Uniike the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines which

frequently made up the grave goods inventory, the figurines from Catalhöyük and

Hacilar were found inside rooms, oceasionally near hearths. Indeed, at Catalhöyük

Only one marble figurine of a woman holding up her breasts, discovered in 2004 in

Building 42 of level VII, appears to have been placed intentionally in a grave. ' The

Use and meaning of these figurines is not clear as yet. Some scholars are even apt

To Interpret these pieces as representations of deities, ’ while others attribute to

Them a solely magic function. There is a number of possible interpretations, but

Cf. Hodder 2005: 21: “Perhaps the iraportance of female imagery was related fco some special

Role of the female in relation to death as much as fco the roies of mother and nurturer.” See also

Meskeli 2008: 382t

See now Schoop 2005: 154 with references.

67 Excavations at Höyücek yielded a considerable assemblage of “mother goddess figurines and

idols of baked clay,* Dum 1999: 1781 & Figs 22ff. CI also Sharp Joukowsky.1996: 103; Schoop

2005: 168.

Yildinm — Gates 2007: 280.

69 Mellaart 1962: 57; 1963a: 82ff.; 1964: 73£f.; 1967: 76ff.: 1990. Mellaart (1970:.170) speeulated

that the female statuettes from ^Jatalhöyük and Hacilar VI show the full ränge of aspects of the

goddess worshiped in Neolithic Anatolia: "... the maiden, the mature matron, the pregnant mother,

A full-breasted nursing mother. the mother with her c’hild and the Mistress of Animais, the

goddess of nature and wild life.” Meilaart's ‘deity’ Interpretation mefc with broader actieptance;

See, e.g,, Urbin-Choffrav 1987; Voigt 1991; 2000.

18

1. Pbehistobic Änatolia

J agree w jth Naomi Hamilton that “these do not include their use in organized

Religion. Rather, the anthropomorphic figurines are likely to have been used for

magical, non religious ritual and/or votive sources,”' 0 Their depositional context Sup

Ports the idea that all figurines, induding the anthropomorphic ones, “were circu-

iated rather than kept and guarded (...) they may have operated not in some sepa

rate sphere of ‘religion’ or ‘ancestor worship’ but, rather, in the practice and

Negotiation of everyday life.” 71 Some of them could also have been used as amulets,

A Suggestion borne out by the later development of anthropomorphic art in the

Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age.

Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age

Ln the last 3500 years of its prehistory, archaeologically subdivided into the Chalco-

72

lithic (c. 5700-3100 BC) and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3100-2000 BC), " Asia Mi

Nor witnessed important social changes, undoubtedly reflected in the inhabitants’

Beliefe and their attitude toward the dead. Progressing social stratification led to

A gradual development of a ruling dass which included priests. Architecturally dis-

Tinct ruler’s residentes started to be located, like temples as houses of the gods, on

Hills in the highest part of a town. It seems, however, that in Western, Southern and

central Änatolia, unlike the centers on the Upper Euphrates (Arslantepe-Malatya,

See below), in Mesopotamia and Syria, sanctuaries traditionally formed part of

A dwelling complex until the end of the third millennium BC. Separate sacral build-

Ings did not begin to be erected before the second millennium BC. Among the

Earliest are two temples from the Assyrian Colorty period in Cappadocia, excavated

in the palace complex at Kültepe/Kanes, 21 km northeast of Kayseri (see 2.1).

Intensified urbanization processes in Änatolia during the Early Bronze Age led

To the emergence of a System of city-states governed by local rulers and this caused

Change in the local pantheons. New population groups -- the Indo-Europeans -

may have started Streaming into Änatolia from the Balkans already in the Chalco

Lithic, The a rrival of the native Speakers of Common Anatolien (who afterwards, over

Hamilton 2005; 208. For a broader discussion, see Lesure 2002.