A modified boar skull from Catalhoyuk.pdf

(2882 KB) Pobierz
209335223 UNPDF
AModifiedBoarSkull
fromÇatalhöyük
Katheryn C. Twiss
Departmentof Anthropology
StonyBrookUniversity
StonyBrook,NY117944364
katheryn.twiss@stonybrook.edu
A boar skull with unusual modifications was discovered in 2004 at the famous Ana-
tolian Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük. The cranium and the mandible were both present
and in articulation. Most of the mandibular cheek teeth had been deliberately re-
moved. The anterior of the cranium was absent as well, but the upper canine teeth
were found in approximately correct anatomical position. Wheat and barley phy-
toliths were found in the back of the mouth. This article describes the find, contextu-
alizes the skull morphologically within the suid populations of Çatalhöyük and the
broader Anatolian Neolithic, and discusses its manufacture and possible use.
hecentralAnatoliansiteof Çatalhöyükcon
sistsof apairof moundsintheKonyaPlain
of centralTurkey.ThelargeEastMound
containsNeolithicremainsdatingtoapproximately
7400–6000calbc,whiletheWestMoundsChalco
lithicmaterialdatestotheearlyportionof thesixth
millenniumcalbc (Cessford2001;Cessfordetal.
2005;Göktürketal.2002).Thesitesfamouswall
art,figurines,bucrania,andcloselypackedmudbrick
housesarefromtheNeolithicEastMound;soareall
of thedatadiscussedhere.
Excavationsinthesummerof 2004atÇatalhöyük
uncoveredaboarskullwithunusualmodifications.
Thisuniqueinstallationwasfoundinthewestern
room(Space238)of Building45ontheNeolithic
EastMound,inanewlyopenedexcavationarea
calledthe40x40.Building45isthoughttodateto
LevelsV–IVof thesite(S.Farid,personalcommu
nication2005),orbetweenroughly6450and6100
cal bc (Cessfordetal.2005;HodderandCessford
2004:fig.1).Theskullsatonaflooralongthespaces
westernwall,nexttoamodified Bos skull(bucra
nium)andhorn.ExcavatorL.Yeomansbelievedthat
theseunburnedremnantsof dismantledinstallations
hadbeendepositedinthebuildingtogetherwithan
ashyfillsubsequenttoamajorfireepisode.
Thediscoveryof theskullraisedanumberof
interestingquestions.Of particularconcernwerethe
compositionof theoriginalobject,itsuse,andits
placewithintherichanddiversecorpusof animal
symbolismatÇatalhöyük.Thefindalsoofferedthe
opportunitytotakemultiplemeasurementsonanun
usualspecimen,therebypotentiallyprovidinginsight
intothecharacteristicsof animalsselectedforspe
cialtreatment.
the modified skull
Thediscoveryconsistsof acompletebutde
liberatelymodifiedboarskull(unit10058)(fig.1).
Thecraniumandthemandiblewerefoundsittingup
rightinarticulation.Theentiremandiblewaspres
ent,withtheexceptionof thosepartsthathadbeen
removedduringmodification.Thethirdmolarswere
fullyeruptedandmoderatelyworn.
Thecraniumwasfragmentary,althoughitap
pearedthattherearpartof ithadbeenwholewhen
itwentintotheground.Bothuppercanineteethwere
found,butnoothertracesof theanteriorof the
cranium(premaxillae,anteriormaxillaeoranterior
nasals,otherupperteeth)werediscovered.Tapho
nomicfactorscannotaccountforthisloss:whilethe
facialbonesmightdecomposemorerapidlythanthe
bonesintherearof thecranium,thehighlydurable
upperteethwouldnot.This,togetherwiththefact
thattherestof theskullappearedcompleteandrela
tivelyundisturbed,makeitunlikelythatthemissing
portionwaspresentwhentheinstallationwasplaced
1
T
 
2
KATHERYNC.TWISS
BASOR342
andonlydisappearedpostdepositionally.Rather,the
frontof thecraniumwasremovedpriortodeposition.
Preservationof theskullwasvariable,andthe
mandiblewasinbetterconditionthanthecranium.
Overall,however,theconditionof theskullwas
poor:despitecarefulconsolidationandsupport,the
craniuminparticularwasvulnerabletocollapsing
underitsownweight,andtheteethwerehighlyfrag
mented.Thereasonforthispoorpreservationisun
clear.Itmightbeattributabletotheeffectsof saltsin
thesurroundingmatrix,orperhapsotherfactorssuch
asitsrelativeproximitytothesurfacecontributed.
It wasthereforedecidedtosacrificethecraniums
limitedstructuralintegrityinordertorevealtheani
malsteeth,sothattheycouldbemeasuredandtooth
wearcouldberecorded.Thecraniumwasthusal
lowedtobreakintofragmentsduringexcavationof
themandible:allfragmentsweresaved.Themandi
bleremainsinonepieceandhasbeenconserved.
