An Alternative View on Animal Symbolism in The Göbekli Tepe Neolithic Cultural Region in the Light of New Data (Göbekli Tepe, Sayburç)

Öz

One of the most surprising and distinguishing characteristics of the symbolism in the Göbekli Tepe Neolithic Culture is the widespread use of animals. The interpretations of this symbolism up to this date were more often on the wildness of these animals and the roles that they have played in the spiritual world of the humans of the period. The perspective in question led to the conclusion that at this period the physical interaction between humans and animals was limited. This study is based on the new archaeofaunal data and approaches regarding Southwest Asia and the hunting ground economy of “the Göbekli Tepe Neolithic Cultural Region” that is generally neglected in the archaeological studies, and will offer an alternative perspective on the animal symbolism of the region. This study argues that this cultural area might have hosted rituals that could be related with the deadly animal-human and animal-animal contests based especially on the animal symbolism of this region. Furthermore, this study suggests at least some of the contests might have been held in the entrapment areas of this region. In addition, despite the claim in the literature that that the animal symbolism of the region caused the control and domestication of animals, the claim here is that a more reasonable argument would the presence of a more interactive process: the perspective in this study suggests an already existing intense human-animal interaction, and that the prevalent emotion in the Göbekli Tepe symbolism was not the fear of the wild.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Göbekli Tepe
• Sayburç
• entrapment areas
• Pre-Pottery Neolithic
• animal symbolism

Yeni Veriler Işığında Göbekli Tepe Neolitik Kültür Bölgesi'ndeki Hayvan Sembolizmine Alternatif Bir Bakış (Göbekli Tepe, Sayburç)

Öz

Göbekli Tepe Neolitik kültüründeki sembolizmin en şaşırtıcı ve ayırt edici özelliklerinden birisi hayvanların yaygın olarak kullanılmasıdır. Şimdiye kadar yapılan yorumlar daha çok hayvanların yabaniliği ve bu dönem insanların spiritüel dünyasında oynadıkları roller ile ilgili olmuştur. Söz konusu bakış açısı bu dönemde, insan ile hayvanlar arasında sınırlı bir fiziksel etkileşimin olduğu sonucuna götürmekteydi. Bu çalışma Güneybatı Asya’daki yeni arkeofaunal veri ve yaklaşımlardan ve Göbekli Tepe Neolitik kültür bölgesinde arkeolojik çalışmalarda genellikle göz ardı edilen tuzak alanları ekonomisinden hareket ederek bu bölgedeki hayvan sembolizmine alternatif bir bakış sunacaktır. Çalışma bölgedeki özellikle hayvan sembolizminden hareketle, ölümcül hayvan-insan ve hayvan-hayvan müsabakalarıyla ilişkilendirilebilecek ritüellerin yapılmış olabileceğini iddia edecektir. Dahası en azından bazı müsabakaların bölgedeki tuzak alanlarında yapılmış olabileceğini ileri sürecektir. Ayrıca literatürde iddia edildiği gibi bu bölgede hayvan sembolizminin hayvanların kontrol altına alınıp evcilleştirmesine neden olduğu tezi yerine etkileşimli bir sürecin daha makul olabileceği söylenebilir. Bu bakış açısı bu bölge için daha yakın ve yoğun insan-hayvan etkileşiminin varlığını ima ederek Göbekli Tepe sembolizminde hâkim duygunun vahşi olana ilişkin korku olmadığını ortaya atacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Göbekli Tepe
• Sayburç
• tuzak alanları
• Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik
• hayvan sembolizmi

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu proje, hiç bir kurum ya da kuruluş tarafından desteklenmemiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Ayaz, O., Çelik, B. and Çakmak, F. (2022). “Status Society”: Sociological Thinking of Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe in the Context of Social Stratification. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 1(56), 122-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1186376
2. Asouti, E., & Kabukcu, C. (2014). Holocene semi-arid oak woodlands in the Irano-Anatolian region of Southwest Asia: Natural or anthrpogenic? Quaternary Science Reviews, 90, 158–182. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.03.001
3. Banning, E. B. (2011). So Fair a House Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Current Antropology, 52(5), 619-660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/661207
4. Becker, N., Dietrich, O., Götzelt, T., Köksal-Schmidt, Ç., Notroff, J. and Schmidt, K. (2012). Materialien zur Deutung der zentralen Pfeilerpaare des Göbekli Tepe und weiterer Orte des obermesopotamischen Frühneolithikums. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie, 5, 14-43.
5. Benz, M. and Bauer, J. (2015). On scorpion, birds, and snakes -Evidence for Shamanism in Northern Mesopotamia during the Early Holocene. Journal of Ritual Studies, 29(2):1-23.
6. Cauvin, J. (2000). The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press.
7. Childe, G. (1964). What Happened in History. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
8. Clare, L. (2020). Göbekli Tepe, Turkey. A brief summary of research at a new World Heritage Site (2015– 2019). e-Forschungsberichte (2):81-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34780/efb.v0i2.1012

