Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T23:20:45.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Hau of the House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

By
Mary J. Weismantel
Edited by
Ian Hodder
Ian Hodder
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

At the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük, all architecture is domestic. Earlier sites in the Anatolian region of Turkey, such as the spectacular Göbekli Tepe, boast dramatic public spaces and monumental art. But at Çatalhöyük, despite a very large, very long occupation (perhaps two to eight thousand people from 7400 to 6000 BCE), it appears that no one ever built anything bigger than a house. Maps of the excavations show a mound honeycombed with small rooms, and nothing more (Hodder 2006). This singular fact has inspired lengthy, detailed, insightful studies of the Çatalhöyük house. But even after reading this extensive literature, I still find myself asking a basic question: What – and where – is this house?

The answer is not as obvious as it might seem. Identifying buildings at the site is relatively straightforward, but that does not mean we know the dimensions of “the house” – let alone its ontological status. To begin with, there are several different kinds of houses to be disentangled. Writers on the subject of “the house” tend to erect three different kinds of things on the same semantic terrain – and this is certainly true at Çatalhöyük.

Type
Chapter
Information
Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society
Vital Matters
 , pp. 259 - 279
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Appadurai, A. 2011. The social life of things. Keynote address presented at The Life of Things Conference, Franke Institute for the Humanities. April 30, 2011.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, M. 2010. Is there religion at Çatalhöyük...or are there just houses? In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1997. Marginalia – some additional notes on the gift. In The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity, ed. Schrift, A. D.. New York: Routledge, 231–244.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 2003. The Berber house. In The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, eds. Low, S. M. and Lawrence-Zuniga, D.. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 131–141.Google Scholar
Boz, B. and Hager, L. 2013. Intramural burial practices at Çatalhöyük. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, ed. Hodder, I.. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 2002. Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cunningham, C. E. 1964. Order in the Atoni house. In Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Lanen Volenkunde, Deel 120, 1ste Afl., Anthropologica VI, 34–68.Google Scholar
Dietler, M. and Hayden, B., eds. 2001. Feats: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1996. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 2002. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Düring, B. S. and Marciniak, A. 2006. Households and Communities in the Central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 12(2), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freud, S. 2003. The Uncanny. New York: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, F. D. and Rapp, R., eds. 1995. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2006. The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2010. Probing religion at Çatalhöyük: an interdisciplinary experiment. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I, ed. 2000. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the Example at Çatalhöyük: by Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs and the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.Google Scholar
Hodder, I, ed. 2010. Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. and Cessford, C. 2004. Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69(1), 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. and Meskell, L. 2010. The symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its regional context. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 32–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. and Pels, P. 2010. History houses: A new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugh-Jones, C. 1979. From the Milk River: Spatial and Temporal Processes in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1994. From trust to domination: An alternative history of human-animal relations. In Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives, eds. Manning, A. and Serpell, J.. London: Routledge, 1–22.Google Scholar
Keane, W. 2010. Marked, absent, habitual: Approaches to Neolithic religion at Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuijt, I. 2011. Thinking about the household: Building clusters, history houses, and spatial organization at Çatalhöyük. Presentation. Çatalhöyük, Turkey. July 1, 2011.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marvin, G. 2006. Wild killing: Contesting the animal in hunting. In Killing Animals. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 10–29.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. 1990 [1923]. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. Halls, W. D.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 2011. Dirty, pretty things: On archaeology and prehistoric materialities. Paper presented at The Life of Things Conference, Franke Institute for the Humanities. April 30, 2011.
Meskell, L. and Nakamura, C. 2005. Çatalhöyük figurines. In Çatalhöyük: Archive Report, 2005. figurines.stanford.edu/files/Catal_Figurine_Archive_Report_2005.pdf.
Meskell, L., Nakamura, C., King, R., and Farid, S. 2008. Figured Lifeworlds and Depositional Practices at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(2):139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, C. 2010. Magical deposits at Çatalhöyük: A matter of time and place? In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 300–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, C. and Meskell, L. 2009. Articulate bodies: Forms and figures at Çatalhöyük. In Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, S. J. and Weismantel, M. 2010. Does ‘the animal’ exist: Toward a theory of social life with animals. In Beastly Natures: Animals, Humans, and the Study of History, ed. Brantz, D.. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 17–37.Google Scholar
Pels, P. 2010. Temporalities of ‘religion’ at Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 220–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilloud, M. A. and Larsen, C. S. 2011. ‘Official’ and ‘Practical’ Kin: Inferring Social and Community Structure from Dental Phenotype at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145(4):519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puar, J. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robin, C. 2002. Outside of Houses: The Practices of Everyday Life at Chan Noohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2), 245–268.Google Scholar
Russell, N., Martin, L., and Twiss, K. C. 2009. Building memories: Commemorative deposits at Çatalhöyük. In Zooarchaeology and the Reconstruction of Cultural Systems: Case Studies from the Old World, eds. Arbuckle, B. S., Makarewicz, C. A., and Atici, A. L.. Paris: L’Homme et l’Animal, Société de Recherch Interdisciplinaire, 103–128.Google Scholar
Schneider, D. M. 1980. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, L. 2009. The Eight Animals in Shakespeare; or, before the Human. PMLA 124(2), 472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathern, M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Twiss, K. and Russell, N. 2010. Taking the Bull by the Horns: Ideology, Masculinity, and Cattle Horns at Çatalhöyük. Paléorient 35(2):19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3):469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismantel, M. 1988. Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Weismantel, M. 1995. Making Kin: Kinship Theory and Zumbagua Adoptions. American Ethnologist 22(4), 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismantel, M. 2002. Embarrassment of Riches. Review of Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, eds. Dietler, Michael and Hayden, Brian. Current Anthropology 44, 141–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismantel, M. 2004. Moche Sex Pots: Reproduction and Temporality in Ancient South America. American Anthropologist 106(3), 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×