In ancient Greece, the term Nympaheum (plural: Nymphaea or Nymphaeums) initially described natural cavities, grottoes or groves with natural springs where nymphs and water deities were believed to have resided and as such they were worshiped. “Subsequently, artificial grottoes took the place of natural ones”; these were special well structures or pavilions, located at the water springs.
Featured image: Waterhouse Hylas and the Nymphs, Manchester Art Gallery 1896.15. By John William Waterhouse – Manchester Art Gallery (1896). Public domain. Photo and caption source: “Nymph” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
“Nymph” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3b7Tz9r>. [Accessed on 6th May, 2021].
“Nymphaeum” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3vYRogH>. [Accessed on 6th May, 2021].
Photo: “Nymphaeum of Monte Smith (picture 40936781)” (2020). In: mapio.net. Available at <https://bit.ly/2CqbU3a>. [Accessed on 6th May, 2021].
PWN (2007). Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych, p. 279. Kubalska-Sulkiewicz K., Bielska-Łach M., Manteuffel-Szarota A. eds. Wydanie piąte. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Ostracon is usually understood as a potsherd (“a piece of pottery, usually broken off from a vase or other earthenware vessel” (“Ostracon” 2021) or a flat stone piece (normally a flake of limestone), which was mainly used by artists from ancient Egypt and Greece for their freehand sketches and written notes.
“Generally discarded material, ostraca were cheap, readily available and therefore frequently used for writings of an ephemeral nature such as messages, prescriptions, receipts, students’ exercises and notes” (“Ostracon” 2021). Very exceptional are “the so-called figural ostracons [featuring] drawings, often sketches by artists or architects. The artists sketched their ideas on them with great freedom, avoiding the limitations of official art, thanks to which their sketches were more spontaneous, not devoid of the sense of accurate observation and a clear satirical message. One of the most beautiful and known examples of an ostracon paintings is a representation of an Egyptian dancer performing a somersault (Deir el-Medina, the New Kingdom, between sixteenth and the eleventh centuries BC.; see: Egyptian Dancer from Turin and Her Acrobatic Somersault).
Featured image: A possibly satirical ostracon depicting a scrawny cat giving a bolt of cloth and a trussed up goose as an offering to a seated mouse, likely representing either a noblemen or a noblewoman with bared breasts. Either a satire on upper-class life, or perhaps a scene from a fable. New Kingdom, either nineteenth or twentieth dynasties, circa 1295-1070 BC., from Thebes. Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts (2007). CC BY 2.5. Photo modified. Photo and caption source: “Ostrakon” (2020). In: Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia.
“Ostracon” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3iizilv>. [Accessed 2nd August, 2021].
“Ostrakon” (2020). In: Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3rP7fNZ>. [Accessed 2nd August, 2021].
Lucie-Smith, E. (2003) The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames & Hudson World of Art, p. 158.
A pyramid with several distinct levels, narrowing upwards and so forming successive rectangular platforms, steps or ramps of diminishing size and with sloping, or battered, with its sides placed on top of one another.
Stepped pyramids have their shape similar to a geometric pyramid. In architecture of ancient Egypt, such pyramids are officially perceived as the intervening stage between a mastaba and a true pyramid. As such, the Djoser Pyramid in Saqqara was created as a series of decreasing, overlapping mastabs. Such structures are equally characteristic of the pre-Columbian art in Central America. They also appear in a more slender shape as vimanas in India and tower temples (prasats) in Southeast Asia. In Mesopotamia, a slightly modified form of a stepped pyramid is known as a ziggurat. Less known are stepped pyramids of volcanic rock on the islands of Tenerife (Canary Islands in Spain) and of Mauritius. Some examples also appear in China.
Stepped pyramids are usually massive and are built using layers of various kinds of stone of different size, including huge megalithic blocks, or bricks. Such structures are architectural landmarks in various ancient cultures and locations around the world. They had been built throughout history, from deep ancient times till the time of Spanish Conquest in Mezoamerica.
Featured image: The Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, in Egypt. One of the most famous stepped pyramids, perceived as an initial attempt of creating a pyramidal structure out of several mastabas, diminishing in size. It is believed to have been built in around 2650 B.C. by the mysterious architect, Imhotep. Afterwards, ancient Egyptians are accredited with constructing real pyramids, such as three famous pyramids on the Giza Plateau. Photo by Buyoof (2008). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo modified. Photo source: “Piramida schodkowa” (2021). In: Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia.
“Piramida schodkowa” (2021). In: Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3zs5by9>. [Accessed on 29th August, 2021].
Lapkura (2021). “Sathmahal Prasada”. In: Lapkura.com. Available at <https://bit.ly/2UEc40l>. [Accessed on 29th August, 2021].
Lucie-Smith, E. (2003) The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames & Hudson World of Art, pp. 204, 236.
A religious object for a specific intention or as an expression of gratitude, or as a means of giving thanks for the fulfillment of a wish. They can include “one or more objects displayed or deposited, without the intention of recovery or use” (“Votive offering” 2021). Such votive objects or offerings are usually dedicated to gods (in polytheism) or to the God or saints (in Christianity) in a shrine, temple or a church, or others places of pilgrimage.
In pagan antiquity, a votive was often a symbolic offering, given to a deity or deities as a thanksgiving (agalma) or in order to ask for answering the faithfuls’ prayers. It was usually in the form of small terracotta or metal (bronze, lead) figures or body parts made of clay, and even vessels. The more rare form of votive offerings were statues or small buildings.
Christian religious offerings are symbolic items related to a specific intentions of the faithful or their gratitude for all that they have received from the God. Christian votive objects can take various forms, usually of devotional articles, such as lit candles and rosaries.
Featured image: Our Lady of San Juan de los Lagos votive; a Mexican votive painting of 1911; the man survived an attack by a bull. Photo by Andreas Praefcke (2008). Photo and caption source: “Votive offering” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
“Votive offering” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2V0oAHK>. [Accessed 28th August, 2021].
“Dar wotywny” (2021). In: Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3DqhoWt>. [Accessed 28th August, 2021].
Lucie-Smith, E. (2003) The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames & Hudson World of Art, p. 227.
The term jamb stands for a recess between the wall face inside the room and the side of a fitted window (window jamb) or door (door jamb) or other wall opening.
The jamb on a medieval church doorway (in a Gothic portal accompanied by lintel and trumeau) is normally occupied by a cascading row of carved figures. “These [jamb] statues are often human figures, typically religious figures or secular or ecclesiastical leaders” (“Jamb statue” 2020). Such jamb figures are very often visible in Gothic cathedrals of France and elsewhere in medieval Europe.
From Latin: pacyficus; in the Late Latin Church: pacificale.
A reliquary, most often in the shape of a cross or monstrance, used in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. It served for the Kiss of Peace in the Catholic Mass, until the thirteenth century before the Holy Communion. Originally, there was a habit of “direct kissing among the celebrants [of the Mass, which had been] replaced by each in turn kissing the pax [due to] a range of concerns over the sexual, social and medical implications of actual kissing” (“Pax (liturgical object)” 2020). During such celebration, a priest or a celebrant said ‘Pax tecum’, while passing the pax down for the kiss and they received the response ‘Et cum spiritu tuo.’
Although “[the] great majority were probably very simple wood or brass pieces” (“Pax (liturgical object)” 2020), pax reliquaries were also made of silver and richly decorated, with a flat surface to be kissed. They usually included an image of the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ. Although “[the] pax gradually fell out of general use” (Ibid.) yet before the previous century, after the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), the custom was still practiced at important occasion. Since the twentieth century, kissing the pax has been commonly replaced with a handshake at the time of sharing the sign of peace. Nevertheless, the medieval custom is still continued at the time of significant celebrations and holidays.
