UDK 903'i2/'i5(5-i9i.2+4-i6)"633/634":3i4.i7
Documenta Praehistorica XXXV (2008)
Communities, households and animals.
Convergent developments in Central Anatolian
and Central European Neolithic
Arkadiusz Marciniak
Institute of Prehistory University of Poznani, Poland
arekmar@amu.edu.pla
ABSTRACT - This paper intends to scrutinize striking similarities in cultural developments and social
transformations in Neolithic communities in the North European Plain of Central Europe and Central
Anatolia in the early phase of their development and in the following post-Early Neolithic period. They
will be explored through evidence pertaining to architecture and the organization of space, alongside
changes 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 Early
Neolithic to autonomous household organization in the following period, will be debated.
IZVLEČEK - Članek preiskuje osupljive podobnosti v kulturnem razvoju in družbenih premenah neo-
litskih skupnosti na Severnoevropskem nižavju in osrednji Anatoliji v zgodnjih in kasnejših, srednje
in pozno neolitskih fazah razvoja. Razlike opazujemo skozi arhitekturo, organizacijo prostora, sprem-
ljajoče spremembe v poselitvenih vzorcih kot tudi v zbirih živalskih kosti in zoomorfnih upodobitvah.
Se posebej se posvetimo družbenim spremembam, vezanim na razpad komunskih skupin v zgodnjem
neolitiku na avtonomna gospodinjstva v kasnejših obdobjih.
KEY WORDS - Central Anatolia; North European Plain; house; cattle; space
Introduction
The archaeology of the early Neolithic in the Near
East and Europe reveals a range of similarities across
various geographical zones as regards arrangement
of space, the function of architecture, the similar uti-
lization of bounded space, the integrative character
of 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 mean
that the Neolithic communities across different re-
gions are identical and no idiosyncrasies are repor-
ted. On the contrary, trajectories of developments in
particular areas are inevitably differentiated, due to
the range of social, cultural and historical contexts
in which they operated. In particular, these regional
sequences differ as much as a peculiar cultural and
social 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 Central
Europe, in particular in the North European Plain.
Some of them are clearly more obvious and better
attested than others.
The Neolithic in Central Anatolia is a distinct pheno-
menon, and it differs in such matters as settlement
form, burial customs, and chipped stone industries
from that of the Fertile Crescent (Özdogan 1995.
58; 1999.229-232; Balkan-Atli and Binder 2001.
194). Moreover, it is the developments in this region
that set the conditions for the spread of the Neoli-
thic way of life westwards into the Balkans and then
Europe. The Neolithic in the North European Plain
is an area equally rich in data, with tight chronolo-
gical controls, and marks the beginning of the entry
of early farming groups into vast previously unin-
habited areas. It lays the foundation for the devel-
opment of food producing societies across much of
the northern part of the continent.
In both cases, we are dealing with regions in which
the 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, was
clearly different. The Central Anatolian Neolithic de-
veloped as a result of complex transformations of
the tradition inherited from the northern Levant,
while the Neolithic in Central Europe originated
from the Carpathian Basin. However, centuries long
developments in both regions led to the emergence
of 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 of
this new mode of life beyond their original settings,
first into different zones within both regions, and
then outside those regions. The internal logic of de-
velopments of early Neolithic communities in both
regions appears to be very similar.
The character of social transformations of Central
Anatolian and the North European Plain Neolithic
communities will be explored through evidence per-
taining to settlement patterns and the organisation
of space, alongside changes in architecture, as well
as animal bone assemblages and zoomorphic repre-
sentations. Other aspects of these transformations
need to be studied in more detail in the future.
The point of departure for this analysis is my own
work in the North European Plain, mostly in the Ku-
javia region, and in Central Anatolia, in particular at
^atalhöyük East, where I co-direct the excavation
project focused on the last sequence of the mound
occupation. Having been working in both regions
for a long time and observing a range of striking si-
milarities, I feel in position to try explicating them
and grasping their nature. This paper is the first
such attempt.
However, it is not my intention to go into any de-
tails here regarding the regional culture-historical
schemes that are used to capture changes in the Neo-
lithic. Instead, special attention will be devoted to
diachronic interrelations, in order to outline the
manner in which the fabric of Neolithic societies was
transformed over time. Hence, I will use the terms
early Neolithic and post-early Neolithic to pinpoint
this diachronic perspective, rather than referring to
existing conventional chronological schemes in both
regions.
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 Neolithic
sequence in both regions. I will also challenge the
meat-based livestock-rearing system of early Euro-
pean farming and point out the idiosyncratic nature
of the introduction of secondary products in both re-
gions. The early Neolithic in both regions became a
point 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 Central
Anatolian Neolithic, the changes will be examined
both on a microscale, using ^atalhöyük East as a
case study, and on a regional scale across the region.
Changes observed in the last phase of the ^atalhö-
yük East occupation will then be assessed within the
broader regional context, and the overall trajectory
of development for local communities in Central
Anatolia in this time frame. As regards the North
European Plain, I will refer to social transformations
from its earliest Neolithic phase throughout the fur-
ther developments of the Danubian tradition.
Introducing the Neolithic of Central Anatolia
and the North European Plain
Central Anatolia is defined here as the area to the
south of the Anatolian Plateau divided into three
zones: the region of the Beysehir-Sugla lakes in the
west, the Konya Plain in the centre, and the Cappa-
docian region in the east. The Early Central Anatolia
(ECA) cultural sequence has recently been divided
by Özbasaran and Buitenhuis (2002) into five stages.
