Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Catalhoyuk - Neolithic egalitarian utopia? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||||||
calvo 
General 
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Catalhoyuk - Neolithic egalitarian utopia?Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:05 |
||||||||
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalhoyuk
http://www.catalhoyuk.com
Recently I have read the book "Catalhoyuk - the Leopard's tale" by the archaeologist Ian Hodder who has been working on the excavation site since 1993.
To summarise, Catalhoyuk was a Neolithic settlement in southern Anatolia, that was populated from 7500B.C. till about 6000B.C. It is the largest Neolithic settlement found up to date which housed a population of up to 10,000 individuals ocupying a space of over 13.5 hectares.
Some archaeologists describe it as the earliest "town" for its size and population, but sociologically speaking it was simply an overgrown village because the entire settlement consisted entirely of residential houses, with no commerce, industry, or even public temples.
The most amazing find regarding Catalhoyuk has been its amazingly egalitarian society. All the houses were of the same size and all its inner adornments were more or less similar. There were no mansions nor sheds. Even the food containers and wall decoration in each house reflected similar economic levels. THere were no rich and no poor, no nobility and no slaves.
By analyzing the skeletons burried beneath the floors (one of their traditions), men and women, the old and the young, all seemed to have participated equally in every sphere of activity: from tending the land, hunting, cooking, and building maintenence.
From all the evidence discovered so far, there didn't seem to be any visible social heirarchy.
Now the question is: how could a society of up to 10,000 people live together without any functioning authority or pecking order? Obviously someone must have upheld the rules and prevented the more greedy individuals from taking from their neighbours or building extensions to their houses. But who?
There seemed to be no priests and no seperate caste of people that exercised power over others.
If this really was the case, could an anarchist society possibly exist?
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel 
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 15:15 |
||||||||
|
No, Calvo, en el Neoltico ni se encuentra proto-Bakunin o sindicato!
There is always danger in moving from artifact to ideology, specially those of the zany thought processes in the 19th century.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 15:44 |
||||||||
My old Archaeology lecturer used to ask at the end of every lecture. "Can you spot at what point I left the evidence and began speculating?"
|
|||||||||
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 21:29 |
||||||||
|
Back in the 1960s Barbara Mertz published Temples, Tombs & Hieroglyphs, which she revised and updated last year, and this sparkling little introduction to Egyptology is full of warnings on just this tendency--her acerbic wit on pyramidiots is priceless--as well as the error of pushing our own concepts into the past [as always minding the cautions of Burckhardt].
There is a difference between good historical revisionism--new ways with which to look at old material--and untenable assumptions premised simply on current fancies.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 11:38 |
||||||||
|
When I said "anarquist" I don't mean that they applied any conscious ideology like that of Bukanin or CNT. What I mean is that whether a society of 10,000 people could survive for more than 1000 years without any apparent differentiation of wealth, division of labour, class differentiation, or any visible form of government.
So far, all the findings at Catalhoyuk reveal a totally egalitarian society. Obviously, some class of authority must have existed to impose the general rules on the community. If all the houses were constructed to the same size, then someone must have made a rule about it; because if not, the stronger and more powerful ones would naturally keep more for themselves.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 12:25 |
||||||||
Evidential Fact.
Evidential Estimate
No outwards signs of these things being along later lines doesn't dismiss the possibility they run a different way in earlier times.
Speculation
Observational Hypothesis
Speculation
Impirical Observation
Speculation
Speculation
|
|||||||||
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 13:42 |
||||||||
Calvo, as Paul intimated, your are flying high on speculation and inhaling the gases of Romanticism, not to mention jumping to untenable conclusions. atal Hyk is interesting as an archaeological site as well as an illustration of transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic; however, you are asking the wrong questions of the evidence. I am sure you are familar with this Internet site,
however there is nothing unique about the dating (juxtapose Jericho). Edited by drgonzaga - 06-Apr-2008 at 13:43 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
red clay
Administrator 
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 15:16 |
||||||||
Considering this site was discovered in 1958 what does "Zany thought processes of the 19th century" have to do with the price of eggs in Anatolia?
Edited by red clay - 06-Apr-2008 at 15:47 |
|||||||||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 15:32 |
||||||||
If you had been paying attention to Calvo's post you would have seen that he used catalhoyuk.com as a reference.
You also would have been aware that the information and ideas were coming from the only credible scientist to have worked on catalhoyuk since 1993, Ian Hodder. He is still the Archeologist in charge of the site btw.
All of Hodder's ideas are firmly supported by the Archeologic evidence uncovered. Most of Calvo's ideas are coming from Hodder. So, both of you have read Hodder's book? Or are you "half-assing it"?
Edited by red clay - 06-Apr-2008 at 15:34 |
|||||||||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 10:51 |
||||||||
|
I am not inhaling gases of romanticism nor idealising life at Catalhoyuk.
