Catalhoyuk was one of the oldest cities in the world, and a very large one at that. It existed from approximately 7500 BC to 6400 BC, and flourished around 7000 BC. Its population was estimated at An average population of between 5,000 and 7,000, with 10,000 being a possible upper limit. In July 2012, it was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Catalhoyuk was composed entirely of domestic buildings, with no obvious public buildings. While some of the larger ones have rather ornate murals, the purpose of some rooms remains unclear. The sites themselves consisted of large numbers of buildings where residents traded with and married with each other. Their mud-brick houses were crammed together in such a way that there were no forms of streets between the buildings. In order to navigate around each other, exits were made via holes in the roofs and walls, with the rooftops of the buildings forming a type of street.
The buildings themselves were kept pretty clean, and archaeologists identified very little rubbish in the buildings. The residents even had a seperate area for disposal of sewage and food waste, and this area also contained ash from burning wood, reeds and animal dung. In good weather, many daily activities may also have taken place on the rooftops, which may have formed a plaza. In later periods, large communal ovens appear to have been built on these rooftops. Over time, houses were renewed by partial demolition and rebuilding on a foundation of rubble, which was how the mound was gradually built up. As many as eighteen levels of settlement have been uncovered.
As part of their rituals, residents buried their dead within the Catalhoyuk. Human remains have been found in pits beneath the floors and, especially, beneath hearths, the platforms within the main rooms, and under beds. Bodies were tightly flexed before burial and were often placed in baskets or wound and wrapped in reed mats. Some skulls were plastered and painted with ochre to recreate faces, a custom more characteristic of Neolithic sites in Syria and at Neolithic Jericho than at sites closer by.
Çatalhöyük has strong evidence of an egalitarian society, as no houses with distinctive features have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures.
https://hexbear.net/post/158599 check out this mega about a fellow comrades new game they made themselves and give it support
Resources for Organizing your workplace/community :sabo:
Resources for Palestine :palestine-heart:
Buy coffee and learn more about the Zapatistas in Chiapas here :EZLN:
Here are some resourses on Prison Abolition :brick-police:
Foundations of Leninism :USSR:
:lenin-shining: :unity: :kropotkin-shining:
Anarchism and Other Essays :ancom:
Remember, sort by new you :LIB:
Follow the Hexbear twitter account :comrade-birdie:
THEORY; it’s good for what ails you (all kinds of tendencies inside!) :RIchard-D-Wolff:
Come listen to music with your fellow Hexbears in Cy.tube :og-hex-bear:
Queer stuff? Come talk in the Queer version of the megathread ! :sicko-queer:
Monthly Neurodiverse Megathread and Monthly ND Venting Thread :Care-Comrade:
How? Because the killer thought he was trans?
the killer is portraid(he is not meant to be apparently) as an insane transwomen, which the film says is wrong and unnatural. Look at the scene where the killer wears a dress while the woman is screaming in his well. The killer is literally sewing a suit out of the skin of the women he killed.
Theres a scene dedicated to saying the killer isn't actually trans.
Yeah, and it's easily missed. The director himself apologized. Because the film is transphobic, wherever the intent is there or not. You do not need to defend this movie it's own director did not defend this part of the movie.
I mean the movie was based on a book but I guess I see your point. It didn't seem the film was attacking tranness. Would you be upset with any story that had a trans adjacent killer?
Look, we both saw the movie. The killer is evil because they are trans, being trans is what makes them evil. That's how it comes across. One sentence doesn't chamge that. This is not a portraial of a trans person, it is a bigoted caricature.
Like, look at those racist comics from like the 50s, if I don't like those should I hate every medium with characters of whatever ethnicity was depicted in those(likely as villain)? Should I hate films with black people as villains for all time (even african productions) because "birth of a nation" exists?
The killer is evil because he murders women not because he cross dresses. I guess I just don't associate buffalo bills behaviors with trans people nor see it as a caricature. Buffalo Bill is based on a real killers, not anti-trans stereotypes. I also don't see the scene explaining he's not trans as throwaway. The only reason they are able to figure out who he is is because he was continually rejected from sex reassessment surgery from the same scene.
If you think its weird I'm defending the film, I think it's one of the best films ever made. It's definitely one of the most subtle/accurate depictions of workplace sexism ever.
I know Buffalo Bill is not meant as a trans person, but that is literally how they come across. That's the problem. Even the Director apologized, what else do you need to accept that the character is problematic? I have not been talking about the rest of the movie at all. I find it weird that you can't accept that the movie has problematic elements to it.