ÇATALHÖYÜK 2005 ARCHIVE REPORT

Excavations of the South Area

Concluding Remarks

Shahina Farid

On-going excavations have shown that there is a great emphasis on uniformity and repetition of activities throughout the occupation sequence at Çatalhöyük. However, we also trace many subtle changes traced both spatially and temporally that take place through the evolution of the settlement, some of which were highlighted in this season’s work.

Throughout the sequence there is a marked uniformity and continuity in the settlement plan. This is due to the construction of building over building and can be explained by the restrictions imposed on expansion within the confines of the settlement; houses were generally built independently of neighbouring houses and rebuilding was therefore restricted to the footprint of the vacated and dismantled house plot.  Unless a household moved out entirely and settled elsewhere on the mound there was little room for expansion. Some house plots were vacated or abandoned to use as waste ground, instances where change in plan may occur, but these areas were eventually redeveloped maintaining the general arrangement. Thus the plan of the settlement barely changed through time.

Inside the houses however the uniformity and repetition of the internal configuration is not so easy to understand. A predefined or ‘best-fit’ layout seems to have been adopted early on in the settlements history, certainly from at least the Level X buildings excavated thus far. However the origins of this arrangement of features has not yet been excavated at this site.

The examples of continuity and gradual development in features and configurations found this season spanned from Level VII to about Level IV-II and were visible across the East mound in the South, TP and 4040 Areas (see Fig. **). One example was the typical configuration of a double platform terminating against a bench along the eastern wall of the larger room of a house.  This arrangement can be identified from at least Level VII (Mellaart, 1964. Anatolian Studies 14, Fig. 11) to Level IV – II in Buildings 58, 57 and 55 in the central cluster of buildings excavated in the 4040 Area, as well as Building 44, Level IV and Building 56, Level V in the South Area. In some instances we find elaboration of this arrangement, such as the setting of horn cores in the sides of the benches as in Mellaart’s Shrine A VI, 1 or Building 52, c. Level VI in the 4040 Area. In fact in Building 52 we see a divergence in this arrangement, as the platforms and terminal bench are arranged along the western wall instead of the east. It may be possible to trace this pattern of platforms and bench into a later form of internal division as seen in two buildings (Building 58 and Space 229) from the 4040 Area. This later arrangement and its progression is best illustrated in Building 58, Level IV – II. The internal plan of this building comprised a double platform along the eastern wall with a terminal bench. The platforms are delineated by a central ridge, possibly defining ‘use-zones’ and kerbs separating them from the central floor zone. This arrangement is mirrored along the west wall but here they are represented as walled cells and ridges delineating them from the central floor area. This cell arrangement is also encountered in Space 229, c. Level VII – VI.  The question is therefore, do cell-like structures develop from and later replace the platform arrangements?

Another example of feature evolution is found in oven forms. Each defined house contains an oven in its suite of ‘furniture’. From the earliest excavated buildings of Level XII in the South Area (Mellaart, 1966, Anatolian Studies 16, Fig 3) we trace that the typical location of ovens is against the south wall. To date two examples have been found where the oven was initially located in the NE corner of the house (Building 6, Level VIII and Building17, Level IX) but by the end of the house–cycle the ovens had been relocated to the south wall.  Generally ovens are rounded constructions with a domed roof. They are either circular or oval in plan although the size varies. They are generally set into the south walls, either in deep cuts or in shallow cavities; or the notion of a cavity is created by building up the surrounding surface of the wall with numerous plaster applications to create an overhang over the oven. Through to Level IV and probably later the south wall location is used, but with one example to date where the oven is placed in the centre of the building in Building 47 tentatively attributed to Level II (Bodgdan, 2004 Archive Report). This Level II East mound building could represent a transition period from Late Neolithic to Chalcholithic, evidenced by the location of a central oven found on the Chalcolithic West mound excavations (Gibson & Last 2003 Archive Report).

All ovens excavated this season were found against the south wall; however, the ovens excavated in Buildings 58 and 57 were rectangular and constructed flush against the wall.  Oven F. 2121 in Building 58 was the smaller with a small front ledge and a squarish hearth close by but to the NW. Oven F.2110 in Building 57 was slightly deeper and taller with its hearth directly in front, so that the oven mouth opened on to a kerbed hearth, rather like a Victorian fireplace, leading to its nickname through the excavation.  Furthermore it was suitably elaborated with a heavily plastered ledge, rather like a mantle along the top, and  ‘decorated’ with incised parallel wavy lines. Whilst these two ovens illustrate a stylistic development they could also indicate a transitional phase of the ovens moving out from the wall to a more prominent position in the centre of the house and becoming a more dominant central household focus.

A remarkable feature excavated this season is also found in Building 57.  This is a plastered, mud-core, free-standing pillar (F.2132).  It is not centrally located to the room and its location does not suggest it was a structural support but it could represent a   partitioning support. Arrangements of internal partitions have been found throughout the sequence in different forms such as wooden posts set on post-pads (Building 23, Level X), or wooden posts set in pits (Building 17, Level IX) and upright posts within a plaster ‘screen wall’ (Building 3, Level VI – VII). The plaster of this mud column is contiguous with a platform kerb and therefore could have supported a partition around the NW platform mirroring the arrangement of the cell-like structures of Building 58 and Space 229 (see above).  Whilst this is the first mud pillar found, the form had been hinted at in Building 45, 4040 Area, where two post-pad features F.1417 and (10116) were interpreted as ‘pillar’ bases (Yeomans, 2004 Archive Report). The arrangement of these would have created a ‘screen’ divide to the south of the northern platforms. Interestingly, although the building is still under excavation, there are no traces of post retrieval pits, the few small posts that were found are associated with the SW platform. Is it possible that the use of internal walls and mud pillars indicate less of a reliance on wood posts, perhaps indicative a scarcity of wood?

