“But some were more equal than others:” Exploring inequality at Neolithic Çatalhöyük

Abstract

We explore the ways in which residents of Neolithic Çatalhöyük in Anatolia differentiated themselves as well as the ways in which they did not. We integrate numerous data sets in order to assess patterns of inequality (A) across buildings with contemporaneous occupations, (B) between buildings that did or did not burn at abandonment, and (C) through time. We use Gini coefficients so as to maximize comparability with other studies of inequality in the ancient and modern worlds, discussing the underlying data and our results to clarify and enhance the value of the quantitative analyses. We evaluate whether or not trajectories of inequality align across data sets in order to determine how far success in one realm correlated with success in another. Our results indicate no unified trajectory of inequality through time. We perceive broadly similar access to staple foods, but not to goods less directly related to survival; relatively elevated income inequality during the middle portion of the site’s occupation, plausibly deliberately tamped down; and no evidence for institutionalized or lasting economic or social inequality. These findings shed light on Neolithic social dynamics and also contribute to broader discussions of inequality and the social ramifications of early agropastoralism.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
“But some were more equal than others:”
Exploring inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu
¨k
Katheryn C. TwissID
1
, Amy Bogaard
2
, Scott HaddowID
3
, Marco MilellaID
4
, James
S. TaylorID
5
*, Rena VeropoulidouID
6
, Kevin Kay
7
, Christopher J. Knu
¨selID
8
,
Christina Tsoraki
7
, Milena Vasić
9
, Jessica Pearson
10
, Gesualdo Busacca
11
,
Camilla Mazzucato
3
, Sharon Pochron
12
1Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America,
2School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 3Department of Cross-Cultural and
Regional Studies, Copenhagen University, København, Denmark, 4Department of Physical Anthropology,
Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 5Department of Archaeology,
University of York, York, United Kingdom, 6Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Athens, Greece, 7School of
Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom, 8CNRS, MC, PACEA
UMR 5199, Universite
´de Bordeaux, Pessac, France, 9Independent Researcher, Berlin, Germany,
10 Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool,United Kingdom,
11 Syracuse Academy, Siracusa, Italy, 12 School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook
University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America
*james.s.taylor@york.ac.uk
Abstract
We explore the ways in which residents of Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k in Anatolia differentiated
themselves as well as the ways in which they did not. We integrate numerous data sets in
order to assess patterns of inequality (A) across buildings with contemporaneous occupa-
tions, (B) between buildings that did or did not burn at abandonment, and (C) through time.
We use Gini coefficients so as to maximize comparability with other studies of inequality in
the ancient and modern worlds, discussing the underlying data and our results to clarify and
enhance the value of the quantitative analyses. We evaluate whether or not trajectories of
inequality align across data sets in order to determine how far success in one realm corre-
lated with success in another. Our results indicate no unified trajectory of inequality through
time. We perceive broadly similar access to staple foods, but not to goods less directly
related to survival; relatively elevated income inequality during the middle portion of the
site’s occupation, plausibly deliberately tamped down; and no evidence for institutionalized
or lasting economic or social inequality. These findings shed light on Neolithic social dynam-
ics and also contribute to broader discussions of inequality and the social ramifications of
early agropastoralism.
Introduction
Scholars have long debated whether early agropastoralism was intrinsically associated with the
“origins of inequality,” seeking the roots of current cultural practices or problems and largely
presenting social developments as the byproducts of sedentism and/or crop agriculture [e.g., 1,
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 1 / 40
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Twiss KC, Bogaard A, Haddow S, Milella
M, Taylor JS, Veropoulidou R, et al. (2024) “But
some were more equal than others:” Exploring
inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k. PLoS ONE 19(9):
e0307067. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0307067
Editor: Stefanos Gimatzidis, Austrian Academy of
Sciences, AUSTRIA
Received: January 18, 2024
Accepted: June 28, 2024
Published: September 6, 2024
Copyright: ©2024 Twiss et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the manuscript and its Supporting
information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.

2–5:205–259]. Many now reject any inherent linkage between agriculture and inequality as tel-
eological and materialist [e.g., 6,7], and there is no longer a consensus that either sedentism or
food production automatically entails the rise of inequality greater than exists in hunting and
gathering societies [8–13]. It is true that sedentism enables population growth and accumula-
tion of material goods and concentrates resource depletion in limited areas [14–16]. Agricul-
ture sets the stage for economic inequality, as (a) different patches of land have differential
productive potential, (b) farmers have built-in incentives to produce surpluses [17,18], and (c)
farmers can live in large communities with heterogenous flows of information and social inter-
action [e.g., 7]. However, people may ignore or actively avoid taking that stage, and ethno-
graphically documented sedentary food producers do not always have significant levels of
inequality [13,19,20]. Specific forms of food production may nonetheless bend societies
toward not just contemporaneous inequalities but also durable (intergenerationally transmissi-
ble) distinctions. Borgerhoff Mulder et al. [21] argue that pastoralism is commonly associated
with substantial (if socially unrecognized) distinctions; Gurven et al. [20] tie inequality to reli-
ance on predictable and monopolizable resources that are available in limited quantities;
Smith and Codding [22] correlate institutionalized inequality with reliance on spatiotempo-
rally clumped resources (wild or domestic); Shenk et al. [23: 80] claim that intensive (meaning
plow and/or irrigation) farming is necessary, if not sufficient, for persistent inequality to
emerge.
Many scholars have investigated the extents and possible forms of inequality in early agri-
cultural societies. Some researchers have focused on potential economic disparities [11,24–27,
see also, 28]; some on political distinctions [29–32]; some on ritual differentiations [33:18,
34:114, 35,36]; and relatively few on multiple dimensions of asymmetry [37,38]. Motivated, in
part, by a desire to understand the development of institutionalized hierarchy and of economic
complexity, archaeologists working around the globe debate whether various forms of food
production propelled non-age-or-sex-based inequities and how any such inequities may have
manifested socially [39–42].
Inequality among early southwest Asian agropastoralists
Inequality existed in Neolithic southwest Asia. Within any early farming village or town, at
any moment in time, some residents were children and some adults; some were healthy and
skilled, and some unwell or inept. In any given year some fields would produce more than oth-
ers, and some animals would thrive while others fell ill or simply grew old. Neolithic people
participated differentially in society, and productive capacities varied between households.
Scholars of early agropastoralism debate, however, whether unequal production coexisted with
inequalities in other spheres of life, and whether economic or social distinctions were tempo-
rary or transferrable across generations [e.g., 11,25–32,37–41].
Over the decades researchers have inferred a wide variety of social structures and interper-
sonal relationships among the sedentary villagers and townspeople of Neolithic southwest Asia
(ca. 10,200–6000 bp/9700-5300 cal BCE, but here and throughout the paper we speak only of
eras and areas possessing the full Neolithic “package” of domesticated animals as well as
plants). It is nonetheless clear that during the Neolithic, large, densely populated settlements
arose, whose hundreds—in the largest sites, perhaps even thousands—of inhabitants farmed
wheat, barley, and legumes, herded caprines and cattle, built complex and sometimes multi-
story stone and mudbrick structures, traded across large distances, and interacted regularly
with sizable networks of kin, neighbors, friends, and relatively distant acquaintances.
Scholars of early southwest Asian agropastoralism have argued for Neolithic hierarchical
distinctions [29,41,43,44], for egalitarianism [broadly defined, e.g. 6:72, 25:163], and for
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 2 / 40

cultures in which social mechanisms suppress distinctions that would naturally arise [45–50].
Due in part to a tendency to base such analyses on relatively few lines of evidence (commonly
one or two data sets and their architectural contexts [e.g., 51–53]) and in part to the difficulty
of acquiring data sets large, detailed, and chronologically controlled enough to shed light on
patterns of inequality within settlements rather than anecdotal evidence, we still largely lack
studies that a) evaluate multiple possible forms of inequality and b) examine both synchronic
and diachronic distinctions.
Here we attempt to fill this gap by deploying detailed artifactual, ecofactual, mortuary, and
architectural data sets from the Early Ceramic Neolithic site of C¸atalho¨yu¨k in central Anatolia
in order to better understand Neolithic social organization. We compare and contrast a wide
array of assets across houses in order to evaluate differences in subsistence income, productive
capacity, symbolic elaboration, and “costly” or “prestige” personal goods. We assess whether
inferred household income was directly or inversely associated with political or symbolic
wealth, and examine evidence for the durability of house differences. We consider the extent
to which ancient house abandonment practices shape modern perceptions of inequality, and
evaluate whether levels or forms of inequality changed over the course of the site’s occupation.
We use differences in material culture as proxies for differences in social position, acknowl-
edging the necessary caveats as we discuss potential distinctions between productive capacities,
staple assets, and relational positioning [e.g., 37,54:17, 55,56]. We calculate Gini coefficients
for each of the data sets we examine in order to maximize comparability with other studies of
inequality in the ancient and modern worlds [39,57–59], but view them as conversation-start-
ers rather than final conclusions. We stress that whereas in archaeology “inequality” has often
been used to refer to hierarchical differentiation, our quantitative analyses simply reveal the
extent of dissimilarity in different data sets at C¸atalho¨yu¨k. The dissimilarities thus discovered
cannot necessarily be equated with a hierarchical social order, and they certainly cannot be
taken as proof of institutionalized inequities.
The goal of this paper is thus to explore the ways in which C¸atalho¨yu¨k people differentiated
themselves as well as the ways in which they did not. Doing so enables us not just to shed light
on Neolithic social dynamics but also to contribute to broader discussions of inequality and
the social ramifications of early agropastoralism.
Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k
During the early and middle 7
th
millennium BCE, the residents of Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k in
central Anatolia occupied a settlement like none other on the Konya Plain [60–63]. Above
fields, rivulets, and scattered trees, closely packed rectangular mudbrick structures (Fig 1)
housed townspeople who lived in clusters so tightly packed that many people crossed their
neighbors’ abutting roofs in order to descend via ladder into their doorless homes. The num-
ber of residents fluctuated through time: recent estimates range from several hundred to per-
haps a few thousand at peak occupation [64,65], with perhaps seasonal as well as longer-term
shifts in numbers. All buildings show signs of residential occupation, and three decades of
excavation [66–71] have revealed no communal architecture or generally accessible spaces pre-
dating the topmost layers of the mound [61, although see, 72,73]. It is generally agreed that life
at C¸atalho¨yu¨k took place in, around, and above the homologous residential structures that we
here term houses.
These houses were individually built and contain hearths, platforms, and storage spaces.
Inside them we find evidence for activities ranging from stone working to grain grinding to rit-
ual interment [63,74–82]. Animal bones embedded in walls, benches, and posts as well as
stones and bones placed in foundation and commemorative deposits testify to a domestic
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 3 / 40

sphere saturated with symbolism and ritual [80,83–86]. Architectural, artifactual, and ecofac-
tual data reveal differential use of indoor space, with cooking and stoneworking typically con-
ducted in buildings’ southern halves and symbolic installations placed near their northern
walls. Burials are typically found under houses’ northern floors, although extremely young
infants are more often found in southern areas and side rooms [82]. Indeed, the regularity
with which buildings display similar layouts and uses of space is remarkable. Idiosyncrasies
certainly exist, but with 197 buildings partially or wholly uncovered (144 by Mellaart’s team;
53 in the modern era) we see only modest deviations from what must have been strong cultural
norms [87–89]. Buildings underwent repeated modifications during their occupations, which
typically lasted between 50 and 100 years [90–92]. Most buildings were thoroughly cleaned out
at abandonment, their installations dismantled and their floors carefully swept. A handful of
buildings burned without being emptied, however: debate continues as to the intentionality of
their incineration, and thus as to the extent to which their contents reflect daily life inside the
structure [83,93–96].
Fig 1. Plan of C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k North Area, with photos of select buildings during excavation. Photographer Jason Quinlan; copyright C¸atalho¨yu¨k Research Project.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.g001
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 4 / 40

Houses as a unit of analysis for studying inequality at C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k
We argue here—as have others at C¸atalho¨yu¨k and other southwest Asian Neolithic sites [50,
97–103]—that using buildings (“houses”) as the primary unit of analysis for comparing and
contrasting evidence from across the site is a valid approach. Nevertheless, these structures
likely did not function wholly autonomously [e.g., 104–106]. Ethnographically and ethnohis-
torically documented farming households rely on and socialize extensively with each other
[e.g., 107,108], and archaeologists have inferred non-coresidential social groups at multiple
Neolithic sites in the southern Levant as well as at C¸atalho¨yu¨k itself. Hodder & Pels [109] and
Du¨ring [52,110,111] posit that at C¸atalho¨yu¨k neighborhoods may have been foundational ele-
ments of social organization; Kuijt [112] suggests that multifamily Houses (sensu House Socie-
ties) organized both social and ritual life; Mills [113] and Rosenberg and Rocek [45] argue that
sodalities were important. We nonetheless consider individual buildings to have been “the key
component of the social fabric and. . . the main and enduring principle of social organization,”
as supra-household groupings were relatively fluid and interdigitating rather than fixed and
distinct [88:8].
Evidence cited for supra-household social groups elsewhere in the southwest Asian agro-
pastoral Neolithic includes anthropomorphic statuary [114]; stylized plastered skulls [114];
possible cult objects found inside houses [114]; individuals interred in “trash” (middens)
outside houses [114]; stone masks [45]; remains of feasts [47,115]; crop isotopes that are
broadly similar across a site [116]; and non-residential structures, spaces or monuments
inferred to have been built for multi-household ceremonies or rituals [e.g., 7,45,102,114,
117–119]. Few of these lines of evidence exist at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Here, the conversa-
tions around supra-household social life have centered around (a) inferred relationships
between structures [e.g., 52,88,111,112,120,121]; (b) inferred feasting remains [76,122];
(c) differential numbers of burials and architectural elements across houses [52,109–112,
123,124]; (d) wall paintings depicting group hunts and people who might be wearing cos-
tumes [45,113]; (e) shared technologies [e.g., 125:14, 126]; and (f) the sheer size of the settle-
ment [72] and its location in a variably productive landscape, which plausibly caused
residents to have to coordinate agricultural production, in combination with botanical
remains indicating intensive crop management (consistent with cooperative labor) and vari-
ably public crop processing [116].
From our perspective, the balance of evidence at C¸atalho¨yu¨k does not point to supra-house-
hold social units with durable, unambiguous spatial “footprints” [contra 112,127] that would
allow quantitative comparison between such communities. Rather, such larger communities
appear shifting, contextual, rooted in particular practices and interleaving in space. Architec-
tural connections between houses are scattered both spatially and chronologically, and take no
consistent form. We perceive no patterned repetition as might suggest systematized social rela-
tionships involving multiple houses’ residents. Nor do discrete artifactual assemblages or sets
of features (analogous to archaeological ‘cultures’, sensu Childe [1]) recur across houses, as we
might expect if households consisted of multiple dispersed residences with inhabitants of dif-
ferent social or economic statuses, as in classic historical “house societies” [e.g., 128–130]. Sta-
ble isotope analyses of house “groups” reveal no significant dietary clustering [131].
Households surely collaborated agriculturally [116,132], but extensive investigation has not
enabled identification of specific cooperative units or even their likely scale. Some of the site’s
zooarchaeological deposits and stable isotope values reflect food sharing at scales larger than
the individual household [76,133,134], but participant numbers are estimates at best and par-
ticipant identities pure guesswork. Mazzucato identified clusters of buildings that shared a
larger amount of material culture and thus were probably related; she does not, however,
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 5 / 40

suggest that these groups superseded individual houses’ economic or social agency, stressing
instead that her data indicate “a marked. . .site-wide shared community identity” [88:21].
Our understanding of houses’ position as the basal socioeconomic units of society is
enriched by botanical data from houses across the settlement (S1 Table). All of C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s
structures contain botanical deposits that reflect in situ use such as fire installations and adja-
cent “dirty” floors [132]. Plant taxa consumed at C¸atalho¨yu¨k include cereals, pulses and other
non-canonical crops, and gathered resources: small-seeded mustard, nuts like acorn and
almond, and fruits like hackberry (which survives without charring due to its carbonate-rich
shell). Across the settlement and through time, individual houses parallel each other in their
suites of staples. Fig 2 shows that most (40/48) buildings across the site contain evidence for
cereals, pulses and fruit/nut taxa, but all buildings represented by at least five samples contain
all three categories. Moreover, all of the buildings represented by at least five samples contain
evidence for glume wheat, barley, and free-threshing wheat, plus one to four pulses and two to
seven fruit/nut taxa. All reasonably-well-sampled buildings thus have yielded evidence for a
similar variety of cereals, pulses and fruits/nuts. S2 Table, which examines high-density con-
centrations of plant material found in burned buildings, corroborates that the occupants of
most if not all buildings enjoyed equitable access to and use of cereals, pulses and other food
plants.
Fig 2. The number of plant taxa identified in buildings at C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k. Forty-eight buildings are represented, arranged along the x-axis according to their
number of analyzed macrobotanical samples.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.g002
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 6 / 40

