Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Catalhoyuk in The Context of The Middle Eastern Neolithic
Catalhoyuk in The Context of The Middle Eastern Neolithic
106 Hodder
24,000 to 18,000 years ago when the region Tell ‘Abr 3, building B2 was dug 1.55 m into
was cold and dry. The gradual change to virgin soil and had a bench within its circu-
warmer and wetter conditions after this time lar walls. This in turn was lined with stone
Pre-Pottery
suffered a setback in the Younger Dryas slabs polished and decorated with wild ani- Neolithic B
(11,500 to 10,000 bc) during the second half mals. Bucrania (cattle skulls) were deposited (PPNB): cultural
of the Natufian. Bar-Yosef (2001) is among in a bench. But in another building, M1, a group found in the
many that see the Younger Dryas conditions hearth was found, and on the floor were found Levant from 8700 to
6800 cal bc
leading to intensification and then to PPNA limestone basins and bowls as well as grinding
and the first agriculture. One limitation of stones (Yartah 2005). PN: Pottery
Neolithic
the climatic argument is that scholars now Indeed, Yartah (2005) argues that the large
indicate that sustained domestication of early PPNA communal buildings at Mureybet
plants did not occur at the end of the Younger and Jerf el Ahmar are not elaborate ritu-
Dryas in the PPNA but considerably later ally and symbolically and were probably used
in the PPNB (Colledge et al. 2004, Nesbitt for stockage and multiple functions. But at
2002, Willcox 2002). the end of PPNA Yartah suggests that there
External causes of change have tended to is less evidence of economic functions and
be balanced during recent decades by theories much decoration and ritual—e.g., at Jerf el
that focus on social factors such as prestige Ahmar, Tell ‘Abr 3, and probably Göbekli.
exchange (Bender 1978), feasting (Hayden However, the interpretations of these build-
1990), and symbolism (Cauvin 1994). So- ings, their communal and domestic versus rit-
cial factors may have provided the driving ual nature, remain problematic until detailed
forces behind sedentism and intensification. accounts of floor residues and discard prac-
Although evidence from the Natufian on- tices are available. The forensic work on the
ward of large-scale communal building works, floors at Çatalhöyük shows that floors can be
and of open areas used for roasting pits, is carefully cleaned and abandoned and that mi-
widespread, evidence throughout the region croresidues of activities can be discerned only
and period of marked social ranking, except with careful analysis. This work showed that
at Çayönü in southeastern Turkey, is lacking the supposed “shrines” at Çatalhöyük were
(Özdoğan & Özdoğan 1990). actually used as domestic houses (Bull et al.
Certainly recent finds have shown with 2005, Matthews 2005, Middleton et al. 2005).
great clarity that initial sedentism was closely Even if, as seems likely, social and ritual
tied to ritual. Landscapes may have been gathering was an important component of the
drawn together at ritual centers to which peo- processes that created permanent sedentary
ple came for initiation, feasting, burial, ex- gatherings of people, we are left with the is-
change, marriage, etc. (Schmidt 2000). In fact sue of why people adopted more elaborate and
several of the early sites seem to have been larger-scale social and ritual practices, includ-
ritual centers, whatever other functions they ing the fashioning and erection of large mono-
may have had. In north Syria and south- liths and semisubterranean circular structures,
east Turkey, at sites such as Tell ‘Abr 3, and all the investments of labor necessary for
Jerf el Ahmar, and Göbekli, one finds large large-scale feasting and ritual. Disadvantages
PPNA buildings, circular and semisubter- of economic intensification and of collective
ranean, which have generally been accepted living in one spot can be cited: hard work (seen
as communal ritual buildings. Those at Tell in stress markers on skeletons) and depletion
‘Abr 3 are 7–12 m in diameter (Yartah 2005). of resources, sanitation, disease, etc. (Larsen
The internal furnishings of these communal 1995). So by which process did people submit
buildings are certainly elaborate, but we need themselves to greater work and intensification
to avoid getting caught in a possibly inappro- to achieve the benefits of social and ritual elab-
priate opposition of ritual versus domestic. At oration and sedentary village life?
