Göbekli Tepe[a] is anarchaeological site from theNew Stone Age, in the Turkish part ofUpper Mesopotamia. The settlement was inhabited from around 9500 BCE to at least 8000 BCE,[4] during thePre-Pottery Neolithic. It is known for its circular structures that contain large stone pillars – among the world's oldest knownmegaliths. Many of these pillars are decorated withanthropomorphic details, clothing, andsculptural reliefs of wild animals, providing archaeologists insights intoprehistoric religion and the iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft) high, 8 ha (20-acre)tell is covered with ancient domestic structures[5] and other small buildings, quarries, and stone-cutcisterns from the Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods.
The site was first used at the dawn of the southwest AsianNeolithic period, which marked the appearance of the oldest permanent human settlements anywhere in the world. Prehistorians link thisNeolithic Revolution to the advent of agriculture but disagree on whether farming caused people to settle down or vice versa. Göbekli Tepe, a monumental complex built on a rocky mountaintop with no clear evidence of agricultural cultivation, has played a prominent role in this debate.
Recent findings suggest a settlement at Göbekli Tepe, with domestic structures, extensivecereal processing, a water supply, and tools associated with daily life.[6] This contrasts with a previous interpretation of the site as a sanctuary used by nomads, with few or no permanent inhabitants.[1] No definitive purpose has been determined for the megalithic structures, which have been popularly described as the "world's first temple[s]".[7] They were likely roofed and appear to have regularly collapsed, been inundated bylandslides, and subsequently repaired or rebuilt.[8][9] The architecture and iconography are similar to other contemporary sites in the vicinity, such asKarahan Tepe.[10]
The site was first noted in a 1963archaeological survey. German archaeologistKlaus Schmidt recognised its significance in 1994 and began excavations there the following year. After he died in 2014, work continued as a joint project ofIstanbul University,Şanlıurfa Museum, and theGerman Archaeological Institute, under the direction of Turkish prehistorianNecmi Karul. Göbekli Tepe was designated aUNESCO World Heritage Site in 2018, recognising its outstanding universal value as "one of the first manifestations of human-made monumental architecture".[11] As of 2021[update], around 10% of the site has been excavated.[12] Additional areas were examined bygeophysical surveys, which showed the mound to contain at least 20 large enclosures.[13]
Geography and environment
Present day landscape around Göbekli Tepe
Göbekli Tepe is located in theTaş Tepeler ('Stone Hills'), in the foothills of theTaurus Mountains.[14] It overlooks theHarran plain and the headwaters of theBalikh River, a tributary of theEuphrates.[14] The site is a tell (artificial mound) on a flat limestone plateau.[15] In the north, a narrow promontory connects the plateau to the neighbouring mountains. The ridge descends steeply into slopes and cliffs in all other directions.[16]
Like most Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in theUrfa region, Göbekli Tepe was built at a high point on the edge of the mountains, giving it a wide view over the plain beneath and good visibility from the plain.[21] This location also gave the builders good access to raw material: the soft limestone bedrock from which the complex was built and the flint to make the tools to work the limestone.[21] The prehistoric village acquired drinking water through arainwater harvesting system, consisting of carved channels[22] that fed several cisterns carved into the bedrock under the site,[23] which could hold at least 150 cubic metres (5,300 cu ft) of water.[24][25] Additionally, the localwater table may have been higher, activating springs closer to the site that are dormant today.[26]
Excavations have taken place at the southern slope of the tell, south, and west of amulberry that marks anIslamic pilgrimage,[27] but archaeological finds come from the entire plateau. The team also found many tools that remain.[clarification needed]At the westernescarpment, a small cave was discovered, and a small relief depicting abovid was found. It is the only relief found in this cave.[28]
