Investigating the influence the domestication of animals had on the animal symbolism of the Neolithic Near East

Chapter 1 - Introduction

This study is primarily a literature based study which

concentrates on animal symbolism in the Near East. It

intends to demonstrate the influence that the

domestication of animals and adoption of agriculture has

had upon the way human beings represent and depict the

animals that were around them and investigate the shift

between depicting wild animals to depicting domesticated

animals.

It would have been possible for this study to be

conducted within any region of the world, however, the

Near East seemed to be the most appropriate, as it is

thought to be the region where agriculture and

domestication have their origins, chapter 3 discusses the

origins of agriculture in more detail.

The decision to use this area as the focus for the study

was made as it would allow for a wide range of case

studies that could be used and provide sites that have

close links to animals symbolism and sites where animal

symbolism is found. It is in an area that is widely

referred to as the Fertile Crescent.

The Fertile Crescent was a term first coined by James

Henry Breasted characterising the region in this way due

to the environmental and cultural features that would

have been present at the time of the earliest

civilisations (Breasted 1916: 101-105). The sites which

will be discussed in detail are sites that lie within and

10002902 1

around the vicinity of the Fertile Crescent within the

region of South Eastern Anatolia and Northern

Mesopotamia. The aim of the project is to examine the

relationship between the adoption of agriculture and

domestication of animals with the animal symbolism and

iconography we see at certain sites within the region. It

is important to note at this stage that some of the sites

used within the study are described as being in Northern

Syria and modern day Turkey. This classification is

modern geographical boundaries being placed on the

Ancient landscape, it needs to be recognised that there

would have been no distinctive boundaries on the

landscape in this period.

Fig 1.1 Map showing the area used in the study with the

central area circled and the Fertile Crescent marked

(from Schmidt 2007 with additions)

*Note: not all of the sites shown on the map are used

within the study

10002902 2

1.1 Aims:

This project has one definitive aim which is to

investigate the influence of domestication of animals on

animal symbolism in the Near East.

1.2 Objectives:

The objectives of the study are to be considered by each

chapter

Chapter 2 will discuss the previous work done on animal

symbolism on sites within the region and move on to give

a brief overview of the way the region is dated. The

final part of chapter two will assess what is meant by

symbolism and the different forms that will be used in

this project.

Chapter 3 will investigate the current timescale for the

domestication of animals and use the most widely accepted

dates as points of reference for the sites which are to

be used throughout the remainder of the study. It will

discuss several aspects of the beginning of agriculture

and focus primarily on the accepted dates for the

domestication of certain animals and more importantly,

the known primary domesticates which will then be easier

to associate with the established domestication sites.

However, it will not sideline the domestication of plants

10002902 3

as that is an integral part of humanities ability to keep

domesticated animals.

Chapter 4 focuses on the transitional phase (by which it

means the sites that are in transition between hunting

and gatherering and animal husbandry with hunting still

being the primary sustenance base but experiments with

wild animal herding was taking place) sites using case

studies to illustrate examples of animal symbolism found

in this period. Using a selection of the symbolism found

on the sites will then enable a discussion to consider

whether the symbolism can provide an explanation or

insight into the relationships between animals and humans

during this transitional phase.

The final part of chapter four will assess whether the

way animals are depicted gives any indication of the

relationship between humans and animals and whether the

way in which animals are depicted can show the importance

they played within society.

Chapter 5 will use case studies for the established

domestication sites and how animals are represented on

these sites and document any changes that can be seen in

the symbolism since domestication and why these changes

may have occurred in this way. The final part of chapter

5 will review if the symbolism indicates any change in

the relationship between humans and animals.

10002902 4

Chapter 6 is the final part of the study, it is the

discussion chapter which will review the evidence

obtained in the previous chapters and answer the original

aim of the project as to whether the domestication of

animals has changed the way humans perceive and depict

animals. It will also look at whether current assumptions

about human civilisation has impacted on the way we

interpret past symbolism

Chapter 7 is the conclusion of the project which will

summarise the project as a whole and offer new opinions

on the subject area. This chapter will also include a

brief narrative for suggestions of further work.

1.3 Methods:

This project is primarily a literature based study that

correlates current and previous work carried out on the

region to offer an alternative view. The project faces

challenges due to the availability of resources and

access for the author to these resources. Due to this,

the main sources of information will come primarily from

journal articles as they provide peer reviewed theories

and provide the most up to date data which can be used,

assessed, criticised and challenged.

10002902 5

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

2.1 Background Research:

10002902 6

The previous work on animal symbolism in the Near East is

substantial, there has been research conducted into

particular animal types such as the bull, one of the most

frequently seen symbols in the Ancient World and in the

Near East in particular. Akkerman & Schwartz (2003)

proposed that Neolithic religion centred in part round

the image of the bull. Green (2003) has also researched

the symbolism of the bull looking at it form a religious

perspective and associating it with the representation of

a storm God throughout several different regions.

A very well documented and researched site in the Near

East is that of Çatalhöyük with its extensive settlement

and distinctive wall paintings. However Çatalhöyük is

central/western Anatolia and falls outside the region of

the Fertile Crescent. Some similarities and comparisons

may be drawn within the study but used cautiously due to

its location.

One of the main archaeologists researching into the field

of animal symbolism on the prehistoric sites of the Near

East is Klaus Schmidt. He has conducted research on the

pre-farming sites in South-Eastern Anatolia, in

particular at Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori (Schmidt &

Peters 2004; Schmidt 2007) where some of the most iconic

animal symbolism in the pre-domesticated world is

located. Both sites are also located with the region of

the Fertile Crescent.

Similar research to this project has been conducted by

Danielle Stordeur in a paper in which she discusses

10002902 7

symbolism she suggests that domestication has had a

profound effect on the symbolism seen in the Near East

with humans and animals (Stordeur 2010).

Looking at the wider research areas that do not focus

specifically on animal symbolism; a lot of the research

focuses on gender issues surrounding symbolism. Many

excavated sites in the Near East have resulted in

numerous finds of female figurines and female

iconography. This has led to the idea of the Neolithic

been centred around the female. However, sites such as

Göbekli Tepe have yielded little almost no female

iconography. Hodder and Meskell (2011) conducted research

into the belief that Neolithic societies have been based

on matriarchal symbolism, associating the female form

with fertility, their paper aimed to look at changing the

established belief to one of a more phallocentric

Neolithic. It suggests that these societies have a much

more patriarchal focus. The research in the paper also

includes the anthropomorphic aspects of Göbekli Tepe in

particular but also brings in Nevalı Çori. Also within

the paper, the animal symbolism is used to look at the

idea of the danger aspect of the animals that are

represented.

Moving away from the animal research and directing it

towards humans and human society and culture. Croucher

(2012) published interesting findings and theories on the

nature of death in the societies in the Near East. After

the adoption of farming and domestication of animals

10002902 8

human society appears to grow and become more complex

with the evidence of burial practices and the building of

villages and larger domestic structures has led to much

research being done on the evolution of human culture.

Other research such as that done by Pearson (et al 2013)

focuses primarily on the use of animals rather than their

symbolic importance.

Much research conducted in the region of the Fertile

Crescent has been done on deciphering the origins of the

domestication of both plants and animals. Further

information on this will be provided in chapter 3.

2.2 Chronology:

The primary method in which archaeologists date sites and

objects is to use typologies which David Hurst Thomas

described as “idealised categories artificially created

by the archaeologist to make sense of past material

culture” (Thomas 1998: 235). Basic idea of using

typologies is rooted in biological taxonomies stemming

from Darwin’s theory of evolution and is a way of using

artefacts such as pottery and stone tools to create a

chronological structures for a site (Darvill: 2008: 473).

