Content uploaded by Scott Donald Haddow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Scott Donald Haddow on Jul 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bioarchaeology International
Volume 1, Numbers 1–2: 52–71
DOI: 10.5744/bi.2017.1002
Copyright © University of Florida Press
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices
in the Neolithic Near East: Recent Insights from
Çatalhöyük, Turkey
Scott D. Haddowa* and Christopher J. Knüsela
aDe la Préhistoire à l'Actuel: Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université de Bordeaux,
France
*Correspondence to: Scott Haddow, Université de Bordeaux, De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel: Culture, Environne-
ment, et Anthropologie (PACEA), UMR 5199 PACEA, Bâtiment B8, Allée Georoy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023,
Pessac Cedex, France 33615
e-mail: scott .haddow@gmail .com
ABSTRACT e retrieval and re-deposition of elements of the human skeleton, especially the skull (i.e., cranium and man-
dible), is a common feature of Neolithic Near Eastern funerary practices. A complicated sequence of suboor
inhumations involving both primary and secondary burial treatments at Çatalhöyük demonstrates the range of
funerary practices encountered at the site and elsewhere in the Neolithic Near East. is particular sequence of
burials culminated in a stratigraphically veried case of post-inhumation skull removal from a primary intra-
mural inhumation. However, the retrieval of crania and skulls from primary burials cannot account for the
total number of re-deposited crania and skulls found in a variety of depositional contexts at the site. Based on
increasing evidence for an extended interval between death and burial at Çatalhöyük, the removal and circula-
tion of skulls from unburied bodies as part of a multi-stage funerary rite is proposed as another method for ob-
taining them, operating in parallel with their retrieval from primary intramural burials. ese divergent
practices, and the range of contexts from which secondarily deposited skeletal elements are recovered, reect
multiple funerary treatments and intentions likely tied to social distinctions that remain poorly understood. In
order to begin to fully understand the social and cosmological meaning(s) of the Neolithic “skull cult,” however,
we must rst distinguish between what are essentially equinal processes in the archaeological record. is work
will involve careful attention to the spatiotemporal contexts in which isolated skeletal elements are found, in
addition to meticulous osteological and taphonomic analyses of the bones themselves.
Keywords: Neolithic; secondary treatment; funerary practices; skull retrieval; Anatolia
Le prélèvement et le dépôt secondaire des éléments du squelette humain, et notamment de la tête osseuse (i.e.
crâne et mandibule), sont des caractéristiques courante des gestes funéraires du Néolithique au Proche Orient.
À Çatalhöyûk, une séquence complexe d’inhumations primaires et secondaires sous plancher démontre la vari-
abilité des pratiques funéraires rencontrées sur ce site et ailleurs pour le Néolithique du Proche Orient. Cette
séquence funéraire spéci que a en particulier abouti à un cas stratigraphiquement attesté de prélèvement post-in-
humation de la tête osseuse dans une sépulture primaire située intra-muros. Toutefois, le prélèvement des
crânes et des têtes osseuses ne peut pas expliquer à lui seul le nombre total des crânes en situation secondaire
mis au jour dans diérents contextes de dépôt. Au vu des nombreux indices d’une période prolongée entre la
mort et l’enterrement du cadavre à Çatalhöyük, le prélèvement et la circulation des têtes osseuses de corps non
ensevelis, dans le cadre d’un rituel funéraire à plusieurs étapes, est proposé comme une alternative pour les ob-
tenir, s’opérant en parallèle de prélèvements dans des sépultures primaires. Ces pratiques divergentes et la
gamme des dépôts secondaires dans lesquelles les éléments squelettiques sont retrouvés reètent des traitements
funéraires et des intentions multiples qui sont probablement liés à une diérentiation sociale qui n'est pas encore
Received 29 July 2016
Revision 11 January 2017
Accepted 19 January 2017
Haddow and Knüsel 53
One of the most striking features of Neolithic Near
Eastern funerary practices is a seeming preoccupa-
tion with skeletal elements that comprise the head.
Such practices are commonly manifested in the ar-
chaeological record as deposits of isolated crania
(lacking mandibles) and sometimes full skulls (in-
cluding associated mandibles) found in a variety of
secondary depositional contexts. Researchers in the
Levant and Anatolia have long suspected that, rather
than being removed from a body prior to interment,
crania and mandibles were obtained from primary
inhumation burials, based on the absence of these el-
ements in otherwise complete primary inhumations
(Andrews and Bello 2006; Bienert 1991; Cauvin 1978,
1994; Erdal 2015; Kanjou et al. 2013; Kenyon 1953, 1956;
Kenyon and Holland 1981; Kuijt 2000, 2001, 2008;
Rollefson 2000; Santana et al. 2012, 2015; Stordeur and
Khawam 2007; Wright 1988). Belfer-Cohen (1988) ob-
serves that the practice of cranial retrieval in the Levant
dates back to the Natuan at Hayonim Cave, Upper
Galilee, and to the PPNA at Netiv Hagdud in the Jor-
dan Valley. In Anatolia, the earliest evidence for the
practice derives from the Epipaleolithic occupation
layers at Pınarbaşı (Baird et al. 2013). In some instances,
though, these identications appear to suer from a
problem common to many archaeological investiga-
tions, namely, the diculty in distinguishing between
disturbed burials resulting from successive inhuma-
tions and the intentional retrieval and re-deposition
of skeletal elements (see Haddow et al. 2016 for dis-
cussion). e manipulation of elements of the human
cranium and mandible—or, in some cases, the cranium
alone1—has implications for the reconstruction of
social structure and a range of funerary practices
linked to ritual and social interactions in the past.
1. Because of the incorrect use of the terms “cranium” and
“skull” (i.e., cranium and mandible) as synonymous in many
publications to date, at least two dierent past actions have be-
come muddled: one involving collection of crania alone, and
the other involving crania with associated—and perhaps still
articulated—mandibles (see Boulestin 2015; Knüsel 2014). In
order to avoid such confusion in the future, it is best to rely
solely on standard skeletal element terms as indicated by
the Terminologia Anatomica (Federative International Pro-
gramme on Anatomical Terminologies 2011) to describe and
analyze skeletonized remains.
At the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in Central Ana-
tolia, the collection, curation, and re-deposition of
crania and skulls, in addition to elements of the infra-
cranial skeleton, is observed in a variety of archae-
ological contexts. In this paper, a complex sequence
of suboor intramural burials from a single location
serves as the basis for an exploration of the nature of
skull retrieval and other secondary funerary practices
at Çatalhöyük. Within this sequence we have identied
a case of post-inhumation skull retrieval, although
other sources for isolated crania at Çatalhöyük must
have existed, because the overall number of primary
burials with evidence for cranial removal cannot ac-
count for the large number of isolated crania recov-
ered from a wide range of depositional contexts on
site. ese diverse contexts likely reect an array of
social meanings and intentions that are potentially
obscured when the focus of research is limited to sec-
ondary manipulations of skeletal elements of the
head alone.
Burial Practices at Çatalhöyük
Çatalhöyük is a Neolithic settlement located in
south-central Turkey (Fig. 1) dating from roughly
7100 to 6000 cal B.C. (Bayliss et al. 2015). e site is
renowned for its large size and exceptional preserva-
tion, as well as its densely packed mudbrick houses,
elaborate symbolic assemblages, and intramural burial
practices (Hodder 1996, 2000, 2005, 2013a, 2013b).
Beginning with James Mellaart’s work (1961–1965)
and continuing with Ian Hodder’s current research
project (1993–present), excavations at the site have
produced vital information that has improved our
understanding of early settled life in the Neolithic of
Central Anatolia as well as the wider Near East. Since
the current research project began, more than ve
hundred individuals from primary burial contexts
have been excavated and recorded. In addition, many
more individuals represented by disarticulated skele-
tal elements have been recovered from secondary and
tertiary (i.e., non-burial) depositional contexts. e
human remains from Çatalhöyük, as well as their
burial contexts, have provided numerous insights into
the lives of the prehistoric inhabitants of the site, their
entièrement comprise. An de commencer à comprendre la ou les signications sociales et cosmologiques du
«cultes des têtes», nous devons en premier lieu faire la distinction entre des processus qui se caractérisent par
une équinalité dans l’enregistrement archéologique. Ce travail nécessitera de porter une grande attention aux
contextes spatio-temporels d’où proviennent les restes squelettiques, en plus d’analyses ostéologiques et tapho-
nomiques minutieuses des ossements eux-mêmes.
Mots-clés: Néolithique; traitement secondaire; pratiques funéraires; prélèvement crânien; Anatolie
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
54
social structure, and their funerary practices (e.g.,
Andrews et al. 2005; Boz and Hager 2013; Haddow
etal. 2016; Hillson et al. 2013; Larsen et al. 2013, 2015;
Molleson et al. 2005; Nakamura and Meskell 2013;
Pilloud and Larsen 2011).
Most burials at Çatalhöyük are found within do-
mestic buildings, typically underneath the north and
east platforms of the main room, although the buri-
als of neonates and infants are found in more variable
locations, sometimes beneath oors in side rooms or
near hearths and ovens (Andrews et al. 2005; Boz and
Hager 2013). In many platforms, successive intercut-
ting primary burials result in a substantial commin-
gling of skeletal remains. In keeping with other sites
in the Neolithic Near East, the postmortem manipu-
lation of human remains, particularly the skulls and
crania of adults of both sexes as well as sub-adults, is
a characteristic feature of the funerary practices ob-
served at Çatalhöyük (Boz and Hager 2014; Hodder
2005:24). Evidence for the collection, curation, and
re-deposition of skulls or crania at Çatalhöyük in-
cludes the occurrence of primary skeletons lacking
skulls (although sometimes only the cranium is lack-
ing) and the presence of isolated crania (and some-
times skulls) in a range of depositional contexts.
Here we examine a complicated sequence of sub-
oor intramural burials within a single Neolithic
house at Çatalhöyük. An account of the variable
treatment of human remains observed in this partic-
ular series of burials serves to highlight the variation
in funerary practices frequently encountered else-
where at Çatalhöyük. e sequence of burials de-
scribed culminated in a stratigraphically veried case
of post-inhumation skull removal from a primary
skeleton. Researchers at other Neolithic sites in the
Near East have oen surmised that skulls and crania
were acquired in this manner (e.g., Kuijt 2000; Stordeur
2015), but very rarely has direct stratigraphic evidence
been presented (see Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007
for one example). Our ability to document and inter-
pret funerary behaviors at Çatalhöyük has greatly in-
creased with the aid of computer- assisted recording
methods, especially Structure from Motion 3D re-
cording techniques (for examples, see Berggren et al.
2015; Wilhelmson and Dell’Unto 2015). e use of this
technology in the present case permitted the identi-
cation of a reopened grave, despite not being able to
identify the disturbance created by this intervention
at the time of excavation. is intervention le the
hyoid and ossied thyroid cartilage, which are linked
by so tissue, ligaments, and tendons, to the mandi-
ble in the grave in correct anatomical position, evi-
dence which substantiates that the cranium and
mandible were originally present in the grave when the
body was initially interred. We then present a review
of the diverse archaeological contexts in which “head-
less” bodies and isolated crania and skulls are found
at Neolithic Çatalhöyük; nally, we discuss what these
diering contexts might mean in terms of how and
why skulls and sometimes crania were collected.