Featured image: Design for a pax by E.W. Pugin (d. 1875), showing its handle. Public domain. Image enlarged. Photo and caption source: “Pax (liturgical object)” (2020).
“Pax (liturgical object)” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/37D2qOO>. [Accessed 22nd February, 2021].
PWN (2007). Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych, p. 296. Kubalska-Sulkiewicz K., Bielska-Łach M., Manteuffel-Szarota A. eds. Wydanie piąte. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
“The corbel arch and corbel vault use the technique [of corbelling] to make openings in walls and to form ceilings”. A corbelled (false) roof or vault and a corbelled arch are prototypes of their structural counterparts in the history of architecture.
The corbelled vault usually occurs in a form of an elevated roof constructed using horizontal and successive layers of stone slabs or bricks that gradually overlap each other, inwards. As a result of such a process, a false vault or dome is created. The top of the corbelled roof is closed with a single capstone which spans the remaining space or void between the overhung stone slabs. “[In the] technique of corbelling, […] rows of corbels deeply keyed inside a wall support a projecting wall or parapet” (“Corbel” 2021).
In turn, corbelled arches, like structural (true) arches, are also made of stone but do not use “a wedge-shaped voussoirs converging towards” (“Corbel arch” 2021). They are cut in one beam or stone slab, or several horizontal layers of stone. Accordingly, “a corbel arch is an arch-like construction method that uses the architectural technique of corbelling to span a space or void in a structure. […] Although an improvement in load-bearing efficiency over the post and lintel design, [corbelled] arches are not entirely self-supporting structures, and the [corbelled] arch is sometimes termed a false arch for this reason” (Ibid.)
Featured image: A corbelled (false) arch in the Royal Palace of Ugarit, Bronze Age Syria. Photo by Disdero (2005). CC BY 3.0. Photo and caption source: “Corbel arch” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
“Corbel” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3uXNJhV>. [Accessed 7th June, 2021].
“Corbel arch” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SjnC83>. [Accessed 7th June, 2021].
“Skarbiec Atreusza” (2020). Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3wYMOiE>. [Accessed 7th June, 2021].
PWN (2007). Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych, pp. 241,380. Kubalska-Sulkiewicz K., Bielska-Łach M., Manteuffel-Szarota A. eds. Wydanie piąte. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Darvill T. (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. Available at <https://bit.ly/2TazfOs>. [Accessed 7th June, 2021].
Perhaps the key to understanding the site of Göbekli Tepe lies in its impressive carvings situated on the cluster of pillars (Conrad 2012). As described in my previous article (see: The Oldest Temple in the World and its Mystery), they are ‘T’-shaped and decorated with strange zoomorphic imagery. The latter represent elaborate and naturalistic animal characters, both in low, high and full relief, showing three-dimensional figures, signifying improbable menagerie (Conrad 2012; Noren 2020).
Images of various animals found, including birds and insects, all in all, create an astonishing menagerie that continues to amaze archaeologists who have studied the site to this day (Burns 2010). An archaeologist, Paul Bahn, PhD., admits that there is no other archaeological site in the world with a similar variety of zoomorphic representations in stone (Burns 2017). Their juxtaposition is also interesting (Ibid.). Therefore, there are many different speculations concerning their interpretation; for example, an author, Andrew Collins, suspects that Noah’s Ark had actually been immortalized on the stones of the site, as if it had been a livestock inventory of the Ark (Burns 2010; 2017). Discovered five hundred kilometres south of Mount Ararat, considered by Biblical scholars to be the resting place of Noah’s Ark, the reliefs of Göbekli Tepe suggest that certain species of animals come from other regions than it has been previously considered (Ibid.). Could these sculptures prove that the memories of the Great Flood described in the Bible and its aftermath were preserved by the builders of Göbekli Tepe? (Ibid.). Some researchers believe that the traces of this cataclysm and the story of Noah’s Ark were actually written on the stone pillars (Ibid.). If so, the Great Flood would have occurred at the end of what scientists call the end of the Ice Age (Ibid.).
Stone Age masterpiece of sculpture
The mystery of the imagery of the site became even greater when discovered reliefs have revealed animal species that have never been endemic to the region, such as geese, armadillos or wild boars (Burns 2017). Moreover, the masterpiece of the sculpture found also suggests their builders must have been highly advanced artists with engineering skills, taking into account the fact there is no trace of their tools in situ (Conrad 2012). Physical characteristics of the animals carved are very clearly depicted (Ibid.). In many cases anatomical details openly express a rather aggressive attitude, embodied by their posture and grinning teeth (Ibid.).
T-shaped pillars and their flock
Klaus Schmidt argues that the animal component of the site is crucial in its iconographic interpretation (Conrad 2012). According to the Professor, represented animals have mainly wild, male and predatory connotations (Busacca 2017:313-314). He interprets the zoomorphic depictions either as having a protective role as the guardians of the pillars (especially high-relief sculpture), or being a part of a horrifying spectacle (Conrad 2012; Busacca 2017).
The ‘T’-shaped pillars, as he points out, are in turn the abstract representations of human bodies with the upper part resembling a man’s head in profile, the shaft of the ‘T’ standing for the human corpus, with arms, palms and fingers incised in stone (Conrad 2012; Busacca 2017). Below them, there is the representation of a belt encircling the pillar with loincloth looking like an animal skin (Ibid.). Such features as the hands with elongated fingers on the stomach, around the the navel area, amazingly reappear on other ancient representations in the wold (Burns 2017). Such a motif repeats, for example, carved in the great Moai statues on the Easter Island (Ibid.) or even on sculpted stone fragments crumbling among the old-Irish idols at the cemetery on the Boa Island, in Northern Island. They equally occur on anthropomorphic menhirs in France, Italy, Romania and elsewhere in the world (Ibid.). A similar iconographic element in some a way joins all these statues of different cultures and age and so testifies to the fact that Göbekli Tepe may not have developped in isolation, but was a part of a worldwide, prehistoric culture that once existed (Ibid.). Or it itself may have given rise to a later universal iconography by means of its mysterious heritage (Ibid.). Are the anthropomorphic statues from Göbekli Tepe and other parts of the world a carved in stone story of an alien race that lived on the earth before the cataclysm? (Ibid.). If so, maybe such monuments were erected in places where people were rebuilding civilization after the Great Flood (Ibid.). Maybe the builders of the site tried to save from oblivion what had taken place about 12,000 years ago? (Ibid.).
Professor Schmidt says that the ‘T’-shaped pillars are gathered on the hillside as if there was “a meeting of stone beings” (Scham 2008:27). Despite their anthropomorphic features, the pillars are deprived of facial features, which makes Schmidt think that the human-like monoliths personify spiritual beings, and probably they are the earliest imagery of deities or god-like ancestors (Conrad 2012). Accordingly, Schmidt also suggests that the disintegrated now temple doorway could metaphorically have stood for the entrance to the netherworld (Conrad 2012). If so, Göbekli Tepe must have been related to the cult of the death (Ibid.).
Vital to creating that dark world are the creatures carved on the pillars (Conrad 2012). It is not even difficult to imagine the site as a temple devoted to the dead, especially at night, when the portal leading to the flickering by the fire netherworld may have involved humans into strange rituals performed beneath the monumental human-like pillars, dressed up with the aggressive elements of nature (Ibid.). In the course of ritual performances, including sound, scents and probably under shamanic drug haze, the images on the pillars may have seemed alive and active (Busacca 2017). Gusaldo Busacca (2017), a PhD. student at Stanford University, admits, however, that very little can be said on the purpose and nature of such rituals. Some kind of ritual paraphernalia have been found at the site, such as benches, niches (altars), cup holes and limestone vessels, probably used for libations to the spirits and extensive feasting (Schmidt, 2010; Dietrich et al. 2012).
