mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
[5]Table Ronde [6]Edition 

[7]Archives [INLINE] [8]Data 

Lecture

[INLINE] CULTURAL DYNAMICS OF THE CENTRAL ANATOLIAN NEOLITHIC: THE
EARLY CERAMIC NEOLITHIC - LATE CERAMIC NEOLITHIC TRANSITION

[INLINE] Bleda DÜRING
Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands
[9]bduring at hotmail.com

Introduction

Among the major themes of the CANeW Table Ronde are the various
transitions that took place in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of
Central Anatolia. A general framework for those transitions has been
provided by Thissen. Gérard has presented a model with which to view
the major transitions occurring in the Neolithic of Central Anatolia,
whereas Thissen has stressed the importance of the Late Ceramic
Neolithic - Early Chalcolithic transition (henceforward `LCN - ECh'),
speaking about a `reshuffling of settlement' and `a pattern of
convergence of the Konya Plain and Cappadocia' (ibid.). In this paper
I want to focus on the earlier transition of Early Ceramic Neolithic -
Late Ceramic Neolithic (henceforward `ECN - LCN'), because I think
some major developments took place during that transition. I will
briefly touch on the subject of settlement continuity, and then move
on to discuss changes in the ceramics, obsidian industries, figurines
and wall paintings during the transition. These developments will be
illustrated with the Çatalhöyük sequence, where the transition is best
documented. Finally I will focus on some developments that took place
in the architecture of that site, and reflect on the social
ramifications of those architectural changes.

Terminology

Buitenhuis and Özbasaran have spoken about the terminology presently
in use, and have proposed an alternative terminology, first on the
CANeW website, and subsequently they have presented a modified
version, based on the first one, at the Table Ronde (see Table 1).
Each of the periods distinguished was characterised by their specific
traits (ibid.). To avoid confusion I will here retain the traditional
terminology.

[INLINE]

Settlement continuity

It has become apparent during the course of this conference that it is
very difficult to make statements about the distributions of sites
through time, not only because of the limited and extensive surveys
carried out so far, but also because of dating problems. However,
comparing the amount of settlement continuity for the ECN - LCN
transition with that of the LCN - ECh. transition, a clear pattern
seems to emerge (see Table 2). It is apparent that the continuity of
the second transition is much more pronounced. Many sites seem to have
been initially occupied in the Late Ceramic Neolithic period and
continue to be inhabited in the subsequent Early Chalcolithic period.
(The distinction between Late Ceramic Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic
assemblages is difficult (Thissen 2000, Table 3.6), and consequently
it is not always clear whether sites were already occupied in the Late
Ceramic Neolithic.) By contrast the ECN - LCN transition is only
demonstrated at one site, which is Çatalhöyük, although Suberde may
also have been occupied during the transition.

[INLINE]

Dating the ECN - LCN transition at Çatalhöyük
As has been pointed out Çatalhöyük is the only site where the ECN -
LCN transition is demonstrated. At what point during the Çatalhöyük
sequence is the ECN - LCN transition to be placed? The terminology
proposed by CANeW would put the transition at c. 6700/6600 cal BC (see
Table 1), which would approximately relate to Level VIA at the site
(see chronological CANeW Central Anatolia chart). This date seems to
fit well with changes in the material culture of the site, which will
now be discussed.

Developments in material culture at Çatalhöyük during the ECN - LCN
transition
In the following some changes in the material culture of the site will
be noted. These changes have been pointed out by various authors for a
number of categories, such as: 1) the ceramics; 2) the obsidian
industries; 3) the figurines, and 4) the wall paintings. Many of these
changes are related to Level VI (Due to the lack of any final
publication of the 1960s excavations at Çatalhöyük it is often
difficult to distinguish between Levels VIB and VIA, and many authors
use the generic `Level VI', which includes both.) at Çatalhöyük.

Ceramics

A change in the ceramics occurring between Levels XII-VIII and VII-II
has been noted. From Level VII onwards the surface colour is
predominantly a dark brownish grey, and organic temper is being
replaced by mineral and grit temper (Mellaart 1966:170; Last 1996:120;
Thissen 2000:83). Simultaneously body shards decreased in wall
thickness throughout the sequence (Mellaart 1966:170; Last 1996:118,
Table 9.4). This change has been interpreted by some as the
introduction of cooking wares (Thissen, CANeW discussion).

