�6�

Çatalhöyük Figurines - Lynn Meskell (University of Stanford ) and Carolyn Nakamura (Columbia University)

AbstractThisyearthefigurineteamfocusedonrecordingbasicinformationforallofthe1526objectsintheminiatureshapedobjectcorpus.Asaresultwewereabletoperformsomepreliminaryspatialanalyses,whichallowedustobegindiscussingnotionsofprocess,context,andcirculationoffigurinesatthesite.Inadditiontofindingmoreofthecommonabbreviatedandzoomorphictypes,excavatorsuncoveredsomelesscommon and new forms.The 4040 and IST surface scrape uncovered two verysmallunsexedhumanclayfigurineswithprotrudingstomachsandbuttocks(11324.X3,11848.X1).Another anthropomorphic stonefigurinewas found in amiddenin4040(12102.x1),similarto10475.X2fromlastseason,butwiththeheadandnecksawedoff.Anothermiddenunit,(10396),inthe4040produced11figurines/fragments(mostzoomorphic).Finally,theISTteamfoundaveryatypicalhumanclayfigurine(12401.X7)thatdepictsarobustfemaleonthefrontandaskeletonontheback;theneckhasadowelholeandtheheadismissing.

Giventhediversityofthiscollection,weseektoexplorethevariousassemblagesandmaterialsasfiguredlifeworlds.Anotionoffigurineasprocess,ratherthanobjectorendproductisthereforecentraltoourproject.Giventheirspecificmateriality(portable, three-dimensional, miniature), figurines can render multiple levels ofrepresentationandparticipatein,orevenanchor,storytellingactivitiesthatmediateissuesofmemoryandidentity.Wefindthewiderpracticesofembeddingmaterials,and the circulation, plastering and defacement of body parts to be evocativegesturesthatintersectwithmanyfigurinepractices.Thesemayembodyandexpressparticularnotionsandrelationsoflifeanddeathcyclesandweplantoexploretheseissuesandconnectionsmorefullyinfutureseasonsandpublications.

ÖzetBusenefigürinekibi,1526adetufakbuluntununbasitverilerininkaydıüzerindeyoğunlaştı. Bu çalışmanın sonucu olarak, Çatalhöyük’deki figürin dağılımı,kavramsalmethodlarvekontextgibi ilkanalizlerinsonucuolanverileri tartışmaimkanı bulduk. Genelde bulunan daha kısaltılmış, hayvana benzer örneklere ekolarak,busenedahafarklı,yenişekillerbulundu.4040veİSTalanlarındakiyüzeykazımalarısonucundaikiadet,çokküçükboyutta,seksibelliolmayançıkık,göbeklivekalçalı insanfigürinleribulundu(11324.X3,11848.X1) .Geçensenebulunanfigürine benzeyen10475.X2ve4040’daki bir çöplükdebulunanbir başka insanbetimli taş figürinin başı ve boynu kırıktır. 4040 alanındaki diğer bir çöplükde,10396, 11 adet figürin ve parçaları bulundu (Çoğu hayvan betimli).Ayrıca İSTekibi,öntarafıkadın,arkatarafıiskeletolarakbetimlenmiş,boyunkısmıdeliklivebaşıolmayan,olağandışıbirkilfigürinortayaçıkarıldı.

IntroductionThisyearwecontinuedtobuildupthedatabasearchiveandrefinethesystemimplementedlastyearin2004.Althoughmuchworkremainstobedone,wewereabletocompilebasicdata(materialandform)fornearlyallobjectsandfragmentsinthecollectionintermsofmaterialandform,enablingustoperformsomepreliminaryspatial analyses.Thefindings from theseanalysesnowallowus todiscussnotionsofcontextandcirculationoffigurinematerialsatthesiteandthusaddressandchallengesomepopularconceptionsabouttheÇatalhöyükfigurinesofferedbyMellaartandotherswhohavestudiedthematerialspreviously.Weaimtopresentamore

�62

comprehensive and representative range of figurines from the site, balancing out the sensationalizedfinds oftheso-called ‘MotherGoddess’ imageswith theubiquitousabbreviatedfiguralandanimal forms inclay.Ourinitialfindingsposeachallengetothespecialstatusgiventothecategoryoffigurineanditscommonlyassumedassociationswithart,womenandreligion.ThediversityoftheÇatalhöyükcorpusalonedemandsthatweexamineanumberofvariablesandinterpretationsbeyondthosespecified,implicitlyandexplicitly,bythesimplecategoryoffigurine.

Anoverarchinggoalofthisresearch,then,seekstomakeadecisivemoveawayfromthenotionoffigurineasthing;rather,weproposetoviewthefigurine as process. Asweemphasizedlastyear, ourdatabasedesignprocessdidnotsimplyinvolvearchivingthecollection,butengagedacriticalrethinkingofanalyticalandinterpretivecategories oriented towards amore integrative approach to figurine studies.We suspect that certain types offigurineswillfind closer ties towall art, representational architectural features, and toplastering activities ingeneral than perhaps to other types of figurines. Refocusing figurine research towards such areas of overlapprompts a productive rethinking of our taxonomic framework in terms of processes of resource acquisition,technologicalandgenderedproduction,anduseratherthanintermsoftheendproduct.Thisapproachbroadlyembracestheideathattechnologyissocialbeforeitistechnical(Foucault),thusallowingustoconsiderthesocialprocessesinvolvedmaterialselection,preparation,fabrication,use,circulationanddiscard.

Bydeveloping theseaims, the larger interpretative issuesof self-representation—thenegotiationof selfandsexuality,andrelationsbetweenhumanandanimalworlds—mightthuscomeintosharperanalyticalfocus.Weseektomoveawayfromsterileattemptstodeducefunctionandmeaningfromavisualreading—the‘isitadeityornot’typeofequation?Insteadweseektolookandmaneuveraroundtheobjects,weavingtogetherpatternsoffigurinemaking,technology,use,mobilityanddiscard,coupledwiththetraversingofcategoriesfromfigurestoplastered features towallpaintings. In thiswaywehope tobuildupmoreofa lifeworld for theNeolithiccommunity,takingintoaccounttheinherentvisualityandmaterialityofafiguredcorpus.

Given our knowledge of representational spheres atÇatalhöyük, this prompts us to askwas there somethingspecialaboutsettlingdownintightlypackedcommunitiesintheNeolithicthatmakeitsinhabitantsmoreattentiveto thecontoursofpersonhoodandsexual identity,are theyplayingwithclassificationsandcategories thatwemightfindunfamiliar?Butfirstofallwehavetobalancethescalesintermsofreadilyidentifiablegendersasthenumbersofmale,androgynous,phallicandambiguouslysexedfiguresneedstoberecalculated.Thisisataskwehavetakenseriouslyoverourfirsttwoseasonsandareclosetoachievingafullerpictureoftheentirerangeofmaterial.Anotionofbecomingatthissitemightthenhaveencompassedexperimentalimagerythatincorporatesvarioussexualsymbolism,orcombinesinnovativewaysofviewingattributesdependingonviewpoint,movementandcirculation.

Thefollowingreportwillprovideabriefdiscussionofthecurrentstatusofourwork,includingtheidentificationofsomekeyissues,workcompleted,newfinds,thepresentationofsomepreliminaryanalysesandinterpretivedirections,andplansforfuturework. Issuesaddressedandworkcompleted

1.The ArchiveAtafundamentallevelweneedsomedialoguebetweenthetwoperiodsofexcavationintermsofmaterialculture—evenifnotthestatedcontexts,giventhelevelsofspecificityinrecordingduringthe1960s(Todd1976).Thescaleandspeedoftheearlyworkuncoveredadazzlingarrayofmaterials,yetlackedthebenefitofthepresentproject’scareful,contextualmethodologies.Thisisevincedveryclearlywiththefigurinecorpus.IfoneweretotaketheMellaartfindsatfacevalue,specificallythepublishedpiecesandthusignorethewidevariationinfigurinetypes, then onemight posit that two rather different sites had been dug (seeMellaart 1962; see 1964; 1965;1966;1967;1975).Mellaartwouldhaveuncoveredalargenumberofimpressivestoneandclaypieces,whereasconverselyourprojectwouldhave foundmoremundaneclayexamplesofquadrupeds,bucrania, abbreviatedhumanformsandsoon.Thoughwehavefoundimpressiveexamples,themundanedominatesnumerically.One

�63

waytochallengethispictureis tore-excavateMellaart, to literallyworkinhisareasandthroughhisspoil.Atrainingandeducationalexcavation(TEMPER)undertheaegisofthewiderprojectcarriedoutthelatterandwenowhaveaverygoodideaofwhatMellaartmissed,overlookedorevendiscarded.Ournumbersindicatethathemissedsignificantnumbersoffigurines(anthropomorphicandzoomorphic)alongwithfragmentsofthem,non-diagnosticpieces,shapedclaypiecesandscrapthatisprobablyceramicdebitage.

Oneofourfirsttasksthenwastoinvestigatewhetherthisdiscrepancylargelycanbeexplainedawaybydifferencesinexcavationmethodologiesandgoalsorwhetherit,infact,doespresentsomekindofmeaningfulpatterning.Othershavepreviouslymadeassertionsconcerningfigurinepatterningatthesite(Hamilton1996,inpress;Voigt2000),however,weremainhighlyskepticalofsuchanalysesgiventhattheyhaveassumedacertainequivalencebetweenthe1960’sandcurrentexcavationcollectionsandnottakendifferencesinexcavationmethodologiesintoaccount.Inorder tomakeanymeaningfulcomparisons,someattemptatbalancingMellaart’spicturemustbeundertaken.Fortunately,wewereabletoaddressthisissuesomewhatbyincludingmaterialsfromMellaart’sstudy(etutluk)collection(TheprojectbecameawareofthesematerialslastyearwhentheKonyamuseumturnedthemovertotheprojecttostoreonsiteaftertheyweredeaccessionedfromtheAnkaracollection.Toourknowledgethesematerialshavenotbeenstudiedpreviously),andmaterialsfoundinhisspoilheapdugbytheTEMPERproject(seearchivereports2000-2004).MaterialsfromthecurrentexcavationsinMellaart’sarea(nowcalledtheSouthArea)alsocontributetobalancingouttheMellaartprofile.Theemergingfigurinedatabasewillincludethesematerialsrecordedinappropriatedetail.Giventhatcontextualinformationismissingormimimalformostofthesematerials,theycannotbeusedinanalysesthatlookatpatterningovertimeandspace.

