s it e g u id e b o o k

ARCHAEOLOGISTS @ Ç A T A L H Ö Y Ü K
 s it e g u id e b o o k

ARCHAEOLOGISTS @ Ç A T A L H Ö Y Ü K
 ‘Prohably the most important archaeological site in Turkey’
(Collins Guide to Turkey)

‘The yvorid’s ‘earliest murals’

(Guinness Book of Records)

‘A unique manifestation of the hııman spirit’

(Sir Mortimer VVheeler)

‘The dig of the millennium’

(Professor Lord Renfrew)

‘One of the 100 sites in the world most in need of conservation and one of the 30 most in need of funding’
(World Monuments Fund)

f ^S i — 't * t )t ' -S-

sv

A 9000 year old town; one of the largest and most complex early centres of settied life.

The early use of pottery and metals, the remarkable preservation of wooden bowls and textiles; the early use of
domesticated plants and animals.

A very different type o f society in which women may have played a Central role.

The site may play an important role in the origins of the Indo-European languages which spread from Europe to
India.

Thefirsî wall paintings gire a unique insight into ancient myths and beliefs - into what people were like 9000
years ago.
Suddenly and uniquely, about 9000 years ago in Central
Anatolia near the modern town of Konya, people started
painting the insides of their houses with remarkable pictures
and symbols. These people were early farmers. They had
some domesticated animals (probably sheep, goat and some
cattie) and cereals, but they stili spent much time hunting
wild animals and collecting wild fruits and tubers in the rich
marshy landscape around their settlement. They had very
early pottery and copper, textiles and wooden artifacts. The
inhabitants of Çatalhöyük had come together to live in an
early ‘town’ of between 5,000 and 10,000 people. The
families lived in small rectangular mudbrick houses densely
packed together in 13.5 hectares. When they had finished
living in a house (after about 100 years) they carefully filled
it in and built another one directly on top. As house was
built on house, a mound 20 metres in height was produced.
The site was inhabited for perhaps 1000 years. Plân o f a huilding level at Çatalhöyük
The houses wcre so densely packed that ali öpen areas and
pathways came to be built upon. As a result, entry into houses
had to be through holes in the roofs. These same holes were
The site presents an enigma yet to be solved:
used for smoke escaping from the ovens and hearths in the
house. So one entercd the house ‘down the chimney’. But other sites o f the time period are increasingly
the rooms remained so smokey that the lungs of the people knowrı, but none approaches the complexity of
at death wcre filled with a black carbon deposit. Çatalhöyük. What led to this unicpıe flowering
of symholism, creativity and comple.dty? Why
here and at this point in time?
Reconstruction o f village life at Çatalhöyük (© Atlas)
 Discovery and Research
__________s;g-:-:fc.-;-:i.;. :.;.,:

The site was discovered in 1958 by James Mellaart, David
French and colleagues. It was first excavated by James
Mellaart under the auspices of the British Institutc of
Archaeology of Ankara, belween 1961 and 1965. He
concentrated on the larger, Neolithic. East mound, although
and with the personal support of James and Arlette Mellaart.
The founders and sponsors of the project which has
continued since Ihen are listed on the back cover. The
renewed work at the site initially concentrated on surface
work. Excavation began in a small way in 1995 and on a
larger scale in 1996.

James Mellaart ( ©Atlas) lan Hodder ( ©Atlas)

some trial work on the lower West mound established that it

was later (Chalcolithic) in date. Only 4% of the East mound
was excavated, but the enormous importance of the site was
recognised. Many hundreds of buildings in 12 Icvcis wcrc
examined in the Southvvest of the East mound. The
pu b licatio n of the site (especially M ellaart 1967)
demonstrated the intcrnational significance of the site.
M ellaart had put Ç atalhöyük firm ly on the map of
internationally important sites.

In the years after 1965, the site was protected by the Turkish
government. But there was littie for visitors to see and
erosion began to cause serious damage. Recent large-scale
drainage systems have led to drying out and harming of the
dcposits. So in 1993 the Turkish Ministry of Culture granted
permission to lan Hodder to begin work at the site, under Micromorphologist W. Matthews at work in the
the auspices of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara project lahoratoıy {© Dagmar Cee)
Work in the Mellaart arca (© Dagmar Cee)

The project is international, involving partners in Britain, United States, Greece, Germany and South Africa, as well as
close collaboration with partners in Turkey (especially the Middle Eastern Technical University). Many Turkish students
work on the project and are funded by the project and sponsors to attend courses in British and American universities.

T u m ^'w o rb n e ıi Dagmar Cee)

1997 Bach Team Excavation
The project has an extensive web site contain information about current work at
http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.html

, Netscape; ÇatalhöyU k

) a «t
Hom« S*«'ch im^s P rttt S«cwitq

}http://ç3t-al »rch.cam.«-g>c./cat-al/e.at»l.h»m1

■< r 'I İ

M feslon 11)2? Web si^ d « s ig ^ forÜ20?e m th« e%c«7 »«^rı? Kt ÇâiâlhOTUh lu »im 2? «:>pıovüe
Sfaıtem ^ıtf unfoımation »bou2 ^ »ctmtı&? of the Project »jmİ of the diiferem «spect^ of jBseaıch lıeing conducted at
Çatalhoyok

Newsl«tteı^
^-DecetftbgtM? R ecen t a d d ition s
3‘D6cembert9SS
2*^âJİM We vouM lüıe to l^ear^uycommenıs .
1‘jmmoâE
Media Pafl#» the of tfıe Bnnrh Au-r^/0%? Yem <??^..-tvcorftiı^rino>'>-
If youere vısitir^T u^y öttss«mm»r(15.7 .9S - lS.9.98),come»jft4 see ü» exc&vdtkıri3‘. Thft site c«2i M viâiıed
tniottghouttiavfetır.

