Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros45-1ArticlesArchitectural planning and measur...


Architectural planning and measuring in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Çayönü, Turkey

Gil Haklay et Avi Gopher
p. 7-17


Nous examinons dans cet article les vestiges du bâtiment public connu sous le nom de « Terrazzo building » sur le site néolithique précéramique de Çayönü, afin d’en explorer les processus de planification architecturale. À cette fin, nous avons identifié les principes spatiaux et les lois de composition qui président à l’élaboration des formes architecturales. Les résultats suggèrent un processus de planification qui s’appuie sur la formulation d’un plan d’implantation à échelle réduite et des mesures de distances, à l’aide d’une unité de mesure de la taille d’une coudée (environ 0,48 m), qui ensemble ont permis la spécification des formes et leur construction précise. Notre analyse révèle ainsi l’usage précoce d’un principe architectural de base, celui d’une structure en grille servant de système d’organisation qui impose un ordre et sert de cadre à la formulation de règles de construction. En examinant deux autres structures, un bâtiment en « cell-plan » qui serait contemporain du Terrazzo building et un bâtiment plus ancien en « grill-plan », nous avons relevé la mise en œuvre de mêmes principes et même unités de mesures (d’environ 0,48 m). Ces observations suggèrent qu’une unité de mesure standardisée a pu être utilisée sur le site de Çayönü tout au long du PPNB.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

This paper was prepared for publication with support from the Israel Antiquities Authority.

1Manuscript received the 12th January 2019, accepted the 29th April 2019

2The site of Çayönü Tepesi is located on a fertile highland (altitude 832 m) at the foot of the Taurus Mountains and by a tributary of the upper Tigris in Southeastern Turkey. Excavated in the 1960s through the early 1990s (first by R.J. Braidwood and H. Çambel who were joined by W. Schirmer, later by M. and A. Özdoğan, and in recent years by A. Özdoğan), the site is considered one of the pillars of Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) archaeology in Southeast Anatolia and the Northern Levant, and often serves as an example of early village-farming communities in which effective food production was practiced since the EPPNB. In addition to being one of the oldest sites in which botanical remains of domesticated emmer wheat were recovered (Van Zeist and de Roller 1991-1992), it is mainly known for its sequence of architectural remains and monumental buildings, indicating a complex social structure (Braidwood et al. 1974, 1981; Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989; Schirmer 1990). The PPNA-PPNC occupations at the site have shown substantial architectural changes a number of times (Erim-Özdoğan 2011). The stratigraphic sequence of Çayönü kept being refined over the years as new information was added in each excavation season, until it was crystalised by M. Özdoğan and A. Özdoğan (1998) as comprising six PPN occupational sub-phases, named after their distinctive residential house plan or characteristic feature, namely: the round buildings (assigned to the PPNA), the grill buildings (assigned to the PPNA/Early PPNB [EPPNB]), the channeled buildings (assigned to the EPPNB), the cobble-paved buildings (assigned to the Middle PPNB [MPPNB]), the cell buildings (assigned to the Late PPNB [LPPNB]), and the long room buildings (assigned to the PPNC). Each of these sub-phases represents a village, and each village seems to have comprised, other than the domestic structures, at least one public structure as well. These public structures (namely the “Flagstone building”, the “Skull building” and the “Terrazzo building”) which clearly differ in plan, size and content from their contemporary domestic structures, were referred to as “special buildings” (Braidwood et al. 1974), “unusual structures” (Schirmer 1990) and “cult buildings” (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998). The most recent of these structures is the Terrazzo building, assigned to the LPPNB cell-plan sub-phase.

  • 1 The Terrazzo building was assigned to the cell buildings sub-phase: “In stratigraphy, it obviously (...)

3In this paper we present an architectural analysis of several structures aimed at identifying architectural planning practices at the site of Çayönü. We first present our analysis of the LPPNB public structure (the Terrazzo building) which represents a culmination of architectural design at the site, and where we expected architectural planning principles to be best represented. We then present a contemporaneous1 LPPNB domestic structure (a cell-plan building), and finally, going back in time, we examine an EPPNB domestic structure (a grill building), thus covering most of the PPN rectangular architecture sequence at the site.


