Figurines Uncorrected Second Proof

Substantive Technologies at
atalhyk
Reports from the 20002008 Seasons
atalhyk Research Project Series Volume 9
Edited by
Ian Hodder
BRITISH INSTITUTE AT ANKARA

BIAA Monograph No. 48?
Monumenta Archaeologica 30?
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press
Published by the British Institute at Ankara

c/o The British Academy, 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH
and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA
308 Charles E. Young Dr. N, A163 Fowler, Los Angeles, CA 90095
UK distributor: Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN

USA distributor: University of New Mexico Press, 1717 Roma Ave. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN 978 1 898249 31 3

BIAA Monograph no. 47? ISSN 0969-9007 (British Institute at Ankara)
Monumenta Archaeologica 30? (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA)
Copyright 2013 British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara; Regents of the University of California
All rights reserved. [ Printed in the United States of America ?]
The British Institute at Ankara (BIAA), one of the British Academys overseas institutes, has promoted worldclass research in Turkey and the Black Sea region in the fields of history, archaeology and related social sciences since its foundation in 1947. The BIAA publishes scholarly monographs relating to the archaeology and
history of Turkey, with a particular emphasis on publishing the results of Institute-funded research.
The British Institute at Ankara Publications Editorial Board
Dr Glnur Aybet
Ms Gina Coulthard
Dr Tamar Hodos
Professor Roger Matthews
Professor Stephen Mitchell
Dr Claire Norton
Dr Lutgarde Vandeput
Printed by . . . .
Chapter 12
Figurine Worlds at atalhyk
Carolyn Nakamura & Lynn Meskell
Among archaeological materials, figurines sustain extraordinary expectations. Commonly evoking comparisons to dolls,
toys, or votive statues, figurines seem to effortlessly engender
anthropocentric narratives constructed around the extension
or exploration of self and the actualization of desire. Context is often overlooked as viewers become fixated on the
thing itself the thing that will somehow magically reveal
ancient social relations and meanings beyond the functional,
economic and rational spheres of everyday life. There are
numerous well-exercised critiques that trouble this simplistic
view of things, from the problematic separation of instrumental and symbolic spheres of life (Keane 2010) to the automatic assumption that the powerful excess of things exactly
that which sustains desire, self-reflection and fetishization
universally orients towards religious beliefs (Bailey 2005;
Meskell 2007; Nanoglou 2009).
At atalhyk, figurines considered in context turn our
attention to the extraordinary ordinariness of figurine practices. Resisting our most dogged expectations about figurines
and their visually evocative forms, the atalhyk figurines
do not easily accommodate narratives of the sacred or the
sublime. Regardless of shape, material or size, figurines
(mostly figurine fragments) are ubiquitous (1,930 found to
date) at the site, and appear primarily in room fill and middens. Animal and generic bodily forms predominate and all
forms almost exclusively derive from secondary deposition
contexts. Contrasting Mellaarts findings, the current excavations have found very few female figurines and none occur on
platforms or floors. Unlike other kinds of materials, figurines
were never cached or placed in burials. What is clear is that
figurines were disposable in a way that some other objects
were not. This might suggest a more contingent and perhaps
bounded lifecycle, perhaps attached to particular events,
lives or houses. Such findings challenge or at least reorient
the transcendent status generally assumed for figural objects.
While the secondary depositional contexts of figurines
present a distinct challenge for the interpretation of figurine
lifecycles and worlds, our work investigates various aspects
of production, circulation, practice and disposal where possible. Since 2004 we have established and refined a systematic recording and data entry system in order to facilitate the
quantification and analysis of figurine patterning across the
site and in relation to other material data. Using this database, we have quantified and published on the distribution
of figurine types and densities (Meskell et al. 2008), and the

exaggeration, abbreviation and specificity of certain bodily traits vis--vis ideas of mature and generic bodies (Nakamura & Meskell 2009). Meskell (2008) has also explored
practices of embedding and enfleshment across datasets; and
we have also explored themes of mobility and circulation,
animality, the connection between the human, animal and ancestral worlds, and visualization techniques (see www.figurines.stanford.edu) in the annual archive reports. We have
collaborated with Chris Doherty and Jess Aviss on sourcing
and identifying the clay and stone materials. Our aim in the
present chapter is to revisit and summarize our main findings
thus far, and to further expand on certain aspects and themes,
provide a regional comparison with other Neolithic figurine
assemblages, and present revised figurine distributions under
the new levels system.
Recording the figurines

A broader goal of the atalhyk project is to produce research that works across various fields and material datasets.
With this in mind, we adopted a shared vocabulary between
clay specialists working on ceramics, clay balls and building materials. We have accordingly dispensed with previous
terminologies used by Mellaart and Hamilton (1996) such as
humanoid, ex voto, schematic, mother goddess, fat
lady etc., as these labels carry with them various ossified
connotations that tend to over-interpret and universalize the
meaning of figurines.
The database aspect of the project anchored very productive critical discussions concerning traditional figurine category constructions and studies. Two main concerns informed
the database design process: 1) the rethinking of the taxonomic architecture towards more open and balanced figurine
research, and 2) the goal of integration between the figurine
corpus and other data sets that share common material fabrics, representational forms and technologies, thus promoting
collaborative and cross-field research.
Our clay and stone materials fall under the Object Category of figurines and within this first order designation,
we divide the materials by Object Type into figural, indeterminate, non-diagnostic, and geometric figurines. We
are most concerned with the first two categories; figural
201
Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons
Figure 12.2. Zoomorphic (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).

Figure 12.1. Abbreviated (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).
indicates clearly recognizable figurine forms and fragments
thereof, while indeterminate designates probable figurine
fragments that display some kind of trait characteristic of a
known figurine form. The designation non-diagnostic refers to shaped clay that is suggestive of a figurine form but
is otherwise unidentifiable. The difference between indeterminate and non-diagnostic is ostensibly a matter of degree;
indeterminate pieces are suggestive enough for us to assign
them a form (anthropomorphic, zoomorphic or abbreviated),
while non-diagnostics remain too ambiguous for us to surmise anything about the original form. Finally, we do occasionally come across pieces that appear to be bead blanks,
miniature clay balls, or geometric forms. While most of these
have been reallocated to other specialists, some ambiguous
pieces remain in our database.
The choice of the word figural for our materials is wellconsidered here. Figural (as in figuration) denotes a form of
signification that relies on imagery and association rather
than on rational or linguistic concepts. This is both a more
fitting and flexible definition than the more common term
of representation, which entails a remove from the real;
it depicts an image, likeness, rendition or perception of a
thing based on a mimetic relationship with the real. It is
not enough, however, to say that these figurines were representations or visual proxies, as we contend that they were
things in themselves with their own spheres of interaction.
Figurines did not necessarily stand in for something real as
a reflection of that reality of someone or something. And
while this is not tantamount to arguing for figurines as necessarily agentic beings (Meskell 2004; 2007; Mitchell 2005),
such possibilities should not be dismissed from the outset
through an elision of language.
The next level of the categorization is Object Form,
which divides figural and indeterminate forms into anthro-
pomorphic, zoomorphic, abbreviated, phallomorphic forms.

While terms such as anthropomorphic (humans) and zoomorphic (animals) are rather self-evident, we devised the
category abbreviated to account for the broad range of
generic bodily types that typically present only a head and
torso on a base; in some cases these figures also depict the
suggestion of lower limbs. These forms are ambiguous depictions of generic bodies that may evoke a human, animal
or hybrid appearance (Fig. 12.1). The classification phallomorphic refers to figural artifacts that emulate the form of
male genitalia. Some examples are explicit and echo the now
famous examples of male imagery found at sites including
Gbekli and Nevali ori (Hauptmann 2007; Schmidt 2002).
Those examples that combine aspects of various forms (anthropomorphic, zoomorphic (Fig 12.2), abbreviated, phallomorphic) have additionally been designated as cross-over
forms under Composition. Such hybridity is also expressed
through the three-dimensional forms of figurines, as some
examples seem to evoke different form types when viewed
from different perspectives (e.g., 10264.x1: human/phallus,
Mellet.167.1: human/animal, 12401.x7: human/skeleton).
Other aspects that we record include dimensions and
weight, pose/posture, sex features, miscellaneous representational details, condition and fragmentation, materials and
manufacture, and treatment and elaboration. All finds from
the Hodder excavations are photographed and a range of examples is drawn.
Figurines as process at atalhyk

Moving away from an interpretive focus on figurines as an
end product, our research situates the figurine as process.
Such a perspective explores the various stages in the life of a
figurine. From the selecting and gathering of raw materials to
the making, use and deposition of figurines all these activi-
202
Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds
ties represent a set of choices and processes embedded in a

particular social world. While it is possible that figurine materials collection and manufacture might have been guarded
knowledge, shared by a few, our evidence suggests that the
making of clay figurines occurred in or around houses, certainly in a domestic context using materials readily at hand.
The ubiquity of good quality clay adjacent to the site (Doherty
& Camizuli 2008) and the fairly simple-to-make forms also
suggest that figurine work could have been widely practiced
and commonplace. If we turn to stone, we think that most of
the stone came from within a 20 km radius of the site, speleothems from a greater distance (70150 km). The individual
variation across the figural forms also suggests many people
were fabricating figurines in and around settlement much of
the time. This accords well with our spatial analysis (Meskell
et al. 2008) that demonstrates higher densities of figurines in
external areas and middens than in houses and none located
within burials. The residents of atalhyk would have had
easy access to the materials and, in the short space of time it
takes to shape abbreviated forms, people could have made
them at regular intervals.
We might posit that the people who made the clay figurals were different from the individuals who carved the stone
pieces. Stone carving and clay shaping are different skill sets;
the former requires specific tools and carefully selected materials, while the latter does not. It is also possible that the
larger, more elaborate stone and clay pieces belong to the
same category, while the abbreviated and zoomorphic figurines belong to another category. Researchers tend to put all
figural types together under the heading of figurines, but perhaps the informal clay examples are really a different sort of
thing not because they are crude, as some would say, but
rather because of their simplicity and frequency. As opposed
to pieces that demanded a more intensive time investment
and skill set, the generic forms could have served a much
more spontaneous and expedient purpose. While there are
few points of aesthetic contact between these groups of objects, there is some common ground. Not only do all figurines
appear to end up in secondary deposition contexts regardless
of form or material, there is also a notable diversity within the
various form types. For instance, some expediently-made human figures appear to have detachable, movable heads. This
feature is suggestive of a general idea of transforming figurine identities by their appearance.
Albeit difficult to reconstruct, we might posit that everyday social lives may have incorporated much image making, from the repeated layers of wall painting, embedding and
plastering parts of animals, to decorating with stamp seals
on skin or fabrics, crafting items of personal adornment, and
of course making figurines. Given the quantity of clay scrap
(over 500 on last count) and non-diagnostic pieces found
widely distributed in midden and buildings, we might suggest
that figurine making occurred in and around houses and did
not explicitly occur off-site. Given the dispersal too, we can

deduced that figurine production did not happen in one building or area, but occurred across the site. Most figurines are
only lightly baked, either sun dried or baked by hearths or ovens, again in domestic contexts. To date, there is no evidence
for specially built kilns at atalhyk and, as with other clay
objects, these were exposed to heat during other processes of
cooking, burning, and heating or lighting houses. These were
all public activities or, at least, household practices.
The issue of when figurines were finished items is a provocative one. We only have to think of Cycladic examples
that we now know were painted to recall that our aestheticized image of pristine, minimal and modernist bodies is a
misnomer. The atalhyk figurines, whether clay or stone,
may have had secondary materials added to their bodies; certainly many examples were painted, but more than that, organic items can be imagined: cloth, skin, fabric, grass, beads,
feathers, fur, leather, string and so on. These may have come
on and off, similar to the detachable heads, for various moments and contexts, whether everyday events, seasons, ceremonies, rituals or narratives. We can thus posit moments of
dressing, clothing, decorating or alternatively undressing, all
of which require moving and handling all of which are
processes. Given that we have various examples of figurines
pierced around the face, ears and hair, their makers could
have had attached organics or beads and so on. We need only
think of the myriad figures from other cultures, historic and
contemporary, that have grasses, string, human hair, leather
or feathers attached.
Figures were likely moved about extensively during their
use lives as well, and it is unlikely that they were static and
sitting about or installed in shrines. Many cannot stand unaided like some of the detailed anthropomorphic and phallic
forms (e.g. 10475.x2, 1505.x1, 2910.x1, 15839.x10, 11324.
x3). Some types, notably the abbreviated and headless bodies, do tend to be free standing, suggesting possibly different contexts of use. Maybe these types could be temporarily
arranged within buildings or on rooftops, while other forms
were worn, handled or circulated more regularly. Small clay
human and animal forms might have been collected together
in small skin or woven bags, worn or carried, as evidenced in
other ethnographic contexts. They could have been carried
together with other evocative objects such as pebbles or speleothem crystals, objects of amuletic value, organics, bone
objects decorative and functional, or other types of miniatures. If we think of Native American fetishes (Fane et al.
1991), these were often carried or worn on the person and
treated like the animal spirit that it manifests.
While we cannot obviously observe the original use lives
of figurines from the excavation and contextual data retrieved,
we know from their use-wear, damaged state and their final
deposition in fill, that they were not like cult statues destined to spend their lifetimes sitting it out upon alters and
203
Production: materials, technology

and sourcing
(with contributions by Jeff Aviss
& Chris Doherty)
atalhyk figurines are predominantly made from
clay, although there are a few examples rendered
in stone including marble, limestone, pebbles and
speleothems. The figurines present particular difficulties for intensive clay fabric study, since the
Figure 12.3. Upper alluvial: 17049.x1 (left, Photograph by Jason objects cannot be exported or be subjected to deQuinlan), microscopic photo of clay composition (right, Photograph by structive analysis. Given the impossibility of petrographic analysis, the best strategy for ascertaining
Jeff Aviss).
the range of materials and treatments for clay figurine fabrics must derive from a good understanding
of the local geology. Recent coring has produced
a clearer picture of the alluvial landscape around
the site. Dohertys findings (Doherty & Camizuli
2008, 257258) with respect to the figurine clays
demonstrates that the range of fabrics represented
tend to be finer and more clay rich that those of
other clay artifacts. This is consistent with the demands of these relatively small forms to cope with
high curvatures across relatively small diameters.
Both contemporary alluvial clays and the underFigure 12.4. Upper lower alluvial: 14997.x1 (left, Photograph by Jason lying Pleistocene lacustrine sediments were used,
Quinlan), microscopic photo of clay composition (right, Photograph by both being procured in the immediate vicinity of
Jeff Aviss).
the mounds. None of the figurine clays are tempered; all are naturally fine sediments. Finally, figpedestals (contra Mellaart 1964; 1967) that were separated urines have not been fired to pottery-making temperatures,
from human affairs, both spatially and temporally (Nanoglou although some do appear to have been hardened through
2008b, 319). Even when the current project has excavated heat. The vast majority are best described as baked, whether
buildings like B.77 and B.52 that have been burned, acciden- directly sun baked or in association with ovens and hearths
tally or intentionally (Twiss et al. 2008) and thus preserving a within buildings. Color is also affected by heat exposure;
fuller range of household features and objects, they have not further experimental study on local clays at different firing
located complete figurines on floors, platforms or in niches. temperatures may allow us to approximate the levels of heat
Rather than objects of distanced veneration, we argue that or baking that was required to produce the specific range of
these objects were incorporated into practice, a moving and colors seen in figurine fabrics. It is likely that we do not have
mobile suite of embodied actions and ideas. The significance figurines that have been subjected to high firing ,given the
of these objects was formed through action, not in isolation or features observed to date.
Most of the clay figurines could be described as manudistanced contemplation. They were things to be used.
It is not only in the interpretive sphere we need to refig- factured from fine, naturally clean clays. People chose clays
ure the corpus and consider process, circulation and mobility. within close proximity to the site that were similarly the
Archaeologists tend to publish figurines in static and unmov- best fabric for crafting the expedient, small, well-smoothed,
ing genres, diligently producing technical drawings that place sturdy figural pieces. Fabric with more inclusions or a highfigurines in their sitting, upright postures. By showing vari- er sand content would have required more effort (working,
ous views of these objects, we exhibit the possibilities that modeling, smoothing and heating) to achieve a similar end
figurines were handled, moved and thus viewed in a variety product. Building on this work, Jeff Avis examined the clay
of positions. Video recording also challenges the static ren- fabrics of some 250 figurines from 20072008 in order to asderings we are familiar with and brings the figurines to life, certain a range of common figurine fabrics and his new Clay
allowing us to recreate a process of handling, turning and cir- Fabric recording system was directly integrated into the figurine database.
culating figurines.
204
Production techniques
Figurine manufacture appears to have employed relatively simple techniques. Although we have not x-rayed any figurines
to confirm the production techniques used,
most figurines appear to be fashioned from
a single piece of clay; this is certainly the
case for abbreviated forms. Animal figurines
also suggest modeling from a single piece of
clay. If the limbs were added on to the torso
as separately formed pieces, we might ex- Figure 12.5. Middle lower alluvial: 15857.x1, microscopic photo of clay compect to see particular breakage patterns along position (right, Photograph by Jeff Aviss).
the limb joins, as these would be the weakest joins. To date, none have shown any evidence for this technique, as breaks occur at
various points along the limbs, and across
the torso, neck and back. The one exception to this technique may be found with the
horns. Some horns that are broken around
the base to reveal slightly concave/irregular
surfaces, suggest that these were attached
to another piece, presumably a head. Many
animal heads, however, still bear horns
that were broken further up the shaft or are
completely intact. The anthropomorphic exFigure 12.6. Low lower alluvial: 14183.H7, microscopic photo of clay compoamples also generally appear to be manufacsition (right, Photograph by Jeff Aviss).
tured from a single piece of clay, although
there is at least one example on which the
breasts and belly were applied separately
(13103.x19). Incised details sometimes occur on the face, head and body (15 count).
The clay examples range from being fine
to coarse manufactured. The majority of anthropomorphic forms are finely modeled,
the abbreviated ones are predominantly
fine to moderate and zoomorphic figurines
are largely moderate in regard to modeling
quality. In the anthropomorphic set, the finer
examples often show well-proportioned if
not realistic renderings of the human form.
Figure 12.7. Black organic: 15755.H4, microscopic photo of clay composition
In the zoomorphic group, the finer examples
(right, Photograph by Jeff Aviss).
are often quite small and sometimes suggest an attempt to depict a specific species
of animal such as a sheep/goat, boar, ram or bear. When we technology in the Neolithic, but perhaps the salient issue is
discover horns as separate fragments, they are typically fine that the production of clay things was made through an ador fine to moderate and this may be due to the clay fabric ditive process which included gathering raw clay, fuel and
being particularly well-suited for rendering small, compact anything else important, and profoundly transforming the
and simple forms. On the extreme of the coarse side, we have raw material from malleable soil to something more durable.
several quadrupeds that appear to have been made just for Even if our clay figurines at atalhyk were sun dried or
disfigurement as they were stabbed, deformed and broken lightly baked or passively baked, this process of sourcing,
while the clay was still fresh (see discussion below).
manipulating and treating was still operative. Alternatively,
Nanoglou (2008b, 318) argues that baking clay was a new manufacturing stone figurines entailed the use of ground
205
Figurine Type
Anthropomorphic
Abbreviated
Zoomorphic
F
65
57
F-M
M-C
TOTAL
33
117
42
99
8
16
13
23
161
312
52
65
116
47
60
340
Horns
136
114
91
16
364
Total
310
329
348
87
103
1177
Table 12.1. Modeling quality by figurine form.