108 Hodder
As well as these continuities in practices ties (Cutting 2005). Although plastered skulls
and functions in houses at Çatalhöyük, one have long been recognized in the Neolithic
finds very specific house-based continuities in of the Levant, does evidence indicate the type
the art and symbolism (Düring 2006, Hodder of recirculation seen at Çatalhöyük? Can we
2006). For example, the building that Mellaart argue that social power everywhere was based
called VI.8 had VII.8 below it, and in both on the control of history and links to the past?
cases investigators found stylized hands in We could argue that the repetition of
horizontal rows. VIII.8 and VII.8 both had houses in the same place results from the
vulture scenes. But perhaps the best example crowding and permanence of settlements.
was the repetition of the paired leopards in However, the specific continuities in function
VII.44 and VI.44. An individual leopard and and art just alluded to at Çatalhöyük cannot
rather stylized fighting leopards were found be explained in this way; neither can the dig-
in two other buildings (VIII.27 and VI.80), ging down and retrieval of earlier skulls and
but these differed from the distinct pairings sculptures. In any case we see that repeti-
in building 44 in Levels VII and VI. tion of house sites occurs very early in small,
Although some evidence shows feasting relatively short-term settlements. Certainly,
and prestige exchange at Çatalhöyük, the bulk by the time of the PPNA and PPNB the
of the evidence suggests that status and power decreased residential mobility and intensity
were very much based on the control of people of habitation would have produced greater
and their socialization within domestic units. internal site organization (N.B. Goodale &
But how widely applicable is this view that I. Kuijt, circulated manuscript, 2006; Nadel
socialization through daily routines in houses 1998). But even in densely occupied settle-
(Watkins 2004, 2006) was an important mech- ments a number of strategies can be taken in
anism for creating and maintaining social rela- locating new houses above, by, or near older
tionships and access to resources? This article houses (Tringham 2000). Rather, it seems that
looks at how similar interpretations might be the repetition of houses and the construction
relevant elsewhere (Nadel 2006), even though of house-based memories were formative pro-
the preservation of detailed activity sequences cesses that played a part in producing seden-
is usually not as good as at Çatalhöyük. tism, long-term duration in one place, and
Some evidence at Çatalhöyük also indi- agglomerated settlement.
cates a practice of burying the dead beneath Of course, repetitive practices took place
the floors of houses and then digging up early in the Palaeolithic. These involved re-
and recirculating selected human heads before peated seasonal uses of the landscape in such
the final burial of these heads in foundation a way that certain sites that provided shel-
and abandonment deposits. Some evidence ter, such as cave sites, were returned to over
demonstrates the digging up of early relief long periods of time. For example, Ksar Akil
sculptures and animal heads and their use in Lebanon has 23 m of deposit covering the
in later houses and installations in houses. A period from the Middle Palaeolithic through
good case can be made (Hodder 2006, Hodder the Upper Palaeolithic to the Kebaran Epi-
& Cessford 2004) that the houses that invested Palaeolithic. In the upper levels there was
more in the construction of long-term mem- a “fine and complex stratigraphy” (Bergman
ories in these ways were also more socially 1987, p. 3). Kebara cave also has deposits span-
and ritually successful. These houses tended ning the Middle Palaeolithic and Natufian pe-
to have more burials and to be more elab- riods, or from ∼60,000 to 10,000 bc. The
orate in terms of internal fixtures (Düring Middle Palaeolithic deposits show repeated
2006, Hodder 2006). The “ancestral houses” use of part of the cave for hearths, while an
