Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey

Haddow, Scott Donald; Knüsel, Christopher J.

Published in: Bioarchaeology International

DOI: 10.5744/bi.2017.1002

Publication date: 2017

Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Document license: CC BY-NC

Citation for published version (APA): Haddow, S. D., & Knüsel, C. J. (2017). Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Bioarchaeology International, 1(1–2), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2017.1002

Download date: 04. okt.. 2021 Bioarchaeology International Volume 1, Numbers 1–2: 52–71 DOI: 10.5744/bi.2017.1002

Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey Scott D. Haddowa* and Christopher J. Knüsela aDe la Préhistoire à l'Actuel: Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université de Bordeaux, France *Correspondence to: Scott Haddow, Université de Bordeaux, De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel: Culture, Environne- ment, et Anthropologie (PACEA), UMR 5199 PACEA, Bâtiment B8, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023, Pessac Cedex, France 33615 e-mail: scott​­[email protected]​­

ABSTRACT The retrieval and re-deposition of elements of the human skeleton, especially the skull (i.e., cranium and man- dible), is a common feature of Neolithic Near Eastern funerary practices. A complicated sequence of subfloor inhumations involving both primary and secondary burial treatments at Çatalhöyük demonstrates the range of funerary practices encountered at the site and elsewhere in the Neolithic Near East. This particular sequence of burials culminated in a stratigraphically verified case of post-inhumation skull removal from a primary intra- mural inhumation. However, the retrieval of crania and skulls from primary burials cannot account for the ­total number of re-deposited crania and skulls found in a variety of depositional contexts at the site. Based on increasing evidence for an extended interval between death and burial at Çatalhöyük, the removal and circula- tion of skulls from unburied bodies as part of a multi-stage funerary rite is proposed as another method for ob- taining them, operating in parallel with their retrieval from primary intramural burials. These divergent practices, and the range of contexts from which secondarily deposited skeletal elements are recovered, reflect multiple funerary treatments and intentions likely tied to social distinctions that remain poorly understood. In order to begin to fully understand the social and cosmological meaning(s) of the Neolithic “skull cult,” however, we must first distinguish between what are essentially equifinal processes in the archaeological record. This work will involve careful attention to the spatiotemporal contexts in which isolated skeletal elements are found, in addition to meticulous osteological and taphonomic analyses of the bones themselves. Keywords: Neolithic; secondary treatment; funerary practices; skull retrieval; Anatolia

Le prélèvement et le dépôt secondaire des éléments du squelette humain, et notamment de la tête osseuse (i.e. crâne et mandibule), sont des caractéristiques courante des gestes funéraires du Néolithique au Proche Orient. À Çatalhöyûk, une séquence complexe d’inhumations primaires et secondaires sous plancher démontre la vari- abilité des pratiques funéraires rencontrées sur ce site et ailleurs pour le Néolithique du Proche Orient. Cette séquence funéraire spécifique a en particulier abouti à un cas stratigraphiquement attesté de prélèvement post-in- humation de la tête osseuse dans une sépulture primaire située intra-muros. Toutefois, le prélèvement des crânes et des têtes osseuses ne peut pas expliquer à lui seul le nombre total des crânes en situation secondaire mis au jour dans différents contextes de dépôt. Au vu des nombreux indices d’une période prolongée entre la mort et l’enterrement du cadavre à Çatalhöyük, le prélèvement et la circulation des têtes osseuses de corps non ensevelis, dans le cadre d’un rituel funéraire à plusieurs étapes, est proposé comme une alternative pour les ob- tenir, s’opérant en parallèle de prélèvements dans des sépultures primaires. Ces pratiques divergentes et la gamme des dépôts secondaires dans lesquelles les éléments squelettiques sont retrouvés reflètent des traitements funéraires et des intentions multiples qui sont probablement liés à une différentiation sociale qui n'est pas encore

Received 29 July 2016 Revision 11 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 University of Florida Press Accepted 19 January 2017 Haddow and Knüsel 53

entièrement comprise. Afin de commencer à comprendre la ou les significations sociales et cosmologiques du «cultes des têtes», nous devons en premier lieu faire la distinction entre des processus qui se caractérisent par une équifinalité dans l’enregistrement archéologique. Ce travail nécessitera de porter une grande attention aux contextes spatio-temporels d’où proviennent les restes squelettiques, en plus d’analyses ostéologiques et tapho- nomiques minutieuses des ossements eux-mêmes. Mots-clés: Néolithique; traitement secondaire; pratiques funéraires; prélèvement crânien; Anatolie

One of the most striking features of Neolithic Near At the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in Central Ana- Eastern funerary practices is a seeming preoccupa- tolia, the collection, curation, and re-deposition of tion with skeletal elements that comprise the head. crania and skulls, in addition to elements of the infra- Such practices are commonly manifested in the ar- cranial skeleton, is observed in a variety of archae­ chaeological record as deposits of isolated crania ological contexts. In this paper, a complex sequence (lacking mandibles) and sometimes full skulls (in- of subfloor intramural burials from a single location cluding associated mandibles) found in a variety of serves as the basis for an exploration of the nature of secondary depositional contexts. Researchers in the skull retrieval and other secondary funerary practices Levant and Anatolia have long suspected that, rather at Çatalhöyük. Within this sequence we have identified than being removed from a body prior to interment, a case of post-inhumation skull retrieval, although crania and mandibles were obtained from primary other sources for isolated crania at Çatalhöyük must inhumation burials, based on the absence of these el- have existed, because the overall number of primary ements in otherwise complete primary inhumations burials with evidence for cranial removal cannot ac- (Andrews and Bello 2006; Bienert 1991; Cauvin 1978, count for the large number of isolated crania recov- 1994; Erdal 2015; Kanjou et al. 2013; Kenyon 1953, 1956; ered from a wide range of depositional contexts on Kenyon and Holland 1981; Kuijt 2000, 2001, 2008; site. These diverse contexts likely reflect an array of Rollefson 2000; Santana et al. 2012, 2015; Stordeur and social meanings and intentions that are potentially Khawam 2007; Wright 1988). Belfer-Cohen (1988) ob- obscured when the focus of research is limited to sec- serves that the practice of cranial retrieval in the Levant ondary manipulations of skeletal elements of the dates back to the Natufian at Hayonim Cave, Upper head alone. Galilee, and to the PPNA at Netiv Hagdud in the Jor- dan Valley. In Anatolia, the earliest evidence for the practice derives from the Epipaleolithic occupation Burial Practices at Çatalhöyük layers at Pınarbaşı (Baird et al. 2013). In some instances, though, these identifications appear to suffer from a Çatalhöyük is a Neolithic settlement located in problem common to many archaeological investiga- south-central Turkey (Fig. 1) dating from roughly tions, namely, the difficulty in distinguishing between 7100 to 6000 cal B.C. (Bayliss et al. 2015). The site is disturbed burials resulting from successive inhuma- renowned for its large size and exceptional preserva- tions and the intentional retrieval and re-deposition tion, as well as its densely packed mudbrick houses, of skeletal elements (see Haddow et al. 2016 for dis- elaborate symbolic assemblages, and intramural burial cussion). The manipulation of elements of the human practices (Hodder 1996, 2000, 2005, 2013a, 2013b). cranium and mandible—or, in some cases, the cranium Beginning with James Mellaart’s work (1961–1965) alone1—has implications for the reconstruction of and continuing with Ian Hodder’s current research social structure and a range of funerary practices project (1993–present), excavations at the site have linked to ritual and social interactions in the past. produced vital information that has improved our understanding of early settled life in the Neolithic of Central Anatolia as well as the wider Near East. Since 1. Because of the incorrect use of the terms “cranium” and the current research project began, more than five “skull” (i.e., cranium and mandible) as synonymous in many publications to date, at least two different past actions have be- hundred individuals from primary burial contexts come muddled: one involving collection of crania alone, and have been excavated and recorded. In addition, many the other involving crania with associated—and perhaps still more individuals represented by disarticulated skele- articulated—mandibles (see Boulestin 2015; Knüsel 2014). In tal elements have been recovered from secondary and order to avoid such confusion in the future, it is best to rely tertiary (i.e., non-burial) depositional contexts. The solely on standard skeletal element terms as indicated by the Terminologia Anatomica (Federative International Pro- human remains from Çatalhöyük, as well as their gramme on Anatomical Terminologies 2011) to describe and burial contexts, have provided numerous insights into analyze skeletonized remains. the lives of the prehistoric inhabitants of the site, their 54 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East

