Content uploaded by Abu B. Siddiq
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abu B. Siddiq on Feb 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Yunus Cengiz
44676
II
M. Doru ..........................................................................................
Kamuran .....................................................................................
’’Fusûs’
’
............................................................................................
’
..............................................................................
.............................................................................
.....................................................................................
’Nevâbit
Kamuran .....................................................................................
’
..........................................................................................
’
......................................................................................
’
& ...............................................................
........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
........................................................................
(
)
.....................................................................
3
15
37
61
73
91
103
121
135
151
163
179
187
213
IIII
...................................................................
& ..........................................................
Anar .............................................................................................
İsyan Ahlakı’
’
.........................................................................................
....................................................................................
()
& Akman ...................................................
A. Gözcü ............................................................................................
Kafadar & Kafadar .......................................................
İ�brahim Halil Çetres ...................................................................................
Yunus ............................................................................................
Kitâbu’l-
Hurûf)
Koyuncu .............................................................................................
’/
.................................................................................................
...................................................................................
.........................................................................................
239
253
269
399
309
323
339
347
357
367
377
397
421
437
IIIIII
........................................................................................
)
...........................................................................................
’
.................................................................................................
.............................................................................
’
Koç......................................................................................
.........................................................................
..........................................................................................
?
. & ...............................................................
...............................................................................................
..................................................................................................
)
.....................................................................
451
463
487
499
513
535
567
585
607
619
639
IVIV
’
................................................................................................
& .....................................................
Yunus ...........................................................................................
....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
’
Adnan ...............................................................................................
Seher Vakti
................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
..........................................................................
’
.............................................................................................
’
& ...............................................................
’No Exit
.................................................................................................
’?
............................................................................................
’
...................................................................................................
659
679
719
737
763
781
793
809
819
835
849
863
871
883
VV
TAKDİM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
VIVI
-
-
-
-
-
VII
ÖNSÖZ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
VIII
METAFİZİK VE DİN
-
-
-
585
Ahmet Abdülhadioğlu, 1974, Acırlı, Mardin.
Enver Çatal, 1952, Hacılar, Kayseri.
Haydar Taşkın, 1968, Yazıyolu, Kaman, Kırşehir.
Muzaffer Eke, 1970, Çamardı, Niğde.
Nazmi Üçer, 1942, Elekgölü, Çamardı, Niğde.
Satılmış Demirkazık, 1952, Alidemirci, Çayıralan, Yozgat.
Selim Şenol, 1970, Çukurbağ, Çamardı, Niğde.
Yunus Cengiz, 1978, Dargeçit, Mardin.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic:
The Beginning of Organized Religion?
Abu B. Siddiq & Vecihi Özkaya
Introduction
Throughout millennia, supernatural belief has been a basic
psychological, socio-cultural and neurological need for human spe-
cies.1 A ‘faith system’, primarily basing on basic supernatural beliefs,
can often have the initial characteristic of ‘religion’. However, an ‘or-
ganized religion’ is more complex and with stronger authority, can be
characterized by a system of faith-based doctrine with standardize
worship system, hierarchical structures within its organization, and
organizations of dogmatic rules over its followers. From biological
and mental health perspective, the ethical codes provide much-
needed guidelines and helps for the followers to devise a course of
their lives and tolerate the stresses, strains and uncertainties in more
satisfactory ways.2 From socio-cultural perspective, organized reli-
gions generally offer certain senses of belonging, connection and
acceptance through which each follower experiences to be a valued
part of a greater “community”. In this way, a cohesive unit of certain
religion is able to provide the critical socio-psychological needs of its
members.3
Archaeologically, the earliest evidence for belief in supernatural
and symbolically mediated behavior dates back to 80 to 100 thousand
Assistant Professor, Mardin Artuklu University, Department of Anthropology, abu-
bakarsiddiq@artuklu.edu.tr
Prof. Dr., Dicle University, Department of Archaeology, vozkaya@dicle.edu.tr
1 Elizabeth Culotta, “On the Origin of Religion”, Science 326/5954, (2009), pp.784-87.
2 Abu Bakar Siddiq, Güler Oğuz, and Emre Güldoğan, “Supernatural or ‘Social Mind’? –
Four Case Studies from Southeast Turkey”, Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi, 3/2
(2018), pp.60-69.
3 Abu Bakar Siddiq, “Socio-Psychological Effects of the Beliefs on Supernatural Beings:
Case Studies from Southeast Anatolia”, Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi, 3/1
(2018), pp.10-19.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
586586
years before present.4 However, it appears that the senses of orga-
nized forms of religion and intercommunal system of religious en-
rolments did not evolve until the beginning of sedentary life of the
Neolithic in West Asia. Some remarkable Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN)
sites in Upper Mesopotamia including Körtiktepe,5 Çayönü,6 and Ha-
sankeyf Höyük7 in the Upper Tigris Basin; Göbeklitepe,8 Nevalı Çori,9
Tell ‘Abr 3,10 and Jerf el Ahmar11 in the Middle Euphrates Basin pro-
moted some common intercommunal and regional ritual trends from
the tenth to eighth millennium BC.
Alongside of their household buildings, these PPN people
groups built architectures which were often related to community-
wide feast, rituals and ceremonies practiced for many generations and
often for over thousand years.12 There were large, subterranean cult
buildings, made with large stone stalls and often enormous upright
stone pillars on their walls and in the center.13 A large number of find-
ings, apparently associated with paranormal beliefs including com-
munal rituals and cultic practices, curving of humans and human-
4 Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer et al., “On Holes and Strings: Earliest Displays of Human
Adornment in the Middle Palaeolithic”, PLOS ONE, 15/7 (2020), e0234924; Christo-
pher S. Henshilwood, Francesco D’Errico, and Ian Watts, “Engraved Ochres from the
Middle Stone Age Levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa”, Journal of Human Evolution,
57/1 (2009), pp.27-47.
5 Vecihi Özkaya, “Excavations at Körtik Tepe: A New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in
Southeastern Anatolia”, Neo-Lithics, 9/2 (2009), pp.3-8.
6 Aslı Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Re-
search: The Tigris Basin, ed. M Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm, (2011), pp.185-
269.
7 Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th Millennium Cal. BC
Site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia”, Neo-Lithics, 12/1 (2012), pp.3-7.
8 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe”, The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavation & New Re-
search: The Euphrates Basin, ed. M Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm (2011),
pp.41-83; Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New Results of
Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures and High Reliefs”, Documenta
Praehistorica 37 (2011), pp.239-356
9 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavation & New
Research: The Euphrates Basin, ed. M Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm (2011),
pp.85-138.
10 Thaer Yartah, “Les Bâtiments Communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3 (PPNA, Syrie),” Neo-
Lithics 5/1 (2005), pp.2-9.
11 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-8700 Av. J.-C.): L’architecture,
Miroir d’une Société Néolithique Complexe (2015), pp.139-150.
12 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, “Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The Transition from the
Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria,” From the River to the Sea. The Paleolithic and
the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant. Studies in Honour of Lorraine
Copeland, ed. Olivier Aurenche, Marie Le Miere, and Paul Sanlaville (2004), 281-293;
Abu Bakar Siddiq, Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda İnsan-Hayvan İlişkisi ve Orta Anadolu Çanak
Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Faunası (2019), pp.142-160.
13 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), 239-356; Danielle
Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar (2015), 1-370; Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3, Un Vil-
lage Du Néolithique Précéramique (PPNA) Sur Le Moyen Euphrate: Première Ap-
proche”, Paléorient 30/2 (2004), pp.141-158.
animal hybrid creatures on the pillar, paintings of the wall, curving of
animistic features or arguably totemic animals on the monoliths and
sacred objects, and a shared system for the treatment of the dead,
were associated with these extraordinarily buildings.
14
All of these
symbolic evidences indicate the presence of sacred architectures
which were deeply associated with important ceremonial events.
Moreover, the enormous structures and extensive ritual associations
of some of these sacred architectures indicate that perhaps people
from extended social groups assembled together and joined in com-
munal activities, what might be called as complex rituals. These com-
paratively large and long-lasting communal buildings probably func-
tioned as sanctuaries,
15
serving both intra- and intercommunal spir-
itual needs.
In many cases, the early Neolithic settlements were not just
serving the needs of living people, but were the cult centers and sa-
cred memory-ground for the dead as well.
16
There were burial
grounds inside the residence houses, aimed at keeping the dead with-
in the community.
17
The funerary customs were very diverse, ranging
from primary inhumations of single individuals to secondary inter-
ments of individuals without the skull, groups of skulls or skeletons
and skulls jumbled together.
18
Often the individuals were buried in
hocker position,
19
a fetal-like position where the arms embraced the
lower limbs, ostensibly to allow the deceased to enter the next world
like a newborn or to prevent the dead from rising from the grave.
Sometimes the crania were intentionally kept in charnel houses and
other buildings for the dead. The house of the dead at Dja’de el
14
Oliver Dietrich et al., “The Role of Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic
Communities: New Evidence from Göbekli Tepe, South-Eastern Turkey,” Antiquity
86/333 (2012), pp.674-695; Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, The Neo-
lithic in Turkey, New Excavations & New Research: The Tigris Basin, ed. Mehmet Özdoğan,
Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm (2011), pp.89-127; Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3,”
(2004), pp.141-158.
15
Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
16
Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near
Eastern Prehistory, ed. Jörg Becker, Claudia Beuger, and Bernd Muller-Neuhof, (2019),
pp.57-70; G. O. Rollefson, “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan),”
Paléorient 9/2 (1983), pp.29-38.
17
Yilmaz Selim Erdal, “Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at
Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anatolia, PPNA Period)”, European Journal of Archaeology
18/1 (2015), pp.4-32.
18
Oliver Dietrich et al., “Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities”,
(2012), pp.674-695; G. O. Rollefson, “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal
(Jordan)”, (1983), pp.29-38.
19
Yilmaz S. Erdal, “Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe”,
(2015), pp.4-32.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
587587
years before present.4 However, it appears that the senses of orga-
nized forms of religion and intercommunal system of religious en-
rolments did not evolve until the beginning of sedentary life of the
Neolithic in West Asia. Some remarkable Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN)
sites in Upper Mesopotamia including Körtiktepe,5 Çayönü,6 and Ha-
sankeyf Höyük7 in the Upper Tigris Basin; Göbeklitepe,8 Nevalı Çori,9
Tell ‘Abr 3,10 and Jerf el Ahmar11 in the Middle Euphrates Basin pro-
moted some common intercommunal and regional ritual trends from
the tenth to eighth millennium BC.
Alongside of their household buildings, these PPN people
groups built architectures which were often related to community-
wide feast, rituals and ceremonies practiced for many generations and
often for over thousand years.12 There were large, subterranean cult
buildings, made with large stone stalls and often enormous upright
stone pillars on their walls and in the center.13 A large number of find-
ings, apparently associated with paranormal beliefs including com-
munal rituals and cultic practices, curving of humans and human-
4 Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer et al., “On Holes and Strings: Earliest Displays of Human
Adornment in the Middle Palaeolithic”, PLOS ONE, 15/7 (2020), e0234924; Christo-
pher S. Henshilwood, Francesco D’Errico, and Ian Watts, “Engraved Ochres from the
Middle Stone Age Levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa”, Journal of Human Evolution,
57/1 (2009), pp.27-47.
5 Vecihi Özkaya, “Excavations at Körtik Tepe: A New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in
Southeastern Anatolia”, Neo-Lithics, 9/2 (2009), pp.3-8.
6 Aslı Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Re-
search: The Tigris Basin, ed. M Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm, (2011), pp.185-
269.
7 Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th Millennium Cal. BC
Site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia”, Neo-Lithics, 12/1 (2012), pp.3-7.
8 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe”, The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavation & New Re-
search: The Euphrates Basin, ed. M Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm (2011),
pp.41-83; Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New Results of
Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures and High Reliefs”, Documenta
Praehistorica 37 (2011), pp.239-356
9 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavation & New
Research: The Euphrates Basin, ed. M Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm (2011),
pp.85-138.
10 Thaer Yartah, “Les Bâtiments Communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3 (PPNA, Syrie),” Neo-
Lithics 5/1 (2005), pp.2-9.
11 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-8700 Av. J.-C.): L’architecture,
Miroir d’une Société Néolithique Complexe (2015), pp.139-150.
12 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, “Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The Transition from the
Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria,” From the River to the Sea. The Paleolithic and
the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant. Studies in Honour of Lorraine
Copeland, ed. Olivier Aurenche, Marie Le Miere, and Paul Sanlaville (2004), 281-293;
Abu Bakar Siddiq, Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda İnsan-Hayvan İlişkisi ve Orta Anadolu Çanak
Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Faunası (2019), pp.142-160.
