Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Antonio Sagona, Paul Zimansky, Ancient Turkey.pdf
Скачиваний:
46
Добавлен:
28.12.2021
Размер:
19.06 Mб
Скачать

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

iconography is subtle and embodied in utilitarian objects. Whatever the imagery, the encounter with the divine and the language of sacred space appears to have changed.

POTTERY NEOLITHIC (ca. 7000–6000 BC)

Houses and ritual

Southeastern Anatolia and Cilicia

Mezraa-Teleilat, a mound positioned near the banks of the Euphrates (Figure 4.1: 1), is of paramount importance. Its uninterrupted sequence, with well-preserved architectural layers bridges the critical timespan between Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic. The crucial horizon in the Mezraa-Teleilat sequence is the third, which is sandwiched between the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Phase IV) with its cell-plan buildings and the early Pottery Neolithic (Phase II) distinguished by its so-called corridor-houses.3 Calibrated radiocarbon readings place Phase III at the very end of the eighth millennium BC.4 Its village was composed of wooden or wattle and daub huts with rounded corners. Burnt areas with sunken floors are suggestive of hearths, whereas a cluster of pits filled with river pebbles and ash appears to have been fire pits constructed to maintain heat. Amidst these freestanding structures, pottery makes its appearance, tentatively at first, but increasing in quantity towards the end of the settlement. Strewn on the floor were fragments of ceramics—well finished with a crisp fabric—and a series of limestone figurines.

Many recent studies have been devoted to figurines, mostly seeking to determine their function and purpose. Approaches vary greatly and range from sound analysis through speculation to assertions based on modern ideologies. For Anatolia, the most persuasive views have been those of Mary Voigt who has emphasized the archaeological context, mode of disposal of

figurines, and the signs of wear and breakage they bear.5 She significantly modified the criteria for figurine classification Peter Ukco proposed some 40 years ago, but retained his broad functional groupings, which were based on ethnographic observation: Cult figures, vehicles of magic, initiation figures, and toys.6 Each of these categories has its own specific attributes of wear and damage. Cult figures, for instance, are unlikely to be associated with ordinary refuse and would show little sign of wear, whereas toys are often randomly distributed in domestic debris and display considerable damage and wear, as one would expect. Following this line of thought, Voigt draws attention to established patterns of human behavior as the basis for any interpretation.

Although none of the Mezraa-Teleilat III figurines could be definitively associated with a structure, none was recovered from a refuse pit.7 On the whole, the figurines are crudely worked with little attempt to smooth over tool marks. The fugitive traces of red paint some bear, suggests that they may have been painted. Three types of figurine exist. Seated figures—these

83

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

vary in size from 2.7 to 11.5 cm in height. They are inclined backwards, as if seated on an armchair. The angle at the back and the flatness of the surfaces suggests that the figurines were embedded into a wooden frame. The face is the most delineated component of the body; legs are simple and pointed, and the torso is shaped by straight surfaces, suggestive of a robe. Arms are generally stubby and protrude in front; in a couple of figurines they are placed on the sides. Even though phalluses are obvious on only some figurines, the homogeneity of these schematized figurines suggests, according to the excavators, the same male deity or person is represented. Only two fragments of standing figures have been found and these, too, are roughly shaped. Finally, the most numerous group are phallic symbols. Most are schematized, though some are incised with detail, leaving no doubt what they represent. The human figures belong to a type with southern connections termed Assouad. Examples been found at a number of sites strung along the Euphrates, including Gritille and Tell Sabi Abyad (in Syria), pointing to an indigenous tradition of the southern Taurus. This overt symbolism of maleness continues the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic notion of male fecundity without the monumentality.

The Mezraa-Teleilat III culture is considered intrusive, but it is followed, in Phase II, by a significant change that revived the local elements of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Massive structures (the corridor houses) built from light colored mud bricks characterize Phase II and define an architectural tradition that continued to develop until the Halaf period of the Early Chalcolithic (Figure 4.1: 2).

