Russell 2006 - WORTHY IS THE LAMB : A DOUBLE BURIAL AT NEOLITHIC ÇATALHÖYÜK (TURKEY)

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Paléorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2006 Manuscrit reçu le 06 décembre 2005, accepté le 21 juin 2006

WORTHY IS THE LAMB : A DOUBLE BURIAL AT NEOLITHIC ÇATALHÖYÜK (TURKEY)

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DÜRING

Abstract : Neolithic Çatalhöyük (central Anatolia) is well known for its elaborate animal symbolism. However, while sheep are the mostabundant animal in the faunal assemblage at the site, they are virtually absent in the art and among the animal parts incorporated intothe architecture. Thus it is striking that the first and so far only animal burial found at Çatalhöyük is a lamb placed with a human body,a sharp departure from usual human burial practice at the site. We set this find in the context of other animal burials in the NeolithicNear East, and note that animals included in burials are usually domestic, non-threatening, or young. We explore possible reasons forincluding this animal and conclude that the relationship between this man and sheep must have been especially strong, but that “pet” isprobably an inadequate description.

Résumé : Le gisement Néolithique de Çatalhöyük (Anatolie centrale) est connu pour son symbolisme animal élaboré. Alors que parmiles restes fauniques les moutons constituent l'espèce la mieux représentée, ceux-ci sont presque totalement absents des représentationsartistiques et des parties d'animaux incorporées dans l'architecture. Il est frappant de constater que jusqu'ici la seule inhumation d'unanimal mise au jour à Çatalhöyük est celle d'un agneau enterré avec un corps humain, ce qui change nettement des pratiques funéraireshabituelles pratiquées sur ce site. Cette découverte est replacée dans le contexte des inhumations animales connues dans le Proche-Orient au Néolithique : les animaux enterrés sont en général domestiques, inoffensifs et jeunes. En cherchant les raisons de la présencede cet animal, nous concluons que le rapport entre cet homme et ce mouton dût être particulièrement fort ; l'interprétation comme « ani-mal de compagnie » ne suffit pas toutefois à expliquer la nature de cette relation, la position du corps de l'agneau laissant planer unecertaine ambivalence : importance d'enterrer la bête avec l'homme mais nécessité de maintenir une séparation entre les deux.

Key-Words : Central Anatolia, Near East, Neolithic, Burial Practices, Animal burials, Human-Animal Relations, Çatalhöyük.

Mots Clefs : Anatolie centrale, Proche-Orient, Çatalhöyük, Néolithique, Pratiques funéraires, Inhumation d’animaux, Relationshumains - animaux.

ANIMALS AND PEOPLE AT ÇATALHÖYÜK

Much of the fame of Neolithic Çatalhöyük is based on thedramatic animal symbolism at the site, including paintings,reliefs, and the incorporation of animal parts into architecture.It is striking that while sheep are by far the most common spe-cies in the animal bone remains at the site, they are nearlyabsent in these representations1, a pattern familiar from other

contexts, such as Upper Palaeolithic animal depictions2. Inthis context, the recent find of a sheep in a human burial at thesite adds a new dimension to our understanding of human-ani-mal relations at Çatalhöyük and in the contemporary NearEast.

Çatalhöyük is a large tell site (13 hectares) in Central Ana-tolia (fig. 1). The Neolithic East Mound dates roughly to7 400-6 200 cal. BC3. In four seasons in the 1960s, James

1. RUSSELL and MEECE, 2006.2. E.g. DAVIDSON, 1999.3. CESSFORD, 2001.

32_1.book Page 73 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

74 N. RUSSELL and B.S. DÜRING

Paléorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2006

Mellaart excavated more than 200 houses and at least 462 bur-ials4. In 1993 the Çatalhöyük Research Project, directed byIan Hodder, renewed work at the site, initially focusing oncareful documentation of the life history of a smaller numberof houses. In the 1995-1999 excavation seasons, 94 additionalskeletons were found5. In the post-1999 seasons, many moreburials have been excavated, but these remain to be analyzed.

Çatalhöyük has long been known as a centre of cattledomestication6, but analysis of the animal bones from therecent excavations shows that the cattle are in fact wild7.Moreover, with systematic sieving and flotation we find thatthe animal bones are numerically dominated not by cattle, aspreviously thought8, but by sheep and goat. The vast majorityof these sheep and goats are domestic, and their meat suppliedmost of the protein in the diet9. The culling pattern, with mostanimals slaughtered as juveniles or subadults, indicates thatthey were raised primarily for meat, with wool (these early

sheep are unlikely to have been woolly in any case) and dairyproducts of little importance. The ratio of sheep to goatsamong the specimens determined to species is 7:1, makingsheep the main herd animal at the site. The only other domes-tic animal present is dog10.