13 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), 239-356; Danielle
Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar (2015), 1-370; Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3, Un Vil-
lage Du Néolithique Précéramique (PPNA) Sur Le Moyen Euphrate: Première Ap-
proche”, Paléorient 30/2 (2004), pp.141-158.
animal hybrid creatures on the pillar, paintings of the wall, curving of
animistic features or arguably totemic animals on the monoliths and
sacred objects, and a shared system for the treatment of the dead,
were associated with these extraordinarily buildings.14 All of these
symbolic evidences indicate the presence of sacred architectures
which were deeply associated with important ceremonial events.
Moreover, the enormous structures and extensive ritual associations
of some of these sacred architectures indicate that perhaps people
from extended social groups assembled together and joined in com-
munal activities, what might be called as complex rituals. These com-
paratively large and long-lasting communal buildings probably func-
tioned as sanctuaries,15 serving both intra- and intercommunal spir-
itual needs.
In many cases, the early Neolithic settlements were not just
serving the needs of living people, but were the cult centers and sa-
cred memory-ground for the dead as well.16 There were burial
grounds inside the residence houses, aimed at keeping the dead with-
in the community.17 The funerary customs were very diverse, ranging
from primary inhumations of single individuals to secondary inter-
ments of individuals without the skull, groups of skulls or skeletons
and skulls jumbled together.18 Often the individuals were buried in
hocker position,19 a fetal-like position where the arms embraced the
lower limbs, ostensibly to allow the deceased to enter the next world
like a newborn or to prevent the dead from rising from the grave.
Sometimes the crania were intentionally kept in charnel houses and
other buildings for the dead. The house of the dead at Dja’de el
14 Oliver Dietrich et al., “The Role of Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic
Communities: New Evidence from Göbekli Tepe, South-Eastern Turkey,” Antiquity
86/333 (2012), pp.674-695; Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, The Neo-
lithic in Turkey, New Excavations & New Research: The Tigris Basin, ed. Mehmet Özdoğan,
Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm (2011), pp.89-127; Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3,”
(2004), pp.141-158.
15 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
16 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near
Eastern Prehistory, ed. Jörg Becker, Claudia Beuger, and Bernd Muller-Neuhof, (2019),
pp.57-70; G. O. Rollefson, “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan),”
Paléorient 9/2 (1983), pp.29-38.
17 Yilmaz Selim Erdal, “Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at
Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anatolia, PPNA Period)”, European Journal of Archaeology
18/1 (2015), pp.4-32.
18 Oliver Dietrich et al., “Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities”,
(2012), pp.674-695; G. O. Rollefson, “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal
(Jordan)”, (1983), pp.29-38.
19 Yilmaz S. Erdal, “Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe”,
(2015), pp.4-32.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
588588
Mughara20 of the Middle Euphrates, and the skull building at Çayönü
of the Upper Tigris,21 can be the appropriate examples of such com-
munal funerary practice.
Living in a place for generation after generations may have led
the early Neolithic social groups to be the ancestral communities with
deep concern for communal interest, which eventually made their
ancestral villages as the centers for their social identities. In this
manner, PPN ritual and ceremony often helped to tie people to be part
of a greater community, rather than simple clan or tribe.22 Such a
mental and spiritual obligation undoubtedly had strong socio-
cultural effects, which may contribute to the interconnection between
numerous small and dispersed communities all across the vast land of
Upper Mesopotamia. In this way, some large sanctuaries23 and long-
occupied settlement mounds24 may became centers of socio-religious
engagement, where people seasonally or annually gathered for the
benefit of ceremonies and initiation rites, re-confirmation of social
bonds, and the exchange of ideas, commodities, technologies, and
marriage partners.25 In this way, the commonly shared trends and
symbolism encouraged grounding the base of the ‘prototype’ of orga-
nized religion/s in the PPN of Upper Mesopotamia throughout over
three millennia, which further flourished across West Asia during
later prehistoric periods. In this paper, we primarily attempt to ex-
plore the types, nature and function of ritual buildings in some of the
prominent PPN sites in Upper Mesopotamia. Discussing the intra-
communal and intercommunal symbolic enrolments, we further pro-
pose that the commonly shared but broad-scale funerary, symbolic
and ritual practices in these early complex societies could have pro-
vided the very first ground for the formation of a prototype sense of
20 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
21 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel, ed. G. Arsebük, M.
Mellink, and W. Schirmer (1998), pp.581-601.
22 Trevor Watkins, “Architecture and Imagery in the Early Neolithic of South-West Asia:
Framing Rituals, Stabilising Meanings”, Ritual, Play and Belief, in Evolution and Early
Human Societies, ed. Colin Renfrew, Iain Morley, and Michael Boyd (2017), pp.129-142.
23 Bahattin Çelik, “Karahan Tepe: A New Cultural Centre in the Urfa Area in Turkey”,
Documenta Praehistorica 38 (2011), 241-254; Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone
Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
24 Asli Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, (2011), 185-269; Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique
de Tell Mureybet (Syrie Du Nord), En Hommage a Jacques Cauvin, Volumes I & II, ed. Juan
Jose Ibáñez (2008); Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-
127.
25 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, “The Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic
in Syria”, (2004), pp.281-293.
‘organized religion’, which is still being widely experienced in the
world today.
Communal rituals and public buildings of PPN Upper Mesopo-
tamia
Among the notable early Neolithic sites, Körtiktepe in the Up-
per Tigris Valley perhaps comes forward with its most diverse rituals
objects and symbolic artifacts. With a thin layer of Late Epipalaeolith-
ic cultural sequence, the earliest sedentary life at Körtiktepe occurred
around 10,500 cal BC (Table 1), and the site apparently remained ac-
tive over a thousand years.
26
The people of Körtiktepe were still hunter
and gatherers in their subsistence practices, but had a complex socio-
cultural structure with very extensive production activities. Among
the highly rich artifacts recovered from Körtiktepe, hundreds of stone
vessels, decorated stone vessels, stone and shell beads, stone axes,
bone tools, decorated bone and stone plaquettes, household objects,
as well as hundred thousands of stone tools are mentionable.
27
With
about 2000 single and double burials and over 450 architectural re-
mains, Körtiktepe provided the best scopes to understand social for-
mation and social complexity in early Neolithic. Particularly, some of
unique and trademark symbolic artifact types at Körtiktepe were later
widely appeared in some notable PPN sites including Göbeklitepe, Jerf
el Ahmar, Hasankeyf Höyük, Nevalı Çori, and Gusir Höyük. Moreover,
a large Late Epipalaeolithic building, one of the earliest permanent
buildings at Körtiktepe, was seemingly to have communal function
28
with fireplace, communal feast, intense burning of the clay floor,
large scale roasting of animal meat, and deliberate burning of a wood-
en superstructure. These types of deliberate burning and infilling of
buildings were observed at cult buildings or communal buildings of
Çayönü,
29
Qermez Dere,
30
and Jerf el Ahmar,
31
but it is still a subject of
detail study whether this very large building at Körtiktepe was used
26
Marion Benz et al., “Methodological Implications of New Radiocarbon Dates from the
Early Holocene Site of Körtik Tepe, Southeast Anatolia,” Radiocarbon 54/3–4 (2012),
291-304; Marion Benz et al., “A Burnt Pit House, Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic
Epipaleolithic Structures at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey,” Neo-Lithics 17/1
(2017), pp.3-12.
27
Vecihi Özkaya, “Excavations at Körtik Tepe”, (2009), 3-8; Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç
Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-127.
28
Marion Benz et al., “Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic Epipaleolithic Structures at
Körtik Tepe”, (2017), pp.9-11.
29
Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
30
Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), pp3-7.
31
Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.139-150.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
589589
Mughara20 of the Middle Euphrates, and the skull building at Çayönü
of the Upper Tigris,21 can be the appropriate examples of such com-
munal funerary practice.
Living in a place for generation after generations may have led
the early Neolithic social groups to be the ancestral communities with
deep concern for communal interest, which eventually made their
ancestral villages as the centers for their social identities. In this
manner, PPN ritual and ceremony often helped to tie people to be part
of a greater community, rather than simple clan or tribe.22 Such a
mental and spiritual obligation undoubtedly had strong socio-
cultural effects, which may contribute to the interconnection between
numerous small and dispersed communities all across the vast land of
Upper Mesopotamia. In this way, some large sanctuaries23 and long-
occupied settlement mounds24 may became centers of socio-religious
engagement, where people seasonally or annually gathered for the
benefit of ceremonies and initiation rites, re-confirmation of social
bonds, and the exchange of ideas, commodities, technologies, and
marriage partners.25 In this way, the commonly shared trends and
symbolism encouraged grounding the base of the ‘prototype’ of orga-
nized religion/s in the PPN of Upper Mesopotamia throughout over
three millennia, which further flourished across West Asia during
later prehistoric periods. In this paper, we primarily attempt to ex-
plore the types, nature and function of ritual buildings in some of the
prominent PPN sites in Upper Mesopotamia. Discussing the intra-
communal and intercommunal symbolic enrolments, we further pro-
pose that the commonly shared but broad-scale funerary, symbolic
and ritual practices in these early complex societies could have pro-
vided the very first ground for the formation of a prototype sense of
20 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
21 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel, ed. G. Arsebük, M.
Mellink, and W. Schirmer (1998), pp.581-601.
22 Trevor Watkins, “Architecture and Imagery in the Early Neolithic of South-West Asia:
Framing Rituals, Stabilising Meanings”, Ritual, Play and Belief, in Evolution and Early
Human Societies, ed. Colin Renfrew, Iain Morley, and Michael Boyd (2017), pp.129-142.
23 Bahattin Çelik, “Karahan Tepe: A New Cultural Centre in the Urfa Area in Turkey”,
Documenta Praehistorica 38 (2011), 241-254; Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone
Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
24 Asli Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, (2011), 185-269; Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique
de Tell Mureybet (Syrie Du Nord), En Hommage a Jacques Cauvin, Volumes I & II, ed. Juan
Jose Ibáñez (2008); Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-
127.
25 Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, “The Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic
in Syria”, (2004), pp.281-293.
‘organized religion’, which is still being widely experienced in the
world today.
Communal rituals and public buildings of PPN Upper Mesopo-
tamia
Among the notable early Neolithic sites, Körtiktepe in the Up-
per Tigris Valley perhaps comes forward with its most diverse rituals
objects and symbolic artifacts. With a thin layer of Late Epipalaeolith-
ic cultural sequence, the earliest sedentary life at Körtiktepe occurred
around 10,500 cal BC (Table 1), and the site apparently remained ac-
tive over a thousand years.26 The people of Körtiktepe were still hunter
and gatherers in their subsistence practices, but had a complex socio-
cultural structure with very extensive production activities. Among
the highly rich artifacts recovered from Körtiktepe, hundreds of stone
vessels, decorated stone vessels, stone and shell beads, stone axes,
bone tools, decorated bone and stone plaquettes, household objects,
as well as hundred thousands of stone tools are mentionable.27 With
about 2000 single and double burials and over 450 architectural re-
mains, Körtiktepe provided the best scopes to understand social for-
mation and social complexity in early Neolithic. Particularly, some of
unique and trademark symbolic artifact types at Körtiktepe were later
widely appeared in some notable PPN sites including Göbeklitepe, Jerf
el Ahmar, Hasankeyf Höyük, Nevalı Çori, and Gusir Höyük. Moreover,
a large Late Epipalaeolithic building, one of the earliest permanent
buildings at Körtiktepe, was seemingly to have communal function28
with fireplace, communal feast, intense burning of the clay floor,
large scale roasting of animal meat, and deliberate burning of a wood-
en superstructure. These types of deliberate burning and infilling of
buildings were observed at cult buildings or communal buildings of
Çayönü,29 Qermez Dere,30 and Jerf el Ahmar,31 but it is still a subject of
detail study whether this very large building at Körtiktepe was used
26 Marion Benz et al., “Methodological Implications of New Radiocarbon Dates from the
Early Holocene Site of Körtik Tepe, Southeast Anatolia,” Radiocarbon 54/3–4 (2012),
291-304; Marion Benz et al., “A Burnt Pit House, Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic
Epipaleolithic Structures at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey,” Neo-Lithics 17/1
(2017), pp.3-12.
27 Vecihi Özkaya, “Excavations at Körtik Tepe”, (2009), 3-8; Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç
Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-127.
28 Marion Benz et al., “Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic Epipaleolithic Structures at
Körtik Tepe”, (2017), pp.9-11.
29 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
30 Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), pp3-7.
