The site of Çatalhöyük consists of two mounds separated by an extinct channel of the Çarşamba River.
Eastern Mound - about 12.5 hectares (31 acres) in area with a height of about 20 metres (66 ft). Initially occupied in the Neolithic period resulting in a thick layer of remains whose extent is uncertain due to overlying later remains. Abandoned after the Neolithic, aside from a few stray Bronze Age graves, and then occupied again in the Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods. Well built structures were built at the top of the mound in the Hellenistic period, a fort was built there in the Roman period, and a number of Byzantine coins were found.[3][4]
Western Mound - about 400 metres (1,300 ft) in diameter (covering an area of about 8.5 hectares (21 acres)) with a height of about 7.5 metres (25 ft),
lying about 300 metres (980 ft) to the west. Occupied in the Early Chalcolithic period beginning roughly 5600 BC.[5][6] The original excavator used a periodization of 12 levels numbered 1-12. The current excavatorreplaced this with a different alphabetic schema involving levels A-Z.[7]
The site was noted byJames Mellaart in 1958 during a regional survey of the Konya Plain. He later led a team which excavated there for four seasons between 1961 and 1965.[8][9][10][11][12] These excavations revealed this section of Anatolia as a centre of advanced culture in the Neolithic period.[13] Excavation revealed 18 successive layers of buildings signifying various stages of the settlement and eras of history. It has been strongly suggested that a number of thepurported wall paintings and drawings of "lost" figurines, many which have been use in other publications, were actually fabricated by Mellaart.[14][15]
Mellaart was banned from Turkey for his involvement in theDorak affair, in which he published drawings of supposedly important Bronze Age artifacts that later went missing.[16] After this scandal, the site lay idle until 1993, when excavations began under the leadership ofIan Hodder, then at theUniversity of Cambridge.[17][18][19][20][21] The Hodder-led excavations ended in 2018.[22] The first two seasons of work were surface surveys with excavation beginning in 1995.[23][24] Hodder, a former student of Mellaart, chose the site as the first "real world" test of his controversial theory ofpost-processual archaeology.[25] The site has always had a strong research emphasis upon engagement with digital methodologies, driven by the project's experimental and reflexive methodological framework.[26] According to Mickel, Hodder's Çatalhöyük Research Project (ÇRP) established itself as a site for progressive methodologies – in terms of adaptable and democratized recording, integration of computerized technologies, sampling strategies, and community involvement."[27]
At the Western Mound, upon which Mellart had only opened two trenches, in 1961, Jonathan Last andCatriona Gibson excavated in 1998.[28][29][30] In 2006 two teams began work in the West Mound,one under the direction of Burçin Erdoğu and the other under the direction of Peter Biehl and Eva Rosenstock.[31][32][33][34][35]
Excavations continue under the direction of Ali Umut Türkcan fromAnadolu University.[36]
In August 2025, archaeologists led by Prof. Dr. Arkadiusz Marciniak ofPoznań University revealed a mortuary structure referred to as the “House of the Dead” or “Spiritual House”. The team uncovered a building where the remains of 20 individuals were placed beneath the floor, suggesting a ritual use. The discovery also included a large ceremonial structure adorned with painted walls and supported by fourteen platforms, as well as a smaller, plastered structure.[37][38][39]
Finds at the site, from the Neolithic layers, included a number of textiles which are rarely preserved in early sites. Most were found in a burial context, often burnt, and all fragments.[40][41] A number of lithics, almost all of obsidian, were found in those levelswith the most numerous types being blades, flakes, projectile points, scrappers, daggers, and sickle blades.[42] A number ofNeolithic skeletons were also recovered, many from intramural inhumations and in many cases, secondary burials.[43][44][45] Over 2,500 "casually baked" Neolithic clay figurines have been found, mostly animal but including 187 human.[46]
On-site restoration of a typical interiorThe earliest excavations of the siteDeep trenches in the siteAnimation showing a reconstruction of Catalhöyük, German narration with English subtitles
Çatalhöyük was composed entirely of domestic buildings with no obvious public buildings. While some of the larger rooms have rather ornatemurals, the purpose of others remains unclear.[47]
Initial estimates suggested an average population of between 5,000 and 7,000. However, more recent work using revised ideas of the distribution of residential buildings, and employing archaeological and ethnographic data exploring building use, suggests that between 600 and 800 people would have lived at Çatalhöyük East during an average year during the Middle phase (6700–6500 BC).[48] Genetic studies published during 2025 indicate that the social organization began with a culture organized alongmatrilocality andmatrilineality and that the households passed from mother to daughter.[49]
The sites were set up as large numbers of buildings clustered together. Households looked to their neighbors for help, trade, and possible marriage for their children.[50] The inhabitants lived inmudbrick houses that were crammed together in an aggregate structure. No footpaths or streets were used between the dwellings, which were clustered in a honeycomb-like maze. Most were accessed by holes in the ceiling and doors on the side of the houses, with doors reached by ladders and stairs. The rooftops were effectively streets. The ceiling openings also served as the only source of ventilation, allowing smoke from the houses' open hearths and ovens to escape. Houses hadplaster interiors accessed by squared-off timber ladders or steep stairs. These were usually on the south wall of the room, as werecooking hearths and ovens. The main rooms contained raised platforms that may have been used for a range of domestic activities. Typical houses contained two rooms for everyday activity, such as cooking and crafting.[50] All interior walls and platforms were plastered to a smooth finish.[47] Ancillary rooms were used as storage, and were accessed through low openings from main rooms.
