ÇATALHÖYÜK 1996 ARCHIVE REPORT

Pottery Report

Jonathan Last

The 1996 season at Çatalhöyük produced pottery from four separate areas on the east mound

2) ongoing excavations in the area excavated by Mellaart on the south-west side of the mound.

3) new excavations (by the University of Thessaloniki) west of the summit of the mound. The report here complements that by Dr. Kotsakis for this area. removal of topsoil and colluvium from a linear trench on the northern side of the site, designed to investigate mound alterations and formation processes. This is an ongoing project (KOPAL) designed to complement previous work on the geomorphology and surface finds distribution at Çatalhöyük.

Typology and vessel forms are discussed in more detail in the forthcoming monograph volume. Fabric recording followed the guidelines devised by the Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group. Further details of the material from the northern and Mellaart area are accessible through the Çatalhöyük database on the Internet.

1) NORTH AREA

The pottery from the north area (1995 and 1996 excavations) consists of 115 sherds, of which 109 are definitely Neolithic. All but six come from building 1 (spaces 70, 71, 110, 111); the remainder derive from space 69 outside the western wall of the building. Twenty sherds from part of a single vessel and there are other joins such that a maximum of 78 (and probably rather less) are represented. The total weight of Neolithic pottery is c1350g (average 12.4g per sherd). Considering the volume of soil removed from the building, this represents a very small quantity of ceramics - the implication is that on one hand the building fill contains very little domestic refuse and on the other that floors were generally cleared of artefacts at the time of abandonment.

The exception to the latter statement is a pot from the south-eastern part of space 71 (Units 1289, 1302, 1318, 1400), which is about 75% complete (fig. 1.1). It is a small to medium open-mouthed jar standing about 135mm tall and with a diameter at the rim of 120mm. It was found in three major pieces, each subsequently broken further, lying over an area of about 1 sq m near the step outside the south-west corner of space 110. The vessel lay closely to a deposit of lentils and a possible grinding stone which had been left behind on the floor of the building, and therefore the pot may have been left in situ at the time of abandonment. However, because it is not complete and most of the vessel was just above the floor it may have fallen through the roof. Further consideration of the specific deposits this his part of the building may elucidate this. Definitely on the floor of space 71 were several joining pieces of the base and wall of another vessel, found some distance further west (1427). Residue analysis of pieces of both of these pots might determine whether they were also associated with food storage or processing. An apparently isolated small sherd came from floor unit 1415.

Apart from this area of the building, which had been burnt and may therefore have been left in some haste, testimony to the careful processes of building maintenance and abandonment is provided by the fact that elsewhere only six sherds were found associated with floor surfaces, although at least three more pieces were in basal room fills just above the floor. In space 110 two sherds came from the same spot, one on the floor and the other just above it (1282, 1295). Although their exterior surfaces are very similar they do not appear to be from the same vessel. A somewhat larger sherd came from the southern part of the space (1259).

In space 70 a holemouth rim lay in the basal fill of the southern part of the room (1267) while the two joining rim sherds of a bowl perhaps similar in size to the largely complete pot, but with a much finer burnish inside and out, came from the basal fills immediately north of the partition wall. Four sherds, some of which may be related, came from floor unit 1416, but most pieces in this space came from the overlying fill. In the extra-mural space 69, on the other hand, three small sherds of different vessels came from the surface 1396, half of the total from this area, although what sort of activity the material from this space represents is not entirely clear.

Of the 45 sherds in space 71 (not including the 21 comprising the broken vessel) 38% came from the fill and 16% from floors, while 40% derived from a pit cut against the western wall of the space. Of the remaining three sherds, one was a chaff tempered sherd of level VIII type from packing deposit beneath the floors, one came from the wall relief (F24) and one was associated with the burials under the northern platform. In space 70 there were 36 sherds, of which 69% came from the fill, 14% from fire installation F11 and 11% from floor contexts. A single sherd came from the wall and another, mineral -gritted, from subfloor packing. The somewhat higher density of potsherds from the smaller space 70 than the larger space 71, and the greater proportion in fill contexts, may relate in part to the greater depth of fill above the floor in 70 as well as to a later reoccupation in this area associated with the secondary use of Fl.11

In terms of broad depositional processes the material from the two groups of fill are very similar. Features with probably more redeposited material, namely the F1 in space 70 and the pit in space 71, tend to have slightly smaller sherds than the generalised building fills in the respected area. Apart from the large pieces of broken vessel no significant preservational differences were noted between the fill and floor deposits. Further work prior to next season will include a more detailed study of the distribution and preservation of sherds in the different spaces and depositional contexts within the building, but the small size of the assemblage means results are likely to be inconclusive until linked with other object categories, such as bone and obsidian.