31 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.139-150.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
590590
for any particular communal or symbolic purpose.32 Yet, the enigmatic
building along with another Late Epipalaeolithic building was com-
pared to quite larger than the contemporary habitation buildings at
proto-Neolithic site of Tell Qaramel in northwestern Syria.33
Among the most notable early Neolithic Settlement of Çayönü
on one of the small tributaries of the Upper Tigris appears to have
about 3000-year long occupation, spanning from the late PPN to the
beginning of the Pottery Neolithic (PN). The earliest occupations at
the site thrived in period between 9300-8700 BC, and it remained
active until about 6300 cal. BC. It is considered to be one of the oldest
settlements where the remains of domesticated plants and animals
were recovered.34 Over time, social complexity at Çayönü increased as
the habitation area expanded with gradual pressure in population
density. There was also an increase in involvements of long distance
contact, intercommunal trade and exchange. It was found that, in
addition to the household buildings, there was a “cult building” in
every cultural layer at Çayönü. Two types of cult buildings were ob-
served; the first type had no artifacts associated with it, but the sec-
ond type, interpreted as ‘skull building’, was associated with death
communal funerary practices.35
Table 1. Types of communal buildings in the PPN sites of Upper Meso-
potamia.
Site Location
First sed-
entary
occupation
Building type Probable ritual
type
Körtiktepe Southeast
Turkey
10,500 cal
BC
Extensive
number of
burials
Communal feast
and extensive
funerary ritual
Boncuklu
Tarla
Southeast
Turkey
10,300 cal
BC
Large rectan-
gular building Communal ritual
Göbeklitepe Southeast
Turkey 9800 cal BC Rounded
building
Intercommunal
feast, and large
gathering
32 Marion Benz et al., “Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic Epipaleolithic Structures at
Körtik Tepe”, (2017), pp.9-11.
33 R. F. Mazurowski, “Tell Qaramel. Excavations 2004,” Polish Archaeology in the Medi-
terranean 16 (2004), pp.497-510.
34 Hitomi Hongo et al., “The Process of Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü, Southeastern
Turkey: A Multidisciplinary Approach Focusing on Bos Sp. and Cervus elaphus,” An-
thropozoologica 44/1 (2009), pp.63-78; W. Van Zeist and G. J. de Roller, “The Plant
Husbandry of Aceramic Çayönü SE Turkey,” Palaeohistoria 33/34 (1992), pp.65-96.
35 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
Hasankeyf
Höyük
Southeast
Turkey
9600 cal BC
Large rectan-
gular building
Communal ritual
Jerf el Ahmar
Northern
Syria
9500 cal BC
Large round-
ed building
Communal ritual
Karaman
Tepe
Southeast
Turkey
9th millen-
nium BC (?)
Large round-
ed building
Large gathering
and intercommu-
nal ritual
Dja’de el
Mughara
Northern
Syria
9310 cal BC
Rounded
building
Communal feast
and communal
ritual
Çayönü
Southeast
Turkey
9300 cal BC
Large rectan-
gular building
Communal feast
and communal
ritual
Tel ‘Abr 3
Northern
Syria
9291 cal BC
Rounded
building
Communal ritual
Tell Abu
Hureyra
Northern
Syria
c. 9100 BC
rectangular
mud-brick
building
Large-scale
communal ritual
Nevalı Çori
Southeast
Turkey
8720 cal BC
Large rectan-
gular building
Large-scale
communal ritual
Qermez Dere
Northern
Iraq
c. 8195 BC
Rounded
building
Communal ritual
Nemrik 9
Northern
Iraq
8150 BC
Rounded
building
Communal ritual
Hasankeyf Höyük is another PPNA settlement, lies on the left
bank of the Tigris River and about 2 km east of the well-known medi-
eval site of Hasankeyf, where sedentary life started around 9600-
9100 cal BC.
36
The diameter of the site was about 150 meters, suggest-
ing that it was a medium-sized permanent settlement of local
hunter-gatheres. The sedentary people were apparently hunter-
gatherer in their subsistence activities since there is no sign of do-
mesticated animals or plants at the site. Over 30 round-shaped,
stonewalled, subterranean habitation buildings were found through-
out the three occupational sequences at the site. But there was a large
rectangular building too, which was argued to be used for communal
purposes.
37
Another similar type of large rectangular building was also
recorded in recent excavation at the site (personal communication
with Y. Miyake).
In the Middle Euphrates Valley of Southeast Turkey, the site
Göbeklitepe has attracted international attention with its outstanding
36
Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük”, (2012), p.4.
37
Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük”, (2012), pp.3-7.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
591591
for any particular communal or symbolic purpose.32 Yet, the enigmatic
building along with another Late Epipalaeolithic building was com-
pared to quite larger than the contemporary habitation buildings at
proto-Neolithic site of Tell Qaramel in northwestern Syria.33
Among the most notable early Neolithic Settlement of Çayönü
on one of the small tributaries of the Upper Tigris appears to have
about 3000-year long occupation, spanning from the late PPN to the
beginning of the Pottery Neolithic (PN). The earliest occupations at
the site thrived in period between 9300-8700 BC, and it remained
active until about 6300 cal. BC. It is considered to be one of the oldest
settlements where the remains of domesticated plants and animals
were recovered.34 Over time, social complexity at Çayönü increased as
the habitation area expanded with gradual pressure in population
density. There was also an increase in involvements of long distance
contact, intercommunal trade and exchange. It was found that, in
addition to the household buildings, there was a “cult building” in
every cultural layer at Çayönü. Two types of cult buildings were ob-
served; the first type had no artifacts associated with it, but the sec-
ond type, interpreted as ‘skull building’, was associated with death
communal funerary practices.35
Table 1. Types of communal buildings in the PPN sites of Upper Meso-
potamia.
Site
Location
First sed-
entary
occupation
Building type
Probable ritual
type
Körtiktepe
Southeast
Turkey
10,500 cal
BC
Extensive
number of
burials
Communal feast
and extensive
funerary ritual
Boncuklu
Tarla
Southeast
Turkey
10,300 cal
BC
Large rectan-
gular building
Communal ritual
Göbeklitepe
Southeast
Turkey
9800 cal BC
Rounded
building
Intercommunal
feast, and large
gathering
32 Marion Benz et al., “Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic Epipaleolithic Structures at
Körtik Tepe”, (2017), pp.9-11.
33 R. F. Mazurowski, “Tell Qaramel. Excavations 2004,” Polish Archaeology in the Medi-
terranean 16 (2004), pp.497-510.
34 Hitomi Hongo et al., “The Process of Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü, Southeastern
Turkey: A Multidisciplinary Approach Focusing on Bos Sp. and Cervus elaphus,” An-
thropozoologica 44/1 (2009), pp.63-78; W. Van Zeist and G. J. de Roller, “The Plant
Husbandry of Aceramic Çayönü SE Turkey,” Palaeohistoria 33/34 (1992), pp.65-96.
35 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
Hasankeyf
Höyük
Southeast
Turkey 9600 cal BC Large rectan-
gular building Communal ritual
Jerf el Ahmar Northern
Syria 9500 cal BC Large round-
ed building Communal ritual
Karaman
Tepe
Southeast
Turkey
9th millen-
nium BC (?)
Large round-
ed building
Large gathering
and intercommu-
nal ritual
Dja’de el
Mughara
Northern
Syria 9310 cal BC Rounded
building
Communal feast
and communal
ritual
Çayönü Southeast
Turkey 9300 cal BC Large rectan-
gular building
Communal feast
and communal
ritual
Tel ‘Abr 3
Northern
Syria 9291 cal BC
Rounded
building Communal ritual
Tell Abu
Hureyra
Northern
Syria c. 9100 BC
rectangular
mud-brick
building
Large-scale
communal ritual
Nevalı Çori
Southeast
Turkey 8720 cal BC
Large rectan-
gular building
Large-scale
communal ritual
Qermez Dere
Northern
Iraq c. 8195 BC
Rounded
building Communal ritual
Nemrik 9
Northern
Iraq 8150 BC
Rounded
building Communal ritual
Hasankeyf Höyük is another PPNA settlement, lies on the left
bank of the Tigris River and about 2 km east of the well-known medi-
eval site of Hasankeyf, where sedentary life started around 9600-
9100 cal BC.36 The diameter of the site was about 150 meters, suggest-
ing that it was a medium-sized permanent settlement of local
hunter-gatheres. The sedentary people were apparently hunter-
gatherer in their subsistence activities since there is no sign of do-
mesticated animals or plants at the site. Over 30 round-shaped,
stonewalled, subterranean habitation buildings were found through-
out the three occupational sequences at the site. But there was a large
rectangular building too, which was argued to be used for communal
purposes.37 Another similar type of large rectangular building was also
recorded in recent excavation at the site (personal communication
with Y. Miyake).
In the Middle Euphrates Valley of Southeast Turkey, the site
Göbeklitepe has attracted international attention with its outstanding
36 Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük”, (2012), p.4.
37 Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük”, (2012), pp.3-7.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
592592
massive ritual architecture. It was a PPN tell site, lies about 15 km
northeast of the Şanlıurfa.38 The earliest occupation at Göbeklitepe
occurred between 9745 and 9314 cal BC, and the site apparently re-
mained active up to 8300 BC.39 The monumental architectures at
Göbeklitepe were constructed with huge T-shaped pillars arranged in
the wall of circle enclosures around. Two larger massive T-shaped
pillars, the largest of which stood 5.5 meters tall, were placed in the
center. The pillars in the wall were interconnected by stone benches
and were decorated with different types of animal motifs, including
aurochs, boars, foxes, snakes, scorpions, vultures and other birds.
Some pillars had only a single male wild animal such as a bull, a boar
or a fox; however, others had a number of creatures curved onto their
surfaces. On the other hand, some central pillars were decorated with
arms and hands, as the depictions of stylized human-like individu-
als.40 Some of them had a pair of human arms with the fingers of the
hands meeting on the ‘stomach’ of the figure; other had some kind of
a pendant on a band around the ‘neck’. Particularly two largest mono-
liths had decorated belts around their middles, with a prominent
buckle at the front. The geophysical surveys revealed that there are at
least a total of 20 enclosures exist beneath the ground of
Göbeklitepe.41
There are also some other Neolithic sites with T-shaped stones
pillars in the Upper Euphrates Valley, including Nevalı Çori, Kurt
Tepesi, Harbetsuvan Tepesi, Hamzan Tepe, Karahan Tepe, Taşlı Tepe,
Sefer Tepe and Ayanlar Höyük. However, none of them have that mas-
sive T-shaped stone pillars with enclosures and extensive number of
animal depictions as found in Göbeklitepe. The site has been inter-
preted to a religious sanctuary or a sacred place for mass people
groups from different parts of the region.42 Therefore, it can be argued
that Göbeklitepe was a religious sanctuary used by intercommunal
and probably interregional people groups in Upper Mesopotamia for
about 1000 years. A slightly younger Neolithic site in the Middle Eu-
phrates Valley of Southeast Turkey is Nevalı Çori, lies in Ilvan district
of Şanlıurfa and currently under the water of Atatürk dam, where the
earliest occupation started about 8700 BC and continued about a
38 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
39 Oliver Dietrich et al., “Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities”,
(2012), pp.674-695.
40 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), p.243.
41 Oliver Dietrich et al., “Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities”,
(2012), pp.674-695.
42 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
thousand years, up to 7500 BC.
43
A total of 29 houses were recovered
from Nevali Cori, but three distinct cult buildings were standing
throughout its thousand years of occupational period.
44
The buildings
were nearly square in plan, and the interiors were plastered and coat-
ed with a layer of white clay with black and red paint. As at
Göbeklitepe, a quarry-stone bonded was encircled the interior, large
stone slabs were set between them, about 13-15 T-shaped monolithic
pillars were erected inside the surrounding walls, and two large T-
shaped monolithic pillars were placed at the center of these cult
buildings.
45
Notably similar types of round structures were recorded
some of other early Neolithic sites such as Tel ‘Abr 3,
46
Dja’de el
Mughara,
47
Jerf el Ahmar,
48
and Tell Mureybet
49
in the Middle Euphra-
tes Basin of northern Syria, and Nemrik 9
50
and Qermez Dere
51
in the
Middle Tigris Basin of northern Iraq. However, along with very rich
numbers of symbolic artifacts as well as human and animal figures,
the three cult buildings of Nevalı Çori were remarkably connected
with the cultic site of Göbeklitepe in Southeast Turkey.
In the Middle Euphrates Basin of Manbij northeast of Aleppo,
the site of Jerf el Ahmar, revealed massive subterranean cult build-
ings. The earliest occupation at Jerf el Ahmar began around 9500 cal
BC, and was probably abandoned around 8700 cal BC.