This basic way of creating typologies led to the basis of

archaeological dating, the result of this being the Three

Age System (Stone, Bronze, Iron); first coined in the

early 19th century by the Danish Antiquarian Christian

Jurgensen Thomsen (Darvill 2008: 459). This is a system

which is still in use today used in conjunction with

10002902 9

modern scientific dating techniques such as C14 Dating

employed to substantiate definitive and more accurate

date ranges. This three age system has been fundamental

in structuring much of European prehistory, however, when

it comes to dating in the NE as many of the sites are

much older than that in Europe, and many of the lower

layers on sites are before any form of pottery which made

the original dating very difficult.

C14 dating has been employed and, although one of the

most trusted methods of archaeological dating, can never

be absolute due the different proportions of the

measurable aspect of C14 not being a constant in the

Earth’s atmosphere throughout time (Blackwell et al 2006:

408). To improve accuracy of C14 dating we can calibrate

dates along the calibration curve and we can also apply

the use of Bayesian Statistics (Ramsey 2009: 337) which

provides archaeologists with a way of combining

radiocarbon results with the findings from archaeological

contexts, such as known chronological orders derived from

stratigraphy (Steier & Rom 2000: 183).

It is the known chronology derived from excavations

combined with C14 and the use of Bayesian statistics

which provide ways of dating for sites in the Near East,

along with the typology of the stone tool industry for

many of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites and then pottery

for the Pottery Neolithic sites. Some of the literature

for sites in the Near East also uses chronological phases

derived from the architecture of the sites to provide

10002902 10

chronological analyses such as from Akarçay Tepe

(Ozbasaran & Duru 2011).

The initial dating sequences from the Near East come from

the Southern Levant area, in particular at Jericho.

Excavations first carried out at Jericho by John Garstang

showed layers of occupation before the establishment of

any pottery (Kenyon 1954: 103). The layers were still

Neolithic but the phases were before any known pottery

types, it was due to this that Kathleen Kenyon coined the

terminology for the early phases of the Neolithic; Pre-

pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and Pre-pottery Neolithic B

(PPNB) during her own excavations at Jericho following

from Garstang’s previous work (Bar-Yosef 1998: 190).

Although derived from areas in the Southern Levant, this

terminology has been adopted as regular use for the

archaeology of the Near East. There has been suggestions

from Braidwood that the terminology should be

anthropologically orientated, “using excavated

assemblages within a socio-economic interpretation” (Bar-

Yosef 1998: 169). However the terminology coined by

Kenyon is the one that has been adopted and used. As it

is the most widely used within the literature, and as

such it will be used in this study.

The current research in the region has provided the

adoption of another time period before the PPN, which is

the Natufian period, which has been born out of

excavations carried out in the Southern Levant. The date

ranges for all these periods has also come from sites in

10002902 11

the Southern Levant (Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002) which is

thought to have some of the deepest strata levels of

human sedentary communities.

The terminology for the PPN is fairly consistent

throughout the literature, however in some cases which is

demonstrated in the tables below, the terminology for the

latter phases of the PPNB is sometimes categorised as

being PPNC. The terminology used in this study will be

primarily dependent upon the literature sources used.

Below are two tables from current literature depicting

the chronologies adopted by authors for categorising the

Near East

Table 2.1 Showing approximate cal BC dates for the

archaeological periods/phases in the Near East

(Croucher 2012; adapted from other sources, such as Kuijt

& Goring-Morris 2002. Original table can be found in

appendix 1)

Table 2.2 showing approximate cal BP dates for the

chronological phases of the Neolithic NE

10002902 12

(Connolly et al 2011: 539)

The tables above show the dates of the chronological

phases, one showing dates in BC and the other showing

dates in BP. Throughout the literature and research, BP

and BC are used interchangeably, this being the case, it

will also be used in such a way in this study. Although

absolute dates will not be the primary focus as much as

using the phase terminology will be.

2.3 Symbolism:

This study is about the animal symbolism seen in the

Fertile Crescent in the NE, however, the initial

definition and interpretation of symbolism needs

clarification for the purposes of this study.

The dictionary defines symbols as being “items used to

stand for or represent another” (Darvill 2008: 445).

While this is what is being addressed in this study, it

does not entirely encompass the breadth of what can be

seen in the Neolithic Near East. It is the interpretation

of the symbolism which is being addressed in this study

which is referred to as symbolic interactionism (Darvill

2008: 445) the means in which human interaction is based

10002902 13

upon the use of symbols and language, humans can

coherently communicate between several different culture

types simply through the use of symbolism. Verhoeven

suggests three types of symbolism that can be

distinguished “(1) hidden symbolism, (2) conventional

symbolism, and (3) dominant symbolism. Hidden symbolism

refers to the non-obvious symbolic aspects of material

culture, e.g. the location and nature of entrances,

largely unconsciously informing one about expected

behaviour. Conventional symbolism refers to "normal",

often domestic symbols, such as decorated pottery.

Dominant symbols are special in that they focus as well

as evoke in a more persistent manner than do conventional

symbols; they are especially used in rituals” (Verhoeven

2002: 9)

This study will encompass all dimensions of symbolism

that can be seen, including figurines, depictions,

drawings and the use of animal bones (including horns) as

decorations. The primary focus is to identify if there is

a notable change in the animal symbolism and subsequently

to identify if any changes in humanities interaction with

animals can be identified or if the relationship between

animals and humans can be addressed differently after the

adoption of animal husbandry. The sites included in this

study as case studies also have anthropomorphic features

which are occasionally associated with the zoomorphic.

Although the study is primarily based upon animals, the

10002902 14

human influence will not be wholly ignored but will by no

means be the primary focal point.

10002902 15

Chapter 3 - Transition to agriculture and domestication

of animals

3.1. Introduction:

The origin of agriculture is an important feature in the

archaeological record and one that is heavily debated

amongst several different disciplines including

archaeology.

It is important to note that when using the term origins

of agriculture, it is not simply saying that it suddenly

began in one specific place or on one specific site and

then was instantly adopted by the rest of the world. The

origins of agriculture relates to the domestication of

crops and the domestication of animals. Archaeologists

define domestication as the process of the reproduction

of animals and plants being controlled by humans (Vigne

2011: 172), judging the cost and benefits of keeping

their own sources of food against the traditional hunting

and gatherering methods of food procurement.

When discussing the beginning of agriculture, it is a

discussion essentially of the beginning of sedentary

human societies and the shift between hunter-gatherers

10002902 16

and agriculturalists. The majority of the theories behind

why humans became agriculturalists are derived from that

of necessity that grew out of environmental and

population pressure (Kelly 2007: 18)

3.2. Crop Domestication:

Before being able to discuss the domestication of

animals, the beginning of the domestication of plants

must be addressed as it is a necessary precursor to

sedentary societies and the subsequent ability of humans

to be able to domesticate animals.

To understand the origins of crops, the study of

archaeobotany looks at the genetics of crops and traces

their genetics to try and understand the initial

domestication of different plant types. It is very much

dependant upon crops that are being evaluated but it is

currently accepted that there are four major centres for

crop domestication (Brown et al 2008: 104).

The development of agriculture is linked to the

domestication of the primary crop wheat (Asplund et al

2010: 2303) and several studies have attempted to define

a single core area for domestication located around

South-Eastern Anatolia within the Fertile Crescent. Using

botanical, genetic, and archaeological evidence

archaeologists define the core area to be located around

the regions of the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates

(Lev-Yadun et al 2000: 1602). However, due to the lack of

evidence from both archaeology and archaeobotany there

10002902 17

appears to be an inability to pin point a specific single

core area where agriculture could have originated and

spread through a process of linear diffusion (Willcox &

Savard 2011: 275)

According to (Lev-Yadun et al 2000) there are three main

cereals thought to be the basis of Neolithic agriculture

in the Ancient Near East; Barley, Einkorn wheat and Emmer

wheat. These crops are thought to be the oldest

domesticates which allowed humans to become sedentary

with the selective cultivation of such, created

manageable crops.