stone technology, a practice that removes part of the raw material, instead of adding to it, of employing one kind of stone
upon another to bring about a transformation that revealed
the image, rather than modeling it. There are two different
skill sets involved and the technique of stone carving enables
a capacity for both bodily complexity and pared-down forms
(e.g. 1505.x1, 10475.x2, 15839.x10). Stone sourcing, while
relatively local (which could be within as little as a 20 km radius), involves more energy and labor than walking 100 m off
site and digging down to procure clay for figurines (Doherty
& Camizuli 2008).
Between 2003 and 2008, the excavations recovered
seven figural stone figurines, all but one of which were anthropomorphic figures. While we might expect that carved
stone pieces (with their more intensive investments of labor)
would have been regarded as more precious or more ritually
charged pieces than the more ubiquitous and easier to make
clay forms, stone and clay figurines were not differentially
treated in terms of deposition (Meskell et al. 2008, Table 2)
and stone examples are similarly found in external areas and
in middens and house fills.
Mellaart asserted that stone figurines pre-dated, and
served as models for, the later clay examples (1963, 81). We
have stone figurines in relatively small numbers in the early
levels and thence throughout the sequence. In total, some 60
stone figurines have been recorded; 39 of those derive from
Mellaarts excavations and 21 from our own. Most of the notable published finds come from the 1960s and were supposedly concentrated around Mellaarts Level VI (South N-O).
Our work has revealed a single example in Level South L (a
stone phallus) and then other examples much higher up from
Levels South Q-T. Mellaart treated stone figurines preferentially, suggesting that these were cult statues (1967, 178)
and clay examples were ex voto copies. He went as far as likening them to cult statues in churches (1967, 179), though
as he rightly states, there is a vast diversity of stone figurine
types executed at various levels of representational accuracy.
Those examples found during the 1960s tend to be of a more
narrative character, on the one hand showing humans and
animals or multiple human bodies or, alternatively, schematic
and ambiguous forms.
Stone figurines at atalhyk are anthropomorphic rather
than zoomorphic and those that Mellaart recorded were a
Figure 12.8. Very worn obsidian blades possibly used for

stone carving.
mix of female, male and ambiguously sexed examples. Some
combine male figures with animal heads protruding from
their abdominal regions. He also found associated collections
of stalactites and concretions with stone figurines (Mellaart
1964, 75). The current project has neither found the number
nor this type of clustering of natural and cultural artifacts. At
least one figurine, however, described below in detail, has
been carved from natural speleothem. Mellaart also referred
to buildings with concentrations of schematic figurines
(Leopard Shrine or E.VI.44, E.VI.10, Boars Head Shrine
E.VIB.45, see (Mellaart 1964). Karen Wright (pers. comm.)
suspects several of these were unfinished figurines and that
their manufacture may have taken place in those buildings,
although this requires further investigation. Some examples
have very few markings or elaboration, such as eyes. Yet the
abbreviated forms in clay were also considered finished objects that may possibly have signified other ideas or sentiments.
Limestone is both durable and very workable. Manufacture of stone objects such as figurines mostly involves carving and abrasion. The stone examples have been inscribed
most likely with obsidian tools that we have located in their
reduced and abraded state (Fig. 12.8). Very hard marl figurines like 11324.x3 were also sometimes carved (possibly
also 2910.x1, 5446.x1, 13143.x4, 6260.x1). Obsidian tools
have been found in the South Area (B.56, B.44, B.65, B.69)
and IST Area (Carter et al. 2006, 261) and could suggest a
concentration of production in this part of the site, as opposed to the 4040 Area (B.47, B.58). One broken obsidian
tool (10264.x24, 1.16 cm x 0.75 cm x 0.05 cm) was found
in B.58 in conjunction with the large stone figurine (10264.
x1 discussed below) that was probably carved with such an
implement. The blade was polished all round, with use wear
on one side. This unit was in the southern part of the building
206
and formed a cluster associated with ceramics, bone, obsidian, shell, stone and plant remains. Both obsidian and flint are siliceous,
hard, and capable of forming sharp edges and
would have been expedient tools for crafting
stone figurines. Many ground stone artifacts
present at the site could have been employed
in craft activity, with very small hand-held
tools ranging from rough andesite, pumice,
phyllites schists, and sandstones (Baysal &
Wright 2006).
0
2.5 cm
10264.x1 is a limestone anthropomorphic
figure discovered in 2004 with a long neck Figure 12.9. Limestone figurine 10264.x1 (9.31 cm H, 4.55 cm W, 4.53 cm Th,
and carved face (Fig. 12.9). Eyes are indicat- 203 g) (Illustration by John Swogger).
ed by two inward slanting, incised slashes;
the carved nose gently protrudes from the
face. The head is delineated from the neck
by a smoothly carved line, and the neck is
differentiated from the body by a similar but
slightly coarser line at the neck/torso interface. The upper torso shape is suggestive of
shoulders and arms crossed over the chest
to meet in front. A wide, smoothed groove
separates the upper and the lower torso and
is aligned with the upper torso in front, but
0
2.5 cm
extends outward in the rear, emphasizing the
buttocks. Although unsexed, there is some
ambiguity since the overall shape of the Figure 12.10. 10475.x2 (7.5 cm H, 4.9 cm W, 3.5 cm Th, 84 g) (Illustration by
head and neck appears phallic. There is dark John Swogger).
brown discoloring on the face and left arm/
chest, and a wide band of reddish-brown coloring in the wide groove/waist on the back. It
shares some similarities with Final Neolithic
Cycladic and Cypriot Neolithic figurines. It
was found in Sp.227, in a room located west
of B.47 in the 4040 Area, dating to Level
4040 G. 10264.x1 was part of a cluster of
objects additionally comprised of obsidian,
worked stone and bone, and animal bone.
0
2.5 cm
The cluster was found in compacted earth
close to a plastered floor beneath refuse fill
Figure 12.11. 12102.x1 (Illustration by John Swogger).
and wall collapse.
10475.x2 is a robust female figure
carved from speleothem (a secondary calcite growth from tion of hair or a head-cap. Voids are present on the bottom of
a cave or fractured limestone environment) with divided the legs due to the form of the speleothem and between the
legs, large buttocks, and a slightly protruding stomach (Fig. chest and arms (larger on the left side) and there is a deep
12.10). The figure holds its arms up to its breasts and incised groove on the top of the head. The orange staining on the
lines indicate the breast divide, pubic triangle/stomach, and upper back, buttocks, down the back/side of left leg, around
divided legs on the front. Incised marks delineate arms, di- the neck, face and top of head is due to iron impurities in
vided legs and a horizontal detail across the upper legs on the groundwater. Speleothems have been documented in the
the back. The head and face appear to have been worked, amlik caves south of Beyehir Lake in the Konya region
but possibly modified or defaced, suggesting that no facial approximately 70 km away; other locations are about 180
details were executed or were removed. There is a sugges- km away. This figurine was excavated in 2004 from Sp.202
207
Form
Figural
Indeterminate
Total
% of corpus
Anthropomorphic
Zoomorphic
Quadrupeds
Horns
Abbreviated
Non-diagnostic
Other (phallomorphic, geometric, misc.)
Total
190
597
290
286
289
1075
74
328
40
239
57
458
264
925
330
525
346
386
10
1930
14%
48%
17%
27%
18%
20%
0.1%
Table 12.2. Figurine forms (all).
Figure 12.12. 15839.x10 (1.61 cm H, 1.2

cm W, 0.82 cm Th, 2 g) (Photograph by
Jason Quinlan).
in B.42 in the South Area (Level South R). This unit represents a very mixed deposit of re-deposited fill of a disturbed
grave. Intrusive midden-like deposits also complicate this
context.
Figurine 12102.x1 (Fig. 12.11) was found in midden in
the 4040 Area during 2005. It was deliberately and carefully
beheaded in a series of actions that might suggest a link
between craft and ritual and between figurine practice and
burial practice (Meskell & Nakamura 2005). Karen Wright
believes that a head was originally attached to the neck stump
because of the small remaining area of curvature rising from
the shoulders. A close examination of the neck reveals that the
break has been carefully executed at precisely the same point
all around the neck. She argues that since the neck is quite
thick relative to the shoulder area, the detachment cannot be
attributed to simple breaking; marble does not fracture in this
neat way. Furthermore, the neck stump was abraded down to
form a flat surface, although the grinding was not to the same
level of fineness as on the rest of the artifact (Wright, pers.
comm.). This particular figurine confirms the idea that head
removal on figurines was quite deliberate rather than accidental, and all indications are that it held special significance
at atalhyk, since it also occurs in a range of context from
human burial, treatment of animal remains and the plastering of animal heads including cattle, fox, vultures and so on
(Meskell 2008).
Although the neck and head are missing, it is likely that
this piece is similar to the example found in Sp.227 in 2004
(10475.x2). Another example of a removed limestone head

can be seen on a figurine now in Ankara (79-8-65). This pattern also connects with the clay figurine assemblage where
there are several headless bodies that have dowel holes in
the neck and also several corresponding heads (Nakamura &
Meskell 2006). The ability of figurines to be malleable and to
change identities through the transfer of heads (or change of
viewing angle) presents an interesting set of possibilities and
leads us away from static forms into the notion of figurine as
process (Meskell 2007).
During 2008, a miniature figurine was recovered from the
TP Area (15839.x10) delicately carved from stone, possibly
marble (Fig. 12.12). This tiny and complete figurine exhibits very exaggerated thighs that are voluminous and fleshy.
While there are no explicit breasts indicated, the arms are
underscored by a fine, incised line. A pubic triangle is represented and incised as part of the demarcation of the legs.
In fact, most of the bodily detail is accomplished with great
economy of line. The buttocks are exaggerated, detailed and
the overall form is the shelf-bottom that we have increasingly noted throughout the corpus. Incised lines demarcate
the legs. The head is just a simple knob lacking in any detail.
The overall shape is triangular and emphasizes the fleshy female, human form.
Figurine distributions: counts and densities

Contrary to popular ideas, the atalhyk figurine corpus
suggests a particular attention to the animal world. The zoomorphic forms about half of the entire collection depict
various quadrupeds. The corpulent female figurines, foregrounded and published by Mellaart, are not representative
of the wider atalhyk figurine corpus. Female forms comprise less than three per cent of the entire assemblage, and
human forms in general comprise the smallest percentage of
the corpus (14 per cent human; see Table 12.1). Abbreviated
forms, which may evoke human or animal traits, are the second most common form; their numbers, however, are more
on par with the human rather than animal forms.
208
Preservation and fragmentation

Preservation
Anthro
Zoo
Abbreviated
Total
Most of the figurines we find are fragmentary. The abbrevi- Complete
25
27
36
88
ated forms seem to remain the most intact (46 per cent are Possibly complete
2
7
2
11
complete to nearly complete), but this might be due to the Nearly complete
25
39
62
126
fact that they have fairly simple and compact forms. Anthro- Fragment >50%
15
64
48
127
pomorphic forms also remain fairly intact with 40 per cent Fragment <50%
51
277
56
384
of this type remaining complete to nearly complete, while Fragment unknown
12
100
14
126
complete to nearly complete zoomorphic forms comprise
only 14 per cent of that (Table 12.2). This patterning again Table 12.3. Preservation of figurines (excluding Mellaart
makes sense from a formal perspective; compared to human materials).
and generic bodies, zoomorphic forms include more appendages such as legs, ears and horns. Such traits would be more changes or differences in depositional patterning along these
prone to breaking off from the body. As we have discussed axes. After working at the site for six seasons, however, we
elsewhere (Nakamura & Meskell 2009), human figurines have realized that a number of different factors make this kind
demonstrate an attention to the fleshy parts of the torso and of intra-site comparison challenging. For instance, although
much less concern for distinctly delineated arms, legs and all excavation teams at the site use the MoLA single-context
other features. Consequently, human forms present relatively recording methodology, the various teams and areas (BACH,
compact bodies that, like abbreviated forms, might remain TP, IST, South, 4040, KOPAL) with their distinct excavation
programs and methodologies inevitably produce different armore intact when discarded.
Specific patterns of fragmentation in figurines may in chaeological records. Whereas the BACH team spent five
some cases, suggest a kind of intentional behavior. Talalay seasons excavating a single building (B.3), ultimately recov(1993), Chapman (2000) and others have studied patterns of ering 109 figurine fragments, excavators in other areas dug
breakage in figurine object assemblages from various con- entire buildings in one season. Furthermore, since excavatexts and argued certain functions of object use. With these tions are ongoing and many buildings and spaces are only
studies in mind, we started recorded fragmentation patterns partially excavated, figurine counts alone might skew potenamongst the figurine assemblage from the outset. However, tial patterning around frequency, circulation and discard. In
upon reviewing the fragmentation patterns there is no evi- order to mitigate this effect, we have worked with figurine
dence for the practice of intentional breakage. Most fractures densities (number of figurines per kilolitre of soil removed)
occur at the weakest points and no one portion or part of the in addition to basic counts.
body demonstrates substantially more breaks than any other;
In order to get at both site-wide and localized patterning,
this pattern occurs across all figurine forms (Table 12.4).
we analyzed volumes of sieved fill material from individual
houses and middens to ascertain the density and type of figuDepositional practices
rines present (Fig. 12.13). Our results found that more figuFigurines almost exclusively derive from secondary depo- rines came from external areas, mostly from middens (569),
sition contexts, including most of those found in floor, and significantly less from fill in between walls (50). One nocluster and activity areas. To date, the Hodder project has table pattern that emerges in the comparison of building and
retrieved only one figurine from a secure primary con- non-building deposition across the site is that the distribution
text (14522.x3), although there may be a few others pos- of figurine types remains the same (Tables 12.6 & 12.7). Zoosibly deriving from primary units (see Hamilton 2006). morphic forms dominate, followed by abbreviated forms and
Given this depositional pattern, one of our first goals was then anthropomorphic forms both inside and outside of buildto perform a site-wide analysis of the figurine assemblage ings. Although not conclusive in itself, this general result supthrough time and across space in order to investigate any ports the idea that figurines were in circulation and not kept and
Head - Top
Horn
Face
Nose
Ears
Neck
Shoulder/Arm
Torso/Waist
Legs
Feet
Base
Anthro
30
24
24
12
Zoo
24
20
24
32
86
Abbreviated
31
11
83
53
13
Total
39
24
12
12
21
65
26
139
151
19
Table 12.4. Breakage patterns in figural examples.

209
Figurine numbers
Dry sieve vol.

(kL)
Density
(total
figs/kL)
Level
Bldg/Space
I (T)
B.10
0.497
II (S)
B.44
5.027
1.194
B.56
0.01
900
Sp.259
5.735
B.42/B.29
1.999
3.001
B.65
0.03
233.333
Sp.260
3.345
2.093
B.75
0.49
8.163
Sp.333/Sp.332/Sp.3
29
12
16
3.376
4.739
Sp.261
3.67
1.635
B.53
11
4.936
2.229
B.79
12.66
B.80
15.22
B.21
III (R)
IV (Q)
V (P)
VIA (O)
VIII (L)
ANTH
ZOO
ABBR
NOND
TOTAL
B.7
0.36
B.6
12
26.749
0.449
B.43
2.76
B.22/B.16
0.467
12.848
B.17
18
36.778
0.489
B.23
9.365
0.534
B.18
11
5.525
1.991
XI (I)
Sp.198
1.715
0.583
XII (H)
Sp.199
5.3
1.132
Pre-XII
(G)
Sp.181
31
42
80
22.435
3.566
IX (K)
X (J)
Table 12.5. Figurine counts and densities by level and form (South Area).
guarded as special objects. Notably, all form types are found
in secondary building and discard contexts (for specific parallels at Nevali ori, see Morsch 2002), contradicting the idea
that the elaborated human forms might have been treated differently from the more expediently made animal and abbreviated forms.
Like most other materials, the majority of atalhyk
figurines derived from middens in external areas rather than
houses (Table 12.5). While this pattern of discard was standard across the site, certain materials such as shell, bone, clay
balls and obsidian were also periodically buried or sealed
within houses at atalhyk. Hodder & Cessford (2004) have
interpreted such actions as being integral for crafting memory
or long-term social identity. Given that such practices of em-
bedding and burying seemed fairly established and consistent

treatments for certain kinds of materials, we can surmise that
people had a repertoire of storage and/or deposition practices
that included being sealed in or around features like platform
and benches, storage in scoops in/under floors, and deposited
in midden and fill.
Significantly, figurines were not typically found in clusters or sealed in features at atalhyk. This finding is different from the clusters of figurines found at some Levantine
Neolithic sites (see Gebel et al. 2002; Kuijt & Chesson 2005;
Verhoeven 2002a), for which archaeologists have suggested protective, magical and ancestral concerns. Given these
common narratives typically attached to figurines, we have
to consider why these materials at atalhyk were not in-
210
Location
Buildings
External
Anthropomorphic
Abbreviated
Zoomorphic
Non-diagnostic
Total
#Figs
%Comp
#Figs
%Comp
#Figs
%Comp
#Figs
%Comp
36
115
8%
11%
76
171
17%
17%
200
534
46%
51%
123
216
28%
21%
435
1036
Non-diagnostic
TOTAL
Table 12.6. Figurine types in buildings and external areas.

