This article from Oriental
Rug Review, August/September 1990 (Vol. 10, No. 6) was a reaction to a controversial
publication by archaeologist James Mellaart. A few illustrations have been added. An
update, written two years later, is posted separately. I have posted these articles
now because references to the material appear occasionally in rug literature, and
newcomers to the field are inevitably fascinated, but unfamiliar with the issues.
|
HOME |
|
|
A Weaver's View
of the Çatal Hüyük Controversy
|
|
by Marla Mallett
|
It is logical to believe that
vestiges of deeply rooted prehistoric cult mythology appear in modern Anatolian kilim
imagery. Theories as unorthodox, however, as those presented in the new
Mellaart/Hirsch/Balpinar publication, The Goddess from Anatolia, 1989, must
endure close scrutiny of all the arguments and evidence. [1] Neither the work's hefty price tag nor its padding with archaeological
references and lessons in ancient history ensures credibility. The elegant prose of
supporters' reviews should certainly not secure automatic endorsements.
Fascinated by archaeological findings at Çatal Hüyük in south central Turkey, but
skeptical because of problems encountered in earlier articles, I was eager to see the new
book. It was a shock. I was stunned by stylistic inconsistencies between the Neolithic
wall paintings shown in photographs or scale copies, and the new group of 44
"reconstruction" drawings by James Mellaart. Here were elaborately detailed,
panoramic works said to be "reconstructed" from fragments, but with no verifying
photos. Here were stylistically garbled sketches displaying irreconcilable design
concepts. Here, placed alongside modern kilims, were purported copies of their Neolithic
counter-parts -- but with warp and weft directions jumbled. From my weaver's perspective,
questions of iconography, design diffusion, and historical continuity became incidental.
Basic issues needed attention first. Were the drawings credible? Could slit-tapestry
weaving actually have occurred in Neolithic Anatolia? Was there proof? Or indeed, any evidence
of such production?
In was enlightening to read Mellaart's excavation reports from the 1960s
[2] as well as other early writings.
Contradictions between those texts and the current work indicated more than a runaway
kilim theory and an overly fertile imagination at work. Technical and stylistic problems
now combined with incriminating disclosures to reveal what seemed to be careless, poorly
conceived fabrications -- possibly a deliberate hoax. |

Wall painting from Level III shrine, Çatal
Hüyük. (Anatolian Studies, Vol. XII, Plate XVI, a and XVI, b.)
|

Detail from new "reconstructed" wall
painting said to be from Shrine A.III, 11, Çatal Hüyük. James Mellaart. (The
Goddess from Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XIII, 7.)
|

Çatal Hüyük, building plan, level V, from
the Excavation Reports. (Anatolian Studies, Vol. XII, p.47)
|
|
|
|
The Basic Premise
|
|
The central problem in the current
controversy is Mellaart's presumption of slit-tapestry weave production in the
sixth and seventh millennia B.C. Since the discovery of simple burial fabrics at Çatal
Hüyük (on Levels VIB and VIA, c. 5980-5780 B.C.), we can speak with assurance of an
8,000-year-old Anatolian weaving tradition. An 8,000-year-old kilim tradition is
an entirely different matter and is untenable. The gulf between primitive and
sophisticated technology cannot be bridged simply by Mellaart's claim that some Çatal
Hüyük wall paintings are "obvious copies of slit-tapestry kilims." Yet his
unsupported premise, with serious flaws, has expanded to become more than hypothesis: the
current publication compares "kilim" designs then and now. With no firsthand
experience of textile processes, Mr. Mellaart has been swept away by his theories. Before
accepting his premise, a look at the realities of Neolithic weaving technology is
essential. |
|
|
|
Loom Problems
|
Notes appear at the end
of this page.
|
At Çatal Hüyük, only the most rudimentary
textile technology has been demonstrated. Mellaart argues for the presence of
warp-weighted looms, although he offers contradictory statements as to whether or not loom
weights were found. [3]
Technical details seen in simple burial fabrics from the site make the presence of that
loom type a reasonable guess -- but that loom in its most elementary form. |

