Mice,scats and burials: Unusual concentrations of microfauna found in human burials at the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük,Central Anatolia

Which predator was responsible for the production of these microfaunal assemblages?

Such large concentrations of microfauna rarely build up accidentally and are usually accumulated by a predator such as an owl, diurnal bird of prey or small mammalian carnivore (Andrews, 1990). This hypothesis is supported by the presence of digestion, gnawing and puncture marks on many of the elements found in these assemblages. Usually the species, or general identity of the predator, can be analogously identified by comparing the species composition and taphonomic patterns of the archaeological assemblage with those from known modern predator assemblages (Andrews, 1990). In this instance, however, identifying the predator is problematic because it does not compare well with the taphonomic patterns for any known predator.

The digestion and breakage levels are typical of a predator that causes little modification to the remains of its prey, such as a barn owl, but this does not account for the gnawing and tooth puncture marks, which indicate that a carnivore played a role in the taphonomic history of, at least, the microfauna from the burials found in 1999 (Andrews, 1990; Andrews and Nesbit Evans, 1983).

If the agent of accumulation is assumed to be a carnivore then what are the possibilities based on the carnivores found in the macrofaunal assemblage? Dogs, foxes, wildcats, polecats, badgers, weasels, reptiles and snakes are all found at Çatalhöyük, although it would appear that the wildcats are brought in as skins (Russell and Martin, 2005). All of the puncture marks found on the microfaunal elements are small, with a mean width of 0.48 mm (N = 196, see Table 3). This suggests that a small-toothed predator caused these puncture marks, a finding consistent throughout the whole of the Çatalhöyük microfaunal assemblage and not just typical of the burial assemblages.

The potential predator with the smallest teeth would be a reptile but it has been demonstrated that reptilian predators cause very high levels of breakage and digestion to the bones of their prey. Some species of snake can swallow their prey whole, but analysis shows that their scats are largely devoid of bone, presumably because of the severity of their digestive systems (Blain and Campbell, 1942; Fitch and Twining, 1946).

Similarly, mustelids cause higher levels of digestion and breakage than are found in the Çatalhöyük assemblages. Andrews and Nesbit Evans (1983) analysed scat assemblages from three different types of mustelid, the weasel (Mustela nivalis), the stoat (Mustela erminea) and the polecat (Mustela putorius). They found that all of the elements showed signs of digestion and that most of the bones were broken to such an extent that identification to element was impossible. This research is supported by the work of Day (1968), who analysed the stomach and intestinal contents of a number of weasels and stoats and found that only the hair and feathers of the prey were recovered. Larger species of mammalian carnivores, such as felids and canids, also cause much higher levels of digestion and breakage than is found in the assemblages from these three burials and would be expected to cause larger puncture marks (Andrews, 1990; Andrews and Nesbit Evans, 1983).

Another possible predator is of course humans. Human coprolites have been found at the site (Shillito et al., 2011) and there are archaeological instances where microfauna have been hunted and consumed by humans. For example, at Blombos Cave, South Africa, the remains of mole rats (Bathyergus suillus) were found that have a distinctive charring pattern similar to that observed on the remains of modern day mole rats processed for human consumption (Henshilwood, 1997). In addition, Weissbrod et al. (2005) suggest that the Natufian inhabitants of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, ate mole rats. This is based on evidence of age distributions, charring, rodent gnaw marks (presumably scavenged after human consumption and discard), completeness of tooth representation and breakage patterns (Weissbrod et al., 2005).

Modern examples of small mammal bones being pulverised for soup have been found amongst native American Indians. This activity results in a high concentration of small unidentifiable fragments, which may be recovered in the flotation process (Kroeber, 1925). Small mammals are an important part of the diet of hunters in Malawi, who will frequently trap small mammals and even dig them out of their burrows, an activity that can often be labour intensive and time consuming (Morris, 2000).

Crandall and Stahl (1995) conducted an experiment whereby a skinned, eviscerated and segmented insectivore (Blarina brevicauda) was swallowed, without mastication, by an adult male. Their results showed that despite the lack of mastication the level of damage to the insectivore skeleton was high (1995). Generally, the level of modification caused by humans to an unmasticated insectivore exceeded the level of modification caused by small mammalian carnivores (and this is without taking into account the additional effects that processing and mastication may have on the remains) (1995).

It would seem unlikely that the microfauna found in the burials were from human coprolites. This is because one might expect to see evidence of processing on the bones. For example, there may be cut marks or charring and the assemblage may be dominated by certain meat-rich elements. In addition, the puncture marks found on the bones were smaller than one would expect to be made by human teeth.

