https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2019/05/09/cereals-feasts-and-monuments-at-gobekli-tepe/ Tepe Telegrams From the Gobekli Tepe Research Project Toggle mobile menu Toggle search field Search for: [ ] [Search] * Home * About * Gobekli Tepe Research + The Site + Research Staff + Affiliations + Publications * Press & Public + FAQ + Photos + Visiting Gobekli Tepe * Correspondents + Jens Notroff + Oliver Dietrich + Andre Beuger + Lee Clare + Laura Dietrich + Jonas Breuers + Julia Gresky + Juliane Haelm * Contact * Legal Notice * Home * About * Gobekli Tepe Research + The Site + Research Staff + Affiliations + Publications * Press & Public + FAQ + Photos + Visiting Gobekli Tepe * Correspondents + Jens Notroff + Oliver Dietrich + Andre Beuger + Lee Clare + Laura Dietrich + Jonas Breuers + Julia Gresky + Juliane Haelm * Contact * Legal Notice [D4HT0OoX4AArUDG-676x957] Cereals, feasts and monuments at Gobekli Tepe 9. May 2019 / Oliver Dietrich / 5 Comments We were asked in comments and messages to elaborate some more on the contents of our recent paper. So here is a short summary of the article recently published in PLoS ONE. For more information on the findings outlined here, please consult the original publication: Dietrich L, Meister J, Dietrich O, Notroff J, Kiep J, Heeb J, et al. (2019) Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Gobekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0215214. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0215214 Cereal food is one of the most important components of our modern diet. Its integration into human subsistence strategy during the late Epipalaeolithic (c. 12500-9600 cal BC) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN, c. 9600-7000 cal BC) has been recognized as a very long and complex process involving the selection and utilization of plants, strategies of exploitation of plants and land, the development of cultivation, and ways of processing, storing, and consuming plants. Widespread adoption of farming and agriculture at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNB, c. 8800-7000 cal BC), the deliberate, large-scale cultivation of domesticated cereals and other plants, was predated by a longer period of experimentation and technological modification leading to the development of specialized tool kits for plant-food processing. Typical implements are e.g. pounding and grinding tools used in pairs, comprising a static low implement (mortar, grinding slab or grinding bowl) and an active upper tool that is moved across its surface (pestle or handstone). Cereal use in the Early Neolithic The regular processing of wild cereals through grinding seems to have been established first in the Late Natufian, as suggested by macrobotanical evidence as well as by morphological changes in grinding stones combined with use-wear analyses. Flat, large grinding stones and handstones became a supra-regional standard during the Levantine PPN, constituting an integral part of the architecture. Recent investigations have highlighted the area between the upper reaches of Euphrates and Tigris as one region where the transition to food-producing subsistence took place early during the Epipalaeolithic and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. The distribution areas of the wild forms of einkorn, emmer wheat, barley and other 'Neolithic founder crops' overlap here and DNA fingerprinting has pinpointed the transition of two wild wheat variants to domesticated crops to this part of the Fertile Crescent. Systematic early plant use has been found at a variety of sites, like Cafer Hoyuk, Cayonu, Hallan Cemi, Jerf el Ahmar or Kortik Tepe. Gobekli Tepe has not played any role in discussions of early cereal use so far. The reasons can be found - at least in part - in the problematic nature of direct evidence for cereals on site. Although analysis of macrobotanical remains indicates the presence of wild einkorn (Triticum cf. boeticum/urartu), wild barley (Hordeum cf. spontaneum) and possibly wild wheat/rye (Triticum/Secale), as well as almonds (Prunus sp.) and pistachio (Pistacia sp.) at Gobekli Tepe, only a conspicuously low amount of carbonized plant remains has been recovered, both in handpicked and in flotation samples. journal.pone.0215214.g007 Grinding tools from Gobekli Tepe. (A), (C) Neolithic handstones of type 1; (B) Neolithic handstone of type 2; (D) Experimental handstone of type 1, produced as copy of (C); (E, F) Neolithic grinding bowls (German Archaeological Institute, 3D-models H. Hohler-Brockmann and N. Schakel). However, Gobekli Tepe has not only produced an impressive set of architecture - monumental round to oval buildings with T-shaped limestone pillars, erected in an earlier phase, and smaller rectangular buildings, built around them in a partially contemporaneous and later phase - but also a unusually large number of over 7000 grinding tools. We analyzed these tools using an integrated approach of formal, experimental, and macro- / microscopical use-wear analyses. Gobekli Tepe As a first step in our analysis we had to determine the functional variation of these grinding tools, as a wide range of uses is attested archaeologically and ethnographically, ranging from cereal processing to pounding of meat or crushing of minerals. Grinding and pounding equipment from Gobekli Tepe was documented through 3D-modelling by structure from motion, and surfaces were macro- and microscopically analyzed for use-wear. We used replicas of the equipment identified on site to experimentally grind different materials and establish a reference collection for the identification of the observed traces. Further, phytolith samples taken from the sediments inside and outside buildings at Gobekli Tepe and from grinding stone surfaces allowed us to determine and quantify the presence of plants. Phytoliths were abundant in all nine soil samples examined, ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 million phytoliths per gram of sediment. Grass phytoliths were the most common group identified. The sediments inside the rectangular buildings largely contain markers for the upper and middle part of plants. This could be indicative of harvested cereals, as plants are usually collected and transported in sheaves. To contextualize the results, we assessed the spatial distribution of grinding equipment and identified potential activity areas. journal.pone.0215214.g010 We found that the most common types of handstones used at Gobekli Tepe show use-wear traces connected to cereal processing. Handstones with such traces concentrate in some of the rectangular buildings, but even more so in open spaces between and around them and the (at least partly) contemporary monumental round structures. Building D was taken as a case study to asses grinding stone use within the latter. There, grinding equipment from the deepest layer, which appears to be connected to the partially intentional refilling of the structure, also shows traces of ochre, indicating its processing in this structure. The overall quantity of 7268 analyzed grinding tools from Gobekli Tepe appears to be too high for simple daily use, given their relatively high productivity. A single handstone of the most common types could have produced an average of 4800 g flour within eight working hours, as our experiments show. If we assume that one person needs between 500 g and 1000 g of cereals daily as nutrients for survival, this amount would be enough to feed five to ten people. Interpretation The organization of work and food supply has always been a central question of research into Gobekli Tepe, as the construction and maintenance of the monumental architecture would have necessitated a considerable work force. Gobekli Tepe has a high concentration of distinctive architecture, often addressed as 'special buildings', which do not repeat the characteristic plans of domestic buildings from contemporaneous settlements. Extensively excavated settlement sites like Nevali Cori or Cayonu have one 'special building' per settlement phase, while Gobekli Tepe has several, likely contemporary buildings of this type, which different groups of people likely used. For the buildings excavated so far, we have observed certain regularities governing the decoration of the 69 known pillars-mostly with animal motifs, but also with abstract signs. While in building A snake images prevail, in building B foxes are dominant. In building C boar take over, and in building D the imagery is more diverse with birds, especially vultures, playing a significant role. In building H felines are of importance. We see these differences in figurative expression as evidence for different groups of people ornamenting the buildings with the emblematic animals central to their group identities. The site has also produced a wide range of stationary and portable art, far outnumbering such finds from other contemporary sites. Many of the animal and human depictions are clearly marked as male, there are almost no clearly recognizable female depictions, a situation contrary to the materials known from settlements. At the same time, Gobekli Tepe's remote location on a barren mountain ridge is very unusual compared to the setting of contemporaneous Neolithic settlements, which are regularly located next to water sources. The construction of monumental architecture at Gobekli Tepe, and other similar sites in its vicinity, would have necessitated a workforce of hundreds of people even by conservative estimates. One model to explain cooperation in small-scale communities involves ritualized work feasts. M. Dietler and E. Herbich define work feasts as events in which "commensal hospitality is used to orchestrate voluntary collective labour," the incentive to work together is provided by the prospect of large amounts of food and drink. The main archaeological marker for feasting would be evidence of the presence of larger amounts of foodstuffs and tools than needed by the inhabitants of a site for their subsistence. Through