VR-reconstruction (© Z K M Kaıismhe)

The project consists ofthree parts:

^The scientific excavation ofth e site.

^^Research into the conservation o f art, architecture and artifacts.
^^^-Presentation ofth e site to the public.
Screen laken from “Çatalhöyük - als die Menschen begannen, in Stadten zu leben”. CD-ROM
(German/English) about the project and the site published by RM Magazine in Conjunction with
the Hochschule Für Gestaltung Karisruhe & Universitat Karisruhe. It can be purchased from;
ZKM-Shop, Petra Koger, LorenzstraBe 19, D - 76135 - Karisruhe, Germany. Fax: ++ 49 -
721-8100-1259.
The cost is DM 40.00 for addresses within the EU, and DM 50.00 for those outside, to cover
postage and packing. Preferred payment method is by credit card, (please incinde card name,
number, expiry date). More information can also be found at http;//goethe.ira.uka.de/catal/

CD-Rom screenshot (© ZKM Karisruhe)

 Why, and for whom, is Çatalhöyük important?

Many different communities are intcrested in Çatalhöyük,

and h is important that ali these communities know about
and respect each other’s different intercsts. These varied A stamp seal from
communities are too varied to discuss here, but some of the Çatalhöyük on display
main groups are as follows. at the Museum o f
Anatolian civilizations
First and foremost there is the concern of thc Turkish State (© Dagmar Cee)
to protect this important example of Turkish heritage, to
safeguard the site and its
finds, and disseminate the
resLilts. The most important
artifacts and paintings
from the 1960s
excavations are on display
in the A natolian
Civilisations Museum in
Ankara.

The reconstructed
room from Çatalhöyük
at the Museum of
Anatolian civilizations
(© Dagmar Cee)
Second, there are a variety of local interests. The site is
close to tlıe village of Küçükköy and many of the people, How can we interpret
both men and women. who work at the site come from this
village. The site is also part of the area under the jurisdiction
Çatalhöyük?
of the nearby town of Çumra and the project is vcry grateful
to the Belediye baskani and the Kaymakam for their support.
How can we makc sense of the elaborate symbolism at
Much of the tourist and economic impact of developing the
Çatalhöyük? Why are vultures shown picking the flesh of
site will be felt at these local levels. The regional town of
headless corpses? Why does a large naked woman sit on a
Konya also has an important role, and in particular the Vale,
thronc of leopards? Are these female breasts on the wall
Cultural Minister and Museums Direetor have ali given
with vulture beaks within them? Why is a man buried with
important .support. Students from Selçuk University lake paıt
the defonned penis bone of a weasel? The strangeness of
in the project.
the sym bolism
ıntrigucs and
Third, there are the academic interests, which themselves
challenges us. It is so
change through time. At first, Mellaart’s work was seen of
odd and different, how
particular im portance because it showed that early
can we begin to
agricultural sites existed outside the ‘Fertile Crescent’ in the
undersland it?
Neaı- East. The site showed that important developments
also occurred eisewhere. More recently the site has obtained
One response is to try
a new significance as archaeologists ponder on art and
and make it as familiar
symbolism and try to underst'-nd what they can teli us about
as possible, to relate it
early societies. But there are very many specific
to art and symbolism
archaeological interests - in what the faunal and botanical
that we know of
remains can teli us about early farming, in what the
historically. And
environment was like, in clothing, in pottery or stone tools
indeed, this was the
or wooden tools, in ancient arehiteeture, in burial, in regional
first response of the
settlement patterns, and so on.
cxcavators and
commentators.
Fourth. there are the many differenl and varied groups who
Parallels were dravvn
think that Çatalhöyük is important for women. Some of the
Knossos bull with the historical
groups are Goddess worshippers who come to the site for
civ ilisalio n s of
religious purposes. Others are Ecofeminists who believe that
A natolia and the
there is some link at the site betvveen vvomen and çare for
Aegean. Certainly comparisons can be made with the bull
the earth and environment. Others are feminists who are
cult in Crete and with the classical goddesses such as Cybele,
interesled in vvhether there was a malriarchy at Çatalhöyük
Demeler, İsis, Athena and so on. But we must also remember
- in other words a society in which vvomen were dominant.
that 4000 to 6000 thousand years separate the symbolism at
These varied groups, from New' Age to Gaia worshippcrs to
Çatalhöyük from many of these later images. It is extremely
academic feminists, approach the site with different interests.
unlikely that symbols retained their meaning över such
Some of the archaeological evidence for the role of women
enormous expanses of time.
at Çatalhöyük will be discussed later in this booklet.