9. Clare, L., Dietrich, O., Gresky, J., Notroff, J., Peters, J. and Pöllath, N. (2019). Ritual Practices and Conflict Mitigation at Early Neolithic Körtik Site and Göbekli Tepe, Upper Mesopotamia. I. Hodder (Ed.), in Violence and the Sacred in the Ancient Near East: Girardian Conversations at Çatalhöyük (pp. 96-128). Cambridge University Press.
10. Çelik, B. (2000). An Early Neolithic Settlement in the Center of Şanlıurfa, Turkey. Neo-Lithics, 2(3), 4-6.
11. Çelik, B. (2011). Karahan Tepe: a new cultural centre in the Urfa area in Turkey. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII, 38, 241-253. DOI: https://10.4312/dp.38.19
12. Çelik, B. (2015). New Neolithic cult centres and domestic settlements in the light of Urfa Region Surveys. Documenta Praehistorica XLII, 42, 353-364. DOI: https://10.4312/dp.42.25
13. Çelik, B. (2016). A small-scale cult centre in Southeast Turkey: Harbetsuvan Tepesi. Documenta Praehistorica XLIII, 43, 421-428. DOI: https://10.4312/dp.43.21
14. Çelik, B. (2017a). A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Southeastern Turkey: Ayanlar Höyük (Gre Hut). Documenta Praehistorica XLIV, 44, 360-367. DOI: https://10.4312/dp.44.22
15. Çelik, B. (2017b). Şanlıurfa İli Yüzey Araştırması, 2017. Karadeniz, 1(36):61-75. DOI: https://10.17498/kdeniz.357609
16. Çelik, B. (2018). 35. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 22-26 Mayıs 2017, Bursa, Vol. I, 203-223.
17. Çelik, B. (2019). Neolithic Dönem Kült Merkezi: Harbetsuvan Tepesi. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 43, 24-38. DOI: https://10.17.498/kdeniz.590720
18. Çelik, B. and Ayaz, O. (2022). Rise of Göbekli Tepe Culture: “Hunting Ground Economy” and the Role of Speculative “Knowledge”. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 1(56), 143-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1189781
19. Çelik, B. and Tolon, K. (2018). Şanlıurfa’dan Neolitik Dönem Tuzak Alanları. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 37:28-36.
20. Dietrich, L., Meister, J., Dietrich, O., Notroff, J, Kiep, J., Heeb, J., Beuger, A. and Schütt, B. (2019). Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. PlOS ONE, 14(5),1-34. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215214
21. Dietrich, O., Dietrich, L. and Notroff, J. (2019). Anthropomorphic Imagery at Göbekli Tepe. J. Becker, C. Beuger and B. Müller-Neuhof. (Ed.), in Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near Eastern Prehistory (pp. 151-66). Harrassowitz Verlag.
22. Dietrich, O., Heun, M., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K. and Zarnkow, M. (2012). The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. New evidence from Gobekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey. Antiquity, 86(333), 674-695. DOI: https://10.1017/S0003598X00047840
23. Dietrich, O., Notroff, J. and Schmidt, K. (2017). Feasting, Social Complexity, and the Emergence of the Early Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: A View from Göbekli Tepe. R. J. Chacon and R. G. Mendoza (Ed.), in Feast, Famine or Fighting? Multiple Pathways to Social Complexity. Springer Nature. DOI: https://10.1007/978-3-319-48402-0_5
24. Girard, R. (1977). Violence and the sacred. The John Hopkins University Press.
25. Güler, G., Çelik, B. and Güler, M. 2013. New Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites and Cult Centres in the Urfa Region. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII, 40(1), 291-304. DOI: https://10.4312/dp.40.23
26. Hodder, I. (2006). The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. Thames and Hudson.
27. Hodder, I. and Meskell, L. (2011). A “Curious and Sometimes a Trifle Macabre Artistry” Some Aspects of Symbolism in Neolithic Turkey. Current Antropology, 52(2), 235-263.
28. Jeunesse, C. (2020). Elite houses or specialised buildings? Some comments about the special buildings of Göbekli Tepe in relation to Chapters 2 and 3. G. Anne Birgitte, L. Sørensen, A. Teather and C. Valera (Ed.), in Monumentalising Life In The Neolithic Narratives Of Change And Continuity. Oxbow Books.
29. Karul, N. (2021). Buried Buildings at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Karahantepe. Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi, (82), 21-31.
30. Karul, N. (2022a). Karahantepe Çalışmalarına Genel Bir Bakış. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 169, 1-8.
31. Karul, N. (2022b). Şanlıurfa Neolitik Çağ Araştırmaları Projesi: Taş Tepeler. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 169.