According to Klaus Schmidt, the site may have been also a pilgrimage location (Scham 2008:26). He assumes “that once pilgrims reached Göbekli Tepe, they made animal sacrifices” (Ibid.:26). That theory is supported by the archaeological finds of animal bones belonging to various species, such as gazelles, goats, boars, sheep, wild birds and so on (Scham 2008; Busacca 2017). Most of these animals belong to the carved menagerie in question (Ibid.).
What was first: religion or civilisation?
As Prof. Joris Peters notices, although the animistic nature dominates in the Palaeolithic art of the caves, at Göbekli Tepe the control over the nature is visibly taken by humans in the disguise of the ‘T’-shaped pillars (Conrad 2012).
Schmidt also notices that all the zoomorphic images are carved only below the so-called head of the pillars, which suggests that people had already became superior to animals (Conrad 2012). Gods themselves had left their animal disguise and started to look like humans (Ibid.). As Schmidt underlines, such imagery may reveal the Stone Age man’s desire for having control over the nature (Ibid.). The new religion gave humans an enormous psychological advantage (Ibid.). It placed people above the animals and above nature, and that mental leap forward, as Prof. Joris Peters says, was needed to start to domesticate animals and plants (Ibid.). Accordingly, it was first the urge to worship that sparked civilization (Ibid.). The theory is yet radical: namely, it suggests that it was the religion itself which brought people to farming, and not the other way round, as it has been believed so far… (Ibid.). In this context, Göbekli Tepe would have been a dramatic point in mankind development (Ibid.).
The hardest challenge that archaeologists have to face
Gusaldo Busacca (2017) underlines in his study of Göbekli Tepe that he takes “the hardest challenge that archaeologists have to face” (Ibid.:313) due to fragmentary evidence, time and cultural distance, and finally lack of written sources or oral traditions (Ibid.). Many scholars working at the site have already proposed their interpretations of the complex animal symbolism present there by using different contexts, such as shamanism (Benz & Bauer, 2015; Lewis – Williams & Pearce 2009), human-animal linkage (Verhoeven 2002), and burial rituals (Schmidt 2012), with a particular emphasis on the aggressive attitudes, predatory and wild aspects of the depicted animals. Other scholars also identify phallocentrism (the ideology that the male aspect is the central element in the organization of the social world) (“Phallocentrism” 2019), as the major symbolic theme of the most aggressive representations at the site (Hodder and Meskell 2011).
Basing on Schmidt’s research, Busacca (2017) claims that the most frequently represented animals are snakes, then foxes, boars, bulls and wild ducks. Less often motifs include cranes, spiders, quadrupeds, vultures, wild sheep, asses, gazelles and felids (Ibid.). Although the majority of depicted animals belong to predatory and venomous species, it is worth remarking there are also non-dangerous animals in the iconographic repertoire (Ibid.). Along the zoomorphic imagery, there are also abstract motifs, especially ‘H’- shaped pictograms, as well as some anthropomorphic motifs, like headless human bodies, which would suit the theory the temple was dedicated to the dead (Conrad 2012; Busacca 2017). Furthermore, Busacca (2017:316) notices that “the depicted motifs and their distribution vary markedly throughout the four main enclosures.”
Further attempts of interpretation
In terms of animistic ontology, Busacca (2017) focuses on exploring the role of images as a category of animated non-human beings (Ibid.).
He calls these images “composite entities constituted by both material and immaterial components” (Ibid.:315) as they are placed between two different spaces: the present and the absent, the visible and the invisible (Belting, 2011). The scholar argues that prehistoric artists may have believed that the act of making an image sparked a specific relation between the carver and the spirit inside the material medium (Busacca 2017:315-316). The carver did not create an animal out of the stone but he released it (Carpenter 1973). In this context, the zoomorphic images should be reconsidered as active participants between humans and material objects (Busacca 2017:315-316). Animals do not simply represent but they are material personification of animal spirits (Ibid.:315-316). The author also underlines the importance of their location within the architectural space in which they first appeared (Ibid.:315-316).
As the author remarks, the zoomorphic imagery has been mainly defined as a human concern with wild animals, “masculinity and violence prior to the ‘domestication of symbols’ that accompanied the transition toward agriculture and settled life” (Busacca 2017:319). The violent part of the iconography can be also linked to the dominant agents in prehistoric communities, identified as shamans (Benz & Bauer 2013). Another researcher, Borić (2013:54) claims that the dynamic and narrative postures of the carved beasts are the notions of “strong, dangerous spirits lurking beneath the skin of the depicted animals” (Borić 2013:54). Quite innovative interpretation is proposed by Yeşilyurt (2014) who argues that the site should be interpreted as prehistoric research laboratory, where the representations of animals actually illustrate research carried out on specific species.
Stone Age menagerie in motion
Busacca (2017:322) also analyses the sculpture in the context of stylistic features, such as the dynamism and movement of the animal figures. In order to refer to stylistic techniques used at Göbekli Tepe, the author has borrowed the terminology used in the studies on Franco-Cantabrian Upper Palaeolithic rock art, where similar style can be observed (Ibid.:322). Nevertheless, he underlines that “these similarities in techniques of visual representations should not be considered evidence of direct contact, ancestry or diffusion, but as independent, though similar, phenomena” (Ibid:322).
The movement is shown at Göbekli Tepe by means of two major techniques which seem to have been applied selectively only to certain types of animals depicted (Ibid.:322). Both predatory and non-predatory species, including gazelle, wild ass and crane, have their legs bent and/or are caught in oblique position (postural information) which generates some sort of motion (Ibid.:322). The wavy lines of the snake depictions are equally the representations of movement (Ibid.:322). Also the use of ‘split action’ technique is applied by the reiteration (superimposition or juxtaposition) of the subject, where an animal is depicted at successive stages in time (Ibid.:322). Examples of such artistic approach is clearly shown in the representations of water birds, especially wild ducks (Enclosures C and D) (Ibid.:322).
Description of the stylistic traits is followed by an analysis of the orientation of the carved imagery (Busacca 2017:313,324). To conduct the study, the author makes a distinction between the central pillars, which are those arranged in pairs, usually larger in size, and radial pillars – those arranged along the enclosures (Ibid.:313,324).
Radial pillars have been furthermore subdivided into two groups, frontal and lateral (Ibid.:313,324). All the locations of the carvings on pillars have been clearly labelled by means of simple abbreviations that the author has provided together with the photographs illustrating his concept (Ibid.:313,322,324). Accordingly, he marked them as follows: ‘FH’, ‘BS’, ‘LH’, ‘LS’, where ‘F’ stands for frontal, ‘B’ for back, ‘H’ for head ‘S’ for side, ‘L’ for lateral and left in some cases (Ibid.:313,322,324). Taking into consideration the lateral sides of the radial pillars, the author notices that 29 out of 34 total animals depicted on the pillars are facing toward the centre of the enclosure (Ibid.:313,322,324). High relief and full relief sculptures also indicate a centripetal orientation (Ibid.:313,322,324). As the author suggests “emerging from the walls or from the top of them with their full bodies or only with the head, these sculptures suggestively resonate with the general impression of a centripetal ‘jump’ of the animals into the enclosures”(Busacca 2017: 324).
On the other hand, the bas-reliefs carved on the frontal sides are facing either downwards or upwards or the right or left (Ibid.:313,322,324). Hence their pattern is less clear to be easily defined (Ibid.:313,322,324). The author suggests that the dynamism and mostly centripetal orientation of zoomorphic depictions may refer to the liminal space of the enclosure calling for animal spirits to its centre (Ibid.:313,322,324). Providing that the ‘T’- shaped pillars represent anthropomorphic spiritual beings, as mentioned above (Schmidt 2010), the enclosures can be identified as places of encounter between humans and animal spirits (Busacca 2017:313,322,324). In this context zoomorphic images play the role of the bridge between human and non-human beings (Ibid.:313,322,324).