Dunartepe, Kars, depiction
of warp-weighted loom.
C. 3000 B.C.
|
The most important
technological advance in weaving history -- the invention of heddles -- most likely
occurred several thousand years later in Anatolia. Mellaart has not addressed this matter.
Neither the warp-weighted loom shown in a pottery shard drawing from Dunartepe, Kars (c.
3,000 B.C.) nor an example from a third century A.D. Eskisehir gravestone have heddle
bars. [4] Nor does either
representation show the double rows of warp weights indicative of a slanting loom with
mechanical shedding. Mixed signals from finds at sites like Troy and Gordian keep open the
question of when the invention of heddles occurred. |
|
The Çatal Hüyük burial fabrics are
structures produced by extremely slow, tedious work. Weft twining and transverse soumak
wrapping use no shed in their manufacture; they employ no heddles. They are simple
techniques related to basketry. As for the plain-weave tabby cloths found, specialists
agree that before the invention of mechanical shedding, such fabrics were darned -- that
is, alternate sheds were laboriously picked by hand. Because twining is so inefficient for
cloth production, most cultures abandoned that technique after the invention of heddles.
The presence of twining in Çatal Hüyük graves indicates that the accompanying plain
weave fabrics were almost certainly darned. |
|
It is an enormous technological jump from
these primitive fabrics to the sophistication of large scale tapestries -- particularly
with warp-weighted looms involved. The authors apparently have failed to consider the
technical peculiarities and limitations of that loom type. Yet we are asked to believe
that today's complex central Anatolian kilim tradition developed within that unsuitable
technology. If we accept Mellaart's theory, we must believe that this tradition was later
transferred intact to artisans who used much superior, two-beam loom processes. To slit-
tapestry weavers these are preposterous notions. We cannot ignore the fundamental
relationships between loom, technique and product. Techniques (and designs) which are
simple and logical on one kind of loom can be terribly impractical on another. |
|
A major difficulty in any warp-weighted
weaving is the maintenance of proper warp spacing and continuous parallel orientation of
the warps. If this is a problem with continuous wefts, imagine the complications
with the discontinuous wefts of slit tapestry, when groups of warps are
continually separated from adjoining ones. Only elemental geometric patterns with
horizontal stripes and shallow diagonals are practical, unless the forms are dovetailed
or, better yet, interlocked. |
|
If wefts are even slightly eccentric,
weaving on a weighted warp easily becomes an impossible mess. Eccentric wefts absolutely require
strong warp tension and stationary warp placement. Under optimum conditions
(constant, perfect warp tension and alignment), the sidewise pull of curved or sloping
wefts often distorts warp yarns after a tapestry is removed from the loom. These
warps cannot be allowed to distort during the weaving process as they inevitably
would on a weighted warp. [5] |
|
It is important to understand that slack
tension during tapestry weaving results in a sleazy fabric. Unless slack or non-stationary
warps are widely spaced, it is difficult to produce a weft-faced structure. It is hard to
imagine loose, flimsy, weighted-warp tapestries hanging horizontally on Çatal Hüyük
walls as Mellaart's drawings suggest, since even the sturdiest slit-tapestry kilims are
vulnerable structures when hung horizontally. |
|
Even the basic processes of slit tapestry
are impractical for a weighted warp. The weaver, working downward from above, must
continually push wefts upward. Each individual weft yarn not in use hangs freely where it
can tangle with loose warps. Each dangling weft tends to pull its last completed pick
downward. In other words, completed sections can continually unravel. With two-beam
vertical or horizontal looms these problems do not occur. |
|
When all of the technical problems are
considered, it is impossible to believe that Central Anatolia's rich tapestry
tradition developed on simple weighted warps with no mechanical shedding -- the technology
presumably present in Neolithic Anatolia. |
|
|
The Fibers
|
|
There has been much discussion of the
carbonized textile fibers from Çatal Hüyük burials. Mellaart summarizes various points
of view in the new publication but glosses over recent re-examinations of the fabrics.
With scanning electron microscope technology, those fibers Burnham and Helbaek previously
thought might be wool have now been identified as bast fibers, probably flax. [6]
Thus we still lack evidence that the wool
yarns necessary for tapestry were present at Çatal Hüyük in 6,000 B.C. |
|
|
|
|
The Plaster
"Impressions"
|
|
Mellaart has stated unequivocally that the
late Hans Helbaek "proved the existence of slit-tapestry weaving at Çatal
Hüyük." Mellaart says: |
|
These walls yielded another clue in the
form of imprints in the once damp plaster, of slit-tapestry weave, where someone had
leaned against the wall. First discovered by Hans Helbaek in 1962, such impressions have
since been recognized in well over a dozen instances. [7] |
|
|
Mellaart, however, fails to document this
claim. He provides no photos, nor are such imprints mentioned in any of the original
excavation reports. He also fails to state how he concluded that the imprints were made by
tapestries.
In Helbaek's own 1962 Archaeology report on Çatal Hüyük textiles, there are no
references to such imprints. [8]
He uses the same photos of burial wrappings as Burnham and Mellaart. [9]
Helbaek also shows the remains of rush
matting and basketry, and he includes a clay impression of a coiled grass basket. But
there is no mention anywhere of his having discovered tapestry impressions in plaster.
Curiously, after his emphatic statements, Mr. Mellaart backtracks to say: |
|
None of the imprints was distinct enough to
allow us to observe any significant pattern, so the onus probandi rests on our
knowledge of slit-tapestry weaving and on our interpretations of "geometric"
wall-paintings as depictions of actual kilims. [10] |
|
|
Certainly the burden of proof is on Mr.
Mellaart. |
|
|
The "Peg Hole"
Evidence
|
|
In 1984, Mellaart stated: "In the more
opulent shrines there were stout peg holes for hangings on the walls, probably real kilims
which the bulk of the population copied in paint." [11] In The Goddess from Anatolia, Mr. Mellaart restates this idea,
telling of "peg-holes containing the remains of burned wooden pegs high up on the
walls in a number of shrines." Altogether he cites four shrines as examples: E.VI,
14; VII, 8; E.VI, 31; and E.VI, 10. [12]
Mellaart's notations in the original excavation reports on these
buildings, however, create a different impression. |
|
The Shrine E.VI, 14 report
notes only "a large bull's head fixed on three pegs into the wall." [13]
The Shrine VII, 8 report mentions a group of three peg holes in the plaster wall beside a
bull relief carving. The excavation report drawing shows these holes to be about two feet
above the floor -- hardly a position suitable for a textile hanging. [14]
In the Shrine E.VI, 31 report, Mellaart describes a plaster
"goddess" relief and says "several holes above the head indicate the
sockets for applied headgear or the pegs for a hanging cloth covering the figure of the
goddess from the gaze of the profane." [15] A look at the drawing (below) shows that this "goddess," modeled
in deep relief on a recessed wall, could much more easily have been covered by a hanging
suspended from the projecting wall just above it. A kilim placed as he suggests would
certainly have bulged, and with holes so closely spaced, it would have been narrow indeed,
covering only a portion of the relief. A similar "goddess," with no peg holes,
appears on the adjoining wall. |

Excavation Report drawing of
Shrine VII, 8. Çatal Hüyük.
(Anatolian Studies, Vol. XIV,
p. 63.)
|

|
Excavation Report drawing of
Shrine E.VI,10. Çatal Hüyük.
(Anatolian Studies, XIV, p. 48)
|
Mellaart's 1963 description of Shrine E.VI,
10 provides his only reference in the original excavation reports to actual rows of peg
holes. [16]
He says "A row
of holes on the main panel (west) of the north wall suggests that there may have been a
textile hanging on the wall." He adds that "another row over the lowest panel
suggests another." But since Mellaart has recently emphasized that peg holes for
hangings were found only in opulent shrines while painted imitations occurred in other
buildings, it is surprising to read in his 1964 report of continued work on this important
shrine a reference to "panels of red paint and some fragmentary geometric
designs." [17]
He tells
also of finding "scars of broken off animal heads and the lower jaw of a wild
boar." These objects seem irrelevant until we read of Shrine E.VI, 8 decorations from
the same excavation level. There Mellaart notes a row of boar mandibles "stuck in
holes made through some earlier forms of decoration in the form of wall paintings."
These boar mandibles were covered with molded plaster "breast" forms. [18] Obviously, rows of holes could do more
than hold pegs for supporting textiles. |