2. The Database Initially,wedesignedanextensivedatabasetoaccommodateabroadrangeofshapedobjectstoensurethatwedidnotovervaluethecategoryoffigurine.Thisdecisionhasresultedinadatabaserecordofover1500objects,manyofwhicharenon-diagnosticfragmentsandscrap.Afterhavingbecomemorefamiliarwiththefigurinematerialswehavedecidedtoemployatieredrecordingmethodology.Althoughwehavenotyetworkedoutthespecificsforthissystem,mostlikelyitwillinvolvefullyrecordingalldiagnosticfigurinesandfigurinefragments,whilerecordingonlyfabricandweightofthenon-diagnosticpieces.Basicdescriptiveandcontextualinformationforallobjectswillberecordedwherepossible.ThisseasonweaccomplishedenteringthisdataforallobjectspresentonsiteandallknownobjectsfromtheKonyaandAnkaramuseumcollections.Wefocusedonenteringbasicinformationthatwouldallowustoperformsomepreliminaryanalysesofbasicpatterningacrossthesiteandovertime:IDnumberInventorynumberUnitYearAreaSpaceBuildingFeatureLevelLocationObjectTypeMaterialForm(representational)Type(representational).

ThesebasicdataalsoallowedustoinvestigatesomeofNaomiHamilton’sassertions(2005),andconclusionsfromtheheavyresiduereportinVolume6(seediscussionbelow).Asmentionedlastyear,wehavestructuredthedatabaseinsuchawaythatallowsfortherecordingofobjectsfromthemostgeneral,descriptivetermstomorespecific,interpretivecategories.Webelievethatthisprovidesthemostflexibilityforavarietyofanalyses.Giventhisconsideration,weareeagertodispensewithpreviousterminologiesusedbyMellaartandHamilton

�64

suchashumanoid,exvoto,schematic,mothergoddess,fatlady,astheycannotbedisassociatedfromproblematicnarrativesfromartandreligion.Ourprocess-focusedapproachchallengestheideaoffigurinesasstatic,stationaryobjectstobeviewedandkeptinspecialareas.HamiltonherselfpresentedalternativeinterpretationsforsomeoftheÇatalhöyükfigurines,possiblyastoys,orjewelryandadornment.Whilethereislittleevidenceforsuchuse,itislikelythatfigurinescirculatedthroughoutthesiteandwewillputforthafewalternativepossibilities.

3. Clay technologiesWecontinuedtoworkwithotherclaymaterialspecialists,MirjanaStevanović(buildingmaterials),NurcanYalman(pottery),anddatabasespecialist,MiaRidge,toagreeuponacommonclayterminologythatwouldenablebetterfunctionality of database queries.Although there are some basic commonalities between ceramics, figurines,buildingmaterialsandclayballs,thefabricandfiringtechnologiesforeacharequitespecializedandsubstantiallydifferent.Abroadaimoftheprojectseekstobetterunderstandtherangeofclaytechnologiesemployedatthesite.Theclayfigurinefabricsarenotuniform,althoughtheydoappeartoclusterintoafewdifferenttypegroupsranging fromcoarse ‘dirty’ clay to veryfine cleanmarl andplaster. Some fabrics do appear to be similar tominiatureclayballs(seereportsbyAtalay)andpossiblysomeceramicfabrics(Yalman,pers.comm.)Nextseason,weplantobeginworkingoutamethodologyforthesystematicrecordingfabrictypeanddegreeofheatexposure.Giventhatfigurinesarepredominantlyfoundinsecondarycontextssuchasmiddenandfill,suchworkandtheeventualcomparisonoffabricsacrossobjecttypes,willbeimportantforgettingataspectsoffigurineproductionandfabrication,evenifonlyobliquely.

4. Experimental Methods

Figure 80. Anthopomorphic/phallomorphic forms. Left: 10474.X, Right: 79-799-65 (Ankara Museum).

Video and Multiple Perspectives.Givenourinterestinexploringembodiedprocessesofcrafting,decisionmaking,materialagency,andcirculationinvolvedinfigurinepractice(see2004ArchiveReport),wecontinuedtodocumentsomeofthefigurinesonvideoinorder emphasize the experience of thesethree-dimensional,portableobjectsaslikelyviewed from multiple perspectives. Thethemeofambiguity,both in termsofformand sex, needs to be addressedwithin theÇatalfigurine assemblage.Aswe reportedlastyear,mostofthefigurinesareunsexedand often cannot not be assigned to anyclear cut traditional category of male orfemale. This kind of ambiguity oftenexploits the three-dimensionality of afigurine, a form that can support multi-leveledandhybrid representations like theanthropomorphicandphallomorphicformsin Fig. 80. This specific materiality of a

figurinealsoinvitesonetohandleandmanipulateitandviewitfromdifferentperspectives.Giventhiscapacity,figurinesmightlikelyhavebeenengagedininteractiveactivitiessuchasstorytelling,wishfulfillment,didacticdevices concerning transformation, and/or exploration of personhood and sexuality.Again, it is important toentertainthepossibilitythatfigurinesoperatedoutsideofculticandreligiouscontexts,thatitwasnotnecessarilytheobjectitselfthatwasmeaningfulbutthesocialactivitiestheirmaterialityanchoredandsupported.

Replications.Wealsobrought someclaymodelingmaterial to experimentwith re-creating someof themostubiquitousformsfoundatÇatalhöyük(Weacknowledgethat therearedifferencesbetweenworkingwithclayandworkingwithoven-bakeclaymodelingpaste,butgiventhesensitiveissueofforgeries,wedecidedtouse

�65

amodernmodeling compound.All copieswere destroyed after the experiment).We all encountered variouslevels of difficulty in this task (Participants included ourselves, John Swogger,Mira Stevanovic andMarinaLizzaralde).Weimaginedthatthesimplestabbreviatedformswouldtakeonlyfiveorsixmovestomake.Butwe found that despite their apparent simplicity, the zoomorphic and abbreviated figurines are of a particularculturalstyle(althoughthereisnostandardizationofform,thereisacertainlevelofstylisticconsistencyvisiblewithinthevarioustypes).Theformsweresurprisinglyforeigntouseventhoughwewereconstantlyhandlingandexaminingthem.Attheoutset,eventhemostexperiencedperson(JohnSwogger)tooksome15movestomakeanabbreviatedformbutwithpracticequicklypairedtheprocessdownto6moves.Fortheanimalfigurines,fashioningtheentireheadandbodyfromasinglepieceofclayprovedtobedifficultforus,butcouldbedonewithacertainamountofpractice.

Fingerprints.Afterreviewingtheliteratureonfingerprintanalysesonancientmaterials,wedecidedthatcorrelatingfingerprintridgebreadthwithheightandagewouldprovidethemostfruitfulavenueforsuchresearch(Kamp,etal.1999).Determininganystatisticallysignificantdifferencesinridgebreadthduetosexrequiresa“geneticallyclose”samplegroupforcomparison(Cummins1941;JantzandParham1978;Malvalwala,etal.1990;Stinson2002).Wefinddonotbelievethatanymodernpopulationcanprovidesuchasampleandfindstudiesthatassumegeneticproximitybasedonlyongeographicproximityproblematic.Althoughcountsoffigurineswithfingerprintimpressionshavenotbeenfinalized,wetookasampleof34printimpressionsfromhorn,quadruped,abbreviatedandnon-diagnosticforms.Toavoidleavingaresiduefromthevinylpolysiloxanedentalcompound(PattersonDentalSupplies)onthefigurinesurface,wetookimpressionsofthefingerprintsusingmodelingclayandthenliftedtheprintimagesfromthemodelingclay.InfutureseasonsweplantocollectprintsfromallfieldsamplesthathavesuchimpressionsaswellasobtainpermissiontolifeimagesfromthefiguresintheKonyaArchaeologicalMuseum.

2005 FindsThisyeartheprojectrecovered47objectsfromexcavationand26figurinesfromMellaart’sspoilheap.BasiccountsfortheexcavationfindsarepresentedinTables1a-1cbelow.

Object Form Count

figural 32

figural, non-diagnostic 9

geometric 3

geometric, non-diagnostic 1

non-diagnostic 2

TOTAL 47

Table 1a. 2005 Shape Objects

Figural objects total non-diagnostic Secure

anthopomorphic 14 2 12

zoomorphic 19 5 14

indeterminate 17 9 8

Table 1b. Form Distribution of 2005 Figural Shaped Objects

�66

FORM Total Indeterminate Secure

abbreviated 4 4 0

human 6 0 6

horns 9 2 7

quadrupeds 6 3 3

Table 1c. Type Distribution of 2005 Figural Shaped Objects

Figure 81. 12102.X1. Thisheadlessfigureisasolidroundedbaseextendinguptoawidehorizontalgrooveindicating a waist that gives way to the upper torso.

