No abstract

olfhgenD tF nd eropoulidouD F nd eylD qF nd pilipovi¡ D hF nd uukuD gF nd vnelottiD gF nd wdellD wF nd w lowskD uF nd ntigoEwrreroD gFqF nd inrightD tF @PHPHA 9he sesonlity of wetlnd nd riprin tskspes t gtlh¤ oy¤ ukF9D xer istern rheologyFD VQ @PAF ppF WVEIHWF

Çatalhöyük is a renowned archaeological site in central Anatolia, best known for its Neolithic occupation dated from 7100 to 6000 cal BC. The site received worldwide attention early on for its large size, well-preserved mudbrick architecture, and elaborate wall paintings. Excavations at the site over almost three decades have unearthed rich archaeobotanical remains and a diverse ground stone assemblage produced by what once was a vibrant farming community. The study presented here adds to our understanding of crops and plant processing at Çatalhöyük by integrating phytoliths and starch analyses on grinding implements found at three domestic contexts attributed to the Middle (6700–6500 cal BC) and Late (6500–6300 cal BC) period of occupation. Our results reveal a rich microbotanical assemblage that testifies the use of a wide range of geophytes and wild seasonal resources previously unknown at the site. Moreover, by comparing results from the microbotanical proxies and microscopic wear patterns on artefacts, we are also able to discern various plant processing practices the analysed artefacts were employed for. In sum, this work further expands our understanding of plants and crop processing activities performed by the inhabitants of Neolithic Çatalhöyük.

Most of the protocols employed for the separation of microbotanical remains from sediments follow the same principles: (1) preparing the sediment samples to be analysed (e.g., weighing, labelling, etc.); (2) deflocculation or particulate dispersal; (3) removing undesired particles (organic matter, carbonates, clay); (4) and extraction of desired remains (e.g., phytoliths, starch grains, fibres or pollen) (Torrence 2006). However, a major concern when applying a combined protocol is the adverse effect that the utilised chemical reagents could have on the proxies intended to be recovered (Pearsall et al. 2004, Torrence 2006, Henry et al. 2016). This is particularly relevant when targeting microbotanical remains with quite different physicochemical properties. For example, protocols for phytolith extraction from sediments typically employ aggressive chemical reagents for the elimination of organic matter, causing severe damage or the full degradation of starch grains (Coil et al. 2003, Piperno 2006, Henry et al. 2016, Le Moyne and Crowther 2021). Many researchers have addressed the possible ways to extract both microbotanical remains from archaeological sediments in tandem (Pearsall et al. 2004, Torrence 2006, García-Granero et al. 2016, 2018, Henry et al. 2016, Pearsall 2016). One of the most common approaches is the “piggy-back” procedure developed by Chandler-Ezell and Pearsall (2003). This method is based on the gravimetric extraction of lighter starch grains with a density that ranges up to 1.60g/cm³ (Henry et al. 2016) and heavier phytoliths ranging in density up to 2.3g/cm³ afterwards (Pearsall et al. 2004, Piperno 2006). This way, starch grains are not exposed to the reagents employed for removing organic matter and carbonates from sediments. The protocol here presented is a modified version of the protocol for phytoliths and starch grains extraction described by Pearsall 2016 (363 - 364), and the Sodium Polytungstate protocol of phytoliths extraction developed by Madella and colleagues (1998), used at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra Laboratory of Environmental Archaeology. The whole process takes around 7 to 14 days to be completed, although time may vary depending on the amount of residue or sediment to be analysed.