ÇATALHÖYÜK 2004 ARCHIVE REPORT

RESEARCH PROJECTS

Auditory archaeology at Çatalhöyük: preliminary research

Steve Mills

Cardiff School of History & Archaeology

Abstract

This paper outlines preliminary research to develop an auditory archaeology at Çatalhöyük during the 2004 field season. Auditory archaeology aims to foster a dialogue and instigate a research agenda acknowledging the important influence and significance of the sound environment in past daily life. Research at Çatalhöyük is a site specific application and concerns sounds associated with the built environment involving studies within and between surviving and reconstructed buildings at the site. The aim is to represent the prehistoric aural environment at Çatalhöyük and assess its potential social significance. In particular, research aims to contextualise past sounds and ground them in the web of material evidence at Çatalhöyük. An introduction to auditory archaeology and previous research is provided followed by an outline of the different approaches applied in the 2004 season. The paper concludes with a suggested program of further research.

Özet

Bu yazı, 2004 yılı Çatalhöyük kazı sezonunda geliştirilen duyum arkeolojisi ile ilgili ön rapordur. Duyum arkeolojisi, geçmişteki günlük yaşamda algılanan seslerin öneminin ve etkisini ortaya koyarak bu konuya yönelik bir gündem belirlemek ve bu konuyu tartışmaya açmak amacındadır. Çatalhöyük'te yapılmak istenen araştırma projesi, özelde, yeniden yapılandırılmış binalrda ve şu anda korunan binalarda seslerin nasıl kullanılabileceği üzerinedir. Amaç, Çatalhöyük'te prehistorik duyumsal bir çevrenin temsilini yaratmak ve bunun olası sosyal önemini gözden geçirmektir. Özelde, bu araştırma projesi geçmiş sesleri özgün ortamına oturtma ve bunu Çatalhöyükte bulunan materyal kanıtların içindeki yerini belirlemektir. Duyum arkeolojisi ve daha önce yapılan araştırmalarla ilgili bir tanıtımın ardından 2004 yılı sezonu içinde belirlenen farklı yaklaşımların da çerçevesi verilmiştir.

Introduction to auditory archaeology

Auditory archaeology is an attempt to give sound and its significance in the past a greater presence in archaeological thinking and practice. Sound is a dynamic source of information: a means by which people, animals and places express themselves; it informs us about physical processes and the relationships that living things experience, develop, maintain, and contest in their surroundings. An auditory archaeology proposes that, in their daily activities, people generate sounds that are integral to creating, maintaining and contesting social relations. Drawing on recent acoustic research, auditory archaeology aims to foster a dialogue acknowledging the important influence and significance of the sound environment in past daily life. The approach was developed during AHRB-funded doctoral research at Cardiff School of History and Archaeology (HISAR), Cardiff University (Mills 2001).

Recent studies of how past people understood their place in the world have employed concepts of place, landscape, phenomenology and agency theory, but the importance of sound in past daily life has not yet been fully embraced. Archaeologists have studied past sounds functionally by examining musical instruments and the acoustic properties of caves, rock shelters and prehistoric monuments (e.g., Dams 1984; Devereux 2001; Devereux and Jahn 1996; Jahn et al 1996; Lawson et al 1998; Lund 1981; Watson and Keating 1999; 2000). This research has considered sounds in very particular “special” places reflecting, to an extent, the nature of the archaeological record chosen for study. There has been less interest in including the everyday sounds of (pre)historic social contexts and practice –anthrophonies, or those associated with insects and animals –biophonies, or the surrounding natural environment –geophonies.   If there is going to be an auditory archaeology proper, it must encompass everyday sounds as well as those associated with special activities and/or places and musical instruments.  