Fig 3.1 Shows the location of the proposed core area

(Fuller et al 2011: 629)

10002902 18

Table 3.1 Showing the domesticated founder crops of Near

Eastern agriculture

(Abbo et al 2010: 318 – based on Zohary and Hopf 2000)

However, more recent research into the origins of

domesticated crops has seen a change in the previous

theory of a core area of diffusion; Fuller et al (2011)

and Willcox (2005) argue against this theory of a core

area and suggest that different crops were domesticated

in different regions which are all dependant upon the

environment. For this study, the idea of which theory is

not of necessary importance, it is the date of the

initial domestication as that can aid in determining the

interaction humans were having with their environment and

deciding upon sites to use for case studies. Initial crop

domestication is thought to have occurred in the Fertile

Crescent at around 11,500–11,000 cal BP (Zeder 2011:

222). Using that as a basis this study can then presume

that all the sites used as case studies would have been

built by humans that were actively practicing agriculture

10002902 19

and several would have been fully sedentary societies

with evolving cultures.

3.3. Animal Domestication:

Finding a definitive date for the domestication of

animals is a more difficult process than crops as it is

harder to trace genetics back through animal species.

There are four main animals domesticates known to the

archaeological record, sheep, goat, pig and cattle (Zeder

2008: 11597). The idea of multiple origins discussed in

the earlier part of the chapter is also the widely

accepted theory for the origins of animal domestication.

The way in which archaeologists are able to study the

ancestral origins of domesticated animals is through

archaeozoology a means of studying archaeological

skeletal remains of animals (Vigne 2011: 172). For

domestication to be successful for animals it needs to be

based upon a dynamic equilibrium between humans and

animals (Vigne 2011: 172), it has to be beneficial to the

animals as well as humans. It is easy to see how humans

can profit from this relationship in terms of meat and

other by-products available. Initially the benefits for

animals can be more difficult to see, however, through

this pairing with humans the animals receive one of the

main components for their survival, which is protection.

This then in turn leads to population growth, which turns

into a benefit for humans.

10002902 20

Before discussing the primary domesticates, it may be

important to acknowledge that a relationship with humans

can also be for companionship and assistance. Speaking

primarily here of the domestication of the dog, which is

thought to have occurred at around 15,000 cal BP

(Driscoll et al 2009: 9972). The earliest of any animal

domesticate; thought to be used for hunting aids and also

for companionship. It is crucial to keep this in mind

when looking at the animal symbolism and iconography we

see on sites not only in this region but all over the

world where the ancient dog (more likely wolf) is known

to have inhabited.

Moving on to address the main domesticates in the Near

East, it is thought that it began with goats during the

MPPNB around 10,000 cal BP, then followed by sheep with

pigs and cattle being domesticated even later (Zeder

2011: 222).

Fig 3.2 Map showing the dispersal of the domesticates and

the proposed dates in BP

10002902 21

(Zeder 2008: 11598)

Fig 3.3 Map showing the areas of animal domestication

included with crop domestication dates are in BP

10002902 22

(Driscoll et al 2009: 9973)

Table 3.2 Showing associated dates and location for

common animal domesticates. Red boxes indicate the main

domesticates

(From Driscoll et al 2009: 9974 with additions)

10002902 23

The maps and tables above suggest that there was not a

large time difference between the domestication of the

four main domesticate breeds and the domestication of the

primary crop basis.

This idea that goat was the first domesticate is being

questioned in the literature, sites such as Hallan Çemi

Tepesi, one of the oldest known village sites of the Near

East; mid 10th millennium cal BC (Rosenberg 2011: 61).

The faunal and botanical remains from Hallan Çemi Tepesi

indicate that the site was occupied year round with the

primary subsistence base still being hunting and

gathering (Peasnall et al 1998: 31). Excavations at this

site have yielded results suggesting that the pig was the

focal point of early experiments with animal husbandry,

which is most likely due to its ease of taming (Rosenberg

2011: 67). The importance of this site is that it is a

key site for showing this transitional phase between

hunting and gathering nomadic lifestyles to sedentary

lifestyles, by showing that the inhabitants were actively

participating in husbandry rather than just control of

the wild populations.

As the research suggests that the dates for each

domesticate are all of a similar range, it can be assumed

that domestication of different animals could have

occurred at the same time in more that one place, giving

weight to the multiple origins for agriculture theory.

Harris (2002) and Miller (2002) both suggest that early

forms of wild animal population control were employed

10002902 24

before a fully functioning system of animal husbandry.

Suggesting that the majority of the sites succeeding the

PPNB would have become at least partially reliant upon

the wild progenitors of the domesticated breeds.

Therefore creating a reduction in the diversity of the

human diet (Harris 2002: 79) which would then be evident

in the faunal assemblages of the sites.

Chapter 4 - The transitional period

4.1. Introduction:

In this section, the sites in question are within the

date range of the transitional period at the beginnings

of animal and crop domestication, it is sites that fall

within the date ranges of the PPNA and to roughly around

the LPPNB. It is these date which encompass what is

thought to be the earliest beginnings of civilisation. In

some areas humans were still hunting and gathering as a

means of survival and some were settling in to a more

10002902 25

sedentary lifestyle. In some cases, the evidence suggests

that it was a mixture of gathering crops and management

of the wild animal populations that provided the main

food procurement strategies (Buitenhuis 2000: 188).

The site used as the primary data source for animal

iconography in this study has been collected from Göbekli

Tepe, this is not known as a settlement site it is

currently referred to in the literature as a temple or a

ritual site (Verhoeven 2002: 240-241; Schmidt 2007).

4.2. Göbekli Tepe: A background

As Göbekli Tepe is the base reference for this project

some background information is essential to its

understanding. The site is located in South East Anatolia

and was discovered in 1994 by a farmer from the local

area. German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt, who has done

much research in Southeastern Anatolia went to

investigate the site further. Climbing the mound to the

site he realised what had been found was a discovery that

would change previous conceptions of the Neolithic in the

Near East (Schmidt 2007: 15-17). The site dates to around

the 10th millennium BC during the PPNA (Schmidt 2011:

41). The current thought is that the site is one of pure

ritual usage which would have drawn hunter-gatherer

groups from all around the region to this central place

(Banning 2011: 622). Its geographical location suggests

that it would be unsuitable as a domestic site and would

have served as a pilgrimage site to several of the

10002902 26

hunter-gatherers in the area (Banning 2011: 624). The

majority of the faunal remains found on site belong to

the wild breeds not the domesticated (Banning 2011: 624)

which has fuelled the idea of a purely ritual context.

Fig

4.1 A

view

of

the

Göbekli Tepe mound from the south

10002902 27

(Schmidt 2011: 59)

The dating period for this section of the project is

thought of as a transitional period between humans

hunting and gathering (Schmidt 2011: 41) to becoming

fully sedentary societies and the animal iconography

found on these sites can be used to more understand this

transition.

The site of Göbekli Tepe has become one of the most

famous in the PPN of the Near East. It had been purposely

buried and was instantly recognisable within the

landscape as an artificial mound (Schmidt 2000: 46).

This site is crucial to this study as there is a vast

array of animal depictions found within the enclosures of

the site. The animals used as examples in this section

will be derived from this site due to the numerous and

vastly different species of animals that are found.