Excavation Report drawing of
Shrine E.VI, 8. Çatal Hüyük.
(Anatolian Studies, Vol. XIII,
p. 63.)
|
Clearly, the presence of a few holes in
Çatal Hüyük's plastered walls does not constitute substantive evidence of kilim weaving
in the sixth or seventh millennium B.C. The significance of "peg holes" has been
misrepresented. |
|
|
|
|
The Photographed Wall
Paintings
|
|
Without concrete evidence, Mellaart's
presumption of an 8,000-year-old Anatolian kilim tradition rests solely on his perception
that some Neolithic painters at Çatal Hüyük copied designs from kilims. This, I think,
is a misconception. |
|
There are 30 photographs of painted walls in
the new publication, The Goddess from Anatolia; all of these, plus a great
many more, are included in the original excavation reports published by the British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. [19]
I urge anyone who wishes a clear view of this topic to read those
reports. |
|
An overview of the entire group of
painted walls is essential for a balanced view. The paintings display two general
approaches to wall ornamentation. Some show lively, naturalistic, narrative scenes with
human figures and animals, while others consist of non-objective geometric forms: circles,
diamonds, triangles, linear net work, spirals, chevrons, dots, groups of short linear
markings, honeycombs with oval openings, quatrefoils, and horizontal/vertical grids. Hand
print representations also appear frequently as a repetitive motif. In the most complex
non-objective compositions, motifs are typically scattered about: they are not aligned in
the regular fashion of woven patterning. Except for one or two elemental triangular or
diamond repeat patterns, resemblances to kilim ornamentation are non-existent. Most of the
designs, including the simple grids, could not be produced in slit tapestry. Some are
related to basketry or, in two or three instances, perhaps, to felt patterning, while
others appear on clay stamps or painted on modeled animal heads. Yet, nearly all of the
wall paintings with geometric motifs are identified by Mr. Mellaart in the original
reports as "kilim" designs. |
Excavation
Report drawing of wall painting from Shrine A.III,8.
Çatal Hüyük. (Anatolian Studies, XIII, Plate IV, a)
|
 |
|
The painting above is an example. Mellaart
refers to this attractive painting in 1963 by saying: "The composition of the design
leaves little doubt that what we see here is meant to be a Neolithic kilim." From
then on he refers to "the painting of the kilim." When analyzed, however, there
is nothing kilim-like about the pattern. The all-over parallel series of close, steep
diagonal lines do not appear in slit-tapestry weavings; the structure would be impossibly
weak. Nor do similar illusions of overlapping forms appear in Anatolian kilims. A more
logical guess is that the motif was inspired by simple basket or rush mat interlacings.
[20] |
Excavation
Report drawings of wall painting from Shrine E.VI A, 50. Çatal Hüyük. (Anatolian
Studies, XIV, Plate 1, b, and below, p. 43.)
|
 |
 |
The drawing above shows a painted design
also referred to repeatedly in the excavation reports as a "kilim pattern." Why?
Its background of diagonal, linear, curving brick-like details is the antithesis of
tapestry-woven patterning. Nor is the top border, with its repeated half circles, a
tapestry weaver's motif. It is just as unreasonable to call the large dark,
curvilinear forms kilim motifs. Is this wall painting supposedly a "textile
copy" then, simply because it has ornamented vertical bands? |
|
When interpreting non-figurative paintings
such as these, it is essential to consider their context. At Çatal Hüyük we find
complex sets of interior architectural features: elaborate systems of horizontal and
vertical panels and recesses, vertical and horizontal ribs, engaged posts and pilasters,
platforms, curbs, benches, and spectacular "bull pillars." Red paint or
red-painted grooves are used extensively to emphasize these architectural features, as
well as roof beams and doorways. Occasionally plastered wood posts are painted with simple
geometric patterning, as in the drawing below. |
Excavation
Report drawing of Shrine E.VI, 44. Çatal Hüyük.
(Anatolian Studies, XIV, p. 44.)
|
 |

Excavation Report drawing of ShrineVII.9.
Çatal Hüyük.
(Anatolian Studies, XIV, p. 53)
|
Considered in this context, we need not
conclude that every painting with borders or bands is a kilim imitation, as does Mr.
Mellaart. In the context of carefully delineated architectural spaces, we can view painted
geometric divisions, ornamented bands, and borders differently. The earlier painting (with
curving brick-like design) shows vertical, geometric bands, some with bull's horns
projecting from them. These features seem merely two-dimensional painted versions of the
engaged columns and projecting animal heads seen in other shrines -- a logical extension
of major three-dimensional elements. They are further ornamental subdivisions of the
architectural space. |
|
|
The
Questionable "Reconstructions"
|
James Mellaart's newest
"evidence" in support of an 8,000-year-old Anatolian kilim tradition consists of
44 sketched "reconstructions" of fragmented paintings. These sketches raise
innumerable questions. Some designs he infers to be copies of woven hangings by placing
them alongside modern kilims in The Goddess from Anatolia. The
"evidence" is unconvincing. |
|
Although 48 plates illustrate the new
"reconstructions," four of these are details, but they are not identified as
such. [21]
Three are shown with
the negatives flipped. Mellaart is presenting this group of elaborate new
"reconstructions" just now, some 25 years after the excavations ended,
explaining that in some cases he only belatedly noticed resemblances to modern kilims. As
already noted, however, innumerable times in the excavation reports from 1962 through 1966
he referred to Çatal Hüyük wall decorations as "kilim paintings," "kilim
copies," "kilim designs," or works "reminiscent of Anatolian
kilims." |
|
Although some complete wall paintings from
Çatal Hüyük were dismantled and moved to the Ankara Archaeological Museum, most of the
intact paintings were photographed (and published in the reports), then destroyed as
excavations proceeded to lower levels of the mound. The fragmented remains of others are
the focus of the current controversy: paintings not illustrated in the original
reports. It is unclear just how these painted fragments were recorded during the
excavations. We have seen neither a single detail photo of them nor original, unaltered
tracings or drawings by excavation team artists. If scale copy drawings of these fragments
were indeed made on the site, their present location has not been disclosed. How then, are
we to judge the veracity of Mellaart's new "reconstructions"? We have, in fact,
no tangible evidence of the paintings' existence. Likewise, in 1984, when Mellaart's first
"elibelinde" figures, "bird carriers" and other such motifs were
published by Frauenknecht in Early Turkish Tapestries, no supporting photos were
provided for verification. [22] |
|
In contrast, the Çatal Hüyük excavation
reports from the early 1960s show actual scale copies of a few extremely fragmented
paintings. Shrine IV, 1, for example, is described as being in terrible condition, with
preservation of its paintings "virtually impossible." The fragments are
nonetheless described fully; three drawings made on the site are included in the
excavation report, along with one photo detail and a tracing. [23]
Why have we been shown nothing similar to substantiate
Mellaart's new "reconstructions"? There
are occasional written references to indecipherable wall paintings in the original
excavation reports. Yet, in only two or three instances do these references occur in
descriptions of buildings for which Mellaart has now made sketches. The rest of the group
of 44 fragmentary paintings newly "reconstructed" by Mellaart are mentioned
nowhere -- not even in shrine descriptions where they should logically be noted. |