The paper discusses developments in ECA II, ECA III
and ECA IV periods. The ECA II period is dated from
the late 94 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 the
years 6000-5500 BC. Both stages of ECA III corre-
spond well with the stratigraphy of the ^atalhöyük
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 approximately
7400-6000 calBC (Cessford 2001; Marciniak and
Czerniak 2007). In the Özbasaran and Buitenhuis
chronological 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, fall
within the ECA IIIB period (Cessford 2001; Marci-
niak and Czerniak 2007).
The considerable changes in the last period of ^atal-
höyük East occupation are accompanied by the emer-
gence of farming settlements in the region. The ECA
IIIA settlement pattern in the Konya Plain is charac-
terised by long-term aggregation, and marked by an
extreme concentration of population at one site -
^atalhöyük. An apparent lack of permanent seden-
tary communities in the region during this period is
in sharp contrast with succeeding periods. The fol-
lowing ECA IIIB is marked by the appearance of
many smaller sites which continue to be occupied
into the subsequent ECA IV (Baird 2002). These
smaller settlements were inhabitated for shorter pe-
riods than previously. In comparison with the steady
rate at which changes occurred earlier, around 6500
calBC developments occurred more quickly and their
internal 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 of
the continent from c. 5450 to 4600 calBC (Milisau-
skas, Kruk 1989.404). The LBK covered large areas
of Europe, from the Paris Basin in the west to the
Dniester in the east, and from the Drava in the south
to northern Poland in the north (e.g. Kruk and Mi-
lisauskas 1999; Barker 1985; Starling 1983; 1985;
Wislanski 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 continued
uninterrupted development through the first half of
the 5th millennium BC. This region was colonized by
immigrants from South-eastern Europe, who brought
with them a whole array of new material culture, in-
cluding longhouses, a simple style of pottery, with
curvilinear and rectilinear motifs, and stone techno-
logy in the form of symmetrical axes and heavy
adzes, 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 stylistic
variability in various regions (e.g. Ammerman and
Cavalli-Sforza 1973; 1984; Starling 1985; Kulczyc-
ka-Leciejewiczowa 1970; 1979; 1993; Milisauskas
and Kruk 1989; Wislanski 1970; Keeley 1992; Price
et 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 - and
dated back to the second half of the 5th millennium
BC. The late phases of the Danubian tradition are re-
presented by the Late Band Pottery, Stroke Orna-
mented Pottery, Lengyel, Polgar, Hinkelstein, and
Rössen cultures. These archaeological entities mark
a second important phase in the development of far-
ming communities in Central Europe. They are dated
from c. 4600 to 4000 calBC (Kruk and Milisauskas
1999.303). This late phase of the Danubian tradition
(Milisauskas and Kruk 1989) is often defined as
the Early Middle Neolithic (Kruk and Milisauskas
1999; see also Czerniak 1994).
Architecture and spatial organization
Central Anatolia
Architecture and spatial arrangement in Central Ana-
tolian Early Neolithic can be discerned at two major
settlements in the region, namely Asikli Höyük and
^atalhöyük. One its unique feature is the phenome-
non of clustered neighbourhood settlements (Özba-
saran 2000.135). In Asikli Höyük and in the early
building levels XII-VI at ^atalhöyük, individual loam
buildings are typically constructed directly adjacent
to 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 midden
areas may be located within the neighbourhood clu-
sters. Houses have a great degree of continuity, being
rebuilt on the same location for up to six building
levels in a sequence stretching over several hundreds
of years (e.g. Düring 2005; Farid 2005; Hodder
2005a; 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 were
generally emptied of portable items and the house
carefully and systematically dismantled. The lower
portion of the building was then levelled to set up a
foundation for a new house. Continuity is particu-
larly clear in the internal organi-
sation of the buildings, which dis-
played a high degree of similarity
across the site. This was characte-
rised by the placement of hearths
and the oven in the south part of
the building, a platform with a bu-
rial underneath in the north part
of the building, bucrania on the
west wall, and the access-ladder
near the hearths/ovens. Conside-
rable continuity is visible in plat-
form and floor divisions through
successive replasterings and re-
building, with only minor chan-
ges observable through time re-
garding the location of ovens and
hearths (Fig. 2).
Social structures appear to be ba-
sed around neighbourhood com-
munities, as indicated by cluste-
red distributions of houses and
burials. The rooms at Asikli Hö-
yük are of a restricted size range, with an average of
about 6.5m2, and 80% are smaller than 12m2. This
may indicate that they are perhaps too small to have
served as household residences. Remarkably, only
about 30% of the rooms excavated at Asikli Höyük
contained a hearth. The distribution of these hearths
over the settlement does not seem to be clearly pat-
terned, and it is not possible to discern clusters of
rooms centred on a room with a hearth (Düring
and Marciniak 2006.8-10; Tab. 3). The situation is
slightly different at gatalhöyük, as there is a com-
mon category of rooms that can be positively iden-
tified as living rooms containing a range of more or
less standard features (Mellaart 1967.61, Fig. 11).
However, in contrast to Asikli Höyük, there is good
evidence for dwellings constituted on the basis of
both 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 Asikli Höyük (Esin
and Harmankaya 1999.126), indicating that only a
small selection of the dead were interred in the set-
tlement. Some buildings clearly served as burial sites
for groups that outnumbered their inhabitants. This
may indicate that the deceased were interred as part
of communally organised ceremonies.
Fig. 1. gatalhöyük East, Level VII (after Mellaart 1967.57, Fig. 10).
A major shift seems to have occurred at gatalhöyük
in the transition from Level VI to V. These radical
changes are particularly well-attested in the architec-
ture and spatial organisation in the structures exca-
vated by the Polish team in Levels IV-0 (Czerniak
et 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 and
the emergence of probable courts and streets, which
made the houses more accessible than hitherto (Dü-
ring 2001).
