Nate Ramsayer, 19 February 2012

Megalithic Totemism of the Individual: A New Analysis of Göbekli Tepe’s Monumental Pillars

Though excavations at Göbekli Tepe have been proceeding for 17 years and

an enormous amount of material evidence has been uncovered, including large

circular structures, enormous megalithic pillars, numerous statues and figurines,

and thousands of animal bone remains, archaeologists are still undecided as to what

the site was used for, what type of culture(s) frequented it, and what the material

remains tell us of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (PPN). Though numerous

theories have been advanced, mystery continues to shroud much of this extremely

early human sanctuary.

Particularly contested are the explanations of animal symbolism found at the

site, much of which is located in relief on the numerous immense stone slabs that

constitute the interior framework of each of Göbekli Tepe’s enclosures. What was

the nature of these carvings? Who created them, and for what reason? What can

they teach us about PPN societies? These are a few of the questions we will attempt

to answer in this analysis.

In this paper I will argue that the monolithic stone pillars found at Göbekli

Tepe, adorned with various animal imagery, are in fact totems, not of a family or

clan, but of individual people. This interpretation fits well with the emerging

concept of social stratification that can be seen in Anatolia during the PPN at sites

like Çayönü and Nevalı Çori. Additionally, it sheds light on the custom of burying the

sacred sites at Göbekli Tepe; as such an event represented the burial of the

individual, thus eliciting the need for subsequent structures, which resulted in the

2

creation of 20 such enclosures at the site throughout the PPNA and PPNB. This

alternative suggestion has profound implications into our understanding of social

structure in the PPN, how we view ritual activity and sacred space during this early

epoch, and will even shed light on the development of monolithic depictions.

This paper will begin with a brief overview of the site of Göbekli Tepe and

discuss the building of the megalithic stones. It will then place these pillars in their

context at the site, providing the basic background necessary for engaging in the

wider discussion, looking at how scholars have to date interpreted the evidence as

to why they were created and what function they served. I will then present my

argument that these pillars are representations of individuals, followed by a

discussion of the topic of site burials.

Göbekli Tepe: A Monumental Site

The site of Göbekli Tepe, located atop a limestone ridge (about 780 m high)

in the Urfa region of Southeast Turkey, is one of the largest archaeological sites from

the Neolithic period. It claims this status on account of its roughly 20 round

structures, which are spread over an area about 300 m in diameter. To date, only

four of the enclosures have been unearthed (labeled A, B, C, and D), as excavation

director Klaus Schmidt places caution concerning the destructive nature of

3

archaeology at the site as a high priority.1 The remaining 16 structures have been

located in the mound by using geomagnetic survey technology.2

Each of these enclosures is built in a round or ovular shape and contains

about 12 “T-shaped” megalithic pillars per enclosure. The basic floor plan of these

structures places between 8–10 pillars around the wall of the room in a somewhat

symmetric pattern. Located in the middle of each enclosure are two giant

freestanding megaliths, typically larger than the surrounding ones. These are

commonly referred to as the twin pillars.3 Both the twin pillars and their

surrounding counterparts are typically carved to form bas-reliefs of various

animals, anthropomorphic figures, and hybrid human-animal creatures, though not

every pillar is carved with images.

The site of Göbekli Tepe is beginning to enjoy widespread attention in recent

scholarship not simply because of the size of the structures, but more importantly

because of the following two reasons: 1) to date there is no indication of a

settlement attached to the ritual space, a unique occurrence so early in the Neolithic

Age, and 2) the site shows no trace of neither domesticated plants nor animals; thus,

Göbekli Tepe is a “settlement” that had no (or perhaps very few) permanent

residents and no agricultural production, which is uncommon for a Neolithic site of

such magnitude. There are three levels of occupation found at Göbekli Tepe, which

1 Only about 5% of the site has been excavated to date; Andrew Curry, “Seeking the Roots of Ritual” in Science, Vol. 319 (AAAS: 18 January 2008), 279. 2 Klaus Schmidt, “The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey) – Field Report,” in Neo-Lithics: The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research (February 2003), 5. 3 Ibid, 3.