Busacca (2017) also emphasizes the importance of the iconographic repertoire in any attempt of interpreting enigmatic functions of Göbekli Tepe. Unlike in post-agricultural societies within which wild animals meant danger and wilderness, hunter-gatherers would have had rather social and inter-personal attitudes towards such beasts, still without excluding the always present threat of their violence, which is probably expressed by aggressive aspects of zoomorphic representations (Ibid.:327). The author suggests that “socialising with the animal on the peer-to-peer basis would be just another way of ‘domesticating’ the animal without bringing it under complete human control” (Ibid.:327). Such an idea, however, would contradict the interpretation proposed by Schmidt, according to which the carved ‘T’- shaped pillars at Göbekli Tepe show humans completely superior to animals. Although Schmidt’s assumption does not negate the whole idea of ontological relations between humans and animals, their character would be quite different from that defined by Busacca (2017).
On the other side, some independent researchers, such as Paul Burley (2013), Graham Hancock (2016) and Martin Sweatman (2019) claim that at least a few zoomorphic representations on the pillars of Göbekli Tepe are grouped and arranged in a way to create the sky map. Such features are mainly revealed by the limestone ‘T’- shaped Pillar 43, also known under an intriguing name of the “Vulture Stone”, which is incorporated along with other ‘T-‘-shaped pillars of a similar height into the stone wall on the north-west side of the Enclosure D (Burley 2013; Sweatman 2019:22). The latter, in turn, comes from the Layer III, which is not only the oldest, and hence the lowest in the ground, but also distinguished by a variety of mysterious thematic aspects and sophisticated artistic depictions (Fleckney 2020). Whereas the wall of the Enclosure D, made of rough stones, is radiocarbon dated back to over 9 500 BC., the pillars embedded in it definitely predate it (Sweatman 2019:22). It is also worth mentioning that again we are dealing here with the phenomenon where more ancient finds are more advanced in many respects than those dated as being more recent.
Since the Pillar 43 started to be regularly studied, it has become widely iconic for the site of Göbekli Tepe (Sweatman 2019:22). It is simultaneously one of the most mysterious and captivating human imagination objects yet found in situ. The pillar does not belong to the greatest of the site; it is three metres tall, one and a half metre wide, a half metre thick, and weighs around five tons (Ibid.:22). The key to its popularity, however, has turned out to be its outstanding iconography. Not only does it include a clearly defined group of various animals but also an ithyphallic and headless anthropomorphic figure (Sweatman 2019:22; Fleckney 2020). The whole imagery is further enriched and so complicated by a set of abstract symbols, which, moreover, seem reminiscent of so far undecipherable images appearing in different ancient cultures, including Ancient Egypt, Assyria (Iraq), the Olmecs (La Venta, Mexico), and even Pumapunku (Bolivia).
Zoo of the shaft
All the carvings covering the Pillar 43 are in low relief (Burley 2013). Starting from the bottom of the shaft, there is a bird head upon a long neck, possibly belonging to a goose (Sweatman 2019:22). Just behind the bird’s neck, on the right, a figure of a headless man appears (Ibid.:24). Right there, the bottom corner of the pillar is broken. Still on the shaft, above the bird’s head, there is a clearly defined, huge scorpion, crawling upwards, whereas on the left of the long-necked bird and the scorpion, one can discern the head and front legs of another animal, probably a quadruped of some type, like a wolf (Ibid.:22-23). Just above its head, there is either an animal tail or a snake, maybe a viper, with a triangular end, looking like an arrow.
The bird king with its scepter on the pillar head
Moving to the ‘T’-shaped pillar head, on the left, there is the largest image of all, which has eventually given the name to the pillar (Sweatman 2019:22). Precisely, it represents some kind of a bird of pray, probably and eagle or a vulture with its wings outstretched, which may suggest it was depicted in flight (Ibid.:22).
In its iconography, the bird looks like a strongly stylized representation of the ancient Egyptian vulture, personifying Nekhbet, “an early predynastic local goddess in Egyptian mythology, who was [originally] the patron of the city of Nekheb […]. Ultimately, she became the patron of Upper Egypt and one of the two patron deities for all of Ancient Egypt when it was unified. […] Nekhbet usually was depicted hovering, with her wings spread above the royal image, clutching a shen symbol, representing eternal encircling protection, frequently in her claws” (“Nekhbet” 2021). The said shen symbol additionally resembles a plain circle beside the vulture’s outstretched wing from the Pillar 43. The significant difference between these two images, however, is the placement of the disc in the both cases.
On the Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe, unlike in Egyptian images, the vulture’s left wing seems to hold or horizontally support the disc, which, hovering above it, is situated centrally on the pillar head and so in the middle of the visual context of the whole scene (Sweatman 2019:22; Burley 2013). By these means, the disc provides a sense of an order on the pillar’s surface, which at first sight, seems to be just filled in with randomly depicted elements (Burley 2013). In the right lower corner of the pillar head, another stylized figure of a bird is depicted, possibly of the same species as its larger companion, as they both feature the same hooked beak (Sweatman 2019:22-23). Or maybe, it is just the same individual but depicted in motion, as it is visible in other carved images on pillars?
Long-body creature with an arrow
The most interesting of all, however, is the top part of the pillar head. To the upper-right of the title bird character, there is a bird with long legs, looking like a flamingo (Sweatman 2019:23). Between its beak and lifted thin legs, there is an undecipherable image, which Martin Sweatman (2019:23) compares to a “wriggling fish in [the flamingo’s] beak”. For myself, the element more resemble a snake with a tail or a head ending in an arrow, like in the fragmented image on the shaft of the same pillar or on other T-shaped pillars of Göbekli Tepe, featuring similar representations (Johannes 2005; Courtesy of the Göbekli Tepe Project, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 2005). One creature of this kind is also present at the back of a sculpted human head from Nevalı Çori (Şanliurfa Museum, Turkey) (Prata 2011; see: The Oldest Temple in the World and its Mystery).
From letter symbols to handbags
To the very right of that duo of the flamingo and the snake, aka fish, there is an abstract symbol resembling a squat letter ‘H’ and, slightly above a letter ‘I’ or just the same letter ‘H’ but turned 90° right (Sweatman 2019:23). Above the flamingo’s back, in turn, there appears a frieze-like stretch, interrupted on the left by the vulture’s head and equally by additional components above, yet it stretches to the very top of the pillar head. It is composed of two rows of interlocked symbols in the shape of the letter ‘V’, which all appear on both sides of the narrow and horizontal belt of squares (Ibid.:23).
Finally, in the upper part of the ‘frieze’ and so of the pillar head itself, there is a row of the three mentioned elements, generally compared to ‘handbags’ (Sweatman 2019:23), though my eight-years old nephew claims these are padlocks …
Such strange components as the ‘handbags’, found among a zoomorphic gathering, become even stranger if one realizes that they also appear in other ancient cultures; namely, they are being carried by winged geniuses in Assyrian reliefs (between 2000-600 BC.) or by an Olmec from La Venta, travelling ‘inside’ a feathered serpent (between 1800 BC.-200 AD.). In the Pillar 43, each ‘handbag’ is additionally coupled with an animal character (Ibid.:23). Yet, all the three are difficult to be recognized as particular species (Ibid.:23). The left-most one resembles a minuscule version of the bent flamingo (Ibid.:23), depicted below, the middle one represents a quadruped, which Martin Sweatman (2019:23) interprets as a “standing or charging […] gazelle, goat or ibex, with large horns or ears bent backwards over the body”, whereas the animal on the most-right, seems to crawl downwards, like a lizard or a frog (Ibid.:23).
Constellations inscribed the outlines of the animals
Although the actual function of Göbekli Tepe is still a mystery, an author, Andrew Collins, proposes a theory, suggesting the site was erected for reflecting celestial phenomena (Burns 2017; see: The Oldest Temple in the World and its Mystery). Accordingly, the successive circles of the site with its elaborate stone ‘T’-shaped pillars and, finally, their complex iconography would have their astronomical meaning (Burley 2013; Sweatman 2019). In line with such assumptions are also theories related to the Pillar 43. Martin Sweatman (2019:24) studies a hypothesis proposed by Paul Burley (2013) and Graham Hancock (2016), according to which the title vulture occupying the pillar head represents the modern-day constellation of Sagittarius and the huge scorpion crawling on the shaft, the constellation of Scorpius. Additionally, the duo of a flamingo and a snake with an arrow would represent the so-called thirteenth sign of the zodiac, Ophiuchus (Sweatman 2019:24; see Hancock 2016). And the central disc supported by the vulture’s outstretched left wing would relate to the Sun, being close to the center of the galaxy, with the mentioned constellations nearby (Burley 2013; see Hancock 2016).
After noticing similarities between the patterns of the considered animal images and the range of studied constellations, along with their relative match in context of their positions on the pillar and in the sky respectively, Sweatman (2019:24-32) also tries to support the theory by justifying whether the selection of animals corresponding to the constellations among the thirteen zoomorphic symbols at Göbekli Tepe is adequate and not coincidental (Ibid.:27-32,41). The choice of a scorpion for the Scorpius seems obvious, in turn, the vulture would be the best choice for the Sagittarius among all the animals represented on site (Ibid.:30,32). Additionally, Martin Sweatman (2019:27) pays attention to another constellation, the Libra, which is just below the Scorpius, and finds that the goose represented below the scorpion can match the constellation as it is an animal associated with water. What is more, the fragmented quadruped depicted to the left of the goose can similarly correspond to the constellation of Lupus, the wolf, which is also to the left of Libra in the sky (Ibid.:27). Can it be then a pure coincidence?
Nevertheless, the main problem is that after the mainstream scholars, the knowledge of zodiacal constellations could only appear and develop the earliest with the civilization of Sumer, that is to say, between 3000 and 2000 BC., and it was much later passed down to the modern world by means of the ancient Greece, during the period of the last few centuries BC. (Sweatman 2019:25). For these reasons, the similar knowledge cannot be as old as the site of Göbekli Tepe, which is nearly 12 000 years old (Ibid.:25). But if one alternatively accepts such a possibility, it would mean that ancient Sumerians were not the first who invented zodiacal symbols but they would have learnt their skills in astronomy from much earlier but highly advanced civilizations, who, for some reasons, were erased from human history (Ibid.:31).
According to the conventional teaching, the discovery of precession of the equinoxes should be ascribed to Hipparchus of the Greeks who would have come up with this idea in the second century BC. (Sweatman 2019:36). Yet, after alternative researchers outside of Academia, such knowledge had already been in use by the sculptors of the “Vulture Stone”, around 13 000 years ago (Ibid.:36). Providing that the disc over the vulture’s wing stands for the Sun, the researcher observes the phenomenon of precession in earlier epochs, with the summer solstice as the reference day (Ibid.:38). As a result, he finds out that the position of the constellations in relation to the Sun, represented on the Pillar 43, only correspond to the date anywhere between 11 200 and 10 700 BC. (Ibid.:38). It is because only within this range of time the Sun appears in such an arrangement between the constellations as it is represented on the pillar (Ibid.:38).
Handbags as sunsets
After Martin Sweatman and his wife, Alison (2019:39), the mysterious symbols at the very top of the Pillar 43 resemble semicircles of the Sun disc at the moment of sunset. Furthermore, if we assume the represented image reflects the summer solstice in 10 950 BC., when the Sun was in front of the constellation of Sagittarius (the vulture), the three handbags (sunsets) may signify the other three solar phenomena in the astronomical year, namely the winter solstice and the spring and vernal and autumn equinoxes (Ibid.:34,37-39). Accordingly, at the spring equinox in 10 950, the Sun moved to Virgo, at the winter solstice, it appeared in Gemini, and at the autumn equinox, it entered the constellation of Pisces (Ibid.:39).
By analogy with the zoomorphic figures symbolizing the constellations in the main part of the pillar, the miniature creatures beside the ‘handbags’ would stand for the constellations corresponding to the three astronomical days that the ‘handbags’ possibly represent (Sweatman 2019:39). Staring from the oldest date and so the upper-right ‘handbag’, the crawling downwards frog beside it would symbolize Virgo, the horned quadruped in the middle, Gemini, and finally the bent bird with long legs would stand for Pisces (Ibid.:39). Surprisingly, the outlines of all the three constellations perfectly correspond to the shape of miniature animal images depicted beside the respective ‘handbags’ (Ibid.:40; see Figure 10 in: Sweatman 2019:40).
Zoomorphic code language of hunter-gatherers
Martin Sweatman (2019:40-44) admits that the results of his studies may be just a coincidence, though it is rather improbable. On the other side, they heavily undermine the current scientific status quo in all its aspects, particularly concerning the acknowledged range of astronomical knowledge of the ancients and how far back in time it could be scientifically justified (Ibid.:40,44).
All in all, the Stone Age builders must have represented the animal symbols at the site for important reasons. Either the representations were religious or totemic, artistic or scientific, at least a few of them were definitely nested in astronomy. Did the builders of Göbekli Tepe encode more than one meaning behind the carved imagery of their Noah’s Ark? Was it done deliberately? And was it intended to be deciphered and read by contemporaries at all if the site had been eventually buried? Or maybe it was to immortalize in stone a turning point in their history, such as the Great Flood or another cataclysm and its further consequences.
Today, our insight into the zoomorphic world is guided by a set of fixed ideas, interpreting various animals in a strictly defined, though often ambiguous way, often by attributing to them human characteristics. We know this code from ancient myths, medieval bestiaries, fairy tales and legends. Did the builders of Göbekli Tepe used a similar key to the meaning of zoomorphic symbols before they eventually passed them on to later generations in the relief carvings on the ‘T’ shaped pillars? Or maybe their understanding of the menagerie was different from ours and it only survived to our times in distorted fragments over the span of thousands years.
Featured image: The so-called Vulture Stone in Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. Photo by Sue Fleckney (2013). CC BY-SA 2.0. Photo source: “Göbekli Tepe” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
By Joanna Faculties of English Philology, History of Art and Archaeology. University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland; Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland; University College Dublin, Ireland.
“Göbekli Tepe” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Loo1id>. [Accessed on 11th May, 2020].
“Olmecs” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3woK0eN>. [Accessed on 14th June, 2021].
“Nekhbet” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3gnJxUH>. [Accessed on 14th June, 2021].
“Phallocentrism” (2019). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SUF53C>. [Accessed on 11th May, 2020].
“Pumapunku” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3cGkf1W>. [Accessed on 14th June, 2021].
“Winged genie” (2021). In: Wikipedia. Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3gxZfvl>. [Accessed on 14th June, 2021].
Belting H. (2011). An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Benz M. & Bauer J. (2013). Symbols of power – symbols of crisis? A psycho-social approach to Early Neolithic symbol systems. Neo-Lithics 2, pp. 11–24.
Benz M. & J. Bauer (2015). On scorpions, birds and snakes: evidence for shamanism in northern Mesopotamia during the Early Holocene. Pittsburgh: Journal of Ritual Studies 29, pp. 1–24.
Borić D. (2013). Theatre of Predation: Beneath the Skin of Göbekli Tepe Images, in Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things, Watts. C. ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 42–64.
