The neolithic communities of central Anatolia are generally reconstructed as being constituted by relatively autonomous and homologous households occupying discrete residences and performing most domestic activities in the house. In this reconstruction households are seen as the uniform and unproblematic basic component of society. This paper aims to problematize this modular conception of central Anatolian Neolithic societies, and wants to draw attention to the multiple forms in which households occurred and the manner in which they were embedded in larger social associations. It is argued that different levels of social association can only be understood in relation to each other. Further, the manner in which social configurations in central Anatolia changed over time is explored. This will be done by presenting evidence from two central Anatolian Neolithic sites: Aşıklı Höyük and Ç atalhöyük. In particular, we argue that households became autonomous and clearly bounded entities only towards the end of the central Anatolian Neolithic, and that too little consideration has been given to the neighbourhood and the local community encompassing individual households.

The buildings of the Central Anatolian Neolithic, best known from the intensively excavated sites of Çatalhöyük and As?kl? Höyük, possess an impressive degree of continuity, allowing us to trace them through multiple phases of reconstruction and over the course of several centuries. This building continuity has commonly been interpreted as a functionally determined feature and a demonstration of the conservative nature of society, but beyond that it has been seen as a self-evident characteristic that does not warrant further consideration. By contrast this study explores the diachronic development of buildings in the Central Anatolian Neolithic, using evidence from deep sounding 4H/G at As?kl? Höyük and the South Area at Çatalhöyük in order to understand the meaning that building continuity may have had in prehistory. It will be established that functional parameters do not suffice to explain this phenomenon. Applying a biographical approach, two questions in particular are explored: first, whether these buildings have some form of identity that is reproduced through their phases of reconstruction; and, second, whether there is any kind of typical development of buildings over time. The answers to these questions allow us to gain a better understanding of why building continuity was fundamental to society in the Central Anatolian Neolithic.

Çatalhöyük is an important symbol of the Neolithic in Anatolia. Within the buildings of this settlement spectacular ‘art’ was found, and beneath the floors of these buildings elaborately furnished burials were unearthed. Among the characteristics of the settlement the absence of streets constitutes a central element for understanding this period. Despite the unique and well known remains found at the site, its architecture has not been studied systematically. The buildings remain to be distinguished. The distinction between shrines and nonshrines has not been fully scrutinised. Most importantly, the appearance of public space at the site has not been studied. In this paper an analysis of the architecture of Çatalhöyük levels VIII–II is presented. A method of distinguishing buildings is proposed. On that basis the analysis focuses on three themes. The first theme is the variability of features associated with the buildings, and the feasibility of the shrines / non-shrines distinction. It is argued that some buildings did indeed function as ritual centres for the inhabitants of other buildings, although they also had domestic functions.

With an area of 13 ha and an estimated population running into the thousands, Çatalhöyük is one of the largest settlements of the Near Eastern Neolithic. On the basis of its size, the site has often been interpreted as a town or city, without due consideration whether the settlement has the characteristics associated with these concepts. Furthermore, the normative categorization of the settlement has led to a neglect of how the local community at Çatalhöyük was constituted. In this study my focus is on the ways in which the built environment at Çatalhöyük structured social interaction at various scales of social life. It is argued that the local community was constituted through a series of nested social collectivities central to the social life of people at Çatalhöyük. Finally, I consider the manner in which the Çatalhöyük community was related to other communities, on the basis of regional settlement data.

No abstract