MoreonhistoryhousesatÇatalhöyük:aresponsetoCarletonetal
IanHodder
Abstract.Inarecentarticleinthisjournal,Carletonetal(2013)castdoubtonahypothesisaboutthe
socialorganizationoftheNeolithictellsiteofÇatalhöyükincentralTurkey.Thehypothesisconcerns
‘historyhouses’thatwerecontinuallybuiltinthesameplaceandinwhichmanyintermentsoccurred.
Carletonetalarguethatthehistoryhousehypothesis‘contendsthatthecorporatekin-groupwasthe
mainformofsocioeconomicorganizationatÇatalhöyükduringthePPNB,andthatthecorporatekingroupswouldhavebeenmaintainedbytherepeatedrebuildingofhousesinthesameplaceandbythe
burialofimportantmembersunderthefloorsofthehouses’(Carletonetal2013,1821).Theytestthe
historyhousehypothesisbyexaminingtherelationshipbetweencontinuityofhousesandthe
percentageofhousesthatcontainburial.Thepurposeofthisresponseisto(a)clarifythehypothesis,(b)
showthattheclaimedtestdoesnottestthehypothesis,and(c)demonstratethatpoorandout-of-date
datawereused.Dataarepresentedthatgosomewaytoconfirmalinkbetween‘historyhouses’and
burialatÇatalhöyükandreinforcewiderscholarlydiscussionofNeolithichistoryandmemorymaking.
Keywords.Neolithic,Çatalhöyük,history,house,kin-group.
1.Introduction.
Inarecentarticleinthisjournal,Carletonetal(2013)castdoubtonahypothesisaboutthesocial
organizationoftheNeolithictellsiteofÇatalhöyükincentralTurkey,theEastMoundofwhichisdated
from7100to6000calBC(BaylissandHodder2015).Thehypothesisconcernstheroleofhistoryand
history-makingatthesite(Hodder2006,2014b,HodderandPels2010).Theyarguethatthehistory
househypothesis‘contendsthatthecorporatekin-groupwasthemainformofsocioeconomic
organizationatÇatalhöyükduringthePPNB,andthatthecorporatekin-groupswouldhavebeen
maintainedbytherepeatedrebuildingofhousesinthesameplaceandbytheburialofimportant
membersunderthefloorsofthehouses’(Carletonetal2013,1821).Housesthatwerecontinually
rebuiltinthesameplaceandincludelargenumbersofburialshavebeentermed‘historyhouses’at
Çatalhöyük(HodderandPels2010).Carletonetaltestthehistoryhousehypothesisbyexaminingthe
relationshipbetweencontinuityofhousesandthepercentageofhousesthatcontainburial.Theyfind
thatthesevariablesdonotco-varyandthussuggestthatthehypothesisshouldbeviewedwith
suspicion.Theyarguemoregenerallythatwiderdiscussionofmemoryandhistorymakinginthe
Neolithicshouldbecurtailed.Thepurposeofthisresponseisto(a)clarifythehypothesis,(b)showthat
theclaimedtestdoesnottestthehypothesis,and(c)demonstratethatpoorandout-of-datedatawere
used.Dataarepresentedthatgosomewaytoconfirmalinkbetween‘historyhouses’andburialat
ÇatalhöyükandreinforcewiderscholarlydiscussionofNeolithichistoryandmemorymaking.
2.Thehistoryhousehypothesis
First,toclarifythehypothesis.ThecloselypackedagglomeratedsettlementatÇatalhöyükis12.5hain
sizeandthepopulationhasbeenestimatedatbetween3,500and8,000attheheightofitsoccupation
(Cessford2005).Clusteredamongstareasofmiddenandexternalactivity,housesarebuiltupagainst
eachotherwithaccessthroughtheroofs.Fourtypesofbuildinghavebeenidentified:historyhouses,
multipleburialhouses,elaboratehouses,andotherhouses.Historyhouses(HodderandPels2010)are
definedashavingatleastthreephasesofrebuilding,andinatleastonephasetherearelargenumbers
ofburials(over10).Theyareoftenmoreelaboratethanotherbuildingsbutelaboratebuildingsand
multipleburialbuildingsexistforwhichwedonothaveanyevidencethattheywererepeatedlyrebuilt.
Themeasureofelaborationisbasedonthenumbersoffloorsegments,basins,benches,installations
(includingbucraniaandotheranimalfixtures),pillarsandpaintingsinthemainroomofabuilding
(HodderandPels2010:166).Multipleburialhouseshaveover10burials.Therecanbebetween0and
62burialsinonebuilding.Thesizeofhousesvariesbetween12and70sqm,butthereisnocorrelation
betweensizeandthefourclassifications(ibid.).