“Heads” in the Neolithic Near East
e retrieval, curation, and re-deposition of elements
of human “heads”—either the entire skull or simply
the cranium—is a widely reported feature of Near
Eastern Neolithic funerary practices (Benz 2010; Bie-
nert 1991; Bocquentin et al. 2016). ese have been
found in a variety of contexts, including middens and
other extramural contexts (e.g., Baird et al. 2016), as
well as within houses and storage spaces, oen in
groups (Benz 2010; Goring-Morris 2000; Kanjou et al.
2013; Kuijt 2000). While some researchers have argued
that this practice is a form of head-hunting, likely from
dead enemies (Testart 2008, 2009), the traditional
Figure 1. Map of Turkey showing location of Çatalhöyük.
Haddow and Knüsel 55
Figure 2. Primary burial of an old adult female with plastered skull
(reconstruction by Kathryn Killackey; source: Çatalhöyük Research
Project).
Figure 3. Isolated mandible with traces of red pigment and plaster
covering the anterior dentition recovered from Building 89.
view holds that skull collecting in the Neolithic re-
ects a form of ancestor veneration, potentially asso-
ciated with emerging sedentism and control of local
resources (Bienert 1991; Cauvin 1978, 1994; Goren
etal. 2001; Kenyon 1956). More recently, however, as
evidence mounts that the practice was not reserved
strictly for elder, primarily male members of society
and that the manner in which skulls were manipulated
varies both within and between sites as well as through
time, researchers have begun to question a one-size-
ts-all interpretative model (Benz 2010; Bonogofsky
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Croucher 2006; Özbek 2009;
Verhoeven 2002). Kuijt (2000, 2001, 2008) and Goring-
Morris (2000), for example, have argued that the cir-
culation of crania or skulls and other secondary
funerary treatments helped to maintain social cohe-
sion and relieve societal tensions within Neolithic
communities through collective ritual practices and
the creation of shared social memory. More recently,
Santana et al. (2012, 2015) have highlighted an alterna-
tive range of intentions potentially reected in similar
practices observed at Tell Qarassa North, Syria, in-
cluding denigration, negation, and indierence. Lastly,
Schmandt-Besserat (2013) suggests that individual
identities were not a factor in the selection of skulls
for secondary treatments, which may have involved a
variety of ritual purposes including necromancy, div-
ination, and apotropaic protection against evil.
At several Neolithic sites in the Levant, crania
over-modeled with plaster have been discovered, of
which the best known are from Jericho in Palestine
(Kenyon 1953) and ‘Ain Ghazal in Jordan (Rollefson
2000). Apart from one example from Jericho
(Schmandt-Besserat 2013; Strouhal 1973) and addi-
tional specimens from Beisamoun (Ferembach and
Lechevallier 1973), Tell Ramad (Ferembach 1969,
1970), Tell Aswad (Stordeur and Khawam 2007; Stor-
deur et al. 2006) and Tell Qarassa North (Santana etal.
2012), the majority of plastered specimens from the
Levant are represented solely by crania (Bonogofsky
2001; Goren et al. 2001). In Anatolia, however, plas-
tered skulls (i.e., cranium and mandible) predomi-
nate, for example, among the adult specimens from
Köşk Höyük in Central Anatolia (Bonogofsky 2005).
Uniquely at Çatalhöyük, a plastered skull (Fig. 2) with
modeled facial features and decorated with red ochre
was found clutched in the upper limbs of an old adult
(50+ years of age at death) female primary burial (see
Boz and Hager 2013:424; Boz and Hager 2014). Replas-
tering and repainting around the right orbit suggest
that the skull had been kept aboveground for some
time before it was eventually interred with the adult
female (Boz and Hager 2004). In addition, an isolated
mandible with traces of plaster and red pigment was
recovered from a post retrieval pit in Building 89
during the 2012 excavation season (Knüsel et al. 2012).
is mandible, attributed to an old adult female, may
have been associated with a similarly plastered cra-
nium, but this possibility cannot be veried (Fig. 3).
Despite only a single conrmed example to date of
a plastered skull found at Çatalhöyük, there are many
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
56
more cases of isolated crania (and occasionally skulls),
some decorated with red pigments such as ochre/
hematite or cinnabar (mercury sulde). e majority of
recovered isolated crania, however, are undecorated.
Unlike other Near Eastern Neolithic sites, caches of
crania are extremely rare. Instead, complete, isolated
crania at Çatalhöyük are oen found in association
with primary burials. Highly fragmented crania have
also been recovered from middens, post-abandonment
building in-lls, and other non-burial contexts. A focus
on the head is also evident across other media, includ-
ing wall paintings, plastered animal installations, and
anthropomorphic gurines with dowel holes for re-
movable heads (Meskell 2008; Meskell and Nakamura
2005). Meskell (2008:374) refers to this preoccupation
as “headedness”: “a particular tension surrounding
heads, head removal and circulation, and the post-
cranial body.” is idée xe has also been noted by
other researchers in the Neolithic Near East (e.g.,
Schmandt-Besserat 1997, 1998; Talalay 2004), while
Chapman (2000, 2010) detects a similar relationship
between fragmented bodies and objects in prehistoric
southeast Europe.
As noted in previous studies, there are several in-
stances of primary inhumations at Çatalhöyük miss-
ing crania and mandibles and, in at least one instance,
bearing cut marks on the atlas (C1) vertebra (Andrews
et al. 2005:269, Figs. 11.9 and 11.10). However, a new
and more detailed study of cut marks on human re-
mains, currently under way at Çatalhöyük, reveals
additional evidence for bodily dismemberment or de-
eshing using stone tools. While cut marks associ-
ated with decapitation have been observed on cervical
vertebrae at Near Eastern Neolithic sites such as Tell
Qaramel in Syria (Kanjou et al. 2013) and Çayönü in
Anatolia (Yilmaz 2010, cited in Erdal 2015), these oc-
currences are rare. e presence of cut marks may in-
dicate that more than a single intention is at play in
postmortem manipulations of the skull; it may also
shed light on the state of the corpse at the time the
cranium and mandible were targeted.
At Çatalhöyük, evidence for the retention and pos-
sible display of some isolated crania or skulls occurs
with the observation that many of those that were
re-deposited are oen weathered, crushed at, and
have lost their single-rooted anterior teeth and por-
tions of the facial skeleton and cranial base. eir con-
dition supports the argument that such specimens had
been kept aboveground for some time (i.e., presumably
long enough to skeletonize completely and dry out)
before they were eventually reburied and crushed by
the weight of the grave ll. is state contrasts with
the majority of individuals in primary depositions at
Çatalhöyük (presumably buried in a largely eshed
condition), where the cranial vault typically maintains
its shape and the single-rooted teeth are still in place.
One of the main diculties in studying postmor-
tem manipulations of crania and other skeletal ele-
ments at Çatalhöyük is the frequent occurrence of
highly commingled skeletal remains beneath house
platforms as a result of successive intercutting inter-
ments. As such, dierentiating between the intentional
targeting of skeletal elements within a primary burial
and unintentional disturbances of earlier interments
by subsequent inhumations is oen problematic
(Haddow et al. 2016), although it is likely that the in-
habitants of Neolithic Çatalhöyük used the digging
of new graves as an opportunity to retrieve bones
from earlier burials. By taking a more conservative
approach than that of previous studies at Çatalhöyük
(e.g., Boz and Hager 2013), we have identied 12 cases
of intentional skull retrieval (represented by “head-
less” primary burials) and 3 more of cranial retrieval
only (a previous analysis identied 14 cases in total
[Pilloud et al. 2016], but an additional individual has
been identied since then). Furthermore, 10 isolated
crania and 6 skulls from secondary depositional con-
texts and at least 43 individuals represented by crania
and/or mandibles from tertiary (i.e., non-burial) con-
texts have been recovered. e following discussion
of burials from Building 129 serves as a starting point
for a discussion of the variable patterning of skeletal
element retrieval at Çatalhöyük.
The Building 129 “Skull Retrieval Pit”
Building 129 is located in the North Area of the site
and is attributed to Level North H (preliminarily
dated 6400–6000 cal B.C.). e burials discussed here
were located in Space 77, the eastern area of the cen-
tral room (Tung 2014). is area corresponds to the
location of the east and northeast platforms—the
most common location of suboor interments at
Çatalhöyük (Boz and Hager 2013). Four discrete
burial sequences (Fig. 4) were excavated here during
the 2012 and 2015 seasons. ese represent a mini-
mum of 10 individuals (based on the number of cra-
nia recovered), 5 of which were found in a primary or
primary disturbed burial context. We focus primar-
ily here on the southernmost sequence of interments,
which concluded with the digging of a retrieval pit
targeting the skull of a primary inhumation.
Feature 3643
Feature 3643 represents the primary disturbed burial
of a child (8 years +/- 2 years of age at death), Sk. 19451
(Fig. 4). is burial appears to be the earliest in the
southern sequence of interments. Only the skull, cer-
vical, and superior-most thoracic vertebrae and asso-
ciated ribs were in articulation; the remainder of the
skeleton was found scattered throughout the lls of
Haddow and Knüsel 57
Figure 4. Plan of Building 129 showing locations of individual burial features.
subsequent Features 3645 and 3686. Given the labile
nature of the cervical vertebrae that were found in
situ, this individual was likely disturbed early in the
process of decomposition and its remains scattered
by subsequent burials in this location. Feature 3643
appears to have been partially truncated at its west-
ern end by the later grave cut for Feature 3645.
e incomplete, disarticulated remains of a neo-
nate were found in the grave ll of Feature 3643. e
bones of this individual may derive from an earlier
burial in this location that was subsequently disturbed
by later interments. However, given that this individ-
ual is represented solely by cranial elements, as well as
the right scapula and humerus, it likely represents a
secondary re-deposition of skeletal remains at the
time Sk. 19451 was interred—no other skeletal elements
potentially associated with this individual were found
in any of the subsequent grave lls in this sequence.
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
58
Figure 5. Feature 3645, Sk. 20457: disturbed primary burial of a
middle adult male.
Figure 6. Feature 3686, Sk. 20430: disturbed primary burial of a
middle adult male with missing skull.
Figure 7. Skull retrieval pit Feature 3639 lined with secondary
re-deposited crania and infracranial remains.
Feature 3645
Feature 3645 contained the primary disturbed burial
of a middle adult male, Sk. 20457. Only the feet, ossa
coxae, forearms, and hands were found articulated
and in situ (Fig. 5). e rest of the skeleton appears to
have been disinterred when the grave cut for the sub-
sequent interment of Sk. 20430 (Feature 3686; see be-
low) was dug. Isolated skeletal elements found in the
ll of Feature 3686 and also the ll of the later cut,
Feature 3639, likely belong to Sk. 20457. e skeleton
appears to have been placed in a exed position on its
le side with the head oriented to the west. No arti-
facts were found in association with this burial.