our analysis, we have identified evidence for Gobekli Tepe that fits that pattern for plant food. As no large storage facilities have been identified, we argue for a production of food for immediate consumption and interpret these seasonal peaks in activity at the site as evidence for the organization of large work feasts. This adds to archaeozoological data suggesting large-scale hunting of migratory gazelle between midsummer and autumn. cerealsfoodfood-productionGobeklitepeinnovation Previous post Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Gobekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey Next post "Hello? Is this thing on?" - Science communication, impact and relevance. On a personal note. 5 Comments 1. [11d1c00df72244e9] gunst01 9. May 2019 at 16:40 In the orientation of the landscape of Gobekli Tepe is also the purpose of the (temple complex) to recognize. Thus, the ridge extends exactly in the direction of the solstice. Just before dawn during the summer solstice, Deneb could also be seen from the constellation of the swan in the middle of the Milky Way in the northwest. The ridge could thus represent the Mlichstrasse and the pictures on the stele just this swan. On the evening of the winter solstice, Deneb's view was repeated, but now 6 degrees further north. Reply 2. [19cedefa9599bd13] Michel 30. May 2019 at 18:23 You state that each of the 7.268 grinding tools was enough for feeding at least 5 people. At a given moment, maybe all of these toolings were not functional or available. But are we talking of the ability to potentially feed several thousands of people in parallel ? Reply + [2a02668f29ec6373] Oliver Dietrich (Post author) 2. June 2019 at 8:03 7.268 is the total number of grinding implements analysed. This includes handstones, slabs etc. But feeding hundreds of people should have been possible, if there was enough grain available Reply o [19cedefa9599bd13] Michel 26. July 2019 at 8:58 Thanks for your answer ! Is there any possibility to date comparatively the over-consumption of animals and of cereals ? Or at least to date the first grinding implements of the site ? Reply o [d7a2bd430bc30c30] Robert Kerr 18. August 2019 at 14:34 If feasting was at least part of the attraction, and gazelle meat the principal element of the 'feasting' aspect, then does this not narrow down the time span of the annual great gathering to a few weeks, at best? The migration of the gazelle in the late summer to autumn period, and the mass trapping which ensued, would presumably draw upon the very people who constituted the work force? That seasonal gathering would surely have pre-dated the construction of the megaliths and have been subject to the same problems of food supply: unless the meat could be dried and stored, thus diminishing its festive nature (eating dried meat is hard work!), the throng would have dispersed fairly rapidly. Construction work, demanding many hands, would have had to occur within a short period and the workforce would then have been obliged to disperse. Would it be reasonable to assume a three week window of opportunity for the leaders and associated craftsmen to harness the muscle power needed once the gazelle hunt was over? Obviously the bulk of the specialized carving and site preparation would have to have been done before, necessitating a core group of specialists and they were presumably supported by others, forming a hierarchy of some sort. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment [ ] Name * [ ] Email * [ ] Website [ ] [Post Comment] Recent Posts * Happy Anniversary, DAI! * New publication: "Markers of 'Psychocultural' Change" * "Hello? Is this thing on?" - Science communication, impact and relevance. On a personal note. * Cereals, feasts and monuments at Gobekli Tepe * Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Gobekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey Search for: [ ] [Search] Recent Comments * Mehmet Kurtkaya on New publication: "Markers of 'Psychocultural' Change" * intp1 on New publication: "Markers of 'Psychocultural' Change" * Gobeklitepe Hakkinda Kisaca - Bilimma Bilim Haberleri on On the hunt, some 12.000 years ago: An aurochs bone with hunting lesion from Gobekli Tepe. * Buzzwords, Bogeymen, and Banalities of Pseudoarchaeology: Gobekli Tepe - Archaelogy Review - News247 on How old is it? Dating Gobekli Tepe. * Buzzwords, Bogeymen, and Banalities of Pseudoarchaeology: Gobekli Tepe - Archaelogy Review - VIP Tech on How old is it? Dating Gobekli Tepe. Tags agriculture animals archaeology architecture beer chronology closed conference construction dating enclosures excavation feasting fieldwork finds food food-production Gobeklitepe history of research iconography innovation interpretation lecture media neolithic outreach photography project pseudoarchaeology publication rebuttal religion report research ritual sanctuary scicomm sculptures shelter site symbolic T-pillars tools TV visiting (c) 2021 Tepe Telegrams Theme by Anders Noren -- Up |