Private pantries and celebrated surplus:

storing and sharing food at Neolithic

Research
Çatalhöyük, Central Anatolia
Amy Bogaard1 , Michael Charles2 , Katheryn C. Twiss3 , Andrew
Fairbairn4 , Nurcan Yalman5 , Dragana Filipović1 , G. Arzu Demirergi3 ,
Füsun Ertuğ6 , Nerissa Russell7 & Jennifer Henecke3

In the Neolithic megasite at Çatalhöyük families lived side by side in conjoined dwellings, like a
pueblo. It can be assumed that people were always in and out of each others’ houses – in this case
via the roof. Social mechanisms were needed to make all this run smoothly, and in a tour-de-force
of botanical, faunal and spatial analysis the authors show how it worked. Families stored their
own produce of grain, fruit, nuts and condiments in special bins deep inside the house, but
displayed the heads and horns of aurochs near the entrance. While the latter had a religious
overtone they also remembered feasts, episodes of sharing that mitigated the provocations of a full
larder.
Keywords: Turkey, Çatalhöyük, Neolithic, social strategy, spatial analysis, botany, fauna

Introduction
Food storage practice has often played a key role in accounts of early farming. In a seminal
paper, Flannery (1972) identified household storage as the defining characteristic of early
agricultural villages; through private storage, households formally took on the risks and
rewards of producing for their own use (see also Rollefson 1997; Flannery 2002; Banning
2003). This generalised understanding anticipates the emergence of modular farming
households with their own storage space in different parts of the world, but it does not
account for fundamental differences in the nature of the two dietary mainstays, plants and
animals.
For practical reasons, plant- and animal-derived foods tend to be stored differently. In
the absence of refrigeration, animals, especially large ones (e.g. cattle-size), are commonly

1
School of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford, OX1 2PG, UK
2
Department of Archaeology, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK
3
Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA
4
The University of Queensland, School of Social Science, Michie Building, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
5
Caddebostan Cemiltopuzlu Cad. 79/5, Pınar Apt. Istanbul, Turkey
6
Orhangazi caddesi, Kumbaşı yolu no 109, Iznik Bursa, Turkey
7
Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Received: 29 September 2008; Accepted: 27 November 2008; Revised: 16 January 2009
ANTIQUITY 83 (2009): 649–668
649
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

shared beyond the co-residential household (e.g. Schneider 1957; Binford 1978; Ertuğ-
Yaraş 1997: 355; Hayden 2003; Halstead 2007). By contrast, the particulate nature
and long shelf-life of seeds, nuts, dried fruits and other plant parts suits them to
piecemeal consumption and individualised storage (e.g. Lee 1973; Kramer 1982: 100;
Imamura 1996: 104; Ertuğ-Yaraş 1997: 89-92). We suggest that the combination
of plant storage and animal sharing was a fundamental strategy for negotiating the
conflicting social and economic demands of sedentism in south-west Asia and elsewhere,
and one that was variously reinterpreted and formalised as populations shifted towards
farming and herding (cf. Byrd 1994; Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002; Banning 2003; Kuijt
2004).
Across the south-west Asian agricultural transition, it is possible to discern continuity
in plant storage/animal sharing alongside increasing formalisation of storage (Table 1,
Figure 1). A good baseline is Hallan Çemi, a sedentary hunting-gathering site in eastern
Anatolia, where display of an aurochs skull and arrangement of wild sheep crania may reflect
animal sharing, while concentrations of almonds suggest small-scale plant storage and/or
consumption (Rosenberg et al. 1995; Rosenberg & Redding 2000). In the contemporaneous
southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), as cultivation became integral to food
production strategies, rarely-preserved direct evidence confirms significant plant storage at
the household level: House 11 at Gilgal I contained baskets of seeds/grains including likely
cultivated oats and barley (Noy 1989; Weiss et al. 2006). However, storage appears to have
been variably scaled and formalised. Built features (bins, raised floor ‘granaries’) potentially
dedicated to plant storage were irregularly scattered both inside and outside dwellings, and
not all houses had them; enigmatic structures found at Jericho, Jerf el Ahmar and Mureybet
may or may not have served for ‘communal’ storage (Stordeur et al. 2001; Kuijt & Goring-
Morris 2002: 373; Twiss 2008; Kuijt & Finlayson 2009). Evidence for direct storage of
meat is lacking, but storage in the form of social sharing is suggested by display of aurochs
crania at Mureybet and Jerf el Ahmar (Cauvin 1994: 46; Helmer et al. 2004: 151; Twiss
2008).
Greater formalisation of household storage is evident in the proliferation of built storage
features (clay bins, ‘silos’) as reliance on agriculture intensified during the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B (PPNB) (e.g. Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002). Increasingly ‘private’ storage is
evident as well, with southern Levantine bins migrating from Middle PPNB transitional
porch- or anteroom-like spaces to the inner recesses of Late PPNB compartmentalised
houses (Wright 2000). Bin contents are generally not preserved, but occasional charred
plant stores confirm this trend. At ’Ain Ghazal, lentils, peas and barley were stored in a
corner near the door of Middle PPNB House 12, whereas lentils and peas in the Late PPNB
Terraced House are associated with its collapsed upper storey (Rollefson & Simmons 1986:
152, Figure 9; Rollefson 1997: 291). Meanwhile, evidence for animal sharing is extensive:
at least eight aurochsen were packed into a single, capped pit at Kfar HaHoresh. Other
features potentially symbolising meat-sharing include deposits such as four goat crania
and one Bos skull in a building at Ghwair I (Simmons & Najjar 2006; Goring-Morris &
Horwitz 2007). Such displays are not a new phenomenon: Özdoğan (1999: 52, Figure 24)
has specifically suggested that display of an aurochs skull in a supposed public building at
late PPNB Çayönü reflects continuity of practice from Hallan Çemi. Finally, combined