While sheep provide the staple meat source, wild ani-mals, particularly cattle, appear to hold much greater sym-bolic significance. Cattle and other wild animals are moreoften consumed at feasts, and their body parts are muchmore likely to be incorporated into the houses in the form ofhorns set in walls, pillars, benches or modelled heads ; scap-ulae placed in abandoned houses or built into walls ; andcommemorative deposits in pits in the house floors. Most orall of the animals in the paintings are wild11. Sheep are nota-bly absent in the paintings, but sheep bones do occasionallyappear in feasting and commemorative deposits. Mellaartreports a few cases of modelled clay heads with sheephorns12, although we do not know whether the horns derivefrom wild or domestic sheep. In sum, sheep are altogetherabsent from paintings at Çatalhöyük, and are present butseverely under-represented in feasting deposits and specialtreatments of animal remains.

BURIAL PRACTICES AT ÇATALHÖYÜK

Most burials at Çatalhöyük are found inside houses, inpits dug through the floors. A few, mostly infants, wereplaced in the foundation fills that preceded house construc-tion, and very occasionally people were buried in outdoorareas. These on-site burials probably represent only a selec-tion of the deceased13. The new investigations at Çatalhöyükshow that single primary interments are the norm, and theseburials include all age categories and both sexes in equalmeasure. Most burials are contracted and lie on the right orleft side, but there is no standard orientation or arrangementof the body. A smaller number of burials consists of doubleor triple inhumations. Finally, a few burials have evidencefor secondary burial or of intentional retrieval of skeletalparts14.

Fig. 1 : Eastern Mediterranean with sites mentioned in text.

4. MELLAART, 1967 ; DÜRING, 2003.5. ANDREWS et al., 2005.6. PERKINS, 1969.7. RUSSELL, MARTIN and BUITENHUIS, 2005.8. PERKINS, 1969.9. RICHARDS et al., 2003.

10. RUSSELL and MARTIN, 2005.11. RUSSELL and MEECE, 2006.12. MELLAART, 1967.13. DÜRING, 2003.14. ANDREWS et al., 2005.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Worthy is the Lamb : a Double Burial at Neolithic Çatalhöyük (Turkey) 75


Inspired by paintings of vultures swooping at headlesshuman figures at the site, Mellaart proposed a burial rite thatinvolved exposing bodies for excarnation by vultures prior toburying the cleaned bones in the houses15. However, carefultaphonomic studies of burials from the new excavations indi-cate that almost all bodies were buried intact. Since burialswere often repeatedly placed in relatively small areas in build-ings, it is common for earlier burials to be disturbed by subse-quent ones, and as a consequence in many cases only the latestburials in a building are fully articulated and undisturbed16.

Grave goods are not ubiquitous ; many burials containnone, whereas others contain rich assemblages. Most areornaments or components of clothing such as beads, pendants,rings, and belt hooks. Occasionally burials include tools andweapons such as bone points and spatulas, stone maces, flintdaggers, and obsidian projectile points. Other items includeobsidian mirrors, mussel shells containing pigment, woodencontainers, and stone bowls. Contrary to earlier suggestions17,these burial goods do not seem to be related to the gender ofthe deceased18. All of these burial goods could be construedas personal possessions of the deceased, although some maybe gifts from the mourners19.

Until 2004, no animal burials had been found at Çatal-höyük. While a few complete, articulated animal skeletonshave been recovered, none were placed in pits, let alone in pitsinside houses in the manner of human burials. Some are peri-natal sheep found in penning areas, possibly natural deathsthat were left where they expired. Others are dogs found inmidden deposits with no sign of special treatment. Perhaps theclosest thing to an animal burial previously encountered is apuppy skeleton lying on top of the northeast platform ofBuilding 3 (Level VI). An adult male human was buriedbeneath this platform, but since the platform was replasteredat least twice subsequent to this burial, there is no direct con-nection between the two bodies20.

The lamb skeleton reported here is thus the first deliberateanimal interment at Çatalhöyük. Not only was this lamb bur-ied like a human (in a pit dug through a house floor), it was infact buried with a human body.

THE BURIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

This double burial occurred in the main room (space 112)of Building 50 in the South Area. This building was first exca-vated by Mellaart in 1963 as Shrine 9 in Level VII21. Thebuilding has a large southern room (space 112) and a narrowroom (space 231) on the north (fig. 2). The main room con-tained four posts : two on the east wall and two on the west. Aplastered ledge running between the two northernmost postsdemarcated a large platform extending across the northernpart of the room. Mellaart reconstructed a number of mouldedcattle heads (on the basis of scars in the wall plaster) withwhat he believed to be wavy plaster horns along the east andthe west walls, and designated the building as a shrine on thatbasis.

Mellaart did not completely remove this building, and in1997 the Çatalhöyük Research Project renewed excavationshere, removing the southern two-thirds of space 112. Theedge of the trench coincided approximately with the southern

15. MELLAART, 1967.16. ANDREWS et al., 2005.17. MELLAART, 1967 : 207-208.18. DÜRING, 2003 ; HAMILTON, 1996 ; HODDER, 2004.19. HAMILTON, 2005.20. STEVANOVIC and TRINGHAM, 2000.