All rooms were kept scrupulously clean. Archaeologists identified very little rubbish in the buildings, findingmiddens outside the ruins, with sewage andfood waste, as well as significant amounts of ash from burning wood, reeds, and animal dung.[51] In good weather, many daily activities may also have taken place on the rooftops, which may have formed a plaza. In later periods, large communal ovens appear to have been built on these rooftops. Over time, houses were renewed by partial demolition and rebuilding on a foundation of rubble, which was how the mound was gradually built up. As many as eighteen levels of settlement have been uncovered.[52]
As a part of ritual life, the people of Çatalhöyük buried their dead within the village.[50] Human remains have been found in pits beneath the floors and especially beneath hearths, the platforms within the main rooms, and beds. Bodies were tightly flexed before burial and were often placed inbaskets or wound and wrapped in reed mats. Disarticulated bones in some graves suggest that bodies may have been exposed in the open air for a time before the bones were gathered and buried. In some cases, graves were disturbed, and the individual's head removed from the skeleton. These heads may have been used in rituals, as some were found in other areas of the community. In a woman's grave,spinning whorls were recovered and in a man's grave,stone axes.[50] Someskulls were plastered and painted withochre to recreate faces, a custom more characteristic of Neolithic sites in Syria and NeolithicJericho than at sites closer by.
Detail of the mural showing the hind part of the aurochs, a deer and hunters
Vividmurals andfigurines are found throughout the settlement on interior and exterior walls. Distinctive clay figurines of women, notably theSeated Woman of Çatalhöyük, have been found in the upper levels of the site.[53] Although no identifiable temples have been found, the graves, murals, and figurines suggest that the people of Çatalhöyük had a religion rich in symbols. Rooms with concentrations of these items may have beenshrines or public meeting areas. Predominant images include men with erect phalluses, hunting scenes, red images of the now extinctaurochs (wild cattle) andstags, and vultures swooping down on headless figures.[47]Relief figures are carved on walls, such as of lionesses facing one another.
Heads of animals, especially of cattle, were mounted on walls. A painting of the village, with the twin mountain peaks ofHasan Dağ in the background,[54] is frequently cited as theworld's oldest map,[55] and the firstlandscape painting.[47] However, some archaeologists question this interpretation. Stephanie Meece, for example, argues that it is more likely a painting of a leopard skin instead of a volcano, and a decorative geometric design instead of a map.[56]
A feature of Çatalhöyük are its female figurines. Mellaart, the original excavator, argued that these carefully made figurines, carved and molded frommarble, blue and brownlimestone,schist, calcite,basalt,alabaster, and clay, represented afemale deity. Although a male deity existed as well, "statues of a femaledeity far outnumber those of the male deity, who moreover, does not appear to be represented at all after Level VI".[57] To date, eighteen levels have been identified. These figurines were found primarily in areas Mellaart believed to be shrines. The stately goddess seated on athrone flanked by two lionesses was found in a grain bin, which Mellaart suggests might have been a means of ensuring the harvest or protecting the food supply.[58]
Whereas Mellaart excavated nearly two hundred buildings in four seasons, the current excavator, Ian Hodder, spent an entire season excavating one building alone.[59] Hodder and his team, in 2004 and 2005, began to believe that the patterns suggested by Mellaart were false. They found one similar figurine, but the vast majority did not imitate theMother Goddess style that Mellaart suggested. Instead of a Mother Goddess culture, Hodder points out that the site gives little indication of amatriarchy orpatriarchy.[60]
There are full breasts on which the hands rest, and the stomach is extended in the central part. There is a hole in the top for the head which is missing. As one turns the figurine around one notices that the arms are very thin, and then on the back of the figurine one sees a depiction of either a skeleton or the bones of a very thin and depleted human. The ribs and vertebrae are clear, as are thescapulae and the main pelvic bones. The figurine can be interpreted in a number of ways – as a woman turning into an ancestor, as a woman associated with death, or as death and life conjoined. It is possible that the lines around the body represent wrapping rather than ribs. Whatever the specific interpretation, this is a unique piece that may force us to change our views of the nature of Çatalhöyük society and imagery. Perhaps the importance of female imagery was related to some special role of the female in relation to death as much as to the roles of mother and nurturer.[61]
