The Archaeobotanical Archive Report for the 1998 field Season at Catalhoyuk

www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1qq669z0 The Archaeobotanical Archive report for the 1998 field season at «;atalhoyiik: Christine Hastorf, University of California, Berkeley , UCb 'P E ~ ~ :M. During the 1998 field season the archaeobOranical field team focused on four on-site research projects, with two additional collaborative laboratory projects that were ongoing simultaneously off site. The on-site projects are: 1) flotation recovery of botanical remains from every excavation context, oversey,irig the sorting of the heavy residue fractions of the floated matrix, and the on-site preliminary analysis of priority samples chosen from these units, 2) ethnobotanical and ethnoarchaeological research in regions surrounding <;atalhoytik, 3) micro-excavation and preliminary analysis of remains from specific contexts, 4) recovery and preliminary analysis of phytoliths from various on site contexts, 5) wood analysis by Eleni Asouti at the Institute of Arl!haeology, University College, London, and 6) molecular analysis of archaeological plant material both at the Middle Eastern Technical University in Ankara, and at the Research LaboratorJ for Archaeology, Oxford. The 1998 on-site team was Dr. Christine Hastorf, Julie Near, Meltem Agcabay, Steve Archer, Aylan Erkal, and Arlene MillerRosen. Visitors who consulted with the on- site team included Dr. Patty Jo Watson, Michelle Wollstonecroft, Hatice Bilgic, Dr. Michael Richards, Dr. Ay Melek Ozer, and Dr. Mark Nesbitt. Flotation and Analysis of Floated Botanical Remains Julie Near University of California With the help of two flotation machines (the smal-1 machine was constructed in 1995 and the large machine was completed in 1996. Descriptions of these machines can be found in previous archive reports). In all, 1006 samples were processed during the 1998 field season. A target volume of 30 liters was desired for standard bulk and scatter samples taken from contexts across the site. Where this was not possible, as much soil was processed as was available. Volumes of the flotation samples were always recorded. In situations where less than one liter of matrix was collected for flotation, a manual system of residue retrieval was applied. A manual bucket flotation system was created and this processed 116 small soil samples. This was done by a bucket having the chiffon mesh draped on top of and within water. The soil was then gently poured onto the chiffon cloth. This cloth retained both the heavy and the light residues after silts and other particles smaller than .34 mm were rinsed through with gentle water action. Once the normal samples were processed and dry, the heavy residue was sorted by a team of eight workwomen, and the light fractions were gathered up by the archaeobotanical team. Most samples were prepared for transport and later analysis in the United States, England and Turkey. Some samples were selected as priority samples by excavators and specialists during the excavation season. These priorities were analyzed by a member of the team for reports that were given on subsequent priority tours. The procedure for this on-site field analysis (noted as field sorts) was an abridged procedure of our phase two lab sorting. The taxa level this phase records is at the plant type level; cereals, legumes (e.g. Lens), wild legumes, herbaceous material, parenchyma, oak seeds, nut husks, wood (Prunus spp), wild almonds (Amygdalus spp.), wild pistachios (Pistaciaspp.) and hackberries (Celtis spp.), wild taxa seeds, wood, and endocarps. The 4mm and 2mm portions of the sample were sorted normally (materials pulled and weighed by categories such as cereals, pulses, wild seeds etc.) but the lmm and .5mm portions were scanned only with no pulling. By shortening the sorting procedure (approximately 50% less time