AREA
Figural
Indeterminate
Anthro
Zoo
Abbreviated
Anthro
Zoo
Abbreviated
South
34
123
89
23
109
18
141
537
4040
41
214
63
17
105
22
82
544
TP
15
12
48
IST
West1
6
2
9
10
2
3
0
3
3
15
1
2
0
22
21
57
1. West area represents three different excavation teams and has Chalcolithic occupation.
Table 12.7. Figurine counts by area.

tentionally placed in burials, in foundation deposits, around
platforms, ovens and basins, plastered into house features or
left on floors. Perhaps their ease of manufacture and general
ubiquity meant that figurines were considered commonplace
and easily reproducible, thus not special in the same way.
Conversely, an argument could also be marshaled that their
very frequency and quotidian characteristics suggest that they
were central to the atalhyk lifeworld. They may not have
operated within some imagined separate sphere of religion
or ancestor worship but rather in the practice and negotiation of everyday life.
Figurines in external areas
Figurines, as with other artifact types, are most commonly
found in external midden areas, and some of these respected
particular buildings. For instance, Sp.85 can be associated
with B.3 habitation and Sp.279/280 with B.60 and possibly
B.66. In both cases, the figurine density is significantly higher
in the external midden area than in the buildings. What is
interesting for Sp.279/280 is that while the midden area produced 248 figurines alone, its associated buildings (B.60 and
B.66) produced notably few figurines. B.60 produced only
four figurine fragments, while B.66 had only one non-diagnostic fragment to date.
We should not be surprised that there are higher figurine
densities in midden areas and little presence of figurines in
adjacent houses. Possible activities employing figurines such
as narrative, play and performance, as well as their original
manufacture and decoration, might have taken place outside.
Additionally, their ubiquity in dumps points to the highly
disposable nature and perhaps brief use life of most figurines. This scenario lends weight to the argument advanced
throughout the chapter that most figurine practice was a highly flexible and mobile enterprise that was not anchored or
exclusive to the interior practices of houses.
In defense of fill
Figurines and shaped clay objects are largely found in secondary contexts both inside and outside buildings. Within
buildings, figurines most commonly appear in fill. Only very
occasionally have they been found near floors in buildings or
in activity deposits. In general, we could say that figurines
and fragments of figurines were deposited into these fills and
dumps alongside many other cultural and organic materials.
We should also emphasize, however, that fill is not a homogenous category at atalhyk; building infill especially demonstrates a range of practices. Some buildings are cleaned
out, leveled and then filled with very clean earth or building
material which may have been sieved (B.4, B.5, Sequence
B.44-B.56-B.65, see zdoan 1999; Hodder 2006). Other
buildings appear to be partially dismantled, yet retain some
of their household assemblage, and are filled in with mixed
fill (B.49). Some abandoned buildings also become reused as
midden (B.2) or penning areas (B.58?, B.75), either by design
or convenience (see (Farid 2007a). Excavators have even
noted clear differences in room fill within the same building
(Eddisford 2008).
Fill does not generally receive much considered attention, since intentionality and use are rather impossible to infer from secondary and tertiary contexts. Pollard (2008, 45),
however, has noted that deposition embodies a continuum of
practices, some routinized and largely unconsidered, others
overt performances. A consistent range of infilling or discard
practices might suggest that certain practices of infilling were
211
the southwest corner of B.49 (2008, 35). One

is reminded here of what Pollard (2008, 45)
calls carefully contrived practices that are
memorable or remarkable because of the
specific objects involved and the spatial and
temporal context of their enactment. Such
objects may or may not be famed, tainted
or potent, yet they still carry with them specific associations to people, places, times
and memories and could represent an explicit attempt to bring these received qualities, connections and meanings to the fore
(ibid). While Pollards analysis focuses on
the deliberate deposition of clusters of different materials (see also Nakamura 2010),
it is possible that figurines (and fragments
thereof) were intended for certain depositional contexts.
700
600
Number of figurines
500
400
300
200
100
co
ns
tru
ct
io
n
Data category
Figure 12.13. Figurine counts by context (data category).

meaningful and/or calculated. Cessford and others (2007)
have noted that the inhabitants were aware of and compensated for subsidence activities in buildings, shoring up foundations and walls, sometimes using specific filling strategies
to do so. And while a house could be infilled in a variety
of ways, there is much evidence for infilling as a carefully
controlled process. Cessford (2007) and Hodder (2005) also
regard certain aspects of these practices as symbolic, and
these interpretations largely derive from the distribution and
variety of artifacts.
While the broader site-wide patterning suggests that all
figurines were treated equally and randomly deposited mainly in room fill and external midden, the resolution at the level
of individual building histories presents a somewhat different story. Some figurines from building fill derive from what
excavators have called sealing deposits. These deposits are
notable for occurring at a transitional moment of closure/
founding in a construction sequence (feature or building)
and generally include a number of used and broken artifacts.
In many cases, the objects used appear to comprise household items and tools. Occasionally, however, some deposits
are mixed, combining common materials such as stone and
bone with less common materials from distant origins such
as crystal (speleothem) and pigment.
Excavators often interpret such assemblages as deliberately placed objects. For instance, Regan has noted the inclusion of a complete stamp seal, an obsidian blade and a bone
tool in a relatively clean leveling deposit laid down before the
construction of new building B.56 (Regan 2005, 71). Similarly, Eddisford has noted a make-up deposit containing several
broken and stabbed animal figurines, various animal bones,
worked and unworked stones, bone tools, obsidian blades
and blanks and a broken antler tool sealed by a platform in
Building biographies
Figurine assemblages in buildings vary significantly, from
quantity of figurines to the composition of the assemblage in
terms of form types. A closer look at some of the building figurine contexts, however inconclusive, may prove suggestive.
Building 49
B.49 in the 4040 Area presents an unusual figurine context.
Almost all figurines found here were expediently made animal quadrupeds (14 quadrupeds or fragments thereof and
two non-diagnostic pieces; Fig. 12.14), eight of which were
found in a cluster (7958). Excavation of the units containing ((7957) (14460) (14420)) the cluster (7958) began in
2004, resumed in 2006 and finished in 2007; it is now clear
that this unit comprises a deliberate dump/deposit in the
southwest corner that formed the core make-up for, and was
sealed by, platform F.4006. The excavation of B.49 finished
in 2008 and although a small building, it appears to have
been occupied for a considerable period of time based on the
number of wall plaster applications and buried individuals
(17) present. The complex stratigraphy indicates that it was
subject to constant alteration and modification. This building
also seems to have a strong association with animals. Both
the building infill and post retrieval pit (13641) fill contained
a number of horn cores (some deliberately plastered), and a
high proportion of sheep and goat bones. The platform core/
deposit (7957) was unusual in that small mammals dominated the faunal assemblage. Russell et al. (2004) regard
much of B.49s faunal assemblage as a large spread of feasting remains and installations, but this explanation does not
address certain idiosyncratic aspects of this assemblage. For
instance, there is an extensive range of taxa represented in
212
Figure 12.14. Figurines from B.49: (Left) 7958.x5 quadrupeds, (Center) 7958.x2 quadruped (stuck and consolidated); (Right)
7938.x1 quadruped with stab mark.
a fairly small assemblage (at least three different species of
birds, large amounts of eggshell and fish bone, as well as
equid, pig, deer, and dog bones; small quantities of cattle
bone, antler, some turtle shell; a hedgehog bone; and two
or probably three juvenile sheep and at least one perinatal
sheep/goat).
The composition and density of this faunal assemblage
is indeed provocative. These deposits, however, do not necessarily implicate feasting and its concomitant associations
with communal events and symbolic-economic display. This
building could also be read more generally as articulating
an attention to certain regular or repetitive events, perhaps
involving humans, the dead and animals. Other notable features of B.49 include the presence of several layers of painted
plaster on the northern and western walls (Volume 7, Chapter
14). Excavators noted that in the in the northwest corner, two
walls (F.1491, F.1661) directly above the northwest platform
(F.1651) contained several layers of paintings consisting of
red and black geometric designs which appear to have been
plastered over relatively quickly and then repainted numerous times with an identical design in the exact location. Nine
individuals were buried in this platform (five adults and four
children). All were disturbed and six were missing skulls and
other body parts. The treatment given to the burials in this
platform is in contrast to that given to the burials in the northeast platform, all five of which were undisturbed interments
of juveniles.
The above-mentioned aspects of this building are suggestive of some kind of frequent, repetitive activity possibly related to mediating human/house/animal relationships. Certain
aspects of the figurine assemblage in this building may lend
support to this idea. As briefly mentioned earlier, these quadrupeds are rather expediently made. While they are certainly
recognizable as animal forms, their proportions and renderings were not naturalistic in the strictest sense. Rather, efforts
seemed to focus on the treatment of these forms perhaps immediately after their fabrication. For instance, eight of the
twelve quadruped figurines bear some evidence of intentional
puncture marks (4), breakage (2) or deformation (2). The re-
maining four figurines are fragmentary and inconclusive in

this regard. At least the puncture marks and deformation
would have to have been carried out while the clay was still
plastic. These characteristics would seem to indicate that the
process of making, acting upon and depositing these figures
was salient not the final object product. While these and
other events associated with B.49, appear to have been ritualized to some extent, it is important to not automatically assume that they comprised special rites that were radically set
apart from everyday life. In fact, it is quite possible that they
were part of quotidian or regular activities.
Mellaart also published a cache of wild animal figurines that were virtually all broken, crushed or wounded with
spear or arrow points. While unfortunately not recording the
building, he does note that they were found together in a pit
in Level VIII (South L) (Mellaart 1962, 51). In our particular
context, the animal figurines found in a sealed deposit along
with numerous materials high densities of sheep, goat and
small animal bones, obsidian and eggshell (possibly whole,
but crushed eggs), phytoliths underlying some of the larger
artifacts (bone and pottery), a horn core, worked and unworked stone, and bone points may simply be the result of
household cleaning and convenient dumping; perhaps the
construction of new features provided regular opportunities
to get rid of waste. Not all construction make-up, however,
contains cultural materials.
Building sequence B.65-B.56-B.44-(B.10)
One find from the 2007 season turns our attention to the role
of figurines in house histories. B.65 contained one of the
few figurines found in a primary context (14522.x8). This
figurine was found in a cluster deposit (14522), which lay in
front of and around a pot inset into the floor at the base of the
ladder, and also contained equid scapulae, stones and an infant bone. Regan (2006) has noted that the sequence of B.65B.56-B.44 and probably B.10 shares some continuity in layout and events, and has surmised that the same family group
occupied the same space throughout the house sequence. For
instance, he has observed the placing or leaving of objects or
213
Snapshots of household activities: burnt

buildings B.52 and B.77
In contrast to B.49 and B.65 which were
closed, cleaned and partially dismantled,
burnt buildings may offer a rare picture
into more daily household practices at the
site. B.52, burnt in its final phase, contained
rooms with bucrania and benches with protruding horns (Sp.94). The building was
burnt along with a household assemblage including food in storage bins, grinding stones
on the floors, the horned bench partially intact and bucrania fixed to the wall (Bogdan
2006). The building is also notable for its
rich collection of materials; other specialists
have drawn attention to the striking preservation of a whole range of finds: B.52 has
provided the richest combination of faunal,
botanical, and lithic assemblages of all the
Figure 12.15. Illustration of figurines around bins and on roof tops buildings uncovered since work at the site
(Illustration by Kathryn Killackey).
renewed in 1993 (Twiss et al. 2008). Significantly, the building produced very few
figurines. Only three figurines (abbreviated)
groups of objects prior to a space or feature going out of use and three figurine fragments (horns) were recovered from the
and subsequently becoming something else, and similar pat- building. Intriguingly, the three abbreviated forms all came
terns of plaster use in B.56 and B.65 (2006, 103). The burial from the fill of bin F.2003, which also contained an antler
of neonates in the foundation in southwest corners and place- tool, a stone grinder, an obsidian blade, animal bones and a
ment of a pot near ladder bases is also a repeated activity sheep horn. This bin was not as rich in organic material as the
common to B.44, B.56 and B.65.
other two (F.2002, F.2004), leading the excavators to suggest
One notable aspect of this building sequence is that it that it was empty at the time of the fire and roof collapse
has produced very few figurines: only three from B.65, five (Volume 7, Chapter 15).
from B.56, two from B.44 and two from B.10. All but two
B.77, excavated in 2008 is also a burnt building. Like
of these are non-diagnostic pieces or horn fragments from B.52, this building had collapsed due to a fire, and was rich
make-up/packing or ashy layer contexts. The remaining two in materials and preserved artifacts left on the floor (espeare anthropomorphic figurines: one a human torso fragment cially Sp.337) or mixed in with the roof collapse. This was a
from the make-up of a platform in B.44 (10663.x1), and the very large, seemingly elaborate building with six platforms,
other a human head, possibly complete, from a room fill de- a bench, bins and basins (House & Yeomans 2008; Volume
posit between walls in B.65 (13352.H1). This latter figurine 7, Chapter 23). Notably, two bucrania-topped pedestals and a
and context are notable given that four of the x-finds from small plastered rams head placed over a small niche flanked
(13352) seem to have been deliberately placed on the floor the northeast platform (F.6051). Excavations have not gone
along with cluster (13559). These materials included horn through the floors or platforms yet, so we do not know if and
cores, obsidian, an antler, a scapula, a bone awl and a small how many burials exist. This building produced 17, mostly
stone. Although highly speculative, perhaps the human head fragmentary, figurines that come from room fill and collapse.
figurine was included among these deliberately placed items. Similar to B.52, however, five figurines (four abbreviated, one
If this was the case, then the assemblage would bear a com- horn/abbreviated) come from bin fill. A double bin (F.3092)
positional similarity to the ladder deposit described above. along the northern wall of Sp.337 contained a number of finds
These two scenarios might then point towards a specific use such as antlers, animal bones, stones, horn cores and a worked
or role of human figurines in the household continuity and shell, but was emptied of organic materials. Inexplicably, a
transformation of B.65-B.56-B.44. Objects that may have thick layer of grain was found outside, right in front of the
been reworked or reused many times over while in circula- bin. All five figurines (16472.x3/x4, 16488.x7/x8, 16497.x1)
tion underwent a final transformation when they were sealed derive from the upper bin fills and appear to be associated with
within ovens, platforms and houses.
collapsed wall, roof and bin materials. While the examples
from B.52 and B.77 are not enough to base an argument on,
214
these bin-figurine associations might suggest

that abbreviated figurine types stood atop
storage bins. Excavators noted that they were
not found with the few materials sitting on the
bin floor and therefore they must have come
from above. Another possible scenario is that
figurines circulated about and were used on
roofs. This might certainly be the case for the
other figurines found in room fill and collapse
in other areas of B.77 (Fig. 12.15).
Building 3
We should keep in mind that most of the
buildings discussed here do not generally
demonstrate high numbers of figurines (B.77
being a possible exception, see Table 12.6).
In contrast, B.3 presents a striking example
in terms of quantity and density of figurines.
Excavated by the BACH team over several
seasons, this large, less-elaborate house produced the largest quantity of figurine materials (109), about three times more than the
building with the next highest quantity and
has a significantly higher density than other
buildings from the same levels (South M to (a)
O): B.1 and B.5 (Table 12.3). Given these
numbers, it is tempting to suggest that B.3
was associated with more intensive figurine
or clay object production activities than its
other known contemporaries. If we consider
only the number of figural objects from this
building, however, the number drops to 34.
This number is still almost twice the number of the next largest assemblage from a
building, but perhaps what is most notable
about the B.3 assemblage is the high amount
of indeterminate and non-diagnostic shaped
clay scrap. The clay scrap and possible preforms from the site have not been systematically studied but would certainly constitute an informative project for looking into
shaped clay production practices.
Another aspect we investigated was the
difference in figurine quantities in the north
and south parts of the building. While figurine quantities were higher in the northern
clean (69) part of the house than in the
southern dirty (40) part of the house (Nakamura 2009), their respective densities were
not significantly different (6.84 figs/KL in (b)
the north and 5.84 figs/KL in the south).
Finally, B.3 affords us the opportunity Figure 12.16. Figurine distribution in Phase B3.4: (a) 4A (b) 4B (Plans
to look at figurine distributions over space produced by Laura Steele).
215
Number of
figurines
Dry sieve volume (KL)
Density of
figurines
1A D: initial layout of B.3: roof access and kitchen area in

SE; furnishings along west wall
2.4
2.9
2 blocking of wall opening (F. 633) in east wall; changes in

fire installation configurations
2.38
2.1
3 first burials interred in B.3 (central space); changes in

spatial layout to resemble phase 1
1.63
1.2
4A change to 2 room configuration with introduction of 2

partitioning walls; burials in north platform
11
2.82
3.9
4B solid barrier between 2 rooms established; burials in

north platform
18
13.59
1.3
5 final occupation phase; closure of residence
53
178.01
0.3
Phase
Table 12.8. Building 3 figurine numbers by occupation phase.

