Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Ch
- 1. ÇATAL HÜYÜK MEGHAN LUCE DECEMBER 4 2012
- 2. PROJECT • Book review of James Mellaarts “Catal Huyuk, a Neolithic Town in Anatolia” • Published in 1962 following initial excavations.
- 3. CATAL HÜYÜK
- 4. ÇATAL HÜYÜK • Estimates for settlement are between 7250-6700 BC, and abandonment around 5600 BC
- 5. EXCAVATIONS
- 7. CATAL HÜYUK
- 8. BUILDINGS
- 9. SHRINES
- 11. SOURCES • Mellaart, James. Catal Huyuk; A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. Print. • http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99072/Ca talhuyuk • http://www.ancientmysteries.eu/mysteries/turkije-catal- huyuk/turkey-catal-huyuk-mystery.html • http://arts.unomaha.edu/art/sowell/art4720/catalhuy.ht ml
Notas del editor
- I did my project on “CatalHuyuk, a Neolithic Town in Anatolia” By James Mellaart, CatalHuyuk is regarded as one of many first known developments of urban life along with Jericho & Jordan.
- Before the discoveries of CatalHoyuk, Mercin,Hacilar- the Anatolian Plateau was believed to not have Neolithic habitationDiscovered in 1958 and the first excavations were conducted over 3 seasons from 1961-1963The book “CatalHuyuk, a Neolithic Town in Anatolia” is about the initial archaeological work done at CatalHoyuk during that timeHe excavated the site from 1961-1965, but was later expelled from Turkey after being suspected of dealing antiquities on the black market.The book covers details of the site, description of methods used and objects foundPicture shows early excavations at CatalHoyuk conducted by James Mellaart
- The main mound is oval in shape:450 meters in length and 275 meters in width, raised 17.5 meters above the present l level of the plain, and covers about 32 acres Mound built across the river shows the transition from Neolithic to early Chalcolithic settlement
- Çatal HüyÜkislocated 32 miles from Konya, a city in South-Eastern, TurkeyThere is a rage of dates for settlement at CatalHoyuk, Estimates are between 6500BC, and abandonment around 5600 BCThe site was occupied for atleast 700 years and was abandoned without signs of violence or deliberate destruction.Has been recognized internationally because of the large size, the density of occupation, the uniformity of planning, well preserved paintings and artifacts.
- Excavations were concentrated in an area of about an acre on the exposed western side of the slope.Horizontal digging was used instead of vertical to preserve buildings and wall paintingCarbon 14 to date the site using grain samples, plaster, wood (from buildings and used as fuel) and ashes from hearthsExcavated a 50 food deposit, with 12 successive building levels represented (Mellaart suggests this was 12 different cities, not phases or repairs)Upper levels of the site were disturbed by late Iron Age & Hellenistic period brick pits.
- Mellaart notes that the builders of CatalHoyuk were aware of the necessity for planning and orderly settlement.There was standardized brick sizes, plans for houses & shrines, heights of wall panels, doorways, hearths and ovens and are believed to have used hand and foot measurements.Best evidence of citing planning are from the best preserved buildings of levels 2-7Each building was had its own walls but were ‘hemmed’ in by others- which provided greater stability to the buildings and prevent extensive damage from earthquakes, flooding and climatic changes.
- At the time of the book, the first excavations were done on 1 acre (about 1/13th of the site)They found houses, shrines, and store rooms but no workshops or public building, so they are expected to be at another part of the site. The quarter on the west slope that was excavated is expected to be residential or priestly quarters.No city wall was built for defence, but instead built a solid row of houses and storerooms that surrounded the side- the rooms were only accessible from the roof and would find themselves in a closed room without a ladder- but during occupation of the site there is no signed of sack or massacre.
- Buildings used timber frames within the mudbrick constructionAverage room size 25-27 metersThe dead were buried below platforms, men buried under smaller corner platforms & women and children were buried under main platforms. The # of platforms indicated the size of the family.Most houses had a storeroom or atleast clay grain bins, coiled baskets or skins
- Decoration in the sanctuaries suggest the buildings were used for all purposes, but lacking provisions for sacrifice (alters, tables for bleeding, pits for blood, or caches of bone). Because of construction and lack of data it is reasonable to believe slaughtering was done in a different location and then brought to CatalHoyukUsually 2-4 houses per shrine, depending on size
- As noted before the site was abandoned with no major signs of destruction, but shrines were defaced. Did the people of CatalHoyuk plan to resettle at both mounds?Look into recent research about abandonment and new mound, if slaughter sites, wells or new data has been foundHave workshops been found?