One significant differences between the spaces is the greater number of sherd joins within 70. In at least two cases joining pieces lay some distance apart on the north side of the central partition wall (1104-1126; 1126-1147). This may imply that the fill from this area represents a single depositional episode. The join between sherds at different depths in 1278 (1012.42 OD) and 1201 (1012.50 of higher), also in this part of space 70, strengthens the argument.

A further group of sherds which may form part of a single vessel lay on a north-south axis across both halves of the room (Units 1130, 1135, 1147, 1235, 1258). Another possible (non-joining) link between 1149.X1 within Fl. F11 and 1104.X-1126.X2 in the north of space 70 relates to the two halves of the room fill, and may be a clue to the association of much of this material with the later reuse of the FI in the south-west corner, from which material was raked out towards the north. Several of the sherds derive from burnt ashy deposits - including three from unit 1121 in the north of space 70 which share a light reddish-brown colour, unusual within a predominantly dark-faced assemblage, although they are probably from different vessels. This suggests the sherds were refired in a similar atmosphere. In a same way a red sherd from a deposit north-east of the FI (1187) shows that significantly heat-affected material occurs over a wide area of the room. These sherds were burnt rather than charred, and therefore contrast with the broken vessel in space 71,which although associated with the burning of the room, seems to be only partially blackened.

The typological characteristics of the assemblage are closest to Mellaart's levels V-VI, with primary dark burnished wares and high proportion of closed vessel forms with straight or inturned rims (Fig. 1.2, 1.3). The presence of two chaff-tempered sherds, one certain residual and the other from a sub-floor context, suggest material of level VIII type is not far beneath. The recovery of a larger diagnostic assemblage in future seasons should allow refinement of the chronology at present based solely on Mellaart's data.

A further priority is petrological analysis by thin sectioning, attempting to differentiate distinct fabric types within the B.1 assemblage. Sherds from the following contexts were submitted: 1235, 1237, 1261, 1307, 1333, 1343, 1415. This work will provide a starting point for understanding the organisation of ceramic production on the site while the residue analysis may begin to shed light on the contexts of use of pottery within households.

2) MELLAART

The majority of the stratified pottery in 1996 came from the Mellaart area, comprising some 295 sherds. These derived from three major types of context: midden layers, generally defined as stratified deposits including ashy lenses and a high density of organic remains; building fills with less stratigraphy, implying a more rapid accumulation, fewer organics and more decayed mud-brick; and wall contexts, which include material deriving from bricks, mortar, fills between adjacent walls, make-up, and fills of wall foundation cuts. Surfaces were represented by two sherds from space 107. The distinction between context types simplifies the true complexity of stratigraphy and formation processes and is used here provisionally.

The following spaces were excavated: shrine 10 (wall and fill), space 105 (fill, midden, wall), 106 (fill, wall), 107 (fill, midden, surface, wall), 108 (wall, midden/make-up), 115 (fill, midden, wall), 116 (fill) and 117 (fill). Six of these contexts have 15 or more sherds: 105 fill and midden, 106 fill, 115 midden, 116 fill and 117 fill. As noted in 1995, the assemblages primarily comprises chaff-tempered, light-faced pottery of Mellaart's level VIII type, with smaller amounts of dark-faced, mineral-gritted pottery of level VI type (as seen in the north area). The upper layers of the Mellaart area appear to correlate with level VII, including a mixture of the two ceramic types. In the 1995 pottery report I suggested that the sherds from the midden deposits in the initial sounding in this area were typologically earlier than those from the building fill, which appeared to contradict the observed stratigraphy. In 1996, expansion of the excavation confirmed that the building fill and the wall against which it sat were indeed cut into the midden layers within space 107. Hence the midden contexts across spaces 105-107 are part of the same broad deposit, separating the building fills in these later rooms from those of the underlying spaces 115-117.