It is clear from the above discussion that further research is needed to identify potential variables that could have caused such differences in the taphonomy of the Çatalhöyük assemblages to known predator scat assemblages. It is possible that the Çatalhöyük elements are less fragmented than those from modern small carnivore assemblages because the elements in these samples are from small microfaunal species, such as mice, rather than large microfaunal species, such as voles. As a result, it may not have been necessary for the small carnivores to chew these remains thoroughly before consumption. In addition, the majority of the teeth in the Çatalhöyük assemblages are murid (rats, mice and gerbils), and, due to their morphology, murid molars are less susceptible to digestion than are microtine (vole) molars (Williams, 2001, 2005). Finally, there may have been an abundance of mice in and around the site. It is difficult to assess if this was the case because while the concentrations discussed here are large, the overall level of microfauna found in most units is low. If there was an abundance of suitable prey for small carnivores to predate, the level of digestion on the microfauna is likely to be lowered because the rate of digestion is directly proportional to the amount of time spent in the predator’s stomach (Andrews and Nesbit Evans, 1983).

How did the microfauna become incorporated into the burials?

There are a number of possibilities for the incorporation of microfauna within these burials, some of which do not take into account the theory that the microfauna came from carnivore scats rather than being incorporated into the burial fills as carcasses. All possible scenarios, along with their level of likelihood, are discussed in this section.

Why put scats in human burials?

The presence of digestion and gnawing, as well as the orange tinge to the sediment that is indicative of organic matter, is a further indication that the microfauna were in scat rather than carcass form. The two most convincing explanations for the microfauna in the burials are either that all three burials were used as den sites by small carnivores or that the scats were deliberately placed there by humans.

There are, however, four main arguments against the burials being used as den sites: 1) there are no evident burrow marks in the burial cuts, which are found in other units at Çatalhöyük; 2) the burials were relatively undisturbed; 3) it is coincidental that the three burials are the only carnivore den sites found at the site; 4) this does not account for the exceptional density of microfauna over the torso in Burial 513. Therefore, I suggest that the scats were placed there by humans.

The scats may have served a functional purpose and could have been used as a type of preservative for the bodies. In the Medieval and post-Medieval periods, faeces were often mixed with urine and used as tanning solutions and the scats in these three burials may reflect a similar practice (Denison, 1998). It could have been that these three individuals were highly regarded in their society and their descendants wished to preserve their bodies for as long as possible or that the scats were used as markers of skills that the dead had shown as tanners while living. If this was the case one would imagine that scats or dung from larger animal species such as cattle or sheep would have been selected for this purpose.

Scats may also have been used in the past for medicinal purposes. In Medieval times it was believed that all parts of the cat, excluding the brains but including their scats, could be used in this way (Bobis, 2000). Similarly, there is modern evidence from Mozambique that elephant scats are used as a medicine for many illnesses (De Boer and Baquete, 1998).

Another interpretation is that the placement of scats could have been motivated by a feeling of dislike or hatred of the dead. Other indicators, however, such as the incorporation of grave goods, suggest that this was unlikely and that, contrary to this, the individuals buried were held in high regard.

An alternative theory is that the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük may have practised pest control and encouraged small carnivores to enter the site to predate upon rodents in an attempt to limit populations. The individuals found in these burials may have been responsible for monitoring this activity. These concentrations of microfauna demonstrate that house mice, and other small mammals, were to be found in or around Çatalhöyük, though it is hard to establish how dense these populations were because the majority of units at the site have low but consistent levels of microfauna.

Evidence from Building 52, which was a burnt building found in the 4040 area of the site, suggests that small mammals did scavenge on stored food at Çatalhöyük. As a result of the burning, this building had remarkable organic preservation and allowed an in-depth analysis of three storage bins that were found in the north-east part of the building. Botanical evidence indicates that the bins were used to store cereal grains, almonds, peas, wild mustard and a variety of wild seeds (Bogaard et al., 2009; Twiss et al., 2009), and the pea concentration and the surrounding deposits contained charred mouse pellets (Twiss et al., 2009).

The majority of microfaunal elements analysed from Building 52 were found in these storage bins and displayed no signs of digestion or gnawing, suggesting that these individuals died natural deaths or were burnt by the fire. This discovery of in situ dead rodents and pellets in the bins in Building 52 provides the first direct evidence of rodents infesting food storage areas at Çatalhöyük. This highlights the challenge of storing food in an early agricultural community where a food surplus would have been essential insurance against crop failure.

This occurrence of rodents, particularly mice, within the units associated with food storage is unsurprising. One would imagine that Çatalhöyük would have been a haven for small mammals, particularly the commensal house mouse; the site would have presented them with excellent scavenging opportunities in the form of stored food and refuse, it would also have provided shelter (the walls and roofs of the houses being ideal hideaways), and it would have minimised competition with other small mammal taxa.

Mice populations can increase in number very quickly. Mice by evolution are r-selecting, which means that they breed frequently and have lots of offspring. Litters typically contain five to 10 young and one breeding pair of mice and their offspring have the potential to produce 500 mice in just 21 weeks (MacDonald and Fenn, 1994). Such an infestation would have been disastrous for an agricultural community, who would have had to store food reserves in order to sustain them through the winter, and it seems probable that some form of pest control would have been necessary.

