5 2 1 4 13 5 56

F 1 Axe/Celt 1 1 2 1 1 6 5 56

A 2 Hammerstone 2 2 3 7 3 33

C 1.5 Palette 2 3 3 8 3 33

X 4 Pigment 1 1 1 3 3 33

D 2 Polisher 1 1 2 2 22

F 1.1 Axe/Celt 1 1 2 2 22

preform

X99 Misc. worked 1 2 3 2 22

E 99 Grooved Other 1 1 1 11

H 1 Stone vessel 1 1 1 11

Total broken 22 37 26 23 39 29 19 123 14 332 9 100

No. types (B) 2 7 5 6 7 8 6 9 5 14

Diversity (%) (B) 14 50 36 43 50 57 43 64 36 100

Complete (C)

C 2.2 Abrader-Knife 1 1 2 3 2 9 5 56

B 2 Handstone 1 2 1 4 3 33

C 2 Abrader 2 3 2 7 3 33

D 2 Polisher 1 4 1 6 3 33

F 1 Axe/Celt 1 2 3 2 22

X 5 Figurine- 1 1 2 2 2

related?

C 1.5 Palette 1 1 1 11

E 99 Grooved Other 1 1 1 11

F 1.1 Axe/Celt 1 1 1 11

preform

H 2 Stone bowl 1 1 1 1

X 1 Stone ball 1 1 1 11

Total complete 4 8 1 6 1 5 7 4 36 8 89

No. types (C) 4 4 1 4 1 0 3 4 2 11

Diversity (%) (C) 36 36 9 36 9 0 27 36 18 100

Total B + C 26 45 27 29 40 29 24 130 18 368 9 100

Building interiors, total house inventories: raw frequency of all ground stone artefacts, broken (B) and unbroken/complete (C), from all contexts within 20 buildings at ^atalhoyuk East. Within each area (South and 4040), houses are mostly shown in chronological order by level, from earlier (e.g., South J) to later (e.g., South Q). (see Table 1). However, some history houses are grouped according to direct stratigraphic relationships from earlier to later, e.g. 18-16 and 65-56-44. The raw data shown combine broken and complete artefacts together, except in the case of querns, but diversity data show both combined and separate calculations for broken and complete tools. "Broken" means a fragment only; "complete" artefacts include artefacts where re-fits resulted in reconstruction of the whole tool. "No. houses" refers to the number of houses containing a type. Ubiquity (%) is the percentage of buildings containing a type. ''No. types" is the number of different types found within a building. Diversity (%) is the number of artifact types present in a building, as a percentage of the total number of artifact types from the 20 buildings. Contexts include room fills, construction contexts, middens, layers, floors, feature fills. Note: data for Buildings 58 and 59 are mainly floor data and not all fill material was available. Key to building types: h = history house; b = burial house; e = elaborate/large house; u = undistinguished house.

Consolidated broken + complete Level

South J South K South J South K South L South Q South R South S South K South P South Q 4040 F 4040 G 4040 G 4040 G 4040 G 4040 G 4040 G 4040 H 4040 H Total No. Houses Ubiquity (%)

Total house inventories: ground stone artefacts from all contexts

Building NO. 18 16 23 17 6 65 56 44 2 75 68 5 1 49 59 52 77 3 54 58

Building Type h h h h h h h hb u u u he hb b e e e u u u

B 1 Quern fragment (B) 1 1 2 9 7 85 53 166 15 51 168 44 73 25 36 287 81 17 27 1148 19 95

Y 2 Debitage 3 4 168 1 12 9 6 9 1 3 3 15 6 17 2 22 34 1 1 317 19 95

B 2 Handstone 1 3 1 5 13 2 1 1 2 4 4 6 10 7 1 3 64 16 80

C 1.5 Palette 1 1 4 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 7 35 15 75

F 1 Axe/Celt 1 1 5 2 6 2 3 4 2 1 11 2 1 4 45 14 70

A 2 Hammerstone 2 2 10 1 1 17 21 1 5 41 11 1 2 115 13 65

C 2 Abrader 1 1 4 6 3 2 1 5 1 4 3 2 3 36 13 65

X 4 Pigment 1 16 2 3 1 1 5 4 2 1 2 2 4 44 13 65

D 2 Polisher 5 7 2 1 1 1 1 3 10 7 2 5 45 12 60

F 1.1 Axe/Celt preform 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 14 10 50

X99 Misc. Worked 1 1 4 1 6 9 9 11 2 6 50 10 50

C 1 Abrading Slab 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 12 8 40

C 2.2 Abrader-Knife 1 2 1 2 1 5 4 16 7 35

C 2.3 Sander 1 1 2 4 3 1 2 14 7 35

B 1 Quern (complete) 2 1 1 1 12 1 18 6 30

B 1.1 Quern roughout 2 6 1 1 11 2 23 6 30

C 1.3 Sanding Slab 3 2 2 6 5 2 20 6 30

X 5 Figurine-related? 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 30

X 1 Stone ball 1 1 2 2 1 7 5 25

A 4 Pestle 1 2 2 1 6 4 20

E 1 Grooved abrader 1 2 1 4 3 15

E 1.1 Shaft straightener 1 1 1 3 3 15

F 2 Chopper 1 1 1 3 3 15

Y 1 Core 1 1 1 3 3 15

A 1 Worktable/Anvil 1 3 4 2 10

H 1 Stone vessel (gen) 1 1 2 2 10

D 1 Polishing Slab 1 1 1 5

F 3 Stone Hoe 1 1 1 5

G 1 Macehead 1 1 1 5

G 2 Weight 1 1 1 5

G 99 Perforated other 1 1 1 5

H 2 Stone bowl 1 1 1 5

H 4 Stone platter 1 1 1 5

Total artefacts, N 6 1 7 206 17 136 72 240 33 67 198 6 80 138 51 88 441 170 36 68 2061 20 100

No. Types 4 1 3 12 10 17 9 17 8 9 11 3 12 19 8 18 25 16 13 17 33

Diversity (%) 12 3 9 36 30 52 27 52 24 27 33 9 36 58 24 55 76 48 39 52 100

Total broken tools 5 1 6 203 16 121 62 214 29 63 192 6 71 110 49 64 336 140 31 44 1763 20 100

No. types (B) 3 1 2 9 9 13 2 15 6 8 6 3 9 14 6 11 12 13 9 11 25

Diversity (%) (B) 12 4 8 36 36 52 8 60 24 32 24 12 36 56 24 44 48 52 36 44 100

Total complete 1 1 3 1 15 10 26 4 4 6 9 28 2 24 105 30 5 24 298 18 90

No. types (C) 1 0 1 3 1 9 7 10 3 3 6 0 6 13 2 12 20 10 5 12 26

Diversity (%) (C) 4 0 4 12 4 35 27 38 12 12 23 0 23 50 8 46 77 38 19 46 100

Building interiors, floor inventories: raw frequency of all ground stone artefacts, broken (B) and unbroken/complete (C), strictly from floors, features, placements, and other use and abandonment contexts, within 20 buildings at Çatalhôyuk East. In this case, broken and complete tools are considered separately and as separate artefact types. Within each area (South and 4040), houses are mostly shown in chronological order by level, from earlier (e.g., South J) to later (e.g., South Q) (see Table 1). However, some history houses are grouped according to direct stratigraphic relationships from earlier to later, e.g. 18-16 and 65-56-44. See caption to Table 5 for other explanations and abbreviations.

South South South South South South South South South South South 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040 Total No. Ubiquity

J K J K L Q R S K P Q F G G G G G G H H houses (%)

'Floor' inventories: artefacts from floors, features and other use contexts

Building no. 18 16 23 17 6 65 56 44 2 75 68 5 1 49 59 52 77 3 54 58

Building type h h h h h h h hb u u u he hb b e e e u u u

B B 1 Quern fragment (B) 1 1 3 4 61 15 4 1 15 68 15 36 15 11 219 2 6 477 17 85

B Y 2 Debitage (B) 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 12 17 46 11 55

B B 2 Handstone (B) 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 20 10 50

B F 1 Axe/Celt (B) 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 6 30

B C 1.5 Palette (B) 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 25

B A 2 Hammerstone (B) 2 6 5 15 4 20

B C 2 Abrader (B) 1 1 1 4 7 4 20

B X 4 Pigment (B) 1 4 1 1 7 4 20

B X99 Misc. worked (B) 1 1 7 3 12 4 20

B C 1 Abrading slab (B) 1 1 1 3 3 15

B C 2.3 Sander (B) 1 4 1 6 3 15

B B 1.1 Quern roughout (B) 1 1 2 2 10

B C 1.3 Sanding slab (B) 1 2 3 2 10

B C 2.2 Abrader-knife (B) 1 1 1 5

B D 1 Polishing slab (B) 1 1 1 5

B D 2 Polisher (B) 3 3 1 5

B G 2 Weight (B) 1 1 1 5

B H 1 Stone vessel (gen) (B) 1 1 1 5

C A 2 Hammerstone (C) 1 4 1 2 17 1 26 6 30

C C 1.5 Palette (C) 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 6 30

C B 2 Handstone (C) 2 1 1 1 5 4 20

C C 2 Abrader (C) 1 1 1 1 4 4 20

C F 1 Axe/Celt (c) 1 2 1 8 12 4 20

C B 1 Quern (C) 2 1 6 9 3 15

C B 1.1 Quern roughout (C) 2 2 7 11 3 15

C C 1.3 Sanding Slab (C) 1 3 2 6 3 15

C D 2 Polisher (C) 9 1 1 11 3 15

C F 1.1 Axe/Celt pre-form (C)

C C 2.2 Abrader-Knife (C) C C 2.3 Sander (C) C X 1 Stone ball (C) C X 5 Figurine-related? (C) C A 1 Worktable/anvil (C) C A 4 Pestle (C) C C 1 Abrading slab (C) C E 1 Grooved abrader (C) C E 1.1 Shaft straightener (C)

C F 2 Chopper(C) C F 3 Stone hoe (C) C H 2 Stone bowl (C) C X99 Misc. worked (C)

Total B + C

23 10 1

29 50 35 38 316 5

2 2 10

3 2 10

2 2 10

2 2 10

5 5 5 5

(continued on next page)

4 40 G

04 40 G

cn © Ln ©

^ Co © ^ fn ©

to ^ CM

in CN IT! fn ^

in te m ro

te o ©

te o ©

to fn ^ ^ CM ^

in rv ^ cm ^ T--

te o ©

te o ©

c-o N CM **

o? <u 2

§ n e § § t S £

£.1? rok £ B « * o &

& £ & is d 'M Z Ci tal ot & is d .a Z Ci u & £ H ^ | o .O H 2 Ci

Sherratt, noting that irrigation and plough farming appeared much later, pointed out the importance of early animal herding (sheep-goat) and, later, domestication of draft animals, but suggested that early Neolithic groups had egalitarian characteristics (Sherratt, 1981: 297), while some suggest that rebuilt houses could indicate wealth transmission (Shennan, 2011). At ^atalhoyuk, we have house variations and feasting, but we don't know whether they mean competitive aggrandizement (Hayden, 2001a,b, 2003, 2004, 2009), or cooperation (Bogaard et al., 2009; Kuijt, 2000a). If some hoe-farming societies are more complex because of land scarcity (Gurven et al., 2010: 52-53), at ^atalhoyuk land scarcity was not a problem; the site was almost alone in the Konya Plain (Baird, 2005). Thus, uncertainties persist about social complexity at ^atalhoyuk.

We can explore these issues via house-by-house artefact inventories. If ^atalhoyuk conforms to the patterns found by Gurven et al. (2010), we would expect little or no surplus production or craft specialization; low levels of material wealth; little evidence for material inequality; and few or no indications of material wealth transmission. We would expect property rights (especially in land) to be vested in corporate groups (e.g. lineages), not households, and to be based on shared use-rights of access (usufruct). Gurven et al. (2010) also argued that attitudes to material goods in horticultural or hoe-farming societies are similar to those of hunter-gatherers (Smith et al., 2010b). On the other hand, £atal-hoyuk was practicing herding of some animals (sheep-goat are domesticated) but not others (cattle appear to be wild) (Russell and Martin 2005). Pastoralism in general is associated with inegal-itarian characteristics and material wealth transmission, in the study by Borgerhoff Mulder et al. (2010). How, then, does £atal-hoyuk fit into these models, if at all? Unlike the ethnographies on which the models are based, the data from ^atalhoyuk are unambiguously free from the problem of contact with modern complex societies and thus permit a test of these models.

"Material wealth'' and the problem of value at ^atalhoyuk

If ground stone tools were critical to Neolithic food preparation and craft production, did some have special value? Assessing value is difficult (Appadurai, 1986: 20-21; Bevan, 2007), but an artefact type may have had special value (1) if it is made of material imported from a considerable distance; (2) if there were difficulties associated with importing; and (3) if manufacture was unusually labor intensive.