Feature 3686
Directly above Feature 3645 lay Feature 3686, which
contained the primary disturbed burial of a middle
adult male, Sk. 20430 (Fig. 6). e body was placed on
its back (supinely but leaning slightly toward its le
side) in a tightly exed position with the head oriented
to the west. No artifacts were found in association
with this burial. e skull, atlas, and axis were not re-
covered, but the presence of the hyoid bone and ossi-
ed thyroid cartilage in anatomical position indicates
that the skull must have been intact at the time of
interment. Furthermore, a lack of cut marks on the
remaining cervical vertebrae and no apparent dis-
placement of the infracranial skeleton suggest that
the ligaments and other so tissue structures holding
the skull in place were decayed suciently to allow
the removal of the skull and rst two cervical verte-
brae with little eort. Based on this evidence, the
missing skeletal elements of Sk. 20430 appear to have
been intentionally removed at some point aer the
body was initially interred, likely via a retrieval pit
(see below).
Skull retrieval pit, Feature 3639
Feature 3639 (Fig. 7) consists of a circular pit lined
with the disarticulated and poorly preserved skeletal
remains of at least two individuals represented by
Haddow and Knüsel 59
long bones, additional infracranial elements, and two
crania, Sk. 19450 and Sk. 19493. Sk. 19450 is a poorly
preserved adult cranium (possibly male) found on the
northwest edge of the cut. e rst cervical (atlas) ver-
tebra was found under the cranial base, but there
were no cut marks present, which would seem to in-
dicate that these elements were moved aer initial de-
composition of the articulation between the atlas and
axis. Sk. 19493 is represented by a poorly preserved
cranium of an adult of indeterminate sex. It was found
isolated on the southern edge of the cut.
With the aid of a series of georeferenced 3D mod-
els taken at multiple stages during the excavation of
the burials in Building 129, the sequence of events
becomes clearer (Fig. 8). e cut for this pit can be
seen clearly above the region of the head of the un-
derlying primary interment Sk. 20430 in Feature
3686 and appears to represent a “skull retrieval pit”
that was dug in order to access and remove the skull
of this earlier burial (Fig. 8, le). e disarticulated
skeletal elements found in the grave ll of Feature
3639 (Fig. 8, middle) were carefully placed within the
cut aer the retrieval of the skull of Sk. 20430 (Fig. 8,
right).
Discussion
e nal stage in a series of funerary acts carried out
in the southeast area of Building 129 entailed the de-
liberate targeting of the skull of the primary inter-
ment in Feature 3686. Unlike some cases of missing
crania in primary burials observed at Çatalhöyük, the
disturbance of Feature 3686 did not result from the
cutting of a grave for a subsequent burial, but rather
from an excavated pit expressly targeting the skull of
Sk. 20430. is represents one of the few times that
the access point dug to facilitate the retrieval of a cra-
nium and mandible has been stratigraphically demon-
strated in the Near East (see Goring-Morris and
Horwitz 2007 for an example from Kfar HaHoresh
in the Levant).
It has been postulated previously at Çatalhöyük
that skeletal elements removed from a burial context
are oen re-deposited in the same location at a later
date, oen at the end of a house occupation or plat-
form use-life (Haddow et al. 2016). It is possible that
one of the crania and some of the infracranial remains
originate from the rst burial in this sequence, that
of Sk. 20457 in Feature 3645; much of the skeleton of
this individual was removed during the interment of
Sk.20430. Due to the poor preservation of the skeletal
elements lining the retrieval pit, it is impossible to con-
rm this scenario. However, even if 2 of the 7 isolated
crania/skulls found in Building 129 derive from the
primary disturbed skeletons (Sk. 20457 and Sk. 20430)
found here, there are still 5 additional crania/skulls
for which infracranial skeletons have yet to be ac-
counted. Feature 3684 (Fig. 4) contained the primary
skeleton of a mature adult male along with 2 isolated
crania and a large number of disarticulated infracra-
nial bones. Feature 3630 (Fig. 4), located immediately
to the north of Feature 3684, contained the primary
skeleton of a child along with an isolated cranium, a
skull, and numerous disarticulated and partially ar-
ticulated infracranial skeletal elements, including a
fully articulated forearm and hand. As these burials
immediately to the north of the skull retrieval se-
quence have not disturbed any earlier inhumations,
the isolated crania and skull (along with the other dis-
articulated skeletal elements) must have been intro-
duced from another location.
“Headless” Bodies
e relatively small number (n = 15) of “headless” pri-
mary skeletons recovered to date (3% of all primary
skeletons; Table 1), and the complete absence of empty
Figure 8. Overlay of 3D-generated orthophotos showing (le) upper layer of Feature 3639 with circular
feature; (middle) circular feature excavated to reveal disarticulated human bone within, with the right
forearm and lower limbs of the primary burial Feature 3686 (Sk. 20430) visible underneath; and (right)
disturbed primary burial (Sk. 20430) aer removal of overlying layer of disarticulated bone.
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
60
or robbed-out grave cuts in buildings preclude pri-
mary inhumations as the main source of isolated cra-
nia and skulls at Çatalhöyük. e skull was completely
removed from 12 of these individuals, including 4
young adults (20–30 years of age at death: 3 male and
1 female), 6 mature adults (30–50 years of age at death:
4 male and 2 female), as well as 1 adolescent (12–20
years of age at death) and 1 child (3–12 years of age at
death), each of indeterminate sex. In the other 3 cases,
only the cranium was removed; these individuals in-
clude 2 old adult females (50+ years of age at death)
and 1 adolescent (Pilloud et al. 2016:4, with an addi-
tional individual since added to the tally). In the case
of the 2 old adult females and 1 of the adolescents,
only the crania were removed. In terms of temporal
distribution, the occurrence of “headless” primary
burials uctuates throughout the occupation of Çatal-
höyük, only ever exceeding 5% of the total number of
stratied individuals in Level North J/South S-T
(6400–6000 cal B.C.; Fig. 9).
Except for one case, each of these individuals was
interred beneath the oor of a house. e exception
is Sk. 19593 (Fig. 10), which was found in the post-
abandonment inll of Building 114. e cranium and
the rst six cervical vertebrae of Sk. 19593 were miss-
ing, along with the le upper limb, but the mandible
and hyoid bone remained in anatomical position. A
number of single-rooted maxillary teeth were also re-
covered, which attests to the erstwhile presence of
the cranium. e lack of a burial cut and the partially
extended and prone position of the skeleton suggest
that this individual, an adolescent, was dumped un-
ceremoniously onto the oor prior to the inlling of
Building 114 aer its abandonment (see Farid 2014a:92–
93 for discussion of house closure practices at Çatal-
höyük). e body of this individual may have been
le to decompose before the cranium and cervical
vertebrae were removed and the building inlled, as
there is no stratigraphic evidence for a retrieval pit
targeting the head, and no cut marks are visible on the
Tab le 1. Temporal distribution of “headless” individuals from primary burials (N = 15), and isolated crania and skulls in secondary (N = 16)
and tertiary (MNI = 43) contexts in relation to all stratied individuals at Çatalhöyük (calibrated 14C dates are subject to change).
All Stratied Individuals
(N = 485) Headless Individuals
(N = 15) Secondary Crania
(N = 16) Tertiary Crania
(MNI = 43)
TP 24 TP 1TP 0TP 56400–6000 cal B.C.
North J/South S-T 14 North J/South S-T 1 North J/South S-T 0 North J/South S-T 5 6400–6000 cal B.C.
North I/South R 39 North I/South R 0 North I/South R 1 North I/South R 2 6400–6000 cal B.C.
North H/South P-Q 86 North H/South P-Q 4 North H/South P-Q 7 North H/South P-Q 9 6400–6000 cal B.C.
North G/South N-O 214 North G/South N-O 4 North G/South N-O 4 North G/South N-O 15 6500–6400 cal B.C.
North F/South L-M 86 North F/South L-M 4 North F/South L-M 4 North F/South L-M 4 6700–6500 cal B.C.
North E/South G-K 22 North E/South G-K 1 North E/South G-K 0 North E/South G-K 3 7300–6800 cal B.C.
Figure 9. Chart showing temporal changes in proportion of “headless” individuals and secondary and
tertiary isolated crania and skulls at Çatalhöyük.
Haddow and Knüsel 61
Figure 10. Adolescent Sk. 19593 with missing cranium. is individual
was found in the post-abandonment inll of Building 114.
mandible or cervical vertebrae. In addition to cattle,
sheep/goat, and pig bone, a large amount of disartic-
ulated and partially articulated human bone was re-
covered from this inll, including two isolated human
crania (neither of which belongs to Sk. 19593, based
on age estimates). is case bears a resemblance to the
“funerary feast” described by Goring-Morris and
Horwitz (2007) at Kfar HaHoresh, in which the head-
less skeleton of a young male was found above a large
deposit of wild cattle (aurochs) bones. e skull of the
individual had apparently been removed at a later
date via a targeted retrieval pit (Goring-Morris and
Horwitz 2007:906).
Isolated Crania and Mandibles
Unlike many Levantine Neolithic sites such as Jericho
(Kenyon and Holland 1981), ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson
1983), Tell Qarassa North (Santana et al. 2012), Beis-
amoun (Ferembach and Lechevallier 1973), Tell Ra-
mad (Ferembach 1969, 1970), and Tell Aswad (Kuijt
and Goring-Morris 2002; Stordeur and Khawan
2007), as well as Anatolian sites such as Köşk Höyük
(Bonogofsky 2005; Özbek 2009), Çayönü (Özdoğan
1999; Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998) and Nevali Çori
(Hauptmann 1999), isolated crania and skulls found
at Çatalhöyük are rarely found in caches. ere are
cases of multiple isolated crania (and sometimes
skulls) found in association with disturbed primary
interments as the result of successive intercutting
burials in the same location, but it is likely that these
derive from the disturbed primary skeletons them-
selves, rather than being true secondary re-depositions
(see, e.g., burial Feature 3010 in Farid 2014b). In these
contexts, it is oen dicult to re-associate isolated
crania with the disturbed infracranial skeletons with
any degree of condence; as such, these ambiguous
cases were excluded from the tally of isolated crania
presented here. As a result, the number of true isolated
crania at Çatalhöyük may be under-reported here,
but we feel it is preferable to be conservative in our
estimations.
Finds of isolated crania and skulls at Çatalhöyük
can be divided into two main depositional contexts:
(1) secondary deposits accompanying primary buri-
als and (2) tertiary (i.e., non-burial) deposits occur-
ring in post-abandonment building inlls, external
spaces such as middens, as well as construction layers
within occupied buildings. e most striking dier-
ence between these two contexts is that crania found
in association with primary burials, while oen frag-
mented, are largely complete, typically retaining ele-
ments of the facial skeleton and much of the dentition
(although single-rooted anterior teeth are oen miss-
ing postmortem). Crania and mandibles recovered
from tertiary contexts, however, especially from mid-
dens, are usually extremely fragmented and incom-
plete; they are oen represented only by calvaria—the
facial skeleton, dentition, and cranial base are rarely
present.
