The Public Face of Archaeology at Çatalhöyük

Full text

There is a large body of literature already available
on the preservation, conservation, management, in-
terpretation, and presentation of prehistoric places
as part of global, national, and regional heritage and as a
means of incorporating the broader public into the enter-
prise, beyond the professional discourse. Beyond reference
to a couple of my current favorite studies on this huge and
important topic (Bender and Winer 2001; Fowler 2004;
Herzfeld 1991; Lowenthal 1998; Smith 2006), I will not
launch into a discussion of the broader issues. My purpose
in this chapter is to set the efforts that we have taken to give
the BACH project a public face within the context of some
of the work of the Çatalhöyük Research Project, which itself
is set in the broader enterprise of cultural heritage and
public archaeology (Bartu 2000; Bartu-Candan 2005; Hod-
der 1998; Hodder and Doughty 2007; Shankland 2005).
THE BROADER CONTEXT OF PRESENTING
ÇATALHÖYÜK TO THE PUBLIC
Public Archaeology or Cultural Heritage?
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) has created
a section of their website for a project entitled “Archaeology
for the Public,”1which is designed for both “the public” and
professional archaeologists. The project is focused on “public
archaeology” as an ambiguous umbrella that covers such
broadly defined topics as Community Archaeology, Heritage,
Public Education, Politics and Archaeology, Media and Ar-
chaeology, Performance, Museums, Tourism, Civic Engage-
ment, and Cultural Resource Management. They are quick
to point out, however, that “much recent conversation about
public archaeological practice reveals a certain ambiguity
about what the term ‘public archaeology’ means.” For ex-
ample, some cultural resource management (CRM) profes-
sionals see “public archaeology” as a subset of their activities,
rather than the other way around, as suggested by the SAA.
The SAA makes two other important points. One of
these is that there are different national and regional styles
of doing what they call “public archaeology.” The term
“cultural heritage” has been broadly used in the United
Kingdom and Europe, as well as in Australia, to the ex-
clusion of such terms as “cultural resource management”
and “public archaeology.” This difference in terminology
is more than a transatlantic or transpacific whim of
nomenclature; it actually points to some significant dif-
ferences in attitude toward, and expectations of, the past
and past places, as well as of their management and the
organization of work. Recently the idea of “cultural her-
itage” has begun to make its way into mainstream U.S.
public archaeology through issues of descendant involve-
ment, ethics of cultural property, and cultural tourism as-
sociated with global heritage.
The other point made in the SAA project is that, in
spite of the ambiguity inherent in its definition, “public ar-
chaeology,” like “cultural heritage” in Europe, has (for the
most part) gone far beyond practical considerations of how
to engage the public. Management and interpretive plans
of past places and landscapes are based now on theoretical
and comparative studies of their long- and short-term im-
plications for social, political, educational, and economic
change at multiple scales.
A recent (2008) discussion on the World Archaeolog-
ical Congress (WAC) on-line forum has focused on the
definition of “cultural heritage.” The discussion thread
started with a cry of need from anti-evolutionist and author
of Forbidden Archeology, Michael Cremo, for a “compre-
hensive statement or definition” of cultural heritage. There
was a surprisingly energetic and well-thought-out response
from a number of WAC members around the world. Many
503
CHAPTER 25
THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Ruth Tringham
1http://www.saa.org/public/home/home.html (accessed 5 September
2011).

of the writers were reluctant—for different reasons—to of-
fer a fixed definition, perhaps best represented by Carol
McDavid (2002), and echoing her earlier definitions.
It strikes me that all such “definitions” are (and should
be) contingent, context-sensitive, and fluid. Trying to
nail down what cultural heritage “is” is totally beside
the point and ultimately self-defeating. Instead I think
we should focus on understanding how “it” works in
whatever historically/culturally situated set of circum-
stances we find ourselves in. Only then will “it” have
any meaning to the stakeholders who count. (Carol
McDavid, WAC list email communication, Nov. 2008)
Recently, the issue of defining heritage has been enriched
by the idea that heritage can be divided into tangible and in-
tangible heritage. The idea of intangible heritage, as recom-
mended in the recently (October 2008) internationally ratified
ICOMOS Ename Charter for the Interpretation and Presen-
tation of Cultural Heritage Sites, includes a site’s “cultural
and spiritual traditions, stories, music, dance, theater, literature,
visual arts, local customs and culinary heritage.”2The char-
ter—perhaps for the first time in the institutional context of
heritage management—recommended that such intangible
elements should be considered in a site’s interpretation.
The WAC list discussion and a survey of the literature
on paper and on the Web reveal that, among the many
strands of the definition of cultural heritage, there are two
important—and contrasting—sets of value systems. These
are also identified by Laurajane Smith in her book, The
Uses of Heritage (2006) as the traditional or “The Authorized
Heritage Discourse” (AHD), on the one hand, and a prac-
tice-based discourse of heritage, on the other. She begins
her book by drawing attention to the hegemony of the tra-
ditional discourse based on a commonsense identification
of “heritage as ‘old’, monumental, grand, and aesthetically
pleasing sites, buildings, places and artifacts” (Smith
2006:11).
Smith (2006) refers to AHD, quite critically, as an idea
of “heritage” that
nPromotes a set of Western elite values as universally
applicable;
nPrivileges monumentality and a large spatial scale of
interpretation;
nPrivileges the “naturalization” of the site- and arti-
fact-centered nature of heritage;
nPrivileges time depth (origins) and uniqueness;
nTakes its cue from technical expertise and aesthetic
expert judgment;
nTakes its interpretive cue from the grand narratives
of nation, class, and globalization;
nPrivileges fixed social consensus and permanence of
an authoritative interpretation;
nIs institutionalized in state agencies (global and re-
gional) which define its priorities as management,
conservation, and visitation (tourism), rather than
the interpretive process;
nCreates an economic resource out of the Other;
nAnd, most importantly, obscures social and cultural
practices of heritage at work.
The other half of Smith’s (2006) volume constructs an
alternative heritage discourse that seems more in line with
many of the comments on the World Archaeological Con-
gress forum and is very different from that described above
as AHD. According to this discourse, heritage is cultural
practice involved in the construction and regulation of a set
of values and understandings. However many ways heritage
can be meaningful—through memory (real or imagined,
communal or individual), emotions, or identity construc-
tion—it always results in practice. Thus, heritage is about
much more than objects and sites and landscapes, although
these play a role in creating the contexts of practice; it is
about the cultural and social processes and performances
of management, conservation/preservation, interpretation,
and commemoration.
The Ename Heritage Center has suggested that
the intellectual frame of reference will soon no longer
be exclusively determined by the West. Heritage not
only relates a community to its past, it also determines
a community’s relationship toward the other. There-
fore, heritage helps in reflecting about who we are and
about how we should go about in a person to person
relationship within the context of a globalised world.3
Laurajane Smith takes this argument into a much more
radical realm by suggesting that “we are actually engaging
with a set of values and meanings (emotions, memories,
cultural knowledge and experiences, identities [what she
and social geographers refer to as “affects”]) that are sym-
bolized and represented at heritage sites by cultural prac-
tices” (Smith 2006:56). Following Smith’s logic, all heritage
is inherently intangible and ephemeral, since practice and
“affect” themselves are ephemeral phenomena. Their rep-
resentation may be tangible or intangible.
The Sustainability of Cultural Heritage
Since I am starting from the premise in this chapter that
heritage comprises social and political practice, it is im-
504 RUTH TRINGHAM
2http://www.enamecharter.org/index.html (accessed 5 September 2011).
3Ename Center: Heritage in the World of Today: http://www.enamecenter.
org/en/en/info/heritage-today (accessed 5 September 2011).

portant to think through the social and political context of
Çatalhöyük as a heritage place. Such a discussion is not
only about strategies of heritage management, interpreta-
tion, and presentation, but also about where the heritage at
Çatalhöyük stands in terms of accessibility to global or re-
gional funds. Is it a funding priority? How could it become
a funding priority? Obviously, these important questions
are a little beyond the scope of this volume. However, there
are issues that have relevance to the strategies that were
chosen in creating the public face of the BACH project.
One of these is the issue of sustainability.
The “sustainability of heritage,” whether tangible, in-
tangible, or digital, has become a common buzzword in
the twenty-first century in funding proposals and websites
of the heritage industry.4Common use of the term “sus-
tainability” began with the 1987 publication of the United
Nations World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment report, “Our Common Future,” known as The
Brundtland Report. Its most memorable quote is the defi-
nition of sustainable development as “meeting the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.” This concept of sus-
tainability marries two important themes: that stewardship
of the environment does not preclude economic develop-
ment, and that economic development must be ecologically
viable now and in the long run.
There are two intertwining issues in this discussion of
sustainability that need to be discussed. One is the issue of
what, in heritage, counts as a renewable resource, and what
is nonrenewable. There is almost a consensus that the phys-
ical context and symbols of heritage—historic buildings,
archaeological sites, and artifacts—are nonrenewable. They
are most at risk and in need of efforts to prevent their dis-
appearance.
The second related issue is longevity of heritage. For
many, the term “sustainability” is synonymous with “lon -
gevity.” Longevity—prolonging the life—in this case, of a
building, a place, or an artifact—is indeed achieved through
sustainable strategies of development. However, not all aims
at longevity in heritage practice have used sustainable strate-
gies. For example, a strategy of irreversible preservation,
such as setting Stonehenge in concrete, is probably the least
viable in terms of sustainability. Moreover, its longevity is
an illusion. As the Ename/ICOMOS Charter for the Inter-
pretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites has
mentioned, the values and meaning of places and their his-
tory are not guaranteed to last forever. In their concrete
bedding, the stones of Stonehenge may last for many gen-
erations. But their meaning and value will certainly change,
so that the stones may drop into oblivion or—heaven for-
bid—be uprooted!
To achieve sustainable longevity, a heritage place needs
to be designed, managed, and presented in a way that prom-
ises flexibility in meeting the challenge of changing social
and cultural trends, values, and practices. Longevity is not,
in fact, achieved by irreversibly preserving a place or a tra-
dition, or locking it away in a museum or digital vault, but
by bringing the idea and its tangible, intangible, and/or
digital manifestation into everyday practice, so that the
place or the digital document can be accessed, visited, used,
and built upon (metaphorically) by many generations in
the future. Digital databases, on-line, however beautiful or
well organized, are not sustainable if they cannot be easily
accessed and made the users’ own, easy to search, easy to
download, and easy to mix into whatever creative knowl-
edge-making is in process. In the same way, a heritage place
is only sustainable if it exists not only in the minds of users
but is also possible to visit, to make meaning through prac-
tice, and to engage in acts of multisensorial performance.
What, then, are the challenges to sustainability (and
longevity) of heritage, whether represented virtually or in
the “real” world? What sparks a response to set some stones
in concrete? The greatest of these are, I believe, entropy and
ephemerality. By the principles of entropy—the second law
of thermodynamics—a system will experience an inevitable
loss of energy and disintegrate unless it is renewed or re-
placed. This applies most obviously to buildings, landscapes,
and living organisms—the food of archaeology. But human
minds and objects of investigation are subject to the same
process by the entropy of the experts (that is, meaning pro-
vided by experts lasts only as long as the experts or their
publications) and the trends that drive the media and pop-
ular culture, especially in Western cultural practice.
In addition, intangible heritage (which, according to
Smith, is heritage—that is, the meaning, performance, and
practice of heritage) is inherently ephemeral, which makes
it particularly hard to grasp, document, and transform into
a sustainable form. Likewise, even objects of investigation
and values are relatively ephemeral. For example, in the
1970s–1990s the main risk to heritage was perceived as
being industrial and urban development, whereas in the
twenty-first century, it is perceived to be from climate
change.
Responses to challenges of sustainability and longevity
have depended on the cultural practices and attitudes that
deal with the past and history. These are what determine
the priorities as well as the strategies to sustain or destroy
heritage and the past. We tend to forget that decisions re-
lating to the past are not a modern phenomenon, but have
505CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
4For example, the theme of the 9th VAST International Symposium on
Virtual Reality, Archaeology, and Cultural Heritage in Braga, Portugal,
2008, was “Towards Sustainability: Integrated Technological Practices
for Human Heritage and Cultural Memory.”