^atalhoyuk lies in a Quaternary alluvial setting (Doherty, 2008; MTA, 2002; Rosen et al., 2005) of lake limestones, chalks, marls, gypsum and travertines - all useless for tools requiring hardness, impact strength, or abrasive texture (Schumann, 1992). These materials were rarely used for ground stone objects. Most artefacts were made of volcanic rocks, chiefly andesites and basalts, of which the nearest sources were 35 km away (Fig. 1, Table 2) (MTA, 2002; Turkmenoglu et al., 2005). Andesites and basalts were particularly used for querns and handstones, which were highly fragmented (Table 2, Fig. 5). Other materials were available closer by, e.g. sandstone (4.5 km distant), but andesites and basalts are better for food processing because rock particles are not easily detached. This is why andesite and basalt were (and are) so widely used, worldwide, for millstones (Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe, 1993). Boulders for the largest tools - the querns - would have required long-distance transport. Since some querns were very large; transport would have demanded cooperative effort and strength (Fig. 14). Thus, querns probably had special value.

Another possibility might be diabase axes/celts, the only tools made of this green material, perhaps chosen partly for symbolic reasons (cf. Boivin and Owoc, 2004). Other possible prestige items, which are rare and appear in the site's later levels, were fine andes-

D - Polishing tools (s) (t)

X - Debitage

Fig. 4. Overview of ground stone artifact classes and types. For technotypology, see Wright et al. (2013). (a-d) Class A, percussion tools: (a) anvil, vesicular basalt; (b) hammers, massive basalt; (c) mortar, andesite; (d) pestle, massive basalt. (e and f) Class B, coarse grinding tools: (e) large quern, andesite; (f) handstone, vesicular basalt. (g-i) Class C, fine abrading tools. (g) abrading slab, fine sandstone; (h) palette, schist; (i) abrader, fine pumice. (j and k) Class D, polishing tools. (j) polishing slab, hard limestone; (k) polisher, hard limestone. (l) Class E, grooved tools: grooved abrader (shaft straightener), fine andesite. (m and n) Class F, cutting tools: (m) axe-celt pre-form, diabase; (n) axe/ celt, diabase. (o and p) Class G, perforated tools. (o) macehead, hard limestone; (p) perforated weight fragment, vesicular basalt. (q and r) Class H, stone vessels. (q) miniature bowl, hard limestone; (g) fragment of footed rectangular tray, view of base, fine andesite. (s and t) Class Y, cores and debitage: (s) andesite flake; (t) diabase bladelets.

ite trays (the only complex vessels) and maceheads. Apart from these four types, most ground stone tools were made by simple lithic reduction techniques (Wright et al., 2013). Investment in decoration of ground stone tools as special material wealth items is not clearly indicated in most artefacts. Notably, very different patterns can be seen in other early Neolithic sites (e.g., Ozkaya and Cosku, 2009). Other forms of wealth (e.g. health, or 'embodied wealth') (Bowles et al., 2010) may have been generally more important at ^atalhoyuk East.

Household conventions of ground stone tool use: Building 77 and other houses

Were ground stone artefacts private household property, or under household control?

This demanded investigation of whether artefacts came mainly from within buildings or equally from external yards or roofs (shared neighborhood space) and middens (discard).

Most artefacts came from building interiors (Fig. 6). Of course, the site is mostly buildings, but even so, exterior yards with firepits revealed only low-density ''background noise'' of broken items (Table 4) and a few unbroken hand tools, indicating that communal use of ground stone tools in these yards was not significant. We found no clear indication of the use of ground stone on rooftops

Fig. 5. Numbers of broken and complete tools, by artifact class, Çatalhoyuk East, stratified contexts. Quern fragments greatly dominate the assemblage.

(Wright et al., 2013). Middens revealed far fewer artefacts than expected, despite housecleaning (Hardy-Smith and Edwards, 2004).

Most evidence for ground stone manufacture also came from buildings. Debitage - chiefly andesite flakes - was mostly found in houses, as were most quern roughouts and axe/celt pre-forms (Tables 4-6; Figs. 6 and 19). The evidence also includes a quern-making area in Building 77. This area is shown in Figs. 8 and 9a, with its hammers and unfinished roughouts shown in Fig. 13. This does not require us to infer that all procedures in ground stone artefact production were always conducted within buildings. Large items in particular (e.g., querns) may well have been reduced to roughout

stage at quarries or in external areas, as seen ethnoarchaeologically (Hayden, 1987) and archaeologically (Shimelmitz et al., 2005). It is simply that (at this writing) we have no evidence for quern production in exterior areas, while we do have extensive evidence for ground stone tool production (or modification) in interior spaces.

Turning to artefact use, burnt buildings tell us about spatial and social conventions. We begin with an elaborate building (77) and then ask whether it is typical. In Building 77 (Fig. 8), floors revealed artefact manufacture, storage and use of tools in daily routines, and abandonment practices. In the storage room, tools from floor were fragmentary, although plant remains occurred (Bogaard et al., 2013). Unbroken tools were stored in private bins or basins, one with ''hardware: '' pestles, anvils, abraders, polishers, one well-worn stone hoe and a broken digging stick weight (Fig. 10) (for other hoes, see Hole et al., 1969; Lloyd and Safar, 1945; Milner et al., 2010). These suggest routine craft production and agricultural tools; the hoe and digging stick weight imply tools of one farmer. Another bin revealed a small, complete, portable planoconvex quern, a handstone, and botanical remains (Fig. 11b). These were probably food processing tools. The quern could have been used in the bin, but was readily removable.

Larger tools were found in the reception room, e.g. a large, fixed, heavy, essentially immovable andesite quern, probably used for food processing, at the doorway to the bin room (Fig. 8). Other immovable tools included a massive sandstone abrading slab with grooves (Fig. 12c), probably a whetstone/sharpening tool; four diabase axes/celts were arranged around it. Six other axes/celts were found, an unusually high number, raising questions about group activities involving axes.

The north platform revealed another large quern and evidence for quern manufacture: hammers, roughouts, debitage (Fig. 8, 9a, 13). This cluster is unique on the site, so far. The material is consistent with tools and debris of basalt manufacturing sites, both ethnographic and archaeological (Hayden, 1987; Shimelmitz et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2013).

Fig. 6. Provenance of ground stone artefacts: building interiors, external yards, middens, Çatalhôyuk East, stratified contexts. Bldg = building interiors. Most artefacts come from within buildings.

Fig. 7. Plan of Building 52 (Area 4040) showing materials from floors and features. The worktable is shown in Fig. 12b. Bot = botanical remains. See also Twiss et al. (2008). The pattern of portable querns stored in bins or side rooms, with a larger, heavy, fixed quern in the living room, is also seen elsewhere, e.g. Building 77. See Figs. 8,11,12.

Fig. 8. Plan of Building 77 (Area 4040) showing materials from floors and features. Bot = botanical remains. Small triangles are axes/celts. Note the portable quern and handstone in bin (16488); the hardware cabinet (16483); the heavy, fixed living-room quern (17547); and the stoneworking area (17509).

However, the cluster also reveals deliberate breaking of querns. Small hand-sized fragments were seemingly being detached from querns (Fig. 13b and c). Was this simply part of the manufacturing process? Not entirely, nor is it mere fire damage. Some large rough-outs were broken exactly in half (Fig. 13d-e) and halves were found on opposite sides of the room (Fig. 13d). Breaking of querns would have required effort; andesite has high impact strength (Schumann, 1992). Many small quern fragments were found in bins (Fig. 9b). Most were about the size of a human hand. Fragments did not refit, and were made of different andesites, so this is not in situ decay of whole objects. Additional evidence of deliberate breaking of querns was found in other buildings (below and 15).

Private property vs. shared equipment: portable vs. immovable querns

How typical is Building 77? Some conventions find parallels in other buildings. Unbroken querns occur in the same two sizes:

small planoconvex querns and large, heavy querns (Fig. 18). Small, planoconvex querns are fairly common. They appear in bins or cubicles and occur in isolation, not in clusters, e.g. Buildings 52, 68, 58, 65, 44, and Space 88 (Figs. 7, 11, 15c-d). Small abrading slabs (Fig. 4g) also occur in bins (Building 1) (Baysal and Wright, 2005: Fig. 13.1, No. 7). These are all highly portable items, easily removed from bins for use anywhere. They constitute a small-scale, mobile processing system, under household control, involving carefully-stored private property.

By contrast, large querns are rare and could not have been easily moved (Figs. 12 and 18; Tables 5 and 6). Thus, in addition to a portable processing system, there was a fixed one: people had to move to these querns to use them. The rarity of these objects raises two possibilities: that most households had them and that they were destroyed; or that large querns were shared by multiple households. The latter seems more likely, since (1) small querns survive in higher numbers; (2) most quern fragments from houses are small and suggest fragmentation of smaller querns, not very large ones.

(e) 5 cm (f)

Fig. 10. Building 77: selected artefacts from the 'hardware cupboard,' unit 16483. (a) cylindrical pestle, andesitic basalt; (b) polisher, hard limestone; (c) stone hoe, quartzitic sandstone; (d) digging stick weight, vesicular basalt; (e) tabular quern fragment or abrading slab, medium texture andesite; (f) shaft straightener/grooved whetstone, fine textured sandstone. Illustrations by Kathryn Killackey.

Querns through time and transmission: use-lives, deliberate breakage, storage and ritual placements of fragments

Unbroken querns have flat or shallow use surfaces; some look ''new'' (Fig. 11a and b). Even the most heavily worn quern in the assemblage (Fig. 12d) was not deeply concave. Thus, complete querns were not used for long periods.

Most houses revealed many small (hand-sized) quern fragments in bins and in many other contexts. These small fragments are the most common artefact type (Table 2) and the most ubiquitous tools in all houses (Tables 5 and 6). The extensive fragmentation cannot be explained by natural decay, since whole querns survive well on many Neolithic sites. Querns were special targets for destruction. Of all artefact classes, querns and handstones were the least likely to survive complete (Fig. 5). Some fragments were found in special deposits suggesting abandonment rituals, e.g. Buildings 65 and 44 with edge fragments set up on hearths and halved querns deposited face down in pits or on edge (Fig. 15b-d).

Because small quern fragments are so numerous and ubiquitous, and because they were found clustered in bins, we believed initially that they simply reflected conservation and curation of andesite and the recycling of old tools for use in other ways (Baysal and Wright, 2005). Such fragments could have been used as heating stones, as casual grinding tools, and in construction. We found some evidence of these practices, but not enough to explain the overwhelming numbers of small fragments or the rarity of complete querns and handstones. Furthermore, querns were broken even though they were not worn out; even fragments had flat or shallow use surfaces (Figs. 13c and 15c). Destruction was seemingly driven by other motivations. Thus, querns had short use-lives, while quern breakage was

deliberate. The intentional breakage of querns in particular is evident in (1) an activity area showing this (Building 77) (Figs. 8, 9a, 13); (2) consistent small sizes of many fragments, which were collected from different querns and stored in bins (Fig. 9b); (3) abandonment of broken querns in ritual placements (Fig. 15); and (4) the extremely high breakage rate, and uniquely low survival, of complete examples of querns, relative to all other artefact classes (Fig. 5).

Short use-lives and deliberate breakage show that querns were not transmitted, i.e. handed down to later generations. We found support for this in rebuilt houses, e.g. Buildings 65-56-44. A complete quern roughout was abandoned in the earliest building (65); the inhabitants of the later building (56) did not retrieve and use it (Figs. 14d, 16-17; Tables 5 and 6). Querns appear to have been used in connection with the life of a house and then abandoned or broken at abandonment. They were not transmitted or cycled upward as houses were rebuilt. This is discussed further below.

Household self-sufficiency? Ubiquity of standard house toolkits, or not

Did houses originally have comparable, comprehensive toolkits? If so, this would suggest house autonomy and self sufficiency. If not, it would indicate cooperation and sharing, or inequality of access.

Tables 5 and 6 show distribution data for broken and unbroken artefacts from 20 buildings, organized by area and house type. Both tables reveal wide variations in absolute numbers of artefacts, a subject to which we will return. Meanwhile, can we tease out a common suite of artefacts in a majority of houses? To do this, we explore ubiquity of artefact types, i.e. the percentage of houses containing a particular type.

Fig. 11. Small, portable planoconvex querns: (a) andesite quern from Space 88, a small cubicle attached to Building 3; (b) fine textured andesite quern found with a handstone and botanical remains, in a bin in Building 77, unit 16488. (c) quern from Building 68, unit 14072, medium texture andesite; (d) quern from Building 58, unit 11955, coarse porphyritic andesite. Illustrations by (a) K. Wright and (b) Lyla Pinch-Brock and Elisabet Diaz-Pila.

Fig. 12. Large, heavy querns and slabs from house interiors. (a) Large andesite quern from the stoneworking area of Building 77, unit 17509; (b) quern/worktable from Building 52 floor, unit 10299; (c) sandstone abrading slab from the center of the large room in Building 77, unit 16492; (d) quern, dense vesicular basalt, from Building 77 room fill.

Fig. 14. Large quern roughouts. (a-c) are from Building 77: (a) large boulder, minimally modified, coarse dacitic andesite; (b) quern roughout with flaking, coarse andesite; (c) quern roughout, coarse dacitic andesite, with finished but 'new' use surface and flaked V-shaped base; (d) unfinished quern roughout, fine-textured andesite, found in 'cleanup cluster' of Building 65 (see Fig. 15a); sides are finished but use surface is incompletely pecked

Table 5 presents total house inventories ofall artefacts from all interior contexts (including construction, room fills etc.). It shows artefacts in descending order of ubiquity. Since breakage of querns was deliberate, broken and complete querns are treated as separate types.

