THE CULTURE OF BURNING AT ÇATAL
This paper is intended to point out the complex phenomenon of the use of fire and the evidence for burning in the archaeological record at Çatal. The use of fire by humans is considered to be a widespread practice and a part of fundamental human knowledge. However, in archaeological interpretations it is as elusive as any other basic concept that we struggle with in archaeology. Common concepts such as fire and burning are treated as self-explanatory, simple concepts that easily fall into oblivion when they are examined closely.
Traces of fire are frequently visible at sites but evidence for the causes and the effects of fire is not. This evidence traditionally stays unexamined at the prehistoric sites and is put in the background of seemingly more important evidence on a variety of other cultural practices. In this presentation we argue that the investigation of fire traces and effects should be brought in the forefront and become a subject of investigation along side other more mainstream pursuits.
Fire in archaeology has been studied in relation to the origins of the human use of fire. For the later periods of prehistory the use of fire has been assumed as an inevitable evolutionary development. Fire is generally viewed as a powerful phenomenon, which has a transformative power be it constructive or destructive. It has been viewed as an aid in the human struggle with nature and animals; and in manufacturing a variety of objects as well as food. It has been viewed as a focus and protector of family life represented in the house hearth.
But what kind of transformative power did the Çatal people assign to fire and burning when used on a variety of raw materials and in a variety of contexts? Consequently, if and what kind of power did the objects that were transformed in fire gain?
Mellaart mentions burning in all the settlement levels and in a variety of contexts, such as, fires in a domestic domain and ritual burning. House conflagrations according to him were only present in some of the settlements mainly level VII and all subsequent building levels. Mellaart does not provide close and contextual evidence on fire sources at Çatal. He assumed that the houses were burned in major accidental conflagrations caused by their overcrowding. In the new excavations we have defined a series of material signatures to try to categorize different burning sources. We have analysed the burned contexts and heat affected artifacts in Multiple stages. Along with continuous discussions during the excavation this has led to reevaluations of the evicence of burning at Çatal. We have been forced to reconsider our traditional views of the activities and concepts linked to the evidence for fire on archaeological sites. In contrast to Mellaart's general and sweeping portrayals of house-burning we believe that this practice holds a rich explanatory potential. For instance, in the case of House 1 it could prove to be a key to the explanation of deliberate cultural strategies, for example, to change the nature of the use of the house. In this case, we suggest that the transformative power of fire facilitated a change in the nature of the use of House 1. Such an approach enables a discussion of burning that goes beyond simple functional ideas such as the symbolic role of fires. The house fire might have been an accepted cultural practice occurring in bounded time and space as Mellart's account seems to be indicating. Alternatively, it may have been a cultural practice that was applied throughout the life of the site but in different forms. Perhaps in earlier times before level VII fires were small and in secluded contexts, while later they were large-scale events.
The effects of fire on House 1 at Çatal can be observed in house walls, house floors, immobile objects (furniture) and mobile objects. We analysed the evidence of burning in multiple stages that began at the house level, that is, with analysis of the structural materials of the house itself. More detailed levels of analysis comprised features inside the house, and macro- and micro -artifacts. When examined individually each level provides plenty of concrete evidence on burning. When they are all examined together, however, they offered contrasting indications . The main points of contention were: a) was the fire in House 1 to be interpreted as one single event or as multiple episodes of burning; b) was this burning event accidental or deliberate.
I - I start here with presentation of evidence for burning on the house level
The most striking effects of fire at Çatal can be observed in and on the houses themselves. The houses are among the most prominent features as they are centrally located and make up a large component of the whole site. Fire affects clay used in construction by changing its colour, texture, durability and visibility. These changes are due to the loss of organic material and dehydration, as well as to the transformation of clay minerals when exposed to heat. Burning was recorded in House 1 walls (external and internal), in the floors, and possibly in the roof remains. Burned bricks, plasters, mortars, and floors were recorded in situ; burned structural rubble was found collapsed on house floor and in the fill above the floor. Some of the wall bricks of House 1 were burned through by fire and obtained a bright red colour. This colour along with the texture of the bricks indicate temperatures of burning that were between 500 and 700ºC. We can definitely say that House 1 was affected by a large fire and not for reasons of improving construction since the benefit of this kind of burning would be non-existant. We can also say that only one part of House 1 burned down, whereas its other half was not affected by flames.
The intensity of burning of materials and a sharp division between the north-unburned and south-burned half is surprising. (If you take a look at the slide of House 1 and the distribution of the materials in it you can see that the burned half of the house was the one in which features and macro artifacts occur whereas the other half is virtually empty at the floor-level). Mellaart also reports on some buildings that exhibit high intensity but localized fires. The conclusion that house fires are often localized was also reached during the current excavations at Çatal in the cleaning of the Mellaart area.