TheoriginalexcavatorofÇatalhöyük,JamesMellaart(1967),recognizedthatsomebuildingswere
rebuiltmanytimesonthesamefootprint,reusingthestubsofearlierwalls.Manyofthesewere
classifiedbyhimas‘shrines’.Healsorecognizedthatsomebuildingswerenotrebuilttothesame
degree.Düring(2006,208)foundthatthenon-continuousbuildings‘generallycontainedfewerburials
andmouldingsthanthecontinuousones’.Cutting(2005,69)notedapossiblelinkbetweenelaborate
buildingswithlargenumbersofburialsandthosewithlongoccupationhistoriesbutdeterminedthat
‘thedatatoshowthisarelacking’(ibid.).
Recentexcavations(Hodder1996,2000,2005a,b,c,2007a,2013a,b,2014a.b)haveidentifiedmany
examplesofmemory-orhistory-makinginsequencesofstackedhouses.Thishasbeenmostclearlyseen
inthe65-56-44-10sequenceofhousesintheSouthArea(ReganandTaylor2014).Distinctsourcesand
typesofmudbrickwereusedforthehousesinthissequence,andReganandTayloralsonoteanumber
ofdistinctattributesofthislatesequenceofbuildingsincludingtherepeatedsettingofpotsinfloorsat
thebaseofladders.Russelletal.(2013)noteadistinctivesetofpathologiesinsheepbonesfromB.65
anditsassociatedmiddens,indicatingsomeformofisolationfortheflockusedbythebuilding’s
inhabitants.Similarly,theynotearecurringpatternofwolfpawsintheB.65-B.56-B.44sequence.
ThereseemtobetwomaintypesofhistorymakingthatoccuratÇatalhöyük.Thefirstinvolves
repetitivepracticesinwhichthesameactivityoccursinthesameplaceinabuildingovertime.The
secondinvolvesthecurationandretrievalofobjectsfromearlierbuildingsandtheirdepositioninlater
buildings.
Asregardsthefirsttypeofhistorymaking,itisimportanttodistinguishthecontinuityofsocialpractices
fromcontinuitiesproducedbymaterialconstraints.Thehabitofbuildinghousesexactlyontothefirm
foundationsofthewallsofearliertightlypackedbuildingsmeantthathousebuildingsgot‘stuck’witha
particularplanthatcontinuedthroughtime.Butinothercases,therepetitionofthelayoutofactivities
inhousesistoogreattobedeterminedbyhouseshape,anditmayhavebeenproducedbydiscursive
andnon-discursiveroutines(HodderandCessford2004).Asanexample,aheavilyerodedB.59was
excavatedaboveB.60.TheB.59-B.60sequencehadmuchstrongevidenceofspecificandexact
continuityoflayout,includingpositionsofsupportposts.AfiguralwallpaintinginB.60wasinthesame
locationasredpaintingontheequivalentwallinB.59.Thereisalsoevidenceofcontinuitiesinoverall
houseandmiddenpractices.Forexample,autocorrelationanalysesconductedbyMazzucato(2013)
showthatcoldandhotspotsofhigherandlowerdensitiesoffindsexhibitsomedegreeofcontinuity
throughtime.InparticularB.59wasrecognizedduringexcavationaslowinfinddensities,butthe
analysisshowsthatB.60directlyaboveitwasalsolowindensity,aswastheneighboringmiddenSp.60.
Asanotherexample,Mellaart(1967)foundpairsofleopardsrepeatedinconsecutivelevelsVIIandVIB
onthenorthwallinbuildingE.44,aswellasrepeatedvulturepaintingsinhis‘Shrine8’sequence.
Thesecondtypeofhistorymakinginvolvesthecurationandhandingdownofobjects.InB.1,apitwas
digdowntoretrieveaninstallationorrelieffromthewestwallofthemainroom(Cessford2007).Inthe
65-56-44-10sequencementionedabove,BozandHager(2013)found,onthebasisofmatchinghuman
teethtomandibles,thatbonesfromaburialinBuilding65hadbeenretrievedandredepositedina
graveinthefollowingBuilding56;aclearcaseofhouse-basedhistory-making.
SothehistoryhousehypothesiscentersontheevidenceatÇatalhöyükfortwoformsofhistorymaking.
Thereisalsomuchevidenceatthesiteforthecirculationofhumanbodyparts,includingskullsand
mandiblesofmenandwomenthatwereremoved,circulatedanddeposited(forexampleinother
gravesorinfoundationpitsforsupportpostsinbuildings–Hodder2006).Sincesomebuildingshaveup
to62burialswhileothershavefewornone,itseemslikelythatthehouseswithmanyburialsactedas
preferentialburiallocationsfortheinhabitantsofotherbuildings;itisalsorelevantthatsomeofthe
burialsinbuildingswithlargernumbersofburialsaresecondary.Houseswithmanyburialsmayhave
beenimportantinestablishingcorporaterelationsbeyondtheindividualhouse.Iarguedin2006that
onefunctionoftheconstructionofhistoriesmayhavebeentocreategenealogicallinkstoancestors
buriedbeneathfloors.Buttotalkof‘corporatekingroups’(Carletonetal2013)isperhapstotakethe
evidencetoofar.Biodistancestudiesbasedondentalmorphologyofthehumanremains(Pilloudand
Larsen2011)fromÇatalhöyükshowthatbiologicalaffinityplayedonlyaminorroleininterment
location.Tosomedegreethosethatwereburiedinhouseswere‘practical’ratherthanbiologicalkin.