650
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Table 1. Chronology of the Neolithic Levant, with comments on subsistence and storage practice at
selected sites. PPN = ‘Pre-Pottery Neolithic’; LN = ‘Late (Pottery) Neolithic’. Unless shown below,
site references are given in the text.
Southern and Calibrated 14 C Plant and/or animal

Research
northern Levant years BC Selected sites Subsistence storage evidence

Late 9700-8500 Hallan Çemi*; Gathering, Caching of almonds,

Epipalaeolithic/ Gilgal I cultivation at display of aurochs
PPNA some sites; skull, arrangement
hunting of wild sheep crania
in open area at
Hallan Çemi; plant
storage in baskets
inside house at
Gilgal 1
Early-Middle 8500-8100 Yiftahel, Kfar Origins of an Display of cattle and
PPNB (EPPNB) HaHoresh, integrated other animal skulls,
Ghwair, ’Ain farming feasting deposits;
Ghazal, economy, with formalisation and
Çayönü increasing privatisation of
Middle PPNB 8100-7250 reliance on plant storage
(MPPNB) crop cultivation
Late PPNB 7250-6700 and caprine
(LPPNB) herding
through time
PPNC 6600-6250 ’Ain Ghazal, Intensive reliance Built household
Atlit-Yam on plant and storage but no in
animal situ plant or animal
domesticates evidence; coastal fish
processing for
storage (Galili et al.
1993)
LN 6250-5850 Sha’ar HaGolan Built storage in
courtyard house
complexes but no in
situ plant or animal
evidence
*Sedentary hunter-gatherer site lacking evidence for cultivation/domesticates.

private storage of plants and display of animal parts is suggested at PPNB Yiftahel by
indoor storage of pulses (broad beans in a clay ‘silo’ and lentils in a perishable container)
and placement of gazelle horn cores in an adjacent courtyard (Garfinkel 1987: 205-6,
Figure 6).
Our research focus is Çatalhöyük in Central Anatolia: this extensive settlement dates
primarily to the Late (Pottery) Neolithic (LN) (Table 2), but in size and density of occupation
it more closely resembles Late PPNB megasites than it does contemporaneous occupations
such as the isolated farmstead of Tabaqat al-Bûma or dispersed LN ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson
1997: 298; Banning 1998: 218, 221-2). The best Late Neolithic comparison is Sha’ar

651
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

Figure 1. Map showing sites mentioned in the paper (drawing by Alison Wilkins).

HaGolan (Garfinkel & Miller 2002), but here courtyard-house complexes with storerooms
suggest large-scale private storage for extended families, in distinct contrast to the small
houses (c . 30m2 on average) and households at Çatalhöyük (e.g. Düring 2007).

652
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Table 2. Chronology of Çatalhöyük in the context of the Central

Anatolian Neolithic (Özbaşaran & Buitenhuis 2002; Cessford et al.
2005). ECA = ‘Early Central Anatolian’.
Central Anatolia Çatalhöyük East Levels Calibrated 14 C years BC