Research in other disciplines has successfully demonstrated the importance of sound in daily life and at a landscape scale (e.g. Bregman 1994; Feld 1994; 1996; Gell 1995; Krausse 2002; Rodaway 1994; Schaffer 1994; Stoller 1989; 1997). Different people at different locations and times place different emphasis on the senses, the balance could favour vision or sound; some people are more tolerant of smell. For example, for the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea, studied by Steven Feld, sound is of most significance; their language and song emulates the everyday sounds of the rain forest. Research of this kind demonstrates the potential variability in attitudes to the senses and their everyday role in social practice. The possibility of variable attitudes to the senses in (pre)history must be embraced within archaeology. An auditory archaeology aims to address this problem by providing a theoretical grounding and set of techniques that enables the role of sound to be studied in the variable contexts prevalent in the archaeological record.

Many of the principles of soundscape studies have been adopted, adapted and applied in other fields of research such as in the World Forum for Acoustic Ecology (WFAE homepage), research into Tranquility Mapping (Bell 1999), the sub-discipline of bioacoustics and to the implementation of noise legislation in US National Parks (National Park Service, U.S. Government 2000).

Auditory archaeology principles

Together, the human body, sound and the places in which people dwell form an implicit set of inter-relationships.   An auditory archaeology proposes that, in their daily activities, people generate sounds that are integral to creating, maintaining and contesting social relations. Furthermore, it acknowledges that the apprehension of sound need not, at all times, be entirely conscious and that its production and comprehension is often the unintended consequence of particular modes of dwelling.

There are four key principles to an auditory archaeology:

1. It is about the relationship between places, people, the activities they perform, the materials they use, and the sounds associated with those places and generated as a consequence of those activities. It is about finding ways to study the spatial and temporal variation in this relationship.
2. It acknowledges that sounds are encoded with information about the environment in which they are created and through which they pass/propagate – it is ecologically structured. More appropriately, we need to think about sounds as acoustic information rather than as raw data or sensations.
3. It recognises that the human auditory system has evolved to deal with acoustic information – it involves more than just our ears; it involves our whole bodies.
4. It acknowledges that we need not be fully aware of all of the acoustic information in our surroundings, our attention may very well be on something else, the task in hand, of which acoustic information may play some part.   Even if acoustic information is not foremost in our attentiveness but background, it nevertheless contributes to our sense of place in many if not most situations; you may only become aware of it when something interesting or unusual occurs (hearing something you were not expecting to hear, or not hearing something you were expecting to hear) or perhaps when things go wrong.   Having heard it all before is a contributing factor to a sense of place.

Summary of previous research

PhD research aimed to apply these ideas to the Neolithic sequence in the Teleorman River Valley, a Danube tributary in southern Romania and with particular reference to the emergence of tell settlements (Mills forthcoming). The area benefits from a long Neolithic sequence (6000-3800BC) including early Neolithic Criş/Dudeşti pit features and artefact scatters, middle Neolithic Boian features and artefact scatters and late Neolithic Gumelniţa tells. Since 1998 I have been a member of the Southern Romania Archaeological Project (SRAP) that aims to understand this sequence at a landscape scale through multi-disciplinary research that includes fieldwalking, surface collection, survey, excavation, archaeobotany, archaeozoology, ceramic analysis, geomorphology, micromorphology and soil science (Bailey et al 1999; 2001; 2002; SRAP website). As a team member I was able to nest my research within the larger aims of the project and benefit from the broad knowledge base accumulated through the multi-disciplinary approach and the presence of many specialists.

Research in the Teleorman River Valley identified sixteen geo-referenced recording stations based on Neolithic activity areas, variation in topography, geomorphology and vegetation, and modern human activities. Using sound recording equipment I collected primary data at each recording station. Each sound recording was of standard 600 second duration to allow comparison and additional information was completed on accompanying record sheets to assist descriptive attribution. Using computer-based technologies and the principle of auditory streams (developed in Auditory Scene Analysis and defined as any coherent auditory phenomena detectable to the human ear – for example a series of footsteps), I identified and quantified the auditory content of the sound recordings. I integrated the content of the recordings with topographic, geomorphological and archaeological data sets in a Geographical Information System (GIS) and then identified spatial relationships amongst variables.

