< home # store # services # articles # game # app #contact >

Near the centre of Turkey, in Aksaray province. Excavations have revealed crucial information on the history of brain surgery, early mining, astounding craftsmanship; and human transitions from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles
A major transition in human history.

It was first settled in the pre-pottery neolithic period, around 8,200 BC (1)
Though its believed paleolithic nomadeic hunter gatherers were here first for the obsidian source (2). It is one of the earliest aceramic neolithic sites on the Anatolian plateau.

The site is about 10 acres (3)
It is more than 3 smaller than Çatalhöyük.

Mostly the surrounding area is formed by eroded river valleys. And, eruptions from the nearby volcano. Into tuff deposits
Its location in the Melendiz valley provides a valuable source of obsidian (or, hard volcanic glass) for trade. Identified as far away as modern day Cyprus and Iraq. (3)(4)

More than 400 rooms had been excavated
They found buried dead under floors. Though not in numerous numbers.

Some of the burials indicate division of labour between sexes
Buried men were older. And, women often had osteological signs of damage. Like from using grinding stones, or carrying too much. Though many male skeletons also had signs of joint disease. From thinks like cutting timber, and tilling. (5) Women were subject to more strenuous physical labour than their male counterparts. (6)

An obsidian bracelet was found here (7)
The site is important but often overshadowed by Göbekli Tepe, Çatalhöyük (and, others).

They had sheep and goats domestication, and agriculture
Cereal crop plants at Asikli Hoyük included: einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), emmer wheat (T. dicoccum), free-threshing wheat (T. cf. durum), hulled two-rowed barley (Hordeum distichum) and naked barley (H. vulgare var. nudum). There was bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), lentil (Lens culinaris) and probably pea (Pisum sativum) pulses too. Hackberry (Celtis iourne-fortii) fruits were gathered intensively. In addition, fruits of pistachio (Pistacia cf. atlantica) and almond (Amygdalus spec.) were collected from the wild. (8)

Architecture went from hunter gatherer subterranean huts; to Çatalhöyük styled, roof or window entry dwellings, with neighborhoods or compounded buildings; and a large building complex. They had burials; and rebuilt and placed structures similarly over time. Though, a lack of storage bins or containers found. The architecture at Asikli Hoyuk was special.

From two or three; up to five or six, clustered dwellings formed a ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘compound buildings’
Clustered single and multi-room houses formed compounds, apparently sharing courtyard space for production activities. Like practicing joint cooking and food consumption. (2)

“Special individuals of an elite class”
Some of the structures and contents have been compared to the “Terrazzo” Building at Çayönü; and, the “Temple” Building at Nevalı Çori. Nearby burials contained goods like necklaces and bracelets made of beads of various sorts. (9)

They had a unique rebuilding and reusing attributes. Rebuilding older structures, using older walls as a foundation (10)
And, from archaeological evidence. Each time, the same way. Like a pattern.

An estimate exists for the same lifespan for rebuilding a structure like at Çatalhöyük
One could look at around 30 to 60 years before reconstruction occurred. (11)

An entire lifespan of structures could be 240-480 years
It is unparalleled in both ethnography and archaeology (12)

Hearths were rectangular, and usually placed in one of the corners of the rooms
An estimated 30–40% of all the rooms at Aşıklı Höyük had hearths. No micro-cosmological, wind direction or special code has been determined for their positioning. (13) They were sized from around 5 to 32 square feet (14) And, often placed in the same corner.

Since many of the buildings did not have archaeological evidence of ground level doors. It’s believed entry was thru the roof like at Çatalhöyük. (15) Or, through windows. And, using ladders

Buildings were not privately owned, since one would expect them to be customized
It can be assumed that the rooms were distributed amongst community members. And, according to the change in both needs and statuses. (16) They could have changed due to needs but instead remained identical. (10)

Much larger than most individual dwellings Their is quite a large building they excavated. About 500 square meters or 5400 square feet
It was about 20 times bigger actually. The rooms people lived in were comparatively small. Around 130 square feet, (or 12 m2) in size. (17)

The large building had a multitude of rooms encompassing elaborate and large internal courts. Something that is not found in any other buildings.

Only a select group of the total population could have used the large building, (or ‘complex HV’), on a given occasion, at once
Even though people were smaller (average height estimated 5’ 3”), its believed this sort of building could only fit around 300 people. While there may have been several thousand in the community. It indicates a special value in the society.

Examples of other restricted monumental spaces exist in Nevalı Çori, Beidha, and Ain Ghazal
They were used by elites, practicing different social initiation rites .(18) (19)
Though there have been no finds of artifacts carrying religious connotations. (3)

Its obvious the architecture here had a lot going on
From its paleolithic obsidian origins; to Çatalhöyük style architecture, unique rebuilding and placements. Their burials, and lack of storage containers. Indicate Aşıklı Höyük was a special and unique place.

Archaeologists found skulls with holes in them here too. And, early signs of trepanation
Demonstrating the earliest-known brain surgery. Trepanation, or drilling holes into the skull. Was to try and relieve or cure ailments, mental illness; or, disease.

Aşıklı Höyük is shedding light on neolithic architecture. The transition from nomad, hunter-gatherers; to a livable settled neolithic town, with trade, well developed houses and community. This shift is considered crucial step in the development of human civilization. Also, important for early stages of agricultural, and sedentary life.

This site has contributed critically to our understanding of how early humans adapted to new ways of living. Including interacting with others and their environment. And, grown on beautifully to what we have become today.

Cite: 1) Shukurov, Anvar; Sarson, Graeme R.; Gangal, Kavita (7 May 2014). “The Near-Eastern Roots of the Neolithic in South Asia” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012948). PLOS ONE. 9 (5): Appendix S1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095714 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjourna
l.pone.0095714). ISSN 1932-6203 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1932-6203). PMC 4012948 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012948). PMID 24806472 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24806472).

2) Steadman, S. R. 2004. “Heading Home: The Architecture of Family and Society in Early Sedentary Communities on the Anatolian Plateau”. Journal of Anthropological Research 60 (4):515–558.

3) Esin, U., and S. Harmankaya. 1999. “Aşıklı”. In Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of civilization, edited by M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji Ve Sanat Yayinlari.

4) Düring, B. S. 2006. “Constructing communities: clustered neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500–5500 Cal. BC”, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden.

5) Wright, K. I. 2000. “The Social Origins of Cooking and Dining in Early Villages of Western Asia”. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66:89–121.

6) Esin, U., and S. Harmankaya. 1999. “Aşıklı”. In Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of civilization, edited by M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji Ve Sanat Yayinlari. p. 130

7) Cnrs. (2011, December 21). Oldest obsidian bracelet reveals amazing craftsmen’s skills in the eighth millennium BC. Phys Org. https://phys.org/news/2011-12-oldest-obsidian-bracelet-reveals-amazing.html
https://phys.org › news › 2011-12-oldest-obsidian-bracelet-reveals-amazing.html

8) Van Zeist, W., van, & De Roller, G. J. a N. (1995). Plant remains from Asikli Hoyük, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia. In Springer-Verlag, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany (Vols. 4–4, pp. 17–185). Springer-Verlag. http://www.asiklihoyuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/van-Zeist-and-de-Roller-1995.pdf

9) Düring, B. S. 2006. “Constructing communities: clustered neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 Cal. BC”, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden. pp. 86–87

10) Düring, B. S. 2006. “Constructing communities: clustered neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 Cal. BC”, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden. p. 93

11) Mellaart, J. 1964. Anatolia before c. 4000 BC and c. 2300–1750 BC”. Cambridge University Press. p. 64

12) Hodder, I. 1998. “The domus, some problems reconsidered”. In Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe, edited by M. Edmonds and C. Richards. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

13) Özbaşaran, M. 1998. “The Heart of a House: The Hearth”. In Light on top of the black hill: studies presented to Halet Çambel, edited by M. J. Mellink, G. Arsebük and W. Schirmer. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları

14) Düring, B. S. 2006. “Constructing communities: clustered neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 Cal. BC”, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden. p. 84

15) Hodder, I. 2006. Çatalhöyük: the leopard’s tale – revealing the mysteries of Turkey’s ancient “town”. London: Thames & Hudson.

16) Düring, B. S., and A. Marciniak. 2006. “Households and communities in the central Anatolian Neolithic”. Archaeological Dialogues 12 (02):165–187.

17) Rosenstock, Eva; Ebert, Julia; Martin, Robert; Hicketier, Andreas; Walter, Paul; Groß, Marcus (2019). “Human stature in the Near East and Europe ca. 10,000–1000 BC: Itsitsatiotemporal
development in a Bayesian errors-in-variables model” (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12520-019-00850-3). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 11 (10): 5657–5690. doi:10.1007/s12520-019-00850-3 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12520-019-00850-3).

18) Rollefson, G. O. 2001. “The Neolithic Period”. In The archaeology of Jordan, edited by B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski. London: Sheffield Academic Press.

19) Verhoeven, M. 2002. “Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant andsoutheast Anatolia”. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12 (2):233–258.

Bibliography:
Hodder, I. 1996. On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95, Monograph No 22. Ankara: McDonald Institute Monographs and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Todd, I. A. 1966. “Aşıklı Höyük – A Protonelolithic Site in Central Anatolia”. Anatolian Studies 16:139–163.

Mellaart, J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. London: Thames & Hudson.

official Aşıklı Höyük website (http://www.asiklihoyuk.org/)

The Megalithic Portal — Aşıklı Höyük (https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=19533)