communities, households and animals. convergent

93

UDK 903'12\'15(5-191.2+4-16)"633\634">314.17Documenta Praehistorica XXXV (2008)

Communities, households and animals.Convergent developments in Central Anatolian

and Central European Neolithic

Arkadiusz MarciniakInstitute of Prehistory University of Poznan, Poland

[email protected]

Introduction

The archaeology of the early Neolithic in the NearEast and Europe reveals a range of similarities acrossvarious geographical zones as regards arrangementof space, the function of architecture, the similar uti-lization of bounded space, the integrative characterof communal rituals, the communality of technologi-cal solutions or human-animal relations. Transforma-tions in these domains in the course of time also re-veal some striking parallels.

These parallel developments, however, do not meanthat the Neolithic communities across different re-gions are identical and no idiosyncrasies are repor-ted. On the contrary, trajectories of developments inparticular areas are inevitably differentiated, due tothe range of social, cultural and historical contextsin which they operated. In particular, these regional

sequences differ as much as a peculiar cultural andsocial milieu at their beginning is differentiated.

In this paper, I intend to present and then to inter-pret some of these apparent affinities in cultural de-velopments and social transformations in early Neo-lithic communities in Central Anatolia and CentralEurope, in particular in the North European Plain.Some of them are clearly more obvious and betterattested than others.

The Neolithic in Central Anatolia is a distinct pheno-menon, and it differs in such matters as settlementform, burial customs, and chipped stone industriesfrom that of the Fertile Crescent (Özdogan 1995.58; 1999.229–232; Balkan-Atlı and Binder 2001.194). Moreover, it is the developments in this region

ABSTRACT – This paper intends to scrutinize striking similarities in cultural developments and socialtransformations in Neolithic communities in the North European Plain of Central Europe and CentralAnatolia in the early phase of their development and in the following post-Early Neolithic period. Theywill be explored through evidence pertaining to architecture and the organization of space, alongsidechanges in settlement pattern, as well as animal bone assemblages and zoomorphic representations.Social changes, in particular a transition from communal arrangements of local groups in the EarlyNeolithic to autonomous household organization in the following period, will be debated.

IZVLE∞EK – ∞lanek preiskuje osupljive podobnosti v kulturnem razvoju in dru∫benih premenah neo-litskih skupnosti na Severnoevropskem ni∫avju in osrednji Anatoliji v zgodnjih in kasnej∏ih, srednjein pozno neolitskih fazah razvoja. Razlike opazujemo skozi arhitekturo, organizacijo prostora, sprem-ljajo≠e spremembe v poselitvenih vzorcih kot tudi v zbirih ∫ivalskih kosti in zoomorfnih upodobitvah.πe posebej se posvetimo dru∫benim spremembam, vezanim na razpad komunskih skupin v zgodnjemneolitiku na avtonomna gospodinjstva v kasnej∏ih obdobjih.

KEY WORDS – Central Anatolia; North European Plain; house; cattle; space

Arkadiusz Marciniak

94

that set the conditions for the spread of the Neoli-thic way of life westwards into the Balkans and thenEurope. The Neolithic in the North European Plainis an area equally rich in data, with tight chronolo-gical controls, and marks the beginning of the entryof early farming groups into vast previously unin-habited areas. It lays the foundation for the devel-opment of food producing societies across much ofthe northern part of the continent.

In both cases, we are dealing with regions in whichthe Neolithic mode of life was introduced from else-where. However, a point of departure for its develop-ment, as well as the time frame in each case, wasclearly different. The Central Anatolian Neolithic de-veloped as a result of complex transformations ofthe tradition inherited from the northern Levant,while the Neolithic in Central Europe originatedfrom the Carpathian Basin. However, centuries longdevelopments in both regions led to the emergenceof a very distinct and coherent mode of the Neoli-thic. It consolidated and strengthened to such a de-gree that communities in both regions had the po-tential to significantly contribute to the dispersal ofthis new mode of life beyond their original settings,first into different zones within both regions, andthen outside those regions. The internal logic of de-velopments of early Neolithic communities in bothregions appears to be very similar.

The character of social transformations of CentralAnatolian and the North European Plain Neolithiccommunities will be explored through evidence per-taining to settlement patterns and the organisationof space, alongside changes in architecture, as wellas animal bone assemblages and zoomorphic repre-sentations. Other aspects of these transformationsneed to be studied in more detail in the future.

The point of departure for this analysis is my ownwork in the North European Plain, mostly in the Ku-javia region, and in Central Anatolia, in particular atÇatalhöyük East, where I co-direct the excavationproject focused on the last sequence of the moundoccupation. Having been working in both regionsfor a long time and observing a range of striking si-milarities, I feel in position to try explicating themand grasping their nature. This paper is the firstsuch attempt.

However, it is not my intention to go into any de-tails here regarding the regional culture-historicalschemes that are used to capture changes in the Neo-lithic. Instead, special attention will be devoted to

diachronic interrelations, in order to outline themanner in which the fabric of Neolithic societies wastransformed over time. Hence, I will use the termsearly Neolithic and post-early Neolithic to pinpointthis diachronic perspective, rather than referring toexisting conventional chronological schemes in bothregions.

The first part of the paper aims to present an over-view of the major characteristic features of architec-ture and spatial organization in the early Neolithicsequence in both regions. I will also challenge themeat-based livestock-rearing system of early Euro-pean farming and point out the idiosyncratic natureof the introduction of secondary products in both re-gions. The early Neolithic in both regions became apoint of reference for a local trajectory of develop-ment, but the process involved the localized trans-formation and modification of these constituent prin-ciples and rules.

The second part aims to discuss social transforma-tions in the post-Neolithic period. As regards CentralAnatolian Neolithic, the changes will be examinedboth on a microscale, using Çatalhöyük East as acase study, and on a regional scale across the region.Changes observed in the last phase of the Çatalhö-yük East occupation will then be assessed within thebroader regional context, and the overall trajectoryof development for local communities in CentralAnatolia in this time frame. As regards the NorthEuropean Plain, I will refer to social transformationsfrom its earliest Neolithic phase throughout the fur-ther developments of the Danubian tradition.

Introducing the Neolithic of Central Anatoliaand the North European Plain

Central Anatolia is defined here as the area to thesouth of the Anatolian Plateau divided into threezones: the region of the Beysehir-Sugla lakes in thewest, the Konya Plain in the centre, and the Cappa-docian region in the east. The Early Central Anatolia(ECA) cultural sequence has recently been dividedby Özbasaran and Buitenhuis (2002) into five stages.The paper discusses developments in ECA II, ECA IIIand ECA IV periods. The ECA II period is dated fromthe late 9th millenium BC to 7500 calBC. The follo-wing ECA III is divided into two sub-phases, A & B.The A subphase is dated back to the years 7500–6700/6600 calBC, while subphase B to 6700/6600–6000 BC. The following ECA IV period is dated to theyears 6000–5500 BC. Both stages of ECA III corre-spond well with the stratigraphy of the Çatalhöyük

Communities, households and animals. Convergent developments in Central Anatolian and Central European Neolithic

95

East. To date, 13 building horizons have been exca-vated at this site, labelled levels XII to 0. The se-quence as a whole can be dated to approximately7400–6000 calBC (Cessford 2001; Marciniak andCzerniak 2007). In the Özbasaran and Buitenhuischronological scheme, levels XII–VI, dated to be-tween 7400 and 6600 calBC belong to the ECA IIIA,whereas levels V–0, dated to 6600–6000 calBC, fallwithin the ECA IIIB period (Cessford 2001; Marci-niak and Czerniak 2007).