4

have been labeled as Levels I-III (III being the oldest and containing the larger

structures)4

Creation of the Megalith Pillars

As mentioned above, it is believed that Göbekli Tepe’s 20 structures each

have about 12 pillars within their walls, which means there is most likely a total of

well over 200 stone pillars at the site. The sheer number is impressive, but even

more so is the fact that these pillars on average ranged between 3 to 5 m tall each,

weighing an estimated 5 to 7 tons each.5 How were these made? By what means

were they brought to the site? Who ordered their construction, and who actually

made them? Why so many pillars? Many questions still have yet to be satisfactorily

answered.

One question can be answered with relative certainty: it appears as though

the stone pillars were acquired from nearby quarries, thus we know their origin; the

surrounding plateau offered the large quantity of limestone material necessary for

such a massive undertaking. This is plainly illustrated by several actual pillars with

T-capitals found at the quarry sites themselves.6

It is unclear whether the reliefs were carved into the stone at the quarry

when the slabs were initially exhumed or if they were first taken to Göbekli Tepe

4 Klaus Schmidt, “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment” in Anthropozoologica, 39 (Paris: Pubilcations Scientifiques du Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, 2004), 182. 5 Curry, “Seeking the Roots of Ritual,” 279. Some of the larger lithics are estimated to weigh up to 50 tons each; see Tatiana Kornienko, “Notes on the Cult Buildings of Northern Mesopotamia in the Aceramic Neolithic Period,” in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies 68 no. 2 (University of Chicago, 2009), 89. 6 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay (Istanbul, 1999), 79.

5

and then adorned; arguments can be made either way. It seems to make the most

sense that they would be fashioned first and then transported, for if laborers moved

the pillar several kilometers to the site only to discover that it was unsuitable for

fine sculpting, or if the artist(s) made a mistake, an enormous amount of energy

would have been expended for nothing, and the process would have to be begun

again. Moreover, it stands to reason that since we have direct evidence of T-shaped

pillars at the quarries themselves, the process of carving the reliefs would simply

have been finished there, where there was obviously a large operation of stone

cutting in place. Additionally, it is a common occurrence that the pillars are chiseled

on all four sides, but many, being built into the walls, only reveal a portion of their

reliefs.7 It would make more sense that they were carved first and then transported

and installed, rather than carved right before being installed, if much of their

imagery was to be hidden.

This raises another question, though; how did the relief sculptors know how

to create images of the animals they carved? In modern times it is quite common for

an artist to use a photograph as a reference when creating an image. However,

there were no such conveniences for these ancient artists. As sculpting is

presumably not a fast method of art making,8 it seems likely that the artist would

need some type of reference. With parchment and papyrus still thousands of years

in the future, notes were not a viable option. Were the sculptors sent to the

fields/forests to observe and memorize the size and form of the various animals

7 Schmidt, “The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe,” 6. 8 Schmidt estimates that it would take weeks, if not months to create some of the reliefs found on the pillars. See “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,” 213; also see Curry, “Seeking the Roots of Ritual,” 280.

6

depicted? It is perhaps more likely they used the carcass of a dead animal as their

guide. If so, this would help explain how the animal reliefs are mostly life-size9—an

easy comparison could be made with the actual animal sitting in front of the artist.

The pillars at Göbekli Tepe represent an impressive assortment of depictions,

most of which are various local animals. Of the 43 pillars unearthed, more than half

have at least one type of animal (some have a large medley) chiseled into the stone.

As of 2004, 10 varieties of animals had been discovered in the pillar reliefs, and

since that time several more have come to light. This array of animals includes

birds, foxes, gazelles, lions (or leopards), aurochs, and boars, to name a few. It

appears that snakes are the most commonly depicted animal taxon; foxes, boars and

various birds are also highly attested.

With more than 200 enormous limestone monoliths created for Göbekli

Tepe, natural questions arise: who retrieved, carved, and transported them several

kilometers to their destination in the enclosures at the site, and who ordered this

work to be done in the first place? This is a crucial point, as it plays into my

interpretation of the use of these pillars. Scholars seem to be in agreement that

during the PPN, a division in labor began to become a part of Anatolian cultures, “as

well as the beginnings of a system of social hierarchy.”10 We see from the

distinguishment of ritual and domestic space and architecture, the specialization of

trades such as weapon and tool making, and monumental building tasks that society

9 Schmidt, “The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe,” 3. 10 Ufuk Esin, “The Neolithic in Turkey: A General Review,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay (Istanbul, 1999), 19-20; see also Antonio Sagona and Paul Zimansky, Ancient Turkey (New York: Routledge, 2009), 49; Kornienko, “Cult Buildings of Northern Mesopotamia,” 81; Schmidt, “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,” 213.