4Architectural formal analysis which studies the spatial forms of architectural built spaces is used to trace back aspects of architectural design processes reflected in buildings. It accomplishes this goal by discerning geometric regularities and identifying the spatial principles and compositional laws (design rules) governing the generation of the structure’s form. Such analysis may indicate for example the use of a preplanned schema and its adaptation to a specific site or highlight the internal logic that guided the architectural design process. This kind of analysis has been used for such purposes mostly by researchers of architecture for a long time and under many different names. For example, Le Corbusier (1923) referred to it as identifying the “regulating lines”. The archaeological application (Haklay and Gopher 2015) can also be understood as an attempt at reconstructing the “chaîne opératoire” of a structure from planning to full construction.

5The following analysis proceeded with identifying spatial regularities by taking simple measurements of the published plan. The detailed stone-by-stone drawings of the structures were used as a basis for the analysis whenever possible, but in the case of the Terrazzo building, only the schematic plan (Schirmer 1990) was available, and we used it with confidence that it accurately describes the structure.

6In a sense, the architectural remains at Çayönü make ideal subjects for analysis of this kind, since in all sub-phases no structure has been substantially remodeled (except for the skull building). Instead, the structures were usually abandoned and flattened, and new buildings were erected in their places. This no-renovation behaviour assures that the remains most accurately describe the initial construction and the architectural planning.

The LPPNB Terrazzo building

7The so-called “Terrazzo building” pertains to the cell-building sub-phase dated to the LPPNB (ca. 9500-9300 cal. BP). It is located in the eastern part of the mound, in an area that has been dedicated for special structures (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989), and at the edge of a large open space (the Plaza). The Plaza (50 × 30 m) whose burnt clay floor was rebuilt at least three times and featured two rows of large standing stones during part of the LPPNB, is considered a special structure in itself (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989 and 1998). The Terrazzo building is a single space structure of a rectangular floor plan (11.75 × 9 m exterior dimensions) oriented towards SW (along the short axis; see fig. 1: top). The structure was only partially preserved but the remains of all four stone walls facilitated the reconstruction of the missing parts, including an entrance at the center of the southern wall (Schirmer 1990). A circular installation by the northwestern corner, described also as a “lunar hearth” (Erim-Özdoğan 2011), was partially preserved. This feature has a stone rim on which remains of human blood were found. Remains of human blood were also detected on a stone slab bearing a human face relief that was found by the northwestern corner of the building (Schirmer 1990).

Fig. 1 – Geometric layout of the Terrazzo building

Fig. 1 – Geometric layout of the Terrazzo building

The position of the stripes in the terrazzo floor is given by the division of the floor’s length in four (magenta) and in five (blue)

Modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 14

8Each of the walls seems to have comprised two symmetrically arranged buttresses. The remains of the buttresses were described as flimsily built, for which reason it was assumed that they did not have a structural function in supporting the superstructure, for which there is no evidence (Schirmer 1990). According to Schirmer, the undressed stone walls are the remains of stone footings over which mudbricks were laid (Schirmer 1990), similar to the walls of the contemporary cell buildings. However, M. Özdoğan and A. Özdoğan’s observation regarding “high stone walls” as one of the characteristics of Near Eastern PPN cult building (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998), and the walls of the flagstone building that preserved up to 1.3 m of height, should also be kept in mind. The eastern and western walls are about 1 m wide, the northern wall is about 0.75 m wide, and the southern wall is about 0.5 m wide. The remains of these walls were only preserved to an elevation just above the floor level. The terrazzo-like floor itself, for which the building received its name, was made of 12 cm thick layer composed of limestone fragments embedded in a lime mortar, set on a bed of coarse limestone fragments and topped by a layer composed of pink limestone pieces embedded in a pink lime mortar (about 1 cm thick). Two sets of parallel white stripes (5 cm wide and 4 m long) made of crushed white limestone, were integrated with precision within the topping layer. Finally, the entire floor was polished (Braidwood et al. 1971, 1981; Schirmer 1990; Erim-Özdoğan 2011). The central area of the floor was destroyed, which is presumably the reason why the building was ultimately abandoned (Erim-Özdoğan 2011).