The considerable changes in the last period of Çatal-höyük East occupation are accompanied by the emer-gence of farming settlements in the region. The ECAIIIA settlement pattern in the Konya Plain is charac-terised by long-term aggregation, and marked by anextreme concentration of population at one site –Çatalhöyük. An apparent lack of permanent seden-tary communities in the region during this period isin sharp contrast with succeeding periods. The fol-lowing ECA IIIB is marked by the appearance ofmany smaller sites which continue to be occupiedinto the subsequent ECA IV (Baird 2002). Thesesmaller settlements were inhabitated for shorter pe-riods than previously. In comparison with the steadyrate at which changes occurred earlier, around 6500calBC developments occurred more quickly and theirinternal dynamics intensified.

The earliest Neolithic communities appeared in Cen-tral Europe around 5450 calBC. They are repre-sented by the Linear Band Pottery Culture (Linear-bandkeramik – LBK), which is dated in this part ofthe continent from c. 5450 to 4600 calBC (Milisau-skas, Kruk 1989.404). The LBK covered large areasof Europe, from the Paris Basin in the west to theDniester in the east, and from the Drava in the southto northern Poland in the north (e.g. Kruk and Mi-lisauskas 1999; Barker 1985; Starling 1983; 1985;Wiślański 1970).

The early farmers of the Linear Band Pottery Cul-ture emerged in the North European Plain in the se-cond half of the 6th millennium BC, and continueduninterrupted development through the first half ofthe 5th millennium BC. This region was colonized byimmigrants from South-eastern Europe, who broughtwith them a whole array of new material culture, in-cluding longhouses, a simple style of pottery, withcurvilinear and rectilinear motifs, and stone techno-logy in the form of symmetrical axes and heavyadzes, with a plano-convex cross section. They prac-ticed mixed-farming subsistence techniques. The LBK,especially its earlier phases, was characterized by re-

markable uniformity over vast geographical distan-ces, and its material culture was of limited stylisticvariability in various regions (e.g. Ammerman andCavalli-Sforza 1973; 1984; Starling 1985; Kulczyc-ka-Leciejewiczowa 1970; 1979; 1993; Milisauskasand Kruk 1989; Wiślański 1970; Keeley 1992; Priceet al. 1996).

This early Neolithic phase was followed by the dyna-mic development of farming communities in the re-gion associated with the late phases of the Danu-bian tradition – in particular, Lengyel culture – anddated back to the second half of the 5th millenniumBC. The late phases of the Danubian tradition are re-presented by the Late Band Pottery, Stroke Orna-mented Pottery, Lengyel, Polgár, Hinkelstein, andRössen cultures. These archaeological entities marka second important phase in the development of far-ming communities in Central Europe. They are datedfrom c. 4600 to 4000 calBC (Kruk and Milisauskas1999.303). This late phase of the Danubian tradition(Milisauskas and Kruk 1989) is often defined asthe Early Middle Neolithic (Kruk and Milisauskas1999; see also Czerniak 1994).

Architecture and spatial organization

Central AnatoliaArchitecture and spatial arrangement in Central Ana-tolian Early Neolithic can be discerned at two majorsettlements in the region, namely Asıklı Höyük andÇatalhöyük. One its unique feature is the phenome-non of clustered neighbourhood settlements (Özba-saran 2000.135). In Asıklı Höyük and in the earlybuilding levels XII–VI at Çatalhöyük, individual loambuildings are typically constructed directly adjacentto one another in neighbourhood clusters of appro-ximately 30 to 40 buildings (Fig. 1). These will nor-mally be separated from one another by streets,alleys and midden areas, and additional middenareas may be located within the neighbourhood clu-sters. Houses have a great degree of continuity, beingrebuilt on the same location for up to six buildinglevels in a sequence stretching over several hundredsof years (e.g. Düring 2005; Farid 2005; Hodder2005a; 2006).

Domestic structures were built of loam brick and ac-cessed from the roof by a ladder. They were occu-pied for hundreds of years, after which they weregenerally emptied of portable items and the housecarefully and systematically dismantled. The lowerportion of the building was then levelled to set up afoundation for a new house. Continuity is particu-

Arkadiusz Marciniak

96

larly clear in the internal organi-sation of the buildings, which dis-played a high degree of similarityacross the site. This was characte-rised by the placement of hearthsand the oven in the south part ofthe building, a platform with a bu-rial underneath in the north partof the building, bucrania on thewest wall, and the access-laddernear the hearths/ovens. Conside-rable continuity is visible in plat-form and floor divisions throughsuccessive replasterings and re-building, with only minor chan-ges observable through time re-garding the location of ovens andhearths (Fig. 2).

Social structures appear to be ba-sed around neighbourhood com-munities, as indicated by cluste-red distributions of houses andburials. The rooms at Asıklı Hö-yük are of a restricted size range, with an average ofabout 6.5m2, and 80% are smaller than 12m2. Thismay indicate that they are perhaps too small to haveserved as household residences. Remarkably, onlyabout 30% of the rooms excavated at Asıklı Höyükcontained a hearth. The distribution of these hearthsover the settlement does not seem to be clearly pat-terned, and it is not possible to discern clusters ofrooms centred on a room with a hearth (Düringand Marciniak 2006.8–10; Tab. 3). The situation isslightly different at Çatalhöyük, as there is a com-mon category of rooms that can be positively iden-tified as living rooms containing a range of more orless standard features (Mellaart 1967.61, Fig. 11).However, in contrast to Asıklı Höyük, there is goodevidence for dwellings constituted on the basis ofboth co-residence and economic pooling, but inte-grated into larger neighbourhood associations.

The dominance of larger social collectivites is addi-tionally supported by burial arrangements. In total,only 70 sub-floor burials were found in the approxi-mately 400 rooms excavated at Asıklı Höyük (Esinand Harmankaya 1999.126), indicating that only asmall selection of the dead were interred in the set-tlement. Some buildings clearly served as burial sitesfor groups that outnumbered their inhabitants. Thismay indicate that the deceased were interred as partof communally organised ceremonies.

A major shift seems to have occurred at Çatalhöyükin the transition from Level VI to V. These radicalchanges are particularly well-attested in the architec-ture and spatial organisation in the structures exca-vated by the Polish team in Levels IV–0 (Czerniaket al. 2001; 2002; Czerniak and Marciniak 2005).They are marked by the abandonment of the pro-nounced building continuity seen in earlier levels,as well as the appearance of exterior doorways andthe emergence of probable courts and streets, whichmade the houses more accessible than hitherto (Dü-ring 2001).

The buildings seem to mark a significant departurefrom the hitherto prevailing pattern both in terms oftheir construction and organisation of space. Houseshave different shapes and sizes, with internal featu-res which are placed in an irregular order and some-times are not present at all. The beginning of thedemise of internal organisation of the buildings isalready clear in Level IV/III as manifested in Buil-ding 74 (Fig. 3). Its internal size and the layout ofthe walls was different than in earlier buildings. Itwas composed of two rooms and divided by a parti-tion wall that was probably built during its later re-construction. The internal layout of both rooms wasvery simple with no platforms, benches, bins andother kind of features. The building had a large door-way. Deliberately placed cattle bones (mandibles,scapulae, ribs), forming some kind of installation,

Fig. 1. Çatalhöyük East, Level VII (after Mellaart 1967.57, Fig. 10).