The highest proportion of level VI pottery come from small assemblages relating to cleaning in shrine 10 (2 of 2 sherds), wall contexts in space 105, (6 of 8 sherds) and midden layers in 107 (2 of 4s sherds). Of the larger assemblages only the building fills in 105 and 106 had <30% mineral-gritted, while space 117 - in contrast - had none at all. This fall-off in proportion of level VI wares with depth clearly fit the expected trends. The upper set of spaces can be allocated to Mellaart's level VII, and the lower room fills to level VIII. The midden layers seem to fall somewhere in between. The period of time represented by these deposits would be useful information since the sequence clearly covers the transition between distinct ceramic technologies. Understanding the social context of this change, however, depends on the excavation of in situ material in some of the rooms.

The proportion of dark-faced sherds shows a similar pattern; these generally correlate with the mineral-gritted fabrics. Another typological indictor may be the vessel wall thickness, which in Mellaart's assemblage falls steadily between levels XII and VI> The thinnest sherds come from shrine 10, 105 wall and 107 midden (<6mm) and correlate with the mineral gritted pottery. Of the large assemblages, the thickest sherds come from 116 and 117 (9.6 and 10.1 mm respectively), the thinnest from 106 (8mm) while the groups from 105 and 115 range from 8.6 to 8.9mm. This further indicates that the assemblages from 116 and 117 are distinctively earlier, while 106 fill may be somewhat later than 105 fill or midden.

The diagnostic elements are unfortunately few in number but the following list may be compiled:

The major point of typological note is the greater proportion of angular or developed bases in the lower contexts. This fits with the observation that the proportion of angular bases is greater in Mellaart's level VIII than VI (VII was too small a sample). However, the proportion of open forms should decline from about 75% to 35% between levels IX and VI. Here 116 and 117 do have about 75% bowls, but 105, 106 and 115 have about the same. However, the sample is small and it can be difficult to determine rim angles from small, rather irregular pieces. Nevertheless, the general predominance of open vessel forms over closed ones, in contrast to the north area, is clear.

One unique find in 1996 was part of a small bowl rim with a perforated lug emerging from the top of the rim (Fig. 2.4). It derives from 117 fill, equivalent to levels VIII-IX which in Mellaart's assemblage produced only a single (unperforated) lug. Whether this is a special vessel is uncertain: the fabric and surface treatment are not unusual.

All potsherds were measured and weighed and their abrasion was assessed in order to look for preservational differences which may point to variations in the formation processes of different types of context. For the small assemblages excavated in 1995 it was shown that sherds from the midden were larger but more abraded than those from the fill. This holds true to some extent because 106 had smaller and less abraded sherds 115 midden underneath but overall there is no significant difference in size or abrasion statistics between all fill contexts taken together and all middens. It is clear that the abrasion are too large extent determined by the greater hardness of the mineral-gritted sherds (coefficient of correlation between percentage of mineral-tempered sherds and the degree of wear is r = 0.63). Hence the assemblages from 105 and 106 fill are considerably less abraded than those from 116 and 117. It is also clear that size and weight are strongly correlated with thickness (r = 0.77 and r = 0.64 respectively), which explains at least part of the difference in mean size between 106 fill and 115 midden. The sherds from 116 are considerably larger than those from all other contexts, including 117 which has thicker pieces, but nearly all this difference is due to a single large fragment of a thick base in the former assemblage. Any genuine preservational differences are largely masked therefore, by variation in chronological indicators and the problems of small sample size. Sherds from wall contexts are smaller than either fill or midden, which reflects their residuality or redeposition but is again offset by their reduced thickness, which would tend to produce smaller pieces anyway.

At a finer scale of analysis the distribution of joining sherds provides some information about the post-breakage lives of particular vessels. Joins between different units are seen in 105 midden (1 case among 20 sherds), 107 midden (1 among 4), 115 midden (4 among 87) and 117 fill (2 among 58). The greater number of distant joins in midden layers, which this seems to imply, may reflect the different mode of accumulation of the depositional types, or merely the tendency of excavators to subdivide the stratified middens into smaller units.

