Settlements built near water sources are usually far more successful for several reasons, including access to irrigation for crop-growing, access to water for daily living, and (rivers, especially) ability to travel to other places for the purpose of trade.
Did you notice this in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article?
The eastern settlement forms a mound which would have risen about 20 m (66 ft) above the plain at the time of the latest Neolithic occupation. There is also a smaller settlement mound to the west and a Byzantine settlement a few hundred meters to the east. The prehistoric mound settlements were abandoned before the Bronze Age. A channel of the Çarşamba river once flowed between the two mounds, and the settlement was built on alluvial clay which may have been favourable for early agriculture.
If Catal huyuk had been built near a major river system, how might life have been different?
Check my answer.
Floods, fire, drought and other natural disasters could destroy a village. Diseases such as malaria could spread easily among people living closely together.
4 answers
If they built near a major river system then there would be lots of diseases, floods, droughts, fires, and other natural disasters that could destroy the villages. But because they didn't, they had higher chances of staying alive. And because they didn't they didn't have to worry about diseases, fires, droughts, natural disasters, or flood.
Don't include fire. The Catal Huyuk village was built near 3 volcanoes. Pretty sure there would be fires.
The village would of had a natural disaster and can destroy the village but since it did not they are safe.
5 answers