Gobekli Tepe-An enigmatic find.

a reply to: KansasGirl

There isn't much you can make comparison with for this period only the early Vinca figurines which have generally no male characteristics displayed and are suited and booted, they're what i see this as being most closely related too in terms of style.

The figure was a nearby surface find but appears to have been involved with the fill process as it is half covered with the concrete like fill mixture, the video is a good general summary of the site from this channel Archaeonomy

a reply to: intrptr

Right the earliest Madonna and child type representation, but take a look at the child in this Vinca example, this could be related to what is seen on the back of the Gobekli Tepe figurine, there are of course many species that also carry their young on the back, generally a female role.



The Gonekli Tepe figure may be female as there is the suggestion of breast rendered to the same degree of understatement as in Vinca figurines.

a reply to: pavil

Have you noticed our "modern" civilization..
same obsessions for many at least.

originally posted by: Sigrun
The Gonekli Tepe figure may be female as there is the suggestion of breast rendered to the same degree of understatement as in Vinca figurines.

Squatting to give birth, then, perhaps?

a reply to: Blue Shift

My thoughts exactly. pity one cant rotate the pic left to right.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I just think the figure is seated but as if poised to rise, the mannerism aspect of Vinca figurines is very intriguing in that the pose of the character generally indicates thoughtful or playful nature rather than formality or a sense of importance, take for example the slight tilt of the head to express curiosity on the part of the sitter towards the one creating the artifact, they are never seen carrying any sort of weapon or object of status only in relaxed mode, sometimes the female with young, and i think the Gobekli Tepe figurine falls into this genre.

Maybe it's toilet paper in he/she hand and is just taking a dump.

Pretty sure this comment is in peoples mind

Could be holding on bundles of wheat:

Those mask remind of this art:

[yvid]E83oYrYd-WA[/yivd]

What is being called the phallic doesn't looked like that at all.

Could it be the tail of the creature on its back, as the tail coming from underneath the backside under the legs?

The ancients were a mystery, but fascinating peoples.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sigrun
a reply to: butcherguy

Well at least that provides potential explanation for having an animal possibly slung over the shoulder, though the figure is sat upon a construct.

Ever crap in the woods?

It is nice when you can find a narrow log or flat edged rock to hang your arse over, then wrap your hands around your lower legs below the knees, just like this dude is doing, like a prehistoric Squatty Potty.

maybe it was a marker designating where travelers or whoever could take a dump. like a public restroom sign today lol. wouldn't want everybody coming by dropping loads in the middle of the trail or road lol.

a reply to: Sigrun

Some stars for you sir. Good post love to read about Gobekli.

The creature on his back is the most interesting for me, I think it may be a cat.

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
The creature on his back is the most interesting for me, I think it may be a cat.

Those Göbekli Tepe folks really seemed to like animals.

When I look at the “quadruped” on the carvings back, it reminds me of the way women of many cultures carry a baby wrapped in a cloth on their back.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Sigrun

I think it is a successful hunter on his way back from the hunt. He is squatting to poop.
When you gotta go, you gotta go.

They poop a lot.

How do u say "poops alot" in sumerian cuneiform?

originally posted by: Sigrun
a reply to: Blue Shift

I just think the figure is seated but as if poised to rise, the mannerism aspect of Vinca figurines is very intriguing in that the pose of the character generally indicates thoughtful or playful nature rather than formality or a sense of importance, take for example the slight tilt of the head to express curiosity on the part of the sitter towards the one creating the artifact, they are never seen carrying any sort of weapon or object of status only in relaxed mode, sometimes the female with young, and i think the Gobekli Tepe figurine falls into this genre.

Pooping.

originally posted by: Sigrun
The description fails to mention that the figure is wearing a mask the same as seen in Vinca figurines of the Balkans from the probably slightly later period, and also that he was perhaps not of this Earth, they do however describe it as ithyphallic, which is highly unlikely given the correspondences to Vinca figurines which never are.

Not a mask. That's the face.

And yes, that's a phallus and scrotum. I take it you haven't looked at many artifacts like this? It's fairly consistent and phalluses are not uncommon in PrePottery Neolithic A culture (Gobekli Tepe is a PPNA culture)

Vinca culture is different and is quite some distance away.

The fact that it was a surface find indicates it may NOT be from Gobekli Tepe but is more likely to be something brought in by a traveler - or at the very least something from the very last stage of activity there (so more modern than the oldest artifacts. There was a sculpture workshop on the site at some point (Neolithic) so it could be from that time period.