Secondary contexts
ere are 6 recorded examples of isolated skulls and
10 crania found in association with primary burials at
Çatalhöyük (Table 2). Of the isolated skulls, 4 belong
to adults (1 probable female and 3 male or probable
male individuals), and 2 belong to children (3–12 years
of age). Of the isolated crania, 7 belong to adults (2
female and probable female individuals, 1 probable
male, and 4 individuals of indeterminate sex), 2 to
children, and 1 to a neonate. In most cases it is clear
that these skulls or crania were placed in the grave
with the primary skeletons at the same time, as in the
case of the plastered skull Sk. 11330 in burial Feature
1517 (Building 42) (Boz and Hager 2013; Sadarangani
2014), the neonate cranium Sk. 30190 found above the
shoulder of child burial in Feature 7330 (Building
108), and the two crania found within burial Feature
3684 (Building 129). Based on stratigraphic evidence,
however, some of these primary burials appear to
have been reopened at a later date in order to place
isolated crania (and sometimes other skeletal ele-
ments) near the earlier primary inhumation. For ex-
ample, the skull retrieval pit Feature 3639 in Building
129 (described above) was also used to re-deposit two
crania and a large number of disarticulated infracra-
nial skeletal elements directly on top of the adult male
primary burial, Sk. 20430 in Feature 3686. Another
example is the burial of an adult female primary skel-
eton Sk. 20832 in Feature 7011 (in Building 96) that
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
62
was reopened to place the cranium of an adult proba-
ble female (Sk. 20830) next to it.
With regard to temporal distribution (Fig. 9), the
proportion of isolated crania found in association
with primary burials relative to the total number of
individuals peaks during Level North H/South P-Q
(6400–6000 cal B.C.) and declines rapidly in subse-
quent occupation levels. e plastered and painted
skull from Building 42 (Level North I/South R, 6400–
6000 cal B.C.) represents the latest occurrence of an
isolated cranium and mandible associated with a pri-
mary burial found to date at Çatalhöyük.
Tertiary contexts
Crania and mandibles recovered from tertiary (i.e.,
non-burial) contexts can be divided into three main
categories: those found in (1) middens, (2) post-
abandonment building inll, and (3) building con-
struction layers. Because the crania and mandibles
found in these contexts are typically incomplete and
highly fragmented, only the most intact specimens
could be assigned to clear-cut age ranges and sex cate-
gories (for adult specimens). e numbers reported
here are presented as a minimum number of individ-
uals (MNI) per “space,” which in the Çatalhöyük ex-
cavation system refers to a bounded area generally
dened by building walls (Farid 2014c:46). At least 43
individuals represented primarily by fragmentary cra-
nial vaults and/or mandibles have been recovered from
37 separate spaces at Çatalhöyük (Table 3). e major-
ity (88%) of the skeletal remains recovered from ter-
tiary contexts derive from post-abandonment building
inlls (n = 20) and external midden spaces (n = 18). A
smaller proportion (n = 5) were found in the construc-
tion layers of house platforms and hearth installa-
tions. As with the isolated crania and mandibles from
secondary contexts, adults comprise the bulk (81%) of
the tertiary remains recovered at Çatalhöyük. e
most complete crania, those that retain portions of the
facial skeleton and/or cranial base, are recovered al-
most exclusively from building inlls, while the more
fragmented and incomplete specimens derive from
middens.
With regard to temporal change across the site (Fig.
9), tertiary deposits of isolated crania and/or mandi-
bles occur throughout the various occupation levels of
the site, always in equal or higher proportions than
“headless” primary burials or secondarily deposited
crania associated with primary burials. eir occur-
rence, however, increases dramatically aer the Level
North I/South R occupation (6400–6000 cal B.C.),
reaching a peak of 36% of the total number of individ-
uals excavated in Level North J/South S-T.
Tab le 2 . Isolated crania and skulls found in association with primary burials at Çatalhöy ük. Ordered by occupation level in descending order.
Subadult age estimates are based on dental development. Adult age estimates are based on dental wear.
Skeleton Age Sex Building Occupation Level Description
11330 old adult (50+ yrs) female? 42 North I/South R plastered skull associated with adult female primary burial
F.1517
19448 adult (20+ yrs) indet. 129 North H/South P-Q cranium in grave ll above primary child (11yrs +/-2.5yrs)
burial F.3630
19459 adult (20+ yrs) male? 129 North H/South P-Q skull in grave ll above primary child (11yrs +/-2.5yrs)
burial F.3630
19449 child (3 yrs +/- 1 yr) n/a 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and loose infracranial elements placed in layer
overlying adult male primary burial F.3684
19479 old adult (50+ yrs) indet. 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones associated
with primary adult male primary burial F.3684
20401 young adult (20-30 yrs) female 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones associated
with primary adult male primary burial F.3684
19450 adult (20+ yrs) male? 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones found in
retrieval pit above primary adult male burial F.3686
19493 adult (20+ yrs) indet. 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones found in
retrieval pit above primary adult male burial F.3686
30191 neonate (0-2 mths) n/a 108 North G/South N-O cranium placed in woven basket/sack associated with child
primary burial F.7330
20684 adult (20+ yrs) indet. 77 North G/South N-O adult cranium associated with primary adult female burial
F.3697
19039 child (6 yrs +/- 2 yrs) n/a 77 North G/South N-O skull and cervical vertebrae associated with primary
adolescent burial F.3601
20830 adult (20+ yrs) female? 96 North G/South N-O cranium in association with adult female F.7010
22196 young adult (20-30 yrs) male 5 North F/South L-M red painted skull in basket indirectly associated with
adolescent primary burial F.3810
20661 young adult (20-30 yrs) male? 52 North F/South L-M skull associated with primary adult female burial F.7112
30512 child (4 yrs +/- 1 yr) n/a 52 North F/South L-M cranium associated with primary adult male burial F.7127
30515 child (5yrs +/- 1.5 yrs) n/a 52 North F/South L-M partial skull associated with primary adult male burial
F.7127
Haddow and Knüsel 63
Apart from tertiary deposits of isolated crania and/
or mandibles, which reach a peak during the later
levels of the site, the removal of crania from primary
burials and the re-deposition of isolated crania (with
or without mandibles) in primary burials appear to
have occurred most frequently in the middle occupa-
tion levels of the site (Levels North G/South N-O and
North H/South P-Q, 6500–6400 cal B.C.); this trend
is consistent with other data sets that show increas-
ingly elaborate and substantial houses, greater sym-
bolic complexity, and higher population densities in
these middle levels (Hodder and Doherty 2014).
e consistent surplus of isolated secondary and
tertiary crania/mandibles in relation to “headless”
primary burials at Çatalhöyük accords with synthe-
sized burial data from other Near Eastern Neolithic
sites (Bocquentin et al. 2016). At Boncuklu Höyük, for
example, a site 10 km north of Çatalhöyük and at least
a thousand years older, isolated crania are oen re-
covered from external spaces, but “headless” primary
skeletons have, to date, not been recovered (Baird
etal. 2016). ese ndings indicate, again, that post-
inhumation skull retrieval was not the only means of
obtaining crania.
Digging for Answers
Recent observations at Çatalhöyük, in combination
with a reappraisal of some of James Mellaart’s previ-
ous ideas regarding secondary burial practices (e.g.,
Mellaart 1964:92–93), have provided increasing evi-
dence for a period of delay between the death and
burial of certain individuals, perhaps tied to seasonal
activities, such as the replastering and painting of
house walls, benches, and platforms, or to genera-
tional events, such as the periodic abandonment and
reconstruction of houses (Fairbairn et al. 2005; Had-
dow et al. 2016; Matthews 2005). e evidence for pro-
tracted liminal funerary rites derives primarily from
Tab le 3. Isolated elements of the skull (crania and/or mandibles) found in tertiary contexts at Çatalhöyük. Ranked by occupation level
in descending order.
Building Space MNI Level Deposition Context Description
404 1TP building inll adult cranial vault fragments
416 1TP midden adult cranial fragments
61 438 1TP building inll adult cranial fragment
72 428 1TP midden adult cranial vault fragment
420 1TP midden adult temporal bone
119 1 North J/South S-T midden adult cranial vault fragments
44 120 1 North J/South S-T building inll adult cranial vault fragments
44 120 1 North J/South S-T construction (platform) child cranial vault fragments
129 2 North J/South S-T midden adult mandible fragments from two individuals
279 1 North I/South R midden adult mandible fragment
56 122 1 North I/South R building inll adult cranial fragments
45 238 1 North H/South P-Q Building inll neonate cranial vault fragments
260 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragment and right mandible
261 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult probable female le mandible (no teeth)
132 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragments
329 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult frontal bone
344 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragment
371 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragment
372 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult male cranial vault and mandible
427 1 North H/South P-Q midden neonate cranial vault fragments
59 311 1 North G/South N-O Building inll adult cranial vault fragments
171 1 North G/South N-O construction (platform) child cranial vault fragment
77 336 2 North G/South N-O building inll cranial fragments (one adult and one child)
114 87 2 North G/South N-O building inll Two crania (one adult probable male and one adolescent)
114 88 1 North G/South N-O building inll adult cranial fragments
386 1 North G/South N-O construction (platform) neonate cranial vault frags
386 2 North G/South N-O building inll two crania (one young adult female and one adolescent)
60 1 North G/South N-O midden adult cranial vault fragments
79 134 1 North G/South N-O building inll adult probable male cranium
80 135 1 North G/South N-O building inll (post retrieval pit) adult cranial vault fragment
97 469 1 North G/South N-O building inll (storage bin) adult cranial vault
89 379 1 North G/South N-O building inll older adult female plastered mandible
119 512 1 North F/South L-M building inll adult cranial vault fragments/mandible and teeth
49 100 1 North F/South L-M construction (hearth) adult cranial fragments
49 334 1 North F/South L-M construction (platform) adult cranial vault fragments
52 94 1 North F/South L-M building inll adult cranial vault fragments
17 170 1 North E/South G-K building inll (post retrieval pit) old adult female cranium (matched with primary burial i n B.17)
199 1 North E/South G-K midden adult cranial vault fragments
181 1 North E/South G-K midden adult right mandible
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
64
the variation in the articulations among skeletal ele-
ments and the degree of exion observed among skel-
etons found in primary burials. Some are fully
articulated, while others are missing certain skeletal
elements and/or show signs of paradoxical disarticu-
lation of joints, with labile joints such as those of the
hands and feet remaining in articulation but with
normally more persistent joints, such as those of the
weight-bearing joints of the limbs, showing signs of
disarticulation (e.g., Maureille and Sellier 1996; Sell-
ier and Bendezu-Sarmiento 2013). Additionally, many
individuals were interred in extremely hyperexed
positions, with their knees close to their chest and
their femora, tibiae, and bulae in parallel alignment.
Such positions would be nearly impossible to achieve
with a fully eshed body. Based on these observations,
it is likely that some bodies were processed postmor-
tem in such a way as to reduce or remove so tissue
mass, while attempting to maintain the anatomical
integrity (i.e., articulation) of the body itself. e
manner in which this processing may have taken
place is currently unclear, although our hypotheses
include manual deeshing of the corpse with stone
tools, desiccation, and exposure of bodies to vulture
scavenging (see Pilloud et al. 2016 for detailed discus-
sion). e degree of skeletal articulation, the com-
pleteness of the skeleton, and its preservation state
may provide some indication of the interval between
death and interment. In fact, a number of ostensibly
primary inhumations have been excavated recently
that bear taphonomic indications of having been kept
aboveground for a substantial amount of time. For ex-
ample, within the sequence of burials in Building 129,
Feature 7714 (Fig. 4) contained the poorly preserved,
prone, and hyperexed skeleton of an adult of inde-
terminate sex, Sk. 22620, located immediately to the
east of Feature 3630. e skeleton was largely com-
plete except for most of the right upper limb and le
forearm. e cervical vertebrae were also absent, sug-
gesting that the skull had been placed in a position
approximating anatomical position. Disarticulated
infracranial remains of an additional adult of indeter-
minate sex were also found in direct association with
the Sk. 22620. Overall, the preservation and the ex-
tremely hyperexed and partially articulated posi-
tioning of the remains give the impression of a tightly
bundled package of bones containing at least two
adult individuals (for additional examples of poten-
tially delayed burials see description of burials from
Building 132 in Haddow et al. 2015).
If the practice of delayed burial is conrmed at
Çatalhöyük, it would likely have necessitated the tem-
porary storage of the dead until such time as the in-
terment took place. In some burials, especially from
burned house contexts where organic preservation is
enhanced, there is evidence for the use of cordage,
reed mats, and basketry, as well as textiles and animal
hides used to package the body and maintain its hy-
perexed position. However, unlike the Neolithic
Anatolian site of Çayönü, with its so-called skull
building (Le Mort et al. 2000; Özbek 1986; Özdoğan
1999; Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998), no direct evidence
for the temporary storage or processing of human
remains has been found to date at Çatalhöyük. In ad-
dition to the fragmentary crania and mandibles de-
scribed above, tertiary deposits of disarticulated
infracranial skeletal elements have also been recov-
ered from middens and other external spaces at
Çatalhöyük, indicating that some of these areas may
have been used to process and dismember bodies. A
cursory assessment of skeletal part representation
from these contexts (a more detailed analysis is cur-
rently under way) shows that most of the adult infra-
cranial skeletal elements consist of smaller bones
such as those of the distal extremities (i.e., hands and
feet)—precisely the type of elements that can be le
behind when bodies are processed and relocated as
part of a secondary funerary treatment. is inter-
pretation seems more plausible than their occur-
rence resulting from the wholesale disinterment and
dumping of skeletons from primary intramural buri-
als, as there is no evidence at Çatalhöyük for empty
or robbed-out graves within any of the excavated
houses. It is also conceivable that corpses were stored
or processed away from the settlement. Test excava-
tions conducted near the base of the mound in the
1990s revealed a series of external pits containing a
sizable concentration of red clay objects and animal
bone, as well as a smaller amount of disarticulated
human bone “apparently treated no dierently in
terms of discard to the other bone” (Roberts et al.
2007:570). An initial study of part representation
seems to indicate that these were once primary buri-
als. However, the stratigraphic and chronological re-
lationships of these o-site deposits to the settlement
itself are still poorly understood and require further
investigation.
A number of researchers have raised the possibility
that segments of the population were never aorded
primary burials within Pre-Pottery Neolithic B settle-
ment sites elsewhere in the Near East, where numbers
of burials recovered are oen low in relation to over-
all settlement sizes (Banning 1998; Bienert et al. 2004;
Goring-Morris 2005; Rollefson 2001). At Çatalhöyük,
however, population estimates based on occupants
per building and overall site size are not incompati-
ble with the proportion of burials excavated to date
(Cessford 2005). Furthermore, previous demographic
analyses have failed to demonstrate any age or sex bi-
ases among the excavated primary skeletal assem-
blage (Hillson et al. 2013; Molleson et al. 2005). If the
practice of delayed burial did occur at Çatalhöyük,
Haddow and Knüsel 65
however, many of what are currently considered pri-
mary burials should be reclassied as secondary
burials, because these individuals would have been
kept aboveground for a period of time before their
nal deposition under house oors. e possibility that
a subset of the population was selected for delayed
burial had not been considered previously when de-
mographic proles were created for the Çatalhöyük
skeletal assemblage. us, while the overall skeletal
assemblage may lack discernible demographic anom-
alies, there may be selection biases present within the
secondary burial category that have not yet been re-
vealed. While the prevalent narrative of Neolithic
social organization at Çatalhöyük and other Near
Eastern sites typically emphasizes a “erce egalitarian-
ism” (Hodder 2014:5), such dierential burial practices
may point to emergent social distinctions between
inhabitants of Çatalhöyük, in which members of so-
ciety received diering funerary treatments based on
status, ascribed or achieved.
Archaeological and ethnographic parallels
e variable depositional contexts and the anatomi-
cal representation observed at Neolithic Çatalhöyük—
decapitation, isolated crania, isolated skulls, and
partially articulated and isolated infracranial skeletal
elements—are suggestive of multiple intentions and
motivations on the part of the Neolithic inhabitants
of Çatalhöyük. A number of researchers have docu-
mented increasing evidence for postmortem manip-
ulation of human remains in prehistoric European
funerary contexts. Rather than a single rite involving
rapid interment, these may consist of a series of multi-
stage rites/treatments that occur over an extended
period of time—perhaps generations. ese practices
may involve element removal and potentially other
treatments such as desiccation/mummication (Booth
et al. 2015; Booth and Madgwick 2016; Parker Pear-
son et al. 2005), deeshing (Bello et al. 2016; Robb et al.
2015; Russell 1987a, 1987b; Toussaint 2011), and, in some
cases, cannibalistic behaviors, both exocannibalism
(the consumption of esh from out-group members,
i.e., enemies, for ritual or nutritional purposes; e.g.,
Cáceres et al. 2007; Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1996; Villa
et al. 1986a, 1986b; Villa and Mahieu 1991) and ritu-
alized endocannibalism (the consumption of esh
from in-group members as part of a mortuary ritual;
e.g., Bello et al. 2015; Boulestin et al. 2009), which has
recently been reinterpreted as exocannibalism (Boul-
estin and Coupey 2015). Although these examples
come from better-studied European contexts stretch-
ing from the Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age, similar
rites have been identied in the Neolithic Near East,
including, to date, deeshing of the dead (Erdal 2015)
and funerary cannibalism (Croucher 2010; Gauld
etal. 2012; Kansa et al. 2009), in addition to skeletal
element removal.
Ethnographic and archaeological evidence also il-
lustrates the diversity of motivations behind the prac-
tice of cranial collection and secondary burial
practices within a single social group, for example,
divination, memorialization, and status among Tor-
res Strait Islanders (Bonney and Clegg 2011), and ven-
eration of ancestors and head-hunting of enemies in
the Marquesas Islands (Valentin and Rolland 2011).
However, in light of the very similar use of skulls and
crania from tribal members and enemies alike in Mel-
anesia, Bonogofsky and Graham (2011) highlight the
problems archaeologists face in attempting to dier-
entiate between the skulls of ancestors and enemies
based on treatment alone. Schulting (2015) notes the
same problem for Mesolithic European treatments in
which the head could be targeted within groups for
ritualistic reasons as well as between groups in a con-
ict situation (cf. Testart 2008, 2009). In South Amer-
ican contexts, Duncan (2005) makes a similar point,
while noting that distinguishing veneration from
violation based on the manner in which bodies of the
deceased were manipulated is dicult because the
treatments mimic one another, despite clearly sepa-
rate intentions on the part of participants. Compara-
tive biomolecular and stable isotope analyses of
isolated crania and “headless” skeletons are potential
means of addressing these issues. For example, a re-
cent strontium, carbon, and nitrogen isotope study of
isolated crania from precontact central California
(Eerkens et al. 2016) suggests that they derive from the
same local population as the primary burials them-
selves and thus are less likely to represent trophy
heads taken from outsiders. Returning to the Neo-
lithic Near East, Pearson’s (forthcoming) carbon and
nitrogen stable isotope analysis of isolated crania at
Boncuklu Höyük indicates that these individuals had
a dierent diet than that of individuals recovered
from primary intramural burials and may represent
outsiders to the community, or a subset of the com-
munity who consumed dierent types of food (Baird
et al. 2016). e decipherment of such social distinc-
tions, so oen very subtle, are vital to our understand-
ing of prehistoric patterns of funerary variability.
At Neolithic Tell Qarassa North in Syria, Santana
et al.’s (2012) analysis of a cache of crania and mandi-
bles with what they characterize as intentionally mu-
tilated facial skeletons suggests a further range of
motivations for skull retrieval, including denigra-
tion, negation, punishment, and indierence. How-
ever, while such motives may well have existed, our
observations of isolated crania in similar states of
preservation at Çatalhöyük lead us to believe that,
rather than being intentionally mutilated or defaced,
they are the result of long-term curation and use that
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
66
eventually led to the disintegration of the facial
skeleton. e corresponding lack of a cranial base
might also be explained by intentional modication/
removal of parts of the basicranium in order to mount
the cranium for display purposes. Modications to
the cranial base for mounting and display have been
observed in a number of contexts worldwide, for ex-
ample in Spanish Colonial Georgia, (Stojanowski and
Duncan 2011:185), as well as trophy heads from Peru
(Forgey and Williams 2005:261–262), Borneo (Oku-
mura and Siew 2013:689–690), and the Marquesas Is-
lands (Valentin and Rolland 2011:108–111, Table 4.1).
By focusing primarily on treatments of the skull,
however, we run the risk of overlooking the equally
frequent secondary manipulations of elements of the
infracranial skeleton observed at Çatalhöyük and
other Near Eastern Neolithic sites, such as Kfar Ha-
Horesh (Goring-Morris 2005) and Tell Qarassa North
(Santana et al. 2015) in the Levant, and Nevali Çori
and Çayönü in Anatolia (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998).
e presence of isolated or partially articulated infra-
cranial bones in association with a secondarily de-
posited cranium, for example, may have entirely
dierent implications for the nature of the funerary
rite than if the cranium was found without them.
Such patterns of funerary behavior have parallels in
the practices of mummication, delayed burial, re-
opening of graves, and circulation of bones observed
at pre-Columbian Moche sites in northern Peru (Mil-
laire 2004; Nelson 1998); these practices have been
interpreted as facilitating the manipulation of ances-
tral remains for use as funerary oerings (Millaire
2004). Furthermore, Booth et al. (2015) argue that
the creation of partial or ephemeral mummies from
the bodies of genealogically signicant ancestors in
Bronze Age Britain may have helped legitimize ac-
cess to land and resources. Mummication of adult
males and females was also practiced among the Tor-
res Strait Islanders; such mummies were only in-
tended to last the duration of the funerary rites, up to
a year aer the death of the individual (Bonney and
Clegg 2011). Eventually the mummied body would
begin to fall apart, at which time the head was re-
moved and sometimes curated for divination pur-
poses, while the rest of the body could be disposed of
in a number of ways, including exposure, burial, or
cremation (Aufderheide 2003:281–284; Bonney and
Clegg 2011). In many of these examples, display seems
to be a distinguishing feature of trophy heads, while
storage and only occasional exhibition tend to mark
venerated crania. ese case studies will contribute
to the development of an interpretational framework
that may eventually illuminate the deeper social
meanings of corpse and skeletal manipulations at
Çatalhöyük.