Across the Amanus Mountains, the long sequence at Yümük Tepe, near Mersin, in the broad fertile plain of Cilicia, is the chronological cornerstone for the Anatolian Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of Anatolia.8 Although the Second World War severely interrupted John Garstang’s work—an air-raid on Liverpool destroyed much information held in his office— renewed excavations by Isabella Caneva and Veli Sevin have refined the sequence.9 Exactly how the 33 building levels discerned by Garstang should be divided is still a matter of debate, and one that largely concerns ceramics.10 But the division of the Neolithic is as follows: Early Neolithic (XXXIII–XXVI) and Late Neolithic (XXV–XX).11 The small exposure in the lower levels precluded a settlement plan, but there was a gradual shift from small, rectangular rooms to large enclosures.12 Notable are a series of stone-based circular “silos” placed between two large structures in Level XXIV. Later still, in Level XXIII, structures are built with slabs of mud (oblong bricks) that were placed on top of stone foundations.

Central Anatolia

The Early Pottery Neolithic in central Anatolia is rich and well developed. We have an ever increasing amount of evidence from Çatalhöyük, the largest known Neolithic site in Anatolia. Measuring about 500 × 300 m and rising 17.5 m above the surrounding Konya Plain, the east mound has revealed a deep and extremely well-preserved Neolithic deposit that stretches from about 7400 BC to the end of the seventh millennium BC. Çatalhöyük West was established later,

85

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

in the Early Chalcolithic period. Despite intensive excavations between 1961 and 1963 by James Mellaart, who opened broad areas, providing some of the clearest settlements plans for prehistoric Anatolia, only a fraction of the settlement was exposed, and its full occupational sequence has not been determined as yet.13 His spectacular finds dazzled an unsuspecting discipline and they remain the focal point of any discussion on the site. Mellaart’s results have prompted the current renewed excavations that began in 1993 under the direction of Ian Hodder, whose onsite and post-excavation strategies embrace all that contemporary archaeology has to offer.14 Understandably, the two approaches vary considerably and have supplied images of life in the Neolithic that differ in their degrees of resolution. Whereas Mellaart worked on a grand scale, opening up large areas that provided the big picture, Hodder and his team have focus on the micro scale, supplying very detailed information on the history of small areas such as single rooms.

Mellaart differentiated 15 building levels (0–XIII from top to bottom), but did not reach virgin soil, which he claimed was probably several meters below the present ground level of the plain. Ever since the publication of his preliminary findings, Mellaart and others have argued that the settlement showed remarkable continuity in plan throughout its many rebuildings with Levels VIII–II affording us the best information on architecture.15 Of these, Level VI (divided into subphases A and B, top to bottom respectively) was destroyed by a catastrophic fire, but is the best preserved.16 Whether the entire settlement or only part of it was burnt is difficult to say given the large areas that are not excavated, but the fire appears to have been quite devastating. Although details of Mellaart’s stratigraphy have been questioned, the new investigations have essentially supported the idea of continuity, viewing the entire sequence as a gradual process of minor changes.17 Recently, however, the degree of architectural continuity has been disputed. Bleda Düring has shown that the use of space and building patterns did change at Çatalhöyük, especially between Levels VI and V, reflecting transformation in social behavior and attitudes.18

A glance at Figure 4.2 reveals that in the early period (Levels VIII to VIB) Çatalhöyük was a village of roughly rectangular houses that were tightly packed into blocks.19 Houses did not share party walls and as such comprised separate structural entities. The lack of alleyways and doors, other than between the main room and its adjacent storeroom, suggests that communication between buildings was through the roof, following the earlier practice at As¸ıklı. Ladders must have been common sights at Çatalhöyük. They were attached to all buildings, usually against the south wall where their imprints and remains have been found. Roof openings also acted as chimneys. Even so, the rooms must have been smoke filled, judging by the high number of incidences of black lung among the skeletal material. Daylight entered the rooms from small apertures set high on the walls, which suggests that houses were of varying heights or some how split level. Thick beams of juniper and an infill of mud, twigs and reeds supported by two wooden posts ensured that the roof was sturdy and, no doubt, flat. Buildings had no foundations and were constructed of mud bricks and wood. Rooms were of a standard size with little variation in furnishings. Main rooms were often roughly square in plan and occasionally had a