Figure 1. Map of Turkey showing location of Çatalhöyük. social structure, and their funerary practices (e.g., been presented (see Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007 Andrews et al. 2005; Boz and Hager 2013; Haddow for one example). Our ability to document and inter- et al. 2016; Hillson et al. 2013; Larsen et al. 2013, 2015; pret funerary behaviors at Çatalhöyük has greatly in- Molleson et al. 2005; Nakamura and Meskell 2013; creased with the aid of computer-­assisted recording Pilloud and Larsen 2011). methods, especially Structure from Motion 3D re- Most burials at Çatalhöyük are found within do- cording techniques (for examples, see Berggren et al. mestic buildings, typically underneath the north and 2015; Wilhelmson and Dell’Unto 2015). The use of this east platforms of the main room, although the buri- technology in the present case permitted the identifi- als of neonates and infants are found in more variable cation of a reopened grave, despite not being able to locations, sometimes beneath floors in side rooms or identify the disturbance created by this intervention near hearths and ovens (Andrews et al. 2005; Boz and at the time of excavation. This intervention left the Hager 2013). In many platforms, successive intercut- hyoid and ossified thyroid cartilage, which are linked ting primary burials result in a substantial commin- by soft tissue, ligaments, and tendons, to the mandi- gling of skeletal remains. In keeping with other sites ble in the grave in correct anatomical position, evi- in the Neolithic Near East, the postmortem manipu- dence which substantiates that the cranium and lation of human remains, particularly the skulls and mandible were originally present in the grave when the crania of adults of both sexes as well as sub-adults, is body was initially interred. We then present a review a characteristic feature of the funerary practices ob- of the diverse archaeological contexts in which “head- served at Çatalhöyük (Boz and Hager 2014; Hodder less” bodies and isolated crania and skulls are found 2005:24). Evidence for the collection, curation, and at Neolithic Çatalhöyük; finally, we discuss what these re-deposition of skulls or crania at Çatalhöyük in- differing contexts might mean in terms of how and cludes the occurrence of primary skeletons lacking why skulls and sometimes crania were collected. skulls (although sometimes only the cranium is lack- ing) and the presence of isolated crania (and some- times skulls) in a range of depositional contexts. “Heads” in the Neolithic Near East Here we examine a complicated sequence of sub- floor intramural burials within a single Neolithic The retrieval, curation, and re-deposition of elements house at Çatalhöyük. An account of the variable of human “heads”—either the entire skull or simply treatment of human remains observed in this partic- the cranium—is a widely reported feature of Near ular series of burials serves to highlight the variation Eastern Neolithic funerary practices (Benz 2010; Bie- in funerary practices frequently encountered else- nert 1991; Bocquentin et al. 2016). These have been where at Çatalhöyük. The sequence of burials de- found in a variety of contexts, including middens and scribed culminated in a stratigraphically verified case other extramural contexts (e.g., Baird et al. 2016), as of post-inhumation skull removal from a primary well as within houses and storage spaces, often in skeleton. Researchers at other Neolithic sites in the groups (Benz 2010; Goring-Morris 2000; Kanjou et al. Near East have often surmised that skulls and crania 2013; Kuijt 2000). While some researchers have argued were acquired in this manner (e.g., Kuijt 2000; Stordeur that this practice is a form of head-hunting, likely from 2015), but very rarely has direct stratigraphic evidence­ dead enemies (Testart 2008, 2009), the traditional Haddow and Knüsel 55 view holds that skull collecting in the Neolithic re- flects a form of ancestor veneration, potentially asso- ciated with emerging sedentism and control of local resources (Bienert 1991; Cauvin 1978, 1994; Goren et al. 2001; Kenyon 1956). More recently, however, as evidence mounts that the practice was not reserved strictly for elder, primarily male members of society and that the manner in which skulls were manipulated varies both within and between sites as well as through time, researchers have begun to question a one-size- fits-all interpretative model (Benz 2010; Bonogofsky 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Croucher 2006; Özbek 2009; Verhoeven 2002). Kuijt (2000, 2001, 2008) and Goring-­ Morris (2000), for example, have argued that the cir- culation of crania or skulls and other secondary funerary treatments helped to maintain social cohe- sion and relieve societal tensions within Neolithic communities through collective ritual practices and the creation of shared social memory. More recently, Santana et al. (2012, 2015) have highlighted an alterna- tive range of intentions potentially reflected in similar practices observed at Tell Qarassa North, Syria, in- cluding denigration, negation, and indifference. Lastly, Schmandt-Besserat (2013) suggests that individual identities were not a factor in the selection of skulls for secondary treatments, which may have involved a variety of ritual purposes including necromancy, div- ination, and apotropaic protection against evil. Figure 2. Primary burial of an old adult female with plastered skull At several Neolithic sites in the Levant, crania (reconstruction by Kathryn Killackey; source: Çatalhöyük Research over-modeled with plaster have been discovered, of Project). which the best known are from Jericho in Palestine (Kenyon 1953) and ‘Ain Ghazal in Jordan (Rollefson This mandible, attributed to an old adult female, may 2000). Apart from one example from Jericho have been associated with a similarly plastered cra- (Schmandt-Besserat 2013; Strouhal 1973) and addi- nium, but this possibility cannot be verified (Fig. 3). tional specimens from Beisamoun (Ferembach and Despite only a single confirmed example to date of Lechevallier 1973), Tell Ramad (Ferembach 1969, a plastered skull found at Çatalhöyük, there are many 1970), Tell Aswad (Stordeur and Khawam 2007; Stor- deur et al. 2006) and Tell Qarassa North (Santana et al. 2012), the majority of plastered specimens from the Levant are represented solely by crania (Bonogofsky 2001; Goren et al. 2001). In Anatolia, however, plas- tered skulls (i.e., cranium and mandible) predomi- nate, for example, among the adult specimens from Köşk Höyük in Central Anatolia (Bonogofsky 2005). Uniquely at Çatalhöyük, a plastered skull (Fig. 2) with modeled facial features and decorated with red ochre was found clutched in the upper limbs of an old adult (50+ years of age at death) female primary burial (see Boz and Hager 2013:424; Boz and Hager 2014). Replas- tering and repainting around the right orbit suggest that the skull had been kept aboveground for some time before it was eventually interred with the adult female (Boz and Hager 2004). In addition, an isolated mandible with traces of plaster and red pigment was recovered from a post retrieval pit in Building 89 Figure 3. Isolated mandible with traces of red pigment and plaster during the 2012 excavation season (Knüsel et al. 2012). covering the anterior dentition recovered from Building 89. 56 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East more cases of isolated crania (and occasionally skulls), One of the main difficulties in studying postmor- some decorated with red pigments such as ochre/­ tem manipulations of crania and other skeletal ele- hematite or cinnabar (mercury sulfide). The majority of ments at Çatalhöyük is the frequent occurrence of recovered isolated crania, however, are undecorated. highly commingled skeletal remains beneath house Unlike other Near Eastern Neolithic sites, caches of platforms as a result of successive intercutting inter- crania are extremely rare. Instead, complete, isolated ments. As such, differentiating between the intentional crania at Çatalhöyük are often found in association targeting of skeletal elements within a primary burial with primary burials. Highly fragmented crania have and unintentional disturbances of earlier interments also been recovered from middens, post-abandonment by subsequent inhumations is often problematic building in-fills, and other non-burial contexts. A focus (Haddow et al. 2016), although it is likely that the in- on the head is also evident across other media, includ- habitants of Neolithic Çatalhöyük used the digging ing wall paintings, plastered animal installations, and of new graves as an opportunity to retrieve bones anthropomorphic figurines with dowel holes for re- from earlier burials. By taking a more conservative movable heads (Meskell 2008; Meskell and Nakamura approach than that of previous studies at Çatalhöyük 2005). Meskell (2008:374) refers to this preoccupation (e.g., Boz and Hager 2013), we have identified 12 cases as “headedness”: “a particular tension surrounding of intentional skull retrieval (represented by “head- heads, head removal and circulation, and the post-­ less” primary burials) and 3 more of cranial retrieval cranial body.” This idée fixe has also been noted by only (a previous analysis identified 14 cases in total other researchers in the Neolithic Near East (e.g., [Pilloud et al. 2016], but an additional individual has Schmandt-Besserat 1997, 1998; Talalay 2004), while been identified since then). Furthermore, 10 isolated Chapman (2000, 2010) detects a similar relationship crania and 6 skulls from secondary depositional con- between fragmented bodies and objects in prehistoric texts and at least 43 individuals represented by crania southeast Europe. and/or mandibles from tertiary (i.e., non-burial) con- As noted in previous studies, there are several in- texts have been recovered. The following discussion stances of primary inhumations at Çatalhöyük miss- of burials from Building 129 serves as a starting point ing crania and mandibles and, in at least one instance, for a discussion of the variable patterning of skeletal bearing cut marks on the atlas (C1) vertebra (Andrews element retrieval at Çatalhöyük. et al. 2005:269, Figs. 11.9 and 11.10). However, a new and more detailed study of cut marks on human re- mains, currently under way at Çatalhöyük, reveals The Building 129 “Skull Retrieval Pit” additional evidence for bodily dismemberment or de- fleshing using stone tools. While cut marks associ- Building 129 is located in the North Area of the site ated with decapitation have been observed on cervical and is attributed to Level North H (preliminarily vertebrae at Near Eastern Neolithic sites such as Tell dated 6400–6000 cal B.C.). The burials discussed here Qaramel in Syria (Kanjou et al. 2013) and Çayönü in were located in Space 77, the eastern area of the cen- Anatolia (Yilmaz 2010, cited in Erdal 2015), these oc- tral room (Tung 2014). This area corresponds to the currences are rare. The presence of cut marks may in- location of the east and northeast platforms—the dicate that more than a single intention is at play in most common location of subfloor interments at postmortem manipulations of the skull; it may also Çatalhöyük (Boz and Hager 2013). Four discrete shed light on the state of the corpse at the time the burial sequences (Fig. 4) were excavated here during cranium and mandible were targeted. the 2012 and 2015 seasons. These represent a mini- At Çatalhöyük, evidence for the retention and pos- mum of 10 individuals (based on the number of cra- sible display of some isolated crania or skulls occurs nia recovered), 5 of which were found in a primary or with the observation that many of those that were primary disturbed burial context. We focus primar- re-deposited are often weathered, crushed flat, and ily here on the southernmost sequence of interments, have lost their single-rooted anterior teeth and por- which concluded with the digging of a retrieval pit tions of the facial skeleton and cranial base. Their con- targeting the skull of a primary inhumation. dition supports the argument that such specimens had Feature 3643 been kept aboveground for some time (i.e., presumably long enough to skeletonize completely and dry out) Feature 3643 represents the primary disturbed burial before they were eventually reburied and crushed by of a child (8 years +/- 2 years of age at death), Sk. 19451 the weight of the grave fill. This state contrasts with (Fig. 4). This burial appears to be the earliest in the the majority of individuals in primary depositions at southern sequence of interments. Only the skull, cer- Çatalhöyük (presumably buried in a largely fleshed vical, and superior-most thoracic vertebrae and asso- condition), where the cranial vault typically maintains ciated ribs were in articulation; the remainder of the its shape and the single-rooted teeth are still in place. skeleton was found scattered throughout the fills of Haddow and Knüsel 57

Figure 4. Plan of Building 129 showing locations of individual burial features.

subsequent Features 3645 and 3686. Given the labile bones of this individual may derive from an earlier nature of the cervical vertebrae that were found in burial in this location that was subsequently disturbed situ, this individual was likely disturbed early in the by later interments. However, given that this individ- process of decomposition and its remains scattered ual is represented solely by cranial elements, as well as by subsequent burials in this location. Feature 3643 the right scapula and humerus, it likely represents a appears to have been partially truncated at its west- secondary re-deposition of skeletal remains at the ern end by the later grave cut for Feature 3645. time Sk. 19451 was interred—no other skeletal elements The incomplete, disarticulated remains of a neo- potentially associated with this individual were found nate were found in the grave fill of Feature 3643. The in any of the subsequent grave fills in this sequence. 58 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East

Figure 6. Feature 3686, Sk. 20430: disturbed primary burial of a middle adult male with missing skull.

Figure 5. Feature 3645, Sk. 20457: disturbed primary burial of a middle adult male. the skull in place were decayed sufficiently to allow the removal of the skull and first two cervical verte- brae with little effort. Based on this evidence, the Feature 3645 missing skeletal elements of Sk. 20430 appear to have Feature 3645 contained the primary disturbed burial been intentionally removed at some point after the of a middle adult male, Sk. 20457. Only the feet, ossa body was initially interred, likely via a retrieval pit coxae, forearms, and hands were found articulated (see below). and in situ (Fig. 5). The rest of the skeleton appears to have been disinterred when the grave cut for the sub- Skull retrieval pit, Feature 3639 sequent interment of Sk. 20430 (Feature 3686; see be- low) was dug. Isolated skeletal elements found in the Feature 3639 (Fig. 7) consists of a circular pit lined fill of Feature 3686 and also the fill of the later cut, with the disarticulated and poorly preserved skeletal Feature 3639, likely belong to Sk. 20457. The skeleton remains of at least two individuals represented by appears to have been placed in a flexed position on its left side with the head oriented to the west. No arti- facts were found in association with this burial.

