Near East Village Model

Near Eastern Village Model is a conceptual framework used to describe the first permanent village settlements that emerged in the Near East during the Neolithic period, along with their spatial organization and architectural transformation. Mehmet Özdoğan defined this model based on the emergence of distinct residential areas, workshops, storage units, spaces designated for ritual, and public structures within a unified settlement pattern following the advent of sedentary life.^【1】

Representative Visual of the Near Eastern Village Model (Generated by Artificial Intelligence).

The geographical scope of the model encompasses a broad area including the Levant, Mesopotamia, northern Syria, Southeastern Anatolia, and Central Anatolia. In this context, the Near East is understood not as a single center but as a multi-centered region of Neolithization, where similar or contemporaneous processes developed across distinct sub-regions. Key features of this settlement pattern include the transition from circular early dwellings to rectangular structures, the use of stone foundations and mudbrick walls, the functional differentiation of interior spaces, the emergence of spatial differentiation linked to social status, the early visibility of ritual areas, and the construction of buildings requiring organized labor. Thus, the Near Eastern Village Model is not merely a schema describing early village life but also a framework explaining the early stages of social and spatial organization that preceded later urbanization processes.^【2】

Origins and Core Characteristics

The Near Eastern Village Model is employed as a settlement framework to describe the first permanent village communities that emerged during the transition from hunter-gatherer-fisher lifestyles to sedentary life. This model became particularly evident after the beginning of the Holocene, as human groups increasingly settled in specific areas, developed economies based on food production, and constructed durable structures as a result. This transformation in the Near East, beginning in the 11th and 10th millennia BCE, is characterized by the replacement of temporary shelters with continuous dwellings, the more orderly organization of open and enclosed spaces within settlements, and the architectural legibility of the village pattern. Therefore, the model encompasses not only the establishment of the first villages but also the social and spatial organization these villages developed over time.

Aşıklı Höyük (Turkey Culture Portal)

In Mehmet Özdoğan’s framework, the Near Eastern Village Model is not viewed as a linear development radiating from a single core region but as a multi-centered process emerging at varying speeds and forms across different sub-regions. This approach unifies Neolithic developments in the Levant, northern Syria, Mesopotamia, Southeastern Anatolia, and the Anatolian Plateau under a common model while accounting for regional variations. Accordingly, some regions developed their earliest permanent settlements earlier, while others witnessed the same process unfolding under different environmental and cultural conditions. Settlements such as Hallan Çemi and Çayönü in Southeastern Anatolia and Aşıklı Höyük in Central Anatolia exemplify these diverse regional manifestations.

One distinguishing feature of the model is the early emergence of functional differentiation within settlements. The distinction between residential areas and non-residential spaces became evident in many Neolithic sites of the Near East. This differentiation holds significance not only for daily use but also for social and ceremonial functions. The early appearance of spaces designated for ritual and public structures is one of the model’s key elements. Consequently, some buildings exhibit increased scale, use of different materials, specialized construction techniques, and decorative elements. Özdoğan links these features to an early tendency toward monumentalization in the Near Eastern model.^【3】

Another fundamental characteristic of the Near Eastern Village Model is the direct reflection of social and economic organization in architecture. Interior spaces began to differentiate not only by function but also by social status: certain areas were allocated for storage, others for production, and still others for communal use. This transforms the village from a mere arrangement of adjacent dwellings into a settlement where production, storage, ritual, and social control are integrated. Similarly, structures indicating the presence of organized labor in the early period are considered essential components of the model.

This settlement framework is also regarded as the early phase of later urbanization processes. The Neolithic villages of the Near East, with their rapid socio-economic and technological development, contain the earliest forms of the social foundations from which later city-states and state formation would emerge. Therefore, the Near Eastern Village Model is not merely an archaeological concept for defining the first villages but also a framework explaining the early stages in which sedentary life evolved toward more complex social and spatial structures.

Spatial and Architectural Features

One of the main distinguishing features of the Near Eastern Village Model is the clear transition from temporary shelters to permanent village fabric in settlement organization and architectural form. This transformation is not limited to changes in building materials or plan types but is also evident in the organization of space within settlements, the use of open and enclosed areas, and the relationships between structures. In the early Neolithic settlements of the Near East, the first phase featured circular or oval, partially subterranean shelters constructed from light materials. In later phases, more regular and durable structures with stone foundations and mudbrick walls became widespread. This developmental trajectory is observable in various examples from Southeastern and Central Anatolia.

