The Çatal Hüyük ruckus
that erupted in the rug community in the late 1980's and early 1990's was impossible to
ignore, and I published two related articles in Oriental Rug Review. The Update
posted below was the second, written for the December 1992/January 1993 issue (Vol. XIII,
No. 2) at the request of the editor. The earlier
article, with a detailed examination of questionable "reconstructions," is
posted separately. A few illustrations have been added to each.
I love old Anatolian kilims with a passion strong enough to resent efforts by some
individuals to fabricate a Neolithic tradition for them based on apparently non-existent
materials. Such efforts are a disservice to the weavers who created this powerful textile
art.
|
HOME |
|
|
The Goddess from Anatolia
|
An Updated View of the
Çatal Hüyük Controversy
|
|
by Marla Mallett
|
| When The Goddess from
Anatolia by Mellaart, Hirsch and Balpinar [1] was published in late 1989, the simmering, five-year-long Çatal Hüyük
controversy came to a boil. The character of the debate over James Mellaart's Neolithic
Anatolian kilim hypothesis shifted abruptly. It suddenly focused on the credibility of 44
startling new drawings of "reconstructed" wall paintings. Complex issues, such
as design diffusion and historical continuity, became irrelevant. I want to provide a
little background on this dispute and summarize the factors that prompted my involvement
in it. My piece entitled A
Weaver's View of the Çatal Hüyük Controversy
which was published in the August/September 1990 issue of Oriental Rug Review
[2], is posted separately on this
website. A related book review by Murray Eiland appeared in the same 1990 edition of
ORR. [3] I will refer
to arguments presented in those pieces, I shall comment on Mellaart's response, and then I
will assess the current state of the controversy. |
|
|
|
Mellaart first suggested a possible
Neolithic "kilim connection" at the 1983 International Conference on Oriental
Carpets in London, prompting many of us to eagerly study his earlier articles, reports,
and 1967 book, Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. [4]
The Turkish archaeological site of Çatal
Hüyük, excavated by Mellaart in the early 1960's, was fascinating; the possibility of
Neolithic roots for kilim design was intriguing. Mellaart's basic theory held that large
paintings on some interior walls of this complex were copies of actual woven kilims used
in other, more important buildings. The paintings were supposedly less expensive
substitutes. Pegs were said to be positioned for suspending some of the hangings. Although
no actual remains of 8,000-year-old tapestry weavings were found, motifs that Mellaart
claimed to have sketched from fragmented paintings were surprisingly like those on kilims
of today.
The written version of Mellaart's conference presentation was published in Bertram
Frauenknecht's 1984 book, Early Turkish Tapestries. [5]
Major flaws in the argument immediately became apparent. We saw
significant problems glossed over, and hypotheses treated as established facts. No
documentation was offered. No photos supported the small sketches of supposed Neolithic
kilim motifs: a figure holding two birds, winged deities, globular goddesses stacked in
niches, and many others (shown below). No clues indicated how these images fit into the
larger scheme of things at the Çatal Hüyük site; the shrines from which they supposedly
had come were not identified. The visual presentation itself was confusing, since sketches
of tangible clay artifacts, motifs from modern kilims, and undocumented wall-painting
motifs were all mixed together. |
Notes appear at the end of this page.
|
|
|
Sketches which accompanied
the 1984 article by James Mellaart, "Some notes on the prehistory of Anatolian
kilims" (B. Frauenknecht, Early Turkish Tapestries, pp. 25-41.)
The drawings with underlined numbers were sketched from modern kilims. Mellaart says the
other motifs were copied from Çatal Hüyük wall paintings (the majority) or Hacilar
painted pots (Numbers 16, 19, and 67-70). There are no photographs or other documentation
to authenticate any parts of these wall paintings. Nor did anything similar appear in the
original Çatal Hüyük Excavation Reports.
|
|
|
In retrospect, this Mellaart article sucked us in and set us up. Unable to evaluate the
material for years, many readers accepted it on faith. Others adopted a wait-and-see
attitude. [6] A few skeptics
grumbled, but very little firm opposition appeared in print. A commentary by Werner
Brüggemann [7] was one notable
exception. There was plenty of time for Mellaart's ideas and primary images to become
familiar, convenient and comfortable. We understood that all would be revealed in a major,
forthcoming publication. We were primed and ready. |
|
|
|
|
The Goddess from Anatolia,
published late in 1989 under the auspices of Milan rug dealer John Eskenazi, should have
answered the questions and silenced the critics. Instead, it exploded on the rug world
scene, intensifying and polarizing the debate. Although some kilim aficionados were wildly
enthusiastic, others were incredulous. An inordinate amount of wrangling and bickering
ensued among collectors, dealers and textile researchers. "Hostilities" were
even reported at European rug meetings.