Basically, as Red Clay has pointed out, after reading "THe Leopard's tale" by Ian Hodder, most of the evidence excavated up to date points towards an egalitarian society where everyone participated in the same tasks and fed on the same diet, at least materially speaking.
Hodder has pointed out that social status at Catalhoyuk could be attained by other aspects, such as knowledge of the history of each house and where things are hidden or burried - although nothing is certain.
My question, from a socialogically point of view (and not political), is that how could a community of up to 10,000 individuals living at close quarters could maintain such economic and material homogenity? Who upheld the rules and laws that everyone respected or was it all out of mutual agreement?
Hodder suggested that elders could have formed the upper echelons of the society, yet without any formal institutions, each elder would only excercise direct influence over his clan of descendants. What measure, would then be undertaken to prevent certain families and bloodlines to become more powerful than others?
At least in all societies during the historic age, a visible heirarchy social and economic elite is always seen as the "ruling caste"; but so far none of the excavations has revealed such a division at Catalhoyuk.
I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, but simply asking a question of how such an equality could be maintained in a community with so many people over such a long period of time (1500 years).
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 21:42 |
||||||||
|
Red Clay observed:
"If you had been paying attention to Calvo's post you would have seen that he used catalhoyuk.com as a reference...Or are you "half-assing it"?"
Perhaps Red Clay, you should look at the site itself and its contents (much not even redacted since the 1990s), and then pay attention to the reservations raised in the abstracts. There is quite a difference between archaeology and abstractions drawn by sociology or any other so-called social science? In fact, even the purported claims on population are suppositions. Nor is the site older in terms of human persistence than Jericho; likewise, Hodder's attention on the "history" of each house is as tweaked as the fancies of Schliemann and Priam's gold!
Calvo then askes an interesting question possible only from one unfamiliar with "village" life: Who upheld the rules and laws that everyone respected or was it all out of mutual agreement? How about projecting a simple term: peer pressure...for there is nothing more repressive of individual behavior than the "small town" or the closed village.
Edited by drgonzaga - 08-Apr-2008 at 13:46 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 21:59 |
||||||||
Hodder's idea are speculation and if he is a credible archaeologist he will understand the exact point he left the evidence and began speculation.
But to be fair, if there is archaeological evidence to support his ideas, I would like to know what it is, none has been presented in this post so far and I'll happily agree his interpretation is true, proof presented.
Edited by Paul - 07-Apr-2008 at 22:02 |
|||||||||
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 02:06 |
||||||||
No, Red Clay wrote-
All of Hodder's ideas are firmly supported by the Archaeological evidence uncovered. Most of Calvo's ideas are coming from Hodder. So, both of you have read Hodder's book? Or are you "half-assing it"?
If your going to quote me sir, don't play games.
Perhaps you should be the one to go back and read again. The Archives are up to date through 2007. Redacted, no not all of it. It's not that difficult to get thru, it isn't like they are field notes.
Besides, someone as skilled as you are with indecipherable language shouldn't have any problem at all.
|
|||||||||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 08:42 |
||||||||
|
Let's leave personal accusations to one side and concentrate on the subject.
Archaeological evidence of all known civilizations point to the following pattern:
when the human settlement was small, consisting of a few dozen families and a few hundred individuals, whether as hunter-gatherers, farmers, or herders, society tend to be relatively egalitarian with no visible division of labour, social roles, or wealth. However, when the settlements grow larger to a few thousands individuals, these tendencies change. Usually, an aristocratic class emerges and a more marked difference in material wealth emerges among the population.
Why? because with so many people, there'd naturally be need for more social organization; and the "aristocrats" tend to be the people who play a vital role in the organization or defence of the community. They could be the warriors, the priests, the doctors, or the soothsayers... The most visible archaeological evidence of an aristocratic class is that their houses were larger with richer adornments, and their graves were fancier.
Not long ago I read an archaeological account of the Etruscans, based on an Etruscan exhibition in Madrid, and it tells the history of the evolution of the rural Villanovan culture into the urban Etruscan civlization, which reflected exactly this pattern:
from an egalitarian rural society of small villages to large towns with a clear division of labour, and through the division of labour an aristocratic class emerges. As soon as a settlement had grown to more than 1000 people, social differences naturally emerged as reflected in the houses, ornaments, and tombs excavated: a warrior's tomb was far more luxurious than a peasant's tomb!
Returning to Catalhoyuk, the settlement had outgrown the typical size of a "small village" and was larger and more populus than many "towns" in the historic era, and on top of that it had survived for more than a milenium.