97

were found in its western room. They were placedon the floor in relation to some kind of abandon-ment rituals/activities. Both rooms were originallyconnected by some kind of a crawlhole in the north-ern part of the partition wall. This was later intentio-nally blocked, probably in relation to sealing off alldeposits in the western room when it went out ofuse.

The following occupation episodes dated toLevel II, I and 0 are indicative of the furtherdecline of the previously dominant housearrangements (Czerniak et al. 2001; 2002;Czerniak and Marciniak 2005). This is wellmanifested by a sequence of Buildings 61 &62 from Level II. They were reconstructed anumber of times, as indicated by a complexsequence of floors and partition walls. How-ever, only a few features were revealed inthe Buildings. A solid square oven placed inits central part was composed of two super-structures, one placed on top of the other,which is indicative of two phases of its con-struction. Interestingly, the oven was builtin a place that was earlier used by the pre-vious inhabitants of this area to constructsome kind of fire installations.

An interesting sequence of occu-pation levels was discovered un-derneath the floor of Building 62.An entire sequence is composedof infill, destructional and mid-den-like deposits, whose homoge-neity varied considerably. At thesame time, the presence of fivefire installations of different sizeand character is indicative ofsome sort of activity area. All ofthem were carefully designedand manufactured. This sequencehas no relation to any older buil-dings, which implies a differentrelation to the past of the groupconstructing the Building 62.

Two structures from Level I (Buil-dings 33 & 34) seem to mark ano-ther significant departure fromthe hitherto prevailing pattern,both in terms of their construc-tion and organisation of space.Building 33 is a rectangular irre-gular structure, with a small nichein SW corner in which a rectangu-

lar oven was placed. Other features comprised twosmall fire installations in its central sections and ahearth associated with a feasting deposit located inthe south east corner of the building. One of the fireinstallations appeared to be positioned in the centreof the building, in marked contrast to the location ofsuch structures in the ECA IIIA period (Fig. 4). The

Fig. 2. Çatalhöyük East. Aerial view of Building 3. Photo by M. Ashley.

Fig. 3. Çatalhöyük East, Building 74. Photo by A. Leszczewicz.

Arkadiusz Marciniak

98

exact length of building 34 is unknown, as it stre-tches beyond the northern edge of the excavatedarea, but in general it appears to be a small struc-ture, with its interior dimensions within the trenchcovering only 2.24m2.

North European PlainThe beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe ismarked by the emergence of a new spatiality createdby the house. Of special significance was the spaceof the longhouse, the eminent signature of LBK occu-pation. They were constructions supported by post-holes, with numerous rows of posts running perpen-dicular to the long axis of the houses. Their wallswere made of wattle and daub. Modderman (1970)divided the longhouse interiors into three parts:northwest, middle and southeast. The northwest wasthe most elaborate and solidly built and has beeninterpreted as the living/sleeping area. The middlepart is believed to have been used as the living/working area. A main door to the house was locatedat the southeast shorter end. The prefered construc-tion material was oak, the prime building timber.There are, however, also examples of conifer use,e.g. in Olszanica (Milisauskas 1986).

Most of the settlements in the uplands included upto ten longhouses, 7 to 45 meters in length and 6 to7 meters in width. A number of such constructionsin the lowlands of the North European Plain is smal-ler. They were flanked by ditches and pits dug outto provide clay daub for the walls. Longhouse sizediffered considerably depending on the region, butthe meaning of such variations has not been satisfac-torily elucidated (see e.g. Kee-ley 1992.82; Price et al. 1996.97).

An outstanding example of thelowlands longhouse comes fromBożejewice, site 22 (Czerniak1998.26–27) in Kujavia, whereone of the largest building con-structed by the early farmers inthis region has been found (Fig.5). It was 43 meters long and6.5–7.3 meters wide, and wasroughly rectangular in shape.The house was divided intothree parts, and the function ofthe specific parts has been inter-preted in accordance with theproposals of Modderman (1970)and Lüning (1982). Long pits

were dug out on both sides of the building, arguablyfor extracting daub for wall construction.

Erecting a longhouse was clearly a complicated andtime-consuming task and could not have been doneby a single family. This was certainly a communal ac-tivity, and it is estimated that a house 45 meterslong and 7 meters wide took 3900 person-hours tobuild (Startin 1978.146).

As with any other types of vernacular architecture,longhouses were the product of a long-standing pro-cess, incorporating a wide range of elements, bothnew and old. Their significance was further supple-mented and enforced by the architectural perma-nence of these structures, which contributed to aperception of long-term social stability (see Pollard1999.85). Over time, longhouse settlements becamecultural landmarks and repositories of memory, andthe focal locales of communal identity.

The early Neolithic settlements in the North Euro-pean Plain can be characterized as clusters of long-houses. Evidence for units occupying discrete resi-dences in which most domestic activities were per-formed is conspicuously absent. Instead, a largerform of association, probably incorporating smallerconstituencies, seems to have been central to this so-ciety. This social configuration persisted during thewhole of the early Neolithic sequence, as implied bya general lack of changes over time in house layoutand in the spatial arrangement of the settlements.This may indicate that the early Neolithic was cha-racterized by the predominance of the communal

Fig. 4. Çatalhöyük East, Building 33. Photo by L.Czerniak.


99

constitution of local groups and that this communallife was focused on longhouses.

Towards the end of Early Neolithic in the region,previously dominant villages/settlements that werethe basic social units creating definable groups even-tually lost their significance. This is well manifestedin decreasing importance of longhouses. The previ-ously homogenous use of longhouse space, becamean arena of considerable change, manifested by theappearance of human graves, storage facilities andrubbish pits.

From the formal standpoint, the Late Danubianlonghouses, e.g. from the Stroke Ornamented Pot-tery or Lengyel cultures, were similar to LBK con-structions. The most apparent difference was theirunquestionably trapezoidal shape, especially in the

Lengyel tradition (Bogucki 1982.19), although some rectangular struc-tures remained. These oaken trape-zoidal constructions featured beddingtrenches and posts. They were usual-ly oriented NW–SE, like their rectan-gular LBK predecessors, with a nar-row north and a wide south end. Theentrance to almost all of them wasplaced at the broader part facing eastor southeast. However, house sizetended to decrease over time. It isestimated that longhouses were usedfor between 20 years (Gabałówna1966.46) and 50 years (Jażdżewski1938.6). Numerous settlements ofthis kind have been identified in theKujavia region in the North Euro-pean Plain. The best known is BrześćKujawski, in addition to Krusza Zam-kowa, Kościelec Kujawski, Dobre, orOsłonki (Bogucki and Grygiel 1997).