A significant stage in Near Eastern village architecture is the transition from circular to rectangular plans. Most early shelters were circular or oval structures built with inclined wooden branches, wattle, reeds, and similar lightweight materials, lacking a clearly defined load-bearing system. In contrast, the emergence of rectangular buildings in later phases marks a new stage characterized by internal subdivision, functional zoning, and more durable wall systems. This change is not merely a stylistic preference but is interpreted as a solution to increasing spatial needs. Özdoğan notes, based on examples from Çayönü and northern Syria, that the earliest rectangular structures appeared around the 9th millennium BCE and were distinctly different from circular ones in their corners, wall systems, and interior layouts.^【4】

Associated with this architectural transition, building materials and construction techniques also diversified. The early roofing and wall systems made of branches, reeds, and similar lightweight materials were gradually replaced by structures with stone foundations and mudbrick walls. Another important aspect highlighted by Özdoğan is the process summarized as “earth turning into mudbrick.” Initially, earth was shaped directly or applied using casting techniques, but in later phases, standardized mudbrick blocks were used more systematically. This technical shift directly affected wall thickness, load-bearing capacity, the ability to support roof weight, and the longevity of structures. The combined use of stone foundations and mudbrick walls at Çayönü and the gradual standardization of mudbrick as a building material at Aşıklı Höyük reflect different regional manifestations of this process.^【5】

Çatalhöyük (Turkish Museums)

The formation of settlement fabric is also a key architectural feature of the Near Eastern Village Model. In early phases, isolated or loosely arranged structures with intervening open workshop areas are notable. In later phases, buildings are constructed closer together, open areas shrink, and the settlement acquires a denser fabric. At Aşıklı Höyük, in the earliest phases of permanent settlement, structures were positioned separately with open workshop areas between them. By the end of the 9th millennium BCE, oval-plan buildings had drawn closer to form a dense fabric, and by the 8th millennium BCE, rectangular-plan buildings were arranged in clusters separated by narrow passages. This arrangement defines a settlement pattern comprising building groups, neighborhoods, communal refuse areas, and passageways. Similar patterns are reported in other Central Anatolian settlements such as Can Hasan III and Çatalhöyük.^【6】

The use of interior spaces is also a crucial component of architectural development in Near Eastern villages. In early circular shelters, the interior was typically a single volume. With the advent of rectangular structures, however, divided interiors, functionally distinct areas, and more explicit spatial solutions related to production or storage emerged. This transition also introduced challenges related to doors, entrances, and circulation. The absence or limited number of door openings in exterior walls suggests the use of roof access or indirect circulation in some settlements. This represents a significant architectural feature illustrating the relationship between settlement density and structural solutions. In the case of Çayönü, successive architectural phases—such as grid-planned, channelled, stone-paved, and cell-planned structures—provide clear examples of this development.

Çayönü (Anadolu Ajansı)

The architectural features of the Near Eastern Village Model cannot be reduced solely to the form of dwellings; functional differentiation within the settlement and the allocation of specific structures for special uses are also integral components. Özdoğan notes that in Near Eastern villages, spaces within settlements differentiated not only functionally but also according to social status and ritual practices.^【7】 In this context, some buildings were constructed on a different scale, form, or technique than dwellings, while other areas became prominent for communal, ritual, or storage purposes. Thus, the spatial and architectural features of the Near Eastern Village Model are defined as a holistic settlement pattern encompassing relationships between structures, overall settlement layout, material use, and functional differentiation, rather than as individual building types.

Economic Organization, Storage, and Daily Life

One defining element of the Near Eastern Village Model is the visible emergence of economic organization in space with the advent of sedentary life. The transition from a hunter-gatherer-fisher subsistence pattern to an economy based on food production brought changes not only in livelihood but also in the spatial organization of settlements. The collection, processing, storage, and redistribution of specific products led to the emergence of storage units within village settlements, which became architectural manifestations of Neolithic economic structures. Therefore, the Near Eastern Village Model is also defined through storage areas, workshops, and communal spaces alongside dwellings.