86

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

storeroom. These units were generally modest in this earlier period, covering and area about 40 m2 (Figure 4.2). On the inside, walls were well plastered, as were floors, which were kept remarkably clean. It seems that most of the manufacturing activities were conducted outdoors, with the space inside buildings used for domestic activities such as food preparation. The thick deposit of superimposed layers of plaster (up to 40, in one case) suggests that residents spruced up the interiors regularly. Around each room were standard fitments: Low platforms, presumably for sitting and sleeping, benches, cupboards, and hearths.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this early settlement plan is the extent to which residents ensured that new buildings were constructed on the same ground, in the same manner and according to the same plan as those of their ancestors. A code of building clearly existed at Çatalhöyük and it was adhered to in the strictest terms. From Level VIII onwards, the settlement became more crowded. As families grew larger, the predilection of continuing the architectural traditions of their forebears on the same land meant that virtually every available space was built on. The settlement became more agglomerated as time went on, so that by Level VII–VIA Çatalhöyük was a densely clustered settlement of essentially similar buildings. While this mode of construction may have served a practical purpose, namely to utilize the walls of older houses as foundations, it seems that it had more to do with social identity.20 What we see is a phenomenon that inextricably bound households with their ancestors and associated belief systems. This explanation does have appeal, although we should not discount the functionalist view altogether. While it is unlikely that the clustered mode of building served as a measure against floods, it may well have had a defensive purpose if, as mentioned in the previous chapter, one maintains that social conflict increased at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Many of the Level VIA structures were burned, deliberately so it seems, and, according to Mellaart, one room (no. 44), the “Leopard Shrine,” filled with rubbish after the fire, recalling the burying of the Çayönü buildings.21 This apparent ritual burning of structures became a widespread Neolithic practice that extended across into Europe.22

In Level V around 6500 BC, or just later, the ancestral settlement plan was modified. Change was already in the air, with many buildings of VIB not rebuilt in VIA. Those that were kept became noticeably larger, and open spaces represent a radical shift in planning (Figure 4.3). Alleyways and open courtyards, which were used by residents to dump their rubbish, now separated clusters of buildings. Doorways linked certain buildings in Level IV when large communal ovens were preferred over individual ones in each building. This new schema also changed the accessibility of building units.23 In the early settlement, certain buildings, especially those decorated with elaborate symbolism, were difficult to reach, perhaps intentionally so. Often located in the heart of a cluster of buildings, they could only be accessed by walking across the rooftops of several houses. Whether there were boundaries and zones where only certain folk could cross is difficult to say, but by Level V open spaces and doorways made most buildings easy to reach.24 What caused this change is uncertain. Perhaps the devastation of the fire itself prompted the residents at Çatalhöyük to reassess their situation and implement changes.

Many rooms were richly decorated with eye-catching wall paintings, fixtures, plastered clay

88

Figure 4.5 Çatalhöyük wall painting excavated in Level V, in the 1960s, showing a large red bull taunted by men, some dressed in leopard skin garments. A female figure can be seen under the bull (adapted from Haydarog˘ lu 2006)

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

were dead. Aspects of mortuary rites, namely the defleshing of the dead, may be alluded to in a dramatic painting with red birds of prey circling over lifeless human figures (Figure 4.4: 1), some headless, which recalls the diminutive figure of a headless male on Pillar 43 at Göbekli. Roger Matthews made the insightful connection between Mellaart’s suggestion that the birds may, in fact, represent humans dressed as birds and a deposit of wings of birds of prey found at Zawi Chemi Shanidar, in northern Iraq, dated to the ninth millennium.28 Indeed, as suggested in the previous chapter, the practice of dressing as a bird is well recorded in modern shamanistic rituals. There are also scenes that appear to show humans dancing, an activity which probably promoted social cohesion.29 Stencilled handprints offer even more realistic human impressions, whereas a possible landscape scene, showing a settlement (depicted as a series of squares) below a mountain, has generated considerable interest since it was found.

