Çatalhöyük 1994 Archive Report

ÇATALHÖYÜK 1994 ARCHIVE REPORT

POTTERY REPORT
Part II: Report on surface Investigations at Çatalhöyük 1993-1994

Jonathan Last

Çatalhöyük East

a. 2x2m Surface Collection

The methods of the surface survey were discussed in the 1993 report, along with the quantitative results for the majority of the east mound: these showed that wheel made sherds predominated, especially on the southern half of the main mound (I refer to the site in terms of the three main topographic divisions clearly visible on Fig. 8: the main mound, the northern eminence, and the eastern plateau). This area was the focus of activity in the ‘Classical' (i.e. Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine) periods. This season the survey of the remaining, peripheral areas of the east mound was completed, and the results do not significantly alter the observed patterning. In addition I attempted a more qualitative analysis of the ceramic data from both seasons, based only on the diagnostic pieces (rims, bases, handles and decorated sherds).

The number of Neolithic diagnostics was small: only some 58 sherds over 46 squares, of which 33 contained rim sherds. The only decorated rim (with incised horizontal lines: cf. Fig. 1:1) lay far downslope on the north-west part of the mound. The most significant patterning related to the distribution of different vessel forms: whereas closed forms (holemouths) were distributed across the entire mound surface except for the slope east of the eastern plateau, open forms (bowls) were found only in this area, on the plateau itself and on the eastern slope of the main mound (Fig. 6a, Fig. 6b). While such a restricted distribution of open forms is not confirmed by the results of the 10xlOm scrape squares (see below), the implication is clearly that the eastern plateau area has more bowls. My analysis of Mellaart's ceramic assemblage showed that open forms increase as a proportion of all vessels over time, which in turn suggests that the latest occupation may be found in this area of the site. Other characteristics of the Neolithic diagnostics, such as thickness and Munsell value, did not reveal any significant patterning.

We already knew that Early Chalcolithic pottery was found on the east mound as well as the west, although in far smaller quantities. It is entirely possible that these sherds were only brought onto the east mound during the Classical period when activity of some sort occurred on both sites. The distribution of painted Chalcolithic sherds on the surface shows occasional finds in all areas but the only clear concentration lay on the south side of the main mound, which was the focus of Classical occupation and would fit this hypothesis of residuality. No large sherds comparable in preservation to the west mound surface finds turned up here.

The wheel made pottery awaits further analysis in terms of periods and wares. Nevertheless some diagnostic types could be recognised: Hellenistic slipped wares, frequently with a striped effect which may be deliberate or relate to the uneven application of a slip on the wheel, was in all but one case restricted to the main mound. Of later types, those with incised or applied decoration on coarse fabrics of Late Roman or Byzantine date are found more widely, although cord impressions are again restricted to the southern slope of the main mound. Sherds of green glazed ware, which could be later Byzantine or Islamic, were not common on the surface (5 pieces) but all of these lay north of the main mound; it is therefore possible that later occupation shifted to the north and reduced in intensity. It is more than likely that the mound was not permanently occupied at this time, for field walking around the site revealed the presence of a sizeable Byzantine period settlement a few hundred metres east and north-east of the mound. The finds from this site include Late Roman red slip wares, Byzantine tiles and coarse wares with incised ‘wavy line' decoration, as well as occasional green glazed pieces. Hellenistic sherds appeared to be rare, so in the earlier phase occupation may indeed have been focussed on the mound itself.

However, the vast majority of the Classical pottery on the east mound is coarse wares. I attempted to look for possible functional variation across the mound by plotting attributes like ring bases, handles and the wall thickness of all rim sherds. but apart from the general increase in all types on the south of the main mound the only evident patterning was a tendency for thinner-walled vessels in the north-west part of the site (Fig. 7). This may be merely a reflection of the chronological differences suggested above.

b. 10 x 10 m Surface Scraping

This section discusses the finds recovered from the surface scraping on the east mound. All co-ordinates refer to the south-west corner of a 10xl0m square (Fig. 8). The priority for the renewed scraping in 1994 was to extend those areas investigated in the previous season where Neolithic architecture showed up clearly under the topsoil. This generally meant areas where later Classical disturbance was minimal, especially on the northern slope of the main mound and the northern eminence. In addition two squares were placed south of the summit of the main mound (which is at 1000/1000). These were the richest of this year's squares in terms of total weight of ceramics, but the low percentages of Neolithic pottery (<5%) indicate that the Classical occupation is responsible for most of this material.

