ÇATALHÖYÜK 1999 ARCHIVE REPORT

Archaeological Illustration

John Gordon Swogger

Introduction

This archive report brings together three separate elements. Firstly, a summary of the work that was completed during the 1999 six-month excavation and in the six weeks of post-excavation work done during October and November, secondly a demonstration of how that work fits into previously outlined methodological approaches to archaeological illustration at Catalhoyuk, finally, brief discussions of some of the directions that I feel illustration should now be taking within the project.

Finds Illustrations

Summary

One hundred and eighty seven finds illustrations were drawn this season (see Figure 57). These illustrations mostly cover the objects which were selected over the six-month period to be taken to Konya museum. This number also includes some obsidian destined for destructive analysis and illustrations of other objects for inclusion in specialist articles and notes. Unfortunately, due to circumstance, not all the objects - including nine pieces of obsidian and several other small finds - taken to the museum in Konya were drawn, although it is possible that permission will be obtained for them to be drawn during the 2000 season.

Photocopies of the pencil illustrations were lodged in the Finds Room before the end of the season - an archive which, incidentally, is badly in need of cataloguing. There is a collection of illustrations from the 1996 through 1999 seasons stored partly there and partly in Cambridge. However, without a comprehensive catalogue and/or register of these illustrations they are in danger of either vanishing or losing their relevance. I would strongly suggest that during the upcoming study seasons, an effort be made to collate and index this archive, thus enabling it to be used for reference and publication purposes.

Object and Context: New approaches and ideas

I have long suggested that the 'standard' approach to finds illustration is all very well, but that it lacks any notion of context. The conventional and standard way of presenting finds illustrations has not changed since the nineteenth century, and owes much to a view of archaeology that was often little more than an excuse for collecting and classifying artefacts. If, in the context of our archaeology we seek to move away from such a viewpoint, it seems obvious that our ideas about the nature and presentation of finds illustrations must also move.

This is illustration heresy, since for the past thirty years archaeological illustration has sought to do little more than standardize and conventionize the way in which various finds, features and types of sites are illustrated. Indeed, much of the value of archaeological illustration to archaeology has been due to its ability to curb its 'artistic' instincts and be more 'scientific' - in other words, more precise, more accurate, more logical and more subject to the rigors and tests to which other aspects of archaeology are now subject.

As I say, all very well and good, and I would not want for a moment to start to undo these changes. However, as I say, this particular approach can omit much that is relevant to the study of artefacts, chief being the varied ideas of context - contexts of discovery, contexts of study, analysis and discussion, context of original use, etc.. The manner in which we present these objects in our reports and publications ought to reflect this. There are various different contexts in which we could put our finds illustrations: context of discovery, context of analysis, context of use, etc.. I should say at this point that my ideas about re-introducing context to finds illustrations are by no means concrete. This is one area of illustration in particular where great care must be taken to balance practical with theoretical considerations - and getting that balance right is not a task with obvious solutions.

Reconstructions

Summary

Approximately eighty reconstruction illustrations were produced - I say 'approximately' because I have not yet trawled through every last nook and cranny of my sketchbooks to number each and every significant illustration. It is not usual to number and register every last little reconstruction sketch, but I believe that the first step in increasing accessibility to the process of producing reconstructions must be to produce an archive that shows every step of that process.

Copies of this archive exist partly as a collection of original illustrations stored in the Finds Room at Catalhoyuk, partly as a photocopied record and partly as a digital record stored on CD. This somewhat dispersed archive is not entirely complete, nor is it entirely reconciled to the register of illustrations. However, the whole process of recording and cataloguing such sketches and draft illustrations is in its early days; questions about storage, access and presentation have not yet fully been addressed. At the moment, there is little or no access to this archive, although steps are being taken to create web-based access (see below).

Buildings

Reconstructions have been drawn now of nearly all the principal spaces and buildings excavated this season. In some cases, the format of these illustrations have varied from the standard axonometric/isometric, black and white paradigm - part of the ongoing process of exploring new and/or better ways to represent the interpretative reconstruction of the site's archaeology. I don't think it's practical to go through each one of these reconstructions here, but I would like to just note two reconstructions which, I think, serve as examples.

