Book contents
- 6000 BC
- 6000 BC
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Upper Mesopotamia and Eastern Mediterranean
- Part II Anatolia
- Chapter 6 A Conspectus on the Status of Tepecik-Çiftlik Excavation (Cappadocia)
- Chapter 7 The Downturn in Tepecik-Çiftlik’s Ceramic Production Continuity
- Chapter 8 Çatalhöyük East and Köşk Höyük
- Chapter 9 Abandoning Çatalhöyük
- Chapter 10 Çatalhöyük West and the Late Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic Transition in Central Anatolia
- Chapter 11 The Potter’s Riddle at Çatalhöyük
- Chapter 12 Pots for a New Millennium
- Part III Aegean and Marmara
- Part IV Southeast Europe
- Part V Modeling the Change
- Part VI Commentaries
- Index
- References
Chapter 11 - The Potter’s Riddle at Çatalhöyük
An Attempt to Connect the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic Pottery Assemblages from Çatalhöyük/Turkey
from Part II - Anatolia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 April 2022
- 6000 BC
- 6000 BC
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Upper Mesopotamia and Eastern Mediterranean
- Part II Anatolia
- Chapter 6 A Conspectus on the Status of Tepecik-Çiftlik Excavation (Cappadocia)
- Chapter 7 The Downturn in Tepecik-Çiftlik’s Ceramic Production Continuity
- Chapter 8 Çatalhöyük East and Köşk Höyük
- Chapter 9 Abandoning Çatalhöyük
- Chapter 10 Çatalhöyük West and the Late Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic Transition in Central Anatolia
- Chapter 11 The Potter’s Riddle at Çatalhöyük
- Chapter 12 Pots for a New Millennium
- Part III Aegean and Marmara
- Part IV Southeast Europe
- Part V Modeling the Change
- Part VI Commentaries
- Index
- References
Summary
The Neolithic East Mound and the Early Chalcolithic West Mound at Çatalhöyük are closer in time than has been previously assumed. However, we do not yet see any layers with transitional pottery: The latest pottery of the East Mound, in the TP area, is still very Neolithic. On the West Mound we deal with fully developed Chalcolithic ceramics. The main difference lies in the amount of pottery, which seems related to the fact that in the Early Chalcolithic, pottery replaced basketry in many everyday uses, resulting in the repertoire of vessels used on the West Mound being much more broad. This is especially exemplified by painted ornaments resembling basket texture and by the affinities in vessels’ shapes. Although this change was abrupt and vital, we can observe some continuity between the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic pottery. Apart from single cases of similar forms and ornaments, similarity can be observed in pottery production: use of the same raw materials and techniques. From a technological point of view, Early Chalcolithic pottery making was not a radical departure from the Neolithic; this represents a strong argument in favor of both mounds at Çatalhöyük having been inhabited by the same population.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 6000 BCTransformation and Change in the Near East and Europe, pp. 178 - 195Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022