been around for thousands of years. In fact, much of the
recent investigation of prehistoric and ancient places has
been about the continuity and memory of place and the
house through multiple generations (Hodder and Cessford
2004; Tringham 2000a). Settlement mounds, such as the
East Mound at Çatalhöyük, have accumulated because of
practices in which new houses were built using the foun-
dations of old, in some cases spanning several hundred
years, to the extent that Ian Hodder has started to use the
term “history or ancestral house” for such houses of long
duration (Hodder 2006a:141). Mirjana Stevanović and I
have contrasted this strategy for preserving a sense of con-
tinuity with that practiced in the Southeast European Ne-
olithic, the latter involving the use of fire and deliberate
burning of houses to create a permanent marker on the
landscape (Stevanović and Tringham 1998; Tringham
2000a, 2005).
The “null strategy” is to destroy all signs of the past, as
a prelude to rewriting history (ethnic cleansing, destruction
of languages and belief systems) or to make room for new
development, as noted in Douglas Porteous’s concept of
“domicide” (Porteous and Smith 2001). We are always re-
minded that archaeological excavation is a form of de-
struction of heritage, although ironically its aim is to create
knowledge about the past. Without detailed documentation,
it would indeed be destructive. Archaeology’s current for-
mat of documentation—including that of the BACH proj-
ect—is predominantly digital (Chapter 3). Thus, although
the cleansing of digital servers and drives may seem less
political than the destruction of tangible or intangible her-
itage, it can result in equally devastating destruction of
past heritage and knowledge.
Just as there are subtle but important distinctions be-
tween sustainability and longevity, the distinction between
the strategies of “preservation” and “conservation” is sig-
nificant. The preservation of a building, a landscape, or a
traditional practice has the idea of fixing or freezing the
process of entropy at a certain point to prevent further de-
cay. Fixing Stonehenge in concrete is a classic example of
this; preserving Australian aboriginal rock paintings while
denying access to them by the descendants of the original
painters (Smith 2006:54) is another. There are examples of
preserving traditional places to act as tourist destinations,
and even attempts to freeze a language in the face of at-
tempts to change it. Digital preservation, in this same sense
of preventing change to the integrity of the original, is fre-
quently the aim of locking data into an inaccessible vault
with their authenticity protected by “all rights reserved”
copyright.
Conservation is the most inclusive of the strategies and
can be seen as the overall process of caring for the natural
and/or cultural significance of a place. It may, according to
circumstance, include a site’s maintenance, repair, restoration,
rebuilding, reconstruction, preservation, and use, commonly
a combination of more than one of these. However, the sig-
nificance of conservation as a strategy of sustainability is
that it includes various strategies to lift the place of the past
into relevance for the social practice of the present, including
designing with flexibility to sustain that relevance into the
future. These are the same strategies that keep digital data
alive and usable for the long term, including repurposing,
recontextualizing, remixing, and recycling for and by the
local, regional, and global community.5
STRATEGIES OF GOOD PRACTICE
AND SUSTAINABILITY
Digital Documentation Leads in Sustainability
for the Long-Term
Michael Ashley has recently drawn attention to a parallel
concern with longevity and sustainability with regard to
digital knowledge and digital heritage (Ashley 2008b; see
also Chapter 3). Digital documents and heritage are subject
to the same kind of peril as heritage in the world outside
the computer: that is, being forgotten and becoming part
of the archaeological record. Ashley (2008b) stresses the
need to preserve not only the physical media of digital
data, but also their meaning, and—an often disregarded
step of conservation strategies—the processes and practices
through which the digital product was originally created,
including all the steps in its modification since its initial
creation. These efforts need to be designed not just for a
future of 100 years, but of 10,000 years. We should not
forget that an ever-increasing portion of our documentation
of heritage places, their management and meaningfulness,
is in a digital format (for example, the documentation of
the BACH project as described in Chapter 3, this volume).
Digital (Not Necessarily Virtual) Heritage
“Digital (not necessarily virtual) heritage” is an inclusive
term that embraces the digital representation of heritage
(photographs, videos, as well as immersive 3D models of
heritage places, and virtual worlds such as Second Life),
digital surrogates of heritage (analyzable data such as geo -
graphic information systems [GIS] and reflectance trans-
formation imaging [RTI]),6and other formats of digitized
506 RUTH TRINGHAM
5The heritage industry leans toward a mixed conservation strategy. For
example, the Center for Sustainable Heritage designs “sustainable strate-
gies for conservation and re-use of ‘tangible’ heritage and re-focuses the
balance between traditional preservation and conservation approaches
and use.” Kars (Global Heritage Fund movie): http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=CUgxRIQStUY (accessed 5 September 2011).
6http://www.culturalheritageimaging.org (accessed 5 September 2011).

heritage knowledge, including databases and digital libraries
and their public interfaces. Digital technologies go far be-
yond the representation and storage of information about
the tangible of “traditional AHD heritage”; they enable the
“capture” of much of what is traditionally regarded as in-
tangible, through the documentation of processes, practices,
performances, and affects of heritage, and are thus impor-
tant in the expression of Smith’s “post-AHD” definition of
heritage. Moreover, as I show a little later, digital formats
can contribute significantly to the means by which emotions
and affects of heritage—those things that Smith regards as
“real” heritage—can be symbolically embodied in social
practice and make heritage a sustainable enterprise.
Some of these digital formats are discussed by Michael
Ashley and myself in Chapter 3 of this volume. In addition,
there is a vast literature from numerous conferences and
journals on this topic.7In this chapter, I limit myself to ex-
ploring a couple of the recommendations for the sustain-
ability of digital heritage that are especially relevant to the
projects at Çatalhöyük described below. The Archaeology
Data Service of the United Kingdom (Richards 2002) makes
a very important recommendation tucked away in its web-
site’s best practices Q&A:
The single most useful thing you can do to ensure the
long-term preservation of your data is to plan for it
to be re-used. Imagining it being re-used by someone
else who has never met you and who never will meet
you, will cause you to approach the creation and de-
sign of your data in a new light. Moreover, studies
show that re-use of data is the single surest way of
maintaining the integrity of data and tracking errors
and problems with it. In short, always plan for re-use.8
A second recent recommendation is for the creation
of digital documents that are “born archival”—that is, that
are created with longevity factors built into their content
and formats (Ashley 2008b; Mudge et al. 2008; Smith and
Nelson 2008). “Born-archival” content is fully accessible
and preservable at every stage, throughout the life cycle of
these data, from birth through prerelease to publication,
revision, relative disuse, and later revival. Data that are
born archival can remain viable in the long term at signifi-
cantly reduced preservation cost.
In summary, what we can take away from the lessons
learned by digital archivists and preservationists is the need
for steps to ensure physical accessibility and readability (in
the broadest sense of the word) of the content and to ensure
the public’s ability to understand and use and reuse it, by
making transparent, through embedded metadata (includ-
ing the authorship of each step), the process of its produc-
tion and modification and reuse. In this way, the authen-
ticity issue does not hold up the continued use and reuse
of the content.
Implications for the Public Presentation of Heritage
What are the implications of these sustainability issues of
heritage and its digital documentation for the public pres-
entation of heritage? I have discussed Laurajane Smith’s ideas
that tangible heritage places and things are symbolically em-
bodied and imbued with values, meanings, and “affects.” The
social practices of managing, interpreting, and presenting
heritage (traditionally termed “intangible”) through different
formats of performance and communication are equally
acts of embodied meaning and affect. Smith’s important idea
that all heritage is intangible, with its focus on practice and
performance in heritage contexts, has two implications for
the way that sustainable projects around heritage are selected,
planned, and put into practice. In this chapter, I am especially
interested in focusing on the interface of these practices
with the so-called public and their many faces.
The first implication is that, as pointed out in the
Ename/ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Pres-
entation of Cultural Heritage Sites, the link between the
community and its heritage needs to be forefronted, “since
they guarantee the long-term protection of the immovable
heritage (monuments, landscapes, archaeological sites).”9
Through this effort, the notion of value and meaning to
more than experts is becoming mainstream.
It is key, I believe, to think of the audience of a heritage
presentation in terms of multiples. We must assume that vis-
itors do not walk passively through a park, an archaeological
site, or a museum. All people create meaning out of what
they see and hear, depending on their lives, knowledge base,
and experiences at the time. Thus, the audience is not a
group entity waiting to be filled with information. Guidance
and scaffolding is better at encouraging active participation
and sustained use by visitors than is structured information
transmission (Conkey and Tringham 1996; Freire 1970).
When we consider the diversity of the audiences (by gender,
age, class, education, ethnicity, and/or nationality, culture,
and language)—all with their different viewpoints—the task
of satisfying everyone may seem daunting, especially when
we recognize that this multicultural audience is diverse also
chronologically, with constantly changing expectations in
507CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
7Just peruse, for example, the publications in the EPOCH series (includ -
ing the VAST conferences) at http://www.epoch-net.org/index.php?option
=com_content&task=view&id=196&Itemi (accessed 5 September 2011).
8http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/advice/preservation (accessed 6 Sep-
tember 2011). Some guidelines for reuse may be found at: http://ads.
ahds.ac.uk/project/goodguides/excavation/sect13.html (accessed 5 Sep-
tember 2011). 9http://www.enamecharter.org/ (accessed 5 September 2011).

terms of both content and style. Thus, flexibility and the use
of multiple formats of presentation and engagement will
lead to sustainable longevity.
This conclusion leads into the second implication of
the sustainability issues mentioned above. Through Smith’s
alternative definition of heritage, it has become acceptable
to bring into play innovative strategies based on the creative
uses of digital technology and on less fixed, less tangible (re-
source inexpensive) manifestations of heritage interpretation.
Such strategies focus on ephemeral alternatives to permanent
and intrusive changes to places (the latter including inter-
pretive markers whose meaning may not “hold” for future
generations) and the use of flexible interpretive aids based
on wireless technology, satellite networking, pervasive com-
puting, and changeable interfaces of fixed computers. Digi-
tally based and event-based presentations are seductive and
engaging—they are also powerful ways of reaching many
publics—but they are ephemeral social practices, and their
meaning and engagement may not last. This puts a certain
responsibility on the designers and managers of heritage
places to be aware of emerging formats and interests and to
maintain the heritage place as a focus of their attention,
rather than to think of their design as a finite project.
In fact, the maintenance of a heritage place is not only
the responsibility of the designers and managers of heritage.
Remembering, commemorating, and forgetting the past is
an active cultural—and political—process. The idea of all
heritage being “intangible” brings to the forefront the role
of memory, stories, experience, and “affect” of social practice
in places, creating a large intellectual space for heritage
visitors and practitioners to participate in the construction
of history through the creation of multiple and multivocal
narratives that provide a healthy contrast to a single set of
facts received by “consensual agreement” from the author-
itative story of the past.
In the last 10 years, digital technologies have aided in
the capture, dissemination, and archiving of a multitude of
such narratives of memory—for example, when an oral
history becomes a digital story, enhanced by additional
imagery or sound; or a one-day reenactment is recorded
on film.10 Some of these examples are discussed further
below, but in general I would say that the use of digital
technology with a view to long-term sustainability of mem-
ories is very much in its infancy.
ÇATALHÖYÜK AS A HERITAGE SITE
The East Mound at Çatalhöyük, in spite of its obvious first-
millennium A.D. activity, is essentially a prehistoric site.
As such, it presents specific challenges as a heritage site in
the world of global heritage management politics and
Smith’s Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) standards.
These challenges have been clearly pointed out by Doughty
and Hodder (2007) in their introduction to the report on
the TEMPER Project (see “Çatalhöyük and K–Gray Edu-
cation,” below). Most importantly, prehistory tends to be
excluded from the construction of a national past. One im-
portant reason for its exclusion is the feeling that prehistoric
places seem anonymous and lacking in a personal, ethnic,
or cultural connection to the present inhabitants, caused
by the absence of written records. In areas where oral tra-
ditions have kept the construction and memory of history
alive (for example, in Australia and Native North America),
the connection to prehistory is much stronger.
Second, the nature of the physical remains—being less
visible, especially since prehistoric sites are generally only
revealed through archaeology and tend to lack standing
architecture—creates difficulty and confusion in making
the heritage places meaningful to visitors, the media, and
the modern inhabitants of the region (see Figure 2.14).
Moreover, these same conditions of the physical remains
create expensive challenges—with sometimes compromis-
ing implications—in the planning of conservation and dis-
play of the archaeological remains.
One result of these challenges has been that prehistoric
sites tend to be viewed in a broader context of continental
or global geographic scale and long-term chronological
changes. Çatalhöyük has “stood for” the early prehistory of
Central Anatolia, the “crossroads between Asia and Europe
in the spread of the Neolithic Revolution,” the “First City
in the World,” the “birthplace of goddess worship” and “Old
Europe,” the “birthplace of architecture,” and a number of
other claims (Chapter 1). The point is that the site has been
easily appropriated and given significance by researchers
across the world. The current Çatalhöyük Research Project
has gone very far to problematize and frequently challenge
these claims, and bring the research aims into a more multi -
scalar focus. However, the claims have certainly helped to
attract the attention of the number of global corporate and
private funding organizations (most recently the Global
Heritage Fund)11 as well as visitors. In 2006, the project re-
ceived a significant grant from the Templeton Foundation
entitled “Spirituality and Religious Ritual in the Emergence
508 RUTH TRINGHAM
10 For example, the reenactment of the Battle of Oudenaarde between
the English and the French in Belgium, which the Ename Center helped
to organize; see http://www.enamecenter.org/en/projects/oudenaarde1708
(accessed 5 September 2011); see also an amateur movie of the event in
which hundreds of members of the public participated: http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=WvhttmQd8KI&NR=1 (accessed 5 September
2011).
11 Global Heritage Fund at http://www.globalheritagefund.org (accessed
5 September 2011).