Yet the archaeological evidence excavated so far has pointed to the following:
1. all the houses were more or less the same size
2. all the houses possessed similar material wealth
3. all tombs (within the houses) had similar adornments
4. all the skeletons excavated revealed a similar diet and development of muscles on similar parts of the body - indication of similar work routines
5. so far there seemed to be no public buildings such as temples, offices, or shops. All economic activities from milling the grain, manufacturing of tools, and the worshipping of the Gods, took place inside the house.
Ian Hodder has been fascinated by this apparent lack of difference in wealth and material status considering the size and population denstiy of the settlement, and speculated that social status must have been achieved through other means such as age and knowledege of ancestral activities. Difference in social status could have occured within the same family who lived within the same house; but the difference between "house" and "house" seemed to be minimum.
Considering that there were more than 1000 houses in the settlement, how they maintained this "equilibrium" and lack of division of labour was a quite unique trait.
By the way, the book "Catalhoyuk - a Leopard's tale", was published in 2007, although many of the texts were written in 2003 and 2004.
As the excavation goes on, let's see what more we could find about this mysterious prehistoric site.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 13:12 |
||||||||
These all seem fairly common features in prehistoric societies found worldwide.
However I see no evidence to support any of these speculations.
The evidence present is so improcise and open to wide interpretation, you could read almost anything into it from a Fransican order to a military base. It's a bit like astrology.
|
|||||||||
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 14:29 |
||||||||
|
The attempt to foster ideological constructs (and yes contemplating artifacts and positing "equality" is an ideological leap) from the rummagings at atal Hyk is scarcely different from all the murmurings over scriptoria and monasteries at Qumran. Not that the romance hurts the tourist industry--
Bulls and great goddesses--shades of Zeus and Europa--have their own elemental grandeur difficult to separate from our own current prejudices, even use of the term "house" could mislead. In essence there is a large degree of contemporary politics in all of the talk on an Anatolian neolithic site and even Hodder desires to move archaeology into the realm of sociology (even socio-biology) as he clearly maintained in the 2007 issue of Annual Review of Anthropology [36:2007]--here is the abstract:
"...aims to show how the new results from atalhyk in central Turkey contribute to wider theories about the Neolithic in Anatolia and the Middle East. I argue that many of the themes found in symbolism and daily practice at atalhyk occur very early in the processes of village formation and the domestication of plants and animals throughout the region. These themes include a social focus on memory construction; a symbolic focus on wild animals, violence, and death; and a central dominant role for humans in relation to the animal world. These themes occur early enough throughout the region that we can claim they are integral to the development of settled life and the domestication of plants and animals. Particularly the focus on time depth in house sequences may have been part of the suite of conditions, along with environmental and ecological factors, that selected for sedentism and domestication."
No further comment is necessary.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 22:30 |
||||||||
Edited by red clay - 08-Apr-2008 at 22:32 |
|||||||||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 00:41 |
||||||||
People living in similar size buildings is evidence that people lived in similar size buildings, no more. Any speculations made from this are SPECULATIONS.
So, the reason they are the same size, is because the men from the UFO only taught them to build one size of house. Where's the evidence.............. You've been looking at it.
If you have any trouble understanding the elementary fact that early prehistoric societies show simularities. I suggest you start be reading something about Skara Brae or Danebury, Barry Cunliffe's book on the latter. They are two of the best escavated sites in Europe.
Edited by Paul - 09-Apr-2008 at 00:43 |
|||||||||
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 08:18 |
||||||||
|
I also suggest reading "Catalhoyuk - a Leopard's tale", especially Chapter 11, where Ian Hodder explains his view on the driving forces behind changes in human society from palaelothic to neolithic, and from neolithic to the bronze age and finally to the iron and industrial age.
He has certainly observed changes in Catalhoyuk production patterns in the upper layers, revealing a gradual specialization in production and division of labour. In the West Mound that sprouted up towards the end of the settlement, houses of different sizes began to emerge, revealing more visible material differences. But in the early stages no evidence has been found of any material differences between house and house, person and person.
However, the change occured very slowly and the differences compared to the earlier layers were rather trivial.
YOu might not agree with him, but he convincingly backs up all his arguments with evidential proof.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
konstantinius
General
Joined: 22-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 762 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:22 |
||||||||
|
I would like to point out that there is definitely evidence for religious practices at Catal Hoyuk. The relationship between religion and social stratification is a complicated one, none the less so because of the scarcity in the record. We are hypothesizing a community-based ancestor worship in Catal with no evidence of a separate priestly class supported by the labor of others. In jericho social stratification becomes evident in the PPNB with differentiation in architectural forms, i.e. some houses start to become bigger and decorated differently. This is parallel to the occupation at Catal. so, while there are no "classes' at catal, we see them in Jericho. Chiefdoms and states develop unevenly during the Ubaid (5000-3500 BCE) with some places remaining rather egalitarian while others did not. It is not a uniform process.
|
|||||||||
|
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