More interesting is the small number of joins between different spaces. In two cases sherds in the 105 midden (unit 1054 and 1092) join to others in the 115 midden (1653 and 1533 respectively). Presumably these two middens, with very similar characteristics, are essentially the same set of deposits. The 1054-1653 join is of particular interest because both sherds are mottled in appearance, but differently so: clearly one or both were burnt or refired after the breakage of the vessel. The third cross-space join links the fills of 106 (unit 1097), 116 (1664) and 117 (1596). This sort of phenomenon may provide information on the nature of filling or levelling processes and the sources of that material.

Further work will rely on the stratigraphic interpretation of the deposits in the area to break down the generalised contexts discussed here and allow finer-scale analysis of formation processes. In situ deposits may be lacking at present but residue analysis on a number of pieces may provide some indication of vessel functions. Visual examination of fabrics through a hand lens suggests there is little variation in the mineral inclusions within the chaff-tempered material, but thin-sectioning should confirm or deny this. The organic inclusions seem to vary only in coarseness and density; the occasional incorporation of small snail shells and rodent bones in the fabric presumably reflects material within the chaff gathered as temper.

3) SUMMIT

Considering the volume of soil removed, this area contained a much higher density of ceramics than either area North or Mell. Primarily this appears to reflect the later date of occupation in the summit area, for pottery seems to become steadily more abundant over time at Çatalhöyük, but about one third of the excavated summit assemblage actually came from an irregular pit cut into the building fill (F. 101) and therefore post-dating the occupation of the house.

Initial work in this area involved surface scraping, as one other part of the site. In quantitative terms the number, proportions and size of sherds of different periods may be compared with the figures for the other scrapes, especially the nearby Area 9 and 12 (Çatalhöyük volume). The total number of sherds from the surface of the present square was much less than in Area 12, although the latter had a large collection of Classical sherds and in fact produced fewer and smaller Neolithic pieces than the Summit area. The density figures correspond much more closely to Area 9, although this square had a lower proportion of Neolithic sherds and larger pieces overall, particularly for the Classical assemblage. Perhaps the relatively high amount of Neolithic sherds in the new area reflects an unusual density of material in the building fill below, possibly related to the quantity of pottery in F.101. The mean sherd weight of both Classical and Neolithic pieces from the scraping increases with depth, as is the case for most topsoil assemblages. This must reflect mixing and weathering processes on the surface of the mound as a whole.

In typological terms some interesting finds derived from the scraped assemblage. In general the Classical material is characterised by a high proportion of Hellenistic diagnostics, as opposed to the later Roman and Byzantine ones, and a relatively lack of large storage vessels and handles. No evidence of Classical occupation was found in the scraped square, however, except for s large Hellenistic pit in the north of the area (F.100).

The Neolithic material from the surface had relatively early characteristic: a low proportion of necked holemouths and angular bases, suggesting a level IV assemblages (Table 2). The most unusual find was an animal head lug (Fig. 3.1), of which the only stratified finds came from Mellaart's level V. This one seems rather simple and stylised, which may imply a slightly later date - so level IV is again appropriate.

During the excavation of stratified deposits around 1200 sherds were found, deriving from the two pits (F.100 & F.101), floor contexts (F.107-110; 116-117) and fill units. Many contexts were mixed, with Classical material present (33% of the total, most of this from upper fill levels and F.100), and obviously represent later disturbance and root/animal action. A few Chalcolithic sherds also came from the uppermost layers. The pure Neolithic assemblages include most units within pit F.101 and floor F.116 (but not related F.108).