21. MELLAART, 1964 : 52, fig. 11-13, pl. Va ; MELLAART, 1967 : 105-106, fig. 10, 19 and 20, tables 13 and 16.

Fig. 2 : Çatalhöyük Building 50 floor plan.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



edge of the northern platform22. Eleven humans were foundinterred below the level of the largely truncated floors of thissouthern part of the building, most of them single burials. Theburials consist of two single neonate burials, two single infantburials, two single children burials, one single adult burial(male), one double burial with two children, and one doubleburial with two adults (a male and a female)23.

In 2004, Space 231 and the remaining, northern part ofSpace 112 were excavated. Fragments of truncated floors andfeatures were found in both spaces, most of which could bematched with Mellaart’s published plan of this building24. Anadditional group of burials was located in the centre of thenorth platform, consisting of five individuals, one of them asheep skeleton.

A large pit (Feature 1 702) measuring about 1,8 by 1,2 mwas cut through the centre of the north platform. In the bottomlay a remarkable double burial (fig. 3). On the south was acomplete, articulated skeleton of an adult male (Unit 10 840).The skeleton awaits further investigation for a more detailedage, stature, and health assessment. The head was badlycrushed while the rest of the skeleton was in good conditionand articulated. Skeleton 10 840 was oriented west-east (headto the west) lying on its right side and leaning somewhat ontoits back, with the legs flexed to the chest (fig. 4)25. A workedbird bone tube was placed on the chest and a large flint objectand a bone point lay behind the left shoulder.

A shallow fill deposit surrounded this skeleton, sealed bya brown interface from which the matrix broke evenly andclearly. This interface is probably the remains of an organicsubstance such as a mat. It sloped down to the north of theskeleton, where a complete, articulated skeleton of a youngsheep (unit 10 839) lay directly on top of it. This mat thereforeestablishes the contemporaneity of the two burials. The sheepwas oriented east-west (head to the east) with its head twistedback to the north. It lay in a contorted posture on its left side :its hind legs extended straight behind it at roughly a 45° angleupward, while its front legs were close together and extendedstraight up vertically, twisting the forequarters so that the legswere essentially at right angles to the body (fig. 5). This couldonly have been achieved by holding the legs up while the pitwas filled ; otherwise they would have fallen next to the lamband perhaps touched or lain across the human body.

The surface condition of the sheep bones is very fresh,although they are delicate and friable. The skeleton showedno sign of disturbance. The only bones out of place were a fewof the smaller leg and foot bones such as sesamoids and patel-lae that had rolled down to the shoulders and hips duringdecomposition. Some of the phalanges had also collapseddownward slightly. Clearly the sheep was buried intact andfully fleshed.

The diagnostic features of the deciduous premolars per-mitted the identification of this animal as a sheep26. The prox-imal radii are fused but too damaged to determine whetherthey retain an epiphyseal line. The distal humerus, the acetab-ulum of the pelvis, and the second phalanges exhibit faint epi-physeal lines, while the first phalanges are in early fusion. Thefirst permanent molars are just coming into active wear(Grant’s staged27), while the second molars and the perma-nent first incisors have not yet erupted. Thus the sheep fallsinto Zeder’s dental Group III, tentatively aged 6-12 months,and toward the late end of her fusion Group C, tentativelyaged 12-18 months28. It is likely, then, that the sheep is abouta year old. The season of birth for early domestic sheep isuncertain (early or late spring), but this age suggests a springor summer burial. The immaturity of the sheep prevents eval-uation of its domestication status ; however, since nearly allthe sheep at the site are domestic, this animal probably is, too.It is also too young for a reliable sex determination, but thepelvis appears more female than male in morphology29, andthere are no signs of developing horns. Horn buds are appar-ent by four-six months of age in both mouflon (wild sheep)30

and Soay sheep (feral sheep probably descended from BronzeAge domesticates)31. Females are generally hornless in themodern wild sheep near Çatalhöyük, and there are hornlessspecimens from the Çatalhöyük assemblage as well. Thislamb is therefore more likely to be female.

LATER BURIAL ACTIVITY

Later in the occupation of Building 50, the locality of thedouble burial was repeatedly opened for a series of three fur-ther human burials placed above the human skeleton unit

22. FARID, in press.23. Ibid.24. DÜRING, 2004.25. BOZ and HAGER, 2004.

26. PAYNE, 1985.27. GRANT, 1982.28. ZEDER, 2006.29. BOESSNECK, 1969.30. LINCOLN, 1998 ; SANTIAGO-MORENO et al., 2000.31. CLUTTON-BROCK et al., 1990.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



10 840. Skeleton 10 829, a mature female with a largenumber of grave goods (including four incised and perfo-rated boar tusk plaques and a number of stone and boar inci-sor beads) was oriented south-north (head to the south),lying with legs flexed against the chest on its right side,

above and to the east of 10 840, while skeletons 10 814 and10 813 were placed directly above 10 840. Both were ori-ented west-east (head to the west), lying on their back withthe legs flexed to the chest, thus with the same body postureas 10 840.