Obsidian industries

Another change in material culture has been noted for the obsidian
industries by Conolly (1999) for pre- and post-Level VI assemblages.
Whereas before Level VIA flake industries predominate, there is a
sharp increase in the use of prismatic blades produced with pressure
on `bullet cores' from Level VIA onwards (Conolly 1999:797, Fig. 7).
These prismatic blades are thought to be related to specialised
production, Conolly states: `the level of skill needed to produce
prismatic blades, and the concentration of blade and blade cores in
the more complex rooms, is suggestive of a movement towards a more
localised lithic production system, possibly at the kin-group level'
(Conolly 1999:798).

Figurines

A third change in the material culture of Çatalhöyük can be observed
in the figurine assemblage found at the site. Hamilton found that
after Level VI no males are portrayed in the figurines, whereas
`large' women occur mainly after this level (Hamilton 1996:225). She
interprets this change as possibly related to changes in gender roles:
`The production of clay figurines depicting ample women with large
breasts, in which not `fertility' but femaleness was emphasised, along
with the absence of maleness, might suggest an increasing concern with
women's roles' (Hamilton 1996:226).

Voigt independently reached similar conclusions, finding that after
Level VI `fat females, pregnancy and sexuality become one of the
several dominant themes' (Voigt 1999:287), and noting the absence of
male figurines in the post Level VI assemblage (o.c., 288). She too
connects this change with a different gender conception (o.c., 290).

Wall paintings

Finally the motifs in use for wall paintings seem to feature some
changes when the pre and post-Level VI assemblages are compared. For
instance, the famous `hunting scene' wall paintings of Çatalhöyük all
date after Level VI (Mellaart 1967, Table 13; Voigt 1999:278). Some
older motifs might have been abandoned during the transition; no
figurative mouldings later than Level VI are known (Todd 1976:50).

Developments in the architecture of Çatalhöyük

The following remarks on the architecture of Çatalhöyük are all based
on a study I undertook for my MA on that subject (Düring 2000), the
most important results of which will soon be published (Düring 2001).
That study is entirely based on the architectural remains that have
been published by Mellaart in his monograph (1967), and his
preliminary reports in Anatolian Studies (Mellaart 1962; 1963; 1964;
1966). The results of the present excavations at Çatalhöyük remain to
be published, whereas the data of the surface investigations are not
considered suitable for architectural analysis (see Matthews 1996).

In the architecture major developments can be demonstrated to occur
between Levels VIA and V. These changes will be illustrated by
focusing on three themes, these are: 1) building continuity; 2)
building accessibility, and 3) the location of `ritually elaborate
buildings'.

Building continuity

The continuity of buildings (For the sake of brevity the matter how
buildings were dinstinguished will not be discussed. For these and
other details see Düring 2001.) with earlier and later levels was
measured. The plans of the various levels were compared with those of
their precursors and their successors. Although no coordinates are
given in the plans it is often immediately apparent how the plans
should be overlain. The building continuity as compared with the later
and previous levels was measured, and the averages per level are
presented in Fig. 1.
The earlier levels at Çatalhöyük have a remarkable degree of
continuity. Some buildings can be traced, with slight modifications,
from Level VIII up to Level VIA (e.g., buildings 1, 8 and 10) Thus
these buildings were reconstructed over a period that might have
lasted for hundreds of years. The difference in elevation of the floor
level between the Level VIA successors of a Level VIII building may
amount to as much as 3.90 m (e.g., in the case of building 10). These
`ancestral' buildings could not be detected by the inhabitants of the
site, but in all probability a certain importance was attached to
building continuity. In part this may have been a practical measure,
as previous walls could serve as a foundation for new buildings.
Remarkably the building continuity that defines the architecture in
the early levels of Çatalhöyük (VIII-VIA) is abandoned in Level V and
later levels, indicating that other factors were at play as well.