of Civilization,”12 to support excavations as well as inter-
national seminars on this theme. Thus, if we look back to
the beginning of this chapter, it is clear that Çatalhöyük
has been incorporated into Smith’s Authorized Heritage
Discourse (AHD) by heritage professionals, state and re-
gional institutions, and many of the publics, as pointed out
by both Ayfer Bartu-Candan and David Shankland (Bartu
2000; Bartu-Candan 2005; Shankland 2000, 2005).
And yet, both these authors, social anthropologists
who have worked in and around Çatalhöyük for many
years, as well as Ian Hodder, are at pains in their writing to
point toward the complexity and entanglement of the ar-
chaeological research at Çatalhöyük in the social practices
of multiple publics. The entanglements stretch from the
nearby village of Küçükköy and the local administration
of Çumra, to the regional government of Konya, and be-
yond to the national political identities of Ankara and Is-
tanbul and the European Union, and all across the world
through visitors and researchers to the site and through
the globalizing connections of the Internet (Bartu 2000;
Bartu-Candan 2005; Hodder 1999a, 2006a; Shankland 2000,
2005).
Multiple Categories of On-Site Publics
Bartu-Candan (2005) has identified a number of different
categories of visitors to the Çatalhöyük archaeological site,
referring to this experience as entanglements, encounters,
and engagements. Starting in 1997, her observations of the
visitors have produced a multi-sited ethnography in which
she focuses on tourists from all over the world as well as
from big cities in Turkey, as far away as Istanbul, and from
small local villages (Figure 25.1). Some visitors have come
on a pilgrimage, to sit and perform on the hallowed ground
where the Goddess was born. Others are making their way
back to their home from success in the big city of Istanbul.
Other sites of entanglement are the visits and encounters
of local government representatives from Konya and Çumra
at Çatalhöyük and their hosting of Çatalhöyük events in
their home locations. Bartu-Candan mentions the industrial
arts (fashion, carpets) and their practitioners’ awareness of
sources of inspiration for their designs at Çatalhöyük. An
important site for her (as it is for David Shankland) is the
village of Küçükköy, from which many of the local workers
at Çatalhöyük—both men and women—are drawn (see
Figure 2.5).
What expectations do visitors have when they visit
Çatalhöyük? What makes them come to this place that is
so hard to reach? Why would they ever return? These are
some of the questions that Bartu-Candan posed in a survey
of visitors to the site. As she has pointed out, it is a mistake
to think that Çatalhöyük has a unified meaning and mean-
ingfulness for members of the same “visitor categories,” let
alone of different categories. The question becomes, how
do we as archaeologists deal with this fact in the presenta-
tion of Çatalhöyük, and, moreover, how do we harness the
energies of a thinking and interested public?
The visitors are no more varied in their interests and
life experiences and aspirations than the participants in
the project. By the time the BACH project had finished
fieldwork, the Çatalhöyük Research Project had been active
for 10 years, every summer for at least six weeks and some-
times, as in 1999, much longer. The combined teams grew
to over 100 members; the quality and quantity of living
and working quarters, water, food, and communication
with the outside world changed during that time. More
importantly, the excavation and specialist teams also
changed, not only in their demographics and composition,
but also in the personalities and interests (as well as liaisons)
of the individual participants. Thus—in a true example of
the household cycle of growth and decline—while the
BACH team was winding down in 2003, a new energy was
growing next door in the 4040 Area, whereas in the old
Building 1/5 area there was an entirely different dynamic.
There are other groups of participants in the Çatal-
höyük Research Project whose presence impacts the mean-
ing of Çatalhöyük, even if only for a short time. They
create narratives about the site, which can make their way
to visitors’ consciousness. One such group is made up of
509CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
12 http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/religion-as-the-basis-
for-power-and-property-in-the-first-civilizations-analysis (accessed 5 Sep-
tember 2011).
Figure 25.1. Chart of visitor categories to Çatalhöyük (from Bartu-
Candan 2005:Figure 3.1).

the independent researchers who work on the periphery
of the project each year. They are not allowed to work in
the excavation areas or the laboratories but can participate
in discussions and walk on the mound without an escort.
Such artists-in-residence include authors of two of the
books that I discuss below, Michael Balter and Rob Swigart.
I should remark at this point that my previous experi-
ence in Southeast Europe had not prepared me for this on-
site articulation with the public. My experience with such
communication had been through teaching and through
digital presentations. The sites where I had previously
worked (Selevac, Opovo, and Podgoritsa) were even less
ac cessible than Çatalhöyük, and more importantly, unlike
Çatalhöyük, they had no existing narrative that had brought
them into the public view even before the project started.
However, as I became used to the practice of “reflexive
methodology” at Çatalhöyük (Chapters 1, 2; Hodder 1999a;
Hodder, ed. 2000), the idea of listening to multiple voices
and standpoints in the construction of the prehistory of
the site, and the idea that the site of Çatalhöyük is viewed
through many windows and that it is “multi-sited,” were
easily put into practice. But Bartu-Candan gives us a useful
caveat with which to temper our enthusiasm:
It might be deceptive to depict a “public” as a homo -
geneous entity, sharing the same interests and con-
cerns, an entity with which an archaeologist should
always affiliate with under any circumstances. Given
the multiple and shifting contexts of any archaeolog-
ical practice, and the various publics of archaeology,
with their own power struggles and hierarchies, I
think it is more apt to describe the role of the archae-
ologist as a guerilla, in the sense of having specific
projects and agendas, yet being constantly mobile,
critical and reflexive. (Bartu-Candan 2005:38)
The strategies that were used to engage the multiple
publics and create an awareness of their entanglements are
discussed in the remaining part of this chapter, with refer-
ence especially to the BACH project.
On-Site Installations and the Idea of Excavation
as Live Performance
The social practice that surrounds the management and
research of heritage sites has frequently been described as
“performance,” and this certainly includes archaeological
investigative practices of survey, excavation, and laboratory
work (Hodder 2006b; Pearson and Shanks 2001; Shanks
2004; Tilley 1989). It is no wonder, then, that visitors are
much more engaged by a place where active fieldwork is in
progress than places that are empty of any such perform-
ance. I could generalize this even more by suggesting that
on-site as well as on-line, nonspecialist visitors of all ages
and most levels of interest are attracted as much (if not
more) by the practice of heritage work and the heritage
workers themselves as by the results of their work.
Moreover, our reflexive methodology, in making trans-
parent the archaeological processes of investigation and
interpretation (including dealing with the ambiguities of
the archaeological record), is very much in keeping with
the guidelines, mentioned above and in Chapter 3 of this
volume, for the sustainability of digital heritage. Trans-
parency is expressed in filling out the unit sheets for later
analysis, but also in communications with visitors to the
excavation. All locations of the Çatalhöyük Research Project
are characterized by a great deal of verbal discussion, and
the BACH Area was no exception.
The BACH Shelter
Every year, the excavation season of the Çatalhöyük Re-
search Project attracted repeat participants who incorpo-
rated the project into their annual and seasonal routines.
But there was nothing routine about the stream of events
that happened at the site, which perhaps contributed to
the participants’ willingness to endure the heat and dust
and relative discomforts of living and working at the site
(Chapter 26). Events that broke up the weekly and daily
routines for the participants included visits by the media,
government officials, professional specialists, tourists in
large and small groups, and large groups of small school-
children.
The BACH shelter was always an attractive stop for
visitors on their guided tours around the site, offering a
place in the shade to watch archaeology in action and even
converse with the archaeologists (Figure 25.2; see also
Chapter 24). It offered good lighting conditions for pho-
tography and video (see Figures 24.9, 24.12). And we always
had good music playing and exciting events such as pho-
tographers swinging in the rafters like trapeze artists! More-
over, both Mirjana Stevanović and I (and many others of
the BACH team) were often happy to share our creative
interpretations with visitors. I have remarked that sharing
our workplace with the public in this way sometimes
seemed more like a zoo with glass walls than a really inter-
active place. Michael Ashley, Jason Quinlan, and I made
this ambivalence about our communication with the public
in the shelter a focus of our performance of RAVE (see
“Real Audiences, Virtual Excavations” below).
The BACH Area was one station among an increasing
number of places for visitors to experience archaeological
excavation in action. Others included (after the close and
disappearance of the BACH shelter) the 4040 Area, which
since 2008 has been covered by its own magnificent shelter
that embraces also the NORTH and former BACH Areas
(Figure 1.9); the TP or Polish excavation area on the south-
510 RUTH TRINGHAM

ern summit of the East Mound, which has finally been pro-
vided with a shelter, but one that is difficult to accommodate
visitors; and the SOUTH Area, where a large rigid shelter
now covers the extensive old Mellaart excavation area and
its more recent excavations, where visitors can stand in the
humid shade but at a distance from the activity (see Chapter
24). Other excavation areas with limited space under their
temporary shelters included IST (the Istanbul team’s area),
and two excavation areas on the West Mound.
Demonstration Houses
Building 3 in the BACH Area was excavated entirely down
to the midden underlying its earliest foundations, including
removal of its walls (Figure 6.1). Building 1 in the neigh-
boring NORTH Area was also entirely excavated to reveal
the underlying Building 5. Building 5, however, was exca-
vated only as far as the exposure of its final phase of occu-
pation. By 1999, it was preserved for display under its own
semipermanent shelter, with a wooden platform and walk-
way with extensive informational panels, to show visitors
what a Neolithic Çatalhöyük building looked like as ar-
chaeological remains (Figure 25.3; see also Figure 24.16).
For many years until 2007, it served a valuable purpose as
an informational stop on the guided route for visitors (with-
out the “distraction” of excavators). In 2007, its shelter was
dismantled, and in 2008 it was incorporated into the much
larger demonstration of a Çatalhöyük neighborhood that
included the 4040 Area, many buildings of which were also
excavated only to their latest occupation phase. This larger
area has been covered by the newest of the shelters on the
East Mound (see Figure 24.7) (Hodder 2008). The invisible
former BACH Area is also under this same shelter (Figure
25.4; see also Figures 1.9, 24.6).
The Visitor or Interpretive Center
The Visitor or Interpretive Center, built in 1998, is where
most visits to the site begin. It is located in the southwest
corner of the main compound and comprises a single large,
high-ceilinged room without windows (Figure 25.5). Here
the visitor can view an introductory eight-minute film that
was made in 2004 by UC Berkeley student Ona Johnson
and Stanford University student Karis Eklund.13 For security
reasons, there are few original objects on display, but the
walls are covered with colorful display panels and images
in English and Turkish about the project; these were newly
511CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.2. Visitors taking advantage of the
shade and the action in the BACH shelter.
Figure 25.3. Building 5 under its own shelter from 1999 to 2006.
13 This movie can be watched at http://www.archaeologychannel.org/
content/video/catalhoyuk.html (accessed on 5 September 2011).

512 RUTH TRINGHAM
created in 2005 (Merriman 2005). An additional display
was created by Ayfer Bartu-Candan with some of the
women from Küçükköy about the meaning of Çatalhöyük
for them (Bartu 2000:105). Sonya Atalay continued this
collaboration with the community in 2006 (Atalay 2006).
The Visitor Center may be seen as the precursor to
the planned Museum of Çatalhöyük to be set up at a loca-
tion still to be determined in the immediate region of the
site. A design was presented in 2005, with further discussion
in 2007, that, on the one hand, “captures the spirit of the
site and would be made out of mud brick” (Hodder and
Farid 2005) and, on the other, fulfills “the ethos and practice
of the project vision. It is by no means a traditional museum
design but rather a Neolithic experience of reconstruction
houses and interactive facilities, not necessarily a primary
place for original objects” (Hodder and Farid 2007:8).
Figure 25.4. Building
5, the invisible (ghost-
inhabited) BACH Area
and the 4040 Area
under the new (since
2008) shelter.
Figure 25.5. Inside
the Visitor or Inter-
pretive Center at
Çatalhöyük.

The Replica House
The Replica House, located immediately on the left as you
enter the site, is often the first stop for visitors if they recognize
it for what it represents (Figure 25.6). The project to construct
a replica of a Neolithic house was started in 1997 under the
direction of Mirjana Stevanović (and is described by her in
detail in Chapter 22; see also Figure 2.13). Initially, the BACH
project funded this enterprise as a means of carrying out ex-
perimental research into the construction of houses on the
East Mound (Chapter 6). As it was gradually completed, with
decorated plastered interior wall surfaces, platforms, movable
items, storage rooms and containers, and an entry ladder,
the replica became an important vehicle for the multisensorial
experience of a Neolithic house, both for project participants
(Chapter 26) and for visitors (see Figure 23.10). It was even
used in 2004 as the location for a Discovery Channel TV
docudrama with reenactments of Neolithic life.
The Compound
I include the compound in this section about on-site visits,
since this is one of the areas whose access, as mentioned in
Chapter 2 of this volume, is restricted for visitors. When I
first visited the site in 1996, the compound was virtually L-
shaped, with only its northern and eastern perimeters built
up and a small room in the southeast corner. Subsequently,
the complete perimeter has been built up, broken only by
narrow access gaps on its south and west sides (Figure 25.7;
see also Figures 2.15, 24.4, 24.5, 26.1). Now, as visitors walk
along the ramp into the public access at the Visitor Center,
the barred windows of the south perimeter of the compound
present themselves, perhaps extending the zoological park
analogy to the performance of laboratory work. The visitors
can see and run into glimpses of life in the compound—
house management activities, washing finds, banging doors,
the quiet murmur of the heavy-residue sorting table; exca-
vators running down from the mound to a lab or their bed-
rooms, mysterious people who are allowed to rest in the
middle of the day in the shade of the veranda, or people
who walk purposefully from one side of the compound to
the other holding a tray of coffee—but the visitors are defi-
nitely excluded as outsiders from these tantalizing fragments
(Figure 25.8; see also Figure 24.4, Chapters 24, 26).
On-Site Self-Guided Tours
Only project participants and independent registered re-
searchers may walk around the East Mound without a guide
(and even for participants, it is not allowed after working
hours without permission from the government represen-
tative). The guides acting as escorts for visitors are usually
one of the site guards (Figure 25.9). The knowledge of the
latter about the site (and in languages other than Turkish)
is quite limited but always developing. I discuss below the
memoirs of one of the guards. Many of the visitors already
know something about the site from Internet resources,
print publications, or TV programs. Three forms of self-
guided tours have been devised for visitors to enrich their
experience of visiting the site. These are especially useful
for those who come outside of the fieldworking season.
513CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.6. The Replica House as a tourist magnet at Çatalhöyük.

Display panels at the demonstration buildings offer a
static, readable (in English and Turkish) guide to what vis-
itors see in front of them. These were first set up in 1999
(Building 5 in NORTH) and 2003 (in SOUTH) (Figure
25.10). In 2008, with the completion of the shelter over the
4040 and NORTH Areas, the former Building 5 wooden
walkway and new (from 2005) display panels were en-
hanced by a raised wooden walkway, complete with display
panels “at strategic points,” which guides visitors around
the various houses of the neighborhood (Figure 25.11).
“Low roped sides keep visitors from straying off the path”
(Hodder and Farid 2008:6).
An audio guide was produced in English and Turkish
in 2005 by a museum studies group from University College
London (Merriman 2005:273). Their aim in creating this
for visitors while they walk around the site was “to develop
a coordinated experience for visitors” (Merriman 2005). The
audio guide has 10 clips, recorded in English by Ian Hodder
and translated into Turkish, which focus on nodes of interest
such as demonstration houses and ongoing excavations, but
also provide information for some of the walks between
nodes. The clips are designed to be played on MP3 players.
Videowalks: The Remediated Places Project14 had
rather different aims from the above-mentioned audio walk-
ing guides. Begun by myself with Steve Mills (University of
Cardiff) and Michael Ashley in 2005, the Remediated Places
Project, though involved in the tactile sensation of walking
across the mound, is more interested in what Ingold refers
514 RUTH TRINGHAM
Figure 25.7. A collage showing the growing project compound at Çatalhöyük, 1996–2007.
Figure 25.8. Tantalizing views of the compound interior from its public (southwest) corner, photographed during a time-lapse video series.
14 http://chimeraspider.wordpress.com/ (accessed 5 September 2011).

to as “wayfaring,” in contrast to the audio guide, which en-
courages a more goal-oriented tour using Ingold’s “transport
mode” of movement (Ingold 2007:75). In addition, the Re-
mediated Places Project places a heavy emphasis on watch-
ing video while you walk—yes, actually looking at a video
image while walking. This would seem to be contra indicated
or, at best, dangerous; how and why, you may well ask, should
one look at a video clip while looking at and walking across
the real thing? The answer is that, as with artist Janet
Cardiff’s videowalks in museums,15 the aim is not to inter-
rupt the experience of the immediacy of being at the place,
but to confuse—and thus, Cardiff argues, to enhance—that
experience by adding visions of another time or place and
to heighten the multisensorial experience of the East Mound
(see also Chapters 24, 26; Tringham et al. 2007). During the
field seasons of 2005 and 2007, we created walks between
and around nodes of activity on the East and West Mounds
(Figure 25.12), which could be followed with a mobile view-
ing medium such as an iPod, iPhone, or Blackberry on-site.
I discuss the on-line version and experience below (see “Re-
mediated Places Project” section, below).
Unlike the informative audio guide described above,
Remediated Places encourages users to spend some time
walking along the paths between the excavation nodes, where
there is less distraction from the intense activity; to muse
while listening to and viewing a thematic selection of com-
mentaries, videos, ambient sounds, and diaries that guide
visitors toward creative lateral thinking and the use of
515CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
15 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=
TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009772 (accessed 5 September 2011).
Figure 25.9. The entrance to
Çatalhöyük seen from the East
Mound, with the guardhouse on
the left and the Replica House and
Visitor Center on the right.
Figure 25.10. Display panels in the SOUTH Area; on the right, a display
showing the former position of the “Volcano/City Plan” fresco can be
seen.
Figure 25.11.The display panels and raised walkway in the new 4040
shelter.

imagination about the videowalk that they are following.
The audiovisual resources presented—all of which are
drawn from work at Çatalhöyük—have been tagged with
themes: Life Histories of People, Places, and Things (in-
corporating memory), the Senses of Place (incorporating
the sensorial experience), Viewing the Past at Multiple
Scales (incorporating traditional information about the
present and the past), and Communicating and Collabo-
rating with the Public (Tringham et al. 2007; Tringham and
Mills 2007).
One of the most emotionally powerful walks for me is
one that takes visitors to the bare patch where the invisi-
ble—and perhaps forgotten—BACH Area lies (see Figures
1.8, 1.9, 25.4) and suggests they watch a video of Mirjana
Stevanović walking through Building 3 as she imagines it
was walked through in the past. Another strongly resonant
walk is for the visitor to sit or walk in the Replica House
and watch a video of 18 people crammed in there in 2002
while the inaugural fire is lit in the oven and the room fills
with smoke as the side-door is closed16 (Figures 24.20,
25.13).
Press Day
One on-site performance that should not be forgotten in
the routine of the Çatalhöyük field season is the annual
Press Day, when Turkish and international media repre-
sentatives are invited to view the project in action. In spite
of it being an annual event, each year Press Day has seemed
to have a different character, depending perhaps on where
the most drama was happening on the site and which media
representatives showed up (Figure 25.14). The press were
given information packages, a public lecture or two, a tour
of excavations and display houses, often a nice meal, and
interviews with specific participants. On this day, the media
are allowed into the compound, but in quite tightly con-
trolled groups. The day is often combined with the visit of
local and regional government officials. In general, it is a
day of excitement and intensive activity and performance
by the team. In the BACH Area, our most notable Press
Day event was our first in 1997, when Mirjana Stevanović
516 RUTH TRINGHAM
Figure 25.12. The videowalks
across the East Mound designed
as part of the Remediated
Places Project.
Figure 25.13. Screenshot of the Remediated Places videowalk
to the BACH Area.
16 These movies can be downloaded from the Remixing Çatalhöyük web-
site at http://okapi.dreamhosters.com/remixing/mainpage.html (accessed
5 September 2011); they will also be accessible from the digital mirror
of this volume (http://www.codifi.info/projects/last-house-on-the-hill).

discovered the spectacular flint dagger and its carved bone
handle (cover photo) almost under the nose of the Gover-
nor of Konya and Ian Hodder (Figure 25.15).
Off-Site Performance
Presentations and performances about the research and
the interpretations of the Çatalhöyük Research Project to
the public and/or professional audiences are expected and
routine events, especially between field seasons, at profes-
sional meetings, universities, schools, public societies, and
so on. Here I discuss just a few of the more unusual events
that presented the BACH materials.
Real Audiences, Virtual Excavations
The field season of 2001 was an important year for media
in the BACH Area; Jason Quinlan, who had worked with
us on multimedia projects at UC Berkeley MACTiA, joined
the team. Jason brought his own mini-DV camcorder to
the site that began our transformation to digital video; he
and Michael Ashley rigged up the mountaineering trapeze
that enabled them to take vertical images of the excavation;
and finally, this was the year that we relied entirely on dig-
ital photography for our photo record (Chapter 3). The
result was that still images and video clips were quickly
and easily available for remixing and recontextualizing
into a new kind of presentation that combined multimedia
with live performance, which we called Real Audiences,
Virtual Excavations (RAVE). It was created and “per-
formed” by Michael Ashley, Jason Quinlan, and myself in
several venues. The first was in September 2001 at the 7th
international conference of the Society on Virtual Systems
and MultiMedia (VSMM); in December 2001 we gave a
smoother show at UC Berkeley; and in September 2002
we performed for a packed audience at the annual meeting
of the European Association of Archaeologists in Thessa-
loniki, Greece.
The aims of RAVE were (1) to show that archaeology
is carried out at multiple scales; (2) to draw attention to
the distance that separates—often inadvertently—visitors
from Çatalhöyük Research Project team members, creating
517CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.14. Press Day 2002 in the BACH Area: enthusiasm over the
Space 87 burials.
Figure 25.15. Press Day
1997 in the BACH Area:
discovery of “the dagger.”

the feeling of visitors as “the other”; and (3) to show the
life of team members themselves sometimes as visitors,
sometimes as insiders. These performances were not
recorded, but a digital relic of the show exists on the Web17
(Figure 25.16). In March 2003, we presented a modified
version of RAVE to the annual meeting of the Society of
California Archaeology, which brought us abruptly face to
face with the issue of sensitivity in showing images of hu-
man remains, something we had not considered in our
other “performances.” In the latter, much of the presentation
had been focused on the burials below the floors, and this
caused a stir in California in the face of NAGPRA18 and
other ethical considerations.
Mysteries of Çatalhöyük Exhibit
In September 2001, the Science Museum of Minnesota—
which had already been taking a lead role in popularizing
the new investigations at Çatalhöyük (see below)—opened
its exhibit named, like their website, “Mysteries of Çatal-
höyük.” This exhibit took as its focus not the finds and fea-
tures excavated at Çatalhöyük, but the processes of inves-
tigation through excavation and laboratory work and the
lives of archaeologists at the site. The centerpiece of the
exhibit was the life-size model of a corner of the veranda
in the compound, which is indeed a center of social life on
the project. A path took the visitor through a number of
hands-on activities and colorful displays to help share vi -
cariously the experience of visiting the site itself and en-
tering the compound, which is normally off-limits to visi-
tors (Figure 25.17). Many of us acted as consultants with
the Minnesota team on the design of the exhibit, as well as
helping with the content by our interviews. The exhibit at-
tracted a large number of visitors of all ages, but unfortu-
nately was not designed for the long-term. The DVD and
CD that resulted from the exhibit and the website are all
that survived.
Senses of Place
“Senses of Place” was a performance of the Remediated
Places Project (see “On-Site Self-Guided Tours,” above)
given by Michael Ashley and myself in the Beyond E-Text
symposium at the annual meeting of the American An-
thropological Association in November 2006. It was a com-
bination of live performance by “visitors” to Çatalhöyük,
who are introduced to various formats of visitation, shown
with the help of PowerPoint presentation on a screen
nearby. The format we focused on comprised the structured
choices of videos, images, and sounds being loaded onto
an iPod that we have described as the Remediated Places
Project. The technical reality of this format being available
for visitors is still beyond our capacity at Çatalhöyük, but,
as I describe below, not out of the question. The 20-minute
performance was recorded and is available as an on-line
publication19 (Tringham et al. 2007).
Media Popularization, Popular Culture
Çatalhöyük has been an object in the popular awareness
of the origins of art, civilization, and architecture, and of
the worship and power of the Goddess, since the publica-
tion of James Mellaart’s popular monograph (Gadon 1989:
25–38; Kostof 1985; Mellaart 1967). The expanse of exposed
architecture, wall painting, and sculptures from James Mel-
laart’s 1960s excavation has continued to provide the source
of both professional and popular reiterations of Çatalhöyük.
The new Çatalhöyük Research Project, however, began to
have an impact from 2000, seven or more years after its
beginning, an impact that drew the public’s attention to
the practice of archaeology as much as to the findings of
the project.
I have already discussed the excellent work of the Sci-
ence Museum of Minnesota in this regard, and there are
numerous articles in popular magazines in Turkey, Europe,
and the United States that draw attention to the new re-
search. In this section, however, I focus on four relatively
recent books that illustrate the variety of authorship and
genres that are involved in the popularization of the Çatal-
höyük and the CRP (Figure 25.18).
518 RUTH TRINGHAM
Figure 25.16. The website remnant of the Real Audiences, Virtual Ex-
cavation (RAVE) performance.
17 http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/bach/rave/default.html (accessed 5 Sep-
tember 2011).
18 http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/ (accessed 5 September 2011).
19 http://chimeraspider.wordpress.com/about/remediated-places-on-
youtube/ (accessed 5 September 2011).

Michael Balter is a science journalist, originally from
Los Angeles but now based in Paris. He wrote his book
The Goddessand the Bull after intensive, probing interviews
with almost every member of the CRP team and some of
the BACH team during 2000 and 2002–04 (Balter 2005).
He is labeled by his publisher as the “excavation’s official
biographer.” His book and the research behind it on the
history of archaeological investigation at Çatalhöyük com-
prise an oral history project; as with many such projects,
the investigator/author (Balter), who did indeed have train-
ing as an oral historian, is invisible in the text. Nevertheless,
he tells an absorbing tale which I believe is much more
complex than the publishers’ marketing statement that “Bal-
ter reveals the true story behind modern archaeology—
the thrill of history-making scientific discovery as well as
the crushing disappointments, the community and friend-
ship, the love affairs, and the often bitter rivalries between
warring camps of archaeologists.” The “truth” is Balter’s,
which he has arrived at after sifting through a huge amount
of audio interview material. In keeping with what I discuss
below about allowing the public access to the primary data,
it would be fascinating—even valuable—to see what other
519CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.17. The Science Museum of Minnesota exhibit “Mysteries of Çatalhöyük” in 2001;
John Swogger (insert) visits his real-life model sitting on the veranda of the compound.
Figure 25.18. Collage of four popular books about Çatalhöyük.

histories could be “remixed” from other readings of the in-
terviews. I hope dearly that Michael Balter will make sure
that these materials are archived for the long term.
The Leopard’s Tale by Ian Hodder is a very interesting
genre of archaeological writing and is designed to engage
the public (and the professional) in the investigative process
by guiding them through an in-depth—and relatively trans-
parent—journey of encounters with archaeological data
that starts with pictorial depictions of leopards and ends fi-
nally with the discovery of the first physical evidence of the
leopard itself (Hodder 2006a). In disentangling the tangles
and connections between the excavated materials that will
lead to unraveling this puzzle of why there are no leopard
remains at Çatalhöyük, one interpretation leading to another
and another, Hodder takes the reader on an exploration of
all of the different scales and aspects of life that made up
the world of Çatalhöyük. If there is a downside to this book,
it is that the journey is so neatly written, that the reader
might be seduced (as by a beautiful visualization by artist
John Swogger or a 3D model) into forgetting that this too
is just one person’s construction of history and that another
journey might have created a very different narrative—
which is not a bad thing.
The personal narrative or memoir Protecting Çatalhöyük,
by a former guard at the site, Sadrettin Dural, is yet another
unusual genre in archaeological writing (Dural 2007). He
writes what has been described by one reviewer as a stream
of consciousness—almost a diary—about his life as a guard
at Çatalhöyük, starting a few months before the new project
began and then during the early years of the CRP Project
(until 1999). The text is sometimes a challenge to follow as a
linear narrative, but Sadrettin represents a voice that is almost
never heard—certainly not by the public in a published
medium. For that very reason, I find it somehow jarring to
read the explanation and explication in the foreword, the
notes, and interviewed afterword with Ian Hodder. I would
be interested to know the response of other readers.
It was inevitable that Rob Swigart, with his long expe-
rience and engagement with computer gaming, interactive
fiction (hypertext), and software development would write
his fictional work inspired by Çatalhöyük in an unusual
genre. In his conventionally formatted linear book Stone
Mirror, he switches back and forth from a narrative about
the archaeological research at a fictional Neolithic site near
Çatalhöyük to its mirror narrative about the place as lived
9,000 years ago (Swigart 2007). The modern archaeological
context is clearly modeled on the Çatalhöyük Research
Project, which Rob Swigart experienced for several weeks
as an independent researcher in 2005. I personally think
that his narrative would not have lost any interest or value
by more closely mirroring the actual practice and negotia-
tions of archaeological investigation. By contrast, the pre-
historic narrative is built magnificently out of the excavated
data, and I found it quite inspirational for my own hyper-
media works.20 The book is definitely a “good read,” al-
though, as Swigart points out in his preface, his aim is to
“write fiction about archaeology that is scientifically accu-
rate and contemporary enough for use as a textbook”
(Swigart 2007:9).
ON-LINE SHARING:
ÇATALHÖYÜK’SDIGITAL HERITAGE
When the Çatalhöyük Research Project began in 1993, the
Internet and World Wide Web were in their infancy (Okin
2004, 2005; Tringham 2010). Even by 1999, when Anja
Wolle and I submitted our article to the second Çatalhöyük
volume, high-speed Internet access was still a luxury, cre-
ating a very different context in which to access the on-
line world (Wolle and Tringham 2000). Thus, the project’s
history has run in a parallel trajectory with the development
of digital heritage, so that the digital offerings about the
project should be seen in that context. With the rapid rate
at which communications technology and creative appli-
cations are changing, it is difficult to imagine what the po-
tential will be in the future. The one constant we can be
sure of is that unless we follow the steps for sustainability
recommended above and in Chapter 3 of this volume, the
knowledge, creative efforts, and project documentation will
become archaeological themselves.
Conventional (Web 1.0) Websites and Portals
A number of Web 1.0 sites about Çatalhöyük exist on the
Internet in a more or less active state. In Web 1.0, a web-
master/webmistress designs and/or maintains the site and
alone has access to its contents on a server, thus controlling
the input of content and the look and feel of the site. These
sites are useful as official portals to archaeological projects
but are strictly information-only. They vary in terms of the
control of content sharing—that is, in how much or how
easily content may be downloaded to public users’ own
computers (Figure 25.19).
The official portal to the Çatalhöyük Research Project
was created in fall 1996 by Anja Wolle, who remained as
the dedicated webmistress until 2005 (Wolle and Tringham
2000:207–211). Wolle came to the project with a research
focus on the use of hypermedia formats as a way of inte-
grating the data and documents of an archaeological proj-
ect. The website she designed forms the basis of the current
website.21 Its greatest value is as a portal to the digital pub-
520 RUTH TRINGHAM
20 Dead Women Do Tell Tales (in process): http://www.ruthtringham.com/
Ruth_Tringham/Dead_Women_Do_Tell_Tales.html (accessed 1 March
2012).
21 http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ (accessed 5 September 2011).

lications of the project: the newsletters and annual reports,
information about other publications, media assets, and,
of course, the on-line database (see below).
The BACH team itself created a website in November
2001, which was designed to present details of the BACH
project and to help in fundraising efforts.22 Unfortunately,
it was never linked from the official Çatalhöyük website,
and I suspect we rarely received visits. The lack of regular
maintenance and content updates would have also con-
tributed to its low visibility. The website for the Real Audi-
ences, Virtual Excavations “performance” (see “Real Audi-
ences, Virtual Excavations,” above) received more visitors,
although likewise, it had no link from the official Çatal-
höyük site.23 The RAVE site offers videos (always a popular
form of content) that can be viewed and downloaded, on
the one hand, and is a finite publication, on the other, so
that it carries no expectation of updates (and no disap-
pointment at their lack).
The “Mysteries of Çatalhöyük” website was created
and maintained by the Science Museum of Minnesota as
part of the project, funded by NSF and NEH, along with
the exhibit in the same museum (see “Mysteries of Çatal-
höyük Exhibit,” above). Both website and exhibit launched
officially in September 2001, but a prototype of the Web
1.0 website was available in 1999 (Wolle and Tringham
2000:211). Until 2001, the team that created the website
and exhibit, led by Don Pohlman and including Natalie
Rusk, Joshua Seaver, Keith Braafladt, Leslie Kratz, Orrin
Shane, and Tim Ready, came out to Çatalhöyük each season
to gather content, including video footage and images. The
focus of the website, as with the exhibit, was on the process
of investigation rather than the discoveries of the investi-
gators. Thus, like the exhibit, this website was unusual for
sites about archaeological projects, but a significant one
for expressing the reflexive methodology in archaeology.
It was aimed at a younger audience, but we have found it a
valuable asset in higher education and public outreach.
The project closed in 2003, so that by definition this website
has been published as a finite enterprise and is no longer
being updated.
Interestingly, however, a few members of the team that
had worked so hard on the “Mysteries of Çatalhöyük” con-
tinued to develop audience participation about Çatalhöyük.
In late 2004, Josh Seaver, for example, established a blog
through the SMM Learning Technologies Center, in which
he used an open source 3D modeling software, Blender, to
build models of Neolithic house exteriors and interiors
and artifacts; he provided a gallery of models and tutorials
on how to model in Blender and then encouraged the
public to upload their models to his blog and the gallery.24
I don’t know if anyone ever contributed; the site has been
inactive since 2005. The concept was remarkable and one
that would be worth revitalizing in the on-line edition of
this volume.
521CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.19. Collage of Web 1.0 websites about Çatalhöyük: the official CRP website, the SMM “Mysteries of Çatalhöyük” website, and the BACH
website.
24 http://ltc.smm.org/visualize/ (accessed 5 September 2011).
22 http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/bach/catal/default1.html (accessed 12
June 2012).
23 http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/bach/rave/default.html (accessed 5 Sep-
tember 2011).

Democratization of Technology: Public Participation,
Professional Networking, Web 2.0
“The term ‘Web 2.0’ refers to a perceived second generation
of web development and design, that aims to facilitate com-
munication, secure information sharing, interoperability,
and collaboration on the World Wide Web.” Web 2.0 con-
cepts have led to the development and evolution of “web-
based communities, hosted services, and applications such
as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs,
and folksonomies.”25 By contrast with the Web 1.0 websites,
Web 2.0 places are characterized by the ability of the content
provider to update and modify their content without having
to go through a webmaster/mistress. Since the early 2000s,
many conventional websites have incorporated such com-
munity-building and social-networking options into their
menus. The official Çatalhöyük website was no exception;
it originally had both a blog (communal diary) and a forum
(multiple discussion groups) tab in its menu.
It has been argued that one of the downsides of the
Web 1.0 style of website is that the person tasked with up-
dating the site is frequently not the same person who pro-
vides the content—a disconnect that can easily lead to web-
sites not being updated, even to the point of becoming
archaeological themselves. Constant updating is required,
especially since websites are being used increasingly as es-
sential sources of current information. The Web 2.0 style
in which content providers are able to upload and update
their content is to a certain extent the solution to this
dilemma. But, as can be seen from the demise of the Çatal-
höyük blog and forum, as well as Josh Seaver’s Blender
blog, the sustainability of any Web content, whether up-
loaded by webmaster or user, depends on the sustainability
of the energy and motivation of the creator and maintainer,
the human fallibility factor. As I have said elsewhere in this
chapter and we have repeated in Chapter 3 of this volume,
content sustainability also depends on being put on the
Web in a format and form suitable for long-term conser-
vation and usability.
That said, there are a number of Web 2.0 contexts in
which the materials of the Çatalhöyük Research Project
(including the BACH project) occur. Notably, there is a
Çatalhöyük Team group on the social networking site
Facebook,26 and a selection of photographs are uploaded
to the Çatalhöyük photo stream on Flickr,27 a Web 2.0 site
that allows users to upload and share photos. A similar
site for uploading and sharing short videos—YouTube28—
also has a large number of videos by Çatalhöyük team
members and visitors, including our movies about the Re-
mediated Places Project and Remixing Çatalhöyük (Figure
25.20).
An excellent example of Web 2.0 software in use as a
way of creating a community around an archaeological ex-
cavation may be seen in the commercial project of Prescot
Street in London.29 Team members upload content, and
registered users can post comments; no webmaster is in-
volved. The materials are uploaded according to standard-
ized formats, each piece of content being tagged to keep
track of it. A former Çatalhöyük team member, Anies Has-
san, created a video blog in which the story of the excava-
tion in 2008 has been told in 10 episodes.
Sharing Digital Databases with the Public
At the heart of both Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 sites is the issue
of sharing information, ideas, and data. I refer to “sharing”
as an issue, because the term is not as simple and altruistic
as it seems (rather like the word “freedom”) (see also the
section “Sharing and Reusing the Archive” in Chapter 3).
For example, the degree to which the creator/publisher of
the content has (or wishes to have) control over what hap-
pens to that content after its publication on the Web has a
profound effect on the life and sustainability of that content.
This applies equally to content in a website interface and
that embedded in a database.
An on-line entity that can be shared by viewing or lis-
tening only (by emailing a link to content, bookmarking, or
downloading for use in a “view only” context) is one whose
creator/publisher has prohibited the original content from
being recontextualized or modified unless express permis-
sion is given; this is in keeping with the default “all rights
reserved” copyright law. Some users, however, would like to
be able to create new works on the basis of published original
works, and so organizations such as Creative Commons
have offered alternative “some rights reserved” licensing for
new works. These new license agreements have certain lim-
itations, such as requiring attribution of the original work,
requiring each user down the line to permit sharing of the
new work with the same “share-alike” license, or prohibiting
a new work from being used for commercial purposes.30
In 2005, the Çatalhöyük Research Project team as a
community made the momentous agreement to share their
data (including images and video) with the world under a
522 RUTH TRINGHAM
25 With caution I have used these two quotations from Wikipedia, the
anonymously authored Internet encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Web_2.0 (accessed 5 September 2011).
26 http://www.facebook.com/.
27 http://www.flickr.com/photos/catalhoyuk/ (accessed 5 September 2011).
28 http://www.youtube.com/.
29 http://www.lparchaeology.com/prescot/ (accessed 5 September 2011).
30 http://creativecommons.org/ (accessed 5 September 2011).

Creative Commons 2.0 license. (The paper publications,
however, are still restricted [or protected] by an “all rights
reserved” copyright). In this decision, the team was fol-
lowing examples encouraged on Flickr and many other
Web 2.0 sites. They were also following a growing trend
of sharing knowledge in a more active way31—that is, al-
lowing others to engage with primary data by recontextu-
alizing, remixing, and redistributing it in secondary, terti-
ary, and infinitely modified products. In the section “The
BACH Shelter” above, I mentioned that among its best
practices, the Archaeology Data Service of the U.K. rec-
ognized that licensing others to download and reuse con-
tent from archaeological projects was an essential strategy
for its long-term sustainability. It is also at the heart of
Open Knowledge and the Public Interest (OKAPI), a col-
laboratory at UC Berkeley that has sponsored a number
of the database narratives described below (Remixing
Çatalhöyük and Okapi Island), created out of the BACH
data, as well as the recently formed Center for Digital Ar-
chaeology (CoDA).32
The sustainability of the official excavation database
of the Çatalhöyük Research Project, therefore, is guaranteed
from the viewpoint of the accessibility and reuse of its con-
tent. In the section above, “Digital Documentation Leads
in Sustainability for the Long-Term,” however, I refer to
the idea that metadata—data about the data—is also an
essential requirement for the long-term sustainability of
documentation. This is discussed in greater detail in Chap-
ter 3 of this volume, with reference to the CRP database
and media databases, as well as the BACH databases that
form part of the on-line version of this volume.
Outerfacing the Çatalhöyük and BACH Databases:
Database Narratives
“Rich (deeply layered), well-researched, content presented
in multiple formats is as important (if not more so) in
Public and New Media expressions of heritage as the tech-
nology used in building it, however attractive and seductive
the latter may be” (Tringham and Praetzellis 2008). The
content produced by an archaeological project, whether
in the form of a relational database or a catalog, forms the
scaffold from which we can draw a web of narratives that
may be about interpreting a micromorphological thin-sec-
tion, describing an event such as the burning of a room or
the analysis of a collection of mud bricks, or imagining
the social negotiation surrounding the burial of a dead
child. The richer the detail and the more informed the
documented content, the more interesting the narratives
will be.
One of the biggest challenges in archaeology is to take
a database beyond the boundaries of the merely accessible
and reusable to the realms of engagement by people outside
the inner circle of the “team.” With colleagues since the
early 1990s I have addressed this challenge of creating an
engaging “outerface” (Shahina Farid’s term, personal com-
munication) for the excavation database that would en-
courage outsiders to explore it and make it their own place.
The public expectations of the late 2000s are for more than
simple access to images or videos; there are expectations
of participation, dialogue, feedback, and creativity.
523CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.20. Collage of Web 2.0 sites about Çatalhöyük: YouTube, Facebook, and Flickr.
31 Active institutions in cultural heritage, education, and creative arts in-
clude the Open Knowledge Foundation, the Open Content Alliance
(http://www.opencontentalliance.org/, accessed 5 September 2011), the
Alexandria Archive Institute (AAI) (http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/,
accessed 5 September 2011). These institutions mirror the Open Source
movement in computer software development.
32 http://www.codamatic.org (accessed 15 May 2012).

The Dig OpChat Project
The Dig OpChat Project was a pilot with the UC Berkeley
Interactive University, whose aim was the open knowledge
sharing of faculty research with the public through the
development of “learning objects” (Tringham 2004b). The
Dig OpChat learning objects were based on my research
at Çatalhöyük and Opovo in Serbia. My personal aim in
this project was to develop a way to encourage the public
to access the primary databases of these two projects,
building on the Chimera Web Project of the 1990s (Joyce
and Tringham 2007). In 2002, I started with the develop-
ment of a series of vignettes, since at that time the most
pressing problem seemed to me how to create engaging
interfaces for public presentations of what we do. A “vi-
gnette” was defined as a “Web-based presentation” or
“learning object,” comprising a one- to two-minute non-
linear narrative of media plus text to illustrate a point, a
concept, a lesson; each vignette was linked to other vi-
gnettes around a theme. The vignettes comprise an inter-
pretive expression that is built from assets (various forms
of media), texts, and numerical data that reside within the
Dig OpChats database.
However, the old problem emerged again: how in
practice was I going to link this interface to the database?
At this point, I realized that rather than developing inter-
faces or vignettes that would be “linked” to the databases,
they needed to grow out of a database architecture that I
needed to design for them, that would act as a bridge to
the archaeological project databases, or even grow directly
out of the latter. Alongside this effort, another of the team
members, Raymond Yee, was developing the Scholars’
Box, which would enable users to download and recon-
textualize objects from the vignettes and/or database (Fig-
ure 25.21).
Remixing Çatalhöyük
Remixing Çatalhöyük is the second generation of the Dig
OpChat Project, resulting from a Federal U.S. Department
of Education (FIPSE) grant. The product, Remixing Çatal-
höyük,33 has been variously described as a database nar-
rative, a multimedia exhibition, and a research archive. It
was launched on the Internet in October 2007 and features
the investigations and media of the Çatalhöyük Research
Project, especially that of the Berkeley Archaeologists at
Çatalhöyük (BACH) (Figure 25.22). The aim of the website
is to engage the public of all ages in the exploration of
primary research data through four themed collections
that are selected from the research database. These are
the same themes as in the Remediated Places Project (see
above). One theme, on the Life History of People, Places,
and Things, also includes a K–12 activity module. The
public is invited to download media items that are licensed
with a Creative Commons 3.0 license, and—with guidance
provided in tutorials—to create and upload their own
original “remixes” about Çatalhöyük. The aim was to put
into practice a multivocal approach to history, where the
global, online community is invited to participate in the
dialogue alongside the physical, local community. A Turk-
524 RUTH TRINGHAM
33 http://okapi.dreamhosters.com/remixing/mainpage.html (accessed 5
September 2011).
Figure 25.21. The Dig OpChats project: (a) the structure of the project
showing the vignette as portal and guide to searching and selecting
items from the database, and the Scholars’ Box as a personal location
for uploading, downloading, and storing items; (b) vignette about the
study of burned rubble, showing the source of images and text in the
archived database.

ish version of the entire site is easily accessed by a toggle
button.
Okapi Island in Second Life
Okapi Island in Second Life is a mirror of the East Mound
at Çatalhöyük, as it exists today, and as it may have looked
in the past, where we share the research of the archaeological
project and its interpretation in this 3D virtual world34 (see
Figure 24.21) (Morgan 2009). We have used archaeological
evidence, and a bit of poetic license, to construct the mound
itself, along with excavation areas, reconstructed houses,
and multimedia exhibits. The same team (OKAPI) that de-
veloped Remixing Çatalhöyük, led by Noah Wittman and
myself, with the help of undergraduate research apprentices,
started developing Okapi Island early in 2007. The CRP
and BACH data (including images and video) were uploaded
and used in building and furnishing the island. By Novem-
ber 2007, we were able to hold an international Remixing
Çatalhöyük Day on the island, with events such as tours, a
public lecture, film festival, “chat-with-the-archaeologist,”
and videowalks (based on the Remediated Places vide-
owalks). Around a campfire—mirroring the real thing—we
were able to communicate with our visitors from around
the world, who included our archaeological colleagues as
well as people who had heard about the event through Face-
book and our blog.35 As with the physical heritage site of
Çatalhöyük itself, Okapi Island is not a finite published ob-
ject but is constantly being modified and visited. In No-
vember 2008, we held a house-burning event and dancing
that again drew international visitors (Figure 25.23).
The aim of any Second Life place is to avoid the demise
of becoming a ghost-site through lack of care and attention.
We use the site every semester for teaching and experi-
mentation purposes, and invite the public to join us in the
island’s “sandbox.” As with a physical heritage site, the key
to sustainability in Second Life, I believe, is to use the place
regularly and often, especially for events such as a group
visit, where the public can meet a professional archaeologist,
even if this is through the medium of an avatar (which is
really the virtual equivalent of a ventriloquist’s puppet).
The voice behind the avatar is real; the place is surreal, but
based on the actual mound. The sense of place that a virtual
visitor to Çatalhöyük can feel in Okapi Island is much
greater than through a flat website portal to the project or
even a QuickTime Virtual Reality (QTVR) tour.
Remediated Places Project
The Remediated Places Project is mentioned here again be-
cause it is another example of narratives derived directly
from on-line media and other data of the BACH project. In
addition, specific media, especially video and audio files,
were created in 2004–2007 at the East and West Mounds of
Çatalhöyük specifically for this project and have been added
525CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
Figure 25.22. The portal into the English version of Remixing Çatal-
höyük.
Figure 25.23. Okapi Island—a mirror of Çatalhöyük—in the virtual
world Second Life. (a) Two views on Remixing Çatalhöyük Day (Novem-
ber 2007): the videowalk to the BACH shelter and inside the BACH shel-
ter; (b) burning houses modeled on the SOUTH Area in December 2008.
(a)
(b)
34 Okapi Island could formerly be visited at http://slurl.com/secondlife/
Okapi/ 128/128/0 (accessed 23 February 2009). Other information about
Okapi Island is found at http://okapi.wordpress.com/projec ts/okapi-
island-in-second-life/ (accessed 5 September 2011) and http://www.
ruthtringham. com/Ruth_Tringham/Okapi_Island.html (accessed 2 Feb-
ruary 2012). Unfortunately, due to the doubling of land rent on Second
Life, Okapi Island itself has become archaeological as of February 2012.
35 A movie of Remixing Çatalhöyük Day may be viewed at http://okapi.
dreamhosters.com/video/sl_short.mov (accessed 5 September 2011).

to the on-line BACH database. The principles and theoretical
background of the project have already been described above
(see “On-Site Self-Guided Tours”; also Tringham et al. 2007).
Media in this database are “tagged” to express their relevance
to themes that we consider significant for our understanding
of the past and our practice in the present.
Earlier I described the on-site and live performance
contexts of the project. We imagined that a visitor might
also visit the project website on the Internet from anywhere
in the world (with a good network connection!). In this
version, the user is invited to select a walk and a theme,
which act as filters for preset36 or optional37 “screens” that
can be added, in which images, sounds, and other videos
enhance the virtual experience.38 Although the options
mirror the on-site version of the project, in the Web-based
version the visual additions are more easily viewed, and
you have the choice of jumping to the excavation nodes
without the physical necessity of walking the several hun-
dred yards between (Figure 25.24). In our design of these
interfaces, we wanted to make the multisensorial experience
of visiting Çatalhöyük richer than could be had with the
more conventional fly-through or walkthrough of, for ex-
ample, QuickTime Virtual Reality. A premise embedded
in our interface design is that
a key to sharing a multisensory approach of place
through on-screen media lies in the relationship fil-
tered through social practice and cultural diversity
between the immediate sensory experience and its
metaphorical extrapolation. . . . Thus we would use
the audiovisual cues of the Remediated Places videos
to trigger a metaphorical response in the user; for ex-
ample sweat dripping off an excavator’s forehead trig-
gers a feeling or memory of heat in the user; a
close-up of hands excavating will trigger through
their rhythm the memory of a song or a dance.
(Tringham et al. 2007)
In the reflexive methodology, the line between data and
narrative is deliberately fluid (Hodder 1997a), making the
concept of database narratives (Manovich 2001:225–228)
especially challenging but also very satisfying. Our aim in
the on-line edition of this volume and beyond is to create a
web of narratives—fragments, really—about the data (the
documentation of excavation and analysis) describing their
collection, the process of their interpretation at multiple
scales and with alternative scenarios, a web spun into the
recombinant history of the place we call the BACH Area
(Anderson 2011; Domike et al. 2002).
ÇATALHÖYÜK AND K-GRAY EDUCATION
In the section “Çatalhöyük as a Heritage Site” (above), I drew
attention to the challenges of attracting visitors to and sus-
taining Çatalhöyük as a heritage site, due to many of the
same factors that apply to prehistoric sites in general: lack of
526 RUTH TRINGHAM
Figure 25.24. Interfaces designed for the Remediated Places
Project: (top) the icons; (middle) Ruth Tringham’s choice of
items for Walk 1; (bottom) user options and build for Walk 1.
36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m_PYV5XpWc&feature=related
(accessed 5 September 2011).
37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM-vSEgjfdM&feature=channel (ac-
cessed 5 September 2011).
38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2BFsCpUDMU (accessed 5 Sep-
tember 2011).

monumentality and clear visibility of building remains, prob-
lems of preservation, and the fragmentary nature of the re-
mains. All of these were pointed out by Louise Doughty and
Ian Hodder in their introduction to the TEMPER Project
(2007), a large part of which pertains to the education of fu-
ture generations of heritage visitors and practitioners. In her
conclusion to the same volume, Doughty reiterates the chal-
lenges for prehistoric heritage places, pointing out that the
problem of prehistory’s invisibility starts with the official
structures of school education about prehistory and archae-
ology (Doughty 2007). Unless an argument is made for re-
lating the “mute” prehistoric populations to the earliest literate
and identifiable populations and from there to some kind of
continuity with the current population, or unless the pre-
historic people create some aesthetically pleasing objects
and/or buildings, they will be noted in school curricula with
little more than an anonymous, irrelevant “other” designation
that is taught because it forms a bookend of knowledge for
what comes later.
There is no better example of this than in the educational
system of California. Although the way of teaching con-
structivist history is quite enlightened, prehistoric popula-
tions other than those of North America are taught in one
month at the beginning of the sixth-grade curriculum (11-
to 12-year-olds) for social studies and history. The rest of
the school year is devoted to “ancient civilizations” through-
out the world (except North America), starting with six
weeks for Mesopotamia, which—in spite of heavy critique
(Bahrani 1998)—is still regarded as the birthplace of Western
Civilization, and ending with the Inca of South America.
During the five weeks devoted to prehistory, Çatalhöyük of-
ten features in the one or two weeks spent covering the Ne-
olithic. With this in mind, in 1999, as part of my first collab-
oration with the UC Berkeley Interactive University (before
the Dig OpChat [see above]), I directed a project in which
graduate students and I created modules that could be used
in teaching the prehistory part of the sixth-grade curriculum.
Two of the modules were about Çatalhöyük and, rather than
use the traditional—more spectacular—images from James
Mellaart’s 1960s excavation, we based the modules on the
BACH team’s current research and media.39 During fall 1999,
the graduate students took their modules to the sixth-grade
classes of our partner school, Roosevelt Middle School in
Oakland, and helped the teachers to use them. The modules
were well received by both children and teachers, but I believe
their use has fallen by the wayside, and the website where
they are disseminated needs some updating and dynamism
to be useful to the teachers. In 2007, as part of the Remixing
Çatalhöyük Project (see above), a more specifically on-line
sixth-grade module about the BACH project was designed
by UC Berkeley anthropology student Ona Johnson. In ad-
dition, this module is bilingual in Turkish and English, so it
may have some impact in Turkey.
As Doughty (2007) points out, however, the greatest
educational impact of cultural heritage on children of this
age is through active participation and engagement with
the physical place and material remains. This was one of
the recommendations of the TEMPER Project and has
been put into practice at Çatalhöyük. Each day during the
field seasons, 20 children of roughly U.S. middle school
ages from all over Turkey, but especially from the Konya
region, are bused to the site to spend the whole day doing
activities related to the archaeology of the site, such as
replicating the wall paintings, making replica models of
the Neolithic houses, and excavating in the previously ex-
cavated soil matrix of James Mellaart’s 1960s dump (which
is itself a small mound!) (Figure 25.25).40
The investigations of the Çatalhöyük Research Project,
especially the media assets of the BACH project, have also
been used heavily and have made a great impact in our
higher education at UC Berkeley. In the spring of 1998 (a
few months after the first season of the BACH project),
Meg Conkey and I (with the help of Michael Ashley) es-
tablished the Multimedia Authoring Center for Teaching
in Anthropology (MACTiA), a studio of 15 Macintosh
workstations, where we taught regular courses, such as Pre-
historic Europe and Anatolia, Landscape Archaeology, Cul-
tural Heritage in the Digital Age, and even Introduction to
Archaeology, with a heavy multimedia component.41 As a
527CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
39 http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/tringham/aop/html/mod1.html (ac-
cessed 12 September 2012).
40 http://www.catalhoyuk.com/newsletters/09/temper.html (accessed 5 Sep-
tember 2011).
41 http://www.ruthtringham.com/Ruth_Tringham/Pedagogical_Philosophy.
html (accessed 29 February 2012).
Figure 25.25. TEMPER children excavating the dump from the 1960s
excavations.

rich body of readily accessible, shareable, and reusable im-
ages and videos, the Çatalhöyük media formed the most
valuable media resource for the students and were heavily
used in their projects. In the MACTiA, students learned
not only to create new works on the basis of existing media
but also how to do this legally and respecting the wishes of
the original creators.
A further step in the process of learning about digital
resources and the documentation of heritage sites was to
practice documentation in the field. The intergenerational
training in digital documentation that we brought to Çatal-
höyük in the BACH project aimed to ensure that future
generations would understand, agree to, and know how to
maintain the standards of digital sustainability that are men-
tioned above under “Digital Documentation Leads in Sus-
tainability for the Long-Term” and in Chapter 3 of this vol-
ume. To this end, in 2004 we brought a small cohort of
students to Çatalhöyük whose purpose was primarily to be
trained in and practice documentation procedures in the
field (Figure 25.26). The Çatalhöyük Research Project had
never been conceived as a training project. Quite the con-
trary: students were not accepted as team members without
previous experience or special skills, such as photography.
The same principle held true for the BACH project. In 2004,
after the end of the field component of the BACH project,
the Çatalhöyük Research Project relaxed this principle and
opened to small teams of inexperienced undergraduates in
“field schools,” including the one described above from UC
Berkeley, and one from Stanford University. Since then,
other training teams have participated in the combined
CRP excavations. Two formats of such field schools have
been tried; one might be termed the “traditional field school”
format, in which the trainees work as a group together in
one space or building, which becomes a training location;
the second format follows more of an apprenticeship model,
in which the trainee follows the practice of a skilled student
or professional in a regular research location. I personally
have always found the second format more successful.
FUTURE PLANS AND DREAMS
The success and sustainability of heritage practice at Çatal-
höyük is dependent, I believe, on the fact that on-site as
well as on-line nonspecialist visitors of all ages and most
levels of interest will continue to be attracted as much (if
not more) by the practice of heritage work and the heritage
workers themselves as by the results of their work.
I have described some of the steps in which we have
begun (but need to maintain and develop) the harnessing
of this attraction, by making the interpretive process trans-
parent, starting with a thorough digital documentation of
sources, both tangibles and intangibles, which are archived
in such a way as to be easily disseminated, shared, and ac-
cessed by the public. Furthermore, we have begun (but
have a long way to go) to make transparent the process of
how we discover and draw conclusions from the data,
without simplifying it or “dumbing it down,” and definitely
without mystification. We are trying to encourage the pub-
lic to embrace (as we do) the ambiguities in the interpre-
tation of data, uncertainties that remain our constant com-
panions in dealing with narratives about the past.
Visualization and immersive 3D models expressing mul-
tiple interpretations and transparency of associated meta-
data have only just begun to be created and shared with
nonprofessionals (Pes carin et al. 2008).
Judging by the trends in cultural heritage practice as
demonstrated in current offerings of conference presenta-
tions, the gap between on-site and on-line (or rather on-
satellite) presentation and practice of cultural heritage for
both the public and professionals will close quite quickly
(Pletinckx 2007; Ryan et al. 2005). The Remediated Places
Project—perhaps the true spawn of the BACH project—is
poised to contribute to this merger through incorporating
geolocational (GPS) technology and context-aware (also
called “pervasive” or “ubiquitous”) computation using satel-
lite and/or wireless networking to enhance the experience
of visiting a place or museum. As a user walks across a site,
528 RUTH TRINGHAM
Figure 25.26. UC Berkeley students attending the 2004 Field School
as digital documentation apprentices.

or through a museum, or takes part in a community event,
she or he is connected to geolocated and contextualized
narratives, on-line digital media, maps, information, in-
structions, or scavenger hunts that have relevance, however
indirectly, to the user’s location or context (Figure 25.27)
(Epstein and Vergani 2007; Hight 2003; Roffia et al. 2005).42
What makes Çatalhöyük an example of sustainable
heritage is the flexibility to create multiple, new, meaningful
presentations and contexts for engaging with heritage that
can be maintained as part of a continuous social practice.
If these relatively ephemeral practices are based on and
supported by a rich, deeply layered, long-lasting, well-
archived digital content, then the place—however its pres-
entation changes—will last for centuries (it is still difficult
for me to imagine millennia)
529CHAPTER 25. THE PUBLIC FACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ÇATALHÖYÜK
42 Examples include Urban Interactive (http://urban-interactive.com/, ac-
cessed 5 September 2011); Bath, UK, a World Heritage Site (The Cityware
Project (now defunct): http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-
News.asp?NewsNum=1781); San Diego, California (34 North 118 West
project: http://34n118w.net/34N/, accessed 5 September 2011); London,
Figure 25.27. Steve Mills using (hypothetically) a wireless iPod to view a Remediated Places videowalk in the Replica House.
UK (Urban Tapestries: http://urbantapestries.net/, accessed 5 September
2011); Bologna Smart, Italy, made with the iPhone app Map2App
(http://itunes.apple.com/en/app/bologna-smart/id443170765, accessed 29
February 2012).

Bibliography
Anderson, Steve
2011 Technologies of History: Visual Media and the Eccentricity of the Past. Dartmouth
College Press (UPNE), Boston, Mass.
Ashley, Michael
2008 Deep Thinking In Shallow Time: Sharing Humanity’s History In The Petabyte Age.
Paper presented at the Digital Heritage in the new knowledge environment: shared spaces & open
paths to cultural content, Athens, Greece.
Atalay, Sonya
2006 Community Archaeology. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports.362-375.
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006.pdf.
Bahrani, Zainab
1998 Conjuring Mesopotamia: imaginative geography and a world past. In Archaeology Under
Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, edited
by L. Meskell, pp. 159-174. Routledge, London, New York.
Balter, Michael
2005 The Goddess and the Bull. Simon and Schuster/the Free Press, New York.
Bartu, Ayfer
2000 Where is Çatalhöyük? Multiple sites in the construction of an Archaeological site. In
Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük, edited by I. Hodder, pp.
101-110. McDonald Institute of Archaeology and BIAA, Cambridge, UK.
Bartu-Candan, Ayfer
2005 Entanglements, Encounters/Engagements with Prehistory: Çatalhöiyük and its Publics. In
Çatalhöyük perspectives: themes from the 1995-9 seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.6), edited by I. Hodder,
pp. 27-38. McDonald Institute of Archaeology and BIAA, Cambridge, UK.
Bender, Barbara and Margot Winer (editors)
2001 Contested landscapes : movement, exile and place. Berg, Oxford.
Conkey, Margaret and Ruth Tringham
1996 Cultivating Thinking/Challenging Authority: Experiments in Feminist Pedagogy. In
Gender and Archaeology, edited by R. P. Wright, pp. 224-250. University of Pennsylvania
Press., Philadelphia, PA.
Domike, Steffi, Michael Mateas and Paul Vanouse
2002 The Recombinant History Apparatus Presents: Terminal Time. In Narrative Intelligence,
edited by M. Mateas and P. Sengers, pp. 155-174, John Benjamin.
Doughty, Louise
2007 Recommendations on Developing Educational Programmes for Prehistoric Sites In
Mediterranean Prehistoric Heritage: Training, education and management, edited by I. Hodder
and L. Doughty, pp. 145-152. McDonald Inbstitute Monographs. McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.

Doughty, Louise and Ian Hodder
2007 Introduction. In Mediterranean Prehistoric Heritage: Training, education and
management, edited by I. Hodder and L. Doughty, pp. 1-8. McDonald Inbstitute Monographs.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.
Dural, Sadrettin
2007 Protecting Çatalhöyük: Memoirs of and Archaeological Site Guard. Left Coast Press,
Walnut Creek, California.
Epstein, M and S Vergani
2007 History Unwired: the use of mobile and localization technologies for cultural tourism. In
The Integration of Location Based Services in Toursim and Cultural Heritage edited by D.
Pletinckx, pp. 15-20. Archaeolingua, Budapest.
Fowler, Peter
2004 Landscapes for the World: Conserving a Global Heritage. WINDgather Press,
Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK.
Freire, Paolo
1970 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum, London.
Gadon, Elinor
1989 The Once and Future Goddess. Harper and Row, San Francisco.
Herzfeld, Michael
1991 A Place in History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Hight, Jeremy
2003 Narrative Archaeology: Reading the Landscape. Streetnotes Summer
(http://newmediafix.net/daily/?p=638).
Hodder, Ian
1997 'Always momentary, fluid and flexible': towards a reflexive excavation methodology.
Antiquity 71(273):691-700.
Hodder, Ian
1998 The Past as Passion and Play: Çatalhöyük as a site of conflict in the construction of
multiple pasts. In Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern
Mediterranean and Middle East, edited by L. Meskell, pp. 124-139. Routledge, London, New
York.
Hodder, Ian
1999 The Archaeological Process. Blackwell, Oxford.
Hodder, Ian (editor)
2000 Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük by members of the
Çatalhöyük teams. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Hodder , Ian
2006 The spectacle of daily performance at Çatalhöyük. In Archaeology of performance.
Theaters of power, community, and politics, edited by T. Inomata and L. Coben, pp. 81-102.

Altamira Press, Lanham.
Hodder, Ian
2006 The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. Thames and Hudson,
London, UK.
Hodder , Ian
2008 2008 Season Review. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports,
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf.
Hodder, Ian and Craig Cessford
2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69(1):17-40.
Hodder, Ian and Louise Doughty (editors)
2007 Mediterranean Prehistoric Heritage: Training, education and management. McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.
Hodder , Ian and S Farid
2005 2005 Season Review. Çatalhöyük Annual Newsletter,
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/newsletters/12/nl12_01.html.
Hodder , Ian and S Farid
2007 2007 Other Activities. Çatalhöyük Annual Newsletter,
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/newsletters/.
Hodder , Ian and S Farid
2008 2008 Other Activities. Çatalhöyük Annual Newsletter,
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/newsletters/.
Ingold, Tim
2007 Lines: A brief History. Routledge, London ; New York.
Joyce, Rosemary and Ruth Tringham
2007 Feminist Adventures in Hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(3:
special issue: Practising Archaeology as a Feminist, edited by Alison Wylie and Meg
Conkey):328-358.
Kostof, Spiro
1985 A History of Architecture: settings and rituals. Oxford University Press, New York,
Oxford.
Lowenthal, David
1998 The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Manovich, Lev
2001 The Language of New Media. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
McDavid, Carol
2002 From Real Space to Cyberspace: The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice. Ph.D.
dissertation (unpublished), Archaeology, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Mellaart, James
1967 Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London.
Merriman, Nick
2005 Site Presentation and Interpretation. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports. Çatalhöyük Research
Project.271-273. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/.
Morgan, Colleen
2009 (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Archaeologies:
Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 5(3):468-487.
Mudge, Mark, Michael Ashley and Carla Schroer
2008 Not all Content is Born Archival: Empirical Acquisition, Scientific Reliability, and
Long-Term Digital Preservation. Paper presented at the On the Road to Reconstructing the
Past".36th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology, Budapest, Hungary.
Okin, J
2004 The Internet Revolution: The Not-for-dummies Guide to the History, Technology, and
Use of the Internet. IronBound Press, Winter Harbor, Maine.
Okin, J
2005 The Information Revolution: The Not-for-dummies Guide to the History, Technology, and
Use of the World Wide Web. IronBound Press, Winter Harbor, Maine.
Pearson, Mike and Michael Shanks
2001 Theatre/archaeology. Routledge, London ; New York
Pescarin, Sofia, L Calori, C Camporesi, M DiIoaia, M. Forte, F Galeazzi, S Imboden, A Moro, A
Palombini, V Vassallo and L Vico
2008 Back to 2nd AD: A VR on-line experience with Virtual Rome Conference. Paper
presented at the VAST 2008: 9th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology, and
Cultural Heritage, Braga, Portugal.
Pletinckx, D (editor)
2007 The Integration of Location Based Services in Toursim and Cultural Heritage
Archaeolingua, Budapest.
Porteous, Douglas and Sandra Eileen Smith
2001 Domicide: the global destruction of home. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal,
Canada.
Richards, Julian
2002 Digital Preservation and Access. European Journal of Archaeology 5(3):343-366.
Roffia, L., G. Raffa, M. Pettinari and G. Gaviani
2005 Context Awareness in Mobile Cultural Heritage Applications. In Smart Environments
and their Applications to Cultural heritage, edited by N. Ryan, T. Cinotti and G. Raffa, pp. 33-36.
Archaeolingua, Budapest.

Ryan, N, Cinotti. T and G Raffa (editors)
2005 Smart Environments and their Applications to Cultural heritage. Archaeolingua,
Budapest.
Shankland, David
2000 Villagers and the distant past: three seasons' work at Küçükköy, Çatalhöyük. In Towards
reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 167-176.
McDonald Institute of Archaeology and BIAA, Cambridge, UK.
Shankland, David
2005 The Sociology of Çatalhöyük. In Çatalhöyük perspectives: reports from the 1995-99
seasons (Çatalhöyük vol.6), edited by I. Hodder, pp. 15-26. vol. 6. McDonald Institute of
Archaeology and BIAA, Cambridge, UK.
Shanks, Michael
2004 Three Rooms. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2):147-180.
Smith, Joan and Michael Nelson
2008 Creating Preservation-Ready Web Resources. D-Lib Magazine 14(1/2).
Smith, Laurajane
2006 Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London and New York.
Stevanovic, Mirjana and Ruth Tringham
1998 The significance of Neolithic Houses in the Archaeological Record of Southeast Europe.
In Zbornik posvecen Dragoslavu Srejovicu, edited by M. Lazic, M. Garasanin, N. Tasic, A.
Cermanovic-Kuzmanovic, P. Petrovic, Z. Mikic and M. Ruzic, pp. 193-208. Balkanoloski Institut,
Beograd.
Swigart, Rob
2007 Stone Mirror: a novel of the Neolithic. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Tilley, Christopher
1989 Excavation as theatre. Antiquity 63:275-280.
Tringham, Ruth
2000 The Continuous House: A View from the Deep Past. In Beyond Kinship: Social and
Material Reproduction in House Societies edited by S. Gillespie and R. Joyce, pp. 115-134.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Tringham, Ruth
2004 Interweaving Digital Narratives with Dynamic Archaeological Databases for the Public
Presentation of Cultural Heritage. In Enter the Past: The E-way into the four dimensions of
Cultural heritage - CAA2003., edited by W. Börner and W. Stadtarcheologie, pp. 196-200 (full
version on accompanying CDROM). Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology. Archeopress. BAR International Series 1227, Oxford, UK.
Tringham, Ruth
2005 Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative. In
(un)settling the Neolithic, edited by D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings, pp. 98-111. Oxbow
Books, Oxford, UK.

Tringham, Ruth
2010 Forgetting and Remembering the Digital Experience and Digital Data. In Archaeology
and Memory, edited by D. Boric, pp. 68-104. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK.
Tringham, Ruth , Michael Ashley and Steve Mills
2007 Senses of Places: Remediations from text to digital performance.
http://chimeraspider.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/remediated-places-final-draft
Tringham, Ruth and Steve Mills
2007 Remediated Places, 2004-2007. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports.348-356.
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/.
Tringham, Ruth and Adrian Praetzellis
2008 Interpreting El Presidio de San Francisco. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma
State University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Wolle, Anja and Ruth Tringham
2000 Multiple Çatalhöyüks on the World Wide Web. In Towards reflexive method in
archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük by members of the Çatalhöyük teams, edited by I.
Hodder, pp. 207-218. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.