The table shows that a ''core group'' of basic equipment was found in 50% or more of the houses. Most universal are quern fragments and andesite flakes, followed by a range of small hand tools, many relating to craft production. Noteworthy in this group are

Fig. 16. Building 65, South Area: (a) Phase 2; (b) Phase 3. In (a), the unfinished quern roughout abandoned in Phase 2 indicates failure to transmit a viable quern to residents of later houses above this phase, e.g. Phase 4, shown in (b); see also the later buildings above Building 65, in Fig. Fig. 17a-b.

handstones (portable food processing tools), axe/celt pre-forms, relatively equal access to simple tools and materials. Notably, a axes/celts, and pigment. Collectively, the core group tools indicate majority of households seem to have (1) quern fragments (mostly

Fig. 17. Houses built above Building 65 (see Fig. 16). (a) Building 56, Phase 2, floor artifacts; (b) Building 44, Phase 4. In (b), note the deliberate destruction and ritual abandonment of the half quern (see Fig. 15d).

Fig. 18. Size categories, by quern length, of complete querns from ^atalhoyuk East, ordered by area and level. Querns were classed in size categories according to maximum length (e.g., <500 mm, <450 mm), hence figures do not always reflect precise measured lengths of each quern, except where marked by an asterisk*. Samples are small, but the largest querns seem to come from Level South Q and later; and from Area 4040 G (probably contemporary with South N) and later.

Fig. 19. Distribution of all quern roughouts and axe/celt pre-forms in the ^atalhoyuk East database as of 2012. Both suggest in-house manufacture, but axe-celt pre-forms are widely distributed while quern roughouts display more clustering, particularly in Buildings 77 and 44.

small); (2) involvement in andesite working/tool modification; (3) control of axe/celt production, and (4) access to pigment.

A second ''middle range'' of types was found in 20-40% of the houses. These expand the scope to abrading tools and include larger tools, notably complete querns and unfinished quern roughouts. Fi-

nally, a third group of tools are rarities, occurring in only 5-15% of houses. These include possible prestige items (vessels, maceheads); agricultural tools (stone hoes, weights); and shaft straighteners.

Table 6 shows only floor inventories, i.e. artefacts from floors, clusters, and fills of features (bins, pits, niches, basins). These

encompass primary refuse, stored items, sweep-ups and special placements. In this case, broken and complete tools are viewed separately. Looking at broken tools (Table 6, top), we see patterns similar to those of the total house inventories (Table 5), except in this case the ''core group'' tools appear in fewer houses overall -a result of housecleaning. The hierarchy of ubiquity is about the same. Turning to complete tools (Table 6, bottom), overall ubiquity levels for all tools are even lower, but the most ubiquitous tools are in the ''core group'' established from the total house inventories. Complete tools from floors are rare, occurring in 30% or fewer of the 20 houses.

To summarize, ground stone artefacts were made, used, destroyed and abandoned largely inside houses. Kits of complete tools, stored in secluded bins, tell us that small artefacts were, at some level, private property. Despite much housecleaning, we can identify a relatively common ''core toolkit'' of simple tools in a reasonably wide range of houses.

However, many tool types occur in less than 50% of the houses, often in only a tiny minority of houses. In particular, complete querns and quern roughouts occur in only 30% of houses. Agricultural tools are rare, as are vessels, maceheads, and shaft straighteners. The extent of tool destruction is also variable; complete tools from floors are also rare. Thus, while there is a core and somewhat common toolkit of simple tools, toolkits are not standardized and these houses do not seem entirely self-sufficient.

Inequality vs. sharing: artefact numbers, diversity, querns, storage

Are these variations a result of cooperative sharing or competitive, unequal access to ground stone tools? Sharing vs. unequal access can be approached by looking at (1) overall variations in artefact numbers; (2) diversity, i.e. how many different artefact types are present in a given house, as a percentage of the total number of types found in all houses; (3) complete tools from floors; (4) distributions of unbroken, complete querns, especially large querns; (5) occurrences of quern roughouts; and (6) relationships between ground stone and storage features.

Artefact numbers

Tables 5 and 6 show wide variations in artefact numbers. Caution is required, because of burning, housecleaning and abandonment. However, burned buildings themselves show wide differences. First, the sheer quantities of material from Building 77 are remarkable. Its 441 artefacts comprise 22% of all artefacts in the total house inventories from all 20 buildings (Table 5). If we consider only floor data from Area 4040 Level G (Table 6) - Building 77's roughly contemporary neighborhood -the data are even more striking. Buildings 1, 49, 59, 52, 77 and 3 collectively revealed 473 artefacts from floors and features. Of those, 316 artefacts derived from Building 77 - a full 67% of all artefacts from this sample of the neighborhood floors. It might be argued that Building 77 is a simple case of burning that resulted in abrupt abandonment and therefore high numbers and a high diversity of artefacts. However, this does not seem to explain fully the concentration of material in Building 77. Other buildings in 4040G were badly burned and presumably abandoned rapidly (e.g., Buildings 49, 52), but they revealed nothing like the unusual quantities of ground stone artefacts seen in Building 77, which suggests at least the possibility of unequal access.

Artefact diversity

The degree of artefact diversity can be affected by sample size, but Tables 5 and 6 show that type diversity in buildings is not purely a function of overall sample sizes from one house to another. Beginning with total house inventories, (Table 5), which buildings have 50% or more of all artefact types? Building 77 has the highest diversity: 76% of all artefact types from all 20 houses were present in it. The others are Buildings 52, 49, 52, 65, 44 and 58. Of these, all are special buildings, except for Building 58. High diversity thus tends to be associated with special buildings, but not strictly so.

Turning to floor data (Table 6), diversity is lower overall. However, the highest diversity figures for all artefacts appear in Buildings 77, 52, 65 and 49. For broken artefacts, the same buildings stand out. For complete artefacts, diversity is highest in Buildings 77, 52, 65 and 56. All are special buildings. Of other buildings, none come close to the diversity levels of these buildings, with one exception - Building 75 has a reasonably high diversity of broken tools from floors (33%). Interestingly, in this house, Bains found unique evidence of stone bead-making (Bains, 2012; Bains et al., 2013; see also comments in Hodder, 2013). In sum, high artefact diversity has a tendency to be associated with special buildings.

Complete tools from floors

Very few houses retained complete tools on floors (Table 6, bottom). Buildings 77, 52, 65-56-44 revealed the most; all are special buildings. This is not a simple matter of preservation by burning. Other buildings in Area 4040 G were burnt but do not reveal as many complete items on the floors. However, Building 77 stands out, with far more objects (61) than any other house.

Unbroken querns

In total house inventories (Table 5), 18 unbroken querns were found altogether in the 20 houses. Houses with complete querns included Buildings 77, 65, 44, and 52 - special buildings - but also the undistinguished Buildings 68 and 58, while a cubicle attached to undistinguished Building 3 (not part of it) produced one complete quern (not shown in the table) (Wright and Baysal, 2012). However, of all 18 unbroken querns from these 20 houses, Building 77 produced 12 of them (67%). Turning to the floor data (Table 6), only 9 complete querns were found on house floors. They appeared in Buildings 65 (2 querns); 52 (1) and Building 77 (6). All are special buildings. The 6 querns from Building 77 constitute 67% of all complete querns from the floors of the 20 houses.

Since querns come in two sizes (large and small), we would like to know about large and small querns on the site as a whole. Available data on quern lengths are shown in Fig. 18. We see that large querns are less common than small planoconvex types. The querns from Building 77 include some of the largest examples.

Quern roughouts

Looking at total house inventories (Table 5), we see that while andesite flakes are ubiquitous, quern roughouts were found in 30% of the 20 houses (''middle range'' ubiquity). Which houses were they? A total of 23 quern roughouts were found in these 20 buildings (Table 5). They derived from Buildings 65, 44, 1, 49, 77 and 58. All are special buildings, except for Building 58. Building 77 produced 11 of the 23 roughouts - or 48% of the total. Turning to the floor data (Table 6), we find two broken roughouts from floors, in Buildings 77 and 49, both special buildings. Of unbroken quern roughouts (including reconstructed ones) from house floors, 11 in total were recovered from the 20 houses. Buildings 65 and 44

had two each. Building 77 revealed 7 quern roughouts, that is, 64% of all complete quern roughouts from 20 house floors.

This is striking given that (1) andesite flakes are ubiquitous; and (2) axe/celt pre-forms occur in 50% of houses - with no patterning regarding special buildings (Table 5). Caution is required here, but it seems possible that there was some specialization in quern manufacture associated with special buildings, while modification of andesite tools was normal in most buildings. Alternatively, Building 77 acted as a hosting place for a cooperative task group involved in quern manufacture.

The unequal distribution of unbroken querns and quern rough-outs can be appreciated in Fig. 22. These graphs represent a variant of a standard measure of household income or wealth inequality used in economics, a measure known as a Lorenz curve. Lorenz curves are usually applied to industrial societies (Atkinson, 1980; Cowell, 2000: 105; Gottschalk and Smeeding, 2000; Kerbo, 2000; Lorenz, 1905; Nygard and Sandstrom, 1981). In such curves, the x-axis shows social units (e.g., households). The y-axis shows the percentage of total income or wealth held by the social units. Social units are ordered according to income/wealth, from lowest to highest and the data are presented cumulatively. Where households have perfectly equal access to a resource (or wealth or income), the distribution will be a straight line (y = x), also called the line of complete (or perfect) equality. Inequality is indicated by a concave distribution; the more concave the distribution is, the more inequality is indicated, since fewer households account for most of the income or wealth (Atkinson, 1980: 40-41).

Fig. 22 shows Lorenz curves for four artefact types. Schist palettes and handstones (Fig. 22a and b) display concave distributions, but the concavity is relatively shallow. By contrast, the distributions for unbroken querns and quern roughouts are extremely concave; only 30% of houses (6 of 20) account for 100% of these artefact types in each case. Most of these are special buildings, although not exclusively so (Buildings 58 and 68 are not 'special' on other grounds). The dominance of Building 77 is noteworthy.

Fig. 23 places these findings in a wider context of cooking and storage features, to which we now turn.

Ground stone tools, cooking features and storage features

From the foregoing, several patterns emerge. Household tools, including small querns, were common and were stored in bins, implying privately controlled household tools that could be moved around for small scale processing. Households were engaged in their own axe/celt production and in modification of andesite tools. Possibly, large querns for larger scale processing were set up in some houses but not others. Special buildings tend to have concentrations of numerous, diverse and complete ground stone artefacts, especially large querns and quern roughouts, and more complete tools were found on their floors. The data point to either (1) unequal access to large querns; (2) sharing of tools by multiple houses; or (3) very large differences in practice concerning the breaking of querns. They also suggest either specialization in quern making, or some buildings serving as cooperative arenas for task groups involved in quern manufacture.

Multi-household sharing, or differential wealth accumulation? A wealth accumulation model requires a closer look at storage and surplus. Bogaard et al. (2009: Table 5 and p. 663) analyzed numbers and volumes of storage bins for a selection of buildings and concluded that while bins mainly indicated production for domestic consumption, modest levels of risk-buffering ''normal surplus'' (Halstead, 1989) could be housed in side rooms. They also found variations between houses in storage capacity. Do ground stone tools correlate with this?

For the moment, the answer seems to be no, or at least not in a straightforward way. Drawing on Bogaard et al.'s storage data (2009, Table 5 and p. 663), and looking at floor assemblages (Table 6), we find that houses with unusually high storage capacities (e.g. Building 59, with 10 bins and an estimated capacity of 3360 l) do not necessarily display large ground stone toolkits. Building 65 has only 5 bins with a total capacity of about 1703 l, somewhat above the average (1233 l) - but it has a substantial ground stone assemblage. Building 52 revealed a modest 4 bins with capacity of 1531 l - and a large ground stone assemblage. At the low end of the storage scale, in Building 1, storage capacity was below average (1032 l); ground stone tools were also few; but this building revealed one of the highest concentrations of burials (Andrews et al., 2005; Boz and Hager, 2013; Cessford, 2007; Hillson et al., 2013; Hodder, 2007). As for Building 77, only 5 bins were found (including basins), while the ground stone assemblage is uniquely large and diverse, and hints at specialization. Thus, there are variations in storage capacities and also in ground stone assemblages, but assemblage size does not correlate directly with storage capacity. However, ground stone assemblage diversity, complete querns and quern roughouts do tend to be linked with special buildings (though not strictly so).

Since overall household surpluses were small (Bogaard et al., 2009: 664), it is difficult to argue for competitive household aggrandizement on these data - but we also cannot exclude it completely. We would be on more secure ground with a differential wealth model if querns had been found grouped in storage bins or in close groups of similar tools on floors in obvious use contexts. Instead, querns from Building 77 come from different context types (floors, bins, production areas, fills). So the data do not necessarily indicate differential accumulation or the use of querns in feasting. Even if we had such clusters, they could represent sharing networks linking a range of houses - i.e., the hosting of neighborhood task groups, in line with suggestions made by Düring (Düring, 2007). Such clusters of querns occur in other PPNB sites and may indicate such sharing (Byrd, 2005a; Wright, 2013).