This pattern could, of course, be attributable to resource pooling: it is inconsistent with
some structures having atypical purposes or uses (e.g., sodality ‘ritual buildings’), but not
with multi-residential economic units. The houses do not, however, all contain the same
plants: they have similar diversities of taxa, not identical lists of species. There are clear differ-
ences in the selection of particular taxa among buildings, particularly amongst the glume
wheats, pulses and fruits/nuts. Some of these differences appear to distinguish plant use
between the North and South Areas through the middle of the site occupation sequence (e.g.
new type in the North, emmer in the South; lentil in the North, pea in the South), but this is a
question of emphasis/degree, not of exclusive access [51,132]. For example, “new type”
glume wheat was present at low levels relative to emmer throughout the earlier Neolithic in
the South Area. The broad difference between neighborhoods appears to have been a result
of conscious decisions to experiment with minor crops, such as “new type” glume wheat in
the North and pea in the South. The permeation of such innovations across buildings and
areas of the site also speaks to general equality of access to food plant resources. The similar-
ity and redundancy—but not identicality—of house plant assemblages is thus a strong argu-
ment in favor of household units. Recovery of in situ botanical remains from indoor storage
installations demonstrates further that staple goods were retained in, and therefore presum-
ably controlled by, the houses.
We thus conclude that at C¸atalho¨yu¨k the individual house is the archaeologically clearest
and most appropriate unit of analysis. As noted above, such houses were surely not fully auton-
omous, but no data suggest that multi-residential bonds superseded co-residential ones. Amid
the “dispersed overlapping mosaic of relationships” [121:153] that characterized life at Neo-
lithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k, those located in and around the house shaped people’s lives economically,
socially, and ritually.
Our analyses assume that each house was associated with a basal socioeconomic unit (not
necessarily a nuclear family [135–137]) and that its attributes—size, elaboration, contents—
reflect traits of that unit although not necessarily only that unit’s traits. Such assumptions like-
wise underpin previous analyses of social and economic inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k.
Researchers such as Hodder [121], Wright [53], Bogaard et al. [75], Conolly [138], Mazzucato
[88], Love [139] and Du¨ring [52,110,111], have compared and contrasted structures’ artifac-
tual, ecofactual, or mortuary contents in order to explore potential economic, social, and/or
ritual distinctions. Conclusions have varied considerably: “Social inequality is suggested by the
sizes of buildings, equipment, and burial gifts. . .” wrote James Mellaart after he finished his
years of excavation at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k in central Anatolia [66:225], whereas Ian Hodder
[89:5] describes a “fierce egalitarianism.” Asouti [140:87] infers an “essentially egalitarian soci-
ety. . . [but with] a certain measure of asymmetry and competition in relations between indi-
viduals and households”, while Rosenberg and Rocek [45:26] perceive “inequality and
sodality-related hierarchy constrained by a communal egalitarian ethos” and Der and Issavi
[87:201] argue for “heterarchical house-based social organization.” The extent and form(s) of
inequality at C¸atalho¨yu¨k thus remain unresolved; some researchers find social inequality
where others find no or limited social disparity, while others describe mechanisms that acted
to reduce such disparities.
In this study we examine inequality at the settlement from three different angles. First, we
evaluate the equality of remains associated with houses inhabited during a single phase of the
site’s occupation. We then assess whether perceptions of inequality are skewed by differential
modes of abandonment, exploring levels of inequality across houses that burned as opposed to
those that did not. Finally, we investigate whether patterns of differentiation changed through
time.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 7 / 40

Materials and methods
Our study diverges from previous analyses in both approach and scale. To begin with, we do
not use the stratigraphic chronology established by Mellaart in the 1960s [cf. 52,111,112]. Sin-
gle Mellaart occupation phases include structures now believed to have been constructed at
different times and occupied for varying durations: many buildings were left open after aban-
donment and before infilling, so houses and spaces that appear contemporaneous in Mellaart
plans were, contra several previous analyses, not all in use at the same time [72,141]. Mellaart’s
building plans also omit relevant features, mislocate walls by up to 2.5m, and present houses as
static entities rather than as the multiphasic changing structures we now know them to have
been [124]. We therefore use “Hodder Levels,” which use recently-excavated stratigraphic and
architectural relationships to establish a comparatively fine-grained relative chronology [142].
Bayesian analysis of the site’s
14
C dates is still underway, but we can anchor Hodder levels in
larger site occupation phases with assigned radiocarbon dates (Table 1).
In order to ensure that our analyses rest on comparable and reliable datasets, we include
only buildings that are at least 75% excavated, with architecture and features verified by the
modern C¸atalho¨yu¨k Research Project (C¸HRP). By “fully excavated” we mean that not only
have all architecture and building contents been recovered, but also all subfloor deposits. To
maximize direct comparability of data, we include only buildings from the Early, Middle, and
Late phases of the site’s occupation, as C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic occupations
were excavated and analyzed by teams and using protocols that largely but not completely
overlapped with those used throughout the earlier phases [see 61,143–145]. Twenty buildings
meet these requirements (Table 2,S3 Table).
This paper is a new analysis of data previously published elsewhere: full details on data col-
lection methods, specimen numbers, and conservation and curation strategies can be found in
the cited literature. All materials were analyzed with the consent of the Turkish authorities
under the permit from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General-Directorate of Cultural
Heritage and Museums, provided to the C¸atalho¨yu¨k Research Project under the direction of
Prof. Ian Hodder. Raw data, including dates of recovery, contextual associations, and excava-
tor records, are freely available online at https://www.catalhoyuk.com/research/database.
Data sets
We base our study on archaeological datasets identified as reasonable correlates of socioeco-
nomic assets. Table 3 outlines these data sets, citing examples of their socioeconomically signif-
icant differential distribution in ethnographically documented societies as well as their
previous use in archaeological inferences about ancient inequality and summarizing their
character at C¸atalho¨yu¨k specifically.
Many studies of ancient inequality use overall house sizes as a primary data set [13,57, cf
97,146,147]. House internal area is also a widely-used line of evidence in archaeological dis-
cussions of inequality [42,59,106,148,149]. At C¸atalho¨yu¨k most houses abutted others on all
four sides, constraining house scale and outline. We therefore exclude both house size and
Table 1. C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k chronology: Levels and occupational phases. After Farid 2014; Mazzucato 2019.
C¸ atalho
¨yu
¨k occupation phase Hodder Level Cal BCE (circa)
South Area North Area
Late South P-T North H-J 6500–6300
Middle South M-O North F, G 6700–6500
Early South G-L n/a 7100–6700
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.t001
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 8 / 40

Table 2. Buildings included in this study. For a complete tally of their features and contents, including data sets not discussed in the main body of this paper, please see S3 Table.
"Income" Productive capacity Symbolic/Relational Assets "Costly" or prestige portable goods
Occupation
phase
Building Level % of
building
that was
excavated
Burned
building?
Side room
m
2
# of
grinding
tools with
use faces
fixed grinding
installations = area
of use face in cm
2
Paintings Faunal
Installations
(in situ)
Faunal
special
deposits
Burial MNIs
(primary
and
secondary)
# of
primary
individuals
# of
secondary
individuals
Grave goods
(intentionally
placed)
Exotic
shells
# of
exotic
shell
sources
# of
exotic
stone
beads
# of non-
local stone
material
types
Early 2South
K
75 5.1 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0
17 South
K
75 9.1 0 0 31 0 0 25 25 0 57 16 2 0 1
160 South
K
100 6.7 0 0 2 0 17 4 4 0 8 1 1 0 1
43 South
L
75 4.9 0 0 3 0 0 9 9 0 8 3 1 0 1
Middle 119 North
F
75 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
132 North
F
75 n/a 0 0 3 0 0 10 10 0 29 6 2 1 1
1North
G
100 y 9.8 0 0 21 2 15 60 52 8 72 85 2 3 2
3North
G
100 6.3 0 0 15 2 30 8 8 0 20 6 2 0 2
49 North
G
100 2.3 0 0 31 0 25 15 15 0 38 54 2 0 3
51 North
G
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1
52 North
G
85 y 8.5 3 0 13 5 26 18 15 3 33 3 2 0 3
59 North
G
100 29.5 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
77 North
G
100 y 7.9 12 627 48 3 60 39 34 5 66 223 3 2 3
114 North
G
75 n/a 2 316 13 0 16 15 15 0 21 44 2 1 2
131 North
G
100 y 15.7 0 0 13 2 0 41 16 25 70 575 3 2 2
50 South
M
75 3.1 0 0 2 0 2 15 15 0 28 1 1 0 0
97 South
O
100 y n/a 0 0 1 1 24 14 14 0 6 6 2 0 2
Late 65 South
Q
100 5.3 2 0 0 0 30 16 13 3 3 4 2 2 3
56 South
R
100 4.7 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 6 2 1 1 1
44 South
S
100 n/a 3 0 13 0 0 16 16 0 8 14 3 26 3
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.t002
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 9 / 40

Table 3. Data sets considered in this paper and their inferred relationships to various forms of social differentiation.
Archaeological
criterion
Sample ethnographic, historical,
and archaeological studies
discussing criterion in relation to
inequality
Primarily discussed in relation
to
Notes on context at C¸ atalho
¨yu
¨k
Subsistence
income
Side room m
2
[23,59,106,150,151] Agricultural income,
household production.
Side room space is commonly allotted to
storage, particularly of food [75,76,93]. We
consider side room space an acceptable, if
rough, proxy for “land” and /or “food.”
Productive
capacity
Number of grinding
tools with use faces
[53,103,152–156] Productive capacity; relational
assets.
Microwear and starch analyses confirm that
grinding tools were used for plant—mostly
cereal—processing [153,157].
Grinding installations
use area, cm
2
Symbolic
elaboration
(relational/
political assets)
Wall paintings [45,70,89,109,121,158,159] Prestige/status, political and
symbolic assets.
Many C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k houses feature paintings on
their walls: monochromatic red panels,
geometric designs, handprints, and on rare
occasion figurative motifs [160]. Whatever their
emic messaging, the paintings clearly carried
social messages.
Bucrania and other
animal part
installations
[66,85,109,112,115,161,162]
Note: [19,20,163,164] measure
hunting success; [19] measures food
sharing. We deem this a plausible
proxy for either/both.
Faunal installations—skulls, horns and other
animal body parts that are embedded in walls,
benches, and other architectural features—are
widely considered evidence of social/symbolic
prominence [85,109].
Number of individuals
buried in Building
(MNI)
• Number of primary
burials
• Number of
secondary burials
[23,109,112,124,159] Ritual assets; relational somatic
wealth (embodied human
assets)
Subfloor burial was standard practice at
C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k. As burials were commonly placed
in the same locations within houses, many
buildings contain complex deposits formed by
sequences of individual interments. Both
primary and secondary burials are well
represented among the remains [82,165].
• Faunal “special
deposits”
[47,84,115,166] Symbolic, political economic
assets
Discrete and contextually or osteologically
atypical deposits of animal remains are
plausibly linked to ritualized social activities.
Examples include bundled aurochs horn cores,
groups of minimally processed large animal
bones, and bones deposited inside platforms
during construction [83,84,86,93,167,168].
Number of grave goods [66,100,147,161,169–173] Symbolic, relational and
economic assets
Some items were clearly intentionally placed in
graves (e.g., bead strings, rings). Other items
discovered in grave fills may or may not have
been deliberately placed. We include only items
we are sure were intentionally included in
burials in our main text discussions. Readers
can find the data for all items recovered from
grave fills in S3 Table.
Marine Shells
• Number of non-local
shell specimens
• Number of locations
in which shell taxa
originated
[171,174,175] “Costly” or “prestige” goods Non-local (exotic) marine shells originated tens
or hundreds of km from the site; their presence
at C¸ atalho¨yu¨k reflects investments of time and
energy. They were used to make bodily
adornments, suggesting further associations
with personal prestige and/or identity [173,176,
177].
S3 Table includes a breakdown of the shell
assemblage into marine (Mediterranean and
Aegean) and fossil (Hatay and Taurus) shells.
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 10 / 40

internal area from our assessments, although readers can find the data for both in S3 Table. No
monumental architecture has been discovered at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k, precluding its inclu-
sion in analyses [cf. 13]. As Buildings 114 and 132 lack complete floor plans, they are excluded
from architectural comparisons.
We rely on deposits that tie in stratigraphically to specific house constructions, occupations,
and abandonments. Many buildings have noteworthy deposits lying in fills well above floor
levels, but such deposits are rarely linked to the house shells in which they lie. We include all
material that after careful contextual analysis we deem securely linked to particular house use-
lives [see papers in 71,185–187 for details]. Our analyses aggregate data from all biographical
phases of each building: foundation, use, and abandonment. We do so primarily for pragmatic
reasons, deeming the benefits to sample sizes of such aggregation worth the lowered levels of
Table 3. (Continued )
Archaeological
criterion
Sample ethnographic, historical,
and archaeological studies
discussing criterion in relation to
inequality
Primarily discussed in relation
to
Notes on context at C¸ atalho
¨yu
¨k
“Costly” or
“prestige”
personal goods
Non-local stone
• Number of non-local
beads
• Number of non-local
raw materials
[153,161,178,179] “Costly” or “prestige” goods At least 30 different types of rocks and minerals
are represented in the C¸ atalho¨yu¨k bead
assemblage. Some, such as fluorapatite, derive
from sources tens or hundreds of km from the
site [173].
S3 Table includes the number of stone
materials.
Additional lines of evidence not included in main body of analyses here:data available in Supplementary Information.
House size
• Internal m
2
[42,59,106,148,149] Number of residents (somatic
wealth); economic wellbeing;
space available for social/
relational activity.
While widely used in inequality comparisons, at
C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k house size (and thus internal m
2
) is
constrained by surrounding structures.
Side room m
2
/ internal
m
2
Comparing storage/production
vs. social/ritual asset
The ratio of side room m2 to main room m2,
previously used to assess inequality at
C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k, is potentially affected by house
layout constraints. Evidence that main room
spaces were sometimes used for storage and
food production also renders the significance of
the measure unclear.
Platform m
2
Symbolic/relational assets At C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k, platforms are strongly
associated with burials, installations, and other
forms of symbolic/ritual activity [70].
Number of known
house rebuilds
[109,124,159] Symbolic/relational
significance of the house
Used to build previous assessments of
inequality at C¸ atalho¨yu¨k, but the size of the data
set is limited. There are too few fully-excavated
sequences of superimposed houses to permit
effective comparison.
Total cm
2
of grinding
tools use faces
[153–156] Productive capacity The data track closely with the number of
grinding tools. We exclude them from our in-
text charts as redundant for discussion and in
order to maximize figure legibility.
Ratio of subadult: adult
burials
Productive capacity (size of
labor pool); symbolic/relational
wealth
Individuals of all ages were interred
intramurally. Subadults and adults are
represented among both the primary and the
secondary interments [82].
Dietary stable isotopes
• average
13
C
• average
15
N
[49,180–183]
Note: [184] discusses isotope values
with respect to identity rather than
status per se.
Dietary distinctions; land
usufruct (unequal access to
food, landscape areas at base of
food chain)
Dietary isotope values are shaped by both
biological (e.g., age, health) and social
influences. As only skeletons with good
collagen preservation yielded data, many
buildings contained individuals for whom no
13
C or
15
N values are available.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.t003
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 11 / 40