Fifth, there are those who believe that the site is important
in understanding the origins of kilims. Konya is one of the
main centres for carpet and kilim shops and markets. Many
people believe that the motifs found in kilims today derive
ul ultima ultimatcly from motifs occuiTİng in the Çatalhöyük
art, despite the enonnous time span Involved (9000 years).

Sixth, there are the national and intemational tourists who

increasingly visit the site and for whom facilities wil!
gradually be provided, such as the Koçbank Çatalhöyük
Museum. These groups have varied backgrounds and
interests and it is hoped to provide an experience for them
which caters to their different needs.
Nuba wall paintings
 LEG END
villages praetising fishing and cultivation.
= = = Shelf B e a m s Each village is inhabited by different
czı M a ts of G o d s and
A n ce sto rs
families and dans under a chief, and
lineage and ancestry are important in
Fireplace
î defining rights to family locations within
m Seat villages. Indeed, as at Çatalhöyük, the
Po st for O fferings
ancestors are buried beneath the floors
•
of the houses. The houses, which are dark
and smoke-filled, are divided into a
DOORVVAYS: ceremonial side (mata paito) svithout
H - Head of H ouse
doors, where only men may sit and where
W/C -W om e n and Children food is laid out in a ritual manner. On
C - C om m on
M - M en this side there is a row of more carefully
SEA T S:
laid, larger mats, slightly raised up, and
beneath them are buried the dead of the
1 • C hief (Titular Head)
2 • G uest family. On the other side (tuaumu) are
3 • Eldest S o n (Head of H ouse)
4 • Younge r S o n
the household fires and the places where
5« S o n or G uest the women and children site. The Central
area of the house is common ground to
ali members of the household, meals are
spread out there and a wide range of
İn addition, as wül be shown below, the type of society at activities takes place.
Çatalhöyük was very different from those of the classical
civilisations. There is no evidence of a ‘State’, stili less of a This arrangement of the house amongst the Tikopia is
‘State religion’ with its temples and priests. The society at remarkably similar to that at Çatalhöyük. In Tikopia, the
Çatalhöyük was in many ways more similar to those found burial area of the house is treated with respect and is avoided
ethnographically today in other parts of the world. For for many daily tasks, so that we would expect the floors to
example, amongst the Nuba in Sudan, the Mesakin cover be cleaner here, as they also are at Çatalhöyük. But we cannot
the interiors of their compounds with elaborate art and assume from this that the societies were in other ways similar.
symbolism inciuding depictions of strange mythical beasts The Tikopia studied by Firth are patrilocal and patrilineal.
and animal horns. The Mesakin are not politically and The similarities in house fonn and burial do not allow us to
socially diverse and differentiated. They have ‘chiefs’ but conciude that the Çatalhöyük people were also patrilocal
there is littie social ranking beyond age and sex differences.
and patrilineal. What we can perhaps suggest is that in both
The symbolism which is found on compound walls, bodies,
societies, ties to the ancestors werc important in defining
containers, ete. is used to protect people, erops and food
rights and resources. The Tikopia are divided into chiefly
from impurities, dangers and death. İt is linked to a desire to
and commoner families although the degree of difference
ensure produetion, reproduetion and regeneration.
between them is not great. The higher status groups have a
special role in ritual, are closer to the gods and ancestors,
In many small-scale societies, the image of the mother is
and are often more wealthy. This is ali very similar to what
important as a metaphor for ali social relationships. Ali social
we know of Çatalhöyük, but it is possible that the .social
ties and duties are seen in terms of relationships within
families, vvhether people are actually related by kin or not.
In such societies, the mother, and one’s relationship with
the mother, act as models for ali forms of social behaviour.
The mother may also be seen as ceniral to the continuity
and reproduetion of families and lineages. She may thus
have an important symbolic and ritual role and may be Central
in depictions. But this docs not necessarily mean that she
dominates or Controls society in practice. Ethnographically,
women may be symbolically Central but men may dominate
in other areas of life.

For example, amongst the Tikopia in Polynesia, Raymond

Firth deseribed a society with some striking parallels to
Çatalhöyük, even though the people lived in small loose