In an article in theTurkish Daily News, Hodder is reported as denying that Çatalhöyük was a matriarchal society and quoted as saying "When we look at what they eat and drink and at their social statues, we see that men and women had the same social status. There was a balance of power. Another example is the skulls found. If one's social status was of high importance in Çatalhöyük, the body and head were separated after death. The number of female and male skulls found during the excavations is almost equal."[62] In another article in theHurriyet Daily News Hodder is reported to say "We have learned that men and women were equally approached".[63]
In a report in September 2009 on the discovery of around 2000 figurines Hodder is quoted as saying:
Çatalhöyük was excavated in the 1960s in a methodical way, but not using the full range of natural science techniques that are available to us today. Sir James Mellaart who excavated the site in the 1960s came up with all sorts of ideas about the way the site was organized and how it was lived in and so on ... We've now started working there since the mid 1990s and come up with very different ideas about the site. One of the most obvious examples of that is that Çatalhöyük is perhaps best known for the idea of the mothergoddess. But our work more recently has tended to show that in fact there is very little evidence of a mother goddess and very little evidence of some sort of female-based matriarchy. That's just one of the many myths that the modern scientific work is undermining.[64]
ProfessorLynn Meskell explained that while the original excavations had found only 200 figures, the new excavations had uncovered 2,000 figures, most of which depicted animals, and fewer than 5% of the figurines depicted women.[64]
Estonian folkloristUku Masing has suggested as early as in 1976, that Çatalhöyük was probably a hunting and gathering religion and the Mother Goddess figurine did not represent a female deity. He implied that perhaps a longer period of time was needed to develop symbols for agricultural rites.[65] His theory was developed in the paper "Some remarks on the mythology of the people of Catal Hüyük".[66]
Model of the neolithic settlement (7300 BC) of Catal Höyük
Çatalhöyük has strong evidence of anegalitarian society, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging toroyalty orreligious hierarchy for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal littlesocial distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found inPaleolithic cultures.[67][68] Children observed domestic areas. They learned how to perform rituals and how to build or repair houses by watching the adults make statues, beads, and other objects.[50]Çatalhöyük's spatial layout may be due to the close kin relations exhibited amongst the people. It can be seen, in the layout, that the people were "divided into two groups who lived on opposite sides of the town, separated by a gully." Furthermore, because no nearby towns were found from which marriage partners could be drawn, "this spatial separation must have marked two intermarrying kinship groups." This would help explain how a settlement so early on would become so large.[69]
Protective roof of the archeological site
In the upper levels of the site, it becomes apparent that the people of Çatalhöyük were honing skills in agriculture and the domestication of animals. Female figurines have been found within bins used for storage of cereals, such as wheat andbarley, and the figurines are presumed to be of a deity protecting the grain.Peas were also grown, andalmonds,pistachios, and fruit were harvested from trees in the surrounding hills.Sheep were domesticated and evidence suggests the beginning of cattledomestication as well. However,hunting continued to be a major source of food for the community.Pottery andobsidian tools appear to have been major industries; obsidian tools were probably both used and also traded for items such asMediterranean sea shells andflint fromSyria. Noting the lack of hierarchy andeconomic inequality, historian and anti-capitalist authorMurray Bookchin has argued that Çatalhöyük was an early example ofanarcho-communism.[70]
Conversely, a 2014 paper argues that the picture of Çatalhöyük is more complex and that while there seemed to have been an egalitarian distribution of cooking tools and some stone tools, unbrokenquern-stones and storage units were more unevenly distributed. Private possessions existed but shared tools also existed. It was also suggested that Çatalhöyük was becoming less egalitarian, with greater inter-generational wealth transmission.[71]
In 2023 a new state-of-the-art museum has opened on the site, constructed by the Konya municipality. In October 2024 a bookshop and cafe was added to the site. Non-Turkish visitors are charged five euros per person for entry. There are numerous visitor-activated information kiosks, some of which provide information in English as well as Turkish. Full information on all aspects of the various discoveries is available in eight rooms, including an underground reconstruction of a typical dwelling used by people of 90 centuries ago.[citation needed]