Scale copy from the Excavation Reports of a
fragmented wall painting in Shrine IV, 1. Çatal Hüyük. By A. L. Stockdale.
(Anatolian Studies, XII, Plate
XIII, a.)
|
|
|
|
Specific Problems
|
 |
I would like to cite a few
specific problems I encountered when searching the excavation reports for descriptions of
the fragmented works Mellaart has now "reconstructed."
In the 1963 report, Mellaart describes the paintings of Shrine A.III, 8 in detail.
[24] One pattern from that shrine (the
so-called "kilim design") we have already seen. In his report, Mr. Mellaart
describes all four shrine walls, noting the location of each painted layer and telling us
where two, three or four layers of painting were present. He illustrates all four phases
of painting found in the shrine. The second photo at the left shows earlier painted
designs underlying the so-called "kilim" pattern.
But now, in The Goddess from Anatolia, we find a new detailed
"reconstruction" of yet another "kilim" painting purported to be from
the same interior (below). [25]
Where, with all of the building's surfaces and layers already accounted for, can we find
space for this new painting? Why did neither a photo nor a scale copy of it appear in 1963
along with the other fragmented works? Moreover, how could this painting, with its much
more rigid style, fit into the A.III, 8 scheme? Technical problems appear in this supposed
"kilim" copy as well; I will discuss these later. |

Excavation Report drawings of two wall
paintings from Shrine A.111, 8. Çatal Hüyük. (Anatolian
Studies, XIII, Plates IV,a and IV,b.)
|
"Reconstructed"
wall painting said to be from Shrine A.III, 8.
J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate V, 4.)
|
 |
|
|
 |
A more perplexing question concerns six important new "reconstructed" paintings,
all supposedly from Shrine A.III, 11 and all illustrated in The Goddess from Anatolia:
Plate XVII, 1; Plate XVII, 2; Plate VIII, 13; Plate XV, 6;
Plate XVIII, 1; and Plate XIX, 1. Two are monumental works showing
"mountain shrines and cave-like niches with goddesses and their symbols of
power." Each is supposedly 5.5 meters in length (one shown lower left, the other
below). Plate XVII, 1 (top left) shows the much touted "goddesses of fertility in
vertical stepped niches," and XIX, 1, surprising "vertical multiple niches with
bulls' heads." |

Two "reconstructed" wall paintings
said to be from Shrine A.III, 11.
J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plates XVIII, 1 and XVII, 2.)
|
|

|
One of two monumental (5.5
meters) "reconstructed" wall paintings said to be from Shrine
A.111, 11 (detail). J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate
XVII, 1.)
|
|

Hunting scene that was shown in the Excavation
Reports as the surviving painting in building A.111, 11. Çatal Hüyük. (Anatolian
Studies, Vol. XIII, 1963, Plate V.a.)
|
These are among the most important new
"reconstructions" in The Goddess from Anatolia, yet in his 1963
excavation report on this shrine, Mellaart does not mention fragments of any such
paintings. Instead, he merely says that the north wall at one time had been decorated with
a hunting scene of which only a small part had survived, below a geometric pattern in
black on white, resembling the kilim in the second shrine which is surrounded by an orange
painted niche" (the "kilim" in the second shrine is the basketry-like
painting from Shrine A.111, 8). His initial report devotes only one short paragraph to
this shrine and its two small sequential surviving fragments; it illustrates the small
hunting scene fragment. [26]
But
where are the remnants that formed the basis for six new extensive and finely detailed
"reconstructions," including those shown above? If Mr. Mellaart and his team had
laboriously cleaned and recorded these panoramic paintings, why would he not have
mentioned them in this 1963 excavation report description? |
|
|

Excavation Report drawing of Shrine E.VIB, 31.
Çatal Hüyük.
(Anatolian Studies, XIV, p. 48.)
|
A
"reconstructed" painting purported to be from Shrine E.VIB, 31 presents another
puzzle. The west and south walls of this building we have already seen. The 1964
excavation report discusses the interior at great length, describing it as "one of
the best preserved of Level VIB." [27] Mellaart says in his report that although both the shrine's "north
and the greatest part of the east wall are destroyed, the rest stands to a height of 6
feet." He subsequently describes all of the extant surfaces and their large plaster
reliefs. He even notes one surface left undecorated: "The next panel on the south
wall carried the diagonal impression of the wooden ladder leading to the roof, so no space
was available for a relief here." Noting the missing east wall to the left of a
plaster relief, he continues: "Nor do we have any indication of what might have been
represented on the next central panel (restored as blank) which was destroyed right down
to the lower red-painted dado above the platform." With every suitable wall space
either covered with sculpted reliefs or missing, it is certainly surprising to find a
newly "reconstructed" painting for this shrine (Plate XI, 1) in
The Goddess
from Anatolia.
We should remember, as well, that this building, E.VIB, 31, was one of two shrines
categorized as so "opulent" that it had peg holes for "real kilims"
instead of wall paintings imitating kilims. (Here there were peg holes over the head of
one "goddess" relief.) Mr. Mellaart must have temporarily forgotten his
"peg-hole" argument when "reconstructing" a new painting for this
shrine. |