In typological terms the material from the excavated fill units is similar to that from the surface, although with rather more angular basses well as one low pedestal (1723) and one footed base (1705). This is rather different from the floor units, which have many more open vessels - although it its a small sample. this may imply a lack of storage functions within the house but whether the large number of bowl forms reflects the pots actually used on these surfaces is doubtful, since the sherds from the floors are no larger than those from the fill units - and little larger than the clearly residual Neolithic pieces within F.100. The only exceptions unit 1712 (F. 107) which was mixed with Classical sherds but included four large Neolithic body sherds from three different vessels, and part of a bowl rim. Alternatively the floor material may be typologically later than that from the fill above, implying the latter is redeposited, but the lack of preservational differences make this unlikely as well. All four incised rims from the Summit area are from floor contexts (1715, 1716, 1724, 1745) but these can date as early as Mellaart's level V, so the floor material, although distinctive, need not to be anomalously late.

Finally Pit F.101 is a distinctly different assemblage in terms of typology and preservation. It is characterised by large but rather abraded sherds, which implies different formation processes compared to the building fill contexts. The deposit has fewer holemouths than the fill or surface units, more necked forms and more angular bases: this looks like a slightly later assemblage, perhaps level III (Table 2). It also had a higher proportion of red burnished or slipped vessels, another late feature. Unit 1714 included a complete miniature reddish-brown burnished bowl with a slightly everted rim. This also looks like a late form, although miniature pots per se could be as early as level V. In Mellaart's terms, therefore, we appear to be dealing with a structure of level IV, disturbed by a slightly later Neolithic pit. This is probably two levels later than the building in the North area. However, the levels devised by Mellaart represent stratigraphic abstractions from a continuous process of ceramic and occupational development, and should not be adopted too rigidly. It is not always clear, for instance, how representative Mellaart's assemblages are, especially for the later levels. Controlled recovery from different area of the site as part of the present project should allow further refinements of the ceramic chronology.

4) KOPAL

This section of the report focuses on the distribution and preservation of prehistoric and Classical sherds, and the interpretation of these patterns in terms of mound formation processes. However, I begin with a brief overview of the material in cultural terms. The trench was 1 meter wide and ran for some 90 meters down the side of the mound from 1210 N to 1299 N, with a further machine-dug section at the base of the mound. Material was hand-collected in 9 m. sections with every tenth metre to be dug in 0.1 m. spits and all the material dry-sieved. In fact the depths of topsoil and colluvium on the lower slopes of the mound (resulting in health and safety implications for hand excavations within the trench) as well as pressure on time and staff meant that only the first five sieve squares were completed (1219-1259N), with the sixth (1269N) fully excavated but not sieved in its entirety and the seventh (1279N) excavated to a depth of 1.0 m. Squares at 1289 and 1299N were not excavated, but two small samples from the bottom trench were hand-excavated and dry sieved.

A) Typology

i) Neolithic

Neolithic material is more common from the upper slopes of the mound. In the top (southernmost) section (1210-1220N) three holemouth rims were found. From the next (1220-1230N) came 18 Neolithic rims of which 13 were holemouth forms, including two with some neck development, and three open-mouthed vessels. Five bases, predominantly angular forms, were found as well as three lugs. From the third section (1230-1240N) came 11 rims equally split between holemouths (without neck) and open forms (bowls). Bases were again predominantly angular and six lugs were also found, four of which were ‘flaring' forms. In the fourth section (1240-1250N) classifiable base and lug sherds were not found but 12 rims included six holemouths (one with a slight neck) and three bowls. One of the bowls was decorated with four incised horizontal lines just below the rim (fig. 4.1), on an unburnished vessel and rather crudely done in comparison to other examples such as those from the Summit area. In Mellaart's assemblage this decoration occurs between levels V and III. The fifth section (1250-1260N), where the depth of topsoil increases significantly, produced eight Neolithic rims, including four holemouths (one with a slight neck) and three bowls as well as one flaring lug. The sixth section (1260-1270N) had ten rims with fewer holemouths (3) than bowls (5). Two of the whole-mouthed rims were necked and two of the bowl rims were everted, both typologically late traits. This assemblage also had one angular base sherd and one flaring lug. The seventh section (1270-1280N) was similar: six rims including two holemouths, both necked, and three bowls, everted. Four bases were found, two angular and one ‘pronounced'. The eighth section (1290-1299N) had one typologically late rim (slight neck, red slip). Finally the bottom trench had three rims, including one slightly necked holemouth and one slightly everted bowl, and three bases, one angular and two pronounced.