Göbekli Tepe was built and occupied during the earliest part of the Southwest Asian Neolithic, known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN,c. 9600–7000 BCE).[29] Beginning at the end of thelast Ice Age, the PPN marks "the beginnings of village life",[30] producing the earliest evidence for permanenthuman settlements in the world.[30][31] One of the earliest known sites isKörtik Tepe, dated to 10,700-9250 BC,[32] which may have been a predecessor of the PPN artistic and material culture in Upper Mesopotamia, including Göbekli Tepe and the other Taş Tepeler sites.[33]
Archaeologists have long associated the appearance of these settlements with the Neolithic Revolution—the transition fromhunting and gathering to agriculture—but disagree on whether the adoption of farming caused people to settle down, or settling down caused people to adopt farming.[34] Despite the name, the Neolithic Revolution in Southwest Asia was "drawn out and locally variable".[35] Elements of village life appeared as early as 10,000 years before the Neolithic in places,[36][37] and the transition to agriculture took thousands of years, with different paces and trajectories in different regions.[38][39] Archaeologists divide the Pre-Pottery Neolithic into two subperiods: the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA,c. 9600–8800 BCE) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB,c. 8800 and 7000 BCE).[31] The earliest phases at Göbekli Tepe have been dated to the PPNA; later phases to the PPNB.[40]
Evidence indicates the inhabitants of Göbekli Tepe werehunter-gatherers who supplemented their diet with early forms of domesticated cereal and lived in villages for at least part of the year. Tools such as grinding stones, mortars, and pestles found at the site have been analysed and suggest considerable cereal processing. Archaeozoological evidence hints at "large-scale hunting of gazelle between midsummer and autumn."[24]
PPN villages consisted mainly of clusters of stone ormud brick houses,[30] but sometimes also substantial monuments and large buildings.[31] These include the tower and walls atTell es-Sultan (Jericho), as well as large, roughly contemporaneous circular buildings at Göbekli Tepe,Nevalı Çori,Çayönü,Wadi Feynan 16,Jerf el-Ahmar,Tell 'Abr 3, andTepe Asiab.[41] Archaeologists typically associate these structures with communal activities which, together with the communal effort needed to build them, helped to maintain social interactions in PPN communities as they grew in size.[42]
Known PPN sites in the Urfa region.[21][47][46] Sites with T-shaped pillars are marked with.
Chronology
Radiocarbon dating shows that the earliest exposed structures at Göbekli Tepe were built between 9500 and 9000 BCE, towards the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period.[49][40] The site was significantly expanded in the early 9th millennium BCE and remained in use until around 8000 BCE, or perhaps slightly later (the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, PPNB).[40] There is evidence that smaller groups returned to live amongst the ruins after the Neolithic structures were abandoned.[40]
Schmidt originally dated the site to the PPN based on thetypes of stone tools found there, considering a PPNA date "most probable".[50] Establishing itsabsolute chronology took longer due to methodological challenges.[51][52] Though the first two radiocarbon dates were published in 1998,[53] these and other samples from thefill of the structure dated to the late 10th and early 9th millennium – 500 to 1,000 years later than expected for a PPNA site.[51] Schmidt's team explained the discrepancy in light of their theory that this material was brought to the site from elsewhere when it was abandoned, and so was not representative of the actual use of the structures.[51][52] They instead turned to a novel method of dating organic material preserved in the plaster on the structure's walls, which resulted in dates more consistent with a PPNA occupation, in the middle or even early 10th millennium BCE.[54][55][49] Subsequent research led to a significant revision of Schmidt's chronology, including the abandonment of the hypothesis that the fill of the structures was brought from elsewhere, and a recognition that direct dates on plaster are affected by theold wood effect.[56] Together with new radiocarbon dates, this has established the site's absolute chronology as falling in the period 9500 to 8000 BCE – the late PPNA and PPNB.[1][57]
Building phases
The preliminary, later abandoned,[58] stratigraphic model by Klaus Schmidt consisted of three architectural layers. The large circular enclosures were attributed to Layer III, dated to the 10th millennium BCE (PPNA). The smaller rectangular structures and the abandonment of the site were assigned to Layer II in the 9th millennium BCE (early to middle PPNB). Layer I consisted of all post-Neolithic activities up to the modern surface.[49]