However, the data are subtle. To place these observations in wider context of food preparation, Fig. 23a-b shows Lorenz curves for (a) number of cooking and storage features in 44 individual house phases, i.e., specific floors (see Table 7) and (b) number of five ground stone artifact types (here including quern fragments) from 20 whole buildings (all phases of a building; see Table 5). Grouping of ground stone assemblages by contents of whole buildings (as opposed to individual house phases) was necessary because numbers of artefacts for an individual phase are usually very small; and because artefacts may have cycled upward through buildings. Post-abandonment infilling may have affected these data to some degree, so the measure is imperfect, but it is assumed that such practices did not skew the patterning excessively (note the similarity of the curves for palettes, handstones and quern fragments in Fig. 23a).

Remembering that greater concavity implies greater inequality, in Fig. 23a we see that ovens, siderooms and hearths most closely approach the line of equality. Bins and basins display the most 'unequal' distribution among the features. In Fig. 23b, we find that the curves for palettes, handstones and quern fragments are comparable, with relatively shallow distributions (similar to that for bins and basins). Again, quern roughouts and unbroken querns display the greatest concavity, with 30% of buildings (6 of 20) accounting for 100% of these artifact types. Collectively, the data in Fig. 23 suggest that basic cooking facilities were standard features for most households, while storage features, ground stone tools, and especially quern roughouts and complete querns are much less equally distributed. There is a possibility, then, that some houses were accumulating larger surpluses; had unusual capacities for larger-scale food preparation; and specialized in quern production.

Features in 44 individual house occupation phases at Çatalhôyuk East: raw frequency and percentage frequency. Data from excavation reports. Key to building types: see Table 5.

Level House phase (house type) Hearths N Hearths % Ovens N Ovens % Bins + Basins N Bins + Basins % Siderooms N Siderooms % Reference

Features in 44 house occupation phases at catalhoyuk east: raw frequency and percentage frequency

South J 18.2.2 (h) 0 0.0 2 4.9 4 3.8 1 2.2 Farid, 2007c ('Level X...') fig. 5.17 p 131

South J 23.2A (h) 2 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007c ('Level X...') fig. 5.7 p 109

South J 23.2B (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007c ('Level X...') fig. 5.10, p. 115

South J 23.2C (h) 3 6.5 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007c ('Level X...') fig. 5.12, p. 118

South J 23.2D (h) 5 10.9 1 2.4 1 1.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007c ('Level X...') fig. 5.14, p. 122

South K 16(h) 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0 0.0 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), pp. 183-184; 1 oven, remodeled 4 times

South K 17B (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 2 1.9 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), fig. 6.52

South K 17D (h) 1 2.2 4.9 3 2.9 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), fig. 6.41, pp. 185-221; 2 ovens, 1 remodeled

South K 2.2A (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), fig. 6.4 p. 142 and pp. 154-155

South K 2.2B (u) 2 4.3 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), fig. 6.4 p. 142 and pp. 154-155

South K 2.2C (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), fig. 6.13 and pp. 153-157

South K 2.4 (u) 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX... ' ), fig. 6.16 and pp. 158-160

South K 2.5 (u) 0 0.0 1 2.4 2 1.9 1 2.2 Farid, 2007a ('Level IX.. '), fig. 6.18 and pp. 161-167

South L 6.2 (h) 2 4.3 1 2.4 5 4.8 1 2.2 Farid, 2007b ('Level VIII. . . '), fig. 7.16. One oven, two components

South L 6.3 (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 3 2.9 1 2.2 Farid, 2007b ('Level VIII. . . '), fig. 7.25

South P 75 (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 1 1.0 1 2.2 Regan, 2014a, in press

South Q 68 (u) 0 0.0 0.0 1 1.0 1 2.2 Regan, 2014b, in press

South Q 65.2 (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 5 4.8 1 2.2 Regan, 2014a, in press

South Q 65.3 (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 5 4.8 1 2.2 Regan, 2014a, in press

South R 56.2 (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 1 1.0 1 2.2 Regan, 2014a, in press

South R 56.3 (h) 1 2.2 1 2.4 1 1.0 1 2.2 Regan, 2014a, in press

South S 44.2 (hb) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Regan, 2014a, in press

South S 44.3-4 (hb) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Regan, 2014a, in press

South S 44.5 (hb) 1 2.2 1 2.4 2 1.9 0 0.0 Regan, 2014a, in press

4040 F 5.B (he) 0 0.0 1 2.4 8 7.7 2 4.4 Cessford, 2007b ('Building 5') fig. 11.1

4040 G 1.2A (hb) 2 4.3 0.0 2 1.9 2 4.4 Cessford, 2007a ('Building 1') fig. 12.8

4040 G 1.2B (hb) 0 0.0 4.9 1 1.0 2 4.4 Cessford, 2007a ('Building 1') fig. 12.19

4040 G 1.2C (hb) 0 0.0 1 2.4 4 3.8 2 4.4 Cessford, 2007a ('Building 1') fig. 12.38

4040 G 1.3 (hb) 1 2.2 1 2.4 2 1.9 2 4.4 Cessford, 2007a ('Building 1') fig. 12.52

4040 G 1.4 (hb) 2 4.3 1 2.4 1 1.0 3 6.7 Cessford, 2007a ('Building 1') fig. 12.63

4040 G 59.2 (e) 0 0.0 1 2.4 3 2.9 2 4.4 House, 2014a, in press

4040 G 52.D (e) 1 2.2 0.0 8 7.7 2 4.4 Farid, 2014, in press

4040 G 52.E1 (e) 1 2.2 0.0 9 8.7 2 4.4 Farid, 2014, in press

4040 G 3.1B (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 2 1.9 0 0.0 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 98

4040 G 3.1C (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 3 2.9 0 0.0 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 104

4040 G 3.1D (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 4 3.8 0 0.0 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 107-108

4040 G 3.2 (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 3 2.9 0 0.0 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 112

4040 G 3.3 (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 2 1.9 0 0.0 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 118-119

4040 G 3.4A (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 3 2.9 1 2.2 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 122-123

4040 G 3.4B (u) 1 2.2 4.9 1 1.0 1 2.2 Tringham and Stenavovic, 2012 131-132

4040 G 49.3-5G (b) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Eddisford, 2014, in press

4040 G 77 (e) 2 4.3 0.0 7 6.7 1 2.2 House, 2014b, in press

4040 H 58 (u) 1 2.2 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 Sadarangani, 2014b, in press; Farid and Zoroglu, 2005, fig. 20

4040 H 54 (u) 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 4.8 1 2.2 Sadarangani, 2014a, in press; Bogdan, 2005

Total 46 100.0 41 100.0 104 100.0 45 100.0

Further exploration of these possibilities is amenable to statistical testing (e.g., Kolmorogov-Smirnov D-test; Gini coefficient) (Blalock, 1972: 262-265; Cowell, 2000: 111-112), but since the data are complex, this will be presented elsewhere.

Discussion

Specialization

If the foregoing data raise the possibility of household specialization in quern manufacture, this could have taken the form of cooperative hosting of quern-making activities in certain buildings. Other hints of specialization are unique stone bead-making evidence from Building 75 (Bains et al., 2013) and possibly stone figurine-making (see discussion in Baysal and Wright, 2005) although this needs more investigation (Nakamura and Meskell, 2013). Hence, stone-working was a possible arena of house differentiation. If so, this did not apply to every category. The distribution of axe/celt preforms suggests that this was unspecialized and the ubiquity of andesite flakes means that modification of andesite objects was going on in most houses (Tables 5 and 6). Nonetheless, the roughout distributions are clustered. This can be appreciated by looking at the distribution of all quern roughouts in the ^atalhoyuk East ground stone database (as of 2012), against all axe/celt pre-forms (Fig. 19).

If quern-making was specialized, it meant differential access to a key resource, not trivial to acquire or produce, that was fundamental to food preparation and consumption and to Neolithic technology generally. Specialization might imply special access to key resources (large andesite boulders) not easy to transport across a 35 km distance Similar questions have been raised about transport of large stones for production of stelae at Gobeklitepe (Banning, 2011; Schmidt, 2006). Other indications of household specialization have been documented in this time range, e.g. in beadmaking in PPNC seasonal camps (Wright and Garrard, 2003; Wright et al., 2008); in PPNB villages (e.g., Byrd, 2005a, Building 14; see also Barzilai, 2010) and there are other hints at ^atalhoyuk East itself, such as the bead-making data (Bains et al., 2013) ( see also Asouti, 2005: 87-88).

Ethnoarchaeology sheds light on milling in agricultural societies and on how millstone distributions are affected when grain is processed by specialists. In the absence of specialized milling, hand milling is commonly carried out by each household for its own consumption. In the archaeological record this finds expression in a correlation between the number of querns and the number of production-consumption units (Hayden and Cannon, 1984: 68f.). For example, in Hopi villages, each household tended to contain consistent sets of two or three metates (querns) (Bartlett, 1933: 14). However, when specialized milling is involved, consistent associations of millstones with household units are not close. Ethnoarchaeological accounts of Iranian villages documented private household storage of querns in bins; but also sharing of querns between households, in situations when a village is making use of specialist industrial milling. When specialists are used, querns are considered precious and sharing takes place (Hansen, 1961: 32, 56; Horne, 1980: 23, 1990; Kramer, 1982: 33f.; Watson, 1979: 168-169). Both patterns seem to occur at ^atalhoyuk East: private household bin-storage (small querns) and sharing (larger querns). Thus, I suggest that (1) some households specialized in, or perhaps hosted, quern manufacture; and (2) large milling tools were shared. Ethnoarchaeological data cited by Hansen, Horne, Kramer and Watson (see references above) indicate that these two patterns go together.

Intensification

According to Shenk et al., the seeds of truly complex social inequalities lie in (1) agricultural intensification and (2) inheritance, especially of land (Shenk et al., 2010). Intensification resulting in higher food yields figures in many models of the origins of social inequality. Agricultural intensification is usually thought of in terms of field activities (e.g. plough/irrigation farming; larger groups of farmers) that raise yields at harvest level (Boserup, 1966; Goody, 1976; Shenk et al., 2010). However, prehistorians often use ''intensification'' to mean increased investment of effort in subsistence practices generally, or diversification of practices,

Fig. 20. (a) Reconstruction of painting from Mellaart excavations, probably a portrait of the village under a twin volcano (Mellaart 1967, plate 59); (b) photograph of the painting (Mellaart 1967, plate 60); (ibid.); (c) from a house in the Istanbul Area, ^atalhoyuk East: planoconvex andesite quern found with clay figurine on top.

to extract higher food returns from restricted areas (e.g., with rising sedentism) (Hayden, 2009; Munro, 2004; Stiner et al., 2000).

In a broad sense, the late Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic periods indicate intensification of labor in food preparation (and also craft production), probably a consequence of sedentism, rising populations and restriction of foraging territories. There was a quantum leap in ground stone assemblages (Wright, 1994; cf. Coll-edge and Conolly, 2010). In the Neolithic, rising emphasis on cereals as staples resulted in expansion of optional milling techniques (e.g., grinding of groats) as an addition to dehusking (not optional; cereals cannot be consumed without this). Dehusking can be achieved with stone mortars but requires wooden pestles (and, ethnographically, most often involves wooden mortars as well) (Hillman, 1984b; Meurers-Balke and Luning, 1992; Nesbitt and Samuel, 1995). The addition of milling to dehusking clearly entailed significant labor intensification, as shown by experiments, ethnographic data and possibly (though this is controversial) skeletal remains (Wright, 1994; cf. Meurers-Balke and Luning, 1992; Molleson, 2000; Peterson, 2002).

Though there are variations, a range of Late Epipalaeolithic base camps have assemblages dominated by mortars and pestles (e.g., Edwards and Webb, 2013; Edwards, 2013; Perrot, 1966; Rosenberg et al., 2012; Wright, 1991; also Rosenberg and Redding, 2000; Smith, 1972; , but the pattern is not universal; see Moore, 2000a). The Late Natufian saw rising frequencies of grinding tools (Wright, 1991, 1993; cf. DuBreuil, 2004; Valla et al., 2001). This continues in the PPNA, with nuances (Gopher, 1997; Mazurowski, 1997; Nierle, 1983; Rosenberg and Gopher, 2010; Shaffrey, 2007; Solecki, 1980; Willcox and Stordeur, 2012; Wright, 1993). By the

PPNB, grinding slabs and querns dominate village assemblages (e.g., Dorrell, 1983; Gopher and Orrelle, 1995; Wright, 1993, 2013).

