How is mesopotamia concidered the "cradle of civilization" when places like Catalhoyuk exist?

by Traabs

I understand this is delving deep into the fog of time, but shouldn't one expect some sort of civilization existed to allow the construction of a place like Catalhoyuk? From everything I know, having that level of specialized skill and time in one place needed to construct something like Catalhoyuk, would imply there was a functional civilization there wouldn't it?

OldPersonName

The "textbook" definition of civilization has a laundry list of prerequisites. There are issues with defining it so sharply in those terms, more can be said, but I think you'll find u/duc_de_magenta has some useful information here in a similar question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tzstam/why_is_ancient_greece_not_considered_a_cradle_of/

You'll see they enumerate the classic list of expectations for a "civilization:" "social stratification, state-level society, intensified agriculture, invention of a writing system"

Throwing writing in there disqualifies pretty much everyone before Sumer around 3000 BC, while it's perfectly clear that humans accomplished much before then, so that's one of the limitations of the definition. In addition Catalhoyuk doesn't show strong evidence of significant social stratification (plenty of people today would argue that moving away from egalitarianism is the opposite of civilizing - again, just the definition). Nevertheless it seems like it was a successful community and society for centuries.