Research
ECA II Pre XIID–XII/ IX 9000-7500
ECA III IIIA XII/IX–VIB 7500-6700/6600
IIIB VIA–0 6700/6600-6000

Food storage at Çatalhöyük: the available dataset

Two lines of archaeological evidence are commonly used to infer storage practice: ecofactual
concentrations and built storage facilities. In situ concentrations of plant and animal remains
constitute direct evidence of ancient storage practice; built facilities are indirect evidence.
Additional inferences regarding storage may derive from the nature and scale of food
preparation activities such as plant processing or animal dismemberment and distribution.
Excavation of the 13ha mound at Çatalhöyük East has revealed a long-lived community
of houses densely packed into neighbourhoods, groupings that presumably reflect shared
social ties/affiliation, with open midden areas between them (Mellaart 1967; Düring 2006;
Hodder 2006). Built storage features – clay bins of various forms – occur in most houses
(Mellaart 1967: 62; Cessford 2007; Farid 2007). The architecture and storage features pose
immediate questions regarding the negotiation of domestic storage and inter-house sharing.
At the end of their use-life, houses at Çatalhöyük were often scoured out, symbolically
important features (such as horned cattle skulls and other animal installations) dismantled,
structural posts removed, walls levelled and rooms filled in with relatively clean soil. In some
cases, abandonment included the placement of artefacts (Hodder 2007: 32-3). Cleaned and
abandoned buildings provide sparse evidence (e.g. dirty floors, oven rake-outs) of plant- and
animal-related activities during the life of the house. Some buildings, however, burned with
animal installations and other high-density animal and plant deposits in situ. While it is
possible that such buildings’ primary deposits reflect abandonment behaviour, their place-
ments of cattle horn installations, collections of bone-working materials, and plant stores
provide insight into the cultural principles that guided actual practice (Twiss et al. 2008).
One recently uncovered burned house, Building 52, provides the best opportunity so
far found at the site for using spatial distribution of in situ plant and animal remains to
investigate storage practice (Figure 2) (Twiss et al. 2008, in press). In the same neighbourhood
as Building 52, Building 1 was partially burnt in several phases (Cessford 2007) and
also offers relevant insights. 1960s excavations in the South Area uncovered a number of
burnt structures (Mellaart 1967). Analysis of the distribution of animal installations in
these buildings, together with re-analysis of samples taken from botanical concentrations
(Fairbairn et al. forthcoming), adds valuable spatial and chronological breadth.
The socioeconomic significance of Çatalhöyük’s household storage capacities (bin volume,
floor space) is illuminated by comparison with ethnographic data from Central Anatolia
(Ertuğ-Yaraş 1997; Yalman 2005a & b) and beyond (Watson 1979; Kramer 1982). Due to
the complexity of this enquiry, we rely on buildings documented by the current excavations,
though new research into buildings from Çatalhöyük’s 1960s excavations is ongoing.

653
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

Figure 2a. Plan of excavation areas at Çatalhöyük (drawing by Alison Wilkins).

This ethnoarchaeological approach reveals important similarities and differences between

Neolithic and present-day contexts.

Building 52
Building 52’s layout (Figure 3) and distribution of in situ plant and animal deposits have
been detailed elsewhere (Twiss et al. 2008, in press); they are summarised here (Table 3).
Primary deposits of plant and animal remains were recovered from the western half of the
main space (94) and from a bin-lined room, space 93, to its north. The building’s other
spaces were cleared out or badly eroded. GIS mapping of the densities of botanical and
faunal remains in spaces 93 and 94 (Figure 4) reveals similarities and differences in their
distribution. In situ botanical deposits occur only in space 93 and are concentrated in the
bins; additional concentrations on the floor and in the overlying room fill appear to reflect
bundles that hung overhead (Table 3). Animal deposits consist largely of concentrations
of raw materials in space 93 and cattle horn core displays in space 94 (Table 3). The use
of plants and animals, as food or as raw materials, consumable versus non-consumable,
appears to have guided their placement in these two spaces (Figure 5). Considering the
probable location of the house entrance (Figure 3), it appears that storage of consumables
was relatively inaccessible and invisible, whereas the horned bench and bucranium were
positioned to be seen immediately by those entering the room.

654
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Research

Figure 2b. Buildings revealed by 1993-4 surface scraping in the northern part of the site combined with excavation in the
‘40x40’, North and Bach areas. The locations of Building 52 and Building 1 are indicated. Large midden areas are shaded
black (drawing by Alison Wilkins).

655
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

Figure 3. Plan of Building 52. 2008 excavations suggest that spaces 91-2 were not in use at the time of the building’s
destruction by fire (drawing by Alison Wilkins).

Space 94’s cattle installations can be interpreted as a way of ‘storing up’ and representing
past consumption events – given the size of the animals concerned, as well as over-
representation of cattle in the site’s feasting deposits, almost certainly including the sharing
out of meat beyond the co-residential household (Russell & Martin 2005). Plant stores and
other materials in the bin-lined room were likely intended for use by the household; total
bin volume of the room is consistent with this inference (see below). In Building 52, we
thus discern literal storage of plant foods in a secluded part of the house alongside symbolic
storage of cattle in its main occupation space.

656
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Table 3. Summary of in situ plant and animal deposits in Building 52 (Twiss et al. 2008, in press).
Space Feature Plants Animals

93 Bin 2002 Naked barley grain, almonds Antler tool

Research
and free-threshing wheat grain
Bin 2003 Naked barley grain Worked antler piece (tool
preform?); varied bones (raw
material storage, meal
consumption, perhaps ritual
deposition)
Bin 2004 Peas, wild mustard, other wild In situ: wild boar mandible, red
seeds and cereal material deer antler tine, five worked
cattle-sized rib shaft fragments;
charred mouse pellets and burnt
mouse bones
Collapse from above: wild boar
mandible, antler tine
Bin 2005 Wild mustard empty
Floor Cereal grain and wild mustard Caprine metapodia cluster (raw
materials for bone working)
Room fill Cereal grain and wild mustard Cattle skull fragment, including
horn core
94 Bucranium N/A Partial skull of a large bull set into a
niche
Horned bench N/A 3 left-hand horn cores set into one
side of a plastered bench; no
evidence for right-hand-side
horn-cores on the other side of
the bench.