and time within a single building. The BACH team discerned
five main building phases, and although most figurines come
from secondary contexts, they are a fairly persistent material
throughout the buildings occupation. While numbers alone
suggest an increase in figurines in the latest phases, densities
reveal that this result is misleading (Table 12.8). Furthermore,
figurines concentrate in different areas in different phases (see
Nakamura 2009, Fig. 13.1a-h and discussion). These changes
over time may roughly correlate with activity areas and/or
construction. In Phase 1, figurines occur where all the furnishings were located along the west wall and in the kitchen area
in the south. In Phase 4, there was an increase in diverse forms
of activities in the central area. In Phase 4A, figurines occur in
most parts of the building excluding the northwest and southeast areas, while figurines concentrate on the north-central and
northeast platforms and their associated burials in Phase 4B,
and in fill and make-up of features in the western part of the
building (Fig. 12.16). This patterning is potentially interesting
given the similar aspects of head removal in the treatment of
both dead bodies and figurine bodies (see discussion below).
While no figurines occur as grave goods in burials, it is possible that they participate in other practices of remembering or
respecting the dead. Finally, in the last phase, figurines occur
throughout the fill and demolition.
Individual buildings, individual figurine practices?
The drastically different assemblages from the buildings discussed above point to an overall lack of consistent patterning
amongst the figurine materials even in terms of deposition. The
different stories do, however, support one important aspect of
figurine practice, namely that most clay figurals (regardless
of form) do not exclusively correlate with elaborate or ritu-
ally evocative contexts. What is compelling about these different building assemblages is that they suggest a very diverse
set of figurine practices. Figurine assemblages, like building
plans, seem to conform to certain general patterns, yet they
also demonstrate remarkable flexibility and diversity. In some
cases, the consideration of figurine patterning alongside other
building features and practices suggests certain practices related to maintaining house character and biography. The B.65
sequence contexts might lend support to the idea that some
durable objects were considered as essential components of
the house/household or could mediate continuity during transitional events or times. In contrast, the animal-rich B.49
assemblage suggests that some figurines, which lived very
short social lives, were more spatially and temporally circumscribed by specific locales and practices. These too, however,
could also become part of the household as they, along with
other materials, founded and were sealed in a new feature.
Evidence from B.3 suggests that figurine practices were
not necessarily confined to the house interior. This result conforms to the general patterning we find across the site; higher
densities of figurines in middens rather than buildings support the idea that these were everyday objects and practices
that perhaps circulated between different spaces and contexts
and were ultimately disposable. Furthermore, the similarity in type distribution of the midden and B.3 assemblages
lends further support to the idea of clay figurines being rather
mundane objects. There does not appear to be a certain type
of figurine that is treated differently by the occupants of this
building, rather all types were found with equal frequency in
buildings and in midden. The scarcity of figurines in houses
such as the last phase of B.52 is also notable in the sense that
elsewhere figurines have been ubiquitous in building closure
216
52 77 20
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
24 52 45
1
2/24
3
4
5
6
7/16
8
10
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
63
64
65
66
72
75
77
82
infill (e.g. B.3) or even interpreted as part of

Elaboration
Figurine number
30
a ritualized closing event (B.17). Moreover, that B.52 had only six figurines but is
25
considered to be a large, elaborate building,
20
casts further doubt on the tacit connection
between figurine work and symbolically or
15
economically powerful spaces, and yet the
10
burnt states of B.52 and B.77 offer some
potential clues about where figurines may
5
have dwelled in the house, perhaps on bins
0
or rooftops. Such scenarios suggest a much
64 18 21 22 23 48 56 57 2 6 17 51 10 5 44 45 58 65 7 16 24 49 59 8 1
more domestic or everyday context for
Building number
some figurines.
Figurines in atalhyk buildings challenge traditional ideas of figurine practice as Figure 12.17. Number of figurines by elaboration in building.
reverent religious or ritual expression, especially those related to notions of a mother
Size in m2
Figurine number
goddess or fertility. Significantly, there does
60
not seem to be a correlation between the
presence of elaborated architectural features
50
such as plastered bucrania (or more elaborate
buildings in general) and the presence of fig40
urines (Fig. 12.17), a pattern that also bears
30
out in terms of larger buildings (Fig. 12.18)
and buildings with many burials (Fig. 12.19).
20
Finally, we should qualify the ideas of
10
ubiquity and everydayness that we deploy
for describing figurine practices at the site.
0
Although our figurine corpus comprises
51 48 2 23 18 8 58 21 44 65 49 7 10 54 57 16 64 56 77 22 17 20 5 1 6
nearly two thousand pieces, we should reBuilding number
member that the site presents around 1,400
years of occupation. While the figurine numFigure 12.18. Number of figurines by building size.
bers seems rather high compared to other
contemporary sites, even the unbaked clay
figurines were quite durable and could have
# of burials
# of figurines
been in circulation or use for years or even
120
generations. Different figurines, however,
also had different lifespans. B.3 may be the
100
only context for which we could argue that
clay figurines constituted a familiar, com80
mon material in the house. In contrast, figurines were not a significant presence in burnt
60
B.52, which may have captured a building
in use, as it were. Somewhat differently,
40
B.77, also a burnt house, does indicate that
20
figurines were kept and used in houses, as
several were caught in the burning/collapse
0
event. Figurine practices in houses clearly
varied and there is no consistent correlation
Building number
to ritually elaborate features and practices.
The views offered by individual buildings
then support our general view that figurine Figure 12.19. Number of figurines and burials by building.
practices offered a very flexible technology.
217
Figure 12.20. 13142.x3 (2.65 cm H, 1.88 cm W, 1.62 cm

TH, 6 g) (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).
Headedness and headlessness

There was a propensity for headedness at atalhyk: a particular tension surrounding heads, head removal and circulation, and the post-cranial body which can refer equally to
human heads as it does to those of cattle and, to a lesser degree, animals such as the fox, boar, vulture, bear and weasel.
Another connected association is the desire for embedding
and refleshing the remains of animals and humans, a preoccupation present in the plastered forms, burial tradition and
figurine corpus. Both themes might be linked to concerns
about permanence, restoration, and ultimately fortifying or
improving upon the fragilities of fleshed matter through a focused curation of the skeletal elements.
Headless human figures, like those depicted in the wall
paintings, have attracted much scholarly attention (GiffordGonzalez 2007; Hamilton 1996; Talalay 2004). A prime example is the paintings of several headless bodies shown in
association with birds of prey interpreted as vultures (Russell
& McGowan 2003). This led to the speculation that bodies
were excarnated, meaning that fleshed bodies were plucked
clean by vultures before final burial. Recent analysis by the
team has shown that excarnation was not practiced at the site
(Volume 8, Chapter 19).
The idea of a headless body representing a deceased
state of being at atalhyk has precursors in the Anatolian
Neolithic, specifically in the famous Gbekli T-pillar, where
headlessness, masculine sexuality and raptor imagery (if not
vultures) appear in direct association (Hodder & Meskell
2011). One monumental T-shaped pillar, divided into upper
and lower registers, reveals a raptor juggling a sphere (or
skull?) on the upper portion whilst a headless man with an
erect penis adorns the lower section. The ithyphallic headless
male is associated with a bird directly to his left, and a series
of other creatures with fangs, claws and stingers is placed

above him covering the lower register. We could also make
broader linkages to Levantine examples of skull plastering
at PPNB sites like Ain Ghazal (Bonogofsky 2005; Kuijt
2000b; 2008; Rollefson 2000).
Such practices may underscore an enduring concern for
bodily articulation or disarticulation (see also Bailey 2005;
Chapman 2000; Daems & Croucher 2007; Nanoglou 2008a;
Talalay 2004). The idea of the removing, circulating and
passing down of heads occurs in the wall paintings, burials
and the figurine corpus at atalhyk. For example, heads
of animals in the forms of skulls (bulls, vultures, goat, wild
boar jaws) were attached to walls and embedded and refleshed with wall plaster in houses and may be related to the
practice; there is also one unclear example of a wall painting
showing a headless animal in a hunting scene. Returning to
the plastered features in houses, what is notable is their very
lack of movement or circulation. Rather, these examples are
permanently fixed to walls, benches and pillars (bucrania)
and parts of skulls (boar jaws) are embedded within plaster,
within the lifecycle of the house. Within the house, there is
a clear focus on animal heads rather than other body parts
within the most dramatic plastered features and, importantly,
there are no human heads or body parts incorporated into this
tradition. While animal heads and parts thereof were fixed
to walls and features, human skulls and body parts remained
detached, and were more likely to circulate from one special
deposit to another.
At various stages after the end of the house cycle, the impressive plastered elements of animal heads and horns were
often removed and/or retrieved and potentially re-used in
other structures. Their retrieval suggests their potent or salient status in many, but not all instances. We should remember
too that plastered anthropomorphic features like the splayed
figures also had their heads and hands or paws removed at
closure. The discovery of plastered bear paw remains at the
site (Hodder 2006, 199) further blurs the distinction between
the image and the thing itself, as well as the neat divisions
of anthropomorphism and zoomorphism. This last point is
reiterated by the repeated intentional depiction of navels on
bear images, itself a telling humanization of the animal world
(Meskell et al. 2007). Examples such as this also speak to a
traditional concern for the curation, circulation, restoration
and embedding of skeletal objects as mnemonics for beasts
spanning the generations.
The head is a very obvious locus of identity, so the ability
to remove and replace certain heads might allow for multiple
identities and potential narrativization (Nanoglou 2006; Talalay 2004). Hamilton argued that detachable heads at atalhyk were used to portray a range of emotions, attitudes or
states of being (1996, 221). We have identified more bodies
with dowel holes than matching heads made for attachment,
which could suggest that the head is more determinative and
218
(a)
(a)
(b)
Figure 12.21. 13167.x10 (2.36 cm H, 2.48 cm W, 1.87 cm Th, 11.3 g) (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).
the bodies are deemed more generic; this may
not, however, imply a hierarchy (Nakamura
& Meskell 2006). The pairing or duality of
heads and bodies may suggest that the act of
combining or manipulating is the significant
aspect and that this bringing together might
refer to social factors such as different genders, identities, kin, groups, ritual groups or
the like. At other Neolithic Anatolian sites
such as Hyek (zdoan & Bagelen
1999) there is additional evidence of detachable heads. Speculative as it might seem, we
want to suggest that it may be the process of
separating and reconnecting heads and bodies that was considered salient or powerful
the facility for such combinations, rather
than the final states themselves that we as
outsiders tend to privilege. We would suggest that such manipulations apply equally to
fleshed human bodies as well as malleable,
clay bodies and perhaps shared a similar
symbolic substratum.
Verhoeven (2007) has recently suggested that headless figurines might be directly Figure 12.22. (a) 12988.H4 (1.77 cm H, 1.65 cm W, 1.72 cm Th, 3.9 g) (b)
related to economic transactions, function- 12394.H1 (3.11 cm H, 3.05 cm W, 1.72 cm Th, 12.6 g) (Illustrations by Lyla
ing primarily in administrative and storage Pinch Brock and Mesa Schumacher).
contexts. Using 31 headless female figurines
from the Pottery Neolithic site of Tell Sabi Abyad I, he pushes ure, to an older idea put forward by Mathews (1989) that anithis argument further, suggesting that figurines operated in a mal figurines represent goods while human ones stand for
token-like manner between settled and nomadic people asso- services. Such an argument surely flattens out the potential
ciated with the site. Broken figurines were thus intentionally range of meanings with which figurines were imbued and
broken in order to signify, accompany and sanction economic privileges a familiar, economic rationalist perspective.
At atalhyk there is evidence for the intentional sevtransactions (of sealed products) and social bonds between
residents (Verhoeven 2007, 179). This links, in some meas- ering of heads from the figurine corpus (e.g. 12102.x1, see
219
histories, storytelling, recalling ancestors

and so on. Figurine worlds may have provided a rich vehicle to explore narrative and
transformative experience the exploits of
individuals, encounters with animals, references to the deceased for instructional
purposes and so on.
In 2006, excavations uncovered the greatest number of discrete heads and headless
bodies made as complete or intentionally
separate pieces, largely because of the huge
volume of midden deposits excavated in the
4040 Area. Five bodies have a dowel hole in
the neck (12420.H1, 13159.x7, 13140.H3,
13167.x10 [Fig. 12.9], 13129.x1), and one
has a neck stub (12394.H1, Figure 12.10b).
Of four human heads found in 2006, three
are broken at the neck (e.g., Fig 12.8) but one
(12988.H4), interestingly, has a deep, wide
depression on the underside that looks as if
made by the fifth phalange or pinky finger,
Figure 12.23. 12401.x7 (6.51 cm H, 7.37 cm W, 6.44 cm Th, 221 g) (Photograph
which could have been fitted over the top
by Jason Quinlan).
of a stub like the one of 12394.H1. There is
also a blank, possibly unfinished head with
above) as well as the mortuary data, although the latter has various shaped tool marks and a dowel hole (13139.H1).
been demonstrated to occur after death rather than being There are also several detailed clay heads that have been brocausal. In the case of human bodies, only a few individuals ken from bodies, two of these are created in buff marls and
were treated with head removal. In the two cases uncovered closely resemble the worked stone examples uncovered in
by the current excavations, cut marks were present and the previous years.
It is noteworthy that we have not yet found clear examples
heads were probably cut off some time after initial burial.
Building on his ideas around memory and ancestors, Hodder of separate animal heads and bodies with dowel holes and at(2006, 146147) argues that it would have been necessary, tachments in the same manner as anthropomorphic examples.
at least in some cases, to remember the exact location of a Thus, while specific humans and animals could have their
specific burial or skull. This reveals an attention to history skulls kept and plastered after death, head removal on their
making, a focus upon ancestors and a material tradition of figural equivalents was reserved for people and not beasts.
specific bodily treatments around headedness and headlessness (Hodder 2007a).
Enfleshing and embedding
Within the clay figurine assemblage, there are various
headless bodies that have dowel holes in the neck, and also
a few heads with corresponding holes at the base (1056.H1, Materially connected to the enduring traditions of curating
2661.H1, 12988.H4). Certainly, there is the technological and circulating real heads at the site both animal and huconsideration that forming the head and body separately is man was the material preoccupation with enfleshing and
easier for those less skilled in figure modeling. The majority embedding skeletal remains. Such material strategies acof the headless bodies are fleshy and lumpy in form, with knowledge that the reality and reliability of the human world
breasts and/or sagging stomachs (12420.H1, 14183.x11, rest primarily on the fact that we are surrounded by things
12401.x7, 13140.H3, 13159.x7, 13167.x10, 16132.H1, 7582. more permanent than the activity by which they were prox1, 14183.x17, 16239.H1) or alternatively, androgynous duced, and potentially even more permanent than the lives of
(11854.x2, 13129.x1, 14132.H3) in form. Most are roughly their authors (Arendt 1958, 9596). The villagers regularly
shaped and probably quickly made and were retrieved from saw human skeletons as they dug down to retrieve skulls and
midden deposits. Since dowel holes facilitate the easy remov- objects from burials (Hodder 2006, Chapter 6) and were inal and exchange of heads, and we have extensive evidence timately familiar with the dual processes of fleshy decay and
for the intentional removal of heads across the site, figurines skeletal durability. It is tempting to see another process of
might similarly have been involved in activities of narrating translation here, between so-called natural remains (bone)
220
and cultural embellishments (plaster, paint, labor) which,

taken together, co-produces another type of thing altogether,
one that endures over the generations with a restored efficacy. Clays and plasters probably had a specific set of associations with bodily flesh as well, whether human or animal
flesh, as the numerous examples from the site suggest. The
color, texture, softness, sheen, plasticity and ability to layer
and smooth must have made plaster an evocative material.
Plaster may also have held resonances with bone and its
visual properties.
A desire to represent the tensions of enfleshing, embedding and durability can furthermore be noted in the figurine
corpus, the most dramatic being of hybrid or dual constitution
(12401.x7, Fig. 12.23). The front portrays the typical robust
female with large breasts and stomach with the navel protruding. From the arched shoulders, very thin, almost skeletal
arms with delineated fingers rest on the breasts. Alternatively, the back depicts an articulated skeleton with a modeled
spinal column, a pelvis and scapulae that project above the
shoulders. Individual ribs and vertebrae are depicted through
horizontal and diagonal scoring. A dowel hole indicates that
the piece originally had a separate, detachable head and the
circular depression around the dowel hole suggests that the
head fit snugly into this curved space (Meskell & Nakamura
2005). The heads of figurines themselves, especially detachable ones, might represent real plastered skulls with their
high foreheads and smoothed, minimal facial treatment, minus mouths and detailed features (Meskell 2007). The world
of figurines could materially emulate atalhyk burial traditions, namely an attention to particular human bodies and
their detachable heads.
While the skeletal representation has no exact parallel
from the site, there is one fragment (14314.x6) that bears a
strong resemblance, carved from buff-colored marl found in
2006 in B.53. There are numerous examples at Gbekli, specifically in the carvings of beasts with skeletal features, bared
fangs and claws attached to the large stone pillars. Similar to
the Gbekli beasts, the atalhyk figurine reveals the bony,
skeletal part of the body which survives death (and interment) and explores a tension between embedding, enfleshing
and revealing. Similar to the embedding of real animal parts,
this figurine traverses the depiction of embedded bony human
parts with a shaped, fleshed, living human body. Keeping the
dead close by and physically enduring (at least through living, generational memory) was made possible through this
tradition of embedding and enfleshing; whether burying individuals under platforms and plastering over them, plastering
certain skulls and burying them with descendents, or embedding the bony parts of animals as plastered protrusions, or
perhaps even making clay images of the human form with
protruding skeletal elements. These long-lived traditions
were attempts to transform, display and render permanent the
iconic and durable elements of human and animals.
Animality
There is significant blurring between the bodily treatments
of the remains of particular persons and certain animals. It
should be said, however, that the majority of individuals in
both of these categories were dispensed with rather differently and expediently. For example, the majority of faunal
remains have been uncovered from midden and house fill
contexts across the site, rather than being singled out for further curation. The faunal focus is upon the heads, horns and
scapulae, especially in the more visible displays (Russell &
Martin 2005). Within those species selected for special curation, cattle predominate, followed by boar, sheep, and goat.
Those animals regularly consumed at the site were sheep,
with notably less cattle and goat and very little boar.
Representing and engaging with animals occupied a central role in the atalhyk lifeworld and extended to social,
economic, historical and spiritual realms. We might also be
witnessing a tradition of personifying or individualizing cattle. Cattle make up 54 per cent of all faunal remains in installations and special deposits, 46 per cent of the animal reliefs
and some 15 per cent of the faunal remains. Contrast this with
sheep, who comprise 56 per cent of the faunal remains, and
thus the bulk of meat consumption and only 19 per cent of
reliefs and 13 per cent of installations and deposits (Russell &
Meece 2006, Table 14.5). At atalhyk the greatest parallels
occur between humans and cattle in iconographic traditions,
since they occupy the most attention, are shaped, modeled
and painted in both two and three-dimensional media. Perhaps the most evocative materialization of this connection
is demonstrated by one remarkable ceramic vessel that was
finally assembled in 2007. Here, molded and incised human
and cattle heads mutually constitute each other: the horns of
the bull form the brows of the human faces, while the human
ears can also form those of the bull when the vessel is turned.
Cattle are the most obviously identifiable species in the
figurine repertoire because of their horns and they number
well into the hundreds. Moreover, it appears that the inhabitants of atalhyk also modeled separate horns as natural/
cultural objects. The material parallels between the treatment
of humans and cattle, potentially shifts interpretations in different directions from the older notions of goddess worship
and the bull/consort veneration which Mellaart proposed
(1967; 1975). Without pushing a purely diet-driven line or
argument, one might also deduce that the vast majority of
forms represented among the zoomorphic figurine corpus
pertain to meat-producing animals: cattle, sheep/goat and
boar. We could be witnessing a set of potentially reconciled
tensions around the celebration of wild beasts and of the hunt
as a particular event, recognition of (male) hunting prowess,
memory and veneration, even possibly ancestral, as well as
gendered or individual associations with specific animals or
species.
221
Figure 12.24. Collection of zoomorphic figurines.