Milling of foods into finer particles exposes more surface area of a food and makes nutrients more available to digestion (Stahl, 1984, 1989). It thus increases yields of food supplies without ploughs, irrigation or other field methods usually used to define 'intensive agriculture.' Thus, the early Neolithic in general represents a form of intensification in food production, albeit not in terms of field activities, but in terms of post-harvest activities (Wollstonecroft, 2011 ). This intensification took place in houses -at consumption level. At production level, at Çatalhoyuk East there are suggestions of intensive garden agriculture (Bogaard, 2005). The scale was seemingly small, though: In Building 77's ''hardware cabinet,'' we see one hoe and one digging stick weight (Fig. 10c and d), despite multiple bukrania, multiple querns and quern-making.

In this light, it is of interest that - on present evidence - the largest querns at Çatalhoyuk East seem to appear in the middle of the sequence, as the site began to grow (Fig. 18). If this pattern (which is still tentative) is confirmed, it would indicate rising levels of post-harvest intensification as the site grew. So far, it appears that there are concentrations of large querns in a few houses. If this pattern is confirmed, it would suggest something along the lines of household differentiation, economic inequality and competition, as the village evolved.

Inheritance?

If intensification combined with inheritance is critical to complex societies (Shenk et al., 2010), do we see inheritance at Çatal-

Fig. 21. (a-b) Andesite trays, Çatalhoyuk West (Chalcolithic); (c-d) Maceheads, Çatalhoyuk East.

höyük East? As noted, some see house rebuildings as a hint of this (Shennan, 2011). Others note building continuity but place less emphasis on inheritance as such (Düring, 2005). Hodder and Cess-ford discussed diachronic change at ^atalhöyük East in terms of social memory (Hodder and Cessford, 2004). Joyce argues that social memory, as preserved in heirlooms, is characteristic of house societies (Joyce, 2000). In light of approaches that stress inheritance and social memory, we would like to know what diachronic change in artefacts, as houses are rebuilt, might tell us. Can we track transmission of artefacts through time from artefact life cycles as houses were rebuilt?

Querns can have very long use lives, 100 years or more; such cases include millstones passed down from one generation to the next. Millstones wear down after long use. For a given rock type, long-used millstones are deeply concave while those with short use-lives have shallow use surfaces. Many studies document recycling of worn-out tools (Aschmann, 1949: 685; David, 1998: 58; Hayden and Cannon, 1984:123; Horne, 1983: 18,1990; Schott, 1989).

Mesopotamian Bronze Age texts mention millstones in connection with property inheritance. A list of dowry items includes a handstone (CAD, 1956, s.v. narkabu). In a legal text (early second millennium BC), a man accused of theft states: ''I swear, I did not take any property of my sister, neither her millstone...nor anything else'' (Salonen, 1965: 51).

Millstones were received by women as gifts from their husbands in Old Babylonian Sippar; it was specified that these were their property to dispose of freely and children were specifically denied any claim to them. Other women received millstones from their fathers and as bridal gifts (Harris, 1975: 319, 330, 369). Thus, Mesopotamian texts link millstones with female inheritance, which is arresting in light of discussions by Goody (1976) and Shenk et al. (2010) on inheritance. Inheritance of food processing tools (frequently from mother to daughter) is also documented in hoe-farming societies (Goody, 1971: 72-73). Do we see anything like this in the Neolithic? If millstones were "expensive" objects and possibly an arena for specialization and intensification, were they transmitted through time?

At ^atalhoyuk East, clearly not. Querns at Catalhoyuk East had short use lives, displaying flat or shallow use surfaces, even when broken (Figs. 11-13). In addition to quern fragmentation, we explored whether complete querns were cycling upward as houses were rebuilt, e.g. in Buildings 65-56-44 (Figs. 16 and 17). In a situation of transmission of querns through time within this domestic group (assuming that those who built houses atop Building 65 were related), we would expect long-used, concave querns abandoned only in the upper house (Building 44), with an absence of querns abandoned in Building 65. But Tables 5 and 6 show that complete querns were abandoned in Building 65; in fact, an

Fig. 22. Cumulative percentage frequency of four artifact types in 20 houses at ^atalhoyuk East, based on data in Table 5 (Lorenz curves). The solid line shows the distribution that would result if all houses had equal numbers of the artifacts (line of perfect equality of access). A concave distribution indicates unequal access; the more concavity there is, the more inequality. Schist palettes and handstones are unequally distributed; however, the unequal distribution of unbroken querns and quern roughouts is much greater (i.e., there is greater concavity). For each of these artifact categories (unbroken querns and unfinished quern roughouts), 100% of the artifacts were found in only 30% of houses (6 houses of 20). Note the distribution for Building 77. (For Lorenz curves, see Atkinson, 1980; Cowell, 2000:105; Gottschalk and Smeeding, 2000; Kerbo, 2000; Lorenz, 1905; Nygard and Sandstrom, 1981.)

unfinished quern roughout was abandoned in it, instead of being retrieved and completed by those who built Building 56 (Fig. 14d). Hence, the pattern is closer to what happens with formation of new domestic groups in a cycle of domestic fission, wherein new units establish their own grinding equipment and other facilities (Goody, 1971: figs. 1 and 2; cf. Banning and Byrd, 1987; Kadowaki, 2006).

Thus, millstones were deliberately destroyed at house abandonments, before they showed heavy wear. Where found complete, in rebuilt houses, they are not found in patterns we would expect of cross-generational transmission. They were special targets for destruction which would have required substantial effort. The driving force appears to have been social, not practical. If there were forms of inheritance and material wealth transmission, millstones were not part of this. Breakage patterns seem an emphatic "statement" against transmission of these artefacts across generations. The pattern is reminiscent of the destruction of personal wealth at death (or in this case at house abandonment) - or the reversion of property to lineage or corporate group control - as described by Gurven, Goody and others for hoe-farming societies (Goody, 1971: 69-73, 1976; Gurven et al., 2010: 52-53).

Thus a widespread ban on some forms of personal-property transmission (i.e., inheritance) within domestic groups was part of this picture. Some of this might fit with a house society model (Levi-Strauss, 1982) and one might be tempted to invoke a potlatch analogy to explain the destruction of querns. Potlatch is associated with highly competitive societies and overt displays of wealth

(Codere, 1950). Practices relating to ground stone tools at £atal-hóyük East (e.g., the rarity of decoration of such tools) could be seen as attempts to play down such displays, but perhaps we must leave this question open. Gurven et al. (2010) state that attitudes to material wealth in hoe-farming societies are similar to those of hunter-gatherers. It is of interest that some pre-PPNB sites have a dominance of broken tools not readily explained by natural site formation processes (Edwards and Webb, 2013: 213; Ozkaya and Cosku, 2009; Rosenberg et al., 2012: 93).

However, since some houses at ^atalhóyük East reveal complete tools - and these are usually special buildings - clearly there is differentiation in this regard. This fits partially with Hodder and Cessford's "dominant houses preserving social memory" model (Hodder and Cessford, 2004), although the complete artefacts do not cycle upward and therefore are not heirlooms (Joyce, 2000). However, other early Neolithic sites show complete querns surviving but used unto exhaustion, indicating long use lives (Byrd, 2005a; Wright, 1992a,b, 2013), more in line with heirlooms (Joyce, 2000) and transmission across generations. Interestingly, some of these sites (e.g. Beidha, Jordan) have public buildings but were very small villages. These observations suggest that there were (1) substantial cultural variations in management, distribution and inheritance of material property, and (2) regional and temporal differences in the development of social organization, in the early agricultural societies of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Such variations constitute a warning against application of simple models based on ethnographic analogies (e.g., 'house societies'), or broad-brush

Fig. 23. Lorenz curves for (a) features in 44 house occupation phases (see Table 7) and (b) selected ground stone artifact types in 20 households (based on whole buildings, see Table 5). (Note: x-axis numbers are sequential and do not refer to building numbers.). The solid line shows the distribution that would result if all houses had equal numbers of features and artifacts (line of perfect equality or access). A concave distribution indicates unequal access; the more concavity there is, the more inequality. In (a), ovens, siderooms and hearths are the features most closely approximating equal distribution; storage features (bins and basins) have the most unequal distribution. In (b), complete querns and quern roughouts display a more unequal distribution than the other artifact categories. Comparison of (a) and (b) suggests that whilst cooking and heating facilities are more evenly distributed among houses, storage features and ground stone artefacts are less so, particularly the manufacture and survival of complete querns. (For Lorenz curves, see Atkinson, 1980; Cowell, 2000: 105; Gottschalk and Smeeding, 2000; Kerbo, 2000; Lorenz, 1905; Nygard and Sandstrom, 1981.)

evolutionary scenarios of how inequality and social complexity emerged (e.g., 'the hoe vs. the plough;' also animal domestication, early pastoralism, and secondary products). Likewise, 'material entanglement' (Hodder, 2012) may be too broad and general a concept to explain these variations.

Household competition or cooperative ''host houses''?

Thus, it is not clear whether a competitive-households model applies at ^atalhöyük, but we cannot rule it out. From such a model, we would expect large storage features, ground stone accumulations and multiple bukrania in the same houses. The data are not quite as clear as that, although special houses do appear to be special in ground stone terms. Some of these data could also be explained by a cooperative model. Early villages may have had something like ''guest houses'' - with some of the functions of reception buildings of latter-day village headmen, as seen in many ethnographic accounts (Aswad, 1971: 42-43; Fernea, 1969: 20-21, 24; Kramer, 1982; Salim, 2013). Such institutions are used for information exchange, receiving visitors, and group events (not only feasts). Yoffee points out that archaeologists fail to consider institutions such as assemblies (Yoffee, 1995). At ^atalhöyük, if special buildings were ''host houses,'' they were also domestic (cf. houses of lineage heads). This would explain intermittent distributions of bukrania, burials, quern-making evidence, or unusually high numbers of (for example) axes/celts near a whetstone (e.g. Building 77, Fig. 8).

A host-house model would fit with interpretations offered by others. Kuijt (Kuijt, 2000a) proposed that Neolithic rituals were about maintaining equality. Bogaard et al. (2009) argued that cooperation via cattle feasting balanced out private food storage. Düring proposes that special houses were foci for lineages or neighborhood integration (Düring, 2007). Byrd has commented on integra-tive corporate institutions and the possibility of shared resources (Byrd, 1994, 2005a). Banning commented on hospitality (Banning, 1996) and this is important. A concept of hospitality - ''mi casa es su casa'' - could account for the mix of evidence for household equality with indications of difference. But the differences may not be wealth accumulation/competition so much as sharing and ''neighbourliness,'' a point also highlighted by Banning and Düring.

However, Kuijt and Bogaard et al. are correct, I think, to highlight tensions between household and corporate group, because these houses were very sheltered, and the privacy of the side-room storage features is extreme (more extreme than what we see in the LPPNB Levant) (Wright, 2000). Hospitality and host houses would act to assert equality - while also insisting on the primacy of the house itself as the basic unit. This might explain the absence of obvious corporate buildings at ^atalhöyük East. Through time, that absence could have encouraged inter-household (or, more likely, inter-lineage) competition.

Corporate groups and use-rights: can artefacts symbolise landscapes?

Thus, domestic groups seem to have had constraints on them and special houses may have been arenas for corporate group activity and identity. Other evidence for corporate groups includes wall paintings (the ''bull hunt'') (Mellaart, 1967) probably showing male hunting sodalities (fraternal cooperative organizations that cross-cut households and lineages) (Service, 1971). Such organizations in the PPNB are suggested by non-habitation sites linking men, wild animals and hunting, e.g. Nahal Hemar (Israel) (Bar-Yo-sef and Alon, 1988; Davis, 1988; Goren et al., 1993; Goren et al., 2008) and Göbeklitepe (Schmidt, 2006). These hint at dominance of hunting territories by corporate groups. Bukrania may be emblems of corporate group solidarity, as much as inter-household

competition. Host houses would have been another, bridging domestic groups, lineages, sodalities and the village.

Other wall paintings may illustrate this, e.g. the probable portrait ofthe village under the twin volcanos (Fig. 20a). The painting raises questions about landscapes. As we have seen, most ground stone artefacts are made of volcanic materials coming from at least 35 km away. The most difficult to acquire would have been large andesite boulders for querns, requiring cooperative effort. Querns were special targets for deliberate destruction. This destruction is ubiquitous, ritualized, and part of house abandonment in rebuilt houses; and therefore a statement of non-transmission of property through time within residential groups. Quern manufacture may have involved specialization, while uneven distributions of unbroken querns may suggest multi-household sharing networks.

Are these phenomena an expression of corporate use-rights to materials from volcanic lands? A discovery in the Istanbul Area is intriguing. A portable plano-convex quern was found with a clay figurine on top (Fig. 20b). The figurine recalls the twin peaks of the painting and may testify to a special role of volcanoes and mountains in ^atalhoyuk cosmology and community identity (cf. later Anatolian cultures: Beckman, 1989; Canby, 1989). If so, it is possible that breakages of andesite querns add up to performances designed to emphasize corporate control of certain resources, e.g. from volcanic regions, and corporate constraints on household ambitions.