Thepeopleburiedinaparticularbuildingmayhaveincludedadoptive,fosterorfictivekinheldtogether
bymemoryandhistorymaking.Itisalsopossiblethatthoseburiedinabuildingdidnotlivewithinthe
‘house’ofthatbuilding:itispossiblethatburiallocationwaspartofthenegotiationofsocialand
economicrelationsbetweenhouseholdsafterthedeathofoneofitsmembers.Ontheotherhand,the
evidenceforsomedegreeofdistinctdietsassociatedwiththoseburiedinbuildings(Pearson2013)at
leastsuggeststhatthegroupthatatetogetheralsowasburiedtogether.Oftenthisco-eating,coburyinggroupwaslargerthananindividualbuilding–thusasocial‘house’consistedofmorethanone
building.
Mills(2014)hasarguedfortheimportanceofawiderangeofsodalitiesthatlinkedindividualsand
individualhousesatÇatalhöyük.So,ratherthandescribingcorporatekin,orkingroups,recentresearch
hasfocusedoncomplexcross-cuttingnetworksonadiversityofplanes.Indeed,intheinitialaccountof
historyhouses,HodderandPels(2010)donotmentioncorporateorkingroups.Thereislittlemention
ofkinatallsincethefocusismoreonthepoliticaleconomyofhistoryhousesandontheestablishment
ofauthoritythroughmanaginghistories.SoIwouldnotarguetodaythat‘thecorporatekin-groupwas
themainformofsocioeconomicorganization’(Carletonetal2013,1816)atÇatalhöyük,butIdothink
thatifdefinedsoastoincludenon-biologicalkin,thecorporatekingroupwasonemechanismamong
manyforcreatingcross-cuttingties.Theseothermechanismsincludeco-eating,neighbourhoodsand
sectors,co-production,andparticipationinawiderangeofrituals(Hodder2014b).Thehistoryhouse
hypothesiscanbeclarifiedtostatethattheburialofpeoplebelowthefloorsofrepeatedlybuilthouses
playedapartincreatingsocialnetworksatÇatalhöyük.Thisinterpretivestatementisbasedontheclaim
thatburialsarepreferentiallyconcentratedinhousesthatarerepeatedlyrebuiltonthesamefootprint.
Itisalsobasedontheclaim,notexaminedbyCarletonetal,thattherearetoomanyburialsinsome
buildingsandtoofewinothersfortheburialsinabuildingtobedirectlycorrelatedwiththeinhabitants
ofthatbuilding.
3.Constructingatestofthehistoryhousehypothesis
Carletonetaltesttheirversionofthehistoryhousehypothesisbyexaminingtherelationshipbetween
continuityofhousesandthepercentageofhousesthatcontainburial.Theyarguethatifcorporatekingroupswerecenteredonburialofmembersinparticularhouses(historyhouses),thereshouldbea
degreeofcovariationbetweenameasureofhousecontinuityandthepercentageofhousesthatcontain
burials.Theyapplyfactoranalysistoseveralhouse-relatedvariablesincludingthesetwovariables.The
percentageofhousesthatcontainburialsismeasuredasthepercentageofhousesinanygiven
occupationlevelthatcontainadultandsub-adultburials.Housecontinuityisassessedbymeasuringthe
degreeofcontinuityofhousewallsfromoneoccupationleveltothenext.
Carletonetal2013rightlystatethatHodderandCessford(2004,36)hadarguedthatthereisa‘clear
linkbetweenhouseswithmanyburialsandhousesthatarereplacedthroughmanylevels’.Butitis
incorrecttoturnthisstatementintoageneralrelationshipbetweenthenumberofhouseswithburials
inanoccupationlevelandthenumberofcontinuoushousesinthatlevel.Thehistoryhouseclaimisthat
houseswithmanyburialstendtobelonglasting.Thisisnotthesameassayingthatoverall,across
occupationlevels,thereismoreburialwhenthereismorecontinuity.Thehistoryhousehypothesishas
neverclaimedthatoverallthereshouldbearelationshipbetweenwallcontinuityandthenumberof
housesthatcontainburials.Todrawoutthedifferencemoreclearly,consideranoccupationphasein
whichtherearejusttwolong-lastinghouseswithmanyburialsandmanywithonlyafewandthatthose
withafewdonothavecontinuity.Suchasituationwouldbeconsistentwiththehistoryhouse
hypothesis.ButaccordingtotheCarletonetalanalysistherewouldinsuchascenariobeahigh
percentageofhouseswithburialandalownumberofhouseswithwallcontinuity.Sothehistoryhouse
hypothesiswouldberejected.