The revised chronology consists of eight phases that span at least 1,500 years. It details the history of the large circular enclosures, including events that led to their alteration or abandonment, and the evolution of the domestic buildings surrounding them.[8]
Phase 1: The earliest settlement phase dates to the second half of the 10th millennium BCE and includes the first versions of enclosures A to D and round-oval domestic structures, which indicate a (semi) sedentary lifestyle.[58]
Phase 2: In the second phase (early 9th millennium BCE), significant modifications of enclosures A-D were undertaken: New walls were erected, which incorporated the first monolithic T-shaped pillars. An increasing number of domestic structures were built, still mostly oval-round, though with a rising tendency for a rectangular floor plan.[58]
Phases 3–5: In the early PPNB, the northern and western slopes saw the erection of rectangular (domestic) structures. They underwent multiple construction phases, such as adding benches with a T-shaped pillar and new inner walls, resulting in more rectangular rooms. The large enclosures were modified as well. Walls were repaired, and new ones were added. Benches were placed against the interior sides of phase 2 walls.[8] At the end of the early PPNB, a slope slide inundated the lower-lying structures, flushing sediments and domestic rubble (likely includingmidden and burials) downhill. This caused extensive damage to enclosure D and led to stabilisation works in Phase 5. Building C was reconstructed for the last time, and a terrace wall was placed above it to prevent future slope slides. Nonetheless, a second major slope-slide event occurred, which likely resulted in enclosure D being abandoned in the late 9th millennium BCE.[8]
Phases 6 and 7: Building activity gradually declined in phases 6 and 7 (late 9th to early 8th millennium BCE). The loss of enclosures B and D may have led to the construction of building G and the "Lion Pillar Building". In Phase 7, another terrace wall was constructed in a last attempt to stabilise the northern slope.[59]
Phase 8: In the final occupation period, small habitation structures were built within the remains of the abandoned Neolithic village.[59]
Architecture
Aerial view of the main excavation area, showing circular enclosures A, B, C and D and a number of rectangular structures
Large enclosures
The first circular compounds appear around the latter half of the 10th millennium BCE. They range from 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 ft) in diameter. Their most notable feature is the T-shaped limestone pillars evenly set within thick interior walls of unworked stone. Four such circular structures have been unearthed so far. Geophysical surveys indicate that there are 16 more, enclosing up to eight pillars each, amounting to nearly 200. The slabs were transported from bedrock pits about 100 m (330 ft) from the hilltop, with workers using flint points to cut through the limestone bedrock.[60] The pillars are the oldest known megaliths in the world.[61]
Two taller pillars stand facing one another at the centre of each circle. Whether the circles were provided with a roof is uncertain. Stone benches designed for sitting are found in the interior.[62] Many of the pillars are decorated withabstract, enigmaticpictograms and carved animalreliefs. The pictograms may represent commonly understood sacred symbols, as known fromNeolithiccave paintings elsewhere. The reliefs depict mammals such as lions, bulls, boars, foxes, gazelle, and donkeys; snakes and other reptiles;arthropods such as insects and arachnids; and birds, particularly vultures. Vultures also feature prominently in the iconography ofÇatalhöyük andJericho.
Few humanoid figures have appeared in the art at Göbekli Tepe. Some of the T-shaped pillars have human arms carved on their lower half; however, this suggested to site excavator Schmidt that they were intended to represent the bodies of stylised humans (or perhaps deities). Loincloths appear on the lower half of a few pillars. Schmidt thought the horizontal stone slab on top symbolised shoulders, which suggests that the figures were left headless.[63] Whether they were intended to serve as surrogate worshippers, symbolise venerated ancestors, or represent supernatural, anthropomorphic beings is unknown.[citation needed]
Some of the floors in this, the oldest layer, are made ofterrazzo (burnt lime); others are the bedrock from which pedestals hold the large pair of central pillars, which were carved in high relief.[64] Radiocarbon dating places the construction of these early circlesc. 9000 BCE.