are not larger than other houses, and they do inner part of the cave was used as a dump area
not have more storage or productive facili- (Goldberg 2001). The hearth area has deep
110 Hodder
a succession of floors, one on top of another, ten oval and semisubterranean, with inter-
with no sterile layers between (i.e., no aban- nal hearths and plaster floors. As in northern
donment fill) (N. Samuelian, H. Khalaily, F.R. Syria, mounds were often long-lived. Jerf el
Valla, circulated manuscript, 2003). Ahmar had at least 10 building levels com-
At Çatalhöyük important evidence for prising ∼800 years of settlement (Akkermans
memory construction is the removal, circu- 2004, p. 287). PPNA and related sites were
lation, and reuse of human skulls. By the end also often much more structured than most
of the Natufian evidence indicates the removal Natufian sites. Nadel (1998, p. 9) has noted
of the human skull after death, although in the that “in Natufian and other Epipalaeolithic
absence of evidence for circulation and reuse, sites, it is common to find the entire range of
this does not by itself indicate the construction typological variability in each site, and even
of historical links to ancestors. Skull removal in each locus . . . However, in PPNA cases,
may have had other roles such as healing, div- it is common to find typological differences
ination, etc. Skeletons were found within the between assemblages from contemporaneous
houses at Mallaha, but the stratigraphical po- loci at a site.” N.B. Goodale & I. Kuijt (circu-
sitioning is often unclear in Valla (1991). Ac- lated manuscript, 2006) have noted a similar
cording to the reanalysis by Boyd (1995) the shift in the way that sites are formed, as a result
131–51–62–73 sequence of buildings started of their work at ‘Iraq ed-Dubb in Jordan. Here
with 12 skeletons beneath the floor of 131. a late Natufian occupation “had fairly non-
He draws attention to the continuity of ac- delineated use of space compared to a more
tivity in the same place starting with a set of delineated use of space during the PPNA.”
burials. We see much more evidence of repeated
At Çatalhöyük the focus on repetitive prac- use of the same space or house in the PPNA
tices in the house and on memory construc- throughout the region. Qermez Dere in
tion is associated with careful and elaborate northern Iraq has good evidence of rebuild-
abandonment practices, including the place- ing in the same place (Watkins 2004, 2006).
ment of objects and the filling of houses with In Phase II at Mureybet on the Middle Eu-
clean earth before rebuilding. For societies in phrates investigators found round houses that
which temporal depth and memory construc- were superimposed on an Epi-Natufian house
tion are important, ending and starting build- xxxvii. “Trois niveaux d’habitation en maisons
ings are likely to be significant events sur- rondes se superposent directement à la mai-
rounded in ritual. Did such practices already son xxxvii de la phase IB. Il s’agit mani-
occur in the Natufian? In the ruins of one festement de la reutilization du meme espace
house at Mallaha investigators found several d’habitat en continuité directe avec la période
boar heads (Valla 1991), which could indicate épinatoufienne” (Cauvin 1979, p. 26). In part
ritualized abandonment processes. In what he of the site they found five levels of occupation
called Abri 26 at Mallaha, Perrot (1966) found in this phase.
a child skeleton and necklace on the aban- At Jericho in Trench DII Kenyon (1981)
doned floor. Complete basalt artifacts were found a huge amount of very repetitive
found discarded or cached on interior floors surfaces adjacent to the tower in PPNA—
at Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards 1991), but it between the tower and adjacent circular en-
is not clear whether they were just abandoned closures. It is inside the settlement that one
in a context of use or whether this act was rit- sees most residential continuity in PPNA and
ualized in some way. PPNB deposits, although, on the whole, walls
In the PPNA in the Levant, settlements were cut down further than at Çatalhöyük.