Building 1
Like Building 52, Building 1 belongs to the middle of Çatalhöyük’s occupation sequence.
Its exceptionally high number of subfloor burials (>60 individuals, many more than would
have inhabited the house) suggest a special status in its neighbourhood (Cessford 2007:
405-530). Burning in Building 1 was more episodic and complex than in Building 52,
but patterning of plant and animal remains in the main burning phase is in some ways
comparable (Figure 6). A single cattle horn was set into the wall of a central room, where the
remains of a dismantled bucranium were also found, while plant concentrations including
lentils, acorns and wild mustard seeds were primarily found in side rooms (Fairbairn et al.
2005: 157-9; Russell & Martin 2005: 48; Cessford 2007: 455-89, Figures 12.49, 12.52,
12.59-60). A layer of lentils was also found in a bin-like feature in a central space, together
with a caprine scapula and at least 13 wild goat horns; two cattle bones were subsequently
placed there as well (Fairbairn et al. 2005: 159; Russell & Martin 2005: 77-8; Cessford
2007: 479-82, Figure 12.55). Fragments of lentil pod and stalk are interspersed with these
lentils, indicating that they were not fully cleaned (Filipović unpublished data). Such co-
occurrence of plant and animal remains recalls the mixed contents of the bins in Building

657
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

Figure 4. Densities of (a) botanical and (b) faunal remains in spaces 93-4, Building 52.

Figure 5. Densities of (a) consumable and (b) non-consumable plant and animal parts in spaces 93-4, Building 52.

658
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Research
Figure 6. Plan of Building 1 – dotted lines encircle ecofactual concentrations discussed in the text (drawing by Alison Wilkins,
after Cessford 2007: Figure 12.52).

52, as do the cattle crania in a central space and the plant concentrations in side rooms.
Building 1 appears to diverge from Building 52’s pattern in the central-space storage of
partially processed pulses; the bin’s form and construction were also unusual. Intriguingly,
the excavator viewed the ‘bin’ contents as deliberate abandonment placements, not in situ
stores (Cessford 2007: 479-82).

Plants and animals in Mellaart’s burnt structures

How typical, then, is Building 52 of the mid-Neolithic sequence at Çatalhöyük, or of the
site as a whole? James Mellaart excavated a number of burnt buildings with in situ horned
installations, usually from cattle and variously placed in the main room (1967; Russell &
Meece 2005). These tend to cluster in certain buildings and are particularly numerous
towards the middle of the Neolithic sequence. Mellaart also encountered a number of
plant stores burnt in situ. The information available for each sample is variable, but several
burnt buildings sampled by Mellaart can be usefully compared with Buildings 52 and 1
(Table 4). Most significant plant stores occur in side rooms of multi-roomed structures,
and well-sampled buildings contain a range of plant foods, including cereals, pulses, wild
mustard and/or wild fruits/nuts such as acorn and almond. Here again, a general contrast
between concealed plant stores and displays of cattle horns is evident. Though most of these
structures belong to Mellaart’s Level VI, a Level II building appears to indicate continuity
in the common pattern. Yet there are also exceptions: a significant pulse store in the main

659
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

Table 4. Summary of charred plant stored and animal installations in well documented burned
buildings excavated by Mellaart (Fairbairn et al. forthcoming). Text in square brackets signifies only
small quantities were found.
Location of plant stores Location of animal art
Mellaart Main room with
Level House status platforms etc Side room Main room

A II 1 Shrine [Grain in hearth; Grain Bull pillar

other small
deposits of grain
and pulses]
A VI * 1 (main) & Shrine Acorns, almonds, Horned bench
2 (ante) pulses, grain,
wild seeds
E VI 1 Shrine Grain, acorns, Wall paintings
mustard
E VI 14 (main) Shrine Pulses (Bitter Many grain and Bucrania
& 17 vetch) mustard samples
(ante)
E VI 34 Pulses
E VI 44 Leopard [Wild mustard, Grain Leopard reliefs
shrine grain]
E VII 24 (main) Grain
& 25
(ante)
A IIIˆ 4 Grain and wild Bull pillar
grasses
E VIˆ 2 Wheat and pulses
∗
Later re-classified as E VI 61 and E VI 62.
ˆSingle room house.

room of one Level VI building (Table 4) echoes the deposition of partially processed lentils
in the main space of Building 1.

Bins and side rooms at Çatalhöyük

Clay bins are a feature of most houses throughout the occupation sequence, tending to occur
in side rooms and often in clusters of three or more, though there are exceptions (Figure 7,
Table 5) (Mellaart 1967: 62; Cessford 2007; Farid 2007). Bin form is variable: some appear
to have had permanent openings that could be ‘plugged’, while others were sealed over with
clay when new harvests were cached. Sealed/plugged bins were well protected from mice,
attested by microfaunal analysis and the widespread occurrence of charred mouse pellets
elsewhere (e.g. in open bins of Buildings 52 and 1 – Twiss et al. 2008; Filipović unpublished
data).
Yet bins only represent a portion of potential plant storage. Phytolith traces and plaster
impressions indicate the use of perishable storage containers (Rosen 2005), both inside and
outside bins (Figure 8), while occasional botanical clusters appear to derive from suspended
bundles that fell from the rafters (Atalay & Hastorf 2006). In Building 52, caching of wild

