Staying Egalitarian and the Origins of Agriculture in the Middle East

Abstract

This article uses results from the recent excavations at Çatalhöyük in Turkey to propose that continuous tensions between egalitarian and hierarchical impulses were dealt with in two principal ways during the Neolithic of the Middle East. A tendency towards overall balance and community (termed molar) is seen as in tension with more particulate and molecular tendencies, with both being brought into play in order to combat inequalities. It is also suggested that tendencies towards more molecular systems increased over time, at different rates and in different ways in different places, partly as a response to constraints associated with more molar articulations. Finally, it is proposed that a shift to molecular autonomy was associated with agricultural intensification. Staying egalitarian can be seen as an active process that contributed to the Neolithic transformations.

The evolving circle of landscape design

“…In the East Mound, the older part of Çatalhöyük, domestic buildings tended to be similar in shape and size; in the newer West Mound, domestic buildings became much more varied (Orton et al 2018; Newitz 2021). Perhaps this reflected a tension between views about how society should be organized—social cohesion and a flat hierarchical structure on one hand, and independence and individuality on the other (Newitz 2021; Hodder 2022). Of course, this interpretation is disputed (Orton et al 2018), but it nevertheless suggests how people may have expressed dynamic cultural values in the landscape in this place and time.…”

The Global Dynamics of Inequality (GINI) project: analysing archaeological housing data

“…The project aims to consider global questions and hypotheses about wealth production, distribution and governance. How is resistance to high wealth inequalities achieved (Kohler & Higgins 2016; Hodder 2022)? Do societies develop sustained high or low levels of inequality under particular forms of governance (Blanton & Fargher 2008)?…”

“…If persistent levels of low inequality require fundamental social and economic commitments (e.g. Osborne 2007; Hodder 2022), monitoring long-term archaeological records deserves our closest attention.…”

Understanding Archaeological Tells: Circulating Memories and Engaging with Ancestors through Material Attachments

“…In the past few decades, the assumption that tells form ad hoc or passively as structures are abandoned, filled with trash and levelled for new construction has come under increasing critique. Instead, archaeologists are emphasizing the active decisions and intentional processes that lead to their creation (Blanco-González & Kienlin 2020; Chapman 1999; Chapman & Gaydarska 2007; Dueppen 2022; Duffy et al 2019; Gyucha et al 2019; Hadad 2019; Haddow et al 2016; Hodder 2018a,b; 2022; Hodder & Marciniak 2015; Hodder & Pels 2010; Hofmann et al 2012; Karkanas & Efstratiou 2009; Karul 2021; Kloukinas 2015; Özdoğan 2018; Parkinson et al 2018; Sofaer 2011; Verhoeven 2000).…”

“…As archaeologists assess life-histories of architectural units, they are finding evidence of purposeful actions such as burning (which fires earthen architecture) and quick-sealing of deposits as well as variability in the degree of deconstruction of existing or former structures prior to new construction. For example, detailed study of the histories of various structures at Çatalhöyük has yielded insights into the religious beliefs and active processes that produced the particular deposits (Hodder 2018a,b; 2022; Hodder & Marciniak 2015; Hodder & Pels 2010; see also Özdoğan 2018 regarding ritual burial of architecture in the Neolithic Near East). Decisions such as which elements to keep when reflooring (parietal art, room features) or whether ritual depositions need to be laid before reflooring have enabled archaeologists to identify commonalities and variance within the architecture.…”