Burley P. D. (2013). “Gobekli Tepe – Temples Communicating Ancient Cosmic Geography”. In: Graham Hancock. Available at <https://bit.ly/2TtvBzp>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2021].
Burns K. (2010). “Unexplained Structures”. In: Ancient Aliens, Season 2, Episode 8. Prometheus Entertainment.
Burns K. (2017) “Return to Gobekli Tepe”. In: Ancient Aliens, Season 12, Episode 16. Prometheus Entertainment.
Busacca G. (2017) “Places of Encounter: Relational Ontologies, Animal Depiction and Ritual Performance at Göbekli Tepe”. In: Cambridge Archaeological Journal, v. 27, issue 2, pp. 313-330.
Carpenter E. (1973). Eskimo Realities. New York (NY): Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Conrad T. (2012) Cradle of the Gods. Atlantic Productions LTD. for National Geographic Channels. Available at <https://bit.ly/3blMwas>. [Accessed on 11th May, 2020].
Courtesy of the Göbekli Tepe Project, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (2005). “Snakes shown on diff erent pillars at Göbekli Tepe”. In: Peters J., Driesch von Den A. and Helmer D. (2005) “The Upper Euphrates-Tigris Basin: Cradle of agro-pastoralism ?”. In: Vigne J. D., Peters J. and Helmer D. eds. New methods and the first steps of mammal domestication. Proceedings of the 9th International Council of Archeozoology. (Durham, 23rd-28th August 2002). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 96-123. Available at <https://bit.ly/3zlwRoR>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2021].
Documentary shots: Burns K. (2017) “Return to Gobekli Tepe”. In: Ancient Aliens, Season 12, Episode 16. Prometheus Entertainment.
Dietrich O., Heun M., Notroff J., Schmidt K., & Zarnkow M. (2012). The Role of Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities. New Evidence from Göbekli Tepe, South-Eastern Turkey. Durham: Journal Antiquity 86, pp. 674–95.
Fleckney S. (2020). Vulture Stone, Göbekli Tepe. World History Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2RT6VAa>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2021].
German Archaeological Institute (DAI) (2020) “The Site” In: The Tepe Telegrams. News & Notes from the Göbekli Tepe Research Staff. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SZBily>. [Accessed on 13th May, 2020].
Hancock G. (2016). Magowie bogów. [Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth’s Lost Civilisation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Amber.
Hodder I. & Meskell L. (2011). A ‘Curious and Sometimes a Trifle Macabre Artistry’. Chicago: Current Anthropology 52, pp. 235–63.
Johannes D. (photo) (2005). “Göbekli Tepe. T-shaped stone pillar with representations of snakes, probably viper”. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), Berlin. In: Peters J., Driesch von Den A. and Helmer D. (2005) “The Upper Euphrates-Tigris Basin: Cradle of agro-pastoralism ?”. In: Vigne J. D., Peters J. and Helmer D. eds. New methods and the first steps of mammal domestication. Proceedings of the 9th International Council of Archeozoology. (Durham, 23rd-28th August 2002). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 96-123. Available at <https://bit.ly/3gupCCp>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2021].
Notroff J. (2016). “Could we really called it a temple?” In: German Archaeological Institute (DAI) (2020). The Tepe Telegrams. News & Notes from the Göbekli Tepe Research Staff. Available at <https://bit.ly/2LoyKwq>. [Accessed on 13th May, 2020].
Photo “Bison in the great hall of polychromes, at Altamira Cave, Cantabria” In: “Franco-Cantabrian region” (2019) In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2LosmlM>. [Accessed on 14th May, 2020].
Photo: “Göbekli Tepe” : Sumber: sci-news.com/mage credit: by Nico Becker, Göbekli Tepe Archive, German Archaeological Institute. In: Kompasiana (2018). Available at <https://bit.ly/2X6nk2T>. [Accessed on 13th May, 2020].
Photo: “The Goddess Nekhbet, Temple of Hatshepsut. By Charles K. Wilkinson. Photo and caption source: Wikimedia Commons. Available at <https://bit.ly/3vxBlWx>. [Accessed on 14th June, 2021].
Prata E. (2011). “The Mystery of Gobekli Tepe”. In: The End Time. Available at <https://bit.ly/3ghOo9P>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2021].
Scham S. (2008). The World’s First Temple. Archaeology, v. 61, no. 6, New York: Archaeological Institute of America, pp. 22-27.
Schmidt K. (2010). Göbekli Tepe—the Stone Age sanctuaries: new results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica 37, pp. 239–56.
Schmidt K. (2012). Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age Sanctuary in Southeastern Anatolia. Berlin: Ex Oriente.
Sweatman M. (2019). Prehistory Decoded. UK: Troubador Publishing Ltd.
Verhoeven M. (2002). Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12, pp. 233–58.
Yeşilyurt M. (2014). Die wissenschaftliche Interpretation von Göbeklitepe. Die Theorie und das Forschungsprogramm. Berlin: LIT.
Found uniquely the Doric order entablature in Greek classical architecture (900 BC. – 1st century AD.), guttae are the conical projecting ornaments. They are situated under each triglyph of a frieze, which a set of guttae always goes with. In turn, a row of six guttae, located at the top of the architrave blocks, formed an element called a regula, located just below the narrow projection of the taenia (fillet).
“In It is thought that the guttae were a skeuomorphic representation of the pegs used in the construction of the wooden structures that preceded the familiar Greek architecture in stone. However, they have some functionality, as water drips over the edges, away from the edge of the building” (“Gutta” 2021).
For the periodization of the history of the Minoan world on Crete, the so-called palace system is usually used (“Kultura minojska” 2020). It is mainly based on archaeological stratographic research, which gives time frames for successive phases of the existence, growth and the fall of Minoan palaces on Crete (Ibid.). Following so the Minoan chronology given by archaeologists, the volcanic eruption occurred around 1500 BC. (Ibid.). It therefore ended the first phase of the Late Minoan period (LM IA) (1600-1500), when the Minoans were at their heyday, and started the second phase of the Late Minoan period (LMIB) (1500-1450) (Ibid.). Accordingly, the Minoan culture had survived the eruption and lasted until around 1100 BC., but it had never regained its former power, which eventually led to its collapse (Ibid.).
On the other hand, however, there is another chronology obtained from Thera’s geological research, which takes the eruption back over a century! According to geologists, Thera erupted around 1620 BC. (Mitchell 2011), which is when the archaeological chronology suggests the end of the Middle Minoan period (MM), namely, around 2000 – 1600 (1700) BC. (“Kultura minojska” 2020). According to archaeological finds, it was also a period of natural disasters but they were mainly associated with earthquakes on Crete. Were they related to the eruption of Thera? It is possible … Yet, if the volcano erupted in the seventeenth century BC., badly affecting the Minoans of Crete, how could their culture flourish then in the sixteenth century BC.? What is more, such dating results would also change historic witnesses of the eruption, especially in such empires as Egypt. Is there then any notice of the natural disaster in their records or elsewhere? Such written evidence present outside the Minoan world could greatly support or deny one of the given chronologies.
Finally, how is it possible at all that the reliable study results of the both interdisciplinary but related sciences could be so different and hence confusing?
A major controversy between archaeology and geology
Dating the Thera’s eruption has become one of the major controversies in academic world.
“For more than two centuries archaeologists have refined the Bronze Age Mediterranean historical framework by observing the relative order of superimposed levels on a series of sites (MacGillivray 2007:150). Next, they established inter-site relationships based on common cultural characteristics – primarily in ceramics, art and architecture” (Ibid:150). “Based on archaeological correlations between the Aegean, Egypt and the Levant, the eruption of Santorini was believed to have occurred around 1500 BC., after the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt, [that is to say in the sixteenth century BC., when the Queen Hatsheput mainly ruled (see: Last Queen in the Valley of the Kings)]” (Ehrlich, Regev, Boaretto 2018). “The traditional date around 1500 BC. was first proposed in the 1930s by Marinatos. It has […] been, [however], challenged by a controversial new date of around 1600 BC., dividing prehistorians into two camps and generating heated debate” (Castleden 1998-2001:191).