In the course of time, spatial organi-zation within and around longhou-ses changed considerably. This is ma-nifested by the emergence of aggre-gates of longhouses associated withpits and activity areas. They were re-ported at Brześć Kujawski, sites 3 &4 (Grygiel 1986). They have been in-terpreted as household clusters, di-rectly implying the existence of thehousehold (Bogucki and Grygiel1980; 1981) and identified by long-houses associated with a set of fea-

tures including activity areas, ovens, storage pits,disposal pits/middens, burials, etc. (see Winter 1977;Flannery and Winter 1976). All of these facilitieswere placed in a certain proximity to each other,usually outside of the house, and were separatedfrom similar clusters by open areas (Fig. 6). One partof the house has been identified as a dwelling place,while two others comprised storage and animal fa-cilities. This was also an area in which food was pre-pared and consumed. The house was arguably usedby an extended family, whose members are believedto have specialized in some craft production (Gry-giel 1986).

These changes are indicative of the emergence ofthe household as an independent social entity de-fined as an entity residing in discrete buildings, withevidence of most domestic and some craft activities

Fig. 5. Bożejewice, LBK, Kujavia. Aerial view of the LBK longhouse(after Czerniak 1998.23).

Arkadiusz Marciniak

100

performed within the residence, as manifested inthe presence of special-purpose activity areas andfeatures in buildings. Interestingly, it appeared firstin regions with a long trajectory of development(e.g. Kujavia), and it was a much later developmentin regions being colonised for the first time at thattime. In the long run, the North European Plain earlyNeolithic house was transformed from a communaldomain into a private sphere in the post-Neolithicperiod (see also Stea and Turan 1993.110). In thefinal phase of this sequence the longhouse clusterswere in the process of disintegration and were fi-nally abandoned. At the same time, village-like agglo-merations comprised of individual farmsteads beganto emerge.

Human-animal relations

Central AnatoliaDifferences in treatment of major domestic speciesin the ECA II, IIIA and IIIB periods in Central Anato-lia are striking. In particular, the special significanceof cattle in the early Neolithic was convincingly pro-ved. This is part of broader pattern in the Near East-ern Neolithic which, however, will not be elucidatedhere (e.g. Akkermans, Schwartz 2003.75; Russelland Martin 2005).

Abundant evidence of the special importance of cat-tle come from the Anatolian early Neolithic sequence,more particularly from Çatalhöyük (e.g. Mellaart1967, Hodder 1990). The most spectacular and wellknown evidence of cattle’s special significance areplastered bucrania, with insert horns, as well as cat-tle horns set into benches and pillars (Mellaart 1964;1967; Bogdan 2005) (Fig. 7). There is a disproportio-nately high representation of not only horn cores,but also cattle scapulae. They are also built into walls

and seem to be placed in houses at abandonment(Russell and Meece 2006). Either these elements arepreserved from some of the attritional forces affec-ting other body parts, or extra horns and scapulaewere brought back from animals not otherwisetransported to the site. Horns are very heavy, withno meat, while scapulae are covered with meatwhich is easily filleted off. It is argued that both ofthese body parts carried strong symbolic and cere-monial value associated with their consumption(Russell and Martin 2005). Both also seem to betied to houses and the cycle of building.

The age as well as sex data further suggest that bullswere selected for feasts and ceremonies in the ECAIIIA period of the Çatalhöyük East development. Fe-males form approximately half the bones from thecontexts related to everyday consumption, whileonly a third from other categories of deposit, inclu-ding ceremonial settings. Considering that feastingdeposits often contain a substantial number of dailyremains, the contribution of males to ceremonialconsumption was probably even greater. The predo-minance of male remains in the area outside themound (the so-called KOPAL Area) further streng-thens its interpretation as a ceremonial setting and/or deposition of the remains of ceremonies (Russelland Martin 2005). This is further supported by theresults of stable isotope analysis. They indicate thatcattle contributed only negligibly to the diet of thetell inhabitants (Richards et al. 2003).

This short summary of the available evidence clearlyindicates that at Çatalhöyük and other early Neoli-thic Anatolian Neolithic settlements, cattle wereclearly of considerable ceremonial and symbolic im-portance (e.g. Mellaart 1967; Hodder 1990). Thisimplies that first contact with then undomesticated

Fig. 6. Brześć Kujawski, Leng-yel culture, Kujavia. House-hold cluster (after Kruk & Mi-lisauskas 1999.79). 1. antlerworkshop; 2. shell artefact; 3.hide processing workshop; 4.storage pit for shellfish andturtles; 5. sherds; A. flint axe;F. Jurassic flint artefact; G.antler; X. flint working areawithin house; Y. chocolateflint artefact for antler wor-king; a. cluster of ceramicsherds; b: shellfish; c. pits as-sociated with economic acti-vities; d. clay pits; e. burials.


101

cattle was very complicated and primarily involvedfactors of a social and ideological nature. Hodder(1990.35) claims that cattle were first symbolicallydomesticated and only later acquired their economicsignificance. This was supposedly achieved throughthe practice of bringing the cattle into the house andcontrolling them within various ‘cattle cults’.

An analysis of the available evidence as regards theuse of sheep/goats among inhabitants of Çatalhöyükin the ECA IIIA phase has proved significant diffe-rences in comparison with cattle. Sheep/goat bonesare the most abundant faunal remains at this site. Inmost cases, they are found in middens and fills usedas a primary location for dumping consumption de-bris. This may indicate that both species were usedfor ordinary food consumption.

This is further supported by analysis of their bodypart representation, revealing a fairly even distribu-tion subjected to attritional processes. All carcassparts are brought onto the site, and perhaps evenwhole carcasses, although there is some evidencefor the selective importation of sheep-size ribs, andunder-representation of sheep-size vertebrae (Fig. 8),suggestive of slaughter and primary butchery takingplace off-site. Filleting cuts are considerably more fre-quent than dismemberment cuts in sheep as outnum-ber frequency of these kind of cuts in cattle. It ap-pears that meat may have been more often filletedoff the bone and cooked in smaller pieces, while lar-ger animals, in particular cattle, may have beencooked in larger pieces still on the bone (Russelland Martin 2005).

The age distribution of the sheep/goat looks also very differentfrom that of the cattle, appear-ing to show the typical manage-ment of sheep and goats for meatand herd reproduction. The agedata show most animals culledas juveniles and sub-adults, theoptimal ages for meat yield (seePayne 1973). Far fewer survivedto be older adults, which wouldrequire pasturing. This segmentmay only be the breeding stock.This mortality profile does not,however, suggest the intensiveuse of dairy products or wool.However, one has to bear inmind that sheep were unlikelyto have been woolly in this peri-od. This is further corroborated

by the results of stable isotope analysis indicatingsheep as the main source of animal proteins.

The character of people-animal relationships andchanges over time are well attested at Çatalhöyükalso in the ECA IIIB period. The distinctive patternof cattle and sheep/goat consumption underwentconsiderable transformations. Special treatment ofcattle as manifested in the high representation ofhorn cores and scapulae is significantly less common.No plastered bucrania are recorded from the phaseof the mound occupation. Cattle age and sex distri-bution is now dominated by females and more sub-adults, which appears to indicate a genuine shift, atleast in some parts of the site. Its significance re-mains somewhat enigmatic (Twiss et al. 2005).

As regards species composition, whereas pre-LevelV assemblages consistently include approximately65–70% caprines and 20–25% cattle (Russell andMartin 2005), from Level V on it appears that capri-nes provide more than 80% of the remains and cat-tle only some 10% (Twiss et al. 2005). Similarly, asin earlier levels, in most cases sheep and goat bonesare found in middens and fills, where their deposi-tion primarily resulted from food consumption.