Fig 4.2 Göbekli Tepe under excavation showing some of the

enclosures containing the iconic T-Shaped Pillars

10002902 28

(Schmidt 2011: 80)

Several of these iconic T-Shaped pillars seen in the

image contain depictions of animals that are primarily

classed as wild animals, such as leopards, snakes and

vultures. This diversity of animals depicted on the site

has made it the primary focus for this study. Also, the

architecture on this site is very similar to that found

on Nevalı Çori where other striking animal imagery has

been found and both are of similar age (Schmidt 2011: 41)

this makes it necessary to include this as one of the

main sites of reference for this chapter.

10002902 29

The table below has been collated from two major sources

and lists the known animal depictions that have so far

been discovered on the site.

It has been edited for this chapter, the full version of

the table can be found in appendix 2.

Table 4.1 Listing the main animals found on the site

Animal Context Symbolic typeReptile Limestone plate CarvingWolf-like Head of figurine FigurineBird Head of figurine FigurineFour-legged animal

(presumed to be a

mammal)

Top portion of

figurine

Figurine

Snake Limestone plate CarvingLion like Wall CarvingBoar Figurine Figurine5 snakes T-Shaped Pillar CarvingBundle of snakes T-Shaped Pillar CarvingSnakes in net like

format

T-Shaped Pillar Carving

Ram (presumed) T-Shaped Pillar CarvingFox (or possibly

wolf, Jackal or

Dog)

T-Shaped Pillar Carving

Crane T-Shaped Pillar CarvingBoar T-Shaped Pillar CarvingAuroch T-Shaped Pillar Carving

10002902 30

Wild sheep T-Shaped Pillar CarvingAsiatic wild Ass T-Shaped Pillar CarvingGazelle T-Shaped Pillar CarvingBrown bear T-Shaped Pillar Carving(Author: Information for the table gathered from Schmidt

2007 & Schmidt & Peters 2004)

The numerous examples of animals found depicted on the

site, shows an importance between humans and animals for

the creators of the site to have taken the time to detail

them. This table will be the basis for the animal

iconography used within the study. As this section

focuses on the transitional stage into fully agricultural

societies the primary animals focused on will be ones

that are representative of the wild animal populations

not recognisable as the primary domesticates.

In this chapter, an animal will be selected from the

table and then compared against similar depictions found

on other sites within the region.

4.3. Snake:

The animal that appears to be the most commonly depicted

is the snake (Schmidt & Peters 2004: 183) however, in

comparison to some of the other animal iconography found

on this site the image of the snake appears to be the

least anatomically correct. However Schmidt and Peters

(2004) have suggested that their shape represents that of

a Viper, several venomous vipers are known in the Urfa

region (Schmidt & Peters 2004: 183) and it is possible10002902 31

that these images could relate to this particular

species.

A very similar image of the snake also appears at the

sites of Nevalı Çori, Southeastern Anatolia (Hauptmann

2011: 96) and Jerf el-Ahmar (modern day Syria) (Stordeur

2000: 3)

a b c

Fig 4.3 Images of the snake

(a) Representation of a snake on a T-shaped pillar from

Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt & Peters 2004: 192);

(b) Plaque engraved with snakes from Jerf el-Ahmar

(Stordeur 2010: 125);

(c) Limestone head with a carved snake from Nevalı Çori

(Hauptmann 2011: 127)

The shape of the snakes head on each of the depictions

suggests that the same species of snake is being depicted

on all the sites. Alternatively it could also suggest

that there is some form of interaction between the groups

10002902 32

creating these figures. The snake imagery from Göbekli

Tepe is some of the most prolific, there is snake pillar

building (Schmidt 2002: 9) fig 4.2 demonstrates what is

meant by pillar in this context.

Attempting to understand the meaning behind the use of

the snake as a symbol is incredibly difficult and one of

the overriding theories suggests that they are associated

with danger and death (Schmidt 2007: 120; Stordeur 2010:

124). Not necessarily immediately thought of as a

predatory animal, however, if the representation is of a

venomous Viper, the nature in which this animal kills its

prey could be a vital reason why it appears on several

sites throughout the Near East. Another site that

includes an image of the snake is one of the oldest

settled Neolithic sites known in the area; Hallan Çemi

Tepesi, a known village site occupied towards the end of

the 11th century BP, mid 10th Century cal BC (Rosenberg

2011: 61). The image of the snake is created from carved

bone (see appendix 3 (A)) it has not been included in

text due to the objects fragmentary state.

10002902 33

4.4. Lion/Panther (big cat):

Using data from the table one of the other animals that

is of particular interest is the depiction of the lion

like figure.

a b

10002902 34

c

Fig 4.4 Images of the lion/panther (big cat)

(a) Depiction of a lion/panther at Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt

2011: 66)

(b) Head of lion/panther figurine from Nevalı Çori

(Hauptmann 2011: 135)

(c) Carving of 3 panthers from a bench in Tell ‘Abr

(Stordeur 2010: 125)

The sample of objects chosen here, clearly depict a

feline creature, the definitive whiskers shown on both

(a) and (b), the claws, long tail and representation of

fur on (c) can provide no speculation or ambiguity of the

creature being depicted. However, the decision as to

whether it is a lion or a panther is still under debate.

Stordeur describes them as panthers whereas Schmidt

describes the depiction at Göbekli Tepe as a lion.

Neither of these can be confirmed so at this stage either

is acceptable. What is distinguishable is the lack of

facial features for the depictions at Tell ‘Abr. The

figures appear to be face down whereas the others appear

to be purposefully drawn to be showing teeth (Hodder &

Meskell 2011: 237)

10002902 35

10002902 36

4.5. Scorpion

a b

Fig 4.5 Images of the Scorpion

(a) Scorpion relief from Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2011: 78)

(b) Grooved stone with Scorpion relief from Jerf el-Ahmar

(Stordeur 2010: 126)

The most notable feature from these images is the

distinct difference between the drawing style of the two.

10002902 37

The anatomical detail of the scorpion on image (a) the

defined legs and detail on the tail and pincers make it

unmistakeable. In comparison, the image from Jerf el-

Ahmar is somewhat recognisable as a scorpion but lacks

the same fine detail, it appears to be much more

stylised. This difference in the way the animal is

depicted could indicate a different species or a possibly

a different meaning to the image. Although distinctly

different, they share some of the same characteristics

such as the distinct definition of the pincers and the

head of the animal. Current theories are proposing the

idea of danger for the wild animals such as these,

proposing a purpose behind emphasising the ‘pointy’

aspect of the animal (Hodder & Meskell 2011: 236) Hodder

and Meskell (2011) suggest the idea that these animals

are representational of flesh eating and piercing

animals, as emphasis is placed on the sharp aspects of

the animals making the idea of piercing the flesh being

seen as important. This seems to correlate with the image

from Jerf el-Ahmar which is depicted with sharp lines and

the tail ends with a very sharp point. In terms of the

predatory nature of this animal, it is closely comparable

with that of the snake. It is a venomous creature that

contains poison that can cause its prey to be paralysed.

This is most likely to have been witnessed and possibly

even experienced by some of the human populations the

area, giving them a sufficient reason to fear this

animal.