Nuba house interior

structure there should be intcrpreted in very different terms,
perhaps without chiefs, and other ethnographic comparisons
need to be made.
For exam ple, David Lew is-W illiam s has looked at
Çatalhöyük from the perspective of his knotvledge about
the San, hunters and gatherers in Southern Africa. Lewis-
Williams thinks that the painting and sculptııre at Çatalhöyük
may havc been produccd by shamans who used it to contact
the underworld. He suggests that the bulls heads on the walls
may represent animals coming through the walls, and that
the hand paintings suggest peopie reaching through the walls
to the other side. Another parallel is provided by Caroline
Humphrey in her work on shamanic ritual amongst the
nomadic tribes in northern Asia. These peopie have elders
or male or female shamans who use objects and paintings to
make contact with the spirits. On this analogy, the painting
and sculpture at Çatalhöyük may have been used in order to
protect peopie from evil spirits. And as we shall see below,
there is some evidence that the painting does occur around
the burials of young peopie, as if to protect or nurture the
dead and their spirits.
Other more specific help in interpreting Çatalhöyük can be
gained from ethnoarchaeology, and members of the project
are conducting studies in the villages around the site in order
to understand practical matters, such as how buildings are
constructed, how plaster is made and used, how the roofs
are used. Of course, the differences between the 9000 yeaf
old site at Çatalhöyük and the present day villages are
enormous. But it is interesting to compare the uses of similar
materials in a similar environment. For example, the practice
today of keeping animals on the roofs (see below) supports
our idea that much the same thing happened at Çatalhöyük.
Contemporary village in Anatolia ( ©Atlas)
Environment and econoniy
The use of historic and ethnographic parallels is part of the
archaeologist’s work. But there are always many more
parallels that can be made than can be decided between on
the basis of the archaeological evidence. The main job of
the archaeologist is therefore to try and provide fuller and
more detailed evidence about the site so that better choiccs
can be made about which interpretations are correet. İn this
and the follovving .seetions, some of the scientific results of
the work at Çatalhöyük are deseribed to show ways in which
interpretations are bcing made.
Palaeoenvironmental research condueted by a team led by
Neil Roberts has shown that Çatalhöyük was located by the
side of a river, the Çarşamba Çay, vvhich flowed into the
Konya plain, forming a rich alluvial fan. The site began after
the alluvium had started to form and the alluvium continued
to be deposited during the life of the site. Away from the
sile there may have been öpen vvoodland with herds of wild
equid, deer and cattie, although more work is needed before
we can reconstrucl the environment with any security.
Faunal, archaeobotanical and soil data have been used in an
attempt to understand the subsistence strategies at the 9000
ycar old site of Çatalhöyük in Central Turkey. The faunal
data suggested that previous interpretations of the economy
as cattie dominated were incorreet. In fact, sheep and goat
dominate in ali areas. The significant presence of wild equids
may indicate that part of the vicinity of the site was steppe.
Cattie and sheep bones fail into two distinet size classes
vvhich are sufficiently differentiated to suggest possible wild
and domestic types but the issuc remains unresolved.
Hovvever, there are trends suggesting inereasing dependeney
on husbanded animals later in the occupation of the site.
The archaeobotanical data have been demonstrated to be
very sensitive to context. Social and ritual differences
betvveen deposits correlate with the types of plant present.
Hovvever, some general themes emerge. Ali the majör
domesticates associated with the Neolithic in the region are
present. But vvetland, vvild taxa are also common. Tubers
and rhizomes are abundant. The importance of vvild and
marshland plant resources correlates with the evidence from
sediments and soils. These have demonstrated backsvvamp
clays around the site contemporary vvith its occupation.
Overall, it is clear that Çatalhöyük vvas located in a vvetland
environment rich in vvild plant resources but also ideal for
early farming.
Regional settlement
Was Çalalhöyük the only one of its kind in the region, or
were there many such sites? The initial
result of a regional survey conducted
by Douglas Baird has been that no olher
large sites of this period have been
found on the Çarşamba alluvial fan. But
there may have been many smaller
sites, and indeed a few have now been
found by Baird’s team. But the later
deposition of alluvium on the fan has
covered över small sites and they are
extremely difficult to find. Overall, we
can only say for the mom ent that
Çatalhöyük seems to have been a pre-
em inent site in the region, totally
dominating the other sites in terms of
size.
Ali this raises the issue of why people
clustered together in such a large site.
We do not have any clear answers to
this question at the moment. Perhaps,
önce started, the site provided a dry
location in the wetland environment.
Perhaps people clustered together because of defence, but
there is no indication of a wall around the
site, as is found elsewhere at Asikli
Höyük, and there is littie evidence of
\varring. Perhaps people clustered
together because of the rich resources at
this point in the landscape, but it is not
clear \vhy other points along the river
could not have done equally as well.
Perhaps the answer lies in social factors.
If social status depended on living on or
near your ancestors. then people may
have clustered together to live in family
groups linked by ancestral houses.
One way of beginning to answer these
questions would be to excavate one of the
sm aller sites in the region round
Çatalhöyük. Do these have the same type
of painting and sculpture? Or are these
things only found at Çatalhöyük? If they
The survey team at work are, then it seems possible that religious
(©Dagmar Cee) and social reasons wcre linked to the
clustering together. We hope that such
cxcavation will be possible in the future.
Çatalhöyük as seen from space
Trade and exchange
One way in which the sites in the region and beyond were
linked together is through the exchange of goods. For
cxample, we know that the obsidian
(a volcanic glass) was obtained from
Central Anatolia and was used to make !
a wide variety of tools, as well as fine
objects of soıne value such as
bifacially flaked points and mirrors.
Most of the obsidian seems to have
been brought to the site and thcn
worked into tools on the site. The
higher status people on the site may
have controlled some of the
distribution of the obsidian on the site,
but most familics had their own storc
or cachc of obsidian which they kept
in a pit by the entrance to the house,
although thcse Stores may also have
bccn offerings.
Pottery too was exchanged, although
most of it was probably made from
local clays. It was made into simple
undccorated bowls, perhaps used for
cooking, eating and drinking. During
the duration of the site the quality of
the pottery increased dram ali cally.
The main po.sts used in building the
houses wcre often taken from juniper
trees which would have to have been
brought down from the Taurus
uplands, as would the hackberries of
\vhich there is a great quantity al the
Obsidian tools
A wide range of stones. metals and shells were obtained
from near and far. Small axes were made of greenslone, and
fine knife blades were made from flint
which is not availablc locally. For the
manufacture of beads, the following
materials were obtained from ali över
Southern Anatolia: copper and lead,
chalk, red ochre, lignite (coal). slate,
schist, mica, calcite, alabaster, carnelian,
apatite (blue, grccn or white), serpentine,
limestone (red, grey, green, blue, black
and white), dentalium shell from the
Medilerranean, cockIe (cardium), whelk
and freshw ater shells, covvries and
mother-of-pearl.
bead neckIace
So Çatalhöyiik took part in vvidespread
networks of exchange. But the scaie of
thıs exchange is not enough to explain
the presence of the site and its
importance. Certainly there are ‘stamp
seals' from the site, with distinetive
designs. These could have been used to
indicate ow nership of goods or
shipments. But they are more likely to
have been used for decorating cloth or
bodics, and they are in any case few in
number. Most sites at this period were
involved in widespread exchange. To
understand the particular nature of
p o tta y from Building I Ç atalhöyiik, we will have to look
elsewhere.
Obsidian hoard in situ
 m . V'?'' !
Burial »• ' " "'f
T l ^ •-■■-■■■'■■■î*’^