Later enclosures were rectangular, perhaps to make more efficient use of space compared with circular structures.[clarification needed] They often are associated with the emergence of the Neolithic,[65] but the T-shaped pillars, the main feature of the older enclosures, also are present here, indicating that the buildings continued to serve the same function in the culture,[66] during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). The adjoining rectangular, doorless, and windowless rooms have polished lime floors reminiscent ofRoman terrazzo floors. Carbon dating has yielded dates between 8800 and 8000 BCE.[67] Several T-pillars up to 1.5 metres tall occupy the centre of the rooms. A pair decorated with fierce-looking lions is the rationale for the name "lion pillar building" by which their enclosure is known.[68]
Enclosure B
Enclosure C
Enclosure F
Domestic structures
In the earliest occupation phase, round-oval domestic structures were built alongside the large enclosures, which indicates a (semi) sedentary lifestyle. Over time, there was an increasing tendency for these buildings to have rectangular floor plans. In the final settlement phase, only small structures were erected.[8]
Burials
Before any burials were found, Schmidt speculated that graves could have been located in niches behind the walls of the circular building.[69] In 2017, fragments of human crania with incisions were discovered at the site, interpreted as a manifestation of the widespread Neolithicskull cult.[29] Special preparation of human crania in the form ofplastered human skulls is known from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period at Levantine sites such as Tell es-Sultan (also known as Jericho),Tell Aswad, andYiftahel, and later in Anatolia at Çatalhöyük.[70][71][72]
Other structures
At the western edge of the hill, a lionlike figure was found.Flint and limestone fragments occur more frequently in this part of the site, on which basis it has been suggested that this area could have held a sculpture workshop.[73] It is unclear, on the other hand, how to classify threephallic depictions from the surface of the southern plateau. They are near the quarries of classical times, making their dating difficult.[28]
Apart from the tell, there is an incised platform with two sockets that could have held pillars and a flat bench surrounding it. This platform corresponds to the oldest parts of the tell. Continuing the naming pattern, it is called "complex E". Owing to its similarity to the cult buildings at Nevalı Çori, it has also been called the "Temple of the Rock". Its floor has been carefully hewn out of the bedrock and smoothed, reminiscent of the terrazzo floors of the younger complexes at Göbekli Tepe. Immediately northwest of this area are two cistern-like pits that are believed to be part of complex E. One of these pits has a table-high pin and a staircase with five steps.[74]
Construction
The plateau Göbekli Tepe is situated on has been shaped by erosion andquarrying from the Neolithic onwards. There are four 10-metre-long (33 ft) and 20-centimetre-wide (7.9 in) channels on the southern part of the plateau, interpreted as the remains of an ancient quarry from which rectangular blocks were taken. These are possibly related to a square building in the neighbourhood, of which only the foundation is preserved. Perhaps this is the remains of a Romanwatchtower that was part of theLimes Arabicus.[75] Most structures on the plateau seem to result from Neolithic quarrying, with the quarries being used as sources for the huge, monolithic architectural elements. Their profiles were pecked into the rock, with the detached blocks, then levered out of the rock bank.[75][clarification needed]
Archaeologists disagree on how much labour was needed to construct the site. Schmidt maintained that "the work of quarrying, transporting, and erecting tons of heavy, monolithic, and almost universally well-prepared limestone pillars [...] was not within the capability of a few people".[76] UsingThor Heyerdahl's experiments with themoai ofRapa Nui as a reference, he estimated that moving the pillars alone must have involved hundreds of people.[26] According to these experiments, onemoai of similar size to a T-shaped pillar from Göbekli Tepe would have taken 20 people a year to carve and 50–75 people a week to transport 15 km.[77] Schmidt's team has also cited a 1917 account of the construction of a megalith on the Indonesian island ofNias, which took 525 people three days.[26][77] These estimates underpin their interpretation that the site was built by a large, non-resident workforce,[78] coerced or enticed there by a small religious elite.[79][80] However, others estimate that just 7–14 people could have moved the pillars using ropes and water or another lubricant, with techniques used to construct other monuments such asStonehenge.[26] Experiments at Göbekli Tepe itself have suggested that all thePPNB structures exposed could have been built by 12–24 people in less than four months, allowing for time spent quarrying stone and gathering, and preparing food.[81] These labour estimates are thought to be within the capability of a single extended family or village community in the Neolithic.[26] They also match the number of people that could have comfortably been inside one of the buildings simultaneously.[82]