52
A total of 11
archaeological levels were recorded from about 800-year long com-
munal life at the site. The settlement of Jerf el Ahmar was covered by a
large area of about 1000 square meters. Although it only revealed so
far 88 architectural remains, the 6 communal buildings were very
significant
53
which were very significant to understand the symbolism
and social complexity throughout the beginning of Neolithic in the
region. Evidence of animal cults and animal symbolism at Jerf el Ah-
43
Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), p.103; Sandra Lösch, Gisela Grupe, and
Joris Peters, “Stable Isotopes and Dietary Adaptations in Humans and Animals at Pre-
Pottery Neolithic Nevallı Çori, Southeast Anatolia”, American Journal of Physical An-
thropology, 131/2 (2006), pp.181-193.
44
Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), 95.
45
Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), pp.85-138.
46
Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.141-158.
47
Rozalia Christidou, Eric Coqueugniot, and Lionel Gourichon, “Neolithic Figurines
Manufactured from Phalanges of Equids from Dja’de El Mughara, Syria,” Journal of
Field Archaeology 34/3 (2009), pp.319-335.
48
Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.139-150.
49
Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet, Vol. I (2008), pp.33-94.
50
Stefan K. Kozłowski and Andrzej Kempisty, “Architecture of the Pre‐pottery Neolithic
Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq”, World Archaeology 21/3 (1990), pp.348-362.
51
Trevor Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere and the Early A c-
eramic Neolithic of N. Iraq”, Paléorient 15/1 (1989), pp.19-24.
52
Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.1-336.
53
Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), p.261.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
593593
massive ritual architecture. It was a PPN tell site, lies about 15 km
northeast of the Şanlıurfa.38 The earliest occupation at Göbeklitepe
occurred between 9745 and 9314 cal BC, and the site apparently re-
mained active up to 8300 BC.39 The monumental architectures at
Göbeklitepe were constructed with huge T-shaped pillars arranged in
the wall of circle enclosures around. Two larger massive T-shaped
pillars, the largest of which stood 5.5 meters tall, were placed in the
center. The pillars in the wall were interconnected by stone benches
and were decorated with different types of animal motifs, including
aurochs, boars, foxes, snakes, scorpions, vultures and other birds.
Some pillars had only a single male wild animal such as a bull, a boar
or a fox; however, others had a number of creatures curved onto their
surfaces. On the other hand, some central pillars were decorated with
arms and hands, as the depictions of stylized human-like individu-
als.40 Some of them had a pair of human arms with the fingers of the
hands meeting on the ‘stomach’ of the figure; other had some kind of
a pendant on a band around the ‘neck’. Particularly two largest mono-
liths had decorated belts around their middles, with a prominent
buckle at the front. The geophysical surveys revealed that there are at
least a total of 20 enclosures exist beneath the ground of
Göbeklitepe.41
There are also some other Neolithic sites with T-shaped stones
pillars in the Upper Euphrates Valley, including Nevalı Çori, Kurt
Tepesi, Harbetsuvan Tepesi, Hamzan Tepe, Karahan Tepe, Taşlı Tepe,
Sefer Tepe and Ayanlar Höyük. However, none of them have that mas-
sive T-shaped stone pillars with enclosures and extensive number of
animal depictions as found in Göbeklitepe. The site has been inter-
preted to a religious sanctuary or a sacred place for mass people
groups from different parts of the region.42 Therefore, it can be argued
that Göbeklitepe was a religious sanctuary used by intercommunal
and probably interregional people groups in Upper Mesopotamia for
about 1000 years. A slightly younger Neolithic site in the Middle Eu-
phrates Valley of Southeast Turkey is Nevalı Çori, lies in Ilvan district
of Şanlıurfa and currently under the water of Atatürk dam, where the
earliest occupation started about 8700 BC and continued about a
38 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
39 Oliver Dietrich et al., “Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities”,
(2012), pp.674-695.
40 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), p.243.
41 Oliver Dietrich et al., “Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities”,
(2012), pp.674-695.
42 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
thousand years, up to 7500 BC.43 A total of 29 houses were recovered
from Nevali Cori, but three distinct cult buildings were standing
throughout its thousand years of occupational period.44 The buildings
were nearly square in plan, and the interiors were plastered and coat-
ed with a layer of white clay with black and red paint. As at
Göbeklitepe, a quarry-stone bonded was encircled the interior, large
stone slabs were set between them, about 13-15 T-shaped monolithic
pillars were erected inside the surrounding walls, and two large T-
shaped monolithic pillars were placed at the center of these cult
buildings.45 Notably similar types of round structures were recorded
some of other early Neolithic sites such as Tel ‘Abr 3,46 Dja’de el
Mughara,47 Jerf el Ahmar,48 and Tell Mureybet49 in the Middle Euphra-
tes Basin of northern Syria, and Nemrik 950 and Qermez Dere51 in the
Middle Tigris Basin of northern Iraq. However, along with very rich
numbers of symbolic artifacts as well as human and animal figures,
the three cult buildings of Nevalı Çori were remarkably connected
with the cultic site of Göbeklitepe in Southeast Turkey.
In the Middle Euphrates Basin of Manbij northeast of Aleppo,
the site of Jerf el Ahmar, revealed massive subterranean cult build-
ings. The earliest occupation at Jerf el Ahmar began around 9500 cal
BC, and was probably abandoned around 8700 cal BC.52 A total of 11
archaeological levels were recorded from about 800-year long com-
munal life at the site. The settlement of Jerf el Ahmar was covered by a
large area of about 1000 square meters. Although it only revealed so
far 88 architectural remains, the 6 communal buildings were very
significant53 which were very significant to understand the symbolism
and social complexity throughout the beginning of Neolithic in the
region. Evidence of animal cults and animal symbolism at Jerf el Ah-
43 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), p.103; Sandra Lösch, Gisela Grupe, and
Joris Peters, “Stable Isotopes and Dietary Adaptations in Humans and Animals at Pre-
Pottery Neolithic Nevallı Çori, Southeast Anatolia”, American Journal of Physical An-
thropology, 131/2 (2006), pp.181-193.
44 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), 95.
45 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), pp.85-138.
46 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.141-158.
47 Rozalia Christidou, Eric Coqueugniot, and Lionel Gourichon, “Neolithic Figurines
Manufactured from Phalanges of Equids from Dja’de El Mughara, Syria,” Journal of
Field Archaeology 34/3 (2009), pp.319-335.
48 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.139-150.
49 Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet, Vol. I (2008), pp.33-94.
50 Stefan K. Kozłowski and Andrzej Kempisty, “Architecture of the Pre‐pottery Neolithic
Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq”, World Archaeology 21/3 (1990), pp.348-362.
51 Trevor Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere and the Early Ac-
eramic Neolithic of N. Iraq”, Paléorient 15/1 (1989), pp.19-24.
52 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.1-336.
53 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), p.261.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
594594
mar was also significant. The PPN site of Dja’de el Mughara in the
Middle Euphrates plain has also brought attention in regard to under-
stand the origin of the complex socio-cultural and symbolic practices
in early Neolithic. The site is located on the western bank of the Eu-
phrates River, about 100 km northeast of Aleppo of northern Syria.
The occupation at Dja’de el Mughara began in the final PPNA of
around 9300 cal BC and abandoned around 8200 cal. BC.54 The inter-
nal organization of this small Neolithic village (1.5 hectare) was char-
acterized by rectangular domestic houses, but particularly a commu-
nal circular building with wall paintings was very interesting. Evi-
dence for communal and ritual feasting was also among the PPN find-
ings from the site.55 Along with many similar types artifacts with con-
temporary Neolithic settlements in the region, particularly one of the
world’s oldest indoor paintings on the walls of a community building,
and the remarkable “house of the dead” with more than 80 buried
individuals56 can be the concrete examples for communal ritual prac-
tices at Dja’de el Mughara.
Another significant PPN site in the Middle Euphrates of the
northeast of Aleppo is Tel ‘Abr 3. Three, very similar, circular, subter-
ranean communal structures, each was constructed with a broad
bench around the base, were excavated at the site.57 In one communal
building, the skulls and horns of wild cattle had been deposited within
the bench.58 Each of these subterranean buildings was about 10 to 12 m
in diameter and dug in virgin soil. Limestone slabs in the circular
buildings were cut, polished and decorated with animal motifs such as
gazelles, leopards, as well as different geometric patterns.59 The floor
and ceiling of these special buildings were plastered with white plas-
ter. As found on the limestone pillars and slabs, there were decora-
tions on the plastered wall too. There are also some crucial Early Neo-
lithic settlements excavated in the Middle Tigris Basin of the foothill
of Zagros mountain range. Among them, the PPN site of Nemrik 9
comes first with some of its remarkable findings. Located in the Do-
huk district of northern Iraq, the site lies on the Tigris, just 2.5 km
54 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
55 Rozalia Christidou, Eric Coqueugniot, and Lionel Gourichon, “Neolithic Figurines
from Dja’de El Mughara”, (2009), p.321.
56 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
57 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.141-158; Thaer Yartah, “Les Bâtiments Com-
munautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3”, (2005), pp.2-9.
58 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.141-158.
59 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.144-147.
from the modern river bed.
60
The earliest occupation at Nemrik oc-
curred around 8150 BC, and the settlement remained active in follow-
ing two thousand years, until around 6500 BC.
61
The architectures of
this large settlement predominated by circular and semi-circular sub-
terranean buildings.
62
With only a number of human burials, Nemrik 9
yielded some rich quantity of material objects including stone tools,
bone tools, animal figurines made of clay and stone. Particularly some
20cm long bird heads at Nemrik 9 remind the rich number of stone
pestles with animal shape at Körtiktepe.
Qermez Dere is another early Neolithic settlement site in
Northern Iraq. Situated at the edge of the town of Tell Afar, about 50
km west of Mosul in northern Iraq, Qermez Dere is relatively a small
site of about 100 by 60 meters.
63
The uncalibrated radiocarbon dates
suggested that the occupation at the site began around 8195 BC, and
the settlement continued until about 7630 BC.
64
Particularly the sub-
terranean semi-circular buildings at the site are quite interesting in
regard to understand social complexity and ritual practices. As found
at Nevalı Çori, Göbeklitepe, Tell ‘Abr 3 and some other notable PPN
sites in Upper Mesopotamia, stone pillars were placed inside the walls
and large stone pillars were erected at the centers of these semi-
circular ritual buildings.
65
Discussion
Virtually all pre-Neolithic human groups were hunting-
gathering foragers, living in small groups and frequently wandering
from one place to another for accessing the seasonally available natu-
ral resource. Following the end of the Pleistocene, however, the early
Neolithic hunter-gatherers in West Asia started to build permanent
settlements, and began to live in one place generations after genera-
tions. For instance, the occupation at Körtiktepe continued for over
1000 years,
66
Çayönü was continuously occupied for about 3000
years,
67
Tell Mureybet was inhabited for over 2000 years,
68
and simi-
60
Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9, a PPN Neolithic Site in Northern Iraq,” Paléorient 15/1
(1989), p.25.
61
Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9”, (1989), pp.25-31.
62
Stefan K. Kozłowski and Andrzej Kempisty, “Architecture of Nemrik”, (1990), pp.348-
362.
63
Trevor Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere”, (1989), p.19.
64
Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), p.55.
65
Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), pp.61-81; Trevor
Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere”, (1989), p.20.
66
Marion Benz et al., “Radiocarbon Dates from Körtik Tepe”, (2012), pp.291-304.
67
Hitomi Hongo et al., “Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü” (2009), pp.63-65.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
595595
mar was also significant. The PPN site of Dja’de el Mughara in the
Middle Euphrates plain has also brought attention in regard to under-
stand the origin of the complex socio-cultural and symbolic practices
in early Neolithic. The site is located on the western bank of the Eu-
phrates River, about 100 km northeast of Aleppo of northern Syria.
The occupation at Dja’de el Mughara began in the final PPNA of
around 9300 cal BC and abandoned around 8200 cal. BC.54 The inter-
nal organization of this small Neolithic village (1.5 hectare) was char-
acterized by rectangular domestic houses, but particularly a commu-
nal circular building with wall paintings was very interesting. Evi-
dence for communal and ritual feasting was also among the PPN find-
ings from the site.55 Along with many similar types artifacts with con-
temporary Neolithic settlements in the region, particularly one of the
world’s oldest indoor paintings on the walls of a community building,
and the remarkable “house of the dead” with more than 80 buried
individuals56 can be the concrete examples for communal ritual prac-
tices at Dja’de el Mughara.