Mellaart claimed correctly that animal figurines could be
pierced or maimed after modeling, but was largely incorrect
in his assumption that they were placed in pits after use. These
stabbed or deformed animals look rather different again to the
images in wall paintings. The majority of the figurines are
quadrupeds and there is a notable absence of the exotic fauna
evidenced in the wall plastering of leopards and the painting
of stags, birds and so on. Moreover, we have several examples
of punctured anthropomorphic forms (e.g. CHC393/1, MELLET.350.1, 11874.x1, 12988.H4) which problematize the notion that this action is simply about hunting magic. From the
overall corpus, we have 45 stabbed zoomorphic forms out of
330 (approx. 13 per cent) from both buildings and external
areas, largely stemming from the 20042007 seasons. The
vast majority is moderate to coarsely modeled, only two being finely modeled. Some of these examples could also be
described as possibly intentionally deformed, though this
is often difficult to determine given the rough construction
of these types, and some examples could either have been
abandoned or scrapped. We are on safer ground when both
stabbing and deformation occur in the same example (MELLET.335.2, MELLET.334.2, 15675.H1). One clear example
is 14186.H3, where all four legs of the quadruped are buckled
under the body, making it impossible to stand upright. Previous interpretations somewhat narrowly posit that stab marks
signify the killing of animals (and by association, people):
if that was the case, then why are so few individual animals
ritually stabbed within the corpus?
Unthinkingly, contemporary viewers tend to see animal
figurines and to some degree images in general as miniature and physical substitutes for real creatures, but mainly
those destined for human consumption. It is too tempting to
see animals as victims, as provisions and necessary sustenance and thus always potentially in their dead state. What
is the genealogy of such ideas? The concept of projected
kills with animal figurines, and especially stabbed or maimed
beasts, stems from a literal overlaying of sympathetic magic

a concept that started with Frazer, Tylor and Mauss and
was certainly picked up by Mellaart (1966, 191). For Mauss
(2001, 15), the law of similarity can be repackaged in the
dictum, like produces like. In our case, the zoomorphic properties of the figurine imbue it with power and efficacy linked
directly to specific animals. This notion harks back to Frazers discussion of imitative magic as the power that the copy
extracts from the original (Taussig 1993, 59). It is the act
of mimesis or doubling that is salient. Image production at
atalhyk has traditionally been read as functional magic,
doing things in one medium to bring about outcomes in another. Thus, every figurine becomes a wish figure for a future
meal, hunt, ritual or trophy.
Bataille questioned such a reductionist paradigm, arguing
that the constant ambiguity of humanity is originally linked
to this duplicity with regard to animals. It is customary to reduce the meaning of sympathetic magic the recourse to the
image of the animal to ensure the capture of the real animal
to the desire for efficacy. There is a certain poverty to this
view (2009, 78). For Bataille, the point of the evocation is
overtly the reduction of the real being to the condition of the
possessed thing (in this case, wild beasts). From his perspective, such figural gestures constitute an excuse: in addressing
the animal, the human predator asks forgiveness for treating
the animal as a thing so that he will be able to accomplish
without any remorse what he has already apologized for doing (Bataille 2009, 78). While not necessarily subscribing
to this alternative view either, we would rather underscore
the relationships with living animals rather than simply dead
carcasses. Louise Martin (pers. comm.) points to this problem
both in faunal analyses and material culture studies more generally: archaeologists tend to focus on diet, dead animals and
their byproducts, rather than living animals, human/animal
interaction, the symbolic resonances of certain species, the
significance of animal behavior, or the role of beasts in the
mythic realm. Ethnographic accounts from Australian Aborigines, Kalahari San, Saami and Inuit, among others, make
clear that we would miss many vital and socially compelling
components of the Neolithic lifeworld if we were to cast animality solely in light of its dead or dietary dimensions.
Species specificity presents an interesting issue to think
through with the figurine corpus. On one hand, we have readily identifiable animals in the wall paintings (e.g. equid, deer,
cattle, boar, vultures, leopards) and actual animal remains in
the plastered animal installations (e.g. cattle, fox, weasel, vulture). On the other, it is very difficult to specifically identify
the quadruped figurines, given their generic body forms (e.g.
Fig. 12.24). Cattle are the most common and identifiable by
the presence of curved horns (and ears). Boars are the second
most identifiable quadruped shown with curved, ridged back,
prominent tails and delineated snouts. Other varieties such as
sheep/goats are present, but more difficult to identify. This is
222
significant considering that domestic sheep and goats made

up the greatest proportion (70 per cent) of the meat diet (Russell 2006, 107). Overall, most attention seems to be paid to
horns and ears, and snouts and tails to a lesser degree. A few
examples depict manes and navels. There is also a parallel
with the avian fauna: while vultures dominate the representation of birds in the wall paintings and the plastered installations, water birds actually constitute 80 per cent of the faunal
remains on site (ducks and geese) (Russell 2006, 107).
The quadruped bodies appear to be more generic and there
is no attempt to depict sex characteristics in the figurines, as
there is in the wall paintings. If one recalls the carvings on
T-pillars or the stone sculptures from Nevali ori and Gbekli, there was an attention to representing the erect penises
of wild animals (see below). While this pattern extends to the
wall paintings in buildings at atalhyk, it does not extend
to the three-dimensional reliefs or figurines. Of the 930 zoomorphic figurines catalogued, 330 are quadrupeds and many
of those are highly ambiguous as to species. With the caveat
that there still remains significant indeterminacy, we have a
possible 30 cattle, 16 boar/pigs, 10 sheep/goat, 8 equids, 7
dogs and 5 potential reptiles. There are about 10 ambiguous
examples which could be bird heads and only one clear example (7825.x2) that is a much later, intrusive find. Within
this corpus of almost 1,000 animal figurines, there are 531
horns and 14 bucrania, a small subset of which could have
been fashioned as separate forms. We also have 423 indeterminate figurines that are fragmentary pieces (mainly tips and
cylindrical forms) that are likely to also be parts of horns.
We have also analyzed discrete body parts such as horns,
heads and torsos to see if there are any intentional patterns
with disposal. For example, heads and bodies could be separated (see the section above on breakage patterns), with heads
being retained in houses or bodies being relegated to midden
areas. Our results show, perhaps unsurprisingly, that like most
figurines and fragments thereof, the most common find spots
are middens and building fill. There are no distinct patterns of
disposal which correlate with specific body parts. If we take
horns (n=399), 6 per cent were found on floors, 7 per cent in
activity areas, 11 per cent in construction/make-up, 32 per
cent in fill, and 44 per cent were found in middens. For heads
(n=45), 2.2 per cent were from activity areas, 2.2 per cent on
floors, 4.4 per cent in clusters, 13.3 per cent in construction/
make-up, 24.4 per cent in fill and 53.3 per cent in midden.
For torsos (n=33), 3 per cent were associated with burials, 9
per cent in clusters, 9 per cent in construction/make-up, 12.2
per cent in fill, 15.2 per cent are in activity areas, and 51.2 per
cent from middens.
There are seven pieces that show interaction between humans and animals, all from Mellaarts excavations (CHC168,
CHC568, CHC466, CHC161, CHC170, CHC256, CHC160).
In a more narrative sense, these examples evince certain relationships with the world-out-there (Nanoglou 2008c, 9),
whether with felines or more generic quadrupeds. Ingold

(2000) argues for a distinction between picturing humans
and animals in action (animic) and depicting them as static
(totemic): the former representing a perpetual circulation of
life-form, the latter a world with ever-present forms, a world
made once and for all (Nanoglou 2008c, 325). Wall paintings
might give the impression of static events, whereas physically figurines can be endlessly combined and narrated. It is
also probable that all manner of figurines zoomorphic, anthropomorphic and abbreviated may have been combined
in interactive and embodied ways with each other. There is no
reason to assume that the figured action scenes in wall paintings could not be replicated with an assemblage of different
figurines. It is worth considering too that not all zoomorphic
figurines likely held the same meanings, uses or life-histories;
this view is bolstered by the wide variation across the entire
assemblage in form, manufacture, modeling quality, detail,
damage and so on.
Most archaeologists find it difficult to resist classifying
figurine quadrupeds as specific animal species. We should
be wary, however, of assuming that these Neolithic depictions were intended to portray naturalistic images of specific
animal species. The figurine varieties are much more impressionistic and denote the outline of things. It is possible that
some of this difference arises from various factors such as
speed of manufacture and whether the images invite visual
vs. tactile engagement. For instance, the comparatively undetailed figurines were made quite rapidly and their threedimensional form suggests that tactility and handling were
more salient than their visual specificity. The opposite would
be true for the wall paintings, which likely took more time to
render, although they were to be ultimately painted over. The
location in buildings, scale, two-dimensionality and detail of
these images suggest that they were meant to be viewed by
more than one person. We could be witnessing a certain hierarchy of recognition: typically one might expect a three-dimensional form to offer a more complete rendition by its very
materiality. Instead, our examples portray a type of snapshot,
emphasizing a selective suite of features and are only readily
apprehended by constantly handling and turning each piece,
thus engaging both tactile and visual senses. For three-dimensional figurines, the basic horn and body silhouettes are sufficient to communicate a general animal form.
There have been almost no attempts made to demarcate
textures of hides, skins, hoofs, tails and so on, and yet we
know they were aware of such differences, evidenced by one
of the examples found by Mellaart that shows detailing of a
quadrupeds coat (Mellaart 1967, Fig. 66): he believed this
to be a boar with bristles. Two-dimensional paintings rely on
a more elaborate detailing of markings, sex and breed traits
to communicate general animals from cattle and boars to
more specific species such as vultures, leopards and cranes,
which are absent among the figurines. This distinction may
223
Figure 12.25. 15656.x5 (3.66 cm H, 2.68 cm W, 2.96 cm

Th, 23.8 g).
infer that the wall paintings collectively, and figurines as a
group, engage people and things in different ways. This kind
of recognition hierarchy might also suggest that the figurine
process involves a more intimate relation with the maker in
the sense that they were not designed to be viewed or handled
by others or a group of people. With the wall paintings, however, already positioned in more communal spaces, the visual
cues must be legible to a wider array of participants. While
wall paintings impose an experience of distance, the figurines
invite a more visceral, intimate bodily connection.
Narrativizing animals must have occupied a central role in
the atalhyk lifeworld, covering social, economic, ancestral, historical and spiritual aspects. If we think of the broader
meaning of religion, it is constituted from peoples attitudes,
beliefs and opinions concerning existence and nature.
Body, sexuality, maturity

atalhyk figurines range from elaborated human bodies
with emphasized features (anthropomorphic) to pared-down
torsos with simple heads and bases (abbreviated), yet we do
not infer that they all shared the same usage or meanings.
While the latter outnumber the former by a 3:2 ratio (Meskell
et al. 2008, 143), interpretations have focused on the tacitly
female forms (which comprise less than three per cent of the
entire corpus) and have invoked explanatory narratives of
religion, female fertility and matriarchy. Instead of attempting to construct meta-narratives by reading off the visual
characteristics of less than 40 female figurines, we have

quantified the physical properties of all the anthropomorphic
and abbreviated figurines in order to investigate some of the
practices and concerns of figurine producers and consumers.
This is instructive in another regard quantifying bodily intensities and zones may lend insight into why almost every
human figurine is depicted unclothed. The opposite is true
for the wall paintings, revealing a deliberate choice made by
the makers of each. Why are figurine forms naked? Was it to
show a natural or generic form, to highlight sexual or aesthetic attributes, or to identify different body kinds? We know
from burials that clothing was worn; it was depicted in wall
paintings and was necessary, given the climate, so again this
represents a figurative choice.
While depicting clothing was not a priority, there are
indications of hair, head detail and some bodily decoration.
From the 1,930 examples, only 6 (or 0.3 per cent) have any
evidence of clothing and those are largely from Mellaarts excavations. Eleven have indications of a hat or a pointed head
and another 36 have a more ambiguous head element which
could be a particular headgear or hairstyle (total 2.4 per cent).
Another 23 figurines (or 1.2 per cent) show either parted
hair or hair detail. Albeit a small percentage of the overall
anthropomorphic and abbreviated corpus, there is a consistency of emphasis upon the head area. Notably, many of the
head elements, folded caps or pointed heads or hats occur on
the abbreviated forms, reinforcing their human qualities and
crossing over with the anthropomorphic category. Arguably,
the area of the head is likely to indicate identity or difference (see Hamilton 1996; Kuijt 2000b; Meskell 2008; Talalay
2004). These variables (elaborated head, hair, hat), plus those
with facial features (45, or 18 per cent, of the 255 anthropomorphic examples) and the headless examples (or detachable
heads) all draw attention to the head as a symbolic locus, possibly in performances at ancestral rituals, for social transactions or identity transformations (see above). It might also
point to individual and social variation, types and activities.
The three Bs: bellies, breasts and buttocks
Recent analysis (Nakamura & Meskell 2009) demonstrates
that there was a strong tendency for exaggerating the buttock
and stomach regions seen in increasing numbers on female
and non-gendered figurines. This attention to the buttocks
and stomachs, to their careful delineation or pronouncement,
was typically at the expense of other bodily characteristics
such as limbs and sometimes breasts. Notably, a few abbreviated-human crossover examples also sported exaggerated
buttocks and stomachs (Table 12.9), suggesting that the two
traditions of exaggeration and abbreviation were not mutually exclusive. While breasts were the trait most commonly
depicted (59 occurrences), the stomach (39 occurrences) and
buttocks (45 occurrences) received the most emphasis or exaggeration (Fig. 12.25).
224
225
52
Abbreviated
Anth-Ab Crossover
Ab-Zoo Crossover
Other-Phal
Crossover
Phallomorphic
Feature Totals
46
42
32
31
10
10
Anthro Traits Only
16
16
18
16
19
16
12
10
Pointed
Head
(PHe)
Abbrev Traits
Only
26
21
Folded
HeadElement
(FHE)
132
14
34
78
No. Figs
with
Features
446
14
13
18
240
153
Total
No.
Figs
Table 12.9. Anthropomorphic and abbreviated figurine forms by traits.
1. The occurrence of this trait may be underestimated by half. Many of the human figurines found by Mellaart appear to depict navels. These objects are located in the Ankara museum and at the time
of writing this paper, we could not confirm the occurrence of this trait for 20 figurines and therefore left them out of the tallies. 2. This category refers to overall form rather than depicted trait. There
are no phalloi depicted on anthropomorphic or abbreivated figurines. This category is, therefore, excluded from the No. Figs with Features total.
49
Anthropomorphic
Hair/
Cap
(H/C)
Abbreviated traits
Pubic
Parted
Clothing/ Body
Puncture
Breasts Buttocks Belly
Triangle Fingers Hair Headless Phallus2 Beard Adornment
Marks/ Hair
(F)
(PHa)
(\He)
(Ph)
(Be)
(C/A)
(PM/Ha)
(Br)
(Bu)
(Be) Navel1 (N) (PT)
Anthropomorphic traits
Totals reflect number of diagnostic figural objects. 'Hair/cap' describes the head ornament that is more rounded and/or rimmed. 'Adornment' includes clothing, body markings or jewelry.
Phallus refers to an aspect of the form rather than its depiction on the body. 'Head element' refers to pointed and/or folded shapes on the head see Fig. 2.
Breasts Buttocks Belly Headless Navel Fingers

Breasts
Buttocks
Belly
Headless
Navel
15
Head
adornment1
Body
adornment
Pubic
triangle
Beard
20
19
14
21
10
12
Fingers
Head adornment
Body adornment
Pubic triangle
Beard
Table 12.10. Correlations and occurrences among depicted traits for anthropomorphic figurines.
1
. Head Adornment includes all hair and head treatments (HC, PM/Ha, Pha, H/C)
The combined emphasis on breasts, buttocks and stomachs has prompted many to interpret these figurines as pregnant or fertile women. As we have argued previously, however, many of these features are depicted in such a way that
is not suggestive of fertility, but of maturity (Meskell et al.
2007; see also Voigt 2007). Furthermore, while breasts and
stomachs are secondary reproductive traits, buttocks are not.
Intriguingly, the most common paring of traits is bellies with
buttocks, and breasts with buttocks (see Table 12.10). Many
cultures, including contemporary ones such as our own,
place enormous emphasis on buttocks, bellies and breasts
in social, sexual and aesthetic terms. The depiction of these
features, therefore, does not necessarily signify reproduction
and fertility. Other features that occur include fingers, bodymarkings or clothing, and hair or head adornments, and are
traits that are non-reproductive but might articulate particular
ideas of identity, sexuality or gender. It is also notable that, in
these exaggerated cases, depiction of the genitalia is absent
in almost all cases (only five examples depict pubic triangles
and less than 10 phallomorphs are currently known). For a
more potent symbol of fertility/virility, one might turn to the
small number of purely phallic examples that we have discussed previously (Meskell & Nakamura 2005; Nakamura &
Meskell 2004).
The quantification of body traits and zones suggests that
reproduction, pregnancy and fertility were not obvious or primary concerns of figurine makers and consumers, thus moving us towards the further consideration of the non-generative
emphasis of the human figures across the site. There is a distinct emphasis on non-genital, non-reproductive traits, which
underscores the torso as a focal zone.
Examples of figurines with markedly distended stomachs also gesture towards certain forms found by Mellaart
3Bs
Br Bu Be
17
4
Breasts + other traits