The reliefs are no less fascinating. Among the more easily recognizable images are complete spotted leopard-like animals and various animal heads (Figure 4.6). Bizarre features include wild boar jaw bones, animal skulls, and, in one case, vulture beaks, that are encased in a clay features. A type of relief figure thought to represent a deity is shown with arms and feet outstretched in a spreadeagle position (Figure 4.7: 1), and most often interpreted as a goddess giving birth. In one case, the figure is painted with a net pattern (Figure 4.7: 4), in another it is situated above a pair of bull’s horns set into the wall; bull’s horns were also set into small pillars and benches. A close examination of the original excavation photographs, however, indicate that the subsequent reconstruction of these splayed images has been liberal, making them more human like than they probably were. Indeed, a comparison of the original Çatalhöyük excavation photograph with the more recent finds from Göbekli and Nevalı Çori suggests that these figures are most likely animals (reptiles?) and not humans or goddesses (Figure 4.7: 2).30 A Çatalhöyük stamp seal in the form of a bear also resembles the splayed relief figures (Figure 4.7: 3).31

The way ritual space was constructed at Çatalhöyük varied. Düring has shown, for instance, that buildings richest in ritual paraphernalia are not always the largest, a point that did not escape Mellaart.32 Moreover, while burials are often associated with reliefs in a small number of buildings, paintings are rarely associated with either mouldings or the dead. Finally, and most important in terms of discontinuity, all the figurative mouldings belong to the early settlement (Level VI and earlier), whereas the “hunting” scenes were all found in later shrines.

The spirits of the dead are pervasive in the domestic arena at Çatalhöyük. The remains of ancestors are numerous and some display symbolic elaborations. Mellaart found some 480 burials and a further 250 were exposed by the new excavations.33 Building 1 alone had 62 burials. Three burial types have been recognized: Primary, secondary, and disturbed, with the first being the most common. Funerary rites appear fairly standard: Usually wrapped in skins, basketry, or textiles (Figure 4.8: 3–4), the deceased were placed in a pit, in a flexed position, under the platforms within houses. Certain individuals were sprinkled with red ochre, but most were accompanied by gifts, including wooden vessels that were carbonized when fire swept through the compound (see later). Partial burials suggest a more protracted ritual that may have involved the removal of flesh from bodies.

92

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

In some instances, the skull was removed without disturbing the rest of the skeleton (decapitation burials; Figure 4.8: 2). What happened to the head after its selection was dramatically attested in 2004 with the discovery of a plastered skull.34 This is a rare find for Anatolia, constituting one of only two examples, the other found at Kös¸k Höyük (Figure 4.8: 1).35 The caching of skulls extends back to the Anatolian Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Çayönu and Nevalı Çori), of course, but the concept of plastering, painting, and modelling skulls is best illustrated in the Levant, where the Jericho Pre-Pottery Neolithic B examples still resonate with vitality.36 But why were skulls removed and cached? The usual explanation is ancestor worship, and, judging by ethnographic comparisons, there is some truth in this view. That some skulls were plastered also suggests they were displayed. Yet the fact that some skulls of children were treated in this fashion sits uneasily with the notion of an ancestor. What is more, most plastered skulls are abnormally wide and some were probably deliberately deformed when the children were alive. So there seems to be some association between purposeful deformation at birth and the removal of skulls for ritual treatment after death.37 Taking this one step further, the human skulls may have been honored in this fashion because they were understood as the seat of “life force” whence stemmed fecundity, well-being and vitality.