Another significant PPN site in the Middle Euphrates of the
northeast of Aleppo is Tel ‘Abr 3. Three, very similar, circular, subter-
ranean communal structures, each was constructed with a broad
bench around the base, were excavated at the site.57 In one communal
building, the skulls and horns of wild cattle had been deposited within
the bench.58 Each of these subterranean buildings was about 10 to 12 m
in diameter and dug in virgin soil. Limestone slabs in the circular
buildings were cut, polished and decorated with animal motifs such as
gazelles, leopards, as well as different geometric patterns.59 The floor
and ceiling of these special buildings were plastered with white plas-
ter. As found on the limestone pillars and slabs, there were decora-
tions on the plastered wall too. There are also some crucial Early Neo-
lithic settlements excavated in the Middle Tigris Basin of the foothill
of Zagros mountain range. Among them, the PPN site of Nemrik 9
comes first with some of its remarkable findings. Located in the Do-
huk district of northern Iraq, the site lies on the Tigris, just 2.5 km
54 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
55 Rozalia Christidou, Eric Coqueugniot, and Lionel Gourichon, “Neolithic Figurines
from Dja’de El Mughara”, (2009), p.321.
56 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
57 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.141-158; Thaer Yartah, “Les Bâtiments Com-
munautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3”, (2005), pp.2-9.
58 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.141-158.
59 Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”, (2004), pp.144-147.
from the modern river bed.60 The earliest occupation at Nemrik oc-
curred around 8150 BC, and the settlement remained active in follow-
ing two thousand years, until around 6500 BC.61 The architectures of
this large settlement predominated by circular and semi-circular sub-
terranean buildings.62 With only a number of human burials, Nemrik 9
yielded some rich quantity of material objects including stone tools,
bone tools, animal figurines made of clay and stone. Particularly some
20cm long bird heads at Nemrik 9 remind the rich number of stone
pestles with animal shape at Körtiktepe.
Qermez Dere is another early Neolithic settlement site in
Northern Iraq. Situated at the edge of the town of Tell Afar, about 50
km west of Mosul in northern Iraq, Qermez Dere is relatively a small
site of about 100 by 60 meters.63 The uncalibrated radiocarbon dates
suggested that the occupation at the site began around 8195 BC, and
the settlement continued until about 7630 BC.64 Particularly the sub-
terranean semi-circular buildings at the site are quite interesting in
regard to understand social complexity and ritual practices. As found
at Nevalı Çori, Göbeklitepe, Tell ‘Abr 3 and some other notable PPN
sites in Upper Mesopotamia, stone pillars were placed inside the walls
and large stone pillars were erected at the centers of these semi-
circular ritual buildings.65
Discussion
Virtually all pre-Neolithic human groups were hunting-
gathering foragers, living in small groups and frequently wandering
from one place to another for accessing the seasonally available natu-
ral resource. Following the end of the Pleistocene, however, the early
Neolithic hunter-gatherers in West Asia started to build permanent
settlements, and began to live in one place generations after genera-
tions. For instance, the occupation at Körtiktepe continued for over
1000 years,66 Çayönü was continuously occupied for about 3000
years,67 Tell Mureybet was inhabited for over 2000 years,68 and simi-
60 Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9, a PPN Neolithic Site in Northern Iraq,” Paléorient 15/1
(1989), p.25.
61 Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9”, (1989), pp.25-31.
62 Stefan K. Kozłowski and Andrzej Kempisty, “Architecture of Nemrik”, (1990), pp.348-
362.
63 Trevor Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere”, (1989), p.19.
64 Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), p.55.
65 Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), pp.61-81; Trevor
Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere”, (1989), p.20.
66 Marion Benz et al., “Radiocarbon Dates from Körtik Tepe”, (2012), pp.291-304.
67 Hitomi Hongo et al., “Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü” (2009), pp.63-65.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
596596
larly the site of Jerf el Ahmar was occupied for about 800 years.69 Over
time, these sedentary human groups in Upper Mesopotamia became
the food producers of their own, inventors of profound material-
cultures, complex household and monumental architecture, as well as
pioneers of extraordinarily rich symbolism which is often challenging
for archaeologists to interpret.
The transition from PPNA hunting-gathering sedentary life to
PPNB food producing farming lifeway was a gradual process, and took
a longtime of about three thousand years. The Neolithic village life
began in different regions in West Asia at different times, but it ap-
pears that the long-term operational PPN centers had strong effects
in the development of complex socio-culture and organized systems
of symbolic practice. Many PPN settlements shared common burial
tradition, placing many burials inside and around the household
buildings, perhaps intending to keep their dead within the communi-
ty. However, the funerary customs in comparatively large PPN centers
were extremely rich and diverse.70 Among such mega centers, the
PPNA site of Körtiktepe in the Upper Tigris Basin yielded over 2000
burials, to date the richest burial ground ever found in the PPN con-
text. The site also yielded so far the highest number of burial goods
including hundred thousand of beads, thousands of stone and bone
artifacts, and hundreds of stone vessels. Early Neolithic social groups
from different parts of Upper Mesopotamia also used charnel houses
for the dead, as found at Abu Hureyra,71 Dja’de el Mughara,72 or at
Çayönü.73 It is notable that almost all the PPN communal groups in
Upper Mesopotamia were buried their dead in a fetal-like position,
called ‘hocker’ burial. In this burial position, arms of the individuals
embraced their lower limbs, as if the dead started the journey to the
next world as a fetus in their mother’s womb (Figure 1). It is also in-
terpreted as to prevent the dead from rising from their grave. Signifi-
cantly this burial position continued to be practiced across the West
68 Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet, Vol. I (2008), pp.21-31.
69 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015).
70 Yilmaz S. Erdal, “Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe”,
(2015), pp.4-32; A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge, “The Excavation of Tell
Abu Hureyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41
(1975), pp.50-77.
71 A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge, “Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra”,
(1975), pp.50-77.
72 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
73 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
Asia for millennia, showing the deep-rooted influence of Neolithic
symbolism.
Figure 1. Hocker position was a common burial custom in Neolithic com-
munities in West Asia for over four millennia. Above: two extreme hocker
burials from PPNA Körtiktepe (10,500-9200 BC), Diyarbakir, Southeast
Turkey.
74
Below: a hocker burial from PN Çatalhöyük (7100-5700 BC), Kon-
ya, Central Turkey.
75
74
Vecihi Özkaya and Abu B. Siddiq, “A Heart-Shaped Bone Artifact of Körtiktepe”,
Antropoloji, 40 (2020), (forthcoming).
75
Scott D. Haddow and Christopher J. Knüsel, “Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial
Rractices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey”, Bio-
archaeology International, 1/1-2 (2017), fig. 2.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
597597
larly the site of Jerf el Ahmar was occupied for about 800 years.69 Over
time, these sedentary human groups in Upper Mesopotamia became
the food producers of their own, inventors of profound material-
cultures, complex household and monumental architecture, as well as
pioneers of extraordinarily rich symbolism which is often challenging
for archaeologists to interpret.
The transition from PPNA hunting-gathering sedentary life to
PPNB food producing farming lifeway was a gradual process, and took
a longtime of about three thousand years. The Neolithic village life
began in different regions in West Asia at different times, but it ap-
pears that the long-term operational PPN centers had strong effects
in the development of complex socio-culture and organized systems
of symbolic practice. Many PPN settlements shared common burial
tradition, placing many burials inside and around the household
buildings, perhaps intending to keep their dead within the communi-
ty. However, the funerary customs in comparatively large PPN centers
were extremely rich and diverse.70 Among such mega centers, the
PPNA site of Körtiktepe in the Upper Tigris Basin yielded over 2000
burials, to date the richest burial ground ever found in the PPN con-
text. The site also yielded so far the highest number of burial goods
including hundred thousand of beads, thousands of stone and bone
artifacts, and hundreds of stone vessels. Early Neolithic social groups
from different parts of Upper Mesopotamia also used charnel houses
for the dead, as found at Abu Hureyra,71 Dja’de el Mughara,72 or at
Çayönü.73 It is notable that almost all the PPN communal groups in
Upper Mesopotamia were buried their dead in a fetal-like position,
called ‘hocker’ burial. In this burial position, arms of the individuals
embraced their lower limbs, as if the dead started the journey to the
next world as a fetus in their mother’s womb (Figure 1). It is also in-
terpreted as to prevent the dead from rising from their grave. Signifi-
cantly this burial position continued to be practiced across the West
68 Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet, Vol. I (2008), pp.21-31.
69 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015).
70 Yilmaz S. Erdal, “Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe”,
(2015), pp.4-32; A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge, “The Excavation of Tell
Abu Hureyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41
(1975), pp.50-77.
71 A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge, “Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra”,
(1975), pp.50-77.
72 Bérénice Chamel and Eric Coqueugniot, “Human Self-Perception and Self-Expression
during the 9th millennium cal BC”, (2019), pp.57-70.
73 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
Asia for millennia, showing the deep-rooted influence of Neolithic
symbolism.
Figure 1. Hocker position was a common burial custom in Neolithic com-
munities in West Asia for over four millennia. Above: two extreme hocker
burials from PPNA Körtiktepe (10,500-9200 BC), Diyarbakir, Southeast
Turkey.74 Below: a hocker burial from PN Çatalhöyük (7100-5700 BC), Kon-
ya, Central Turkey.75
74 Vecihi Özkaya and Abu B. Siddiq, “A Heart-Shaped Bone Artifact of Körtiktepe”,
Antropoloji, 40 (2020), (forthcoming).
75 Scott D. Haddow and Christopher J. Knüsel, “Skull Retrieval and Secondary Burial
Rractices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey”, Bio-
archaeology International, 1/1-2 (2017), fig. 2.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
598598
In addition to their common burial customs, the sedentary
communal groups had also many shared things in their symbolism
and ritual practices. Extensive animal symbolism comes first among
them. Similar types of animal imageries were found from several no-
table sites.76 The wide animal imageries in the later PPN settlements
seemingly evolved, or at least heavily influenced, by the wide animal
symbolism in some earliest PPNA centers including Tell Qaramel,77
Tell Mureybet,78 and particularly Körtiktepe.79 It is particularly nota-
ble that Körtiktepe type animated and widely engraved stone vessels,
stone plaquettes, bone plaquettes and many other symbolic objects
and grave goods, often presented the imagery of viper snakes, scorpi-
ons, tortoises, birds, wild mammals, human-animal hybrid figures,
wild plants and varieties of geometric designs, which were also found
at many notable sites including Göbeklitepe,80 Hasankeyf Höyük,81 Jerf
el Ahmar,82 Çayönü,83 Tell Abu Hureyra,84 Boncuklu Tarla,85 Gusir
Höyük,86 Nevalı Çori,87 Nemrik 9,88 and Qermez Dere.89
The PPNA sedentary people in Upper Mesopotamia were build-
ing smaller round houses for living, cooking and storage. Overtime,
they started to build rectangular architectures with multiple rooms.
However, the special architectures they built were much larger than
the household buildings, apparently severed for community-wide
ritual and ceremony. Moreover, some of these communal buildings, as
found at Göbeklitepe90 and Karahan Tepe,91 were massive and likely to
function as sanctuaries for inter-communal ritual gatherings. Large-
scale gathering and extensive feasting was also evidenced at sites
76 Abu Bakar Siddiq, Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda İnsan-Hayvan İlişkisi, (2019), pp.142-162.
77 R. F. Mazurowski, “Tell Qaramel: Excavations 2009,” Polish Archaeology in the Medi-
terranean 21(Researc (2012): 559–82.
78 Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet, (2008).
79 Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-127.
80 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
81 Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük”, (2012), pp.3-7.
82 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.229-280.
83 Aslı Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, (2011), pp.241-269.
84 A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge, “The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra”,
(1975), pp.50-77.
85 Ergül Kodaş, “Un Nouveau Site Du Néolithique Précéramique Dans La Vallée Du Haut
Tigre: Résultats Préliminaires de Boncuklu Tarla”, Neo-Lithics, 19 (2019), pp.3-15.
86 Necmi Karul, “Gusir Höyük,” The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Re-
search: The Tigris Basin, ed. M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm (2011), pp.1-17.
87 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), pp.85-138.
88 Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9”, (1989), pp.25-31.
89 Trevor Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere”, (1989), pp.19-24.
90 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
91 Bahattin Çelik, “Karahan Tepe”, (2011), pp.241-254.
such as Körtiktepe,
92
Tell Qaramel,
93
Jerf el Ahmar,
94
Hallan Çemi,
95
Çayönü,
96
Nevalı Çori,
97
Nemrik,
98
and Qermez Dere.