The high degree of continuity that characterises the early levels at
Çatalhöyük is visible. The measure of continuity with earlier levels
is negligible initially, as exposures of later levels are larger than
the older ones (which is why most buildings cannot be demonstrated to
have a proponent). On the other hand the measure of building
continuity with later levels shows it is clear that continuity is high
in Levels VIII-VIA. Whereas in Levels VIII, VII and VIB buildings were
generally rebuilt along the lines of their predecessor, in Level VIA a
lot of previous buildings were not rebuilt, but those that were
rebuilt were largely reconstructions of earlier Level VIB buildings
(92 %).

In Level V that continuity was abandoned, however. In the construction
of Level V, the builders seem to have disregarded the continuity of
building that had characterised building traditions at Çatalhöyük for
centuries. Only 23 % of the buildings of Level V existed in previous
Level VIA. After Level V, building continuity remains relatively
unimportant, compared to the earlier levels. Could it be that the link
with the past was no longer important in the way it had been before?

At this point it is important to discuss the `great conflagration'
occurring at the end of Level VIA, which is mentioned by Mellaart. The
nature of this fire, whether it was intentional or accidental, does
not concern us here. It is important to stress that no hiatus in
occupation seems to have occurred. Mellaart states concerning a group
of Level VIA buildings that were not burned: `These houses had not
been destroyed by fire and were swept clean before they had been
filled in to make room for houses of Level V' (Mellaart 1966:172;
compare also Mellaart 1964:42). Also, despite the small overall
building continuity a number of Level V buildings are built directly
on top of the remains of older Level VIA buildings (for instance Level
V buildings S2, S3, S8, and S12). In conclusion, at the time that
Level V buildings were constructed those of Level VIA must have been
physically present, yet the buildings were reallocated nonetheless.

Building accessibility

In this part the accessibility of the buildings at Çatalhöyük will be
discussed. How buildings were reached, and which buildings were
located most centrally, can be studied in this way. Hillier and Hanson
(1984) have provided a methodology for such a spatial analysis, but
the method used here is much simpler. It was decided to use the plans
provided by Mellaart, rather than abstracting the access patterns into
a kind of tree-graph. Each building and each court was regarded as a
unit. `Depth' (how many spaces have to be minimally passed to reach a
certain building) was calculated for each of the buildings. (These
`depths' are not to be taken as absolutes, but as an heuristic device
for comparing the levels. We do not know whether the area excavated by
Mellaart was surrounded by buildings or open space. By pretending, for
the sake of the method, that the area excavated by Mellaart was
surrounded by open space, a questionable assumption is introduced.
However, the developments in the resulting access patterns can be
related to other developments, such as those in building continuity,
and seem to have some validity at a general comparative level.) In the
early Levels VII-VIA all communications are supposed to have been via
the roof, which would have involved less locomotion on the vertical
plane, except where doors connect the buildings to open spaces, or
where a neighbouring roof is not present. Thus in the absence of
streets and doors (as is the case in Levels VIII, VII, VIB, and VIA)
the courts are regarded as negative spaces in the access patterns.

In the Çatalhöyük sequence a major distinction can be made between
Levels VII-VIA (all earlier levels have provided too few buildings to
analyse), and Levels V-II. In the later levels some public space, in
the form of courts and streets, seems to be present, and buildings are
easier to access, as can be seen also by the appearance of doorways
from Level IV onwards. This development is illustrated in Fig. 4,
which shows that both maximum and mean access depths decrease in the
later levels.

During Levels VII-VIA the accessibility of the area excavated by
Mellaart can be characterised as consisting of a series of more or
less concentric zones, the centre of which was most difficult to
access. The outer circle consisted of buildings that could be directly
approached through the surrounding open spaces. A second group of
buildings could only be approached via the outer ring of buildings. In
Levels VII and VIA a third group also existed, that could only be
approached via the roofs of two other buildings.
In Level V the concentric access pattern was abandoned, however.
Streets were introduced, connecting the central courtyards with other
parts of the settlement. Buildings are easier to access. Thus the
break in continuity discussed above is related to a change in how the
settlement was accessed.

