| Entry: | This memo was written in Stockholm two days after my departure from Catalhöyük July 12.
Throughout my stay in Catalhöyük I was not only overwhelmed by the friendliness and professionalism of my new colleagues on the dig. Like many others, I was entranced by the dense history of the motte and the extensive imprints of human activity made during such a long time. Besides that, as a building archaeologist mainly used to medieval or early modern sites, it was a challenge to face the extremely well preserved building remains, trying to understand formation and alteration processes as well as daily life inside them.
Although the same kind of building material, i.e. mud bricks and mortar, have consistently been used, it is clear from earlier and ongoing research that there are large variations in terms of building techniques, inclusions and material provenance from building to building, from one period to another. Excavating parts of F 2533 of B 80 also made me observe some constructional differences and treatments within the same wall. It seems that there has been a conscious blending of materials depending on where it would be used, for instance on upper part of the walls, or in connection to architectural elements, such as niches and grooves. Also, the good preservation of organic materials revealed that thin, well chopped hay or grass layers were prepared and put on several brick courses during the building process. The layers may have something to do with either climate factors, for instance protecting the walls from heavy rain/sun, or imply several stages/longer interruptions when constructing the walls. These micro-biographical notices are perhaps subtle but add an extra dimension to our understanding of how and under what circumstances the buildings at CH were erected. The observations also demonstrate the importance of using the single context or stratigraphical method when deconstructing bigger building structures although they seem homogenously constructed at first sight.
However, one aspect that is easily forgotten when documenting according to the single context method which to its nature is entirely two-dimensional, is that buildings are architectural structures with an integral three-dimensional spatiality. In the following lines, I would like to say something very short about the potential of using 3D recording when analyzing the well preserved buildings at CH from a building archaeological point of view. I will not go further into which technology should be implemented because so many various tests are going on at the moment.
To begin with, 3D recording is, in my opinion, not only about capturing spatial aspects but also to seize anomalies in the physically visible materia. I am sure we all have noted the pronounced inclinations of many Neolithic walls on the site. It is actually very surprising that some of them have not yet collapsed! Since it’s hard to believe that the walls were intentionally built sloping, the causes of these metamorphoses are possibly a combination of erecting buildings over older middens and external factors such as seismic movements. The problem, as I see it in conjunction with the documentation process, is that most inclinations are hard to render in 2D visual representations, whether it is in plan, elevation or section. It is even difficult to interpret sloping on photos because you need to " twist and turn" the walls in order to examine the nature of the inclinations. As a consequence we don’t get the proper information about the 3D formations of the wall, and the reconstructions we produce tend to result in perfectly vertical walls without any shred of bulges or slopes. These kinds of representations are of course useful to give general picture of the Neolithic houses, interiors and spaces, and so on, but I imagine 3D modeling is just the right kind of visualization we need to be able to investigate the metamorphoses more closely in relation to other features, calculate strengths and gravitational forces, and thus open up for greater understanding of when and why the inclinations occurred. It should be added that with 3D modeling, we can also further explore how it actually might have been to live in interiors with inclining walls.
The reason why I constantly come back to issues concerning 3D documenting (i.e. digital photos, totalstation or laser scanning) is my belief that when 2D is solely used as a visualization mode, we have a tendency to alienate ourselves from the building remains. 2D documentations reproduce visualizations that can never be experienced in real life, in contrast to 3D which is capable of mediating the building remains from different user perspectives and views. I think this is a prerequisite to be able to talk about uses, re-uses and spatial experiences of interiors in the past. What I want to say is that through 3D visualization we are able to activate questions concerning spatialities, immaterialities and other aspects connected the Neolithic inhabitants’ perceptions of their buildings and homes. This topic might be a side-track to more urgent questions relating to pure documentation issues. But I would argue that this is an up-coming research field which the 3D technology actually enables us to work with more thoroughly.
Still, I am convinced it is important to have a critical approach to all new technologies. Digital methods or 3D representations have a tendency to seduce us; however, as we all know they are not the only "devices" in our toolbox. Hence, what we need to evaluate in greater depth is when a particular method or technique should be used instead of another, and how different methods can best be combined. The excavations at CH are in a dynamic process and I am sure all experiments and tests being made leads to more reflexive and conscious approaches.
Hope the lines made some sense. If you want to discuss these issues further, please don’t hesitate to contact me: gunhilderiksdotter[at]gmail.com |