660
 Amy Bogaard et al.

mustard seed in a sealed bin coincided with

concentrations of the same seeds outside the
bin, suggesting that a sealed cache would be
opened when other supplies ran out. The

Research
contents of storerooms would have changed
through the year as different foods became
available and stores were used up (Ertuğ-
Yaraş 1997: 89-92; Atalay & Hastorf 2006).
Though bin volume is inevitably an
underestimate of storage capacity, it is
notable that the average bin volume for
houses excavated by the current project
centres around 1m3 (Table 5). Volume
estimates depend on original bin height,
which is usually not preserved, but an
assumed diameter: height ratio (c . 1:1.25)
approximating the fully preserved bin
dimensions of Building 5 gives an average
of 1200 litres (1.2m3 ), with most houses
exceeding 800-1000 litres. A cubic metre
would accommodate nearly a ton of cereal
grain or similarly concentrated plant food,
which approximates the annual staple
requirement of a small-scale family (c . 5-
7 people) (Clark & Haswell 1966: 49;
Forbes 1982: 356; Kramer 1982: 37, 121,
Table 2.3; Yalman 2005a). Individual bins
at Çatalhöyük are generally smaller than the
large wheat bins (individually around 1m3 )
in Carol Kramer’s ethnoarchaeological
Figure 7. Clay bins excavated at Çatalhöyük: a) Building 5, study of a village in western Iran (1982:
Space 156; b) Building 77, space 337; c) Building 52, space 121). The clusters of smaller bins at
93 (photographs by Jason Quinlan; copyright  c Çatalhöyük Çatalhöyük, and their diversity of in situ
Research Project).
plant stores, suggest that the diet was based
on a range of wild and cultivated species
rather than on a single staple. The plain appearance of the Çatalhöyük bins also contrasts
with decorated examples in western Iran (Watson 1979: 262, Figure 5.42; Kramer 1982:
100, Figure 4.11), as well as with recent eastern Anatolian containers for wheat flour
(Figure 9). This lack of decorative elaboration is consistent with avoidance of botanical
display, in distinct contrast to the site’s extensive faunal iconography.
Houses at Çatalhöyük show significant variation in bin capacity, ranging from less than
200 to over 2000 litres (Figure 10a, Table 5). Such interhousehold variation in capacity is
not inherently surprising: ethnoarchaeological studies of village communities in Anatolia
and elsewhere have documented considerable variation in number of bins per household

661
 Table 5. Bin and side room data for well documented buildings from the current excavations at Çatalhöyük (for archive reports, see
www.catalhoyuk.com). [ ] = provisional since side rooms not excavated; preserv = ‘preservation’, unexc = ‘unexcavated’.
Used for Internal Side
Used for bin side room No. bin floor room
Area Building calculations? area? bins Bin location area (m2 )* Bin capacity (litres) area (m2 ) Reference
height: height: height:
diameter diameter diameter
1.25:1 1:1 0.75:1
4040 45 yes yes 2 side room 0.59 397 318 238 11.8 2004 archive report
48 poor preserv yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.3 2004 archive report
49 yes yes 3 side of single room 1.76 1685 1348 1011 n/a 2004 & 2006 archive
report; Eddisford
pers. comm. July 28

Private pantries and celebrated surplus

2008
52 yes yes 4 side room 1.82 1531 1225 919 10.0 2005 archive report
52, final yes yes 0 n/a 2005 archive report
phase (=B. 51)
55 yes yes 3 side room 0.95 670 536 402 5.0 2005 archive report
57 poor preserv yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.0 2005 archive report
662

58 poor preserv yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.7 2006 archive report
59 yes yes 10 side rooms 4.17 3360 2688 2016 24.4 2007 archive report
59 minus 7 side rooms 1.47 842 673 505
?external bins
64 poor preserv yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 13.6 2006 archive report
North 1, phase 1.2B yes yes 1 side room 0.24 143 115 86 Cessford 2007
1, phase 1.2C yes yes 2 side and main 1.00 889 711 534 Cessford 2007
1, Phase 1.4 yes yes 0 Cessford 2007
5, Phase B yes yes 6 side room 1.99 1434 1148 861 14.7 Cessford 2007
South 6 yes yes 3 side room 1.46 1279 1023 767 9.8 Farid 2007
18 yes yes 4 side room 0.82 468 375 281 4.2 Farid 2007
23 side room unexc yes [1] [main room] [0.39] 5.6 Farid 2007
65 yes yes 5 side room 2.10 1703 1363 1022 5.5 2007 archive report
17, Phase B side room unexc yes [4] [main room] [1.29] 9.2 Farid 2007
17, Phase C side room unexc yes 9.2 Farid 2007
17, Phase D side room unexc yes 9.2 Farid 2007
17, Phase E side room unexc yes 9.2 Farid 2007
2, Phase 2.2 side room unexc yes 2.0 Farid 2007
Average 1233 986 740
Average with B. 59 minus ?external bins in space 276 1004 803 602
*where unavailable, internal dimensions estimated by applying correction factor of 0.8 to total bin floor area based on Bldg 5, Phase B.
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Research
Figure 8. Reed matting impression on bin base fragment (unit 13386) at Çatalhöyük (photograph by Jason Quinlan;
copyright 
c Çatalhöyük Research Project).