It would have been a moderately expensive piece to buy... later cultures donated small figurines like that to the gods.

a reply to: Byrd


Did you notice the hole that goes all the way through the figure towards the bottom? It’s a little out of character from the other figurines I’ve seen from GT. It looks to be quite different than objects made on site, including the material as literally everything else from beneath the fill and at the workshop is limestone. This figurine isn’t. Just a semi educated guess based on what I know of the site and other PPN cultures of the same or later time frames I’d hazard a guess at PPNB but earlier than chalcolithic and definitely no ties to Vinca as you already noted. Vinca arose from earlier cultures in what’s today Serbia with no known ties to Anatolian cultures at all let alone PPN cultures. I’m curious though about the hole drilled through this figure because it appears too low to be of use as a pendant so perhaps it was attached to something?

a reply to: Blue Shift

If viewed upside down, to me it looks similar to a baby inside the uterus.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Byrd


Did you notice the hole that goes all the way through the figure towards the bottom? It’s a little out of character from the other figurines I’ve seen from GT. It looks to be quite different than objects made on site, including the material as literally everything else from beneath the fill and at the workshop is limestone. This figurine isn’t. Just a semi educated guess based on what I know of the site and other PPN cultures of the same or later time frames I’d hazard a guess at PPNB but earlier than chalcolithic and definitely no ties to Vinca as you already noted. Vinca arose from earlier cultures in what’s today Serbia with no known ties to Anatolian cultures at all let alone PPN cultures. I’m curious though about the hole drilled through this figure because it appears too low to be of use as a pendant so perhaps it was attached to something?

It's hard to say what it was - the drill area might have been a failed attempt to turn it into a pendant. It might also have been mounted on something but again without other context it's hard to say. I do think it's younger than other items found there and might even be from a culture unrelated to PPN... as a surface find, it could have been dropped there almost any time.

a reply to: Byrd

I'm very familiar with artifacts from this period and know that figurines are invariably masked upon close consideration and comparison, this one's no different. It's coated on one side in Gobekli Tepe type fill which was a limestone slurry. To get an approximation of date one needs to follow the interest in Nephrite;

Nephrite artifacts are known from prehistoric sites in Bulgaria and on the Balkans in general in the period from the Early Neolithic (VII mill. BC) to the end of the Chalcolithic period (V mill. BC) when they disappear. The use of this precious material in this case can be attributed to speciic population before the Bronze Age, with its specifc lithic sources and mythological system in the discussed region. For gemmologists it is a surprise the precision and symmetry of the objects, as well as the perfection in the final polishing. The dominant quantity of nephrite artefacts are represented by small axes and chisels. Rarely are described different types of nephrite amulets and “distributors”

The nephrite-yielding cultures “move” from Eastern to Central and Western Europe throughout the centuries (end of VII mill. BC on the Balkans to III mill. BC in the area of the Alpine lake dwellings). The Balkan “nephrite culture” in prehistoric Europe has to be declared as one of the earliest in human civilization not only on the continent, but worldwide

Nephrite usage

Given the earliest Neolithic groups in the Balkans are thought to directly relate to the Anatolian Neolithic region then the Anatolian Nephrite example probably shortly pre-dates examples from Bulgaria. These buttons from Gobekli Tepe are described as Greenstone which can be a common term for Nephrite.

Looking at the portable material culture, there are spacer beads and buttons, often made of greenstone

Greenstone Buttons

a reply to: peter vlar

It's going to be earlier than Vinca figurines and they were made of terracotta, but my point would be it provides the basis for what is later seen, that the basis for the Neolithic figurine type originated within the core region, as one might expect.

originally posted by: Sigrun
a reply to: Byrd

I'm very familiar with artifacts from this period and know that figurines are invariably masked upon close consideration and comparison, this one's no different. It's coated on one side in Gobekli Tepe type fill which was a limestone slurry. To get an approximation of date one needs to follow the interest in Nephrite;
....

It's going to be earlier than Vinca figurines and they were made of terracotta, but my point would be it provides the basis for what is later seen, that the basis for the Neolithic figurine type originated within the core region, as one might expect.

Read in haste, repent at leisure! I'd missed that it was nephrite the first time around. It's a good stone for getting lots of detail but it's not a particularly easy stone to work. Your guess that it's the basis for Neolithic figure representations in the area is interesting and not something I really have an opinion on since I'm not as familiar with the material from this area as I am with material from Egypt.

However, I don't see the mask on the face. What should I be looking at?