Different Excavation Styles create Different Windows into Çatalhöyük

Abstract

Published in 2000 in I. Hodder (ed.) Towards Reflexive Methodology in Archaeology Cambridge: McDonal Institute for Archaeology The aim of this paper is to point out that important contextual variables occur in the process of retrieval of the archaeological materials through excavation. The excavation methodology at Çatalhöyük has tended to be treated in the literature (Hodder 1997) as relatively uniform. We shall show, however, that there are in fact multiple excavation methodologies. This has been implied in an earlier chapter in this volume (Farid et al.) in which the excavation strategy and opinions of the British team excavating at Çatalhöyük are voiced. This chapter will draw attention to the voices of the other excavation teams at Çatalhöyük, specifically the "American" and the "Greek" teams. Joan Gero has demonstrated the nature of some of the variability of excavation strategies along gendered and regional lines (Gero 1996). Farid et al have also suggested that regional variability is present by referring to the "American team" and the "Greek team". In this chapter, however, we are interested in exploring some of the interesting implications and complexities of training, organization, status/power that, to a certain extent, are the result of regional methodologies, but are also the result, I believe, of variation in the field experience and intellectual histories of the individual researchers. Joan Gero (Gero 1996) and Margaret Conkey (Conkey 1997) have both set these implications of the "constituting context" for the practice and routines of archaeological research in a more theoretical context than we shall do here. Is the BACH team American? Mirjana Stevanovic and Ruth Tringham -who together direct the Berkeley Archaeologists at Çatalhöyük (BACH team, or "the American team") -through working together for fifteen years in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria have developed a strategy which was designed to retrieve information on the use-lives of Neolithic houses (Stevanovic and Tringham 1998). Neolithic houses in Southeast and Central Europe are rectangular detached houses of wattle-and-daub with a gabled roof. In Southeast Europe these are universally burned at the end of their use-lives.

Full text

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 1
Different Excavation Styles create Different Windows into Çatalhöyük
by
Ruth Tringham and Mirjana Stevanovic
Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley
Published in 2000 in
I. Hodder (ed.) Towards Reflexive Methodology in Archaeology
Cambridge: McDonal Institute for Archaeology
The aim of this paper is to point out that important contextual variables occur in the
process of retrieval of the archaeological materials through excavation. The excavation
methodology at Çatalhöyük has tended to be treated in the literature (Hodder 1997) as
relatively uniform. We shall show, however, that there are in fact multiple excavation
methodologies. This has been implied in an earlier chapter in this volume (Farid et al.) in
which the excavation strategy and opinions of the British team excavating at Çatalhöyük
are voiced. This chapter will draw attention to the voices of the other excavation teams at
Çatalhöyük, specifically the “American” and the “Greek” teams.
Joan Gero has demonstrated the nature of some of the variability of excavation strategies
along gendered and regional lines (Gero 1996). Farid et al have also suggested that
regional variability is present by referring to the “American team” and the “Greek team”.
In this chapter, however, we are interested in exploring some of the interesting
implications and complexities of training, organization, status/power that, to a certain
extent, are the result of regional methodologies, but are also the result, I believe, of
variation in the field experience and intellectual histories of the individual researchers.
Joan Gero (Gero 1996) and Margaret Conkey (Conkey 1997) have both set these
implications of the “constituting context” for the practice and routines of archaeological
research in a more theoretical context than we shall do here.
Is the BACH team American?
Mirjana Stevanovic and Ruth Tringham - who together direct the Berkeley
Archaeologists at Çatalhöyük (BACH team, or “the American team”) - through working
together for fifteen years in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria have developed a strategy which
was designed to retrieve information on the use-lives of Neolithic houses (Stevanovic and
Tringham 1998). Neolithic houses in Southeast and Central Europe are rectangular
detached houses of wattle-and-daub with a gabled roof. In Southeast Europe these are
universally burned at the end of their use-lives.
Ruth Tringham’s first experience in excavation was gained (after a couple of seasons in
Britain and Scandinavia) at the Linear Pottery settlement of Bylany in the then
Czechoslovakia with Bohumil Soudsky (Soudsky and Pavlu 1972). This excavation was
without vertical stratigraphy, large scale horizontal exposure of post-hole patterns (the
ghost of large wattle and daub buildings) using earth-moving equipment, and an early use
of computerized recording of ceramics. Subsequent excavation experience was of large
exposure of architectural features (although on a smaller scale than at Bylany) at
Neolithic settlements in the Soviet Union and northern Yugoslavia. At none of these was
there any form of continuous occupation leaving a deep stratigraphic record.

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 2
Ruth Tringham’s first experience of such a site was during the excavation of the site of
Selevac which she directed with Dusan Krstic (Tringham and Krstic 1990). This was later
supplemented by participation with Mirjana Stevanovic in the research at Gomolava
(Brukner 1988), which has deep, though not necessarily continuous occupation deposits.
In this research we were guided by our Yugoslav colleagues into recognizing and
working within the framework of building horizons.
Mirjana Stevanovic was trained in Yugoslavia at the University of Belgrade and in the
field at such projects as Bosut, Vinca and Gomolava. We first worked together at
Selevac in the detailed study of architectural remains in the small 4 x 4 m. trenches
(Tringham and Stevanovic 1990) . This was our strategy for retrieving information on
resource utilization through the 500 years history of Selevac’s occupation, but did not
give us information on architecture.
Through a growing interest in architecture and addressing questions about use-life to
houses which had previously only been addressed to movable artifacts, we subsequently
worked together at Gomolava.(Brukner 1988), Opovo, (Tringham, et al. 1992), and at
Podgoritsa Tell, Bulgaria (Bailey, et al. 1998). Mirjana Stevanovic meanwhile carried out
postgraduate at the Agricultural University of Wageningen, Holland, Belgrade University
and the University of California at Berkeley that involved experimentation and the
analysis of architectural materials from these sites (Stevanovic 1996, Stevanovic 1997).
The point of this preamble is to point out that “the American team” is directed by two
people who have never excavated in “America”. Having said that, however, we should
point out that in the Selevac project and later, we have excavated with the aid of
archaeologists and students from the USA. At Çatalhöyük, where we have excavated
since 1997, the BACH team comprises graduates and undergraduate students from
University of California at Berkeley, some of whom (but not all) have experience
excavating in the USA. Many of these students and archaeologists, however, only have
experience excavating in Europe and/or West Asia. Our team, moreover, also includes
archaeologists from Yugoslavia, some of whom worked with us in the Selevac and
Opovo projects. It is also true, more importantly, that we excavate with funds from the
US which involve peer review in that country1. We should not forget to mention,
however, that every semester, our research strategy is put into the intellectual framework
of “American “ archaeological practice through graduate seminars and other public
meetings in the US.
The “American” aspect to our research is its intellectual content, and in the practice of
explicating research aims, strategy, and interpretation in the public arena. The style of our
“performance” of the site probably owes much to this experience (Tilley 1989). There is
little in the “American team’s” excavation strategy, however, that could be described as
typical of the American style of excavation practice. Nor is it typically the practice of
1 We excavate with the aid of a senior research grant from the National Science Foundation, Washington,
DC.

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 3
Southeast European archaeology, although much of what we do is recognizable as
stemming from our experience in Yugoslavia (Tasic and Jovanovic 1979).
Figure 1 The main cross-sections through Building 3 during its excavation (Photograph,
5x8”): PCD0013,img52
What the BACH team brings from the Balkans
In Southeast Europe, where architectural units are distributed as discrete units, separated
from each other by equally large areas of deposits that may have no obvious fixed
architectural remains, our horizontal/spatial reference was always the grid oriented
according to cardinal points (Bailey, et al. 1998, Tringham, et al. 1992). At Opovo,
Yugoslavia, for example, a 16 x 20 m block, was divided into 2 m2. quadrants which
would form the main units of excavation and recording of the archaeological materials
throughout its stratified deposits. Through the seven years of excavation, the same basic
strategy was maintained, proceeding by 1 m2 units in and around the structural features
and by 2 m2 units in the cultural layer itself. Excavation proceeded by 10-15 cm thick
arbitrary levels by spade and shovel and screening with 1cm2 mesh screens. In and
around features, however, such as primarily and secondarily deposited burned clay
rubble, ovens, and pits, excavation proceeded according to their natural stratigraphy by
trowelling. Constant stratigraphic control baulks were retained from 1983-9 (Tringham,
et al. 1992, Tringham, et al. in press).
In contrast to standard Balkan excavation practice, we tended to create a profusion of
temporary baulks which served to record the relative stratigraphy of the structures

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 4
and other domestic features, rather than record the main transition from one building
horizon to another. A crucial difference in the excavation strategy that we developed
from standard Balkan practice is that our aim was to excavate each house as though its
life-history was a priority rather than being subordinated to the history of the settlement
(or building horizon) as a whole.
We developed a strategy in which the remains of the burned wattle-and-daub houses were
more carefully excavated and more systematically and fully mapped, recorded and
sampled than on any other Neolithic site yet excavated in SE Europe. Each burned
building was carefully cleaned, lifting up the rubble and mapping it layer by layer, and
taking systematic samples for later analysis of fabric composition and temperature of
firing. Recording was carried out according to cells (each 1 m2) in and around the
structural features (Stevanovic 1996, Tringham, et al. 1992).
Computerized recording was by locus, which may be equivalent to a 2m2 in the cultural
layer, or a 1 m2 screened unit, or a 1m2 unit within a feature. Features could also be
designated as a separate locus. Some features, however, were divided into several loci,
depending on their size and the significance of detailed spatial recording within them. In
every case, loci were always oriented and located according to the main grid of the site.
The detail, care and large scale of the excavation and analysis of building construction
materials at Opovo is considered to be an important innovation in the investigation of the
Neolithic architecture of Southeast Europe (Stevanovic 1996, Stevanovic 1997, Stevanovic
and Tringham 1998). The number of loci that were assigned to the structural remains is
much higher than any other loci assigned to the associated materials. It may seem logical
to those unfamiliar with Southeast European Neolithic archaeology that the largest
quantity of material, such as construction remains would reflect numerically the most
attention. Nevertheless, it had not been the case in the treatment of Neolithic architecture
of Southeast Europe prior to the Opovo Archaeological Project. The most typical
treatment of rubble as constructional remains had been to discard it readily in the course
of excavation as an obstacle to reaching the most valued part of a house, i.e., the house
floor with all the artifactual remains on it.
We should mention at this point that the “locus” was similar but not identical to the
“unit” used in the Çatalhöyük recording system. The use of the Harris matrix and the
terms “context” or “unit” was not incorporated consciously into our excavation of houses
until the excavation of the Eneolithic tell at Podgoritsa, in NE Bulgaria (Bailey, et al.
1998). This project was the one that we carried out in 1995 and had planned for
subsequent seasons. The project was canceled, however, and we moved our interest in the
life-history of houses to the project at Çatalhöyük. in 1996.

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 5
Figure 2: Example of the unsequential excavation of the roof in Building 3 (Photograph,
5x8”) PCD0122, img90 or PCD 0114, img04.
Bringing Southeast Europe to Çatalhöyük
By the time our project at Podgoritsa developed, there were many features in our strategy
of research that we had in common with that practiced at Çatalhöyük by the Cambridge
team. In fact we have been delighted to collaborate with the CHRT team because it has
given us a chance to put into practice the ideal strategies to investigate the physical and
social formation of the settlement that we had always in some way or another had to
compromise in our previous research in Yugoslavia and especially Bulgaria.
• we share an interest in the investigation of the formation of the tells as a composite of
the histories of individual buildings in contrast to the traditional viewpoint of a tell as
a sequence of the replacement of one village by another in a stratified sequence of
building horizons.
• So we share a desire to examine the construction, modification, abandonment, filling
in, and destruction of individual buildings in relation to that of the buildings around
them by slow and detailed excavation.
• We share an interest in maintaining a standardized digitized detailed recording of
multiple lines of evidence using Harris matrices, standard forms, and a detailed visual
image recording by photography and line drawing. We welcomed the sharing of this
database amongst the different teams at Çatalhöyük and on the Internet.
• We share an interest in putting a reflexive methodology advocated by Ian Hodder
(Hodder 1997) and others into practice. At Opovo we were one of the few teams in

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 6
the Balkans whose final report has a conclusion written by the multiple voices of the
team and whose strategy was designed by a core research team rather than the
individual authority of the directors. We have noted that at Çatalhöyük such a
methodology with its many opportunities for discussion and debate at many different
levels leads to a much more vocal enterprise than is experienced on most project; this
definitely slows down the pace of removal of deposits, but in the end we believe that
the results will reflect the amount of thought and effort that go into the interpretation
of the archaeological data of Çatalhöyük. As noted above, we welcome the slower
pace of excavation after the sense of urgency that often characterized our Balkan
efforts. Even at Çatalhöyük, however, there may be pressures exerted for speedy
results (but of what kind is certainly food for debate).
• Finally, we share an interest in and a sense of responsibility to the broader scale of
multivocality advocated in the Çatalhöyük project, in which audiences from the
surrounding villages and towns as well as much further away share in the data that we
are recovering. Here we face the same dilemmas that face archaeologists everywhere
with standing architecture and other features that could be preserved in situ, thus
preventing further excavation, or preserved in an external context in a museum or
interpretive center. This is an aspect of research that we rarely had to deal with in our
previous research in Southeast Europe, but as with some of the other aspects of this
project mentioned below, we have had to face for the first time at Çatalhöyük.

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 7
Figure 3. Photo-montage: Contrasting styles of excavation (Photograph, 8x10”)
How the Balkan (BACH) window on Çatalhöyük is different
In spite of this profound sharing of methodological principles and aims of the
Cambridge-directed Çatalhöyük project, there are some important differences that our
(the BACH team) intellectual and field histories bring to the project at Çatalhöyük. One
of these that I (RET) think is worth mentioning but not elaborating in this paper is the
fact that I have been thinking about and discussing the feminist practice of archaeology
for a number of years with colleagues at Berkeley and elsewhere. The UC Berkeley
graduate students may not necessarily agree with these practices, but they have certainly
been exposed to them in a variety of ways through seminars and less formal instruction. I
feel that although for many the feminist practice of archaeology may seem to be identical
to the reflexive methodology and post-processual practice of archaeology that forms the
basis of the Çatalhöyük project, there are important differences that are probably part of

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 8
the “BACH window” on Çatalhöyük, in addition to the more obvious Balkan
background.
There was a sharp learning curve for both Mirjana Stevanovic and Ruth Tringham in
order to adapt their excavation strategy and interest in the use-life/life-history of houses
to the very different architectural context of south-central Anatolia.
• In the BACH area we have tended to continue to use the site grid as a basis for
dividing up Building 3, within which we identify features. Within Building 3, I think
we still regard the use of the “space” as a unit subordinate in usefulness to features,
building and the grid.
• We had been accustomed to excavating clearly discrete architectural features -
buildings - whereas those of Çatalhöyük were a complex web of rooms, some of
which might have been discrete places during a part or all of their history, but whose
relationship to other rooms was an object of investigation rather than a given starting
point.
• We had been used to excavating timber-framed houses, thickly daubed one or both
surfaces, and destroyed by burning, so that all that remained was a heaped mass of
burned clay rubble, on top of burned clay floor (hopefully) and wall stumps at most
30 cm high. Under these we would be able to discern postholes and, occasionally,
wall trenches. At Çatalhöyük we were faced with mud-brick architecture with
relatively sparse use of wood and with well preserved walls, often more than a metre
high, and fixed features. Not only did this mean a very different way of uncovering
the architecture, but our expectations of what the architecture would look like in
terms of modifications through time were quite different.
• In Southeast Europe we had been used to architectural debris being piled up as
discrete stratigraphic units within which the primary and secondary occupational
debris was buried. Other pockets of occupational debris were concentrated around
and in such discrete features as external fire installations and pits. Outside of these
architectural and other features, the occupational deposits were visible as soil deposits
of variable nature. At Çatalhöyük on the other hand there were few concentrations of
cultural debris that were not part of the fill of the rooms. For example, pits dug for the
deposition of garbage are very rare (unlike pits dug for the burial of the dead). Thus at
Çatalhöyük every part of the deposits have relevance for one or other aspects of a
building’s life-history, whereas in Southeast Europe, the challenge is to link
depositional events and features outside a building to the life-history of that building.
In both areas it is a challenge to link the life-history of one building with those of
subsequent and earlier buildings. The nature of the challenge is quite different in each
area. In Southeast Europe, the challenge is again in making a link through distinct
stratigraphic layers. At Çatalhöyük, the challenge is in making sense of the mass of
data and observations on the sequence of building events whose distinction is often
difficult to discern.
• In Southeast Europe we had become familiar with and enjoyed the greater horizontal
exposure of excavation area, which we believed was an essential step to an important
aim of establishing the relationships between houses and the outdoor features (e.g.,
pits) as well as between the houses themselves. It seems to us that the CHRT team
(except for the large Mellaart area, which they have in some sense “inherited”)

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 9
interest and strategy is to focus their excavation and analysis on specific houses
whose vertical replacement becomes the object of investigation by intensive vertical
exposure. In this way houses that most likely belong to different generations can be
compared. The focus in the BACH area (within the spatial restrictions of our solid-
framed shelter) is to excavate on a broader horizontal scale in order to compare the
life-histories of different buildings whose histories were overlapping. Thus, whereas
CHRT studies buildings as self-contained units, the BACH team studies the Neolithic
buildings at Çatalhöyük as part of a network (or “anthill”) of rooms in which it is
hard to say where one “building” begins and where it ends.
We have changed some of our excavation strategies to deal with the different conditions
of the archaeological record. There are clearly, however, some features of our excavation
strategy which we have retained from our projects in the Balkans which contributes to
our different attitude to the architecture and thus to our window on Çatalhöyük:
In Southeast Europe the cultural deposits were usually excavated by arbitrary levels, as
they are in the United States, with their variability monitored horizontally and vertically
by cross sections which, in the case of a deep stratification might be recorded and then
dismantled and re-established at regular intervals. At Çatalhöyük we retained the use of a
main cross-section through Building 3, and were quite prepared to use arbitrary levels in
the excavation of the cultural debris. As it turned out, the profile has been extremely
useful in understanding the sequence of the collapse and filling of Building 3, but we
probably could have dispensed with the artificial spits.
•
We see a need for different strategies in the excavation of different deposits. We see a
need to use arbitrary layers in excavating the deposits that are stratigraphically
undifferentiated and yet comprise thick layers of mixed materials (like house fill). This is
especially important if one starts excavating from the surface and has remains that have
been eroded and disturbed. As soon as we arrive on a 'firm' ground and can define natural
layers we proceed excavating in natural layers. Our strategy is time consuming but is
safe. After all, this was one factor that helped us uncover the roof.
Figure 1 The main cross-sections through Building 3 during its excavation
• In our projects in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the stratigraphic relation of one building
to another was recorded through a series of baulks in which the microstratigraphic
context would be preserved and linked to the main stratigraphic profile which served
to monitor the bulk of the cultural deposits (see below). We diverged from traditional
Balkan practice by having a large number of such baulks and profiles, and retaining
them throughout the cleaning and lifting of the floor. We have continued to use such
small temporary profiles at Çatalhöyük to understand the relationship of one part of
the fill of a room to another. Their proliferation has been remarked on and criticized
by the Cambridge team as redundant when excavating according to the depositional
sequence of units. We feel, however, that the baulks are valuable as a visual way to
demonstrate and document stratigraphic relationships, as a supplement to the
schematized demonstration of the Harris matrix.
• In keeping with our strategy that we have brought with us from Southeast Europe, we
do not excavate whole units in their sequence of deposition. We are often excavating

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 10
several parts of a depositional sequence at once, since we believe that our treatment
and interpretation of the later part of a sequence may change as a result of a better
understanding of the earlier part. This practice can, of course, test the patience of the
flotation crew and other “specialists” who are waiting to analyze a complete unit and
may have to wait for several sessions of the excavation of that unit.
Figure 2: example of the unsequential excavation of the roof in Building 3
• In the strategy of excavation that we developed in the Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the
definitive cleaning of a feature is reached very slowly. The feature is cleaned back
and forth from its apparent center to periphery and back again to the center, gradually
going deeper in the level. We are interested as much in the nature of the
superstructural collapse and debris of the house as we are in the cleaned floor-plan.
At each level of cleaning, the feature is recorded by photography and drawing. Our
philosophy is that the feature does not have to be definitively cleaned before it is
recorded. The excavation is a more on-going process with definition being rarely
achieved, but recording being frequently carried out.
• This process of work, with the idea of excavating several levels of a feature and
several features at once, and having a large number of units open at any one time is
made possible (we believe) by an organization of labour which is very different from
that employed by the “Cambridge team”. Ian Hodder has (unofficially, personal
communication) referred to the BACH organization of work as a “centralized system”
in contrast to the decentralized nature of the “Cambridge team”. The latter is more
characteristic of British practice in general, in which each excavator-archaeologist is
expected to carry out all the tasks needed for the proper excavation and recording of
her or his own unit. Thus an archaeologist in the “Cambridge team” is assigned a unit
or series of units, and is expected to see the whole process through - excavation,
sampling, drawing, form-recording, photographing - from start to finish. In the
BACH team, units - new or already open - are assigned and re-assigned on a daily
basis. Thus each participant while excavating a restricted area had to be reminded
constantly of the situation in the whole building. The archaeologist is expected to
excavate with the field director looking over her or his shoulder, record and keep
track of finds, but the on-going recording of the visual record - drawing, EDM
mapping and photography - is done by a “specialist” for this task. This organization
was partly due to the nature of the deposits being excavated in that during its
excavation in 1997-98, few internal divisions which could be separately assigned to
particular archaeologists were visible in Building 3. The fill of the house can only
now be defined as the roof, midden, screen wall, and mixed remains. In smaller, more
clearly defined areas, such as space 88, we actually did experiment with a single
archaeologist excavating, drawing etc. but we did not feel comfortable with this
situation (although the archaeologist in question - Dusan Boric - may have felt it more
satisfactory).
• In this regard we draw attention to the apparent contradiction in the organization of
labour in the “Cambridge team”, in which excavators are “universalists” in contrast to
the laboratory analysts who are “specialists”. The implications of this contradiction
are explored in much more detail in the article by Shahina Farid and others in this
volume.

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 11
• This way of working is - yes - undemocratic to a certain extent in that an
archaeologist/student is not working independently and there is less continuity of
recording (A unit sheet might be filled in by several people). Its advantage is a greater
consistency of unit recording across a building, a much greater consistency of visual
record, and - an unexpected bonus - excavators can double as “specialists” for part or
a whole day during the work week. For graduate students who might be doing
research on a particular body of material, the opportunity to both excavation and
analysis is essential. Excavators can also be rotated at more frequent intervals through
tasks such as heavy fraction sorting.
Conclusion
It is fairly clear that these different styles of excavating and organizing the work force
create different windows on Çatalhöyük. This is where the multivocality begins. But how
far can we take this viewpoint? Can we go far as to say that each team finds what it
“deserves” according to its aims and strategies? Perhaps this is taking the theatre too far,
but we cannot resist the temptation to draw attention to the contrast between the clearly -
almost neatly - defined areas of the Cambridge team in the North area with the mass of
complicated fill and history of collapse and destruction of Building 3 - including its roof -
, excavated by the BACH team!
Figure 3. Photo-montage: Contrasting styles of excavation
Bibliography
Bailey, D., R. Tringham, J. Bass, M. Stevanovic, M. Hamilton, H. Neumann, I. Angelova
and A. Raduncheva
1998 Expanding the Dimensions of Early Agricultural Tells: The Podgoritsa
Archaeological Project, Bulgaria. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(4):373--396.
Brukner, B.
1988 Die Siedlung der Vinca-Gruppe auf Gomolava (Die Wohnschicht des
Spätneolithikums und Fruhäneolithikums-Gomolava Ia-b und Gomolava va Ib) und der
Wohnhorizont des äneolithischen Humus (Gomolava II). In Gomolava: hronologija i
stratigrafija u praistoriji i antici podunavlja i jugoistocne Evrope, edited by N. Tasic and
J. Petrovic, pp. 19-38. Vojvodanski Muzej and Balkanoloski Institut SAN, Novi Sad.
Conkey, M., W.
1997 Beyond Art and Between the Caves: Thinking about Context in the
Interpretive Process. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol, edited by M.
Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 343-367. Memoirs, No. 23.
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
Gero, J.
1996 Archaeological Practice and Engendered Encounters with Field Data. In
Gender and Archaeology, edited by R. Wright, pp. 251-280. University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 12
Hodder, I.
1997 Always momentary, fluid and flexible': towards a reflexive excavation
methodology. Antiquity 71(273):691.
Soudsky, B. and I. Pavlu
1972 The Linear Pottery Culture settlement patterns of central Europe. In Man,
Settlement, and Urbanism, edited by P. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. Dimbleby, PP. 317-
328, Duckworth, London.
Stevanovic, M.
1996 The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Ph.D., U,C.
Berkeley.
Stevanovic, M.
1997 Production of Architecture in the Age of Clay. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 16: 334-395
Stevanovic, M. and R. Tringham
1998 The significance of Neolithic Houses in the Archaeological Record of
Southeast Europe. In Zbornik posvecen Dragoslavu Srejovicu, edited by Z. Mikic. pp.
193-208. Balkanoloski Institut, Beograd.
Tasic, N. and B. Jovanovic
1979 Metodologija istrazhivanja u praistorijskoj arheologiji. Srpska Akademija
Nauka i Umetnosti, Belgrade.
Tilley, C.
1989 Excavation as theatre. Antiquity 63:275-280.
Tringham, R., B. Brukner, T. Kaiser, K. Borojevic, N. Russell, P. Steli, M. Stevanovic
and B. Voytek
1992 The Opovo Project: a study of socio-economic change in the Balkan
Neolithic. 2nd preliminary report. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(3):351-386.
Tringham, R. and D. Krstic (editors)
1990 Selevac: a prehistoric village in Yugoslavia. Institute of Archaeology
Press, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Tringham, R., M. Stevanovic and B. Brukner (editors)
in press Opovo: the construction of a prehistoric place in Europe.
University of California, Berkeley, Archaeological research Facility Publications,
Berkeley, Ca.
Tringham, R. and M. Stevanovic

Windows on Çatalhöyük/6/14/06 13
1990 Archaeological excavation of Selevac 1976-78. In Selevac: a Neolithic
village in Yugoslavia, edited by R. Tringham and D. Krstic, pp. 57-214. UCLA Institute
of Archaeology Publications, Los Angeles.