Enclosures B, C, and D were initially planned as a single, hierarchical complex that forms anequilateral triangle, according to Haklay and Gopher.[83]
Landslides and reconstruction
The enclosures, lying over 10 metres (33 ft) below the highest areas of the settlement, suffered several landslides during the occupation period of Göbekli Tepe.[9] A particularly severe one occurred at the end of the early PPNB, which inundated enclosure D with rubble of domestic structures and sediments, including burials andmidden deposits. This caused severe damage to the enclosure, which led to repairs and stabilisation works to be conducted. At a later point, in Building Phase 5, terrace walls were erected, likely to prevent future damage from such events. However, these measures proved futile when a second major landslide probably caused the enclosure to be abandoned during Building Phase 6, around the late 9th millennium BCE. Other enclosures suffered a similar fate, which might have led to new enclosures being constructed to replace them.[8]
Previously, it had been assumed that the large enclosures were intentionally back-filled, an interpretation that has fallen out of favour since Klaus Schmidt's death.[84]
Tools
Göbekli Tepe is littered with flint artifacts, from the ridge-top site to the slopes.[85] The tool assemblage found resembles that of other Northern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (settlement) sites.[86]
In 1963, over 3,000 Neolithic tools were uncovered, the vast majority of excellent quality flint, only a handful ofobsidian.Cores, various blades,flakes,scrapers,burins, andprojectile points, were the most common tool types.[87]
Excavations of Space 16, a small building adjacent to enclosure D, yielded almost 700 tools. Most common wereretouched artifacts, followed by scrapers, perforators, and artifacts withgloss. Heavy duty tools, burins andmicroliths were also present.[88]
Over 7,000grinding stones have been found, spanning the entirety of the site's usage, which are suggested to have been used to process cereal based onphytoliths found in associated soil. However, it is unclear whether the cereal was wild or cultivated.[24]
Iconography
Pillars
Reproduction of a central pillar of Enclosure D in the Şanlıurfa museum: engraved side arms with hands, and a belt with loincloth.[89]
The stone pillars in the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe are T-shaped, similar to other Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the region.[90] Unlike at these other sites, however, many of the pillars are carved – typically in low relief, though sometimes in high relief. Most carvings depict animals, mostly serpents, foxes, and boars, but also gazelle,mouflon (wild sheep),onager, ducks, and vultures. Insofar as they can be identified, the animals are male and often depicted with an aggressive posture.[91][92]
Abstract shapes are also depicted as upright or horizontal H-shaped symbols, crescents, and disks. Depictions of humans are rare; pillar 43 in enclosure D includesa headless man with an erect phallus.Other phallic figures have been discovered on the site, as well as in other Taş Tepeler sites. However, the T-shape of the pillars themselves is anthropomorphic: the shaft is the body, and the top is the head. This is confirmed by the fact that some pillars include – in addition to animal reliefs – carvings of arms, hands, andloincloths.[93]
The two central pillars occupied a special place in the symbolic architecture of the enclosures. Those in Enclosure D represent humans, with arms, a belt, and a piece of cloth that hides the genitals. The sex of the individuals depicted cannot be identified, though Schmidt suggested that they are two men because the belts they wear are a male attribute in the period. There is onlyone certain representation of a woman, depicted naked on a slab.[93]
Schmidt and zooarchaeologistJoris Peters have argued that the variety of animals depicted on the pillars means they likely do not express a single iconography. They suggest that, since many of the animals pictured are predators, the stones may have been intended tostave off evils through some form of magic representation or served astotems.[94]