Conclusion
e variable dispositions of human skeletal remains
observed in Building 129 and elsewhere at Çatalhöyük
are signicant because they provide further intima-
tions of a more complex and variable set of funerary
behaviors than previously discerned. e large num-
ber of isolated crania and skulls recovered from a va-
riety of depositional contexts clearly demonstrates
that they cannot have been retrieved from primary
burials alone. In their synthesis of skull retrieval data
from other Near Eastern Neolithic sites, Bocquentin
et al. (2016:43) have reached a similar conclusion. is
surplus of crania, in combination with the equally
frequent occurrence of isolated and partially articu-
lated infracranial bones in similar contexts, suggests
a number of intriguing possibilities, chief among
them the practice of delayed burial, wherein the bod-
ies of some members of the Neolithic population were
retained as part of an extended, multi-stage funerary
rite incorporating a liminal period, possibly seasonal
in nature, perhaps much longer. At the end of these
rites, the bodies of certain individuals were buried
relatively intact, while others appear to have been dis-
articulated, the body parts, especially crania and man-
dibles, redistributed across a range of depositional
contexts, including primary burials (as grave inclu-
sions) and construction layers (perhaps as transitional
markers in the life course of houses [e.g., Haddow et al.
2016]), as well as external midden spaces and building
abandonment inlls (perhaps as ritually discarded ob-
jects). is variability in bodily treatment and deposi-
tional context reects a range of postmortem treatment
options, some of which have been put forward by
Chapman (2010) for the Balkan Neolithic and Chalco-
lithic periods, including fragmentation of the corpse,
removal and recombination of skeletal elements, and
the eventual reintegration or substitution of such ele-
ments. Such practices have also been described at Tell
Qarassa North (Santana et al. 2015:12). Each of these
bodily treatments and spatial contexts must have had a
particular signicance, perhaps related to the status
(or some other social marker) of the decedent or those
performing the rituals. Our ultimate aim is thus to es-
tablish the criteria used by the Neolithic inhabitants of
Çatalhöyük to select particular individuals for specic
funerary treatments; for example, why were some in-
dividuals buried intact and undisturbed (sometimes
aer a period of delay), while other graves were revis-
ited and bones removed? And why do some individu-
als appear not to have received primary burial at all?
e data and discussion presented here represent
the initial stages of a larger program of ongoing bio-
archae ol o gi cal research, including the continued
application of thorough excavation, recording, and
Haddow and Knüsel 67
comparative methods (including 3D modeling of
burial sequences and GIS spatial analysis of the vari-
ous depositional contexts in which human remains
occur), in addition to a detailed archaeothanatologi-
cal approach to the skeletal remains themselves and
the burial micro-environment. is interdisciplinary
study of skull retrieval, curation, and re-deposition,
as well as other secondary burial treatments at Çatal-
höyük has the potential to disentangle not only the
complex range of funerary behaviors observed at the
site but will also be fundamental in elucidating the pa-
laeodemographic composition and social distinctions
implicit in the funerary deposition of human remains
at the site and, through comparison, elsewhere in the
Near East. Only then, through data-driven testing and
analyses, combined with cross-cultural comparisons,
can we truly begin to address the larger social and
cosmological implications of these fascinating socio-
cultural practices.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Burcu Tung, the North Area eld direc-
tor, and Numan Arslan and Katarzyna (Kasia) Har-
abasz for their assistance with the excavation of the
burials from Building 129, Space 77. We thank Ca-
milla Mazzucato for preparing the GIS-based map
that appears in this paper. We are especially grateful
to Ian Hodder, the editors of Bioarchaeology Interna-
tional, and the three anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments, which helped to improve this
paper substantially. is paper was developed in part
from a poster presented at the 82nd Meeting of the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists in
Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, on April 16, 2013, titled
“Bioarchaeology in 3D: ree-Dimensional Record-
ing of Human Burials at Neolithic Çatalhöyük,” by
Christopher Knüsel, Scott Haddow, Joshua Sadvari
(Ohio State University), Nicoló Dell’Unto (Lund Uni-
versity), and Maurizio Forte (Duke University). is
study has received nancial support from the French
State under the auspices of the “Investments for the
future” framework program, Initiative d’Excellence
de l’Université de Bordeaux (IdEx), reference ANR-
10-IDEX-03-02 to CJK). CJK thanks Sacha Kacki
(UMR 5199, PACEA) for his expert advice on the
translation of the French abstract.
References Cited
Andrews, Peter, and Silvia Bello. 2006. Pattern in human burial
practice. In e Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, ed-
ited by Christopher Knüsel and Rebecca Gowland. Oxbow,
Oxford, pp. 14–29.
Andrews, Peter, eya Molleson, and Başak Boz. 2005. e hu-
man burials at Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports
from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge, pp. 261–278.
Aufderheide, Arthur. 2003. e Scientic Study of Mummies.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Baird, Douglas, Eleni Asouti, Laurence Astruc, Adnan Baysal,
Emma Baysal, Denise Carruthers, Andrew Fairbairn, Ceren
Kabukcu, Emma Jenkins, Kirsi Lorentz, Caroline Middleton,
Jessica Pearson, and Anne Pirie. 2013. Juniper smoke, skulls
and wolves’ tails: e Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian plateau
in its South-west Asian context; insights from Pınarbaşı. Le-
vant 45(2):175–209.
Baird, Douglas, Andrew Fairbairn, and Louise Martin. 2016. e
animate house: e institutionalization of the household in
Neolithic Central Anatolia. World Archaeology DOI: 10 .1080
/00438243 .2016 .1215259.
Banning, Edward B. 1998. e Neolithic Period: Triumphs of ar-
chitecture, agriculture and art. Near Eastern Archaeology
61(4):188–237.
Bayliss, Alex, Fiona Brock, Shahina Farid, Ian Hodder, John Sou-
thon, and R. Ervin Taylor. 2015. Getting to the bottom of it all:
A Bayesian approach to dating the start of Çatalhöyük. Jour-
nal of World Prehistory 28:1–26.
Belfer-Cohen, Anna. 1988. e Natuan graveyard in Hayonim
Cave. Paléorient 14(2):297–308.
Bello, Silvia M., Palmira Saladié, Isabel Cáceres, Antonio Rodrí-
guez-Hidalgo, and Simon A. Partt. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic
ritualistic cannibalism at Gough's Cave (Somerset, UK): e
human remains from head to toe. Journal of Human Evolution
82:170–189.
Bello, Silvia M., Rosalind Wallduck, Vesna Dimitrijević, Ivana
Zivaljev ić, and Chris B. Stringer. 2016. Cannibalism versus fu-
nerary deeshing and disarticulation aer a period of decay:
Comparisons of bone modications from four prehistoric
sites. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 161(4):722–43.
DOI: 10 .1002 /ajpa .23079
Benz, Marion. 2010. Beyond death: e construction of social
identities at the transition from foraging to farming. In e
Principle of Sharing: Segregation and Construction of Social
Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming, edited by
Marion Benz. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub-
sistence and Environment 14. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 249–275.
Berggren, Åsa, Nicoló Dell ’Unto, Maurizio Forte, Scott Haddow,
Ian Hodder, Justine Issavi, Nicola Lercari, Camilla Mazzucato,
Alison Mickel, and James S. Taylor. 2015. Revisiting reexive
archaeology at Çatalhöyük: Integrating digital and 3D tech-
nologies at the trowel's edge. Antiquity 89:433–448.
Bienert, Hans-Dieter. 1991. Skull cult in the prehistoric Near
East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5:9–23.
Bienert, Hans-Dieter, Michelle Bonogofsky, Hans G. K. Gebel,
Ian Kuijt, and Gary O. Rollefson. 2004. Where are the dead?
In Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan, edited by H.-D. Bie-
nert, H. G. K. Gebel, and R. Neef. Studies in Early Near East-
ern Production, Subsistence and Environment 5. Ex-oriente,
Berlin, pp. 157–176.
Bocquentin, Fanny, E. Kodas, and A. Ortiz. 2016. Headless but
still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic North-South Levant. Paléorient 42(2):35–55.
Bonney, Heather, and Margaret Clegg. 2011. Heads as memorials
and status symbols: e collection and use of skulls in the Tor-
res Strait Islands. In e Bioarchaeology of the Human Head:
Decapitation, Decoration, and Deformation, edited by Mi-
chelle Bonogofsky. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
pp. 51–66.
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
68
Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2001. An Osteo-Archaeological Examina-
tion of the Ancestor Cult during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Pe-
riod in the Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley. Ann Arbor: University Microlms International.
Bonogofsky, M. 2003. Neolithic plastered skulls and railroading
epistemologies. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 331:1–10.
Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2004. Including women and children:
Neolithic modeled skulls from Jordan, Israel, Syria and Tur-
key. Near Eastern Archaeology 67(2):118–119.
Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2005. A bio archae ol o gi cal study of plas-
tered skulls from Anatolia: New discoveries and interpreta-
tions. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15:124–135.
Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2006. Complexity in context: Plain,
painted and modeled skulls from the Neolithic Middle East.
In Skull Collection, Modication and Decoration, edited by Mi-
chelle Bonogofsky. BAR International Series 1539. Archaeo-
press: Oxford, pp. 15–28.
Bonogofsky, Michelle, and Jeremy Graham. 2011. Melanesian
modeled skulls, mortuary ritual, and dental X-rays: Ancestors,
enemies, women, and children. In e Bioarchaeology of the
Human Head: Decapitation, Decoration, and Deformation, ed-
ited by Michelle Bonogofsky. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, pp. 67–96.
Booth, omas J., Andrew T. Chamberlain, and Mike Parker
Pearson. 2015. Mummication in Bronze Age Britain. Antiq-
uity 89(347):1155–1173.
Booth, omas J., and Richard Madgwick. 2016. New evidence
for diverse secondary burial practices in Iron Age Britain:
Ahistological case study. Journal of Archaeological Science
67:14–24.
Boulestin, B. 2015. Conservation du crâne et terminologie: Pour
en nir avec quelques mots de tête! Skull conservation and
terminology: Time to get our heads together! Bulletins et
Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 27(1–2):16–25.
Boulestin, Bruno, and Anne-Sophie Coupey. 2015. Cannibalism
in the Linear Pottery Culture: e Human Remains from Herx-
heim. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Boulestin, Bruno, Andrea Zeeb-Lanz, Christian Jeunesse, Fabian
Haack, Rose-Marie Arbogast, and Anthony Denaire. 2009.
Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim
(Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83:968–982.
Boz, Başak, and Lori D. Hager. 2004. Human remains. In Çatal-
höyük 2004 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com:8080
/ archive_reports/2004/ar04_18.html.
Boz, Başak, and Lori D. Hager. 2013. Living above the dead: In-
tramural burial practices at Çatalhöyük. In Humans and
Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Sea-
sons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London and Los Ange-
les, pp. 413–440.