Themandiblehadbeenmodifiedpriortodeposi
tion:thecheekteethposteriortothecaninealveoli
andanteriortothethirdmolars(M 3 s)hadbeen
knockedoutalongwiththealveolarportionsof the
horizontalramus(thebonypartsof thejawflanking
theteeth).Themandibleoneachsidefromjustbe
hindthecaninesocketstothefrontof theM 3 sthus
resembledahalfcylinder,formedof thenaturally
smoothcavityforthementalnerverunningalongthe
inferiorhorizontalramus(seefig.2).
Thismodificationwasnotapreciseundertak
ing:theedgesof themandibularhalfcylinderswere
smoothbutirregular,sothattheheightof thetwo
demicylindersvaried.Theboarskullthusdiffers
frommuchof themeticulouslyfinishedworkedbone
assemblageatthesite.However,eventhisroughex
tractionislikelytohavebeenafairlylaborintensive
project,combiningphysicaleffortwithaneedto
avoidbreakingthejawinhalf.Itthusappearsthatthe
teethandtheflankingbonyportionsof theramus
wereknockedoutwithcarebutwithoutscrupulous
attentiontoaestheticprecision.
Theexcavatorof theinstallation(L.Yeomans)
suggestedthattheanimalsuppercaninesmayhave
beenremovedfromthe(missing)maxillaandin
sertedintotheemptycaninealveolionthemandible.
Thelowercaninesaremissingcompletelyandmay
havebeenremovedforuseelsewhere.(Boartusks
arewidelyusedtomakeavarietyof tools,jewelry,
andart.Nearly30workedtuskpieceshavebeendis
coveredatÇatalhöyüksince1995,includingdeco
rativecollars,fishhooks,andpendants.)Theupper
caninesdidnotarriveinthefaunallabinarticula
tion withthemandible,however,andafieldsnap
shotof thepartiallyexcavatedskullshowsthelower
caninealveolifullof soilandoneof theupperca
nineslyingasif ithadremainedinitsoriginalana
tomicalpositioninthemaxilla.Thatsaid,itremains
possiblethattheupperteethwereusedasreplace
mentsfortheremovedlowercanines:perhapsthey
werenotactuallyinsertedintotheemptiedalveoli,
butattachedinsomeotherfashionsothattheskull
wouldhavesomeformof tusks.
Aconcentrationof phytolithswasnoticedonboth
sidesof themandibleontopof andjustbehindthe
mandibularthirdmolars.Asamplewastakenfrom
theocclusalsurfaceof theleftthirdmolarandthe
mandibularsurfacejustposteriortoit.Thesample
provedextremelyrichinphytoliths,whichsuggests
thattheconcentrationreflectsaspecificlocalizedac
cumulationof plantmaterialratherthanthegeneral
presenceof plantmaterialintheenvironment.Some
of themulticellphytolithsarelargerthananyothers
yetknownfromÇatalhöyük;theyincludebothwheat
andbarley,althoughwheatdominates.Themajority
of thephytolithscomefromhusksratherthanstems
(E.Jenkins,personalcommunication2005).
Asmall(oneliter)flotationsamplewastakenfrom
thesoilsurroundingandinsidetheskull.Thesample
yieldedonly5mlof unremarkableplantremains,
includingwoodcharcoal,twograinsof einkorn/em
mer,andasingleseedfromanasyetunidentifiedwild
plant.Theseremainsarebackgroundnoise;nothing
aboutthesampleindicatesthatthesoilinandimme
diatelyaroundtheskullwasotherthangeneralfill
(A.Bogaard,personalcommunication2004).
Theskullwasfoundnearabucranium(Unit
10057)consistingof asetof brokencattlehornsand
theirinterveningskullfragment(Russell,Pawlow
ska,andTwiss2004).Thefrontof thecattleskull
appearstohavebeendeliberatelyremoved,andthe
remainingbonyportioncoveredinclayuptoand
overthebasesof thehorncores.Thehorncoresthem
selvesboretracesof plaster,althoughitisunclearif
theplastercoveredthemcompletely.Thebucranium
seemstobepartof apredepositionallydismantled
installation(Russell,Pawlowska,andTwiss2004).
measurements
Measurementsweretakenontheskullandonthe
teethwhenpossible(table1).Thesemeasurements
shouldbetakenasapproximationsratherthanaspre
209335223.002.png
2006
AMODIFIEDBOARSKULLFROMÇATALHÖYÜK
3
Fig. 1. The modified boar skull.
