{"id":6463,"date":"2017-08-09T14:04:52","date_gmt":"2017-08-09T12:04:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tepetelegrams.wordpress.com\/?p=6463"},"modified":"2023-02-06T10:24:44","modified_gmt":"2023-02-06T09:24:44","slug":"a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/2017\/08\/09\/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe\/","title":{"rendered":"A Short Note on a New Figurine Type from G\u00f6bekli Tepe"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><em>This text has been published originally (and in slightly different form) as a short contribution by Oliver Dietrich and Klaus Schmidt (\u2020) in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.exoriente.org\/downloads\/neolithics.php\">Neo-Lithics<\/a><\/em><em>\u00a0[external link] 1\/17, 43-46.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">The most striking aspects of G\u00f6bekli Tepe are without question the monumentality of the site and the rich imagery. Besides the reliefs on the pillars, there is a wide range of stone sculptures and figurines. Klaus Schmidt, who excavated the site for 20 years, has dedicated several papers to this find group (<em>Hauptmann and Schmidt 2007; Schmidt 1998; 1999; 2008; 2009; 2010<\/em>); a comprehensive synthesis is still missing (for the anthropomorphic sculpture <em>Dietrich et al. forthcoming<\/em>). A total of 149 sculptures has been found to date at G\u00f6bekli Tepe. Of these, 86 depict animals, 38 humans, four anthropomorphic masks, three phalli, nine are human-animal composite sculptures and a further nine are indeterminable. Many of the sculptures are in a fragmentary state, which may have its reason in social practises connected to the early Neolithic imagery \u2013 including intentional fragmentation and deposition of a selection of fragments, mostly heads in meaningful contexts next to the pillars (<em>Becker et al. 2012; Dietrich et al. forthcoming<\/em>). Many of the fragments may have been originally part of sculptures in the shape of the \u2018Urfa Man&#8217;, the oldest life-sized human sculpture currently known, discovered during construction work at Urfa-Yeni Mahalle (<em>Hauptmann 2003; Schmidt 2010. 247, 248-249<\/em>). But there is also a range of other types, and the current contribution is dedicated to one of those.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><strong>The figurine<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">During the 2012 autumn excavation season at G\u00f6bekli Tepe, a small figurine (5,1&#215;2,3&#215;2,7 cm) was handed in as a surface find from the north-western hilltop of the tell (Fig. 2). The motif of the figurine is an ithyphallic person sitting with legs dragged toward his body on an unidentifiable object. He is looking up and grasping his legs. Between the legs, a large erect phallus is depicted (Fig. 3), and a quadruped animal is sitting on the person\u00b4s left shoulder (Fig. 4). As one half of the figurine has a thick layer of sinter, the question whether there originally was another animal on the other shoulder remains open. The animal species cannot be determined with security neither, but the general form is consistent with depictions of large wildcats or bears at G\u00f6bekli Tepe (e.g. <em>Schmidt 1999. 9-10, nr. A8<\/em>). The material of the sculpture is unusual for the site on the other hand. Nearly all sculptures and figurines so far known from G\u00f6bekli Tepe were made from local limestone. The new figurine is most likely made from nephrite<a name=\"_ftnref1\"><\/a><a href=\"#_ftn1#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>. The figurine is perforated crosswise in its lower part. A functional interpretation for this detail is hard to give as one perforation would have sufficed to wear it as a pendant for example. Maybe the figurine was meant to be fixed to a support.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<style type=\"text\/css\">\n\t\t\t#gallery-1 {\n\t\t\t\tmargin: auto;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t#gallery-1 .gallery-item {\n\t\t\t\tfloat: left;\n\t\t\t\tmargin-top: 10px;\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center;\n\t\t\t\twidth: 33%;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t#gallery-1 img {\n\t\t\t\tborder: 2px solid #cfcfcf;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {\n\t\t\t\tmargin-left: 0;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes\/media.php *\/\n\t\t<\/style>\n\t\t<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-6463 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>\n\t\t\t<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>\n\t\t\t\t<a href='https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/2017\/08\/09\/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-2\/'><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2017\/07\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-2-800x600.jpg\" class=\"attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail\" alt=\"\" aria-describedby=\"gallery-1-6481\" \/><\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/dt>\n\t\t\t\t<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-1-6481'>\n\t\t\t\tThe seated figurine from G\u00f6bekli Tepe (copyright DAI, Photo N. Becker).