precision, especially as C¸atalho¨yu¨k houses were mostly quite short-lived [60,188] and it is
unclear that enhancing the temporal granularity of our analyses would contribute more signal
than noise to our inferences.
We turn now to describing each data set’s character as well as recovery at Neolithic C¸atal-
ho¨yu¨k. We group our data sets according to their posited relevance to various forms of socio-
economic differentiation—productive capacity, staple assets, interpersonal relations—even as
we again acknowledge the likelihood that assets originating or expressed in one sphere had
value across others as well.
Economic differentiation
Productive capacities: Grinding capacity. Grinding tools form one of the main compo-
nents of productive technologies at C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Detailed spatial and contextual analysis sug-
gests that these implements had close associations with houses and formed part of the regular
household toolkit [79,153]. There is currently no evidence to suggest that “cooperative grind-
ing”–that is, multiple grinding toolkits positioned in the same space—was practiced at Neo-
lithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k [153]. The assemblage includes both portable tools and grinding installations
embedded in building floors and platforms [53,153].
Ethnographic research highlights a correlation between the size of the grinding surface area
and grinding capacity measured as flour produced per hour [154–156]. Quern size varies con-
siderably at C¸atalho¨yu¨k, with weights ranging from 2 to 54.6 kg. Our grinding stone data
derive from buildings’ occupation and abandonment phases. They thus testify to the actual or
—if some stones were placed in buildings as part of abandonment rituals—fictive productive
capacities of individual houses [see 80,93,95]. We therefore analyze the use area of each
house’s grinding installations and tools. We also consider the number of usable implements
per building, which plausibly reflects a house’s labor pool. A dearth of heavily used tools and
the abandonment of fully functional tools suggest that grinding tools were not curated, herita-
ble implements [79,153]. Rather, Wright [53], Benz [189], and Benz et al. [190] use inferred
deliberate destruction of ground stone tools to argue against wealth/assets being transmissible.
The portable tools data are excluded from Figs 3–5to make them more easily readable; S3–S6
Tables demonstrate that they align almost exactly with the other two lines of evidence.
Subsistence income: Household storage capacities. Side rooms were used for storage;
they were where food and raw materials were kept in both installed and portable containers
[75]. Their areas plausibly reflect the scale of household stores, particularly crops, and as such
are widely used as strong proxies for household agricultural production.
Symbolic/relational differentiation
The lifespan of houses at C¸atalho¨yu¨k varied, with some standing for a few generations (~80
years), and others for shorter times (~50 years) [191:78]. Variation also exists in their layouts
and ornamentation. Some houses are single-room structures, while others were divided into a
combination of one “main” room with, ordinarily, one or two “side” rooms [192:41]. Houses
do have a broadly modular layout. They typically contain a core series of features: ovens and
hearths, storage facilities, and benches and platforms under which consecutive primary burials
regularly show evidence of disturbance and sometimes curation of the human remains within.
Platforms tend to be set against houses’ northern and eastern walls, while ovens are against the
south walls and associated with smaller hearth structures, and storage bins are typically placed
in side rooms. However, there are frequent exceptions to these patterns and at a granular level
there is a remarkable diversity in the morphology and distribution of house features.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 12 / 40

Previous work has identified some of C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s houses as more elaborate than others in
terms of organization, ornamentation, and internal furnishings. Such structures ("History
Houses" [109] or "Shrines" [66]) potentially acted as social focus points and mechanisms for
‘memory making’ [193]. We do not use the full “Architectural Elaboration Index” developed
by Hodder & Pels [109: Architectural Elaboration Index = Floor Segments + Benches + Basins
+ Installations+ Pillars + Paintings], as we do not feel confident assigning a particular social or
economic significance to buildings’ numbers of floor segments, benches, or pillars; tallying the
number of basins in a structure is a complex and uncertain prospect [67]; and we do not
exclude the contents of side rooms from consideration. Our quantitative analyses are thus dis-
tinct from those previously used to identify History Houses or Large and Elaborate Buildings.
Paintings. Some, but not all, of C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s buildings have paintings on their plastered
walls. Such paintings—which range from representational art to handprints to simple swaths
of color—presumably reflect one or more kinds of symbolic activity, and their production,
modification, and observance surely had social significance. Paintings have also, as previously
noted, been central elements of previous discussions of symbolism and social organization at
C¸atalho¨yu¨k [e.g., 66,81,109,112,194].
Our analyses are based on the data reported in Busacca [160]. We acknowledge Du¨ring’s
[110,123,127:195] critique that, as C¸atalho¨yu¨k buildings can have hundreds of plaster layers
on their walls, some paintings may have been overlooked during excavation. Fortunately, the
houses discussed in this paper were all excavated by skilled—often professional—excavators
who were alert to the possibility of wall paintings, and conservators were always on site to sup-
port painting identification and recovery.
Faunal installations and special deposits. Quotidian faunal remains were removed from
most C¸atalho¨yu¨k buildings at abandonment [134,195,196], so the faunal data included here
consist of discrete and often deliberately placed faunal deposits. Faunal installations such as
skulls and horns embedded in walls, benches, and other architectural features are considered
associated with buildings’ occupations only when clearly associated with the use of specific
buildings. Many middens and fills contain the remains of dismantled installations, but these
are excluded from consideration. Likewise, “special deposits” such as discrete clusters of mini-
mally processed large animal bones and remains deliberately placed in the mouths of bins and
ovens are included only when affiliated with specific structures. Such deposits are inferred to
be the remains of socially significant events such as feasts, and many appear to have been
placed at times that were important in houses’ use-lives [76,83,84,86,122]. The symbolic and
relational significance of animal part installations—the most famous of which are the complete
bucrania displayed in a minority of houses—is even clearer, and numerous publications have
treated such installations as central to discussions of social organization and symbolic activity
at C¸atalho¨yu¨k [e.g., 63,66,85,109,197].
Burials. C¸HRP excavators have recovered the remains of at least 741 individuals from
stratified contexts: 471 from primary burial contexts and 270 from secondary and tertiary con-
texts [82,165], almost all from subfloor burials directly associated with specific houses. We do
not know how villagers decided which dead would be buried beneath which house: many site
archaeologists do not believe that it was purely a matter of lifetime residence. Notably, Hodder
& Pels [109] discuss subfloor burials in terms of “symbolic capital,” reflecting particular build-
ings’ function as ritual nodes within the settlement, or “History Houses”. We tally the number
of individuals interred within a structure, considering their postmortem presence as potential
assets in terms of both embodied and relational wealth and their (probable) lifetime affiliation
a biological asset. House members did not necessarily draw on these assets, but we assume that
they could have if they so wished. We provide data on both primary and secondary inhuma-
tions, as the two forms of burial may have had divergent socioeconomic implications. Primary
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 13 / 40

inhumations data are excluded from Figs 3–5to make them more easily readable; all data are
provided in S3–S6 Tables.
Grave goods. A minority of burials contained material culture (here referred to as “grave
goods”), most commonly items of personal adornment such as bone rings and beads. Grave
goods are not necessarily associable with individual skeletons, as newer burials frequently cut
into older ones and many skeletons are disturbed or disarticulated (some purposefully, in
antiquity). We focus on the contents of entire burials, rather than those associated with indi-
vidual skeletons, as at C¸atalho¨yu¨k many graves include multiple individuals, and we cannot be
sure with which remains the interred grave goods were associated.
Assessing the intentionality of many grave goods’ presence is difficult, as grave fills derive
from nearby middens and fills that unsurprisingly often include artifactual and ecofactual
“noise.” We therefore conducted three sets of analyses, on (1) grave goods that were clearly
intentionally placed in burials, e.g., personal adornments on skeletons; (2) grave goods that
were clearly placed plus those that might have been placed; and (3) all items recorded as com-
ing from the fill of the grave, opting out of deciding which items are of the greatest signifi-
cance. Acting conservatively, we present only the first set of analyses in the main text of this
paper; the other two are in S3 Table.
Personal “costly” or “prestige” goods. Small portable items that could not be acquired
locally are here categorized as “costly” or “prestige” goods, as non-local (“exotic”) resources
represent higher acquisition costs than local ones. Their size and portability distinguish them
from the building-scale assets listed previously, and we consider them suitable for individual
Fig 3. Inequality within a neighborhood. Data derive from nine buildings assigned to the North G occupation at C¸atalho¨yu¨k.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.g003
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 14 / 40

expressions of identity and interpersonal engagement. Two data sets are included in this cate-
gory of non-local materials: shells and stones.
C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s residents used numerous types of rocks and minerals to make small portable
goods. The settlement is located in an alluvial landscape, so key stone materials were procured
from significant distances away [78,79,153]. For example, bead-makers used not just the lime-
stones and marbles found within a day’s walk from the site (ca. 15 to 20km), but also carnelian
that probably came from the Erenler-Alacadağvolcanic formation ca 60–70km away, and
fluorapatite and turquoise-colored minerals (azurite, malachite) sourced from areas much fur-
ther away than that [78,173].
C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s non-local shells include both Holocene-dated marine shells and fossil shells.
Holocene marine shells include 12 species that originate from the Aegean and the Mediterra-
nean seas and two species (Antalis dentalis,Ostrea edulis) that live only in the Aegean. These
shells thus originated at least 150 (Mediterranean) or 400 (Aegean) km from C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Fos-
sil shells are primarily Dentalium, deriving from the Hatay and İskenderun basins more than
300 km from the site. Other fossil shell taxa originated in the Taurus Mountains at least 50 km
away [198]. Non-local shells thus presumably had social value; their acquisition required direct
Fig 4. Inequality across middle C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k burned and unburned buildings. Same notes as for Fig 3.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.g004
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 15 / 40

or indirect investments of time and energy. Moreover, most non-local shells appear to have
been imported as raw materials or finished artifacts for bodily adornment [78,173,176,199];
their primary role was as visible markers of social distinction. Data used here include finished
artifacts, pre-forms, and manufacturing waste from a diverse array of depositional contexts.
We focus on shells from burials and other primary contexts; data on shells in secondary or ter-
tiary deposits are summarized in S3 Table. We note that during the Early phase of occupation,
the majority of C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s non-local shells were recovered from middens; lower numbers
were found in burials and other domestic contexts. In contrast, during the Middle phase of
occupation, the vast majority of non-local shells were recovered in burials and inside buildings.
As a result, the numbers of non-local shells in buildings changes through time, and inferences
about house distinctions that are based on Early-phase shell data must be treated with caution.
Other data sets. Some data sets are presented in our supplementary tables but excluded
from quantitative comparisons of houses due to either the interpretive complexities of the data
set or to our perception of only limited correlation between the data set and socioeconomic
variability at C¸atalho¨yu¨k. These include dietary isotope values, which are not only shaped by
myriad social and biological factors but also not equally available for all structures due to
Fig 5. Inequality through time. Buildings are grouped into Early/Middle/Late C¸atalho¨yu¨k occupations. Side room area (SR) is excluded from the Late histogram
due to insufficient data.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.g005
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 16 / 40

taphonomic issues; “grave goods” where the intentionality of placement is unclear; and, as
noted previously, building size and internal area. Additionally, some lines of evidence are
excluded from quantitative analyses due to sample size limitations (e.g., the number of times a
house was rebuilt; the ratio of subadults to adults in subfloor burials). In order to make these
data available for colleagues who wish to include them in other studies, we summarize these
data sets in S3 Table.
Methods: Quantitative assessment of inequality
To measure inequality within each data set we use Gini coefficients. We adopt this approach in
order to maximize comparability with other studies of inequality in the ancient and modern
worlds [39,57–59]. Gini coefficients measure unevenness in the distribution of observations
across a population: unevenness in household storage, for example, or in domestic architec-
tural investment, or in grave goods. Gini coefficients can thus shed light on inequalities of
wealth, of health, or of any other sphere of life with diagnostic material concomitants.
Gini coefficients range from 0 to 1. Perfectly uniform distributions (perfect equality across
populations) produce Gini coefficients of 0; distributions where a single individual/household/
family/etc. controls all assets (over-the-top inequality) produce coefficients of 1. However,
Gini coefficients are like averages in that a single number may reflect quite different underly-
ing patterns: the same coefficient could be produced if a settlement dominated by socioeco-
nomically similar households included either a scatter of impoverished or subsidiary
households or a cluster of “rich” ones [58,59]. It is, therefore, important not to end investiga-
tion of ancient inequality with the production of a coefficient: one must explore the nature of
the underlying data.
We use Gini coefficients calculated for varied data sets as a basis for considering inequality
in different cultural spheres. We reiterate that sociopolitical assets are commonly transferable
into subsistence goods (“social storage”), and vice versa, so do not intend to communicate that
benefits discussed primarily in terms of either sociopolitics or subsistence had value exclusively
in either realm. Readers can find all data necessary to explore alternative characterizations of
asset value in S3 Table. Please note that in order to maximize the legibility of figures, some data
sets are presented only in tables. These table-only data sets have Gini coefficients that match
those of other data sets that are included in the figures—for example, the minimum number of
individuals in primary burials aligns closely with the number of all interred individuals.
Results and discussion
Synchronic inequality
We begin by assessing the evidence for synchronic social differentiation at C¸atalho¨yu¨k. In C¸at-
alho¨yu¨k’s North Area, level North G, researchers have excavated multiple houses with nearly
or fully contemporaneous occupations. While these houses existed in close proximity to each
other, they had distinct layouts and contents.
Fig 3 indicates that houses displayed unequal levels of ornamentation (paintings and instal-
lations), quantities of non-local “prestige” goods, and numbers of people interred beneath
their floors. These data suggest that houses within a single neighborhood had pronounced dif-
ferences in symbolic and relational assets. Also of note is the fact that grinding capacities are
dramatically unequal, while side room storage capacities are less unequal but still quite vari-
able. (See S4 Table for the calculated Gini coefficients).
These data are intriguing because they are consistent with economic differentiation that is
both significant and socially managed. Kohler and Higgins [106], Kohler, et al. [42], and
Bogaard, et al. [151] all found similar differentiation in other food-producing societies, but
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 17 / 40