Equally transformed was the sex and age distribu-tion of sheep/goats, with substantially more adultsrepresented (Fig. 9). This might indicate changes inherding practices and a switch to the use of dairyproducts (Twiss at al. 2005). However, we have tobear in mind that while material from earlier levelscomes from a range of different context, the late le-

Fig. 7. Çatalhöyük East. Cattle bucrania in Building 52. Photo by J.Quinlan.

Arkadiusz Marciniak

102

vels are represented by only a singlearea. Hence, the results need to be trea-ted with caution.

In any case, the small samples analysedto date (e.g. Russell et al. 2004; Twiss etal. 2005) indicate a significant change invarious aspects of human-animal relati-ons indicative of considerable socio-eco-nomic shifts. A more detailed view of hu-man-animal relations in the upper levelsof the Çatalhöyük East following exten-sive excavations of this sequence will only be possi-ble when detailed results of these invesigations areavailable.

North European PlainEarly farmers in the North European Plain also trea-ted different taxa in different ways, in particularsheep/goats and cattle. While the former was an or-dinary source of meat, the latter was embedded indifferent social and ceremonial contexts.

Detailed studies of animal bone remains and theirarchaeological context from the early Neolithic set-tlements of the Polish part of the North EuropeanPlain revealed striking differences in the taphono-mic pattern, body part representation, spatial distri-bution, as well as association with other kinds of ar-chaeological evidence, between cattle, sheep-goatsand pigs (Marciniak 2005). These statistically signi-ficant differences in all contexts throughout the stu-died settlements are indicative of the considerablyvaried treatment of these animals at these settle-ments. The small number of pig bones makes it diffi-cult to discern rules of pig treatment in more detail.However, a revealed pattern may imply some simila-rities with cattle, but one needs to treat this conclu-sion with caution.

Cattle bones are the most abundant faunal remainsin the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Taphonomicanalysis implies a very peculiar method of consu-ming cattle marrow. As indicated by characteristicjagged fractures, with signs of ash, burning and nu-merous scratches, the bones were first roasted, bro-ken and then the cooked marrow consumed (Fig.10). This kind of marrow consumption appears as acommon and quite peculiar culinary practice of theearly lowland farmers and might have had a discur-sive character. Interestingly, sheep/goat marrow, al-beit not roasted, was also consumed on a daily basis.

Cattle body part representation is characterized by adeliberate selection of certain anatomical segments –in particular, skulls, scapulae, and axial segments –and marked by the avoidance of limbs. At the sametime, body part representation of sheep/goats wasconsiderably different. It is characterized by variedcompositions of highly processed anatomical parts,which implies that all of them were eaten.

Cattle meat and marrow eating was clearly regardedas appropriate in one social context and inappropri-ate in another. It is indicated by cattle bones depo-sited in specific locales at the settlement, particularlyin the open space between longhouses. The remains

of cattle consumption were de-posited exclusively in the so-cal-led clay pits located betweenlonghouses and do not appearin other types of pits used atthese settlements. Contrary tocattle consumption, sheep/goattook place in the house and/ordirectly around the house. Asmall number of pig bones havemade their spatial distributionanalysis hardly conclusive.

The available evidence from theEarly Neolithic settlements from

Fig. 8. Çatalhöyük East. Sheep/goat body part distribution(after Russell, Martin 2005.Fig. 2.31).

Fig. 9. Çatalhöyük East. Sheep/goat mortality profile (after Twiss,Martin, Pawłowska and Russell 2005).


103

the Polish part of the lowlands implies the practiceof at least two kids of consumption among local far-mers. The first focused on cattle, and the other onsheep/goats. Fragmentary evidence implies that pigswere also an important element in feasting, and porkwas not consumed on a daily basis. Cattle marrowand meat was arguably consumed ceremonially in avery standardized and repeatable manner over along period of time. At the same time, sheep/goatswere used as a source of meat and were eaten in anapparently ordinary fashion, and consumption tookplace in the house and/or directly around the house.No roasted marrow of sheep/goats was consumed.Fragmentary evidence implies that pigs were also animportant element in feasting, and pork was notconsumed on a daily basis.

The post-early Neolithic in the North European Plainbrought about considerable and multiscalar changesin relations between people and domesticated ani-mals. They were no longer considerably uniformand standardized as in the preceding period, but ra-ther highly variable and diverse. This applies bothto differences between particular species and diffe-rences at particular settlements. Interestingly, theoverall picture of human-animal relations amongLengyel communities in Kujavia, a traditionally far-ming region, is far more diverse than among theirLBK predecessors. At the same time, it is also morediverse than in the newly occupied regions that retaina range of elements originating from their early Neo-lithic predecessors, albeit considerably transformed.

Changes in patterns of consumption involved thedecline of the ceremonial consumption of cattle. The

social and ceremonial importance of animals in thepost-early Neolithic, however, remained significant,but it was executed in a different way and in diffe-rent settings. Cattle remained an important statusand wealth animal, which is manifested in the formof cattle graves (Barker 1985.150). This seems to re-present a transformed way of indicating the signifi-cance of cattle, which began in the early Neolithic.

A new component in this period was the economi-cally more efficient exploitation of domestic animals,not only sheep/goats, but also cattle. The practice ofmarrow eating, very common in the early Neolithic,was significantly less popular. In particular, cookedand roasted cattle marrow was not commonly eaten.

Discussion and final remarks

In this paper I examined evidence pertaining to theorganisation of space and changes in architecturealongside settlement patterns, as well as animal boneassemblages, in the early phases of the Neolithic inCentral Anatolia and the North European Plain. Thesimilarities revealed in the cultural developmentsand social transformations in both regions are so stri-king that they need to be investigated and scrutinizedin some depth. They refer to both initial arrange-ments in the analyzed domains, as well as their fur-ther developments in the post-early Neolithic period.

In the most general terms, one can argue that theseparallels imply the existence of similar trajectoriesof development of early farming groups irrespectiveof the regional context. It does not mean, however,that we opt for any kind of universal rules or pat-terns in this respect. The obvious significance ofthese parallels needs always be contextualized andreferred to the historical, social, and cultural embed-ding of regional developments.

The emergence of the Neolithic in both regions wasaccompanied by the production of new spaces. Spe-cial attention should be paid to the new form ofhouse and its space, as manifested both in the formof the Central Anatolian house and the Central Euro-pean longhouse. They initiated a new sequence ofNeolithic spatiality in both regions. The house spacewas organized in a rather normative manner, as theywere an embodiment of the past, history and me-mory, not only a place for living. They were a focusof meaning and action in which social cooperationand practice were undertaken. It is where the every-day lives of the inhabitants were linked to the time-less and stable world of the ancestors, preserving

Fig. 10. Łojewo, site 35, LBK, Kujavia. Marrow post-fire transverse breakage. Photo by A.Marciniak.

Arkadiusz Marciniak

104

stability and security for them. This was further en-forced by the architectural permanence of thesehouses, which contributed to a perception of long-term social stability.

As with any other vernacular architecture, longhou-ses were the product of a long-standing process, in-corporating a wide range of elements, both new andold (Stea, Turan 1990.21). They should not be trea-ted as finished artefacts. Each house has its own lifehistory and/or replacement cycle. It was (re)created,(re)built and modified in the course of its occupa-tion within a unique historical context.