99
Complex rituals
should also be attached to the large statues and busts found at ‘Ain
Ghazal
100
and Jericho
101
in Jordan valley, as well as Jarmo
102
in northern
Iraq, originally stood as sanctuaries and served communal needs as a
whole.
Many of the ritual and public buildings showed significant ar-
chitectural resemblance with one another (Figure 2); yet, local varia-
tion was inevitable. For instance, while most of the subterranean ritu-
al buildings in the Euphrates Basin were rounded in form and many
had their erected pillar in a T-shaped form, most of the subterranean
ritual buildings in the Tigris Basin were in square or rectangular plan
and in most case the erected monolithic pillars were not in T-shaped
form. Still, the subterranean ritual buildings and their functions indi-
cated that the early Neolithic sedentary groups across Upper Mesopo-
tamia had a lot of shared rituals and symbolic trends between them,
and both the PPN sites in the Tigris and Euphrates Basins were very
much influenced by one another. When evaluating the socio-religious
trends in Tigris and Euphrates Basin in two distinct geographies; it
appears that there were deeply rooted shared symbolic traditions as
well as exchange of ideas and material cultures within the local PPN
settlements.
92
Marion Benz et al., “Enigmatic Epipaleolithic Structures at Körtik Tepe”, (2017), pp.3-
12.
93
R. F. Mazurowski, “Tell Qaramel. Excavations 2004”, (2004), 497-510; R. F. Ma-
zurowski, “Tell Qaramel: Excavations 2009”, (2012), pp.559-582.
94
Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.181-225.
95
Michael Rosenberg and Richard W. Redding, “Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organiza-
tion in Eastern Anatolia,” Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity,
and Differentiation, ed. Ian Kuijt (2000), pp.39-61.
96
Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
97
Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), pp.85-138.
98
Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9”, (1989), pp.25-31.
99
Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), pp3-9.
100
G. O. Rollefson, “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan)”, (1983),
pp.29-38.
101
Ofer Bar-Yosef, “The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation,” Current Anthro-
pology 27/2 (1986), pp.157-162.
102
Linda S., Braidwood et al., Prehistoric Archeology along the Zagros Flanks, (1983),
pp.427-429.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
599599
In addition to their common burial customs, the sedentary
communal groups had also many shared things in their symbolism
and ritual practices. Extensive animal symbolism comes first among
them. Similar types of animal imageries were found from several no-
table sites.76 The wide animal imageries in the later PPN settlements
seemingly evolved, or at least heavily influenced, by the wide animal
symbolism in some earliest PPNA centers including Tell Qaramel,77
Tell Mureybet,78 and particularly Körtiktepe.79 It is particularly nota-
ble that Körtiktepe type animated and widely engraved stone vessels,
stone plaquettes, bone plaquettes and many other symbolic objects
and grave goods, often presented the imagery of viper snakes, scorpi-
ons, tortoises, birds, wild mammals, human-animal hybrid figures,
wild plants and varieties of geometric designs, which were also found
at many notable sites including Göbeklitepe,80 Hasankeyf Höyük,81 Jerf
el Ahmar,82 Çayönü,83 Tell Abu Hureyra,84 Boncuklu Tarla,85 Gusir
Höyük,86 Nevalı Çori,87 Nemrik 9,88 and Qermez Dere.89
The PPNA sedentary people in Upper Mesopotamia were build-
ing smaller round houses for living, cooking and storage. Overtime,
they started to build rectangular architectures with multiple rooms.
However, the special architectures they built were much larger than
the household buildings, apparently severed for community-wide
ritual and ceremony. Moreover, some of these communal buildings, as
found at Göbeklitepe90 and Karahan Tepe,91 were massive and likely to
function as sanctuaries for inter-communal ritual gatherings. Large-
scale gathering and extensive feasting was also evidenced at sites
76 Abu Bakar Siddiq, Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda İnsan-Hayvan İlişkisi, (2019), pp.142-162.
77 R. F. Mazurowski, “Tell Qaramel: Excavations 2009,” Polish Archaeology in the Medi-
terranean 21(Researc (2012): 559–82.
78 Juan Jose Ibáñez, Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet, (2008).
79 Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-127.
80 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
81 Y. Miyake et al., “New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük”, (2012), pp.3-7.
82 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.229-280.
83 Aslı Erim-Özdoğan, “Çayönü”, (2011), pp.241-269.
84 A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge, “The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra”,
(1975), pp.50-77.
85 Ergül Kodaş, “Un Nouveau Site Du Néolithique Précéramique Dans La Vallée Du Haut
Tigre: Résultats Préliminaires de Boncuklu Tarla”, Neo-Lithics, 19 (2019), pp.3-15.
86 Necmi Karul, “Gusir Höyük,” The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Re-
search: The Tigris Basin, ed. M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm (2011), pp.1-17.
87 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), pp.85-138.
88 Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9”, (1989), pp.25-31.
89 Trevor Watkins, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts, “Qermez Dere”, (1989), pp.19-24.
90 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356.
91 Bahattin Çelik, “Karahan Tepe”, (2011), pp.241-254.
such as Körtiktepe,92 Tell Qaramel,93 Jerf el Ahmar,94 Hallan Çemi,95
Çayönü,96 Nevalı Çori,97 Nemrik,98 and Qermez Dere.99 Complex rituals
should also be attached to the large statues and busts found at ‘Ain
Ghazal100 and Jericho101 in Jordan valley, as well as Jarmo102 in northern
Iraq, originally stood as sanctuaries and served communal needs as a
whole.
Many of the ritual and public buildings showed significant ar-
chitectural resemblance with one another (Figure 2); yet, local varia-
tion was inevitable. For instance, while most of the subterranean ritu-
al buildings in the Euphrates Basin were rounded in form and many
had their erected pillar in a T-shaped form, most of the subterranean
ritual buildings in the Tigris Basin were in square or rectangular plan
and in most case the erected monolithic pillars were not in T-shaped
form. Still, the subterranean ritual buildings and their functions indi-
cated that the early Neolithic sedentary groups across Upper Mesopo-
tamia had a lot of shared rituals and symbolic trends between them,
and both the PPN sites in the Tigris and Euphrates Basins were very
much influenced by one another. When evaluating the socio-religious
trends in Tigris and Euphrates Basin in two distinct geographies; it
appears that there were deeply rooted shared symbolic traditions as
well as exchange of ideas and material cultures within the local PPN
settlements.
92 Marion Benz et al., “Enigmatic Epipaleolithic Structures at Körtik Tepe”, (2017), pp.3-
12.
93 R. F. Mazurowski, “Tell Qaramel. Excavations 2004”, (2004), 497-510; R. F. Ma-
zurowski, “Tell Qaramel: Excavations 2009”, (2012), pp.559-582.
94 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015), pp.181-225.
95 Michael Rosenberg and Richard W. Redding, “Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organiza-
tion in Eastern Anatolia,” Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity,
and Differentiation, ed. Ian Kuijt (2000), pp.39-61.
96 Mehmet Özdoğan and A-E. Özdoğan, “Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings”,
(1998), pp.581-601.
97 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), pp.85-138.
98 Stefan K. Kozlowski, “Nemrik 9”, (1989), pp.25-31.
99 Trevor Watkins, Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3, (1995), pp3-9.
100 G. O. Rollefson, “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan)”, (1983),
pp.29-38.
101 Ofer Bar-Yosef, “The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation,” Current Anthro-
pology 27/2 (1986), pp.157-162.
102 Linda S., Braidwood et al., Prehistoric Archeology along the Zagros Flanks, (1983),
pp.427-429.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
600600
Figure 2. Public buildings at Neolithic settlements across the Tigris and Eu-
phrates Basin often showed significant architectural resemblance with one
another: 1) Rounded public building with stone pillars at Göbeklitepe,
Şanlıurfa103; 2) A large rounded public building with stone slabs at Gusir
Höyük, Siirt104; 3) Rectangular public building at Göbeklitepe, Şanlıurfa105; 4)
Axonometric reconstruction of cult buildings II and III at Nevalı Çori,
Şanlıurfa106; and 5) A rectangular public building with stone posts at Boncuklu
Tarla, Mardin.107
It overall appears that throughout the origin and evolution of
the Neolithic, gradual development of architectures, communal
buildings and symbolic trends such as burial customs, rituals, sacred
rites, communal feast, and imageries of natural element gradually
evolved with the influences of lifestyle and trends of neighboring,
regional and interregional people groups. A kinship of symbolic
themes linked to ritual buildings of regional Neolithic sites.108 Howev-
er, it is important to note that local tribal variability too must have
103 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), fig.22.
104 Necmi Karul, “Gusir Höyük”, (2011), fig.5.
105 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe”, (2011), fig.27.
106 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), fig.10.
107 Ergül Kodaş, “Boncuklu Tarla”, (2019), fig.5.
108 Trevor Watkins, “Architecture and Imagery in the Early Neolithic of South-West
Asia”, (2017), pp.129-142.
contributed to the unique ritual traits that a distinct community prac-
ticed in their distinct settlement for centuries. Yet, it can be argued
that cultural process from early to later phase of PPN in Upper Meso-
potamia was a widespread process, in which a large number of inter-
acting and culturally-related communities engaged with each other.
Inter-regional contact, extensive network and cultural exchange be-
tween the people groups were pre-existed in the region during the
Epipalaeolithic.
109
Therefore, throughout the Pre-Pottery Neolithic,
the inter-communal contacts and exchanges of material culture had
great influence in following of similar kinds of subsistence strategies,
architecture, technologies and often introduction of new type of sym-
bolic practice or rituals in certain core cultural region.
It was, of course, a fact that not all ritual practices served reli-
gious purposes in these PPN sites. Indeed, it is very challenging to
trace religious rituals in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) of Upper
Mesopotamia. Yet, long time use of specific locality and ecological
niches for many centuries and generations undoubtedly marked the
characteristics in the development of complex socio-cultural and
symbolic structure in a certain site. However, when observing the
development of material cultures over time, it was likely that some
long-lived influential sites acted to be the centers for the flourish of
cultural and ritual trends, while comparatively smaller and younger
sites followed these mainstream trends. With their large occupational
area, gathering of large communities, often associated with the pro-
duction of very extensive trademark material cultures, some particu-
lar PPN sites including Körtiktepe,
110
Göbeklitepe,
111
Karahan Tepe
112
in
Southeast Turkey and Tell ‘Abr 3 and Jerf- el-Ahmar in northern Syr-
ia
113
were likely to be such kinds cultural centers.
In conclusion, it can be argued that during the end of the Epi-
palaeolithic and in the beginning of PPNA, the sedentary people
groups in Upper Mesopotamia reached into a crucial stage by engag-
ing themselves within large-scale networks, permanent settlements,
and long-lasting communal identities; which further encouraged
109
Abu B. Siddiq, “Epipaleolitik-Neolitik Dönem Anadolu Toplumlarının Üretim ve Ticari
Faaliyetleri”, Çağlar Boyunca Üretim ve Ticaret: Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemi’ne, ed.
Oktay Dumankaya (2020), pp.69-90.
110
Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-127.
111
Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356;
Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe”, (2011), pp.41-83.
112
Bahattin Çelik, “Karahan Tepe”, (2011), pp.241-254.
113
Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015); Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”,
(2004), pp.141-158; Thaer Yartah, “Les Bâtiments Communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3”,
(2005), pp.2-9.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
601601
Figure 2. Public buildings at Neolithic settlements across the Tigris and Eu-
phrates Basin often showed significant architectural resemblance with one
another: 1) Rounded public building with stone pillars at Göbeklitepe,
Şanlıurfa103; 2) A large rounded public building with stone slabs at Gusir
Höyük, Siirt104; 3) Rectangular public building at Göbeklitepe, Şanlıurfa105; 4)
Axonometric reconstruction of cult buildings II and III at Nevalı Çori,
Şanlıurfa106; and 5) A rectangular public building with stone posts at Boncuklu
Tarla, Mardin.107
It overall appears that throughout the origin and evolution of
the Neolithic, gradual development of architectures, communal
buildings and symbolic trends such as burial customs, rituals, sacred
rites, communal feast, and imageries of natural element gradually
evolved with the influences of lifestyle and trends of neighboring,
regional and interregional people groups. A kinship of symbolic
themes linked to ritual buildings of regional Neolithic sites.108 Howev-
er, it is important to note that local tribal variability too must have
103 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), fig.22.
104 Necmi Karul, “Gusir Höyük”, (2011), fig.5.
105 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe”, (2011), fig.27.