Pillar 10, Enclosure B: fox
Pillar 12, Enclosure C: ducks and boar
Pillar 27, Enclosure C: predator (perhaps afelid) hunting a boar.[95]
Pillar 43, Enclosure D: the "Vulture Stone"
Other objects
The structures at Göbekli Tepe have also yielded some smaller carved stones, which typically cannot be attributed to one period or another. The iconography of these objects is similar to that of the pillars, mostly depicting animals but also humans, again mostly male.[96][97]
Carved stone with animal (possibly a reptile, felid, or wolverine) in high relief
One of the structures contained a "totem pole" dating to the early PPNB. Reassembled, it is 192 centimetres (6.30 ft) tall and 30 centimetres (0.98 ft) in diameter. It depicts three figures (from top to bottom): a predator (a bear or large felid) with a missing head and the neck and arms of a human; another figure missing a head with human arms, likely male; and a third figure with a head that survived intact. Snakes are carved on either side.[98]
Interpretation
Klaus Schmidt thought that Göbekli Tepe was a ritual center.[99] He suggested it was a central location for small, nomadic bands from across the region to join forces on the hilltop for periodic building projects, hold great feasts and then scatter again.[99]
Butchered bones found in large numbers from the local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese have been identified as refuse from food hunted and cooked or otherwise prepared for the congregants.[100] Zooarchaeological analysis shows that gazelle were only seasonally present in the region, suggesting that events such as rituals and feasts were likely timed to occur during periods when game availability was at its peak.[19] Schmidt saw the construction of Göbekli Tepe as contributing to the later development of urban civilization.[101]
Schmidt also speculated on the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe based on comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He presumedshamanic practices.[102] He suggested that the T-shaped pillars represent human forms, perhaps ancestors. In contrast, he saw a fully articulated belief in deities as not developing until later, inMesopotamia, that was associated with extensive temples and palaces. This corresponds well with an ancientSumerian belief that agriculture,animal husbandry, and weaving were brought to humans from the sacred mountainEkur, which was inhabited byAnnuna deities, very ancient deities without individual names. Schmidt identified this story as a primeval oriental[clarification needed]myth that preserves a partial memory of the emerging Neolithic.[103] It is apparent that the animal and other images do not indicate organised violence, i.e., there are no depictions of hunting raids or wounded animals, and the pillar carvings generally ignore game on which the society depended, such as deer, in favour of formidable creatures such as lions, snakes, spiders, and scorpions.[69][104][105] Expanding on Schmidt's interpretation that round enclosures could represent sanctuaries, Gheorghiu's semiotic interpretation reads the Göbekli Tepe iconography as a cosmogonic map that would have related the local community to the surrounding landscape and the cosmos.[106][clarification needed]
The assumption that the site was strictly cultic in purpose and not inhabited has been challenged as well by the suggestion that the structures served as large communal houses, "similar in some ways to the large plank houses of the Northwest Coast of North America with their impressive house posts andtotem poles."[26] It is unknown why the existing pillars were buried every few decades to be replaced by new stones as part of a smaller, concentric ring inside the older one.[107] According to Rémi Hadad, in recent years, "the interpretative enthusiasm that sought to see Göbekli Tepe as a regional ceremonial centre where nomadic populations would periodically converge is giving way to a vision that is more in line with what is known about other large Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites, where ritual and profane functions coexist."[108] For example, the discovery of domestic buildings and rainwater harvesting systems has forced a revision of the 'temple' narrative.[1]
Claims have been made that it was an ancient astronomical observatory, but these have been largely rejected by the team working at the site.[109]
Research history
Klaus Schmidt delivering a lecture in Salzburg, 2014
Before being documented by archaeologists, the hill Göbekli Tepe stands on, known locally inKurdish asGirê Mirazan orXerabreşkê (Girê Mirazan meaning 'Wish Hill'[3]), was considered a sacred place.[110][111]