Br
Br Bu Be F N
Br Bu Be \He - N
4
2
Br \He
Br \He F
Br Bu Be \He
Br F C/A
Br Bu Be F
Br N
Br Bu Be N
Br C/A
Br Bu Be H/C PT
Br H/C
Br Bu Be C/A
Br Ph
Head elaboration
H/C
8
4
2B
Bu Be
16
5
3
1
Br Bu
Br Bu N
3
2
PM/Ha
Pha
3
1
Br Be N
H/C C/A
Br Be
Br Be \He F N
Bu Be \He
1
1
Sex traits
Ph PT
2
1
Br Bu H/C
PT
Buttocks + other traits

Bu
8
5
Body adornment
Bu \He
Headless
Belly + other traits

Be
3
1
Fingers
Be Pha
Be \He N
1
1
Beard
Table 12.11. Groups of trait occurrences.
226
24
15
in which the stomach or lower front extends

outward into the head of an animal (see Ankara 79-457-65 and 79-161). Parallels can
also be found for these figurines at MezraaTeleilat (zdoan 2003) and other Neolithic
sites. These should not be confused with
Mellaarts stone examples of men with leopards (Ankara 79-168-65, 79-162-65). The
examples we point to here do not have clearly defined human and animal elements, but
have rather amorphous bodies that defy the
natural surfaces and boundaries of the body.
These are not generally smoothed contours
but rather roughly modeled surfaces.
There was a concerted interest in the navel, marking it either as an indentation or an
added detail. This can be seen across the site
in figurines, stamp seals, as well as in the
famous plastered wall figures with swelling, Figure 12.26. Fleshy figurine types with exaggerated feature (Photograph by
decorated stomachs (see Mellaarts Shrines Jason Quinlan).
VIB.8, VIB.10, VII.31, VII.45). We do not
interpret this focus as a preoccupation with
fertility or birth: there are no representations in the wall art only one example (13129.x1): a somewhat more slender
of pregnant women, scenes of birth or infants, and with pos- piece without a head, hands placed on a protruding stomach,
sibly only one or two representations that might be children. with traces of red paint on the surface. Human females are
In a literal sense, the navel is an external, visual marker of the rare in both the wall paintings and in plastered forms. The
link between the living and the unborn. Therefore, it may be majority of the human images in wall paintings are male and
connected to ideas of birthing as a cultural concern and the the plastered anthropomorphic examples are androgynous;
connection between generations that may extend beyond off- some of those may have been zoomorphic, as in the case of
spring to producing ancestors, both in a literal and symbolic the bear.
sense. This idea might find some support in the occurrence of
Both Mary Voigt and Naomi Hamilton have argued against
navels on androgynous bodies such as the splayed plastered the interpretation of these figurine forms as pregnant female
wall figures and human figurines.
bodies. Voigt (2007) has addressed this issue in her work with
As demonstrated in our tables, the depiction of breasts oc- some 76 clay and stone figurines from Level VI at Haclar,
curs in 52 examples across the corpus and most commonly now dated to c.6000 BC. In the illustrated examples such as
correlates with a pronounced stomach and buttocks. Although those shown in Voigts Figure 12.4 (Mellaarts figurine 490
the figures with both prominent breasts and stomachs are gen- and 589), clear attention is paid to the buttocks at the expense
erally interpreted as pregnant females, these features are often of the front of the torso and the arms. The pubic region seems
depicted as flattened, drooping and angular, rather than robust of little consequence, while elongation and accentuation of
and rounded in shape, as one might expect of a healthy preg- the buttocks takes on unnatural proportions. Other famous
nant female. It is possible that the more flattened, downward examples show exaggerated and pendulous breasts, but more
sloping stomachs and breasts might rather represent aging typically, the Haclar figurines draw the eye to drooping stombodies. We might suggest then the figurines of seated, weighty achs and accentuated buttocks (e.g., 531, 487, 505, 507, 520,
individuals are perhaps more reminiscent of geriatric, unsexed 529, 486). Voigt suggests that the life-cycle or life-course of
bodies rather than pregnant female bodies. Many of the ex- women can be traced through the figurine corpus, from young
amples we find emphasize the navel, belly and buttocks with girls with small breasts and narrow hips to mature women
either absent or small breasts.
with enlarged upper arms, medium to large breasts, penduOften, the breasts are not portrayed symmetrically and lous stomachs, and huge hips and buttocks (2007, 165). She
appear to be somewhat flattened and pendulous. Similarly, surmises that these robust evocations represent bodies worn
stomachs, while exaggerated, are not evocative of pregnancy by work and childbirth. While younger, adolescent forms are
but rather of maturity or even obesity (Fig. 12.12 and 12.25). generally absent from the atalhyk corpus, the more robust
In this way, many are suggestive of aging bodies rather than and curvaceous forms occur with some regularity. Voigt reyoung and reproductive types, as indicated above. We have minds us that female sexuality, specifically a mature sexual227
Figure 12.27. Range of abbreviated forms (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).

ity, was largely obscured by Mellaart in favor of emphasizing
childbirth and maternity.
There are no clear indications that the exaggeratedly
fleshy figurine body types were found in the actual human
population. The mortuary data does not demonstrate any evidence of obesity in either males or females and there is little
evidence of osteoarthritis in the knees and toes, which suggests that people did not suffer stress as a result of excessive
body weight. Thus, the exaggerated figurine forms, which are
not rigidly gendered in every case (and thus not always female), were not likely drawn from daily life scenarios.
Given that almost all atalhyk figurines appear to be
eventually discarded or recycled, and the de-emphasis on
depicting primary sex traits, we suggest that these exaggerated figurine forms articulated a more abstract notion of
abundance and maturity that was not necessarily tied to ideas
of female or male status. Images of mature bodies are suggestive of longevity, health, achievement and elder statusin
short, the knowledge and experience required to be a respected, productive member of the community who ensures the
survival and success of the larger group. With the figurine
forms, flesh and excess might signify a concern and desire for
social success that looks towards the future and also draws
from the past. Fleshy stomachs and buttocks might be material signs of longevity, good health, access to food, sedentary
lifestyles, signs of indulgence and the ability to give. The explicit roundness of numerous figurines demonstrates the success of a way of life in producing a wealth of goods. It is the
ideal visual metaphor for abundance (Harr 1991, 68). The
evidence from other data sources at the site including burials,

human remains and dietary analysis demonstrates that this
was an idealized rather than lived reality for the majority of
people at atalhyk. Set against the fragility of life and the
frailty of flesh, many figurines could have embodied a rotund
success and maturity.
Abbreviated bodies
On the other end of the figural spectrum, the site yields many
abbreviated forms which range from about 10 to 50 mm in
height and generally delineate a head and torso on a formed
base (divided and undivided). The head is commonly formed
by a pinched action which creates a large nose or beak; the
trunk is often elongated and curved forward, giving the impression that the figure is seated. Many of the figurines are
free-standing on bases that are sometimes divided to suggest
limbs, feet or, perhaps in the more phallic examples, testicles (Fig. 12.3). They indicate a certain rapidity in making
and their ubiquity suggests that such practices could have occurred regularly, perhaps even on a daily basis.
Given the ambiguous and generic nature of these forms,
we suggest that the ascription of specific meanings to them
was possibly quite fluid and/or multiple. For instance, they
articulate the most basic notion of a body as a head, torso
or shaft and base, and with subtle gestures can be made to
be more suggestive of a human, animal or phallic form (Fig.
12.3). Furthermore, the three-dimensional form of figurines
aids such multiplicity. In handling and turning such figurines
and viewing them from different perspective, they take on
228
different aspects. Many abbreviated figurines, when viewed

from above or from the side, give an overall visual impression of male genitalia; Mehmet zdoan (2003) has argued
that similar abbreviated forms from Mezraa-Teleilat represent phallic forms.
Although somewhat generic, abbreviated figurines do
seem to articulate a set of specific concerns. This form, which
likely sought to capture the most general qualities of a generic body its capabilities as a semi-autonomous, selfcontained living organism in a miniature, still-life form,
was occasionally embellished. Out of 237 intact, diagnostic
abbreviated figurines, 38 of the 49 more elaborated forms
elaborated the head (Table 12.1). Most commonly, this took
the form of a folded head element. This element has commonly been interpreted as a headscarf or hair (Hamilton
2006), two features which are associated with humans rather
than animals. The figures with pointed heads, which are less
common, are more evocative of a bird or animal. Moreover,
many of the figurines are self-standing and almost all assume
a slightly hunched over body position that gives the impression of a seated body. From the human remains we know that
the residents of atalhyk did not use chairs habitually but
squatted or sat directly on the ground whenever at rest or to
undertake particular tasks; various postures identified in the
skeletal record include squatting on the heels, squatting or
kneeling on toes, sitting cross legged, squatting with both
legs to one side, squatting with knees together heels to buttocks, and squatting with weight on one foot, purchase on the
other (Molleson et al. 2005). In sum, the qualities of these abbreviated figurines, along with their small size, would invite
people to engage the figurines in particular ways; abbreviated
figurines could be set up on floors and surfaces and also carried around or circulated.
Comparanda
It might be instructive to also compare the figurine corpus at
atalhyk with other Neolithic sites in Anatolia, the Levant
and the Balkans. It is often said that work at the site has been
narrowly focused and should extend outwards to be more
comparative. Previously, we considered the sites imagery
and symbolic practices within its larger regional context, specifically with reference to Gbekli (see Hodder & Meskell
2011, and below). One important caveat, however, is that
comparison with other site publications is problematic, since
many projects have traditionally recorded and published
visually notable finds, largely of anthropomorphic figurines.
They have not been so focused on the range of figurines and
fragments of figurines and thus it is difficult to draw parallels
across the entire figural corpus. It would therefore be difficult to compare the numbers of zoomorphic and indeterminate figures or parts thereof that are not readily available for
analysis. One reason for the under-representation of figurines

and certain figurine types across Near Eastern sites generally is excavation strategies: not all field projects sieve extensively or systematically, and many do not conduct heavy
residue retrieval or analysis. The same was true of the 1960s
site excavation by Mellaart and we have previously published
numerous figurine finds, in comparatively high density, that
have been re-excavated from his spoil heap (Meskell et al.
2008, 145).
The atalhyk figural corpus is comprised of roughly 48
per cent zoomorphic, 18 per cent abbreviated, 14 per cent anthropomorphic and 20 per cent non-diagnostic examples. For
the purposes of this section, we consider figurines separately
from examples of statues, plastered skulls and so on, whereas
other studies have worked across various media (e.g. Kuijt &
Chesson 2005; Meskell 2008). As at atalhyk, zoomorphic
figurines predominate at many Neolithic sites in Anatolia and
the Levant. At Nevali ori, there are some 416 figurines including 179 standing male figures, 169 seated females, 29 zoomorphic and 39 abstract examples (Morsch 2002). Es-Sifiya
in Jordan has 215 zoomorphic and 23 anthropomorphic figurines, along with 78 geometrics and 9 indeterminate pieces
(Mahasneh & Gebel 1998, 106). Munhata, in the southern
Levant, has 36 zoomorphic and 19 anthropomorphic figurines in the PPNB and 24 zoomorphic and 21 anthropomorphic in the PN, cattle being the most frequently represented
(Rollefson 2008, 397). At Ain Gazal, the PPNB revealed
about 150 animal figurines, with cattle dominating the assemblage (Rollefson 2008, 399), some of which have been
ritually killed. There is a decrease in general figurine numbers into the PPNC, and the ratio of zoomorphic to anthropomorphic examples is also less marked (Rollefson 2008, 403).
Similarly, Kuijt & Chesson (2005, Table 8.3) document the
predominance of zoomorphic figurines across the MPPNB/
LPPNB-C for the southern Levant, with an increase in ambiguous forms in the later phases.
We should note briefly that, in the Greek Neolithic, Nanoglou (2005, 148) demonstrates that there was a preponderance of anthropomorphic rather than zoomorphic figurines, a
situation that is the inverse of ours (Meskell et al. 2008). In
Thessaly, the ratio of humans to animals is a striking 10:1.
His studies have shown differential treatment between species and regions: In Thessaly, humans stood alone, or nearly
alone, as worthy or in need of representation. In the central
Balkans, humans and animals, whatever their differences,
were deemed similar enough to be included in the same discursive field (Nanoglou 2008c, 8). From this broad patterning, he suggests that settlements with both animal and human
figurines (Central Balkan sites like Anza, Kovacevo and Rakitovo, as well as atalhyk) evince a working through of the
relationship with the world-out-there, a world populated by
animals, peoples and others (Nanoglou 2008c, 9). Alternatively, Neolithic sites such as the Thessalian examples, where
229
largely human figures predominate, may signify that people

were more preoccupied with the world of the community and
intra-site human relationships.
As stated above, the kinds of animals and ratios represented in the faunal assemblage do not match those patterns
across the figural repertoire, whether figurines, wall plasterings or wall paintings. The animals represented in the figurine corpus (when we can identify specific species), suggest
that making figurines was not necessarily about guaranteeing
food, or about animals as calorific reservoirs, or about dead
animals for consumption, but rather about live animals with
associated meanings. This might go some way to understanding why species specificity was not always a priority, why
categorical blurring was often enacted and why other sorts
of evocative creatures, with qualities rather than naturalistic
attributes, may have been fashioned. Such an approach also
moves us away from the paralyzing bind of figurines being
fashioned for hunting magic: that every beast is a wish figure
for a future meal.
The pattern found at atalhyk, where animal figurine
ratios do not parallel faunal assemblages, is observable elsewhere. For example, zdoan noted at ayn the absence of
pig figurines during the Round and Grill building subphases,
while pigs featured so prominently in the faunal assemblage
(zdoan 1999). Similarly, at Ain Ghazal, goats accounted
for approximately 50 per cent of the animal bones during the
MPPNB period, yet only a couple of animal figurines could
be assigned to this category. As at atalhyk, cattle figurines at Ain Ghazal dominate the corpus; significantly, they
were a wild species comprising some eight per cent of the
faunal record (Rollefson 2008, 409).
There are some general figurine patterns across the Neolithic of the Near East which are noteworthy. Rollefson
(2008, 403405) notes that with the onset of the PPNB, animal figurines become ubiquitous in the Near East, although
human figurines both male and female are also important, occasionally far outnumbering zoomorphs. Among the
animal figurines, cattle are usually most numerous, although
in places sheep/goats and birds are almost as frequentIn
the ceramic Neolithic, females are clearly the most abundant,
but numerous pebble figurines are unclear in terms of their
connotations of sexual identity. Nevertheless, the absolute
numbers of figurines remains relatively low. While this
provides a helpful backdrop, the situation is somewhat more
complex at atalhyk. First, evidence at atalhyk already
indicates that figurine manufacture and use were common
daily practices that are reflected in the numbers of figurines
recorded. As we have demonstrated (Meskell et al. 2008, Table 6), zoomorphic figurines tend to dominate throughout the
history of the site, though it is true that we have recorded
fewer anthropomorphic examples in the earliest levels of excavation. Zoomorphic examples were notable in Level South
G of the site (29 examples) and continue throughout the se-
quence. Rollefson (2008) notes that female figurines are more

numerous in the later phases, while also noting that there are
numerous ambiguously gendered objects. Very broadly, this
could be applicable to our corpus as well, with more female
figures from Level South M onwards. In the PPNB, Voigt argues (2000, 290) that the Anatolian data show fairly equal
representation, but later moves to one of disproportionate
representation of women and pregnancy.
If we look at macro-patterning, with the caveat that few
sites provide real quantification much less full spatial analysis, we can see a few general and significant trends. Rollefson
argues that figurine use seems to crescendo in the MPPNB,
perhaps signaling a peak in social tensions associated with
population growth. The statuary is possibly associated with
an emphasis on social identity based on corporate kinship
groups (Rollefson 2008, 405). From our perspective, this is
a collapse of time scales, conflating the momentary making
of figurines and that long-lived tradition with the potential
of multiple meanings with a long-term quasi-evolutionary
schema that we have identified from the vantage of hindsight.
Other scholars have similarly noted that stressful shifting
times with population increase, changing residential patterns,
resource depletion, and the stress from living together in sedentary settlements may have lead to representational changes
around the display of sexed bodies (Kuijt & Chesson 2005).
Did people at atalhyk experience the stress of population growth at a particular moment by rapidly increasing or
changing their figural production? Is there evidence of such
actions in cultures elsewhere? This has always struck us as an
assumption that is typically teleological and far from causal.
We do not want to conduct an art historical analysis of
figurine types across the Neolithic Near East or the Balkans.
We do, however, want to stress that there is significant variation from site to site, and settlements often appear to have a
particular local style. For instance, one look at the figurines
from atalhyk and those at Haclar would demonstrate this
tradition of locality. There are similarities of emphasis upon
fleshy bodies at Haclar (both sitting and reclining), but each
site style is different, with felines and children climbing over
the bodies of adult females at Haclar. The facial and bodily representations are notably different at each site. In fact,
there are examples from Hyek that are much more similar
to Haclar than with anything from atalhyk. Looking at
MPPNB ayn, it is clear that anthropomorphic figurines
dominate, with a smaller number of female figures and ambiguous examples. ayn has some fleshy, seated forms that
are reminiscent of atalhyk types. Publications by Voigt
(2000) show a range of anthropomorphic forms from Gritille
Hyk that would fit well within our own site materials.
Archaeologists at ayn classified some 20 female figurines that look very similar to the abbreviated examples at
atalhyk. Abbreviated atalhyk forms look similar to
materials published from Es-Sifiye (Hansen 2007, Tafel 18),
230
Sarab (Hansen 2007, Tafel 27), Aa Pnar

