Nate Ramsayer, 19 February 2012

Megalithic Totemism of the Individual: A New Analysis of Gbekli Tepes

Monumental Pillars

Though excavations at Gbekli 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 Gbekli Tepes 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 Gbekli
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 ayn and Neval ori. Additionally, it sheds light on the custom of burying the
sacred sites at Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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.

Gbekli Tepe: A Monumental Site
The site of Gbekli 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 810 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 Gbekli 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,
Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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 Gbekli Tepes 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 Gbekli Tepe

4
Klaus Schmidt, Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Gbekli Tepe, south-eastern
Turkey: a preliminary assessment in Anthropozoologica, 39 (Paris: Pubilcations Scientifiques du
Museum national dHistoire 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 Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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-size
9
an
easy comparison could be made with the actual animal sitting in front of the artist.
The pillars at Gbekli 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 Gbekli
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 Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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 leadersthose 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 Gbekli Tepe, 213.
13
See Banning, So Fair a House, 629-633 for a full discussion of possible rooftops at Gbekli 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 Gbekli Tepe, 182; Sagona and
Zimansky, Ancient Turkey, 62.

8
the vicinityNeval ori. Here, T-shaped structures with crudely sculpted human
arms, hands and faces are attested. Though Neval ori (PPNB) followed Gbekli
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 Gbekli 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 Schmidts 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 Gbekli 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 sitea
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 Gbekli Tepe, the twin pillars differ from the surrounding wall pillars in
several ways. Their spatial relationshipcentered in the room, as opposed to
encircling itplaces 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 peoples 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 Gbekli 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 Neval ori 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 Gbekli Tepe that has yet to be
satisfactorily answered is why all of the enclosures were carefully buried.
According to Schmidt, between 300 m
3
-500 m
3
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 Gbekli Tepe, 183 (my
emphasis).
20
Schmidt, The 2003 Campaign at Gbekli 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 Gbekli 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 humans
totem representation. With their ritual site now gone, it would be necessary to
construct anothera 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 Gbekli Tepe.

Conclusions
In this paper, I have attempted to provide a possible explanation of the
animal depictions on the T-shaped pillars found at Gbekli 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, symbolsmade up of a

21
Banning, So Fair a House, 623.
22
For examples of contemporary local burial practices at Neval ori, see Hauptmann, The Urfa
Region, 70-73.
14
variety of animals and creature combinationswere 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 Gbekli 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
Neval ori megalith with human features (which again, comes after the Gbekli
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
Neval ori, such as the head of a man with a vertical snake attached to it. It seems
the animal symbology found at Gbekli 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: Gbekli 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. zdogan (ed.), pp. 13-23. Istanbul, 1999.

Hauptmann, Harald. The Urfa Region. Neolithic in Turkey, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay,
M. zdogan (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-zdogan, Asli. The Neolithic in Southeastern
Anatolia. The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000323 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 Gbekli 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 Gbekli
Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica,
39 (1), pp. 179-218. Paris: Pubilcations Scientifiques du Museum national
dHistoire naturelle, 2004.