TheCarletonetaltestallowsexplorationofwhetherburialoccursinalargernumberofhousesin
phasesinwhichthereismorecontinuitybetweenhouses.Becausetheyfindintheirfactoranalysisthat
burialpercentagesandhouse-wallcontinuitydonotloadonthesamefactors,theysuggestthatthese
twopracticesdonotvary.Althoughitwillbearguedbelowthatthedatausedareinadequateforthe
purposesofthetestcarriedout,itisindeedthecasethatfrequencyofburialdoesnotco-varywith
housewallcontinuityovertheoccupationphasesatÇatalhöyük.Thehighestfrequenciesofburials
occurinthemiddlelevels(around6500BCinSouthNandO),linkedtoamarkedriseinbuilding
elaboration(Düring2006)andincreasesinfertility(Larsenetal2013)andoverallsettlementextentand
density.Housecontinuityiswellestablishedfromthestartoftheoccupationatthesite,andindeed
thereareearliersitesincentralAnatolia,suchasAşıklıHöyükinCappadocia(Özbaşaran2011)witheven
moremarkedcolumnsofhousesrepeatedlybuiltonthesamefootprint.Düring(2006)hasshownthat
intheupperlevelsatÇatalhöyükthedegreeofcontinuitybetweenhousesdeclinesandthishasbeen
linkedtogreatereconomicindependenceofhouses,greaterspacingbetweenhouses,andlower
populationdensities(Hodder2014c).Thefactorsleadingtoburialnumbersandhousecontinuitydiffer.
Historyhousesoccurinboththelowerandupperlevels;theyoccurwhethertherearemanyburialsina
phaseortherearefew;theyoccurwhetherthereismuchcontinuitybetweenphasesorlittlecontinuity.
SoCarletonetalhavetestedaninterestinghypothesisthatmoreburialoccurswhenthereismore
housecontinuity,andtheyhaverightly,asitturnsout,foundthatthetwovariablesdonotco-vary.But
theyhavefailedtotestthehypothesisthattheyclaimedtobetesting.Toexplorethehistoryhouse
hypothesisthatcorporatekingroupswereatleastpartlycenteredonlonglastinghousesinwhich
peoplewerepreferentiallyburieditisnecessarytoshowthathouseswithmanyburialstendtobelong
lasting.ThisCarletonetaldonotdo.Asimpletestofthisrelationshipwillbeprovidedbelow.
4.Testingthedata
TheCarletonetaltestsarenotrelevanttothehistoryhousehypothesis.Itmayseemunnecessary,
therefore,topointtoinadequaciesintheuseofdata.However,itisimportanttolaythegroundwork
foratargetedtestofthehistoryhousehypothesis.
Ratherthanbasetheiranalysisonrecentexcavationsthathavebeenextensivelypublished,Carletonet
alderivetheirdatafromasecondarysource.MellaartneverfullypublishedÇatalhöyük,buthisinterim
reportsandsummaryaccountshavebeenincludedintheanalysesbyCutting(2005),anditisfromhere
thatCarletonetalderivetheirdata.Hypothesistestingdoesnotitselfguaranteesoundscience;ithasto
bealliedwithreflexivecritiqueasnotedabove,andwithsourcecriticism,bywhichImeanacarefuland
criticalanalysisoftheprocessofdataconstruction.Carletonetal(2013,1820)dorefertothewellknowndifficultieswiththeMellaartdata,describedbyCutting(2005)andDüring(2000),butratherthan
usingmoderncarefullycollecteddata,theystatethat‘wethinkitisimplausiblethatafewsub-metre
errorsinaplanmap,orahandfulofunrecordedburials’wouldresultinpatternsbeingmissed(ibid).
TherecentexcavationsatÇatalhöyükhavedemonstratedthatMellaartwascorrectinmanyaspectsof
hisanalysisofthesite.Butheusedtechniquesofhistime(suchasnoscreening),hispaperrecordwas
lost,andhedugveryfastwith,asheoftencomplained,toofewresources.Infourseasonsbetween
1961and1965hedugfor229workingdays,oftenwithateamof35men.Inthattimehedugatrench
20mdeepandexcavated144completebuildingsand351completerooms.Thusonaveragehefinished
excavatingacompletebuildingevery1.6days.Bywayofcontrastthecurrentprojecthashadateamof
about160researchersandlocalstaffexcavatingfor20years,inwhichtimeithasexcavatedcompleteor
partialoccupationsequencesin53buildings.Ittookthecurrentproject5yearstocompletethe
excavationofBuilding1andpartiallyexcavatetheunderlyingBuilding5(Hodder2007b),and7yearsto
completetheexcavationofBuilding3(TringhamandStevanovic2012).