(Hansen 2007, Tafel 183) and Tell Aswad. It
may also be the case that these styles have
been classified as tokens or game pieces at
other sites, since their conical appearance
might lead to this interpretation. Convincing
work has been done for Es-Sifiya demonstrating the uniformity and standardization
of a large number of conical and spherical
clay objects (Mahasneh & Gebel 1998, Fig.
2), suggesting to the excavators their role
in concrete events or transactions. These
materials share some overlap with about 30
cones and spheres recorded form Ain Ghazal and a vast number (almost 1,600) from
Tell Sabi Abyad (Verhoeven 2007, 177). Figure 12.28. 14522.x8 (4.93 cm H, 3.03 cm W, 2.82 cm Th, 33 g). (Photograph
While these examples bear some resem- by Jason Quinlan)
blance to our abbreviated forms, there are
notable differences. At atalhyk, we have
approximately a dozen conical forms with a
high rate of variability and findspots in midden, house fills and so on. Our abbreviated
forms typically show either anthropomorphic or zoomorphic traits (e.g. legs, noses,
heads, headgear) and evince a wide range of
individual styles.
Phallic forms, plus reclining figures with
protuberances emanating from lower body
at Mezraa Telielat (zdoan 2001; 2003)
appear very similar to a handful of our examples. The carved stone figurine with the
phallic neck (10264.x1) is reminiscent in
style to several other phallic figurines with
elongated necks from the Cypriot Neolithic
(see Knapp & Meskell 1997), Teppes and Figure 12.29. 11324.x3 (2.84 cm H, 1.41 cm W, 1.14 cm Th, 2.5 g (Illustration
Arkolies, Khirokitia and Erimi.
by John Swogger).
There are a number of anthropomorphic
figurines, typically fleshy forms, which are
headless bodies with dowel holes (e.g. 12401.x7, 12420.H1, Neolithic (Bailey 2005, 5662), but the exact relationship be14183.x11, 13140.H3), as outlined above. The current project tween figural practice and burial remains unclear (Nanoglou
has discovered approximately 15 of these and we have also 2008c, 4). In addition, when we do have contextual data, clay
noted a couple of heads which have corresponding dowel figurines are almost always found in rubbish deposits. Unlike
holes in the base for attachment to bodies. At Hyek, we other sites which boast caches such as the several hundred
see similarly squat torsos with dowel heads (Hansen 2007, figurines found in a single deposit at Es-Sifiya (Kuijt & ChesTafel 69). Other examples at Hyek have cylindrical heads son 2005, 174), we do not have such dramatic and singular
similar to Neolithic Acrolith figures in Greece (clay bodies discrete finds at atalhyk.
with stone heads; Nanoglou 2008b, 321), which is a very different style to those we find on site.
Selected figurines
Context is also a crucial dimension of study. Rollefson
usefully states that figurines have not typically occurred as Clay marl examples
a common element in burials anywhere in the Near East 14522.x8 (Fig. 12.28) is a robust, standing female figurine
(Rollefson 2008, 406). There is some evidence that they made from fine marly clay. The piece was rendered by hand,
could be included in burials in the Balkans during the late perhaps using a simple tool. The figure has large breasts and a
231
was recovered from the Istanbul surface scrape (11848.x1).

Such miniature objects can invite a much different range of
use activities than the larger statuettes. While the latter are often (wrongly) envisioned as sitting in a shrine, being viewed
but not circulated or handled, the former perhaps are more
easily seen as more portable objects that can be carried, worn,
exchanged, hidden, etc. The lack of any clear sex markers in
these embodiments also compels us to reconsider the status of
gendered representation within the figurine corpus. Although
many take exaggerated buttocks and stomach to be indicative of femaleness, such features are necessarily ambiguous
markers of sex. And we must consider the possibility that
the emphasis of these traits invokes meanings beyond that of
binary sex categories. Figurines, whether sexed or unsexed,
may deal more with the exploration of identity and personhood than with categories determined or bounded by gender.
Figure 12.30. 13183.H1 (2.71 cm H, 3.32 cm L, 1.47 cm Th,
10.6 g).
protruding stomach with a large navel. The backside is damaged, but probably sported slightly protruding buttocks. The
legs are divided towards the bottom, although the figure does
not appear to have been free-standing. The figure is broken
at the neck and both shoulders; on the right side, the break
extends across the front of the breast. The head appears to
have been broken off in antiquity as the break is very worn;
the shoulder breaks are less worn, but also likely ancient.
This figurine is reminiscent of Haclar female forms now in
the Ankara Museum, but is distinctly lacking any indication
of the genital region or pubic triangle. Rather, like the other
atalhyk female figures, this figurine seems to emphasize
or articulate non-reproductive and non-genital female traits.
Notably, this figurine also derives from a primary contexta
deposit feature under a ladder base (F.2094) which cut into
southeast platform F.2086 in Sp.297 in B.65.
Another very hard marl figurine that has been carved is
11324.x3 (Fig. 12.29), a very small standing human figurine
with well-delineated features. It looks deceptively like soft
stone, especially given the carved manufacture. On the head,
ears are indicated and the face depicts eyes, a large nose and
mouth. The torso is relatively broad, with arms hanging down
at the sides. The figure shows a protruding belly with a large
belly button incised in the middle. The belly slopes down and
outward, and then cuts in straight to the groin. The thick legs
are divided both front and back and have well-formed feet.
On the back, the leg divide proceeds up the buttocks, which
also protrude outward from a very straight back. It derives
from Sp.202, B.42 in the 4040 Area. The unit has been interpreted as some kind of infilling or leveling event to the south
of the bench in this space.
This figurine is interesting both in terms of its miniature
size and lack of clear sexual features. One other similar figure
Other examples
Some new subforms that we noted this year included a flattened type of figurine plaque such as 13183.H1 and 17049.
x1. 13183.H1 shows a human hand and lower part of the arm
in a raised appliqu style overlying a flattened body of either
anthropomorphic or zoomorphic body (Fig. 12.30). Perhaps
this form resembles the leopard and human examples now in
the Ankara Museum which are similarly flattened in profile,
although ours are not discernible as any particular animal and
may indeed be part of the human body itself.
Concluding remarks
Moving away from an interpretive focus on figurines as an
end product, our research situates the figurine as process by
examining figurine production, circulation, practice and disposal. Such a perspective explores the various stages in the
life of a figurine. From the selecting and gathering of raw
materials to the making, use and deposition of figurines all
these activities represented a set of choices and processes
embedded in a particular social world. Figures were likely
moved about extensively during their use lives, and it is
unlikely that they were static and sitting about or installed
in shrines. Rather than objects of distanced veneration, we
argue that these objects were incorporated into practice, a
moving and mobile suite of embodied actions and ideas. The
significance of these objects was formed through action, not
in isolation or distanced contemplation. They were things to
be used.
Figurines almost exclusively derived from secondary
deposition contexts. Like most other materials, the majority of atalhyk figurines derived from middens in external areas rather than houses. Their ubiquity in dumps points
to the highly disposable nature and perhaps brief use life of
most figurines. Within buildings, figurines most commonly
232
appeared in fill. Fill does not generally receive much considered attention, since intentionality and use are rather impossible to infer from secondary and tertiary contexts. At
atalhyk however, a house could be infilled in a variety of
ways, and there is much evidence for infilling as a carefully
controlled process (Cessford 2007; Hodder 2006). Some figurines from building infill derived from what excavators have
called sealing deposits, which are notable for occurring at
a transitional moment of closure/founding in a construction
sequence. Excavators often interpreted such assemblages as
deliberately placed objects.
While the broader site-wide patterning suggests that all
figurines were treated equally and randomly deposited mainly in room fill and external midden, the resolution at the level
of individual building histories presents a somewhat different story. The drastically different assemblages from B.3,
B.49, B.52, B.77 and building sequence B.65-B.56-B.44 discussed above point to an overall lack of consistent patterning
amongst the figurine materials even in terms of deposition.
Figurine assemblages, like building plans, seem to conform
to certain general patterns, yet they also demonstrate remarkable flexibility and diversity. The different stories do, however, support one important aspect of figurine practice: that
most clay figurals (regardless of form) do not exclusively
correlate with elaborate or ritually evocative contexts. There
does not seem to be a correlation between the presence of
elaborated architectural features such as plastered bucrania
(or more elaborate buildings in general) and the presence of
figurines, a pattern that also bears out in terms of larger buildings and buildings with many burials.
As a kind of social technology, the atalhyk figurines
suggest a particular attention to three main themes: animality, bodily disarticulation and enfleshment, and bodily maturity and ambiguity. These themes, which often converged or
overlapped, underscore the diverse ways in which figurine
practices mediated certain pressing concerns in Neolithic life:
the negotiation of relationships with animals, ancestors and
the success and survival of the community.
Contrary to popular ideas, the atalhyk figurine corpus
suggests a particular attention to the animal world. The zoomorphic forms about half of the entire collection depict
various quadrupeds or parts thereof. Rather than embracing
the most pervasive ideas of hunting magic, where the animal
is seen as carcass, provision, trophy or the thing possessed,
we suggest that animal figurine work mediated relationships
between humans and living animals. With Louise Martin,
we have taken species specificity as a starting point to think
through human/animal interaction, the symbolic resonances
of certain species, the significance of animal behavior, or the
role of beasts in the mythic realm. Cattle are the most common; boars are the second most common and other varieties
such as sheep/goats are present, but more difficult to identify. This latter finding is significant considering that domes-
tic sheep and goats made up the greatest proportion (70 per
cent) of the meat diet (Russell 2006, 107). Several pieces
show interaction between humans and animals, and many
others have been deformed or stabbed. Moreover, the material tactility of the figurine form its three-dimensionality,
portability and compactness all invite a more intimate kind
of engagement with these animal forms than the wall paintings. Again, we should also emphasize that not all zoomorphic figurines likely held the same meanings, uses or lifehistories.
Various practices at atalhyk underscore an enduring
concern for disarticulating bodies on the one hand (skull removal and circulation, the use of horn cores and other animal
parts in buildings, headless figures in wall painting and figurines), and rearticulating and enfleshing bodies on the other
hand (plastering human and animal body parts, embedding
animal parts into walls and installations); in fact, these two
activities were often two sides of the same practice. Such
practices seemed to present a range of techniques for integrating aspects of the animal (wild) and human (domestic)
and the living and the dead in the constitution and reconstitution of the house or domestic sphere. In the figurine corpus,
we find headless human forms with dowel holes and individual human heads suggesting the partability of heads and
bodies. In the animal forms, we find many horn fragments
that were likely attached to a body, but also have a few instances of what appear to be stand-alone horns and bucrania.
Notably, this focus on disarticulated human heads and bodies
and animal horns, in some ways mirrors the treatment the human and animal remains.
Finally, our examination of the anthropomorphic forms
reveals both a tendency to exaggerate certain parts of the human body, and to abbreviate the bodily form to the point of
rendering ambiguous generic bodies that unsettle distinctions
between human and animal forms. The former underscore an
attention to breasts, bellies and buttocks and not to the primary sex traits. Although they are often interpreted as fertile,
pregnant female bodies, these human forms do not suggest
youthful fertility as many traits were depicted as angular, sagging and superfluous. Consequently, following Mary Voigt
(2007), we suggest that these forms are more reminiscent of
aged bodies, perhaps articulating notions of maturity, abundance and longevity.
At the other end of the figural spectrum, the abbreviated
figurines provide the most potentially flexible and fluid objects in the corpus. Rendering the most basic notion of a body
as a head, torso or shaft and base, these forms could be suggestive of human, animal or phallic forms. Although somewhat generic, abbreviated figurines do seem to articulate a set
of specific concerns. Many of the figurines are self-standing
and almost all assume a slightly hunched over body position
that gives the impression of a seated body. This basic form is
occasionally embellished with a folded head element, sug-
233
gestive of human hair, a headscarf or cap, or with the rendering of ears in a way that is suggestive of an animal. Their
three-dimensional form also aids a multiplicity of viewing
perspectives. In handling and turning such figurines and
viewing them from different perspective, they take on different aspects.
The diversity of the atalhyk figurine assemblage resists any easy or simplistic categorization of its practices.
While there is little evidence that figurines articulated a kind
of material religion at the site, certain aspects suggest that
some may have engaged certain spiritual or ideological beliefs. In a similar fashion, while depositional contexts suggest
that most figurines were used expediently quickly made and
then discarded a few reveal more attention or care in their
rendering and deposition. The absence of a singular, coherent
story of figurine work underscores the remarkable fluidity of
figurine practices at atalhyk. In this way, figurine worlds
demonstrate how materials and practices effectively cross-cut
our imposed interpretive categories of spiritual, economic,
quotidian and symbolic spheres.
234
Chapter 13
atalhyk Stamp Seals from 20002008
Ali Umut Trkcan
Stamp seals are one of the unique assemblages that have
emerged from the Neolithic East Mound at atalhyk.
The 1960s excavations at atalhyk yielded extraordinary
stamp seals that had not been seen previously in the Neolithic
Near East. Excavations since 1993 have further added to the
assemblage. This chapter presents a supplement to earlier
reports on seals retrieved from the 2000 to 2008 excavation
seasons.
The atalhyk stamp seals constitute the largest and
earliest assemblage in Neolithic Anatolia. They have a rich
variety of shapes and patterns when compared to the stamp
repertoires of other sites of the Anatolian Neolithic. Clay
stamp seals are common artifacts that were widely used or
manufactured in every part of the settlement and probably
most households of Neolithic atalhyk. A total of 59 seals,
as well as two stone-carved plaques, have been found, the
majority during the excavations under Mellaart and others
during the most recent excavations. Since then, 27 seals and
one seal-like plaque made of stone have been found between
20002008 excavations in atalhyk (see Appendix 1 on
CD for catalogue and full descriptions of the 27 seals).
Analysis of the seals suggests that they might have been
used on a variety of surfaces including textiles, leather, clay
and loaves of bread; they may even have been used for tattoos. Interestingly, seal impressions on clay have not been
found at atalhyk or any other Neolithic settlement in
Anatolia to date (Trkcan 2005b).
The stamps capacity to reproduce itself on any surface
seems to have conferred great importance to it as a ritual device. This may also be related to the transition of memory
to portable art objects in the latest levels. As Hodder noted
(2006, 195), house-based control of memory is seen in the
upper levels of the site; symbols that had earlier only been
used within the house come to be used in media which can be
exchanged between houses as the stamp seals take the wall
designs into a new mobile context. Furthermore, they may be
objects that identify ownership, high-ranking individuals or
symbols of clans who were authorized to organize religious
and economic aspects of the community.
.
Material and manufacture

Stamp seals are small, light and portable and are quickly
modeled. Most Neolithic stamps are made of baked clay,
and have smooth to burnished surfaces. A close examination
of eight clay stamps seals became possible with the help of
Chris Doherty and Duygu Tarkan zbudak. According to this
brief analysis, there are two clay sources generally associated
with stamp seal manufacture. The first is the fine backswamp
clay generally used in the ceramics of the early levels. Backswamp clays are interpreted as having formed some distance
away from the main river channels in areas prone to flooding.
At atalhyk, this term is generally applied to the dark gray
silty clays that were used to make mudbricks, clay balls and
pottery (Chapter 3). Backswamp clay typically extends from
a rivers levees to the higher ground bordering the flood plain.
Four seals are made of backswamp clay and the rest are generally made of local clay.
Unlike pottery and other clay objects, unfortunately, it is
only possible to analyze clay composition or firing of stamp
seals with incomplete (i.e. broken) examples. Consistent firing does not seem to have been common for stamp seals;
many appear to be very lightly and unevenly baked. Firing
appears to have taken place near hearths or ovens, again in
domestic contexts. As with certain other clay objects, they
were probably exposed to heat during secondary processes
such as cooking, burning and heating.
One of the definitive characteristics of the seals is their
light, small and portable nature. The incised reliefs can vary
from deep to slightly superficial incisions or scratched lines.
The surface of the base (seal face) is generally smooth and
flat, while some of them have a slightly concave base. Perforation of the handle is also seen on one example (8805.x2). As
Skeates (2007, 186, 196) has emphasized, clay stamp production is not demanding in terms of time and skill; procurement
of the raw material is also easily accomplished. In contrast to
clay seals, however, those made of stone demand more developed technical skills and higher time-energy investment for
production. However, evidence of craftsmanship and technical skill in the manufacture of clay seals is evident in some
cases; for example, the bear (11652.x1) and leopard (8805.
x2) seals, as well as the complex patterns seen on other clay
seals, must have required a certain level of ability.
235
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
12
6
3
South
4040
TP
IST
E
ti area
Excavation
Figure 13.1. Stamp seals recovered between 2000-2008 by excavation area.
25
20
19
15
15
12
10
5
0
Room/House fill
Midden
Unstratified
Infill pit/Fill
Burial
1
Burnt packing
Context
Figure 13.2. All stamp seals recovered at atalhyk by context (including Mellaart).
Depositional contexts
The contextual information for the 20002008 seals is varied (see Appendix 13.1 on CD for detailed descriptions).
Considering these variations, the most appropriate method
would be to examine stamp seal density across the site and
through time. Their distribution is not restricted to a particular context or building group (this is also true of the
Mellaart seals). Stamp seals have been found in the following areas: South (n=6), 4040 (n=12), TP (n=6), IST (n=3)
(Fig. 13.1). This pattern shows a relatively even distribution throughout the East Mound, with the majority of seals
deriving from the later levels (i.e. Mellaart Level II; Levels
South N-O).
Complete, almost complete and incomplete/fragmentary

