Living with Clay

289 Pages·2017·24.21 MB·English

Living with Clay: materials, technology, resources and
landscape at Çatalhöyük

Chris Doherty
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at the University of Leicester, 2017
Living With Clay: materials, technology, resources
and landscape at Çatalhöyük
Christopher Doherty
Abstract
The Central Anatolian Neolithic tell site of Çatalhöyük has been extensively stud-
ied as an unusually well preserved example of an early agricultural settlement.
Located on a vast clay plain and occupied continuously for almost 1200 years
(7100-5950 cal BC), its large size and artistically rich clay-based material culture
point to clay being a major contributor to the community’s subsistence and sym-
bolic needs. However, the prevailing interpretation of the clay-rich landscape
appears to contradict this view. Thick impermeable clay beds underlying the areas
are thought to have impeded the drainage of seasonal floods, periodically isolating
the community in extensive wetlands and forcing a reliance on twelve kilometre
distant cereal growing. There is an unresolved tension between the material cul-
ture and landscape view of what clay truly afforded Çatalhöyük.
The aim of this thesis is to establish the full role of clay in Çatalhöyük’s suc-
cess, and is first tasked with resolving this tension. The approach taken differs
from the top-down single group artifact studies and from landscape models that
offer a regional explanation but disregard local actualities. Recognising that clay
material culture and clay landscape at Çatalhöyük were intimately linked, this
study draws on existing data combined with simple field geology and petrographic
analysis to drop down to the common denominator of both of these interacting
spheres: clay. The result is a reconstructed landscape interpretation that is no
longer at odds either with observed patterns of clay use or broader subsistence
practice. The role of clay at Çatalhöyük is re-examined in this more appropriate
landscape context to demonstrate a fuller and more complex picture than previ-
ously thought. While changing clay use seems to directly reflect past decision
making, complex and often hidden feedback between the tell and the immediate
landscape was often the real driver for change.
Acknowledgements
This thesis, which evolved from an invitation to work with the Çatalhöyük
Research Project to synthesise different aspects of the clay-based material culture,
has only been possible because the generosity of many people. First and foremost
I would like to say a huge thanks to Ian Hodder for inviting me onto the Project
and for supporting this research as it morphed into something beyond the initial
remit. Special thanks also goes to Shahina Farid whose understanding of all mat-
ters Çatalhöyük made her the first target for my many questions and who, as
project manager, made all my fieldwork run smoothly.
My formative ideas for this research were further distilled from conversations
with many people on the Project. In particular I would like to thank the excavation
and survey team members that I overlapped with, whose keen observations filled
my early notes. Many thanks especially to: Roddy Regan, Daniel Eddisford,
Michael House, Lisa Yeomans, James Taylor, Numan Arslan, Dave Mackie and
Cordelia Hall.
Equally I would like to thank the many specialists and excavation team lead-
ers for all their helpful advice and opinions. Thanks to: Serena Love, Mike
Charles, Amy Bogaard, Peter Biehl, Arkadiusz Marciniak, Nerissa Russell, Kath-
eryn Twiss, Liz Henton, Philippa Ryan, Lori Hager, Bas¸ak Boz, Scott Haddow,
Tristan Carter, Burcu Tung, Nurcan Yalman, Hilal Gültekin, Duygu Tarkan, Lynn
Meskell, Carolyn Nakamura, Sonya Atalay, Sheena Ketchum, Milena Vasic´, Slo-
bodan Mitrovic´, Mira Stevanovic´, Eleni Asouti, Karen Wright, Marina Milic´,
Roseleen Bains, Duygu Çamurcuog˘lu, Jason Quinlan, Alexandra Livarda, Muge
Ergun, Sharmini Pitter, Wendy Matthews, Lisa-Marie Shillito, Daniella E. Bar-
Yosef Mayer, Burçin A. Gümüs¸, Burçin Erdogu, Gülgün Gürcan, and Onur
Özbek.
Many thanks also to Neil Roberts and Douglas Baird, and more recently John
Wainwright and Gianna Ayayla for their thoughts and comments on Catahoyuk’s
environment, which have been pivotal to fine-tuning my views on the clayscape of
the Southern Konya Plain. And thanks to the many other Çatalhöyük people for all
LIVING WITH CLAY
their help over the years in so many ways: Katy Killackey, Camilla Mazzucato,
Banu Ayd, Sarah Jones, John Swogger, Mia Ridge, Gülay Sert, Danielle de Carle,
Garrett Boyd, Levent Özer, Yildiz Dirmit, Mustafa Tokyag˘sun, Hasan Tokyag˘sun,
Ibrahim Eken, Ismail Salmanc, Nevriye Sener, Gülsüm Eken, and Elmas Motuk.
I reserve special thanks for my supervisors, Dr Ian Whitbread and Dr. Mark
Gillings, for their tireless guidance and clear insight into how best to frame this
work. I thank them both for being willing to take on my slightly chaotic research
idea and help shape this into something more ordered. I hope the end result has
been worth the exposure to my poor spelling.
Last but not least, thanks to THEGD for getting this started and Flo and Co
for keeping me at it.
Chris Doherty
June 2017
Contents