The buildings seem to mark a significant departure
from the hitherto prevailing pattern both in terms of
their construction and organisation of space. Houses
have 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 the
demise of internal organisation of the buildings is
already clear in Level IV/III as manifested in Buil-
ding 74 (Fig. 3). Its internal size and the layout of
the walls was different than in earlier buildings. It
was 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 was
very simple with no platforms, benches, bins and
other kind of features. The building had a large door-
way. Deliberately placed cattle bones (mandibles,
scapulae, ribs), forming some kind of installation,
An interesting sequence of occu-
pation levels was discovered un-
derneath the floor of Building 62.
An entire sequence is composed
of infill, destructional and mid-
den-like deposits, whose homoge-
neity varied considerably. At the
same time, the presence of five
fire installations of different size
and character is indicative of
some sort of activity area. All of
them were carefully designed
and manufactured. This sequence
has no relation to any older buil-
dings, which implies a different
relation to the past of the group
constructing the Building 62.
Two structures from Level I (Buil-
dings 33 & 34) seem to mark ano-
ther significant departure from
the 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 niche
in SW corner in which a rectangu-
were found in its western room. They were placed lar oven was placed. Other features comprised two
on the floor in relation to some kind of abandon- small fire installations in its central sections and a
ment rituals/activities. Both rooms were originally hearth associated with a feasting deposit located in
connected by some kind of a crawlhole in the north- the south east corner of the building. One of the fire
ern part of the partition wall. This was later intentio- installations appeared to be positioned in the centre
nally blocked, probably in relation to sealing off all of the building, in marked contrast to the location of
deposits in the western room when it went out of such structures in the ECA IIIA period (Fig. 4). The
use.
The following occupation episodes dated to
Level II, I and 0 are indicative of the further
decline of the previously dominant house
arrangements (Czerniak et al. 2001; 2002;
Czerniak and Marciniak 2005). This is well
manifested by a sequence of Buildings 61 &
62 from Level II. They were reconstructed a
number of times, as indicated by a complex
sequence of floors and partition walls. How-
ever, only a few features were revealed in
the Buildings. A solid square oven placed in
its 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 built
in a place that was earlier used by the pre-
vious inhabitants of this area to construct
some kind of fire installations.
Fig. 2. Qatalhöyük East. Aerial view of Building 3. Photo by M. Ashley.
Fig. 3. Qatalhöyük East, Building 74. Photo by A. Leszczewicz.
exact length of building 34 is unknown, as it stre-
tches beyond the northern edge of the excavated
area, but in general it appears to be a small struc-
ture, with its interior dimensions within the trench
covering only 2.24m2.
North European Plain
The beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe is
marked by the emergence of a new spatiality created
by the house. Of special significance was the space
of 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 walls
were made of wattle and daub. Modderman (1970)
divided the longhouse interiors into three parts:
northwest, middle and southeast. The northwest was
the most elaborate and solidly built and has been
interpreted as the living/sleeping area. The middle
part is believed to have been used as the living/
working area. A main door to the house was located
at 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 up
to ten longhouses, 7 to 45 meters in length and 6 to
7 meters in width. A number of such constructions
in the lowlands of the North European Plain is smal-
ler. They were flanked by ditches and pits dug out
to provide clay daub for the walls. Longhouse size
differed considerably depending on the region, but
the 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 the
lowlands longhouse comes from
Bozejewice, site 22 (Czerniak
1998.26-27) in Kujavia, where
one of the largest building con-
structed by the early farmers in
this region has been found (Fig.
5). It was 43 meters long and
6.5-7.3 meters wide, and was
roughly rectangular in shape.
The house was divided into
three parts, and the function of
the specific parts has been inter-
preted in accordance with the
proposals of Modderman (1970)
and Lüning (1982). Long pits
were dug out on both sides of the building, arguably
for extracting daub for wall construction.
Erecting a longhouse was clearly a complicated and
time-consuming task and could not have been done
by a single family. This was certainly a communal ac-
tivity, and it is estimated that a house 45 meters
long and 7 meters wide took 3900 person-hours to
build (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, both
new and old. Their significance was further supple-
mented and enforced by the architectural perma-
nence of these structures, which contributed to a
perception of long-term social stability (see Pollard
1999.85). Over time, longhouse settlements became
cultural landmarks and repositories of memory, and
the 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 larger
form of association, probably incorporating smaller
constituencies, seems to have been central to this so-
ciety. This social configuration persisted during the
whole of the early Neolithic sequence, as implied by
a general lack of changes over time in house layout
and 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. Qatalhöyük East, Building 33. Photo by L.Czerniak.
Fig. 5. Bozejewice, LBK, Kujavia. Aerial view of the LBK longhouse
(after Czerniak 1998.23).
constitution of local groups and that this communal
life was focused on longhouses.
Towards the end of Early Neolithic in the region,
previously dominant villages/settlements that were
the basic social units creating definable groups even-
tually lost their significance. This is well manifested
in decreasing importance of longhouses. The previ-
ously homogenous use of longhouse space, became
an arena of considerable change, manifested by the
appearance of human graves, storage facilities and
rubbish pits.
From the formal standpoint, the Late Danubian
longhouses, e.g. from the Stroke Ornamented Pot-
tery or Lengyel cultures, were similar to LBK con-
structions. The most apparent difference was their
unquestionably trapezoidal shape, especially in the
Lengyel tradition (Bogucki 1982.