\n\t\t\t\t<\/dd><\/dl><dl class='gallery-item'>\n\t\t\t<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>\n\t\t\t\t<a href='https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/2017\/08\/09\/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-3\/'><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2017\/07\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-3-800x600.jpg\" class=\"attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail\" alt=\"\" \/><\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/dt><\/dl><dl class='gallery-item'>\n\t\t\t<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>\n\t\t\t\t<a href='https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/2017\/08\/09\/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-4\/'><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2017\/07\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-4-800x600.jpg\" class=\"attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail\" alt=\"\" \/><\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/dt><\/dl><br style=\"clear: both\" \/>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">The unclear find circumstances and the unusual material raise the question of the figurine\u00b4s provenance. The sinter layer is a characteristic for finds from G\u00f6bekli Tepe (and clearly indicates that the figurine was originally buried with the right side down), but could have formed of course also at another site with similar natural conditions. There is however an older find that could represent a fragment of the same figurine type. This fragment, comprising head and shoulder of a small figurine (3,9&#215;4.0x2.8cm) made from brownish limestone, was discovered in 2002, also on the surface of the tell (Fig. 5). There are two more examples of larger seated sculptures from G\u00f6bekli Tepe. A first depiction of a seated person (h. 32.5cm; Fig. 6), badly preserved, was found on the surface of the tell, too (<em>Schmidt 1999. 9, Plate. 1\/1<\/em>). Here, the hands are brought together under the belly, the gesture reminds of the \u2018Urfa Man\u2019 who most likely is presenting a phallus (<em>Hauptmann 2003<\/em>), but unfortunately the lower part of the sculpture is not preserved. A snake could be depicted crawling up the back and head of the sculpture, but this remains uncertain, too. Another example (h. 44cm) was found more recently in a deep sounding in the northwestern depression of the tell (Area K10-55, Locus 21.2; Fig. 7). The find context is still under evaluation, much speaks for a PPN B date so far. The preservation of this sculpture is also rather bad, the lower part is missing again. Both examples show some clear differences compared to the figurine: the arms are folded in front of the body, there is no animal on the shoulder, and the persons seem to sit on the ground, not on some object. As the lower part is missing we cannot be sure whether a phallus was depicted. Summing up, it seems nevertheless reasonably sure that the new figurine is from G\u00f6bekli Tepe \u2013 and represents a type, or variant, not known so far in the site\u00b4s sculptural inventory.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><strong>Date and analogies<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Without knowledge of the original find context, or analogies from clear contexts, there is no possibility to attribute the new figurine to one of G\u00f6bekli Tepe\u00b4s architectural horizons \u2013 Layer III with the PPN A and possibly early PPN B large stone circles formed of T-shaped pillars, or Layer II with early\/middle PPNB rectangular or sub-rectangular buildings. Offsite analogies also seem to be scarce.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">29 similarly seated limestone figurines are known from Mezraa-Teleilat\u00b4s phase IIIB, i.e. the Late PPN B \/ early Pottery Neolithic transition (<em>\u00d6zdo\u011fan 2003. 515-516, Figures 1a-c, 2b-c, 4, 5; \u00d6zdo\u011fan 2011. 209, Figures 14-21; Hansen 2014: 271, Figure 9<\/em>). One more find can be added to this group, a more recently published stone figurine from \u00c7atalh\u00f6y\u00fck (<em>Hodder 2012. Figure 14b; Hansen 2014. 271<\/em>). Although the overall form is very similar, the figurines from Mezraa-Teleilat and \u00c7atalh\u00f6y\u00fck are much more abstracted, the former are sitting on armchair-like seats, wear robe-like clothes and in some cases belts, and examples with animals on the shoulders seem to be missing. As the latest finds from G\u00f6bekli Tepe date to the middle PPN B, the figurine must be older than the finds from Mezraa Teleilat and \u00c7atalh\u00f6y\u00fck. Whether the naturalistic sculpture(s) from G\u00f6bekli Tepe can be regarded as the prototypes for this group and thus also a similar meaning could be proposed, cannot be answered with security for now.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<style type=\"text\/css\">\n\t\t\t#gallery-2 {\n\t\t\t\tmargin: auto;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t#gallery-2 .gallery-item {\n\t\t\t\tfloat: left;\n\t\t\t\tmargin-top: 10px;\n\t\t\t\ttext-align: center;\n\t\t\t\twidth: 33%;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t#gallery-2 img {\n\t\t\t\tborder: 2px solid #cfcfcf;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t#gallery-2 .gallery-caption {\n\t\t\t\tmargin-left: 0;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes\/media.php *\/\n\t\t<\/style>\n\t\t<div id='gallery-2' class='gallery galleryid-6463 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>\n\t\t\t<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>\n\t\t\t\t<a href='https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/2017\/08\/09\/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-7\/'><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2017\/07\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-7-800x600.jpg\" class=\"attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail\" alt=\"\" aria-describedby=\"gallery-2-6491\" \/><\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/dt>\n\t\t\t\t<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-2-6491'>\n\t\t\t\tSeated limestone sculpture from G\u00f6bekli Tepe (\u00a9 DAI, Photo N. Becker). \n\t\t\t\t<\/dd><\/dl><dl class='gallery-item'>\n\t\t\t<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>\n\t\t\t\t<a href='https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/2017\/08\/09\/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-6\/'><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2017\/07\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-6-800x600.jpg\" class=\"attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail\" alt=\"\" aria-describedby=\"gallery-2-6489\" \/><\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/dt>\n\t\t\t\t<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-2-6489'>\n\t\t\t\tSeated limestone sculpture from G\u00f6bekli Tepe (\u00a9 DAI, Photo T. Goldschmidt).\n\t\t\t\t<\/dd><\/dl>\n\t\t\t<br style='clear: both' \/>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Further analogies are hard to find. The much later standing female clay figurines holding leopard cubs from Hac\u0131lar (e.g. <em>Mellaart 1970. Figure 196-197<\/em>), and the so-called \u2018Mistress of Animals\u2019, a female figurine seated on a leopard and holding a leopard cub (<em>Mellaart 1970. Figure 228<\/em>), or, in another case, seated on two leopards and holding their tails (<em>Mellaart 1970. <\/em><em>Figure 229<\/em>) are different in gesture and topic.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><strong>Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">The meaning of the figurine from G\u00f6bekli Tepe remains enigmatic. The finds from Mezraa Teleilat and \u00c7atalh\u00f6y\u00fck seem to be the best analogies for now. But in contrast to this group, the find discussed here has the animal on the shoulder (or one on each shoulder originally?) as an important characteristic. There are several examples of animal-human composite sculptures from G\u00f6bekli Tepe. But they show animals \u2013 birds and quadrupeds &#8211; on the heads of people, grabbing them with their claws, maybe carrying the heads away (<em>e.g. Beile-Bohn et al. 1998.66-68, Figure 30-31; Becker et al. 2012.35<\/em>). This kind of iconography most likely relates to Neolithic death cult or beliefs (<em>Schmidt 1999.7-8<\/em>). The new sculpture, with one or two animals in the shoulder area, does not fit well into this group. The animal is clinging to the shoulder in a crouched position, there is no indication of aggression or attack (Fig. 4), or a reaction of the sitting person. The animal could thus have a completely different meaning. We could be dealing with a more metaphorical relationship between man and animal here.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_6485\" style=\"width: 3019px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-6485\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-6485\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2017\/07\/dietrich-schmidt_fig-5.jpg\" alt=\"G\u00f6bekli Tepe\" width=\"3009\" height=\"1961\" \/><p id=\"caption-attachment-6485\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Fragment of a limestone figurine discovered in 2002 at G\u00f6bekli Tepe (\u00a9 DAI, Photo I. Wagner).<\/p><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">At G\u00f6bekli Tepe, animal symbolism seems to have an emblematic\/totemic connotation in some cases. In every one of the monumental enclosures of Layer III, one animal species is dominant by quantity of depictions (<em>Notroff et al. 2014.97-98, Fig. 5.9<\/em>). In Enclosure C for example boars have this role, in Enclosure A snakes, Enclosure B has many undecorated pillars, but foxes are more frequent, while Enclosure D is more diverse, with birds and insects playing an important role. Given this background, one hypothesis would be that the animal characterises the person depicted in the figurine as a member of a certain group.