Later, in the ninth millennium BC, in the Taurus piedmoni and the river valleys of

the Upper Euphrates and Tigris tributaries (Nevali Qori, 14 Qayönü Tepesi, 1 Cafer

Höyük 16), grew from this local tradition evidenced by the discoveries at Göbekli Tepe.

Very early, Neolithic settlement spread also to the Southern part of the Anato

Lian Plateau as indicated by Pre-Pottery Neolithic material in the oldest layers (IX-

VIII) at Hacilar some 25 km Southwest of Burdur, 1 ' Asjikh Höyük about 25 km south-

East of Aksaray, 18 and in the five earliest Pre-XIIE-A levels at the most famous of

19

Neolithic sites in the region, Qatalhöyük, lying 37 km southeast of Konya. " Later

layers, however, are from the ceramic phase which is dated in Qatalhöyük from the

20 1

beginning of the seventh millennium through c. 6200 to 5900 BC.'

The strong bond between the living and the dead was expressed in burial rites.

The hunters and gatherers from Göbekli Tepe huilt stone structures for their dead

(see below), while in the later Neolithic villages the dead were buried beneath house

Floors, evidently indicating a continued and important presence in the life of their

Schmidt 1998; 2000; 2001; 2004; 2006a; 2006b; cf. also Yildinm - Gates 2007: 282.

Hauptmann 1988; 1991-1992; 1993; 2002; 2007.

16 Gambe! - Braidwood 1983; Özhek 1988; M. Özdogan - A. Özdogan 1990; 1998.

Cauvin et al. 1991. f

Mellaart 1958; 1959a; 1960; 1961; 1970. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic phase at Hacilar is very

Tmcerfcain, however; see Duru 1989, and now Schoop 2005: 174, 178f. For other Pre-Pottery

Neolithic sites in central Anatolia, see Gerard 2002.

Esin et aL 1991; Esin - Harmanakaya 1999. Aeeramic levels dated from c. 8400 to 7400 BC.

Mellaart 1962; 1963a: 1964: 1965; 1986; 1967. Renewed fieidwork began in 1993: Hodder (ed.)

A: 2005b; 2005c; 2007.

20 For absolute dafcing at Qatalhöyük, see Cessford et aL 2005.

Neolithic 9

Descendants. There is archaeological evidenee of funerary rituals and feasts during

the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and southeastern Anatolia. 2 ' 1 Even so, poor

And little diversified grave goods are proof that the Neolithic social ranking process-

Es had not yet taken on momentum. The dead appear to have been treated as

a community of all the ancestors of the village’s inhabitants. At Catalhöyük it was

Observed that the same divisions which existed among the living concemed the dead.

Lan Hodder and Craig Cessford have noted that “different types of people were

Buried beneath certain platforms, that different plasters were used for different plat-

forms.... Because of the burial associations between different types of people and

Different parts of the house, it seems reasonable to assume that different people may

Have sat, eaten, and slept in different parts of the house.” 23

The secondary form of burial, typieal of the period and shared by the early Neo

Lithic cultures of the Near East, must have had its origins in the pre-Neolithic tradition.

The skeleton or just the skull was buried after the excamation, which may have

Taken place outside the village, possibly with the aid of vultures. One of the reliefs

from Göbekli Tepe depicts a headless man who is associated with a bird (vulture?)

Directly to his left. A stone statue of a vulture (?), 50 cm long, was discovered in the

Village of Nevali Qori, which is a few hundred years younger. The tradition appears

To have lasted a few millennia, into the ceramic Neolithic. Murals from house 8 at Qatal

höyük, represented in successive layers VIII and VII, depict vultures tearing apart

Headless bodies. The vultures’ role in. the burial rites must have accorded thern.

Special treatment and they must have been undoubtedly connected with magic symbol-

Ism. It cannot be excluded that these birds had their place in the beliefs of the times.

Cf. Goring-Morris 2000; Verhoeven 2002; Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris -- Kolska Horwitz

With references.

For the Neolithic, there is common acceptance of some degree of social ranking, if ofteil cross-