12102.X1Description.Thefigurecomprisesasolidroundedbaseextendinguptoawidehorizontalgrooveindicatingawaistthatgiveswaytotheuppertorso(Fig.81).Twodiagonal(shouldertowaist),deeplyincisedlinesindicatearmsandasingleverticallinedividesthechestdownthecenterandmaybesuggestiveofbreasts.Theneckandheadaremissing,buthavebeencutoff,probablywithobsidianandotherstonetools,andperhapsevenpolishedafterremoval(KarenWrightandAdnanBaysal,pers.comm.).

Context.Thisfigurinederivesfromamiddencontextinthe4040.

Discussion.Althoughtheneckandheadaremissing,itislikelythatthispieceissimilartotheexamplefoundlastyearinspace227(10475.X2).AnotherexampleofaremovedlimestoneheadoccurswithafigurinenowinAnkara(79-8-65).Althoughspeculativeatthisjuncture,theremovalofheadsisaprovocativethemefordiscussion.Suchpracticesoccurinhumanburials,andwehaveseenthecirculationofheadsafterdeathrepeatedlyatÇatalhöyük.Withintheclayfigurineassemblagethereareseveralheadlessbodiesthathavedowelholesintheneckandalsosmallsphericalobjectsthatresembleheads.Certainly,thereisthetechnologicalconsiderationthatformingtheheadandbodyseparatelyiseasierforthoselessskilledinfiguremodeling.Wefoundthistobethecaseinourexperimentalworkwith fashioning figurines. But given the presence of dowel holes (which allows the easyremovalandexchangeofheads)andevidencefortheintentionalremovalofheadsacrossthesite,wesuggestthatfigurinesmightbeinvolvedinactivitiesofmythandstorytelling.Figurineworldsmayhaveprovidedarichvehicletoexplorenarrativeandtransformativeexperience—theexploitsofindividuals,encounterswithanimals,mythicorhistoric.Theabilityforfigurinestobemalleable,tochangeidentitiesthroughthetransferofheads(orchangeofviewingangle),presentsaninterestingsetofpossibilitiesandleadsusawayfromstaticformsintothenotionoffigurineasprocess(seediscussionbelow).

�67

11324.X3 Dimenisions (H.xW.xTh.): 2.84x1.41x1.14cm;2.5g.

Description.Thisfigurineisaverysmallstandinghumanfigurinewithwell-delineatedfeaturescarvedfromsoftlimestone(Fig82).Onthehead,earsareindicatedandthefacedepictseyes,alargenoseandmouth.Thetorsoisrelativelybroadwitharmshangingdownatthesides.Thefigureshowsaprotrudingbellywithalargebellybuttonincisedinthemiddle.Thebellyslopesdownandoutward,thencutsinstraighttothegroin.Thethicklegsaredividedbothfrontandbackandhavewell-formedfeet.Onthebackthelegdivideproceedsupthebuttocks,whichalsoprotrudeoutwardfromaverystraightback.

Context. 11324.X3derivesfromspace202,building42inthe4040area.Theunithasbeeninterpretedassomekindofinfillingorlevelingeventtothesouthofthebenchinthisspace.

Figure 82. 11324.X3. A very small standing human figurine with well-delineated features carved from soft limestone.

Discussion.Thisfigurineisinterestingbothintermsofitsminiaturesizeandlackofclearsexualfeatures.OneothersimilarfigurewasrecoveredthisyearfromtheIstanbulsurfacescrape(11324.X3Fig.83).Suchminiatureobjectscan inviteamuchdifferent rangeofuseactivities than the largerstatuettes.While the latterareoften(wrongly)envisionedassittinginashrine,beingviewedbutnotcirculatedorhandled,theformerperhapsaremoreeasilyseenasmoreportableobjectsthatcanbecarried,worn,exchanged,hidden,etc.Thelackofanyclearsexmarkers in theseembodimentsalsocompelsus to reconsider thestatusofgendered representationwithinthefigurinecorpus.Althoughmanytakeexaggeratedbuttocksandstomachtobeindicativeoffemaleness,suchfeaturesarenecessarilyambiguousmarkersofsex.Andwemustconsider thepossibility that theemphasisofthesetraitsinvokesmeaningsbeyondthatofbinarysexcategories.Figurineswhethersexedorunsexedmaydealmorewiththeexplorationofidentityandpersonhoodthanwithcategoriesdeterminedorboundedbygender.

�68

12401.X7Dimenisions (H.xW.xTh.):6.51x7.37x6.44cm;221g

Figure 83. 12401.X7. Hybrid representation perhaps of life and death.

Description.Thisfiguredepictsahuman,hybridrepresentationperhapsoflifeanddeath.Thefrontportraysthetypical robust femalewith largebreasts and stomach (provocatively, thenavel appears toprotrude (umbilicalhernia)whichsometimesoccursinpregnancy);verythinarmswithdelineatedfingers(seeAnkara79-251-65)folduptorestonthebreasts(seeAnkara79-803-65and10475.X2).Thefrontbaseofthefigureismissingbutitappearstobeseatedwithlegscrossedinfront(Ankara79-20-65;79-656-65).Redpaintispresentaroundneckandbetweenbreastsinfourconcentricchains(Ankara79-20-65),andonthewristsandpossiblytheankles.Thetraceofredpaintinlowerareasuggestspainteddecorationseenontheanklesofotherfigures.Thebackportraysanarticulatedskeletonwithamodeledspinalcolumn,apelvisandscapulasthatprojectaboveshoulders.Individualribsandvertebraearedepictedthroughhorizontalanddiagonalscoring.Aprominentdowelholeindicatesthatoriginallythepiecehadaseparate,detachablehead.Acircular‘footprint’aroundthedowelholesuggeststhattheheadfitsnuglyintothiscurvedspace.Thefigurinewasplasteredandshowsevidenceofundergoingsecondaryburning(darkenedclay/yellowishplaster),whichisespeciallyvisibleonthefrontfromarms/breastsdownanddiagonallydownsideswhereplasterismissing.

169

Context.12401.X7wasfoundbytheIstanbulteaminanashyareaofspace252withalargeamountofgroundstone,grindingstone,andamacehead.

Discussion.Wehave foundnoparallel examples for thispieceacross the site, theAnatolianNeolithicor theEuropeanNeolithicfor thatmatter.Theskeletalrepresentationindeedseemsunique,buteventhestyleof thefemalebody,withitsexaggeratedbreastsandstomach,isdifferentfromotherknownÇatalexamplesthatportraythefemalebodyinmorenaturalisticproportions.Giventhattheheadismissing,weaskedJohnSwoggertomakeafewÇataltypesfrommodelingclaysowecouldgetanideaofwhatthefiguremighthavelookedlikewithahead.Themostinterestingexamplewasonemodeledaftertheplasteredskullfoundin2004.Hesuggestedalinkbetweentheplaster/skullandlivingbody/skeletoncouplingsofthetworepresentations.Thisledustothinkmoreabouttheactofplasteringwhichwewilltalkmoreaboutinthegeneraldiscussion.

Unit (10396)

Figure 84. Quadruped 10396.X2.

Thisunitispartofaprimarymiddendeposit(truncatedbyaRomanfoundationtrench)inSpace268inthe4040area.Elevenfigurine/figurinefragmentsmostlycomprisedofzoomorphicforms(hornsandquadrupeds)wererecoveredfromthisunit.Oneorpossiblytwoabbreviatedformswerealsofound(H3,H12).Mostoftheseobjectswererecoveredfromscreening.OnlytwoX-findswererecorded.X1isanobsidianpointandX2(Fig.84)isanearlycompletestandingquadrupedwithtail,RhornandrearRlegintact;allotherlegsaremissing.ThereisapuncturemarkthroughLhornx-sectionsuggestingthatthehornwasintentionallybrokenoff.Giventhenumberoffigurinesfound,thisunitwarrantscloserexamination.

Preliminary countsTheresultsofsomebasicobjectcountsbasedonournewrecordingmethodologyarepresentedinTables2a–4b.Aswearestillintheprocessofrefiningourrecordingsystem,inputtingunrecordedmaterials,sortingoutexactnumbers,andwaitingforcontextualinformation,these results should be taken as preliminary only.Thecountsweretabulatedveryquicklyonsiteandtheremaybediscrepanciesamongtotalsbetweendifferenttables.Wewillsorttheseoutlateronwhenwepublishamorecompleteandthoroughanalysis.

�70

Sh

ap

ed

Ob

ject

sto

tal

no

n-d

iag

no

stic

?se

cure

figura

l obje

cts

999

233

111

655

non-d

iagnost

ic o

bje

cts

416

//

/

scra

p?

110

//

/

To

tal n

um

ber

15

25

//

/

Tab

le 2

a.

Overv

iew

of

Sh

ap

ed

Ob

ject

s

Rep

rese

nta

tio

nal Fo

rmto

tal

?se

cure

anth

ropom

orp

hic

1396

130

266

zoom

orp

hic

508

170

338

indet

erm

inat

e205

0205

geo

met

ric

51

12

39

Zo

om

orp

hic

fo

rms

tota

l?

secu

re

quad

ruped

192

15

177

horn

273

125

148

Ho

rn t

yp

es

tota

l?

secu

re

horn

273

125

148

stra

ight

horn

43

29

14

curv

ed h

orn

175

57

118

An

thro

po

mo

rph

ic F

orm

sto

tal

?se

cure

�7�

hum

an120

15

105

abbre

viat

ed207

53

154

Ab

bre

via

ted

Fo

rm P

rofi

leto

tal

?se

cure

abbre

viat

ed a

ll207

53

154

abbre

viat

ed R

EC

16

115

abbre

viat

ed M

elle

t22

418

abbre

viat

ed C

HC

21

219

abbre

ivat

ed c

urr

ent

exca

vations

148

46

102

Fig

ura

l Typ

e#

##

98

8-7

(7

?)

77

-6

(6?)

66

-5

(5?)