were 0.2 to 2.5 hectares in size and are thus In PPNA in Squares EI, EII, and EV there
3 to 8 times larger than the largest Natufian were 24 main building phases. In most cases
sites (Bar-Yosef 2001). The houses were of- there Kenyon saw only 2–4 floors for each
112 Hodder
from round to grill to channeled to pebble ciated with death, is found as part of aban-
paved to cell to large room. We see a strik- donment practices (Verhoeven 1999, 2000,
ing homogeneity of building types in each 2002). Heads tend to be found in groups in
building layer (Özdoğan & Özdoğan 1990, the Levant, sometimes with features plastered
p. 72). Thus investigators indicate more of a on, but how much they were circulated is
focus on horizontal similarity than on verti- not clear. Investigators found male and fe-
cal continuity. However, even here Özdoğan male skulls, as well as subadults, raising the
& Özdoğan (1990, p. 73) argue that “in ev- question of whether the skulls represent an-
ery building layer, the foundations of the cestor veneration at all rather than apotropaic
new building are always directly on top of or other protective functions (Bonogofsky
the preceding one, without disturbing or 2004, Talalay 2004). However, the deposi-
reusing its stones.” Several buildings are men- tional contexts of some skull deposition sug-
tioned as having several rebuilds, and the gest practices that may have involved back-
Skull Building went through at least five major ward or forward reference. The skull of a
rebuilds. child was found between the stones of the
At Aşıklı Höyük in central Turkey, dated foundations of Wall E180 at PPNB Jericho
to the late ninth and early eighth millennia (Kenyon 1981). In phase lxi in a room in a
bc, “in one of the excavated rooms, ‘room A’ house in EI, EII, EV the cranium of an el-
(trench 3K . . . ) 13 floor levels have been rec- derly man was set upright in the corner about
ognized” (Düring 2006, p. 73). At this site 15 cm below floor level. In EIII-IV a plastered
variation between houses in memory con- skull was found in a building fill. Goring-
struction is a possibility. Only 35% of rooms Morris (2000, p. 119) argues that many PPNB
have hearths at this site, but in the deep sound- burials definitely stratigraphically predated
ing, a building was knocked down and re- the construction of the overlying architec-
built in the same place at least 7 times, a tural features and floors. For example, “in
practice that continued throughout the en- at least three instances at Kfar HaHoresh
tire 8-m-deep sequence in the mound (Esin burial pits clearly stratigraphically underlie
& Harmankaya 1999). In each rebuilding a and are sealed by plaster surfaces” (p. 119).
hearth is seen in exactly the same position. In some cases we see a time lapse between
Given the relatively small percentage of build- burial and/or skull removal and the making of
ings with hearths, this evidence suggests that the floor. Thus buildings “remembered” the
some buildings passed down the practices of location of the burials or skulls. Sometimes
hearth use, whereas others did not. We also there is evidence of markers above the burials
find much continuity at the site in terms of or skulls. Goring-Morris suggests that con-
the location of the major street by the “rit- structing buildings in relation to earlier build-
ual complex” and the location of midden ar- ings may have started at Mallaha in the Levant
eas (in the deep sounding). The emphasis on (see above). Special abandonment practices
continuity of houses seen at Aşıklı Höyük are found at Çayönü—for example, in the Cell
and Çatalhöyük is also found elsewhere in phase investigators found blocking of door-
the Ceramic Neolithic in central Anatolia ways, and intact artifacts are abandoned in cell
(Düring 2006, p. 236). rooms (Özdoğan & Özdoğan 1990). Char-
Much evidence indicates repetitive prac- nel houses or buildings for the dead occur
tices in houses and memory construction in at Çayönü (the Skull Building) and at Abu
the PPNB and related groups in the Middle Hureyra and Dja’de el Mughara (the Maison
East and Turkey. Evidence also suggest aban- des Morts) in Syria (Akkermans 2004, p. 289).