C¸atalho¨yu¨k side room area Gini coefficients are at the high end of the range for horticulturalists.
If we deem grinding resources an acceptable proxy for productive capacity, and accept Kohler
and Higgins’s [106] proposal that storage capacity is a reasonable measure of household
income, what we see in level North G at C¸atalho¨yu¨k is significant inequality in both income
and domestic productive capacities. (Bogaard, et al. [151:214] propose that a very high storage
Gini at Neolithic Sabi Abyad might be attributable to modern difficulties distinguishing living
from storage space. A plethora of evidence associates C¸atalho¨yu¨k side rooms with storage, but
there is certainly evidence of labor in these spaces as well. To the extent that one can differenti-
ate storage space from living space—a complex prospect for any space not blocked from human
occupation by installed bins or other storage features—it is reasonable to say that C¸atalho¨yu¨k
side rooms were storage space.) Similarly elevated Gini coefficients are found for remains asso-
ciated with symbolic and relational wealth. The data are thus consistent with C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s
houses having been both economically and symbolically differentiated during this phase of
occupation, but—as noted previously—no data indicate differential access to staple plant foods.
While houses’ productive capacities and symbolic assets varied, everyone had access to basic
survival resources. This inference is consistent with dietary stable isotopic values from the site:
mean human carbon and nitrogen values in adult males and females are virtually identical, and
modest inter-individual differences are attributable to age-at-death more than sex [131].
It is possible that the limitations to economic inequality at C¸atalho¨yu¨k have to do with the
specific constraints faced by its farmers. Bogaard and colleagues [11,151:203–4] explain that
societies may increase arable food production by raising labor inputs per unit area (small-scale
intensive horticulture), or by expanding the area they cultivate (field agriculture). If people can
deploy animal labor in the fields, access to arable land becomes the limiting factor to expand-
ing production; if they cannot or do not rely on animal traction, human labor is generally the
limiting factor. Labor-limited farming is broadly associated with relatively low levels of social
inequality, whereas land-limited extensive farming aligns with higher levels of inequality [11:
Fig 3]. Bogaard and colleagues [11] further propose that urban-scale extensification requires
durable inequalities, for harvest-time labor mobilization and maintenance of specialized trac-
tion animals. Understanding the roots of such inequalities requires grasping the sources of
inequalities in labor-limited economies.
We have no solid evidence for animal traction in Early-Late levels at C¸atalho¨yu¨k; indeed, it
is not until relatively late in the occupation that domestic cattle appear in the assemblages, and
when they do it is initially in limited numbers [134,200,201]. Botanical evidence further sug-
gests that farming remained labor-limited throughout the occupation [202]. As clear and last-
ing inequalities linked with agriculture have to do with regimes that promote differential
access to land, and as a key ingredient in such regimes is traction, C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s economy may
not have predisposed its inhabitants toward accepting economic inequality across the
settlement.
Might the economic variations that we see in fact be attributable not to Neolithic disparities,
but to the fact that some of level North G’s buildings burned while full of artifacts and ecofacts,
while others, unburned, were emptied at abandonment? Perhaps the North G data reflect dif-
ferential abandonment practices more than they do lived inequalities. To test whether our per-
ception of inequality is driven by abandonment practices, we turn now to comparing burned
and unburned buildings from the Middle phase of the site’s occupation.
Abandonment practices
Fig 4 reveals far more inequality across buildings that were not burned at abandonment than
among buildings whose occupations ended in flames. Even more importantly, the Gini
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 18 / 40

coefficients of unburned buildings are broadly comparable to those that we see when we group
burned and unburned buildings together. The only data set for which we see dramatically
higher values in the combined group than in the separate burned and unburned groups is sec-
ondary burials. (See also S5 Table). As Table 2 shows, all of the Middle C¸atalho¨yu¨k secondary
burials in our sample were found in burned buildings, so abandonment practices emphatically
do drive their elevated Gini coefficients in the level North G data set. The only other data set
with Gini coefficients elevated markedly by grouping unburned and burned buildings together
is exotic shells. We note that these shells derive largely from graves, and thus—like secondary
interments—are recovered from underneath house floors.
We infer therefore that differential abandonment practices are not primarily responsible
for our perceptions of inequality across the site. Instead, Gini coefficients indicate significant
inequality across numerous data sets in unburned buildings. They reveal differences in pro-
ductive capacity across burned ones as well, but very little differentiation in symbolic or rela-
tional wealth—even in subfloor, pre-abandonment deposits such as interred individuals and
grave goods. The dramatic differences in productive capacity across the burned buildings,
moreover, are surely driven by the remarkable quantities of grinding stones placed inside
burned Building 77, potentially as part of ritual building closure. Burned buildings look
remarkably equal in terms of their diverse assets; unburned buildings do not.
The causes and social significance(s) of structural fires at C¸atalho¨yu¨k have been a recurrent
topic of conversation among site researchers, who over the years have inferred varied forms of
incineration and abandonment [93,94,96,203,204]. Core to the debates has been the issue of
whether or not burned buildings were staged for the incinerations, their contents deliberately
placed and thus only partially or minimally reflective of the building prior use and occupancy.
The evidence for staging is strongest in Building 77, where excavators found multiple collec-
tions of valuable and/or unusual material on the building floor: a dog cranium and an eagle
claw, heaps of antler, the largest querns yet found at the site (still in usable condition), concen-
trations of deliberately broken stone tools, and more [95,205]. These collections, plus large
cattle bones in the otherwise sterile burned fill of the building, lead many of the site’s archaeol-
ogists to infer ritualized placement of items within the building, perhaps followed by further,
commemorative, deposits later [80, although see 94 for a degree of caution, 125]. Tsoraki [80]
further suggests that the sheer quantity of grinding stones placed inside Building 77, in addi-
tion to their varying wear stages, may reflect contributions from multiple households, consis-
tent with house closure (and, by extension, potentially those of other houses, as per [83]) being
a communal event. Burned Buildings 52, 80, and 131 also contained exceptionally rich and
varied material culture, some or all of which might have been intentionally placed [93,134,
204].
The Gini coefficients indicating mostly but not entirely low inequality coefficients across
burned buildings are consistent with burned buildings being “special” but not in an entirely
unified fashion. Grave goods, for example, are unequally distributed across structures in the
Middle phase of the occupation (Fig 5,S6 Table), but they are quite equally distributed across
burned buildings (Fig 4). Burial MNIs and primary interments (Table 2) follow a similar pat-
tern: they are unequally distributed across all Middle buildings, and relatively equal across
burned buildings only. As subfloor burials and grave goods should—unlike faunal or grinding
stone installations—remain unaltered by abandonment practices, the rough equality across
burned buildings might reflect broadly similar levels of symbolic or relational “wealth” among
houses abandoned in a distinctive fashion. That this parity is meaningful might be supported
by the fact that unburned buildings are markedly different from burned ones with respect spe-
cifically to the subfloor categories of secondary burials and exotic shells. Readers should be
cautious not to place much weight on this inference, however, given the small number of
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 19 / 40

burned buildings included in these analyses. It is possible that buildings were selected for
burning on the basis of their relational or symbolic positioning, but it is also possible that, as
Farid [96] posited, C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s buildings burned in different ways and for varying reasons
(e.g., ritual closure, reprisal arson [206], accidental fire spread).
Finally, the contrast between burned and unburned buildings may, in part, speak to the flu-
idity of households at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Burned buildings represent much clearer and
more restricted focal points than do unburned buildings; perhaps the variability we perceive
among the latter reflects their assorted and mutable relationships to larger social networks. We
highlight here, as well, the unequal numbers of secondary deposits, which might reflect partici-
pation in networks extending beyond the confines of the site itself.
Inequality in diachronic perspective. Previous work has posited a peak in social com-
plexity during the middle portion of C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s occupation, followed by a decline during its
Late phase [126,207]. C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s population peaked in the Middle phase of its occupation:
architecture and bioarchaeological data are consistent with increased fertility fueling a rise in
population during this period, followed by population dispersal in the Late period [208,209].
Given that increases in population density would be expected to have biological correlates such
as rising disease loads, it is possible that density did not increase along with population size.
Villagers seem to have remained reasonably well-nourished throughout, and the adequacy of
their diets may have mitigated the physiological stresses of life in a crowded environment [208,
209]. However, site bioarchaeologists do infer more (potentially relevant) interpersonal vio-
lence, as well as higher workloads, in the Middle phase than either earlier or later phases [165,
206].
Did population growth contribute to rising inequality or social stratification, at C¸atalho¨yu¨k?
It would not automatically have triggered hierarchization, but it could have accelerated or con-
tributed to its development. Alfani [58:30] uses a wide range of prehistoric and historical evi-
dence to argue that “In preindustrial times, there was no necessary cause of inequality
growth. . .There were instead a number of sufficient causes of inequality growth, among which
we could name economic growth, demographic factors . . ., and so on. When one or more of
these potential causes became active, inequality grew.”
Our inferences must be considered tentative, as available Early phase data derive from four
buildings, three of them 75% excavated, while our Late sample consists of three fully excavated
buildings, all of which belong to a single house sequence (B.65-56-44). Our Middle phase sam-
ple includes 13 buildings, of which eight have been fully excavated. Inferences about dia-
chronic shifts in inequality can therefore be considered plausible but not certain: this caveat
logically applies to non-quantitative studies of diachronic inequality at the site as well, both
ours and others’.
Fig 5 suggests that overall levels of difference were highest in the Middle period of the site
occupation, but distinctions existed earlier and later as well (see also S6 Table). Furthermore,
we see no shared trajectory of inequality across all data sets. A greater number of Gini coeffi-
cients are consistent with inequality during the Middle than during the Early or Late phases of
occupation, but different data set Gini coefficients rise and fall in different patterns.
Key evidence of differentiation that comes without a caveat due to small sample size dates
to the Middle period, where we see clear inequality in side room area. No such differentiation
exists with respect to main room area. The agglomerated nature of housing at C¸atalho¨yu¨k
surely constrained overall house sizes, so we do not assume that residents could express wealth
by building houses to whatever size they preferred. We nonetheless note—in relation to the
argument that side room space is plausibly directly linked to agricultural production and thus
to household income, whereas overall house size is a better measure of wealth—that
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 20 / 40

architectural plans at C¸atalho¨yu¨k can be read as indicating a high level of income inequality,
dramatically tamped down when it comes to measures of wealth [e.g., 210:133].
Such tamping down might explain, at least partially, the drop in mortuary differentiation
(grave goods) from the Early into the Middle phase of occupation. This drop is very noticeable
in Fig 5, which reveals rising differentiation in multiple other data sets at this time. Productive
capacities (food processing), which were equitably distributed during the Early phase, become
extremely unequally distributed during the Middle phase. So do symbolic assets (faunal instal-
lations). Prestige goods (shells), unequally distributed during the Early phase, become even
more so during the Middle phase. The flattening of the burial Gini coefficients during the Mid-
dle phase plausibly reflects active—and perhaps conscious—efforts to keep rising disparities in
income from contributing to, or even institutionalizing, other distinctions between members
of society [although see 81]. However, the peaks in installations and shell Ginis suggest that
such attempts were only partially successful, and that some houses had greater access to sym-
bolically and/or politically valuable goods. These findings support Mazzucato’s [88] network
analysis, which identified an increase in social connectivity from the Early to the Middle occu-
pations that developed specifically through the mediation of a group of elaborate and highly
interconnected buildings.
We previously noted that botanical and faunal data from C¸atalho¨yu¨k are consistent with a
labor-limited farming economy, and that human bioarchaeologists infer peak physical labor
during the Middle occupation levels. Perhaps labor mobilization was particularly important to
the residents of C¸atalho¨yu¨k during this phase, which is also characterized by peak distinctions
in grinding and domestic storage capacities. Economic inequalities that are rooted in differen-
tial success in mobilizing labor are hard to maintain, however, and from the Middle to the Late
phase of occupation sharp drops in Gini coefficients characterize many data sets, most dramat-
ically house grinding capacity. These data broadly align with existing inferences about popula-
tion dispersal and declining complexity in the Late period. Neither wall paintings nor faunal
special deposits became more equally distributed, however, and shell Gini coefficients also
remain high. All of these data sets can reasonably be interpreted as symbolically laden, so we
might infer that ritual differentiation remained in place even as economic differences
decreased. Such an inference is at present mostly speculation, though, as the three Late houses
are closely related structures, built directly atop each other and cited in other publications as
belonging to a single house “sequence” [e.g., 109]. Future excavations may well reveal consid-
erably more variation across the settlement during its Late phase of occupation.
Exploring different kinds of inequality, and the relationships among them. The C¸atal-
ho¨yu¨k data are consistent with significant socioeconomic variability but not with concentra-
tion of staple resources or critical capabilities [sensu 152]. We see a broad accordance with
Crumley’s [211–213:144] definition of heterarchy: a social system in which each component
element “possesses the potential of being unranked (relative to other elements) or ranked in a
number of different ways. . ..” Myriad rankings exist, but they are not mutually consistent or
temporally stable, and the social structure is not pyramidal. This definition fits the C¸atalho¨yu¨k
data well. It does not, however, shed extensive light on sociopolitics in and around the ancient
village, as heterarchies encompass varying degrees of stratification [214]. As Rosenberg and
Rocek [45:19] note, “heterarchy” functions in many ways as “a remainder category for hierar-
chies that do not fit the categorical (i.e., pyramidal) archetype. . . . simply noting the presence
of inequality in some communities or calling the organization of some communities heter-
archical conveys as little meaningful information as calling a group at the other end of the
organizational spectrum egalitarian, and ultimately requires us to provide some level of detail
concerning the actual organization of the groups being discussed. . ..” We follow, therefore,
Rosenberg and Rocek [45] in embracing McGuire and Saitta’s [215] non-typological complex
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 21 / 40

communal society model, which accommodates both egalitarianism and hierarchy “depending
on circumstances and where in a given socio-political system one chooses to look.” This
approach, which expects intrasocietal variability and dynamic fluidity, encourages us to con-
sider the specific elements of egalitarianism, distinction and hierarchy in various aspects of
our data set.
It is a truism that inequality may not develop—or be expressed—similarly across different
social spheres. Drennan, et al. [216:71], for example, explore “dimensions of variability” in
inequality, not just a single/linear axis of development, insisting that archaeologists must posit
relationships between different socioeconomic dimensions for evaluation (not just assume
that if A is unequal then B must be as well)—and consider diachronic change. Several scholars
have clarified that wealth inequality need not align with inequalities in production or in con-
sumption, or with social and political hierarchies [e.g., 27,59]. That said, of course inequalities
may travel together, with one form of inequality facilitating or enhancing another. If redistri-
bution is not the norm, inequalities in production presumably lead to wealth disparities;
unequal wealth may mean unequal opportunities to host feasts vital to the accumulation of
political power. Multiple material culture inequalities may also share a root cause: unequal
production could, for example, lead to both unequal diets and unequal access to prestige
goods.
Our data indicate dramatic differences in domestic productive capacity during the Middle
phase of occupation at C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Differences in household “income”—inferred on the basis
of storage capacity—are smaller, although they still hover at the upper end of those recorded in
labor-limited farming economies [11]. We thus infer meaningful economic differentiation at
C¸atalho¨yu¨k during its Middle phase of occupation. These economic distinctions did not carry
across into differential access to the basics of survival, however: all well-sampled houses have
yielded evidence for suites of cereals, pulses and fruits/nuts. Economic differentiation may well
have been lower during the Early and Late phases of occupation at the site, but as yet few
houses dating to either time period have been fully excavated.
Middle C¸atalho¨yu¨k houses also varied with respect to their symbolic assets and prestige
goods. As most of the data sets interpreted here as primarily associated with interpersonal rela-
tions (wall paintings, faunal installations, burials) are about as unequally distributed as domes-
tic storage capacities, we infer that symbolic and relational inequality existed at roughly the
same level as income inequality. However, we do not see correlations between high incomes or
productive capacities and symbolic or relational wealth. As Tables 4and 5reveal, some build-
ings with high storage capacities (inferred “income”) have few or no burials or installations
(Building 59). Some are rich in both storage capacity and interments (Building 131). Buildings
that have below-average storage capacities may be phenomenally symbolically wealthy (Build-
ing 77), or unspectacular (Building 3). The two buildings with the highest inferred productive
capacities (grinding tools) have very different quantities of symbolic assets (Buildings 114 and
77). Costly portable goods (non-local shells and stones) are found in houses with both above-
and below-average storage capacities.
In contrast to economic assets, the small samples of Early and Late houses suggest inequita-
ble distribution of symbolic/relational resources. When we look at the C¸atalho¨yu¨k data by
phase of occupation, we see that Gini coefficients are consistently high for faunal special
deposits, wall paintings, and exotic shells (although we remind readers that Early C¸atalho¨yu¨k
shells derive largely from middens instead of buildings, so caution is warranted). Table 4
shows no inverse correlation between paintings and faunal remains, so we do not believe that
these Gini coefficients reflect some villagers having chosen to adorn their buildings with paint
and others preferring animal remains.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 22 / 40