54

32

10

tota

l

anth

ropom

orp

hic

10

124

33

325

48

84

54

65

14

25

3

hum

an0

00

49

06

530

02

45

11

76

abbre

viat

ed0

01

15

16

315

33

23

52

20

0

1

15

zoom

orp

hic

10

89

50

621

99

71

82

10

3

2

79

quad

ruped

10

12

27

18

45

35

81

00

3

1

32

horn

s0

07

620

57

52

25

01

10

0

1

24

tota

l no.

figura

l obje

cts

20

10

40

93

11

54

181

131

13

67

514

56

7

TO

TA

L n

o.

shap

ed

ob

ject

s5

-#

##

#1

7#

31

3#

#2

57

75

#-

-8

30

Tab

le 4

b.

Co

un

ts p

er

Level

Tab

le 2

b.

Typ

e a

nd

Su

bty

pe P

rofi

les

of

Fig

ura

l Fo

rms

1.

Anth

ropom

orp

hic

incl

udes

abbre

viat

ed f

orm

s.

�72

Mellaart figural object profile CHC (museum) MELLET (etutluk) REC (spoil) total

zoomorphic 96 38 20 154

quadrupeds 83 28 1 112

horns 3 5 15 23

anthropomorphic 113 30 18 161

human 65 5 1 71

abbreviated 36 22 16 74

Mellaart All2 205 81 73 359

REC Object Profile totals

figurines, all 47

figurines ? 12

indeterminate 11

scrap 7

non-diagnostic 17

Total 73

Table 2c. Profiles of Mellaart Materials including his Spoil heap (REC)

2. Totals include indeterminate and non-diagnostic pieces not presented in this table.

DATA CATEGORY Count

midden 212

fill 209

arbitrary 47

construction/make-up 46

floor 33

cluster 14

activity (penning or buring event) 7

natural 1

Total Number of Figural Objects 569

Table 3a. Figural Objects by Data Category

�73

Mellaart figural object profile CHC (museum) MELLET (etutluk) REC (spoil) total

zoomorphic 96 38 20 154

quadrupeds 83 28 1 112

horns 3 5 15 23

anthropomorphic 113 30 18 161

human 65 5 1 71

abbreviated 36 22 16 74

Mellaart All2 205 81 73 359

REC Object Profile totals

figurines, all 47

figurines ? 12

indeterminate 11

scrap 7

non-diagnostic 17

Total 73

Table 2c. Profiles of Mellaart Materials including his Spoil heap (REC)

2. Totals include indeterminate and non-diagnostic pieces not presented in this table.

DATA CATEGORY Count

midden 212

fill 209

arbitrary 47

construction/make-up 46

floor 33

cluster 14

activity (penning or buring event) 7

natural 1

Total Number of Figural Objects 569

Table 3a. Figural Objects by Data Category

Featu

res/

Un

it C

ate

go

ryfi

llfl

oo

rm

idd

en

con

stru

ctio

ncl

ust

er

arb

itra

rysk

ele

ton

Featu

re T

ota

ls

wall

21

02

21

05

04

9

bu

rial

33

00

10

15

40

pla

tfo

rm1

13

09

10

02

4

bin

70

05

00

01

2

pit

81

00

00

09

fire

in

stallati

on

25

01

01

09

pit

71

00

00

08

roo

f0

00

70

00

7

cut

60

00

00

06

bask

et

frag

men

ts5

00

00

00

5p

last

ere

d

arc

hit

ect

ura

l ele

men

ts

00

05

00

05

cen

tral “r

oo

m”

02

03

00

05

nic

he

40

00

00

04

scre

en

wall/

roo

m p

art

itio

n1

00

30

00

4

wall o

pen

ing

20

02

00

04

oven

10

02

00

03

cach

e (

ob

sid

ian

)3

00

00

00

3

heart

h0

10

00

00

1

Cate

go

ry T

ota

ls1

01

23

25

91

75

19

8

Tab

le 3

b.

Fig

ura

l O

bje

cts

by F

eatu

re

�74

Level

XII

XI

XIX

VII

IV

IIV

IV

IVII

I I

II

Building

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

16

17

18

21

22

23

24

25

28

29

44

45

47

49

2 b

ldgs.

04 b

ldgs.

6 b

ldgs.

5 b

ldgs.

5 b

ldgs.

4-6

bld

gs.

4 b

ldgs.

3-4

bld

gs.

1 b

ldg.

1 b

ldg.

0

= lev

el p

rese

nt

in b

uili

ng

= ?

Tab

le 4

a.

Bu

ild

ing

s in

Levels

�75

DiscussionBecoming bodiesThenewfigurineprojectatCatalhöyükhastakenanewdirectionintermsofembodiedimageryandtheconcomitantrethinkingofgenderandsexuality.Whilethisrepresentsnewwork,itisalsoinapreliminarystage.Wemightapproach the archive through variousmodes of viewing, leading to otherways of interpreting, and differentviewpoints (literally andmetaphorically), angles, and soon.Onaprimary levelwhat seemedmost salient atÇatalhöyükwasthepresentationofbeingorpersonhood,notaspecificallygenderedbeingwithdiscretesexualmarkers,butanabridgedversionof thebodily form.Thebasic representationconsistsofaheadandnoseoncylindricaltorsoendinginasolidordividedbase,butsomearemoreelaboratedwithotherincisedandmodeledfacialfeaturesandheadpiecesordecoration(Fig.85).Despitetheirsimplicitythereissomedegreeofvariabilityintermsofshapeorposture,sizeandstyle.Someareextremelysmallwithappearingtohaveonlyasmallheadonabase.Manyarebentforwardandastheyhavedisproportionatelylongpillarforms,begintolookratherphallic.Thispillarcaneitherendinaconicalbaseoradividedpairofstumpylegs:thelattertypealsobeginstorepresentmalegenitaliawhenviewedfromvariousangles.Theabbreviatedtypesaregenerallymadeinmuchfiner,cleanerfabricssuchasmarl,thanthezoomorphicfigures.Mostshowsignsofunevenfiringandwereprobably‘passivelyfired’nearovensorhearthsduringroutineactivity.

Otherfigurinemakerstookthistrunkorpillarlikestyletoanotherlevel,thecylindricalbodyandelongatedneckassumedaphallicformandmayhavebeenevocationsofsexualambiguity—theblurringofsexualfeaturesorsexualcomplimentaritycombiningdifferentlygenderedbodies(Fig.80).Mostoftheseformsaremadeofstone,alowqualitymarblefoundlocally(10264.X1,12102.X1).WehaveseensimilarbutperhapsmorestrikingexamplesfromprehistoricMediterranean(KnappandMeskell1997)andNearEasterncontexts(KuijtandChesson2005).We also see similarities in the worked bone assemblages, specifically items of personal adornment (Russell2005),whichshowphallicformsspecificallythepillarshapeendinginaknoborgroove.Theabbreviatedformswithstubbedlimbsmentionedearlier,whilereminiscentofasimplebodilyformalsoevokeanimageofmalegenitalia.

Manyresearchersatthesitearebeginningtoaskwhymasculinityissostronglydemarcatedacrossarangeofimagery(Hodder200 6).Forexampleinwallpaintingsofpeopleandanimals,malenessisverypresent.Animalsbeingchased,teasedorhuntedseemtobemalewitherectgenitalia.OurfutureresearchseekstoquestionwhethertheNeolithicwasasexualrevolution,aperiodof‘self’explorationatalevelnotexperiencedbefore.Isthecomingtogetherofpeopleinclusteredcommunitiesawayofseeingtheselfdifferently,ofexploringthecontoursofa

Figure 85. Abbreviated Forms f.

�76

sexedself,ofunderstandingself-fashioninginlessthanbinaryterms?Fromthisperspective,figurinesalsocouldbepartofaprocessratherthanafinishedandcontainedproduct.Incomingseasonsweplantoexplorethenatureofpersonhoodasavisualcategory.Howdidthevisualpresentationoftheselfmeshordivergefromotherspheresofselfhood,likethatpresentedinthehousehold,throughtheprocessesofburialandre-circulation,andacrossarangeofexperientialsettings?

Inourworkwehavediscoveredthatusingvideotorecordthefigurinesastheyaremovedandhandledprovidesamoreembodiedsetofperspectivesandviewpointsandallowsustobegintowitnesssomeofthevisualpunningthatwethinkunderliesmanyofthefabrications.Giventhenatureofrepresentationalpracticewithinthefigurinecorpus,thethemenotonlyofambiguityingenderbutalsoinformorbeingisemerging.Wewillthereforeextendthesebroaderdiscussionsofselfandpersonhoodtoincludeconsiderationsofhumanandanimalrelations.

Questions of contextAsageneralpremiseatCatalhöyükthefigurinesandshapedclayobjectsasacollectivearefoundinsecondarycontexts,theyareprimarilyinroomfill,fillbetweenwalls,middens,burialfillandrubbishareas.Occasionallytheyhavebeenfoundonornearfloors.InthenewexcavationswedonotseethepatternsthatMellaart’searlyworkwouldsuggest,thatfigurines(specificallyanthropomorphic)arefoundinspecialorculticareasassociatedwithfeaturessuchasplatforms,shrines,grainbinsandsoon.Forexample,Mellaart(1964)describedfindinga‘goddessfigurine’paintedredinanassociatedshrine,wetoohavefoundredpaintonclayfigurinesbutnonecome from such grandiose contexts since thewhole notion ofwhat constituted a ‘shrine’ has been cogentlydeconstructed.Mellaart often claimed that figurines (goddess figurines no less) were found only in shrines,whereasthemorerigorousexcavationsoverthepastdecadehaveshownthemtobeconsistentlyinrubbishandfilldeposits,alongsidevastquantitiesofanimalbone,plantremains,groundandchippedstoneandothersmallfinds.Interestingly,whenwehaveexcavatedroomswithplasteredbucraniaandbencheswithprotrudinghorns(Building522005, seeFigs. 5, 38&40), therewerenofigurines tobe found, humanor animal.This spacewouldhavedefinitelybeencatagorizedasashrineareaforMellaart.OneoftherareinstanceswherewemayhaveevidenceofpurposefuldepositioncamefromlastseasoninSpace227ofBuilding58whereacarvedstonefigurineseemstohavebeplacedonafloorinassociationwithanumberofanimalbones,workedbone,obsidianfragments,andworkedstone.Theexcavatorbelievesthatthiswasnotconsistentwithroomfillbutanassemblagepurposefullyleftthereafterwhichtheroomwasbackfilled(Space227,2004).Continuedexcavationofthewesthalfofthisspacethisseasonhasrecoveredinformationthatchangestheinterpretationofthiscontextslightly;theclusterofobjectsincludingthefigurinewerenotonthefloorbutonaraisedplatforminthesoutheastcorneroftheroom(Bogdan,pers.comm.).Intherestofthespace,werefoundalotofanimalboneintheinfill,onthefloorsandstuckintheoven,and(Building582005).Whilesuchaneventmaybedifficulttosubstantiatearchaeologicallyin the end (Hodder, pers. com.), the finds recoveredmay relate to the closing of the house or related event.However,ShahinaFarid(pers.comm.)hasmadetheastutepointthata‘closing’eventcouldalsobeinterpretedasan‘opening’eventgiventhenatureofbuildingprocessesatthesite.Again,perhapssuchbinarydistinctionsareunhelpfulhereandwemightratherconsideranemphasisplacednotonclearlydemarcatedeventsbutrathertheliminalspacesorperiodsinbetweenthem.MultiplelinesofevidencepointtowardsmorefluidwaysofviewingtheworldassalientfortheÇatalhöyükinhabitants.

Thisnotionleadsustocriticallyexaminewhichofourcategoriesmighthavebeenmeaningfulinthepast.Arethere substantive differences—in terms ofmanufacture, treatment, use and circulation—between female andmale,stoneandclay,humanandanimalinthefigurinecorpus?Contextualinformationmightaddresssuchissues,however,thepredominanceofsecondarydepositionforalltypescomplicatesthepicture.Figurinescommonlyevoke or have even become synonymous with notions of a ‘mother goddess’, the female domestic sphere,andritualorculticactivities,butsuch ideasalonedonotaccount for thestrikingdiversityof theÇatalhöyükassemblagewhichfeaturesobjectsspanningaspectrumofhighlyelaboratedtoabbreviatedforms,humanandanimal representations,andrangefromcareful toquickdisposal/depositionalcontexts.Although,someof theobjectslikelyderivefromritualactivities,themajorityisassociatedwithcontextssuggestiveofmoreeverydaypractices.Furthermore,astrictdivisionbetweenthe‘everyday’andthe‘magical’or‘ritual’mightnothavebeenoperativeinthepast;allowingforthispossibilitymarksanotherexampleofourconcertedattempttochallenge

�77

taxonomicstructuresorbinariesinalllevelsofinterpretation(NakamuraandMeskell2004).Ourrecordingandanalysisattemptstounpackdescriptivecategoriesasmuchaspossibleandgivesequallyfootingtoadiversityofinterpretivepossibilities.

Ifwe think of a range of uses or rationales formakingfigurineswe arrive at the usual suite of suggestions:amulets,talismans,narrativedevices,representationsofindividualsorancestors,tokens,trainingdevices,deities,gamingpieces,objectsofmagicormanipulation,initiation,contractsinclay,andsoon.DoesthisreallyhelpusatÇatalhöyük?Allofthesepossibilitieshavedegreesofmerit,yetsincewelacktheprimarycontexts,theycanonlybesuggestive.However,wecanpotentiallyanalyzeacrossvariousmediatotryandascertainasymboliclifeworld—itisimportanttonotethatfigurinesdidnotexistinavacuumforthepeopleoftheNeolithic,theymusthaveworkedinconjunctionwithotherformssuchaswallpaintingsandplasteredfeatures.Theymusthavehadsymbolicresonancesacrosstheseclasses,perhapsevenworkingcross-platformliterally.

Thisenablesustosaycertainthings.Forexample,wallpaintingsofananthropomorphicnaturedonotgenerallyresemblethoseimagesfromthefigurinecorpus.Thewallpaintingsgenerallyshowhumansinactivepositionswiththeirarmsandlegsclearlydelineated.Intheplasteredwallfeatureswetypicallyhavesplayedindividuals,armsupraisedwithallthelimbsclearlydelineated,andwithnosexualfeatures.Thisisquitedifferentfromthemanyanthropomorphicfigurinesintheirabbreviatedandsometimessexedforms.Inaddition,quantitativelytherearemoremalesshownactivelyinwallpaintingsthanfemale,andmanyfiguresshownosexcharacteristicsatall.Thehumanformsinpaintingaremuchmorerealistic,andmoredetailed.Again,thisisatvariancewiththeanthropomorphicfigurinecorpus.

Thereareafewexamplesthatdoresemblethelarger,moredetailedpiecesfromthefigurinecorpus.AfemalewithupraisedarmsfromLevelIVlooksremarkablylikearobustfigurinetype,withsmall,undistinguishedfeet(Mellaart1962).Anotherofthefiguresknownas‘leoparddancer,’althoughwewouldnotusesuchterms,hasapaintedareaaroundhisheadcomprisedofdots.Interestinglythereareseveralfigurinesofvarioustypesandshapesthathaveholesaroundorontheheadindicatinghairoraspecifichairstyleordecoration(e.g.,Figs.86a-c.).Lookingatethnographicgroupsweoftenforgetaboutpaintforthefaceandhair,coupledwithotherdecorativeelements.

Figure 86a. 5043.X1.

�78

Figure 86c. Figurines with perforations and puncture holes.

Moreover,ifwelookatthewallpaintingsfromMellaart’sexcavations,theyfeaturebothhumansandanimals,some of which may assume mythical proportions. Leopards clearly have captured the imagination in two-dimensions(Hodder2006)buthavelittleresonanceintheceramicfigurineassemblage.However,thefamousredbullisshown(undoubtedlydead)inawallpaintingsurroundedbyhumans,andimagesofcattleandofmetonymicbucraniaareubiquitousintheclayfigurineassemblageaswellasinplasteredhousefeatures.Yetthereisonlyonelittleknownwallpaintingthatshowsanimalsinaformwewouldrecognizefromthefigurineassemblage.

Mellaart claimed correctly that animalfigurines could be pierced ormaimed aftermodeling, butwas largelyincorrectinhisassumptionthattheywereplacedinpitsafteruse.Again,theseanimalslookratherdifferentfromtherepresentationsinwallpaintings.Themajorityofthefigurinesarecattleanddomesticates(Fig.87.),andthereisanotableabsenceoftheexoticfaunaevidencedinthewallplasteringofleopardsandthepaintingofstags,

Figure 86b. Creative reconstruction of 5043.X1 by John Swogger.

179

birdsandsoon.Moreover,wehaveseveralexamplesofpiercedabbreviatedandanthropomorphicformsnotedwhichproblematizesthenotionthatthisactionissimplyabouthuntingmagic.Previousinterpretationssomewhatnarrowlypositthatstabmarkssignifythekillingofanimals(andbyassociation,people).Thisassertionistenuousandrequirescloserscrutinysincealthoughmanyoftheanimalsappeartobeverydamaged,mostdonotshowunequivocalevidenceofritualstabbingormaiming.Ourfutureworkonfragmentationpatternswilladdressthisissueinmoredetail.

Wedohavetangibleevidencethattheskeletalelementsfromboars,vultures,goats,bulls,allgetembeddedintowallswithplastercoatingsandmoldings(seeFigs.85).Theseprobablyhaveastrongerconnectiontothetypesofzoomorphicfigurineswefind.Onepossibleinterpretationisthatancestorsorsacredbeingswereperhapsmediatedthroughtheanimals,ascattlearetodayfortheZulus.IntheSouthAfricancaseitisnotthatthespecificanimalsareinanydirectwaytheancestorsinquestion,buttheyarethemediumthroughwhichtheycanbecontacted–anembodimentofsorts.Theseplasteredanimalpartsmayalsorelatetorealormythiceventsandencounterswiththewild,withpowerfulanimalsandequallypowerfulhumanhunters.Basicallyweshouldenvisageotherinterpretationsthatmovebeyondsimplisticnotionsofgoddessandbullworship.Off the pedestal

AcentralaimistotryandrethinkthecategoriesthatMellaartsosuccessfullyinstantiated,totryandrefigurethecorpus:totakefigurinesoutofthestaticpositionofreligiousstatues,destinedtospendtheirlifetimessittingitoutuponaltersandpedestals.ThiswastacitlyinfluencedbyMediterraneanandEgyptiantraditionsofculticstatuesandMellaart’svisionofÇatalhöyükwasheavilyinfluencedbyhisknowledgeoftheseBronzeAgecivilizations(Meskell1998). Infact,Mellaartusedthesecomparativedatasetsasanalogousethnohistory,hisowntypeofethnographythroughthevastlyricherandmorerecentaestheticandtextualrecords.WhilewearenotinterestedinidentifyingorusingmodernTurkishethnographictraditionstounderstandtheNeolithic,itisinstructivetolookatotherculturalrepertoiresinorderto,inasense,defamiliariseanddivorceourselvesfromMellaart’svision.