Fig. 3 : Plan of burial F. 1702, with human skeleton 10 840 and sheep skeleton 10 839.

Fig. 4 : Human skeleton 10 840.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



Skeleton 10 814, an adult female with no grave goods, waslocated approximately 7 cm above skeleton 10 840 and wasonly partly found in situ, due to later disturbance by the inter-ment of skeleton unit 10 813. Interestingly, skull 10 834,found in the north-eastern post-retrieval pit of the building,matches with loose incisors found with skeleton 10 814 andtherefore derives from that burial32. The subsequent burial10 813, an adult male, included a large bone belt hook that layon the left side of the chest and a cluster of five flint tools andone antler implement that lay on the right side33.

We believe the key point with respect to this burial groupis that the positioning and orientation of the individual bodiesseem to be structured by memories of earlier burials. First,while three later burials took place in the southern part of thenorth platform of space 112, none was put where the sheephad been buried, suggesting that this area might have beenconsidered inappropriate for further burials. This could be due

to a desire to avoid disturbing the upstanding front legs of thesheep (although they were not averse to disturbing humanskeletons), or perhaps it was inappropriate for human burialsto occupy an area associated with an animal. At Çatalhöyük itis often the case that only the latest burials beneath a platformremained in full articulation, and older burials were generallydisturbed by more recent ones. Second, the orientation of thesheep in reverse to the human bodies, with the head on the eastrather than the west, may be significant. As we have alreadyindicated, there are no standardised burial orientations atÇatalhöyük, and thus the possible meaning of these orienta-tions would be purely local. Third, the odd position of thelamb’s body seems to express ambivalence toward its inclu-sion in the burial. The lamb was carefully placed with thehuman body (and the pit dug large enough to accommodateboth), but also carefully separated both by the mat and byholding its legs so they would not come in contact with thehuman body (fig. 6). Further, whereas the humans were allplaced in a position resembling a sleeping posture, if perhapsmore flexed than would be comfortable in life, the sheep was

Fig. 5 : Sheep skeleton 10 839, with most of front legs removed.

32. DÜRING, 2004.33. BOZ and HAGER, 2004


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



buried in a completely artificial position. Fourth, it seemsmore than coincidental that both skeletons 10 814 and 10 813are buried in the same body position and with the same orien-tation as earlier skeleton 10 840. Given that such repetitionsof burial postures in the same locations are rare at Çatalhöyükit could be suggested that these two later burials referred backto the first human burial, which was associated with the sheepskeleton.

ANIMAL BURIALS IN THE NEAR EASTERN NEOLITHIC

To put our sheep burial into the context of the Near East-ern Neolithic, we surveyed the available literature for otheroccurrences of complete animals in burials (see Table 1 andreferences therein). We leave aside here finds of animal partsin human graves, as this would seem to be a different kind of

practice. Further, we will not extensively discuss the animalburials of the Near Eastern Neolithic, as that is beyond thescope of this paper, but will only note some features that seemparticularly relevant in relation to our lamb burial.

Domestic animals predominate in burials of complete ani-mals. Dog burials, some with humans, start in the Natufian34

and are also found in the Neolithic. The Shillourokambos catis morphologically wild, but probably tamed35. Likewise, theBasta cow falls within the range of Near Eastern wild femalecattle, but Becker suggests cattle at the site may have beenherded36. The suid at Tell Ain el-Kerkh is too young to deter-mine its domestication status, but is likely to be domestic aswell37. Most relevant to the Çatalhöyük lamb burial, two ani-mal burials of sheep or goats were found beneath the floors of

Fig. 6 : Reconstruction of the double burial by John Gordon Swogger.

34. DAVIS and VALLA, 1978 ; TCHERNOV and VALLA, 1997.35. VIGNE and GUILAINE, 2004.36. BECKER, 2002.37. TSUNEKI, 2002.

32_1.book 9 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



buildings at Khirokitia. One burial contained an adult sheep orgoat, the other includes four young sheep or goats, and the lat-ter are located near a human adult burial38. Unfortunately, fewdetails have been published about these caprine burials at Khi-rokitia.

In most cases where we have information about age, theanimals buried are relatively young. In one case (the pregnantBasta cow) the animal burial was associated with new life.Some of these animals were not buried as intact carcasses.The Basta cow was butchered and defleshed, then the boneswere carefully placed in roughly anatomical position to recon-struct the skeleton, with the foetus in place. The KfarHaHoresh gazelle is headless, and the Tell Ain el-Kerkh pighad been partially dismembered and stacked in a pile.