Based on variation in sound, topography, vegetation cover and the geographic distribution of human and animal activities a number of auditory character areas were identified (the impact of modern mechanised sounds was taken into consideration). The process of identification was a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive methods. Prescriptive methods were involved in the attribution of topographic, vegetation cover and human activity data within the study area (e.g. woodland, grassland, meadows, open valley, rivers, valley edge, permanent structures, temporary structures, tracks and river crossings); descriptive methods in the attribution of auditory data (all auditory streams identified in recordings were included in subsequent analysis). Auditory character areas included the open valley floor, the river zone and the eastern valley edge.   Based on an understanding of the significance of modern day auditory character areas following 3 years research in the study area, I concluded that sound was an important component that gave prehistoric individuals/communities an implicit knowledge of their surroundings and the activities of other people and animals.   A summary of the auditory character areas is given below.

Open Valley Floor : few sources of sound (wind, insects, shepherds and herders with their animals), sound dissipates easily, sounds are loosely interwoven, often monophonic or homophonic (a particular sound dominant for much of the time). People communicate more often with animals than with other people – almost talking to their animals. This continued close-proximity and communication with animals may contribute to identity. Rhythm is slow; nothing happens fast.

River Zone : punctuated, medium complexity in terms of interweaving of sounds, a wider range of sounds than the open valley floor. Sometimes just wind, water and insects, but punctuated with birds and more vibrant still when people use rivers as crossing places and animals congregate in the early afternoon at watering places. A place of transition between grassland and the meadows to the east and consequently the rhythm is variable often steady with the river, but it can change suddenly.

Eastern Valley Edge (location of tells) : many sources of sound, a sound trap, tightly interwoven sounds, fast and lively, many birds, mammals, insects, people, most often polyphonic with similar rhythm at particular places from one day to next. Sound is a constant signal of the co-presence of other people and animals; there is almost always something happening. Dominant sound that of birds, this could provide a new way of thinking about birds; their continued acoustic presence in certain areas contributes to the sense of place. Sound can be thought of as an element of monumentality, particularly during the early phases of a tell where sound may be a more powerful signal of presence than physical verticality. There would have been different sounds associated with different phases of tell and building use: birth/construction; living/dwelling; abandonment/destruction; death. There is a pronounced auditory contrast when moving away from this zone (or off-tell) to the river zone, the woodlands or valley floor. This transition may gain significance, in part, because of the change in the associated auditory experience.

For the Romanian case study, the association of sounds with Neolithic settlement tells is a significant component of understanding their use and location in the landscape; it is a new way of reconstructing Neolithic life. Furthermore, research concluded that particular sounds (e.g. those associated with animals) allow previously unavailable understandings of the past.

Auditory archaeology at Çatalhöyük

In contrast to the landscape approach applied in Romania, auditory archaeology at Çatalhöyük is concerned with studying auditory phenomena associated with tasks within and between excavated and reconstructed buildings. The aim is to ground sounds in the archaeological record and to consider their social significance by a careful consideration of the contexts and materiality of daily activities at the site. By examining patterning within the archaeological record, research could identify the range and distribution of activities that could be heard within different spaces within buildings. What would have been the dominant sounds heard at Çatalhöyük (e.g. the activities of people, of animals, the weather)? Could tasks performed inside buildings be heard outside and vice versa? Could activities performed on roof spaces be heard across roof-scapes? Given the construction materials used and architectural techniques applied, do particular sounds carry further than others? To what extent do buildings dampen, reflect or channel sounds? Do some spaces have the potential to exhibit certain acoustic properties (e.g. dampening/masking, echoes, reverberation or amplification)? If yes, is there any evidence that such properties were utilised? In daily life, to what extent was sound a significant component in communicating sociality, to what extent was it a by-product?

To address questions of this kind is a major undertaking and will require, in certain instances, quite sophisticated acoustic and computer-based technologies for the measurement, recording, modelling and/or rendering of sound. In the first instance however, simple techniques can be used to get “in-tune” with the site and to consider the possibilities and potential for more advanced further research. This was the aim of research in 2004, in addition to providing the opportunity to meet and discuss ideas with other researchers on site.