Todaywealsotendtorepresentfigurinesinthesamestaticandunmovinggenres,diligentlyproducingtechnicaldrawings thatplacefigurines in their sitting,uprightpostures.Byshowingvariousviewsof theseobjectsweinhibitthepossibilitiesthatfigurineswerehandled,movedandthusviewedinavarietyofpositions.WorkingwithJohnSwoggerwearecurrentlyattemptingtore-imaginesomeoftheseclayfigurinesasbeingcarriedontheperson,possiblywithinskinortextilebags,probablywitharangeofotherportableitems(organicandinorganic).Andthereisevidenceofwearonthesmallanthropomorphicandzoomorphicexamplesinclay.Itismoredifficulttodeterminewearonstoneexamplesastheprocessofmanufacturealsoincludesvariousformsofabrasion.Itisdifficultnot to reflectonZuni fetishesand theportabilityof thosematerialbeings, theirneedfor foodand

Figure 87. Quadruped forms.

�80

sustenanceandsoon.LiketheZuniexample,itispossiblethatsomefigurinesmayhavebeenwornaboutthebodybymeansofstringortwine,attachedinsomewaytootherthings(Fig.88).Itshouldalsobenotedthattheabbreviatedanthropomorphicfiguressitonbasesforthemostpart,someofthestoneexamplesdo,butnotablemarbleexampleshavenofeet,neversitonstoolsorchairsnordotheyhaveflatbackswhichsuggestthatmayhavebeenpositionedinrecliningposturesorwerecirculatedthroughthesiteandthusregularlyhandled(don’tgetthemeaningofthispoint).Hereagaintheuseofhandheldvideoprovidesanotherinstructivelayerofviewingasitchallengesthestaticrenderingswearefamiliarwithandbringsthefigurinestolife.Italsoallowsustorecreateaprocessofhandling,turningandcirculatingfigurines,aswasthecaseinantiquity.

Figure 88. Creative reconstructions of figurine making contexts within households by John Swogger.

Wetacitlyimaginethatthepiecesretrieved,whetherinclayorstone,areastheywereoriginally—devoidofnotonlypaint,butalsothepossibilitiesforbeading,clothing,theadditionofcloth,skin,twine,grassesandsoon.Allofthesematerialsoccurfrequentlyatthesite(andarereadilyidentifiedinotherethnographiccontexts).Ifwe

�8�

lookmorecloselyatthecarving,abrasion,andsurfacepatterningwemayseedifferencesaroundareassuchasgrooved‘waists’onsomeofthestonefigures,lastseasonandthisseason.Thisyearwemayhavefoundthetools,bothobsidianandgroundstone,whichmayhavebeenforcarvingandworkingthestonefigurinesatthesite,suchastheexamplebelow. Inthe4040Areathisyearanothermarblefigurine(12102.X1)wasexcavatedfromamiddencontext.Similartotheexamplelastyear,thispiececombinedasolidbaselikelywithaphallicneck.Butinthisrecentcasethelongneckhasbeencarefullycutoff,probablywithobsidianandotherstonetools,perhapsevenpolishedafterremoval(KarenWrightandAdnanBaysal,pers.comm.).AnotherexampleofaremovedlimestoneheadoccurswithafigurinenowinAnkara(79-8-65).Itmaybespeculativeatthisjuncture,butremovalofheadsalsooccursinhumanburials,thecirculationofheadsafterdeathaswehaveseenrepeatedlyatÇatalhöyük,alsowehaveseveralclayfigurinesthathavedowelholesforwhatappearstobedetachableheadsandalsothesmallsphericalheadswhichmayhavebeenusedtocompletesomeofthecomposites(Fig.89).Itisalsopossiblethatheadsmayhavebeenmadeofdifferentmaterialsorhighlyabstractedforms(seeBailey2005,Figure7.4).Whatmightthistreatmentofheadstellusabouttheconstructionofidentity?Theroleofmythandstorytellingmayhavebeencentraland thatfigurineworldsmayhaveproffereda richvehicle toexplorenarrativeandexperience—theexploitsofindividuals,encounterswithanimals,mythicorhistoric.Theabilityforfigurinestobemalleable,tochangeidentitiesthroughthetransferofheads,presentsaninterestingsetofpossibilitiesandleadsusawayfromstaticformsintothenotionoffigurineasprocess.

Challenges to prior interpretationsInthepasttwoseasonswehaveturnedaskepticaleyetowardmanyofthepreviousinterpretationsofferedfortheÇatalhöyükfigurineassemblage.Webelievethatmostoftheassertionsconcerninganygeneralpatterningcannotberegardedassignificantgiventhattheyarepremisedonaverysmallsamplesizesorincomparablesamplegroups.Furthermore, thenumberoffigurineshasbeendramaticallyinflatedbytheinclusionofmanyminute,non-diagnosticfragmentsofshapedclayfromheavyresidueandwehaveattemptedtorectifythisproblemthisseason.

Wemustalsotakeintoconsiderationtheparticularnatureofexcavationpractices,whichresultsincertainlevels,buildingsandareasbeingmorerepresentedthanothers.Variousareasofthesitehaveverydifferentexcavationgoals.Forinstance,archaeologistsinthe4040haveexcavatedarelativelylargeareadatingprimarilytoLevelsIII/IV andVI/V, while certain buildings, such as Buildings 1 and 17, persist throughout several levels (seeTable 4a). Previous interpretations have neglected to consider these factors and have tended to aggregate allmaterialsandcontexts together;consequently, theseanalysesdonotpresentcompellingarguments (AlthoughHamilton(2005)doesdiscussparticularbuildingsandcontexts,shedoesnottakethesesubtletiesintoaccountinherassertionsaboutgeneralpatterning).Itisimportanttofactorsuchissuesintoanalysesofgeneralpatterningacrossthesiteandthroughtimesincetheycanpotentiallyskewinterpretation.Table4bpresentsbasicscountsoffiguralobjecttypesfoundbylevel.MostoftheobjectsclusterwithinLevelsV-VIIIwithLevelVIproducingthelargestnumber.ThenumberoffigurinesdeclinesdramaticallyfromLevelVonward.Ratherthanassumethatthispatterningismeaningful,wemustatleastinvestigatethepossibilitythatitmightresultfromtheupperlevelsbeing

Figure 89. 1056.H1, clay head.

�82

underrepresentedintheexcavatedareasorothersimilarfactorsthatmightskewthenumbers(contraHamilton).Wehavebeguntoexaminepatterningacrossthesiteandovertimeinamorerigorousmanner,butanyassertionmustbebornout throughappropriatedatagroups.For instance, toget amore representative ideaoffigurinepatteringover time,wewill focusoncertainbuildings thatspanmultiple levels. Ideally, thematerialsrequireanintegratedanalysis,onethatconsidersnumerousvariablesatonce.Whilewehavenotyetcompletedtheseanalyses,itispossibletoaddressandchallengesomepreviousassertionsmadeabouttheÇatalhöyükfigurines.

Inthemostrecentpublication,NaomiHamilton(inpress)makesseveralassertionsaboutcontextualassociationsandchangesinrepresentationalpracticesamongthefigurines.Regardingtheanthropomorphictypes,Hamilton(inpress:205)proposesthathumanrepresentationsbecomemorecommoninLevelVIanddominateinLevelV,and‘humanoids’(whatwecall‘abbreviated’)ceaseafterLevelV.However,atpresentcountweonlyhave4anthropomorphic(2human,2abbreviated)and2zoomorphicexamplesfromLevelV.FromLevelVonwardstherearefewexamplesofanytypeotherthanMellaart’sdesignatedfindstotalingtoonly35of830figuralobjects.Givensuchlownumberswefeelherassertionscannotbejustifiedatthistime.Moreover,byourcount,thelargestnumberofanthropomorphicfigurinescomefromLevelVI(seeTable4b).

Hamilton(inpress:193)alsoasserts that there isapatternwithfigurinesbeingassociatedwithashydepositsinterpretedasoven rake-outofoccupationfloors.Butwhenweexamined thedetailsof thosefindswe foundthatmanyof these examplesderive fromheavy residue collections and are actuallynon-diagnosticpiecesofclayorscrapandareindeterminateasfigurines.Manypiecescollectedfromheavyresidueover theyearsaresosmallastobeunidentifiableevenintermsofbasematerial.Thisisapracticewehavemodifiedinthe2005seasonatthepointofcollectionandrecording.Includingthemostrecentseasonsexcavations,thereareatotalof21exampleslabeled‘figurinefragment’,onlytwoofwhicharesecurefigurines(curvedhorns);thereareninepossiblefigurines,andtherestarescraporshapedclay.Shehasalsosuggestedthatthereispatterningtoshowfigurinesassociatedwithinovenfloors,andfloorsingenerals.Inourrecentcountsonly33figurinescanbefoundinassociationwithfloors,14ofwhichcanbeassignedwithcertainty.Again,thenumbersHamiltonbasesherassertionsonaretoosmalltobeconsideredsignificant.Shedoes,however,concludethatverylittlecanbesaidaboutcontextthroughdepositiongiventhatmostofthefigurinesderivefromsecondarycontexts(inpress:195).Onthispointweconcur.