Isolated from the public debate, I could only react to the book itself. I was stunned by
overwhelming stylistic incongruities between Mellaart's new "reconstructed"
paintings and the obviously genuine wall paintings appearing in photos in the 1960's
Çatal Hüyük excavation reports. [8] Subject matter in the new drawings was completely different too. Deities
and their animal entourages were now everywhere. Indeed, an elaborate new Neolithic Mother
Goddess cult flourished where none had existed before. Most extraordinary of all were
"reconstruction" drawings placed alongside strikingly similar modern kilims:
"reconstruction" drawings with kilim motifs, but garbled warp/weft directions!
They would have been impossible to weave. Something was definitely wrong. But how could it
be so terribly wrong? Again, documentation was missing.
My first reaction was incredulity, but the second was resentment over apparently irregular
field work. How could remnants of 8,000-year-old wall paintings, even the smallest
fragments, have been destroyed without photos? The Çatal Hüyük paintings were, after
all, among the world's earliest architectural murals. First, we were told that proper film
was unavailable in Turkey, later that they had "run out of film." Why, then,
wasn't archaeological work halted? Instead, crews continued to excavate the important
Neolithic mound over four field-work seasons, stripping layer after layer of buildings and
paintings. There was, indeed, a photographic record of some paintings (those we see in the
excavation reports), but nothing, it seemed, that could verify even small portions of
Mellaart's intricate new goddess/kilim "reconstruction" drawings. Later, in The
Goddess from Anatolia, we were told that painted fragments upon which the
"reconstructions" were based were too difficult to photograph.
[9] The excuses kept changing. Most recently,
in February of 1991, Mr. Mellaart stated that "color slides and black and white
photographs of the better pieces" had been lost in a 1976 fire at his father-in-law's
house. [10] There had been
photos after all?! |
|
|
In the spring of
1990, as I sat composing a letter of indignation to Hali, in which I hoped we
would find a sensible handling of this affair, Hali 50 arrived. Here was a
glowing 14-page review of The Goddess from Anatolia by Ian Bennett, the book's
editor. [11]
It had 33
color illustrations and was accompanied by a three-page review of the Basel kilim
conference that had served as the publication's "official launching." [12] Here was James Mellaart, identified as
"The Prophet," with co-authors Udo Hirsch and Belkis Balpinar as the "High
Priest" and "High Priestess." A cult was developing, with a widening circle
of devoted disciples. The Hali rave review termed The Goddess from
Anatolia a long awaited opus...as remarkable and revolutionary a publication as it
was hoped and expected it would be..." The principal thesis was said to have
"that air of brilliant inevitability about it which characterizes the effect of any
beautifully structured hypothesis that seeks to explain the previously inexplicable."
An editorial, under the banner heading "1990: The Year of the Anatolian Kilim,"
declared that this publication "surely marks the coming of age of kilim
studies." [13]
Clearly, an indignant Letter to the Editor was inappropriate -- at least to that editor.
Instead, I began digging again through the old excavation reports and other early
writings, while examining the new "reconstruction" drawings and text more
carefully. Could my intuition have been so wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
In studying those 1960's excavation reports,
I discovered profound contradictions between Mellaart's original reported findings for
some Çatal Hüyük shrines and the version now presented in The Goddess from
Anatolia. At first these were startling and perplexing. But as the discrepancies
multiplied and became more blatant, my attitude shifted. At one stage the required
detective work was minimal indeed: the original excavation reports stated definitively
that "no trace of any painting" could be found associated with certain shrines
-- some of those for which there were now newly "reconstructed" paintings! From
then on, expecting discrepancies, I felt we must be confronting a grand but not
too subtle hoax. I could almost imagine Mellaart standing by, laughing at the naive
ruggies who were so easily duped. The clues were so obvious and so plentiful, if one
simply looked.
With my suspicions verified by Mellaart's own early reports and my conclusions no longer
in doubt, I decided to prepare a summary of my findings. Meticulous accuracy and precise
documentation required hours of checking and cross-checking of each source against the
others. Finally, I made charts to aid in tracking each structure excavated, each genuine
painting (those documented in the early publications), and each new Mellaart
"reconstruction." Irrefutable evidence was essential to support my contention
that most of the "reconstructions" were very likely mere fantasy. It was
gratifying that Oriental Rug Review agreed to publish my lengthy article in its
entirety, along with interminable footnotes. (It is posted separately
here.) It was heartening to learn that Dr. Eiland was composing a similar
article in the form of a book review. Although our approaches differed, our conclusions were similar. Both articles
were published by Oriental Rug Review in August of 1990.