10002902 38

10002902 39

4.6. Reptile

b

a

Fig 4.6 Images of the lizard and reptile found at Göbekli

Tepe

(a) Lizard like high relief at Göbekli Tepe

(http://essayweb.net)

(b) Reptile high relief from Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2011:

71)

The two reptile/reptile like creatures chosen here are

both depicted at Göbekli Tepe but are of two very

different styles. The relief shown in (b) has much less

detail but when studied in a closer vicinity, the mouth

and teeth can clearly be identified as can a long tail10002902 40

(Schmidt 2007: 89). Outwardly the two reliefs appear

completely different, (a) on first appearance resembles a

large cat, the face appears to show whiskers and the

torso appears to depict a rib cage similar to a lion

figurine found on the site (see appendix 3 (B)). The

extended tail and long toe or claw like depictions on the

front legs allow for suggestion of a lizard, much like

the shape of the head for (b) resemble that of a lizard.

Although on the face of it seemingly very different, they

do show some similarities with one another, particularly

with the emphasis on a long tail. Ambiguity will always

play a part in trying to identify ancient depictions.

Much like the snake and the scorpion, the lizard is an

animal which has (arguably) never been domesticated and

some species can be a predatory creature to humanity. The

main focus of the animals appears to be on the wild array

of animals that would have been inhabiting the area

during the construction and use of this site (Verhoeven

2002: 252).

The selection of animals chosen here that have been

depicted during the PPNA to MPPNB are all what would be

classed as wild animals. They would all have been a food

source to the humans around them, including the reptiles.

Are these depictions then, an indication of the wide

variety of the diet or do they have a more symbolic

meaning. A traditional view of the hunters relationship

with the animals they hunted is one of respect (Serpell

1996: 5) do these representations of wild animals then

10002902 41

suggest a level of respect for these creatures? Are these

animals drawn with such detail to show the way humans

felt about them, treating them as their equals? It is

possible to use this theory for the animals like the lion

and the reptile but it is harder to include the scorpion

into this. The images from Göbekli Tepe could be

suggestive of hunting styles. This issues presented by

the animals represented in this period is that they are

not uniform. Each site represents an animal differently,

and in some cases different animals entirely, there

appears to be no conclusive uniformity between the sites.

10002902 42

Chapter 5 – Established domestication

5.1. Introduction

This section focuses on sites that lie within the dating

range of established domestication. This means that the

sites that will be addressed will date from the late PPNB

and the PN (see Table 2.1. and Table 2.2 in chapter 2 for

dates for these periods). It is at this point in which

fully agricultural villages begin to appear and animal

husbandry is becoming a more dominate part of the

subsistence base (Miller 2002: 85).

This chapter is structured slightly differently to the

previous chapter as the animal symbols that we see on a

number of the PN sites are figurines rather than

individual motifs or reliefs that are the predominant in

the previous chapter. Due to this they are classified as

small finds and as such in the literature they are

represented as bulk finds.

Therefore this chapter looks at sites as a whole from the

LPPNB onwards rather than looking specifically at the

individual animals. The period has been labelled next to

the images as some of the sites are multi period and have

earlier phases that belong to the PPN. The figurines

from all these sites are indicative of the domesticated

breeds. However, unlike in the previous chapter,

10002902 43

determining what animal is being depicted is more

difficult due to the nature of their fragmentary states.

From these images it appears that they lack the finer

detail that we see on the animal depictions from the

early PPN sites. There also appears to be a lack of

diversity in the animals seen compared to the

transitional period. The animals seen in this period all

appear to be the domesticate animals whereas there is a

wider range of wild animals depicted on the transitional

period sites.

5.2. Sumaki Höyük

Fig 5.1 Clay animal figurines from Sumaki Höyük - PN

10002902 44

(Erim-Ozdogan 2011: 59)

Sumaki Höyük is one of the multi-period sites, ranging

from the Neolithic to the medieval period although not

inhabited continuously (Erim-Ozdogan 2011:24). The phase

in question for this study is dated to the PN (Erim-

Ozdogan 2011: 24) and it is from this phase that we find

the animal figurines. The figurines are representative of

sheep, pig, cattle and turtle (Erim-Ozdogan 2011: 59).

The stratigraphy obtained from excavations on this site

show that the inhabitants had lifestyles that were

partially nomadic and partially sedentary, with a

subsistence base of agriculture and animal husbandry

(Erim-Ozdogan 2011: 35). The majority of the animals that

we see in these figurines are typical of the domesticated

breeds. However, there is what would appear to be an

anomaly in the assemblage in terms of figure (e) which is

thought to be representative of a turtle. We see a

similar type of animal carved onto a bowl from Nevalı

Çori (see appendix 3 (C)) which is thought to be

10002902 45

representative of a tortoise with two pregnant

anthropomorphic figures (Hauptmann 2011: 100) he also

suggests that the tortoise is a symbol of fertility

(Hauptmann 2011:100) . It would appear from this site at

least that the theme of depicting reptiles continues

through to the PN. However, the image from Nevalı Çori

has a degree of ambiguity and it is not definitively

accepted that the image is of two anthropomorphic beings

and a zoomorphic being. Some argue that it is three

anthropomorphic figures; although the majority agree that

the image appears to represent dancing (Garfinkel 2003).

10002902 46

5.3. Akarçay Tepe

Fig 5.2 Animal figurines from Akarçay Tepe - LPPNB

10002902 47

(Ozbasaran & Gunes 2011: 200)

These figurines much like the ones from Sumaki Höyük have

been created out of clay (Ozbasaran & Gunes 2011: 177).

Using the figurines from other sites as possible

templates, the assemblage seen here would appear to be

depicting pig, cattle and sheep or goat. The site appears

to have been in occupation continuously from the PPNB to

the PN (Ozbasaran & Gunes 2011: 167) it makes this site a

good example of one which would have had inhabitants that

were practicing or at least experimenting with animal

husbandry. The evidence for this can be seen in the

faunal assemblage from the site, the majority of the

10002902 48

bones are of domestic animals primarily ovis and capra;

Sheep and Goat (Ozbasaran & Gunes 2011:171). The volume

and dominance of the juvenile animal bones amongst the

assemblage suggests that the inhabitants were selectively

butchering the younger animals (Ozbasaran & Gunes 2011:

171). Using just this evidence the animal figurines which

would be expected would then be sheep and goat. It is

possible that the addition of the pig and cattle

figurines could suggest that along with practising

husbandry of sheep and goat, they could have been

actively controlling the wild populations of boar and

auroch.

10002902 49

5.4 Salat Cami Yani

Fig 5.3 Animal figurines from Salat Cami Yani - PN

(Miyake 2011:148)

The animal figurines are again made from clay and are

most likely depictions of sheep or goats (Miyake 2011:

134). The selection of animals represented in this

assemblage is unsurprising as is it generally believed

that Salat Cami Yani is an example of a standard farming

community that would have been in existence in this

10002902 50

period (Miyake 2011: 130). However, what is surprising is

that among the faunal assemblage, the sheep and/or goat

make up the smallest percentage of the primary

domesticates (Miyake 2011: 134). The largest proportion

comes from pig, which does not appear to be represented

amongst this assemblage. Although the highest percentage

of faunal remains comes from the domestic animals, some

wild animals are also present such as wild boar (Miyake

2011: 134) this indicates that morphological changes have

occurred in the pig suggesting a fully domesticated

breed.

5.5 Tell Sabi Abyad

Fig 5.4 Clay animal figurines from Tell Sabi Abyad - PN

10002902 51

(a) (b)

(Akkermans et al 2006: 134)

The zoomorphic figurines include what could be a deer or

ovicaprid (domesticated goat or sheep), the figure in (a)

seems more likely representative of a goat with long and

slightly curved horns and (b) seems to be representative

of an Auroch but the head and tail are missing (Akkermans

et al 2006: 131). The bulk around the shoulders is typical

of the auroch. These zoomorphic figures were found within

a cache of tokens on the site and it has been suggested

that they are representative of goods which define

property and control storage (Akkermans et al 2006: 132).