It is likely that these variations in styles of features represent trends through time and if we continue to see these new introductions in other contemporary buildings we should be able to group, date and trace developments across the site.

Finally, there was much debate this season about the cause of the extensive fire debris found in Building 52, 4040 Area. Was it a deliberate act or a catastrophic accident? To date at Çatal we have partially excavated two burnt buildings (Buildings 52 and 45 both in the 4040 Area) and a burnt room in Building 1 (North Area), although we also have Mellaart’s reports of burnt buildings. An argument for intentional burning of buildings was recently argued by Cessford & Near (2005). However this was based on data recorded prior to the excavation of Buildings 45 and 52. Mellaart’s general interpretation was that of accidental fires and ‘conflagrations’ but with a marked appearance at Level VI. It is therefore no surprise that with such a paucity of data the topic continues to rage across the site. 

The evidence for  intentionally burnt buildings can be elucidated from Building 45 excavated in 2004 at the southern end of the 4040 Area. Indications of prepared ‘closure’ were in evidence in Building 45 based upon the pattern of ‘closure’ found in many other excavated buildings at the site, which is synchronous with the infilling processes.

First of all the rooms are cleared of all portable items. In some cases items are left behind which can be interpreted as intentional and significant. The ‘closure’ activities include the removal of supporting posts; floors and features are scoured clean so as to remove all occupation traces. The ovens are similarly ‘closed’ either by partial dismantlement or complete preservation by careful infilling. The west wall is sometimes ‘defaced’. Mellaart interpreted this as significant removal of ‘art’ installations, which are more commonly found on the west wall of buildings. A further suggested closure pattern is the placing of an obsidian point or arrowhead at the base of post retrieval pits, which are clearly associated with the disuse of that living space (Carter, Chipped Stone, this Report). The walls are then dismantled and the vacated building infilled with the crushed debris of upper walls until an even horizon is reached over which the subsequent new building is constructed.

It was clear from the onset of excavations of Building 45 that it was burnt and the seat of the fire was eventually traced to the west room (Yeomans, 2004 Archive Report). Although there were a few charred timber remains of small posts associated with the SW platform  (Harrison, 2004 Archive Report), all other activities in the building fitted the ‘closure’ processes outlined above; including placing parts of modified animal heads on the floor, which were possibly taken off the west wall of this building.

It was also clear from the onset of excavations of Building 52 that it was burnt. However  it was soon apparent  that the infill process was very different to Building 45; the infill in Space 93 and northern part of Space 94 (possibly the seat of the fire), largely consisted of burnt rubble and debris and had built up in a haphazard way, as it would in a burning and collapsing house. This, along with the amazing inventory of artefacts that were found left behind including the intact bulls head on the west wall, clearly differentiated it from Building 45 and suggests an accidental fire. In contrast, the presence of an obsidian arrowhead in one of the bins of Space 93, despite being part of a larger assemblage of artefacts, possibly leads to the conclusion that this house was intentionally set on fire (see Carter, Chipped Stone, this report). However,   Carter’s argument that obsidian is not normally associated with bins is ambiguous as because bins are generally scoured clean as part of the closure process, we do not have a clear idea of what is and what is not associated with bins through their use. Another important argument for intentional fire is that if Building 52 is correctly attributed to Level VI-VII it fits Mellaarts pattern of site-wide conflagrations at Level VI.

In further support for the accidental fire argument we should view the post-fire activities. Whilst there is currently no indication of how much time elapsed after the burning of Building 52 and the construction Building 51, there is a clear absence of ground preparation for a new construction. A sense of immediacy is presented first by the fact that the new building was set into a ‘cleared’ corner of the previous building as oppose to on top of the levelled walls and infilled space of the previous house, and secondly by its small and simple structure at a mere 4.3 x 2.7m. Could this represent a very quick fix it solution; that a new building was needed quickly, that there was no time for the foundations to be laid correctly, or even perhaps it was the wrong season for building (Fairbairn et al. 2005), but that a replacement building was required quickly could indicate a non-planned event? This could also give a plausible explanation as to how the pile of bull heads and horncores were placed directly over the in situ bull head installation whilst being interleaved with rubble, the explanation being that as the NW corner of the building was under clearance to make way for the new building, the bull heads and horncores were collected, stacked and buried in the area of the building which was no longer used.

It should be noted that Building 51 neighbours, and is roughly contemporary to Building 49 to the east, which was also a small structure but more elaborate internally and as such could represent a ‘fashion’ of smaller compact houses.

It may well be significant that all the evidence we have for burnt structures at Çatal are roughly contemporary and therefore a strong argument for the deliberate burning of houses. However, other explanations are plausible of course; for instance there may have been a change in construction materials at roof level that made houses more at risk to fire?

References

Bodgdan, 2004 Archive Report, Building 47
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_09.html

Cessford & Near 2005, Fire, Burning and Pyrotechnology at Çatalhöyük  in Çatalhöyük perspectives: themes from the 1995-9 seasons, ed Ian Hodder. Çatalhöyük Research Project. Volume 6. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara

Fairbairn, Asouti, Last, Martin, Russell & Swogger 2005. Seasonality in Çatalhöyük perspectives: themes from the 1995-9 seasons, ed Ian Hodder. Çatalhöyük Research Project. Volume 6. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara

Gibson & Last, 2003 Archive Report, West Mound Excavations
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2003/ar03_11.html

Harrison, Karl 2004. Fire and Burning at Çatalhöyük: Integrating Forensic Practice in 2004 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_38.html

Yeomans, 2004 Archive Report, Building 45
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_11.html