The 6th International Conference on Oriental Carpets, held in San Francisco in November of
1990, would have been an ideal forum for airing Çatal Hüyük problems.
Mellaart, and his co-authors Hirsch
and Balpinar were all scheduled speakers, along with several other kilim researchers,
including me. Eiland was the Academic Chairman of the conference. Kilim aficionados from
around the world were anticipating a lively discussion. Regrettably,
Mellaart canceled his
appearance. |
|
|
| Instead of defending his work publicly,
Mellaart presented a written response in Hali in early 1991. [14] There he attempted to justify the
discrepancies in his published work but dodged most specific, critical issues. He gave new
reasons why documentation had been lost. He stressed that his excavation reports were
merely "preliminary" in nature, but he did not explain why, in 25 years, no
corrections had been made available to the archaeological community if the reports were
indeed so inaccurate. He focused on the difficulties encountered at the Çatal Hüyük
site rather than the questions raised by his critics, dismissing serious issues with
irrelevant talk of the "havoc caused by Greco-Roman storage pits, brick-pits,
lavatories and graves cut into the upper levels of the mound." When he did deal with
specific issues, as when trying to excuse color problems in the
"reconstructions," he failed to reconcile definitive 1967 statements with the
new work. |
|
|
|
Mellaart even made new claims in his rebuttal that magnified his problems. The detailed
1963 excavation report had dismissed Shrine AIII, 11 with one brief paragraph. [15] It stated that only a small fragment of
a hunting scene had survived (at the right), below traces of a black-on-white geometric
pattern. |
Excavation Report tracing of a wall painting
from the north wall of room AIII,11 at Çatal Hüyük. (Anatolian Studies, Vol.
XIII, 1963, Plate V.a)
|
| Yet in The Goddess from
Anatolia, six of the most important new Mellaart drawings were identified as works
from this shrine (including that at the right and the two below). The two elaborate
paintings below were each supposedly 5.5 meters in length! Mellaart has now claimed
that this building had "some ten successive layers of painting, all differing
from each other." He has not explained this latest contradiction, nor has he told us
why such extensive paintings were ignored in the 1963 report. Whether those major works
were uncovered in situ or in fragmentary state, how could they have been
forgotten? We are forced to choose: we can believe either the original 1963 Mellaart
account or the contradictory 1991 Mellaart story. |
"Sketched reconstruction" of a Çatal
Hüyük wall-painting said to be from Shrine AIII,11. James Mellaart. (The Goddess
from Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XVIII,1.)
|
|
"Sketched rconstruction" of a Çatal
Hüyük wall-painting said to be
from Shrine
AIII,11, north wall, upper part. Said to be 5.5 meters in
length. James Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XVII, 2).
|
|
|
"Sketched reconstruction" of a Çatal
Hüyük wall painting said to be from Shrine
AIII,11,
north wall, lower part. Detail. Said to be 5.5 meters in length. Neither this,
nor the
painting above, nor four others supposedly from this building, were
mentioned in
the original Excavation Report. James Mellaart. (The Goddess From
Anatolia,
Vol. 1, Plate XVII,1).
|
|
|
| In trying to explain other serious
discrepancies, Mellaart stated that many "reconstructed" paintings were pieced
together from fragments of fallen or discarded rubble "hidden below final floor
levels." He noted that sometimes such fragments were not found until "after a
winter's interval." This, he said, was why so many paintings were not mentioned in
the excavation reports. He singled out Shrine AII, 1 as an example. The three newly
"reconstructed" paintings supposedly from this shrine that appear in The
Goddess from Anatolia (two of them shown below) are indeed important to questions of
fraudulence, since Level II buildings were described in the original excavation reports as
having "no trace of any painting." Mellaart's defense, however, failed to
resolve this problem. When we check the 1963 report we find that consecutive pages
describe Shrine AII, 1 and the room directly beneath it. [16] If crew members had discovered painted
fragments "hidden below final floor levels " of Shrine AII,1, this necessarily
occurred that first year, not the following excavation season. By 1967 Mellaart
was still claiming that no paintings had been found in Level II buildings, while the
charts in his book also indicated no traces of paintings in those shrines. [17] Mr. Mellaart's smoke screen simply
doesn't work. We are forced to decide which is more credible -- the 1963 and 1967 accounts
or Mellaart's 1989-1991 version. |
|
|
|
|
"Sketched
reconstruction" of a wall-
painting said to be from Çatal Hüyük, Shrine
AII,1. James Mellaart. (The Goddess From
Anatolia,
Vol. 1, Plate XVII, 12.)
|
"Sketched
reconstruction" of a wall-
painting said to be from Çatal Hüyük, Shrine AII,1.