Three approaches were started in 2004: material documentation; experimental auditory archaeology; and reflexive auditory archaeology.

Material documentation

Using a range of published data sources, this approach aims to document the range and spatial distribution of potential sounds and/or sources of sounds that would have occurred across the site during Neolithic occupation (it could also include evidence for off-tell features and activities). The product would be a database, potentially linked to a GIS, to show spatial patterning and variation. The data to populate such a database would be based on site surveys, artefact distributions, floral and faunal remains and architectural form and spatial organisation.

Three major categories of sounds are:

Discussions with team members on site in 2004 suggested that there is potentially much available evidence for this approach.

Experimental auditory archaeology

Experimental archaeology performed in the Experimental House, under the guidance of Mirjana Stevanovic and with the assistance of volunteers, aimed to record some of the acoustic qualities of architectural spaces and the variability in sounds associated with different tasks. Activities in the Experimental House coincided with preparation for the press day on Friday July 30 th and included: sweeping, polishing walls, making plaster, applying plaster, preparing a buchranium for display and repairing the platform (Figs. 119-121). As far as possible, the activities performed, the materials used and the techniques applied replicated those for which there is evidence from the Neolithic.

Recordings were made using an iRiver H120 digital sound recorder with binaural dynamic omni-directional microphones. This set-up provides stereo digital recordings compatible for direct USB transfer to a PC environment for archiving and further processing. Volunteers performing different tasks wore the binaural microphones to record the activities as sound reaches the ears of the person thus engaged.  

Figures 119-121: Activities in the Experimental House with volunteers wearing binaural microphones.

In addition to the activities specifically to prepare the Experimental House for the press day, a recording was made of volunteers engaged in a suite of tasks to get a flavour of what a living Çatalhöyük space may have sounded like. These tasks included: sweeping, grinding, arranging materials in the spaces (pottery, wooden vessels), talking and singing (a form of scat language was made up to represent voices and singing). To explore spatial variation in sounds, volunteers were encouraged to use the different spaces within the House including the roof space and the storage areas. For this exercise microphones were placed in the centre of the House and the volunteers performed their tasks around the set-up. This arrangement provided the opportunity to record the layering effect of sounds associated with multi-tasking within the House.

Another exercise was to ascertain if sounds can be heard through the walls of the Experimental House. The school parties who regularly visit the site and use the Coca-Cola area behind the House for making clay objects and who use the walls for painting, provided a useful source of external sounds (see Fig 122). Whilst the children and teachers were working outside, recordings were made at different locations within the House. Although this was only a simple and preliminary study, and given the presence of the access “door” to the Experimental House that enables external sounds to enter, the children could be clearly heard outside including through the walls in the back storage areas. A more structured study of this kind would provide useful data on the extent to which sounds of various kinds can or cannot pass through walls; this may have important implications for thinking about sound as a conveyor of community information and a signal of co-presence between buildings.

Reflexive auditory archaeology

A third approach applied in 2004 was to encourage a reflexive auditory archaeology whereby archaeologists have the opportunity to think with sound.   This took the form of discussions with team members exploring sound at the site both present and past, soundwalks around the site and making sound recordings of archaeologists engaged in excavations.  

Although sound is frequently considered an intangible component of places, particularly of past places, encouraging a dialogue about present-day sound at the site will help to raise an awareness of the significance of past sound and contributes towards the development of an appropriate language and methodology through which it can be studied. The perimeter “soundwalk” referred to earlier is a useful exercise that encourages us to be attentive to the sounds around the site and to consider the value of sound as a conveyor of environmental and social information.