If so, such constraints did not last forever. It has been asked whether competition between households might have increased through time (Asouti, 2005: 90). Some artefacts do speak to this. Two rare types appear only in middle to late levels and are more common at ^atalhoyuk West: andesite serving trays and mace-heads (Fig. 21; Table 3). Details of the appearance of trays and maceheads only in middle to late levels are presented in depth elsewhere (Wright et al., 2013; cf. Brady, 2012). The trays represent the most elaborate stone vessels in the site, implying more formal dining practices; the maceheads represent hand-to-hand combat weaponry more commonly seen in the Chalcolithic and la-ter(Levy, 1995; Rosenberg, 2010; Rowan and Levy, 2011). Theyim-ply rising social tensions and factional competition (Brumfiel and Fox, 1994: 4). Later on, maceheads were not only weapons, they were symbols of political authority (cf. Bar-Adon, 1980; Frangipane and Palmieri, 1983; Rowan and Levy, 2011; Yadin, 1955). But they had Neolithic roots (Rosenberg, 2010; Wright, 1992b). The ^atal-hoyuk maceheads thus hint at the scenario outlined by Sahlins (1974: 146-148).

Conclusions

The ground stone assemblages and other data from ^atalhoyuk East suggest a society in transition from egalitarian organization to something more complex. Analysis of 2429 ground stone artefacts from 20 buildings and 9 yards reveals private household property and a broad equality of access to cooking features and some ground stone tools, but ground stone toolkits do not indicate self-sufficiency. Lorenz curves for features and ground stone artefacts suggest that storage units, unbroken querns and unfinished quern roughouts were the most unequally distributed food preparation facilities. Elaborate buildings have more diverse artefacts and concentrations of unbroken, large querns and quern roughouts, which may mean unusual status, specialization or hosting of task groups. From food processing tools we detect hints of a form of agricultural intensification (post-harvest) but also constraints on wealth transmission within domestic groups. It is suggested that corporate groups held substantial power and that decorated buildings were ''host houses'' for cooperative, multi-household activities, compa-

rable to the Near Eastern mudhif. At ^atalhoyuk, these were also residences.

Models emphasizing inter-household competition may need some modification. Generally, there are questions about the definition and evolution of the household as a social unit. Households are production-consumption units not necessarily linked to architectural units in obvious ways (Netting et al., 1984; Netting, 1993). Ground stone artefacts from ^atalhoyuk accord with that.

However, some artefact types (e.g. maceheads, special trays) suggest rising tensions and factional competition through time. Hints are also accumulating for PPNB-PPNC craft specialization, perhaps an arena for residential-group agency. If so, did early craft specialization carry seeds of differential access to material wealth? It is not necessarily a long leap from ''differential access of specialists to needed raw materials'' to ''differential access to the means of craft production." ^atalhoyuk East's artisans seem to have approached that point without quite reaching it. Transmission of material wealth through time would have also been a key threshold in the entrenchment of inequality. ^atalhoyuk East seems not to have reached that threshold. In sum, the data from ^atalhoyuk East hint at a society trying to maintain egalitarian principles even as it was slowly changing into something else. Mechanisms for maintaining egalitarianism may have encountered problems as the site grew large, leading to abandonment and a different social order at Chalcolithic ^atalhoyuk West.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the ^atalhoyuk Research Project, the British Institute in Ankara, and University College London. My greatest debts are to Ian Hodder, for inviting me to lead the ground stone team and for his wholehearted support throughout; and to Shahina Farid, for her command of stratigraphy and for facilitating this research in many ways. I am deeply grateful to the East Mound ground stone team and its affiliates: Adnan Baysal, Christina Tso-raki, Onur Ozbek, Roseleen Bains, Duygu Camurcuoglu, Kim Jones, Emma Jordan, Jennifer Booth and Sarah Luddy. For geological expertise, I thank Asuman Turkmenoglu and Vedat Toprak (Middle East Technical University); the MTA in Ankara; Chris Doherty (University of Oxford); and Ruth Siddall (University College London). For statistical advice I thank Clive Orton. For useful discussions over the years, I thank Amy Bogaard, Tristan Carter, Marina Milic, Nerissa Russell, Eleni Asouti, Kathy Twiss and Louise Martin. For their patience in collecting all stones from the site, as requested, I thank the excavation team. For photography, I thank Jason Quinlan. For comments on earlier versions, I thank Andrew Garrard, James Steele, Stephen Shennan, Andy Bevan and the anonymous reviewers. Any errors of fact or interpretation are my own.

References

Akkermans, P.M.M.G., Fokkens, H., Waterbolk, H., 1981. Stratigraphy, architecture and layout of Bouqras. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Prehistoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 485-501. Andrews, P., Molleson, T., Boz, B., 2005. The human burials at ^atalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 4. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 261-278. Appadurai, A., 1981. Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8, 494-511.

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

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Aschmann, H., 1949. A metate maker of Baja California. American Anthropologist 51, 682-686.

Asouti, E., 2005. Group identity and the politics of dwelling at Neolithic ^atalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ^atalhoyuk Perspectives: Themes from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 6. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London.

Asouti, E., 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20, 87-126.

Asouti, E., Fuller, D., 2013. A contextual approach to the emergence of agriculture in southwest Asia. Current Anthropology 54 (3), 299-345.

Aswad, B., 1971. Property Control and Social Strategies in Settlers in a Middle Eastern Plain. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers No. 44, Ann Arbor.

Atalay, S., Hastorf, C.A., 2006. Food, meals and daily activities: food habitus at ^atalhoyuk. American Antiquity 71, 283-319.

Atkinson, A.B., 1980. On the measurement of inequality. (Reprint of Atkinson [1970] in Journal of Economic Theory 2, 244-263). In: Atkinson, A.B. (Ed.), Wealth, Income and Inequality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 23-43.

Bains, R., 2012. The Social Significance of Neolithic Stone Bead Technology at ^atalhoyuk and Asiklihoyuk, Turkey. PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London.

Bains, R., Vasic, M., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Russell, N., Wright, K.I., Doherty, C., 2013. A technological approach to the study of personal ornamentation and social expression at ^atalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 325-356 (in press).

Baird, D., 2005. The history of settlement and social landscapes in the early Holocene in the ^atalhoyuk area. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ^atalhoyuk Perspectives: Themes from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project, Volume 6. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 55-74.

Banning, E.B., 1996. Houses, compounds and mansions in the prehistoric Near East. In: Coupland, G., Banning, E.B. (Eds.), People Who Lived in Big Houses. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 165-185.

Banning, E.B., 2003. Housing Neolithic farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology 66 (1).

Banning, E.B., 2011. So fair a house: Gobeklitepe and the identification of temples in the pre-pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Current Anthropology 52 (5), 619660.

Banning, E.B., Byrd, B., 1987. Houses and the changing residential unit: domestic architecture at PPNB Ain Ghazal. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53,309325.

Banning, E.B., Chazan, M., 2006. Structuring interactions, structuring ideas: domestication of space in the prehistoric Near East. In: Banning, E.B., Chazan, M. (Eds.), Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 5-14.

Bar-Adon, P., 1980. The Cave of the Treasure: the Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Bartlett, K., 1933. Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and their Relation to Others in the Southwest. Bulletin of the Museum of Northern Arizona 3, Flagstaff.

Bar-Yosef, O., Alon, D., 1988. Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot 18, Israel Department of Antiquities, Jerusalem.

Barzilai, O., 2010. Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2180, Oxford.

Bayliss, A., Farid, S., Higham, T., 2014. Time will tell: practicing Bayesian chronological modeling on the East Mound. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ^atalhoyuk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Baysal, A., Wright, K.I., 2005. Cooking, crafts and curation: the ground stone artefacts from ^atalhoyuk, 1995-1999. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing Materialities at ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 5. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 307-324.

Beckman, G., 1989. The religion of the Hittites. Biblical Archaeologist 52 (2/3), 98108.

Bevan, A., 2007. Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bienert, H.-D., 2001. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of Jordan: a first step towards proto-urbanism? Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, 107-119.

Blalock, H., 1972. Social Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Bogaard, A., 2005. Garden agriculture and and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeology 37 (2), 177-196.

Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Twiss, K., Fairbairn, A., Yalman, N., Filipovic, D., Demirergi, A., Ertug, F., Russell, N., Heneke, J., 2009. Private pantries and celebrated surplus: storing and sharing food at Neolithic ^atalhoyuk, central Anatolia. Antiquity 83 (321), 649-668.

Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Livarda, A., Ergun, M., Filipovic, D., Jones, G., 2013. The archaeobotany of mid-later occupation levels at Neolithic ^atalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Humans and Landscapes of ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, Volume 8. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Bogdan, D., 2005. ^atalhoyuk archive report 2005: 4040 area excavations, Neolithic sequence: building 54. <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_ 2005.pdf> Qatalhoyuk Archive Reports 2005.

Boivin, N., Owoc, M.A., 2004. Stones, Soils and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World. University College London Press, London.

Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Bowles, S., Hertz, T., Bell, A., Beise, J., Clark, G., Fazzio, I., 2009. Intergenerational wealth transmission and the dynamics of inequality in small scale societies. Science 326, 682-688.

Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Fazzio, I., Irons, W., McElreath, R., Bowles, S., Bell, A., Hertz, E., Hazzah, L., 2010. Pastoralism and wealth inequality: revisiting an old question. Current Anthropology 51 (1), 35-48.

Boserup, E., 1966. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: the Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Aldine, Chicago.

Bowles, S., Smith, E.A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., 2010. The emergence and persistence of inequality in premodern societies: an introduction. Current Anthropology 51 (1),7-17.

Boz, B., Hager, L., 2013. Intramural burial practices at Qatalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Humans and Landscapes of Qatalhoyuk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Qatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 8. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Brady, J., 2012. Ground stone, continuity and change at Qatalhoyuk West. Chronika: Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology Graduate Student Journal 1. <http: //www.chronikajournal.com/current-issue.php>.

Brumfiel, E.M., Fox, J.W., 1994. Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England.

Byrd, B.F., 1994. Public and private, domestic and corporate: the emergence of the village in southwest Asia. American Antiquity 59 (4), 639-666.

Byrd, B.F., 2000. Households in transition: Neolithic social organization within southwest Asia. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York, pp. 63-98.

Byrd, B.F., 2005a. Early Village Life at Beidha, Jordan: Neolithic spatial organization and vernacular architecture. Oxford University Press and the Council for British Research in the Levant, Oxford.

Byrd, B.F., 2005b. Reassessing the emergence of village life in the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research 13 (3), 231-290.

CAD, 1956. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications, University Of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Calderaro, N., 2011. On the use of contemporary hunters and gatherers as models for prehistoric patterns of wealth distribution. Current Anthropology 52 (2), 265.

Qamurcuoglu, D., 2013. Qatalhoyuk wall paintings: materials, technologies, artists. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from Qatalhoyuk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Qatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 309-322 (in press).

Canby, J.V., 1989. Hittite art. Biblical Archaeologist 52 (2/3), 109-129.

Carter, T., Milic, M., 2013. The chipped stone. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from Qatalhoyuk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Qatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 409-470 (in press).

Carter, T., Conolly, J., Spasojeviae, A., 2005. The chipped stone. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavations at Qatalhoyuk, vol. 5. Changing Materialities at Qatalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 221-284.

Cessford, C., 2007. Building 1. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating Qatalhoyuk: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Qatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 3. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge/British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 405-530.

Cessford, C., 2007. Building 5. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating Qatalhoyuk: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Qatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 3. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge/British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 361-404.

Cessford, C., Newton, M., Kuniholm, P., Manning, S., Ozbakan, M., Ozer, A.M., Akoglu, K.G., Higham, T., Blumbach, P., 2005. Absolute dating at Qatalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Qatalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Qatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 5. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 65-100.

Codere, H., 1950. Fighting with Property: A Study of Kwakiutl Potlatching and Warfare, 1792-1930. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Colledge, S., Conolly, J., 2010. Reassessing the evidence for the cultivation of wild crops during the Younger Dryas at Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria. Environmental Archaeology 15 (2), 124-138.

Cowell, F.A., 2000. Measurement of inequality. In: Atkinson, A.B., Bourgignon, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution, vol. I. Elsevier Press, Handbooks in Economics Series, vol. 16. Amsterdam, pp. 87-166.

David, N., 1998. The ethnoarchaeology and field archaeology of grinding at Sukur, Adamawa, Nigeria. African Archaeology Review 15 (1), 13-63.

Davis, S., 1988. The larger mammal remains. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Alon, D. (Eds.), Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot 18, Israel Dept. of Antiquities, Jerusalem, pp. 68-72.

Dietler, M., Hayden, B., 2001. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Dietrich, O., Heun, M., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K., Zarnkow, M., 2012. The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities: new evidence from Göbeklitepe, southeastern Turkey. Antiquity 86, 674-695.

Doherty, C., 2008. ^atalhöyük Archive Report 2008: Clay Sourcing. <http:// www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf>. ^atalhöyük Archive Reports 2008, pp. 257-252.

Dorrell, P., 1983. Appendix A: stone vessels, tools and objects. In: Kenyon, K.M., Holland, T.A. (Eds.), Excavations at Jericho, The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, vol. V. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London, pp. 485575.

DuBreuil, L., 2004. Long term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (11), 1613-1629.

Düring, B., 2005. Building continuity in the central Anatolian Neolithic: exploring the meaning of buildings at Asikli Höyük and ^atalhöyük. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18 (1), 3-29.