The characteristic features of the houses in both re-gions indicate that communal organization amongearly Neolithic groups dominated the constitution ofsocial arrangements. As argued elsewhere (Düringand Marciniak 2006), the earlier Neolithic in Cen-tral Anatolia is characterized by the predominance ofclustered neighbourhood communities. Local groupsappear to be organized into a number of tightly nu-cleated neighbourhoods that shared a number of fa-cilities and resources. Within these neighbourhoodswould have lived a large number of families whoprobably did not run autonomous households.

The very nature of the communal character of socialarrangements in the early Neolithic of the North Euro-pean Plain has not been satisfactorily scrutinized todate. A majority of scholars stress, however, theircommunal over household organization. More re-cent proposals advocate that longhouses were occu-pied by extended rather than nuclear families (Hod-der 1984.63). LBK settlements were believed to con-sist of a number of patrilineages. Each settlementmay have had its own chief, whose power was eitherachieved or ascribed. The coexistence of several hou-ses at the same time, a common feature of LBK set-tlements, may suggest lineages being reproduced insuch a way (van de Velde 1979.130). The contrarytheory, advocating longhouses as the loci of matrilo-cal units inhabited by a maternal grandmother alongwith her daughters, their husbands and children, hasbeen proposed by Ehrenberg (1989.96). Other au-thors, such as e.g. Milisauskas (1986), have arguedthat groups inhabiting subsequent settlements werehomogenous, with only slight social and economicdifferences. LBK communities were perceived asbeing small-scale, largely acephalous, egalitarian andnon-stratified. Communal identity was probably ofcrucial importance for these egalitarian communi-ties, with consensual decision-making (Milisauskas1986.215–218).

Similarities between these two regions in the earlyNeolithic are not limited to architecture and spatialarrangements, but are also visible in human-animalrelations. In both, we are dealing with different usesof sheep/goats and cattle. While the former was anordinary source of meat, the latter was embeddedin different social and ceremonial contexts. In noway can the early use of cattle be equated with meatfocused exploitation. Interestingly, similar differen-ces are discernible across other geographical regions.The special significance of cattle has been convinc-ingly demonstrated in other parts of the Near East, inparticular in the Levant (e.g. Akkermans, Schwartz2003.75), but also in the Balkans (Greenfield 2005.28) or the British Isles (Edmonds 1999.28; Thomas1999.74).

The first period of the Neolithic saw steady and un-interrupted development that was characterized bya high degree of similarity in the domains discussedin this paper as well as many others. After morethen fifteen hundred years of predominance of theclustered neighbourhoods of the Central AnatoliaNeolithic, these social arrangements disintegratedand were finally abandoned. At the same time, af-ter roughly the same time span, the larger commu-nity that constituted the predominant social arrange-ment in the early Neolithic in the North EuropeanPlain was also abandoned.

Intriguing parallels are discernible as regards regio-nal developments. We are dealing with two types ofcommunities here. The community of continuationtypical of pre-pottery Levels both at Asıklı Höyük andÇatalhöyük was replaced by the community ofchange in the post-Level VI/V level at ÇatalhöyükEast. Around 6000/5900 BC, the mound was finallyabandoned.

In the first phase of Neolithic occupation in CentralAnatolia, in the ECA II and ECA IIIA phases, the set-tlement pattern is characterised by long-term aggre-gation, and marked by extreme concentrations ofpopulation at one site, first at Asıklı Höyük and thenat Çatalhöyük. Only a few, smaller Neolithic sites da-ted to the second half of the 8th millennium havebeen discovered to date. This long and considerablyhomogenous sequence at Asıklı Hoyuk and Çatalhö-yük is followed by a much shorter 500–600 years ofthe Late Neolithic period (ECA IIIB), which is distin-guished by dynamic changes that increased in pacein subsequent phases. The apparent lack of perma-nent sedentary communities in the region duringthe ECA II and ECA IIIA is in sharp contrast with suc-


105

ceeding periods. The following ECA IIIB period ismarked by the appearance of many smaller sites(Baird 2002).

It is only in the ECA IIIB that local farming groupsemerged as strong and independent entities bothin the region and beyond. A number of co-existingcommunities were formed in both regions, boundwithin intensive communication networks. Inheritedpractices were selected, reconstructed, maintained,modified and given a transformed meaning (Said2000.185). Social changes took the form of smallscale modifications and transformations of the earlyfarming tradition. The process was uneven and high-ly localized, and its dynamics varied both betweendifferent parts of regions and in subsequent periods.As a result, the landscape was largely dispersed andfragmented and local communities were linked bydifferent communication networks.

This trend continued in the ECA IV period. Settle-ments were smaller and were occupied for shorterperiods than previously. Environmental conditions,such as extensive flooding, in this period do notadequately account for this regional change (Baird2002.150). Rather, the settlement pattern seems toreflect the presence of a settled agricultural popula-tion in the region. The subsistence economy was ba-sed on the full domestic exploitation of plants andanimals, although hunting and gathering still playeda minor role (Özbasaran and Buitenhuis 2002.71;also Gérard 2002.107).

As revealed in the North European Plain, these evi-dent changes were manifested differently in regionscontinuously inhabited since the early Neolithic andin areas occupied for the first time in this period. Thecore region enjoyed a high degree of stability follo-wing the strengthening of communal identity. A con-ceptual frame of reference for these groups provi-ded recontextualised resources mobilized in the pre-ceding period.

Further transformations in both regions imply con-siderable changes in human-animal relations, par-ticularly in herding practices and a switch to the useof dairy products. Animal use became economicallymore efficient. The disassociation of animals fromceremonial and social domains, so characteristic ofthe earlier period, proved to be a prerequisite forthe dynamic expansion of the post-early Neolithiccommunities and had far-reaching consequences forthe whole economy.

These significant changes in both regions in the post-early Neolithic period may be indicative of the emer-ging dominance of a domestic mode of productionand consumption, with the associated developmentof the autonomous household as the paramountmode of social association (see more in Düring andMarciniak 2006). This increased autonomy of thehousehold in the post-Early Neolithic was based onits durable and successful economy, in which cropand livestock husbandry were closely integrated andintensively managed.

The emergence of the household mode of produc-tion in this period is discernible in both regions. Inthe last levels of Çatalhöyük East occupation, lithicindustries became more complicated, which possiblyrelates to craft specialisation by skilled individuals(Conolly 1999). The increased number of prismaticblades is probably associated with dependence ondomestic food sources and with cooking habits, asindicated by bipolar truncation and bilateral wear-retouch. All these changes may be linked to a radicalreorganisation of chipped stone production in thisphase (Carter 2005). Major changes are also identi-fied in pottery manufacture and use, manifested bya shift from the chaff-tempered tradition to grit-tem-pered and burnished wares suitable for cooking(Mellaart 1966.170; Last 1996.118). They are alsomarked by the occurrence of stamp seals that argu-ably acted as portable forms of art, making symbo-lism more mobile (Hodder 2005b.190). At the sametime, household social arrangements the North Eu-ropean Plain is manifested in emergence of spatiallybounded household clusters accompanied by debrisof specialized activities (Grygiel 1986).