A team led by Peter Andrevvs and Theya Molleson is
examinıng the many burials from the site. For exampie at
least 64 individuals were buried beneath the north and east
platforms in Building 1 (see below). It seems likely, from
the count of annual plastering on the walls, that Building 1
was inhabited for about 40 years. Those buried beneath the
noors of this building probably come from a larger group
than could have lived in this small house. This building
should perhaps be seen as an ancestral house for a wider
lineage or family that either lived around the house or
scattered aeross the site.
There is some suggestion that those buried under the
different platforms in Building 1 came from different
families within the larger family or elan. But there are also
differences in the way different sexes and ages are treated.
For cxample, neckIaces are mainly found with young people
or women. Other artifacts found are pendants and small
polished axes. Many burials ,show traces of having been
wrapped in cloth or braids before interment.
Examination of the teeth of the skeletons suggests a soft
diet. The inhabitants of Çatalhöyük were not eating a lot of

Buried henealh the north and east platforms in Building 1

The burials in Building 1 suggest another intriguing
possibilıty - that the life of the house follows the life of the
extended family buried beneath its floors. Thus it seems that
the early burials in the building are mainly of young people.
There was very high mfant and child mortality. The later
burials in the building are mainly of old people. Perhaps
older members and the head of the family died, the house
was abandoned, burnt, filled in, and rebuilt.
bread made from ground floor. If they had been, the grit in
tne flour would have wom down their teeth. Rather. they
must have eaten cereals in the form of a gruel, as well as
tubers. In fact, they may have eaten mainly boiled food - the
animal bones are so chopped up as to suggest boiling rather
than roasting.

The family head whose death ended the use of the building
may be the hcadless corpse found beneath the main eastern
platform. This individual may have had special spiritual
powers as is suggested by the penis bone (of a .small weasel-
like animal) he worc and by the removal of his head. The
removal of heads is suggested in the paintings (see below).
Most of the skeletons are thought to have beenplaced in the
ground complete, inciuding with their heads. It does not seem
that most people were left out to have their flesh rippcd off
by vultures before being buried. The practice seen in the
paintings probably refers to a myth rather than to reality.
But the practice of head removal may have been saved for
people of importance such as elders. family heads, or ritual
leaders.
The houses at Çatalhöyük were made of mud brick. In the early layers especially, these bricks were long and thin, about as
thin as the layers of mortar made from midden material. Some bricks were över İm long and were probably made in situ
on the wal)s. Tn later levels, the bricks are thicker and shorter, and the mortar much thinner - more as we understand bricks
and mortar today. The mud brick walls were very thin, and large wooden posts often provided additional support for the
roof. The roof was probably flat, made of wooden beams, perhaps reeds and then a clay covermg. It is likely that a wide
range of activities took place on the roofs.

The walls were plastered on the inside vv'ith very fine layers of local clays, probably annually renewed in the spring, after
the severe cold of the Konya plain winter. Entry was sometimes through entrances in the walls, but many houses became
so surrounded by other houses that entry was
through the roof - through the same hole that
the smoke from the fire escapcd from. Entry
through the roof led down a ladder into the
Southern part of the building. In one building
we have foLind puddling on the tloor just
1300-
beneath the ladder, suggesting that rain and
melting snow also came through the entry
1250' hole. A dcposit or hoard of obsidian was often
placed near the ladder.

1200i \f / / / // //////f,Vâkik‘J\\\\\\ \ VU U \ \ V \ Usually, the S o u t h e r n p a r t o f t h e building

contained hearth and öven, grinding areas,
1150i \ \ (\ and storage facilities. The amount of space
' ' for storage was not great, suggesting that each
family was relatively sclf-sufficient, and
1100- dependent on the available resources
throughout the year. Sometimes a separate
small room was used for food preparation and
1050- storage. In the northem part of the building
are found the burials and the clean plaster
platforms around which the painting and
1000-
sculpture occur.

