Aşıklı Höyük is located in an area covered by the volcanic tuff of central Cappadocia, in Aksaray Province.

It is known as one of the earliest Aceramic Neolithic sites on the Anatolian plateau, and the prior mentioned extraction of the obsidian source was likely to be frequented as far back as the Paleolithic nomadic hunter-gatherers.

There is a variety of skeletal body postures, from burials in a hocker (fetal) position to extended skeletons facing upwards.

[13] From Natufian Abu Hureyra there are similar osteological signs, such as pathologies in metatarsals, phalanges, arm, and shoulder joints, being specific to females resulting from habitual kneeling in the use of saddle querns (grinding stones).

On one occasion two graves were found under the floor of room AB, belonging to an adjacent court (HG) with a large domed mudbrick oven paved with blocks of basalt.

[16] From a different grave a woman shows signs of being scalped immediately after her death, according to the cut marks on her skull.

It has been argued that the number of burials could be an underrepresentation inhered at the site, since a large part of the settlement remain unexcavated beneath the baulks.

This issue is not only limited to Aşıklı Höyük: there is also a lack of cemeteries on the PPNB "mega-sites" in the Levant, such Ayn Ghazal (archaeological site) in the Jordan Valley.

It seems that in Aşıklı Höyük, as in the rest of the Anatolian and Levantine area,[18] the burial and any other post mortem treatment was arguably an "upper class" phenomenon.

The burials including such a wide range of individuals do not directly coherent with the image of an "upper class" phenomenon.

As for Aşıklı Höyük and other sites in the area: low numbers of burials in comparison with occupation span does not directly indicate a cult of the elite.

At Aşıklı Höyük the hearths are rectangular and usually placed in one of the corners of the rooms, ranging in size from 2.97 to 0.48 square metres (32.0 to 5.2 sq ft).

[20] Large stones with a suitable flat shape were used to create an upright edge that stood approximately 20 cm (7.9 in) above the level of the floor.

This estimate is based on partially damaged and eroded structures possibly giving a number lower than accurate.

When a location for the hearth was chosen it was important that the placement did not change in later rebuilding sequences of the structure (see picture: Deep sounding).

There is no evidence for ladderpost scars due to the assumed use of freestanding ladders, making the location of the entrance uncertain.

[26] If this assumption is correct, the deep sounding 4H/G from phases 2I up to 2B (eight layers in total) show that the time span of a structure could be from 240 to 480 years.

[27] This remarkable structural continuity may suggest a social system in which buildings were not privately owned, since one would expect them to be modified on a regular basis.

It has been claimed that the building continuity is a self-evident feature, since it is deriving from a particular set of foundation practices that can be explained in a functionalistic way.

[29] It has otherwise been argued that the extreme degree of continuity is inadequately explained by functionalism alone, since the structures located adjacent to open spaces could have easily been expanded or shrunk according to the specific needs, but instead remained identical.

[31] An alternative approach refers to the historical dimension of the building to be of such great importance that "people came to be bound between walls, metaphorically domesticated".

The difference between this interpretation and the "conservative approach" is the potential explanation to why structural reproduction could have been important for the inhabitants of Aşıklı Höyük.

The lack of change over time suggests that the inhabitants of Aşıklı Höyük had a view of the past as a precedent for the present: a vital part of society that was 'reborn' in each reproduction, manifested in its building continuity.

As this is a vague perception of the structural outlay of the community it describes them as clustered single and multiroom houses forming compounds, apparently sharing courtyard space for production activities and practising joint cooking and food consumption.

There are other examples of these restricted monumental spaces on other sites in the Levantine PPNB (such as Nevali Çori, Behida, ‘Ain Ghazal), suggesting that they were used by an elite or for practising different social initiation rites.

[38][39] There are no finds of any artefacts carrying religious connotations, symbolic or imagery, at Aşıklı Höyük, in the buildings, courtyards, dumps or open-workshop areas.

The limited amount of burials compared to the estimated population makes it very likely that there may have been a cemetery where the deceased were buried, but it has not been found.