The emergence of the household as an independentsocial entity had far-reaching consequences, as itchallenged the social, ceremonial and economicfoundations of early Neolithic communities. As hou-seholds became more economically robust, imbalan-ces in household production more frequent, and de-scent-based claims on land more individualized, onemay argue that powerful social sanctions came intoforce to hold the community together. Furthermore,it arguably resulted in a significant change to pastresemblance politics. The previously dominant orga-nisation was constructed using collective- and long-term memories within social structures operating atthe supra-house level. This was replaced by heteroge-neous arrangements based on individualised, short-term memory regimes, within a predominantlyhouse-based social structure (see also Kuijt 2001;Hodder 2005b.190).

Arkadiusz Marciniak

106

These transformations are indicative of considerablesocial and symbolic changes. Changes in individualhouses in relation to the disaggregation of the settle-ment layout may have been related to disaggrega-tion on the regional scale. As a result of these trans-formations, post-Early Neolithic groups had a morepractical style of life, largely disassociated from thesymbolic and social domain that had hampered anychanges in the preceding period. This contributed tosignificantly more efficient husbandry and conse-quently facilitated the large-scale expansion of thesecommunities into hitherto unoccupied areas. Trans-formations in this domain also facilitated the dyna-mic development of small mobile groups and becamea driving force of the intensified process of agricul-tural colonization of vast territories. This enabled lo-cal groups to inhabit small settlements in strategiclocations, start economically efficient lives and fullyexploit the available resources.

It is worth reiterating that social changes in this pe-riod in both regions had the form of small scale mo-

difications and transformations of the early farmingtradition. Autonomous households initially develo-ped as an intrinsic component of the Çatalhöyükbuilding, as well as the Central European longhouse,and eventually contributed to their demise. A con-ceptual frame of reference for these groups provi-ded recontextualised resources mobilized in the pre-ceding period. As a result of this longstanding pro-cess, subsequent generations tended to refer mainlyto a common experience rather than to a normati-vely understood, inherited tradition. At the sametime, these transformed traditions provided a solidfoundation for communities moving from these cen-tres to previously unoccupied areas.

I would like to thank Mihael Budja for inviting me toparticipate in the 14th Neolithic Seminar The Neoli-thic Mind, Populations and Landscapes

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AKKERMANS P. M. M. G., SCHWARTZ G. M. 2003. The ar-chaeology of Syria. From complex hunter-gatherers toearly urban societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). CambridgeUniversity Press. Cambridge.

AMMERMAN A., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1973. A populationmodel for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In C.Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change. Mo-dels in Prehistory. Duckworth. London: 343–358.

1984. The Neolithic transition and the genetics of po-pulations in Europe. Princeton University Press. Prin-ceton.

BAIRD D. 2002. Early Holocene settlement in Central Ana-tolia. Problems and prospects as seen from the KonyaPlain. In F. Gérard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic ofCentral Anatolia, Internal Developments and ExternalRelations during the 9th – 6th millennia cal. BC. EGE Ya-yinlari, Istanbul: 139–159.

BALKAN-ATLI N., BINDER D. 2001. Les ateliers de tailled’obsidienne. Fouilles de Kömürcü–Kaletepe 2000. Ana-tolia Antiqua 9: 193–205.

BARKER G. W. 1985. Prehistoric farming in Europe. Cam-bridge University Press. Cambridge.

BOGDAN D. 2005. 4040 Area. Neolithic sequence, Buil-ding 52. Çatalhöyük 2001 Archive Report: on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_13.html

BOGUCKI P. 1982. Early Neolithic subsistence and settle-ment in the Polish lowlands. British Archaeological Re-ports. International Series 150. Oxford.

BOGUCKI P., GRYGIEL R. 1980. On the socioeconomicsystem of European Neolithic populations. Current An-thropology 21: 803–804.

BOGUCKI P., GRYGIEL R. 1981. The household cluster atBrześć Kujawski 3. Small-site methodology in the Polishlowlands. World Archaeology 13(1): 59–72.

BOGUCKI P., GRYGIEL R. 1997. Early farmers in North-Central Europe: 1989–1994 excavations at Osłonki, Po-land. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 161–178.

CARTER T. 2005. Chipped stone. Team Poznan. Çatalhö-yük 2005 Archive Report, on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_31.html.

CESSFORD C. 2001. A new dating for Çatalhöyük. Anti-quity 75: 717–25.

REFERENCES

∴


107

CONOLLY J. 1999. Technical strategies and technicalchange at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Antiquity 73:791–800.

CZERNIAK L. 1994. Wczesny i środkowy okres neolitu naKujawach, 5400–3650 p.n.e. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ar-cheologii i Etnologii PAN. Poznań.

1998. The first farmers. In M. Chłodnicki and L. Kr-zyżaniak (eds.), Pipeline of Archaeological Treasures.Poznańskie Towarzystwo Prehistoryczne, Poznań: 23–36.

CZERNIAK L., KWIATKOWSKA M., MARCINIAK A., PYZEL J.2001. The excavations of the TP (Team Poznań) Area inthe 2001 season. Çatalhöyük 2001 Archive Report. on- line:http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2001/ar01_04. html.

CZERNIAK L., MARCINIAK A., PYZEL J. 2002. The excava-tions of the TP (Team Poznań) Area in the 2002 season. Ça-talhöyük 2002 Archive Report. on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2002/ar02_07.html.

CZERNIAK L., MARCINIAK A. 2005. Excavations of the TPArea. Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report. on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_17.html

DÜRING B. S. 2001. Social dimensions in the architectureof Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies 51: 1–18.

2005. Building continuity in the Central AnatolianNeolithic. Exploring the meaning of buildings at AsıklıHöyük and Çatalhöyük. Journal for MediterraneanArchaeology 18: 1–20.

DÜRING B. S., MARCINIAK A. 2006. Households and com-munities in the central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeologi-cal Dialogues 12(2): 165–187.

EDMONDS M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neoli-thic. Landscapes, monuments and memory. Routledge.London and New York.

EHRENBERG M. 1989. Women in prehistory. Universityof Oklahoma Press. Norman and London.

ESIN U., HARMANKAYA S. 1999. Asıklı. In M. Özdogan andN. Basgelen (eds.), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul:115–132.

FARID S. 2005. Çatalhöyük – two mounds, one site. ZAKSNewsletter 2005: 3–6.

FLANNERY K. V., WINTER M. C. 1976. Analyzing house-hold activities. In K. V. Flannery (ed.), The Early Meso-american Village. Academic Press. New York: 34–47.

GABAŁÓWNA L. 1966. Ze studiów nad grupą brzesko-ku-jawską kultury lendzielskiej. Acta Archaeologica Lodzi-ensia 14. Łódź.

GÉRARD F. 2002. Transformations and societies in theNeolithic of Central Anatolia. In F. Gérard and L. Thissen(eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal deve-lopments and external relations during the 9th–6th mil-lennia cal. BC. Istanbul, EGE Yayinlari: 105–17.

GREENFIELD H. J. 2005. A reconsideration of the secon-dary products revolution. 20 years of research in the cen-tral Balkans. In J. Mulville and A. Outram (eds.), The Zoo-archaeology of Milk and Fats. Oxbow Press. Oxford: 14–31.