106 Harald Hauptmann, “The Urfa Region”, (2011), fig.10.
107 Ergül Kodaş, “Boncuklu Tarla”, (2019), fig.5.
108 Trevor Watkins, “Architecture and Imagery in the Early Neolithic of South-West
Asia”, (2017), pp.129-142.
contributed to the unique ritual traits that a distinct community prac-
ticed in their distinct settlement for centuries. Yet, it can be argued
that cultural process from early to later phase of PPN in Upper Meso-
potamia was a widespread process, in which a large number of inter-
acting and culturally-related communities engaged with each other.
Inter-regional contact, extensive network and cultural exchange be-
tween the people groups were pre-existed in the region during the
Epipalaeolithic.109 Therefore, throughout the Pre-Pottery Neolithic,
the inter-communal contacts and exchanges of material culture had
great influence in following of similar kinds of subsistence strategies,
architecture, technologies and often introduction of new type of sym-
bolic practice or rituals in certain core cultural region.
It was, of course, a fact that not all ritual practices served reli-
gious purposes in these PPN sites. Indeed, it is very challenging to
trace religious rituals in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) of Upper
Mesopotamia. Yet, long time use of specific locality and ecological
niches for many centuries and generations undoubtedly marked the
characteristics in the development of complex socio-cultural and
symbolic structure in a certain site. However, when observing the
development of material cultures over time, it was likely that some
long-lived influential sites acted to be the centers for the flourish of
cultural and ritual trends, while comparatively smaller and younger
sites followed these mainstream trends. With their large occupational
area, gathering of large communities, often associated with the pro-
duction of very extensive trademark material cultures, some particu-
lar PPN sites including Körtiktepe,110 Göbeklitepe,111 Karahan Tepe112 in
Southeast Turkey and Tell ‘Abr 3 and Jerf- el-Ahmar in northern Syr-
ia113 were likely to be such kinds cultural centers.
In conclusion, it can be argued that during the end of the Epi-
palaeolithic and in the beginning of PPNA, the sedentary people
groups in Upper Mesopotamia reached into a crucial stage by engag-
ing themselves within large-scale networks, permanent settlements,
and long-lasting communal identities; which further encouraged
109 Abu B. Siddiq, “Epipaleolitik-Neolitik Dönem Anadolu Toplumlarının Üretim ve Ticari
Faaliyetleri”, Çağlar Boyunca Üretim ve Ticaret: Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemi’ne, ed.
Oktay Dumankaya (2020), pp.69-90.
110 Vecihi Özkaya and Aytaç Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe”, (2011), pp.89-127.
111 Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries”, (2011), pp.239-356;
Klaus Schmidt, “Göbekli Tepe”, (2011), pp.41-83.
112 Bahattin Çelik, “Karahan Tepe”, (2011), pp.241-254.
113 Danielle Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar, (2015); Tahér Yartah, “Tell ’Abr 3”,
(2004), pp.141-158; Thaer Yartah, “Les Bâtiments Communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3”,
(2005), pp.2-9.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
602602
them to practice a form of ‘pro-social’ religion, associated with su-
pernatural agents and ancestral memories. Over time, there was the
evolution of interregional and intercommunal ritual organizations
too. Deeply associated with regional spiritual centers, these inter-
communal ritual interactions could probably be the prototype of ‘or-
ganized religion’ which was promptly widespread and influential
across societies and cultures in the Mesopotamia throughout the later
prehistoric periods.
References
Akkermans, Peter M. M. G. “Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The
Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria.”
From the River to the Sea, the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on
the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of
Lorraine Copeland. eds., Olivier Aurenche, Marie Le Miere, and
Paul Sanlaville, Lyon: BAR International Series 1263, 2004: 281-
293.
Bar-Yosef Mayer, Daniella E., Iris Groman-Yaroslavski, Ofer
Bar-Yosef, Israel Hershkovitz, Astrid Kampen-Hasday, Bernard
Vandermeersch, Yossi Zaidner, and Mina Weinstein-Evron.
“On Holes and Strings: Earliest Displays of Human Adornment
in the Middle Palaeolithic.” PLOS ONE 15/7 (2020): e0234924.
Bar-Yosef, O. “The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpreta-
tion”. Current Anthropology 27/2 (1986): 157-162.
Benz, M., A. Willmy, F. Doğan, F. S. Şahin, and V. Özkaya. “A
Burnt Pit House, Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic Epipaleo-
lithic Structures at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey.” Neo-
Lithics 17, no. 1 (2017): 3–12
Benz, Marion, Aytaç Coşkun, Irka Hajdas, Katleen Deckers,
Simone Riehl, Kurt W Alt, Bernhard Weninger, and Vecihi
Özkaya. “Methodological Implications of New Radiocarbon
Dates from the Early Holocene Site of Körtik Tepe, Southeast
Anatolia”. Radiocarbon 54/3-4 (2012): 291-304.
Braidwood, L. S., R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J.
Watson. Prehistoric Archeology along the Zagros Flanks. eds., L.
S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J.
Watson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chica-
go, 1983.
Çelik, Bahattin. “Karahan Tepe: A New Cultural Centre in the
Urfa Area in Turkey”. Documenta Praehistorica 38 (2011): 241-
253.
Chamel, Bérénice, and Eric Coqueugniot. “Human Self-
Perception and Self-Expression during the 9th millennium cal
BC.” Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near East-
ern Prehistory, eds., Jörg Becker, Claudia Beuger, and Bernd
Muller-Neuhof, Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften. 2019: 57-70.
Christidou, Rozalia, Eric Coqueugniot, and Lionel Gourichon.
“Neolithic Figurines Manufactured from Phalanges of Equids
from Dja’de El Mughara, Syria”. Journal of Field Archaeology
34/3 (2009): 319-335.
Culotta, E. “On the Origin of Religion”. Science 326/5954
(2009): 784-787.
Dietrich, Oliver, Manfred Heun, Jens Notroff, Klaus Schmidt,
and Martin Zarnkow. “The Role of Cult and Feasting in the
Emergence of Neolithic Communities: New Evidence from
Göbekli Tepe, South-Eastern Turkey”. Antiquity 86/333 (2012):
674-695.
Erdal, Yilmaz Selim. “Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-
Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anato-
lia, PPNA Period).” European Journal of Archaeology 18/1
(2015): 4-32.
Erim-Özdoğan, A. “Çayönü.” The Neolithic in Turkey, New Ex-
cavations and New Research: The Tigris Basin. eds., M Özdoğan,
N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Pub-
lications, 2011: 185-269.
Haddow, Scott D., and Christopher J. Knüsel. “Skull Retrieval
and Secondary Burial Rractices in the Neolithic Near East: Re-
cent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey”. Bioarchaeology Inter-
national. 1/1-2 (2017): 52-71.
Hauptmann, H. “The Urfa Region.” The Neolithic in Turkey,
New Excavation & New Research: The Euphrates Basin. eds., M
Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology
& Art Publications, 2011: 85-138.
Henshilwood, Christopher S., Francesco D’Errico, and Ian
Watts. “Engraved Ochres from the Middle Stone Age Levels at
Blombos Cave, South Africa.” Journal of Human Evolution 57/1
(2009): 27-47.
Hongo, Hitomi, Jessica Pearson, Banu Öksüz, and Gülçin
Ilgezdi. “The Process of Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü,
Southeastern Turkey: A Multidisciplinary Approach Focusing
on Bos Sp. and Cervus Elaphus.” Anthropozoologica 44/1
(2009): 63-78.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
603603
them to practice a form of ‘pro-social’ religion, associated with su-
pernatural agents and ancestral memories. Over time, there was the
evolution of interregional and intercommunal ritual organizations
too. Deeply associated with regional spiritual centers, these inter-
communal ritual interactions could probably be the prototype of ‘or-
ganized religion’ which was promptly widespread and influential
across societies and cultures in the Mesopotamia throughout the later
prehistoric periods.
References
Akkermans, Peter M. M. G. “Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The
Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria.”
From the River to the Sea, the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on
the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of
Lorraine Copeland. eds., Olivier Aurenche, Marie Le Miere, and
Paul Sanlaville, Lyon: BAR International Series 1263, 2004: 281-
293.
Bar-Yosef Mayer, Daniella E., Iris Groman-Yaroslavski, Ofer
Bar-Yosef, Israel Hershkovitz, Astrid Kampen-Hasday, Bernard
Vandermeersch, Yossi Zaidner, and Mina Weinstein-Evron.
“On Holes and Strings: Earliest Displays of Human Adornment
in the Middle Palaeolithic.” PLOS ONE 15/7 (2020): e0234924.
Bar-Yosef, O. “The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpreta-
tion”. Current Anthropology 27/2 (1986): 157-162.
Benz, M., A. Willmy, F. Doğan, F. S. Şahin, and V. Özkaya. “A
Burnt Pit House, Large Scale Roasting, and Enigmatic Epipaleo-
lithic Structures at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey.” Neo-
Lithics 17, no. 1 (2017): 3–12
Benz, Marion, Aytaç Coşkun, Irka Hajdas, Katleen Deckers,
Simone Riehl, Kurt W Alt, Bernhard Weninger, and Vecihi
Özkaya. “Methodological Implications of New Radiocarbon
Dates from the Early Holocene Site of Körtik Tepe, Southeast
Anatolia”. Radiocarbon 54/3-4 (2012): 291-304.
Braidwood, L. S., R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J.
Watson. Prehistoric Archeology along the Zagros Flanks. eds., L.
S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J.
Watson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chica-
go, 1983.
Çelik, Bahattin. “Karahan Tepe: A New Cultural Centre in the
Urfa Area in Turkey”. Documenta Praehistorica 38 (2011): 241-
253.
Chamel, Bérénice, and Eric Coqueugniot. “Human Self-
Perception and Self-Expression during the 9th millennium cal
BC.” Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near East-
ern Prehistory, eds., Jörg Becker, Claudia Beuger, and Bernd
Muller-Neuhof, Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften. 2019: 57-70.
Christidou, Rozalia, Eric Coqueugniot, and Lionel Gourichon.
“Neolithic Figurines Manufactured from Phalanges of Equids
from Dja’de El Mughara, Syria”. Journal of Field Archaeology
34/3 (2009): 319-335.
Culotta, E. “On the Origin of Religion”. Science 326/5954
(2009): 784-787.
Dietrich, Oliver, Manfred Heun, Jens Notroff, Klaus Schmidt,
and Martin Zarnkow. “The Role of Cult and Feasting in the
Emergence of Neolithic Communities: New Evidence from
Göbekli Tepe, South-Eastern Turkey”. Antiquity 86/333 (2012):
674-695.
Erdal, Yilmaz Selim. “Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-
Depositional Treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anato-
lia, PPNA Period).” European Journal of Archaeology 18/1
(2015): 4-32.
Erim-Özdoğan, A. “Çayönü.” The Neolithic in Turkey, New Ex-
cavations and New Research: The Tigris Basin. eds., M Özdoğan,
N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Pub-
lications, 2011: 185-269.
Haddow, Scott D., and Christopher J. Knüsel. “Skull Retrieval
and Secondary Burial Rractices in the Neolithic Near East: Re-
cent Insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey”. Bioarchaeology Inter-
national. 1/1-2 (2017): 52-71.
Hauptmann, H. “The Urfa Region.” The Neolithic in Turkey,
New Excavation & New Research: The Euphrates Basin. eds., M
Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology
& Art Publications, 2011: 85-138.
Henshilwood, Christopher S., Francesco D’Errico, and Ian
Watts. “Engraved Ochres from the Middle Stone Age Levels at
Blombos Cave, South Africa.” Journal of Human Evolution 57/1
(2009): 27-47.
Hongo, Hitomi, Jessica Pearson, Banu Öksüz, and Gülçin
Ilgezdi. “The Process of Ungulate Domestication at Çayönü,
Southeastern Turkey: A Multidisciplinary Approach Focusing
on Bos Sp. and Cervus Elaphus.” Anthropozoologica 44/1
(2009): 63-78.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
604604
Ibáñez, Juan Jose. Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie
Du Nord), En Hommage a Jacques Cauvin, Volumes I & II. ed.,
Juan Jose Ibáñez. Oxford, Lyon: BAR International Series 1843,
2008.
Karul, Necmi. “Gusir Höyük.” The Neolithic in Turkey: New Ex-
cavations and New Research. Vol. 1, The Tigris Basin, eds., M.
Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology
and Art Publications, 2011: 1-17.
Kodaş, Ergül. “Un Nouveau Site Du Néolithique Précéramique
Dans La Vallée Du Haut Tigre: Résultats Préliminaires de
Boncuklu Tarla.” Neo-Lithics 19 (2019): 3-15.