950 Each house has its own walls. There are very
few party walls. This suggests a strong sense
of independence and ovvnership. By keeping
900- the walls separate, each house was able to
follow its own cycle: use, cleansing by
buming, filling in andrebuilding. If the walls
S50-
had ali been shared party vvalls, such
independent action would not have been
800 possible.
850 900 950 1000' 1050 1100 1150 1200
As is seen in the plan on pagc 18, every
available space was used for building. There
are a few streets, and there are large areas for
rubbish discard. Animals were brought into
pens within the settlement, and young or small animals were taken into the houses. But most of the site is covered with a
dense honeycomb of houses. There is no evidence of central planning - rather, each household found its space and adapted
the general code (fires to the south, burials and sculpture to the north) as best as possible to fit into that space.
Through time, the an'angement of houses stayed much the same, since people preferred to build new houses exactly
över old ones. The more elaborate houses in one phase tended to be rebuilt as more elaborate houses in the next. This
suggests that status and wealth could be passed down ancestral lines of descent.

Constriiction of Çatalhöyük house (© J. Mellaart)

\o?-th area o f the mound

Plan o f the houses ohserved a f ter scrapin;^
iiîniİfllMlIÜltfitM

Model o f a Çatalhöyük Neolithic house

(© M. Stevanovic)

Expcriment in hrick constriiction at Çatalhöyük E.vperimental bricks

 «Aiii-l'Î.AN»lHf-UINGl
i Central authorities might be expected at Çatalhöyük. But
Platform
BÜRIAI.I'ITLHSTmiiUaOM
How was society organised?
One of the most fascinating questions about Çatalhöyük is:
how was it possible for so many people to live together?
Stand on top of the mound and look around you; imagine
the whole surface of the mound covered in small houses.
imagine it in winter, with smoke coming from the houses,
the ever-present danger of fire, the necd to carry refuse away
from the house. the bringing of small animals across roofs
and into the buildings. Consider the danger to other houses
of one house buming down, and consider ali the conflict
about rights of access across roofs. imagine it in summer,
with new houses being built, blocking light and access to
other houses, with people working on their roofs but needing
to store and protect their food and equipment which they
had brought in from the fields. Consider agahı the disputes
which woLild have flared up about movement, access, rights.
duties.
We might imagine that a community of betvveen 5000 and
10,000 people vvould havc chosen leaders, religious İcaders,
or councils to run their affaırs and to settic such disputes.
But so far at Çatalhöyük there is no evidence of any public
buildings or ceremonial centres. Of course, much of the site
has not been excavated. Evidence from other sites, earlier
that Çatalhöyük, such as Asikli Höyük, has shown that
intensive sampling of the surface of the mound by seraping
and geophysical prospeetion has not found any Central
buildings. AH we seem to have at Çatalhöyük are small
buildings and areas of refuse.
This is not to say that ali families at Çatalhöyük were exactly
equal. There is certainly variation in the degree of elaboration
and symbolism found in the buildings. The more elaborate
buildings, defined as those with more mouldings, pillars,
benehes ete., also have more fine bifacially flaked obsidian
points. The largest numbers of figurines come from very
elaborate buildings. These buildings may also be more
'Progressive’ in that they contain innovative or unusual
ceramic forms. There are certainly high status artifacts from
Çatalhöyük that would have required specialised skills, such
as the mirrors made by polishing obsidian, and the fine flint
daggers. Some people, perhaps because of their position in
relation to the ancestors or through their control över ritual,
were also able to gain better access to exchanged goods and
may have controlled some produetion.
But there were also strong levelling mechanisms that
restricted the amount of differentiation that was possible
betıveen families and households. We can see this in the
strict code that was adhcred to vvherever possible in the
laying out of the house. This has been deseribed above. The
hearths and ovens are normally in the south and the burials
to the north. Hoards of obsidian are placcd near the ladder
in the south. And so on. Ali buildings, even the most
elaborate, inciude domestic funetions. And even the simplest
buildings inciude some symbollc elaboration. Overall, the
degree of variation between buildings is not great. and burials
show limited variation. Apart from the differences betvveen
age and sex, most people were fairly equal.
13 paırtlings?
a no o t çpares
Q motıfings
D fire iiîslalîatiou
5 pit/b.ısin
a pitlar/posl
□ beneh
■ plalfurm /'b in
 FUntdagger