In contrast to some of the Natufian dog burials, these ani-mals are generally not buried in direct association with ahuman skeleton, although several are buried near humans orfound with a few disarticulated human bones. The only directassociation in a burial occurs at Tell Ain el Kerkh where ahuman infant and an infant suid occur along with a pile ofjumbled animal bones in the same stone-lined pit. The well at

Kissonerga-Mylouthkia is not really a burial, but containsdeliberately deposited intact animals. The human specimensthat accompany them suggest that this is a ritual deposit ratherthan disposal of diseased or otherwise inedible carcasses.While geographically distant, we should also mention what isprobably the closest parallel to the Çatalhöyük sheep burial :four adult human burials at Mehrgarh, Pakistan (Period I,preceramic Neolithic) with infantile goats arrayed aroundtheir feet39.

DISCUSSION

Some have suggested that an association between deathand wild and/or dangerous animals is a key theme of the NearEastern Neolithic40, and there are certainly many examplesthat fit this idea41. However, animals in burials, includingthose associated with human remains, are often domestic,

Table 1 : Animal Burials in the Neolithic Near East.

Site Animal Age Human Association ? Period Area References

Demirköy Höyük Dog Unknown None PPNA/EPPNB

SE Anatolia ROSENBERG and PEASNALL, 1998

Basta Pregnant cow Mature, with foetus

Near adult male burial PPNB Levant BECKER, 2002

Kfar Hahoresh Headless gazelle Unknown Plastered skull immediately above it in plaster-lined pit ; disarticulated bones nearby

PPNB Levant HORWITZ and GORING-MORRIS, 2004

Çayönü Dog Unknown Near male human burial PPNB SE Anatolia ÖZDO*AN, 1999

Kissonerga-Mylouthkia

9 sheep, 14 goats, 1 little owl in well

8 immature, 1 mature sheep ; 12 immature, 1 mature goat

Disarticulated, partial remains of at least 5 individuals in same deposits

PPNB Cyprus CROFT, 2003

Shillourokambos Cat 8 months Near human burial PPNB Cyprus VIGNE et al., 2004

Khirokitia Sheep or goat Mature None ; below floor III of tho-los VII, under threshold

‘PPNC’ Cyprus DIKAIOS, 1953 ; KING, 1953

Khirokitia 4 sheep or goats Immature Near adult burial, below floor XII of tholos X

‘PPNC’ Cyprus DIKAIOS, 1953 ; KING, 1953

Canhasan I 2 dogs, head to tail below thres-hold

Unknown None Ceramic Neoli-thic

Central Anato-lia

FRENCH, 1998

Tell Ain el-Kerkh Pig 6 months Near human child, in sealed structure

Ceramic Neoli-thic

Northern Levant

TSUNEKI, 2002

38. DIKAIOS, 1953 : 67, 77, 222 ; KING, 1953 : 435.

39. LECHEVALLIER et al., 1982.40. E.g. HODDER, 1990 ; VERHOEVEN, 2002.41. E.g. ÖZDO*AN, 1999 : 51-52.

32_1.book 0 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



non-threatening, or young. The Çatalhöyük lamb was proba-bly all three. Thus there is another strand to human-animalrelations and their connection with death and the dead. Thisstrand is less adversarial, and in at least some cases it wouldbe easy to interpret the animals as pets. As Vigne and Guilainehave observed, it is inappropriate to apply present-day notionsof pets or companion animals to the Neolithic42. Certainly notall dogs and cats (much less cattle and sheep) were treated ascompanion animals, as most get no special treatment in deathand may have been skinned and eaten. We suspect that therewere multiple reasons for animal burials, and each case needsto be analyzed in its own context. We will not attempt a case-by-case analysis of all Near Eastern Neolithic animal burials,but we will discuss possible explanations for the human-lambco-burial at Çatalhöyük in the context of these broader prac-tices.

It seems unlikely that whole animals in human burials, asopposed to joints of meat, are intended to provide food for theafterlife. In fact there is little evidence for this practice any-where in the Neolithic Near East. Another possibility is thatthe animal was sacrificed to honour the dead person or propi-tiate their or other spirits. Sacrifice is difficult to establisharchaeologically, since the difference between sacrifice andordinary slaughter is the context in which it occurs. The Bastacow is a good candidate, and was surely ritually consumed. Ifit was domestic, slaughtering a pregnant female would be atrue sacrifice of a highly valuable animal. To a lesser extent,the same is true of the Çatalhöyük lamb, if it was indeedfemale, as it would have formed a part of the breeding stock;normally it is the young males that are culled. However, whilesacrifice may well have been practiced at Çatalhöyük, burialof sacrificial animals was not part of the usual ritual. Thusalthough the sheep may have been sacrificed, this seems aninsufficient explanation for its burial.