Given the variation in the depth of soil removed in different areas the most meaningful way of comparing quantities of ceramics is by way of densities, i.e. the number of sherds per cubic metre of topsoil (Tables 5-6). In these terms the square at 990/990 has by far the greatest number of sherds. The other squares on the main mound, along with that on the top of the northern eminence, have moderate densities of sherds. The squares at 1045/1125 (the volume of this context is an estimate) and 1040/1140 have lower values but were more prolific than the squares at the top of the northern slope of the northern eminence where architectural remains were clearest. In essence there is a fall-off in the density of finds from the top of the main mound, with the most northerly square (104011240) the only exception.

However these figures conflate the pottery of all periods. We were more interested in the purity of the Neolithic assemblage in an area. The squares directly north of 1000/1000 and on the west slope of the main mound have a larger proportion of Neolithic sherds than those to the south, but it is still below 20%. The eastern slope and eastern plateau area have rather more Neolithic sherds (40%) but only the squares on and around the northern eminence have more than 50% Neolithic, with the highest value from the square at 1045/1125. The area to the north of this, with the best architectural visibility, had relatively more wheel made sherds but a much lower density of all pottery, which no doubt reflects a low level of disturbance. The lower proportions of handmade sherds at 104011240, combined with the greater absolute quantity of Classical material there, suggests a subsidiary focus of later activity at the northern end of the site.

To remove any bias due to variation in mean sherd weight between different areas I looked at the total weight of ceramics per unit volume. The distribution of the Classical pottery shows that no square north of 1050 has more than half the density of ceramics of those squares to the south. The northern eminence has the lowest densities of wheel made pottery. Apart from the exceptions at 1045/1125 and 1040/1240 the fall-off with distance from 1000/1000 is striking.

The Neolithic pottery is more variable, with the highest densities in the squares on and closest to the eastern plateau (Fig. 8). A little less Neolithic material came from the summit of the main mound and the top of the northern eminence, and there was rather less again from the north slope of the main mound. Low densities were found on the south slope, and on the north side of the northern eminence. Hence there is a clear focus on the eastern plateau, variability in the central part of the site and a noticeable fall-off in peripheral areas to north and south.

The first task in understanding these patterns is to consider the formation processes involved. The values for mean sherd weight from each square help to elucidate these. The coefficient of correlation between the mean weight of Neolithic sherds and of wheel made sherds for the site as a whole is r=0.40, which suggests a steady, if weak, relationship. This implies that some 16% of the patterning is due to post-depositional effects that has affected all sherds equally, and that therefore occurred since the deposition of the wheel made pottery. On a more local scale these modern processes appear to have had a greater effect. Square 1020/1170 was excavated experimentally in 2x2m squares. Although the correlation between sherd weights within these 25 small squares was low, that between numbers of handmade and wheel made sherds was as high as r=0.79, which suggests that processes such as slope wash, moving sherds down the surface of the mound, have had a significant effect since the Classical period; hence the distribution of Neolithic sherds in the topsoil may be a poor indicator of sherd densities in the archaeology, at least in this part of the site. This is confirmed by the correlation coefficient for the 16 10xl0 m squares in this area, which is high (r=0.59) but becomes more significant when the area is split into northern and southern halves, since the proportion of Neolithic pieces clearly increases to the north; the values are then 0.97 (!) for the southern eight squares and 0.78 for the north. What we may have is a background of Neolithic sherds from the levels below overlain by a mixed deposit with sherds of all periods that is more extensive towards the top of the eminence and tails off downslope (to the north). Hence correlations, while high overall, are more significant for the southern squares.