James Mellaart. (The Goddess From
Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XI, 8.)
|
|
|
So-called "scale copy" of a wall
painting said to be from Çatal Hüyük, Shrine E.VIII,10. J. Mellaart
(The Goddess From
Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate
II, 14.)
|
In his rebuttal, Mellaart ignored several similar problems which require explanations. He
failed, for example, to account for his peculiar yurt painting attributed to Building
E.VIII, 10. Mellaart's 1966 excavation report had definitively stated that "no
traces of wall painting" were found in that building. [18]
Since Building E.VIII, 10 was excavated during the last field-work
season, this problem certainly cannot be resolved with claims that painted fragments were
discovered during a later excavation season, "hidden below final floor
levels." |
|
|
If, as Mellaart has now
suggested, most of his reconstruction drawings of more than 44 large wall murals were
pieced together from sketches of fallen fragments, enormous quantities of rubble would
have been involved. He has even said that many more paintings existed: non-kilim subjects
he has not yet "disclosed"! We now are asked to believe that he himself, as
director of the Çatal Hüyük excavations, catalogued and made drawings of those fragile
fragments at the site (perhaps some with 10 layers of painting?) then disposed of them,
while his crew members concentrated on more dramatic projects. It is significant that not
a single person involved in the excavations has yet been found who saw any of this
fragmentary material at the site in the 1960s.
Unfortunately, Mellaaart's rebuttal has not resolved any of the problems pointed out in my
previous article or Eiland's. He has not explained the confused, garbled warp/weft
directions in his drawings of complex kilim motifs. He has not explained the radical
discrepancy between subject matter in his new drawings and in the Neolithic paintings we
can see and read about in the 1960s excavation reports. He has not justified the
preposterous stylistic and conceptual disparities between his drawings and the genuine,
photographed Çatal Hüyük wall paintings spanning several centuries.
Mr. Mellaart has not responded to criticism of his basic Neolithic kilim hypothesis. He
has failed to salvage his important but apparently bogus "peg hole" argument,
devised to persuade us that textile hangings were used at Çatal Hüyük. He has not
explained why it was only after Hans Helbaek's death that he announced Dr. Helbaek's
supposed discovery of "tapestry imprints" in plaster at Çatal Hüyük. He has
discounted the most recent, sophisticated and conclusive tests on the fibers found in
Çatal Hüyük graves -- fibers unsuitable for tapestry. Although Josephine Powell twice
brought forth pertinent research findings by Michael Ryder and others, [19] Mellaart has failed to counter this
expert's opinion that wool available in the seventh millennium B.C. was too hairy, kempy and pigmented to be suitable for spinning and dyeing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mellaart still has not begun to reconcile
the requirements of large scale tapestry production with Neolithic warp-weighted loom
technology. In arguing that kilims similar to modern ones were woven in Neolithic times
(and in producing drawings of them) he has totally disregarded the normal impact of
technological advances on textile production. Mellaart apparently failed to realize that
differences in weaving mechanics are reflected in distinctive kinds of patterning, weave
balance and fabric structure. Although slit tapestry is easy and natural to produce on
most two-beam looms with good warp tension, it is extremely difficult to produce on
unstable, weighted warps. This problem is so severe that it dwarfs other relevant
questions of loom technology, but Mellaart has conveniently ignored them all.
Anyone speculating on slit-tapestry kilim development needs to consider the role played by
different shedding methods. It is safe to presume that in most parts of Anatolia the large
kilims of modern times evolved from modest, functional pieces with simple, often banded
designs to become increasingly intricate. Mainstream development seems to have occurred on
heavy looms built to handle mundane household textile production -- looms with full-width
shedding. As slit-tapestry pattern sheds were increasingly segmented, either heddles were
hand manipulated to facilitate localized patterning or sheds were hand-picked. A
dependence on hand-picking encouraged the use of smaller and smaller warp units, with more
and more complex patterning. In modern Turkey, we see not only cluttered, decadent
tapestry products, but degenerate processes that have aided and abetted the aesthetic
decline. As household weaving needs changed, loom technology changed. When handwoven
clothing production by nomads and villagers ceased, or when more knotted carpets were made
as commercial commodities, the resulting loom adaptations inevitably favored one product
at the expense of another.
