Amanda Davis

ANTH 2501

Ian Hodder and Post-Processualism at Çatalhöyük

Ian Hodder is an archaeologist who often invokes polarizing reactions, from admirers

who view his work in the field as revolutionary and avant garde, to those who dismiss his

theories and methods as impractical and idealistic. Somewhere in between these opposite ends of

the theoretical spectrum lies the man behind the myth, the reality of one of the major pioneers of

post-processual archaeology, whose work continues to invoke salient questions on the current

nature of field work and inspires disdain from critics and praise from peers. His work at the site

of Çatalhöyük, a major experiment in post-processual archaeology, has proved instrumental in

understanding archaeological material outside of the strict boundaries and empiricism of

processualism, encompassing multiple interpretations of the site and promoting interactivity in

the form of a site website, online database, and video diaries of his staff. Post-processualism was

a reaction to the strident, data-oriented and model-reliant “objectivity” of former archaeological

schools of thought, and Hodder famously encouraged “interpretation at the trowel’s edge.” Ian

Hodder is a controversial figure in the world of academia, inciting much debate and

consideration, and his work and contributions to the field are exemplary of the ever-changing

landscape of archaeology theory.

Davis 2

Hodder was born in 1949 in Bristol, England.1 He received his BA in prehistoric

archaeology from the University of London in 1971, followed by a Ph.D. from Cambridge

entitled “Spatial Analysis in Archaeology.”2 He was first employed at the University of Leeds,

before he returned to Cambridge to the post of Professor of Archaeology. In 1999, he joined the

faculty of Stanford University in the Department of Anthropology, in a position he currently

holds.3 He has been a prolific publisher in the field, with some of his most well-known works

being The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, The Domestication of Europe,

Symbols in Action, Reading the Past, and The Archaeological Process.4 Several prominent

archaeologists currently working in the field were students of Hodder, many of whom employ

his theories and methods in their own work. Some of the most noteworthy include Michael

Shanks who is presently at Stanford University as well, and Christopher Tilley, who integrates

post-processualism into his work with phenomenology and landscapes.

Since 1993, Hodder has been engaged in fieldwork at the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in

central Turkey (see fig.1). Designed as a 25-year project, the project is now entering its

eighteenth year, following some majoring re-structuring of staff of which more will be

mentioned later. The site was first discovered in the 1950’s, then excavated by James Mellaart

Davis 3

1 Stanford University website, Department of Anthropology, Faculty, Ian Hodder.2 Ibid, Stanford University.3 Ibid, Stanford University.4 Ibid, Stanford University.

from 1961-1965.5 Among the notable material evidence that Mellaart uncovered, including the

famous goddess figurine with felines and the wall murals (see figs. 2 and 3), he was able to make

a plan layout of the houses on site (see fig. 4) and was the first to note that they buried the dead

under their homes. At Çatalhöyük, Hodder began a project like none other, one where he could

put his theories and methods in practice, and because of his cutting-edge, innovative-approaches

to understanding the past, the site has achieved worldwide renown, garnering publicity at large

scale.

Many of Hodder’s theories coalesced in a response to the prevailing archaeological

school of thought at the time, that of processualism. With its emphasis on empiricism,

objectivity, and problem-oriented research questions, there was little room for multiple

interpretations and a diachronic, all-encompassing approach to archaeology. One of Hodder’s

major critiques of processualism is that it is impossible to be entirely “objective” in the study of

the past, as all excavators can not help but to bring their personal bias into their interpretations,

and interpretation occurs most importantly, at all stages of excavations, not only in post-

excavation work.6 One of Hodder’s major concerns is that of globalization, and how as

archaeologists working within the Western perspective there is already a disciplinary bias that

often forms research questions, methods, and approaches. Hodder attempts at Çatalhöyük to

integrate the views of various different groups, from the goddess tours who are interested in

Davis 4

5 Catalhoyuk Project Website. 6 Hodder, Ian (1997).

spiritual connections to the locals who are employed on the project and also encouraged to share

their interpretation of the site.7

Hodder’s main goals with the project at Çatalhöyük are reflexity, multivocality,

interactivity, and contextuality. By being “reflexive,” one must not make assumptions and be

critical of certain “common knowledges,” that archaeologists far too often employ in their

interpretations.8 Contextuality involves the interactions between all the different material

evidence as well as the excavators and the specialists who study the material. Interactivity is by

far the most realizable of Hodder’s four goals, as this is achieved by the use of a various different

forms of media, especially that of the online database and the Çatalhöyük website.9 A further

step was taken by graduate students working at the site from Berkeley who developed a virtual

Çatalhöyük for the computer game Second Life (see fig. 5). Multivocality centers upon the belief

that all interpretations of the site are valid, without one being more dominant or prevalent over

another, with the viewpoints of archaeologists, locals, goddess groups, politicians and all casual

observers being as pertinent a voice as the other. Hodder himself however, is not immune to

interpretation, as his various publications on the site suggest, and his judgment of other

approaches as “unethical.” Multivocality ties in with his notion of interactivity, as excavators

post their diaries and video interviews online to enable the general public to see what is going on

at the site and to come up with their own interpretations of the evidence. Though many projects

nowadays employ one or more of those techniques in their data collecting strategies, the

Çatalhöyük project has encountered several major controversies since its inception.

