Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:23:34.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Material Register, Surface, and Form at Çatalhöyük

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Ian Hodder
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

The tradition of research on the Neolithic settlement of Çatalhöyük has emphasized the importance of sedentism in relation to the rise of the domestic as the key locus for social and ritual life. The settlement itself is referred to in terms of an agglomeration of “houses” with the elicitations of settled domestic life and individual households based on common kin affiliation that the notion of the “house” entails. In fact it is the notion of “house societies” derived from the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss and further articulated in the collection of Carsten and Hugh-Jones and subsequent work that has held a strong hold on the interpretative imagination at Çatalhöyük. To an anthropologist with a specialization in material culture studies with a long-standing interest in the domestic and architectural form, the structures encountered at Çatalhöyük are indeed beguiling in regard to what they might be able to say in terms of the nature of dwelling and the appearance of what might seem to be the origin of the domestic. The trope of house societies has certainly taken hold (Bloch 2010) and has evolved more recently in terms of the notion of “history houses” (Hodder and Pels 2010). Indeed the relation of the houses to the production of persons is a long-standing association (see Preston-Blier 1987). As Carsten and Hugh-Jones famously noted, it is in fact difficult to disentangle bodies from houses, and houses from bodies, meaningfully. At Çatalhöyük this imbrication of bodies and buildings is profoundly entangled as dead bodies are interred in household platforms; bones of the dead are rearranged, dug out, and reinterred at later dates by later people (Boz and Hager 2013); neonates are buried in walls, adults and the aged in floors and platforms and the body parts of various wild beasts such as aurochs horns are decorated and plastered into walls; and the plastering itself seems to be performed using the scapulae of aurochs, while a whole range of wild animals are represented on wall murals (and notably domesticated animals such as sheep are absent). The bodies of beasts and of humans and architectural forms are all wildly mixed up in terms of modernist ontologies.

Type
Chapter
Information
Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society
Vital Matters
, pp. 280 - 303
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

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

References

Bloch, M. 2010. Is there Religion at Çatalhöyük … or are there just houses? In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Twiss, K. C., Fairbairn, A., Yalman, N., Filipovic, D., Russell, N., and Henecke, J. 2009. Private Pantries and Celebrated Surplus: Storing and Sharing of Food at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Central Anatolia. Antiquity 83:649–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchli, V. 1999. An Archaeology of Socialism. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Carsten, J., and Hugh-Jones, S., eds. 1995. About the House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M. 1991. The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space. Social Research 58(1):287–307.Google Scholar
Düring, B., and Marciniak, A. 2006. Households and Communities in the Central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 12(2):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edensor, T. 2005. Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Empson, R. 2007. Separating and containing people and things in Mongolia. In Thinking through Things, eds. Henare, A. J. M., Holbraad, M., and Wastell, S.. London: Routledge Press, 113–140.Google Scholar
Graham, S., and Thrift, N. 2007. Out of Order: Understanding Repair and Maintenance. Theory, Culture and Society 24(3):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boz, B., and Hager, L.D. 2013 Intramural Burial Practices at Çatalhöyük. In Hodder, I. (ed) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000–2008 seasons. Çatalhöyük Reseach Project Series Volume 8. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 47 / Monumenta Archaeologica 30. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. 413–440.Google Scholar
Heynen, H. 1999. Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2006. The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., ed. 1996. On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95, London: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara/Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2010. Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., and Pels, P. 2010. History houses: A new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., and Whitehouse, H. 2010. Modes of religiosity at Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, C., and Laidlaw, J. 1994. The Archetypal Action of Ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, R., and Gillespie, S. 2000. After Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, W. 2010. Marked, absent, habitual: Approaches to Neolithic religion at Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knauft, B. M. 1999. Bodily images in Melanesia: Cultural substances and natural metaphors. In From Primitive to Postcolonial in Melanesia and Anthropology, ed. Knauft, B. M.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 21–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, C.S., Hillson, S.W., Ruff, C.B., Sadvari, J.W., and Garofalo, E.M. 2013. The Human Remains II: Interpreting Lifestyle and Activity in Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In Hodder, I. (ed) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000–2008 seasons. Çatalhöyük Reseach Project Series Volume 8. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 47 / Monumenta Archaeologica 30. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. 397–412.Google Scholar
Last, J. 1998. A Design for Life: Interpreting the Art of Çatalhöyük. Journal of Material Culture.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, J. 1996. Surface pottery at Çatalhöyük. In On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95, ed. Hodder, I.. London: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara/Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Lowndes, S. 2009. Learned by heart: The paintings of Richard Wright. In Richard Wright, ed. Pallister, K.. New York: Gagosian Gallery/Rizzoli.Google Scholar
Malgrave, H. F. 1989. Introduction. In G. Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marciniak, A., and Czerniak, L. 2007. Social Transformations in the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic Periods in Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57:115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W., Almond, M.J., Anderson, E., Wiles, J., Williams, H., and Rowe, J. 2013. Biographies of Architectural Materials and Buildings: Integrating High–resolution Micro–analysis and Geochemistry. In Hodder, I. (ed) Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000–2008 seasons. Çatalhöyük Reseach Project Series Volume 9. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 48 / Monumenta Archaeologica 31. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. 115–136.Google Scholar
McCracken, G. 1989. Homeyness. In Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Hirschman, E.. Provo: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
McKinnon, S. 2000. The Tanimbarese Tavu: The ideology of growth and the material configurations of houses and hierarchy in an Indonesian society. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, eds. Joyce, R. and Gillespie, S.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 161–176.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1967. Çatalhöyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. 2009. The Corporeal Imagination. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, N. D. 1977. The Spatiotemporal Transformations of Gawa Canoes. Journal de la Société des océanistes 33(54–55):39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, C. 2010. Magical deposits at Çatalhöyük: A matter of time and place? In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 300–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, C., and Meskell, L. 2013. Figurine Worlds at Çatalhöyük. In Hodder, I. (ed) Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000–2008 seasons. Çatalhöyük Reseach Project Series Volume 9. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 48 / Monumenta Archaeologica 31. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. 201–234.Google Scholar
Pilloud, M., and Larson, C. S. 2011. ‘Official’ and ‘Practical’ Kin: Inferring Social and Community Structure from Dental Phenotype at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145(4):519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston Blier, S. 1987. The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba Architectural Expression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N. 2006. Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. 2002. How Scientific Practices Matter: Reclaiming Philosophical Naturalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. 2011. What Is Kinship? (part 1). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 17(1):2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, K. 2010. Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries. New Results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII: 239–256.Google Scholar
Semper, G. 1989. The Four Elements of Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 1999. Property, Substance and Effect. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Türkcan, A.U. 2013. Çatalhöyük Stamp Seals from 2000 to 2008. In Hodder, I. (ed) Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000–2008 seasons. Çatalhöyük Reseach Project Series Volume 9. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 48 / Monumenta Archaeologica 31. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. 235–246.Google Scholar
Vidler, A. 2000. Diagrams of Diagrams: Architectural Abstraction and Modern Representation. Representations 72:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnier, J. 2006. Inside and outside: Surfaces and containers. In The Handbook of Material Culture, ed. Tilley, C.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Warnier, J. 2007. The Pot-King: The Body and Technologies of Power. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D. 2004. The Material Value of Colour: the Estate Agent’s Tale. Home Cultures 1(1):5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×