Kilim weaving could not remain unaffected by these dynamics. It is curious, indeed, that
Mellaart chose the end of the Anatolian kilim tradition -- with its decadent features --
to imitate in many of his 8,000-year-old kilims. In fact, his hodge-podge collection
of over 40 new kilim/Goddess "reconstruction" drawings -- supposedly kilim
designs representing several hundred years' work -- displays absolutely no stylistic or
technical evolution. His Neolithic kilim theory still rests principally on designs that he
claims "look like kilims" -- designs that, in many cases, could not be woven in
slit tapestry. |
|
|
| Amazingly, The Goddess from Anatolia
"reconstructions" proved not to be the last chapter in the Mellaart Çatal
Hüyük saga. Incredible "disclosures" were yet to come. Early in 1991, the
published version of Mellaart's Basel kilim conference lecture appeared, replete with
still more drawings of lost goddess cult "evidence." [20] This time the "evidence"
included approximately 150 drawings depicting beach pebbles incised with goddesses, clay
plaques showing looms and landscapes, decorated loom weights and bone objects, even a clay
shrine with stalactites and goddesses. There were sketches of still more wall paintings.
All of these, along with Mellaart's remarks, were too astonishing to ignore. I felt
compelled to comment and did so in a piece on the "Letters" page of Oriental
Rug Review. [21] Mellaart
did not respond to a request that we be told where his newest artifacts might be viewed.
In April of 1991, he had stated that the clay plaques had disintegrated. Presumably we
were to believe that his new bone and stone objects suffered a similar fate. Again,
undocumented drawings of non-existent objects were apparently considered adequate for a
gullible rug audience. |
Incised beach pebbles, James Mellaart.
(Mellaart, "The earliest Representations of the Goddess of Anatolia and her
Entourage," Anatolische Kelims: Die Vorträge, Basel, 1990, p. 29.)
|
|
|
In
fact, the presentation of this material merely continued a remarkable Mellaart pattern
that had begun 30 years before with the scandal-ridden Dorak treasure drawings. In 1959 he
published an article in The Illustrated London News entitled "The Royal
Treasure of Dorak -- A First and Exclusive Report of a Clandestine Excavation Which Led to
the Most Important Discovery since the Royal Tombs of Ur." [22]
On those pages, a glittering array of
Yortan Culture objects appeared -- in unsubstantiated drawings. Mellaart
"disclosed" the world's first smelted iron object, the first depiction
of ocean-going ships outside Egypt, and a sketch of a sketch of the world first real
kilim. There were bejeweled and carved daggers, gold vessels, silver, bronze and
electrum Barbie dolls, and gold sheathing from an Egyptian pharaoh's throne (for
convenient dating). Heady stuff! But nothing was documented, and nothing had been seen by
any other live human.
In 1967 Kenneth Pearson and Patricia Conner explored several aspects of the story
surrounding this curious cache in a book, The Dorak Affair. Mellaart and the
mysterious treasure had become a favorite target of Turkish journalists campaigning to
stop the smuggling of precious artifacts. Although the existence of the objects was
neither proved nor disproved, one result of the sensationalism and scandal was that
Turkish authorities halted excavations at Çatal Hüyük. I was surprised to find that
eventually a version of the escapade even appeared in popular literature. A detective
story writer, August Derleth, incorporated the critical elements in a short story entitled
"The Adventure of the Golden Bracelet" in his 1973 collection, #2 The
Chronicles of Solar Pons. [23] |
|
|
|
A sampling of Mellaart's "Dorak
Treasure" drawings published in a 1959 edition of the Illustrated London News.
|
|
|
Anatolian kilim detail, Plate 45, Anatolian
Kilims, C. Cootner, 1990.