The emergence of storage units is associated with the semi-sedentary phase. As Ergül Kodaş notes, storage units constructed during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Near East are interpreted as architectural responses to the need for accumulating and preserving goods. These structures appear as silos, cells, or other specialized spaces. The typological development, construction methods, and location of these units within the settlement are important not only for understanding their economic function but also for comprehending village-space organization. It is emphasized that whether these storage units were used individually or collectively remains one of the central debates regarding the socio-economic structure of Neolithic communities.^【8】

Daily life in Near Eastern villages unfolded within a framework in which the relationship between dwellings and outdoor spaces was continuously reorganized. In early phases, open areas were used for daily activities such as food preparation, cooking, cutting, bone fragmentation, tool making, and leather processing. At Aşıklı Höyük, during the earliest phases of permanent settlement, such workshop areas were located between separately positioned structures. Waste generated from these activities was often left in place and the floor was re-leveled before new use. As buildings drew closer together and formed a denser fabric, the function of open areas changed: some daily activities were relocated to abandoned building interiors, while others moved to rooftops. This shift demonstrates the direct impact of settlement density on the spatial organization of daily life.^【9】

The relationship between storage and daily life reveals how the economic system was organized at the village scale. According to Kodaş, the relationship between storage units and dwellings, as well as their location and usage patterns within the village, illustrate how the economic structure became integrated with architectural form. Storage areas were sometimes adjacent to or within dwellings, and at other times located in communal or semi-communal spaces, indicating variations in food accumulation and control practices between settlements. This demonstrates that the Near Eastern Village Model does not present a uniform economic pattern but highlights the significant role of production, storage, and usage practices within village organization.^【10】

Data from Aşıklı Höyük clearly demonstrate the interwoven spatial organization of daily life and economic activities. The relocation of activities previously conducted in open areas to building interiors and rooftops in later phases reflects not only architectural intensification but also the reorganization of production and usage practices. Particularly in the 8th millennium BCE settlement pattern, flat rooftops were used as spaces for daily activities, while narrow gaps between buildings were often filled with waste. It is also suggested that during rainy and cold seasons, these activities may have been moved indoors. These observations indicate that daily life had a seasonal and spatially variable organization.^【11】

In the Near Eastern Village Model, economic organization must be understood within a multifaceted subsistence structure that is not limited to agricultural production. While Özdoğan acknowledges that agriculture played a critical role in the emergence of the first villages, he also emphasizes that early sedentary life cannot be explained solely by farming. In the earliest phases of Neolithic cultures in Anatolia, production economies coexisted with hunting, gathering, and exploitation of animal resources. Therefore, village settlements are viewed not merely as spaces of production but as areas where diverse subsistence practices were simultaneously carried out, stored, and reorganized. Within this framework, the Near Eastern Village Model defines economic organization as a form of social structure interpretable through architectural and settlement data.^【12】

Ritual Spaces and Public Structures

One prominent feature of the Near Eastern Village Model is the early emergence, within the settlement pattern, of ritual spaces and public structures distinct from dwellings. Mehmet Özdoğan identifies as one of the key characteristics distinguishing Near Eastern Neolithic cultures from other regions the early visibility of spaces designated for ritual purposes.^【13】 Within this framework, settlements include not only spaces related to shelter and daily production but also structures allocated for ritual practices and communal use.

Some of these structures differ from dwellings in terms of plan, scale, construction technique, and decoration. An early tendency toward monumentalization in Near Eastern architecture is evident, particularly in ritual structures and associated areas. These structures, designated for specific functions within the settlement, demonstrate that the village was not merely a uniform cluster of dwellings.

Studies that distinguish Neolithic architecture into domestic and public structures clearly reflect this distinction. In some settlements in Southeastern Anatolia, ritual and communal-use structures are clearly separated from the residential fabric. Göbeklitepe, Nevali Çori, and Çayönü are frequently cited examples in this context. The presence of ritual-related structures in these settlements indicates that the village settlement encompassed communal functions beyond mere domestic and economic activities.