Düring, B., 2006. Constructing Communities, Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic, ca. 8500-5500 cal BC. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabje Osten, Leiden.

Düring, B., 2007. Reconsidering the ^atalhöyük community: from households to settlement systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20,155-182.

Eddisford, D., 2014. Building 49. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Qatalhöyük Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhöyük Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Edwards, P., 2013. Limestone artefacts. In: Edwards, P. (Ed.), Wadi Hammeh, An Early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 235-247.

Edwards, P., Webb, J., 2013. The basaltic artefacts and their origins. In: Edwards, P. (Ed.), Wadi Hammeh, an Early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 205-233.

Esin, U., 1991. Salvage excavations at the pre-pottery Neolithic site of Asiklihöyük in Central Anatolia. Anatolica 17, 123-174.

Esin, U., Harmankaya, S., 1999. Asikli. In: Özdogan, M., Basgelen, N. (Eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 116-130.

Farid, S., 2007. Level IX relative heights, Building 2, Buildings 22 & 16 and Building 17. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating ^atalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhöyük Research Project Series, vol. 3. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge/British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 139-226.

Farid, S., 2007. Level VIII: Space 161, Space 162, Building 4, Space 115, Buildings 21 & 7, Building 6 and relative heights of Level VIII. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating ^atalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhöyük Research Project Series, vol. 3. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge/ British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 227282.

Farid, S., 2007. Level X relative heights, Buildings 23 & 18 and Building 9. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Excavating ^atalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhöyük Research Project Series, vol. 3. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge/ British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 103138.

Farid, S., 2014. Buildings 52/51. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ^atalhöyük Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhöyük Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Farid, S., Zoroglu, C., 2005. ^atalhöyük Archive Report 2005: 4040 area excavations, Neolithic sequence: Building 58, Spaces 227, 258, 274. <http:// www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive Report 2005.pdf>. ^atalhöyük Archive Reports 2005.

Fernea, E.W., 1969. Guests of the Sheikh. Anchor Books, New York.

Flannery, K.V., 1972. The origin of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: a comparative study. In: Ucko, P., Tringham, R., Dimbleby, G. (Eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Duckworth, London, pp. 23-53.

Flannery, K.V., 2002. The origins of the village revisited: from nuclear to extended households. American Antiquity 67 (3), 417-433.

Folorunso, C.A., 2007. Gender and archaeological site formation: ethnoarchaeological studies in parts of Nigeria. In: Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R., Wright, K.I. (Eds.), Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues. Left Coast Press, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, California, pp. 353-372.

Fortunato, L., Holden, C., Mace, R., 2006. From bridewealth to dowry? A Bayesian estimation of ancestral states of marriage transfers in Indo-European groups. Human Nature 17, 355-376.

Frangipane, M., Palmieri, A., 1983. A protourban centre of the Late Uruk period: Arslantepe (Malatya). Origini 12 (2), 287-454.

Fuller, D., Willcox, G., Allaby, R., 2011. Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the core area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Near East. World Archaeology 43 (4), 628-652.

Garrard, A.N., Baird, D., Colledge, S., Martin, L., Wright, K.I., 1994. Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1987 and 1988 excavation seasons. Levant 26 (1), 73-109.

Garrard, A.N., Edinborough, K., 2013. Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates for Prehistoric Periods in the Levant Using INTCAL 2004 and CALPAL 2005.

Unpublished Manuscript on File, Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Citation Permission Provided by the Authors, London.

Gérard, F., Thissen, L., 2002. The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th-6th Millennia cal BC. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Goody, J., 1971. The fission of domestic groups among the LoDogaba. In: Goody, J. (Ed.), The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53-91.

Goody, J., 1976. Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goody, J., 1990. The Oriental, the Ancient and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-industrial Societies of Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goody, J., Tambiah, S.J., 1973. Bridewealth and Dowry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gopher, A., 1997. Ground stone tools and other stone objects from NetivHagdud. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A. (Eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 151-176.

Gopher, A., Orrelle, E., 1995. The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata. Cahiers des Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Israel No. 7, Association Paléorient, Paris.

Goren, Y., Segal, I., Bar-Yosef, O., 1993. Plaster artifacts and the interpretation of Nahal Hemar cave. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25 (1), 120-131.

Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, A.N., Segal, I., 2008. The technology of skull modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: regional variability, the relation of technology and iconography and their archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (7), 671-690.

Goring-Morris, A.N., 2000. The quick and the dead: the social context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar Hahoresh. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York, pp. 103-136.

Goring-Morris, A.N., 2005. Life, death and the emergence of differential status in the Near Eastern Neolithic: evidence from Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In: Clarke, J. (Ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 89-105.

Goring-Morris, A.N., Horwitz, L., 2007. Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. Antiquity 81 (314), 902-919.

Gottschalk, P., Smeeding, T.M., 2000. Empirical evidence in income inequality in industrialized countries. In: Atkinson, A.B., Bourgignon, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution, vol. I. Elsevier Press, Handbooks in Economics Series, vol. 16, Amsterdam, pp. 261-307.

Gurven, M., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Hooper, P., Kaplan, H., Quinlan, R., Sear, R., Schniter, E., 2010. Domestication alone does not lead to inequality: intergenerational wealth transmission among horticulturalists. Current Anthropology 51 (1), 49-64.

Halstead, P., 1989. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece. In: Halstead, P., O'Shea, J.M. (Eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 68-80.

Hansen, H., 1961. The Kurdish Woman's Life. Nationalmuseets Skrifter. Etnografiske Raekke VII, Copenhagen.

Hardy-Smith, T., Edwards, P., 2004. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at the early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origin of household refuse disposal patterns. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 253-289.

Harris, R., 1975. Ancient Sippar: A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City, 1894-1595 B.C. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut te Istanbul. Amsterdam and Istanbul.

Hauptmann, H., 1988. Nevali Çori: Architektur. Anatolica 15 (1), 99-110.

Hauptmann, H., 1993. Ein Kultgebäude in Nevali Çori. In: Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. (Eds.), Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Universita di Roma ''La Sapienza'', Rome, pp. 37-69.

Hauptmann, H., 1999. The Urfa Region. In: Özdogan, M., Basgelen, N. (Eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 65-86.

Hauptmann, H., Özdogan, M., 2007. Die neolithische revolution in Anatolien. In: Siebenmorgen, H. (Ed.), Vor 12,000 Jahren in Anatolien: Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 26-36.

Hayden, B., 1987. Traditional metate manufacturing in Guatemala using chipped stone tools. In: Hayden, B. (Ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 8-119.

Hayden, B., 2001a. Fabulous feasts a prolegemon to the importance of feasting. In: Dietler, M., Hayden, B. (Eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 23-63.

Hayden, B., 2001b. Rich man, poor man, beggarman, chief: the dynamics of social inequality. In: Feinman, G.M., Price, T.D. (Eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp. 231-272.

Hayden, B., 2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from southeast Asia. World Archaeology 34 (3), 458-469.

Hayden, B., 2004. Sociopolitical organization in the Natufian: a view from the northwest. In: Delage, C. (Ed.), The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East. British Archaeological Reports International Series S1320, Oxford, pp. 263-301.

Hayden, B., 2009. The proof is in the pudding: feasting and the origins of domestication. Current Anthropology 50 (5), 597-601.

Hayden, B., Cannon, A., 1984. The Structure of Material Systems. Society for American Anthropology, Washington.

Hillman, G.C., 1984a. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains the application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: van Zeist, W., Casparie, W.A. (Eds.), Plants and Ancient Man. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1-42.

Hillman, G.C., 1984b. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times. Part I: the glume wheats. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1,114152.

Hillman, G.C., Madeyska, E., Hather, J., 1989. Wild plant foods and diet at late Palaeolithic Wadi Kubbaniya: evidence from charred remains. In: Wedndorf, F., Schild, R., Close, A. (Eds.), The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya, vol. 2. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 162-242.

Hillson, S., Larsen, C., Boz, B., Pilloud, M., Sadvari, J., Agarwal, S., Glencross, B., Beauchesne, P., Pearson, J.A., Ruff, C., Garofalo, E., Hager, L., Haddow, S., 2013. The human remains I: interpreting community structure, health and fiet in Neolithic ^atalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Humans and Landscapes of ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 8. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Hodder, I., 2005a. Changing entanglements and temporalities. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing Materialities at ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 5. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London.

Hodder, I., 2005b. Peopling ^atalhoyuk and its landscape. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 4. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 1-31.

Hodder, I., (Ed.), 2007. Excavating Qatalhoyuk: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, Vol. 3. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London.

Hodder, I., (Ed.), 2011. The ^atalhoyuk sequence. Templeton Lecture presented at the ^atalhoyuk excavation house, July 2011, ^atalhoyuk, Turkey.

Hodder, I., 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley and Blackwell, Oxford.

Hodder, I., 2013. Becoming entangled in things. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from ^atalhoyuk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 1-26 (in press).

Hodder, I., 2014. ^atalhoyuk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (forthcoming).

Hodder, I., Cessford, C., 2004. Daily practice and social memory at Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 69 (1), 17-40.

Hole, F., Flannery, K.V., Neely, J.A., 1969. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Iran.

Horne, L., 1980. Village morphology. Expedition 22, 18-23.

Horne, L., 1983. Recycling in an Iranian village: ethnoarchaeology in Baghestan. Archaeology 36 (4), 16-21.

Horne, L., 1990. Village Spaces, Settlement and Society in Iran. Smithsonian, Washington, DC.

House, M., 2014. The sequence of Buildings 59 and 60. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ^atalhoyuk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

House, M., 2014. Building 77. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), ^atalhoyuk Excavations: the 20002008 Seasons. ^atalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Jones, M., 2007. Feasts: Why Humans Share Food. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Joyce, R., 2000. Heirlooms and houses: materiality and social memory. In: Joyce, R., Gillespie, S.D. (Eds.), Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kadowaki, S., 2006. Ground stone tools and implications for use of space and social relations at 'Ain Abu Nukhayla, a PPNB settlement in southern Jordan. In: Banning, E.B., Chazan, M. (Eds.), Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 53-64.

Kerbo, H., 2000. Social Stratification and Inequality. McGraw Hill, New York.

Kramer, C., 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, New York.

Kuijt, I., 1996. Negotiating equality through ritual: a consideration of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15, 313-336.

Kuijt, I., 2000a. Keeping the peace: ritual, skull caching and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming

Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 137-164.

Kuijt, I., 2000b. People and space in early agricultural villages. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19 (1), 75-102.

Kuijt, I., 2002. Reflections on ritual and the transmission of authority in the pre-pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant. In: Gebel, H.G., Hermansen, B.D., Jensen, C. (Eds.), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 81-90.

Kuijt, I., 2009. What do we really know about food storage, surplus, and feasting in preagricultural communities? Current Anthropology 50 (5), 641-644.

Kuijt, I., 2012. Home is where we keep our food: the origins of agriculture and visibility of Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic food storage. Paléorient 37 (1), 123-135.

Kuijt, I., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2002. Foraging, farming and social complexity in the pre-pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16 (4), 361-439.

Kuijt, I., Vila, G., Molist, M., Anfruns, J., 2011. The changing Neolithic household: household autonomy, integration and mortuary practices, Tell Halula, Syria. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (41), 502-522.

Levi-Strauss, C., 1982. The Way of the Masks. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Levy, T.E., 1995. Cult, metallurgy and rank societies: Chalcolithic Period (ca. 45003500 BCE). In: Levy, T.E. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp. 226-243.

Lloyd, S., Safar, F., 1945. Tell Hassuna: excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate General of Antiquities in 1943 and 1944. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4, 255-289.

Lorenz, M.O., 1905. Methods for measuring concentration of wealth. Journal of the American Statistical Association 9, 209-219.

Mazurowski, R.F., 1997. Nemrik 9: The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site in Iraq, vol. 3: Ground and Pecked Stone Industry. University of Warsaw, Warsaw.

Mellaart, J., 1963. Excavations at Çatal Huyuk, 1962: second preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 13 (1), 43-103.

Mellaart, J., 1964. Excavations at Çatal Huyuk 1963: third preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 14 (1), 39-119.

Mellaart, J., 1966. Excavations at Çatal Huyuk 1965: fourth preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 16 (1), 165-191.

Mellaart, J., 1967. Çatal Huyuk: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London.

Meurers-Balke, J., Luning, J., 1992. Some aspects and experiments concerning the processing of glume wheats. In: Anderson, P. (Ed.), Préhistoire de l'agriculture: nouvelles approches experimentales et ethnographiques. Monographie du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques, No. 6.Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 341-362.

Milner, G., Hammerstedt, S., French, K., 2010. Chert hoes as digging tools. Antiquity 84, 103-113.

Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Shaffrey, R., 2005. Sexual symbolism in the early Neolithic of the southern Levant: pestles and mortars from Wadi Faynan 16. Documenta Praehistorica 32,103-110.

Molleson, T., 2000. The people of Abu Hureyra. In: Moore, A.M.T. (Ed.), Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 321-326.

Moore, A.M.T., 2000a. Stone and other artefacts. In: Moore, A.M.T., Hillman, G.C., Legge, A. (Eds.), Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 165-187.