7

was beginning to stratify.11 Schmidt astutely observes, “a considerable number of

skilled labourers participated to accomplish [the construction and transportation of

megaliths at Göbekli Tepe],” which would have required a community to be

organized in a way that would “provide the necessary logistics for such a complex

undertaking.”12 Thus, society must have had some leaders—those who were able to

maintain (at least to some degree) a form of control over others.

Current Theories as to Site Usage and Pillar Identification

So what, in fact, are these monumental stone slabs? It has been argued by

some that they are intended to hold up the roofs of the round structures in which

they reside.13 While this is a likely possibility, it is quite clear that the animal

depictions serve some sort of ritual or symbolic function. Of particular interest are

the twin pillars of each enclosure, the two monolithic slabs in the center of the room

that stand even taller than their counterparts; these in particular draw attention to

themselves.

Several scholars have pointed out that the T-shape of the pillars is created to

imitate a human or anthropomorphic figure, with the large vertical slab

representing the “body” of the figure and the horizontal capital the “head.”14 Indeed,

this anthropomorphism in large lithic structures can be seen at another PPN site in

11 Esin, “The Neolithic in Turkey: A General Review,” 19. 12 Schmidt, “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,” 213. 13 See Banning, “So Fair a House,” 629-633 for a full discussion of possible rooftops at Göbekli Tepe, including a potential reconstruction of one. 14 Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region,” 75, 77; Kornienko, “Cult Buildings of Northern Mesopotamia,” 93; Schmidt, “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,” 182; Sagona and Zimansky, Ancient Turkey, 62.

8

the vicinity—Nevalı Çori. Here, T-shaped structures with crudely sculpted human

arms, hands and faces are attested. Though Nevalı Çori (PPNB) followed Göbekli

Tepe (PPNA-PPNB) it would appear the two communities had some sort of cultural

link.

One clue as to the intended purpose of the enclosures can be gleaned from its

design. As each enclosure is round or ovular, this results in a building with a single

large room. As can be seen in other Neolithic sites in Anatolia, the advent of

rectilinear structures brought about multiple-room complexes. One may infer from

this site at Göbekli Tepe that these structures were meant for a large group of

people to be with one another at the same time. Likewise, there is no sign of a large

enclosure wall or other fortifications protecting the site. It would appear that there

was no threat from outsiders during this time period (PPNA-B). Thus an amiable

community gathering seems to be the goal.

Klaus Schmidt provides a brief overview of various prevailing theories as to

the use of the site and purpose of megalithic symbolism. As it lies outside the scope

of this paper to evaluate each of these arguments individually, I will simply list them

succinctly from Schmidt’s article. The animal elements depicted are thought to

represent:

1) guards and/or attributes of the anthropomorphic beings, 2) favourite game species, 3) totemic emblems, selected and/or combined according to patterns which are still far from being understood, 4) vehicles for spiritual encounters or 5) animals associated with mortuary practices.15

15 Schmidt, “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,” 215. See discussion 208-216.

9

It is important to note, as Schmidt points out, that these interpretations are not

mutually exclusive.

Megalith Pillars as Human Depictions

As I do not find any of the theories mentioned above to be wholly convincing,

I will offer here an alternative. It seems to me, in the light of the obvious

anthropomorphic symbolism found in the very design of these T-shaped pillars, that

they were intended to represent humans. Yet, if this is the case, how do the

numerous and varied animal depictions figure into human representation? I would

suggest that these animals are similar to what Schmidt describes as “totems,” i.e.

emblems of family/clan that are used symbolically to represent that family/clan.

Yet my interpretation varies from Schmidt in that it seems the only way to explain

the wide variance in animal taxon and type and size of imagery is that each

enclosure represents 12 individuals. Whereas Schmidt would view the animal

totems as a collection of symbols for the whole group, I would argue that they are

specific to singular people, rather than a whole tribe.

Thus, this theory helps to explain why there is such an uneven distribution of

animal taxon across the four excavated enclosures; there is not a 1:1 ratio. For

example, all four have depictions of foxes, yet only enclosure D has images of

gazelles and lions; likewise, enclosure C has 6 depictions of boars, yet A and B have

none.16 Individuals with their own idiosyncrasies and a wide spectrum of

personalities are the reason for the variance in animal shapes. A single animal or

16 Ibid, 185.

10

group of animals (depending on the person) was carved into the lithic slab to

identify this particular pillar with that particular person.

What did these animal totems mean? How were they assigned to individuals,

and by whom? The answers to these questions can only be speculated; there is no

way of knowing for sure, especially with the absence of any written records of the

epoch. One possibility is that the leaders of the tribe intended to have them made in

their honor as a display of wealth or power. It could be argued that they chose their

own symbols, or just as likely they were bestowed upon them (by shamans?).

Perhaps these pillars were built to provide a lasting presence at the site—a

representation of the individual that maintained a permanent residence there, while

the real person was free to move about the land. This would be a plausible scenario

if the site were indeed used in some sort of ritual manner (which it very likely was),

as the tribe could invoke the positive powers of whatever higher authority they

worshipped or attempted to commune with at all times, not only on the rare

occasions they visited the site physically. Again, this is only one of an infinite

number of possibilities.

At Göbekli Tepe, the twin pillars differ from the surrounding wall pillars in

several ways. Their spatial relationship—centered in the room, as opposed to

encircling it—places them literally at the center of attention. They are not only

larger than their counterparts (sometimes significantly so), but also freestanding,

which could be interpreted as being of a higher caliber than stones that were part of

a support system. Also, Schmidt describes them as “of a superior quality [compared

11

to the perimeter slabs], e.g., their surface is extremely well prepared and they are

always decorated with figurations.”17

Thus, we can view these twin pillars as having more prominence than the

surrounding monoliths. But why are there always two found together at the center

of the room? If one of them represented a leading member of society, perhaps the

leader of the tribe, then who was the second? Kornienko sees the placement of pairs

of stones as an important aspect of early cosmology:

The worship of pairs of central objects in ancient sanctuaries or temples is a characteristic feature of a number of early Near Eastern cultures. Such symbolism represents the binary basis and dualism of people’s mythological perception of natural phenomena.18

It may be speculated that the second of the twin pillars represents a female

counterpart to the male in question, to fulfill this need for the cosmic pair. Or

perhaps the second pillar is another upper-echelon member of that society, on equal

footing with the one represented by the other pillar.

Thus, it may be taken further; the remaining 10 pillars (the smaller ones on

the perimeter) were possibly impressions of 10 members of the community who

were at a sufficient status to warrant depiction on a megalith, but at a lower status

than the two central figures. However, this practice changes through time, as seen

in the differences between pillars found in Layer II versus Layer III. Schmidt

remarks:

17 Schmidt, “The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe,” 3. 18 Kornienko, “Cult Buildings of Northern Mesopotamia,” 93. She provides several examples of worshipped pairs in early Near Eastern cultures.

12

…the pillars found in Layer II are decidedly smaller than those found in Layer III. Based on similar standing stones found at other sites, these monoliths likely date to the PPNB. Until now [2004], 18 pillars have been found. Only two of them exhibit animal representations, while one represents the Nevalı Çori type with human arms and hands.19

It appears that in the PPNB phase, though the standard 12-pillared structure

remained in use, many of the pillars no longer were adorned with animal

symbolism. This could likely be due to the desire to maintain the longstanding

tradition of enclosure construction, but perhaps the tribe/family who ordered the

construction did not have (or did not want to have) enough members of status to

follow the traditional 12-pillar/individual paradigm. Thus, the superfluous stone

slabs remained bare, and attention was paid only to those pillars that were

decorated.

Burials of Enclosures at the Site

One burning question concerning Göbekli Tepe that has yet to be

satisfactorily answered is why all of the enclosures were carefully buried.

