Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:26:26.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social dimensions in the architecture of Neolithic Çatalhöyük

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Bleda S. Düring
Bleda S. Düring
Affiliation:
University of Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Çatalhöyük is an important symbol of the Neolithic in Anatolia. Within the buildings of this settlement spectacular ‘art’ was found, and beneath the floors of these buildings elaborately furnished burials were unearthed. Among the characteristics of the settlement the absence of streets constitutes a central element for understanding this period. Despite the unique and well known remains found at the site, its architecture has not been studied systematically. The buildings remain to be distinguished. The distinction between shrines and nonshrines has not been fully scrutinised. Most importantly, the appearance of public space at the site has not been studied. In this paper an analysis of the architecture of Çatalhöyük levels VIII–II is presented. A method of distinguishing buildings is proposed. On that basis the analysis focuses on three themes. The first theme is the variability of features associated with the buildings, and the feasibility of the shrines / non-shrines distinction. It is argued that some buildings did indeed function as ritual centres for the inhabitants of other buildings, although they also had domestic functions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 51 , December 2001 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2001

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.)

References

Allison, P M 1999: ‘Introduction’ in Allison, P M (ed), The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: 1–18Google Scholar
Angel, L 1971: ‘Early Neolithic skeletons from Çatal Hüyük: demography and pathology’ Anatolian Studies 21: 77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, F E 1990: ‘Comments on Chapman: some cautionairy notes on the application of spatial measures to Prehistoric settlement’ in Samson, R. (ed), The Social Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh: 93–109Google Scholar
Burnham, H B 1965: ‘Çatal Hüyük: the textiles and twined fabrics’ Anatolian Studies 15: 169–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessford, C 1999: ‘The excavation of the North Area 1998’ in ‘Micromorphology’ in Archive Reports 1998: http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.htmlGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J 1990: ‘Social inequality on Bulgarian tells and the Varna problem’ in Samson, R. (ed), The Social Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh: 49–92Google Scholar
De Jesus, P S 1985: ‘Notes on the symbolism in Catal Hüyük wall paintings’ in Huot, J L, Yon, M, Calvet, Y (eds), De l'Indus aux Balkans: recueil a la mémoire de Jean Deshayes. Paris: 127–45Google Scholar
Dietrich, B C 1967: ‘Some light from the east on Cretan cult practice’ Historia 16: 385–413Google Scholar
Donley-Reid, L W 1990: ‘A structuring structure: the Swahili house’ in Kent, S (ed), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study (New Directions in Archaeology). Cambridge: 114–26Google Scholar
Ducos, P 1988: Archéozoologie quantitative: les valeurs numériques immédiàtes à Çatal Hüyük (Cahiers du Quatemaire 12). ParisGoogle Scholar
Esin, U 1998: ‘The Aceramic site of Aşikli and its ecological conditions based on its floral and faunal remains’ TUBA-AR 1: 63–94Google Scholar
Esin, U 1999: ‘Aşikli’ in Özdoğan, M, Başgelen, N (eds), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul: 115–32Google Scholar
Ferembach, D 1972: ‘Les hommes du gisement Néolithique de Çatal Hüyük’ Türk Tarih Kongresi 1 (1970): 13–21Google Scholar
Ferembach, D 1982: Mesures et indices des squelettes humains Neolithiques de Çatal Hüyük (Turquie). ParisGoogle Scholar
Forest, J. D 1993: ‘Çatal Hüyük et son decor: pour le dechiffrement d'une code symbolique’ Anatolia Antiqua 2: 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, N 1996: ‘Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials’ in Hodder, I (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 215–63Google Scholar
Harmankaya, S, Tanındı, O, Özbaşaran, M, 1997: Türkiye Arkeoloji Yereşlemeleri 2: Neolithik. IstanbulGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, E, Seidl, U, 1969: ‘Zur Siedlungsform von Çatal Hüyük’ Archäologischer Anzeiger 84/2: 113–19Google Scholar
Hillier, B, Hanson, J, 1984: The Social Logic of Space. CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I 1987: ‘Contextual archaeology: an interpretation of Catal Hüyük and a discussion of the origins of agriculture’ Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London 24: 43–56Google Scholar
Hodder, I 1990: The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I 1996a: ‘Re-opening Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed), On the Surface: Catalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 1–18Google Scholar