Carletonetaluse8variablesintheirfactoranalysis.Therearenumerousnon-trivialproblemswithallof
them.BecauseMellaartdugsoquicklyhedidnotrecognizethatallbuildingsatÇatalhöyükwereina
continualprocessofchangeandtransformationasplatformswereadded,thenumberandlocationof
fireinstallationswerechanged,paintingsgotaddedandcoveredover.Carletonetalusevariablestaken
fromCuttingsuchasthepercentageofhouseswithplatforms,orthepercentageofhouseswithovens,
orthepercentageofhousesthatare‘decoratedinsomeway’(2013,1817).Afteratleastpartially
excavating53buildings,thecurrentprojecthasneverfoundabuildingwithoutanoveninatleastone
phase.Inhisre-excavationofsomeofMellaart’strenches,Baranski(2014,196)notes‘someofthe
architecturalfeatureswerenotregisteredduringthe1960’sarchaeologicalcampaignoratleastthey
werenotrecordedontheplan.Wefound,forexample,remnantsofanoven’.Similarlythecurrent
projecthasneverfoundahousewithoutplatforms,andifonelookscarefullyenoughthereisalways
evidenceofwallpaintinginatleastoneoftheupto450fineplasterlayersontheinteriorwallsurfaces.
Mellaartdugsoquicklythatheoftendidnotseetracesofplatforms,ovensandwallpaintings.Thusto
followCuttingandarguethat,forexample,inMellaart’sLevelVIBthepercentagesofhouseswith
platforms,decorationandovenswere74%,31%and38%respectivelyissimplytodocumentMellaart’s
excavationstrategy.
Thesituationisyetmoredirewithregardtothepercentagesofbuildingswithburials.Theproblems
regardingtheburialdatacollectedbyMellaarthavebeenfullydescribedbyHamilton(1996,244).The
skeletonswerestudiedinthe1960sbyAngel(1971)andFerembach(1972;1982).Mellaartreferstothe
excavationofover400skeletonsinhisreportsbutonly297reachedAngel,whocommentsonthehuge
lossthathadoccurred.Forexample,Mellaartmentions32skeletonsfromthebuildinglabeledby
Mellaartas‘Shrine10’inLevelVI,butnonereachedAngel.OfthoseskeletonsthatAngeldidreceive,27
hadnolabels.Ferembachdiscoveredotherdisparities.
ThusforCarletonetaltobasetheiranalysisonCutting’srecord,itselfpartlyderivedfromMellaart’s
data,that51%ofhousesinLevelVIBhadburialsisagaintorelyonwhollyinadequatedata.Infact,the
recentexcavationshaveshownthatmostbuildingshaveatleastoneburial.Inasummaryofburial
practicesatthesite,BozandHager(2013,Table19.2)showthatof31buildingspartiallyorfully
excavatedbetween2000and2008,only3hadnoburials.Variationinthepresenceorabsenceofburials
inhousesinCutting’sdataisverymuchaffectedbyMellaart’sexcavationstrategiesandbythewaythe
humanskeletalmaterialfromthesitewasdealtwithintheyearsanddecadesafterdiscovery.As
examplesofthediscrepanciesthatarise,Mellaart’sbuildingE.VIII.27islistedbyAngelandDüring(2000)
(thesourcesofCutting’sdata)ashavingnoburials.Thesamebuildingwasexcavatedbythecurrent
projectasBuilding43and4burialswerefoundbelowthefloor.SimilarlyBuilding50wasfoundbythe
currentprojecttohave15burials,whereasthesamebuildingwaslabeledE.VII.9byMellaartandis
recordedbyAngelandDüringashavingnoburials.
Carletonetalbasetheirassessmentofhousecontinuityontheoverlapinplansfromleveltolevelinthe
Mellaartsequence.Againthedatausedaresoflawedastounderminetheanalysisundertaken.
Cutting’splansarethemselvesasimplificationoftheMellaartplans.Moreadequatecopiesofthe
Mellaartplanshavebeenpublished(Hodder1996)anditisnotclearwhythesewerenotused.Buteven
theseversionsoftheMellaartplanshavebeenshowntobeinaccuratewhenre-excavatedinmodern
conditions.InarecentstudyBaranskiusedmodernplanningmethods(aTrimbleS8TotalStation)in
ordertoevaluateonthesitetheplanspublishedintheMellaartarchive,andfoundthat‘thereal
outlinesofthearchitecturalremnantsrarelyfitwiththeavailablearchiveplans’(Baranski2014,194).
WallsontheMellaartplanswereinthewrongplacebyupto2.5m(Baranski2013,220).‘Thereal
outlinesofthebuildingsrarelymatchwiththeplans,butalsosomebuildingshavedifferentorientation,
structuralcharacterandstratigraphicrelationstoeachother’(Baranski2013,233).Thereismorethan
the‘fewsub-metreerrors’claimedbyCarletonetal.