"Reconstructed" painting said to be
from Shrine E.VIB, 31.
J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XI, 1.)
|
|
|
Our credulity is even further
strained when we try to reconcile Mellaart's original discussion of Shrine A.II, 1 with
material in The Goddess from Anatolia. In his 1963 excavation report he
writes, "At the moment this is the latest building at Çatal Hüyük that may be considered a
shrine. It lacks, however, the wall-paintings with which such buildings are
frequently decorated in the lower levels of this site. So far, no trace of any
painting, whether geometric or figural, has been found at Çatal Hüyük later than Level
III." [28]
Shrine A.II, 1 is on Level II, which is, of course, later
than Level III. How astonishing it is after reading Mr. Mellaart's own words, "It
lacks...wall paintings," to find three new "reconstructed" paintings from
this shrine in The Goddess from Anatolia: Plate XI, 8; Plate XI, 9; and
Plate XVII, 12. [29]
From
where did they come? |
 |
 |
 |
|
"Reconstructed"
paintings said to
be from Shrine A.II, 1. J. Mellaart.
(The Goddess From Anotalia, Vol. 1,
Plate XI, 8, Plate XI, 9 , and Plate XVII.)
|
|
|

Drawing said to be a "scale
copy" of a painting from building VI, 10. J. Mellaart.
(The Goddess From
Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate II, 14.)
|
Another description discloses comparable
evidence of apparent fabrication. Mr. Mellaart says in his 1966 report,
"Building VII, 10
may have been a house as no traces of wall paintings or reliefs were found."
[30] What are we to think, then, about the
"yurt-like structure" from this building, depicted in The Goddess From
Anatolia (Plate II, 14)? We can dismiss the possibility of a numerical error, since
the text contains further references to this yurt. In any case, such a surprising subject
-- a round lattice tent -- should have elicited comments whenever and wherever it was
discovered. But no mention of such a painting occurs in any of the excavation reports,
from 1962 through 1966. The author identifies this drawing in The Goddess from
Anatolia as a "scale copy." This should indicate that it was made at the
excavation site from a relatively intact painting, not "reconstructed" years
later. Is our author's yurt a mirage? |
|
|
It is a strange experience to reread Mr.
Mellaart's Goddess text after discovering the discrepancies I have noted above.
Lengthy descriptions of possibly non-existent works are mind boggling. Doubts immediately
surface. But with careful attention, the iconographic descriptions assume a life of their
own. A complete, fantastic mythological pantheon is established. Then we notice that,
conveniently, nothing important is missing from the new "reconstructions" Every
stalactite cave is filled with individualized detail. Myriad goddess manifestations and a
plethora of associated creatures infest the complex panoramas. Everything is there, from
bees buzzing around a goddess' beehive hairdo, to winged phalluses, to ibex hoof prints in
the snow. A fertile imagination was surely required to produce this body of work, both
written and visual.
Mr. Mellaart has told us that "the appalling state of preservation of the paintings,
or rather the fragments thereof, meant that many years were needed for their
assemblage." But in no instance have we been told the extent of the
fragments from which the new "reconstructions" were extrapolated. Were these
"fragments" small details or scattered markings? Are the extensive and detailed
designs in The Goddess from Anatolia constructed from paintings Mellaart
described once in the reports as only "small specks of paint"? Or "splodges
of white and red paint"? Were the paintings more or less fragmentary
than that minimal excavation report scale copy we saw earlier? Either way, problems
are indicated. |
|
Different individuals inevitably interpret
fragmented or indistinct patterning in diverse ways. That is, of course, why photos are so
important. With the passage of time, even Mr. Mellaart's own interpretations of poorly
preserved Çatal Hüyük paintings seem to have changed, sometimes dramatically. For
example, in 1967 Mellaart characterized building E.VI, 34 as a "House" and its
painted subject matter as "Bird." By 1989 the "House" had become a
"Shrine" and the painting a "Row of women fishing": four nubile
figures with nets above two angular, fish-filled streams and a row of small seated figures
(Plate IX, 3 in The Goddess from Anatolia). We should expect subjectivity in
reconstructions; that is acceptable when we are given adequate means of judging their
accuracy for ourselves. But the transformation of birds into fisherwomen requires too
great a leap of faith. |

"Reconstructed" wall painting said to
be from building E.VI, 34.
J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate IX, 3.)
|
Unfortunately, Mr. Mellaart provides no way
for the viewer to judge either the integrity or logic of his reconstructions. His sketches
are neither conventional archaeological reconstructions nor clever contrivances. They even
omit dimensions, leading easily to misinterpretations of scale. Most importantly, they fail
to show what actually remained of each painting. While many have ragged areas left
blank, is this not for effect? While some drawings indicate missing areas with few dotted
lines or lighter color values, it this not again contrived? Why do missing segments seem
always to occur at pattern edges or in sections of easily extended pattern repeats? And
why, if all clearly defined areas had actually been present in the fragmented wall
paintings, was there need for delaying their presentation 25 years? I believe it important
for every person studying Mellaart's material to carefully consider the manner in which
the current "reconstructions" are drawn and to reflect upon what that implies. |
|
Surely Mr. Mellaart's current work cannot be
given serious attention unless photographs or original, unaltered scale copies by
excavation team artists are produced for others to analyze. I believe that most of the
skepticism and antagonism with which The Goddess from Anatolia has been met
derives from Mellaart's cavalier presentation of unsupported and undocumented materials. I
believe the animosity results less from disagreements over iconography, design diffusion,
or issues of historical continuity than from questions of the author's objectivity,
accuracy, and honesty in producing evidence. Surely no professional archaeological journal
would publish "reconstructions" like those in Mellaart's current work, without
supporting photographs, scale copies, or other verification. Why should textile
scholarship require less? |
|
|
|
|
Stylistic and Conceptual
Problems
|