The location of the `ritually elaborate buildings'

The term `ritually elaborate building' (henceforward `REB') is related
to the distinction made by Mellaart between shrines and houses. The
designation `shrine' is avoided for two reasons, however. First, the
term shrine implies a building solely used for religious purposes, but
the Çatalhöyük shrines seem to have been domestic buildings primarily
(see Heinrich and Seidl 1969:116; Hodder 1999:179). Second, although
Mellaart provides a set of criteria to distinguish shrines (Mellaart
1967:78), he did not use these criteria in any systematic way to
separate between shrines and ordinary buildings (Heinrich and Seidl
1969:116; Hamilton 1996:226-7; Hodder 1996a:6). Also the absence or
presence of burials was not used to differentiate shrines. The REBs
distinguished by me are buildings with a combined total of more than
four paintings, mouldings, and burials. (NB many of the REB are not
amongst Mellaart's shrines and vice versa.) The distinction between
REBs and normal buildings is a heuristic device, and does probably not
reflect any kind of separation in antiquity. Nonetheless the REBs are
constantly about 20 % of the buildings, and generally contain more
than 60 % of the mouldings and burials. Thus a minority of buildings
contains the large majority of `ritual features', which seems to be a
clear indication that a division between ordinary and special
buildings is a valid one.

Looking at the location of the REBs it is remarkable that during the
early levels (VII-VIA) the ritually elaborate buildings are often
located in the second or third access level. Up to Level VIA the REBs
are harder to access than ordinary buildings. (Except for Level VIII,
but for that level only few buildings were excavated.) The shift
towards a new situation is at the Level VIA-V transition. A comparison
of the plan of Levels VIA, with that of Level V clearly shows that
REBs are more easy to access in Level V. The same development is
illustrated in Fig. 4, showing that after Level VIA REBs are as easy
to access as other buildings.

Synthesis

I have discussed some changes that took place at the only site where
the ECN - LCN transition is well documented, Çatalhöyük. Developments
in the material culture have been noted for ceramics, obsidian
industries, figurines, and wall paintings. Some of these changes point
to more specialisation, others to a change in the symbolic system and
the gender conception. In the architecture of the site a major
disruption can be shown to occur, in which certain building traditions
were abolished, and individual buildings became more private, while
ritually elaborate buildings (REBs) became easier to access.

What social processes do these changes in architecture of the site
reflect? Hodder has recently proposed a model in which the building
continuity of the site is interpreted, suggesting that people became
`bound between walls', and that buildings had histories that were tied
up with those of people (Hodder 1998:90). The same kind of model has
also been used for the larger neighbourhoods: `We might initially
anticipate a small group of people on the alluvial fan. As families
grow new houses are built using earlier walls. The concern is to stay
close to the ancestors and the household gods with which they were
associated. Older houses remain so new ones have to be fitted around
and between them. The end result is an agglomeration held together by
social and religious ties' (Hodder 1996b:48).

If this model is appropriate we are not just looking at plans in the
early levels at Çatalhöyük. We are looking at a built expression of
social agglomerations. This is reflected in the building accessibility
and the location of the REBs. The demise of the characteristic
settlement structure after Level VIA would then also be the demise of
those social agglomerations, and might represent a shift from large
multi household groups, to smaller social units based on the
individual households.

Perhaps a little later than these changes at Çatalhöyük a number of
new settlements were founded that continued to be inhabited in the
Early Chalcolithic period. These new settlements are generally
characterised by non-agglutinative architecture (except for Canhasan
I). Could it be that their social organisation is related to that
which developed in the upper levels at Çatalhöyük? If that is the
case, the transition between the ECN - LCN might have been a very
profound one.

Acknowledgements

The CANeW organisational team, consisting of Frédéric Gérard, Laurens
Thissen, and Damien Bischoff, are to be praised for organising this
excellent symposium. Furthermore I would like to thank them for
providing me the opportunity to present my paper. Second I am grateful
for the support of the University of Leiden, enabling me to pursue my
studies, of which the present paper is a first product.