a&jv
The role of women Looking back at the Çatalhöyük examplcs, there are no tails,
Jt but many have short stumpy arms and legs and they look
more animal ıhan human. We do not deny that they may
The question of wonıen's roles at Çatalhöyük remains a very represent some linking of women and serpents, snakes or
difficult One about which people have especially divergent lizards. Part of the problem at Çatalhöyük is that these relief
vievvs. We can start with the need to separate the role of sculptures cicarly did have an important symbolic role - so
women in mythology and symbolism from the roles of much so that they were nearly always destroyeri by
women in daily life. For the moment we can stili say a io t. destroying the head, hands or feet. This makes identifying
more about the former. It is difficult to argue against the them as human. animal, ete. very difficult.
importance of women in the symbolism. Especially in the
later levels at the site, the image of the enthroned or seated Certainly the statuette of the enthroned vvoman suggests a
woman is povverful. There do not seem to be ctjuivalent powerful symbolic role for svomen. But beyond this we need
images of men. although most of the representations of a İot more researeh. İt is possible that other images, inciuding
humans are ’sexless’ - there is nothing on most figurines the bulls heads, are actually images of the power of women
and clay models of humans to teli us vvhether they are men and the goddess. This is possible, but for the moment we
or women. The number of clear men and women figurines have no evidence for it.
is not large. What is more, when we find these clay figures,
they do not occur in special places, They seem to occur most As regards the daily. real-life role of women, there is littie
frequently in ‘midden’ (refuse) contexts. They do not occur that can be said so far. We do need to excavate a İot more
in burials or in locations which would suggest special burials and to look at the differences between the malc and
importance. The famous .seated 'MotherGoddess’was found female skeletons. From this we will be able to say how much
in a grain bin - perhaps this has something to do with fertility, work of different kinds men and women were doing, whether
but we have no suggestion that grain bins were symbolically their diets were different, and so on. For the moment we
ımportant. Most of the figurines are very small. Some have have found evidence of very high child mortality. This
detachable heads. It is quite likely that the figurines and suggests a tough life for women in their child-bearing ycars.
statuettes had a range of different functions. But for most of
them it is difficult to argue for any special symbolic In the one building recently excavated completely, the
significance. evidence so far would suggest the importance of the male
line. İn building 1, it seems that the last burial under the
Apart from the figurines, the other main representation of main, Central, eastern platform was a male. Indeed this may
women is suppo,sed to be the splayed relief figures on the have been the last burial in the house. This mature individual
walls. These are the figures with arms and feet pointing may have had some ritual importance - he had with him a
upvvards and (in one case at least) with a swollen belly. small bone worn perhaps as an amulet. It was the deformed
Perhaps the swelling suggests pregnancy, but since these penis bone of a small wcasel-like animal. This man’s special
figures do not have breasts there is very littie evidence to standing is also suggcsted by the fact that his head was
suggest they are women. Neither is there any clear depiction missing. The removal of the head is symbolically important
of these or any other figures at Çatalhöyük giving birth. because we see vultures picking the fle.sh of headless corpses
in the wall art. Perhaps his head was removed to be taken to
One important new picce of evidence about these relief found the new house of the family after his death? Whatever
sculptures comes from recently e.xcavated sites in eastern the specific interpretation, after his death the house was
Turkey. Here there are images of splayed figures with arms abandoned and the majör relief sculpture in the building was
and feet pointing upwards, very similar to the Çatalhöyük destroyed or removed. The age of this man may correspond
ones. But, these examples have tails and ‘serpent-like’ teeth. approximately to the number of years in which the house
was livcd in. When he died the house was abandoned. Ali buried in a house sequence. If the socicty is patriloca! we
this suggests an cxtcnded family ccnired on this malc, who would expect the sons of sons of sons to be buried there,
may have had ritual significance or powers. with women maiTying in from other families. This would
be an exciting piece of research.
We have an exciting idea about
how wc could work out the
real-life social importance of
men and women at Çatalhöyük.
This is to use DNA analysis of Clayfig
the ancient bones found
beneath the house floors. The
houses arc built on top of cach
other in a long sequence and we
assume that the same family
inhabited the same house as it
was rebuilt över many
centuries. Tf the society is
matrilocal we would expect the
DNA to show that daughters of
Clay figurine
daughters of daughters were

İn these dark, smokey and cramped buildings, something
remarkable happened. İn those inner parts of the house away
from the cooking and food preparation and storage areas,
people started painting the walls. Each year the whole house
interior was replastered with a fine skim of white clay,
perhaps painted on with a brush. Onto these white surfaces
elaborate motifs werc sometımes painted in a wide range of
colours. Sometimes the walls were just painted in a
monoehrome red. At other times geometric designs were
used. Sometimes complex scenes involving hunting or
teasing wi!d animals were depicted, as were scenes showing
the removal of flesh from headless corpses bt' \ ultures (or
by ritual leaders dressed as vultures). At other times plaster
reliefs of wild bull and ram heads or of splayed, perhaps
female, fıgures were fixed to the walls. The end result must
have been very striking - strange and powerful images
appearing in the flickering light of fires and lamps m the
smoky darkness.
How can we understand what art means? This is not an easv