The main conclusion from this relatively small assemblage of diagnostic pieces is that the lower part of the trench has more ‘late' forms than the upper (Table 3), including proportionately fewer holemouth rims, more of which are necked or everted, more pronounced bases and fewer lugs. In general this suggests a distinction, in Mellaart's terms between a level V/IV assemblage at the top of the trench and a level III/II assemblage lower down. Possible reasons for this difference are discussed below, in the light of quantitative information.

ii) Chalcolithic

Generally the proportion of Chalcolithic red-painted pieces varies between 1.0 and 2.5% of the KOPAL assemblage, which fits the general pattern from the surface of the east mound and suggests occasional ‘visits' from the adjacent west mound rather than occupation during this phase. However, a slightly higher proportion of the assemblage from the base of the colluvium in the bottom trench appears to be Chalcolithic and a large portion of a miniature bowl (Fig. 4.2) was recovered from unit 932 (1270-1279N). The former group, which includes generally late Neolithic but also some Chalcolithic, from the top of the alluvium and the bottom of the colluvium at the base of the existing mound, may represent a transitional assemblage. More work is needed on these deposits to determine to what extend we are dealing with in situ material, but it is notable that no Classical pottery was recovered from these levels.

iii) Classical

In contrast to the Neolithic material, wheelmade pottery is more common from the lower (northern) half of the trench. There is little evidence, however, for chronologically significant differences along the trench: Hellenistic and Roman slipped wares and sigillatas occur throughout the trench, although a notable concentration of fine ware sherds came from low down within sieve square 1279N. In general fine wares are proportionately more common in the lower sections of the trench (1270-1289N) than higher up the slope. Relatively more handles in this area may indicate a larger number of storage vessels as well. A degree of structure may therefore survive within these unstratified deposits. The assemblage from the scraped sequence at 1240-1250N (excavated 1993) contained a number of distinctive spouted jugs and small jars, while the adjacent section of the KOPAL trench also produced a few of these forms, with only one other jug rim elsewhere in the trench. Similarly the only lamp fragments from the trench were both in the same section (1270-1280N). It is hard to date the generic coarse wares but sherds with the characteristic Byzantine carelessly incised ‘wavy line' decoration occur in the uppermost section (1210-1220N) and consistently from 1250-1289N, while green glazed sherds have similar distribution.

B) quantitative analysis

The discussion concentrates mainly on the sections from 1210-1280N; further north of the trench was large machine-dug and lacked sieved samples. Table 4 shows that total sherd numbers (from sieving and hand collection) generally increase steadily, just as the depth of the topsoil increases, except for a fall between 1250-1260N and 1260-1270. However, it is the section above this, 1240-1250N, which marks the significant change in the proportions of handmade and wheelmade pottery. Between 1220 and 1240N the Neolithic sherds represent about 70% of the total; north of 1250 they hover around 10%. Similarly the section 1240-1250N marks the transition between the upper slopes with a depth of topsoil no greater than 0.4m. and the lower ones where the depth increases to 1 m. and more. If we assume an initially even distribution of Classical material on the slopes of the mound, this seems to indicate that erosion has caused the bulk of this material to move downslope, taking with it a certain amount of Neolithic pottery that had become incorporated into these later deposits, but exposing less contaminated Neolithic deposits at the top of the slope.

The sieved squares give us an indication of the density of potsherds within the colluvium. The Neolithic densities increase to 1240N and decrease thereafter, sharply at first and then more slowly. The Classical densities also increase from the top of the trench, in this case up to 1250N where they overtake the Neolithic material in absolute terms, then stabilise until 1270N before increasing again in the bottom square at 1280. The density figures seem to confirm the downslope movement of material, particularly the Classical deposits which largely mask Neolithic levels on the lower slopes.

Also recorded were sherd weights. The mean weight of the handpicked Neolithic material is higher in the sections south of 1240 than those lower down, figures which are strongly correlated with the percentage of Neolithic sherds within the total assemblage (r +0.728). The particularly high figure for 1220-1230N may reflect the disturbance of a large Neolithic pit within this section. Where the deposits are primarily filled with Classical material the residual nature of the Neolithic sherds within these may reflect in the lower mean weights. While the Classical sherd weights also show a degree of correlation (r =0.610) with frequency, the much greater variety of Classical fabrics and vessel size would lead us to expect for more variation in sherd weights. For instance, 1230-1239N has higher mean sherd weights than the two sections to the north where the proportion of Classical material nevertheless increases sharply.

Interestingly these relationships are less clear for the sieved assemblages. There is little difference in the Classical material but the correlation between the mean Neolithic sherd weight and the density of Neolithic pieces is much lower (r =0.374). This may imply that it is the larger sherds which are not found where Neolithic material is mixed up with Classical pottery; there is always a background of small (residual?) fragments.

In general, therefore, there are two assemblages here: the first is an eroded deposit at the top of the mound with a high relative proportion and absolute density of Neolithic material; the second is an accumulated deposit on the lower slopes of the mound with far more Classical pottery (on both scales) and somewhat larger sherds. The point of stability, where the opposite effects of accumulation and erosion cancel each other out, lies around 1240N where the amount of Classical material begins to increase but the depth of the topsoil remains relatively low.

A further source of information is the control on depths provided by the sieved squares (Table 5). 1219N was dug in two spits with the density of both Neolithic and Classical reduced in the lower spit. 1229N had a much higher density of material overall, and particularly of Neolithic sherds. Again density decreases in the lower spit, but in this case only for the Neolithic. The same is true for 1249N, with four spits and a much greater fall-off in the density of Neolithic Material. Perhaps this reflects the accumulation of Classical material underneath the Neolithic which was exposed only after the Classical levels had been eroded downslope, thus creating a kind of reverse stratigraphy. Because many Classical features were dug into the Neolithic horizons there is no fall-off in the density of Classical pottery, however.

1239N is rather different, with a sharp decline in the density of wheelmade pottery and a clear increase in the mean sherd weight of Neolithic material with depth. This seems to reflect the disturbance of intact Neolithic deposits in the form of a pit-fill.

From 1259N onwards the colluvial deposits become much deeper. In both 1259 and 1269N the middle spits (4-5 and 5-9 respectively) show a marked increase in densities before a further increase in the lower spits. 1259 this reflects almost entirely the distribution of Classical deposits, and reflects two ‘waves' of deposition. Perhaps the large sherds in the lower spits reflect in situ but disturbed occupation subsequently covered by colluvium which gradually brings more finds down from the top of the slope. In 1269N the same increase in density lower down occurs, again mainly in terms of the Classical material, but without the major increase in sherd weight. However, the presence of a pit visible in the section and clearly cut from within the colluvium shows there are distinct features within this material and strengthens the interpretation of a complex sequence. All the spits seem to have Classical material within them, so over the period of Classical activity (1000 years at most) slopewash deposits build up, activity (including pit digging and burials) takes place from the new surfaces these create, and the build-up of colluvium continues over these features. There is no reason to presume chronological ceramic sequence within the deposits, however, the material moving down the slop could be from any age. It would be likely, however, that if extensive Classical deposits covered this part of the mound then the Neolithic deposits would be the latest to erode. In 1259N the majority of the Neolithic sherds were indeed in the uppermost spit but in 1269 there is a steady presence in the upper four and lower six spits with fewer in between. The complexity of the formation processes, seen in the fine rain wash layers for instance, is clear. In 1279N, which was not completed, the fall-off in density is much less and the quantity of Classical material much greater. Whether this implies more in situ activity here or more martial moving downslope is uncertain.

Some conclusions may therefore be drawn. Firstly, the depth of colluvium is very great on the lower slopes: at least 1.6m, all containing Classical pottery. Only in the bottom trench did there appear to be surviving pre-Classical colluvium, stratified immediately above the alluvial layer with the small late Neolithic assemblage discussed above. Secondly there is a clear typological and quantitative contrast between the material from the upper slopes and that from the lower, reflecting the different formation processes operating in the upper ‘zone of erosion' and the lower ‘zone of accumulation'. Thirdly, there are lateral and vertical differences in the density and preservation state of material, in the speed of accumulation over time, and in the intensity of activity on the mound slope during the period of colluviation.

© Çatalhöyük Research Project and individual authors, 1996