^[1] Çatalhöyük entry on the UNESCO World Heritage List site
^Hordecki, Jędrzej, "Why Did They Still Use the Tell?: An Analysis of Changes in Post-Chalcolithic Settlement at Çatalhöyük, Turkey", Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Vol. 2: Field Reports. Islamic Archaeology, edited by Adelheid Otto et al., 1st ed., Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 141–50, 2020
^Mellaart, James, and Roger Matthews, "Çatal Hüyük: the 1960s seasons", Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years’ Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, pp. 35-41, 1998
^[2] David Orton et al., A tale of two tells: dating the Çatalhöyük West Mound, Antiquity, vol. 92, iss. 363, pp. 620–639, June 2018
^Hodder, Ian, "Çatalhöyük: The Leopard Changes Its Spots. A Summary of Recent Work", Anatolian Studies, vol. 64, pp. 1–22, 2014
^J. Mellaart, "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, first preliminary report: 1961", Anatolian Studies, vol. 12, pp. 41–65, 1962
^J. Mellaart, "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, second preliminary report: 1962", Anatolian Studies, vol. 13, pp. 43–103, 1963
^[3]Mellaart, James, "Excavations at Çatal Höyük 1963", Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 19, pp. 43-49, 1963
^J. Mellaart, "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, third preliminary report: 1963", Anatolian Studies, vol. 14, pp. 39–119, 1964
^J. Mellaart, "Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, fourth preliminary report: at 1965", Anatolian Studies, vol. 16, pp. 15–191, 1966
^[4]Hodder, Ian, "Çatalhöyük in the context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic", Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36.1, pp. 105-120, 2007
^Hawkins, J. D., "The Fantasies of James Mellaart: Fabrications of an Anatolian Archaeologist", In The IOS Annual Volume 24, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2024
^[5]Zangger, Eberhard, "James Mellaart’s fantasies", Talanta: Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society. Vol. 50. 2018
^Kenneth Pearson and Patricia Connor, The Dorak affair, New York, Atheneum, 1968
^I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük, Anatolian Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 8–10, 1998
^I. Hodder, Getting to the Bottom of Thing: Çatalhöyük 1999, Anatolian Archaeology, vol. 5, pp. 4–7, 1999
^I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük, Anatolian Archaeology, vol. 8, pp. 5–7, 2002
^I. Hodder, A New Phase of Excavation at Çatalhöyük, Anatolian Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 9–11, 2003
^[6] Çatalhöyük: Excavations of a Neolithic Anatolian Höyük – Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2008
^Hodder, Ian, ed., "Çatalhöyük Excavations: The 2009-2017 Seasons", British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 2023ISBN978-1912090204
^Ian Hodder, "On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95", Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1996 (ISBN0-9519420-3-4)
^Hodder, Ian, "“If only those jaws could move”. A narrative of Building 1 at Çatalhöyük", TRACING TRANSITIONS & CONNECTING COMMUNITIES, pp. 41-52, 2025
^Biehl, Peter F., Jana Rogasch and Eva Rosenstock, "West Mound Excavations, Trench 5" Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2011, pp. 38–48, 2011
^Biehl, Peter F., Jana Rogasch and Eva Rosenstock, "West Mound Trench 5 Excavations 2012", Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2012, pp. 76–102, 2012
^Kwiatkowska, Monika, "Byzantine and Muslim Cemeteries at Çatalhöyük. An Outline", in Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia (Pihans 113), edited by T. Vorderstrasse and J. Roodenberg, pp. 129–138. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East, 2009
^[7]Marciniak, Arkadiusz, et al., Jędrzej Hordecki, "The excavations of the East Area at Çatalhöyük in the 2021 season", 2024
^Helbaek, Hans, "Textiles from Catal Huyuk", Archaeology, vol. 16, no. 1, 1963, pp. 39–46, 1963
^Burnham, Harold B., "Çatal Hüyük: The Textiles and Twined Fabrics", Anatolian Studies, vol. 15, pp. 169–74, 1965
^Bialor, Perry A., "The Chipped Stone Industry of Çatal Hüyük", Anatolian Studies, vol. 12, pp. 67–110, 1962
^Angel, J. Lawrence, "Early Neolithic Skeletons from Catal Hüyük: Demography and Pathology", Anatolian Studies, vol. 21, pp. 77–98, 1971
^Macqueen, J. G., "Secondary Burial at Çatal Hüyük", Numen, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 226–39, 1978
^Düring, Bleda S., "Burials in Context: The 1960s Inhumations of Çatalhöyük East", Anatolian Studies, vol. 53, pp. 1–15, 2003
^Meskell, Lynn, "A Society of Things: Animal Figurines and Material Scales at Neolithic Çatalhöyük", World Archaeology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 6–19, 2015
^abcdKleiner, Fred S.; Mamiya, Christin J. (2006).Gardner's Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective: Volume 1 (Twelfth ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 12–4.ISBN978-0-495-00479-0.
