Area 808
Main Information
| Area ID | 808 |
| Site |
Pınarbaşı B |
| Area type | cave or rockshelter |
| Area NR | |
| Period | Anatolia: Middle Neolithic Anatolia: Late Neolithic |
| Dating method | material culture radiocarbon dating |
| Radiocarbon dated | yes |
| Earliest date: Lab Number | |
| Earliest date: 14C age (BP) | |
| Earliest date: Calibration | None |
| Earliest date: 14C age calibrated (BC) | |
| Earliest date: Date of calibration | None |
| Earliest date: Standard deviation | None |
| Earliest date: Delta 13C | None |
| Earliest date: Dated by | |
| Latest date: Lab Number | |
| Latest date: 14C age (BP) | |
| Latest date: Calibration | None |
| Latest date: 14C age calibrated (BC) | |
| Latest date: Date of calibration | None |
| Latest date: Standard deviation | None |
| Latest date: Delta 13C | None |
| Latest date: Dated by | |
| Period Reference |
Özdoğan, Mehmet, The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations & New Research. Central Turkey, None, None Baird, D., Pınarbaşı. From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia; Istanbul 2012, None, None Watkins, T., Excavations at Pınarbaşı: the early stages; Cambridge 1996, None, None Cessford, C.; Carter, T., Quantifying the Consumption of Obsidian at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, 2005, |
| Comment | In the rock shelter of Area B, remains from the 7th millennium cal. BC were excavated; occupation contemporary with the Pottery Neolithic Levels V-0 of Çatalhöyük East; occupation dates to 6500-6000 cal. BC; |
| Settlement type | None |
| Settlement structure | |
| Settlement building type | |
| Settlement building shape | |
| Settlement building technique | |
| Settlement archaeological features | |
| Cave/rockshelters type | rock shelter |
| Cave/rockshelters: Evidence of graves/human remains | |
| Cave/rockshelters: Evidence of occupation |
hearth pit |
| Quarry exploitation type | None |
| Quarry raw material | |
| Cemetery/graves topography | |
| Cemetery/graves mortuary features | |
| Grave: number of graves | |
| Grave type | |
| Grave: type of human remains | |
| Grave: estimated number of individuals | |
| Grave: age groups | |
| Grave: sexes | |
| Grave: number of female sex | None |
| Grave: number of male sex | None |
| Grave: number of not specified sex | None |
| Grave: disturbance of graves | |
| Description | An occupation-area was excavated in Area B, in the same rock shelter that was occupied in the Epi-Paleolithic. It overlay 1,2 m of debris (rock face collapse). 2 Phases of activity were distinguished. Earlier phase: series of large irregularly oval cuts (fire pits), filled with a mass of stone and bone material (from food preparation and consumption as well as other activities); the features were cut into by a ca. 80 cm deep curvilinear scoop that ran between 2 projecting shoulders of the rock face, and the upper edge of the cut was lined with courses of stones, forming a walled enclosure against the rock face; initial phases of this structure maybe were a habitation structure; several phases of reconstructed hearths and an oven were in built into wall; little structural debris was found in- or outside of this structures, but a mass of reed phytoliths indicates maybe a light superstructure made of reeds; a range of debris accumulated in the structure over time, some from occupation in the area, some from dumped material at abandonment; the structure was occupied repeatedly, perhaps more intensely in earlier phases and it might have been an animal pen in some phases, but the spherulites are in low density and the character of the deposits is very different to penning deposits at Çatalhöyük, so this theory is less likely; the difference in building technique to Çatalhöyük indicates that this site was used as a seasonal camp-site. Animal remains from this site: aurochs, equids (probably hunted; also indicated by obsidian projectile points that were recovered, similar to those from Çatalhöyük); the animal finds indicate a significance of hunting; the animals were probably butchered on site, but components of large animals were taken away (either to further camp-sites or sedentary villages); bird bones were found, especially from wetland species; domestic sheep remains (from fills within the structure); the many sheep fetuses indicate death and/or killing of pregnant ewes along with dead neonates --> that may suggest resource stress, e.g. fodder shortage or human-related local resource restrictions, or on the other hand plentiful