Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T10:44:05.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - The Potter’s Riddle at Çatalhöyük

An Attempt to Connect the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic Pottery Assemblages from Çatalhöyük/Turkey

from Part II - Anatolia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2022

By
Ingmar Franz  and
Joanna Pyzel
Edited by
Peter F. Biehl  and
Eva Rosenstock
Peter F. Biehl
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Eva Rosenstock
Affiliation:
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Get access

Summary

The Neolithic East Mound and the Early Chalcolithic West Mound at Çatalhöyük are closer in time than has been previously assumed. However, we do not yet see any layers with transitional pottery: The latest pottery of the East Mound, in the TP area, is still very Neolithic. On the West Mound we deal with fully developed Chalcolithic ceramics. The main difference lies in the amount of pottery, which seems related to the fact that in the Early Chalcolithic, pottery replaced basketry in many everyday uses, resulting in the repertoire of vessels used on the West Mound being much more broad. This is especially exemplified by painted ornaments resembling basket texture and by the affinities in vessels’ shapes. Although this change was abrupt and vital, we can observe some continuity between the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic pottery. Apart from single cases of similar forms and ornaments, similarity can be observed in pottery production: use of the same raw materials and techniques. From a technological point of view, Early Chalcolithic pottery making was not a radical departure from the Neolithic; this represents a strong argument in favor of both mounds at Çatalhöyük having been inhabited by the same population.

Keywords

Chaîne opératoireMonochrome potteryBasketry-potteryPot stands
Type
Chapter
Information
6000 BC
Transformation and Change in the Near East and Europe
 , pp. 178 - 195
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balossi Restelli, Francesca 2012 Eating at Home and “Dining” Out? Commensalities in the Neolithic and Late Chalcolithic in the Near East. In Between Feasts and Daily Meals: Toward an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces, edited by Pollock, Susan, pp. 75–95, eTOPOI Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 2.Google Scholar
Bıçakçı, Erhan, Godon, Martin and Çakan, Yasin G. 2012 Tepecik-Çiftlik. In The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Research. Volume 3: Central Turkey, edited by Özdoğan, Mehmet, Başgelen, Nezih and Kuniholm, Peter, pp. 89–134. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Biehl, Peter F., and Rosenstock, Eva 2007 West Mound Trenches 5/7. Çatalhöyük 2007 Archive Report:124–132. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Biehl, Peter F., Erdoğu, Burçin and Rosenstock, Eva 2006 West Mound. Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report:122–134. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Biehl, Peter F., Rogasch, Jana and Rosenstock, Eva 2012 West Mound Trench 5 Excavations 2012. Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report:76–102. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2012.pdf.Google Scholar
Camizuli, Estelle 2008 Clay Provenance of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Ceramics from Çatalhöyük (Turkey). Çatalhöyük 2008 Archive Report: 290–340. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf.Google Scholar
Çilingiroğlu, Altan, Çevik, Özlem and Çilingiroğlu, Çiler 2012 towards Understanding the Early Farming Communities of Middle West Anatolia: The Contribution of Ulucak. In The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Research. Volume 3: Central Turkey, edited by Özdoğan, Mehmet, Başgelen, Nezih and Kuniholm, Peter, pp. 139–175. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Duru, Refik 1999 The Neolithic of the Lake District. In Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization, New Discoveries, edited by Özdoğan, Mehmet and Başgelen, Nezih, pp. 165–192. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2007 West Mound Excavations, Trenches 5/7 Pottery. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2007:127–131. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2007.pdf.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2008 West Mound Trenches 5/7 Pottery. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008:97–100. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2009a West Mound Trench 5 Pottery. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2009:42–50. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2009.pdf.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2009b Frühchalkolithische schnitt-stich-verzierte Keramik von Çatalhöyük West [Early Chalcolithic Cut- and Prick-Ornamented Pottery from Çatalhöyük West]. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, Freiburg University.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2010 West Mound Trenches 5–7 Pottery. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2010:77–90. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2011 West Mound Pottery, Trenches 5–7. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2011: 79–90. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2011.pdf.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar 2012 Trench 5–7 Pottery Archive Report 2012. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2012:262–271. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Franz, Ingmar and Ostaptchouk, Sonia 2012 Illuminating the Pottery Production Process at Çatalhöyük West Mound (Turkey) around 8000 cal. BP. In Naturwissenschaftliche Analysen Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher Keramik 2: Methoden, Anwendungsbereiche, Auswertungsmöglichkeiten, edited by Ramminger, Britta and Stilborg, Ole, pp. 97–129. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.Google Scholar
Godon, Martin 2010 De l’empreinte à l’outil, de la trace à la fonction: exemples d’outils de potier dans le Néolithique céramique centre-anatolien (7000–5500 BC cal.). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 107/4:691–707.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1996 Re-opening Çatalhöyük. In On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–1995, edited by Hodder, Ian, pp. 1–18. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.Google Scholar
Last, Jonathan 1998 Excavations on the West Mound at Çatalhöyük 1998. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 1998. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1998/ar98_05.html.Google Scholar
Last, Jonathan 2000 West Mound Pottery. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2000. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2000/ar00_10.html.Google Scholar
Last, Jonathan 2005 Pottery from the East Mound. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons, edited by Hodder, Ian, pp. 101–138. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Matthews, Roger 1996 Surface Scraping and Planning. In On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–1995, edited by Hodder, Ian, pp. 79–100. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.Google Scholar
Mellaart, James 1964 Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963: Third Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 14:39–120.Google Scholar
Mellaart, James 1965 Çatal Höyük West. Anatolian Studies 15:135–156.Google Scholar
Mellaart, James 1967 Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuyse, Oliver P., and Cruells, Walter 2004 The Proto-Halaf Period in Syria: New Sites, New Data. Paléorient 30/1:47–68.Google Scholar
Noll, Walter 1991 Alte Keramiken und ihre Pigmente: Studien zu Material und Technologie. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Pitter, Sharmini, Yalman, Nurcan and Evershed, Richard 2013 Absorbed Lipid Residues in the Çatalhöyük Pottery. In Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–08 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series Volume 9, BIAA Monograph 48, Monumenta Archaeologica 31, edited by Hodder, Ian, pp. 193–200. British Institute at Ankara, London, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Pollard, Tom, Shell, Colin A. and Twigg, David R. 1996 Topographic Survey of the Çatalhöyük Mounds. In On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–1995, edited by Hodder, Ian, pp. 59–72. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.Google Scholar
Rice, Prudence 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Schoop, Ulf D. 2005 Das anatolische Chalkolithikum: Eine chronologische Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kultursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien und den angrenzenden Gebieten. Albert Greiner, Remshalden.Google Scholar
Wendrich, Willeke 2007 Neolithische Korbflechterei. In Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien: Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, edited by Lichter, Clemens, pp. 230–235. Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
Yalçın, Ünsal 2003 Metallurgie in Anatolien. In Man and Mining/Mensch und Bergbau: Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Stöllner, Thomas, Körlin, Gabriele, Steffens, Gero and Cierny, Jan, pp. 527–536. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum.Google Scholar
Yalman, Nurcan 2010 Ceramics Archive Report: Study Season. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2010:75–77. Electronic document, www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Yalman, Nurcan, Özbudak, Duygu Tarkan and Gültekin, Hilal 2013 The Neolithic Pottery of Çatalhöyük: Recent Studies. In Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–08 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project Series Volume 9, BIAA Monograph 48, Monumenta Archaeologica 31, edited by Hodder, Ian, pp. 147–182. British Institute at Ankara, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×