References

Conolly, J., 1999. Technical strategies and technical change at
Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Antiquity 73, 791-800
De Contenson, H., 1968. J. Mellaart: Çatal Hüyük, a Neolithic town in
Anatolia. [book review]. Antiquity 42, 72-74
Düring, B., 2000. Places, privacy patterns, and social identities in
the architecture of Neolithic Çatalhöyük, a diachronic study.
Unpublished MA thesis, University of Leiden
Düring, B., 2001. Social dimensions in the architecture of Neolithic
Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies 51, 1-18
Hamilton, N., 1996. Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials. In
I. Hodder [ed.]. On the Surface, Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge and
London: McDonald Archaeological Institute and British Institute at
Ankara, 215-264
Heinrich, E. and U. Seidl, 1969. Zur Siedlungsform von Çatal Hüyük.
Archäologischer Anzeiger 84, 113-119
Hillier, B. and J. Hanson, 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Hodder, I., 1996a. Re-opening Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder [ed.] .On the
surface, Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge and London: McDonald
Archaeological Institute and British Institute at Ankara, 1-18
Hodder, I., 1996b. Çatalhöyük, 9000 year old housing and settlement in
Central Anatolia. In Y. Sey [ed.]. Tarihten günümüze Anadolu'da konut
ve yerlesme/Housing and settlement in Anatolia: a historical
perspective. [Habitat II, Istanbul 1996]. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi
Yayinlari, 43-48.
Hodder, I., 1998. The domus, some problems reconsidered. In M. Edmonds
and C. Richards [eds.]. Understanding the neolithic of north-western
Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 84-101
Hodder, I., 1999. Symbolism at Çatalhöyük In J. Coles, R. Bewley and
P. Mellars [eds.]. World Prehistory. Studies in memory of Grahame
Clarke. London: Proceedings of the British Academy 99, 177-191
Last, J., 1996. Surface pottery at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder [ed.]. On
the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge and London: McDonald
Archaeological Institute and British Institute at Ankara, 115-172
Last, J., 1998. A design for life, interpreting the art of Çatalhöyük.
Journal of Material Culture 3/3, 355-378
Lawrence, R., 1990. Public, collective and private space. A study of
urban housing in Switzerland. In S. Kent [ed.]. Domestic architecture
and the use of space. An interdisciplinary, cross-cultural study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73-91
Leach, E., 1978. Does space syntax really constitute the social? In D.
Green, C. Hasselgrove and M. Spriggs [eds.]. Social organisation and
settlement, Contributions from anthropology, archaeology and
geography. Oxford: BAR, 385-401
Matthews, R., 1996. Surface scraping and planning. In I. Hodder [ed.].
On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge and London: McDonald
Archaeological Institute and British Institute at Ankara, 79-100
Matthews, W. and S. Farid, 1996. Exploring the 1960s surface. The
stratigraphy of Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder [ed.]. On the surface,
Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge and London: McDonald Archaeological
Institute and British Institute at Ankara, 271-300
Mellaart, J., 1962. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. First preliminary
report, 1961. Anatolian Studies 12, 41-65
Mellaart, J., 1963. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. Second preliminary
report, 1962. Anatolian Studies 13, 43-103
Mellaart, J., 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. Third preliminary
report, 1963. Anatolian Studies 14, 39-119
Mellaart, J., 1966. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. Fourth preliminary
report, 1965. Anatolian Studies 16, 165-191
Mellaart, J., 1967. Çatal Hüyük, a Neolithic town in Anatolia. London:
Thames and Hudson
Thissen, L., 2000. Early village communities in Anatolia and the
Balkans, 6500 - 5500 cal BC. Studies in chronology and culture
contact. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leiden
Todd, I., 1976. Çatal Hüyük in perspective. Menlo Park: Cummings
Publishing
Voigt, M., 1999. Çatal Hüyük in context, ritual at Early Neolithic
sites in Central and Eastern Turkey. In I. Kuijt [ed.]. Life in
Neolithic farming communities, Social organization, identity, and
differentiation. New York: Kluwer Academic Press, 253-293

__________________________

[INLINE] Go to the [10]related debate

[INLINE] Back to the [11]Table Ronde

[[12]Index] [[13]Archives] [[14]Table
Ronde] [[15]Edition] [[16]Data] [[17]Site plan]

[[18]Contact]

References

2. http://www.canew.net/