^Kuijt, Ian; Marciniak, Arkadiusz (2024). "How many people lived in the world's earliest villages? Reconsidering community size and population pressure at Neolithic Çatalhöyük".Journal of Anthropological Archaeology.74 101573.doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2024.101573.
^Noah Wiener (1 November 2013)."Çatalhöyük mural".Bible History Daily. Biblical Archaeology Society. Archived fromthe original on 5 November 2013.This Çatalhöyük mural is thought to represent a nearby volcanic eruption. New scientific evidence confirms a contemporaneous eruption at nearby Hasan Dağ.Alt URL
^Maynes, Mary Jo; Waltner, Ann (2012).The Family: A World History. New York City: Oxford University Press. p. 8.ISBN978-0-19-530476-3.
^Bookchin, Murray.The Rise of Urbanisation and Decline of Citizenship. pp. 18–22.
^Wright, Katherine I. Karen. "Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 33 (2014): 1–33.
Bailey, Douglass.Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. New York: Routledge, 2005 (hardcover,ISBN0-415-33151-X; paperback,ISBN0-415-33152-8).
Balter, Michael.The Goddess and the Bull: Çatalhöyük: An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization. New York: Free Press, 2004 (hardcover,ISBN0-7432-4360-9); Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2006 (paperback,ISBN1-59874-069-5). A highly condensed version was published in The Smithsonian Magazine, May 2005.
Dural, Sadrettin. "Protecting Catalhoyuk: Memoir of an Archaeological Site Guard." Contributions by Ian Hodder. Translated by Duygu Camurcuoglu Cleere. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2007.ISBN978-1-59874-050-9.
Göktürk, E. H., Hillegonds, D. J., Lipschutz, M. E. and Hodder, I., "Accelerator mass spectrometry dating at Çatalhöyük", Radiochimica Acta, vol. 90, no. 7, pp. 407-410, 2002
Hodder, Ian. "Women and Men at Çatalhöyük", Scientific American Magazine, January 2004 (update V15:1, 2005).
Hodder, I. (2014). "Çatalhöyük excavations: the 2000-2008 seasons.", British Institute at Ankara, Monumenta Archaeologica 29,ISBN978-1-898249-29-0
Hodder, Ian.Twenty-Five Years of Research at Çatalhöyük, Near Eastern Archaeology; Chicago, vol. 83, iss. 2, pp. 72–29, June 2020
Hodder, Ian.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London; New York: Thames & Hudson, 2006 (hardcover,ISBN0-500-05141-0). (The UK title of this work isÇatalhöyük: The Leopard's Tale.)
Hodder, Ian; Bogaard, Amy; Engel, Claudia; Pearson, Jessica; Wolfhagen, Jesse., "Spatial autocorrelation analysis and the social organisation of crop and herd management at Çatalhöyük", Anatolian Studies, London, vol. 72, pp. 1–15, 2022
Mellaart, James.Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson, 1967; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.Online at archive.org
[8]Meskell, L. M., "Refiguring the corpus at Çatalhöyük", Material beginnings: a global prehistory of figurative representation, pp. 143-56, 2007
Pearson, Jessica, and Lynn Meskell, "Isotopes and Images: Fleshing out Bodies at Çatalhöyük", Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 461–82, 2015
[9]Rast-Eicher, Antoinette, Sabine Karg, and Lise Bender Jørgensen, "The use of local fibres for textiles at Neolithic Çatalhöyük", Antiquity 95.383, pp. 1129-1144, 2021
..jpg)
