# Human-Animal Entanglements in the Neolithic - - - > [!Summary] > A neolithic town had tight-packed mudbrick houses for up to 8k people, lasted 1k years, left no signs of social hierarchy or war, had a mixed economy, and changed in its relationship with animals over time, as determined by a variety of factors. - - - ### location and date > Çatalhöyük was a Neolithic town dating from 7100-5950 BCE; it existed over 9000 years ago [...] when domestication of plants and animals was a relatively recent invention. It's located in what is now present-day Turkey, about an hour’s drive away from the city of Konya. - [i] Added to [[domestication]] ### closely packed houses before cities > Çatalhöyük also pre-dates the appearance of urban cities and states, writing, money and private property. People lived in mudbrick houses that were tightly packed together, so much so that there wasn’t even room for ground level front doors, but they had to instead enter their homes via rooftop ladders. ### large population, non-existant government > Despite having a population of up to 8000 people at its peak and being occupied for over 1,000 years (think about how old the cities we live in now are by comparison!), we have found no indications of a political authority, government, social classes or conflict. Relevant for the post about sizes of towns and ancient infrastructure. Also relevant for the alternative types of governments post. ### mixed economy > based on the animal bones and paleobotanical evidence, we know that the people of Çatalhöyük practiced a mixed economy: they farmed sheep and goat and cultivated wild cereals, while still gathering wild plants and hunting wild animals like deer, boar, horses and aurochs (a now extinct species of wild cattle from which modern cattle are descended). - [i] Added to [[economics]] ### animal figurines more common than human ones > The figurines at Çatalhöyük, reflect this engagement with the surrounding landscape. Of the over 3,000 figurines that have been recovered from the site to-date, over 50% are what we have categorized as zoomorphic (in the form of animals), while less than 10% represent human forms. I should #nonfic/article to see what the researchers think the significance of this is. It honestly makes me wonder if some of the figurines were children's toys — kids love animals! ### research methods > data on the figurines with other datasets on faunal installations (the term we use for the skeletal remains of animals that were then embedded and plastered into wall, bench and pillar features within houses), structured faunal deposits (animal remains likely related to ritual practices such as bones found in platforms, burials, pits or the foundations of houses), iconography like plastered wall reliefs of animals and wall paintings, stamp seals and pottery. By analyzing the spatial (where animal expressions are found at the site and in what context) and temporal (over time) patterning, we can shed light on our research questions. Changes in the depositional patterning of animal expressions, as well as the types of expressions and the media that was used for these expressions, tells us that relations between humans and animals did not stay the same, but shifted and transformed throughout the lifespan of the town. ### summation > beginning from the mid point of the settlement’s occupation, there is a clear move away from permanent animal art (wall paintings, faunal installations and plastered reliefs) toward more portable types (pottery and stamp seals). In the animal bones, we see a decrease in the wild species that were hunted and an increase in the selection for domesticated sheep, goat and even cattle; before this time cattle were only hunted, not farmed. Concurrently, we start to see motifs of human domination over animals in the art, such as figurines of humans astride animals. In the earlier half of the occupation, people treated wild animals and conducted rituals with their remains in a way similar to humans. In the later half, we see evidence that these animals became increasingly commodified. Household independence grew and communal and shared practices (like multiple households tending to herds of sheep and goat together) fell off. In sum, as people’s relationships with animals changed and animals became more like commodities, society itself was also transformed, setting the scene for emergent social inequality.