Of the five odd reconstructions done of spaces within Building 3 in the Bach area, the most interesting to work on were the two [E802, E846] which depict the so-called 'screen wall' (Figure 27). This feature, which arguably dominates any understanding or reconstruction of the 'main room' of Building 3, was exposed more completely this season, revealing something of the inner structure of the wall, the manner in which it was constructed, and the way in which it related to events in both in the space to the west and the main room. Doing the reconstruction of the screen wall [E846] on its own was first of all an opportunity to show the revision of earlier ideas about the wall that had formed the basis of the earlier reconstruction [E802]. Secondly, it was an extremely rewarding exercise in not only untangling but also representing the structural stratigraphy, and I am looking forward to the opportunity of revising this reconstruction yet again as more excavation is done on the wall and the spaces around it.

There were so many different buildings in the South area and so many different reconstructions of those buildings that it's difficult to pick any one out from the crowd (Frontispiece and Figures 15, 16 and 17). However, I think one of the reconstructions of Building 16 can serve as an example of a number of things I was trying to do with the building reconstructions (Figure 60). Firstly, the reconstruction is done in an alternative style to the standard axonometric, black and white style. The illustration uses colour, and its viewpoint is near to natural eye-level. In addition, there are gaps in the reconstruction, and the drawing is dotted with written notes and queries. These differences in style and presentation were intended to communicate some of the uncertainties inherent in the interpretations and evidence - in direct contrast to the implicit certainty of other approaches.

Objects

The reconstructions of figurine 5043.x1 and the 'belthook' 5177.x1 are examples of artefactual reconstructions. In each illustration, the reconstruction is as much an exercise in trying to represent various interpretations of the object as 'completing' a broken or partially recovered object - just as happens with the reconstructions of the buildings and spaces. In the case of the figurine, the illustration posits ornament and decoration suggested by the possible presence of resin or other fixative within the holes on the head and 'ears'.

The classification of the multi-holed bone artefact 5177.x1 as a 'belthook' was first suggested by Mellaart. His interpretation was based partly on the fact that these objects were often found in graves near the 'waist' of male skeletons, and partly on a need to make functional sense out of the holes and the often-accompanying hook-shaped artefact. This is a reading of the objects that I have made use of myself in other reconstructions of costume and dress, but the discovery of an example this season near the face of a child burial led Lucy Hawkes, among others, to suggest an alternative interpretation: that of baby rattle, dummy/pacifier or toy. This reconstruction is an attempt to 'capture' that interpretation.

People

I have been working on two different kinds of reconstructions of people. Both types inevitably feed each other - and in some sense it is spurious to separate them. But the techniques involved in each type are very different.

The first type is the reconstruction of costume and dress (Figure 61; see also Frontispiece). This has proved in no small way to be something of a minefield. Not only is the logic behind the reconstruction wide open to interpretation, the results too are a honeytrap for agendas of every kind. However, the whole exercise has proved extremely interesting and productive. The two examples here are only some of the results of this whole process.

The second type is the reconstruction of facial physiognomy based on excavated skeletal material - 'facial reconstructions' in the best archaeological sense of the word. This is an aspect of reconstruction that is, admittedly, new to me, and the learning curve has been steep. But I have a fair degree of confidence in the results so far. I have only attempted two such reconstructions so far and those only in 2D - that is, as drawings on paper, but plans for the future would definitely include the production of sculptural, 3D reconstructions.

Presentation

Louise Doughty's interpretation boards for the South Area, the Visitors' Centre and Building 5 gave me the opportunity to produce illustrations for an entirely different Catalhoyuk audience: the general public. There were four or five of these illustrations (more if you count the A4 page coverage of the auroch...), ranging from paintings of Building 5 and diagrams showing how the Catalhoyuk buildings sat on top of each other, to a life-size wooden cut out of an auroch. There were also a number of illustrations specially produced for Granada television and Science magazine. I had not anticipated that such illustrations would have become part of my remit - although I suppose I should have. It occurred to me both while producing these and getting feedback from them that the project as a whole needs to co-ordinate its approach to presentation and interpretation of the site in general more carefully, and specifically pay more attention to the visual nature of that presentation. The aim should be a more 'effective' presentation of the site: no less diverse, but less fractured.