In terms of mean sherd weights there are some interesting patterns. The area at the summit of the mound and the large area north and east of 1020/1170 are each characterised by small sherd size in both categories (handmade and wheel made). The causes are probably rather different, as we might suspect that the digging of graves in the former area, which occurred towards the end of the Classical occupation in the Byzantine period, would account for fragmentation and abrasion of sherds of all periods. It may also serve to explain the sheer quantity of finds, particularly of the Classical period, in this square. In the latter area the effects of erosion and disturbance which appear to have produced a highly correlated distribution of handmade and wheel made sherds would also have led to a reduction in size. The northern part of the main mound and the eastern eminence have much larger sherds, with the best-preserved Neolithic assemblage in 1045/1125 where later disturbance is minimal. This square contrasts sharply with that 20m to the north where values are close to those for the other squares on the northern eminence. This suggests that the southern slope of the northern eminence has undergone rather different formation processes which have not contributed to sherd fragmentation. The amount of Classical pottery in 1040/1140 is some eight times that in 104511125. Further scraping in this area, where architecture was less visible, might elucidate the nature of the deposit and whether the pattern reflects mainly post-depositional processes, or real differences in the structure of deposition of Neolithic ceramics. The north-south linearity of the patterns, with a clear fall-off in the mean size of wheel made sherds from 1040 to 1200N, similar to that for the total weight of ceramics, is no doubt an effect of increasing distance from the main focus of Classical activity on the south of the main mound. The Neolithic pottery increases in size down the north slope of the mound, where the effects of Classical activity are less marked, before falling off significantly on the northern eminence. Also of note is the fact that body sherd size follows this pattern, as one might expect, but it is affected in part also by vessel thickness which is lower on the northern eminence than elsewhere. Hence some of the patterning may be related to functional or chronological differences between the areas.

While the Neolithic assemblage therefore demonstrates the effects of Classical activity and post-Classical weathering, the pottery from the topsoil must also to some degree reflect the archaeology underneath. How far variations in sherd density across the mound surface relate to the distribution of pottery in the rooms and courtyards below must remain open until excavated data are available but it should be noted that Mellaart's excavations revealed clear concentrations of pottery separated by areas of the site with few if any sherds, especially in the most extensively excavated levels VII to V.

More significantly at this stage of the project, typological and metrical differences between the assemblages from different parts of the site might provide indications as to which of Mellaart's levels are represented and whether there is chronological variation in the structures directly below the present surface of the mound. This discussion considers only the material excavated in the 1994 season. To avoid repetition of co-ordinates the different areas are referred to as: the summit (990/990), the main mound (980/1080 etc. on its northern slope), the ‘gully' (1045/1125, which lies on the southern slope of the northern eminence above the gully separating that area from the main mound) and the northern eminence (1020/1170 etc.). There were insufficient prehistoric finds from 1000/950 to comment on this area.

The first important chronological indicator is vessel wall thickness, which declines in a regular manner over time, although it is immediately clear that the chunky, organic-tempered early pottery found by Mellaart in level VII and below is not represented in the surface material. However mean body thickness everywhere is greater than that for Mellaart's levels VI to IV. Body sherds from the upper levels were not represented in the Museum collections but rim sherds vary little in thickness between levels VI and III and then increase again in level II. The summit and the main mound have thicker sherds than the other areas but it is hard to tie these differences in to Mellaart's phases.

In the Museum sample mean vessel mouth diameter appears to decline in level II, but it is rather higher for all surface contexts (except for the small summit sample) than it is for Mellaart's material. However, I suspect this may be due to a selectivity in the latter which has many more small and miniature vessels than were found in our surface contexts. Alternatively it may reflect certain differences in activities in the area of the mound where Mellaart excavated. It is possible that the variation in sherd thickness and other attributes across the site might also reflect a degree of functional rather than purely chronological variation.

While vessel size and thickness are not therefore directly comparable with the Museum collection the proportion of open and closed forms may be more significant. In Mellaart's levels there is a clear fall-off in the proportion of holemouth forms from level V to level II. In the surface contexts all areas fall close to the level IV mean except for the northern eminence which has many more open forms, between the level III and II figures. Again the differences may reflect spatial variation as much as temporal, but it does appear that on this criterion the northern eminence has generally later material. The proportion of flattened (as opposed to rounded or pointed) rims seems to decrease between levels IV and II. On this basis the main mound and gully ceramics would be later than those from the northern eminence, but I attach less significance to this attribute as the trend is not a strong one..

From Mellaart's finds attributes of the vessel base do not seem chronologically very sensitive, except for the proportion of footed vessels which increases sharply from level V. None of the surface assemblages approach the level Ill figures; however, the proportion of base sherds to rims in our assemblages is much higher than in Mellaart's, which suggests a selective bias in the latter and gives problems of small sample size for levels II and III. Therefore the numbers of feet may be misleading. Among the surface contexts the main mound and summit have more footed bases than the gully and northern eminence, which should place the latter earlier.

In general the proportion of lugs to rims is similar to that for level V on the main mound and in the gully. The smaller numbers for the northern eminence suggest fewer of the lugged holemouth jars which characterised levels VI and V, and therefore a later date. Most noticeable in terms of lug morphology is the low number of perforated examples compared to Mellaart's levels, especially in the gully and on the northern eminence. While no lugs from level II were kept Mellaart writes that un-perforated ledge handles became more common, but the significance of these figures from small samples is uncertain.

The different lug types in the museum collection show some chronological variation, although the small sample from level III and the lack of level II examples there are problematic. Most noticeable is that the straight type dies out by level III(the only surface example is from the main mound), and is replaced by flaring lugs. On this basis the gully, which has more of the latter, appears later than the main mound. The northern eminence lacks flaring lugs, which would place it earlier or later than the others - from the much lower proportion of lugs overall one suspects the latter.

Body sherds from our samples are characterised by a high proportion of light-coloured surfaces, which suggests all are relatively late. Mellaart's finds indicate that vessel surfaces were generally dark until at least level IV.

Other rarer features might also aid a relative chronology. The only animal head lug was discovered on the northern eminence (Fig. 2:5); two similar examples in the Konya Museum both came from level V. Rims with incised decoration (Fig. 1:1) also begin in level V, continue in IV and III, but are not known from level II (or at least from the preserved level II assemblage). Our examples came from the main mound and the gully, but not the northern eminence.

There are no direct correlations with Mellaart's levels but it appears from these attributes that the assemblage from the northern eminence is later than those from the other areas. Only in terms of the footed bases (or lack thereof might this area be early but none of the figures for this attribute match Mellaart's data.

The lack of an easy fit between Mellaart's levels and our assemblages can be ascribed to a number of reasons: the selective assemblage for his level II (and possibly III); the high probability, given the evidence for post-depositional disturbance, that our surface finds are far from single-phase assemblages; and the possibility that functional or symbolic differences between different areas of the mound mean that Mellaart's assemblages are not representative of the site as a whole. Against this there is little evidence so far from the visible architecture of major differences in other areas of the site: elaborately plastered walls, figurines and bucrania are already apparent on the northern eminence.

In general I would suggest that the further away from the top of the mound one goes, the later the ceramic assemblage is. However, for one or all of the reasons listed above, there are no neat links to Mellaart's chronology and therefore only excavation will determine how closely these surface collections are connected with the directly underlying settlement. In the meantime we may gain some clues from looking at the relationship between the architectural features revealed on the northern eminence and variations in the density and preservation of sherds from the soil above.

The square at 1020/1170 was, as mentioned, divided into 2m squares (Fig. 9). The high correlation between counts of wheel made and handmade sherds suggests a strong post-depositional effect upon the Neolithic sherds. The highest densities of Neolithic sherds are confined to the south-west corner of the square, within rooms 55 and 56, and apparently independent of attributes of the room fills such as the degree of burning. The same is true for the clay balls, which were probably pot-boilers. At the larger scale of the 16 10xl0m squares in this area there is a clear division between north and south which may relate to differential degrees of erosion. High densities of Neolithic pottery are found in the north-west of the area where there appear to be rather larger open areas which could have been used for the dumping of rubbish (1020/1190-1200). But the adjacent square 1030/1190, with a large number of walls, also has a high density of sherds. The preservation of the pottery, as measured by mean weight per sherd, also appears independent of architectural features such as open areas or the ‘street' running approximately north-south.

Quantitative differences in the wheel made pottery were also looked for. Without a full fabric and form analysis at this stage, I simply divided the sherds by rim type into the following groups: vessels with inturned rims, jars with everted rims, open forms with plain rims, and open forms with thickened, beaded or overhanging rims (Fig. 10). This suggested some potential differences between different areas which require further study. The southern slope of the main mound has a high proportion of jars and thickened rims, as well as many handles and thick (>10 mm) body sherds, suggesting a large number of big storage vessels. The summit, in contrast, has more simple bowls and ring bases, with fewer handles and thick sherds. The northern slope of the main mound is more mixed while the assemblage from the northern eminence resembles that on the summit but has more large vessels. The suggestion from the surface collection data that later activity, as mapped by the distribution of green glazed sherds was concentrated in the north of the mound is confirmed by the proportions of these wares in the 10xl0 assemblages, with most green glaze found on the northern eminence and north slope of the main mound.

Çatalhöyük West

a. 2x2m Surface Collection

The vast majority of pottery from the west mound is of Early Chalcolithic date; there are no Neolithic finds from the site. Although there is Classical occupation as well, it is less dense than that on the east mound, accounting for less than 5% of the total sherds (although the similarity in fabrics may result in the misclassification of some of the smaller wheel made fragments, particularly since they were generally not washed). The distribution of Classical sherds is largely restricted to the east side of the mound, with a sharp fall-off in numbers west of 540E (Fig.11, showing rim sherds only). Wheel made fine wares are rarer than on the east mound and it appears that the focus of occupation was later than on the other site. Hellenistic slipped wares are not common, and are restricted to the top and east side of the mound. There are also a few green glazed sherds, concentrated in a small area in the south-east.

There are also higher densities of Chalcolithic material on the east side of the mound although the difference between east and west is not so large (Fig. 12). The differences in sherd preservation across the mound are not very great, although there is a curious ring effect in the proportion of small (<2 cm) fragments with lower values for an area in the centre north of the mound, where mean sherd size is therefore somewhat larger (Fig. 13).

Other characteristics of the pottery also show little difference. The main design elements on the painted pottery may be divided into three broad groups: parallel lines, chevrons or zig-zags, and lattices. The designs reproduced by Mellaart (1965) suggest that in general zig-zags are more common in EChal I and lattices in EChal II. However the distributions show little significant patterning. Mellaart also reports that while fabric and paint colours overlap between the two phases EChal I paint is never dark brown or black while in EChal II these shades are common. He suggests that the later pottery is concentrated on the southern slope of the mound (and placed his second trench to investigate this). In the surface collection two large sherds with dark paint and late motifs were found on the west side of the mound and another lay in the north-east. Dark painted elements in general reflected these two zones, with the larger group in fact that to the east and north-east (Fig. 14). Potstands were also more common in EChal II, but these were rare on the surface; the only fragment was found in the west at 380/1020.

With little evidence of systematic chronological variation I looked at possible functional differentiation in terms of a number of features. The presence of handles and lugs was considered to reflect higher numbers of jars and holemouths with storage functions, since the bowls and open forms generally lack handles. The only significant difference was between basket handles (cf. Mellaart 1965, Fig. ll: 16-17) which were broadly distributed except on the north-eastern slope (Fig. 15), while other lug types were concentrated in the centre and north of the mound . Rim thickness was also plotted and revealed that thin-walled vessels (here <6mm) were rare in the south, while thick-walled (>8mm) pots were generally not found in the north-east (Fig. 16). This may be related to the distribution of basket handles, which could have been associated with these larger vessels. Finally I looked for differences in the distribution of plain and painted rims (Fig. 17.1 and Fig. 17.2). The graphs indicate a distinction between two areas on the east side of the mound; in addition the western area had a slightly higher proportion of plain vessels although the difference between east and west was not significant in a Chi-Squared test.

b. 10 x 10 m Surface Scraping

Three squares were opened on different parts of the west mound but none revealed any architectural remains. However, all were extremely rich in ceramic material, and some differences between the assemblages are apparent (Table 8). The western square (480/1040) had by far the lowest proportion of wheel made pottery (1% compared to about 10% in the other squares) which confirms the general picture suggested by the surface survey data. These sherds are also very small (12.9g compared to 26.6 and 30.2g) which implies they may be residual. The density of Chalcolithic material in this area was rather higher than in the squares to the east (580/1020 and 640/960), although the sherds from 480/1040 are a little smaller on average than those from 640/960. In terms of the total weight of handmade pottery per unit volume

These assemblages add little to Mellaart's (1965) typologies since complete or restorable vessels were not found (Fig. 18 shows a variety of upper body forms from bowls and jars). However the recording of Munsell colours allows a more precise description of paint and fabric colours than was given by Mellaart. The fabrics of the painted ceramics concentrate around 5YR 6/6-7/6, although many were less red and more buff in colour (to 5Y 8/2). Paint colours were generally red, distributed around 10R 4/6. ‘Red wash' colours were more variable, possibly because the thickness of the application of the paint varies. There were two main groups, one which ranged from 10R 4/6 to 5YR 7/6 and another smaller group around 2.5Y 8/2-4.

Rim thickness was virtually the same in all three squares, although perhaps fractionally larger at 580/1020 which has a smaller proportion of painted and red wash decoration but more plain wares (Table 8). The western square had most painted sherds and proportionally more straight line ornamentation (Fig. 18:1) and fewer zig-zags (Fig. 18:2) than the other squares. Whether this reflects chronological differences is unclear since lattice motifs which might indicate a later date are roughly equal in numbers. The difference may therefore relate to variation in vessel form, which I also tried to quantify (although it is frequently hard to discern form from small rim sherds). There do seem to be some differences with jars most common in the east, open bowls in the centre and carinated bowls in the west. However, from Mellaart's drawings the smaller proportion of zig-zags in the latter area ought to reflect more open bowls. Clearly more work on the quantification of design elements and vessel forms is necessary.

There are also differences in base forms, with the central square having more angular base junctions and the west more rounded bases: this may reflect the difference between open and carinated bowl forms (cf. Mellaart 1965, Figs. 4 and 5), as does the slightly higher number of base rings in the west.

Lugs are more numerous in 580/1020, particularly basket handles. This is probably related to the lower proportion of painted vessels in this square and may therefore reflect a functional difference in this area. On the other hand the purely decorative ‘vestigial' lugs (Fig. 18:5) are most common in the west, which has more painted sherds.

A number of unusual finds should also be noted: These include an example of the antisplash rim (Fig. 19:1) described by Mellaart. A further, unpainted example was found on the east mound. Previously unrecorded decorative motifs include a ring of parallel wavy lines, and concentric stars (Fig. 19:2-3). Mellaart also describes a small number of dark sherds decorated with white-filled incisions, of which we found a couple of examples (Fig. 19:4), but unparalleled were two burnished sherds decorated with deep grooves in curvilinear motifs (Fig. 19.5).

References

Mellaart, J., 1962. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, First Preliminary Report, 1961. Anatolian Studies XII: 41-66.

Mellaart, J., 1963. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962, Second Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies XIII: 43-103.

Mellaart, J., 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963, Third Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies XIV: 39-119.

Mellaart, J., 1965. Çatal Hüyük West. Anatolian Studies XV: 135-156.

Mellaart, J., 1966. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1965, Fourth Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies XVI: 43-103.

Stucki, W., 1984. Unterlagen zur Keramik des Alten Vorderen Orients 2. Zürich: E.A.-Verlag