Animal representations and animal remains at Çatalhöyük (original) (raw)
Related papers
Animal Figurines from Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Figural and Faunal Perspectives
This article presents a study of the zoomorphic figurine assemblage from Neolithic Çatalhöyük in central Turkey. Figurine manufacture, depositional condition and contexts of discard are discussed, to find that their fragmentation seems related to fabrication methods and use rather than intentional breakage. We show animal figurines deriving mostly from midden contexts, indicating an expediency in their use. Analysis then focuses on a sub-set of 104 relatively complete quadruped figurines. We introduce a method for transparently grouping them into morphological types, with the aim of querying whether they reflect actual animal forms, and if so, to explore representational variation and consistency within those forms. Three key findings emerge from this sub-study: 1) while ambiguity exists, many figurines strongly suggest real animal forms; while wide morphological variation is seen within ‘taxon’ groups, there are clear areas of consistency in depiction, implying an intention for recognition that persisted over extensive time periods; 2) across animal forms, careful attention is given to modelling heads, horns, tails, and sometimes neck and forequarters, showing a hierarchy in representation; 3) figurine makers at Çatalhöyük were adept at expressing different forms of the same animal type, adults and juveniles, removable features, animal movement, and occasionally very finely modelled forms. The combined evidence — viewed alongside the Çatalhöyük faunal remains and other animal portrayals — is employed to consider alternative interpretations of the figurines. While no one interpretation fits the highly varied assemblage, we argue that they most likely played roles in real everyday activities, such as animal exchange, herding, management, hunting and tracking, and thus reflect aspects of human–animal engagements not witnessed by other archaeological finds.
Following the publication of results on the Sarmatian animal bone assemblage found at Hajdúnánás-Fürjhalomdûlô, 1 this paper presents the archaeozoological analyses of the early medieval assemblage from the same site. By its 1,220 bone remains of which 1,038 pieces could be identified to species level, the assemblage represents one of the largest Árpád Period archaeozoological materials. Aside from the common archaeozoological interpretation, bone artefacts are also presented and discussed. This is the first time a bone anvil from the North-Eastern part of Hungary is being described.
“… Art made strong with bones”: A review of some approaches to osteoarchaeology
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 1991
The investigation of archaeological animal bone samples covers a vast spread of interests and, while we hope to see them all represented in future issues of this journal, it is impossible for us to discuss each within the limitations of space and our own expertise. We shall therefore highlight what we see as important recent developments, and point to a few directions in which we anticipate that useful work will be done in the future. Above all else, this is a personal view. The quote from Gosson 1 in our title refers to corsets in the original, but we feel it also well describes archaeology. Bone studies on a worldwide basis have recently seen a period of sustained growth. Few sites where any bones survive are now dug without some effort to recover them and make some arrangement for their study. Yet in our experience there are still many sites where little or no effort is made to ensure that the sampling method is adequate. Perhaps this is the fault of those who work on bones at least as much as those who dig them up. Was the site sieved? It is now nearly 20 years since Payne showed the impact of sieving on the numbers of identifiable bones that are recovered and on the proportions of the various species identified/ the demonstration was applied not only to bones but to other classes of archaeological data as well. Yet sites are still dug with no sieving! Should we study samples with such built-in bias? Perhaps the answer should be 'no', but we must remember that a good deal of bone work in Britain is done on a short term contract basis, and the people who are forced to
The recently discovered Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Göbekli Tepe (SE-Turkey) is unparalleled in its architecture and art. The latter is particularly rich in animal depictions -stone figurines, sculptures and megalithic pillars decorated with bas-reliefs -and illustrates the prominent role animals played in the spiritual world of PPN human groups frequenting the site. Up to now, ten vertebrate taxa could be identified, nine of which also appeared in the archaeofaunal record of the site. Discussion focussed upon the possible role of the animal species figured at Göbekli Tepe, in particular whether the space demarcated by the pillars could have witnessed the performance of hunting rituals, initiation and passage rites, spiritual encounters or funeral practices. In view of our limited knowledge about the role animals played in the symbolic world of the PPN, in particular with respect to the logic and metaphysics governing the choice of species, the question of what purpose the enclosures served will take much more time to be properly answered.
The animal osteological material recovered during excavations in 1953, 1994-1995 and 2007 was analysed. A total of 29,302 bones and teeth were evaluated (Tab. 1). The studied material is rather fragmentary. The bones are incomplete except for two mammoth teeth.