Feature 3686 Directly above Feature 3645 lay Feature 3686, which contained the primary disturbed burial of a middle adult male, Sk. 20430 (Fig. 6). The body was placed on its back (supinely but leaning slightly toward its left side) in a tightly flexed position with the head oriented to the west. No artifacts were found in association with this burial. The skull, atlas, and axis were not re- covered, but the presence of the hyoid bone and ossi- fied thyroid cartilage in anatomical position indicates that the skull must have been intact at the time of interment. Furthermore, a lack of cut marks on the remaining cervical vertebrae and no apparent dis- placement of the infracranial skeleton suggest that Figure 7. Skull retrieval pit Feature 3639 lined with secondary the ligaments and other soft tissue structures holding re-deposited crania and infracranial remains. Haddow and Knüsel 59 long bones, additional infracranial elements, and two Horwitz 2007 for an example from Kfar HaHoresh crania, Sk. 19450 and Sk. 19493. Sk. 19450 is a poorly in the Levant). preserved adult cranium (possibly male) found on the It has been postulated previously at Çatalhöyük northwest edge of the cut. The first cervical (atlas) ver- that skeletal elements removed from a burial context tebra was found under the cranial base, but there are often re-deposited in the same location at a later were no cut marks present, which would seem to in- date, often at the end of a house occupation or plat- dicate that these elements were moved after initial de- form use-life (Haddow et al. 2016). It is possible that composition of the articulation between the atlas and one of the crania and some of the infracranial remains axis. Sk. 19493 is represented by a poorly preserved originate from the first burial in this sequence, that cranium of an adult of indeterminate sex. It was found of Sk. 20457 in Feature 3645; much of the skeleton of isolated on the southern edge of the cut. this individual was removed during the interment of With the aid of a series of georeferenced 3D mod- Sk. 20430. Due to the poor preservation of the skeletal els taken at multiple stages during the excavation of elements lining the retrieval pit, it is impossible to con- the burials in Building 129, the sequence of events firm this scenario. However, even if 2 of the 7 isolated becomes clearer (Fig. 8). The cut for this pit can be crania/skulls found in Building 129 derive from the seen clearly above the region of the head of the un- primary disturbed skeletons (Sk. 20457 and Sk. 20430) derlying primary interment Sk. 20430 in Feature found here, there are still 5 additional crania/skulls 3686 and appears to represent a “skull retrieval pit” for which infracranial skeletons have yet to be ac- that was dug in order to access and remove the skull counted. Feature 3684 (Fig. 4) contained the primary of this earlier burial (Fig. 8, left). The disarticulated skeleton of a mature adult male along with 2 isolated skeletal elements found in the grave fill of Feature crania and a large number of disarticulated infracra- 3639 (Fig. 8, middle) were carefully placed within the nial bones. Feature 3630 (Fig. 4), located immediately cut after the retrieval of the skull of Sk. 20430 (Fig. 8, to the north of Feature 3684, contained the primary right). skeleton of a child along with an isolated cranium, a skull, and numerous disarticulated and partially ar- Discussion ticulated infracranial skeletal elements, including a fully articulated forearm and hand. As these burials The final stage in a series of funerary acts carried out immediately to the north of the skull retrieval se- in the southeast area of Building 129 entailed the de- quence have not disturbed any earlier inhumations, liberate targeting of the skull of the primary inter- the isolated crania and skull (along with the other dis- ment in Feature 3686. Unlike some cases of missing articulated skeletal elements) must have been intro- crania in primary burials observed at Çatalhöyük, the duced from another location. disturbance of Feature 3686 did not result from the cutting of a grave for a subsequent burial, but rather from an excavated pit expressly targeting the skull of “Headless” Bodies Sk. 20430. This represents one of the few times that the access point dug to facilitate the retrieval of a cra- The relatively small number n( = 15) of “headless” pri- nium and mandible has been stratigraphically demon- mary skeletons recovered to date (3% of all primary strated in the Near East (see Goring-Morris and skeletons; Table 1), and the complete absence of empty

Figure 8. Overlay of 3D-generated orthophotos showing (left) upper layer of Feature 3639 with circular feature; (middle) circular feature excavated to reveal disarticulated human bone within, with the right forearm and lower limbs of the primary burial Feature 3686 (Sk. 20430) visible underneath; and (right) disturbed primary burial (Sk. 20430) after removal of overlying layer of disarticulated bone. 60 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East

Table 1. Temporal distribution of “headless” individuals from primary burials (N = 15), and isolated crania and skulls in secondary (N = 16) and tertiary (MNI = 43) contexts in relation to all stratified individuals at Çatalhöyük (calibrated14 C dates are subject to change).

All Stratified Individuals Headless Individuals Secondary Crania Tertiary Crania (N = 485) (N = 15) (N = 16) (MNI = 43)

TP 24 TP 1 TP 0 TP 5 6400–6000 cal B.C. North J/South S-T 14 North J/South S-T 1 North J/South S-T 0 North J/South S-T 5 6400–6000 cal B.C. North I/South R 39 North I/South R 0 North I/South R 1 North I/South R 2 6400–6000 cal B.C. North H/South P-Q 86 North H/South P-Q 4 North H/South P-Q 7 North H/South P-Q 9 6400–6000 cal B.C. North G/South N-O 214 North G/South N-O 4 North G/South N-O 4 North G/South N-O 15 6500–6400 cal B.C. North F/South L-M 86 North F/South L-M 4 North F/South L-M 4 North F/South L-M 4 6700–6500 cal B.C. North E/South G-K 22 North E/South G-K 1 North E/South G-K 0 North E/South G-K 3 7300–6800 cal B.C. or robbed-out grave cuts in buildings preclude pri- Except for one case, each of these individuals was mary inhumations as the main source of isolated cra- interred beneath the floor of a house. The exception nia and skulls at Çatalhöyük. The skull was completely is Sk. 19593 (Fig. 10), which was found in the post-­ removed from 12 of these individuals, including 4 abandonment infill of Building 114. The cranium and young adults (20–30 years of age at death: 3 male and the first six cervical vertebrae of Sk. 19593 were miss- 1 female), 6 mature adults (30–50 years of age at death: ing, along with the left upper limb, but the mandible 4 male and 2 female), as well as 1 adolescent (12–20 and hyoid bone remained in anatomical position. A years of age at death) and 1 child (3–12 years of age at number of single-rooted maxillary teeth were also re- death), each of indeterminate sex. In the other 3 cases, covered, which attests to the erstwhile presence of only the cranium was removed; these individuals in- the cranium. The lack of a burial cut and the partially clude 2 old adult females (50+ years of age at death) extended and prone position of the skeleton suggest and 1 adolescent (Pilloud et al. 2016:4, with an addi- that this individual, an adolescent, was dumped un- tional individual since added to the tally). In the case ceremoniously onto the floor prior to the infilling of of the 2 old adult females and 1 of the adolescents, Building 114 after its abandonment (see Farid 2014a:92– only the crania were removed. In terms of temporal 93 for discussion of house closure practices at Çatal- distribution, the occurrence of “headless” primary höyük). The body of this individual may have been burials fluctuates throughout the occupation of Çatal- left to decompose before the cranium and cervical höyük, only ever exceeding 5% of the total number of vertebrae were removed and the building infilled, as stratified individuals in Level North J/South S-T there is no stratigraphic evidence for a retrieval pit (6400–6000 cal B.C.; Fig. 9). targeting the head, and no cut marks are visible on the

Figure 9. Chart showing temporal changes in proportion of “headless” individuals and secondary and tertiary isolated crania and skulls at Çatalhöyük. Haddow and Knüsel 61

any degree of confidence; as such, these ambiguous cases were excluded from the tally of isolated crania presented here. As a result, the number of true isolated crania at Çatalhöyük may be under-reported here, but we feel it is preferable to be conservative in our estimations. Finds of isolated crania and skulls at Çatalhöyük can be divided into two main depositional contexts: (1) secondary deposits accompanying primary buri- als and (2) tertiary (i.e., non-burial) deposits occur- ring in post-abandonment building infills, external spaces such as middens, as well as construction layers within occupied buildings. The most striking differ- ence between these two contexts is that crania found Figure 10. Adolescent Sk. 19593 with missing cranium. This individual in association with primary burials, while often frag- was found in the post-abandonment infill of Building 114. mented, are largely complete, typically retaining ele- ments of the facial skeleton and much of the dentition (although single-rooted anterior teeth are often miss- mandible or cervical vertebrae. In addition to cattle, ing postmortem). Crania and mandibles recovered sheep/goat, and pig bone, a large amount of disartic- from tertiary contexts, however, especially from mid- ulated and partially articulated human bone was re- dens, are usually extremely fragmented and incom- covered from this infill, including two isolated human plete; they are often represented only by calvaria—the crania (neither of which belongs to Sk. 19593, based facial skeleton, dentition, and cranial base are rarely on age estimates). This case bears a resemblance to the present. “funerary feast” described by Goring-Morris and Horwitz (2007) at Kfar HaHoresh, in which the head- Secondary contexts less skeleton of a young male was found above a large deposit of wild cattle (aurochs) bones. The skull of the There are 6 recorded examples of isolated skulls and individual had apparently been removed at a later 10 crania found in association with primary burials at date via a targeted retrieval pit (Goring-Morris and Çatalhöyük (Table 2). Of the isolated skulls, 4 belong Horwitz 2007:906). to adults (1 probable female and 3 male or probable male individuals), and 2 belong to children (3–12 years of age). Of the isolated crania, 7 belong to adults (2 Isolated Crania and Mandibles female and probable female individuals, 1 probable male, and 4 individuals of indeterminate sex), 2 to Unlike many Levantine Neolithic sites such as Jericho children, and 1 to a neonate. In most cases it is clear (Kenyon and Holland 1981), ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson that these skulls or crania were placed in the grave 1983), Tell Qarassa North (Santana et al. 2012), Beis- with the primary skeletons at the same time, as in the amoun (Ferembach and Lechevallier 1973), Tell Ra- case of the plastered skull Sk. 11330 in burial Feature mad (Ferembach 1969, 1970), and Tell Aswad (Kuijt 1517 (Building 42) (Boz and Hager 2013; Sadarangani and Goring-Morris 2002; Stordeur and Khawan 2014), the neonate cranium Sk. 30190 found above the 2007), as well as Anatolian sites such as Köşk Höyük shoulder of child burial in Feature 7330 (Building (Bonogofsky 2005; Özbek 2009), Çayönü (Özdoğan 108), and the two crania found within burial Feature 1999; Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998) and Nevali Çori 3684 (Building 129). Based on stratigraphic evidence, (Hauptmann 1999), isolated crania and skulls found however, some of these primary burials appear to at Çatalhöyük are rarely found in caches. There are have been reopened at a later date in order to place cases of multiple isolated crania (and sometimes isolated crania (and sometimes other skeletal ele- skulls) found in association with disturbed primary ments) near the earlier primary inhumation. For ex- interments as the result of successive intercutting ample, the skull retrieval pit Feature 3639 in Building burials in the same location, but it is likely that these 129 (described above) was also used to re-deposit two derive from the disturbed primary skeletons them- crania and a large number of disarticulated infracra- selves, rather than being true secondary re-depositions nial skeletal elements directly on top of the adult male (see, e.g., burial Feature 3010 in Farid 2014b). In these primary burial, Sk. 20430 in Feature 3686. Another contexts, it is often difficult to re-associate isolated example is the burial of an adult female primary skel- crania with the disturbed infracranial skeletons with eton Sk. 20832 in Feature 7011 (in Building 96) that 62 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East

Table 2. Isolated crania and skulls found in association with primary burials at Çatalhöyük. Ordered by occupation level in descending order. Subadult age estimates are based on dental development. Adult age estimates are based on dental wear.