Table 4. Comparison of assets associated with middle C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k phase houses. Assets are color-coded on a continuum from green (highest) to red (lowest) values.
Building Level % of
building
that was
excavated
Burned
building?
Side room m
2
# of
grinding
tools with
use faces
fixed
grinding
installations
= area of
use face
in cm
2
Paintings Faunal
Installations
(in situ)
Faunal
special
deposits
Burial MNIs
(primary
and
secondary)
# of
primary
individuals
# of
secondary
individuals
Grave goods
(intentionally
placed)
Exotic
shells
# of
exotic
shell
sources
# of
exotic
stone
beads
132 North F 75 n/a 0 0 3 0 0 10 10 0 29 6 2 1
114 North G 75 n/a 2 316 13 0 16 15 15 0 21 44 2 1
97 South O 100 y n/a 0 0 1 1 24 14 14 0 6 6 2 0
59 North G 100 29.5 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
131 North G 100 y 15.7 0 0 13 2 0 41 16 25 70 575 3 2
1North G 100 y 9.8 0 0 21 2 15 60 52 8 72 85 2 3
52 North G 85 y 8.5 3 0 13 5 26 18 15 3 33 3 2 0
77 North G 100 y 7.9 12 627 48 3 60 39 34 5 66 223 3 2
3North G 100 6.3 0 0 15 2 30 8 8 0 20 6 2 0
119 North F 75 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 South M 75 3.1 0 0 2 0 2 15 15 0 28 1 1 0
49 North G 100 2.3 0 0 31 0 25 15 15 0 38 54 2 0
51 North G 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1
Average 8.9 1.3 72.5 12.7 1.2 15.2 18.2 15.0 3.2 29.5 77.4 1.7 0.8
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.t004
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 23 / 40

Table 5. Distribution of assets across a “neighborhood” (Hodder level North G). Above-average numbers are boldfaced.
Building Level % of
building
that was
excavated
Burned
building?
Side
room
m
2
Number of
grinding
tools with
use faces
Total area
of use face
of grinding
tools (cm
2)
fixed grinding
installations = area of
use face in cm
2
Paintings Faunal
Installations
(in situ)
Faunal
special
deposits
Burial MNIs
(primary and
secondary)
# of primary
individuals
# of
secondary
individuals
Grave goods
(intentionally
placed)
Exotic
shells
1North
G
100 Y 9.8 0 0 0 21 2 15 60 52 8 72 85
3North
G
100 6.3 0 0 0 15 2 30 8 8 0 20 6
49 North
G
100 2.3 0 0 0 31 025 15 15 0 38 54
51 North
G
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
52 North
G
85 y 8.5 3 3710 0 13 5 26 18 15 3 33 3
59 North
G
100 29.5 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
77 North
G
100 y 7.9 12 9453 627 48 3 60 39 34 5 66 223
114 North
G
75 2 495 316 13 0 16 15 15 0 21 44
131 North
G
100 y 15.7 0 0 0 13 2041 16 25 70 575
Average 10 2 1518 105 17 1.56 19.1 22 17 5 36 110
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.t005
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 24 / 40

Meanwhile, the Gini coefficients for burial MNIs and grave goods both decline through
time. Rather than a decline in overall social differentiation, the declines in mortuary inequality
may reflect increasing standardization of mortuary practices, perhaps contributing to social
cohesion in an increasingly large settlement. (See [217] for deeper discussion of the potential
levelling role of mortuary practices.) It has often been proposed that southwest Asian Neolithic
societies placed social constraints on visible signifiers of social distinction, with inequities
(usually visualized as economic in origin) being masked or suppressed through leveling or
integrative practices such as mortuary ritual or feasting [e.g., 46,47]. Our data are consistent
with economic inequalities in the Middle phase of occupation. It is plausible that mortuary tra-
ditions helped foster a sense of community in the face of economically induced tensions.
Are there other lines of evidence that could support the idea that C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s residents
performed equality? Other models of social organization at C¸atalho¨yu¨k [e.g., 109] contrast
houses rich in “history” with economically productive ones, with the latter provisioning the rit-
ually and politically powerful former. In contrast, our data reveal that while economic and
social assets did not necessarily travel together, neither were they separated into discrete build-
ings. Our findings further indicate that burned buildings were dramatically distinguished
from unburned—but among themselves, not heavily differentiated, at least in quantitative
terms. We might, then, infer a performed difference between comparatively standardized “spe-
cial” and diverse “non-special” places. This is plausibly again consistent with performative flat-
tening of quotidian social distinctions. That building fires would have had dramatic economic
ramifications, and that they occurred during the phase of occupation when C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s pop-
ulation and levels of intracommunity violence both peaked, arguably provide further support
for the idea that site residents were performing equality in the face of social tensions. Differ-
ences across houses in symbolic and prestige assets complicate this inference, however: C¸atal-
ho¨yu¨k’s story was not simply one of agriculturally induced inequality ameliorated or obscured
by ritual activity.
Living unequally at C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k
Having identified broad patterns of material differentiation across Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k, the
next goal is to look at how these difference played out in the social lives of individuals living at
the settlement.
Our data, which suggest no clear relationships between economic and social/symbolic
assets, complicate specific elements of previous inferences about how C¸atalho¨yu¨k’s residents
established and negotiated economically and socially varied positions. Houses that are full of
symbolic elements presumably played crucial roles in the ritual life of the community [as per
109], but as most such houses have moderate storage, and their productive capacities vary, our
data do not support that such houses helped to manage and transfer productive success into
symbolic realms. Looked at more broadly, however, our data align with Hodder and Pels’s
[109] inferences that at C¸atalho¨yu¨k houses had varying degrees or forms of involvement in rit-
ual, and that prominence in the ritual and political sphere did not derive in any straightfor-
ward manner from economic success. Our findings also align with the big picture provided by
Wright [53], who, in examining house-by-house lithic artifact inventories, identified deliberate
non-transmission of valuable ground stones in some but not all houses: surely evidence of a
complex attitude towards material wealth and inheritance. Our findings, like hers, suggest a
society grappling with the tensions between maintaining egalitarian norms and evolving social
complexities.
More granular analysis of individual households can and should yield insights into the
nuanced dynamics of inequality within this ancient community. The key is the way in which
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 25 / 40

we interpret the material culture itself. Understanding fluid and intangible social inequalities
necessitates examining the habitus of interactions in various contexts, such as food preparation
and communal feasting. Doing so is possible to a degree [76,122,218,219], with data from
inside structures complemented by external faunal and botanical evidence as well as the occa-
sional presence of communal ovens [e.g., in Space 333; 220].
Beyond this, much has been made of the ways in which daily practice and social memory
manifest in the archaeological record at the site [221], but recent analysis of funerary practice,
focusing on the curation of bodies both prior to interment as well as secondary interment, and
subsequent curation of human remains, hints at another potential area where social interac-
tions and inequalities may have been negotiated. Some of the burial sequences demonstrate
evidence of having been re-visited to remove or re-organize skeletal remains, and in a minority
of cases to remove or re-deposit crania or crania and mandibles (e.g. "skulls") [222]. These sec-
ondary deposits of human remains often occur in association with primary inhumations,
which suggest some type of social distinction shared with some but not all individuals. An
example occurs in the Late phase (ca. 6500–6300 BCE) burial feature F3684 from Building 129,
where the remains of an adult male are accompanied by two additional crania along with a
large amount of disarticulated infracranial remains (Fig 6). One of the most elaborate second-
ary burials occurs in Middle C¸atalho¨yu¨k (ca. 6700–6500 BCE) Building 5 in which the remains
of a basket containing a cranium and mandible (the frontal bone covered in cinnabar) and
Fig 6. Late C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k (6500–6300 BC) burial feature F3684 from building 129. The remains of an adult male are accompanied by two additional crania.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067.g006
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 26 / 40

accompanied by two finely worked obsidian projectile points, and a shell containing cinnabar
pigment were found. Outside of the basket, positioned posterior to the cranium, was a concen-
tration of objects, including four obsidian projectiles, one finely spiral-grooved ground stone
mace head crafted from white marble. The obsidian projectile points show no use wear, which
indicates that they may have been fashioned solely to be deposited with these remains. Directly
above this assemblage was placed above a bundle containing a partially articulated spinal col-
umn and limb bones (perhaps from the same individual as the cranium and mandible). The
elaborate preparation of the human remains and associated objects are commensurate with an
increased energy expenditure associated with the burial of this individual and reflective of
social distinction [223].
In terms of the material culture itself, there is a general consistency in the distribution of
most types of artifacts and ecofacts across various contexts, including grave goods. While we
see little tangible evidence for social interaction across houses embedded within these physical
patterns of distribution (such as, for example, ceramic refits, makers marks, or aesthetic or sty-
listic signatures), there has been discussion that suggest complex social interactions may be
implicitly linked to the technological practices evidenced by the material culture, whether
through the (communal?) provenancing of raw materials, or in the knowledge and associated
craft linked to production of tools [74]. For example, it has been noted that the uniformity in
the production and use of flint daggers across different buildings hints at a shared technologi-
cal and aesthetic culture that transcended individual households [126]. Similarly, examination
of obsidian usage at C¸atalho¨yu¨k illuminates the material’s pivotal role not just in everyday util-
ity but also in reinforcing social stratifications through its symbolic and economic value. It has
been suggested that obsidian’s integral place in rituals and burials reflects nuanced social inter-
actions, where resource access and control could have delineated social hierarchies and power
dynamics within the community [125].
The technological consistency reflected in the morphology of chipped stone tools suggests
an intricate weave of social interactions and collective identities, subtly reflecting an underly-
ing social cohesion or hierarchy within the community. Such shared practices point to intangi-
ble social structures, evidenced through common material technologies, that might have
played a role in both unifying and differentiating the social strata within the Neolithic settle-
ment. Detailed analysis of, in particular, obsidian distribution and crafting practices reveals a
complex socio-economic landscape, where technology and material culture intertwine with
social inequality, displaying how prestige and status may have been mediated through con-
trolled access to essential materials.
It is crucial to recognize the limitations of our dataset, which primarily captures ground-
level activities within the settlement. Offsite interactions associated with activities such as
hunting, the sourcing of raw materials, or the seasonal management of crops, remain largely
conjectural, based on the general implications of archaeological findings. In addition, close
excavation of some unusually well-preserved burned structures in the last decade of the project
(i.e. Building 89 or Building 79), highlight the likelihood that many of the complex interactions
among households occurred in spaces that are not manifest in the main (and ‘normal’) archae-
ological record of the site. Roofs, for example, are rarely preserved: when they are, evidence
such as pyrotechnic installations, walls of lightweight structures and even grinding installations
hint at a plethora of complex activities and structures taking place above the private lower foot-
print of the buildings [224]. If we contrast this dynamic rooftop scenario with the static sterility
of the ground-level structures subjected to a ‘conventional’ deconstruction at the end of their
use-lives [225], it is clear that the scarcity of roof remains leaves a vital sphere of lived interac-
tions invisible. This makes it challenging to discern the exact nature of inter-household inter-
actions, which clearly did not happen through the walls (despite the presence of occasional
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 27 / 40

crawl holes [226]. These are by no means the norm but, where present, may imply increased
social interaction between the residents of the linked buildings). We also know that midden
areas, which yield frequent evidence of activity and single-use fire-spots, were dynamic inter-
building spaces, which again, likely played a significant role in everyday interactions as spaces
where people would have been able to come together [227,228], even if it remains difficult to
piece together exactly how these communal areas and activities might have embodied socio-
economic inequalities.
Conclusion
This study enriches our understanding of social differentiation in Neolithic southwest Asia
and contributes to broader discussions of inequality and early agropastoralism. Integrating
multiple lines of evidence enables us to explore the complexity and fluidity of social differentia-
tion across centuries of occupation at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Our data reinforce current think-
ing about the complexity of the relationship between food production and economic
inequality; they enrich conversations about house closures and ritual practices [e.g., 93].
Nonetheless, questions remain about inequality at C¸atalho¨yu¨k. We note, for example, that
the site’s houses were not static entities. They were, on average, occupied for a few decades,
and residents modified their homes to suit their changing needs and situations; only a minor-
ity of the resulting structures remained unaltered for the durations of their occupations. Exam-
ining patterns of inequality across the occupations of individual houses will enrich the
inferences here, and may reveal intriguing trends with respect to symbolic enrichment or eco-
nomic wellbeing over the course of individual houses’ occupations. Further light may also be
shed on the durability of inequality at C¸atalho¨yu¨k, whether or not assets transmitted across
generations, by investigating the biographies of houses in the site’s well-known “house
sequences.” Structures in these sequences are built one atop the other, each new house’s walls
are founded on the footprint of its predecessor; presumably, the superimposed buildings’
shared layouts and locations reflect social continuity through time. Comparing and contrast-
ing the developmental characteristics of each of these buildings will illuminate the extent to
which they resemble each other symbolically and economically as well as structurally.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Botanical data by area and building, Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k. The number of ‘sam-
ples’ representing each building can be considered as the number of independent behavioral
episodes or events [132,228]. Rather than simply reporting the raw numbers of seed, chaff,
nutshell etc. items per sample, occurrence is graded as follows: ‘x’ = trace amounts (<30)
within any individual sample; ‘xx’ = at least 30 items within any individual sample and ‘S’ =
visible, normally pure storage concentration (associated almost entirely with burned build-
ings). In the context of recent discussion of the quantitative criteria suitable for identifying
deliberate collection of a species [229], it is clear quantitatively as well as stratigraphically/con-
textually that the ‘S’ occurrences provide the clearest evidence. The distinction between low
numbers per sample (‘x’ occurrences) and higher numbers (‘xx’) is arbitrary, like other thresh-
olds that have similarly been used to distinguish chance occurrences from deliberate behavior
(e.g. [229] which uses 50 items) and is intended simply to illustrate stark patterns of absolute
abundance among plant categories.
(XLSX)
S2 Table. Botanical remains in six well-preserved and fully exposed burned buildings. This
table summarizes the plant contents of all of the well-preserved and fully exposed burned
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 28 / 40

buildings with visible—and hence presumably intentional—plant concentrations. It corrobo-
rates widespread use of all three cereals, at least one pulse crop and at least one other taxon
(often wild mustard, in addition to other fruit/nut taxa). H = “History house” [sensu 86,109].
LE = “large and elaborate” building [110]. “f-t” means “free-threshing.” “x” = <30 items max
per individual unit. “xx” = >30 items. “S” = discrete concentration (“storage” deposit). “Ext” =
external. Building 150 is not otherwise included in this paper; it is used here only to illustrate a
pattern across burned buildings.
(XLSX)
S3 Table. Data by building, Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu
¨k. *Holocene marine shells include twelve
species that originate from the Aegean and the Mediterranean seas and two species (Antalis
dentalis,Ostrea edulis) that live only in the Aegean. These shells thus originated at least 150
(Mediterranean) or 400 (Aegean) km from C¸atalho¨yu¨k. The most commonly encountered fos-
sil shell is Dentalium (n = 188), which originated in the Hatay and İskenderun basins >300–
400 km from the site. Other fossil shell taxa originated in the Taurus Mountains, at least 50 km
away [198]. ^ Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analyses have demonstrated that C¸atalho¨yu¨k
inhabitants consumed animals that had fed in a range of locations across the Konya Plain;
intraspecific variation is high and changes through time [131,133,230]. Sitewide human C
and N data reveal no evidence for sex-based distinctions in diet [131]. There are, however,
age-based distinctions in diet [231]. We therefore note the average ages of the individuals pro-
viding the stable isotope data in our samples for each house. The sex composition of each sam-
ple is also reported. While all unburned, mostly complete primary interments were sampled
for stable C and N isotope analysis, only those with good collagen preservation yielded data.
Most buildings contained individuals unrepresented in S2 Table data.
(XLSX)
S4 Table. Gini coefficients for buildings within a single neighborhood.
(XLSX)
S5 Table. Gini coefficients for burned vs. unburned buildings.
(XLSX)
S6 Table. Gini coefficients by phase of occupation.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Ian Hodder, Dominik Lukas, and many, many, many of our collaborators and col-
leagues in the C¸HRP. We further thank the paper’s anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful
and constructive comments. Michael P. Charles, Jesse Wolfhagen, and Justine Issavi provided
prompts and thoughtful input during the early stages of this work. Jason Quinlan gave permis-
sion for us to use his photographs. We are grateful to the staff of La Scuola Superiore in Cata-
nia, Sicily, from whose hospitality we benefited during the initial discussions for this paper.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Katheryn C. Twiss, Amy Bogaard.
Data curation: James S. Taylor, Camilla Mazzucato.
Formal analysis: Sharon Pochron.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 29 / 40

Investigation: Katheryn C. Twiss, Amy Bogaard, Scott Haddow, Marco Milella, James S. Tay-
lor, Rena Veropoulidou, Kevin Kay, Christopher J. Knu¨sel, Christina Tsoraki, Milena
Vasić, Jessica Pearson, Gesualdo Busacca, Camilla Mazzucato.
Methodology: Katheryn C. Twiss, Amy Bogaard.
Project administration: Katheryn C. Twiss.
Visualization: Marco Milella.
Writing – original draft: Katheryn C. Twiss, Amy Bogaard, Scott Haddow, Marco Milella,
James S. Taylor, Rena Veropoulidou, Kevin Kay, Christopher J. Knu¨sel, Christina Tsoraki,
Milena Vasić, Jessica Pearson.
Writing – review & editing: Katheryn C. Twiss.
References
1. Childe VG. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1929.
2. Childe VG. The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Routledge; 1957.
3. Ucko PJ, Dimbleby GW. Context and development of studies of domestication. In: Ucko PJ, Dimbleby
GW, editors. The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. London: Duckworth; 1969.
p. xvii–xxi.
4. Price TD. Social Inequality at the Origins of Agriculture. In: Price TD, Feinman GM, editors. Founda-
tions of Social Inequality. New York: Plenum Press; 1995. p. 129–51.
5. Bogucki P. The Origins of Human Society. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999.
6. Finlayson B, Warren GM. Changing natures: Hunter-gatherers, first farmers, and the modern world.
London: Duckworth; 2010.
7. Sterelny K, Watkins T. Neolithization in Southwest Asia in a context of niche construction theory. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Journal. 2015; 25(3):673–91. Epub 08/04. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0959774314000675
8. Smith Eric A, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Bowles S, Gurven M, Hertz T, Shenk Mary K. Production systems,
inheritance, and inequality in premodern societies: conclusions. Current Anthropology. 2010; 51
(1):85–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/649029
9. Feinman GM. The emergence of inequality: a focus on strategies and processes. In: Price TD, Fein-
man GM, editors. Foundations of Social Inequality. New York: Plenum Press; 1995. p. 255–79.
10. Graeber D, Wengrow D. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux; 2021.
11. Bogaard A, Fochesato M, Bowles S. The farming-inequality nexus: new insights from ancient Western
Eurasia. Antiquity. 2019; 93(371):1129–43. Epub 2019/09/18. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.105
12. Testart A. Chasseurs-Cueilleurs Ou L’Origine des Ine
´galite
´s. Paris: E
´ditions Gallimards; 2022
(1982).
13. Mattison SM, Smith EA, Shenk MK, Cochrane EE. The evolution of inequality. Evolutionary Anthropol-
ogy: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2016; 25(4):184–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21491 PMID:
27519458
14. Stiner MC, Munro ND. Approaches to prehistoric diet breadth, demography, and prey ranking systems
in time and space. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2002; 9(2):175–208.
15. Speth JD, Scott S. Horticulture and large mammal hunting: The role of resource depletion and the con-
straints of time and labor. In: Kent S, editor. Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
16. Kelly RL. Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of
Anthropology. 1992; 21:43–66.
17. Halstead P. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early
farming communities of Thessaly, Greece. Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and
Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 68–80.
18. Winterhalder B, Puleston C, Ross C. Production risk, inter-annual food storage by households and
population-level consequences in seasonal prehistoric agrarian societies. Environmental Archaeology.
2015; 20(4):337–48. https://doi.org/10.1179/1749631415Y.0000000025
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 30 / 40

19. Borgerhoff Mulder M, Bowles S, Hertz T, Bell A, Beise J, Clark G, et al. Intergenerational wealth trans-
mission and the dynamics of inequality in small-scale societies. Science (New York, NY). 2009; 326
(5953):682–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178336 PMID: 19900925.
20. Gurven M, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Hooper Paul L., Kaplan Hillard, Quinlan Robert, Sear Rebecca, et al.
Domestication alone does not lead to inequality: intergenerational wealth transmission among horticul-
turalists. Current Anthropology. 2010; 51(1):49–64. https://doi.org/10.1086/648587
21. Borgerhoff Mulder M, Fazzio Ila, Irons William, McElreath Richard L., Bowles Samuel, Bell Adrian,
et al. Pastoralism and Wealth Inequality: Revisiting an Old Question. Current Anthropology. 2010; 51
(1):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/648561
22. Smith EA, Codding BF. Ecological variation and institutionalized inequality in hunter-gatherer socie-
ties. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021; 118(13):e2016134118. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.2016134118 PMID: 33758100
23. Shenk Mary K, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Beise Jan, Clark Gregory, Irons William, Leonetti Donna, et al.
Intergenerational wealth transmission among agriculturalists: foundations of agrarian inequality. Cur-
rent Anthropology. 2010; 51(1):65–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/648658
24. Bogaard A, Krause R, Strien H-C. Towards a social geography of cultivation and plant use in an early
farming community: Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west Germany. Antiquity. 2011;85:395–416.
25. Frangipane M. Different types of egalitarian societies and the development of inequality in early Meso-
potamia. World Archaeology. 2007; 39(2):151–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240701249504
26. Mu¨ller J, Arponen VPJ, Hofmann R, Ohlrau R. The appearance of social inequalities: cases of Neo-
lithic and Chalcolithic societies. Origini. 2017; 38:65–86.
27. Kohler TA, Smith ME, Bogaard A, Peterson CE, Betzenhauser A, Feinman GM, et al. Deep inequality:
summary and conclusions. In: Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors. Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The
Archaeology of Wealth Differences. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2018. p. 289–318.
28. Bowles S, Choi J-K. Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013; 110(22):8830–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1212149110 PMID: 23671111
29. Hayden B. Corporate Groups and Secret Societies in the Early Neolithic: A Comment on Hodder and
Meskell. Current Anthropology. 2012; 53(1):126–7. https://doi.org/10.1086/663331
30. Flannery KV, Marcus J. The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for
Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2012.
31. Furholt M, Grier C, Spriggs M, Earle T. Political Economy in the Archaeology of Emergent Complexity:
a Synthesis of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.
2020; 27(2):157–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09422-0
32. Gronenborn D. Some thoughts on political differentiation in Early to Young Neolithic societies in west-
ern central Europe. In: Meller H, Hahn HP, Jung R, Risch R, editors. Arm und Reich–Zur Ressourcen-
verteilung in pra
¨historischen Gesellschaften. Halle: Landesmuseums fu¨r Vorgeschichte Halle; 2016.
p. 61–76.
33. Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A. Different ways of being, different ways of seeing. . . Changing
worldviews in the Near East. In: Finlayson B, Warren G, editors. Landscapes in Transition: Under-
standing Hunter-Gatherer and Farming Landscapes in the Early Holocene of Europe and the Levant.
London: Levant Supplementary Series & CBRL; 2010. p. 9–22.
34. Cauvin J. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 2002.
35. Bienert H-D. Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion. 1991; 5:9–23.
36. Rollefson G. Ritual and social structure at Neolithic ’Ain Ghazal. In: Kuijt I, editor. Life in Neolithic Farm-
ing Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Ple-
num Press; 2000. p. 162–90.
37. Drennan RD, Peterson CE, Lu X, Li T. Hongshan households and communities in Neolithic northeast-
ern China. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2017; 47:50–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.
2017.03.002
38. PorčićM. Evaluating Social Complexity and Inequality in the Balkans Between 6500 and 4200 BC.
Journal of Archaeological Research. 2019; 27(3):335–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-018-
9126-6
39. Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors. Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differ-
ences Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press; 2018.
40. Mischka D. Die sozioo
¨konomische Bedeutung von Pflugspuren im Fru¨hneolithikum des no
¨rdlichen Mit-
teleuropas. Von Sylt bis Kastanas Festschrift Kroll Offa. 2013; 69(70):295–306.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 31 / 40

41. Price TD, Bar-Yosef O. Traces of inequality at the origins of agriculture in the Ancient Near East. In:
Price TD, Bar-Yosef O, editors. Pathways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social
Inequality. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 147–68.
42. Kohler TA, Smith ME, Bogaard A, Feinman GM, Peterson CE, Betzenhauser A, et al. Greater post-
Neolithic wealth disparities in Eurasia than in North America and Mesoamerica. Nature. 2017; 551
(7682):619–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24646 PMID: 29143817
43. Lewis-Williams D, Pearce D. Inside the Neolithic Mind. New York: Thames & Hudson; 2005.
44. O
¨zdoğan M. Concluding remarks. In: O
¨zdoğan M, Basgelen N, editors. Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle
of Civilization New Discoveries. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari; 1999. p. 225–36.
45. Rosenberg M, Rocek TR. Socio-political organization in the Aceramic Neolithic of southwestern Asia:
The complex evolution of socio-political complexity. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2019;
54:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.01.006
46. Kuijt I. Keeping the peace: ritual, skull caching, and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic.
In: Kuijt I, editor. Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentia-
tion. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press; 2000. p. 137–62.
47. Twiss KC. Transformations in an early agricultural society: feasting in the southern Levantine Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2008; 27(4):418–42.
48. Verhoeven M. Transformations of society: the changing role of ritual and symbolism in the PPNB and
the PN in the Levant, Syria and South-East Anatolia. Paleorient. 2002; 28(1):5–14.
49. Pearson J, Grove M, O
¨zbek M, Hongo H. Food and social complexity at C¸ayo
¨nu¨Tepesi, southeastern
Anatolia: Stable isotope evidence of differentiation in diet according to burial practice and sex in the
early Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2013; 32(2):180–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaa.2013.01.002 PMID: 24976671
50. Hodder I. Staying egalitarian and the origins of agriculture in the Middle East. Cambridge Archaeolog-
ical Journal. 2022:1–24. Epub 2022/03/09. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774322000063
51. Bogaard A, Filipovic D, Fairbairn A, Green L, Stroud E, Fuller D, et al. Agricultural innovation and resil-
ience in a long-lived early farming community: The 1,500-year sequence at Neolithic to early Chalco-
lithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, central Anatolia. Anatolian Studies. 2017; 67:1–28.
52. Du¨ring BS. Reconsidering the C¸atalho
¨yu¨k community: from households to settlement systems. Jour-
nal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 2007; 20(2):155–82.
53. Wright KI. Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at
Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2014; 33(0):1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jaa.2013.09.007
54. Kienlin TL. Beyond elites: an introduction. In: Kienlin TL, Zimmermann A, editors. Beyond Elites: Alter-
natives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations, vol 1 Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt
GmbH; 2012. p. 15–32.
55. Peterson CE, Drennan RD, Bartel KL. Comparative analysis of Neolithic household artifact assem-
blage data from Northern China. Journal of Anthropological Research. 2016; 72(2):200–25. https://doi.
org/10.1086/686312
56. Semple S, Gomes Coelho R. Materialising inequalities in past, present and future. World Archaeology.
2022; 54(4):493–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2022.2233804
57. McCoy MD, Panuska JL. Visible wealth in past societies: A case study of domestic architecture from
the Hawaiian Islands. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2023:1–11. Epub 2023/11/07. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0959774323000331
58. Alfani G. Economic inequality in preindustrial times: Europe and beyond. Journal of Economic Litera-
ture. 2021; 59(1):3–44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191449
59. Fochesato M, Bogaard A, Bowles S. Comparing ancient inequalities: the challenges of comparability,
bias and precision. Antiquity. 2019.
60. Bayliss A, Brock F, Farid S, Hodder I, Southon J, Taylor RE. Getting to the bottom of it all: a Bayesian
approach to dating the start of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Journal of World Prehistory. 2015; 28(1):1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10963-015-9083-7
61. Marciniak A, Barański MZ, Bayliss A, Czerniak L, Goslar T, Southon J, et al. Fragmenting times: inter-
preting a Bayesian chronology for the Late Neolithic occupation of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k East, Turkey. Antiquity.
2015; 89(343):154–76. Epub 01/30. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2014.33
62. Baird D. Was Catalhoyuk a centre? The implications of a late Aceramic Neolithic assemblage from the
neighbourhood of Catalhoyuk. In: Bolger D, Maguire L, editors. The development of pre-state commu-
nities in the ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxbow; 2010. p. 207–16.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 32 / 40

63. Hodder I. The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. London: Thames & Hudson;
2006.
64. Kuijt I, Marciniak A. How many people lived in the world’s earliest villages? Reconsidering community
size and population pressure at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2024;
74:101573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2024.101573
65. Plug J-H, Hodder I, Akkermans PMMG. Breaking continuity? Site formation and temporal depth at C¸at-
alho
¨yu¨k and Tell Sabi Abyad. Anatolian Studies. 2021; 71:1–27. Epub 2021/05/07. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0066154621000028
66. Mellaart J. C¸atal Hu¨yu¨k: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson; 1967.
67. Mellaart J. C¸atal Hu¨yu¨k: the 1960s seasons. In: Matthews R, editor. Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years’
Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. London: British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara 1998. p. 35–42.
68. Hodder I, editor. Excavating C¸atalho¨yu¨k: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–99
Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 2007.
69. Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: the 2000–2008 Seasons, volume 7. Los Angeles: Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; 2013.
70. Hodder I. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: The Leopard’s Tale. London: Thames and Hudson; 2006.
71. Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: The 2009–2017 Seasons. London: British Institute at
Ankara; 2023.
72. Bernardini W, Schachner G. Comparing Near Eastern Neolithic megasites and Southwestern pueblos:
population size, exceptionalism and historical trajectories. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2018;
28(4):647–63. Epub 06/06. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000276
73. Marciniak A, Asouti E, Doherty C, Henton E. The Nature of Household in the Upper Levels at C¸at-
alho
¨yu¨k: smaller, More Dispersed, and More independent Acquisition, Production, and consump-
tion unit. In: Hodder I, Marciniak A, editors. Assembling C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Leeds: Maney; 2015. p.
151–66.
74. Carter T, MilićM. The chipped stone: a visual characterisation of the C¸atalho
¨yu¨k obsidian. In: Hodder
I, editor. Substantive Technologies at C¸atalho¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2000–08 Seasons. Los Angeles:
Cotsen Institute; 2014. p. 417–78.
75. Bogaard A, Charles MP, Twiss KC, Fairbairn AS, Yalman EN, Filipovic D, et al. Private pantries and
celebrated surplus: saving and sharing food at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, central Anatolia. Antiquity. 2009;
83(321):649–68.
76. Demirergi A, Twiss K, Bogaard A, Green L, Ryan P, Farid S. Of bins, basins and banquets: storing,
handling and sharing at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Integrating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Themes
from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology UCLA; 2014. p. 91–
108.
77. Matthews W. Micromorphological and microstratigaphic traces of uses and concepts of space. In:
Hodder I, editor. Inhabiting C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. 4. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; 2005. p. 355–98.
78. Bains R, VasićM, Bar-Yosef Mayer DE, Russell N, Wright KI, Doherty C. A technological approach to
the study of personal ornamentation and social expression at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Sub-
stantive Technologies at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons2013. p. 331–64.
79. Wright KI, Tsoraki C, Siddall R. The ground stone technologies of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor.
Substantive Technologies at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2000–2008 seasons. Los Angeles: Cot-
sen Insitute; 2013.
80. Tsoraki C. The ritualization of daily practice: exploring the staging of ritual acts at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k,
Turkey. In: Hodder I, editor. Religion, History, and Place in the Origin of Settled Life. Boulder: Univer-
sity Press of Colorado; 2018. p. 238–62.
81. Schotsmans EMJ, Busacca G, Lin SC, VasićM, Lingle AM, Veropoulidou R, et al. New insights on
commemoration of the dead through mortuary and architectural use of pigments at Neolithic C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12(1):4055. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07284-3
PMID: 35260577
82. Haddow SD, Schotsmans EMJ, Milella M, Pilloud MA, Tibbetts B, Betz B, et al. Funerary practices at
Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: body treatment and deposition. In: Hodder I, editor. Peopling the Landscape of
C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. Longon: British Institute at Ankara; 2021. p. 281–
314.
83. Russell N, Wright KI, Carter T, Ketchum S, Ryan P, Yalman EN, et al. Bringing down the house: House
closing deposits at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. In: Hodder I, editor. Integrating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Themes
from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology 2014. p. 109–21.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 33 / 40