Analysis of the LPPNB Terrazzo building

9The Terrazzo building has been referred to as representing the highest level of architectural practice at the site (Braidwood et al. 1981; Erim-Özdoğan 2011), mainly for the construction technology of the terrazzo floor, and specifically for the pairs of white stripes carefully embedded within it. It has been noted that the white stripes were positioned in relation to the buttresses of the peripheral walls (Braidwood et al. 1981). Schirmer (1990) regarded both the buttresses and the stripes as elements of interior decoration conveying a symbolic meaning which qualifies, in his view, this building as “architecture”. Braidwood, who was also an architect by training, accurately says it “can claim for itself the full meaning of the term architecture, in which building construction and building design form a whole” (Braidwood et al. 1981: 255).

10Looking for regularities in the location of the white stripes within the floor area, we measured along the long axis that passes through the center of the floor (defined by intersecting diagonals) and found that the distance between the outer white stripes and the respective parallel walls is given by the division of the length in five (fig. 1). We further noticed that this distance, which measures a fifth of the floor length, is equal to a quarter of the floor width. Thus, the length to width proportion (the aspect ratio) of the floor is exactly 5:4. Finally, we noticed that the distance between the inner stripes and the respective parallel walls is similarly given by the division of the length, this time in four. This implies that the entire floor geometry can be traced on a rectangular grid with a spacing of 0.48 m, which may have served as a basic unit of measure.

11A number of architectural planning principles, methods and compositional design rules were identified:

12Abstract planning process. The floor design is strictly geometric. This suggests that technically, the planning process could have taken place prior to construction, away from the construction site, and by formulating a small-scale floor plan. This must be complemented with the ability to measure distances (the concept of a unit of measure) in order to reproduce the planned layout in a desired scale on the ground.

13The use of a grid structure. The planning with respect to a grid structure results in a coherent (logically and aesthetically ordered) design.

14Emphasis on proportion. Length to width proportions which can be accurately expressed using small integers were planned.

15The division of a single length in different numbers of equal parts. The position of the stripes was determined by dividing the length of the floor in 5 (outer stripes) and 4 (inner stripes).

Analysis of domestic houses

The LPPNB cell building

16With the above in mind, we turned to examine domestic structures, starting with the remains of the contemporary LPPNB cell-building CA. This building type is named after its typical lower level floor which was divided by partition walls into small cell-like compartments. In building CA the floor area was divided (on the long axis) in three rows of cells, the southern two rows comprised three cells each (about 0.95 by 2.15 m each) connected by doorways, and the northern row comprised two cells (each about 1.45 by 1.70 m) which had no doors (indicating that these spaces were accessed from above). This particular cell arrangement was quite frequent, but there were other configurations as well, created by divisions on the long and short axis into different numbers of cells. In some instances, the cells are too small to have functioned as rooms proper, which suggests that the cells may have primarily been storage spaces, and occasionally used for burials and for other activities. Another important function of these lower levels of the cell houses, which are generally understood as basements or crawlspaces, was to support an elevated and insulated living floor, well protected from the threat of floods. In one of the buildings an external staircase leading to the living floor was preserved, and in some buildings, mudbricks were preserved on top of the peripheral stone walls above the floor elevation. Some cell buildings (such as building CA) feature an outer bench built all around the perimeter wall. The roofs are presumed to have been flat and supported by wooden beams.


17When examining the floor plan of building CA, we found that the same architectural design principles identified in the Terrazzo building govern the generation of architectural forms in this case as well. First, it is evident that the concept of dividing a length into equal parts has guided the design of lower level layouts of the cell buildings in general. Specifically, building CA is one of the examples in which a single length is divided twice into a different number of equal parts, forming rows with different numbers of cells. This is conceptually similar to the positioning of the white stripes of the Terrazzo buildings according to the division of the floor length into 4 and 5 equal parts.

18As for the grid structure and the unit of measure, we placed the same rectangular grid of 0.48 m spacing (the unit of measure) over the plan and found that it matches the floor plan of this building as well. True, some of the walls have deformed and some may have not been built as planned or as accurately, but the overall correlation between a schema traced on the grid and the detailed plan is compelling (fig. 2). Here, as in the Terrazzo building, the grid structure was used as a planning tool producing a geometrically coherent floor plan which was easy to measure.