Intact animals found in human burials or buried likehumans are often taken to be pets, that is, animals that havebeen taken into the family and granted a quasi-human status43.The dog and cat burials, and the general pattern of young ani-mals in burials found at various Neolithic sites, fit this model,although other explanations are possible. While most sheep atÇatalhöyük were raised for meat, this does not preclude oneof them being a pet. However, this does not seem likely, giventhe great care taken to avoid contact between the human andsheep bodies, and the awkward burial position of the sheep,

which does not bespeak affection. This contrasts with thefamous Natufian Ain Mallaha burial, where the person’s handlies on the dog’s head44. On the other hand, the inclusion ofthe sheep with a human in a burial does indicate some form ofspecial relationship between the two.

Animals in human burials have sometimes been inter-preted as shamans’ animal familiars (a spirit helper in animalform), or spirit guides leading the dead to the afterworld45,and such a role has been suggested for canids and vultures inthe Near Eastern Neolithic based on artistic representations46.A lamb would be an unusual spirit helper (carnivores andbirds seem to be more typical), and, as noted above, sheep donot appear to have been of major symbolic significance atÇatalhöyük. The general lack of animals in Çatalhöyük buri-als does not indicate a concept of the need for an animal guideto the afterworld. And we would expect that the intimate bondwith an animal familiar would preclude the aversion to touchseen in this case. On the other hand, there might be ambivalentfeelings among the living about a dead shaman’s animalfamiliar.

It has been suggested that the goats in the Mehrgarh buri-als mark the people with them as shepherds, and one couldinterpret the Çatalhöyük burial in the same way. We havenoted that most Çatalhöyük grave goods appear to be personalpossessions. However, in contrast to Period I at Mehrgarh,sheep herding must have been very common, probably thenorm, at Çatalhöyük. If nearly everyone, or every member ofcertain age/gender categories, was a shepherd, then it isunclear why only this particular person was so marked indeath. Perhaps he was especially wealthy in livestock.

There may be elements of several of these possibilitiesinvolved in this human-sheep relationship. Tani points outthat creating domestic animal herds requires breaking ‘verti-cal’ bonds between mother and offspring and fostering ‘hori-zontal’ bonds among age-mates47. Shepherds accomplish thisby removing lambs from their mothers for much of the timeand grouping them together, while taming the lambs. To con-trol the herd, shepherds commonly develop especially closerelationships with one or a few animals, which then act asherd leaders. Prototypically these are bell-wethers, but mayalso be intact males or females. It is possible that this burialrepresents a particularly intense relationship of this kind.

42. VIGNE and GUILAINE, 2004.43. E.g. VALLA, 1996 : 660 ; MOREY, 2006.

44. DAVIS and VALLA, 1978.45. E.g. COLLINS, 1991 ; WING, 1984.46. HELMER et al., 2004.47. TANI, 1996.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



In any case, it is clear that the context we have encoun-tered is highly exceptional. Burial of intact animals in humangraves is otherwise unknown in the Neolithic Near East.Although hundreds of burials have been excavated at Çatal-höyük, this is the only one containing an animal. Perhaps thisis the crux of the matter : the personal ties between the deadman and this particular lamb were so strong that it was feltnecessary to include it, but concern over this transgression ofhuman-animal boundaries was expressed by maintaining acertain separation between the two bodies, as well as the sub-sequent interments. It may be significant that the sheep isprobably domestic, as the human-animal boundary tends to bedrawn more sharply with domestic animals48. Despite theambivalence about the lamb, the echoing of the position andorientation of the man buried with it in the subsequent burialsin this location suggest that he was regarded not as a pariah,but as a respected ancestor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our colleagues on the Çatalhöyük Projectin general, and Basak Boz, Claire Christensen, Rebecca Daly, LoriHager, Ian Hodder, and Marin Pilloud in particular. We are gratefulto Medy Oberendorff, Sophie Lamb, Mark Roughley, and JohnSwogger, the creators of Figures 1, 2, 5, and 6 respectively. Thispaper has benefited from comments on an earlier version by ChiaraCavallo, Shahina Farid, Lori Hager, Katheryn Twiss, MelindaZeder, and three anonymous reviewers. Bleda Düring worked on thispaper in the course of a Ph.D. funded by the Faculty of Archaeology,Leiden University.

Nerissa RUSSELLDepartment of Anthropology

Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853

United [email protected]

Bleda S. DÜRINGInstitute of Archaeology

University College London31-34 Gordon Square

London WC1 0PYUnited Kingdom

[email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDREWS P., MOLLESON T. and BOZ B.

2005 The human burials at Çatalhöyük. In : HODDER I. (ed.), Inha-biting Çatalhöyük : reports from the 1995-1999 seasons :261-278. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeologi-cal Research.

BECKER C.