Sound recordings made at the Experimental House discussed earlier, represent only one individual building and we know the situation was different on the tell itself with buildings closely packed. One way to consider the sounds associated with tightly packed buildings is to make sound recordings on the site where archaeologists are excavating in and between buildings, that is, to record archaeologists at work. An exercise of this kind was conducted in the 4040 Area working with Ruth Tringham and her team. Again, those engaged in the activities wore binaural microphones to get the closest auditory record of the task in hand (Figs.123 & 124). It is recognised that activities on site today are not directly comparable to past activities. They can, however, provide a way into thinking about the sociality of sounds associated with working in close spaces, not only in terms of physical activities (digging, building, cleaning, scraping, moving materials and using tools of various kinds) but also for communication in these spaces involving teamwork, co-operation, decision-making, delegating and even perhaps arguing! It is also a useful introduction for thinking about different personal or community tolerances towards sounds, given that, what some people may find an acceptable range of sounds and volume in their working/social environment, however defined, other people may consider this annoying, detrimental or “noise”.

Figures 123 & 124: Reflexive auditory archaeology in the 4040 Area during 2004 excavations.

Future research at Çatalhöyük

Further research would aim to continue and refine the three threads of enquiry introduced above, to begin an ethno-archaeological study in surrounding villages and to instigate an archaeo-acoustic approach for investigating the auditory qualities of spaces within and between buildings.

Implementation of the material documentation of sounds, using the distribution of material culture and architecture across the site as source data, will commence proper producing a database linked to a GIS and having the ability to map potential auditory character areas within the site. This approach has been developed and is being applied to other projects I am concurrently engaged in (in Romania and Cornwall).  

Continued experimental archaeology complimented with an archaeo-acoustic approach, would aim to map sounds within the Experimental House and potentially within a preserved building (such as Building 5). By playing back a range of control sounds of known source and amplitude at designated locations within a given space, and recording the propagation with an array of microphone placements and sound level meters, such an approach produces acoustic contour plots showing variation in the relative amplitude of sounds. Plots of this kind provide a useful aid for conceptualising and representing the distribution of sound within spaces and may prove useful in the identification of significant sources of acoustic information and of the acoustic properties in buildings. Thus it may be possible to determine that the sounds associated with certain tasks in a given space have a greater potential auditory impact than sounds associated with other tasks and in other spaces.   

Expanding the reflexive approach would aim to record and document variability across different areas of Çatalhöyük to preserve some of the auditory experiences of working and living at the site in the present day. Different spaces studied on site could include: preserved Building 5, Bach Area, 4040 Area, TP Area, South Area, Dig House (tent area, courtyard, dining hall and veranda, laboratories, terrace, party/campfire area, museum and the perimeter walk). Sound recordings and accompanying photographs can be hotlinked within a GIS project that contains geospatial data from the site. As well as an additional method of documenting current research at the site, and of thinking with sound more generally, creating an archive of contemporary sounds can provide a baseline for investigating transformations in the present-day and past soundscapes, of documenting acoustic rhythms at given places and of generating first-hand data about how sound contributes to a sense of place.

Ethno-archaeological research investigating the soundscapes at nearby villages with different architectural configurations and construction techniques, would inform our understanding of the social implications of spatial and temporal variability in the relationship between sounds and the built environment. Different geographic locations, approaches to village layout and the consequent range and location of activities are most likely to be expressed or manifest differently through sound. A study of this kind will aid us in thinking through the social implications of sound in the built environment at Çatalhöyük during the Neolithic.

Other future possibilities include a permanent sound installation on the site to contribute to the presentation of the heritage and to enhance the visitor experience, and an online interactive sound archive.  

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the British Academy for the award of a research grant to enable this research in 2004. I am extremely grateful to those team members who were willing to discuss ideas, who agreed to be volunteers, provided technical assistance or who expressed enthusiasm about the possibility of an auditory archaeology including: Ian Hodder; Shahina Farid; Ruth Tringham; Mirjana Stevanovic; Lori Hagar; Mike Ashley; David Meiggs; Tatiana Stefanova; Jason Quinlan; Nerissa Russell; Dan Thompson; Rebecca Daly; Nurcan Yalman; Emma Jenkins; Brigid Gallagher; Lizzy Ha; Shanti Morell-Hart; Bleda Düring; Dan Eddisford; Margrethe Felter; Roderick Regan and Alex Pryor.