The archaeological site was first noted in 1963 as part of an archaeological survey directed byHalet Çambel of Istanbul University andRobert John Braidwood of theUniversity of Chicago.[112] American archaeologist Peter Benedict identified thestone tools collected from the surface of the site as characteristic of theAceramic Neolithic,[113] but mistook the upper parts of the T-shaped pillars for grave markers.[114] The hill had long been under agricultural cultivation, and generations of local inhabitants had frequently moved rocks and placed them in clearance piles, which may have disturbed the upper layers of the site. At some point, attempts had been made to break up some of the pillars, presumably by farmers who mistook them for ordinary large rocks.[69]
In October 1994, German archaeologistKlaus Schmidt, who had previously been working atNevalı Çori, was looking for evidence of similar sites in the area and decided to re-examine the location described by the Chicago researchers in 1963.[69][115] Asking in nearby villages about hills with flint,[115] he was guided to Göbekli Tepe by Mahmut Yıldız, whose family owned the land the site was situated on.[111] The Yıldız family had previously discovered finds while ploughing there, which they reported to the local museum.[111][116] Having found similar structures at Nevalı Çori, Schmidt recognised the possibility that the stone slabs were not grave markers as supposed by Benedict, but the tops of prehistoric megaliths. He began excavations the following year and soon unearthed the first of the enormous T-shaped pillars.[69] Ultimately, he found only three tombs on the eastmost hill group, a pilgrimage destination.[117] Yıldız went on to work on the excavations and serve as the site's guard.[111]
Schmidt continued to direct excavations at the site on behalf of theŞanlıurfa Museum and theGerman Archaeological Institute (DAI) until he died in 2014. Since then, the DAI's research at the site has been coordinated byLee Clare.[118][1] As of 2021[update], work on the site is conducted jointly by Istanbul University, the Şanlıurfa Museum, and the DAI, under the overall direction ofNecmi Karul.[119][120] Recent excavations have been more limited than Schmidt's, focusing on detailed documentation and conservation of the areas already exposed.[120]
Conservation
Protective roof added to the site
Göbekli Tepe was designated aUNESCO World Heritage Site in 2018, recognising its outstanding universal value as "one of the first manifestations of human-made monumental architecture".[11] As of 2021[update], about 10% of the site has been excavated.[12]
Conservation work at the site caused controversy in 2018 when Çiğdem Köksal Schmidt, an archaeologist and widow of Klaus Schmidt, said that damage was caused by using concrete and "heavy equipment" while constructing a new walkway. TheMinistry of Culture and Tourism responded that no concrete was used and that no damage had occurred.[121]
^Richter & Darabi 2023, p. 168 "Considering the prosperous sedentary life, building tradition and imagery-based symbolic trends and cultural influence since the Younger Dryas, it is apparent that Körtiktepe (and likely other unexcavated Late Epipalaeolithic sites in the region) was an important predecessor of the PPNA culture in the Upper Tigris Basin, which later flourished with Hallan Çemi, Çayönü, Demirköy Höyük, Hasankeyf Höyük, Çemka Höyük, Gusir Höyük and Boncuklu Tarla. It is also likely that, if not the predecessor, Körtiktepe at least had a great influence on the animal symbolism at the dawn of the Neolithic, with a lasting effect on subsequent PPN sites such as Göbeklitepe, Karahantepe, Jerf el Ahmar, Dja'de el Mughara and Nevalı Çori in the Middle Euphrates Basin, as well as Nemrik 9 and Qermez Dere in the Middle Tigris Basin."
^Dietrich, Oliver, "Shamanism at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. Methodological contributions to an archaeology of belief", Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 9-56, 2024
Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, ed. (20 January – 17 June 2007). "Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit.".Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung im Badischen Landesmuseum. Stuttgart: Theiss.ISBN978-3-8062-2072-8.
Banning, Edward B. (2011). "So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East".Current Anthropology.52 (5 – October 2011):619–60.doi:10.1086/661207.S2CID161719608.
Gheorghiu, Dragos (2015). "A river runs through it. The semiotics of Gobekli Tepe's map (an exercise of archaeological imagination)". In Vianello, Andrea (ed.).Rivers in Prehistory. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Linsmeier, Klaus-Dieter; Schmidt, Klaus (2003). "Ein anatolisches Stonehenge".Moderne Archäologie. Heidelberg: Spektrum-der-Wissenschaft-Verlag. pp. 10–15.ISBN3-936278-35-0.