Kozłowski, Stefan K., and Andrzej Kempisty. “Architecture of
the Pre‐pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq.” World
Archaeology 21/3 (1990): 348-362.
Kozlowski, Stefan Karol. “Nemrik 9, a PPN Neolithic Site in
Northern Iraq.” Paléorient 15/1 (1989): 25-31.
Lösch, Sandra, Gisela Grupe, and Joris Peters. “Stable Isotopes
and Dietary Adaptations in Humans and Animals at Pre-Pottery
Neolithic Nevallı Çori, Southeast Anatolia.” American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 131/2 (2006): 181-193.
Mazurowski, R. F. “Tell Qaramel: Excavations 2009.” Polish
Archaeology in the Mediterranean 21(2012): 559-582.
Mazurowski, R. F. “Tell Qaramel. Excavations 2004.” Polish Ar-
chaeology in the Mediterranean 16 (2004): 497-510.
Miyake, Y., O. Maeda, K. Tanno, H. Hongo, and C. Y. Gündem.
“New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th Millennium Cal.
BC Site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia.” Neo-Lithics
12/1 (2012): 3-7.
Moore, A. M. T., G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge. “The Excavation
of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report.” Proceed-
ings of the Prehistoric Society 41 (1975): 50-77.
Özdoğan, M., and A-E. Özdoğan. “Buildings of Cult and the Cult
of Buildings.” Light on Top of the Black Hill, Studies Presented
to Halet Çambel, eds., G. Arsebük, M. Mellink, and W. Schirmer.
Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 1998: 581-601.
Özkaya, Vecihi. “Excavations at Körtik Tepe. A New Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A Site in Southeastern Anatolia.” Neo-Lithics 9/2
(2009): 3-8.
Özkaya, Vecihi, and Aytaç Coşkun. “Körtik Tepe.” The Neolithic
in Turkey, New Excavations & New Research: The Tigris Basin,
eds., Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm.
Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications, 2011: 89-127.
Özkaya, Vecihi, and Abu B. Siddiq. “A Heart-Shaped Bone Arti-
fact of Körtiktepe.” Antropoloji 40 (2020): (forthcoming).
Rollefson, G. O. “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal
(Jordan).” Paléorient 9/2 (1983): 29-38.
Rosenberg, Michael, and Richard W. Redding. “Hallan Çemi and
Early Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia.” Neolithic
Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Dif-
ferentiation, ed., Ian Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, 2000: 39-61.
Schmidt, Klaus. “Göbekli Tepe”. The Neolithic in Turkey, New
Excavation & New Research: The Euphrates Basin, eds., M
Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology
& Art Publications, 2011: 41-83.
Schmidt, Klaus. “Göbekli Tepe –the Stone Age Sanctuaries:
New Results of Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on
Sculptures and High Reliefs”. Documenta Praehistorica 37
(2011): 239-256.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar. “Epipaleolitik-Neolitik Dönem Anadolu
Toplumlarının Üretim ve Ticari Faaliyetleri.” Çağlar Boyunca
Üretim ve Ticaret: Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemi’ne, ed., Ok-
tay Dumankaya. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2020:
69-90.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar. “Socio-Psychological Effects of the Beliefs
on Supernatural Beings: Case Studies from Southeast Anatolia.”
Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi 3/1 (2018): 10-19.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar. Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda İnsan-Hayvan
İlişkisi ve Orta Anadolu Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Fau-
nası. Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2019.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar, Güler Oğuz, and Emre Güldoğan. “Supernat-
ural or ‘Social Mind’? –Four Case Studies from Southeast Tur-
key.” Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi 3/2 (2018): 60-69.
Stordeur, Danielle. Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-
8700 Av. J.-C.): L’architecture, Miroir d’une Société Néolithique
Complexe. Paris: CNRS Editions, 2015.
Watkins, Trevor. “Architecture and Imagery in the Early Neo-
lithic of South-West Asia: Framing Rituals, Stabilising Mean-
ings.” Ritual, Play and Belief, in Evolution and Early Human
Societies, eds., Colin Renfrew, Iain Morley, and Michael Boyd.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017: 129-142.
Intra- and Intercommunal Rituals in the Upper
Mesopotamian Pre-Pottery Neolithic: The Beginning
of Organized Religion?
605605
Ibáñez, Juan Jose. Le Site Neolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie
Du Nord), En Hommage a Jacques Cauvin, Volumes I & II. ed.,
Juan Jose Ibáñez. Oxford, Lyon: BAR International Series 1843,
2008.
Karul, Necmi. “Gusir Höyük.” The Neolithic in Turkey: New Ex-
cavations and New Research. Vol. 1, The Tigris Basin, eds., M.
Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology
and Art Publications, 2011: 1-17.
Kodaş, Ergül. “Un Nouveau Site Du Néolithique Précéramique
Dans La Vallée Du Haut Tigre: Résultats Préliminaires de
Boncuklu Tarla.” Neo-Lithics 19 (2019): 3-15.
Kozłowski, Stefan K., and Andrzej Kempisty. “Architecture of
the Pre‐pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq.” World
Archaeology 21/3 (1990): 348-362.
Kozlowski, Stefan Karol. “Nemrik 9, a PPN Neolithic Site in
Northern Iraq.” Paléorient 15/1 (1989): 25-31.
Lösch, Sandra, Gisela Grupe, and Joris Peters. “Stable Isotopes
and Dietary Adaptations in Humans and Animals at Pre-Pottery
Neolithic Nevallı Çori, Southeast Anatolia.” American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 131/2 (2006): 181-193.
Mazurowski, R. F. “Tell Qaramel: Excavations 2009.” Polish
Archaeology in the Mediterranean 21(2012): 559-582.
Mazurowski, R. F. “Tell Qaramel. Excavations 2004.” Polish Ar-
chaeology in the Mediterranean 16 (2004): 497-510.
Miyake, Y., O. Maeda, K. Tanno, H. Hongo, and C. Y. Gündem.
“New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th Millennium Cal.
BC Site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia.” Neo-Lithics
12/1 (2012): 3-7.
Moore, A. M. T., G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge. “The Excavation
of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report.” Proceed-
ings of the Prehistoric Society 41 (1975): 50-77.
Özdoğan, M., and A-E. Özdoğan. “Buildings of Cult and the Cult
of Buildings.” Light on Top of the Black Hill, Studies Presented
to Halet Çambel, eds., G. Arsebük, M. Mellink, and W. Schirmer.
Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 1998: 581-601.
Özkaya, Vecihi. “Excavations at Körtik Tepe. A New Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A Site in Southeastern Anatolia.” Neo-Lithics 9/2
(2009): 3-8.
Özkaya, Vecihi, and Aytaç Coşkun. “Körtik Tepe.” The Neolithic
in Turkey, New Excavations & New Research: The Tigris Basin,
eds., Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm.
Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications, 2011: 89-127.
Özkaya, Vecihi, and Abu B. Siddiq. “A Heart-Shaped Bone Arti-
fact of Körtiktepe.” Antropoloji 40 (2020): (forthcoming).
Rollefson, G. O. “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal
(Jordan).” Paléorient 9/2 (1983): 29-38.
Rosenberg, Michael, and Richard W. Redding. “Hallan Çemi and
Early Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia.” Neolithic
Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Dif-
ferentiation, ed., Ian Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, 2000: 39-61.
Schmidt, Klaus. “Göbekli Tepe”. The Neolithic in Turkey, New
Excavation & New Research: The Euphrates Basin, eds., M
Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology
& Art Publications, 2011: 41-83.
Schmidt, Klaus. “Göbekli Tepe –the Stone Age Sanctuaries:
New Results of Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on
Sculptures and High Reliefs”. Documenta Praehistorica 37
(2011): 239-256.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar. “Epipaleolitik-Neolitik Dönem Anadolu
Toplumlarının Üretim ve Ticari Faaliyetleri.” Çağlar Boyunca
Üretim ve Ticaret: Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemi’ne, ed., Ok-
tay Dumankaya. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2020:
69-90.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar. “Socio-Psychological Effects of the Beliefs
on Supernatural Beings: Case Studies from Southeast Anatolia.”
Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi 3/1 (2018): 10-19.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar. Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda İnsan-Hayvan
İlişkisi ve Orta Anadolu Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Fau-
nası. Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2019.
Siddiq, Abu Bakar, Güler Oğuz, and Emre Güldoğan. “Supernat-
ural or ‘Social Mind’? –Four Case Studies from Southeast Tur-
key.” Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi 3/2 (2018): 60-69.
Stordeur, Danielle. Le Village de Jerf El Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-
8700 Av. J.-C.): L’architecture, Miroir d’une Société Néolithique
Complexe. Paris: CNRS Editions, 2015.
Watkins, Trevor. “Architecture and Imagery in the Early Neo-
lithic of South-West Asia: Framing Rituals, Stabilising Mean-
ings.” Ritual, Play and Belief, in Evolution and Early Human
Societies, eds., Colin Renfrew, Iain Morley, and Michael Boyd.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017: 129-142.
Arkeoloji ve Antropoloji
606606
Watkins, Trevor. Qermez Dere, Tel Afar: Interim Report No 3.
Edinburgh: Department of Archaeology, University of Edin-
burgh, 1995.
Watkins, Trevor, Douglas Baird, and Alison Betts. “Qermez
Dere and the Early Aceramic Neolithic of N. Iraq.” Paléorient
15/1 (1989): 19-24.
Yartah, Tahér. “Tell ’Abr 3, Un Village Du Néolithique Pré-
céramique (PPNA) Sur Le Moyen Euphrate. Première Ap-
proche.” Paléorient 30/2 (2004): 141-158.
Yartah, Thaer. “Les Bâtiments Communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3
(PPNA, Syrie).” Neo-Lithics 5/1 (2005): 2-9.
Zeist, W. Van, and G. J. de Roller. “The Plant Husbandry of Ac-
eramic Çayönü SE Turkey.” Palaeohistoria 33/34 (1992): 65-96.
Uzak Geçmişimizi Bugüne Uyarlamak:
Neolitik Dönem İnançlarını İdeolojik Okumak
Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler
Bilal Toprak
Giriş
Bilindiği üzere insanlık tarihi yazılı belgelere ve arkeolojik ka-
lıntılara dayanılarak yazılmaktadır. Maddi kültür olarak da ifade edi-
len arkeolojik kalıntılar yazılı belgelerin güvenirliğini test eden ve
açıklayan bir rol üstlenmektedir. Yazılı kayıtlara sahip olmadığımız
dönemler için ise, maddi kültür yegâne kaynak olarak belirmektedir.
Tarih yazımında yazılı ve maddi kültürün yorumlanması büyük önem
arz etmektedir. Çünkü tarih veya arkeoloji bilimleri bir bakıma geçmi-
şe soru sormak suretiyle işlevlerini yerine getirmektedir. Bu bağlamda
gerek geçmişe yöneltilen sorular ve gerekse önerilen cevaplar sübjek-
tif unsurlar barındırabilmektedir. Ancak yazılı kayıtlara rastlamadı-
ğımız devirler açısından tek kaynak olan maddi kültürün daha fazla
yoruma ihtiyaç duyduğu da aşikardır. Bu durum arkeoloji biliminin
ideolojik bir aygıta dönüşmesinde başat rol üstlenmiştir.
Tarihsel süreç içerisinde sosyal bilimlerin ideolojik yaklaşım-
larla ve iktidarlarla olan ilişkisi oldukça dikkat çekicidir. Bu bağlamda
sosyal bilimlerin alt disiplinlerinin maruz kaldığı söz konusu etkinin
bilgi üretme pratiği üzerindeki tesiri son derece belirgindir. Ancak
ideolojinin arkeoloji üzerindeki etkisi uzun yıllar görmezden gelin-
miştir.
1
Öyle ki arkeolojinin dönemsel olarak oryantalizm, milliyetçilik
ve feminizm gibi yaklaşımların etkisinde kaldığı ifade edilebilir. Böy-
lece uzak geçmişimiz ile günümüz arasında çeşitli benzerlikler üze-
rinden birtakım ilişkiler kurarak modern dönemdeki kimi kurum,
kavram ve inançların kökeni geçmişte aranmaktadır. Önceleri sömür-
gecilik üzerinden kendisini hissettiren bu yaklaşım zamanla milliyet-
çilik, enternasyonalizm ve Marksizm gibi ideolojilerle kendisini his-
Dr., Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi, İslami İlimler Fakültesi, bilaltoprak@artuklu.edu.tr
1
Bu konudaki ilk bilimsel çalışma için bkz., Bruce G. Trigger, “Alternative Archaeolo-
gies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist”, Man 19, sy 3 (1984): 355-370.