Perhaps themost controversial assertionHamilton hasmade concerns a change in gender ideology reflectedthroughthefigurines.Sheclaimsthat‘stronglysexed’figurinesareinaminority,particularlyintheearlylevels,andthattheybecomefarmorecommoninthelatestlevelsofthesite.Moreover,allthestronglysexedfigurinesarefemale,andthemaleandphallicfiguresalloccurinlevelsVIIandVI.Shestates,“thesituationsuggeststomethatthereisachangeinsex/genderideologyduringthelifetimeofthesite,andthatthechangeiscenteredonLevelVIalthoughaspectsofitstartedearlier”(inpress:211).Sheattributesthisperceivedchangetootherchangesatthesitesuchasincreasedspecializationofproduction,majoreconomicthathadimpactedonsocialandideologicalspheres.Thereisa“lossofmaleandphallicfiguresafterLevelVI,indicatethananideologyrelatedtosex/genderandpossiblyconcernedwiththeroleofwomen(butperhapsconcernedjustasmuchwiththeroleofmen)wasaltering,andthatfigurineswereutilizedtoportraythisideologyandperhapstobrokerit”(Ibid).Giventhatclearlysexedfigurinesmakeupsuchasmallminorityoftheentirefigurinecorpus,Hamiltonisatpainstosupportherthesisthatfigurines‘brokered’anideologicalshift.Certainly,wewouldexpecttoseesignsofthisinotherassemblagesifthiswerethecase.Also,giventhecomparativelyfewnumberofmaleorphallicfigurinesinthefirstplace,theirdisappearancefromthearchaeologicalrecordshouldnotbeoverstated.Insuchcases,webelievethatlookingacrossrepresentationalmediaandmaterialcategorieswouldbetteraddresssuchgrandissuesofgenderideology.Butwearerathermoreinterestedintheambiguouslysexedandsexlessrepresentationsthatencompassmostofthefiguralobjects,whichmovesusintoadifferentwayoflookingatsexandsexualityatCatalhoyuk(seeBecomingBodies,above).

InthepasttwoseasonswehavefoundHamilton’satomisticstyleoflistingmultipleinventoriesofnumbersoffigurinesbycontext, type, level,andoccasionallybybuildingorspace is redundantandmoreover, restrictsacoherentpictureoffigurinepracticeanditscomplexassociations.Although,shedoesidentifysomeimportant

�83

issuesandthemes,asawholeherassertionsneedtobecloselyreexaminedandtestedinordertodifferentiatethesolidclaimsfromthemoretenuousones.

Figurines as process at ÇatalhöyükThenotionoffigurine asprocess can refer to almost every stage in the lifeof afigurine.From its inceptionthegatheringofmaterialsformakingrepresentsasocialprocessofprocurement,whethersourcinglocalstone,claysorcombiningtheplasterfromregularwallplasteringactivitieswithmarltofashionfiguresofremarkablyfinequalityandlightappearance.Inalloftheseactivitieswecouldimagineacollectivespherewherevariousindividualswerepresentandwherecollaborationtookplace.Inthecaseofceramicexamples,followingonfromretrievalwerestagesofpreparationandcleaningofclays.Manybutcertainlynotallofourexamplesaremadefromrelativelycleanclaywithlittlechaffandsmallgrainedinclusions.Ifweturntostonewethinkthatmostofthemarbleandcalcitecamefromwithina15-20kmradiusofthesite.Asstatedabove,wealsohaveinourlithicandgroundstoneassemblagethetoolswithwhichfigurineswereundoubtedlycarved,suggestingtoothatthesewerecompletedonsite.KarenWrightbelievesshehasidentifiedanareaofMellaart’soldexcavationthatfunctionedasastonefigurineworkshop.Whileitwouldbepossiblethatfigurinemanufacturemaybeasecretiveskill,sharedbyafew,ourevidencesuggeststhatthemakingofsuchpiecesoccurredinoraroundhouses,certainlyinadomesticcontextusingmaterialsreadilyathand.Thatnextprocessofmakingcouldbebothformal,asinthecaseofcarvedstone,ormoreinformalandeverydayinthecaseofshapinganthropomorphicandzoomorphicimages.Inthecaseofthelatter,theroutinizedmakingandindividualvariationsuggestmanypeoplewerefabricatingfigurinesinandaroundsettlementmuchofthetime.Theywouldhavehadeasyaccesstothematerials,andintheshortspaceoftimeittakestoshapeabbreviatedformspeoplecouldhavemadethematregularintervals.

Albeit difficult to reconstruct,wemight posit that everyday social livesmay have incorporatedmuch imagemaking,fromtherepeatedlayersofwallpainting,embeddingandplasteringpartsofanimals,todecoratewithstampsealson skinor fabrics, crafting itemspersonal adornment, andof coursemakingfigurines.Given thequantityofclayscrapandnon-diagnosticpiecesfoundindomesticcontexts(over500onlastcount),wemightsuggestthatfigurinemakingoccurredinandaroundhousesanddidnotexplicitlyoccuroffsite(Fig.90).Wehaveinitiatedapreliminaryanalysisoffingerprintsize,andwhileitistooearlyforanythingconclusive,wecanconjecturenowthatthesewerenotclaytoysmadebychildrenassomehavesuggested.Sincemanyarelightlyfired,somehavecommentedthattheyare‘passivelyfired’byhearthsorovens,againindomesticcontexts.TodatethereisnoevidenceforspeciallybuiltkilnsatÇatalhöyükand,aswithotherclayobjects,thesewereexposedtoheatduringotherprocessesofcooking,burning,andheatingorlightinghouses.Againthesewereallpublicactivitiesoratleasthouseholdpractices.

Figure 90. Plastered skull (11330) from Building 42.

�84

GiventhetimethathaselapsedsinceMellaart’spublicationsandtheevocativeimageshepresentedtothepublic,andtheresidualpowerofthatimagery,itsstubbornrefusaltobevigorouslychallengedandreplaced–wedoneedtocalluponsomeradicalwaysofrethinkingorrefiguringthearchive.Figureswereprobablymovedaboutduringtheiruselivesaswellanditisunlikelythattheywerestaticandsittingabout,asoutlinedabovemanycannotstandunaided.Thoughwecansaylittleabouttheiroriginaluselivesfromtheexcavationandcontextualdataretrieved,weknowformtheiruse-wear,damagedstateandtheirfinaldepositioninfill,thattheywerenotlike‘cultstatues’thatwereseparatedfromhumanaffairs,spatiallyandtemporally.Thesewereincorporatedintopractice,amovingandmobilesuiteofembodiedactions,

One suggestionwe have is that the small clay human forms (and perhaps some of the animal figures)werecollectedtogetherinsmallskinorwovenbags,wornorcarried,asevidencedinotherethnographiccontexts.Theycouldhavebeencarriedtogetherwithotherevocativeobjectssuchaspebblesorstones,objectsofamuleticvalue,organics,boneobjectsdecorativeandfunctional,orothertypesofminiatures.IfwethinkofNativeAmericanfetishes,thesewereoftencarriedorwornonthepersonandtreatedliketheanimalspiritthatitrepresented,sotheywerefedgroundturquoisefromminiaturepots.Naturalproductslikesagewereimbuedwithsacredvalencesandwerecarriedinwhatisconsideredsacredbundles.Thesignificanceoftheseobjectsisformedthroughactionnotinisolationordistancedcontemplation.Theyarethingstobeused.

Wemight posit that the peoplewhomade the clay exampleswere probably different to the individualswhofashionedthestonepieces.Perhapsthelargecomplexstoneandclaypiecesreallybelongtoanothercategory.Researcherstendtoputthesealltogetherundertheheadingoffigurines,butperhapstheinformalclayexamplesarereallyadifferentsortofthing–notsimplybecausesomewouldsaytheyare‘crude’butratherbecauseoftheirexpediencyorfrequency,asopposedtothelargerscaleprojects.Arelatedpointisbecausetherearesofewpointsofaestheticcontactbetweensuchgroupsofobjects.Whatreallyarethevisualoverlaps,certainlythecontextsarerelatedsincetheyareall(almostwithoutexception)foundinbuildingfillsandmidden.Theclayexamplefound this yearwith skeletal features (see below)was also found in amongst collapsedbuildingmaterials indecontextualisedfill.Whiletheyareundoubtedlypurposefulintheirinclusioninsuchdepositsforthemostpart,westruggletoreconstructthecontextsoftheirprimaryuse.Wehavedifficultyimaginingthatbeingplacedinfillshouldbetheirraisond’étreformanufactureofcourse,whichmaynotbewhollyincorrectinallcases.Onethingthatmitigatesthatideaisthepracticeofmovableheadsasmentionedabove,andthegeneralideaoftransformingfigurineidentitiesbytheirappearance.Theyarethingsinprocess,inmotion,andthustemporallysituated.Whilethismayseemanobviousstatement,thevariousthingswetendtocallfigurinesmayhavehadverydifferentrolesandpurposesforpeopleatÇatalhöyükanditmayprovemisleadingtocategoricallylumpthemtogether.

Almostalloftheclayfigurinesofthisverygeneraltypehavemissingheads,althoughdamagedwemightpositthatmanyalsohaddowelholesfordetachableheads.OnefigurinethatdoesretaintheheadisnowinAnkaramuseum (79-803-65) though it has been restored (from the present statewe cannot be sure, but this lookedoriginallyasifitwereallonepiece).Theearsandnoseisprominent,theeyeslesssoandthereislittlesignofamouth.Thereisaheadringpresentandanincisedlineatthetopoftheforehead.Apartfromthisexceptionmostclayfigurineswhethersexedornotaremissingheads:stoneheadsremainintactinthemain.Howevergiventhatwehaveseveralmarbleexamplesthathavebeenintentionallydecapitatedsuchastheexamplefoundthisyearinthe4040region(12102.X1).