Wall painting from Shrine F.V, 1.
Çatal Hüyük. Photograph and scale copy. (The Goddess From Anatolia,
Vol. 1, Plate II, 5 and Plate II, 7.)
|
Although matters of
style are often subjective, in the current controversy they are remarkably clear cut and
revealing. All but the simplest one or two Çatal Hüyük wall designs photographed (some
geometric, some naturalistic) are distinctly un-kilim-like. On the other hand, most of the
new "reconstructions" appear to connect in some way with modern kilims. Is this
pure chance? With few exceptions, the new "reconstructions" differ dramatically
in character from the actual painted walls or their scale copies. But these two groups
must be compared stylistically in their entirety. Selected examples, viewed separately,
give a false picture.
When comparing the two groups, even an untrained eye should find the
"reconstructions" more rigidly organized, cluttered, clumsy and contrived. Many
of the "reconstructed" designs are repetitive or symmetrical combinations of
incongruous motifs: geometric and amorphous forms, stylized and naturalistic figures. They
have few blank spaces, but instead a multitude of filler motifs. Repeat motifs are lined
up and neatly squeezed into bands, borders, lattices, grids or niches. There are
mirror-image designs with conventionalized human figures and animals as part of the repeat
patterning -- even figures upended for the sake of symmetrical "kilim-like"
composition. Some individual drawings are stylistically garbled. The striking simplicity
and naturalness of the actual wall paintings is indeed difficult to find in the new
"reconstructions."
There are even color problems in the new "reconstructions." In his
1967 book, Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, Mellaart lists colors
found in the paintings uncovered during the first three excavation seasons. He qualifies
his list, however, by noting that "blue occurs only once": a bright, blue
azurite. He corroborates his observation when, in discussing a large bull painted blue, he
notes, "This is the only case of the use of blue paint on walls so far." [31] Mellaart must have later forgotten
this color circumscription, however, since blues appear in most of the Goddess color
"reconstructions." By my count blues occur in at least 16
"reconstructions" that supposedly are from buildings Mellaart had already
excavated during those first three seasons. Eleven of these particular paintings are not
accounted for on the 1967 book's chart of shrine features, and so are doubly suspect. It
is interesting to note how conveniently blues appear in several "kilim-like"
drawings alongside modern kilims with blues in The Goddess from Anatolia. |

"Reconstructed" wall painting said to
be from E. VIB, 3. J. Mellaart.
(The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate IX, 2.)
|
|
Although my major concerns are with design,
style, and weaving technology, I suggest that interested readers compare ideational
content of the actual paintings (or scale copies) with that of the recent
"reconstructions." The subject matter is decidedly different. There are
conflicts, as well between Mellaart's early comments about painted subjects and the images
which are now appearing. I will cite just two examples. First, goddess figures appear
repeatedly in Çatal Hüyük plaster wall reliefs and small marble or clay sculptures but
rarely in the photographed wall paintings, in fact, only twice. Mellaart speaks of this in
his 1967 publication. [32] Yet,
at least 25 of Mr. Mellaart's new "reconstructions" show goddesses or other
deities as the prime motif. Here they appear in a full range of manifestations: roly-poly
earth mothers, toothpick-slim bikini-clad maidens, [33]
amorphous pairs of seated blobs, and cookie-cutter birth symbol figures. |
|
A second conflict
is apparent in Mellaart's 1967 comment, "vultures occur only in levels VIII and
VII." [34]
A look at the Goddess
"reconstructions" shows, however, that in the 22 intervening years a
plentiful supply of vultures has materialized -- nearly all in paintings supposedly from later
shrines, levels VI through II. For example, one much touted motif, a "deity
holding two vultures" (or "bird carrier"), is from one of the panoramic
paintings (Fig. 9) allegedly from Shrine A.III, 11. This detail, from an already
suspicious work, is the basis for Mr. Mellaart's argument that a common modern kilim
pattern of geometricized carnations should be turned upside down and reinterpreted as
"deities with vultures."
With obvious discrepancies in design, style, concept, and even subject matter, how can we
fail to raise questions of credibility? |

Detail of "reconstructed" wall
painting said to be from Shrine A3, 11. J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia,
Vol. 1, Plate XIII. )
|

Kilim from The Kastamonu area of Anatolia. (The
Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XIII, 8.)
|
|
|
Structural
Problems in the "Reconstructions"
|
It is difficult, indeed, to believe that
some of the Goddess "reconstructions" were not produced with a kilim
book at the artist's elbow. Ridiculous problems occur in some of the sketches, however.
The image below is one example. It consists of a long rectangular pattern with
"fringe" drawn at two ends. The repetitive design of vultures displays
similarities to distinctive groups of kilims from the Eskisehir region. Mr. Mellaart's
bird designs, however, are shown with a warp-wise orientation. Only if the birds were
turned 90 degrees could such a motif be woven in slit tapestry. It is an unlikely
Neolithic wall painter's error; the supposed Çatal Hüyük artist simply could not have
been imitating a woven hanging. If Mr. Mellaart was trying to produce such an imitation in
his "reconstruction," he failed. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
"Reconstructed"
wall painting said to be from Shrine E.V, 9 and a kilim from Seyitgazi/Eskishehir region
with "bird" design. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate XIV.)
|
|
|
Ludicrous variations on the same problem
occur with several parmakli ("finger") kilim design motifs. In Plate
VII, 1 the "fingers" run in a warp-wise direction -- impossible for slit
tapestry (at the right). In Plate IX, 12 the parmakli elements are shown properly
weft-wise in end borders but, in this example, improperly warp-wise in the field. Exactly
the reverse occurs in Plate XVII, 7. How could these be accurately sketched
reconstructions of paintings the author claims as kilim copies? Several other drawings show kilim motifs in disarray, with warp
and weft directions confused. Two examples are Goddess Plates XVII, 3 and 4. The
formats look remarkably kilim-like at first glance, but several of the elements could not
be produced in slit tapestry. Similar problems occur in a great many of the sketches;
warp-wise straight lines are too long or points of stress are staggered insufficiently.
Examples with such problems are Plates XIV, 1; XV, 12; XVII, 11; XVII, 12; and
IV, 9. Warp and weft are confused even in the extremely simple saw-toothed rhombs of the
Plate VI, 3 "reconstruction" drawing, since we must assume the longer dimension
indicates warp direction. It would not be woven in slit tapestry as drawn. It is a simple
but foolish and revealing error. |