donment and foundation practices, although Through much of the region in the PPNB
walls were generally cut down much more evidence indicates circulation and handing
than at Çatalhöyük. Burning of houses, asso- down of artifacts through time. Practices of
114 Hodder
Belfer-Cohen 2002). At Tell ‘Abr 3, a se- Building 1 at Çatalhöyük, a set of wild goat
ries of stone slabs line the bench around the horns covers and perhaps protects a bin of
walls (Yartah 2005) in building B2. These are lentils (Hodder 2006). The key aspect of giv-
polished and decorated with wild animals— ing a feast may not have been simply the pro-
gazelle, panther, aurochs—as well as with ge- vision of calories, but also the demonstration
ometric designs. The panthers are spotted and of intercession with and control of wild ani-
highly stylized and look rather like lizards. mals and the use of their powers to protect and
Bucrania are deposited within a bench, but nurture.
there are also bucrania on view in smaller The demonstration of power in relation to
buildings, interpreted as houses, at the site. wild animals and animal spirits created the ba-
At Jerf el Ahmar investigators also found sis for building the long-term social structures
a building with four cattle bucrania proba- of sedentary and then agricultural societies.
bly suspended on the interior walls (Stordeur The ability to harness the power of animals
2000, Yartah 2005). At Jerf el Ahmar there may have attracted followers and allowed the
is also serpent decoration on the stone slabs creation of trust and dependencies. The exis-
of the benches of the large circular buildings tence of an elaborate symbolic world of vio-
(Stordeur 2000), along with a separate depic- lence, danger, and sexual power, and the abil-
tion of a vulture (for parallel symbolism at ity to intercede with the ancestors, may have
Hallan Çemi and Nemrik 9 see Rosenberg created the conditions in which sedentary life
& Redding 2000, p. 45; Kozlowski 1992). At and intensive delayed-return economies be-
Göbekli Tepe in the PPNA and early PPNB, came possible (selected for).
megalithic pillars have reliefs of snakes, foxes,
wild boar, cattle, gazelle, wild ass, lion, scorpi-
ons, spiders, water birds, and centipedes. The HUMAN AND MATERIAL
fox and wild boar have erect penises (Schmidt AGENCY
2003). The reliefs also show a headless hu- In many hunter-gatherer societies animals
man body with an erect penis. In the PPNB must be hunted with respect (Fowler &
there continues to be a widespread symbolic Turner 1999, p. 422). Appropriate prayers
focus on the fox, wild cattle, wild boar, and must be offered to the spirits of the animals
birds of prey (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen if humans are to expect the animals to yield
2002, pp. 70–71). At Nevali Çori, Hauptmann up their lives to the hunters. If humans cease
(1999) reconstructs a large stone statue of a predation the animals will do less well and
man holding his erect penis. decline in numbers (p. 422). There is a re-
This association in the early village soci- lationship of friendship and respect, of reci-
eties of the Middle East with violence, sex, procity and complementarity between hunter
and death in the symbolic imagery could and game animal (Guenther 1999). “Hunters
be interpreted in many ways (Hodder 2006, maintain relations of trust with their animal
Verhoeven 2002). But perhaps at the simplest prey . . . assuming that animals present them-
level, we can say that these associations give selves with hunters in mind, allowing them-
power (Guenther 1999). The powers to give selves to be taken so long as hunters treat
feasts, to provide, and to protect would be en- them with respect and do nothing to curb their
hanced by the images of violence, sex, and autonomy of action” (Ingold 1999, p. 409).
death. At Çatalhöyük there is an association Powerful hunters attract animals as they at-
between feasting deposits and wild male cat- tract followers. They inhabit a “giving envi-
tle. The art shows large numbers of people ronment” so that “far from seeking control
engaged in the killing of dangerous animals over nature, their aim is to maintain proper
such as bulls that then appear in the feasting relationships with these beings” in the natural
residues and in the installations in houses. In world (Ingold 1999, p. 409).
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of
this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Dani Nadel and Ian Kuijt for help in gaining access to literature for this paper. I also
thank the team of Çatalhöyük researchers on whose work this review is based.