Göbeklitepe (Turkey Culture Portal)

Data from Central Anatolia also indicate a similar differentiation. At Aşıklı Höyük, the residential area is clearly separated from a section containing special-purpose structures for communal use. Thus, it is evident that ritual and public spaces were not confined to Southeastern Anatolian settlements but also held a defined place in the village organization of Central Anatolia.

Within the Near Eastern Village Model, ritual spaces and public structures are integral components of the settlement. These spaces, alongside dwellings, storage, and production areas, are defined as elements constituting the functional and spatial integrity of Neolithic village settlements.

Key Settlements and Regional Variations

The Near Eastern Village Model is not a closed schema defined by a single settlement. It is observed across a broad geographical area—including the Levant, northern Syria, Mesopotamia, Southeastern Anatolia, and Central Anatolia—through settlements that share common features but vary according to their environmental and cultural contexts. Neolithic development in the Near East is explained not as a unidirectional diffusion from a single center but as a network of interrelated yet regionally distinct settlement centers. In this context, settlements in Southeastern and Central Anatolia stand out as primary areas reflecting different manifestations of the model.

In Southeastern Anatolia, Hallan Çemi and Çayönü are significant for illustrating the early stages of sedentism. Hallan Çemi provides data on the initial phases of the transition to sedentary life, while Çayönü is notable for displaying multiple stages of architectural development in a single location. As noted in Karacalı’s thesis, Çayönü exhibits successive architectural phases including circular structures, grid-planned buildings, channelled structures, stone-paved structures, cell-planned structures, and large-roomed buildings. Structures associated with communal use—such as the Skull Building, Stone Altar Building, and Terazzo Building—are also prominent non-residential examples within the settlement fabric. Thus, Çayönü is one of the key sites demonstrating both architectural transformation and functional differentiation in the Near Eastern Village Model.

Göbeklitepe and Nevali Çori are cited as settlements where ritual spaces and public structures are particularly prominent. In these sites, ritual buildings stand out architecturally, distinct from the residential fabric. Göbeklitepe, in particular, with its massive pillars and circular arrangements, is regarded as one of the primary examples demonstrating the early emergence of ritual spaces in Near Eastern Neolithic cultures. Such settlements reveal that the village model encompassed not only domestic and economic organization but also shared ritual practices.

In Central Anatolia, Aşıklı Höyük holds a unique position as one of the region’s earliest permanent settlements. Identified as the earliest example of the “Central Anatolian Settlement Model,” ^【14】, Aşıklı Höyük offers a detailed record of village development through its continuous occupation beginning around 10,400 years ago. In the earliest phases, the first shelters were formed by plastering the perimeter of pits dug into the ground. In later phases, mudbrick use became widespread, transitioning from oval to rectangular plans and developing a dense fabric defined by clustered buildings and narrow passages. The separation between residential areas and special-purpose structures at Aşıklı is also one of the clearest examples of functional differentiation within the settlement.

Çatalhöyük (Turkey Culture Portal)

This settlement fabric identified at Aşıklı Höyük is also observed in other later Neolithic sites in Central Anatolia. The same study notes that the settlement pattern developed at Aşıklı Höyük continued at sites such as Can Hasan III and Çatalhöyük. Adjacent or closely spaced mudbrick structures, building clusters, neighborhood formation, radial plan development, and the superimposition of structures on the same location are considered among the model’s defining characteristics. These features enable the Central Anatolian settlement fabric to be interpreted as a regional variation within the Near Eastern Village Model.

Çatalhöyük is regarded as a developed example of the Near Eastern Village Model. Its dense residential fabric, closely built structures, and long-term occupation demonstrate that the village settlement had evolved into a more complex spatial organization. In Karacalı’s thesis, Çatalhöyük is recognized as one of the major Neolithic settlements in Central Anatolia; Özbaşaran, Duru, and Kayacan note that certain settlement features prominent at Aşıklı Höyük persisted in later phases at Çatalhöyük.

When considered together, these settlements reveal that the Near Eastern Village Model was shaped around common principles across different regions, yet each region developed its own unique characteristics according to its natural environment, material availability, and social development. The prominence of public and ritual structures in Southeastern Anatolia and the clustered mudbrick residential fabric with neighborhood organization in Central Anatolia are among the principal examples of these regional variations.