Fig. 2 – Geometric layout of cell building CA

Fig. 2 – Geometric layout of cell building CA

Modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 9

19The exact 5:4 length to width aspect ratio of the floor of the Terrazzo building attests to the acknowledgement of the very concept of proportion as a property of the rectangular form. In building CA the interior floor area proportion is 7:4, and with the walls being ca. 1 unit wide (0.48 m) the overall proportion of the building is 8:5. Regarding this, Braidwood et al. (1981) noted that while cell size is inversely proportional to the number of cells in a given cell building, all of the cell buildings (exposed by 1981) are of approximately the same proportion.

The EPPNB grill buildings

  • 2 Lists of 14C dates of Çayönü include quite a number of 14C dates made in the 1970s-1990s (mainly by (...)

20Looking further back in time along the stratigraphy of Çayönü, at the domestic structures of the grill buildings sub-phase, we find the same principles employed in the architectural design and construction processes of these buildings as well. The grill buildings are assigned by the excavators to the final part of the PPNA and to the EPPNB (Erim-Özdoğan 2011). The chrono-cultural assignment notwithstanding, ca. 10,500-10,400 cal. BP seems to be an acceptable date for the beginning of these buildings.2 The grill-plan sub-phase is marked by the appearance at the site of rectangular architecture comprising straight walls, right angles and rectangular floor plans, as opposed to the previous round building sub-phase in which only round enclosures are featured (Özdoğan 2010). According to Özdoğan (2010) and Erim-Özdoğan (2011), the existence of postholes around and inside the buildings suggests that their roofs were very much like the roofs that covered over the round houses of the previous sub-phase (but see Forest 1996).

21These buildings were hardly ever renovated or remodeled. Instead, at the end of their lifetime the buildings were flattened down, and new buildings of similar layout and size were built in their places. This may have generally occurred 5-6 consecutive times in a building location (Erim-Özdoğan 2011). Each time the structure was built with a slightly different orientation, suggesting that each time, prior to the construction, the layout was measured on the ground according to an architectural plan.

22The grill buildings are named after a distinctive feature, i.e., the grill-like structure found on their northern sides. The grills were composed of a series of parallel linear stone foundations, carefully built of small stones and no more than 15 cm high (Schirmer 1990), which supported an elevated plastered floor, keeping it insulated, ventilated and dry. During this sub-phase the grills have evolved from open grills (free standing parallel low foundations) to meandering grills (connected to each other on alternating ends), to closed grills (connected by a rectangular frame), until they completed their transformation into proper large stone platforms with channels, by the channeled building sub-phase (Erim-Özdoğan 2011). The southern side of the grill-buildings comprised a room with a corner hearth and a series of small spaces (possibly storage cells) against the southern wall. In building GHD, an entrance that passes through the central cell could be identified.


23The grill building sub-phase is characterised by a similar high level of architectural standardisation with an emphasis on proportions, as most of the grill buildings tend to be of a 2:1 proportion. Braidwood et al. (1971) described a succession of at least three superimposed grill buildings, and noted that the middle structure was 5.0 by 10.0 m in size. But in Braidwood et al., two grill buildings are said to be 5.0 m wide and 11.5 m and 13.5 m long: “The proportion of length to width is therefore greater than 2:1” (Braidwood et al. 1981: 253). Schirmer noted that “The buildings are situated about the same distance from each other and have similar measurements of about 5.5 by 11 m” (Schirmer 1990: 367). Building GHD is about 10.56 m long (10.80 with the southern buttresses) and 6.24 m wide (thus, its length to width proportion is smaller than 2:1). However, when the building’s dimensions are examined with respect to the layout, certain geometric regularities can be discerned, starting with the fact that as noted by Forest (1996) the building is composed of two comparable size parts (the northern elevated floor above the grill foundation, and the southern room and compartments). Furthermore, a rectangular grid of 0.48 m (the unit of measure) spacing superimposed on the detailed plan reveals that the plan was to have a grill composed of six 1-unit wide linear elements separated by five intervals of the same width (1 unit of measure = 0.48 m). Although some of the linear stone elements may have been subjected to land movements or may have been built with less accuracy to begin with, they did not contribute to an accumulating error (fig. 3), which indicates that prior to construction the plan was traced on the ground by measurements. The southern part is also compatible with a schema traced on a 0.48 spacing grid. The eastern and western peripheral walls (or foundations) and the southern wall of the large rectangular space seem to have been planned to be 1-unit thick, while the peripheral southern wall is composed of a 1/2-unit thick wall and 1/2-unit thick external buttresses. The partition walls defining the southern spaces are 1/2 thick and form two square space (3 × 3 units each) and a rectangular space (3 × 4 units). The buttresses are not evenly distributed along the southern wall but seem to have been part of the entrance complex (the central square space), which may suggest that their function was not necessarily related to the superstructure. There is a difference of about 3° in the orientations of the southern and northern parts of the structure. This may reflect a renovation episode or two construction stages. A close look at the seam between the two parts, and with respect to the suggested schema, indicates the grills may have been built first.

