Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:47:43.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Burials in context: The 1960s inhumations of Çatalhöyük East

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

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

Abstract

The burial customs practised at Neolithic Çatalhöyük have raised a substantial amount of interest, due to factors such as a tradition of intramural inhumation, elaborate grave goods including organic remains in an excellent state of preservation, and a posited link to scenes in wall paintings supposedly showing vultures pecking at humanoid figures. In consequence, numerous publications have discussed the burial practices of the site, and the systematic study of the burial data is one of the aims of the present excavation project at the site. Given the attention the burials of Çatalhöyük have received, it is surprising that almost no hard data have been published on the hundreds of burials excavated in the 1960s. In this paper a systematic inventory of the 1960s burial data and their drawbacks will be presented. The data for this study were obtained from the notes made by Dr Angel and Dr Ferembach, the two physical anthropologists who analysed the skeletons excavated by Mellaart and his team. The inventory presented in this paper will allow us to study the burial practices at Çatalhöyük in a more systematic manner, and will provide an interesting background for the evaluation of the data forthcoming from the new excavation project at Çatalhöyük.

Özet

Neolitik Çatlhöyük'te uygulanmış olan gömü adetleri oldukça ilgi uyandırmıştır. Bunun nedeni, yerleşim içi gömü adetinin ve organik kalıntılar dahil olmak üzere çok iyi durumda korunagelmiş, ince işlenmiş mezar buluntularının ve bunlarla ilişkili olarak tartışılan ve akbabalar tarafından gagalanan insan benzeri figürleri tasvir ettiǧine inanılan duvar resimlerinin varlıǧıdır. Bu ilginin sonucu olarak pekçok çalışma yayınlanmış ve bu çalışmalarda bölgedeki gömü adetlerinin uygulama biçimleri tartışılmıştır. Şu anda gömü verilerinin sistematik olarak incelenmesi mevcut kazı projesinin başlıca amaçlarından biridir. Çatalhöyük gömülerinin günümüzde çektiǧi bu dikkate raǧmen, 1960'larda yapılan yüzlerce gömü kazısı ile ilgili hiçbir temel veri yayınının yapılmamış olması şaşırtıcıdır. Bu çalışma ile 1960'ların gömü verilerinin ve bunlarla ilgili sorunların sistematik bir dökümü sunulacaktır. Bu çalışma için gerekli olan bilgiler, Mellaart tarafindan yapılan kazılar sırasında ortaya çıkarılmış olan iskeletleri incelemiş iki antropolog Dr Angel ve Dr Ferembach'ın notlarından elde edilmiştir. Bu çalışma ile ortaya çikacak olan envanter hem Çatalhöyük'teki gömü uygulamalarını daha sistematik bir şekilde incelememizi saǧlayacak, hem de Çatalhöyük'teki yeni kazı projesinden elde edilecek verilerin deǧerlendirilmesi için ilgi çekici bir temel oluşturacaktır.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 53 , December 2003 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2003