32. Kinzel, M. and Clare, L. (2020). Monumental—Compared to what? A perspective from Göbekli Tepe. Anne Birgitte, L. Sørensen, A. Teather and C. Valera (Ed.), in Monumentalising Life In The Neolithic Narratives Of Change And Continuity. Oxbow Books.
33. Meier, J. S. A., Goring-Morris, N. and Munro, N. D. (2017). Aurochs Bone Deposits at Kfar HaHoresh and the Southern Levant across the Agricultural Transition. Antiquity, 91(36), 1469-83. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2017.179
34. Mithen, S. (2004). After The Ice A Global Human History 20,000–5000 BC. Harvard University Press.
35. Mithen, S., Richarson, A. and Finlayson, B. (2022). The Flow of Ideas: Shared Symbolism between WF16 in the South and Göbekli Tepe in the North during Neolithic Emergence in South-West Asia. Antiquity.
36. Güler, M. and Çelik, B. (2015). Şanlıurfa Bölgesi Neolitik Dönem Araştırmaları . Belgü , (1) , 75-102.
37. Notroff, J., Dietrich, O. and Schmidt, K. (2014). Building Monuments, Creating Communities. Early Monumental Architecture at Pre Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe. J. Osborne (Ed.), in Approaching Monumentality in Archaeology (pp. 83-105). SUNY Press.
38. Notroff, J., Dietrich, O. and Schmidt, K. (2016). Gathering of the dead? The Early Neolithic sanctuaries of Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. C. Renfrew, M. J. Boyd, I. Morley (Ed.), in Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World (pp. 65-81). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014509
39. Özdoğan, Eylem. 2022. The Sayburç Reliefs: A Narrative Scene from the Neolithic. Antiquity, 96(390):1599-1605. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2022.125
40. Özdoğan, E. and Uludağ, C. (2022). Sayburç: Şanlıurfa’da Yeni Bir Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Yerleşimi. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 169, 9-24.
41. Peters, J., Driesch, A. von den and Helmer, D. (2005). The upper Euphrates-Tigris basin: cradle of agro-pastoralism?. J.-D. Vigne, J. Peters and D. Helmer (Ed.), in First Steps of Animal Domestication New archaeozoological approaches (pp. 96-124). Oxbow Books.
42. Peters, J., Pöllath, N. and Arbuckle, B. S. (2017). The Emergence of Livestock Husbandry in Early Neolithic Anatolia. U. Albarella, M. Rizzetto, H. Russ, K. Vickers and S. Vinner-Daniels (Ed.), in The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology (pp. 247-65). Oxford University Press.
43. Peters, J. and Schmidt, K. (2004). Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica, 39(1), 179-2018.
44. Peters, J., Schmidt, K., Dietrich, L., Dietrich, O., Pöllath, N., Kinzel, M. and Clare, L. (2020). Göbekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication. C. Smith (Ed.), in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (pp. 4607-18). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2226-2
45. Sahlins, M. (2016). Taş Devri Ekonomisi. (2. Baskı). BGST Yayınları.
46. Schmidt, K. (2006). Sie bauten die ersten Tempel Das rätselhafte Heiligtum am Göbekli Tepe. München: Verlag C.H.Beck oHG.
47. Schmidt, K. (2010). Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries. New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII 37, 239-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.37.21
48. Sütterlin, C. and Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (2013). Human Cultural Defense: Means and Monuments of Ensuring Collective Territory. Neo-Lithics, 13(2), 42-48.
49. Twiss, K. C. and Russell, N. (2009). Taking the bull by the horns: ideology, masculinity, and cattle horns at Çatalhöyük (Turkey). Paléorient, 35(2), 19-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2009.5296
50. Verhoeven, M. (2002). Ritual and Ideology in the PrePottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12(2), 233-58. DOI: 10.1017/S0959774302000124
51. Zeder, M. A. (2008). Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(33), 11597-11604. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0801317105
52. Zeder, M, A. (2011a). Religion and The Revolution: The Legacy of Jacques Cauvin. Paléorient, 37(1), 39-60. DOI: 10.3406/paleo.2011.5437
53. Zeder, M. A. (2011b). The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Current Antropology, 52(4), 221-35.
54. Zeder, M. A., & Lemoine, X. (2022). A Journey Begins with a Single Step: How Early Holocene Humans and Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Embarked on the Pathway to Domestication in the Eastern Fertile Crescent. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09576-4