Fig. 3 – Geometric layout of grill building GHD (modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 3)

Fig. 3 – Geometric layout of grill building GHD (modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 3)


24The suggested decorative use of the buttresses and the four white stripes in the floor of the Terrazzo building signaled for Schirmer (1990) the moment in which “a building becomes architecture”. Schirmer rightfully sensed that the existence of the white stripes somehow elevates the structure closer to the rank of proper “architecture”, but in our view, it is not just because of their non-structural nature. More precisely, it is so because the “decorations” (if this is what they were) were planned in detail, and were not an addition but a part of the overall architectural design, as noted by Braidwood et al. (1981) and demonstrated by our analysis indicating that the white stripes were positioned with precise geometric respect to the floor in which they were embedded.

25In our view, a building becomes “architecture” whenever it is abstractly planned (prior to construction and any engagement with the ground, and potentially away from the construction site) and its form and proportions are specified in advance. We have shown that under this definition the LPPNB domestic cell building CA and the EPPNB grill building GHD qualify as “architecture” just as well. According to Schmandt-Besserat, who studied the Near Eastern token system, number words (and thus the abstract number concept) were not in use during the Neolithic period (they are also missing from the earliest written documents and appear only in a later phase; see Schmandt-Besserat 2010). In the absence of number words, the only way to specify in advance and communicate an architectural design, for example of a rectangular building of certain proportion, was by physically formulating a small-scale rectangular form that represented the desired form of the floor—a floor plan.

  • 3 The concept of a grid structure as a basis for design is also attested in a Late PPNA building in t (...)

26In our analysis, we have found that the same architectural planning concepts, principles and methods were employed in the design and construction of all three buildings examined, including the very concept of proportion as a property of rectangular architecture and the concept of the grid structure as an underlying framework for design.3 The use of a grid structure in the planning process resulted in well-defined, organised and geometrically coherent structures in which loads were evenly distributed. Planning by tracing on a small-scale grid further facilitated the reproduction with accuracy of designed forms by measurements on the ground, and the exact division of lengths in equal parts—a basic spatial concept expressed in all three buildings presented here.

27It has been argued by some of the excavators that the stratigraphy and sequence of architectural models and construction technology developments at the site reflect a long transition period from round to rectangular architecture. It begins with the appearance of the grill buildings and ends with the appearance of the domestic cell-buildings (Özdoğan 2010). In arguing for a gradual process in which the elements of the rectangular structure (foundations, walls and roofs) were accumulated in a linear fashion, the authors play down the “rectangularity” of the grill buildings, suggesting that the overall appearance of the grill building village may have not been drastically different from the appearance of the predating PPNA round building village, due to possibly similar roofing techn-ologies (Erim-Özdoğan 2011). Moreover, the rectangular form of the grill buildings, it is suggested, may have emerged incidentally “The use of stone in the grills instead of branches, probably unintention-ally led to a rectangular layout” (Özdoğan 2010: 31). Yet, in our view, the transition from round to rectangular architecture is reflected in this site as rather abrupt, since the basic elements of rectangular architecture, i.e., the straight walls and right angles, are well manifested in the early grill buildings along with an impressive arsenal of architectural planning tools, concepts and methods. Theoretical knowledge of space and architecture (such as the use of geometry and arithmetic, the concept of the architectural floor plan, the method of distance measuring by a smaller length unit, and grid planning) did not evolve simply as a response to natural elements such as the floods that are assumed by the excavators to have troubled the people of Çayönü and were a main reason for the evolution of architectural models at the site (Erim-Özdoğan 2011), or as a response to a need for larger houses, which according to Özdoğan was the initial motivation for the appearance of the grill buildings. Instead, we suggest that it indicates a specialisation in the art of architecture (the mastery of planning and building), and that architectural transformations (including the transition to rectangular architecture) at the site of Çayönü and elsewhere in the region during this time were knowledge-based top-down processes. This may accord well and strengthen M. Özdoğan and A. Özdoğan’s suggestion that during the PPN, all building activity seems to have been under the control of a social group and possibly related to the (spi)ritual arena (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998), but this discussion is beyond our scope here.