and total storage capacity, depending on the life history of the occupying family and the
rate at which they ‘update’ their bins (Kramer 1982: 120-1, Table 4.1; Yalman 2005a).
Since bin volumes virtually never reflect total domestic storage capacity, we also consider
the total amount of space plausibly dedicated to storage. Figure 10b shows the floor area
potentially devoted to storage in side rooms at Çatalhöyük compared with floor space
devoted to various types of storage in present-day households of the surrounding Konya
region (Çumra Plain and Akşehir) documented by Yalman (2005a & b). Though the
extended modern households are almost certainly larger than those at Çatalhöyük, there
is overlap in the amount of floor space given over to food storage for daily consumption,
particularly in the 5-10m2 range. Where the modern households clearly differ is in the
additional large space(s) devoted to storing surplus, seed corn, and animal fodder. The
implication is that large-scale surpluses and animal fodder were not anticipated in built
storage features at Çatalhöyük.
Nevertheless, modest levels of overproduction – e.g. ‘normal surpluses’ of c . 50-100 per
cent of the anticipated annual requirement (Forbes 1982: 356-75, Figure 47; Halstead 1989,
1990b) – could be accommodated intramurally in a combination of bins and perishable
containers, or externally on roofs, in abandoned buildings, pits and so on (cf. Ertuğ-
Yaraş 1997: 91-2). Animal fodder could also have been stored in some of these areas.

663
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

Figure 9. Decorated storage containers for grain or flour: a) clay bin with ‘tree of life’ appliqué (Kramer 1982: Figure 4.11;
copyright c 1999-2008 by the Smithsonian Institution, reproduced with permission from the National Anthropological
Archives); b) containers from Elaziğ, eastern Anatolia (photograph by Füsun Ertuğ).

The restricted capacity of built storage features and side rooms in comparison with modern
farmers producing for sale as well as for their own use (Yalman 2005a) likely reflects, amongst
other factors, the relatively small scale of manual cultivation at Çatalhöyük. Moreover, seed
corn storage would have been negligible relative to modern extensive agriculture given high
seed:yield ratios in an intensive manual cultivation regime (Halstead 1990a). The limited
scale of storage may also be linked with social obligations amongst densely packed houses
to mobilise surplus food beyond the household.

Conclusion
It is possible to discern at Çatalhöyük a local version of the formalised and concealed
household storage that emerged in other regions of south-west Asia through the PPNB, and
that is commonly interpreted as evidence of household ‘economic autonomy’. In this local
iteration of the process, concealment of stored plant food within the house was balanced
against visible installations of animal parts that plausibly refer to the sharing of meat beyond
the household. In the particular historical context of the mid-Neolithic sequence, when the
community apparently reached its maximum size, displays of animal remains – particularly
cattle heads and horns – may reflect intensifying social negotiations surrounding food
consumption on the site as well as rights of access to resources in the wider landscape. We
propose that the divisive effects of private storage were subverted through sharing of cattle

664
 Amy Bogaard et al.

Research

Figure 10. Bar charts showing (A) variation in bin capacity amongst well documented buildings (data from Table 5, assumed
bin diameter:height = 1:1.25) and (B) comparison of side room floor area per building at Çatalhöyük with floor areas of
dedicated storage rooms in ethnographic households (Çumra Plain and Akşehir – Yalman 2005a).

and other surpluses. The existence of consumption units greater than the household may
also reflect the necessity of supra-household cooperation in the wider productive landscape.
Comparison of Çatalhöyük storage with ethnographic examples from Central Anatolia
suggests comparable scales of ‘pantry’ storage for daily consumption but contrasts in storage
capacity for surplus crops. Differences also emerge in the decorative elaboration of bins

665
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

in some modern examples, in comparison to the plain bins of Çatalhöyük. In regards to

the first difference, the ability of Çatalhöyük farmers to produce significant crop surpluses
was probably limited by the intensive nature of manual cultivation and hence by available
labour. In regards to the second, we posit that communal social cohesion was a key issue for
this densely packed settlement, and that extra-household sharing of meat, particularly from
cattle, played an important role in its maintenance. Thus visual celebrations of private stores
were socially provocative, but commemorations of communal festivities were desirable (and
potentially competitive). Food sharing, rather than storage, thus became the focus of display.

Acknowledgements
This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0647131 and
the Çatalhöyük Research Project. Analysis of the Mellaart archive was funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation
for Anthropological Research and The British Institute in Ankara. Bogaard’s attendance at the Society for
American Archaeology 73rd annual meeting in Vancouver, where this paper was presented, was supported by
the Meyerstein Bequest, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford.