No discrimination in terms of age or sex has been recognized, with about half of the skeletons uncovered in the current investigations at Çatalhöyük being those of children. Moreover, there appears to have been a reason, as yet unknown, for the burial of infants and neonates near hearths and ovens, normally situated at the southern end of the house. The people of Çatalhöyük were not healthy by modern standards. Analyses of human bones indicate that domesticated plants formed the core of their diet, which was not well balanced. Stunted growth, tooth decay, black lungs, and anaemia were among the maladies suffered. And the frequency of osteoarthritis points to strenuous physical activity.

Figurines form an important component of the ritually constructed spaces at Çatalhöyük. Over 250 figurines and fragments have been documented from Mellaart’s excavations, and they can be grouped into three distinct categories:38

1Small clay figures of animals and humans—these are generally expediently produced with pinched features and lightly baked, possibly “passively” fired by their placement near a hearth. They were found in levels IX to IV embedded between bricks and bunched in rubbish pits. Voigt quite correctly puts forward the view that, whatever their symbolic meaning, both human and animal representations must be studied as a group given their uniform treatment and context. Moreover, the similarities they share with distant sites such as Gritille, in southeastern Turkey, lend themselves to the idea of a widespread set of beliefs and practices.

2Large clay figures—14 of these finely modelled statuettes were found with over half recovered from one building (AII.1) in Level II. The largest and best known figurine from Çatalhöyük is that of an ample woman seated in a chair flanked by two standing cats that form the arms of the chair (Figure 4.9: 3). Their tails extend across the woman’s back and over her shoulders. Between the woman’s feet is a head with facial features, suggestive of a newborn child.

96

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

Originally about 20 cm in height, this figure was found deposited at the bottom of a bin, possibly associated with grain and thus the notion of fecundity. Quite likely it was placed there carefully and deliberately, just as were eight other large figures that found clustered around a hearth in the same structure. Judging by the fine artistry they display (Figure 4.9: 1), their specific context, iconic elements, and, in some case, signs of intentional breakage,39 we can assume these were cult figures.

3Stone figures—these can be both realistic and highly schematic, the latter usually a modified pebble or rock (Figure 4.9: 2). They are clustered in Levels VI (especially VIA) and VII, with only four recovered from the later Levels V–II. Some of these stone figures, like their clay counterparts, appear to have been deliberately broken before disposal, perhaps when Level VI was intentionally burned.

The attribution of sex to figurines is usually quite difficult, but it seems that all the clay figures from the earlier excavations at Çatalhöyük represent females, whereas more of the stone figures could be firmly identified as male than females. This observation together with the chronological spread of the figurines suggests that a significant paradigm shift occurred between levels VI and V, corresponding to the change in settlement plan noted earlier. Religious practice in the early settlement at Çatalhöyük involved stone figures, a good number male, which have stylistic connections with art produced at the pre-pottery sites of the southeast. During later periods at Çatalhöyük, the female representations, often steatopygous, emphasizing buttocks, pregnancy, and ample bodies became more prominent. Whereas these female figures may have been deities, although there is less talk of “mother and fertility goddesses” in recent years, one could equally argue that their purpose was to emphasize femaleness and sexuality. If this were the case, the change in imagery may point to a change in gender relations.

The sophistication of Çatalhöyük can easily overshadow the existence of contemporary mobile communities that were still part of the landscape. A seventh millennium BC rock shelter at Pınarbas¸ı is one such site. A series of ovens and irregular fire pits, later filled with bones and stone, provide a glimpse of food preparation and consumption.40 Erbaba, by the same token, was fully agrarian.41 Although the stratigraphic sequence, I–III in descending order, is problematic and difficult to verify without further investigations, wide exposures confirm the central Anatolian type of a cluster of tightly packed rectangular buildings. The main difference is the use of stone for building walls, preserved up to 1.57 m at one point. Slabs of limestone were superimposed and stabilized with mud mortar. The floors of the rooms were substantially sunken—in some cases 40 cm below the surface of the mound. Many rooms were not fully excavated, making a contextual analysis quite difficult. But ovens, clay benches, and painted features were noted. One building, in Area D, had 10 layers of occupation and only in the latest deposit was a doorway constructed; prior to that it seems entry was through the roof.42

97