BuHpainting
task even when it comes to modern art! It is eyen more (see plan on page 19). Traces of a relief sculpture have been
difficult when we cannot speak to the people in long dead found on the west wail of the main room (Space 71) of this
and pre-literate societies such as at Çatalhöyük. What we building, and painting has been found around the raised
can say to start with is that the motifs used in the art (such platform in the Northwest corner of the same room. Let us
as the vLiltLire, the splayed woman and the bull’s head) are concentrate here on the painting in the Northwest corner of
found widely at this time. EKamples of these motifs have Space 71. This consisted of several layers of geometric
been found at designs in various
contem porary and hues of red and
earlier sites aeross black. These
eastern Anatolia and paintings occurred
into N. Syria. So there especially on the
was a common earliest layers of
vocabulary of signs p laster that were
and symbols. We must placed on the walls
assum e that when around the platform.
these symbols were So what activities
used at Çatalhöyük, were taking place on
they referred to the N orthw est
widespread common platform mi its
m canings, but that earliest phases of
these meanings were use?
made appropriate to
the particular site at The floors in this
Çatalhöyük. So, if we building were kept
can look at how the symbols were used at Çatalhöyük, we scrupulously cican, except in the ‘dirty ’ areas near the hearth
can try to infer what the local meanings might have bccn. and ovens to the south of the main room and in the storage
room (Space 70) to the west of the main room. The floor of
So the main emphasis of renevved work at Çatalhöyük has the Northwest platform was replastered cvery year with a
been to make detailed studies of the conte.Kt of the paintings fine vvhite clay, and was kept very clean. Microscopic
and sculpture. What was happening in the houses which had analysis of these floor plasters has not found remains of
the art (since most houses have sotne art, but some more activities trampled into the tloors. Perhaps the platform was
than others)? What was happening in the parts of the house used for sleeping or ritual or other ‘clean’ activities.
near the art? By looking at what was happening near the art
we can perhaps gain some clue about what the art meant. Bencath the Northvvest platform, and beneath other ‘clean’
areas in the north and east of the main room, burials were
Our clearest answer so far to these questions comes from found. İn fact, at least 64 people were buried beneath the
the excavation ot Building 1 in the North area of the site floors in this building. The bodies had been tightly flexed
soon after death and often wrapped in a cloth, shroud or
braids. A small hole was dug through the floor and the body
placed into a small grave, often disturbmg earlier burials.
The Northwest platfonn proved lo have by t'ar the largest
concentration of burials. These occun'ed especially in the
earlie.st phases of use of this platfonn, exactly at the same
time as the painting around it. What is more, the burials
beneath this platform were especially of young people.
What we can say, then, is that the painting in Building 1
seems lo have somethıng lo do with the burial of young
people. The infant mortality in the community found in
Building 1 w'as extrenıely high. The loss of so many children
must have been tragic because the community would have
depended on reproduction lo get more help in hunting,
gathering and farming.
abandoned, filled in and rebuilt on top of the remains. İn
particular. the w'estem wall of the main room was often
destroyed. This wall often contained majör relief sculptures
of bulls or of the splayed ‘woman’. It seems as if these images
contained some powerful force that had to be removed before
new life and new building could start.
We can go some way towards arguing that the art al
Çatalhöyük allowed communication with. or contained the
living spirits of the ancestors. There is of course a long way
lo go before this hypothesis can be stated wittı any
confidence. But it is the first indication of what the
application of modern scientific lechniques can achieve in
attempting to answer apparently intraetable quesıions like
‘what did this 9000 year old art mean?'

In order to flesh oul this picture. and in order to understand

the general link found at
Çatalhöyük between painting
and burial, we need to return to
the ethnographıes of small-
scale socielies discussed earlier.
İn sucii societies we saw that the
"shaman’ or other Titual leader’
often plays an important role in
deahng with tragedy, inciuding
the tragedy of dcath. One
method used by Asian nomadic
groups is to capture the spiriks
in paintıngs. The act of painting,
and the making of offerings to
paintings, could be used to calm
the spirits of the dead.

It is possible to argue, then, that

the symbols in the paintings in
Building 1 at Çatalhöyük were
used in some way to assuage the
spirits that had taken the lives of young people. Or perhaps
the funcıion was to protecl those stili living from the spirits
of the dead. After ali, in these cramped conditions, people
had to live, eat and sleep with their ancestors only a few
centimetres away beneath the plaster floors. So some form
of ritual proteetion might have been needed. Alternatively,
the paintings may have been mechanisms by which ritual
leaders contacted the powerful, positive and regenerative
powers of the dead. Whatever the specific interpretation,
\ve see that the paintings are not Just ‘art’. They are symbols
which have some aetive and facilitating role in contaeting
the dead.

Another indication that the symbolism was seen as powerful,

even ’alive’, is that many of the paintings and sculptures
\vere covered över or destroyed before the house was
 The Project works under the auspices ofthe British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, and with the
authority of the Turkish Ministry ofCulture, General Directorate of Monuments and Museums.
*
The Friends of Çatalhöyük and the Çatalhöyük Research Project can be contacted at:

Department of Archaeology
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
Tel: (01223) 339329
Fax: (01223) 339329

Turkish Friends of Çatalhöyük: (90 212) 269 43 93

For more Information on the Çatalhöyük Research Project look for the web-site: http:llcatal.arch.cam.ac.uk.lcatall
catal.html

BACH (Berkeley Archaeologists at Çatalhöyük) can be contacted:

by E-mail: mirjana@qal.berkeley.edu OR tringham@qal.berkeley.edu OR mashley@qal.berkeley.edu
by Telephone: (510) 642-2422 orFax: (510) 649-9112
by Mail: Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hail, Berkeley, CA 94720
For more information on the BACH look for the web-site: http:llwww.qal.berkeley.edul-bach

Selected illustrations provided by James andArlette Mellaart and lan Todd

*
Produced by lan Hodder, Mirjana Stevanovic and Michael Ashley Lopez
Printing provided by Turkish friends of Çatalhöyük
Cambridge, UK - Berkeley, California - İstanbul, Turkey
© 1998

Main Sponsors: KoçBank, Visa, Boeing,

Sponsors: Turkish Friends of Çatalhöyük, British Airways, IBM, Merko, Glaxo Wellcome, Shell OU, Meptur