LITERATURE CITED
Akkermans P. 2004. Hunter-gatherer continuity: the transition from the Epipalaeolithic to
the Neolithic in Syria. In From the River to the Sea. The Palaeolithic and the Neolithic on
the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant, ed. O Aurenche, M Le Mière, P Sanlaville,
1263:281–93. Oxford: BAR Int. Ser.
Arensburg B, Bar-Yosef O. 1973. Human remains from Ein Gev 1, Jordan valley, Israel.
Paléorient 1:201–6
Balter M. 2005. The Goddess and the Bull. New York: Simon and Schuster
116 Hodder
Banning EB. 2003. Housing Neolithic farmers. Near East. Archaeol. 66(1–2):4–21
Bar-Yosef O. 1991. The archaeology of the Natufian layer at Hayonim Cave. See Bar-Yosef &
Valla 2001, pp. 81–92
Bar-Yosef O. 2001. From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: the emergence of social
institutions. In The Origin of Human Social Institutions, ed. WG Runciman, Proc. Br. Acad.
110:1–38. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Bar-Yosef O. 2004. Guest editorial: east to west—agricultural origins and dispersal into Europe.
Curr. Anthropol. 45(Suppl.):1–4
Bar-Yosef O, Valla FR, eds. 2001. The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: Int. Monogr.
Prehistory
Bataille G. 1962. Erotism: Death and Sensuality. New York: Walker
Bender B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective. World Archaeol. 10:204–22
Bergman CA. 1987. Ksar Akil Lebanon, Vol II. Oxford: BAR Int. Ser. 329
Bloch M. 1992. Prey into Hunter. The Politics of Religious Experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Bonogofsky M. 2004. Including women and children: Neolithic modeled skulls from Jordan,
Israel, Syria and Turkey. Near East. Archaeol. 67(2):118–19
Boyd B. 1995. Houses and hearths, pits and burials: Natufian mortuary practices at Mallaha
(Eynan), Upper Jordan Valley. In The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S
Campbell, A Green, pp. 17–23. Oxford: Oxbow Monogr. 51
Bull ID, Elhmmali MM, Perret P, Matthews W, Roberts DJ Evershed RP. 2005. Biomarker
evidence of faecal deposition in archaeological sediments at Çatalhöyük. See Hodder
2005b, pp. 415–20
Byrd BF. 1989. The Natufian Encampment at Beidha. Late Pleistocene Adaptation in the Southern
Levant. Arhus: Jutland Archaeol. Soc.
Cauvin J. 1979. Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971–1974) et leur signification pour les origins de
la sedentarisation au Proche-Orient. Annu. Am. Schools Orien. Res. 44:19–48
Cauvin J. 1994. Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de l’Agriculture. Paris: CNRS
Cessford C. 2005. Absolute dating at Çatalhöyük. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük:
Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons, ed. I Hodder, pp. 65–100. Cambridge, UK: McDonald
Inst. Archaeol. Res./Br. Inst. Archaeol. Ankara Monogr.
Colledge S, Conolly J, Shennan S. 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming
in the Eastern Mediterranean. Curr. Anthropol. 45(Suppl.):35–58
Cutting M. 2005. The architecture of Çatalhöyük: continuity, household and settlement. See
Hodder 2005c, pp. 151–70
Dural S. 2007. Protecting Çatalhöyük. Memoir of an Archaeological Site Guard. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press
Düring BS. 2006. Constructing Communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central
Anatolian Neolithic, ca. 8500–5500 Cal. BC. Leiden: Ned. Inst. voor het Nabije Oosten
Edwards PC. 1991. Wadi Hammeh 27: an early Natufian site at Pella, Jordan. See Bar-Yosef
& Valla 2001, pp. 123–48
Esin U, Harmanakaya S. 1999. Aşıklı in the frame of Central Anatolian Neolithic. In Ne-
olithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, ed. M Özdoğan, N Başgelen,
pp. 115–32. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları
Fairbairn A, Near J, Martinoli D. 2005. Macrobotanical investigation of the North, South and
KOPAL area excavations at Çatalhöyük East. See Hodder 2005a, pp. 137–202
Fowler CS Turner NJ. 1999. Ecological/cosmological knowledge and land management among
hunter-gatherers. See Lee & Daly 1999, pp. 419–25
118 Hodder
Kozlowski SK. 1992. Nemrik 9. PrePottery Neolithic Site in Iraq 2. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniw.