7 Hodder, Ian (2002).8 Hodder, Ian ( 1997).9 Catalhoyuk Project website.

Davis 5

One of the ways that Hodder is able to fund such a large team on the project is through

his use of various sponsors, several notable names being Shell, Yapikredi (a Turkish banking

agency), Boeing Airlines and Ryanair. This funding has called into question the conflict of

interests that often seeps its way into Hodder’s work, especially with the sponsorship of Visa and

his comments on “obsidian as the world’s first credit card” which almost ushered in an

associated museum exhibition that was pulled because of political issues.10 Hodder’s defense

would be that very few archaeologists work in an environment in which there is no multivocality

or conflict of interests in this globalized community.11 Hodder’s use of publicity to garner

support for the project has also stirred up negative reactions in the academic community,

especially in 1997 when a fashion show was staged in Istanbul where models walked past a

replica of Çatalhöyük on the catwalk.12 This was another case where his various stakeholders

came into play: one of his sponsors was linked with the organizer of the event.13 Using an

archaeological site to enhance the economic standing and prestige of a sponsor certainly bring

various ethical questions to mind. The integration of the “goddess tour groups” is one that has

caused much interest, as Hodder seems to not agree with their view of the site but finds it

possible to “collaborate with these groups in relation to the answers given and the interpretations

Davis 6

10 Hodder, Ian (1998). 11 Hodder, Ian (1997). 12 Catalhoyuk project website. 13 Catalhoyuk project website.

made.”14 One of the most recent shake-ups in the archaeological community came in August of

2010. It was announced that Hodder had fired all of his specialists in favor of “new

interpretations” and expressed that he wasn’t dissatisfied with anyone’s work, but that they

would be replaced by 2012.15 While this move has shocked many, it is in keeping with Hodder’s

theories and methods in his archaeological approaches, especially his endorsement of

multivocality, fresh outlooks, and generally unconventional manner of running the site, and what

will come of this mass layoff is yet to be determined.

Whether one embraces or disdains post-processualism and Hodder’s project at

Çatalhöyük, in Hodder’s view all interpretations would then be valid; any criticisms are

representative of the multiple approaches to understanding a site. Even if one can not agree with

all his unconventional practices, the site (and director’s) overexposure, and his use of the press

and integration of New Age groups into the interpretation of the past, one can appreciate his

impact on the archaeological community by sparking numerous debates about the failings of

processualism and the state of archaeology today. Many archaeological projects nowadays

incorporate many of Hodder’s ideas into their own operations, including the use of online

databases, public forums, and websites, and the integration of local communities is becoming

more prevalent on projects around the world. Various subdivisions of archaeology such as

landscape archaeology, phenomenology, and gender archaeology also have much to owe to

Hodder’s revolutionary methods as many of these experience-based, non-positivist approaches

would not have been in tune with the prevailing processual atmosphere. Hodder’s project at

Davis 7

14 Hodder, Ian (2002).15 Balter, Michael.

Çatalhöyük has become the embodiment of his post-processual theories, paving the way for

skepticism, criticism, and admiration, while he remains one of the most influential and discussed

figures in the history of the discipline.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2 Fig.3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Bibliography

Balter, Michael. “Hodder cleans house at famed Çatalhöyük dig.” In Science Insider,

September 2010. < http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/hodder

cleans-house-at-famed-ata.html>.

Çatalhöyük Project Page < http://www.catalhoyuk.com/>.

Hodder, Ian. “Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation

methodology.” In Antiquity, Sept. 1, 1997.

Hodder, Ian. “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 the Middle East. Lynn Meskell

(ed.). Routledge: London, 1998.

Hodder, Ian. "Ethics and Archaeology: The Attempt at Çatalhöyük ." In Near Eastern

Archaeology, Vol. 65, No. 3, Sept. 2002.

Hodder, Ian and Cessford, C. “Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük,” In

American Antiquity 69, 2004.

Hodder, Ian. “The spectacle of daily performance at Çatalhöyük.” In Archaeology of

performance: theaters of power, community, and politics. Takeshi Inomata and

Lawrence S. Cohen (eds.). Lanham: Altamira Press, 2006.

Last, Jonathan. “A design for life: interpreting the art of Çatalhöyük.” In Journal of

material culture 3, 1998.

Lewis-Williams, David. “Constructing a cosmos: architecture, power and domestication

at Çatalhöyük,” In Journal of Social Archaeology 4, 2004.

Renfrew, Colin and Bahn, Paul. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. 4th

edition, London: Thames and Hudson, 2004.

Stanford University website, Department of Anthropology, Faculty: Ian Hodder.

<https://www.stanford.edu/dept/anthropology/cgi-bin/web/?q=node/109>.

Trigger, Bruce. A History of Archaeological Thought. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2006.