"Reconstructed" wall painting said to
be from Shrine E.VIII, 1.
J. Mellaart. (The Goddess From Anatolia, Vol. 1, Plate VII, 1.)
|
The authors suggest with the inclusion of
the "vertical niches with bulls' heads" design of Plate XIX, 1 that Çatal
Hüyük inhabitants also must be credited with the format for distinctive modern Kutahya
and Keçimuhsine cicims. Were Çatal Hüyük artisans brocade weavers too? The motif
presents such formidable problems for slit tapestry it is most unlikely to have developed
within that structure. The curious omission of any reference to this painting (along with
five others) in the original Shrine A.III, 11 report makes this sketch doubly suspect. |
|
|
|
|
The Dorak Affair
|

The so-called "Dorak kilim."
J.Mellaart.
(The Goddess From
Anatolia, Vol. III, p.100)
|
The current controversy is not the first
instance in which James Mellaart has offered flimsy evidence as the sole "proof"
of revolutionary archaeological findings. In the mysterious Dorak Affair, questions of
credibility were debated in Turkey and elsewhere over many years -- without resolution.
[35] Mellaart claims to have uncovered a
cache of spectacular royal treasures (c. 2500 B.C.?) in a young woman's Izmir home in
1958, along with archaeological notes and a textile sketch -- a drawing of an excavator's
drawing of a carbonized rug which supposedly had disintegrated after it was unearthed. A
few months later, Mellaart published drawings of the objects in a London newspaper. In the
meantime, however, all of the artifacts and their owner vanished.
As for the alleged textile, Mellaart tells us it had pattern and color "well enough
preserved to be recorded" but was so decayed it might have been either a
"kilim" or "coloured felt." He says, "I prefer the kilim
interpretation." [36]
In
fact, Mellaart's colored design, published by Seyton Lloyd, is too linear for tapestry. [37]
The relevant aspect of this episode is, of course, Mellaart's attempt to establish a
milestone in textile history -- a 4,500-year-old kilim -- on the basis of nothing
tangible. A sketch of a sketch is shaky evidence at best, if evidence at all. The
parallels are obvious between this case and Mellaart's current efforts to establish an
8,000-year-old kilim-weaving tradition in Anatolia.
It is amusing that a black and white line drawing representing the alleged carbonized
Dorak textile in The Goddess from Anatolia (Vol. III, Fig. XXVII, No. 3, and at
the left here), now a sketch-of-a-sketch-of-a-sketch, has its own new and bizarre
problems. It actually shows as missing nearly all of the parts which are present
in Mellaart's color drawing of the same object, and vice versa. |
|
|
The Clay Plaques
|
|
Is is astonishing
that now, after presenting his controversial Goddess "reconstructions,"
Mellaart has come forth with yet another set of undocumented drawings. This
time, clay plaques are conveniently surfacing 25 years after excavations were halted at
Çatal Hüyük. At least drawings of clay plaques. They show looms, no less! One
in modern perspective too! But clay plaques are tangible, unlike flaky wall
paintings which can dissolve or blow away. Clay plaques he must produce -- if, in fact,
they exist.
A recent Hali account of these plaques includes discrepancies, as it claims these
much earlier objects to be from "the 11th millennium," "ca. 9750
B.C.," then identifies them in captions as from "level 11." [38]
Radio carbon dates place Çatal Hüyük
Levels 10 through 2 between ca. 6500 and 5700 B.C., while Mellaart dates Levels 13 through
11 to the first half of the 7th millennium -- between 7000 and 6500 B.C.
But when could these enigmatic clay objects have been unearthed? They supposedly
came from a deep sounding cut through the Çatal Hüyük mound to a late Upper Paleolithic
stratum. The 1964 excavation report, however, which describes the sounding sunk under Room
X, 8 during the last few days of the 1963 season, clearly states that the team found
"no pottery or artifacts made of clay."
[39]
The deep sounding planned for the next season (1965) never was finished, but was given up
because of excavation crew and staff problems summarized by Mellaart as "intrigues
directed against us and our lady representative." In the course of the scandal, the
entire work crew deserted the dig. Mellaart explains all of this in the 1966 report and
says that "the primary goal of the expedition, a deep sounding into the earliest
levels of the mound, had to be abandoned for lack of manpower." [40]
In this report, Mellaart tells us that
his team was only able to "push down the sounding through successive levels ending
with Level XII at the end of the season." [41]
He briefly describes the pottery shards found, but definitely makes no
references in the reports to remarkable clay plaques depicting looms -- of any age. Since
that time, there have been no excavations at Çatal Hüyük.
[Note: Work resumed at the site
27 years later--in 1993--with a different
crew.] |
 |