84. Russell N, Martin L, Twiss KC. Building memories: commemorative deposits at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Anthropo-
zoologica 2009; 44(1):103–28. https://doi.org/10.5252/az2009n1a5
85. Twiss KC, Russell N. Taking the bull by the horns: ideology, masculinity, and cattle horns at C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k. Pale
´orient. 2010; 35(2):17–29.
86. Carter T, Haddow S, Russell N, Bogaard A, Tsoraki C. Laying the foundations: creating households at
Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, Marciniak A, editors. Assembling C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Leeds: Maney;
2015. p. 97–110.
87. Der L, Issavi J. The urban quandary and the ‘mega-site’ from the C¸atalho
¨yu¨k perspective. Journal of
World Prehistory. 2017; 30(3):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9103-x
88. Mazzucato C. Socio-material archaeological networks at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k a community detection approach.
Frontiers in Digital Humanities. 2019;6:article 8.
89. Hodder I. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: the leopard changes its spots. A summary of recent work. Anatolian Studies.
2014; 64:1–22.
90. Kay K. Dynamic houses and communities at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: a building biography approach to prehistoric
social structure. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2020; 30(3):451–68.
91. Matthews W. Life-cycle and -course of buildings. In: Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Perspectives:
Themes from the 1995–99 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research /
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2005. p. 125–49.
92. Cessford C, Newton MW, Kuniholm PI, Manning SW, Ozbakan M, Melek Ozer A, et al. Absolute dating
at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Changing Materialities at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports From the 1995–
1999 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara; 2005. p. 65–99.
93. Twiss KC, Bogaard A, Bogdan D, Carter T, Charles MP, Farid S, et al. Arson or accident? The burning
of a Neolithic house at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Journal of Field Archaeology. 2008; 33(1):41–57.
94. Harrison K, Martin V, Webster B. Structural fires at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Substantive Technologies at C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. 48: British Institute at Ankara; 2013. p. 137–46.
95. Taylor J, Bogaard A, Carter T, Charles M, Haddow SD, Knu¨sel CJ, et al. ‘Up in Flames’: a visual explo-
ration of a burnt building at C¸atalho¨yu¨k in GIS. In: Hodder I, Marciniak A, editors. Assembling C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k. Leeds: Maney; 2015. p. 127–49.
96. Farid S. Building 52/51. In: Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: The 2000–2008 Seasons. Los
Angeles: Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles;
2014.
97. Stiner MC, O
¨zbaşaran M, Duru G. Aşıklı Ho
¨yu¨k: the generative evolution of a Central Anatolian PPN
settlement in regional context. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2022; 30(4):497–543. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10814-021-09167-z
98. Flannery KV. The origins of the village revisited: from nuclear to extended households. American
Antiquity. 2002; 67(3):417–33.
99. Baird D, Fairbairn A, Martin L. The animate house, the institutionalization of the household in Neolithic
central Anatolia. World Archaeology. 2016:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2016.1215259
100. Kuijt I, Guerrero E, Molist M, Anfruns J. The changing Neolithic household: Household autonomy and
social segmentation, Tell Halula, Syria. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2011; 30(4):502–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2011.07.001
101. Wright KI. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of Western Asia. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society. 2000; 2(66):89–122.
102. Byrd BF. Public and private, domestic and corporate: the emergence of the Southwest Asian village.
American Antiquity. 1994; 59(4):639–66.
103. Berrey CA, Drennan RD, Peterson CE. Local economies and household spacing in early chiefdom
communities. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(5):e0252532. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252532
PMID: 34043741
104. Banning EB. Houses, households, and changing society in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the
Southern Levant. Pale
´orient. 2010:49–87.
105. Souvatzi S. The identification of Neolithic households: unfeasible or just disregarded? British School at
Athens Studies. 2007; 15:19–28.
106. Kohler TA, Higgins R. Quantifying household inequality in early Pueblo villages. Current Anthropology.
2016; 57(5):690–7. https://doi.org/10.1086/687982
107. Halstead P. Two Oxen Ahead: Pre-Mechanized Farming In The Mediterranean. Malden, MA: Wiley;
2014.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 34 / 40

108. Hegmon M. The risks of sharing and sharing as risk reduction: interhousehold food sharing in egalitar-
ian societies. In: Gregg SA, editor. Between Bands and States. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeo-
logical Investigations Occasional Paper No. 9, Southern Illinois University; 1991. p. 309–29.
109. Hodder I, Pels P. History Houses: a new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Catalhoyuk. In:
Hodder I, editor. Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Catalhoyuk As a Case Study. Cambridge:
CUP; 2010. p. 163–86.
110. Du¨ring BS. The anatomy of a prehistoric community: reconsideringC¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Birch J, editor.
From prehistoric villages to cities: settlement aggregation and community transformation. New York:
Routledge; 2013. p. 23–43.
111. Du¨ring BS, Marciniak A. Households and communities in the central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeolog-
ical Dialogues. 2006; 12:1–23.
112. Kuijt I. Material geographies of House Societies: reconsidering Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Journal. 2018; 28(4):565–90. Epub 06/18. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0959774318000240
113. Mills B. Relational networks and religious sodalities at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Religion at
Work in a Neolithic Society Vital Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 159–
86.
114. Rollefson GO. "I am We:" the display of socioeconomic politics of Neolithic commodification. In:
Benz M, Gebel HGK, Watkins T, editors. Neolithic Corporate Identities. Berlin: ex oriente; 2017. p.
107–16.
115. Hayden B. The Power of Feasts: From Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
116. Bogaard A. Neolithic “cooperatives”: assessing supra-household cooperation in crop production at
C¸atalho
¨yu¨k and beyond. In: Benz M, Gebel HGK, Watkins T, editors. Neolithic Corporate Identities.
Berlin: ex oriente; 2017. p. 119–33.
117. Byrd BF. Households in transition: Neolithic social organisation within southwest Asia. In: Kujit I, editor.
Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organisation, Identity and Differentiation. New York:
Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000. p. 63–98.
118. Rollefson GO. Blood loss: realignments in community social structures during the LPPNB of highland
Jordan. In: Benz M, editor. The Principle of Sharing: Segregation and Construction of Social Identities
at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Berlin: ex oriente; 2010. p. 183–202.
119. Duru G, O
¨zbaşaran M, Yelo
¨zer S, Uzdurum M, Kuijt I. Space making and home making in the world’s
first villages: Reconsidering the circular to rectangular architectural transition in the Central Anatolian
Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2021; 64:101357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.
2021.101357
120. Garcı
´a-Sua
´rez A. Re-evaluating the socioeconomic role of small built environments at Neolithic C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. In: Horejs B, Schwall C, Mu¨ller Vera, Luciani M, Ritter M, Giudetti M, et al., editors.Pro-
ceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag; 2018. p. 329–36.
121. Hodder I. Mosaics and networks: the social geography of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Integrating
C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Themes from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology
Press; 2014. p. 149–67.
122. Twiss KC. The complexities of home cooking: public feasts and private meals inside the C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
house. In: Pollock S, editor. Between Feasts and Daily Meals Toward an Archaeology of Commensal
Spaces. Berlin: Edition Topoi; 2015. p. 63–85.
123. Du¨ring BS. The articulation of houses at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. In: Beck R, editor. The Durable
House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investiga-
tions, SIU; 2007. p. 130–53.
124. Hodder I. More on history houses at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: A response to Carleton et al. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science. 2016; 67:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.10.010
125. Carter T. A true gift of mother earth: the use and significance of obsidian at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Anatolian
Studies. 2011; 61:1–19.
126. Nazaroff AJ, Tsoraki C, Vasic M. Aesthetic, social, and material networks: a perspective from the flint
daggers at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2016; 26(01):65–92. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0959774315000347
127. Du¨ring BS. Constructing Communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolian
Neolithic ca. 8500–5500 cal. BC. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten; 2006.
128. Angelbeck B. The balance of autonomy and alliance in anarchic societies: the organization of defences
in the Coast Salish past. World Archaeology. 2016; 48(1):51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.
2015.1131620
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 35 / 40

129. Gillespie SD. Le
´vi-Strauss: maison and socie
´te
´àmaisons. In: Joyce RA, Gillespie SD, editors. Beyond
Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-
nia Press; 2000. p. 22–52.
130. Waterson R. Chapter 7, Kinship and ’House Societies’. In: Waterson R, editor. The Living House: an
Anthropology of Architecture in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press; 1990. p. 138–66.
131. Pearson J, Lamb A, Evans J, Engel C, Russell N, So
¨mel M, et al. Multi-isotope evidence of diet (carbon
and nitrogen) and mobility (strontium) at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Peopling the Land-
scape of Catalhoyuk: Reports From the 2009–2017 Seasons 2021.
132. Bogaard A, Charles MP, Filipovic D, Fuller DQ, Gonzalez Carretero L, Green L, et al. The archaeobo-
tany of Ҫatalho
¨yu¨k: results of 2009–2017 excavations and final synthesis. In: Hodder I, editor. Peopling
the Landscape of Catalhoyuk: Reports From the 2009–2017 Seasons British Institute at Ankara Mono-
graph 53. London: British Institute at Ankara; 2021. p. 91–124.
133. Pearson JA, Bogaard A, Charles M, Hillson SW, Larsen CS, Russell N, et al. Stable carbon and nitro-
gen isotope analysis at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: evidence for human and animal diet and their relationship
to households. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2015; 57:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.
01.007
134. Twiss KC, Wolfhagen J, Demirergi GA, Mulville J. Macromammals of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: new practices and
durable traditions. In: Hodder I, editor. Peopling the Landscape of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–
2017 Seasons, Catalhoyuk Research Project Monograph Volume 15. London: British Institute at
Ankara; 2021.
135. Yaka R, Mapelli I, Kaptan D, Doğu A, Chyleński M, Erdal O
¨D, et al. Variable kinship patterns in Neo-
lithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes. Current Biology. 2021; 31(11):2455–68.e18. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.050 PMID: 33857427
136. Chyleński M, Ehler E, Somel M, Yaka R, Krzewińska M, Dabert M, et al. Ancient Mitochondrial
Genomes Reveal the Absence of Maternal Kinship in the Burials of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k People and Their
Genetic Affinities. Genes. 2019; 10(3):207. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10030207 PMID:
30862131
137. Pilloud MA, Larsen CS. “Official” and “practical” kin: Inferring social and community structure from den-
tal phenotype at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2011; 145
(4):519–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21520 PMID: 21590748
138. Conolly J. Technical strategies and technical change at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. Antiquity. 1999;
73:791–800.
139. Love S. The Geoarchaeology of Mudbricks in Architecture: A Methodological Study from Catalhoyuk,
Turkey. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal. 2012; 27:140–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.
21401
140. Asouti E. Group identity and the politics of dwelling at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k Perspectives: Themes from the 1995–9 Seasons. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Research Project Volume 6
Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2006.
141. Barański MZ, Garcı´a Sua
´rez A, Klimowicz A, Love S, Pawłowska K. The architecture of Neolithic C¸at-
alho
¨yu¨k as a process: complexity in apparent simplicity. In: Hodder I, Marciniak A, editors. Assembling
C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 111–26.
142. Farid S. Timelines: phasing Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: The
2000–2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute for Archaeology Press; 2013. p. 91–130.
143. Czerniak L, Marciniak A. Abandoning C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Re-shuffling, Re-location and Migration as the
Means of Mitigating Social Unease in the Late Neolithic. In: Biehl PF, Rosenstock E, editors. 6000 BC:
Transformation and Change in the Near East and Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
2022. p. 136–57.
144. Orton D, Anvari J, Gibson C, Last J, Bogaard A, Rosenstock E, et al. A tale of two tells: dating the C¸at-
alho
¨yu¨k West Mound. Antiquity. 2018; 92(363):620–39. Epub 06/27. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.
2018.91
145. Rosenstock E, Anvari J, Franz I, Orton D, Ostaptchouk S, Stroud E, et al. The transition between the
East and West Mounds at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k around 6000 cal BC: a view from the west. Concluding the Neo-
lithic: the Near East in the second half of the seventh millennium BCE. 2019; 1:163.
146. Oka R, Ames N, Chesson MS, Kuijt I, Kusimba CM, Gogte VD, et al. Dreaming Beyond Gini: Methodo-
logical Steps Towards a Composite Archaeological Inequality Index. In: Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors.
Quantifying Ancient Ineuqality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences: University of Arizona Press;
2018 (in press). p. CHECK!.
147. Peterson CE, Drennan RD. Letting the Gini out of the bottle: measuring inequality archaeologically. In:
Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors. Quantifying Ancient Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences:
University of Arizona Press; 2018. p. 39–66.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 36 / 40