GRYGIEL R. 1986. The household cluster as a fundamen-tal social unit of the Lengyel culture in the Polish low-lands. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etno-graficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologiczna 31: 43–270.

HODDER I. 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in theEuropean Neolithic. In D. Miller and C. Tilley (eds.), Ideo-logy, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press.Cambridge: 51–68.

1990. The domestication of Europe. Structure andcontingency in Neolithic societies. Basil Blackwell.Cambridge.

2005a. Introduction. In I. Hodder (ed.), ÇatalhöyükPerspectives. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph, Cam-bridge: 1–14.

2005b. Memory. In I. Hodder (ed.), Çatalhöyük Pers-pectives. Reports from the 1995–99 seasons. McDo-nald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Insti-tute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph, Cambridge:183–195.

2006. Çatalhöyük the Leopard’s Tale: Revealing themysteries of Turkey’s ancient ‘town’. Thames andHudson. New York.

JAŻDŻEWSKI K. 1938. Cmentarzyska kultury ceramikiwstęgowej i związane z nimi ślady osadnictwa w BrześciuKujawskim. Wiadomości Archeologiczne 15: 1–105.

KEELEY L. H. 1992. The introduction of agriculture to thewestern north European Plain. In A. B. Gebauer and T. D.Price (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory.Prehistory Press. Madison, Wisconsin: 81–95.

KRUK J., MILISAUSKAS S. 1999. Rozkwit i upadek społe-czeństw rolniczych neolitu. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ar-cheologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kraków.

Arkadiusz Marciniak

108

KUIJT I. 2001. Meaningful masks. Place, death, and thetransmission of social memory in early agricultural com-munities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In M.S. Chesson (ed.), Social Memory, Identity, and Death. In-terdisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals. Ameri-can Anthropological Association. Arlington, VA: 80–99.

KULCZYCKA-LECIEJEWICZOWA A. 1970. Kultura ceramikiwstęgowej rytej w Polsce. Zarys problematyki. In J. K.Kozłowski (ed.), Studies on the Linear Pottery Culture.Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne. Kraków: 11–28.

1979. Pierwsze społeczeństwa rolnicze na ziemiachpolskich. Kultury kręgu naddunajskiego. In W. Henseland T. Wiślański (eds.), Prahistoria ziem polskich, t.II, neolit. Zakład im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław, Warszawa,Kraków and Gdańsk: 19–164.

1993. Osadnictwo neolityczne w Polsce południowo-zachodniej. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etno-logii PAN. Wrocław.

LAST J. 1996. Surface pottery at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder(ed.), On the Surface. Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Monographof the McDonald Institute and the British Instituts of Ar-chaeology at Ankara. Cambridge: 115–72.

LÜNING J. 1982. Research into the Bandkeramik settle-ment of the Aldenhovener Platte in the Rhineland. Ana-lecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15: 1–29.

MARCINIAK A. 2005. Placing animals in the Neolithic.Social zoo-archaeology of prehistoric farming commu-nities. UCL Press. London.

MARCINIAK A., CZERNIAK L. 2007. Social transformationsin the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic periods incentral Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57: 115–130.

MELLAART J. 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, third preli-minary report, 1963. Anatolian Studies 14: 39–119.

1966. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. Fourth preliminaryreport, 1965. Anatolian Studies 16: 165–91.

1967. Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic town in Anatolia.Thames and Hudson. London.

MILISAUSKAS S. 1986. Early Neolithic settlement and so-ciety at Olszanica. University of Michigan Museum, AnnArbor. Michigan.

MILISAUSKAS S., KRUK J. 1989. Neolithic economy in Cen-tral Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 403–46.

MODDERMAN P. J. R. 1970. Linearbandkeramik aus Els-loo und Stein. Leiden University Press. Leiden.

ÖZBASARAN M. 2000. The Neolithic site of Musular, Cen-tral Anatolia. Anatolica 26: 129–151.

ÖZBASARAN M., BUITENHUIS H. 2002. Proposal for a re-gional terminology for Central Anatolia. In F. Gérard andL. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. EGEYayinlari, Istanbul: 67–78.

ÖZDOGAN M. 1995. Neolithic in Turkey. The status of re-search. In anonymous (ed.), Readings in Prehistory, Stu-dies presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: 41–59.

1999. Concluding remarks In M. Özdogan and N. Bas-gelen (eds.), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul: 225–236.

PAYNE S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats. Themandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281–303.

POLLARD J. 1999. These places have their moments.Thoughts on settlement practices in the British Neolithic.In J. Brück and M. Goodman (eds.), Making Places in thePrehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology.UCL Press. London: 76–93.

PRICE T. D., GEBAUER A. B., KEELEY L. H. 1996. Thespread of farming into Europe North of the Alps. In T. D.Price and A. B. Gebauer (eds.), Last Hunters-First Far-mers. New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition toAgriculture. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.New Mexico: 95–126.

RICHARDS M. P., PEARSON J. A., MOLLESON T. I., RUSSELLN., MARTIN L. 2003. Stable isotope evidence of diet atNeolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 30: 67–76.

RUSSELL N., PAWŁOWSKA K., TWISS K., JENKINS E., DALYR. 2004. Animal bone reports. Çatalhöyük 2004 ArchiveReport. on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_17.html

RUSSELL N., MARTIN L. 2005. Çatalhöyük mammal re-mains. In I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Re-ports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Monograph of the McDonald Institute and the British Instituts of Archaeologyat Ankara. Cambridge: 33–98.

RUSSELL N., MEECE S. 2006. Animal representations andanimal remains at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.), Çatal-höyük Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons.Monograph of the McDonald Institute and the British In-stituts of Archaeology at Ankara. Cambridge: 209–230.

SAID E. W. 2000. Invention, memory, and place. CriticalInquiry 26: 175–192.


109

STARLING N. J. 1983. Neolithic settlement patterns in Cen-tral Germany. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 2(1): 1–11.

1985. Colonization and succession. The earlier Neoli-thic of Central Europe. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 51: 41–57.

STEA D., TURAN M. 1990. A statement on placemaking. InM. Turan (ed.), Vernacular Architecture. Paradigms ofEnvironmental Response. Ethnospace: volume 4. Ave-bury. Aldershot: 102–121.

THOMAS J. S. 1999. An economy of substances in earlierNeolithic Britain. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols. Cul-ture and Economy in Prehistory. Southern Illinois Uni-versity Press. Carbondale: 70–89.

TWISS K., MARTIN, L, PAWŁOWSKA K., RUSSELL N. 2005.Animal Bone. Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report. on-line:

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_21.html.

VELDE VAN DE P. 1979. On Bandkeramik social struc-ture. An analysis of pot decoration and hut distributionfrom the Central European Neolithic communities ofElsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica LeidensiaXII, University of Leiden Press. Leiden.

WINTER M. C. 1977. The archaeological household clusterin the valley of Oaxaca. In K. V. Flannery (ed.), The EarlyMesoamerican Village. Academic Press. New York: 25–34.

WIŚLAŃSKI T. 1970. Uwagi o kulturze ceramiki wstęgowejrytej na terenie Polski północno-zachodniej. In J. K. Koz-łowski (ed.), Studies on the Linear Pottery Culture. Pol-skie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne. Kraków: 29–36.

communities, households and animals. convergent

Documents