Situated in the Anatolia region of central Turkey and encompassing an area of

approximately fourteen hectares, Catalhoyuk is a Neolithic site of great value to

archaeologists. This essay will explore the undeniable importance of Catalhoyuk to
archaeologists and evaluate the historical and scientific significance of this site.

First sighted in 1952 by James Mellaart, it was not until 1958 when he reached the
site of Catalhoyuk, that he realised the importance of his find. Starting in 1961
Mellaart began to excavate the Neolithic site, finding evidence of sedentary life,
including mud-brick houses and farming, exceptional symbolic artworks and unusual
under the floor burials (Farid 2011, p. 36). Mellaart finished excavating in 1965, but
he would not be the only archaeologist to excavate this site, as Ian Hodder would
resume excavations in 1995 (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, p. 46).

The discovery of sedentary life at Catalhoyuk was immensely important to

archaeologists. As a matter of fact, prior to this discovery it was believed that humans
began to settle into houses around nine thousand, five hundred BC. However, with
new dating methods archaeologists reaslised that the people of Catalhoyuk had
started building houses and farming during the hunter-gatherer period, three
thousand years earlier than previously thought (Twair 2005, pp. 62-63). Although
other Near East Neolithic sites, showing signs of early settled life have been
discovered, Holloway (2013, para. 1) states that Catalhoyuk is "the largest and best-
preserved Neolithic site found to date." Moreover, Balter (1998, p. 1442) agrees by
saying, there is no match for Catalhoyuk's expanse and significance. The importance
of understanding the beginnings of human settlement could come from this site.

The mud-brick houses of Catalhoyuk have fascinated archaeologists due to the fact
that they are crowded together with no streets between them and have large rubbish
areas among the dwellings (UNESCO 2012, p. 10). Furthermore, the houses were
habitually dismantled, and new houses were rebuilt over the debris, eventually
resulting in eighteen levels of settlement (Farid 2011, p. 37 & Holloway 2013, para.
4). Access throughout the city appears to be via the rooftops and entry to the houses
was by using a ladder suspended through a hole in the roof (UNESCO 2012, p. 11 &
Holloway 2013, para. 4). However, no public housing, in the form of ceremonial,
public or administrative buildings have been found (Holloway 2013, para. 5).
Archaeologists have also found evidence of the day to day life of the Neolithic
people. These finds have included: hearths, sleeping, storage and burial areas
(UNESCO 2012, p. 11). As such, these findings will help archaeologists decipher the
daily behaviours of the Catalhoyuk people.

At the cross over between the hunter-gatherer period and the transition to farming,
the evidence found at Catalhoyuk is enlightening. Although, they still hunted wild
animals, evidence of agriculture has been found (UNESCO 2012, p. 19). Even
though agriculture was still in its infancy, sheep, goats and later, cattle, have been
found to be the main animals domesticated at Catalhoyuk (Balter 1998, p. 1442).
Additionally, Balter goes on to state that cultivated crop plants included wheat,
barley, lentils and tubers. Our understanding about the beginnings of settled life can
be found here, thus making it an important site.

The symbolism depicted in the artworks found at Catalhoyuk have excited

archaeologists:
It is the complex narrative of the art, combined with the densest concentration
of symbolism from this period so far found in the Eastern Mediterranean, [sic]
that gives Catalhoyuk its special significance. (Farid 2011, p. 39)
Furthermore, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO 2004, p. 44) reports that, compared to other sites in the Near East,
Catalhoyuk exhibits a compelling improvement in artistry. Wall paintings, featuring
hunting scenes and geometric designs, relief plastering, hearths decorated with bull
horns, clay figurines including the controversial 'mother goddess' figurine, basketry
and textiles have all been found in good condition. Catalhoyuk's uniqueness comes
as a result of the extent of the artworks found.

One of Mellaart's curious discoveries was the burial sites under the floors of the
houses. In addition to this, it was observed that some houses had up to sixty burials
while other houses had none, subsequently leading archaeologists to believe that the
houses were used for primogenitor burials (UNESCO 2011, p. 18). Also, Balter(1998,
p. 1442) adds that the combination of the artworks with the burials points to a ritual
attempt to calm bad spirits. Moreover, numerous burials have been excavated and
from these, archaeologists hope to begin to understand the religious and ritual
symbolism inherent in the daily lives of the Catalhoyuk people.

Even though Catalhoyuk is not the earliest example found of settled human life, its
historical significance comes from its large size, the length of habitation, the
substantial amount of art, and its level of conservation (UNESCO 2011, p. 35).
Furthermore, July 2012 saw Catalhoyuk placed on the World Heritage List due to its
exceptional global value, providing a rare example of life in early agricultural
settlements and of the advancements that took place within the settlement (Tung
2012, p. 1).

Scientifically, the archaeological methodology used by Hodder has had its detractors
while others have lauded his ways. Renfrew & Bahn (2012, pp. 46-47) suggest,
Hodder's post processional way of excavating Catalhoyuk has many denouncers.
Although, Renfrew & Bahn further state that, scientifically, his approach of using
modern field techniques and accommodating all points of view have showcased the
development of archaeological methods over the course of the last fifty years. The
scientific information Hodder has been able to ascertain from his excavations has
changed many long-held beliefs, such as the 'mother goddess' notion first put forward
by Mellaart (Schulting 2007, p. 282).

In conclusion, for its level of preservation, measure of civilisation, concentration of art

and the unusual under floor burials, Catalhoyuk remains significantly important for
the understanding of how early humans first began to settle into a sedentary life, as
well as, the day to day life of a Neolithic person. The historic and scientific magnitude
of Catalhoyuk's discovery continues today with Ian Hodder's renewed excavation
work. Indeed, the global significance of Catalhoyuk can be seen by its 2012
UNESCO inclusion as a world heritage site.
 References
Balter, M 1998, 'Why settle down? The mystery of communities', Science Magazine,
vol. 282, no. 5393, p. 1442. Viewed 21 July 2014, ‹http://www.
sciencemag.org/content/282/5393/1442.full›.
Farid, S 2011, Catalhoyuk comes Home. Archaeology International 13:36-43. Viewed
27 July 2014, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.5334 /ai.1313.
Holloway, A 2013, The 9,500-year-old honeycomb city of Catalhoyuk, viewed 27 July
2014, ‹http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/9500-year-old-
honeycomb-city-atalh-y-k-00840#!bnrhW7›.
Renfrew, C & Bahn, P 2012, Archaeology: Theories, methods and practice, Thames
& Hudson, High Holborn, London.
Schulting, R 2007, book review, The goddess and the bull: An archaeological journey
to the dawn of civilization, Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal
Canadiend’Archéologie vol. 31, No. 2. Viewed 2 August 2014,
‹http://www.jstor. org/stable/41103311›.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
2011, The Neolithic Site of Catalhoyuk-UNESCO World Heritage. Viewed 31
July 2014,‹http://whc.unesco.org /uploads/nominations/1405.pdf›.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
2004, Catalhoyuk Management Plan. Viewed 31 July 2014,
‹http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1405.pdf›.
Tung, B 2012, Catalhoyuk 2012 archive report, viewed 3 August 2014,
‹http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2012.pdf›.
Twair, P. M 2005, 'Catalhoyuk', Middle East, August/September 2005, no. 359, pp.
60-63. Viewed 26 July 2014, ‹http://search.proquest.
com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/220641428?pq-origsite=summon›.