If this is indeed the case it would seem that with the

adoption of domestication, the interaction between humans

and animals changed, for this site at least. It would

seem that animals and meat became commodities that could

be traded and exchanged. It may also suggest that the

figurines are indicative of a currency.

This theory may be current societies imprint on the way

ancient cultures would have conducted themselves in a10002902 52

more structured community. Modern Europeans see

themselves as being above animals with animals being

inferior to humans (Mullin 1999: 204) it may be this

modern attitude that creates such theories.

Chapter 6 - Discussion

The previous two chapters have given some examples of the

animal symbolism found in the Ancient Near East. This

chapter aims to review the previous two chapters. It aims

to look at whether the way modern culture has evolved has

impacted on the way archaeology interprets the past and

assess if the relationship between animals and humans has

changed with the adoption of animal husbandry and whether

the symbolic nature of animals has changed.

An initial way that archaeology has defined symbolism is

by suggestions that it can represent a symbolic culture

(Coolidge & Wynn 2010: S6). Paleoanthropologists suggest

that symbolism is one of the markers which has enabled

modern thinking (Coolidge & Wynn 2010: S6). If this is

the case then symbolism can be addressed as a form of

communication or language between different human groups.

This means creating a distinction between what we deem

‘speech’ and what we deem ‘language’ and ‘communication’

10002902 53

(Schepartz 1993: 92). Creating this distinction suggests

that we can assess symbolism as a form of communication.

It does not however, give good cause or justification to

assume that each representation of an animal is

synonymous with another from a different site as the

animals can be represented very differently.

However, there is a possible exemption to this and that

exemption comes from the sites Nevalı Çori and Göbekli

Tepe. Both sites are incredibly similarly structured and

contain similar animal symbolism.

Fig 6.1 Composite drawing of the

Fig 6.2 Image of T-shape pillars

T-shaped pillar buildings at Nevalı Çori

from Göbekli Tepe

10002902 54

(Hauptmann 2011: 126)

(Schmidt 2011: 75)

The architectural style of the ritual or cult buildings

(Hauptmann 2011:126) from Nevalı Çori is almost exactly

the same architectural type to that of what we see at

Göbekli Tepe. It is entirely plausible that this is

10002902 55

merely a coincidence, but given the geographical

locations of both these site and their relative dates,

the more obvious explanation would be that they were

created by the same group of people (see fig 1.1 for a

map showing their proximity to one another).

As the current accepted view of Göbekli Tepe is that it

is purely a ritual site with currently no signs of

occupation visible (Schmidt 2007) and Nevalı Çori is a

site which has domestic dwellings and ritual buildings

(Hauptmann 2011: 106) it is a conceivable theory to

suggest that Göbekli Tepe may have been a creation of the

inhabitants of Nevalı Çori as a completely separate

purely ritual purpose.

As a consequence to this it would be not be too much to

assume that the animal imagery that we see on both of

these sites would be incredibly similar, looking in

particular at the snake imagery (see fig 4.3) that would

appear to be the case. Both are high reliefs on stone and

have a similar shaped head and body. The major difference

is the distinct human-animal linkage that can be seen on

the relief from Nevalı Çori. Verhoeven (2002) created a

table charting the similarities and differences in ritual

and ideology of several different sites around the Near

East and the Levant, including a comparison between

Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori (see appendix 4).

His suggestion is that the human-animal linkages only

appear with wild animals and that this is showing an

attachment to the wild and to nature (Verhoeven 2002:

10002902 56

252) much like Hodder & Meskell (2011) Verhoeven also

suggests that this representation of the wild animals is

distinctively linked to being male. This apparent

obsession with gender is relatively unseen on sites aside

from Göbekli Tepe where the imagery is clearly depicted

as being male (Hodder & Meskell 2011).

It is important to explore this idea of the human and

animal linkages. To this end it is important to briefly

touch upon shamanism, and acknowledge that it could be a

possible explanation for this linkage. We see specific

human animal linkage at Nevalı Çori, there is a figure

found at Nevalı Çori depicting a vulture attached to an

anthropomorphic figure (see appendix 3 (D)) which could

be possible reminiscent of a primitive totem. There is

also the snake on the anthropomorphic head (Fig 4.3 (c))

it is possible that this could represent the idea of a

shaman individual that can possess the spirit and

attributes of the vulture or a snake. Possibly used as a

way of persuading animals to be more easily captured when

they were being hunted (Serpell 1996: 5). This idea

cannot be substantiated with any kind of decent evidence

which makes it an unreliable theory to assume.

Turning attention towards the big cat symbols (listed

earlier in the project as lion or panther) there are

representations from three separate sites, the Nevalı

Çori and Göbekli Tepe representations are, as assumed

very similar (see fig 4.4 (a) & (b)). However, the third

10002902 57

representation comes from Jerf el-Ahmar and appears to be

depicting a big cat of a different type (fig 4.4 image

(c)) the depictions at Jerf el-Ahmar clearly shows claws

and fur but is drawn face down, the legs also seem to be

linked, perhaps for simple ease of drawing or perhaps it

is a representation of the animal lying dead or the pelts

obtained through the hunting of these big cats. Due to

the distinct differences between the representations, it

is fair to say that their meanings could possibly be

different. It is the same for the image of the scorpion.

The stylised image from Jerf el-Ahmar (see fig 4.5 image

(b)) would seem to indicate further meaning whereas the

scorpion from Göbekli Tepe is intricately carved with

some anatomical detail suggesting that it could merely be

a somewhat simple representation of the natural world.

One theory that has been suggested for the scorpion and

the lion is that it has reference to the constellations

of Scorpio and Leo (Hartner 1965: 3) this idea however

seems to be too much of modern society being used to

assign meaning to an Ancient society.

If we then look at the image of the reptile, it is more

difficult to understand, on the face of it, it seems a

very unusual animal to choose to depict, especially if we

are to try and assign a symbolic meaning to it.

There is evidence of using lizard skin as personal

ornamentation, a site named Demirköy, contains a burial

with a lizard skin bracelet (Rosenberg 2011: 86)

10002902 58

suggesting that the skin at least was a desirable

material. The sites date to the PPN (Rosenberg 2011: 79)

which is where we see the majority of the

lizard/reptilian (excluding snake) symbolism. This keeps

the emphasis on the wild animals in the PPN rather than

the domesticated (or animals that would be domesticates).

The current theory for the imagery that focuses on the

wild animals such as scorpions, foxes, lions, bears,

snakes and reptiles is that they are representative of

wild and the dangerous species (Hodder & Meskall 2011:

236), the idea that it is representative of the dangers

man face in day to day life. Giving weight to the idea

that man had come to derive a general theory of a self

regulating world and then given himself a position in

that world (Cauvin 1994: 209).

On the established domestication sites, we see an

increase in figurines rather than stone reliefs, the

majority of which depict sheep, cattle, pig and goat; the

primary domesticates.

Some animals that are represented in the PPN but were not

mentioned in the transitional period include the bull and

the boar (see appendix 3 (E) & (F)). They were

deliberately left out of that section to make it easier

to understand the distinction between the two time

periods and the distinct differences between the animals

seen. This interpretation however, could be seen as

limiting or creating a bias towards the overall outcome

10002902 59

of the distinct change in animal symbolism. However it is

important to understand that there is a distinction

between the wild breeds and the domestic breeds which is

usually determined by examining the faunal remains on the

sites and looking for morphologically changes created by

domestication (Zeder 2008: 11598).