Turning for help to ancient Egyptians
In 1980s, two scientists first disputed the archaeological dating (History Channel 1980s). These were the German geologists, H. Pichler and W. L. Friedrich who radiocarbon-dated the charcoal found in the volcanic rocks (Ibid.). According to the results they obtained, the eruption of the volcano took place around 1650 BC. (Ibid.). It would mean that Thera’s explosion was over one hundred years earlier than it was primarily thought (History Channel 1980s; Wengler 2009). Accordingly, “the Minoans in [their] mature stages [would have been] contemporaries of the ‘Foreign Princes’ of Egypt’s Hyksos period, a century earlier than Hatshepsut’s reign in the historical chronology” (MacGillivray 2007:150).
In this case, some scholars turn for help to Egyptian texts, which “may give a clue to the absolute date [of Thera’s eruption” (MacGillivray 2007:159). And they find there interesting records, which may actually refer to the volcanic explosion and its devastating results. At the turning of the fifteenth century BC., “one of Hatshepsut’s best known dedications was the rock-cut temple to the lioness-goddess Pakhet, near Beni Hasan in Middle Egypt. […] Here, Hatshepsut carved a very revealing account of herself and her deeds in that region over the architrave” (Ibid.:159). Some scholars interpret the text “as Hatshepsut sending braziers to her subjects driven by raging storms and total darkness into the temples” (Ibid.:159). One of her deeds “was to care for refugees who swarmed into Middle Egypt from the Nile delta because of the incursion of the sea there” (Ibid.:160). There is also another text from much later Ptolemaic period (third or second centuries BC.), but referring to the events having happened during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Ibid.:160). Namely, the words of an Egyptian scribe recall biblical descriptions of darkness covering the earth (Ibid.:160). “[He writes:] ‘there was no exit from the palace by the space of nine days. Now these days were in violence and tempest: none, whether god or man, could see the face of his fellow’. This nine-day period reads suspiciously like an Egyptian multiple of three, which meant ‘a long time’, and so refers to a lengthy period of storms and darkness” (Ibid.:160).
Additionally, there is also a very interesting writing on the fragmented stele, ascribed by some scholars to Ahmose, the pharaoh and founder of the Eighteen Dynasty in the middle of the sixteenth century (Jacobovici, Cameron 2006). ‘It records some tremendous catastrophe that happened to Egypt’, says Prof. Donald Redford, the archaeologist (Ibid.). ‘We aren’t quite clear what it was but it involved rain and thunder and lightening, such a storm that rarely happens in northeastern Africa. I mean that’s a dry area’ (Ibid.). For this reasons, the stele has been known as the Tempest or Storm Stele (“Tempest Stele” 2020). Apart from ravaging storms, it also confirms that Egypt was enveloped in darkness and that statues of its gods were toppled to the ground, which may have happened due to a sequence of severe earthquakes (Jacobovici, Cameron 2006).
Such ancient records are usually pinpointed to the Eighteenth Dynasty, between the second part of the sixteenth and first part of the fifteenth century BC. But are these records dated correctly? If the stele had been really created by Ahmose and it talks about the Thera eruption, that would place it during the reign of the pharaoh, which is believed to have happened between 1550/49 and 1524 BC, or even twenty years earlier (MacGillivray 2007; “Ahmose I” 2020), which in turn, corresponds to the Late Minoan IA period (1600-1500 BC.). On the other side, Hatshepsut’s exact time of reigning is similarly unclear but usually estimated for the first half of the fifteenth century, sometimes between 1504-1483 or 1478-1458 BC. (MacGillivray 2007; “Hatshepsut” 2020), which mostly fell in the Late Minoan IB period (1500-1450 BC). If there are such discrepancies in dating the ruling of particular Egyptian kings, it is also highly probable some ancient texts are either wrongly ascribed (Ahmose’s stela refers just to a pharaoh, not Ahmose himself) or their date was estimated incorrectly (Jacobovici, Cameron 2006).
Moving back to the seventeenth century BC., before Egypt’s consolidation by the Eighteenth Dynasty, it was the Egypt’s dark period (Wengler 2009). The kingdom of Egypt was split in two (Ibid.). The northern region (the Nile delta) was ruled by the Hyksos, foreign invaders from Asia Minor (Ibid.). The time that followed brought economic decline and serious unrest (Ibid.) The rule of the Hyksos kings for long had reminded a trauma in the Egyptian minds (Ibid.). Did that period overlap with the volcano eruption on Thera?
Geologists make their way
For years now, doubts have been growing among scientists about the exact date of the eruption (Wengler 2009).
On Santorini, colossal rocks were hurled through the air by the last great eruption of the Bronze Age (Wengler 2009). Between these rocks, a geologist and student of Prof. Friedrich’s, Tom Pfeiffer, found in 2003 – as both geologists say – a critical evidence buried beneath the layers of lava (Wengler 2009; Volcano Discovery 2020). It was an olive branch of a tree smashed by Thera’s eruption (Wengler 2009). Around it, there were remains of olive leaves, twigs and olive stones, which signifies the tree was alive at the time of eruption (Ibid.). As it was an organic material, the remnants were carbon-dated (Ibid.). The moment, the olive branch died would mean the exact date of the volcanic eruption (Ibid.). Since the time of previous results, Prof. Friedrich obtained in 1980s, he has been convinced that the once accepted date of 1500 BC. for the eruption should be officially pushed back a hundred years (History Channel 1980s; Wengler 2009). Moreover, if the previous results had been confirmed by the results obtained by a recently found branch, the new timing would have been unchallengeable (Wengler 2009). Having conducted comparative tests, the geologists have received results confirming that the eruption took place in the seventeenth century BC. and not in the sixteenth century BC. or later (Ibid.). Accordingly, Santorini exploded somewhere between 1620 and 1600 BC (Ibid.). As Prof. Friedrich claims the confirmed date of the tree should have huge consequences for future research and for the understanding of ancient history in general (Ibid.).
Similar date has also been obtained by the soil specialist, Prof. Hendrik Bruins, who has studied Palaikastro’s deposits, which were accumulated by the tsunamis that had smashed the northern coast of Crete (Lilley 2006). He has radiocarbon-dated the cattle bone found on the beach in the deposit (Ibid.). According to the received results, the cattle bone comes from around 1600 BC. (Ibid.) For Prof. Bruins, who has been convinced that the Thera’s eruption took place around 1600 BC., it proves that the chaotic deposit is the result of the tsunami generated by the outbreak of the volcano (Ibid.). Thera’s eruption also produced “enormous volumes of ash and sulphuric acid aerosols which [usually] reduce atmospheric temperatures and may be detected in tree rings as years of slow growth” (Castleden 1998-2001:191). Forensic science and ancient records are also based on these dense clouds of ash across the Middle East and around the world (Westbrook 1995).
And they also pinpoint the years between 1628-1626 BC. to Thera’s eruption (Westbrook 1995). Although there is a difference of around thirty years between several independent studies, it is still the seventeenth century BC. that they identify (Westbrook 1995; Castleden 1998-2001:191). Thera’s ash has also been found on the Nile, which is traced back to the same time period, like a fingerprint (Westbrook 1995). “[Also] an independent study of Irish bog oaks [has] revealed that 1628-1626 BC. were very poor growth years. […] A search for acidity peaks in ice cores taken from the Greenland ice sheet failed to produce anything perceptible for 1500 BC., but revealed acidity peak for 1645 BC., which some eagerly identified as evidence of an early date for the Thera eruption” (Castleden 1998-2001:191).