Moore, A.M.T., 2000b. The buildings and layout of Abu Hureyra 2. In: Moore, A.M.T., Hillman, G.C., Legge, A. (Eds.), Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 261-275.

MTA, 2002. Geological Map of Turkey, Konya region (1: 500,000). General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Muduruglu = MTA), Ankara.

Munro, N., 2004. Zooarchaeological measures of hunting pressure and occupation intensity in the Natufian: implications for agricultural origins. Current Anthropology 45 (Suppl.), 6-33.

Nakamura, C., Meskell, L., 2013. Figurine worlds at Çatalhoyuk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from Çatalhoyuk: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. Çatalhoyuk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 197-228 (in press).

Nesbitt, M., Samuel, D., 1995. From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and history of the hulled wheats. In: Padulosi, S., Hammer, K., Heller, J. (Eds.), Hulled Wheat, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats. Castelvecchio, pp. 2-41.

Netting, R.M., 1993. Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California.

Netting, R.M., Wilk, R., Arnold, E., 1984. Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Nierlé, M.-C., 1983. Mureybet et Cheikh Hassan (Syrie): outillage de mouture et de broyage (9ème et 8ème millénaires). Cahiers de l'Euphrate 3,177-216.

Nygard, F., Sandstrom, A., 1981. Measuring Income Inequality. Almquist and Wiskell, Stockholm.

Ozbasaran, M., 1998. The heart of a house: the hearth. Asiklihoyuk, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia. In: Arsebuk, G., Mellink, M., Schirmer, W. (Eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 555-566.

Özbasaran, M., Buitenheis, H., 2002. Proposal for a regional terminology for central Anatolia. In: Gérard, F., Thissen, L. (Eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th-6th Millennia cal BC. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 67-78.

Özdogan, M., Özdogan, A., 1989. Çayônû, a conspectus of recent work. Paléorient 15 (1), 65-74.

Özkaya, V., Cosku, A., 2009. Körtik Tepe, a new pre-pottery Neolithic A site in southeastern Anatolia. Antiquity 83(320). <http: //antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ ozkaya/>.

Pearson, J.A., Grove, M., Özbek, M., Hongo, H., 2013. Food and social complexity at Çayônû Tepesi, southeastern Anatolia: stable isotope evidence of differentiation in diet according to burial practice and sex in the early Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32,190-211.

Perrot, J., 1966. Le gisement natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. L'Anthropologie 70, 437-484.

Peterson, J., 2002. Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of Agriculture. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Regan, R., Taylor, J., 2014. The sequence of Buildings 75, 65, 56, 69, 44 and 10 and External Spaces 119, 129, 130, 144, 299, 314, 319, 329, 333, 339, 367, 371 and 427. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Çatalhôyûk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Regan, R., Taylor, J., 2014. Building 68. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Çatalhôyûk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029-1058.

Rollefson, G.O., 2000. Ritual and social structure at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal'. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 163-190.

Rosen, A., Roberts, N., Donovan, P., 2005. The nature of Çatalhôyûk, people and their changing environment on the Konya Plain. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Çatalhôyûk Perspectives: Themes from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 6. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London.

Rosenberg, D., 2010. Early maceheads in the southern Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 35, 204-216.

Rosenberg, D., Gopher, A., 2010. Food processing tools and other groundstone implements from Gilgal I and Gilgal III. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Goring-Morris, A.N., Gopher, A. (Eds.), Gilgal: Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley: The Excavations of Tamar Noy. American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 139-176.

Rosenberg, M., Redding, R., 2000. Hallan Çemi and early village organization in eastern Anatolia. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York, pp. 39-61.

Rosenberg, D., Kaufman, D., Yeshurun, R., Weinstein-Evron, M., 2012. The broken record: the Natufian groundstone assemblage from El Wad Terrace (Mount Carmel, Israel): attributes and their interpretation. Eurasian Prehistory 9 (1-2), 93-128.

Rowan, Y., Levy, T.E., 2011. Transitions in macehead manufacture in the ancient Levant: a case study from Nahal Tillah (Tel Halif Terrace) Israel. In: Chesson, M. (Ed.), Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Ind., pp. 199-218.

Russell, N., Griffitts, J., 2013. Çatalhôyûk worked bone: South and 4040 areas. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from Çatalhôyûk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 269-298 (in press).

Russell, N., Martin, L., 2005. Çatalhôyûk mammal remains. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhôyûk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 4. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 33-98.

Sadarangani, F., 2014. Building 54. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Çatalhôyûk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Sadarangani, F., 2014. Building 58. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Çatalhôyûk Excavations: the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 7. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Sahlins, M.D., 1974. Stone Age Economics. Aldine, Chicago.

Salim, S., 2013. Marsh Dwellers of the Euphrates Delta. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 23, London.

Salonen, A., 1965. Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B139, Helsinki.

Schmandt-Besserat, D., 2001. Feasting in the ancient Near East. In: Dietler, M., Hayden, B. (Eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 391-403.

Schmidt, K., 1997. A note on lithic implements for stone bowl production. Neo-Lithics 1997 (1), 19-20.

Schmidt, K., 2000. Göbeklitepe, southeastern Turkey: a preliminary report on the 1995-1999 excavations. Paléorient 26 (1), 45-54.

Schmidt, K., 2002. The 2002 excavations at Göbeklitepe (southeastern Turkey): impressions from an enigmatic site. Neo-Lithics 2002 (1), 8-13.

Schmidt, K., 2005. ''Ritual centres'' and the neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia. Neo-Lithics 2005 (2), 13-21.

Schmidt, K., 2006. Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Die archäologische Entdeckung am Göbekli Tepe. Verlag C.H. Beck, München.

Schott, M., 1989. On tool-class use-lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity 54 (1), 9-30.

Schumann, W., 1992. Rocks, Minerals and Gemstones. HarperCollins, London.

Service, E.R., 1971. Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, New York.

Shaffrey, R., 2007. The ground stone. In: Finlayson, B., Mithen, S. (Eds.), The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site of WF16. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 323-355.

Shenk, M., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Beise, J., Clark, G., Irons, W., Leonetti, D., Low, B., Bowles, S., Hertz, T., Bell, A., Piraino, P., 2010. Intergenerational wealth transmission among agriculturalists: foundations of agrarian inequality. Current Anthropology 51 (1), 65-83.

Shennan, S., 2011. Property and wealth inequality as cultural niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 366, 918-926.

Sherratt, A., 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In: Hodder, I., Isaac, G., Hammond, N. (Eds.), Pattern of the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 261-305.

Shimelmitz, R., Rosenberg, D., Nativ, A., 2005. Giv'at Kipod: a basalt quarry and a workshop for the production of bifacial tools in the Manasseh hills, Israel. Neo-Lithics 2005 (1), 9-11.

Smith, P.E.L., 1972. Ganjdareh Tepe. Iran 10 (1), 165-168.

Smith, E.A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Bowles, S., Gurven, M., Hertz, T., Shenk, M., 2010a. Production systems, inheritance and inequality in premodern societies: conclusions. Current Anthropology 51 (1), 84-94.

Smith, E.A., Hill, K., Marlowe, F., Nolin, D., Wiessner, P., Gurven, M., Bowles, S., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Hertz, T., Bell, A., 2010b. Wealth transmission and inequality among hunter-gatherers. Current Anthropology 51 (1), 19-34.

Smith, E.A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Bowles, S., Hill, K., 2011. Wealth inequality in foraging, horticultural, pastoral and agricultural populations: a reply to Calderaro. Current Anthropology 52 (4), 579-580.

Solecki, R.L., 1980. An Early Village Site at Zawi Chemi Shanidar. Undena Publications, Malibu, CA.

Spriggs, M., 2008. Ethnographic parallels and the denial of history. World Archaeology 40 (4), 538-552.

Stahl, A., 1984. Hominid dietary selection before fire. Current Anthropology 25 (2), 151-168.

Stahl, A., 1989. Plant-food processing: implications for dietary quality. In: Harris, D.R., Hillman, G.C. (Eds.), Foraging and Farming. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 171-184.

Stiner, M., Munro, N., Surovell, T., 2000. The tortoise and the hare: small game use, the broad spectrum revolution and Palaeolithic demography. Current Anthropology 41 (1), 39-74.

Stordeur, D., 2000. Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet Horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paléorient 26 (1), 29-44.

Tringham, R., Stevanovic, M., 2012. Last House on the Hill: Berkeley at Çatalhôyûk (BACH) Area Reports from Çatalhôyûk, Turkey. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 11. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.

Türkmenoglu, A.G., Baysal, A., Toprak, V., Göncüoglu, M.C., 2005. Ground stone raw material from Çatalhôyûk. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhôyûk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 5. Monographs of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 369-372.

Twiss, K., Bogaard, A., Bogdan, D., Carter, T., Charles, M., Farid, S., Russell, N., Stevanovic, M., Yalman, N., Yeomans, L., 2008. Arson or accident? The burning of a Neolithic house at Çatalhôyûk. Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 41-57.

Twiss, K., Russell, N., Orton, D., Demirergi, A., 2013. More on the Çatalhôyûk mammal remains. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhôyûk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 8. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (in press).

Valla, F., Khalaily, H., Samuelian, N., March, R., Bouquentin, F., Valentin, B., Marder, O., Rabinovich, R., Dosseur, G., DuBreuil, L., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2001. Le Natoufien final de Mallaha (Eynan), deuxième rapport préliminaire: les fouilles de 19981999. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31, 43-184.

Verhoeven, M., 2004. Beyond boundaries: nature, culture and a holistic approach to domestication in the Near East. Journal of World Prehistory 18 (3), 179-282.

Verhoeven, M., 2006. Megasites in the Jordanian Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: evidence for proto-urbanism. In: Banning, E.B., Chazan, M. (Eds.), Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East. Ex Oriente, Berlin.

Wason, P., 1994. The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Watkins, T., 2008. Supra-regional networks in the Neolithic of southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 21 (2), 139-171.

Watson, P.J., 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Weninger, B., Jôris, O., Danzeglocke, U., 2005. CalPal: University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Package. University of Cologne. <http: // www.calpal.de/calpal/form.htm>. Cologne.

Willcox, G., Stordeur, D., 2012. Large-scale cereal processing before domestication during the tenth millennium cal BC in northern Syria. Antiquity 86, 99-114.

Williams-Thorpe, O., Thorpe, R.S., 1993. Geochemistry and trade of eastern Mediterranean millstones from the Neolithic to Roman periods. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 263-320.

Wollstonecroft, M., 2011. Investigating the role of food processing in human evolution: a niche construction approach. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 3,141-150.

Wright, K.I., 1991. The origins and development ofground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Paléorient 17 (1), 19-45.

Wright, K.I., 1992a. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18 (2), 53-81.

Wright, K.I., 1992b. Ground Stone Assemblage Variations and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000 to 5500 b.p. University Microfilms International. PhD Dissertation, Yale University, Department of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Wright, K.I., 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25 (1), 93-111.

Wright, K.I., 1994. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: implications for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59 (2), 238-263.

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., 2008. Craft production and the organization of ground stone technologies. In: Rowan, Y., Ebeling, J. (Eds.), New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artefacts. Equinox Archaeology Books, London, pp. 130-143.

Wright, K.I., 2013. The Beidha Ground Stone Assemblage: Technologies, Space and Activities (in preparation).

Wright, K.I., Baysal, A., 2012. Ground stone tools and technologies associated with buildings in the BACH area. In: Tringham, R., Stevanovic, M. (Eds.), Last House on the Hill: BACH Area Reports from Çatalhôyûk, Turkey. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 11. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 421-428.

Wright, K.I., Garrard, A.N., 2003. Social identities and the expansion of stone beadmaking in Neolithic western Asia: new evidence from Jordan. Antiquity 77 (296), 267-284.

Wright, K.I., Critchley, P., Garrard, A.N., Bains, R., Baird, D., Groom, S., 2008. Stone bead technologies and early craft specialization: insights from two Neolithic sites in eastern Jordan. Levant 40 (2), 131-165.

Wright, K.I., Tsoraki, C., Siddall, R., 2013. The ground stone technologies of Çatalhôyûk, 1993-2008. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from Çatalhôyûk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 357-408 (in press).

Yadin, Y., 1955. The earliest record of Egypt's military penetration into Asia? Israel Exploration Journal 5 (1), 1-16.

Yalman, N., Özbudak, D.T., Gûltekin, H., 2013. The Neolithic pottery of Çatalhôyûk: recent studies. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Substantive Technologies from Çatalhôyûk: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Çatalhôyûk Research Project Series, vol. 9. Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 143-178 (in press).

Yartah, T., 2005. Les bâtiments communautaires de Tell 'Abr 3 (PPNA, Syrie). Neo-Lithics 2005 (1), 3-9.

Yoffee, N., 1995. Political economy in early Mesopotamian states. Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1), 281-312.

Zeder, M., 2011. The origins of agriculture in the Near East. Current Anthropology 52 (S4), 221-235.

Zeder, M., Smith, B., 2009. A conversation on agricultural origins: talking past each other in a crowded room. Current Anthropology 50 (5), 681-690.