5.Evaluatingthehypothesiswithmoderndata.
GiventhedifficultiesinusingsecondarydataatleastpartlyderivedfromMellaart,itisnecessarytouse
datacollectedbythecurrentproject,andonlytousetheMellaartdatawhencorroboratedbyrecentreexcavations.Itisalsonecessary,asnotedabove,toconstructatestthatisrelevanttothehistoryhouse
hypothesis.
Accordingtothehistoryhousehypothesis,buildingswithlargernumbersofburialsshouldoccurin
longerstrandsofrebuiltbuildings.CombiningcurrentdatawithMellaartdatathathavebeenverifiedin
recentexcavations,itisclearthatsomebuildingswererebuiltonthesamefootprintatleast6times
whereasotherbuildingswereneverrebuiltonthesamefootprint.Thenumbersofbuildingsinstacks
showninTable1areminimumnumbers.Inmanycasesexcavationshavenotfoundthelowestbuilding
inastack,orupperbuildingsinastackhavebeenerodedoffthemound.Therearelimitationsalso
regardingthenumberofburialsfoundinbuildingsinwhichtheoccupationdepositshavebeenfully
excavated.TheburialprocessatÇatalhöyükwascomplexandthecurrentprojecthasrecognizedarange
ofhumanbonedepositioncategories:primary,secondary,tertiary,primarydisturbed,primary
disturbedloose(BozandHager2013,415).The‘observedMNI’figuresshowninTable1arebasedonan
examinationofthearchaeologicalcontextinwhichtheboneswererecoveredandonthedetermination
ofage,sexandnumberofduplicatingskeletalelements.The‘observedMNI’doesnotnormallycount
bonesfromtertiaryorprimarydisturbedloosecategories(BozandHager2013,416).Building1is
unusualinitslargenumberofburialsstretchedoverseveralphases,andinitslargernumberof
secondaryburials.
Figure1showsthecovariationbetweenthenumberofbuildingsstackedinasequenceandthe
maximumnumberofburialsinabuildinginthatsequence.Overallthereisatendencyforlarger
numbersofburialstooccurinbuildingsthatarepartoflongerstacks.Thecorrelationcoefficientsare
nothigh,rangingfromaMultipleR-squaredof.398iftheoutlierBuilding1isincluded,to.596ifitis
excluded.Sincethedataarenotperfectlynormallydistributed,Figure1showsalogtransformation,
withaMultipleR-squaredof.579.Thep-valuesareallsignificantrangingfrom.008to.001to.001
respectively.
Whilethereisthussomesupportforthehistoryhousehypothesisgivencurrentdata,fuller
confirmationmustawaitfurtherexcavationsothatthelowersequencesofbuildingstackscanbe
exploredandcompletestacksestablished.Thenumbersofburialsinbuildingsarealsotheresultof
numerousfactorsotherthanthenumberofstackedbuildings.Forexample,arecentanalysisbasedon
currentresearchhasconfirmedastatisticallysignificantlinkbetweenbuildingelaborationandnumbers
ofburials,asinitiallysuggestedbyDüring(2000).Therearealsochangesthroughtime,withthehighest
concentrationsofburialsoccurringinlevelsSouthM,NandO,equivalenttoMellaart’slevelsVIandVII
(ibid.).Furtherworkisneededonalargersamplesizetoexploretheintersectionsbetweenthese
differentvariables.
6.Conclusion.
Therearenumerousdifficultiesinestablishingthenumberofbuildingsstackedaboveeachotherat
Çatalhöyük,andinestablishingthenumbersofburialsinbuildings.Asnotedabove,thereisaneedfor
furtherexcavationandanalysisinordertodeterminewhetherlargernumbersofburialsonlyoccurin
buildingswithlonghistories.Despiteinitialpositiveevidenceofcovariationbetweenthesetwo
variables,thehistoryhousehypothesisremainsahypothesistobetested.Butincontrasttotheclaims
madebyCarletonetal(2013),thehypothesiscaninthefuturebetestedoncarefullyscrutinizeddata
usingteststhatarerelevanttothehypothesis.Evenifaclosecorrelationisfoundbetweenthenumbers
ofbuildingsinstacksandthenumbersofburials,moreworkwouldneedtobedonetoevaluatethe
historyhousehypothesisthattheburialofpeoplebelowthefloorsofrepeatedlybuilthousesplayeda
partincreatingsocialnetworksatÇatalhöyük.Inparticular,itisnecessarytodemonstratethatthose
buriedinalong-lastingseriesofbuildingsincludedinhabitantsfromotherbuildings,andthatthehistory
housesprovidedfociofmemoryforalargergroupthananindividualbuilding.
Inmoregeneraltermsitisclearthathypothesistestingisnotasufficientguarantorofrigorousscience.
