Author's reply

HOMOGENEITY VERSUS DIVERSITY: DYNAMICS OF THE CENTRAL ANATOLIAN NEOLITHIC

Roger MATTHEWS                                                                               
roger.matthews@ucl.ac.uk

I am grateful to all the participants who expressed their thoughts in the above discussion and I would like to conclude with a couple of observations, not relevant only to the points made above.

Firstly, during the e-discussion phase of this project the level of participation by most of the discussants was rather poor. It is fair to say that much of what we discussed in person at Istanbul could have been treated more suitably within the context of the e-discussion, thus freeing up time and energy for more directed and stimulating debate in Istanbul. Nevertheless I feel that major headway was made in shaping and defining our thinking about the Neolithic of Central Anatolia. In any case I would like to congratulate the organisers of the conference not only for the event itself but also for their far-sighted vision of an ambitious programme of discussion, presentation, debate, and publication that might serve as a model for future projects relating to specific periods and/or places in archaeological study.

Secondly, the immense wealth and detail of the evidence from Çatalhöyük featured prominently throughout the sessions, including my own above. Continuing fieldwork and publication relating to this very special site are likely only to increase its significance over time. It is greatly to be hoped that ongoing excavations will recover new evidence of wall-paintings and other forms of symbolically charged material, with which we can make further headway on the sorts of questions discussed above. In many ways the current programme of work at Çatalhöyük epitomises the professional dilemma that all field archaeologists face – how to achieve significant results at the large scale when advances in techniques and approaches of micro-excavation mean that small-scale methods can obtain dramatically enhanced results concerning the minutiae of life in and around Neolithic buildings. A decision not to employ the latest micro-methods is at the same time a deliberate choice to destroy without full recording or investigation entire layers of evidence and meaning from the past, and every excavator should be aware of this fact. Nevertheless, given sufficient time there is every prospect of the programme of work at Çatalhöyük continuing to contribute in a major way to what promises to be a never-ending debate over the nature of the Neolithic in Central Anatolia.