28The EPPNB shows conspicuous innovations in many realms of culture including a new food producing economy based on domesticated plants and animals, new burial customs and in some cases dedicated burial structures, new lithic technologies mainly for blade production, and a newly established built landscape of rectangular/rectilinear architecture. In the built environment, standardisation of architectural models during the PPNB (e.g., at Çayönü), stands in contrast to a greater diversity during the preceding PPNA (e.g., at Jerf el Ahmar). At Çayönü, the excavators were immediately struck by the high level of architectural standardisation, as each occupational sub-phase (village) was characterised by the repetition of a distinctive residential house plan. We have shown that the level of standardisation was even greater than realised, as the same unit of measure (0.48 m) was used both in special and domestic buildings since the very onset of rectangular architecture at the site.

  • 4 E.g. Egyptian cubit 0.450 m, Egyptian royal cubit 0.524 m, Sumerian cubit 0.502 m, Assyrian cubit 0 (...)

29It is to note that this length (0.48 m) calls to mind the long tradition of standardised units of measurement known as cubits that were based on the human forearm-hand length (measured from the tip of the middle finger to the back of the elbow) and used in architecture throughout history4 (Berriman 1953). It is possible that in Çayönü as well, the unit of measurement was based on the same human dimension.

30We do not know why a measurement unit was standardised at Çayönü. The standard unit of measure may have been introduced in order to regulate land ownership, or as an attempt to express and solidify the very social structure, but it certainly brought about a change in the architectural design process. During the PPNA, schematic floor plans probably consisted of a geometric pattern. These patterns were geometrically constructed and regulated by a module that represented a length unit (a unit of measure). This, we believe, was the case in the planning of the communal structures of Jerf el-Ahmar (Stordeur 2015). The formulation of these abstract geometric patterns may have taken place prior to construction and away from the construction site, but in order to adapt to site-specific existing conditions and constraints, the scale in which these patterns were to be traced on the ground was probably often determined at the time and place of construction. This was done by adjusting the unit of measure (the length represented by the design module). In a planning process that starts with a given measurement unit (as in Çayönü) both the form and the size of the structure are always specified, but this most probably often requires that prior to the planning, the site itself should first be measured. In Çayönü, space started to be treated as a measurable resource about the same time of the appearance of domesticated plants. The stage for both of these phenomena was set by a profound change in worldview and man-world relationship. An awakening anthropocentric sentiment of “taking possession” (or dominating) that reflects a transformed Man-World relationship, found expression both in a new subsistence strategy and in the perception of the built environment. In return, achievements in agriculture and architecture must have been reflexive, feeding back on this sentiment and nurturing it further.

Haut de page


Berriman A.E.
1953 – Historical metrology: A new analysis of the archaeological and the historical evidence relating to weights and measures. London: J.M. Dent.

Braidwood R.J., Çambel H., Lawrence B., Redman C.L. and Stewart R.B.
1974 – Beginnings of village-farming communities in Southeastern Turkey—1972. PNAS 71,2: 568-572

Braidwood R.J., Çambel H., Redman C.L. and Watson P.J.
1971 – Beginnings of village-farming communities in Southeastern Turkey. PNAS 68,6: 1236-1240.

Braidwood R.J., Çambel H. and Schirmer W.
1981 – Beginnings of village-farming communities in Southeastern Turkey: Çayönü Tepesi, 1978 and 1979. Journal of Field Archaeology 8,3: 249-258.

Coqueugniot É.
2014 – Dja‘de (Syrie) et les représentations symboliques au IXe millénaire cal. BC. In: Manen C., Perrin T. and Guilaine J. (eds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque Transitions en Méditerranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs, Muséum de Toulouse, 14-15 avril 2011: 91-108. Arles: Errance; Toulouse: Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

Erim-Özdoğan A.
2011 – Çayönü. In: Özdoğan M., Başgelen N. and Kuniholm P. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 1: 185-269. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Forest J.D.
1996 – Le PPNB de Çayönü et de Nevali Çori : pour une approche archéo-ethnologique de la néolithisation du Proche-Orient. Anatolia Antiqua. Eski Anadolu 4,4: 1-31.