Indeed, there is evidence that ancient Egyptians kept weasels before they had domesticated cats in order to control the number of rodents in their settlements, and in some parts of modern Egypt, weasels are still encouraged to occupy houses to such an extent that they have been described as ‘almost completely commensal’ (Osborn and Helmy, 1980: 409).

Weasels were found in the faunal assemblage from Pompeii and Powell (forthcoming) argues that, due to the urban nature of the site, it would have been an unlikely habitat for wild weasels, suggesting instead that weasels were kept by the inhabitants and used for pest control. This interpretation is supported by the presence of house mouse and other rodent bones in the assemblage and the discovery of a house mouse pelvis with puncture marks (Powell, forthcoming).

In more recent times, the first professional rodent exterminator in New York city, Walter ‘sure Pop’ Isaacsen, used ferrets (a domesticated mustelid) that he bred himself on a farm in the countryside to help catch rodents (Sullivan, 2005). Further evidence of relationships between humans and weasels can be found in reports of fur trappers from North America who sometimes shared their camps with weasels (King and Powell, 2007). Not only would weasels have been useful for pest control but they would have been a good source of fur after death.

The encouragement of predators into settlements during the Neolithic period is not without precedent. A cat (Felis silvestris) burial was found in close proximity to a human at the Neolithic site of Shillourokambos, Cyprus, which dates to 9500 to 9200 BP. The excavators argue that cats may have had special status in Neolithic societies in southwest Asia and that the burial may provide evidence for the taming of cats, which were used to control the mice attracted by grain storage (Vigne et al., 2004).

Animals in ritual at Çatalhöyük

We know from reliefs, sculptures and mobiliary art that animals played an important role in the ritual life at Çatalhöyük and scats may have been viewed in a positive rather than a negative way. Although it is frequently ‘wild’ animals that were depicted in the reliefs and sculptures at Çatalhöyük, the only human burial found with an animal was from Level VII and was of a human with a lamb (Russell and Düring, 2006). This demonstrates that although the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük may have had great respect for wild animals, they had the most intimate relationships with the tamer, less threatening animals, which were common in and around the site. In this way, the burial of the three individuals with scats could demonstrate that the individuals in question may have had a special relationship with the producer of the scats that protected the inhabitants from the unwanted nuisance of rodent infestation.

Weasel and fox skulls were found plastered into the walls of Shrine VII, 21 during the Mellaart excavations. The fox skull was placed above the weasel skull and both had been covered in plaster. Mellaart believed that these ‘protuberances’ represented breasts (1964). This interpretation is debatable but it is significant that other forms of evidence suggest that small carnivores appeared to have a symbolic or ritual role at Çatalhöyük.

Examples of other burials with remains of scats/pellets and animal remains

This is not an isolated example of small mammal remains being found in human burials. A burial containing a female skeleton that became known as ‘Cille Phedair Kate’ was found on South Uist, Hebrides, and was dated to c.700 AD. This burial was found in a cairn and was devoid of grave goods except for a small pebble that had been placed over the groin and mice bones with digestion that were found in the burial fill. The excavators attribute the digestion to owls and suggest that the grave was left open for some time, possibly with ‘a loose arrangement of slabs on top’ on which an owl had roosted (Parker-Pearson et al., 2004: 117–119).

Another example of pellets being incorporated in burials is a Beaker period burial from Bredon Hill in Worcestershire. A central pit was found beneath a barrow that contained the remains of two individuals, a male and a female. Within the skull of the female a single pellet was found which was identified as being either from a buzzard or a kite. The excavator suggests that the corpse was exposed for a short time prior to burial and that the pellet had become incorporated into the fill. It is proposed that the body had been decapitated, the brain removed and the pellet had worked its way into the skull through the foramen magnum (Thomas, 1965).

In addition, an unusual human burial of an elderly female containing much faunal material, including the skulls of two stone martens (Martes foina), which appear to have been buried with the fur intact, was found at the Natufian site of Hilazon Tachtit. Found within the burial fill were over 50 complete tortoise shells and tortoise limb bones from the Mediterranean spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca), wing bones from a golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), articulated vertebrae from the tail of an aurochs (Bos primigenius), the pelvis of a leopard (Panthera pardus), the radius and ulna of a wild boar (Sus scrofa) and, finally, a male gazelle horn core (Gazella gazella). In addition to the faunal material, the burial contained a complete human foot, which did not belong to the buried individual Grosman et al. (2008). The presence of the two marten skulls in this burial demonstrates that in the Natufian of the Levant mustelids held some specific ritual significance. Such an unusual burial has led Grosman et al. (2008) to suggest that this may be the burial of a shaman.