One of the constant reoccurring themes throughout the

Near East is that of the Bull, we see some of the

prolific symbolism of the bull on sites further to the

West such as Çatalhöyük (see appendix 3 (G) & (H)). The

bull appears to be a symbol of the male, danger and of

the wild but it could also be suggestive of large scale

feasting (Hodder 2011: 257). The bull is a powerful

animal and indicative of masculine energy. Its size would

inevitable feed a large amount of people. An alternative

view proposed has been the idea of a ‘bull cult’,

particularly with the site of Çayönü where an auroch

skull with its horns adorning a ‘cult’ building (Erim-

Ozdogan 2011: 209). These similarities between Çatalhöyük

and Çayönü could suggest a coherency between the two, or

that both groups could think the same way about the bull.

It is a powerful animal and so the use of its horns in a

symbolic way could imply a reverence to the creature and

its obvious physical power and presence. At Çayönü at the

end of the PPN phase there is a sudden appearance of

sheep and/or goat figurines being produced (Ezim-Ozdogan

2011: 211) similar to what we see happening on other

10002902 60

sites in the region at the same time, the LPPNB beginning

the PN.

As Hodder & Meskall (2011) have suggested there does seem

to be a dominance of masculinity in the earlier symbolic

art of the Near East before the full adoption of

agriculture where we then see an increase in female

figurines (Stordeur 2010: 124). There is also a sudden

rise in figurine production rather than depictions on

stone, these figurines seem to only depict the

domesticated animals. This does seem to be indicative of

a change in the relationship between humans and animals,

specifically in the interaction between them. The lack of

focus on the wild animals and what appears to be a sudden

halt to creating images of them, suggests that there was

a drop in the interaction with them.

The initial question posed in this project was about the

influence of agriculture and domestication on animal

symbolism. From the examples given in chapters 4 and 5 it

seems clear that there was a shift from depicting the

wild to depicting the domestic with the exception of some

continuums such as with cattle and boar, primarily the

bull (although again it is important to distinguish

between the wild and domestic breeds). Using the data

gathered in the project I have constructed a table using

the sites and animals mentioned throughout the project to

further illustrate how we can see these differences (see

appendix 5). The table demonstrates the shift from

10002902 61

depicting wild animals to depicting domesticated animals.

It also highlights the technology change, from creating

large stone reliefs to smaller, portable figurines.

The adoption of agriculture and animal husbandry

completely changed a way of life, is this change in

symbolism therefore not what we would expect from a

complete lifestyle change? What does seem to be a

continued aspect of the majority of this symbolism (with

some exceptions) is that the societies were eating the

animals they were drawing. The shift appears to show a

change from communal ownership to personal ownership

(Erim-Ozdogan 2011: 211) which may also suggest changes

in social organisation and suggest routes for a form of

political evolution.

10002902 62

Conclusion

This project set out to review data regarding animal

symbolism collected from PPN sites through to PN sites

and assess whether any impact can be seen after the

adoption of domestication. From the data used in chapters

4 and 5 it seems clear that there was a distinct change

in the way animals are represented by humans.

There does appear to be a distinct correlation between

the adoption of domestication and agriculture and the

animal symbolism that is seen in the region. It also

needs to be noted that there is a distinct change in the

materials used to depict the animals. The beginning of

the PN sees the creation of clay figurines rather than

using stone to create the images. The appearance of these

clay figurines sees the appearance of the domesticate

animals being depicted.

Taking the examples used in this project, the

transitional period on the cusp on animal husbandry were

cultures that depicted the wild untamed landscapes around

them, the untamed ‘beasts’ that they would have hunted

10002902 63

for food and had to fight for their own survival. One of

humanities basic instincts is survival, the idea of

survival of the fittest comes into play in this scenario,

as at this point in history humans are just another

creature on the planet fighting to maintain their own

existence. Unlike today, the primary enemy (if it can be

called that) would have been the wild animals around them

who would have seen humans as prey. The lion for example

would most likely have hunted people, much like it would

today if it was pushed to it. Unlike modern

civilisations, ancient civilisations had less successful

weaponry to ensure that they wouldn’t have ended up as

prey. With the beginning of agriculture and the ability

to control their own food supply, human groups would have

started to see the natural world around them in a

different way, it would have started to appear

controllable. We can see today the morphological changes

that have taken place with humans control over animals,

particularly in domesticated animals, such as cows, pigs

and sheep. It is this that I feel sparked the transition

between primary depictions of wild animals to that of

domestic animals. The symbolism can be an indication of

the relationship between humans and animals. As it became

apparent that animals could be managed and even changed

through the selective breeding process humans were

beginning to exert more control over the natural world.

Animals became manageable, groups became villages. An

entire lifestyle started to gradually change, it would

10002902 64

make sense then that symbolism, or for lack of a better

word, art would change as well.

A reoccurring theory is that of imposing religion and

cults onto this change seems to be a situation of

applying current culture onto ancient societies. Why must

there be a need for religion, for humanity to have to see

themselves as a creation by a divinity that controls the

world around them? When they could see for themselves

that they were able to control their environment. The

idea of worshipping certain animals is plausible but

whether it can be associated with worship rather than

respect or an idea that certain animals have certain

powers that humans wanted to harness or show that they

believed in. I think the idea of belief rather than

worship should be employed for the animal symbolism in

the PPN. It seems that the symbolism is a depiction of

the natural world, rather than focussing on the

aggressive and wild nature of some of the animals. The

focus should perhaps be turned to the natural and mans

blending with nature and respect for nature.

For the PN with the adoption of animal husbandry the

majority of the animal symbolism with the exception again

of the bull shows a distinct change in mans mindset to

the world around them. The animals that were able to be

domesticated were possibly no longer seen as natural

beings as they can be manipulated. They become

commodities, property which could be owned by people,

with this, their symbolic importance would seemingly

10002902 65

diminish. This respect for the natural animal may

seemingly disappear to be replaced with affection. The

time spent with the animals changes humanities perception

of them and having to take care of them in the same way

they would with their own young would inevitably generate

affection for the animals.

Changing the way in which the animals are depicted, for

instance changing from carving images into stone, to

creating portable figurines could symbolise a number of

things, currency, commodity or simply a way of using the

new found freedom of not having to hunt for their food

sources in a recreational capacity and creating

depictions of the animals they now spend their lives

around and living side by side with.

Suggestions for further work

Excavations and surveys in Southeastern Turkey are still

underway on many sites. Numerous sites are still being

discovered and are that extensive that the work will

continue for many decades. In terms of looking at animal

symbolism, further work needs to be carried out on

attempting to establish meaning without imposing religion

and looking at the way agriculture has impacted on all

10002902 66

aspects of the way of life. More work should go into

trying to find a coherency between sites in the PPN that

are in close proximity to each other. Further work could

also be done to analyse the human bones found on the

sites to give an indication of whether the diet of the

inhabitants changed to include more meat after the

adoption of animal husbandry and how that correlates to

the faunal assemblages found on the sites. Another aspect

that could be looked at is the apparent change from

working with stone to working with a much more malleable

substance, clay and assessing whether the onset of the

pottery Neolithic and technology change affected which

animals were chosen to be depicted.