Haklay G. and Gopher A.
2015 – A new look at shelter 131/51 in the Natufian site of Eynan (Ain-Mallaha), Israel. PloS ONE 10,7: e0130121.

Le Corbusier
1923 – Vers une architecture. Paris: Cres et Cie.

Özdoğan M.
2010 – The transition from round-plan to rectangular – Reconsidering the evidence of Çayonu. In: Gheorghiu D. (ed.), Neolithic and Chalcolithic architecture in Eurasia. Building, techniques and spatial organization: 29-34. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAT Int. Ser. 2097).

Özdoğan M. and Özdoğan A.
1989 – Çayönü: A conspectus of recent work. Paléorient 15,1: 65-74.

Özdoğan M. and Özdoğan A.
1998 – Buildings of cult and the cult of buildings. In: Arsebük G., Mellink M. and Schirmer W. (eds.), Light on top of the Black Hill. Studies presented to Halet Çambel: 581-601. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Schirmer W.
1990 – Some aspects of building at the ‘Aceramic Neolithic’ settlement of Çayönü Tepesi. World Archaeology 21,3: 363-387.

Schmandt-Besserat D.
2010 – The token system of the ancient Near East: Its role in counting, writing, the economy and cognition. In: Morley I. and Renfrew C. (eds.), The archaeology of measurement. Comprehending heaven, earth and time in ancient societies: 27-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stordeur D.
2015 – Le village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-8700 av. J.-C.). L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique complexe. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Van Zeist W. and de Roller G.J.
1991-1992 – The plant husbandry of aceramic Çayönü SE Turkey. Palaeohistoria 33-34: 65-96.

Haut de page


1 The Terrazzo building was assigned to the cell buildings sub-phase: “In stratigraphy, it obviously belongs to the cell sub-phase, and possibly to its second or even to its latest architectural layer” (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 71). However, in a later paper Erim-Özdoğan (2011) assigns both the Terrazzo building and cell building CA to the earliest part of the cell building sub-phase (C1). In both cases the statement on a general contemporaneity of the structures remains relevant.

2 Lists of 14C dates of Çayönü include quite a number of 14C dates made in the 1970s-1990s (mainly by GrN) and later in the 2000s. This is not the place to dive into a detailed discussion on the absolute chronology of the site, yet we feel safe, and in accordance with most of the publications (including those of the excavators) and published 14C dates, when suggesting a mid-11th millennium cal. BP date for the beginning of the grill sub-phase.

3 The concept of a grid structure as a basis for design is also attested in a Late PPNA building in the site of Dja’de al-Mughara in Northern Syria, where grid-based paintings were discovered on the walls of a rectangular buttress-like construction built against the inner peripheral walls of a round communal structure (Coqueugniot 2014).

4 E.g. Egyptian cubit 0.450 m, Egyptian royal cubit 0.524 m, Sumerian cubit 0.502 m, Assyrian cubit 0.494 m, Salamis cubit 0.484 m, Greek cubit 0.463 m, Roman cubit 0.444 m.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Geometric layout of the Terrazzo building
Légende The position of the stripes in the terrazzo floor is given by the division of the floor’s length in four (magenta) and in five (blue)
Crédits Modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 14
Fichier image/jpeg, 939k
Titre Fig. 2 – Geometric layout of cell building CA
Crédits Modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 9
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,2M
Titre Fig. 3 – Geometric layout of grill building GHD (modified, from Schirmer 1990, fig. 3)
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Gil Haklay et Avi Gopher, « Architectural planning and measuring in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Çayönü, Turkey »Paléorient, 45-1 | 2019, 7-17.

Référence électronique

Gil Haklay et Avi Gopher, « Architectural planning and measuring in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Çayönü, Turkey »Paléorient [En ligne], 45-1 | 2019, mis en ligne le 08 septembre 2021, consulté le 20 juillet 2024. URL : ; DOI :

Haut de page


Gil Haklay

Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, P.O.B. 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978 – Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority, P.O.B. 586, Jerusalem 91004 – Israel

Articles du même auteur

Avi Gopher

Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, P.O.B. 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978 – Israel

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search