Drawings of "clay plaques" said to be
from a deep sounding at Çatal Hüyük. J. Mellaart. (Mellaart, "The earliest
Representations of the Goddess of Anatolia and her Entourage," Anatolische
Kelims: Die Vorträge, Basel, 1990, p. 35.
|
|
|
|
We do not know when the first
rudimentary kilims might have appeared in Anatolia, but they have not been established as
part of the Çatal Hüyük milieu. The accumulated evidence strongly suggests that many,
if not all, of James Mellaart's recent wall painting "reconstructions" are
based, at best, on wishful thinking. Surely the rug community cannot continue to swallow
such fantasies while professing an interest in scholarship. That remnants of early cult symbolism should appear in modern
kilims is a reasonable notion. The idea is incredible, though, that a small group (or
groups) of fantastically talented weavers, with inappropriate equipment, could create such
a wide ranging, stylistically diverse repertoire of kilim images -- slit-tapestry motifs
and even design formats by 6,000 B.C. It is equally amazing that such creativity
should evaporate over the next 8,000 years. Mr. Mellaart's extrapolations infer that
stagnation set in millennia ago, with little artistic evolution since. To adopt this view,
with only his sketches as evidence, is a disservice to the creators of the lively,
vigorous, and vibrant kilims we admire today. The best of these works reflect a viable,
expanding tradition, not an inert and stagnant culture.
The fascinating Çatal Hüyük archaeological discoveries have obviously fired our
imaginations; we want more and more from that spectacular site. It seems tragic that
important findings are being sunk in a quagmire of misrepresentations and probable
fabrications. |
|
* * * * * * *
|
|
Work at the
fascinating Çatal Hüyük site in central Anatolia has now been resumed by a new
archaeological crew led by Ian Hodder. Reports on the work are posted at
www.catalhoyuk.com
In January 1993 I published an article updating the controversy over the Mellaart
reconstructions. It includes a consideration of Mellaart's rebuttal, as well as
responses from the textile and archaeological communities. For that article, go to:
|
|
The Goddess from Anatolia:
An Updated View of the Çatal Hüyük Controversy |
|
|
|
Notes
|
1.
|
Mellaart, James: Hirsch,
Udo; and Balpinar, Belkis, The Goddess from Anatolia, Milan, 1989.
|
2.
|
Mellaart, James,
"Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1961, First Preliminary Report," in Anatolian
Studies, XII, 1962, pp. 41-65
Mellaart, James, "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962, Second Preliminary
Report," in Anatolian Studies, XIII, 1963, pp. 43-103.
Mellaart, James, "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963, Third Preliminary
Report," in Anatolian Studies, XIV, 1964, pp. 39-120.
Mellaart, James, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1965, Fourth Preliminary Report," in Anatolian
Studies, XVI, 1966, pp. 165-191.
|
3.
|
In 1962
Mellaart claimed that spindle-whorls and loom weights were found at the Çatal Hüyük
site. Now he claims they were not. See Mellaart, Anatolian Studies, XII, p. 56;
Mellaart, "The beginnings of Mural Painting," in Archaeology, XV, No.
1, Spring 1962, p. 11; and Mellaart, 1989, Vol. 11, p. 7.
|
4.
|
Marachal, Andrea, "The
Riddle of Çatal Hüyük," in Hali 26, 1985, p. 11, Fig. 7; and Hirsch, Udo,
"A contribution to the study of Anatolian tribal groups and their kilims," in
Eskenazi, Kilim anatolici, Milan, 1984, p. 31, Fig. 20
|
5.
|
Udo Hirsch seems to
misunderstand tapestry weave problems. He "presumes" curved-weft techniques (and
thus the more naturalistic patterns possible) developed on the warp-weighted loom. It is
an ill-founded presumption but one which may seem logical to non-weavers. See Hirsch,
1984, pp. 29-33.
|
6.
|
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.M.,
"A Re-examination of the Fibres from the Çatal Hüyük Textiles," in Pinner, R.
and Denny, W.B. (eds), Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies III, London, 1987, pp.
15-19. See also Ryder, M.L. and T. Gabra-Sanders, "The application of microscopy to
textile history," in Textile History, 16, No. 2, 1985, pp. 123-140.
|
7.
|
Mellaart, 1989, Vol. 11, p.
44.
|
8.
|
Helbaek, Hans,
"Textiles from Çatal Hüyük," in Archaeology, XVI, No. 1, March 1963,
pp. 39-46.
|
9.
|
It is difficult to identify
structures from the photos, but certainly none is weft-faced. The tapes may possibly be
warp-faced, the other fabrics open constructions: either the weft-twining or transverse
wrapping diagramed by Burnham, or simply loose plain weave. See Burnham, H.B.,
"Çatal Hüyük: the textiles and twined fabrics," in Anatolian Studies, XV,
1965, pp. 169-174.
|
10.
|
Mellaart, 1989, Vol. II, p.
44.
|
11.
|
Mellaart, James, "Some
notes on the prehistory of Anatolian kilims," in Frauenknecht, Bertram, Early
Turkish Tapestries, Nürnberg, 1984, p. 26.
|
12.
|
Mellaart, 1989, Vol. 11, p.
44 and Mellaart, Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London, 1967, p.
150. Please note that in Mellaart's references to particular shrines the designations
"E" and "A", indicating the portion of the mound being excavated, are
sometimes omitted. Likewise, the designations "A" and "B", subdividing
Level VI, are sometimes omitted.
|
13.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIII, p. 75.
|
14.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIV, p. 61, Figs. 18 and 19.
|
15.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIV, p. 47.
|
16.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIII, p. 70.
|
17.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIV, p. 50.
|
18.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIII, p. 69.
|
19.
|
See note 2.
|
20.
|
A photo of marsh grass
matting from Shrine E.VI, 14 is shown in Anatolian Studies, XII, Plate XVI,c.
|
21.
|
Plate XII,8;
Plate XIII,7: Plate XII,12; and Plate XIII,15. Please note that not all of the drawings in
The Goddess from Anatolia are recent interpretations. Mellaart distinguishes
between "reconstructions" and "scale copies," I question the
designation "scale copy" in one instance: the drawing from Shrine VIII,10.
|
22.
|
Mellaart, 1984.
|
23.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XII, p. 59-60; Plates XII, a, b, and c; Plates XIII, a, b, and c.
|
24.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIII, p. 48-49.
|
25.
|
Our Figure 8 is shown
turned horizontally, as Mr. Mellaart tells us in the text that this work had "a
fringe painted on the left," 1989, p. 39.
|
26.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIII, p. 49 and Plate V,a.
|
27.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIV, p. 45-47. See also Mellaart, 1967, pp. 114-117; chart, p. 81; and
diagram, p. 102.
|
28.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIII, p. 46 and Anatolian Studies, XIV, chart, p. 115, See also
Mellaart, 1967, pp. 155, 176, and chart, p. 81.
|
29.
|
Now, 25 years later (in
1990), Mellaart claims that seven paintings were found on Level II
|
30.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XVI, p. 178.
|
31.
|
Mellaart, 1967, pp. 132 and
110.
|
32.
|
Mellaart, 1967, p. 166.
|
33.
|
Josephine Powell's
tongue-in-cheek observation.
|
34.
|
Mellaart, 1967, p. 149.
|
35.
|
Pearson, Kenneth and
Patricia Conner, The Dorak Affair, London, 1967.
|
36.
|
Mellaart, 1989, Vol. 11, p.
65.
|
37.
|
Lloyd, Seyton, Early
Highland Peoples of Anatolia, London, 1967, p. 31.
|
38.
|
These drawings were shown
at a Basel conference in January 1990 and are illustrated in Hali 50, 1990, pp.
98-99.
|
39.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XIV, 1964, p. 73.
|
40.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XVI, 1966, p. 165.
|
41.
|
Mellaart, Anatolian
Studies, XVI, 1966, p. 167.
|
|
|
MARLA MALLETT
1690 Johnson Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30306 USA
E-mail: marlam@mindspring.com
Phone: 40p4-872-3356 |
Publications
SITE INDEX
HOME |
|