19), although some rectangular struc-
tures remained. These oaken trape-
zoidal constructions featured bedding
trenches 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. The
entrance to almost all of them was
placed at the broader part facing east
or southeast. However, house size
tended to decrease over time. It is
estimated that longhouses were used
for between 20 years (Gabalowna
1966.46) and 50 years (Jazdzewski
1938.6). Numerous settlements of
this kind have been identified in the
Kujavia region in the North Euro-
pean Plain. The best known is Brzesć
Kujawski, in addition to Krusza Zam-
kowa, Koscielec Kujawski, Dobre, or
Oslonki (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 with
pits and activity areas. They were re-
ported at Brzesć Kujawski, sites 3 &
4 (Grygiel 1986). They have been in-
terpreted as household clusters, di-
rectly implying the existence of the
household (Bogucki and Grygiel
1980; 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 facilities
were placed in a certain proximity to each other,
usually outside of the house, and were separated
from similar clusters by open areas (Fig. 6). One part
of 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 used
by an extended family, whose members are believed
to have specialized in some craft production (Gry-
giel 1986).
These changes are indicative of the emergence of
the household as an independent social entity de-
fined as an entity residing in discrete buildings, with
evidence of most domestic and some craft activities
performed within the residence, as manifested in
the presence of special-purpose activity areas and
features in buildings. Interestingly, it appeared first
in regions with a long trajectory of development
(e.g. Kujavia), and it was a much later development
in regions being colonised for the first time at that
time. In the long run, the North European Plain early
Neolithic house was transformed from a communal
domain into a private sphere in the post-Neolithic
period (see also Stea and Turan 1993.110). In the
final phase of this sequence the longhouse clusters
were in the process of disintegration and were fi-
nally abandoned. At the same time, village-like agglo-
merations comprised of individual farmsteads began
to emerge.
Human-animal relations
Central Anatolia
Differences in treatment of major domestic species
in the ECA II, IIIA and IIIB periods in Central Anato-
lia are striking. In particular, the special significance
of 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 elucidated
here (e.g. Akkermans, Schwartz 2003.75; Russell
and Martin 2005).
Abundant evidence of the special importance of cat-
tle come from the Anatolian early Neolithic sequence,
more particularly from ^atalhöyük (e.g. Mellaart
1967, Hodder 1990). The most spectacular and well
known evidence of cattle's special significance are
plastered 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
Fig. 6. Brzesć Kujawski, Leng-
yel culture, Kujavia. House-
hold cluster (after Kruk & Mi-
lisauskas 1999 79). 1. antler
workshop; 2. shell artefact; 3.
hide processing workshop; 4.
storage pit for shellfish and
turtles; 5. sherds; A. flint axe;
F. Jurassic flint artefact; G.
antler; X. flint working area
within house; Y. chocolate
flint artefact for antler wor-
king; a. cluster of ceramic
sherds; b: shellfish; c. pits as-
sociated with economic acti-
vities; d. clay pits; e. burials.
and seem to be placed in houses at abandonment
(Russell and Meece 2006). Either these elements are
preserved from some of the attritional forces affec-
ting other body parts, or extra horns and scapulae
were brought back from animals not otherwise
transported to the site. Horns are very heavy, with
no meat, while scapulae are covered with meat
which is easily filleted off. It is argued that both of
these body parts carried strong symbolic and cere-
monial value associated with their consumption
(Russell and Martin 2005). Both also seem to be
tied to houses and the cycle of building.
The age as well as sex data further suggest that bulls
were selected for feasts and ceremonies in the ECA
IIIA period of the ^atalhöyük East development. Fe-
males form approximately half the bones from the
contexts related to everyday consumption, while
only a third from other categories of deposit, inclu-
ding ceremonial settings. Considering that feasting
deposits often contain a substantial number of daily
remains, the contribution of males to ceremonial
consumption was probably even greater. The predo-
minance of male remains in the area outside the
mound (the so-called KOPAL Area) further streng-
thens its interpretation as a ceremonial setting and/
or deposition of the remains of ceremonies (Russell
and Martin 2005). This is further supported by the
results of stable isotope analysis. They indicate that
cattle contributed only negligibly to the diet of the
tell inhabitants (Richards et al. 2003).
This short summary of the available evidence clearly
indicates that at ^atalhöyük and other early Neoli-
thic Anatolian Neolithic settlements, cattle were
clearly of considerable ceremonial and symbolic im-
portance (e.g. Mellaart 1967; Hodder 1990). This
implies that first contact with then undomesticated
Fig. 7. Qatalhöyük East. Cattle bucrania in Building 52. Photo by J.
Quinlan.
cattle was very complicated and primarily involved
factors of a social and ideological nature. Hodder
(1990.35) claims that cattle were first symbolically
domesticated and only later acquired their economic
significance. This was supposedly achieved through
the practice of bringing the cattle into the house and
controlling them within various 'cattle cults'.
An analysis of the available evidence as regards the
use of sheep/goats among inhabitants of Catalhöyük
in the ECA IIIA phase has proved significant diffe-
rences in comparison with cattle. Sheep/goat bones
are the most abundant faunal remains at this site. In
most cases, they are found in middens and fills used
as a primary location for dumping consumption de-
bris. This may indicate that both species were used
for ordinary food consumption.
This is further supported by analysis of their body
part representation, revealing a fairly even distribu-
tion subjected to attritional processes. All carcass
parts are brought onto the site, and perhaps even
whole carcasses, although there is some evidence
for the selective importation of sheep-size ribs, and
under-representation of sheep-size vertebrae (Fig. 8),
suggestive of slaughter and primary butchery taking
place 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 filleted
off the bone and cooked in smaller pieces, while lar-
ger animals, in particular cattle, may have been
cooked in larger pieces still on the bone (Russell
and Martin 2005).