Fig. 2. The skull, cleaned so that the removal of the cheek teeth is visible.
cisedimensionsduetothefragmentarynatureof the
specimen.Thebreadthof thelowerthirdmolarwas
nottaken.
2005:63,65).Theyarefoundinhigherpropor
tions(6percentofidentifiedtaxa)intheoffmound
KOPAL(KOnyaPlainPALaeoenvironmental
Project)areathantheyareinanyareaonthemound
itself,wheretheyrangefrom1to5percentofiden
tifiedspecimens(RussellandMartin2005:62–63,
fig.2.1).
Measurementstakenonthesuidremainsfrom
Çatalhöyükindicatethattheanimalswere,onaver
age,slightlylargerthanwildspecimensfromtheeast
ernAnatolianNeolithicsiteof Çayönü(Hongoand
contextualizing the find
Sus scrofa (boars/pigs)appearthroughouttheÇa
talhöyükNeolithicsequenceinlownumbers.Their
scarcityisamatterofsomesurprise,inasmuchasthe
marshyenvironssurroundingthesiteshouldhave
beenwellsuitedtotheseanimals(RussellandMartin
209335223.003.png
4
KATHERYNC.TWISS
BASOR342
Table 1. Measurements(inmm)
Measurement
Size (mm)
Notes
Lengthof rightM 3 ,takenatocclusalsurface
41.9
Lengthaccuratetowithin1mm
Lengthof gonioncaudale–infradentale
360
Measurementestimated
Lengthof gonioncaudale–aboralborderof thealveolusof M 3
104.9
Measurementestimated
Heightof themandiblebehindM 3 (onthebuccalside)
53
Measurementquiteestimated
Source:MeasurementsarevondenDrieschs(1976) Sus mandiblemeasurements1,3,16a.
Table 2. ÇatalhöyükLowerThirdMolars(M 3 s)
General Identification Number
Length of M 3
at Occlusal Surface
Breadth of M 3
at Occlusal Surface
3740.F470
38.4
20*
5290.F2654
45
19.1
2268.F121
45.8
19.6
2223.F1
47.3
18
BOAR SKULL
41.9*
—
Average
43.7
19.2
*Measurementestimated
Table 3. LowerThirdMolarMeasurementsCompared
Site
Date
(cal bc)
Number
of Specimens
Range Mean
Reference
HallanÇemi
10,100–9200
5
38.4–41.9 40.5 ReddingandRosenberg1998
Çayönü
(by
phase)
GrillBuilding
8200–8100
2
44–48.1
46.1 HongoandMeadow1998;2000
ChanneledBuilding
8100–8000
3
40.4–44.5 42.0
CobblePavedBuilding 8000–7600?
7
36–45.2
40.7
CellBuilding
7600–7300
9
37.8–43.6 40.8
PotteryNeolithic
7000–6500?
3
38–39.4
38.6
ÇatalhöyükEast
7400–6000
6
38.4–47.3 43.7 RussellandMartin2005
Çatalhöyükmodifiedboarskull
6450–6100
1
41.9
Meadow2000:fig.8;RussellandMartin2005:63).
Thenumberof measurablepigremainsfromÇatal
höyükislow(RussellandMartinsanalysisisbased
on20postcranialbonesand5teeth),butatthistime
theyallpointtoawildpopulation.Thisinterpreta
tionisfurthersupportedbythefactthat69percent
( n =22)of the32sexableboarcaninesaremale.The
suitabilityof malecaninesforworkingandcuration
mayhaveskewedtheassemblage.Nonetheless,the
patternof sexdistributiondoesnotmatchtheexpected
profileof amanagedherd,whichshouldinclude
higherproportionsof females(RussellandMartin
2005:63).
TheboarskullsM 3 measurementaccordswell
withthosetakenonothersuidthirdmolarsfromÇa
talhöyük(table2)aswellasmeasurementsonteeth
fromthesoutheasternAnatolianNeolithicsiteof
ÇayönüandfromtheprotoNeolithicsiteof Hallan
Çemi(table3).Interestingly,althoughtheÇatal
höyükboarskulldatestothePotteryNeolithic,its
209335223.004.png
2006
AMODIFIEDBOARSKULLFROMÇATALHÖYÜK
5
M 3 lengthismoreinlinewithmeasurementsonteeth
fromÇayönüsearlierlevelsthanwithteethfromthe
PotteryNeolithic,whenÇayönüssuidpopulation
wasbyandlargedomesticated(Ervyncketal.2001:
70;HongoandMeadow2000:table7).
