48 i Flora Unveiled
the Bronze Age do we find explicit images of agricultural activity, usually centered around
deities and rulers whose job it was to ensure a bountiful harvest (see Chapter 5). The art of
Çatalhüyük thus seems to reflect a state of mind in transition from hunting and gathering
to agriculture.
Discrepancies between art and everyday life are not without precedent. Art, like religion,
does not always keep pace with technological innovation. The vast majority of people today
subscribe to religious narratives and beliefs hundreds, if not thousands, of years old, while
at the same time making use of all the latest electronic conveniences. Such may have been
the case with the inhabitants of Çatalhüyük, firmly committed to agriculture as the corner-
stone of their material prosperity while at the same time adhering to pre- agricultural narra-
tives and images in their artistic and religious lives. Eventually, “modern” ideas and motifs
drawn from the contemporary agricultural way of life begin to seep in, until a tipping point
is reached when the new agricultural narratives, beliefs, and symbols become dominant,
consolidating a cultural shift that, in practice, has already occurred. Here, we focus on five
such cryptic agricultural symbols at Çatalhüyük: the sacred fruit tree motif; animal- baiting
scenes; clay balls; relief sculptures of leopards; and female figurines associated with wild
plants, grain, and cats.
The Sacred Fruit Tree MotifIn his fascinating book, The Leopard’s Tale, Ian Hodder observes that plants were rarely
represented in the wall paintings of Çatalhüyük and that there is also a scarcity of domestic
animals in the murals.^40 From this scarcity, he infers that neither plants nor domesticated
animals were considered appropriate subjects for wall paintings. However, there are two
remarkable exceptions to the generalization that plants were deemed unworthy of depic-
tion: two large paintings of fruit trees discovered by Mellaart in houses on level VII (~6600
bce). The more complete example shown in Figure 3.8 consists of a vertical trunk, over 5 feet
tall, with roughly symmetrical branches slanting upward, apparently leafless, and accompa-
nied by four ibexes (wild mountain goats) arranged in an elliptical orbit among the lower
branches (Figures 3.8A and the tracing in Figure 3.8B). Small, egg- shaped spots, presumably
fruits, are scattered throughout, some still attached to their branches, others apparently
detached and possibly in the process of falling. The absence of leaves and the apparent shed-
ding of the fruits could be seasonal markers indicating that it is harvest time.
Unlike the chaotic and “noisy” animal- baiting tableaus, humans are nowhere to be seen
in the fruit tree painting, which conveys a mood of harmonious serenity. Goats, not people,
tend this tree, although they undoubtedly serve human interests rather than their own. The
impression that the goats are apotropaic, or protective, “tree spirits” is reinforced by their encir-
clement of the boughs. The theme of abundance is evinced by the many fruits, which, together
with the “guardian” goats, lend the tree an abstract, iconographic, dare we say “sacred” quality.
The fruit tree painting stands in direct contrast to the ritualistic wild animal- baiting
scenes associated with feasting and masculine derring- do. As pointed out by Mellaart et al.,
the fruit tree painting at Çatalhüyük is reminiscent of the Mesopotamian sacred tree,
which was often depicted with a female deity and protective spirits, including goats.^41 The
Bronze Age version of the tree represents the agriculture- based prosperity of the state, with
the Goddess Ishtar providing both protection to the state and divine sanction to its rulers.