References CLARK, C. & M. HASWELL. 1966. The economics of

subsistence agriculture. London: Macmillan.
ATALAY, S. & C.A. HASTORF. 2006. Food, meals, and
daily activities: food habitus at Neolithic DÜRING, B.S. 2006. Constructing communities: clustered
Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 71: 283-319. neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian
Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 cal. BC. Leiden:
BANNING, E.B. 1998. The Neolithic period: triumphs Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten.
of architecture, agriculture, and art. Near Eastern
Archaeology 61: 188-237. – 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük community:
from households to settlement systems. Journal of
– 2003. Housing Neolithic farmers. Near Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 20: 155-82.
Archaeology 66: 4-21.
ERTUĞ-YARAŞ, F. 1997. An ethnoarchaeological study of
BINFORD, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New subsistence and plant gathering in Central Anatolia
York (NY): Academic Press. (PhD dissertation, Washington University, St.
BYRD, B.F. 1994. Public and private, domestic and Louis). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms
corporate: the emergence of the Southwest Asian International.
village. American Antiquity 59: 639-66. FAIRBAIRN, A., D. MARTINOLI, A. BUTLER, G. HILLMAN
CAUVIN, J. 1994. Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de & A. KENNEDY. Forthcoming. The Mellaart seed
l’Agriculture. Paris: CNRS. archive from Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey
CESSFORD, C. 2007. Neolithic excavations in the North (British Archaeological Reports International
Area, East Mound, Çatalhöyük 1995-98, in I. Series). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Hodder (ed.) Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North FAIRBAIRN, A., J. NEAR & D. MARTINOLI. 2005.
and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995-1999 seasons Macrobotanical investigation of the North, South
(McDonald Institute Monographs): 345-549. and KOPAL area excavations at Çatalhöyük East, in
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: reports from
Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute
at Ankara. Monographs): 137-201. Cambridge: McDonald
CESSFORD, C., M.W. NEWTON, P.I. KUNIHOLM, S.W. Institute for Archaeological Research/London:
MANNING, M. ÖZBAKAN, A. MELEK ÖZER, K. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
GÖZE AKOLU, T. HIGHAM & P. BLUMBACH. 2005. FARID, S. 2007. Neolithic excavations in the South
Absolute dating at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.) Area, East Mound, Çatalhöyük 1995-99, in I.
Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from Hodder (ed.) Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North
the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995-99 seasons
Monographs): 65-99. Cambridge: McDonald (McDonald Institute Monographs): 41-342.
Institute for Archaeological Research/London: Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology
at Ankara.

666
 Amy Bogaard et al.

FLANNERY, K.V. 1972. The origins of the village as a – 2007. Summary of results, in I. Hodder (ed.)
settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL
a comparative study, in R.T.P.J. Ucko & G.W. Area reports from the 1995-99 seasons (McDonald
Dimbleby (ed.) Man, settlement and urbanism: Institute Monographs): 25-37. Cambridge:
23-53. London: Duckworth. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/

Research
– 2002. The origins of the village revisited: from London: British Institute of Archaeology at
nuclear to extended households. American Antiquity Ankara.
6: 417-33. IMAMURA, K. 1996. Prehistoric Japan. London: UCL
FORBES, H. 1982. Strategies and soils: technology, Press.
production and environment in the peninsula of KRAMER, C. 1982. Village ethnoarchaeology. New York
Methana, Greece (PhD dissertation, University of (NY): Academic Press.
Pennsylvania). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms KUIJT, I. 2004. When the walls came down: social
International. organization, ideology, and the ‘collapse’ of the
GALILI, E., M. WEINSTEIN-EVRON, I. HERSHKOVITZ, A. Pre-Pottery Neolithic, in H.-D. Bienert, H.G.K.
GOPHER, M. KISLEV, O. LERNAU, L. Gebel & R. Neef (ed.) Central settlements in
KOLSKA-HORWITZ & H. LERNAU. 1993. Atlit-Yam: Neolithic Jordan: proceedings of a symposium held in
a prehistoric site on the sea floor off the Israeli Wadi Musa, Jordan, 21st-25th of July, 1997
coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 133-57. (Studies in early Near Eastern production,
GARFINKEL, Y. 1987. Yiftahel: a Neolithic village subsistence, and environment 5): 183-99. Berlin:
from the seventh millennium BC in Lower ex oriente.
Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: KUIJT, I. & N. GORING-MORRIS. 2002. Foraging,
199-212. farming, and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery
GARFINKEL Y. & M.A. MILLER (ed.). 2002. Sha’ar Neolithic of the Southern Levant: a review and
Hagolan 1: Neolithic art in context. Oxford: synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16:
Oxbow. 361-440.
GORING-MORRIS, A.N. & L.K. HORWITZ. 2007. KUIJT, I. & B. FINLAYSON. 2009. Evidence for food
Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic storage and predomestication granaries 11,000
B of the Near East. Antiquity 81: 1-17. years ago in the Jordan Valley. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 106: 10966-70.
HALSTEAD, P. 1989. The economy has a normal
surplus: economic stability and social change LEE, R. 1973. Mongongo: the ethnography of a major
among early farming communities of Thessaly, wild food resource. Ecology of food and nutrition 2:
Greece, in P. Halstead & J. O’Shea (ed.) Bad year 307-21.
economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty: MELLAART, J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic town in
68-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.
Press. NOY, T. 1989. Gilgal I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site,
– 1990a Quantifying Sumerian agriculture – some seeds Israel. The 1985-1987 seasons. Paléorient 15:
of doubt and hope. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 11-18.
5: 187-95. ÖZDOĞAN, M. 1999. Çayönü, in M. Özdoğan
– 1990b Waste not, want not: traditional responses & N. Başgelen (ed.) Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of
to crop failure in Greece. Rural History 1: civilization: 35-63. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat
147-64. Yayınları.
– 2007. Carcasses and commensality: investigating the ÖZBAŞARAN, M. & H. BUITENHUIS. 2002. Proposal for
social context of meat consumption in Neolithic a regional terminology for Central Anatolia, in F.
and Early Bronze Age Greece, in C. Mee & J. Gérard & L. Thissen (ed.) The Neolithic of Central
Renard (ed.) Cooking up the past: food and culinary Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations
practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean: during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC: 67-77.
25-49. Oxford: Oxbow. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
HAYDEN, B. 2003. Were luxury foods the first ROLLEFSON, G.O. 1997. Changes in architecture and
domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives social organization at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal, in
from Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 34: H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi & G.O. Rollefson (ed.)
458-69. The prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from 1997 :
HELMER, D., L. GOURICHSON & D. STORDEUR. 2004. 287-308. Berlin: ex oriente.
À l’aube de la domestication animale. ROLLEFSON, G.O. & A.H. SIMMONS 1986. The
Anthropozoologica 39: 143-63. Neolithic village of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: preliminary
HODDER, I. 2006. Çatalhöyük: the leopard’s tale. report on the 1984 season. Bulletin of the American
London: Thames & Hudson. Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 24: 145-64.