Hadad, Rémi (2022). "In the shadow of monoliths: Göbekli Tepe and the monumental tradition of the Pre-Pottery Levant". In Laporte, Luc; Large, Jean-Marc; Nespoulous, Laurent; Scarre, Chris; Steimer-Herbet, Tara (eds.).Megaliths of the World. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 823–836.ISBN978-1-80327-321-1.
Hauptmann, Harald (1999). "The Urfa region". In Özdoğan, M.; Basgelen, N. (eds.).The Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of civilization, new discoveries. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. pp. 65–86.
[1]Kinzel, Moritz, Lee Clare, and Devrim Sönmez, "Built on Rock–Towards a Reconstruction of the› Neolithic‹ Topography of Göbekli Tepe", Istanbuler Mitteilungen 70, pp. 9–45, 2024
Peters, Joris; Schmidt, Klaus; Dietrich, Laura; Dietrich, Oliver; Pöllath, Nadja; Kinzel, Moritz; Clare, Lee (2020). "Göbekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication". In Smith, Claudia (ed.).Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer. pp. 4607–16.doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_2226.ISBN978-1-4419-0426-3.
Qasim, Erika (2014). "The T-shaped monuments of Gobekli Tepe: Posture of the Arms". In Sütterlin, Christa; Schiefenhövel, Wulf; Lehmann, Christian; Forster, Johanna; Apfelauer, Gerhard (eds.).Art as Behaviour: An Ethological Approach to Visual and Verbal Art, Music and Architecture. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität. pp. 252–272.ISBN978-3-8142-2290-5.
Richter, Tobias; Darabi, Hojjat; Alibaigi, Sajjad; Arranz-Otaegui, Amaia; Bangsgaard, Pernille; Khosravi, Shokouh; Maher, Lisa;Mortensen, Peder; Pedersen, Patrick; Roe, Joe; Yeomans, Lisa (February 2021). "The Formation of Early Neolithic Communities in the Central Zagros: an 11,500 year-old communal structure at Asiab".Oxford Journal of Archaeology.40 (1):2–22.doi:10.1111/ojoa.12213.S2CID234033394.
Scham, Sandra (2008)."The World's First Temple".Archaeology.61 (6 – November/December 2008). Archived fromthe original on 29 March 2012. Retrieved14 October 2008.
Schmidt, Klaus (1998). "Frühneolithische Tempel. Ein Forschungsbericht zum präkeramischen Neolithikum Obermesopotamiens".Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (130). Berlin:17–49.ISSN0342-118X.
Schmidt, Klaus (2000). "Zuerst kam der Tempel, dann die Stadt." Vorläufiger Bericht zu den Grabungen am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe 1995–1999".Istanbuler Mitteilungen (50):5–41.
Schmidt, Klaus (2000a). "Göbekli Tepe and the rock art of the Near East".Tüba-Ar (3):1–14.doi:10.22520/tubaar.2000.0001 (inactive 12 July 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)
Schmidt, Klaus (2006).Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger (in German). München:C.H. Beck.ISBN3-406-53500-3.
Schmidt, Klaus (2009). "Göbekli Tepe. Eine Beschreibung der wichtigsten Befunde erstellt nach den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995–2007". In Schmidt, Klaus (ed.).Erste Tempel – Frühe Siedlungen. 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur, Ausgrabungen und Forschungen zwischen Donau und Euphrat (in German). Oldenburg: Florian Isensee.ISBN978-3-89995-563-7.
Yeşilyurt, Metin (2014). "Die wissenschaftliche Interpretation von Göbeklitepe: Die Theorie und das Forschungsprogramm".Neolithikum und ältere Metallzeiten. Studien und Materialien. Vol. 2. Berlin: Lit Verlag.ISBN978-3-643-12528-6.
.jpg)
![Pillar 27, Enclosure C: predator (perhaps a felid) hunting a boar.[95]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aG%25C3%25B6beklitepe_Building_C_sept_2019_5373crop.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
