The Catal Hoyuk “map”

As some may know, the archaeological site once called Catal Huyuk, now usually called Catalhoyuk (usually said to mean “forked mound” or a double mound) is an interest of mine, kind of a hobby. The most well known manifestation of that hobby is my old article “Catal Huyuk: The Temple City of Prehistoric Anatolia“.

That old article starts with an image that is often described as the oldest map in the world, the “catalhoyuk map” – altho I describe it differently, I call it one of the oldest known examples of a “landscape painting”. Here’s a bad example of the image:

The Catal Huyuk Map, the worlds oldest landscape painting, or something else?

All along there has been a lot of disagreement about this image. Mellart’s book ‘cleaned up’ a lot of the badly damaged murals and wall paintings uncovered during his rushed old-style excavations, and frankly, it’s very hard to tell exactly what the wall paintings actually show. The common interpretation, that the shape on the wall represents the volcano now called Hasan Dag in an eruption (thus making the painting a landscape, and implying that the squarish cells painted in black underneath are an image of the town), has been questioned before.

And now from a cartographer an article that makes a good simple presentation of the arguments for the idea that the catalhoyuk wall painting isn’t a map NOR a landscape.

Why the World’s Oldest Map Isn’t a Map

It’s short, has some good illustrations, worth your time if you have an interest in ancient cultures.

3 comments to The Catal Hoyuk “map”

  • map of consciousness

    hmmm. interesting…. How old is this supposed to be?

  • I do find it difficult to understand the the mural really “is.”

  • Bill

    So, are you affiliated with Hawkins and that publishing business? If you are going to promo hawkins books you should pick a post that’s a bit more in line with their kind of content to place short and essentially commercial oneliner “comments” into.

    But because, who knows, perhaps for some person the Hawkins stuff, as specialized and idiosyncratic as it is, will be the bootsrap they can use to get themselves from one problem to another, I’ll leave one link up.

    Anyway, as to how old, probably about 8000 years old, give or take 500 years.

    You know what the interesting question is – it’s this – where are the original photos and negatives of the most famous photos of that mural, and can they be examined using modern technology in a way that produces better quality images of the wall as it was freshly uncovered with the least damage and aging?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>