Author's reply

CULTURAL DYNAMICS OF THE CENTRAL ANATOLIAN NEOLITHIC: THE EARLY CERAMIC NEOLITHIC - LATE CERAMIC NEOLITHIC TRANSITION

Bleda DÜRING                                                                                     
bduring@hotmail.com

The CANeW project and conference was set up to promote open discussion on the Central Anatolian Neolithic. In relation to this aim the lively discussion following my paper at the conference was very gratifying. The debate focused on two main issues, the first of which was the content and aim of my contribution; to discuss the developments that took place during the Early Ceramic – Late Ceramic Neolithic transition. The second line of debate was concerned with the empirical foundation of these developments as proposed by others and me. I will discuss this second line of debate first, since it concerns the basis of the developments concerned.

Most scholars would agree on the importance of the excavations carried out by Mellaart in the 1960s (Hodder 1996a:3; Last 1998:356; Todd 1976:17–19). The large-scale excavations carried out by Mellaart were systematic, executed with a skilled workforce trained at Beycesultan and Hacilar, and included a large number of specialists (see Mellaart 1967:12). The many wall paintings found are a tribute to the careful methods of excavation used (Mellaart 1962:41). Indeed, in those days the Çatalhöyük excavations were state of the art (De Contenson 1968:72). A re-analysis of the Çatalhöyük stratigraphy has essentially reconfirmed the divisions made by Mellaart (Matthews and Farid 1996:276–289).

Unfortunately, a final report, in which the data obtained from these excavations are treated systematically and comprehensively, has not been published. The preliminary reports, which have been published in Anatolian Studies, may not be comprehensive and systematic, but they are considered reliable, given the quality of the Mellaart excavations, and do contain a lot of detailed information. In my perspective these reports can be used fruitfully for analysis of the site.

Some of the critique during the conference, especially that of Craig Cessford and David Small was about the reliability of the Mellaart data. Stratigraphic divisions were problematised, and continuity was emphasised by Cessford. However, the division between the early levels (VII–VIA) without ‘public space’, and the later levels (V–II) with a kind of street system, can be clearly demonstrated, even if the change may have been less abrupt than suggested by me. Moreover, as I have indicated in my paper, other researchers have found similar shifts in material culture across this divide, in ceramics, obsidian industries, figurines and wall paintings, suggesting that my view of a considerable shift is viable.

In contrast to the above, the argument that ‘since no cluster relationships can be found around REBs (ritually elaborate buildings) in the new excavations they do not exist’, seems to have little validity, since an extremely limited number of buildings has been investigated in these excavations so far (see the Çatalhöyük Archive Reports). Similarly, the fact that some ‘courtyards’ were in use as middens does not necessarily mean that they all are. In those cases were houses open onto courtyards, for instance in Level IV, it seems safe to suggest that such courtyards were in use partly for communications.

The data reliability debate has hampered the discussion of what happened during the Late Ceramic Neolithic – Early Ceramic Neolithic considerably. I have suggested that the architecture of the early levels at Çatalhöyük is the embodiment of a specific kind of society ‘held together by social and religious ties’ (Hodder 1996b:48). The demise of the clustered settlement, and the introduction of ‘public space’ in the later levels is then a shift in social organisation. That shift might have been related to increasing specialisation in obsidian production, and changes in the symbolic system and gender conception.

Despite these changes there is a basic continuity in the concept of REBs, as has been pointed out in the debate by Wendy Matthews and Douglas Baird. Continuity is probably also the case in the subsistence economy, as has been indicated by Louise Martin and Eleni Asouti, although we need more data to be sure.

Douglas Baird pointed out that spatial patterns are subject to the social conventions that surround them (see also Lawrence 1990:75; Leach 1978:397). This is an important point, since it means that shifts in spatial patterns do not necessarily reflect shifts in society. The question at Çatalhöyük then would be, why was the old way of building, which had been adhered to for centuries, abandoned for a totally different kind of spatial model? What other explanations can be offered that explain not only the open settlement of the later levels, but also the clustered settlement of the early levels?

The major point in relation to the general subject of CANeW is how these developments at Çatalhöyük are related to other sites. Is it coincidental that most Early Neolithic (Aceramic and Early Ceramic) village sites (Asikli Höyük, Canhasan III, Erbaba) are of the clustered settlement type? Is it coincidental that in the Late Ceramic Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic only one clustered settlement persists (Canhasan I), amongst many open settlements (Çatalhöyük West, Kösk Höyük, Musular, Hacilar, Bademagaci, Höyücek)? Such questions will need to be addressed in future work.