|
So what is the current state of the Çatal
Hüyük Controversy (in late 1992)? Since my original article and Dr. Eiland's were published in
August of 1990, archaeologists Dominique Collon [24] and Mary Voight [25] have supported our conclusions with articles of their own in Hali and
Oriental Rug Review. Dr. Voight's article dealt not only with credibility
problems in the "reconstructions" but also with the lack of evidence for the
existence of a goddess cult at Çatal Hüyük. Josephine Powell provided us with important
data and an insightful assessment in two unpublished conference lectures -- one in Basel
at The Goddess from Anatolia unveiling, and another later on. I should emphasize
that not one of our arguments pointing to the probable fabrication of
"evidence" has been refuted. Some early Mellaart supporters in the
rug/textile community have back-pedaled to re-position themselves on the issue. One vocal
adversary who cornered me at the San Francisco conference reluctantly admitted that he
could not disagree with my published arguments; he said he just didn't like my
"tone." He presumably did not appreciate the embarrassment the disclosures
caused for himself and several other individuals. In fact, the only specific counter
argument we have heard was Cathryn Cootner's De Young Museum lecture suggestion that
flying penises on one of the museum's kilims proved fraudulence to be impossible in the
Mellaart affair. [26]
Can she
possibly have been serious? |
|
|
| It is important to realize that Mellaart's
new "reconstructed" goddess/kilim material was not published by a professional
archaeological journal, academic press, or even standard, commercial publishing house. As
a result, the work was not distributed through normal channels to members of the
archaeological community and was not subjected to normal peer review. The book's $270
price tag also severely curtailed its circulation. Published privately, by an Italian rug
dealer, The Goddess from Anatolia was promoted almost exclusively within rug
circles, where academic standards are routinely ignored. For a prominent academician, this
was a peculiar way, indeed, to disclose such amazing archaeological materials. Since our
rug and textile community was the targeted audience, and because our scholarship was
immediately affected, it became our responsibility to debunk the work, if debunking was in
order. |
|
|
|
The only English language archaeological
publication which has dealt with the matter is an obscure journal called The Review of
Archaeology. In the fall of 1990 Marija Gimbutas, a longtime champion of primitive
goddess cults, gave The Goddess from Anatolia a glowing review. [27] She had previously used Mellaart's
"evidence" to support her own theories in The Language of the Goddess (1989).
In her review, she termed the new Mellaart works "treasures for the religious
historian and the archaeomythologist... a gold mine." In her opinion, the modern
kilims (18th and early 19th century examples) illustrated in the Mellaart book were
"only a pale echo of past ages," without the "vitality" of the new
goddess paintings.
In the spring of 1992, in the same journal, Carl C. Lamberg-Karlovsky of the Peabody
Museum, Harvard University, published remarks critical of both the Gimbutas review and the
Mellaart publication. [28]
Dr.
Lamberg-Karlovsky's commentary, entitled "'Constructing' the Past," dealt
forthrightly with questions of credibility: |
|
| The reader of Gimbutas' review is left
entirely uninformed on a matter of critical importance: namely, there is absolutely no
objective evidence for the existence of the dozens of "new" wall paintings from
Çatal Hüyük which Mellaart reveals in these volumes for the first time. There is not a
single photograph nor a single fragment which substantiates the existence of these wall
paintings. |
|
|
| He summarized: "Bluntly put,
there is no objective reason to believe that these "new" wall paintings at
Çatal Hüyük exist." He then expressed further astonishment: |
|
For 25 years Mellaart appears to have kept
these "new" wall paintings from Çatal Hüyük a closely guarded secret. Over
the years he neither published an indication of their existence nor apparently discussed
them with any colleague; more telling is the fact that he appears to have even kept his
own excavation staff completely unaware of their existence. As a field archaeologist I
find it simply incredible that the discovery of dozens of wall paintings can surface after
25 years without a single person, fragment of their remains, or photographic documentation
able to support their existence!
It is bad enough that archaeologists must confront
the "lunatic fringe" in dealing with those who find Celts, Etruscans, and
Babylonians in the New World, so ably documented in the recent book Fantastic
Archaeology by Stephen Williams, and are confronted with looted objects on the
antiquities market. It is a sad episode in the history of the discipline when a competent
archaeologist, one who has made significant contributions to the field, perpetuates such a
travesty upon the standards of archaeological documentation. |
|
|
| At the end of his article, Professor
Lamberg-Karlovsky recounted a personal conversation with his friend Mellaart concerning
the drawings, and concluded sadly: |
|
| This unfortunate situation is one that must
concern every archaeologist. A competent scholar and a most important archaeological site
have been badly discredited. Within the context of today's post-processional mode of
reasoning we are constantly reminded that interpreting the past is a subjective
enterprise. Although subjective reasoning is an undeniable component of archaeological
thought it must be based upon concrete, well-documented, empirical evidence. The
"new" wall paintings at Çatal Hüyük are beyond the acceptable boundaries of
subjective reasoning -- based as they are upon a complete absence of empirical evidence. |
|
|
| This opinion seems to accurately reflect the
predominant view within the archaeological community. |
|
|
|
|
In the rug field, a few Mellaart supporters
remain incensed that work by a man of such eminent academic standing should be questioned.