667
 Private pantries and celebrated surplus

ROSEN, A.M. 2005. Phytolith indicators of plant and STORDEUR, D., M. BRENET, G. DER APRAHAMIAN &
land use at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.) J.-C. ROUX. 2001. Les bâtiments communautaires
Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-1999 de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet horizon PPNA
seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 203-12. (Syrie). Paléorient 26: 29-44.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological TWISS, K. 2008. Transformations in an early
Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology agricultural society: feasting in the southern
at Ankara. Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of
ROSENBERG, M. & R.W. REDDING. 2000. Hallan Çemi Anthropological Archaeology 27: 418-42.
and early village organization in Eastern Anatolia, TWISS, K., A. BOGAARD, D. BOGDAN, T. CARTER, M.P.
in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic farming CHARLES, S. FARID, N. RUSSELL, M. STEVANOVIĆ,
communities: social organization, identity, and E.N. YALMAN & L. YEOMANS. 2008. Arson or
differentiation: 39-62. New York (NY): Kluwer accident? The burning of a Neolithic house at
Academic/Plenum Press. Çatalhöyük. Journal of Field Archaeology 33: 41-57.
ROSENBERG, M., R.M. NESBITT, R.W. REDDING & T.F. TWISS, K.C., A. BOGAARD, M.P. CHARLES, J. HENECKE,
STRASSER. 1995. Hallan Çemi Tepesi: some N. RUSSELL, L. MARTIN & G. JONES. In press.
preliminary observations concerning early Neolithic Plants and animals together: interpreting organic
subsistence behaviors in eastern Anatolia. Anatolica remains from Building 52 at Çatalhöyük. Current
21: 1-12. Anthropology.
RUSSELL, N. & L. MARTIN. 2005. The Çatalhöyük WATSON, P.J. 1979. Archaeological ethnography in
mammal remains, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting western Iran. Tuscon (AZ): University of Arizona.
Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons
WEISS, E., M.E. KISLEV & A. HARTMANN. 2006.
(McDonald Institute Monographs): 33-98.
Autonomous cultivation before domestication.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Science 312: 1609-10.
Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology
at Ankara. WRIGHT, K.I. 2000. The social origins of cooking and
dining in early villages of Western Asia. Proceedings
RUSSELL, N. & S. MEECE. 2005. Animal representations
of the Prehistoric Society 2: 89-122.
and animal remains at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder
(ed.) Çatalhöyük perspectives: themes from the YALMAN, E.N. 2005a. Çağdaş Köylerde Yapılan
1995-99 seasons (McDonald Institute ‘Yerleşım Mantığı’ Calısmalarının Arkeolojik
Monographs): 209-30. Cambridge: McDonald Yerleşmelerin Yorumuna Katkısı. Unpublished PhD
Institute for Archaeological Research/London: dissertation, Istanbul University.
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. – 2005b. Settlement logic studies as an aid to
SCHNEIDER, H.K. 1957. The subsistence role of cattle understand prehistoric settlement organization:
among the Pakot and in East Africa. American ethnoarchaeological research in Central Anatolia, in
Anthropologist 59: 278-300. I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: reports from
the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute
SIMMONS, A.H. & M. NAJJAR. 2006. Ghwair I: a small,
Monographs): 329-42. Cambridge: McDonald
complex Neolithic community in Southern Jordan.
Institute for Archaeological Research/London:
Journal of Field Archaeology 31: 77-95.
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

668