stock; there were also dead sheep neonates, which could represent strategies related to enhancing milk yield for human consumption, but its efficacy is debatable; also bones of 13 to 16 month old sheep were found --> indicates a seasonal signature for February to April; perinatal remains and shed deciduous teeth of lambs suggest that the animals were kept in close proximity to the camp-sites; caprine remains (and remains of young fox and migratory birds) suggest autumn to early spring culling the animal remains suggest that this was a regular camp-site for hunters and herders; Plant remains: carbonized as well as phytoliths --> carbonized wood was plentiful here; rarely cultivated cereals and legumes (carbonized or phytoliths) found; quantities of wetland plants (used for bedding, as fibers or animal fodder); terebinth and almond wood was used for campfires and ovens, but nuts from those plants were uncommon; ground stone grinding tools were rare (only one documented), therefore plant food acquisition and processing was probably not important at this site; Chipped stone: 90% of the material was obsidian (similar to contemporary Çatalhöyük in material, similar reduction strategies and tool types, including pressure blade and single platform direct percussion blade production and opposed platform blade production; flakes are also common); on-site production of blades and flakes from opposed platform irregular small cores; knapping was limited (because of low densities of the chipped stones), but it was carried out --> quantities of micro-debitage, also flakes from biface production from occasional knapping episodes; much of the larger knapping product was removed, both from the rock shelter and the site; there was biface and point production, small blades and flakes from irregular bidirectional cores; no direct evidence for pressure blade production was discovered, lots of the found blade products of pressure technique were brought on site, were used here and then discarded; Pınarbaşı was a discontinuously occupied hunter-herder camp-site; there were both finished and partially prepared or reduced raw material or blanks found; Shells: there were shell beads, e.g. from the Mediterranean Nassarius gibbosulus; but there were also two large shells that weren't beads; one of them came from the Southern Gulfs (the Red Sea or Persian Gulf region); they probably were precious and symbolically significant items; Plaster Object: a series of plaster objects contained animal bones, and they included geometric items (ovoids and larger or less regular shapes), comparable to the association of plaster and bones at Çatalhöyük, but in different forms; --> none of the material derived from fixtures on structures, some of the plastic objects were finished products; in Çatalhöyük, specific elements of specific species were incorporated into installations and clay cones in structures, especially the dangerous bits of wild animals; in Pınarbaşı, it was a little bit different: the most common species are well represented and incorporated into plaster objects, i.e. herded sheep, hunted aurochs, and equids, there were no preferences for specific elements of the animals; in Pınarbaşı sheep feet, equid jaws, elements of long bones were incorporated in plaster objects, and these seem to be deposited in distinct clutches, placed within the general fill but in undistinguished contexts; the plaster of the objects fills up the cavities of the bones --> the bones were largely defleshed when the wet plaster was shaped around them. It is suggested that the plastering took place as post-consumption rituals. Relationships with Çatalhöyük: maybe a task group from sedentary village communities from the area settled here, either from Çatalhöyük or Can Hasan I, but maybe it was just groups of mobile hunters-herders that co-existed with sedentary villagers; maybe the inhabitants had close relations to Çatalhöyük; there was definitely contact between the two sites, the distance between them was traveled regularly (much of the andesite in Çatalhöyük comes from the Pınarbaşı area) --> it is plausible that people from Çatalhöyük used the Pınarbaşı rock shelter, but in relatively small groups (maybe young to middle aged males --> comparable to the wall painting scenes from Çatalhöyük); |
| Comment |
Location of the Site
Bibliography
Finds in this Area
| Finds |
ID 1963 small finds jewellery ID 1964 animal remains ID 1965 botany ID 1966 lithics ID 1967 small finds tool |
Interpretations related to this Area