Skeleton Age Sex Building Occupation Level Description

11330 old adult (50+ yrs) female? 42 North I/South R plastered skull associated with adult female primary burial F.1517 19448 adult (20+ yrs) indet. 129 North H/South P-Q cranium in grave fill above primary child (11yrs +/-2.5yrs) burial F.3630 19459 adult (20+ yrs) male? 129 North H/South P-Q skull in grave fill above primary child (11yrs +/-2.5yrs) burial F.3630 19449 child (3 yrs +/- 1 yr) n/a 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and loose infracranial elements placed in layer overlying adult male primary burial F.3684 19479 old adult (50+ yrs) indet. 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones associated with primary adult male primary burial F.3684 20401 young adult (20-30 yrs) female 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones associated with primary adult male primary burial F.3684 19450 adult (20+ yrs) male? 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones found in retrieval pit above primary adult male burial F.3686 19493 adult (20+ yrs) indet. 129 North H/South P-Q cranium and disarticulated infracranial bones found in retrieval pit above primary adult male burial F.3686 30191 neonate (0-2 mths) n/a 108 North G/South N-O cranium placed in woven basket/sack associated with child primary burial F.7330 20684 adult (20+ yrs) indet. 77 North G/South N-O adult cranium associated with primary adult female burial F.3697 19039 child (6 yrs +/- 2 yrs) n/a 77 North G/South N-O skull and cervical vertebrae associated with primary adolescent burial F.3601 20830 adult (20+ yrs) female? 96 North G/South N-O cranium in association with adult female F.7010 22196 young adult (20-30 yrs) male 5 North F/South L-M red painted skull in basket indirectly associated with adolescent primary burial F.3810 20661 young adult (20-30 yrs) male? 52 North F/South L-M skull associated with primary adult female burial F.7112 30512 child (4 yrs +/- 1 yr) n/a 52 North F/South L-M cranium associated with primary adult male burial F.7127 30515 child (5yrs +/- 1.5 yrs) n/a 52 North F/South L-M partial skull associated with primary adult male burial F.7127 was reopened to place the cranium of an adult proba- defined by building walls (Farid 2014c:46). At least 43 ble female (Sk. 20830) next to it. individuals represented primarily by fragmentary cra- With regard to temporal distribution (Fig. 9), the nial vaults and/or mandibles have been recovered from proportion of isolated crania found in association 37 separate spaces at Çatalhöyük (Table 3). The major- with primary burials relative to the total number of ity (88%) of the skeletal remains recovered from ter- individuals peaks during Level North H/South P-Q tiary contexts derive from post-abandonment building (6400–6000 cal B.C.) and declines rapidly in subse- infills n( = 20) and external midden spaces (n = 18). A quent occupation levels. The plastered and painted smaller proportion (n = 5) were found in the construc- skull from Building 42 (Level North I/South R, 6400– tion layers of house platforms and hearth installa- 6000 cal B.C.) represents the latest occurrence of an tions. As with the isolated crania and mandibles from isolated cranium and mandible associated with a pri- secondary contexts, adults comprise the bulk (81%) of mary burial found to date at Çatalhöyük. the tertiary remains recovered at Çatalhöyük. The most complete crania, those that retain portions of the Tertiary contexts facial skeleton and/or cranial base, are recovered al- most exclusively from building infills, while the more Crania and mandibles recovered from tertiary (i.e., fragmented and incomplete specimens derive from non-burial) contexts can be divided into three main middens. categories: those found in (1) middens, (2) post-­ With regard to temporal change across the site (Fig. abandonment building infill, and (3) building con- 9), tertiary deposits of isolated crania and/or mandi- struction layers. Because the crania and mandibles bles occur throughout the various occupation levels of found in these contexts are typically incomplete and the site, always in equal or higher proportions than highly fragmented, only the most intact specimens “headless” primary burials or secondarily deposited could be assigned to clear-cut age ranges and sex cate- crania associated with primary burials. Their occur- gories (for adult specimens). The numbers reported rence, however, increases dramatically after the Level here are presented as a minimum number of individ- North I/South R occupation (6400–6000 cal B.C.), uals (MNI) per “space,” which in the Çatalhöyük ex- reaching a peak of 36% of the total number of individ- cavation system refers to a bounded area generally uals excavated in Level North J/South S-T. Haddow and Knüsel 63

Table 3. Isolated elements of the skull (crania and/or mandibles) found in tertiary contexts at Çatalhöyük. Ranked by occupation level in descending order.

Building Space MNI Level Deposition Context Description

404 1 TP building infill adult cranial vault fragments 416 1 TP midden adult cranial fragments 61 438 1 TP building infill adult cranial fragment 72 428 1 TP midden adult cranial vault fragment 420 1 TP midden adult temporal bone 119 1 North J/South S-T midden adult cranial vault fragments 44 120 1 North J/South S-T building infill adult cranial vault fragments 44 120 1 North J/South S-T construction (platform) child cranial vault fragments 129 2 North J/South S-T midden adult mandible fragments from two individuals 279 1 North I/South R midden adult mandible fragment 56 122 1 North I/South R building infill adult cranial fragments 45 238 1 North H/South P-Q Building infill neonate cranial vault fragments 260 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragment and right mandible 261 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult probable female left mandible (no teeth) 132 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragments 329 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult frontal bone 344 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragment 371 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult cranial vault fragment 372 1 North H/South P-Q midden adult male cranial vault and mandible 427 1 North H/South P-Q midden neonate cranial vault fragments 59 311 1 North G/South N-O Building infill adult cranial vault fragments 1 71 1 North G/South N-O construction (platform) child cranial vault fragment 77 336 2 North G/South N-O building infill cranial fragments (one adult and one child) 114 87 2 North G/South N-O building infill Two crania (one adult probable male and one adolescent) 114 88 1 North G/South N-O building infill adult cranial fragments 3 86 1 North G/South N-O construction (platform) neonate cranial vault frags 3 86 2 North G/South N-O building infill two crania (one young adult female and one adolescent) 60 1 North G/South N-O midden adult cranial vault fragments 79 134 1 North G/South N-O building infill adult probable male cranium 80 135 1 North G/South N-O building infill (post retrieval pit) adult cranial vault fragment 97 469 1 North G/South N-O building infill (storage bin) adult cranial vault 89 379 1 North G/South N-O building infill older adult female plastered mandible 119 512 1 North F/South L-M building infill adult cranial vault fragments/mandible and teeth 49 100 1 North F/South L-M construction (hearth) adult cranial fragments 49 334 1 North F/South L-M construction (platform) adult cranial vault fragments 52 94 1 North F/South L-M building infill adult cranial vault fragments 17 170 1 North E/South G-K building infill (post retrieval pit) old adult female cranium (matched with primary burial in B.17) 199 1 North E/South G-K midden adult cranial vault fragments 181 1 North E/South G-K midden adult right mandible

Apart from tertiary deposits of isolated crania and/ skeletons have, to date, not been recovered (Baird or mandibles, which reach a peak during the later et al. 2016). These findings indicate, again, that post-­ levels of the site, the removal of crania from primary inhumation skull retrieval was not the only means of burials and the re-deposition of isolated crania (with obtaining crania. or without mandibles) in primary burials appear to have occurred most frequently in the middle occupa- tion levels of the site (Levels North G/South N-O and Digging for Answers North H/South P-Q, 6500–6400 cal B.C.); this trend is consistent with other data sets that show increas- Recent observations at Çatalhöyük, in combination ingly elaborate and substantial houses, greater sym- with a reappraisal of some of James Mellaart’s previ- bolic complexity, and higher population densities in ous ideas regarding secondary burial practices (e.g., these middle levels (Hodder and Doherty 2014). Mellaart 1964:92–93), have provided increasing evi- The consistent surplus of isolated secondary and dence for a period of delay between the death and tertiary crania/mandibles in relation to “headless” burial of certain individuals, perhaps tied to seasonal primary burials at Çatalhöyük accords with synthe- activities, such as the replastering and painting of sized burial data from other Near Eastern Neolithic house walls, benches, and platforms, or to genera- sites (Bocquentin et al. 2016). At Boncuklu Höyük, for tional events, such as the periodic abandonment and example, a site 10 km north of Çatalhöyük and at least reconstruction of houses (Fairbairn et al. 2005; Had- a thousand years older, isolated crania are often re- dow et al. 2016; Matthews 2005). The evidence for pro- covered from external spaces, but “headless” primary tracted liminal funerary rites derives primarily from 64 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East the variation in the articulations among skeletal ele- reed mats, and basketry, as well as textiles and animal ments and the degree of flexion observed among skel- hides used to package the body and maintain its hy- etons found in primary burials. Some are fully perflexed position. However, unlike the Neolithic articulated, while others are missing certain skeletal Anatolian site of Çayönü, with its so-called skull elements and/or show signs of paradoxical disarticu- building (Le Mort et al. 2000; Özbek 1986; Özdoğan lation of joints, with labile joints such as those of the 1999; Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998), no direct evidence hands and feet remaining in articulation but with for the temporary storage or processing of human normally more persistent joints, such as those of the remains has been found to date at Çatalhöyük. In ad- weight-bearing joints of the limbs, showing signs of dition to the fragmentary crania and mandibles de- disarticulation (e.g., Maureille and Sellier 1996; Sell- scribed above, tertiary deposits of disarticulated ier and Bendezu-Sarmiento 2013). Additionally, many infracranial skeletal elements have also been recov- individuals were interred in extremely hyperflexed ered from middens and other external spaces at positions, with their knees close to their chest and Çatalhöyük, indicating that some of these areas may their femora, tibiae, and fibulae in parallel alignment. have been used to process and dismember bodies. A Such positions would be nearly impossible to achieve cursory assessment of skeletal part representation with a fully fleshed body. Based on these observations, from these contexts (a more detailed analysis is cur- it is likely that some bodies were processed postmor- rently under way) shows that most of the adult infra- tem in such a way as to reduce or remove soft tissue cranial skeletal elements consist of smaller bones mass, while attempting to maintain the anatomical such as those of the distal extremities (i.e., hands and integrity (i.e., articulation) of the body itself. The feet)—precisely the type of elements that can be left manner in which this processing may have taken behind when bodies are processed and relocated as place is currently unclear, although our hypotheses part of a secondary funerary treatment. This inter- include manual defleshing of the corpse with stone pretation seems more plausible than their occur- tools, desiccation, and exposure of bodies to vulture rence resulting from the wholesale disinterment and scavenging (see Pilloud et al. 2016 for detailed discus- dumping of skeletons from primary intramural buri- sion). The degree of skeletal articulation, the com- als, as there is no evidence at Çatalhöyük for empty pleteness of the skeleton, and its preservation state or robbed-out graves within any of the excavated may provide some indication of the interval between houses. It is also conceivable that corpses were stored death and interment. In fact, a number of ostensibly or processed away from the settlement. Test excava- primary inhumations have been excavated recently tions conducted near the base of the mound in the that bear taphonomic indications of having been kept 1990s revealed a series of external pits containing a aboveground for a substantial amount of time. For ex- sizable concentration of fired clay objects and animal ample, within the sequence of burials in Building 129, bone, as well as a smaller amount of disarticulated Feature 7714 (Fig. 4) contained the poorly preserved, human bone “apparently treated no differently in prone, and hyperflexed skeleton of an adult of inde- terms of discard to the other bone” (Roberts et al. terminate sex, Sk. 22620, located immediately to the 2007:570). An initial study of part representation east of Feature 3630. The skeleton was largely com- seems to indicate that these were once primary buri- plete except for most of the right upper limb and left als. However, the stratigraphic and chronological re- forearm. The cervical vertebrae were also absent, sug- lationships of these off-site deposits to the settlement gesting that the skull had been placed in a position itself are still poorly understood and require further approximating anatomical position. Disarticulated investigation. infracranial remains of an additional adult of indeter- A number of researchers have raised the possibility minate sex were also found in direct association with that segments of the population were never afforded the Sk. 22620. Overall, the preservation and the ex- primary burials within Pre-Pottery Neolithic B settle- tremely hyperflexed and partially articulated posi- ment sites elsewhere in the Near East, where numbers tioning of the remains give the impression of a tightly of burials recovered are often low in relation to over- bundled package of bones containing at least two all settlement sizes (Banning 1998; Bienert et al. 2004; adult individuals (for additional examples of poten- Goring-Morris 2005; Rollefson 2001). At Çatalhöyük, tially delayed burials see description of burials from however, population estimates based on occupants Building 132 in Haddow et al. 2015). per building and overall site size are not incompati- If the practice of delayed burial is confirmed at ble with the proportion of burials excavated to date Çatalhöyük, it would likely have necessitated the tem- (Cessford 2005). Furthermore, previous demographic porary storage of the dead until such time as the in- analyses have failed to demonstrate any age or sex bi- terment took place. In some burials, especially from ases among the excavated primary skeletal assem- burned house contexts where organic preservation is blage (Hillson et al. 2013; Molleson et al. 2005). If the enhanced, there is evidence for the use of cordage, practice of delayed burial did occur at Çatalhöyük, Haddow and Knüsel 65 however, many of what are currently considered pri- et al. 2012; Kansa et al. 2009), in addition to skeletal mary burials should be reclassified as secondary element removal. burials, because these individuals would have been Ethnographic and archaeological evidence also il- kept aboveground for a period of time before their lustrates the diversity of motivations behind the prac- ­final deposition under house floors. The possibility that tice of cranial collection and secondary burial a subset of the population was selected for delayed practices within a single social group, for example, burial had not been considered previously when de- divination, memorialization, and status among Tor- mographic profiles were created for the Çatalhöyük res Strait Islanders (Bonney and Clegg 2011), and ven- skeletal assemblage. Thus, while the overall skeletal eration of ancestors and head-hunting of enemies in assemblage may lack discernible demographic anom- the Marquesas Islands (Valentin and Rolland 2011). alies, there may be selection biases present within the However, in light of the very similar use of skulls and secondary burial category that have not yet been re- crania from tribal members and enemies alike in Mel- vealed. While the prevalent narrative of Neolithic anesia, Bonogofsky and Graham (2011) highlight the social organization at Çatalhöyük and other Near problems archaeologists face in attempting to differ- Eastern sites typically emphasizes a “fierce egalitarian- entiate between the skulls of ancestors and enemies ism” (Hodder 2014:5), such differential burial practices based on treatment alone. Schulting (2015) notes the may point to emergent social distinctions between same problem for Mesolithic European treatments in inhabitants of Çatalhöyük, in which members of so- which the head could be targeted within groups for ciety received differing funerary treatments based on ritualistic reasons as well as between groups in a con- status, ascribed or achieved. flict situation (cf. Testart 2008, 2009). In South Amer- ican contexts, Duncan (2005) makes a similar point, Archaeological and ethnographic parallels while noting that distinguishing veneration from violation based on the manner in which bodies of the The variable depositional contexts and the anatomi- deceased were manipulated is difficult because the cal representation observed at Neolithic Çatalhöyük— treatments mimic one another, despite clearly sepa- decapitation, isolated crania, isolated skulls, and rate intentions on the part of participants. Compara- partially articulated and isolated infracranial skeletal tive biomolecular and stable isotope analyses of elements—are suggestive of multiple intentions and isolated crania and “headless” skeletons are potential motivations on the part of the Neolithic inhabitants means of addressing these issues. For example, a re- of Çatalhöyük. A number of researchers have docu- cent strontium, carbon, and nitrogen isotope study of mented increasing evidence for postmortem manip- isolated crania from precontact central California ulation of human remains in prehistoric European (Eerkens et al. 2016) suggests that they derive from the funerary contexts. Rather than a single rite involving same local population as the primary burials them- rapid interment, these may consist of a series of multi- selves and thus are less likely to represent trophy stage rites/treatments that occur over an extended heads taken from outsiders. Returning to the Neo- period of time—perhaps generations. These practices lithic Near East, Pearson’s (forthcoming) carbon and may involve element removal and potentially other nitrogen stable isotope analysis of isolated crania at treatments such as desiccation/mummification (Booth Boncuklu Höyük indicates that these individuals had et al. 2015; Booth and Madgwick 2016; Parker Pear- a different diet than that of individuals recovered son et al. 2005), defleshing (Bello et al. 2016; Robb et al. from primary intramural burials and may represent 2015; Russell 1987a, 1987b; Toussaint 2011), and, in some outsiders to the community, or a subset of the com- cases, cannibalistic behaviors, both exocannibalism munity who consumed different types of food (Baird (the consumption of flesh from out-group members, et al. 2016). The decipherment of such social distinc- i.e., enemies, for ritual or nutritional purposes; e.g., tions, so often very subtle, are vital to our understand- Cáceres et al. 2007; Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1996; Villa ing of prehistoric patterns of funerary variability. et al. 1986a, 1986b; Villa and Mahieu 1991) and ritu- At Neolithic Tell Qarassa North in Syria, Santana alized endocannibalism (the consumption of flesh et al.’s (2012) analysis of a cache of crania and mandi- from in-group members as part of a mortuary ritual; bles with what they characterize as intentionally mu- e.g., Bello et al. 2015; Boulestin et al. 2009), which has tilated facial skeletons suggests a further range of recently been reinterpreted as exocannibalism (Boul- motivations for skull retrieval, including denigra- estin and Coupey 2015). Although these examples tion, negation, punishment, and indifference. How- come from better-studied European contexts stretch- ever, while such motives may well have existed, our ing from the Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age, similar observations of isolated crania in similar states of rites have been identified in the Neolithic Near East, preservation at Çatalhöyük lead us to believe that, including, to date, defleshing of the dead (Erdal 2015) rather than being intentionally mutilated or defaced, and funerary cannibalism (Croucher 2010; Gauld they are the result of long-term curation and use that 66 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East eventually led to the disintegration of the facial Conclusion skeleton. The corresponding lack of a cranial base might also be explained by intentional modification/­ The variable dispositions of human skeletal remains removal of parts of the basicranium in order to mount observed in Building 129 and elsewhere at Çatalhöyük the cranium for display purposes. Modifications to are significant because they provide further intima- the cranial base for mounting and display have been tions of a more complex and variable set of funerary observed in a number of contexts worldwide, for ex- behaviors than previously discerned. The large num- ample in Spanish Colonial Georgia, (Stojanowski and ber of isolated crania and skulls recovered from a va- Duncan 2011:185), as well as trophy heads from Peru riety of depositional contexts clearly demonstrates (Forgey and Williams 2005:261–262), Borneo (Oku- that they cannot have been retrieved from primary mura and Siew 2013:689–690), and the Marquesas Is- burials alone. In their synthesis of skull retrieval data lands (Valentin and Rolland 2011:108–111, Table 4.1). from other Near Eastern Neolithic sites, Bocquentin By focusing primarily on treatments of the skull, et al. (2016:43) have reached a similar conclusion. This however, we run the risk of overlooking the equally surplus of crania, in combination with the equally frequent secondary manipulations of elements of the frequent occurrence of isolated and partially articu- infracranial skeleton observed at Çatalhöyük and lated infracranial bones in similar contexts, suggests other Near Eastern Neolithic sites, such as Kfar Ha- a number of intriguing possibilities, chief among Horesh (Goring-Morris 2005) and Tell Qarassa North them the practice of delayed burial, wherein the bod- (Santana et al. 2015) in the Levant, and Nevali Çori ies of some members of the Neolithic population were and Çayönü in Anatolia (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998). retained as part of an extended, multi-stage funerary The presence of isolated or partially articulated infra- rite incorporating a liminal period, possibly seasonal cranial bones in association with a secondarily de- in nature, perhaps much longer. At the end of these posited cranium, for example, may have entirely rites, the bodies of certain individuals were buried different implications for the nature of the funerary relatively intact, while others appear to have been dis- rite than if the cranium was found without them. articulated, the body parts, especially crania and man- Such patterns of funerary behavior have parallels in dibles, redistributed across a range of depositional the practices of mummification, delayed burial, re- contexts, including primary burials (as grave inclu- opening of graves, and circulation of bones observed sions) and construction layers (perhaps as transitional at pre-Columbian Moche sites in northern Peru (Mil- markers in the life course of houses [e.g., Haddow et al. laire 2004; Nelson 1998); these practices have been 2016]), as well as external midden spaces and building interpreted as facilitating the manipulation of ances- abandonment infills (perhaps as ritually discarded ob- tral remains for use as funerary offerings (Millaire jects). This variability in bodily treatment and deposi- 2004). Furthermore, Booth et al. (2015) argue that tional context reflects a range of postmortem treatment the creation of partial or ephemeral mummies from options, some of which have been put forward by the bodies of genealogically significant ancestors in Chapman (2010) for the Balkan Neolithic and Chalco- Bronze Age Britain may have helped legitimize ac- lithic periods, including fragmentation of the corpse, cess to land and resources. Mummification of adult removal and recombination of skeletal elements, and males and females was also practiced among the Tor- the eventual reintegration or substitution of such ele- res Strait Islanders; such mummies were only in- ments. Such practices have also been described at Tell tended to last the duration of the funerary rites, up to Qarassa North (Santana et al. 2015:12). Each of these a year after the death of the individual (Bonney and bodily treatments and spatial contexts must have had a Clegg 2011). Eventually the mummified body would particular significance, perhaps related to the status begin to fall apart, at which time the head was re- (or some other social marker) of the decedent or those moved and sometimes curated for divination pur- performing the rituals. Our ultimate aim is thus to es- poses, while the rest of the body could be disposed of tablish the criteria used by the Neolithic inhabitants of in a number of ways, including exposure, burial, or Çatalhöyük to select particular individuals for specific cremation (Aufderheide 2003:281–284; Bonney and funerary treatments; for example, why were some in- Clegg 2011). In many of these examples, display seems dividuals buried intact and undisturbed (sometimes to be a distinguishing feature of trophy heads, while after a period of delay), while other graves were revis- storage and only occasional exhibition tend to mark ited and bones removed? And why do some individu- venerated crania. These case studies will contribute als appear not to have received primary burial at all? to the development of an interpretational framework The data and discussion presented here represent that may eventually illuminate the deeper social the initial stages of a larger program of ongoing bio­ meanings of corpse and skeletal manipulations at archae­ol­o­gi­cal research, including the continued Çatalhöyük. application of thorough excavation, recording, and Haddow and Knüsel 67 comparative methods (including 3D modeling of Andrews, Peter, Theya Molleson, and Başak Boz. 2005. The -hu burial sequences and GIS spatial analysis of the vari- man burials at Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. McDonald ous depositional contexts in which human remains Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of occur), in addition to a detailed archaeothanatologi- Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge, pp. 261–278. cal approach to the skeletal remains themselves and Aufderheide, Arthur. 2003. The Scientific Study of Mummies. the burial micro-environment. This interdisciplinary Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. study of skull retrieval, curation, and re-deposition, Baird, Douglas, Eleni Asouti, Laurence Astruc, Adnan Baysal, Emma Baysal, Denise Carruthers, Andrew Fairbairn, Ceren as well as other secondary burial treatments at Çatal- Kabukcu, Emma Jenkins, Kirsi Lorentz, Caroline Middleton, höyük has the potential to disentangle not only the Jessica Pearson, and Anne Pirie. 2013. Juniper smoke, skulls complex range of funerary behaviors observed at the and wolves’ tails: The Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian plateau site but will also be fundamental in elucidating the pa- in its South-west Asian context; insights from Pınarbaşı. Le- laeodemographic composition and social distinctions vant 45(2):175–209. Baird, Douglas, Andrew Fairbairn, and Louise Martin. 2016. The implicit in the funerary deposition of human remains animate house: The institutionalization of the household in at the site and, through comparison, elsewhere in the Neolithic Central Anatolia. World Archaeology DOI: 10​­.1080​ Near East. Only then, through data-driven testing and /00438243­ .2016​­ .1215259.​­ analyses, combined with cross-cultural comparisons, Banning, Edward B. 1998. The Neolithic Period: Triumphs of ar- can we truly begin to address the larger social and chitecture, agriculture and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61(4):188–237. cosmological implications of these fascinating socio- Bayliss, Alex, Fiona Brock, Shahina Farid, Ian Hodder, John Sou- cultural practices. thon, and R. Ervin Taylor. 2015. Getting to the bottom of it all: A Bayesian approach to dating the start of Çatalhöyük. Jour- nal of World Prehistory 28:1–26. Acknowledgments Belfer-Cohen, Anna. 1988. The Natufian graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paléorient 14(2):297–308. We thank Dr. Burcu Tung, the North Area field direc- Bello, Silvia M., Palmira Saladié, Isabel Cáceres, Antonio Rodrí- guez-Hidalgo, and Simon A. Parfitt. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic tor, and Numan Arslan and Katarzyna (Kasia) Har- ritualistic cannibalism at Gough's Cave (Somerset, UK): The abasz for their assistance with the excavation of the human remains from head to toe. Journal of Human Evolution burials from Building 129, Space 77. We thank Ca- 82:170–189. milla Mazzucato for preparing the GIS-based map Bello, Silvia M., Rosalind Wallduck, Vesna Dimitrijević, Ivana that appears in this paper. We are especially grateful Zivaljević, and Chris B. Stringer. 2016. Cannibalism versus fu- nerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: to Ian Hodder, the editors of Bioarchaeology Interna- Comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric tional, and the three anonymous reviewers for their sites. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 161(4):722–43. constructive comments, which helped to improve this DOI: 10.1002​­ /ajpa​­ .23079​­ paper substantially. This paper was developed in part Benz, Marion. 2010. Beyond death: The construction of social from a poster presented at the 82nd Meeting of the identities at the transition from foraging to farming. In The Principle of Sharing: Segregation and Construction of Social American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming, edited by Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, on April 16, 2013, titled Marion Benz. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub- “Bioarchaeology in 3D: Three-Dimensional Record- sistence and Environment 14. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 249–275. ing of Human Burials at Neolithic Çatalhöyük,” by Berggren, Åsa, Nicoló Dell’Unto, Maurizio Forte, Scott Haddow, Christopher Knüsel, Scott Haddow, Joshua Sadvari Ian Hodder, Justine Issavi, Nicola Lercari, Camilla Mazzucato, Alison Mickel, and James S. Taylor. 2015. Revisiting reflexive (Ohio State University), Nicoló Dell’Unto (Lund Uni- archaeology at Çatalhöyük: Integrating digital and 3D tech- versity), and Maurizio Forte (Duke University). This nologies at the trowel's edge. Antiquity 89:433–448. study has received financial support from the French Bienert, Hans-Dieter. 1991. Skull cult in the prehistoric Near State under the auspices of the “Investments for the East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5:9–23. future” framework program, Initiative d’Excellence Bienert, Hans-Dieter, Michelle Bonogofsky, Hans G. K. Gebel, Ian Kuijt, and Gary O. Rollefson. 2004. Where are the dead? de l’Université de Bordeaux (IdEx), reference ANR- In Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan, edited by H.-D. Bie- 10-IDEX-03-02 to CJK). CJK thanks Sacha Kacki nert, H. G. K. Gebel, and R. Neef. Studies in Early Near East- (UMR 5199, PACEA) for his expert advice on the ern Production, Subsistence and Environment 5. Ex-oriente, translation of the French abstract. Berlin, pp. 157–176. Bocquentin, Fanny, E. Kodas, and A. Ortiz. 2016. Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pot- tery Neolithic North-South Levant. Paléorient 42(2):35–55. References Cited Bonney, Heather, and Margaret Clegg. 2011. Heads as memorials and status symbols: The collection and use of skulls in the Tor- Andrews, Peter, and Silvia Bello. 2006. Pattern in human burial res Strait Islands. In The Bioarchaeology of the Human Head: practice. In The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, ed- Decapitation, Decoration, and Deformation, edited by Mi- ited by Christopher Knüsel and Rebecca Gowland. Oxbow, chelle Bonogofsky. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Oxford, pp. 14–29. pp. 51–66. 68 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East

Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2001. An Osteo-Archaeological Examina- Cauvin, Jacques. 1994. Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de l’Ag- tion of the Ancestor Cult during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Pe- riculture: La Révolution des Symboles au Néolithique. CNRS riod in the Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Éditions, Paris. Berkeley. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Cessford, Craig, 2005. Estimating the Neolithic population of Bonogofsky, M. 2003. Neolithic plastered skulls and railroading Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995– epistemologies. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental 99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute of Archae- Research 331:1–10. ology at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2004. Including women and children: Research, London and Cambridge, pp. 323–326. Neolithic modeled skulls from Jordan, Israel, Syria and Tur- Chapman, John. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, key. Near Eastern Archaeology 67(2):118–119. Places, and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South-Eastern Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2005. A bio­archae­ol­o­gi­cal study of plas- Europe. Routledge, London. tered skulls from Anatolia: New discoveries and interpreta- Chapman, John. 2010. “Deviant” burials in the Neolithic and tions. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15:124–135. Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe. In Body Bonogofsky, Michelle. 2006. Complexity in context: Plain, Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings, painted and modeled skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. edited by Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Marie-Louise S. In Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration, edited by Mi- Sørensen, and Juliet Hughes. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 30–45. chelle Bonogofsky. BAR International Series 1539. Archaeo- Charles, Michael, Christopher Doherty, Eleni Asouti, Amy Bo- press: Oxford, pp. 15–28. gaard, Elizabeth Henton, Clark Spencer Larsen, Christopher Bonogofsky, Michelle, and Jeremy Graham. 2011. Melanesian B. Ruff, Philippa Ryan, Joshua W. Sadvari, and Kathryn C. Twiss. modeled skulls, mortuary ritual, and dental X-rays: Ancestors, 2014. Landscape and taskscape at Çatalhöyük: An integrated enemies, women, and children. In The Bioarchaeology of the perspective. In Integrating Çatalhöyük: Themes from the Human Head: Decapitation, Decoration, and Deformation, ed- 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at ited by Michelle Bonogofsky. University Press of Florida, Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London Gainesville, pp. 67–96. and Los Angeles, pp. 71–90. Booth, Thomas J., Andrew T. Chamberlain, and Mike Parker Croucher, Karina. 2006. Getting ahead: Exploring meanings of Pearson. 2015. Mummification in Bronze Age Britain. Antiq- skulls in the Neolithic Near East. In Skull Collection, Modifi- uity 89(347):1155–1173. cation and Decoration, edited by Michelle Bonogofsky. Ar- Booth, Thomas J., and Richard Madgwick. 2016. New evidence chaeopress, Oxford, pp. 29–44. for diverse secondary burial practices in Iron Age Britain: Croucher, Karina. 2010. Tactile engagements: The world of the A histological case study. Journal of Archaeological Science dead in the lives of the living … or “sharing the dead.” In The 67:14–24. Principle of Sharing: Segregation and Construction of Social Boulestin, B. 2015. Conservation du crâne et terminologie: Pour Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming, edited by en finir avec quelques mots de tête! Skull conservation and Marion Benz. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub- terminology: Time to get our heads together! Bulletins et sistence, and Environment 14. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 277–300. Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 27(1–2):16–25. Duncan, William N. 2005. Understanding veneration and viola- Boulestin, Bruno, and Anne-Sophie Coupey. 2015. Cannibalism tion in the archaeological record. In Interacting with the Dead: in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herx- Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, heim. Archaeopress, Oxford. edited by Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck, Boulestin, Bruno, Andrea Zeeb-Lanz, Christian Jeunesse, Fabian and Sloan R. Williams. University Press of Florida, Gaines- Haack, Rose-Marie Arbogast, and Anthony Denaire. 2009. ville, pp. 207–227. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim Eerkens, Jelmer W., Eric J. Bartelink, Laura Brink, Richard Fitzger- (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83:968–982. ald, Ramona Garibay, Gina A. Jorgenson, and Randy S. Wiberg. Boz, Başak, and Lori D. Hager. 2004. Human remains. In Çatal- 2016. Trophy heads or ancestor veneration? A stable isotope höyük 2004 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com:8080​ perspective on disassociated and modified crania in precontact /­archive_reports/2004/ar04_18.html. central California. American Antiquity 81(4):114–131. Boz, Başak, and Lori D. Hager. 2013. Living above the dead: In- Erdal, Yilmaz S. 2015. Bone or flesh: Defleshing and post-deposi- tramural burial practices at Çatalhöyük. In Humans and tional treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anatolia, Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Sea- PPNA Period). European Journal of Archaeology 18(1):4–32. sons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Fairbairn, Andrew, Eleni Asouti, Nerissa Russell, and John G. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London and Los Ange- Swogger. 2005. Seasonality. In Çatalhöyük Perspectives: les, pp. 413–440. Themes from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. Mc- Boz, Başak, and Lori D. Hager. 2014. Making sense of social Donald Institute for Archaeological Research and British In- behaviour from disturbed and commingled skeletons: A case stitute of Archaeology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. study from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. In Commingled and Disar- 93–108. ticulated Human Remains: Working toward Improved The- Farid, Shahina. 2014a. Timelines: Phasing Neolithic Çatalhöyük. ory, Method and Data, edited by Anna J. Osterholtz, Katherine In Çatalhöyük Excavations: The 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by M. Baustian, and Debra L. Martin. Springer, New York, Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute pp. 17–33. of Archaeology Press, London and Los Angeles, pp. 91–129. Cáceres, Isabel, Marina Lozano, and Palmira Saladie. 2007. Evi- Farid, Shahina. 2014b. The North Shelter foundation trenches. In dence for Bronze Age cannibalism in El Mirador Cave (Sierra Çatalhöyük Excavations: The 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). American Journal of Physical Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Anthropology 133:899–917. Archaeology Press, London and Los Angeles, pp. 557–596. Cauvin, Jacques. 1978. Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du Farid, Shahina. 2014c. Excavation, recording and sampling IXème au VIIème Millionaire avant J.C. Maison de l’Orient, methodologies. In Çatalhöyük Excavations: The 2000–2008 Lyon. Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Haddow and Knüsel 69

Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London and Los Ange- Ruff, Evan M. Garofalo, Lori D. Hager, and Scott D. Haddow. les, pp. 35–51. 2013. The human remains I: Interpreting community struc- Federative International Programme on Anatomical Terminol- ture, health and diet in Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In Humans and ogies. 2011. Terminologia Anatomica: International Anatomi- Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Sea- cal Terminology. 2nd ed. Thieme, Stuttgart. sons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Ferembach, Denise. 1969. Études anthropologique des ossements Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London and Los Ange- humains néolithiques de Tell Ramad (Syrie). Annales Arche- les, pp. 339–396. ologiques Arabes Syriennes 19:49–70. Hodder, Ian, ed. 1996. On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. Brit- Ferembach, Denise. 1970. Études anthropologiques des osse- ish Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and McDonald Insti- ments humaines néolithiques en Syrie de Tell Ramad, Syrie tute for Archaeological Research, London and Cambridge. (Campaigns 1963–1966). L’Anthropologie 74(3/4):247–254. Hodder, Ian, ed. 2000. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: Ferembach, Denise, and Monique Lechevallier. 1973. Découverte The Example at Çatalhöyük. British Institute of Archaeology de deux crânes surmodelés dans une habitation du VIIème at Ankara and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Re- millennaire à Beisamoun, Israel. Paléorient 1:223–230. search, London and Cambridge. Fernández-Jalvo, Yolanda, J. Carlos Díez, José Maria Bermúdez Hodder, Ian. 2005. Peopling Çatalhöyük and its landscape. In In- de Castro, Eudald Carbonell, and Juan Luis Arsuaga. 1996. Ev- habiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1998 Seasons, ed- idence of early cannibalism. Science 271:277–278. ited by Ian Hodder. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Forgey, Kathleen, and Sloan R. Williams. 2005. Were Nazca and McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, London heads war trophies or revered ancestors? In Interacting with and Cambridge, pp. 1–30. the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Hodder, Ian, ed. 2013a. Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Millennium, edited by Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. Lane A. Beck, and Sloane R. Williams. University Press of British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeol- Florida, Gainesville, pp. 251–276. ogy, London and Los Angeles. Gauld, Suellen C., James S. Oliver, Sarah Witcher Kansa, and Hodder, Ian, ed. 2013b. Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Elizabeth Carter. 2012. On the tail end of variation in Late Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. Neolithic burial practices: Halaf feasting and cannibalism at British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeol- Domuztepe, southeastern Anatolia. In Bioarchaeology and Be- ogy, London and Los Angeles. havior: The People of the Ancient Near East, edited by Megan Hodder, Ian. 2014. Çatalhöyük: The leopard changes its spots: A Perry. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 8–34. summary of recent work. Anatolian Studies 64:1–22. Goren, Yuvel, A. Nigel Goring-Morris, and Irena Segal. 2001. The Hodder, Ian, and Christopher Doherty. 2014. Temporal trends: The technology of skull modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B shapes and narratives of cultural change at Çatalhöyük. In Inte- (PPNB): Regional variability, the relation of technology and grating Çatalhöyük: Themes from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited iconography and their archaeological implications. Journal of by Ian Hodder. British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute Archaeological Science 28:671–690. of Archaeology, London and Los Angeles, pp. 169–183. Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2000. The quick and the dead: The social Kanjou, Yousef, Ian Kuijt, Yilmaz S. Erdal, and Osamu Kondo. context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from 2013. Early human decapitation, 11,700–10,700 cal BP, within Kfar HaHoresh. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social the Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of Tell Qaramel, North Syria. Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25(5):743–752. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 103–136. Kansa, Sarah W., Suellen C. Gauld, Stuart Campbell, and Eliza- Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2005. Life, death and the emergence of dif- beth Carter. 2009. Whose bones are those? Preliminary com- ferential status in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Evidence from parative analysis of fragmented human and animal bones in Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In Archaeological Per- the “Death Pit” at Domuztepe, a Late Neolithic settlement in spectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in southeastern Turkey. Anthropozoologica 44(1):159–172. the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Joanne Clark. CBRL and Kenyon, Kathleen. 1953. Excavations at Jericho 1953. Palestine Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 89–105. Exploration Quarterly 85:81–96. Goring-Morris, Nigel, and Liora K. Horwitz. 2007. Funerals and Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1956. Jericho and its setting in Near East- feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. An- ern history. Antiquity 30(120):184–197. tiquity 81:902–919. Kenyon, Kathleen M., and Thomas A. Holland, eds. 1981. Excava- Haddow, Scott, Christopher J. Knüsel, Belinda Tibbetts, Marco tions at Jericho, Volume III: The Archaeology and Stratigraphy of Milella, and Barbara Betz. 2015. Human remains. In Çatal- the Tell. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London. höyük 2015 Archive Report, pp. 85–101. http:​­//www​­.catalhoyuk​ Knüsel, Christopher J. 2014. Crouching in fear: Terms of engage- .com­ /sites​­ /default​­ /files​­ /media​­ /pdf​­ /Archive_Report_2015​­ .pdf​­ . ment for funerary remains. Journal of Social Archaeology Haddow, Scott D., Joshua W. Sadvari, Christopher J. Knüsel, and 14(1):26–58. Rémi Hadad. 2016. A tale of two platforms: Commingled re- Knüsel, Christopher J., Scott D. Haddow, Joshua Sadvari, and mains and the life-course of houses at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Jennifer Byrnes. 2012. Çatalhöyük Human Remains Team Ar- In Theoretical Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation of chive Report 2012. Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report, pp. 132– Commingled Human Remains, edited by Anna J. Osterholtz. 154. http:​­//www​­.catalhoyuk​­.com​­/sites​­/default​­/files​­/media​­/pdf​ Springer, New York, pp. 5–29. /Archive_Report_2012­ .pdf​­ . Hauptmann, Harald. 1999. The Urfa region. InNeolithic in Tur- Kuijt, Ian. 2000. Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching, and key: The Cradle of Civilization, New Discoveries, edited by community integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In Life in Mehmet Özdoğan and Nezih Başgelen. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 65–86. and Differentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt. Kluwer Academic/ Hillson, Simon W., Clark Spencer Larsen, Başak Boz, Marin A. Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 137–164. Pilloud, Joshua W. Sadvari, Sabrina C. Agarwal, Bonnie Glen- Kuijt, Ian. 2001. Place, death and the transmission of social mem- cross, Patrick Beauchesne, Jessica A. Pearson, Christopher B. ory in early agricultural communities of the Near Eastern 70 Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial Practices in the Neolithic Near East

Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Archaeological Papers of the American Okumura, Mercedes, and Yun Ysi Siew. 2013. An osteological Anthropological Association Number 10:80–99. study of trophy heads: Unveiling the headhunting practice in Kuijt, Ian. 2008. The regeneration of life: Neolithic structures of Borneo. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23:​685–697. symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology Özbek, Metin. 1986. Çayönü Yerleşmesindeki Kesik İnsan Başları. 49(2):171–197. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 2:19–40. Kuijt, Ian, and Nigel Goring-Morris. 2002. Foraging, farming, Özbek, M. 2009. Remodeled human skulls in Köşk Höyük (Neo- and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the lithic age, Anatolia): A new appraisal in view of recent discov- Southern Levant: A review and synthesis. Journal of World eries. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:379–386. Prehistory 16:361–440. Özdoğan, Aslı. 1999. Çayönü. In Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle Larsen, Clark Spencer, Simon W. Hillson, Başak Boz, Marin A. of Civilization, New Discoveries, edited by Metin Özdoğan Pilloud, Joshua W. Sadvari, Sabrina C. Agarwal, Bonnie Glen- and Nezih Basgelen. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynilari, Istanbul, cross, Patrick Beauchesne, Jessica Pearson, Christopher B. pp. 57–97. Ruff, Evan M. Garofalo, Lori D. Hager, Scott D. Haddow, and Özdoğan, Mehmet, and Aslı Özdoğan. 1998. Buildings of cult Christopher J. Knüsel. 2015. Bioarchaeology of Neolithic and the cult of buildings. In Light on Top of the Black Hill: Çatalhöyük: Lives and lifestyles of an early farming society in Studies Presented to Halet Çambel, edited by G. Arsebük, M. transition. Journal of World Prehistory 28:27–68. Mellink and E. Schirmer. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynilari, Istan- Larsen, Clark Spencer, Simon W. Hillson, Christopher B. Ruff, bul, pp. 581–593. Joshua W. Sadvari, and Evan M. Garofalo. 2013. The human Parker Pearson, Michael, Andrew Chamberlain, Oliver Craig, remains II: Interpreting lifestyle and activity in Neolithic Peter Marshall, Jacqui Mulville, Helen Smith, H., Carolyn Çatalhöyük. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Re- Chenery, Matthew Collins, Gordon Cook, Geoffrey Craig, Jane ports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. Brit- Evans, Jen Hiller, Janet Montgomery, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, ish Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Gillian Taylor, and Timothy Wess. 2005. Evidence for mummi- London and Los Angeles, pp. 397–508. fication in Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 79(305):529–546. Le Mort, Françoise, Aslı Erim-Özdoğan, Metin Özbek, and Yase- Pearson, J. Forthcoming. The first farmers of Central Anatolia: min Yilmaz. 2000. Feu et archéothanatologie au Proche Ori- A reconstruction and comparison of burial practice, diet and ent (Épipaléolithique et Néolithique): Le lien avec les pratiques health at the Neolithic site of Boncuklu Höyük and beyond. In funéraires données nouvelles de Çayönü (Turquie). Paléorient Boncuklu: First Farmers in Central Anatolia and the Anteced- 26(2):37–50. ents of Çatalhöyük. From Foragers to Farmers in Central Ana- Matthews, Wendy. 2005. Life-cycles and life-courses of build- tolia, Volume 1, edited by Douglas Baird and Andrew ings. In Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Themes from the 1995–99 Fairbairn. British Institute at Ankara, London. Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. McDonald Institute for Ar- Pilloud, Marin, Scott D. Haddow, Christopher J. Knüsel, and chaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Clark Spencer Larsen. 2016. A bio­archae­ol­o­gi­cal and forensic Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 125–149. re-assessment of vulture defleshing and mortuary practices at Maureille, Bruno, and Pascal Sellier. 1996. Dislocation en ordre Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Archaeological Science: Re- paradoxal, momification et décomposition: Observations et ports 10:735–743. DOI: 10.1016​­ /j​­ .jasrep​­ .2016​­ .05​­ .029.​­ hypotheses. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropolo- Pilloud, Marin A., and Clark Spencer Larsen. 2011. “Official” and gie de Paris 8 (3–4):313–327. “practical” kin: Inferring social and community structure Mellaart, James. 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, third prelim- from dental phenotype at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. inary report, 1963. Anatolian Studies 14:39–119. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145:519–530. Meskell, Lynn. 2008. The nature of the beast: Curating ani- Robb, John E., Ernestine Elster, Eugenia Isetti, Christopher J. mals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük. World Archaeology 40(3):​ Knüsel, Mary Anne Tafuri, and Antonella Traverso. 2015. 373–389. Cleaning the dead: Neolithic ritual processing of human bone Meskell, Lynn M., and Carolyn Nakamura. 2005. Çatalhöyük at Scaloria Cave, Italy. Antiquity 89(343):39–54. figurines. In Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, pp. 161–188. http:​ Roberts, Neil, Peter Boyer, and Jamie Merrick. 2007. The KOPAL ­//www​­.catalhoyuk​­.com​­/sites​­/default​­/files​­/media​­/pdf​­/Archive​ on-site and off-site excavations and sampling. In Excavating _Report_2005.pdf​­ . Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the Millaire, Jean-François. 2004. The manipulation of human re- 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. McDonald Institute mains in Moche society: Delayed burials, grave reopening, for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archae- and secondary offerings of human bones on the Peruvian ology at Ankara, Cambridge and London, pp. 553–572. north coast. Latin American Antiquity 15(4):371–388. Rollefson, Gary. 1983. Ritual and ceremony at Neolithic Ain Molleson, Theya, Peter Andrews, and Başak Boz. 2005. Recon- Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9(2):29–38. struction of the Neolithic people of Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Rollefson, Gary. 2000. Ritual and social structure at Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian ‘Ain Ghazal. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities, edited Hodder. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and Mc- by Ian Kuijt. Springer, New York, pp. 163–188. Donald Institute for Archaeological Research, London and Rollefson, G. O. 2001. The Neolithic period. In The Archaeology Cambridge, pp. 279–306. of Jordan, edited by B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkow- Nakamura, Carolyn, and Lynn Meskell. 2013. The Çatalhöyük ski. Academic Press, Sheffield, pp. 67–105. burial assemblage. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Russell, Mary D. 1987a. Bone breakage in the Krapina hominid Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 8. British Institute at 72:373–379. Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London Russell, Mary D. 1987b. Mortuary practices at the Krapina Ne- and Los Angeles, pp. 441–466. anderthal site. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Nelson, Andrew J. 1998. Wandering bones: Archaeology, foren- 72:381–397. sic science and Moche burial practices. International Journal Sadarangani, Freya. 2014. The sequence of Buildings 53 and 42 and of Osteoarchaeology 8:192–212. external spaces 259, 260 and 261. In Çatalhöyük Excavations: Haddow and Knüsel 71

The 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder. British Institute Strouhal, Eugene. 1973. Five plastered skulls from Pre-Pottery at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, London Neolithic B Jericho: Anthropological study. Paléorient and Los Angeles, pp. 191–219. 2:231–247. Santana, Jonathan, Javier Velasco, Andrea Balbo, Eneko Iriarte, Talalay, Lauren E. 2004. Heady business: Skulls, heads, and de- Lydia Zapata Peña, Luis Teira, Christophe Nicolle, Frank Brae- capitation in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece. Journal of Medi- mer, and Juan José Ibáñez. 2015. Interpreting a ritual funerary terranean Archaeology 17:139–163. area at the Early Neolithic site of Tell Qarassa North (South Testart, Alain. 2008. Des crânes et des vautour ou la guerre ou- Syria, late 9th millennium BC). Journal of Anthropological Ar- bliée. Paléorient 34(1):35–58. chaeology 37:112–127. Testart, Alain. 2009. Réponse. Paléorient 35(1):133–136. Santana, Jonathan, Javier Velasco, Juan José Ibáñez, and Frank Toussaint, Michel. 2011. Intentional cutmarks on an early Meso- Braemer. 2012. Crania with mutilated facial skeletons: A new lithic human calvaria from Margaux Cave (Dinant, Belgium). ritual treatment in an Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cranial American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144:100–107. cache at Tell Qarassa North (South Syria). American Journal Tung, Burcu. 2014. Excavations in the North Area. Çatalhöyük of Physical Anthropology 149:205–216. 2014 Archive Report, pp. 13–42. http:​­//www​­.catalhoyuk​­.com​ Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1997. Animal symbols at ‘Ain /sites­ /default​­ /files​­ /media​­ /pdf​­ /Archive_Report_2014_0​­ .pdf​­ . Ghazal. Expedition 39(1):48–58. Valentin, Frédérique, and Noémie Rolland. 2011. Marquesan tro- Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1998. A stone metaphor of creation. phy skulls: Description, osteological analyses, and changing Near Eastern Archaeology 61:109–117. motivations in the South Pacific. InThe Bioarchaeology of the Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 2013. The plastered skulls. InSymbols Human Head: Decapitation, Decoration, and Deformation, ed- at ‘Ain Ghazal (‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports Vol. 3), edited ited by Michelle Bonogofsky. University Press of Florida, by D. Schmandt-Besserat. ex-oriente, Berlin, pp. 213–243. Gainesville, pp. 97–121. Schulting, Rick J. 2015. Mesolithic skull cults? In Ancient Death Verhoeven, Marc. 2002. Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Ways: Proceedings of the Workshop on Archaeology and Mor- Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge tuary Practices. Uppsala, 16–17 May 2013, edited by Kim von Archaeology Journal 12(2):233–258. Hackwitz, and Rita Peyroteo-Stjerna. Uppsala Universiteit, Villa, Paola, Claude Bouville, Jean Courtin, Daniel Helmer, Éric Uppsala, pp. 19–46. Mahieu, Pat Shipman, Georgio Belluomini, and Marilí Branca. Sellier, Pascal, and Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento. 2013. Différer la dé- 1986a. Cannibalism in the Neolithic. Science 233:431–437. composition: Le temps suspendu? Les signes d'une momifica- Villa, Paola, Jean Courtin, Daniel Helmer, Pat Shipman, Claude tion préalable. Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie 132:30–36. Bouville, and Éric Mahieu. 1986b. Un cas de cannibalism au Stojanowski, C. M., and Duncan, W. N. 2011. Biohistory and cra- Neolithique: Boucherie et rejet de restes humains et animaux nial morphology: A forensic case from Spanish colonial Geor- dans la grotte de Fontbrégoua (Var). Gallia Préhistoire gia. In The Bioarchaeology of the Human Head: Decapitation, 29:143–171. Decoration, and Deformation, edited by M. Bonogofsky. Uni- Villa, Paola, and Éric Mahieu. 1991. Breakage patterns of human versity Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 179–201. long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21:27–48. Stordeur, Danielle. 2015. Le village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9500– Wilhelmson, Helene, and Nicoló Dell’Unto. 2015. Virtual tapho- 8700 av. J.-C.): L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique nomy: A new method integrating excavation and postprocess- complexe. CNRS Éditions, Paris. ing in an archaeological context. American Journal of Physical Stordeur, Danielle, and Rima Khawam. 2007. Les crânes surmod- Anthropology 157:305–321. elés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie): Premier régard sur l’ensem- Wright, George R. H. 1988. The severed head in earliest Neolithic ble, Premières reflexions. Syria 84:5–32. times. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 2:51–56. Stordeur, Danielle, Rima Khawam, Bassam Jammous, and Élise Yılmaz, Y. 2010. Neolitik Dönem'de Anadolu'da Ölü Gömme Morero. 2006. L’aire funéraire de Tell Aswad (PPNB). Syria Uygulamaları: Çayönü Örneği. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, De- 83:39–62. partment of Prehistory, Istanbul University.