Boz, Başak, and Lori D. Hager. 2014. Making sense of social
behaviour from disturbed and commingled skeletons: A case
study from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. In Commingled and Disar-
ticulated Human Remains: Working toward Improved e-
ory, Method and Data, edited by An na J. Osterholtz, Kat herine
M. Baustian, and Debra L. Martin. Springer, New York,
pp.17–33.
Cáceres, Isabel, Marina Lozano, and Palmira Saladie. 2007. Evi-
dence for Bronze Age cannibalism in El Mirador Cave (Sierra
de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 1 33:899–917.
Cauvin, Jacques. 1978. Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du
IXème au VIIème Millionaire avant J.C. Maison de l’Orient,
Lyon.
Cauvin, Jacques. 1994. Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de l’Ag-
riculture: La Révolution des Symboles au Néolithique. CNRS
Éditions, Paris.
Cessford, Craig, 2005. Estimating the Neolithic population of
Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–
99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute of Archae-
ology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, London and Cambridge, pp. 323–326.
Chapman, John. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People,
Places, and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South-Eastern
Europe. Routledge, London.
Chapman, John. 2010. “Deviant” burials in the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe. In Body
Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings,
edited by Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Marie-Louise S.
Sørensen, and Juliet Hughes. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 30–45.
Charles, Michael, Christopher Doherty, Eleni Asouti, Amy Bo-
gaard, Elizabeth Henton, Clark Spencer Larsen, Christopher
B. Ru, Phil ippa Ryan, Joshua W. Sadvari, and Kat hryn C. Twis s.
2014. Landscape and taskscape at Çatalhöyük: An integrated
perspective. In Integrating Çatalhöyük: emes from the
2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at
Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London
and Los Angeles, pp. 71–90.
Croucher, Karina. 2006. Getting ahead: Exploring meanings of
skulls in the Neolithic Near East. In Skull Collection, Modi-
cation and Decoration, edited by Michelle Bonogofsky. Ar-
chaeopress, Oxford, pp. 29–44.
Croucher, Karina. 2010. Tactile engagements: e world of the
dead in the lives of the living … or “sharing the dead.” In e
Principle of Sharing: Segregation and Construction of Social
Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming, ed ited by
Marion Benz. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub-
sistence, and Environment 14. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 277–300.
Duncan, William N. 2005. Understanding veneration and viola-
tion in the archaeological record. In Interacting with the Dead:
Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium,
edited by Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck,
and Sloan R. Williams. University Press of Florida, Gaines-
ville, pp. 207–227.
Eerkens, Jelmer W., Eric J. Bartelink, Laura Brink, Richard Fitzger-
ald, Ra mona Garibay, Gina A. Jorgenson, and Ra ndy S. Wiberg.
2016. Trophy heads or ancestor veneration? A stable isotope
perspective on disassociated and modied crania in precontact
central California. American Antiquity 81(4):114–131.
Erdal, Yilmaz S. 2015. Bone or esh: Deeshing and post-deposi-
tional treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anatolia,
PPNA Period). European Journal of Archaeology 18(1):4–32.
Fairbairn, Andrew, Eleni Asouti, Nerissa Russell, and John G.
Swogger. 2005. Seasonality. In Çatalhöyük Perspectives:
emes from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. Mc-
Donald Institute for Archaeological Research and British In-
stitute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp.
93–108.
Farid, Shahina. 2014a. Timelines: Phasing Neolithic Çatalhöyük.
In Çatalhöyük Excavations: e 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by
Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology Press, London and Los Angeles, pp. 91–129.
Farid, Shahina. 2014b. e North Shelter foundation trenches. In
Çatalhöyük Excavations: e 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian
Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology Press, London and Los Angeles, pp. 557–596.
Farid, Shahina. 2014c. Excavation, recording and sampling
methodologies. In Çatalhöyük Excavations: e 2000–2008
Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and
Haddow and Knüsel 69
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London and Los Ange-
les, pp. 35–51.
Federative International Programme on Anatomical Terminol-
ogies. 2011. Terminologia Anatomica: International Anatomi-
cal Terminology. 2nd ed. ieme, Stuttgart.
Ferembach, Denise. 1969. Études anthropologique des ossements
humains néolithiques de Tell Ramad (Syrie). Annales Arche-
ologiques Arabes Syriennes 19:49–70.
Ferembach, Denise. 1970. Études anthropologiques des osse-
ments humaines néolithiques en Syrie de Tell Ramad, Syrie
(Campaigns 1963–1966). L’Anthropologie 74(3/4):247–254.
Ferembach, Denise, and Monique Lechevallier. 1973. Découverte
de deux crânes surmodelés dans une habitation du VIIème
millennaire à Beisamoun, Israel. Paléorient 1:223–230.
Fernández-Jalvo, Yolanda, J. Carlos Díez, José Maria Bermúdez
de Castro, Eudald Carbonell, and Juan Luis Arsuaga. 1996. Ev-
idence of early cannibalism. Science 271:277–278.
Forgey, Kathleen, and Sloan R. Williams. 2005. Were Nazca
heads war trophies or revered ancestors? In Interacting with
the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New
Millennium, edited by Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra,
Lane A. Beck, and Sloane R. Williams. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville, pp. 251–276.
Gauld, Suellen C., James S. Oliver, Sarah Witcher Kansa, and
Elizabeth Carter. 2012. On the tail end of variation in Late
Neolithic burial practices: Halaf feasting and cannibalism at
Domuztepe, southeastern Anatolia. In Bioarchaeology and Be-
havior: e People of the Ancient Near East, edited by Megan
Perry. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 8–34.
Goren, Yuvel, A. Nigel Goring-Morris, and Irena Segal. 2001. e
technology of skull modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
(PPNB): Regional variability, the relation of technology and
iconography and their archaeological implications. Journal of
Archaeological Science 28:671–690.
Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2000. e quick and the dead: e social
context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from
Kfar Ha Horesh. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social
Organization, Identity, and Dierentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 103–136.
Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2005. Life, death and the emergence of dif-
ferential status in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Evidence from
Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In Archaeological Per-
spectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in
the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Joanne Clark. CBR L and
Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 89–105.
Goring-Morris, Nigel, and Liora K. Horwitz. 2007. Funerals and
feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. An-
tiquity 81:902–919.
Haddow, Scott, Christopher J. Knüsel, Belinda Tibbetts, Marco
Milella, and Barbara Betz. 2015. Human remains. In Çatal-
höyük 2015 Archive Report, pp. 85–101. http: //www .catalhoyuk
.com /sites /default /les /media /pdf /Archive_Report_2015 .pdf.
Haddow, Scott D., Joshua W. Sadvari, Christopher J. Knüsel, and
Rémi Hadad. 2016. A tale of two platforms: Commingled re-
mains and the life-course of houses at Neolithic Çatalhöyük.
In eoretical Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation of
Commingled Human Remains, edited by Anna J. Osterholtz.
Springer, New York, pp. 5–29.
Hauptmann, Harald. 1999. e Urfa region. In Neolithic in Tur-
key: e Cradle of Civilization, New Discoveries, edited by
Mehmet Özdoğan and Nezih Başgelen. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 65–86.
Hillson, Simon W., Clark Spencer Larsen, Başak Boz, Marin A.
Pilloud, Joshua W. Sadvari, Sabrina C. Agarwal, Bonnie Glen-
cross, Patrick Beauchesne, Jessica A. Pearson, Christopher B.
Ru, Evan M. Garofalo, Lori D. Hager, and Scott D. Haddow.
2013. e human remains I: Interpreting community struc-
ture, health and diet in Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In Humans and
Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Sea-
sons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London and Los Ange-
les, pp. 339–396.
Hodder, Ian, ed. 1996. On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Brit-
ish Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Insti-
tute for Archaeological Research, London and Cambridge.
Hodder, Ian, ed. 2000. Towards Reexive Method in Archaeology:
e Example at Çatalhöyük. British Institute of Archaeology
at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Re-
search, London and Cambridge.
Hodder, Ian. 2005. Peopling Çatalhöyük and its landscape. In In-
habiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1998 Seasons, ed-
ited by Ian Hodder. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, London
and Cambridge, pp. 1–30.
Hodder, Ian, ed. 2013a. Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük:
Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder.
British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, London and Los Angeles.
Hodder, Ian, ed. 2013b. Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük:
Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder.
British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, London and Los Angeles.
Hodder, Ian. 2014. Çatalhöyük: e leopard changes its spots: A
summary of recent work. Anatolian Studies 64:1–22.
Hodder, Ian, and Christopher Doherty. 2014. Temporal trends: e
shapes and narratives of cultural change at Çatalhöyük. In Inte-
grating Çatalhöyük: emes from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited
by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology, London and Los Angeles, pp. 169–183.
Kanjou, Yousef, Ian Kuijt, Yilmaz S. Erdal, and Osamu Kondo.
2013. Early human decapitation, 11,700–10,700 cal BP, within
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of Tell Qaramel, North Syria.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25(5):743–752.
Kansa, Sarah W., Suellen C. Gauld, Stuart Campbell, and Eliza-
beth Carter. 2009. Whose bones are those? Preliminary com-
parative analysis of fragmented human and animal bones in
the “Death Pit” at Domuztepe, a Late Neolithic settlement in
southeastern Turkey. Anthropozoologica 44(1):159–172.
Kenyon, Kathleen. 1953. Excavations at Jericho 1953. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 85:81–96.
Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1956. Jericho and its setting in Near East-
ern history. Antiquity 30(120):184–197.
Kenyon, Kathleen M., and omas A. Holland, eds. 1981. Excava-
tions at Jericho, Volume III: e Archaeolog y and Stratigraphy of
th e Tell . British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.
Knüsel, Christopher J. 2014. Crouching in fear: Terms of engage-
ment for funerary remains. Journal of Social Archaeology
14(1):26–58.
Knüsel, Christopher J., Scott D. Haddow, Joshua Sadvari, and
Jennifer Byrnes. 2012. Çatalhöyük Human Remains Team Ar-
chive Report 2012. Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report, pp. 132–
154. http: //www .catalhoyuk .com /sites /default /les /media /pdf
/Archive_Report_2012 .pdf.
Kuijt, Ian. 2000. Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching, and
community integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity,
and Dierentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 137–164.
Kuijt, Ian. 2001. Place, death and the transmission of social mem-
ory in early agricultural communities of the Near Eastern
Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East
70
Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Archaeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association Number 10:80–99.
Kuijt, Ian. 2008. e regeneration of life: Neolithic structures of
symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology
49(2):171–197.
Kuijt, Ian, and Nigel Goring-Morris. 2002. Foraging, farming,
and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the
Southern Levant: A review and synthesis. Journal of World
Prehistory 16:361–440.
Larsen, Clark Spencer, Simon W. Hillson, Başak Boz, Marin A.
Pilloud, Joshua W. Sadvari, Sabrina C. Agarwal, Bonnie Glen-
cross, Patrick Beauchesne, Jessica Pearson, Christopher B.
Ru, Evan M. Garofalo, Lori D. Hager, Scott D. Haddow, and
Christopher J. Knüsel. 2015. Bioarchaeology of Neolithic
Çatalhöyük: Lives and lifestyles of an early farming society in
transition. Journal of World Prehistory 28:27–68.