148. Stone EC. The trajectory of social inequality in ancient Mesopotamia. In: Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors.
Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences: Amerind Foundation;
2018.
149. Pailes MC. Steady inequality in changing times: an examination of regional patterns in Hohoka struc-
ture data. In: Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors. Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of
Wealth Differences. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2018. p. 155–79.
150. Leppard TP. Social complexity and social inequality in the prehistoric Mediterranean. Current Anthro-
pology. 2019; 60(3):283–308. https://doi.org/10.1086/703174
151. Bogaard A, Styring A, Whitlam J, Fochesato M, Bowles S. Farming, inequality, and urbanization: a
comparative analysis of late prehistoric northern Mesopotamia and southwestern Germany. In: Kohler
TA, Smith ME, editors. Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences
Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2018. p. 201–29.
152. Arponen VPJ, Mu¨ller J, Hofmann R, Furholt M, Ribeiro A, Horn C, et al. Using the capability approach
to conceptualise inequality in archaeology: the case of the Late Neolithic Bosnian site Okolis
ˇte c.
5200–4600 bce. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2016; 23(2):541–60. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10816-015-9252-0
153. Tsoraki C. The ground stone technologies at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: issues of production, use and depo-
sition. In: Hodder I, editor. The Matter of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. Oxford:
Oxbow; 2021. p. 309–70.
154. Mauldin RP. The relationship between ground stone and agricultural intensification in western New
Mexico. Kiva. 1993; 58(3):317–30.
155. Hard RJ, Mauldin RP, Raymond GR. Mano size, stable carbon isotope ratios, and macrobotanical
remains as multiple lines of evidence of maize dependence in the American Southwest. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory. 1996; 3(3):253–318.
156. Stone T. The impact of raw-material scarcity on ground-stone manufacture and use: an example from
the Phoenix Basin Hohokam. American Antiquity. 1994; 59(4):680–94.
157. Santiago-Marrero CG, Lara-Recuero J, Lancelotti C, Madella M. Following the plant pathways: a syn-
thesis of phytoliths and starch grains analyses at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Peopling the Land-
scape of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Research Project Series
Volume 13. London: British Institute at Ankara; 2021. p. 137–44.
158. Fargher LF, Antorcha-Pedemonte RR, Heredia Espinoza VY, Blanton RE, Lo
´pez Corral A, Cook RA,
et al. Wealth inequality, social stratification, and the built environment in Late Prehispanic Highland
Mexico: A comparative analysis with special emphasis on Tlaxcallan. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology. 2020; 58:101176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101176
159. Du¨ring BS. Building continuity in the central Anatolian Neolithic: ecploring the meaning of buildings at
Asikli Hoyuk and Catalhoyuk. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 2005; 18:3–29.
160. Busacca G. Painting Daily Life: Spatial Contexts, Temporalities and Experiences of Architectural
Paintings at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Stanford University; 2020.
161. Earle T, Spriggs M. A Marxist Approach to Pacific Sequences Political Economy in Prehistory. Current
Anthropology. 2015; 56(4):515–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/682284
162. Deacon AB. Malekula: a vanishing people in the New Hebrides. London: Routledge.; 1934.
163. Marlowe F. The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali-
fornia Press; 2010.
164. Hill K, Hurtado AM. Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter; 1996.
165. Larsen CS, Knu¨sel CJ, Haddow SD, Pilloud MA, Milella M, Sadvari JW, et al. Bioarchaeology of Neo-
lithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k reveals fundamental transitions in health, mobility, and lifestyle in early farmers. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019:201904345. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1904345116 PMID: 31209020
166. Arbuckle BS. Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology. 2012; 31(3):302–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.01.008
167. Twiss KC. The complexities of home cooking: public feasts and private meals inside the C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
house. eTopoi. 2012.
168. Russell N, Twiss KC, Orton D, Demirergi GA. More on the C¸atalho
¨yu¨k mammal remains. In: Hodder I,
editor. Humans and Landscapes of C¸atalho¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons: C¸atalho¨yu¨k
Research Project Volume 8. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology UCLA; 2013. p. 213–58.
169. Schulting RJ. Mortuary Variability and Status Differentiation on the Columbia-Fraser Plateau. Bur-
naby, B.C.: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University; 1995.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 37 / 40

170. McGuire RH. Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community. Boulder: Westview; 1992.
171. Ve
´steinsson O, Hegmon M, Arneborg J, Rice G, Russell WG. Dimensions of inequality. Comparing
the North Atlantic and the US Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2019; 54:172–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.04.004
172. Windler A, Thiele R, Mu¨ller J. Increasing inequality in Chalcolithic Southeast Europe: the case of Dur-
ankulak. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2013; 40(1):204–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.
08.017
173. VasićM, Siebrecht M, Tsoraki C, Veropoulidou R. Beads and pendants in life and death: insights into
the production, use and deposition of ornamental technologies at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor.
Materials at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. Catalho
¨yu¨k Research Project Series
Volume 14. London: British Institute at Ankara; 2021. p. 215–45.
174. Trubitt MBD. The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods. Journal of Archaeological
Research. 2003; 11(3):243–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025028814962
175. Feinman GM, Faulseit RK, Nicholas LM. Assessing wealth inequality in the Pre-Hispanic Valley of
Oaxaca: comparative implications. In: Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors. Ten Thousand Years of Inequal-
ity: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2018. p. 262–88.
176. Veropoulidou R. The shell artefact assemblage at Neolithic C¸atalho¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. The Mat-
ter of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara; 2021. p.
247–63.
177. Veropoulidou R. The archaeomalacology of the 2009–2017 at Neolithic Ҫatalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, edi-
tor. Peopling the Landscape of Catalhoyuk: Reports From the 2009–2017 Seasons. London: British
Institute at Ankara; 2021. p. 47–72.
178. Prentiss AM, Foor TA, Hampton A, Ryan E, Walsh MJ. The evolution of material wealth-based inequal-
ity: the record of Housepit 54, Bridge River, British Columbia American Antiquity. 2018; 83(4):598–
618. Epub 2018/10/16. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2018.56
179. Prentiss AM, Lyons N, Harris LE, Burns MRP, Godin TM. The emergence of status inequality in inter-
mediate scale societies: A demographic and socio-economic history of the Keatley Creek site, British
Columbia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2007; 26(2):299–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.
2006.11.006
180. Le Bras-Goude G, Herrscher E, Vaquer J. Funeral practices and foodstuff behaviour: What does eat
meat mean? Stable isotope analysis of Middle Neolithic populations in the Languedoc region (France).
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2013;(0). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.01.005
181. Le Huray JD, Schutkowski H. Diet and social status during the La Tene period in Bohemia: Carbon
and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of bone collagen from Kutna Hora-Karlov and Radovesice. Jour-
nal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2005; 24(2):135–47.
182. Ambrose SH, Buikstra JE, Krueger HW. Status and gender differences in diet at Mound 72, Cahokia,
revealed by isotopic analysis of bone. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2003; 22:217–26.
183. Knipper C, Held P, Fecher M, Nicklisch N, Meyer C, Schreiber H, et al. Dietary Distinction of Central
European Prehistoric and Medieval Elites Superior in Life & Superior in Death. Current Anthropology.
2015; 56(4):579–89. https://doi.org/10.1086/682083
184. Somerville AD, Martin MA, Hayes LP, Hayward D, Walker PL, Schoeninger MJ. Exploring patterns
and pathways of dietary change: preferred foods, oral health, and stable isotope analysis of hair from
the Dani of Mulia, Papua, Indonesia. Current Anthropology. 2017; 58(1):31–56. https://doi.org/10.
1086/690142
185. Hodder I, Tsoraki C, editors. Communities at Work: The Making of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. London: British Insti-
tute at Ankara; 2021.
186. Hodder I, editor. The Matter of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. London: British
Institute at Ankara; 2021.
187. Hodder I, editor. Peopling the Landscape of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons. Lon-
don: British Institute at Ankara; 2021.
188. Bayliss A, Chivall D, Farid S, Goslar T, Issavi J, Tung B. A northern timescape. In: Hodder I, editor.
C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: the 2009–2017 Seasons. Catal Volume 12, Chapter 19. London: British
Institute at Ankara; 2022. p. 329–86.
189. Benz M. Changing medialities. Symbols of Neolithic corporate identities. In: Benz M, Gebel HGK, Wat-
kins T, editors. Neolithic Corporate Identities. Berlin: exoriente; 2017. p. 135–56.
190. Benz M, Erdal YS, Şahin FS, O
¨zkaya V, Alt KW. The equality of inequality. Social differentiation
among the hunter-fisher-gatherer community of Ko
¨rtik Tepe, southeastern Turkey. In: Meller H, Hahn
HP, Jung R, Risch R, editors. Rich And Poor—Competing for Resources In Prehistory. Halle: Sach-
sen Anhalt–Landesmuseum fu¨r Vorgeschichte, Halle (Saale); 2016. p. 147–64.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 38 / 40

191. Cessford C. Estimating the Neolithic population of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Inhabiting C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs/British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; 2005. p. 323–6.
192. Farid S. Introduction to the south area excavations. Excavating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: South, North and KOPAL
Area Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs/British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; 2007. p. 41–58.
193. Hodder I. History making in prehistory: examples from C¸atalho
¨yu¨k and the Middle East. In: Jones AM,
Pollard J, Allen MJ, Gardiner J, editors. Image, Memory and Monumentality: Archaeological Engage-
ments with the Material World. Oxford: Oxbow; 2012. p. 182–93.
194. Lewis-Williams D. Constructing a cosmos: architecture, power and domestication at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Jour-
nal of Social Archaeology. 2004; 4(1):28–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605304039849
195. Russell N, Twiss KC, Orton DC, Demirergi GA. Changing Animal Use at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey.
In: de Cupere B, Linseele V, Hamilton-Dyer S, editors. Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceed-
ings of the Ninth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent
Areas. Leuven: Peeters; 2014. p. 45–68.
196. Russell N, Martin L. The C¸atalho
¨yu¨k mammal remains. In: Hodder I, editor. Inhabiting C¸atalho
¨yu¨k:
Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research;
2005. p. 33–98.
197. Russell N, Meece S. Animal representations and animal remains at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor.
C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research; 2006. p. 209–30.
198. Bar-Yosef Mayer DE, Gu¨mu¨s BAk, Islamoğlu Yi. Fossil hunting in the Neolithic: Shells from the Taurus
Mountains at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. Geoarchaeology. 2010; 25(3):375–92.
199. Bar-Yosef Mayer DE. Mollusc exploitation at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Humans and Land-
scapes of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. 47: British Institute at Ankara; 2013. p.
329–38.
200. Kamjan S, Erdil P, Hummel E, C¸ilingiroğlu C¸, C¸akırlar C. Traction in Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k? Palaeo-
pathological analysis of cattle and aurochs remains from the East and West Mounds. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology. 2022; 66:101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101412
201. Wolfhagen J, Twiss KC, Demirergi GA, Mulville J. Examining caprine management and cattle domesti-
cation through biometric analyses at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k East (North and South Areas). In: Hodder I, editor.
Peopling the Landscape of C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2009–2017 Seasons: British Institute at
Ankara; 2021. p. 182–98.
202. Green L, Charles M, Bogaard A. Exploring the agroecology of Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Central Anatolia
An archaeobotanical approach to agricultural intensity based on functional ecological analysis of ara-
ble weed flora. Pale
´orient. 2018; 44(2):29–44.
203. Tringham R. Destruction of places by fire: domicide or domithanasia. In: Driessen J, editor. Destruc-
tion: Archaeological, Philological, and Historical Perspectives. Louvain, Belgium: Presses Universi-
taires de Louvain; 2013. p. 85–103.
204. Hadad R. Ruin dynamics: Architectural destruction and the production of sedentary space at the dawn
of the Neolithic revolution. Journal of Social Archaeology. 2019; 19(1):3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1469605318794241
205. House M. Building 77. In: Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: The 2000–2008 Seasons. Los
Angeles: Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles;
2014. p. 485–503.
206. Knu¨sel CJ, Glencross B, Tsoraki C, Belmonte C, Bennison-Chapman L, Milella M. Social tolerance
and violence at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k (7100–5950 cal. BC). Communities at Work The Making of C¸at-
alho
¨yu¨k. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Research Project Series 15. London: British Institute at Ankara; 2021. p. 243–
61.
207. Hodder I. Temporal trends: the shapes and narratives of cultural change at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I,
editor. Integrating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: themes from the 2000–2008 seasons. Los Angeles: Monographs of
the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles; 2014.
208. Milella M, Betz BJ, Knu¨sel CJ, Larsen CS, Dori I. Population density and developmental stress in the
Neolithic: A diachronic study of dental fluctuating asymmetry at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k (Turkey, 7,100–5,950 BC).
American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2018; 167(4):737–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23700
PMID: 30187909
209. Larsen C, Hillson S, Boz B, Pilloud M, Sadvari J, Agarwal S, et al. Bioarchaeology of Neolithic C¸atal-
ho
¨yu¨k: Lives and Lifestyles of an Early Farming Society in Transition. Journal of World Prehistory.
2015:1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9084-6
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 39 / 40

210. Kohler TA, Ellyson. In and out of chains? The changing social contract in the Pueblo Southwest, AD
600–1300. In: Kohler TA, Smith ME, editors. Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of
Wealth Differences Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2018. p. 130–54.
211. Crumley C. A dialectical critique of hierarchy. In: Gailey TPaCW, editor. Power Relations and State
Formation. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association; 1987. p. 155–69.
212. Crumley CL. Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Archaeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association. 1995; 6(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.1995.6.1.1
213. Crumley CL. Three locational models: An epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeol-
ogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 1979; 2:141–73.
214. Brumfiel EM. Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies: Comments. ArchaeologicalPapers of
the American Anthropological Association. 1995; 6(1):125–31. https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.1995.6.1.
125
215. McGuire RH, Saitta DJ. Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them Badly: The Dialectics
of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Antiquity. 1996; 61(2):197–216. Epub
2017/01/20. https://doi.org/10.2307/282418
216. Drennan RD, Peterson CE, Fox JR. 2010. Degrees and kinds of inequality. In: Price TD, Feinman GR,
editors. Pathways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Inequality. New York: Springer.
p. 45–76.
217. Kay K, Haddow SD, Knu¨sel CJ, Mazzucato C, Milella M, Veropoulidou R, et al. No gentry but grave-
makers: inequality beyond property accumulation at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. World Archaeology. 2023.
218. Atalay S, Hastorf CA. Food, meals, and daily activities: food habitus at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. American
Antiquity. 2006; 71(2):283–319.
219. Hastorf CA. The habitus of cooking practices at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: what was the place of the cook?
In: Graff SR, Rodrı
´guez-Alegrı
´a E, editors. The Menial Art of Cooking: Archaeological Studies of Cook-
ing and Food Preparation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado; 2012. p. 65–86.
220. Regan R, with contributions by Taylor J. The Sequence of Buildings 75, 65, 56, 69,44 and 10 and
External Spaces 119, 129, 130, 144, 299, 314, 319, 329, 333, 339, 367, 371 and 427. In: Hodder I, edi-
tor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: The 2000–2008 seasons. Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara & The
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA; 2014. p. 131–90.
221. Hodder I, Cessford C. Daily practice and social memory at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. American Antiquity. 2004; 69
(1):17–40.
222. Haddow SD, Knusel CJ. Skull retrieval and secondary burial practices in the Neolithic Near East:
recent insights from C¸atalho
¨yu¨k, Turkey. Bioarchaeology International. 2017; 1–2:52–71.
223. Tainter JA. Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric social systems. In: Schiffer MB, editor.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol 1. New York: Academic Press; 1978. p. 105–41.
224. Taylor J. Building 79. In: Hodder I, editor. C¸atalho
¨yu¨k Excavations: The 2009–2017 Seasons. London:
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; 2023. p. 195–202.
225. Hodder I. Summary of results. In: Hodder I, editor. Excavating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: South, North and KOPAL
Area Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Oxford: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research /
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; 2007. p. 25–40.
226. Farid S. Level IX Relative Heights, Building 2, Buildings 22 & 16 and Building 17. In: Hodder I, editor.
Excavating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Oxford:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research / British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Mono-
graph; 2007. p. 139–226.
227. Issavi J. Improvising places. On evaluating the complexity of open spaces in neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k.:
Stanford University; 2021.
228. Bogaard A, Ryan P, Yalman N, Asouti E, Twiss KC, Mazzucato C, et al. Assessing outdoor activities
and their social implications at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Integrating C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Themes from
the 2000–2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology UCLA; 2014. p. 123–48.
229. Wallace M., Jones G, Charles M, Forster E, Stillman E, Bonhomme, et al. Re-analysis of archaeobota-
nical remains from pre- and early agricultural sites provides no evidence for a narrowing of the wild
plant food spectrum during the origins of agriculture in southwest Asia. Veg Hist Archaeobot 2019. 28
(4):449–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-018-0702-y PMID: 31231152
230. Pearson JA, Buitenhuis H, Hedges REM, Martin L, Russell N, Twiss KC. New light on early caprine
herding strategies from isotope analysis: a case study from Neolithic Anatolia. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science. 2007; 34 (12):2170–2179.
231. Pearson J, Meskell L. Isotopes and images: fleshing out bodies at Catalhoyuk. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Method and Theory. 2015; 22:461–482.
PLOS ONE
Inequality at Neolithic C¸atalho
¨yu¨k
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307067 September 6, 2024 40 / 40