Houses at Çatal are built of particular raw materials and in such a way that they are not easily burned. In fact, they are rather hard to burn. They were built of sun dried mud bricks, which vary in size but are generally large. They range in length from 76-125cm, in width from 22-23cm, and in thickness from 5-15cm. The walls were built by a method in which bricks were laid with alternating layers of mortar. Mellaart also records house roof remains that had been 30cm thick, flat, and made of layers of mud and reeds laid on small beams.
When we consider the large quantity of clay used as raw material in the construction of House 1 along with the fact that clay is not flammable we must wonder how and why these walls were fired. The complexity of the situation is compounded by the proximity of the buildings at Çatal and their outer walls. Most building were constructed with their own walls separated from walls of adjoining houses by a thin layer of clay packing, 2-10cm thick. The double walls and the packing increase the large volume of structural clay, a material which, as mentioned is very hard to ignite.
II Evidence for burning is further examined on the level of indoor features in house 1
The features, e.g. an oven and a storage bin in the southern half were burned together with their contents which comprised organic materials. The oven in the west part of House 1 shows a combination of primary and secondary burning, that is, burning as the result of use and secondary burning which would have occurred in the house fire. The organic remains around the oven, such as acorns on the working platform attached to the oven were found carbonized from fire but clearly not the oven fire. A large storage bin made of typical clay construction that was fixed in the house floor was abutted the southern wall. The bin was fired in the house fire to the same intensity as the surrounding walls and floor. The intensity of fire which transformed the bin into a solid ceramic like material must have reached 500ºC to 700ºC. At the same time the lentils which were stored in the bin should have been transformed in these intense temperatures into ashes. Yet, they are found only charred and still complete.
III Evidence for burning was further examined on the level of macro- and -micro artifacts and other remains
The distribution of macro-artifacts including the plant remains discussed above is very markedly concentrated in the southern burnt half of the building. A big pot was found near the lentil bin, which has slight traces of secondary burning. Almost all animal bones found in and immediately below the level of burning were located in the burned part of the House 1. Fire affects bone by reducing the organic content and causing color changes. Thus burning of the bone can be recorded on the basis of color. Distinguishing food preparation and secondary burning can be done based on bone discoloration and knowing that flesh on the bones will shield them from the flame. To date the faunal analysis shows that roasting was not a common cooking method in House 1. Therefore, we can posit that most of the burning of bone and horns in House 1 is secondary, that is, not a consequence of food preparation but of larger fire in which they were caught.
The analyses of micro artifacts as well as micromorphological analyses of the floor and the microfauna will certainly be very helpful in the study of house buring.
In this preliminary stage of analysis we can summarize and interpret the evidence in the following way. When examined together the evidence points to several contradictions. First, house burning was intense yet localized; The burned half of House 1 was the location of all the features and the activities associated with food: that is, food storage and preparation; Second, different fire intensity seems to have affected different types of materials. For example, clay burned to the point of being transformed into a ceramic like state while organic materials, such as lentils, acorn, and bone were charred but not entirely destroyed in fire;
In order to produce such results the Çatal people must have had an extremely good control of a single burning event or they conducted a series of burnings for different types of materials. In any event the evidence indicates that the burning processes were intentionally instigated and controlled by the Çatal people.
After the fire most of the burned half of House 1 was no longer occupied. On the other hand, the unburned half continued being used and was later renovated several times. The burned half of the house was also physically separated by a wall from the rest of the house after the fire and gained a new significance.
Burning gives the materials higher visibility and longevity. In the case of House 1 it could have meant the symbolic preservation of food storage and food preparation features with their contents by partial transformation of these culturally produced materials. At the same time burning symbolically and physically purifies and closes the utilitarian part of the house and enables the house to be used for a different function. In this way the house as a whole could have been transformed from its old role, a family house into its new role, an ancestral house. This suggestion could also be supported by the many human burials that were found under the floors of House 1.
The concept of a house changing its role as the house ages and its gaining increased ritual importance is known in ethnography. For instance, Maurice Bloch reports in this respect on the Zafimaniry people houses. Whereas Roxana Waterson presents the concept of a transition from family house into ancestral house among the SouthAsian island people.
Thus, at Çatal we could be in the position to show that fire and a non-functional burning can be as much a cultural requirement as burning in order to cook food and manufacture artifacts. The material culture of the Çatal Neolithic people seems to indicate a complex knowledge of multiple transformations of materials which they used and manipulated. Their knowledge of pyrotechnology and the transformative power of fire could have been used strategically for its productive potential and also as a strong symbolic expression.