Chapter 1: The research aims ...................................................................................... 1
1.1. Clay in the Neolithic - why study? ................................................................. 2
1.2. Situating Çatalhöyük ...................................................................................... 3
1.2.1. The regional context ................................................................................. 5
1.2.2. A familiarity with clay .............................................................................. 8
1.3. A clay paradox ............................................................................................. 11
1.4. A holistic clay materials-clay landscape approach ....................................... 14
1.5. Key themes ................................................................................................... 16
1.5.1. How was clay used at Çatalhöyük? ........................................................ 16
1.5.2. What were the clay resources and how did these change? ..................... 16
1.5.3. What was the nature of Çatalhöyük’s clay landscape? ............................ 18
1.5.3.1. What was the relationship between material culture and landscape? .. 18
1.5.4. Was Çatalhöyük’s success due to its clays? .............................................. 18
1.6. Clay defined ................................................................................................. 19
1.7. The sequence of chapters ............................................................................. 21
1.8. Summary ...................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2: Clay-based material culture studies at Çatalhöyük: a review ................. 24
2.1. Clay in the Neolithic .................................................................................... 25
2.2. Clay-based materials at Çatalhöyük ............................................................. 29
2.2.1. Mudbrick ................................................................................................. 31
2.2.2. Plaster ...................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3. Pottery ..................................................................................................... 41
2.2.4. Clay Balls ............................................................................................... 44
2.2.5. Geometric clay objects ............................................................................. 47
2.2.6. Stamp seals .............................................................................................. 49
2.2.7. Figurines ................................................................................................. 50
2.3. Limitations of the existing studies ................................................................ 52
Chapter 3: The clay landscape of Çatalhöyük ......................................................... 54
3.1. The origins of the extensive wetland landscape model ................................ 54
3.2. New landscape thinking questions clay’s role ............................................. 61
3.2.1. Biogenic studies ...................................................................................... 61
3.2.2. Clay studies ............................................................................................. 65
i
3.3. Summary ...................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 4: Establishing the sequences of clay use ................................................... 68
4.1. Mapping the clay-based material culture ..................................................... 68
4.2. The clays ....................................................................................................... 72
4.2.1. Clay colour as an investigative approach................................................. 73
4.2.2. Clay colour explained ............................................................................. 75
4.3. The four fundamental clay groups of Neolithic Çatalhöyük ......................... 79
Chapter 5: Reinterpreting the Holocene alluvium: challenging Çatalhöyük’s
clay foundation ....................................................................................... 82
5.1. Reconstructing the Holocene Landscape of Çatalhöyük .............................. 82
5.1.1. KOPAL’s wetland ................................................................................... 83
5.1.2. Physiographic constraints ....................................................................... 85
5.1.3. The wrong river....................................................................................... 88
5.1.4. Alluvial deposition - vertical not lateral accretion ................................... 89
5.1.5. Why these clays are dark ........................................................................ 93
5.1.6. The clay taskscape emerges .................................................................... 95
5.2. Summary ...................................................................................................... 99
Chapter 6: The Holocene alluvium - a clay for all purposes ................................. 102
6.1. What kind of clay is the Lower Alluvium? ................................................ 102
6.2. Performance ............................................................................................... 107
6.3. Landscape expression .................................................................................. 110
6.4. Non-architectural uses ................................................................................. 112
6.4.1. Clay ball and geometric clay objects (GCO’s) ..................................... 112
6.4.2. Mini-balls ............................................................................................... 114
6.4.3. Figurines ................................................................................................ 115
6.4.4. Pottery ................................................................................................... 116
6.5. Early mudbricks - building and consequences ............................................ 119
6.5.1. Châine Opératoire .................................................................................. 125
6.6. Alluvial clay abandoned - understanding the first major clay transition
at Çatalhöyük ............................................................................................. 128
6.6.1. Possible causes ...................................................................................... 129
6.6.2. A likely story ......................................................................................... 131
6.6.3. Wider Consequences .............................................................................. 135
ii
6.7. Summary .................................................................................................... 138
Chapter 7: A common ground: the white marls and lake clays of the Konya
Plain ....................................................................................................... 140
7.1. Pre-Çatalhöyük marl use ............................................................................. 141
7.2. The white marls at Çatalhöyük ................................................................... 141
7.2.1. Differentiating white marl and burnt lime plasters ............................... 143
7.2.2. The plaster sequence in detail ............................................................... 146
7.2.2.1. The burnt lime plaster up close........................................................ 147
7.2.2.2. Up in smoke: re-examining the evidence for burnt lime technology150
7.2.2.3. Implications ..................................................................................... 153
7.2.3. The multi-layer plasters ....................................................................... 155
7.2.3.1. True clay innovation ........................................................................ 158
7.2.4. Single layer white marl plaster ............................................................. 158
7.3. Beyond the pale - The non-white marls ...................................................... 163
7.3.1. The geomorphological setting................................................................ 163
7.3.1.1. Material culture expression .............................................................. 164
7.3.2. Landscape affordances .......................................................................... 166
7.3.2.1. From wetland to dryland .................................................................. 167
7.4. Summary .................................................................................................... 171
Chapter 8: Colluvium: the rise of a new clay ......................................................... 173
8.1. Colluvium and the ‘clay cycle’ at Çatalhöyük ........................................... 174
8.1.1. Composition ........................................................................................... 174
8.1.2. The processes and variables of colluvium formation ........................... 176
8.1.3. The main areas of colluvium formation ................................................ 178
8.1.4. Early occupation - the beginnings of the clay cycle ............................. 179
8.1.5. Mid to late occupation - the full clay cycle established ......................... 179
8.2. Interpreting the use of colluvial clay ........................................................... 183
8.2.1. Çatalhöyük’s History Houses and colluvium ........................................ 187
8.2.1.1. Stable clay aggregates ...................................................................... 188
8.3. The consequences of colluvial clay use .................................................... 193
8.3.1. Social implications ................................................................................. 193
8.3.2. Local landscape consequences .............................................................. 194
8.4. Summary ..................................................................................................... 196
iii
Chapter 9: Arrivals from a distant clayscape .......................................................... 201
9.1. Pottery at Çatalhöyük .................................................................................. 202
9.2. The fabric sequence .................................................................................... 204
9.1. Defining local ............................................................................................. 204
9.2. Questions: what, how, where, why and who? ............................................ 208
9.3. Procedure ................................................................................................... 210
9.3.1. Fabrics and sources ................................................................................ 210
9.4. Thin section analysis .................................................................................. 212
9.4.1. The expected local fabric ...................................................................... 212
9.4.1.1. The observed gritty ware fabrics ...................................................... 215
9.4.1.1.1. A non-local provenance confirmed ............................................ 216
9.4.1.1.2. Possible volcanic sources ........................................................... 217
9.4.1.1.3. Findings ...................................................................................... 219
9.4.1.2. Modelling a higher resolution provenance ...................................... 220
9.4.1.2.1. Closing in ................................................................................... 222
9.4.2. Gritty ware production and properties .................................................. 223
9.4.2.1. How? Comparative production sequences ....................................... 223
9.4.2.2. Why? ................................................................................................. 225
9.4.2.3. Who? ................................................................................................ 228
9.4.2.3.1. Locations .................................................................................... 229
9.4.2.3.2. Fabric variation ........................................................................... 230
9.4.2.3.3. Clay deposit type ....................................................................... 230
9.4.2.3.4. Performance ............................................................................... 232
9.4.2.3.5. Context ...................................................................................... 234
9.5. Summary ..................................................................................................... 234
Chapter 10: Conclusions ........................................................................................ 238
10.1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 238
10.1.1. Research Aims .................................................................................... 238
10.1.2. A different approach .......................................................................... 239
10.1.3. Thesis design ....................................................................................... 240
10.2. Findings .................................................................................................... 241
10.2.1. Çatalhöyük’s four main clay groups ................................................... 241
10.2.2. The need to re-interpret Çatalhöyük’s clay landscape ...................... 241
iv
10.2.3. Lower Alluvium - both a versatile raw material and a soil resource .. 242
10.2.4. Changes in Lower Alluvium use explained ........................................ 243
10.2.5. White plasters - challenging held views and recognising innovation . 244
10.2.6. The non-white marls ........................................................................... 245
10.2.7. Colluvium and the clay cycle at Çatalhöyük ...................................... 246
10.2.8. Distant clays ......................................................................................... 247
10.3. Answering the question ............................................................................ 248
10.3.1. Another view ....................................................................................... 248
10.3.2. Final remarks ....................................................................................... 251
Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 254
v
List of Tables