10002902 67

Bibliography

Abbo S, Lev-Yadun S, & Gopher A (2010) Agricultural Origins: Centers and Noncenters; A Near Eastern Reappraisal. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29(5): 317–328, 2010

Akkermans P M M G, Cappers R, Cavallo C, Nieuwenhuyse, Nilhamn B & Otte I N (2006) Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad. American Journal of Archaeology 110(1): 123-156

Akkermans, P M M G & Schwartz G M (2003). The Archaeology ofSyria: From Complex Hunter Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Asplund L, Hagenblad J & Leino M W (2010) Re-evaluating the history of the wheat domestication gene NAM-B1 using historical plant material. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(9):2303-2307

Banning E B (2011) So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic ofthe Near East. Current Anthropology 52(5): 619-660

Bar-Yosef (1998) Earliest food producers – Pre Pottery Neolithic (8000-5500) In (ed Levy T E) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land London: Leicester University Press 190-204

Bar-Yosef O (1998) The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evolutionary Archaeology 6(5): 159-177

10002902 68

Blackwell P G, Bucka C E & Reimerb P J (2006) Important features of the new radiocarbon calibration curves. Quarternary Science Reviews 25(5-6): 408-413

Breasted J H (1916) Ancient Times a history of the early world: An introduction to the study of ancient history and the career of early man. Chicago: Ginn and Co.

Brown T A, Jones M K, Powell W & Allaby R G (2008) The complex origins of domesticated crops in the Fertile Crescent. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(2): 103-109

Buitenhuis H (2002) The transition from foraging to farming: the archaeozoological perspective in Anatolia. In Cappers R T J & Bottema S (eds) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 6, 1999. Berlin: ex oriente 183-189

Cauvin J (1994) Naissance des divinities, naissance de l’agriculture. La revolution des symbols au Neolithique [The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture]. Translated Watkins T [2000] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Conolly J, Colledge S, Dobney K, Vigne J D, Peters J, Stopp B, Manning K & Shennan S (2011) Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry. Journal of Archaeological Science. 38(3): 538-545

Coolidge F L & Wynn T (2010) Beyond Symbolism and Language: An Introduction to Supplement 1, Working Memory. Current Anthropology 51(Supplement 1): S5-S16

Croucher K (2012) Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Darvill T (2008) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2nd edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press

10002902 69

Driscoll CA, Macdonald D W & O’Brien S J (2009) From wildanimals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. PNAS 106(1): 9971-9978

Erim-Ozdogan A (2011) Çayönü. In Ozodogan M, Basgelen N &Kuniholm B (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 1. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications, 185-269

Erim-Ozdogan A (2011) Sumaki Höyük A new Neolithic settlement in the Upper Tigris Basin. In Ozdogan M, Basgelen N & Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 1. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. 19-60

http://essayweb.net/history/ancient/images/weird_animal.jpg available fromhttp://essayweb.net accessed 14/04/14

Fuller D Q, Willcox G & Allaby R G (2011) Cultivation anddomestication had multiple origins: arguments against thecore area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Near East. World Archaeology 43(4): 628-652

Garfinkel Y (2003) Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Green A R W (2003) The Storm God in the Ancient Near East Biblicaland Judaic studies (vol 8) Indiana: Eisenbrauns

Harris D R (2002) Development of the agro-pastoral economy in the Fertile Crescent during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. In Cappers R T J & Bottema S (eds) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 6, 1999. Berlin: ex oriente 67-84

Hartner W (1965) The Earliest History of the Constellations in the Near East and the Motif of the Lion-Bull Combat. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24(1/2): 1-16

10002902 70

Hauptmann H (2011) The Urfa region. In Ozodogan M, Basgelen N & Kuniholm B (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 2. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications 85-138

Hodder I & Meskell L (2011) A Curious and sometimes trifle Macabre Artistry. Current Anthropology, 52(2): 235-263

Hodder I (2011) Renewed Work at Çatalhöyük. In Ozdogan, Basgelen N, & Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 3. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. 245-277

Kelly R L (2007) The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. New York: Percheron Press

Kenyon K M (1954) Excavations at Jericho. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 84 (1/2): 103-110

Kuijt I & Goring-Morris N (2002) Foraging, Farming and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16(4): 361-440

Lev-Yadun S, Gopher A & Abbo S (2000) The Cradle of Agriculture. Science, New series 288(517): 1602-1603

Miller N F (2002) Tracing the development of the agropastoral economy in Southeastern Anatolia and Northern Syria. In Cappers R T J & Bottema S (eds) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 6, 1999. Berlin: ex oriente 85-94

Miyake Y (2011) Salat Cami Yani A Pottery Neolithic Site in the Tigris Valley. In Ozdogan M, Basgelen N & KuniholmP (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 1. Istanbul: Archaeology andArt Publications. 129-149

Mullin M H (1999) Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural studies of Human-Animal Relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 201-224

10002902 71

Ozbasaran M & Duru Gunes (2011) Akarçay Tepe A PPNB and PN Settlement in Middle Euphrates – Urfa. In Ozdogan M, Basgelen N & Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 2. Istanbul 165-202

Pearson J, Grove M, Özbek M & Hongo H (2013) Food andsocial complexity at Çayönü Tepesi, southeasternAnatolia: Stable isotope evidence of differentiation indiet according to burial practice and sex in the earlyNeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (32): 180–189.

Peasnall B L, Redding R W, Nesbitt R M & Rosenberg M (1998) Hallan Cemi, pig husbandry, and post-Pleistocene adaptations along the Taurus-Zagros Arc (Turkey). Paléorient 24(1): 25-41

Ramsey C B (2009) Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates.Radiocarbon 51(1): 337-360

Rosenberg M (2011) Demirköy, In Ozdogan M, Basgelen N & Kuniholm P (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 1. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. 79-87

Rosenberg M (2011) Hallan Cemi. In Ozodogan M, Basgelen N& Kuniholm B (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 1. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications 85-138

Schepartz L A (1993) Language and Modern Human Origins. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36(S17): 91-126

Schmidt K (2007) Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia. Berlin: exoriente

Schmidt K & Peters J (2004) Animals in the symbolic worldof Pre-Pottery Neolithic Gbekli Tepe, South-Eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39 (1): 179-218

Schmidt K (2000) Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A preliminary report on the 1995-1999 excavations. Paleoriente (26) number 1: 45-54

10002902 72

Schmidt K (2002) The excavations at Göbekli Tepe (southeastern Turkey) Impressions from an enigmatic site.Neo-lithics 2(02): 8-13

Schmidt K (2011) Göbekli Tepe. In In Ozodogan M, BasgelenN & Kuniholm B (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 2. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications, 41-83

Serpell J (1996) In the company of Animals: A study of Human-Animal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Steier P & Rom W (2000) The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: A critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42(2): 183–198 Stordeur D (2000) New discoveries in architecture and symbolism at Jerf el-Ahmar (Syria), 1997-1999. Neo-lithics 1(00): 1-4

Stordeur D (2010) Domestications of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? In Bolger D & Maguire L C (eds), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg. Oxford: Oxbow 123-130 Thomas D H (1998) Archaeology (3rd edition) California: Wadsworth Publishing

Verhoeven M (2002) Ritual and ideology in the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B of the Levant and southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12 (2): 233-258

Verhoeven M (2002) Transformations of society: the changing role of ritual and symbolism in the PPNB and thePN in the Levant, Syria and south-east Anatolia. Paléorient28(1): 5-13

Vigne J D (2011) The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: A major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere. Comptes Rendus Biologies 334(3) 171-181

Willcox G & Savard S (2011) Botanical Evidence for the Adoption of Cultivation in Southeast Turkey. In Ozodogan

10002902 73

M, Basgelen N & Kuniholm B (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, vol 2. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications, 267-280

Willcox G (2005) The distribution, natural habitats and the availability of wildcereals in relation to their domestication in the Near East: multiple events,multiple centres. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14(4): 534–541

Zeder M A (2008) Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean basin; origins, diffusion and impact. PNAS 105(33): 11597-11604

Zeder M A (2011) The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Current Anthropology 52(4): 221-235

Zohary D & Hopf M (2000) Domestication of Plants in the Old World (3rdEdition) Clarendon Press: Oxford

10002902 74