Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T22:59:22.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - “Motherbaby”: A Death in Childbirth at Çatalhöyük

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Ian Hodder
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The buried human body is at once both corpse and artifact. As corpse, it is stamped with the biomarkers of a previous existential phase, that is, of animate, gendered, and environmentally situated life, when that body was experienced as “the centre of the world towards which all objects turn their face ... the pivot of the world” (Merleau-Ponty 1980: 82; see Meskell 2000: 16). As artifact, it is as much “creation” or ideological representation as any petroglyph, figurine, or built structure. The interred body, physically manipulated and culturally elaborated, is a symbolic entity, a ritualized product of thought. It enacts collective values but also funerary idiosyncrasies: specific responses to the dead individual, both in her past mortal uniqueness and in her new, generic condition. Buried bodies can homologically perform the symbolic structures of their originating society, and vice versa. A skeleton placed in a trapezoidal arrangement from the Late Mesolithic site of Lepenski Vir, and perhaps reiterating the trapezoidal houses there, as Srejovic has suggested, is a dramatic example; this formal mirroring seems to be a kind of mortuary theorem, indicating, as Schulting says, “a powerful metaphor of equivalency between the human body and the structures” (Schulting 1998: 209; Srejovic 1972: 117–118). At Neolithic Çatalhöyük, the funerarylike scouring, caching, sealing, and “burial” of houses, as though they were persons, are hard to construe otherwise. The current excavations show these houses were built in an aggregate, almost-cellular manner, reinscribing the infolded geometric and contiguous spiral patterns of murals on their walls. If the postmortem body remains in any sense “the centre of the world,” a static microcosm of the fluid symbolic world it once inhabited, then burials can diagnose key macrocosms – the generative structures of a culture.

Type
Chapter
Information
Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society
Vital Matters
, pp. 225 - 258
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banning, E. B. 2011. So fair a house: Göbekli Tepe and the identification of temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Current Anthropology 52(5):619–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M. 2000. Female figurines in the European Upper Paleolithic: Politics and bias in archaeological interpretation. In Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. Rautman, A. E.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 202–214.Google Scholar
Belfer-Cohen, A. 2011. Conversation with Kimberley Patton, July 2011.
Bourjeily, G., Paidas, M., Khalil, H., Rosene-Montella, K., and Rodger, M. 2010. Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. The Lancet 375(9713):500–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boz, B., Hager, L. D., Haddow, S., et al. 2006. Human remains. In The Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report, Çatalhöyük Research Project, 157, .Google Scholar
Boz, B., and Hager, L. D. In Press. Intramural burial practices at Çatalhöyük. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000–2008 seasons ed. Hodder, I.. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute.
Burkert, W. 1985 (1977, German edition). Greek Religion. Trans. Raffan, J.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Caldwell, J. C., and Caldwell, B. K. 2003. Was there a neolithic mortality crisis?Journal of Population Research 20(2):153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çatalhöyük Database.
CFM (Citizens for Midwifery). 2008.
Delporte, H. 1993. L’image de la femme dans l’art préhistorique. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Diop, B. 1948. “Souffles.” In Anthologie de la nouvelle poésie nègre et malgache, ed. Senghor, L.. Trans. Jahn, J., in Muntu: An Outline of Neo-African Culture. London: Faber & Faber, 1961.Google Scholar
Dominus, S. 2011. Could conjoined twins share a mind? New York Times Magazine, May 29, 2011.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 2007. On breasts in beasts: another reading of women, wildness, and danger at Çatalhöyük. Archaeological Dialogues 14(1):91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimbutas, M. 2001. The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Edinger, E. F. 1985. Anatomy of the Psyche: Alchemical Symbolism in Psychotherapy. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hager, L. D. 2011. Conversation with Kimberley Patton, July 2011.
Hawass, Z. 2010. King Tut’s family secrets. National Geographic 218(3):34–61.Google Scholar
Hill, J. 2011. Conversation with Kimberley Patton, July 2011.
Hodder, I. 2005. Introduction. In Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, Çatalhöyük Research Project, 1–5. .
Hodder, I. 2006. The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Hodder, I.2007 Season review.” In Çatalhöyük 2007 Archive Report, Çatalhöyük Research Project, 1–6.
Jay, N. B. 1992. Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuijt, I. 2008. The regeneration of life: neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology 49(2):171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López Luján, L. 2010. Tlaltecuhtli. Mexico City: Sextil Editores.Google Scholar
Mann, Charles. 2008. The birth of religion. National Geographic 219(6):57.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1980. The Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 1999. Feminism, paganism, pluralism. In Archaeology and Folklore, ed. Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C., London and New York: Routledge, 83–89.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 2000. Writing the body in archaeology. In Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. Rautman, A. E.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 13–21.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 2007. Refiguring the corpus at Çatalhöyük. In Material Beginnings: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation, eds. Renfrew, A. C. and Morley, I.. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs, 143–156.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 2008. The nature of the beast: Curating animals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük. World Archaeology 40(3):373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskell, L., and Nakamura, C. 2005. Figurines. In Çatalhöyük 2007 Archive Report, Çatalhöyük Research Project, 161–88.
Meskell, L., and Nakamura, C. In Press. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, ed. Hodder, I.. Los Angeles: UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Özbaşaran, M. 2005. IST area. In Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, Çatalhöyük Research Project, 89–93.
Pilloud, M. A., and Larsen, C. S. 2011. ‘Official’ and ‘practical’ kin: Inferring social and community structure from dental phenotype at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145(4):519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puett, Michael. Response to lecture by George Rupp, “Religion and the Humanities: A Lovers’ Quarrel.” Sponsored by the Committee on the Study of Religion, Harvard University, September 2006.
Ricœur, P. 1998. Politics and totalitarianism. In Critique and Conviction: Conversations with François Azouvi and Marc de Launay. Trans. Blamey, K., 95–101. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. 2005. Phytolith indicators of plant and land use at Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons, vol. 4, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute, Cambridge University, 203–212.Google Scholar
Russell, N., and Griffitts, J. In Press. Çatalhöyük worked bone: South and 4040 Areas. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, ed. Hodder, I.. Los Angeles: UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Ryan, P. In Press. Plant exploitation from household and landscape perspectives: The phytolith evidence. In Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, ed. Hodder, I.. Los Angeles: UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Schulting, R. J. 1998. Creativity’s coffin: Innovation in the burial record of Mesolithic Europe. In Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory, ed. Mithen, S.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Srejovic, D. 1972. Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Strathern, M.The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talalay, L. E. 2004. Heady business: Skulls, heads, and decapitation in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17(2):139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talalay, L. E. Forthcoming. “Entangled bodies: Rethinking twins and double images in the Prehistoric Mediterranean.” In Gemini and the Sacred: Twins and Twinship in Religion and Myth, ed. Patton, Kimberley C.. London: I.B.Tauris.
Trainor, K., ed. 2010. Special issue: Relics in comparative perspective. Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 57(3–4):267–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2012. Maternal and newborn health. . Accessed June 12, 2012.
Wells, C. 1975. Ancient obstetric hazards and female mortality. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 51(11):1235–1249.Google ScholarPubMed
Wendrich, W. 2005. The Çatalhöyük basketry. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeology, 419–424.Google Scholar
WHO (World Health Organization). 2012. Maternal mortality. . Accessed June 12, 2012.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×