They do not tell us why any published work should be immune to scrutiny. Is it
better for possibly fraudulent materials to infiltrate and dominate rug literature? What
kind of scholarship do we want? Do we actually prefer fantasy to truth? A clear unbiased
view of The Goddess from Anatolia may be difficult for individuals previously
captivated by Mellaart's reputedly spellbinding slide shows. Objectivity may be impossible
for his friends. The rest of us, however, must evaluate the published material and ensure
that its impact on serious literature is not greater than is merited.
Currently the Goddess is alive and still kicking in a few quarters. A few committed
Mellaart defenders have dodged the question of fabricated reconstructions, weakly
conceding that "Some people are skeptical of the Goddess Theory." It is not,
however, a matter of skepticism. How can any consideration be given to theories
based upon materials that appear to be fraudulent? Issues of iconography, historical
continuity, and design diffusion are totally irrelevant under these conditions. It is
important to remember: Without the suspect Mellaart reconstruction drawings, there is
no Goddess/kilim theory. If the drawings must be thrown out, out must go that
beloved deity with vultures (the up-ended Ottoman carnation), the rotund goddesses in
niches (the Sivrihisar multiple-niche kilim look-a-likes), and the "Neolithic"
version of the elibelinde. These sketched motifs are centerpieces for both the
dubious "reconstructions" and the elaborate iconography explaining them. It is
impossible to dismiss the Mellaart drawings and still keep any legitimate Neolithic
Goddess/kilim connection. To speak of "archaic kilim motifs of possible Neolithic
origin" is to promote a fantasy.
In the marketplace, this is precisely the kind of promotion we are seeing. Neolithic kilim
design hype is rife. Fantasy obviously sells more kilims for higher prices. Every piece
has become a potential cult object. An 8,000-year-old tradition, complete with vultures
and goddesses, has been found irresistible. With this kind of pedigree, $50,000 and
$75,000 kilims have become a reality. Unfortunately, effective sales gimmicks -- even if
fraudulent -- are not willingly abandoned.
Since 1983, rug literature has been re-infected repeatedly with the Çatal Hüyük virus. The
Goddess from Anatolia simultaneously heightened enthusiasm for Mellaart's fantasy and
destroyed it by exposing everything. When the veracity of the "evidence" could
finally be tested, it failed.
Arguments exposing duplicity in the Mellaart material have not been refuted. The
controversy is dead -- or should be. Credible scholarship now requires that the apparent
fraudulence be acknowledged by all. Authors who cling to the fairy tale and choose to
perpetuate it can be accorded little respect. It's time, indeed, to shelve the Çatal
Hüyük affair and the goddess -- alongside the Dorak Affair -- and get back in touch with
reality. |
|
|
|
In the years since this
article and the earlier one were published, most promoters of the 1984-91 Mellaart
materials within the textile community have turned their focus to other areas. In a few
places, however, the fantasies survive, primarily as useful sales tools. Since
references to the material appeared in a number of rug books, newcomers to the field
continue to stumble upon Goddess/kilim stories and are entranced. How much more satisfying
ultimately, however, are the truly valid reasons for appreciating the textile masterpieces
made by sensitive and creative Anatolian artisans. These women did far more than merely
copy stale, millennia-old designs. Furthermore, we should remember that most of these
Turkic nomad and village weavers had cultural roots in Central Asia, not Anatolia.
Now, after many years, excavations have resumed at the important Neolithic site in central
Turkey. Reports by the current archaeological team led by Ian Hodder are available at
www.catalhoyuk.com
For the original article examining the questionable "reconstruction" drawings in
detail, as well as complete documentation, go to:
|
|
A Weaver's
View of the Çatal Hüyük Controversy |
|
|
Notes
|
1.
|
Mellaart, James, Belkis
Balpinar and Udo Hirsch, The Goddess from Anatolia, Milan, 1989. Four volumes.
|
2.
|
Mallett, Marla, "A
Weaver's View of the Çatal Hüyük Controversy," Oriental Rug Review, Vol.