Who is closer to the truth?
“In spite of the strenuous lobbying of a seventeenth-century BC. date, the evidence in its favour is inconclusive. To begin with, the eruptions are not the only cause of narrow tree rings: weather patterns vary for a great many reasons. […] From Thera itself comes a different kind of evidence. […] Some radiocarbon dates for the destruction level of Thera are too old for the […] eruption date. Charcoal from a Minoan hearth in the Athinios quarry in 1979 was dated to 1800 BC.; fava beans found in jug in Building 4 produced a date of 1700 BC. It has been claimed that [these] increasing numbers of radiocarbon dates favour the older date […] In fact, the average of over twenty radiocarbon dates from Akrotiri is 3200 BP, which rather calibrates to 1500 BC. (Castleden 1998-2001:191).
It is also worth to note that there can be some inaccuracies in standard carbon dating, leading to further mistakes in estimating an exact date for archaeological finds (Gorey 2018). “Research conducted by Cornell University [in 2018] could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that [due to] a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards, […] many of […] established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books” (Ibid.).
In 2018, further attempts of dating Thera eruption have been conducted using tree rings.
According to University of Arizona-led research, “[new] analyses that [have used] tree rings could settle the long-standing debate about when the volcano Thera erupted by resolving discrepancies between archaeological and radiocarbon methods of dating the eruption, according to new research. […] ‘It’s about tying together a timeline of ancient Egypt, Greece, Turkey and the rest of the Mediterranean at this critical point in the ancient world – that’s what dating Thera can do’, said lead author Charlotte Pearson, an assistant professor of dendrochronology at the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. ‘What we can say now is that the radiocarbon evidence is compatible with the archaeological evidence for an eruption of Thera in the 16th century BC’., Pearson said” (Jensen 2018).
Is it a compromise?
The date of Thera volcanic eruption is regarded as crucial as it “has far reaching consequences in the archaeology of the Aegean, Egypt and the Levant, and the understanding of their interconnections” (Jensen 2018). This is why the fierce debate between the two camps, mainly between archaeologists and geologists has still been going on. Nevertheless, the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring results have offered a provisional compromise.
“Archaeologists have estimated the eruption as occurring sometime between 1570 and 1500 BC. by using human artifacts such as written records from Egypt and pottery retrieved from digs. Other researchers estimated the date of the eruption to about [1600-1650] BC. using measurements of radiocarbon, sometimes called carbon-14, from bits of trees, grains and legumes found just below the layer of volcanic ash. […] By using radiocarbon measurements from the annual rings of trees that lived at the time of the eruption, the UA-led team dates the eruption to someplace between 1600 and 1525” (Jensen 2018).
Although the results are more in favour of later dates for the eruption, as an estimated “time period overlaps with the 1570-1500 date range from the archaeological evidence” (Ibid.), the highest point of the same results points to the date of 1600 BC., which has been, in turn, proposed by geologists.
If standard methods fail, scientists count on legends
In the matter of Thera eruption the scientific research still remains unclear. Although a century as the time difference range for the eruption of Thera does not seem significant for a geology, it rather counts in terms of history of the region. In this case, with just few written records as their guide, scholars usually have no choice but to use legends as launching pads for their studies (Masjum 2006).
‘When volcanologists are trying to reconstruct an ancient eruption, [they] use everything [they] can, all the available data and certainly, there are a lot of collaboration between volcanologists, historians and archaeologists’, says Dr. Rosaly Lopes Gaultier (Masjum 2006). ‘In Santorini, for example, it turned out to be a great collaboration because archaeologists can tell the things helping to date the eruption, while other scientists studying the volcano can tell more about the effects and sequence of events. [Hence] it ends up tying it all together. And you even look at legends and stories’ (Ibid.).
By Joanna Faculties of English Philology, History of Art and Archaeology. University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland; Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland; University College Dublin, Ireland.
“Hatshepsut” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Agm19s>. [Accessed on 27th May, 2020].
“Kultura minojska” (2020). In: Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3g1XV3G>. [Accessed on 27th May, 2020].
“Minoan eruption” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3pnApCn>. [Accessed on 27th May, 2020].
“Ahmose I” (2020). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.Available at <https://bit.ly/2ZRB9Vw>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
“Tempest Stele” (2020). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.Available at <https://bit.ly/36F3NdS>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
Antiquated Antiquarian (2015). “The Minoans: Frescoes”. In: The Stream of Time. Available at <https://bit.ly/2XGi4mv>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
Castleden R. (1998-2001). Atlantis Destroyed. New York: Routledge.
Curry A. (2018). “The Rulers of Foreign Lands”. In: Archaeology. Available at <https://bit.ly/2X7dL4Y>. [Accessed on 27th May, 2020].
Demers B. (2018). “Ancient sentinels and the secrets locked away in their tree-rings”. In: University of Arizona. UA News. Source: Youtube. Available at <https://bit.ly/2yFq6DX>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
Ehrlich Y., Regev L., Boaretto E. (2018). “Radiocarbon Analysis of Modern Olive Wood Raises Doubts Concerning a Crucial Piece of Evidence in Dating the Santorini Eruption” In: Scientific Reports, Vol. 8, Article number: 11841. Available at <https://go.nature.com/3epMel5>. [Accessed on 22nd May, 2020].
Gorey C. (2018). “Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery”. In: Siliconrepublic. Available at <https://bit.ly/3d1XZh5>. [Accessed on 24th May, 2020].
History Channel (1980s). Crete. Death came from the Sea. Time Life’s Lost Civilizations. Available at <https://bit.ly/3d3mCKx>. [Accessed on 21st May, 2020].
Jacobovici S., Cameron J. (2006). The Exodus Decoded. The History Channel; A&E Television Networks; New Video.
Jensen M. N. (2018). “Dating the ancient Minoan eruption of Thera using tree rings” In: UA College of Science. Available at <https://bit.ly/36D5GI8>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
Lilley H. (2006). The Real Atlantis. A Quickfire Media Wales Production for BBC and Arte France.
MacGillivray J. A. (2007). “Thera, Hatshepsut, and the Keftiu: Crisis and Response in Egypt and the Aegean in the Mid-Second Millennium BC.” In: Heinemeier J., Friedrich W. L. Dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini.Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 10, pp. 155-170, Warburton D. A. ed. Sandbjerg: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop.
Masjum M. (2006). Inside the Volcano. Kraylevich Productions Inc.; Mechanism Digital.
Matić U. (2014). “Out of the Word and Out of the Picture? Keftiu and Materializations of ‘Minoans’”. In: Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant, vol. 24 (2014), pp. 275-292 (18 pages). Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Mitchell T. (2011). Atlantis: End of a World, Birth of a Legend. BBC Production.
Starr M. (2018). “The Date of The Legendary Volcano Explosion of Thera Has Finally Been Traced”. In: Science Alert. Available at <https://bit.ly/2XG0Vtp>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
University of Chicago (2014). “Tempest Stela: World’s Oldest Weather Report Could Revise Bronze Age Chronology”. In: The Epoch Times. Available at <https://bit.ly/2TNR0kh>. [Accessed on 28th May, 2020].
Volcano Discovery (2020). “Illustrated Glossary: Plinian eruption. Volcanology”. In: Volcano Discovery. Source: USGS. Available at <https://bit.ly/2M2zX9V>. [Accessed on 27th May, 2020].
Wengler G. (2009). The Biblical Plagues; Episode 2: Darkness Over Egypt. Taglicht Media GMBH; ZDF Enterprises.
Westbrook J. (1995). Time life’s: Lost Civilizations; Episode 4: Aegean: The Legacy of Atlantis. Time-Life Video & Television.