Theory

It has been my stated aim in all aspects of the illustrative work I have been doing to adapt the way in which archaeological illustration works in the context of a post-processual and reflexive archaeological project. I once wrote that there was no post-processual approach to archaeological illustration; in some respects this is because it already is post-processual. It is an archaeological tool which already embraces many of the aspects to which post-processual archaeology aspires: it is by the very nature of processes already in place empathetic, individual-focused, heuristic, hermeneutic, 'textual' (in the sense that it is 'readable') and therefore a prime vehicle for multivocality; and it can draw heavily on contextual and phenomenological data.

But this is all something of an aside. I still believe that the illustrative 'tool' in post-processual archaeology still needs some 'sharpening'. By this I mean that there are still some aspects of the practice of archaeological illustration - both within the context of the practicalities of a functioning archaeological project and within the context of specific techniques and approaches within the discipline - which need some changing and/or adapting.

Monumentality and the reconstruction of the transient

I have mentioned before the need for archaeological illustration to work harder at overthrowing the 'monumentality' of the imagery it creates. I have tried to ensure this by making sure that the reconstructions I produce are never allowed to sit unaltered while interpretations change around them - that they actively and constantly reflect those changes. This is not just important in the case of buildings or spaces where excavation is ongoing (for example, Building 3's 'screen wall'), but is perhaps even more important where excavation has ceased, but interpretation has not (Building 5, for instance). The reconstruction of 'transient' interpretations is an important part of recording this ongoing process. As the focus of the project moves over the next three years ever more towards a publication, it is important that the power of visual images to codify interpretation not be forgotten.

Accessibility

An important part of involving illustration more closely in the interpretative process is the improvement of access to the illustrative record. The Internet, in the form of email and the Web, has greatly expanded the potential for access to text-based data. It now has the same potential for expanding access to visual data. Since the start of my involvement in the project, I have always made clear my desire for web-based access to the Catalhoyuk's illustrative archive. Work on an illustration web-site has already begun. Although there are still problems to solve and wrinkles to iron out, I see this as being the best possible way forward in terms of addressing questions of accessibility to the site's illustrative archives.

Art as archaeological illustration

Part of the inherently 'post-processual' nature of archaeological illustration is its close links with what is usually in Western tradition referred to as 'art'. Interest in using the milieu of 'art' to record, present and understand the archaeological process, the archaeological experience and the archaeological record is not new, but attempts to more formally include it within the practice of 'interpretative archaeology' are. It is difficult to assess the varied experiments that have been carried out in this field over the past two or three years, but it is clear that the potential for experimentation is nowhere near exhausted. Nessa Liebhammer's work at Catalhoyuk in 1997 and 1998 showed the site's specific potential for such experimentation. In keeping with my own belief (maintained as yet with only a small amount of anecdotal evidence) that closer connections between 'art' and archaeology, and more exploration of the connection between narrative and image-based interpretations are in some way mutually beneficial, I would like to actively encourage future work in this vein.

  Accessibility, transience and monumentality
  Art in archaeological illustration
  Abstract paintings
  DMIs and web-based presentation

Theory and Approaches

"As the present nature of our archaeology changes, the manner in which it is recorded and presented is also beginning to change."

"[Archaeological illustration is supposed] not subject to the same intellectual or academic rigors as other modes of presentation."

"Destroying the artificial boundaries between media and styles by redefining our understanding of what archaeological illustration is will encourage the creation of... new presentations."

"In the context of a new definition of archaeological illustration, it must be understood that a reconstruction is a product of the use and impact of all three of these windows."

"Taken separately, image and word can be incomplete: reconstructions without explanations may be as misleading and obscure as discussion and conclusion without illustration."

"[These archaeological illustrations] are created to illustrate particular ideas, they have a life-span which matches the life-span of those ideas, and then they cease to be useful. Unfortunately, this perception is not generally matched by an enthusiasm for either publishing new reconstructions nor readily discarding the old."

"[Archaeological illustration should remain] at all times fluid, reflecting the changing and transient nature of interpretation. I would suggest that there are ways in both the production and consumption of reconstructions to achieve this fluidity."

"The aim should be to produce as many different reconstructions as possible - and that means as many different reconstructions using as many different approaches to the 'windows' of style, presentation and content."

"Increased access to the process of illustration and its archive may be one good way of addressing this issue."

"Even so, there exists a palpable gap between my illustrative process and the produced image."

Figures

Figure 60: Reconstruction of Building 16.

Figure 61: Reconstruction of ‘gatherer’ figure based upon excavated artefacts and current theories.