10, No. 6 (August/September 1990, pp. 32-43.
|
3.
|
Eiland, Murray, Review of The
Goddess from Anatolia, James Mellaart, Belkis Balpinar and Udo Hirsch, in Oriental
Rug Review, Vol. 10, No. 6 (August/September 1990, pp. 19-26.
|
4.
|
Mellaart, James, Çatal
Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London, 1967.
|
5.
|
Mellaart, James, "Some notes
on the prehistory of Anatolian Kilims" in Bertram Frauenknecht, Early Turkish
Tapestries, Nürnberg, 1984, pp. 25-41. This article was reprinted in Oriental
Rug Review, Vol. IV, No. 10, January 1985, pp. 416-421.
|
6.
|
Andrea Maréchal, in "The
Riddle of Çatal Hüyük," Hali 26, April/May/June 1985, pp. 6-11,
summarized the Mellaart theory and evidence, typifying the caution that many individuals
felt was justified. This article suggested that some elements of the argument were
"perplexing" and that further evidence was needed.
|
7.
|
Brüggemann, Werner, "Carpets
and Kilims -- A Contribution to the Problem of the Origins of Designs in Kilims,"
Robert Pinner and Walter B. Denny, eds., Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies, Vol.
3, No. 2, pp. 71-83. This paper was presented at the 5th International Conference on
Oriental Carpets in Vienna in 1986.
|
8.
|
Mellaart, James, "Excavations
at Çatal Hüyük, 1961, First Preliminary Report," Anatolian Studies XII, 1962,
pp. 41-65; "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962, Second Preliminary Report," Anatolian
Studies XIII, 1963, pp. 43-103; "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963, Third
Preliminary Report," Anatolian Studies XIV, 1964, pp. 39-120;
"Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1965, Fourth Preliminary Report," Anatolian
Studies XVI, 1966, pp. 165-191. These were all published by the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara.
|
9.
|
Mellaart, James, 1989, Vol. 11, p.
20.
|
10.
|
Mellaart, James, "James
Mellaart Answers His Critics," Hali 55 (February 1991), pp. 86-87.
|
11.
|
Bennett, Ian, "The
Mistress of All Life," Hali 50 (April 1990), pp. 97-99.
|
12.
|
"The Discovered Kilim," Hali
50 (April 1990), pp. 97-99.
|
13.
|
Editorial, "1990: The
Year of the Anatolian Kilim," Hali 50 (April 1990), p. 83.
|
14.
|
Mellaart, James,
"James Mellaart Answers His Critics," Hali 55 (February 1991), pp.
86-87.
|
15.
|
Mellaart, James, Anatolian
Studies XIII, 1963, p. 49.
|
16.
|
Mellaart, James, ibid.,
pp. 45-49.
|
17.
|
Mellaart, James, 1967, p. 155 and
charts on p. 81.
|
18.
|
Mellaart, James, Anatolian
Studies XVI, 1966, p. 178.
|
19.
|
In lectures by Ms. Powell at the
Basel Kilim Conference in January 1990 and the San Francisco 6th International Conference
on Oriental Carpets in November 1990. Thus far, these remain unpublished. The Basel papers
were compiled and published by Jürg Rageth (see Note 20) but because Ms. Powell refused
to delete comments critical of the Mellaart materials, hers was not included.
|
20.
|
Mellaart, James, "The
Earliest Representations of the Goddess of Anatolia and Her Entourage," Anatolische
kelims; Symposium Basel, Die Vorträge, Jürg Rageth, ed., Basel, November 1990, pp.
27-46.
|
21.
|
Mallett, Marla, in a Letter
to the Editor, Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 11, No. 4 (April/May
1991), pp. 46-47.
|
22.
|
Illustrated London
News, November 29, 1959.
|
23.
|
The scenario: London
archaeologist on train meets girl wearing antique gold bracelet; girl takes archaeologist
home where he spends three days sketching collection of priceless Yortan culture objects;
subsequently all objects and girl disappear.
|
24.
|
Collon, Dominique,
"Subjective Reconstruction? The Çatal Hüyük Wall-Paintings," Hali 53,
October 1990, pp. 119-123.
|
25.
|
Voight, Mary, "The
Goddess From Anatolia: An Archaeological Perspective," Oriental Rug Review, Vol.
11, No. 2 (December/January 1991, pp. 32-39.
|
26.
|
An ICOC lecture on November 17,
1990.
|
27.
|
Gimbutas, Marija,
"Wall Paintings of Çatal Hüyük, 8th-7th Millennia B.C.," The Review of
Archaeology, Fall 1990, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 1-5.
|
28.
|
Lamberg-Karlovsky, Carl C.,
"'Constructing' the Past," The Review of Archaeology, Spring 1992, Vol.
13, No. 1, pp. 37-39.
|
|
|
|
|