Thetestconductedmaynotbeatestofthehypothesis,anditmayusedatauncritically.Hypothesis
testingneedstobealliedtoreflexivesourcecriticismandcontextualanalysis.
Itcanbeargued(Hodder2007b)thathistorymakingisanearlyandkeypartoftheNeolithicprocess
throughouttheMiddleEast,anecessarycomponentofthetemporaldepththatbecomesessentialin
societiesthatincreasinglydependondelayedreturnsforlaborinput.Historyandmemorymakinghave
cometobewidelyexploredasacentralprocessesintheMiddleEasternandEuropeanNeolithic(eg
Bradley2002,Tilley2004,WhittleandBenson2006).Itwouldbedisappointingiftheanalysisby
Carletonetalweretoinhibitfurtherdiscussionoftheseideas.
Acknowledgements
IamverygratefultoCamillaMazzucatoandScottHaddowforhelpwiththequantitativeandstatistical
partsofthispaper.
Bibliography
Angel,J.L.1971.EarlyNeolithicskeletonsfromÇatalHüyük.AnatolianStudies21,77-98.
Bayliss,A.,Brock,F.,Faris,S.,Hodder,I.,Southon,J.andTaylor,R.E.2015.GettingtotheBottomofIt
All:ABayesianApproachtoDatingtheStartofÇatalhöyük.JournalofWorldPrehistoryDOI
10.1007/s10963-015-9083-7
Boz,B.,Hager,L.2013:‘IntramuralburialpracticesatÇatalhöyük’inI.Hodder(ed.),Humansand
landscapesofÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeries
Volume8.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.47/MonumentaArchaeologica30.LosAngeles:
CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress:413-440
Bradley, R. 2002. The past in prehistoric societies. London: Psychology Press.
Carleton,W.C.,Conolly,J.andCollard,M.2013.Corporatekin-groups,socialmemory,and“history
houses”?Aquantitativetestofrecentreconstructionsofsocialorganizationandbuildingfunctionat
ÇatalhöyükduringthePPNB.JournalofArchaeologicalScience40,1816-1822.
Cessford,C.2005:‘EstimatingtheNeolithicpopulationofÇatalhöyük’inI.Hodder(ed.),Inhabiting
Çatalhöyük:reportsfromthe1995–99seasons.Cambridge:McDonaldInstituteforArchaeological
Research;London:BritishInstituteforArchaeologyatAnkara:323–6
Cessford,C.2007.Building1.InHodder,I.(ed.)ExcavatingÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe1995-1999
seasons.McDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkara
Monograph,Cambridge.405-530
Cutting,M.2005.TheNeolithicandEarlyChalcolithicFarmersofCentralandSouthwestAnatolia:
Household,CommunityandtheChangingUseofSpace.BARInternationalSeries1435.Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Düring,B.S2006:Constructingcommunities:clusteredneighbourhoodsettlementsoftheCentral
AnatolianNeolithicca.8500-5500Cal.BC.PhDThesis.LeidenUniversity,Nederlands
Ferembach,D.1972.LeshommesdugisementnéolithiquedeÇatalHüyük.TürkTarihKongresiVII.
Ankara.15-21.
Ferembach,D.1982.MesuresetIndicesdesSquelettesHumainsNéolithiquesdeÇatal-Hüyük(Turquie).
Paris:ConseilNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,CNRS.
Hamilton,N.1996.Figurines,clayballs,smallfindsandburials,InHodder,I.(ed)Onthesurface.
Çatalhöyük1993-95.McDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyat
AnkaraMonograph,Cambridge.215-263.
Hodder,I.(ed.)1996:Onthesurface.Çatalhöyük1993-95.McDonaldInstituteforArchaeological
Research/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkaraMonograph,Cambridge.
Hodder,I.(ed.)2000:Towardsreflexivemethodinarchaeology:theexampleatÇatalhöyük.McDonald
InstituteforArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkaraMonograph,Cambridge.
Hodder,I.(ed.)2005a:InhabitingÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe1995-1999seasons.McDonaldInstitute
forArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkaraMonograph,Cambridge.
Hodder,I.(ed.)2005b:ChangingmaterialitiesatÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe1995-1999seasons.
McDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkaraMonograph,
Cambridge
Hodder,I.(ed.)2005c:Çatalhöyükperspectives:themesfromthe1995-1999seasons.McDonald
InstituteforArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkaraMonograph,Cambridge
Hodder,I.2006:Theleopard’stale:revealingthemysteriesofÇatalhöyük.London:ThamesandHudson
Hodder,I.(ed.)2007a:ExcavatingÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe1995-1999seasons.McDonaldInstitute
forArchaeologicalResearch/BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkaraMonograph,Cambridge
Hodder,I.2007b:‘ÇatalhöyükinthecontextoftheMiddleEasternNeolithic’AnnualReviewof
Anthropology36:105-120
Hodder,I.(ed.)2010:Religionintheemergenceofcivilization.Çatalhöyükasacasestudy.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress
HodderI.(ed.)2013a:HumansandlandscapesofÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.
ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeriesVolume8.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.47/
MonumentaArchaeologica30.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress
Hodder,I.(ed.)2013b:SubstantivetechnologiesatÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.
ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeriesVolume9.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.48/
MonumentaArchaeologica31.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress
HodderI.(ed.)2014a:Çatalhöyükexcavations:the2000-2008seasons.ÇatalhöyükReseachProject
SeriesVolume7.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.46/MonumentaArchaeologica29.Los
Angeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress
HodderI.(ed.)2014b:IntegratingÇatalhöyük:themesfromthe2000-2008seasons.ÇatalhöyükReseach
ProjectSeriesVolume10.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.49/MonumentaArchaeologica32.
LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress
Hodder,I.2014c.Çatalhöyük:theleopardchangesitsspots.Asummaryofrecentwork.Anatolian
Studies64,1-22
Hodder,I.,CessfordC.2004:‘DailypracticeandsocialmemoryatÇatalhöyük’AmericanAntiquity69:
17—40
Hodder,I.,Pels,P.2010:‘Historyhouses:anewinterpretationofarchitecturalelaborationat
Çatalhöyük’inI.Hodder(ed.),Religionintheemergenceofcivilization.Çatalhöyükasacasestudy.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress:163-186
Larsen,C.S.,Hillson,S.W.,Ruff,C.B.,Sadvari,J.W.andGarofalo,E.M.2013:‘ThehumanremainsII:
interpretinglifestyleandactivityinNeolithicÇatalhöyük’inI.Hodder(ed.),Humansandlandscapesof
Çatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeriesVolume8.British
InstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.47/MonumentaArchaeologica30.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteof
ArchaeologyPress:397-412
Mazzucato,C.2013:‘SamplingandmappingÇatalhöyük’inI.Hodder(ed.),Humansandlandscapesof
Çatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeriesVolume8.British
InstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.47/MonumentaArchaeologica30.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteof
ArchaeologyPress:31-64
Mellaart,J.1967:ÇatalHüyük:ANeolithicTowninAnatolia.London:ThamesandHudson.
Mills,B.2014:‘RelationalnetworksandreligioussodalitiesatÇatalhöyük’inI.Hodder(ed.),Religionat
workinaNeolithicsociety:vitalmatters.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress:159-186
Pearson,J.2013:‘Humanandanimaldietsasevidencedbystablecarbonandnitrogenisotopeanalysis’
inI.Hodder(ed.),HumansandlandscapesofÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.
ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeriesVolume8.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.47/
MonumentaArchaeologica30.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress:271-298
Pilloud,M.A.,Larsen,C.S.2011:‘“Official”and“practical”kin:inferringsocialandcommunitystructure
fromdentalphenotypeatNeolithicÇatalhöyük,Turkey’AmericanJournalofPhysicalAnthropology145:
519–30
Regan,R.,Taylor,J.2014:‘Thesequenceofbuildings75,65,56,69,44and10andExternalSpaces119,
129,130,144,299,314,319,329,333,339,367,371and427’inI.Hodder(ed.),Çatalhöyük
excavations:the2000-2008seasons.ÇatalhöyükReseachProjectSeriesVolume7.BritishInstituteat
AnkaraMonographNo.46/MonumentaArchaeologica29.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeology
Press:131-190
Russell,N.,Twiss,K.C.,Orton,D.,Demirergi,A.2013:‘MoreontheÇatalhöyükmammalremains’inI.
Hodder(ed.),HumansandlandscapesofÇatalhöyük:reportsfromthe2000-2008seasons.Çatalhöyük
ReseachProjectSeriesVolume8.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographNo.47/Monumenta
Archaeologica30.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress:213-258
Tilley, C. 2004. The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford: Berg.
Tringham,R.,Stevanović,M.(eds.)2012:LastHouseontheHill:BACHAreaReportsfromÇatalhöyük,
Turkey.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeologyPress.
Whittle, A. W. R., & Benson, D. 2006. Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold long barrow at Ascottunder-Wychwood, Oxfordshire. Oxbow books
Figure1.Relationshipbetweenthemaximumnumberofburialsinahouseorhousesequenceandthe
minimumnumberofhousesstackedonthesamefootprintatÇatalhöyük.
Burials
56
0
8
32
15
32
8
4
17
15
17
8
10
3
5
22
Houses
4
2
2
6
6
5
1
2
4
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
Identifier
1
2
3
6
7
8
42
43
65
49
52
53
59
75
76
77
Table1.Themaximumnumberofburialsinahouseorhousesequenceandtheminimumnumberof
housesstackedonthesamefootprintatÇatalhöyük.Theidentifieristhenumbergiventoahouseby
thecurrentprojectorthenumbergiventooneofthebuildingsinastackofhouses.