Itisclear,furthermore,thatevenallowingforsome
minormeasurementinaccuracyduetothetoothsstate
of preservation,theM 3 measurementfromtheÇatal
höyükboarskulliswellabovethemaximumdo
mesticpigthirdmolarlengthmeasurementof either
34.5mm(Mayer,Novak,andBrisbin1998:table2)
or40mm(HongoandMeadow2000:134;Stampfli
1983:447),aswellastheminimumwildboarlength
of 36.3–38.3mm(Flannery1983:170;Mayer,Novak,
andBrisbin1998:table2).
Themodifiedskullthusappearstobethatof a
wildboar.Itisnotaparticularlylargespecimenby
TurkishNeolithicstandards;whatevermotivatedthe
inhabitantsof Çatalhöyüktoselectthisspecificani
malforsuchunusualtreatment,itwasnotitssize.
Thesizeof theuppercaninesaswellasthatof the
lowercaninealveoliindicatethattheanimalwas
male,butclearlyitwasnotoneof theextremely
largemalesknowntohavebeenpresentintheregion
(e.g.,HongoandMeadow2000)andatÇatalhöyük
itself.
totellfromdescriptionsandphotographsfromthe
Mellaartexcavationswhetherbonesorhornswereac
tuallyfoundinarchitecturalinstallations,orwhether
theywerepresumedtohavebeenthereonthebasis
of eitheremptyspacesoranalogytootherfinds(Rus
sellandMeece2005:210).
Moredirectlyrelevanttothecaseathandisthe
groupof 13boarmandiblesinstalledintworowson
theeastwallof BuildingVIA.8.Thesemandibles
seematfirsttohavebeenexposed,onlytobecov
eredbymoundsof plasteraftersufferingfiredamage
(Mellaart1963:69).RussellandMeece(2005:220)
proposethatthecoveringmightnothavebeena
responsetoafire,buthavesimplybeenpartof the
regularreplasteringof thewall,whichtheyargue
wouldmeanthatthemandibleswereconsidered
merelypartof thewall.Alternatively,Russellsug
gests,themoundsmighthavebeenpreservativecov
ers,conservingthepotencyof powerfulobjects(N.
Russell,personalcommunication2005).
SinglejawsalsooccurinlumpsonBuildings
VIB.10andVII.21(Mellaart1964:66;Russelland
Meece2005:220).Mellaartidentifiedthesemounds
asrepresentingwomensbreasts,althoughthisiden
tificationhasbeenchallenged(RussellandMeece
2005:220).Similarplastermounds,mostof which
containedassortedothermammalianandavianre
mains,havebeenfoundelsewhereatthesiteinLev
elsVIandVII.
Additionalboarbonedepositsincludethreeman
diblesplacedintheburialof awomaninBuilding
VII.14andascapulafoundinapitinaplatform
(F.424,LevelVIII)inBuilding6,alongwithlarge
piecesof goathorncoreandantler(Mellaart1966a:
27,fig.6;RussellandMeece2005:221).
BoarsaredepictedinlimitednumbersintheÇa
talhöyükart.Theyappearrarelyinpaintings:of the
approximately200animalrepresentationsidentified
byRussellandMeece,onlyfourareof suids.All
comefromasinglebuildinginLevelV(F.V.1).This
buildingcontainednumerousimagesof animals,in
cludingthefamedlargebullsurroundedbysmall
humanfigures,aswellasseveraldeerandequids
(Mellaart1966b:186–90,fig.10).Oneboarappears
oneachwallof thebuilding.
Asforotherformsof artisticrepresentationatthe
site,noneof theanimalsrepresentedintheÇatal
höyükreliefsisaboar.Acarvedbonedaggerhandle
maydepictaboarshead,andacompletecaninefrom
amaleboarmayhavebeendeliberatelyplacedon
animal installations and
suid iconography at çatalhöyük
Animalremainswereregularlyincorporatedinto
theÇatalhöyükartandarchitecture.Bones,horns,
andantlersweresetintowalls,pillars,benches,and
reliefs;theywerealsoplacedinpits,trenches,and
burials,aswellasonfloors.Manyof theseremains
weremodifiedpriortoinstallation:forinstance,cat
tleskullswerecommonlyreducedtofrontlets,i.e.,
justtheirhornsandtheinterveningportionof frontal
bone.Theremainswerefrequentlycoveredinplaster
orclay,althoughmanyeitherremainedbareorwere
shieldedbysomematerialthatdidnotpreserve.
Mostfamousamongthesefaunalinstallationsare
thesitesnumerousbucrania(cattleskullsandcranial
fragments);firstdiscoveredduringMellaartsorigi
nalexcavationsatthesite,perhapsahundredhave
beenidentifiedsofar.Numbersareextremelydiffi
culttocomeby,asitisnotalwayspossibletotell
whetherfragmentarycattlecranialremainsarethe
remnantsof adismantledbucraniumorsimplybutch
eredrefuse.Furthermore,itisnotalwayspossible
209335223.001.png

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin