ÇATALHÖYÜK 1998 ARCHIVE REPORT

Archaeological Illustration

by John Swogger

Çatalhöyük has a well-established visual presence in both academic and popular archaeology. The library of images which has so shaped perceptions of the site include photographs, paintings, finds illustrations and reconstructions. These have, over the past three decades, together created a powerful picture of the site, its archaeology, its significance and its meaning. It is impossible even today to wholly extricate our present understanding and interpretation of the site and its archaeology from that powerful collection of visual representations and images. 

There can be no doubt that the present project at Çatalhöyük is quite different from Mellaart's original excavations. Not only have the methods of excavation and investigation changed, but consequently so have interpretations of the site - radically. Yet for the most part, the visual library of images by which we and others refer to the site has not changed. Even as recently as last year, The New York Times was still using reconstruction illustrations dating from the 1960s to visually describe the site to readers. Textual presentation of current interpretations need to be accompanied by more current visual presentations of those interpretations. 

This past season, the first attempts were made to challenge the old and familiar visual imagery of the site in the form of new architectural and social reconstruction illustrations. These reconstructions of Buildings One (Figure 56), Two (Figure 10) and Five (Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19), plus drawings and paintings depicting various interpretations of social activities within the site are the first step to creating a new library of visual representations with which to help on the ongoing redefinition of Çatalhöyük (Figure 37, Figure 54, Figure 55) . Although these images can be said to have succeeded in that they present now a very different picture of the site, they can only be considered a first step. The only way for these reconstructions to truly work as mechanisms for shaping and encoding new interpretations and new ideas is if the process of creating them is seen as being continuous and inclusive. It is no good overthrowing one monolithically endurable and unchangeable set of images only to replace them with another. As the project's picture of Çatalhöyük evolves, so the visual representation of that changing picture must evolve also. Part of the challenge that lies ahead is for the entire excavation and project team to become more familiar with the power of the language of visual imagery and to work together to use that power to its best end. 

The use and production of visual presentation and imagery on archaeological sites inevitably raises various important questions. These questions range from those relating to specific archaeological debates - such as those surrounding the nature of activities and behaviours at the site, theories of structure, architecture and function, etc., and how these are to be visually represented - to those relating to broader, technical considerations - such as choice of media, publication, etc., and how these affect the presentation of visual information. These questions cannot be answered by an illustrator alone; it is part of the imperative for dialogue implicit in the use of visual representation in this way that the process of creating such imagery includes all those whose work contributes to the understanding of a site.

Figure 55 A reconstruction of mortuary structures based on Mellaart's description

Figure 56 Building 1 - reconstruction