According to Schmidt, between 300 m3-500 m3 of deposit (a varied assortment of

soil and debris from the local area) was used to fill in each of the 20 round

structures at the site.20 This represents an incredible feat, one that would be

exceedingly time consuming. E. B. Banning has provided some mathematical

calculations regarding this process; according to him, in order to fill in a single site

with backfill material from a nearby area, it would take about one week for ten

19 Schmidt, “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,” 183 (my emphasis). 20 Schmidt, “The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe,” 7.

13

adults to accomplish this task.21 He adds that if the material was imported from a

site located at some distance from Göbekli Tepe, it would add an additional 9,600

person-hours for every kilometer the dirt was carried.

What would prompt a society to practice such a painstaking interment

process? If indeed the monoliths were, as I have suggested, representations of

actual live humans, then once those human died, they would have been buried.22

Thus, the ritual burial of the enclosure (no longer viable as the main pillars

represent certain people who are now dead) is a symbolic burial of the human’s

totem representation. With their ritual site now gone, it would be necessary to

construct another—a new site representing new people (with perhaps some carry

over from the previous site, hence a potential of some similar animal iconography),

and thus new pillars with new animals. This would account for the construction of

the 20 enclosures at Göbekli Tepe.

Conclusions

In this paper, I have attempted to provide a possible explanation of the

animal depictions on the T-shaped pillars found at Göbekli Tepe. After reviewing

the evidence, I have shown that the megalithic stones found in each enclosure at the

site may be interpreted as a representation of an individual human. The animal

symbolism on each pillar serves as a totem, but not for a tribe or family; rather, as

these early PPN societies began to achieve stratification, symbols—made up of a

21 Banning, “So Fair a House,” 623. 22 For examples of contemporary local burial practices at Nevalı Çori, see Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region,” 70-73.

14

variety of animals and creature combinations—were accorded to upper-echelon

people. Regarding the phenomenon of enclosures containing 12 pillars each, this

may be an indication of an early significance in number of families or ruling parties.

We have also seen that this interpretation provides an explanation of the

mysterious burial practices of each of the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe. As the

monoliths were seen as representations of human beings, it was necessary to bury

the totems of those humans, just as you would the human him/herself.

This new understanding can also be applied to witness the evolution of

‘animals depicting humans’ to ‘humans depicting humans’. As noted above, the

Nevalı Çori megalith with human features (which again, comes after the Göbekli

Tepe site) could represent an advance in totem symbology. At some point it would

appear that cultures began to mix animal and human parts together to form hybrid

creatures. Examples of this can be seen in some of the statues and figurines at

Nevalı Çori, such as the head of a man with a vertical snake attached to it. It seems

the animal symbology found at Göbekli Tepe evolved to be placed on more realistic

likenesses of humans, and eventually the practice ceased, leaving humans as just

that: humans.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banning, E. B. “So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East.” Current Anthropology, Vol 52., no. 5, pp. 619-660. University of Chicago Press, October 2011. Curry, Andrew. “Seeking the Roots of Ritual.” Science, Vol. 319, pp. 278-280. AAAS: 18 January 2008. Esin, Ufuk. “The Neolithic in Turkey: A General Review.” Neolithic in Turkey, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay, M. Özdogan (ed.), pp. 13-23. Istanbul, 1999. Hauptmann, Harald. “The Urfa Region.” Neolithic in Turkey, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay, M. Özdogan (ed.), pp. 65-86. Istanbul, 1999. Kornienko, Tatiana V. “Notes on the Cult Buildings of Northern Mesopotamia in the Aceramic Neolithic Period.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 68 no. 2, pp. 81- 101. University of Chicago, 2009. Rosenberg, Michael and Erim-Özdogan, Asli. “The Neolithic in Southeastern Anatolia.” The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000–323 B.C.E. S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon (ed.), pp. 125-149. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Sagona, Antonio and Zimansky, Paul. Ancient Turkey. New York: Routledge, 2009. Schmidt, Klaus. “The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey) – Field Report.” Neo-Lithics: The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research, February 2003. _________________. “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment.” Anthropozoologica, 39 (1), pp. 179-218. Paris: Pubilcations Scientifiques du Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, 2004.