Table 1.1 - The Mellaart and Hodder stratigraphies ................................................... 5

Table 2.1 - Analytical plaster studies at Çatalhöyük ................................................ 36

Table 2.2 - Developments in the pottery sequence at Çatalhöyük ............................ 41

Table 3.1 - Evolving landscape views at Çatalhöyük ............................................... 55

Table 3.2 - Recent research questions extensive wetlands at Neolithic Çatalhöyük 62

Table 5.1 - Losing streams vs gaining streams ......................................................... 89

Table 6.1 - Measured parameters for Çatalhöyük sediments .................................. 104

Table 6.2 - Characteristics of the Lower Alluvium ................................................ 108

Table 6.3 - Available mudbrick clays - four possibilities ....................................... 131

Table 7.1 - SEM-ED analysis of different floor platform plasters, Building 59..... 161

Table 8.1 - The raw materials for colluvium formation at Çatalhöyük .................. 176

Table 8.2 - Process variables in colluvium formation ............................................ 177

Table 9.1 - The twelve main East Mound pottery fabrics ....................................... 206

Table 9.2 - A pottery production for Çatalhöyük - stages and main questions ...... 209

Table 9.3 - Local inclusions observed in mudbrick thin section survey ................. 214

Table 9.4 - Key geological references for provenancing clay in the Southern
Konya plain area. .................................................................................. 216

Table 9.5 - The four main gritty ware fabric groups ............................................... 217

Table 9.6- A comparison of local and gritty ware production sequences ............... 224

Table 10.1 - Main factors influencing the use of Çatalhöyük's four clay groups ... 249

vi