Larsen, Clark Spencer, Simon W. Hillson, Christopher B. Ru,
Joshua W. Sadvari, and Evan M. Garofalo. 2013. e human
remains II: Interpreting lifestyle and activity in Neolithic
Çatalhöyük. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Re-
ports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. Brit-
ish Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,
London and Los Angeles, pp. 397–508.
Le Mort, Françoise, Aslı Erim-Özdoğan, Metin Özbek, and Yase-
min Yilmaz. 2000. Feu et archéothanatologie au Proche Ori-
ent (Épipaléolithique et Néolithique): Le lien avec les pratiques
funéraires données nouvelles de Çayönü (Turquie). Paléorient
26(2):37–50.
Matthews, Wendy. 2005. Life-cycles and life-courses of build-
ings. In Çatalhöyük Perspectives: emes from the 1995–99
Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. McDonald Institute for Ar-
chaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 125–149.
Maureille, Bruno, and Pascal Sellier. 1996. Dislocation en ordre
paradoxal, momication et décomposition: Observations et
hypotheses. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropolo-
gie de Paris 8 (3–4):313–327.
Mellaart, James. 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, third prelim-
inary report, 1963. Anatolian Studies 14:39–119.
Meskell, Lynn. 2008. e nature of the beast: Curating ani-
malsand ancestors at Çatalhöyük. World Archaeology 40(3):
373–389.
Meskell, Lynn M., and Carolyn Nakamura. 2005. Çatalhöyük
gurines. In Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, pp. 161–188. http:
//www .catalhoyuk .com /sites /default /les /media /pdf /Archive
_Report_2005 .pdf.
Millaire, Jean-François. 2004. e manipulation of human re-
mains in Moche society: Delayed burials, grave reopening,
and secondary oerings of human bones on the Peruvian
north coast. Latin American Antiquity 15(4):371–388.
Molleson, eya, Peter Andrews, and Başak Boz. 2005. Recon-
struction of the Neolithic people of Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting
Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian
Hodder. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and Mc-
Donald Institute for Archaeological Research, London and
Cambridge, pp. 279–306.
Nakamura, Carolyn, and Lynn Meskell. 2013. e Çatalhöyük
burial assemblage. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük:
Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder.
Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 8. British Institute at
Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London
and Los Angeles, pp. 441–466.
Nelson, Andrew J. 1998. Wandering bones: Archaeology, foren-
sic science and Moche burial practices. International Journal
of Osteoarchaeology 8:192–212.
Okumura, Mercedes, and Yun Ysi Siew. 2013. An osteological
study of trophy heads: Unveiling the headhunting practice in
Borneo. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23: 685–697.
Özbek, Metin. 1986. Çayönü Yerleşmesindeki Kesik İnsan Başları.
Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 2:19–40.
Özbek, M. 2009. Remodeled human skulls in Köşk Höyük (Neo-
lithic age, Anatolia): A new appraisal in view of recent discov-
eries. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:379–386.
Özdoğan, Aslı. 1999. Çayönü. In Neolithic in Turkey: e Cradle
of Civilization, New Discoveries, edited by Metin Özdoğan
and Nezih Basgelen. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynilari, Istanbul,
pp. 57–97.
Özdoğan, Mehmet, and Aslı Özdoğan. 1998. Buildings of cult
and the cult of buildings. In Light on Top of the Black Hill:
Studies Presented to Halet Çambel, edited by G. Arsebük, M.
Mellink and E. Schirmer. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynilari, Istan-
bul, pp. 581–593.
Parker Pearson, Michael, Andrew Chamberlain, Oliver Craig,
Peter Marshall, Jacqui Mulville, Helen Smith, H., Carolyn
Chenery, Matthew Collins, Gordon Cook, Georey Craig, Jane
Evans, Jen Hiller, Janet Montgomery, Jean-Luc Schwenninger,
Gillian Taylor, and Timothy Wess. 2005. Evidence for mummi-
cation in Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 79(305):529–546.
Pearson, J. Forthcoming. e rst farmers of Central Anatolia:
A reconstruction and comparison of burial practice, diet and
health at t he Neolithic site of Boncuklu Höyük and beyond. In
Boncuklu: First Farmers in Central Anatolia and the Anteced-
ents of Çatalhöyük. From Foragers to Farmers in Central Ana-
tolia, Volume 1, edited by Douglas Baird and Andrew
Fairbairn. British Institute at Ankara, London.
Pilloud, Marin, Scott D. Haddow, Christopher J. Knüsel, and
Clark Spencer Larsen. 2016. A bio archae ol o gi cal and forensic
re-assessment of vulture deeshing and mortuary practices at
Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Archaeological Science: Re-
ports 10:735–743. DOI: 10 .1016 /j .jasrep .2016 .05 .029.
Pilloud, Marin A., and Clark Spencer Larsen. 2011. “Ocial” and
“practical” kin: Inferring social and community structure
from dental phenotype at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145:519–530.
Robb, John E., Ernestine Elster, Eugenia Isetti, Christopher J.
Knüsel, Mary Anne Tafuri, and Antonella Traverso. 2015.
Cleaning the dead: Neolithic ritual processing of human bone
at Scaloria Cave, Italy. Antiquity 89(343):39–54.
Roberts, Neil, Peter Boyer, and Jamie Merrick. 2007. e KOPAL
on-site and o-site excavations and sampling. In Excavating
Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the
1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archae-
ology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 553–572.
Rollefson, Gary. 1983. Ritual and ceremony at Neolithic Ain
Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9(2):29–38.
Rollefson, Gary. 2000. Ritual and social structure at Neolithic
‘Ain Ghazal. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities, edited
by Ian Kuijt. Springer, New York, pp. 163–188.
Rollefson, G. O. 2001. e Neolithic period. In e Archaeology
of Jordan, edited by B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkow-
ski. Academic Press, Sheeld, pp. 67–105.
Russell, Mary D. 1987a. Bone breakage in the Krapina hominid
collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
72:373–379.
Russell, Mary D. 1987b. Mortuary practices at the Krapina Ne-
anderthal site. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
72:381–3 9 7.
Sadarangani, Freya. 2014. e sequence of Buildings 53 and 42 and
external spaces 259, 260 and 261. In Çatalhöyük Excavations:
Haddow and Knüsel 71
e 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute
at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London
and Los Angeles, pp. 191–219.
Santana, Jonathan, Javier Velasco, Andrea Balbo, Eneko Iriarte,
Lydia Zapata Peña, Luis Teira, Christophe Nicolle, Frank Brae-
mer, and Juan José Ibáñez. 2015. Interpreting a ritual funerary
area at the Early Neolithic site of Tell Qarassa North (South
Syria, late 9th millennium BC). Journal of Anthropological Ar-
chaeology 37:112–127.
Santana, Jonathan, Javier Velasco, Juan José Ibáñez, and Frank
Braemer. 2012. Crania with mutilated facial skeletons: A new
ritual treatment in an Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cranial
cache at Tell Qarassa North (South Syria). American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 149:205–216.
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1997. Animal symbols at ‘Ain
Ghazal. Expedition 39(1):48–58.
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1998. A stone metaphor of creation.
Near Eastern Archaeology 61:109–117.
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 2013. e plastered skulls. In Symbols
at ‘Ain Ghazal (‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports Vol. 3), edited
by D. Schmandt-Besserat. ex-oriente, Berlin, pp. 213–243.
Schulting, Rick J. 2015. Mesolithic skull cults? In Ancient Death
Ways: Proceedings of the Workshop on Archaeology and Mor-
tuary Practices. Uppsala, 16–17 May 2013, edited by Kim von
Hackwitz, and Rita Peyroteo-Stjerna. Uppsala Universiteit,
Uppsala, pp. 19–46.
Sellier, Pascal, and Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento. 2013. Diérer la dé-
composition: Le temps suspendu? Les signes d'une momica-
tion préalable. Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie 132:30–36.
Stojanowski, C. M., and Duncan, W. N. 2011. Biohistory and cra-
nial morphology: A forensic case from Spanish colonial Geor-
gia. In e Bioarchaeology of the Human Head: Decapitation,
Decoration, and Deformation, edited by M. Bonogofsky. Uni-
versity Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 179–201.
Stordeur, Danielle. 2015. Le village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9500–
8700 av. J.-C.): L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique
complexe. CNRS Éditions, Paris.
Stordeur, Danielle, and Rima Khawam. 2007. Les crânes surmod-
elés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie): Premier régard sur l’ensem-
ble, Premières reexions. Syria 84:5–32.
Stordeur, Danielle, Rima Khawam, Bassam Jammous, and Élise
Morero. 2006. L’aire funéraire de Tell Aswad (PPNB). Syria
83:39–62.
Strouhal, Eugene. 1973. Five plastered skulls from Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B Jericho: Anthropological study. Paléorient
2:231–2 4 7.
Talalay, Lauren E. 2004. Heady business: Skulls, heads, and de-
capitation in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece. Journal of Medi-
terranean Archaeology 17:139–163.
Testart, Alain. 2008. Des crânes et des vautour ou la guerre ou-
bliée. Paléorient 34(1):35–58.
Testart, Alain. 2009. Réponse. Paléorient 35(1):133–136.
Toussaint, Michel. 2011. Intentional cutmarks on an early Meso-
lithic human calvaria from Margaux Cave (Dinant, Belgium).
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144:100–107.
Tung, Burcu. 2014. Excavations in the North Area. Çatalhöyük
2014 Archive Report, pp. 13–42. http: //www .catalhoyuk .com
/ sites /default /les /media /pdf /Archive_Report_2014_0 .pdf.
Valentin, Frédérique, and Noémie Rolland. 2011. Marquesan tro-
phy skulls: Description, osteological analyses, and changing
motivations in the South Pacic. In e Bioarchaeology of the
Human Head: Decapitation, Decoration, and Deformation, ed-
ited by Michelle Bonogofsky. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, pp. 97–121.
Verhoeven, Marc. 2002. Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge
Archaeology Journal 12(2):233–258.
Villa, Paola, Claude Bouville, Jean Courtin, Daniel Helmer, Éric
Mahieu, Pat Shipman, Georg io Belluomini, and Ma rilí Branca.
1986a. Cannibalism in the Neolithic. Science 233:431–437.
Villa, Paola, Jean Courtin, Daniel Helmer, Pat Shipman, Claude
Bouville, and Éric Mahieu. 1986b. Un cas de cannibalism au
Neolithique: Boucherie et rejet de restes humains et animaux
dans la grotte de Fontbrégoua (Var). Gallia Préhistoire
29:143–171.
Villa, Paola, and Éric Mahieu. 1991. Breakage patterns of human
long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21:27–48.
Wilhelmson, Helene, and Nicoló Dell’Unto. 2015. Virtual tapho-
nomy: A new method integrating excavation and postprocess-
ing in an archaeological context. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 157:305–321.
Wright, George R. H. 1988. e severed head in earliest Neolithic
times. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 2:51–56.
Yılmaz, Y. 2010. Neolitik Dönem'de Anadolu'da Ölü Gömme
Uygulamaları: Çayönü Örneği. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, De-
partment of Prehistory, Istanbul University.