Warszawskiego
Larsen CS. 1995. Biological changes in human populations with agriculture. Annu. Rev. An-
thropol. 24:185–213
Lee RB, Daly R, eds. 1999. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Matthews W. 2005. Micromorphological and microstratigaphic traces of uses and concepts of
space. See Hodder 2005b, pp. 355–98
Meignen L, Bar-Yosef O, Goldberg P, Weiner S. 2000. Le feu au Paléorient Moyen: recherches
sur les structures de combustion et le statut des foyers. L’exemple du Proche-Orient.
Paléorient 26(2):9–22
Meillassoux C. 1972. From reproduction to production. Econ. Soc. 1:93–105
Mellaart J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson
Meskell L. 2007. Refiguring the corpus at Çatalhöyük. In Material Beginnings: A Global Prehistory
of Figurative Representation, ed. C Renfrew, I Morley. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst.
Archaeol. Res./Br. Inst. Archaeol. Ankara Monogr.
Middleton WD, Douglas Price T, Meiggs D. 2005. Chemical analysis of floor sediments for
the identification of anthropogenic activity residues. See Hodder 2005b, pp. 399–412
Moore A, Hillman G, Legge A. 2000. Village on the Euphrates. From Foraging to Farming at Abu
Hureyra. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Nadel D. 1990. Ohalo II—a preliminary report. Mitekufat Haeven 23:48–59
Nadel D. 1998. A note on PPNA intrasite tool variability. Neo-Lithics 1/98:8–10
Nadel D. 2006. Residence ownership and continuity: from the early Epipalaeolithic unto
the Neolithic. In Domesticating Space, ed. EB Banning, M Chazan, pp. 25–34. Berlin:
Ex Oriente
Nesbitt M. 2002. When and where did domesticated cereals first occur in southwest Asia? In
The Dawn of Farming in the Near East, ed. RTJ Cappers, S Bottema, pp. 113–32. Berlin:
Ex Oriente, Berlin
Noy T. 1991. Art and decoration of the Natufian at Nahal Oren. See Bar-Yosef & Valla 2001,
pp. 557–68
Özbaşaran M, Buitenhuis H. 2002. Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia.
In The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the
Ninth-Sixth Millenniacal BC, Proc. Int. CANeW Round Table, Istanbul 23–24 November 2001
ed. F Gérard, L Thissen, pp. 67–77. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları
Özdoğan M, Özdoğan A. 1990. Çayönü. A conspectus of recent work. Paléorient 15:65–74
Perrot J. 1966. Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. L’Anthropologie 70:437–84
Ronen A, Lechevallier M. 1991. The Natufian of Hatula. See Bar-Yosef & Valla 2001,
pp. 149–60
Rosenberg M, Redding RW. 2000. Hallan Çemi and early village organization in eastern
Anatolia. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differ-
entiation, ed. I Kuijt, pp. 39–61. New York: Kluwer Acad./Plenum
Russell N, Martin L. 2005. The Çatalhöyük mammal remains. See Hodder 2005b, pp. 33–98
Russell N, Meece S. 2005. Animal representations and animal remains at Çatalhöyük. See
Hodder 2005c, pp. 209–30
Sahlins M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine
Schmidt K. 2000. Zuerst kam der tempel, dann die stadt. Vorläufiger bericht zu de grabungen
am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe 1995–1999. Istanbul Mitteilungen 50:5–40
Schmidt K. 2003. The 2003 campaign at Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey). Neo-Lithics
2/03:3–8
120 Hodder