The age distribution of the sheep/
goat looks also very different
from that of the cattle, appear-
ing to show the typical manage-
ment of sheep and goats for meat
and herd reproduction. The age
data show most animals culled
as juveniles and sub-adults, the
optimal ages for meat yield (see
Payne 1973). Far fewer survived
to be older adults, which would
require pasturing. This segment
may only be the breeding stock.
This mortality profile does not,
however, suggest the intensive
use of dairy products or wool.
However, one has to bear in
mind that sheep were unlikely
to have been woolly in this peri-
od. This is further corroborated
by the results of stable isotope analysis indicating
sheep as the main source of animal proteins.
The character of people-animal relationships and
changes over time are well attested at Catalhöyük
also in the ECA IIIB period. The distinctive pattern
of cattle and sheep/goat consumption underwent
considerable transformations. Special treatment of
cattle as manifested in the high representation of
horn cores and scapulae is significantly less common.
No plastered bucrania are recorded from the phase
of 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, at
least in some parts of the site. Its significance re-
mains somewhat enigmatic (Twiss et al. 2005).
As regards species composition, whereas pre-Level
V assemblages consistently include approximately
65-70% caprines and 20-25% cattle (Russell and
Martin 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, as
in earlier levels, in most cases sheep and goat bones
are 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 adults
represented (Fig. 9). This might indicate changes in
herding practices and a switch to the use of dairy
products (Twiss at al. 2005). However, we have to
bear in mind that while material from earlier levels
comes from a range of different context, the late le-
vels are represented by only a single
area. Hence, the results need to be trea-
ted with caution.
In any case, the small samples analysed
to date (e.g. Russell et al. 2004; Twiss et
al. 2005) indicate a significant change in
various 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 levels
of the Catalhöyük East following exten-
sive excavations of this sequence will only be possi-
ble when detailed results of these invesigations are
available.
North European Plain
Early farmers in the North European Plain also trea-
ted different taxa in different ways, in particular
sheep/goats and cattle. While the former was an or-
dinary source of meat, the latter was embedded in
different social and ceremonial contexts.
Detailed studies of animal bone remains and their
archaeological context from the early Neolithic set-
tlements of the Polish part of the North European
Plain 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-goats
and pigs (Marciniak 2005). These statistically signi-
ficant differences in all contexts throughout the stu-
died settlements are indicative of the considerably
varied 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.
Sheep/Goat: Levels V-IV

Juvenile
3» ^
Fig. 8. Catalhöyük East. Sheep/goat body part distribution
(after Russell, Martin 2005.Fig. 2.31).
Cattle bones are the most abundant faunal remains
in the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Taphonomic
analysis implies a very peculiar method of consu-
ming cattle marrow. As indicated by characteristic
jagged 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 a
common and quite peculiar culinary practice of the
early 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 a
deliberate selection of certain anatomical segments -
in particular, skulls, scapulae, and axial segments -
and marked by the avoidance of limbs. At the same
time, body part representation of sheep/goats was
considerably different. It is characterized by varied
compositions of highly processed anatomical parts,
which implies that all of them were eaten.
Cattle meat and marrow eating was clearly regarded
as appropriate in one social context and inappropri-
ate in another. It is indicated by cattle bones depo-
sited in specific locales at the settlement, particularly
in the open space between longhouses. The remains
of cattle consumption were de-
posited exclusively in the so-cal-
led clay pits located between
longhouses and do not appear
in other types of pits used at
these settlements. Contrary to
cattle consumption, sheep/goat
took place in the house and/or
directly around the house. A
small number of pig bones have
made their spatial distribution
analysis hardly conclusive.
Sheep/Goat: Levels III-!
Š
Fig. 9. Catalhöyük East. Sheep/goat mortality profile (after Twiss,
Martin, Pawlowska and Russell 2005).
The available evidence from the
Early Neolithic settlements from
the Polish part of the lowlands implies the practice
of at least two kids of consumption among local far-
mers. The first focused on cattle, and the other on
sheep/goats. Fragmentary evidence implies that pigs
were also an important element in feasting, and pork
was not consumed on a daily basis. Cattle marrow
and meat was arguably consumed ceremonially in a
very standardized and repeatable manner over a
long period of time. At the same time, sheep/goats
were used as a source of meat and were eaten in an
apparently ordinary fashion, and consumption took
place in the house and/or directly around the house.
No roasted marrow of sheep/goats was consumed.
Fragmentary evidence implies that pigs were also an
important element in feasting, and pork was not
consumed on a daily basis.
The post-early Neolithic in the North European Plain
brought about considerable and multiscalar changes
in relations between people and domesticated ani-
mals. They were no longer considerably uniform
and standardized as in the preceding period, but ra-
ther highly variable and diverse. This applies both
to differences between particular species and diffe-
rences at particular settlements. Interestingly, the
overall picture of human-animal relations among
Lengyel communities in Kujavia, a traditionally far-
ming region, is far more diverse than among their
LBK predecessors. At the same time, it is also more
diverse than in the newly occupied regions that retain
a range of elements originating from their early Neo-
lithic predecessors, albeit considerably transformed.
Changes in patterns of consumption involved the
decline of the ceremonial consumption of cattle. The
Fig. 10. lojewo, site 35, LBK, Kujavia. Marrow post-
fire transverse breakage. Photo by A.Marciniak.
social and ceremonial importance of animals in the
post-early Neolithic, however, remained significant,
but it was executed in a different way and in diffe-
rent settings. Cattle remained an important status
and wealth animal, which is manifested in the form
of 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 of
marrow eating, very common in the early Neolithic,
was significantly less popular. In particular, cooked
and roasted cattle marrow was not commonly eaten.