ThinkingthroughthefigurinewithotherformsofrepresentationatÇatalhöyük,suchastheplasteredanimalparts,wehavebeguntothinkmoreabouttheideaofembedding,particularlythehardformsofbodies,theskeletalorhornandclawelementsofanimalsthatsurviveafterfleshydecay.Weseesomanyinstanceswherecattlehorns,boartusks,vulturebeaks,weaselandfoxskullsareembeddedinwalls,platformsandfeatures—allofwhicharetheboneyelementsthatbothrepresenttheindividualanimalandsuccessfullysurvivedeath.Withtheadditionofplasterandshaping:someretaintheirlifelikeformsforperpetuity,othersremainlumpyandhidden.Sotoowiththisfigurine,thebony,skeletalpartofthehumanbodythatsurvivesdeathandburialisbothembeddedandrevealed.Thevillagersregularlysawhumanskeletonsastheydugdowntoretrieveskullsandobjectsfromburials(Hodder2006).Justliketheembeddingofrealanimalparts,thisrepresentationgrappleswiththeembeddingof

�85

realhumanpartswithashapedhumanlivingform.Thenotionofembeddingrealhumanbonesinsomemannerliketheanimalpartsmayhavebeentaboo,asimaginableinmanysocietiesbutobviouslynotallastheMayacirculationofworkedhumanbonemakesapparent(MeskellandJoyce2003).Soweareperhapswitnessinganextensionofthecommunity’streatmentofanimalworld,morespecificallythedangerousanimalworld,andanapplicationtothehumanbody.Theaestheticsoffleshingouttheskeletoncanalsobeseenintheformofplasteredskulls,theearliestofwhichforAnatoliawasfoundlastyearatÇatalhöyük(Fig.88).JohnSwoggerhassuggestedthattheheadsoffigurines,possiblyevendetachableonescometorepresenttheplasteredskullswiththeirhighforeheadsandsmoothed,minimalfacialtreatment,minusmouthsanddetailedfeatures.Claysandplastersmayhavehadaspecificsetofassociationswithbodilyfleshaswell,whetherhumanoranimalflesh,asthenumerousexamplesfromthesitemaysuggest.Keepingthedeadclosebyandrenderedpermanent(atleastinthroughlivingmemory)wasmadepossiblethroughthisprocessofembedding;whetherburying themunderplatformsandplasteringover them,plasteringskullsandburyingthemwithdescendents,embeddingtheboneypartsofanimalsasplasteredprotrusions,orperhapsevenmakingclayimagesofthehumanformwithprotrudingskeletalelements.Weretheseattemptstotransform,displayandrenderpermanenttheiconicanddurableelementsofhumanandanimals:skulls,horns,beaks,clawsandsoon?Durationisarecurringthemeinagreatmanyhumansocieties,bothancientandmodernand,whilebeingcarefulnottoimposeEgyptiannotions(somethingMellaartwasverykeentoapply)ofdeathandburial,itwouldnotbe inconceivable toenvisage that theÇatalhöyükresidentswereconcernedwith theirownsenseofhistoryandmemory.Thatmakingofhistoryappliedequallytotheembeddingofspecificanimalsaswellaspeople,totherenderingpermanentofparticularindividuals,possiblyeveneventssuchasthecaptureandkillingofanaurochsorbear.Thefabricationofhistoryandmemorymightnothavebeenfocusedsolelyuponhumanbeings,butuponanimalandspiritworldsaswell.Whiletheseideasarebrieflysketched,ouraimforfutureworkistolinkthefigurinecorpusmorecloselywiththeseothermaterialitiesandtoreconfigurethewholeasprocess ratherthaninertobjectsofworshiporcontemplation.

Final thoughtsThisreporthasattemptedtocovermanyaspectsofafiguredlifeworldatNeolithicÇatalhöyük.Whileitistooearlyforustodrawmanydefiniteconclusionswehopetohavelaidthegroundworkforanalysisandinterpretationinourupcomingseasons:whatwehavedescribedaboveisallpartofourongoingwork.Weplantocontinuetoexperimentwithwaysofembodyingand representingfigurinesand their surroundingpracticesofmaking,circulationanddepositionbyusingvariousnewformsofmediacoupledwithcreativereconstructions.WealsowanttoembedfigurinesthemselvesintowidervisualandmaterialworldsatÇatalhöyükandcontinuetorethinkandrefinethespecifictaxonomiesthatwereadilyconstructandinstantiateasarchaeologists(Meskell2004).Wearealreadysomewaytorethinkingcertainmaterialhierarchiesandassociationsandsometimesinvertingthem.

Wealsohavesomeverypedestriantasksathand,suchasthebalancingupofpreviousworkwithourownfindings.Thisisparticularlytrueintermsofspeciesandgendercategorieswherehumansratherthananimals,andsimilarlywomenratherthanmen,havebeenoveremphasizedinthecorpus.Thisleadstoafurtherrethinkingofsexualityandself,particularlyinthecontextoftheNeolithicandgiventhemyriadtantalizingimagesofaspecificbrandofmasculinityfromothersitessuchasGöbekliorNevaliÇori.ThereismuchmoretobedoneonthenotionofcommunityatÇatalhöyük,thesiteisaveryspecificlocalitythatmayhavevisualandmateriallinkstoothercitesinCentralAnatolia,butretainsauniquesetofassociationsandpractices.Itmaybethattheexperienceofvillagelife,andthechoicesofclusteredhousingandintramuralburialtellusagreatdealaboutsociallifeatthistime.Theubiquityofimagemakingingeneralatthesitesuggeststhatwhatwewouldconsider‘ritual’or‘religious’thingsandactsinfusedandcomprisedtheeverydaytosuchanextentthatitmightbeimpossibletoparseout.Againthespecificitiesofourcategoricalunderstandingsareunlikelytomeshwiththeancients.

Toattemptasummaryofthethemesthatwefindmostevocativeatpresentfirstisthenotionoffigurineasprocess ratherthanendproductmustbethefirst.Itisindeliblylinkedtotheideaofcirculationandmobility;figurinesarenotstaticbutmobileandpotentiallyshiftingthings.Partofthatmalleabilityistheirinherentpossibilitiesforidentitychangesandnarrative,evidencedatÇatalhöyükby thedetachedheadsandceramicanthropomorphicbodieswith dowel holes. In addition,we have the removal or severing of heads in the case of stone human

�86

figurines.Theideaofstorytelling,coupledwithmemoryandidentityareevocative.Andfinallythisconnectstothewiderpracticeacrossmediaofembeddingskeletalpartsandplasteringorcoveringthemwithculturalmaterialsthatreplaceimpermanentnaturalones.Indoingsobothanimalsandhumanswerepreserved,theysurviveddeathanddecay,andwereincorporatedintotheveryfabricofhousesandspacesatthesite.Theyservedasever-presentreminders,fleshedout,oftheirformerselvesandformerexistence,redolentwithmemories,storiesormythsthataresteepedintheirattendantmateriality.

Figure 91. The figurine and miniature shaped object database recording form.

�87

ReferencesBogdan,D.(2004)Reportonthe4040,Archive Report on the Catalhöyük Season 2004 www.catalhoyuk.com.Bailey,D.W. 2005 Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic.Routledge,LondonandNewYork.

Cummins,H. 1941 AncientFingerprintsinClay.The Scientific MonthlyMay:389-402.

Hamilton,N. 1996 Figurines,ClayBalls,SmallFindsandBurials. In On the surface: Catalhoyuk 1993-95,editedbyI.Hodder,pp.215-263.McDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearch,Cambridge.

inpress The Figurines, edited by I. Hodder. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,Cambridge.

Hodder,I. 2006 The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük.ThamesandHudson,London.

Jantz,R.L.andK.R.Parham 1978 RacialDifferencesinDermalRidgeBreadth.Human Biology50(1):33-34.

Kamp,K.A.,N.Timmerman,G.Lind,J.GreybillandI.Natowsky 1999 DiscoveringChildhood:Using Fingerprints to FindChildren in theArchaeolgoicalRecord.American Antiquity64:309-315.

Knapp,A.B.andL.M.Meskell 1997 BodiesofevidenceinprehistoricCyprus.Cambridge Archaeological Journal7(2):183-204.

Kuijt,I.andM.Chesson 2005 LumpsofClayandPiecesofStone:Ambiguity,Bodies,andIdentityasPortrayedinNeolithicFigurines. In Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives, editedbyS.PollockandR.Bernbeck.Blackwell,Oxford.

Malvalwala,J.,P.MalvalwalaandM.S.Kamali 1990 DermatoglyphicsandPopulationDistance. In Trends in Dermatoglyphic Research,editedbyN.M.DurhamandC.C.Plato,pp.190-199.KlewerAcademicPublishers,Netherlands.

Mellaart,J. 1962 ExcavationsatÇatalHüyük.FirstPreliminaryReport,1961.Anatolian Studies12:41-65.

1964 ExcavationsatÇatalHüyük,1963.Anatolian Studies14:39-119.

1965 Earliest Civilizations of the Near East.ThamesandHudson,London.

1966 ExcavationsatÇatalHüyük,1965.Fourthpreliminaryreport.Anatolian Studies16:165-191.

1967 Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia.ThamesandHudson,London.

1975 The Neolithic of the Near East.ThamesandHudson,London.

�88

Meskell,L.M. 1998 Twinpeaks:thearchaeologiesofÇatalhöyük. In Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and Evidence,editedbyC.MorrisandL.Goodison,pp.46-62.BritishMuseumPress,London.

2004 Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present.Berg,London.

Meskell,L.M.andR.A.Joyce 2003 Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience.Routledge,London.

Nakamura,C.andL.M.Meskell 2004 FigurinesandMiniatureClayObjects.Archive Report on the Catalhöyük Season 2004 www.catalhoyuk.com.

Russell,N. 2005 Çatalhöyükworkedbone. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons,editedbyI.Hodder,pp.425-454.McDonaldInstitute,Cambridge.

Stinson,S.L. 2002 FingerprintsasanIndicatorofSex:AStudyofFigurineProductionintheHohokamHousehold. PaperpresentedattheAAA,NewOrleans.

Todd,I. 1976 Çatal Hüyük in Perspective.

Voigt,M.M. 2000 ÇatalHöyükinContext:RitualatEarlyNeolithicSitesinCentralandEasternTurkey. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation,editedbyI.Kuijt,pp.253-293.KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers,NewYork.