2002 Nothing to do with indigenous domestication ? Cattle fromLate PPNB Basta. In : BUITENHUIS H., CHOYKE A.M., MAS-

HKOUR M. and AL-SHIYAB A.H. (eds), Archaeozoology of theNear East V : 112-137. Groningen : Center for ArchaeologicalResearch and Consultancy (ARC Publicatie 62).

BOESSNECK J.

1969 Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linné)and goat (Capra hircus Linné). In : BROTHWELL D.R. andHIGGS E.S. (eds), Science in archaeology : a survey of pro-gress and research : 331-358. London : Thames and Hudson.

BOZ B. and HAGER L.

2004 Human remains. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports 2004. (http : //www.catalhoyuk.com).

BRADLEY R.

2001 Humans, animals and the domestication of visual images.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11,2 : 261-263.

CESSFORD C.

2001 A new dating sequence for Çatalhöyük. Antiquity 75,290 :717-725.

CLUTTON-BROCK J., DENNIS-BRYAN K., ARMITAGE P.L. and JEWELL P.A.

1990 Osteology of the Soay sheep. Bulletin of the British Museumof Natural History 56,1.

COLLINS P.W.

1991 Interaction between island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) andNative Americans on islands off the coast of southern Cali-fornia II, Ethnographic, archaeological, and historic evi-dence. Journal of Ethnobiology 11/2 : 205-229.

CROFT P.

2003 The animal bones. In : PELTENBURG E.J. (ed.), The coloni-sation and settlement of Cyprus : investigations at Kisso-nerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996 : 49-58. Göteborg : PaulÅströms (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 70,4).

DAVIDSON I.

1999 Symbols by nature : animal frequencies in the Upper Palaeo-lithic of western Europe and the nature of symbolic represen-tation. Archaeology in Oceania 34 : 121-131.

DAVIS S.J.M. and VALLA F.R.

1978 Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago inthe Natufian of Israel. Nature 276 : 608-610.

DIKAIOS P.

1953 Khirokitia : final report on the excavation of a Neolithic sett-lement in Cyprus. London : Oxford University Press.

DÜRING B.S.

2003 Burials in context : the 1960s inhumations of ÇatalhöyükEast. Anatolian Studies 53 : 1-15.

2004 Spaces 112 and 231. Çatalhöyük Archive Reports 2004.(http : //www.catalhoyuk.com)48. BRADLEY, 2001 ; INGOLD, 1994.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



FARID S.

in press South area excavations. In : HODDER I. (ed.), ExcavatingÇatalhöyük : South, North and KOPAL area reports from the1995-1999 seasons. Cambridge : McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research.

FRENCH D.H.

1998 Canhasan sites 1. Canhasan I : stratigraphy and structures.London : British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 23).

GRANT A.

1982 The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungu-lates. In : WILSON B., GRIGSON C. and PAYNE S. (eds),Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites :91-108. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 109).

HAMILTON N.

1996 Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials. In : HODDER I.(ed.), On the surface : Çatalhöyük 1993-95 : 215-263. Cam-bridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

2005 Social aspects of burial. In : HODDER I. (ed.), InhabitingÇatalhöyük : reports from the 1995-1999 seasons : 301-306.Cambridge : McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch.

HELMER D., GOURICHON L. et STORDEUR D.

2004 A l'aube de la domestication animale : imaginaire et symbo-lisme animal dans les premières sociétés néolithiques du norddu Proche-Orient. Anthropozoologica 39 : 143-163.

HODDER I.

1990 The domestication of Europe : structure and contingency inNeolithic societies. Oxford : Basil Blackwell.

2004 Women and men at Çatalhöyük. Scientific American 290,1 :66-73.

HORWITZ L.R.K. and GORING-MORRIS A.N.

2004 Animals and ritual during the Levantine PPNB : a case studyfrom the site of Kfar Hahoresh, Israel. Anthropozoologica39 : 165-178.

INGOLD T.

1994 From trust to domination : an alternative history of human-animal relations. In : MANNING A. and SERPELL J.A. (eds),Animals and human society : changing perspectives : 1-22.London : Routledge.

KING J.E.

1953 Appendix III : mammal bones from Khirokitia and Erimi. In :DIKAIOS P. (ed.), Khirokitia : final report on the excavationof a Neolithic settlement in Cyprus : 431-437. London :Oxford University Press.

LECHEVALLIER M., MEADOW R.H. et QUIVRON G.

1982 Dépôts d'animaux dans les sépultures néolithiques de Mehr-garh, Pakistan. Paléorient 8,1 : 99-106.

LINCOLN G.A.

1998 Reproductive seasonality and maturation throughout thecomplete life-cycle in the mouflon ram (Ovis musimon). Ani-mal Reproduction Science 53 : 87-105.

MELLAART J.

1964 Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963 : third preliminary report.Anatolian Studies 14 : 39-119.