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">The other important characteristic of the depiction is the prominent erect phallus. G\u00f6bekli Tepe\u00b4s iconography is generally nearly exclusively male (e.g. <em>Dietrich and Notroff 2015.85<\/em>), and the phallus features prominently in several depictions of animals and humans. For example, a headless ithyphallic body is depicted on Pillar 43 amongst birds, snakes and a large scorpion (<em>Schmidt 2006<\/em>). Although the central pillars of the large enclosures are clearly marked as human through the depiction of arms, hands, and in the case of Enclosure D also items of clothing, their sex is not indicated. An erect phallus however is a prominent feature of the foxes depicted on several of the central pillars. There are also a few phallus sculptures from the site (e.g. <em>Schmidt 1999.9, Plate 2\/3-4<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">It is hard to say whether all these diverse depictions \/ contexts share a similar basic meaning, or a multitude of meanings is implied. There is a vast ethnographic and historic repertoire of phallic depictions in the context of power, dominance, aggression, marking of boundaries\/ownership, and apotropaism (e.g. <em>S\u00fctterlin-Eibl-Eibesfeldt 2013<\/em> with bibliography). Phallic symbolism is also often integrated in rites of admission in social groups. The association of animal and phallic symbolism in the sitting (watching?) figurine could hypothetically hint at such rites of admission, it could be a mnemonic object illustrating an aspect\/moment of the rituals involved. However, further finds from secure and informative contexts from G\u00f6bekli Tepe, or elsewhere, should be awaited to shed some more light on this new figurine type.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><strong>Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Becker N., Dietrich O., G\u00f6tzelt Th., K\u00f6ksal-Schmidt \u00c7., Notroff J., Schmidt, K. 2012. Materialien zur Deutung der zentralen Pfeilerpaare des G\u00f6bekli Tepe und weiterer Orte des obermesopotamischen Fr\u00fchneolithikums. <em>Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Orient-Arch\u00e4ologie<\/em> 5: 14-43.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Beile-Bohn M., Gerber, C., Morsch, M. Schmidt K. 1998. Neolithische Forschungen in Ober-mesopotamien. G\u00fcrc\u00fctepe und G\u00f6bekli Tepe. <em>Istanbuler Mitteilungen<\/em> 48: 5-78.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Dietrich O., Notroff, J. 2015. A sanctuary, or so fair a house? In defense of an archaeology of cult at Pre-Pottery Neolithic G\u00f6bekli Tepe. In N. Laneri (ed.), <em>Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East<\/em>. Oxbow. Oxford: 75-89.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Dietrich, O., Heun, M., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K., Zarnkow, M. 2012. T<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0003598X00047840\">he Role of Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities. New Evidence from G\u00f6bekli Tepe, South-eastern Turkey<\/a>. <em>Antiquity<\/em> 86: 674-695.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Dietrich, O., K\u00f6ksal-Schmidt, \u00c7., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K. 2013. Establishing a Radiocarbon Sequence for G\u00f6bekli Tepe. State of Research and New Data. <em>Neo-Lithics<\/em> 1\/13: 36-41.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Dietrich, O., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K. 2017. Feasting, social complexity and the emergence of the early Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: a view from G\u00f6bekli Tepe<em>. <\/em>In R. J. Chacon, R. Mendoza (eds.). <em>Feast, Famine or Fighting? Multiple Pathways to Social Complexity<\/em>. Springer. New York: 91-132.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Dietrich, O., Dietrich, L., Notroff, J. Forthcoming. Anthropomorphic imagery at G\u00f6bekli Tepe. In J. Becker, C. Beuger, B. M\u00fcller-Neuhof (eds.), <em>Iconography and Symbolic Meaning of the Human in Near Eastern Prehistory<\/em>. Workshop Proceedings 10th ICAANE in Vienna, Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Hansen, S. 2014. Neolithic figurines in Anatolia. In M. \u00d6zdo\u011fan, N. Ba\u015fgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.), <em>The Neolithic in Turkey 6. 10500-5200 BC: Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West<\/em>. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 265-292.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Hauptmann, H. 2003. Eine fr\u00fchneolithische Kultfigur aus Urfa. In M. \u00d6zdo\u011fan, H. Hauptmann, N. Ba\u015fgelen (eds.), <em>From villages to towns. Studies presented to Ufuk Esin<\/em>. Archaeology and Art Publications: Istanbul: 623-636.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Hauptmann, H., Schmidt K. 2007. Die Skulpturen des Fr\u00fchneolithikums. In Badisches Landesmuseum (ed.), <em>Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die \u00e4ltesten Monumente der Menschheit.<\/em> Theiss Verlag. Stuttgart: 67-82.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Hodder, I. 2012. Renewed work at \u00c7atalh\u00f6y\u00fck. In M. \u00d6zdo\u011fan, N. Ba\u015fgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.), <em>The Neolithic in Turkey 3. <\/em><em>Central Turkey<\/em>. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 245-277.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Mellaart, J. 1970. <em>Excavations at Hac\u0131lar (2)<\/em>. University Press. Edinburgh.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Notroff, N., Dietrich, O., Schmidt, K. 2014. Building Monuments \u2013 Creating Communities. Early monumental architecture at Pre-Pottery Neolithic G\u00f6bekli Tepe. In J. Osborne (ed.), <em>Approaching Monumentality in the Archaeological Record<\/em>. SUNY Press. Albany: 83-105.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">\u00d6zdo\u011fan, M. 2003.A group of Neolithic stone figurines from Mezraa-Teleilat. In M. \u00d6zdo\u011fan, H. Hauptmann and N. Ba\u015fgelen (eds.), <em>From villages to towns. Studies presented to Ufuk Esin<\/em>. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 511-523.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">\u00d6zdo\u011fan, M. 2011. Mezraa-Teleilat. In: M. \u00d6zdo\u011fan, N. Ba\u015fgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.), <em>The Neolithic in Turkey 2. The Euphrates Basin.<\/em> Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 203-260.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt, K. 1999. Fr\u00fche Tier- und Menschenbilder vom G\u00f6bekli Tepe. <em>Istanbuler Mitteilungen<\/em> 49: 5-21.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt, K. 1998. Beyond daily bread: Evidence of Early Neolithic ritual from G\u00f6bekli Tepe, Neo-Lithics 2\/98: 1-5.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt, K. 2006. Animals and a Headless Man at G\u00f6bekli Tepe. <em>Neo-Lithics<\/em> 2\/2006: 38-40.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt, K. 2008. Die z\u00e4hnefletschenden Raubtiere des G\u00f6bekli Tepe. In: D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon, F. Janoscha Kreppner (eds.), <em>Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Arch\u00e4ologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut K\u00fchne.<\/em> Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden: 61-69.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt, K. 2009. G\u00f6bekli Tepe \u2013 eine apokalyptische Bilderwelt aus der Steinzeit. <em>Antike Welt<\/em> 4: 45-52.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt, K. 2010. G\u00f6<a href=\"http:\/\/revije.ff.uni-lj.si\/DocumentaPraehistorica\/article\/view\/37.21\">bekli Tepe \u2013 The Stone Age Sanctuaries. New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs<\/a>, <em>Documenta Praehistorica<\/em> XXXVII: 239-256.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Schmidt K. 2012a. <em>A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia<\/em>. exOriente: Berlin.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">S\u00fctterlin, C., Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 2013. Human cultural defense: means and monuments of ensuring collective territory. Neo-Lithics 2\/13: 42-48.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><a name=\"_ftn1\"><\/a><a href=\"#_ftnref1#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> Optical classification by Klaus Schmidt.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This text has been published originally (and in slightly different form) as a short contribution by Oliver Dietrich and Klaus Schmidt (\u2020) in Neo-Lithics\u00a0[external link] 1\/17, 43-46. The most striking aspects of G\u00f6bekli Tepe are without question the monumentality of the site and the rich imagery. Besides the reliefs on the pillars, there is a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":6481,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[203063,1260267,47930,116,76499],"class_list":["post-6463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-figurine","tag-gobeklitepe","tag-interpretation","tag-religion","tag-sculptures","post-preview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6463"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6463"}],"version-history":[{"count":28,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6463\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7356,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6463\/revisions\/7356"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6481"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dainst.blog\/the-tepe-telegrams\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}