Hodder, I 1996b: ‘Çatalhöyük: 9000 year old housing and settlement in central Anatolia’ in Sey, Y (ed), Housing and Settlement in Anatolia, an Historical Perspective. Istanbul: 43–8Google Scholar
Hodder, I 1998: ‘The domus: some problems reconsidered’ in Edmonds, M, Richards, C (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe. Glasgow: 84–101Google Scholar
Hodder, I 1999: ‘Symbolism at Çatalhöyük’ in Coles, J, Bewley, R, Mellars, P (eds), World Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Grahame Clark (Proceedings of the British Academy 99). London: 177–91Google Scholar
Last, J 1998: ‘A design for life: interpreting the art of Çatalhöyük’ Journal of Material Culture 3/3: 355–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macqueen, J G 1978: ‘Secondary burial at Çatal Hüyük’ NUMEN - International Review for the History of Religions 25/3: 226–39Google Scholar
Matthews, R 1996: ‘Surface scraping and planning’ in Hoddder, I (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 79–100Google Scholar
Matthews, W 1997: ‘Microstratigraphy, micromorphology and sampling report’ in Archive Reports 1996: http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.htmlGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W 1999: ‘Report on sampling, strategies, microstratigraphy and micromorphology’ in Archive Reports 1998: http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.htmlGoogle Scholar
Matthews, WFarid, S, 1996: ‘Exploring the 1960s surface: the stratigraphy of Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 271–300Google Scholar
Mellaart, J 1962: ‘Excavations at Çatal Hüyük: first preliminary report, 1961’ Anatolian Studies 12: 41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1963: ‘Excavations at Çatal Hüyük: second preliminary report, 1962’ Anatolian Studies 13: 43–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1964: ‘Excavations at Çatal Hüyük: third preliminary report, 1963’ Anatolian Studies 14: 39–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1966: ‘Excavations at Çatal Hüyük: fourth preliminary report, 1965’ Anatolian Studies 16: 135–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1967: Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic town in Anatolia. LondonGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J (ed) 1970: Excavations at Hacilar. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1975: The Neolithic of the Near East. LondonGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1989: ‘Neolithic chronology at Çatal Hüyük?’ in Emre, K, Mellink, M, Hrouda, B, Özgüç, N (eds), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsın Özgüç. Ankara, 315–18Google Scholar
Omura, M 1984: ‘A reinterpretation of the figurines of Çatal Hüyük’ Orient 20: 129–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özdoğan, MÖzdoğan, A 1998: ‘Buildings of cult and the cult of buildings’ in Arsebük, G, Mellink, M J, Schirmer, W (eds), Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: 581–601Google Scholar
Parish, R 1996: ‘Luminescence dating of mud brick from Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 343–4Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, MRichards, C (eds) 1994: Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space. LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D 1969: ‘Fauna of Çatalhöyük: evidence for early cattle domestication in Anatolia’ Science 64: 177–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchey, T 1996: ‘Note: building complexity’ in Hodder, I (ed), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Cambridge: 7–18Google Scholar
Roberts, N 1982: ‘A note on the geomorphological environment of Çatal Hüyük, Turkey’ Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 341–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M L 1965: ‘Report of textiles from Çatal Hüyük’ Anatolian Studies 15: 175–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D 1990: ‘Behavioral conventions and archaeology: methods for the analysis of ancient architecture’ in Kent, S (ed), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study (New Directions in Archaeology). Cambridge: 43–72Google Scholar
Stevanovic, MTringham, R 1999: ‘The Bach 1 Area’ Archive Reports 1998: http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.htmlGoogle Scholar
Thissen, L C 2000, Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans 6500–5500 cal BC: Studies in Chronology and Culture Contact. (unpublished PhD thesis). LeidenGoogle Scholar
Todd, I A 1976: Çatal Hüyük in Perspective. Menlo Park, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G M 1988: ‘A re-examination of the fibres from the Çatal Hüyük textiles’ Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies 3/1: 15–19Google Scholar
Wilk, R RRathje, W L 1982: ‘Household archaeology’ American Behavioral Scientist 25/6: 617–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar