Weapons of choice: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic hunting scene (?) from Sayburç, southeastern Turkey (and some thoughts on prehistoric hunting equipment)
The recent publication of a relief carving depicting a fascinating “narrative scene” unearthed during excavations in Sayburç (southeastern Turkey) has made quite some headlines. Most reporting, thouhg, has been focusing on the depiction of a naked, phallus-presenting man flanked by two snarling leopards.
While these motives are indeed corresponding to the known Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) iconographic repertoire of the region, finding good parallels on other sites, the specific arrangement here is offering some fascinating additional insight: The horizontal sequence of animal and human images may, in contrast to other rather extensive or detached renderings, suggest to “read” them in a mutual narrative context. An interesting and appealing addition to the still growing corpus of early Neolithic art and mnemonic symbolism (on which I commented elsewhere).
Here, however, I would like to shift the spotlight to the other scene, the left part of that Sayburç relief, which regrettably seems to have found not as much attention in the shadow of that conspicious phallus. Yet this juxtaposition of animal (in this case an aurochs) and human is actually not less insightful. Maybe even more so.
Attempting to interpret art does always come with a whole set of challenges since any such expression has to and only can be really understood in its cultural context. The limits of decoding specific images, their ciphers and meaning are imposed by the limits of our knowledge of this background. The Sayburç aurochs, however, does well fit the iconographic conventions familiar from other PPN sites in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq (which arguably form a larger communication network attested by their material culture, architecture, and iconography). The direct comparison with another aurochs depiction, here from contemporary Göbekli Tepe (also southeastern Turkey, 10th/9th millennium BC), illustrates how specific these conventions apparently have been applied.
Both animals seem almost created from the same template: While the bodies are depicted in sideview, their heads are turned and shown in front view — particularly emphasising lowered horns, evoking the impression of charging (i.e. dangerous) bulls. The dynamic portrayal of their legs certainly underlining this impression.
This peculiar mode of depicting an aurochs head as “bucranium” even has become a Neolithic mnemonic icon itself, often appearing separately (without the rest of the body) as shortened symbol, reduced to the animal’s most impressive and threatening feature: The horns substituting for the approaching bull — and emanating danger.
As noted it is this side by side depiction of dangerous animal and human which draws our interest in this particular case, a scene evocative of the famous wall painting from Çatalhöyük (southern Turkey, 8th/7th millennium BC) depicting a large bull surrounded by several people, which has been interpreted as either hunt, hunting ritual, or sacrifice.
The noteworthy and important difference to Sayburç, however, being the number of individuals depicted — and the apparently slain aurochs in this picture: The head not any longer presenting its horns (and imminent danger), legs bent, and tongue sticking out. An iconographic deviation actually not caused by the geographic and chronological distance of the early and later Neolithic sites compared here, as a similar depiction from Göbekli Tepe demonstrates — indeed featuring the same characteristics.
Characteristics we do not find depicted at Sayburç. There, apparently, we see a still living animal, a still dangerous bull. At Sayburç we see a confrontation. Which leaves the question: What is the person actually doing here? Just like in case of the aurochs, its posture suggests dynamic and motion. Almost like an interaction — cocked legs as if the person is trying to dodge the approaching animal.
The object in this individual’s right hand has been interpreted as rattle or snake by the excavators, maybe indicating a rather cultic or ritual, even “mythological” narration (six fingers on the person’s left hand might — or might not — support such a view, although personally, I wouldn’t overemphasise this since hands and feet seem to be depicted rather elementary). Others suggested the person could be shown crouching with a lasso in its hand. Are we maybe witnessing a hunting scene here?
We can with good reason assume that bow and arrow, or other projectile weapons, played an important role in Neolithic (aurochs) hunting. The murals from Çatalhöyük for instance clearly seem to corroborate this. And another special find from Göbekli Tepe leaves no doubt: There the humerus of an aurochs with a still embedded tip of a projectile point was found. Plenty of flint arrowheads and a whole repertoire of so-called (arrow) shaft straighteners (flat stones with a pecked groove to bend prepared wooden sticks in preparation of creating arrows) further attest the use of bows.
From other sources we get an idea about the complexity of hunting in general and aurochs hunting in particular, involving additional equipment. The history of the sling as weapon for instance might be traced back as far as the Neolithic or even beyond, the effectiveness of a slinger noted as matching those of an archer. An identification of possible sling respectively slinger representations has been suggested e.g. for some of the depictions at Çatalhöyük, whereas finds of actual slings are rare (due to the organic material they are made from) with known examples dating to much later periods.
There are however notable finds of so-called slingshots or slingstones, biconical, ovoid, sometimes spherical missiles, which in Anatolia and the Southern Levant have been reported from at least Pottery Neolithic (7th-4th millennium BC) contexts. Some of these (or related) stone objects might even have been of multifunctional use and maybe could have been, connected by cords, used as “bolas” to capture animals by entangling their legs. A related concept may be recorded in some example of rock art from southwestern Libya showing aurochs being hunted with bow and arrow, but also complemented by the use of so-called Fangsteine (tied rocks which, once a fleeing animal has been entangled, helped in tiring and slowing it down).
Finally, Çatalhöyük’s rich pictorial record of hunting / butchering scenes also provides what in my opinion may be the best analogies so far for the object hold by that person confronting theaurochs in that relief from Sayburç: Among the weapons carried by human figures in the earlier shown “bull hunt” mural, but also in other paintings supposedly depicting deer hunting scenes, some shorter, slightly curved objects with an enlarged or thicker end can be noticed.
Additionally to their interpretation as slings or lassos, they are also referred to as clubs or maces. Corresponding stone mace heads have been indeed found at the site too. Confronting a 1,600 pound aurochs, or any larger feral mammal, with a club must be considered an either incredible brave or desperate attempt (and would make much more sense in the context of an organized group hunt or butchering as depicted in Çatalhöyük — or a mythological hero’s story, if we really do not want to completely give up that angle).
However, already James Mellaart, Çatalhöyük’s excavation director from 1961–1965, suggested an alternative reading for at least some of these smaller objects as boomerang-like “throwing sticks” (without the literal “boomerang effect” of actually returning to the througher, though). An interpretation which has been further discussed recently with a view to other depictions and material remains of similar weapons — including an interesting possible functional overlap with spear-throwers (small shafts with a spur or nose on one end used as lever to hurl a javelin with greater velocity, earlier examples dating back as far as the Paleolithic).
This only a short excursus aimed to put together a couple of references and possible analogies to explore the narrative setting of this newly reported early Neolithic relief from Sayburç in southeastern Turkey; particularly the fascinating scene of an aurochs-human-interaction (or rather confrontation). These few notes and thoughts can hardly have exhausted the many levels of interpretation we possibly could apply here, but they may demonstrate the great potential of such iconographic studies in extending our understanding of the world those Neolithic hunters inhabited — and how they imagined their own role in it. Ongoing archaeological research and excavation, such as those at Sayburç, are continuously adding to the available set of colours we may use in painting that picture.
References & further reading:
B. Alex, Prehistoric carvings depict showdowns between humans and beasts, science.org, 07 December 2022, https://www.science.org/content/article/prehistoric-carvings-depict-showdowns-between-humans-and-beasts.
L. Bordes, Les bâtons de jet préhistoriques et leurs représentations: Développement d'outils et de méthodes pour la mesure de leurs caractéristiques et l'évaluation de leurs fonctions, Mémoire de master, Cepam/Université Sophia Antipolis 2014; English translation: The prehistoric throwing sticks and their representations: Development of tools and methods for measuring their characteristics and evaluation of their functions, http://revedeboomerang.free.fr/Master%20thesis%20-%20Throwing%20sticks%20-Luc%20Bordes2014.pdf.
L. Bordes, Throwing Stick to Spear Thrower - Study of Ethnographic Artefacts and Experimentation, EXARC Journal 2, 2020, https://exarc.net/issue-2020-2/at/throwing-stick-spear-thrower-study.
W. Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, translated by P. Bing, Berkeley: University of California Press 1983.
O. Dietrich, The current distribution of sites with T-shaped pillars, The Tepe Telegrams, 8 May 2016, https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/05/08/the-current-distribution-of-sites-with-t-shaped-pillars.
O. Dietrich, The ‘Urfa Man’, The Tepe Telegrams, 14 October 2016, https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/10/14/the-urfa-man.
O. Dietrich, Of animals and a headless man. Göbekli Tepe, Pillar 43, The Tepe Telegrams, 14 October 2016, https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/10/14/of-animals-and-a-headless-man-gobekli-tepe-pillar-43.
O. Dietrich, A tale of snakes and birds: Göbekli Tepe, Pillar 56, The Tepe Telegrams, 12 December 2016, https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/12/12/of-snakes-and-birds-goebekli-tepe-pillar-56.
O. Dietrich, The death of an aurochs: Göbekli Tepe, Pillar 66, Enclosure H, The Tepe Telegrams, 02 March 2017, https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2017/03/02/https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2017/03/02/the-death-of-an-aurochs-gobekli-tepe-pillar-66-enclosure-hthe-death-of-an-aurochs-gobekli-tepe-pillar-66-enclosure-h.
O. Dietrich, On the hunt, some 12.000 years ago: An aurochs bone with hunting lesion from Göbekli Tepe, The Tepe Telegrams, 17 January 2018, https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2018/01/17/on-the-hunt-some-12-000-years-ago-an-aurochs-bone-with-hunting-lesion-from-gobekli-tepe.
Y. Garfinkel, Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin: University of Texas Press 2003.
D. A. E. Garrod, Palaeolithic Spear-Throwers, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21, July 1956, 21–35, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/abs/palaeolithic-spearthrowers/7DCFBC801A31F0CF4423B90F58847B54.
I. Hodder, Contextual Archaeology: An Interpretation of Çatal Hüyük and a Discussion of the Origins of Agriculture, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 24, 1987, 43-56.
K. Killgrove, Man holding penis and flanked by leopards is world's oldest narrative, carving, Live Science, 08 December 2022, https://www.livescience.com/oldest-narrative-scene-neolithic-turkey.
M. Korfmann, Schleuder und Bogen in Südwestasien: Von den frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der historischen Stadtstaaten, Antiquitas 13, Bonn: Habelt 1972.
M. Korfmann, The Sling as Weapon, Scientific American 229(4), 1973, 34–46, http://www.imperium-romana.org/uploads/5/9/3/3/5933147/scientificamerican1073-34.pdf.
R. Lutz & G. Lutz, Das Geheimnis der Wüste : Die Felskunst des Messak Sattafet und Messak Mellet – Libyen, Innsbruck: Golf Verlag 1995.
O. Maeda, Stone Balls from Salat Cami Yanı and Hasankeyf Höyük. Neolithic Sites on the Upper Tigris, in: S. Nakamura, T. Adachi, M. Abe (eds.), Decades in Deserts: Essays on Near Eastern Archaeology in Honour of Sumio Fujii, Rokuichi Syobou: Tadashi Yagi 2019, 261–268, https://www.academia.edu/38510448/Stone_Balls_from_Salat_Cami_Yani_and_Hasankeyf_Hoyuk_Neolithic_Sites_on_the_Upper_Tigris.
J. Mellaart, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1961: First Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 12, 1962, 41-65.
J. Mellaart, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962: Second Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 13, 1963, 43-103.
J. Mellaart, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963: Third Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 14, 1964, 39-119.
J. Mellaart, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1965: Fourth Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 16, 1966, 165-91.
J. Mellaart, Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson 1967, https://archive.org/details/Catal-huyuk.ANeolithicTownInAnatolia.
E. Özdoğan, The Sayburç reliefs: a narrative scene from the Neolithic, Anitiquity 96(390), 2022, 1599–1605, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/sayburc-reliefs-a-narrative-scene-from-the-neolithic/3A35B54B3265C7224CB225FE70EBDD02.
D. Rokitta-Krumnow, The lithic artefacts, in: K. Bartl (ed.), The Late Neolithic site of Shir / Syria, Volume I. The Excavations at the South Area 2006–2009, Damaszener Forschungen 18, 2019, 197–258.
D. Rosenberg, Flying Stones – The Slingstones of the Wadi Rabah Culture of the Southern Levant, Paleorient 35(2), 2009, 99-112, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41496871.
N. Russell, Hunting Sacrifice at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, in: A. M. Porter and G. M. Schwartz (eds.), Sacred Killing. The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Penn State University Press: Eisenbrauns 2012, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355024598_Hunting_Sacrifice_at_Neolithic_Catalhoyuk.
B. Seevers & V. Dennis, Slinging in the Biblical World: And What We Can Learn about David Defeating Goliath, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 63, 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336532651_Slinging_in_the_Biblical_World_And_What_We_Can_Learn_about_David_Defeating_Goliath.