1967 Çatal Hüyük : a neolithic town in Anatolia. London : Thamesand Hudson.

MOREY D.F.

2006 Burying key evidence : the social bond between dogs andpeople. Journal of Archaeological Science 33 : 158-175.

ÖZDO*AN A.

1999 Çayönü. In : ÖZDO*AN M. and BA„GELEN N. (eds), Neoli-thic in Turkey : 35-63. Istanbul : Arkeoloji ve SanatYayınları.

PAYNE S.

1985 Morphological distinctions between the mandibular teeth ofyoung sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeolo-gical Science 12 : 139-147.

PERKINS D. JR.

1969 Fauna of Çatal Hüyük : evidence for early cattle domestica-tion in Anatolia. Science 164,3876 : 177-179.

RICHARDS M.P., PEARSON J.A., MOLLESON T., RUSSELL N. and MARTIN L.

2003 Stable isotope evidence of diet at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Tur-key. Journal of Archaeological Science 30,1 : 67-76.

ROSENBERG M. and PEASNALL B.L.

1998 A report on soundings at Demirköy Höyük : an AceramicNeolithic site in eastern Anatolia. Anatolica 24 : 195-207.

RUSSELL N. and MARTIN L.

2005 The Çatalhöyük mammal remains. In : HODDER I. (ed.),Inhabiting Çatalhöyük : reports from the 1995-1999seasons : 35-95. Cambridge : McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research.

RUSSELL N., MARTIN L. and BUITENHUIS H.

2005 Cattle domestication at Çatalhöyük revisited. CurrentAnthropology 46,5 : S101-S108.

RUSSELL N. and MEECE S.

2006 Animal representations and animal remains at Çatalhöyük.In : HODDER I. (ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives : themes fromthe 1995-1999 seasons : 209-230. Cambridge : McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research.

SANTIAGO-MORENO J., GONZÁLEZ-BULNES A., GÓMEZ-BRUNET A. and LÓPEZ-SEBASTIÁN A.

2000 Effect of birth date on body weight, scrotal circumferenceand horn dimension growth in captive juvenile mouflon(Ovis gmelini musimon) rams. Game and Wildlife Science17,3 : 179-187.

STEVANOVIC⁄ M. and TRINGHAM R.

2000 The excavation of the Bach 1 area. Çatalhöyük ArchiveReports 2000. (http : //www.catalhoyuk.com).

TANI Y.

1996 Domestic animal as serf : ideologies of nature in the Mediter-ranean and the Middle East. In : ELLEN R.F. and FUKUI K.(eds), Redefining nature : ecology, culture and domestica-tion : 387-415. Oxford : Berg.

TCHERNOV E. and VALLA F.R.

1997 Two new dogs, and other Natufian dogs from the southernLevant. Journal of Archaeological Science 24 : 65-95.


• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •

Tiré

s à

part

CN

RS

ÉD

ITIO

NS

• T

irés

à pa

rt C

NR

S É

DIT

ION

S •



TSUNEKI A.

2002 A Neolithic foundation deposit at Tell ’Ain el-Kerkh. In :GEBEL H.G.K., HERMANSEN B.D. and HOFFMAN JENSEN

C. (eds), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near EasternNeolithic : 133-143. Berlin : ex oriente.

VALLA F.R.

1996 L'animal « bon à penser » : la domestication et la place del'homme dans la nature. In : OTTE M. (éd.), Nature et Cul-ture : 651-667. Liège : Université de Liège (Études etRecherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège 68).

VERHOEVEN M.

2002 Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of theLevant and southeast Anatolia. Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal 12,2 : 233-258.

VIGNE J.D. et GUILAINE J.

2004 Les premiers animaux de compagnie, 8 500 ans avant notreère ? ... ou comment j'ai mangé mon chat, mon chien et monrenard. Anthropozoologica 39 : 249-273.

VIGNE J.D., GUILAINE J., DEBUE K., HAYE L. and GÉRARD P.

2004 Early taming of the cat in Cyprus. Science 304,9 : 259.

WING E.S.

1984 Use and abuse of dogs. In : GENOWAYS H.H. and DAWSON

M.R. (eds), Contributions in quaternary vertebrate paleonto-logy : a volume immemorial to John E. Guiday : 228-232.Pittsburg : Carnegie Museum of Natural History (SpecialPublications 8).

ZEDER M.A.

2006 Reconciling rates of long bone fusion and tooth eruption andwear in sheep (Ovis) and goat (Capra). In : RUSCILLO D.(ed.), Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones :87-118. Oxford : Oxbow.


Russell 2006 - WORTHY IS THE LAMB : A DOUBLE BURIAL AT NEOLITHIC ÇATALHÖYÜK (TURKEY)

Documents

Transcript of Russell 2006 - WORTHY IS THE LAMB : A DOUBLE BURIAL AT NEOLITHIC ÇATALHÖYÜK (TURKEY)