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

Andrews, P, Molleson, T, Boz, B in press: ‘The human burials at Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 4). CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Angel, L 1971: ‘Early Neolithic skeletons from Çatal Hüyük. Demography and pathology’ Anatolian Studies 21: 77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becks, R, Jacobs, T 1996: ‘Çatal Hüyük, Zur Rekonstruktion von Prestige innerhalb räumlicher Strukturen’ in Müller, J, Bernbeck, R (eds), Prestige, Prestigegüter, Sozialstrukturen, Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum. Bonn: 57–80Google Scholar
Bienert, H-D 1991: ‘Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East’ Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5: 9–23Google Scholar
Binford, L R 1972: ‘Mortuary practices, their study and potential’ in Binford, L R (ed.), An Archaeological Perspective. New York: 208–43Google Scholar
Burnham, H B 1965: ‘Çatal Hüyük. The textiles and the twined fabrics’ Anatolian Studies 15: 169–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessford, C in press, a: ‘Neolithic excavations in the North Area, East Mound, Çatalhöyük 1995–1998’ in Hodder, I (ed.), Excavating Çatalhöyük. South, North, and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 3). CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Cessford, C in press, b: ‘Estimating the Neolithic population of Catalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 4). CambridgeGoogle Scholar
De Contenson, H 1968: ‘Review of J Mellaart, Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic town in Anatolia’ Antiquity 42: 72–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Düring, B S 2001: ‘Social dimensions in the architecture of Neolithic Çatalhöyük’ Anatolian Studies 51: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Düring, B S 2002: ‘Cultural dynamics of the central Anatolian Neolithic. The Early Ceramic Neolithic-Late Ceramic Neolithic transition’ in Gerard, F, Thissen, L (eds), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, Internal Developments and External Relations during the Ninth-Sixth Millennia Cal. BC. Istanbul: 219–36Google Scholar
Esin, U, Harmankaya, S 1999: ‘Aşıklı’ in Özdoǧan, M, Başgelen, N (eds), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul: 115–32Google Scholar
Ferembach, D 1972: ‘Les hommes du gisement Néolithiques de Çatal Hüyük’ Türk Tarih Kongresi I (1970): 13–21Google Scholar
Ferembach, D 1982: Mesures et indices des squelettes humains Neolithiques de Çatal-Hüyük (Turquie). Unpublished manuscript. ParisGoogle Scholar
Gimbutas, M 1991: The Civilization of the Goddess. The World of Old Europe. San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, N 1996: ‘Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials’ in Hodder, I (ed.), On the Surface, Çatalhöyük 1993–1995 (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 1). Cambridge: 215–64Google Scholar
Hamilton, N 1998: ‘Re-thinking burial and society at Çatalhöyük’ Neo-Lithics 1998/3: 7–8Google Scholar
Hodder, I 1987: ‘Contextual archaeology. An interpretation of Çatal Hüyük and a discussion of the origins of agriculture’ Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 24: 43–56Google Scholar
Hodder, I 1990: The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I 1998: ‘Çatalhöyük, Turkey. A summary of some recent results’ Documenta Praehistorica 25: 71–80Google Scholar
Kuijt, I 1999: ‘Keeping the peace. Ritual, skull caching and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic’ in Kuijt, I (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York: 137–64Google 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 Hodder, I (ed.), On the Surface, Çatalhöyük 1993–1995 (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume I). Cambridge: 79–100Google Scholar
Matthews, W in press: ‘Life-cycle and -course of buildings’ in Hodder, I (ed.), Çatalhöyük Perspectives. Themes from the 1995–1999 seasons (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 6). CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W, Farid, S 1996: ‘Exploring the 1960s surface. The stratigraphy of Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed.), On the Surface, Çatalhöyük 1993–1995 (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 1). 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: 165–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1967: Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. LondonGoogle Scholar
Molleson, T, Andrews, P, Boz, B in press: ‘Reconstruction of the Neolithic people of Çatalhöyük’ in Hodder, I (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons (The Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 4). CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Moore, A M T, Hillman, G C, Legge, A J 2000: Village on the Euphrates. From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Neuninger, H, Pittioni, R, Siegel, W 1964: ‘Frühkeramische kupfergewinnung in Anatolien’ Archaeologia Austriaca 35: 98–110Google Scholar
Özbek, M 1998: ‘Human skeletal remains from Aşıklı. A Neolithic village near Aksaray, Turkey’ in Mellink, M J, Arsebük, G, Schirmer, W (eds), Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: 567–79Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, M 1995: ‘Neolithic in Turkey. The status of research’ in Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: 41–59Google Scholar
Özdoǧan, M 1999: ‘Concluding remarks’ in Özdoǧan, M, Basgelen, N (eds), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul: 225–36Google Scholar
Öztan, A 2002: ‘Kösk Höyük, Anadolu arkeolojisine yeni katkılar’ TUBA-AR 5: 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M 1982: ‘Mortuary practices, society and ideology. An ethno-archaeological study’ in Hodder, I (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: 99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K, Connor, P 1967: The Dorak Affair. LondonGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M L 1965: ‘Report of textiles from Çatal Hüyük’ Anatolian Studies 15: 175–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silistreli, U 1988: ‘1987 Kösk Höyüǧü’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 10/1: 61–5Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D 2002: ‘From behind the mask. Plastered skulls from “Ain Ghazal”’ Origini 24: 95–139Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M, Tringham, R: 1999, ‘The excavation of the BACH 1 Area’ Archive Reports Çatalhöyük: www.catalhoyuk.comGoogle Scholar
Stuckenrath, R, Ralph, E 1965: ‘University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates VII’ Radiocarbon 7: 187–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, I A 1976: Çatal Hüyük in Perspective. Menlo ParkGoogle 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
Wason, P 1994: The Archaeology of Rank. CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunn, I 2001: Götten Mütter, Ahnenkult, Religionsentwicklung in der Jungsteinzeit. RahdenGoogle Scholar