Discussion and final remarks
In this paper I examined evidence pertaining to the
organisation of space and changes in architecture
alongside settlement patterns, as well as animal bone
assemblages, in the early phases of the Neolithic in
Central Anatolia and the North European Plain. The
similarities revealed in the cultural developments
and social transformations in both regions are so stri-
king that they need to be investigated and scrutinized
in 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 these
parallels imply the existence of similar trajectories
of development of early farming groups irrespective
of 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 of
these parallels needs always be contextualized and
referred to the historical, social, and cultural embed-
ding of regional developments.
The emergence of the Neolithic in both regions was
accompanied by the production of new spaces. Spe-
cial attention should be paid to the new form of
house and its space, as manifested both in the form
of the Central Anatolian house and the Central Euro-
pean longhouse. They initiated a new sequence of
Neolithic spatiality in both regions. The house space
was organized in a rather normative manner, as they
were an embodiment of the past, history and me-
mory, not only a place for living. They were a focus
of meaning and action in which social cooperation
and 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
stability and security for them. This was further en-
forced by the architectural permanence of these
houses, 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 and
old (Stea, Turan 1990.21). They should not be trea-
ted as finished artefacts. Each house has its own life
history 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 among
early Neolithic groups dominated the constitution of
social arrangements. As argued elsewhere (Düring
and Marciniak 2006), the earlier Neolithic in Cen-
tral Anatolia is characterized by the predominance of
clustered neighbourhood communities. Local groups
appear to be organized into a number of tightly nu-
cleated neighbourhoods that shared a number of fa-
cilities and resources. Within these neighbourhoods
would have lived a large number of families who
probably did not run autonomous households.
The very nature of the communal character of social
arrangements in the early Neolithic of the North Euro-
pean Plain has not been satisfactorily scrutinized to
date. A majority of scholars stress, however, their
communal 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 settlement
may have had its own chief, whose power was either
achieved or ascribed. The coexistence of several hou-
ses at the same time, a common feature of LBK set-
tlements, may suggest lineages being reproduced in
such a way (van de Velde 1979.130). The contrary
theory, advocating longhouses as the loci of matrilo-
cal units inhabited by a maternal grandmother along
with her daughters, their husbands and children, has
been proposed by Ehrenberg (1989.96). Other au-
thors, such as e.g. Milisauskas (1986), have argued
that groups inhabiting subsequent settlements were
homogenous, with only slight social and economic
differences. LBK communities were perceived as
being small-scale, largely acephalous, egalitarian and
non-stratified. Communal identity was probably of
crucial importance for these egalitarian communi-
ties, with consensual decision-making (Milisauskas
1986.215-218).
Similarities between these two regions in the early
Neolithic are not limited to architecture and spatial
arrangements, but are also visible in human-animal
relations. In both, we are dealing with different uses
of sheep/goats and cattle. While the former was an
ordinary source of meat, the latter was embedded
in different social and ceremonial contexts. In no
way can the early use of cattle be equated with meat
focused 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, in
particular in the Levant (e.g. Akkermans, Schwartz
2003.75), but also in the Balkans (Greenfield 2005.
28) or the British Isles (Edmonds 1999.28; Thomas
1999.74).
The first period of the Neolithic saw steady and un-
interrupted development that was characterized by
a high degree of similarity in the domains discussed
in this paper as well as many others. After more
then fifteen hundred years of predominance of the
clustered neighbourhoods of the Central Anatolia
Neolithic, these social arrangements disintegrated
and 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 European
Plain was also abandoned.
Intriguing parallels are discernible as regards regio-
nal developments. We are dealing with two types of
communities here. The community of continuation
typical of pre-pottery Levels both at Asikli Höyük and
gatalhöyük was replaced by the community of
change in the post-Level VI/V level at gatalhöyük
East. Around 6000/5900 BC, the mound was finally
abandoned.
In the first phase of Neolithic occupation in Central
Anatolia, in the ECA II and ECA IIIA phases, the set-
tlement pattern is characterised by long-term aggre-
gation, and marked by extreme concentrations of
population at one site, first at Asikli Höyük and then
at gatalhöyük. Only a few, smaller Neolithic sites da-
ted to the second half of the 8th millennium have
been discovered to date. This long and considerably
homogenous sequence at Asikli Hoyuk and gatalhö-
yük is followed by a much shorter 500-600 years of
the Late Neolithic period (ECA IIIB), which is distin-
guished by dynamic changes that increased in pace
in subsequent phases. The apparent lack of perma-
nent sedentary communities in the region during
the ECA II and ECA IIIA is in sharp contrast with suc-
ceeding periods. The following ECA IIIB period is
marked by the appearance of many smaller sites
(Baird 2002).
It is only in the ECA IIIB that local farming groups
emerged as strong and independent entities both
in the region and beyond. A number of co-existing
communities were formed in both regions, bound
within intensive communication networks. Inherited
practices were selected, reconstructed, maintained,
modified and given a transformed meaning (Said
2000.185). Social changes took the form of small
scale modifications and transformations of the early
farming tradition. The process was uneven and high-
ly localized, and its dynamics varied both between
different parts of regions and in subsequent periods.
As a result, the landscape was largely dispersed and
fragmented and local communities were linked by
different communication networks.
This trend continued in the ECA IV period. Settle-
ments were smaller and were occupied for shorter
periods than previously. Environmental conditions,
such as extensive flooding, in this period do not
adequately account for this regional change (Baird
2002.150). Rather, the settlement pattern seems to
reflect the presence of a settled agricultural popula-
tion in the region. The subsistence economy was ba-
sed on the full domestic exploitation of plants and
animals, although hunting and gathering still played
a minor role (Ozba§aran andBuitenhuis 2002.71;
also Gerard 2002.107).
As revealed in the North European Plain, these evi-
dent changes were manifested differently in regions
continuously inhabited since the early Neolithic and
in areas occupied for the first time in this period. The
core 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 use
of dairy products. Animal use became economically
more efficient. The disassociation of animals from
ceremonial and social domains, so characteristic of
the earlier period, proved to be a prerequisite for
the dynamic expansion of the post-early Neolithic
communities and had far-reaching consequences for
the 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 production
and consumption, with the associated development
of the autonomous household as the paramount
mode of social association (see more in Düring and
Marciniak 2006). This increased autonomy of the
household in the post-Early Neolithic was based on
its durable and successful economy, in which crop
and livestock husbandry were closely integrated and
intensively managed.
The emergence of the household mode of produc-
tion in this period is discernible in both regions. In
the last levels of ^atalhöyük East occupation, lithic
industries became more complicated, which possibly
relates to craft specialisation by skilled individuals
(Conolly 1999). The increased number of prismatic
blades is probably associated with dependence on
domestic food sources and with cooking habits, as
indicated by bipolar truncation and bilateral wear-
retouch. All these changes may be linked to a radical
reorganisation of chipped stone production in this
phase (Carter 2005). Major changes are also identi-
fied in pottery manufacture and use, manifested by
a shift from the chaff-tempered tradition to grit-tem-
pered and burnished wares suitable for cooking
(Mellaart 1966.170; Last 1996.118). They are also
marked 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 same
time, household social arrangements the North Eu-
ropean Plain is manifested in emergence of spatially
bounded household clusters accompanied by debris
of specialized activities (Grygiel 1986).
The emergence of the household as an independent
social entity had far-reaching consequences, as it
challenged the social, ceremonial and economic
foundations 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, one
may argue that powerful social sanctions came into
force to hold the community together. Furthermore,
it arguably resulted in a significant change to past
resemblance politics. The previously dominant orga-
nisation was constructed using collective- and long-
term memories within social structures operating at
the supra-house level. This was replaced by heteroge-
neous arrangements based on individualised, short-
term memory regimes, within a predominantly
house-based social structure (see also Kuijt 2001;
Hodder 2005b.190).
These transformations are indicative of considerable
social and symbolic changes. Changes in individual
houses 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 more
practical style of life, largely disassociated from the
symbolic and social domain that had hampered any
changes in the preceding period. This contributed to
significantly more efficient husbandry and conse-
quently facilitated the large-scale expansion of these
communities into hitherto unoccupied areas. Trans-
formations in this domain also facilitated the dyna-
mic development of small mobile groups and became
a driving force of the intensified process of agricul-
tural colonization of vast territories. This enabled lo-
cal groups to inhabit small settlements in strategic
locations, start economically efficient lives and fully
exploit 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 farming
tradition. Autonomous households initially develo-
ped as an intrinsic component of the gatalhöyük
building, 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 mainly
to a common experience rather than to a normati-
vely understood, inherited tradition. At the same
time, these transformed traditions provided a solid
foundation for communities moving from these cen-
tres to previously unoccupied areas.
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
I would like to thank Mihael Budja for inviting me to
participate in the 14th Neolithic Seminar The Neoli-
thic Mind, Populations and Landscapes
REFERENCES
AKKERMANS P. M. M. G., SCHWARTZ G. M. 2003. The ar-
chaeology of Syria. From complex hunter-gatherers to
early urban societies (ca. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
AMMERMAN A, CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1973. A population
model 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 Konya
Plain. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of
Central Anatolia, Internal Developments and External
Relations during the 9th - 6th millennia cal. BC. EGE Ya-
yinlari, Istanbul: 139-159.
BALKAN-ATLI N., BINDER D. 2001. Les ateliers de taille
d'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. gatalhöyük 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 socioeconomic
system of European Neolithic populations. Current An-
thropology 21: 803-804.
BOGUCKI P., GRYGIEL R. 1981. The household cluster at
Brzesć Kujawski 3. Small-site methodology in the Polish
lowlands. World Archaeology 13(1): 59-72.
BOGUCKI P., GRYGIEL R. 1997. Early farmers in North-
Central Europe: 1989-1994 excavations at Oslonki, Po-
land. Journal of Field Archaeology 24:161-178.
CARTER T. 2005. Chipped stone. Team Poznan. gatalhö-
yük 2005 Archive Report, on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.
com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_31.html.
CESSFORD C. 2001. A new dating for gatalhöyük. Anti-
quity 75: 717-25.
CONOLLY J. 1999. Technical strategies and technical
change at Neolithic ^atalhöyük, Turkey. Antiquity 73:
791-800.
CZERNIAK L. 1994. Wczesny i srodkowy okres neolitu na
Kujawach, 5400-3650p.n.e. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ar-
cheologii i Etnologii PAN. Poznan.
1998. The first farmers. In M. Chlodnicki and L. Kr-
zyzaniak (eds.), Pipeline of Archaeological Treasures.
Poznanskie Towarzystwo Prehistoryczne, Poznan: 23-
36.
CZERNIAK L., KWIATKOWSKA M., MARCINIAK A., PYZEL J.
2001. The excavations of the TP (Team Poznan) Area in
the 2001 season. ^atalhöyük 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 Poznan) Area in the 2002 season. ^a-
talhöyük 2002 Archive Report. on-line: http://www.catal
hoyuk.com/archive_reports/2002/ar02_07.html.
CZERNIAK L., MARCINIAK A. 2005. Excavations of the TP
Area. ^atalhöyük 2005 Archive Report. on-line: http://
www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_17.html
DÜRING B. S. 2001. Social dimensions in the architecture
of Neolithic ^atalhöyük. Anatolian Studies 51:1-18.
2005. Building continuity in the Central Anatolian
Neolithic. Exploring the meaning of buildings at A§ikli
Höyük and ^atalhöyük. Journal for Mediterranean
Archaeology 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. University
of Oklahoma Press. Norman and London.
ESIN U., HARMANKAYA S. 1999. A§ikli. In M. Özdogan and
N. Basgelen (eds.), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul:
115-132.
FARID S. 2005. ^atalhöyük - two mounds, one site. ZAKS
Newsletter 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.
GABALÖWNA L. 1966. Ze studiow nad grupq brzesko-ku-
jawskq kultury lendzielskiej. Acta Archaeologica Lodzi-
ensia 14. Lodz.
GERARD F. 2002. Transformations and societies in the
Neolithic of Central Anatolia. In F. Gerard 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 Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etno-
graficznego w Lodzi. Seria Archeologiczna 31: 43-270.
HODDER I. 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the
European 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 and
contingency in Neolithic societies. Basil Blackwell.
Cambridge.
2005a. Introduction. In I. Hodder (ed.), Qatalhöyük
Perspectives. Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons. Mc
Donald Institute for Archaeological Research/British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph, Cam-
bridge: 1-14.
2005b. Memory. In I. Hodder (ed.), Qatalhöyük 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. Qatalhöyük the Leopard's Tale: Revealing the
mysteries of Turkey's ancient 'town'. Thames and
Hudson. New York.
JAZDZEWSKI K. 1938. Cmentarzyska kultury ceramiki
wst^gowej i zwi^zane z nimi slady osadnictwa w Brzesciu
Kujawskim. Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 15:1-105.
KEELEY L. H. 1992. The introduction of agriculture to the
western 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 spoie-
czenstw rolniczych neolitu. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ar-
cheologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Krakow.
KUIJT I. 2001. Meaningful masks. Place, death, and the
transmission 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 ceramiki
wst^gowej rytej w Polsce. Zarys problematyki. In J. K.
Kozlowski (ed.), Studies on the Linear Pottery Culture.
Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne. Krakow: 11-28.
1979. Pierwsze spoleczenstwa rolnicze na ziemiach
polskich. Kultury kr^gu naddunajskiego. In W. Hensel
and T. Wislanski (eds.), Prahistoria ziempolskich, t.
II, neolit. Zaklad im. Ossolinskich, Wroclaw, Warszawa,
Krakow and Gdansk: 19-164.
1993. Osadnictwo neolityczne w Polscepotudniowo-
zachodniej. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etno-
logii PAN. Wroclaw.
LAST J. 1996. Surface pottery at Catalhöyük. In I. Hodder
(ed.), On the Surface. Catalhöyük 1993-95. Monograph
of 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 transformations
in the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic periods in
central Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 57:115-130.
MELLAART J. 1964. Excavations at Catal Hüyük, third preli-
minary report, 1963. Anatolian Studies 14:39-119.
1966.	Excavations at Catal Hüyük. Fourth preliminary
report, 1965. Anatolian Studies 16:165-91.
1967.	Catal 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, Ann
Arbor. 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.
ÖZBA§ARAN 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. Gerard and
L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. EGE
Yayinlari, 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 Cambel. Istanbul: 41-59.
1999. Concluding remarks In M. Özdogan and N. Ba§-
gelen (eds.), The Neolithic of Turkey. Istanbul: 225-
236.
PAYNE S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats. The
mandibles from A§van 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 the
Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology.
UCL Press. London: 76-93.
PRICE T. D., GEBAUER A. B., KEELEY L. H. 1996. The
spread 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 to
Agriculture. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
New Mexico: 95-126.
RICHARDS M. P., PEARSON J. A., MOLLESON T. I., RUSSELL
N., MARTIN L. 2003. Stable isotope evidence of diet at
Neolithic Catalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological
Science 30: 67-76.
RUSSELL N., PAWLOWSKA K., TWISS K., JENKINS E., DALY
R. 2004. Animal bone reports. Catalhöyük 2004 Archive
Report. on-line: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_repo
rts/2004/ar04_17.html
RUSSELL N., MARTIN L. 2005. Catalhöyük mammal re-
mains. In I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Catalhöyük: Re-
ports from the 1995-99 Seasons. Monograph of the Mc
Donald Institute and the British Instituts of Archaeology
at Ankara. Cambridge: 33-98.
RUSSELL N., MEECE S. 2006. Animal representations and
animal remains at Catalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.), Catal-
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. Critical
Inquiry 26:175-192.
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 Prehistoric
Society 51: 41-57.
STEA D., TURAN M. 1990. A statement on placemaking. In
M. Turan (ed.), Vernacular Architecture. Paradigms of
Environmental Response. Ethnospace: volume 4. Ave-
bury. Aldershot: 102-121.
THOMAS J. S. 1999. An economy of substances in earlier
Neolithic 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, PAWLOWSKA K., RUSSELL N. 2005.
Animal Bone. gatalhöyük 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 distribution
from the Central European Neolithic communities of
Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia
XII, University of Leiden Press. Leiden.
WINTER M. C. 1977. The archaeological household cluster
in the valley of Oaxaca. In K. V. Flannery (ed.), The Early
Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press. New York: 25-34.
WISLANSKI T. 1970. Uwagi o kulturze ceramiki wst^gowej
rytej na terenie Polski polnocno-zachodniej. In J. K. Koz-
lowski (ed.), Studies on the Linear Pottery Culture. Pol-
skie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne. Krakow: 29-36.
back to contents