seals are distributed amongst deposition categories without
much variation: Complete: midden (n=3), section (n=1),
burial fill (n=1), room fill (n=1), fill: (n=1); Almost complete: midden (n=3), room fill (n=1), surface (n=1), house
fill (n=1), burial fill (n=1); Incomplete/fragmentary: midden
(n=4), arbitrary layer (n=1), infill (n=1), room fill (n=1),
mixed topsoil (n=1) (Fig. 13.2). Seals within the incomplete/
fragmentary category show heavy use and abrasion; as such,
some of these are grouped as discarded with 11 seals (15282.
x2, 11632.x1, 12902.x1, 13522.x26, 11938.x3, 11848.x17,
10922.x1, 10086, 8805.x2, 8864.x1, 5819). As with obsidian,
figurines and bone tools, the stamp seals of atalhyk come
from secondary deposits, mostly middens and fills. The high
236
Chapter 13: atalhyk Stamp Seals
2.5 cm
Figure 13.3. Bear seal (11652.x1) found in floor inside the backfill of B.44 (South Area) (Photograph by Jason Quinlan;
Illustration by Zeki Baris Beyolu and John Swogger).
number of seals recovered from middens is
due to the large amount of middens excavated in the 4040 and South Areas (including TP). The seals from the 1960s excavations were most commonly found in houses
(n=12), shrines (n=7) and middens (n=5).
It is useful to make some general comparisons between seals recovered in association
with buildings and in large middens. Most of
the seals come from midden deposits (n=8)
(13522.x26, 17047.x1, 8854.x1, 8864.x1,
8892.x1, 17697.x3, 13522.x4, 10202.x1) in
several areas (TP, South, 4040) and spanning
a number of levels. This suggests that the
discard deposition of seals occurred repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. The
generally fragmented and well-worn condition of these seals is consistent with them
likely having been discarded.
Seven stamp seals come from room/
Figure 13.4. The position of the seal 8814.x15 found in the burial (F.1242)
house fill (12124.x4, 12902.x1, 11938.x3,
(Photograph by Jason Quinlan).
11670.x6, 13360.x3, 11652.x1, 11632.x1,)
and one stamp seal is from burnt packing below the floor level in B.45 (Sp.238).
The context of one unique stamp seal (11652.x1) is also If seen in this light the impressive clay stamp unearthed
in room-fill deposit (11652) may also mark a transitional
noteworthy with regards to its deposition and deserves speevent within the construction of Building 44. In this case
cial mention (Fig. 13.3). The seal was placed at the center of
the end of backfilling and the beginning of constructional
the building deposit equidistant from the walls and the northleveling. Of course it could be argued that the stamp was
ern edge of the hearth. It was found placed face down with its
just dumped as part of the backfilling process, its neatly
head on house fill (Sp.54) that had probably been a backfill
clipped hands/paws suggesting that the object itself had
below the upper phase of the overlying building. Thus, the
undergone a transition. The stamp, however, was recovseal does not seem to have been deposited accidentally, but
ered from a deposit of relatively few finds and appeared to
rather to have been left as a votive object before the abandonhave been placed face downwards hinting at more than
ment of Sp.54. It is clearly identified in the report by Regan
casual loss.
(2005):
237
Figure 13.5. (a) Typological chart of all stamp seal motifs; (b) stamp seals found between 20002008 (Illustrations by Zeki
Baris Beyolu, Lyla Pinch Brock, Yunus Emre Demirbilek, Kathryn Killackey, Sophie Lamb and John Swogger).
238
239
Of the seals from the Hodder excavations, there are four from Level 4040 H,
four from Level 4040 G, one from Level
South Q, three from Level South S, one
from Level South P, one from Level South
R, four from Level TP Q, one from Level
TP P. One is dated between Level TP P and
R. Levels TP P, Q and R are equivalent to
Mellaart Levels I-III. As can be seen, the
majority of the seals are generally found in
the uppermost levels of the site.
The earliest seals from the 4040 Area derive from Level 4040 G (11938x3, 12124.x4
and 12902.x1), which is thought to be conFigure 13.6. Grooved stone as stamp (8745.x1, 4040 Area) (Photograph by temporary with Mellaart Level VII (South
Jason Quinlan; Illustration by Yunus Emre Demirbilek and Sophie Lamb).
M-O), the earliest level from which Mellaart
recovered stamp seals (Trkcan 2005a, 175).
Additionally, two seals found during surface scraping in
2003 are from the fill (8813.x1, 8865.x1) of multiple burial
F.1244 (4040 Area) (Fig. 13.4). The burial was located in
the northwest corner of a building which was visible after
the removal of topsoil. The remains were in very poor condition as a result of disturbances by post-Chalcolithic burials; as such, they could not be assigned to a stratigraphic
level. A large number of artifacts were recovered from a
concentrated area within the burial, suggesting they were
placed as a group between the head and knees of one of the
individuals (skeleton (8813)). These include two complete
clay stamp seals of geometric design; one was closely associated with skeleton (8813) 8813.x1 and the second within
the grave fill (8814) 8814.x15. Associated finds recovered
during flotation of the grave fill include an elongated marble (?) bead, two bear teeth, worked stone, a pre-form bone
ring, a bone fork-type object and four beads (Lyon & Tyler
2003). During the 1960s excavations, two seals were also
recovered from burials dated to Level South R (No.16) and
Levels South N-O (No.23). Unfortunately, the gender of the
skeletons could not be determined (Mellaart 1964, 95, Fig.
41.6 & 41.10; 1967, 209).
Finally, one seal is from a mudbrick wall (1582) and two
seals ((13238), 10922.x1) are from pit fills. Five additional
seals (11848.x17, 7880.x2, 11858.x2, (5819) and (6243))
were recovered from unsecure contexts such as surface layers and mixed deposits.
Stratigraphic determinations
During the 1960s excavations, 22 stamp seals were recovered
from so-called shrines or in houses and adjacent courtyards
between these buildings: one from Level VII, 11 from Level
IV, three from Level III and seven from Level II (Trkcan
2005a, 175).
Fragmentation and use wear

Many seals (n=19) displaying use-wear and signs of discard
come from midden deposits in the 4040 Area (Table 13.1 on
CD). A few examples also show signs of being exposed to
fire. In a recent analysis on the fragmentation of Balkan prehistoric objects, Chapman (2000, 8990) states that a number
of seals show signs of long term, heavy use, perhaps indicating a continuity in ritual or economic use for more than an
individual human lifespan. The majority of seals, however,
remained intact. Fragmentary stamp seals found in midden
deposits at atalhyk suggest that stamps were discarded in
the same way as other clay objects without ritual significance.
Nineteen seals are distinguished as worn away and fragmentary. These stamps are contemporary with the introduction of
ceramics in Level VII (See Chapter 9).
Pattern and form analysis

The atalhyk clay seals have incised decorations and
come in many different shapes (Fig 13.5a). The dominant
form is flat faced with a round (or elliptical) or rounded rectangular base, and with conical or rounded handles, of which
one are perforated. In an earlier publication (Trkcan 2005a,
178179), 13 different motif categories were created. Some
stamps, however, have unique forms (bear, leopard, horse or
boar head?) which make them distinctive among early Neolithic period assemblages.
Many seals from 20002008 (Fig. 13.5b) are of a similar style to previously published seals and fit well within the
established typologies. Several new variants have emerged,
however, and these have been added to the motif typology
(Fig. 13.5a). Five or more patterns can be distinguished as
240
different from the former group. Oval, round

and subrectangular forms are common.
However, more extraordinary forms have
been added (discussed below) to the typology such as bear, leopard, hand and horse (or
boar) forms. They are presented in the Figure
13.5a.
Two grooved pebbles, their flat, ornamented faces perhaps related to stamp seals,
have also been recovered. The first (5212)
is from a lower level (South K) in Sp.182,
B.17 and another (8745.x1) (Fig. 13.6) was
found in an unstratified context during sur13918.x1
11652.x1
face clearance in the 4040 Area (Trkcan
2005a, 183).
The first pebble (5212) has led me to
reconsider the chronology of stamp seals at
atalhyk. It is a flat gabbro stone of which
one side is carved with line and dot patterns
that recall the Type 8 pattern (seen on seals
1 and 19) (Trkcan 2005a). It was compared
to the first stone stamp seals of Aceramic Ras
Shamra (of Level VC dated slightly earlier
than Levels South N-O of atalhyk) on
the basis of chronological data (Contenson
17047.x1
8805.x2
1977, 17, Fig. 17).
The second grooved stone artifact (8745. Figure 13.7. Unique stamp forms of atalhyk (Illustration by Zeki Baris
x1) is similar to the one (5212) from Level Beyolu, Yunus Emre Demirbilek, Kathryn Killackey, Sophie Lamb and John
South K. Both have flat sides, but one side is Swogger).
more flattened and is patterned in a symmetric arrangement of drilled grooves with incised wavy lines. The drilled grooves are set in three parallel 2008, 9899, Fig. 1213). According to Eirikh-Rose (2001,
bands with parallel incisions covering three parallel grooves 145), the pebbles first appear in the Levant and, after a period
side by side (9 mm H, 54 mm W, 32 mm L). On the reverse of coexistence, they disappear and clay stamp seals became
side, 10 shallow parallel bands have been scored. These shal- widespread. The similarity in geometric patterns may point
low, parallel pairs of five bands seem to create a pattern. They to a similarity of symbolic meaning; this assumption and the
may be scratching of some unknown marks. The material consecutive rise of two classes of artifact imply a similarseems to be dark green gabbro. The overall condition is good ity of function. Whatever their function, it seems that these
but one corner is slightly broken and worn.
grooved stones were superseded by clay stamps (Eirikh-Rose
Perhaps these stone artifacts can be seen as an example of 2001, 155).
the close ties that existed between the first stone stamps seen
towards the end of the Aceramic Neolithic Period and the
clay stamp seals of the Early Ceramic Neolithic Period. Seals
Stamp seals in relation to atalhyk and
(clay and stone) with incised patterns on them without any
Neolithic Anatolian media
handle can be compared with similar finds from PPNA (Jerf
el Ahmar, Gbekli) and PPNB sites in northern Syrian and The corpus of stamp seals from atalhyk has not attracted
southern Levant, as well as similar examples from central the same level of attention as the figurines and wall paintAnatolia such as in Boncuklu and Musular. Although these ings. In prehistoric human societies prior to the use of writing
incised and grooved stone plaques are often categorized as and in pastoral or hunting communities where oral culture
miscellaneous finds, many of them should be considered as predominates, specific symbols that appear to be the product
precursors to stamp seals. Experimental work involving heat- of an unlimited objectivity are used, and that despite all the
ing the stone and mounting it on wooden stick allowed the complexity of these symbols they are based on specific culbranding of textiles as well as animals in a flock (Georgheiu tural codes. Ideas expressed as symbols carved on stone or
241
Figure 13.8. The leopard seal (8805.x2) with the antithetical

leopard reliefs in the so-called leopard shrine (c) (Illustration
by Zeki Baris Beyolu, Yunus Emre Demirbilek and Sophie
Lamb).
shaped in clay are found to be cultural codes passed down
from generation to generation in the society. Stamp seals may
be regarded as the most important vehicle for duplicating and
passing on these cultural codes.
In fact, clay allows for the rapid production of an unprecedented array of both fixed and portable materials signs and
symbols. During the Neolithic Period, this would have made
it an ideal medium for new forms of communication involving increasingly complex messages, increased numbers of
individuals and greater distances (Wengrow 1998).
Two unusual stamp seals discovered during the 2003 and
2005 excavation seasons demonstrate that seals are also related to the deep symbolism of atalhyk as reflected in
wall paintings and reliefs. 8805.x2 takes the form of a leopard (Fig. 13.7, lower right) and 11652.x1 is in the form of a
bear (Fig. 13.7, upper right). Both forms are echoed in some
of the large wall reliefs uncovered by Mellaart. The common
characteristics between these stamp seals and wall paintings,
reliefs and other figurative motifs are central to understanding the symbolism of atalhyk. These figurative themes
underline the complex symbolism between particular animals
and their ritual role in the settlement. They demonstrate that
the representation of animals occurs not only on the walls at
atalhyk but also in more portable items that can be seen
as sacred symbols of the community.
The leopard seal 8805.x2 (Fig. 13.8) is the first of this
type not only at atalhyk but also across the Neolithic

period in Anatolia (Trkcan 2003). Anatolian leopards (Panthera pardus tulliana) lived throughout central Anatolia and
the southern Taurus Mountains until recently (Grpnar 2000;
Yaln 2006). In fact, a leopard was recently found in Siirt
at the eastern edge of the Taurus Mountains in southeastern
Anatolia (Batur 2013). The earliest depictions of leopards in
the Neolithic Near East are seen in the carved stone stelai
of the cult buildings in Tell Abr in Northern Syria, dated
to the PPNA period (Yartah 2005, 45). Leopards are first
depicted at atalhyk in the form of molded plaster figures in the so-called leopard shrine excavated by Mellaart
(E.VII.44 and E.VI.44) (Mellaart 1964e, 42. Fig. 5). A second
pair of molded leopards was found tail to tail in the northwest corner of building E.VI.80 (Mellaart 1967, 175176).
The representation of leopards at atalhyk is first observed
on wall paintings with the depiction of humans wearing garments interpreted as spotted furs in Levels V and III (Russell
& Meece 2005, 215).
No leopard or any other feline form has been recognized
among the animal figurines that occur almost entirely in
Levels South M-O (Chapter 12). In fact, leopards are only
represented with humans or deities on big sculptural pieces.
In Mellaarts classification, there are seven statuettes depicting male and female deities with leopards (Mellaart 1967,
203204, Pl.7376, 86, Fig. 49, Pl. 6768, Fig. 50, Pl. 87).
Among these, the seated female goddess giving birth between two felids (most likely leopards) from Level II is the
most renowned (Mellaart 1967, Pl. 6768).
Although leopards appear repeatedly in atalhyk art,
leopard remains had not been identified in the faunal record
until 2004, when a claw was found in the Level South R burial of a woman holding a plastered human skull to her chest
(Hodder 2006, 260). Thus, the discovery of at least one bone
seems to confirm that leopards were a familiar animal to the
people of atalhyk at that time. Moreover, finding only
one leopard bone among 24,000 animal bones classified to
taxon indicates that it was a rare relic in the community.
The molded plaster splayed figures seen in several houses
excavated by Mellaart were originally interpreted as goddess figures, with the outstretched and sometimes upturned
limbs as indications of giving birth (1963d, 6167). The
heads and usually the hands and feet of these splayed figures
were knocked off when the houses were abandoned. In one
instance, the head had rounded ears on top, which, for Mellaart, represented a horned hairstyle (1964, 50). Another has
its feet outlined in red, which Mellaart compares to a similar
treatment of the feet and tails of the leopard reliefs (1964,
45). On the other hand, some of these figures have a distinctly
marked navel. This feature suggests that they are intended
to be anthropomorphic or therianthropic. In any case, the recurrence of these figures suggests an important standardized
motif (Russell & Meece 2005, 216).
242
The similarities between these figures and the bear stamp

(11652.x1 Fig. 13.9), however, have subsequently altered our
interpretations of these splayed figures. Despite minor damage
to the forelegs, it is easy to make a reconstruction of the overall
form. They seem to have been intentionally broken at the same
level as the heads and hands of the molded plaster figures. The
small tail is also emphasized between the legs. The overall
form, the head, paws and small tail all indicates that it is a representation of a bear. A tiny pebble is embedded in the middle
of the belly. It makes a contrast with the smooth, flat surface
of the face of the seal. It is also noteworthy that a similar features is seen on the bellies of upraised arm reliefs (in the spaces
of VI.1, VII.31, VI.8 and VII.45, VI.B.8, VI.B.10; see Mellaart 1967) (Fig. 13.9c). So it is possible that the reliefs with
upraised arms and legs are not goddesses but bears. Hodder
(1987, 45) was the first to question the identification of these
figures as mother goddesses, stating that the reliefs are too
ambiguous to regard them as women, much less as goddesses.
Russell & Meece (2005, 215) also suggested that the splayed
figures are more likely to be animals, as none of them have any
indication of gender, in contrast to some figurines and figures
on walls. They also point out that the upturned legs are a physically impossible position for humans and that the placement
of the limbs suggests bears or some other quadruped instead.
As with leopards at atalhyk, there is a distinct imbalance between the number of representations of bears and the
number of bear remains found on site. To date, actual bear
remains have been recovered only once. This is an articulated bear paw with traces of plaster between the toes. It was
found in the fill of Sp.159, B.24, Level South M. This is the
antechamber of Mellaarts building VII.10 (Russell & Meece
2005, 221). The plaster probably indicates that the paw or a
hide to which it was attached was once part of an architectural
installation (Russell & Meece 2005, 221). The discovery of a
bear paw with special treatment also reinforces the idea that it
could be a fragment or a part of a splayed figure on the walls:
VIII.31 was one of the best preserved buildings on
the site even though it had lost the plaster of its entire
north and more than half of the cast wall. It had been
abandoned and filled in after its reliefs had been defaced..The first composition consisted of the familiar goddess-figure modeled in bold relief, the
hands and feet of which appear to have been made
separately and inserted into now empty sockets.
Moreover, in the study I made on Mellaarts stamp seal

assemblage in 1997, one hand-shaped seal with oval digits
from Mellaart Level IV (Mellaart 1964, Fig. 41.4) stood out
in particular (Trkcan 2005a, Seal No. 19). In my previous
report, I was hesitant to describe it unequivocally as a bear
paw, but in light of recent findings I am now confident that
that is what it represents.
Figure 13.9. The bear seal (11652.x1) with the splayed figure (below) (Illustration by Zeki Baris Beyolu, Yunus Emre
Demirbilek, and John Swogger).
The discrepancy between the number of predator/wild
animal representations at atalhyk and the actual amount
of their remains found on site is interesting. Such differences
might suggest the existence of a taboo against hunting these
animals or bringing them onto the site (Hodder 2006, 261).
Viewed from this perspective, the actual paw remains of a
bear and a perforated leopard claw pendant testify that they
are result of special treatment as well as their special role on
the community. The phenomenon of cutting off of the paws
and head parts of the splayed figures might therefore be the
result of an iconoclastic custom carried out in particular situations as observed by Mellaart (1966, 188):

243
Were the heads destroyed intentionally before the paintings were covered with white plaster like the deers head
in the Level V shrine, the leopards in Shrine VI. (or the
heads, arms and legs of goddess reliefs in the shrines of
level VII? The habit of religious iconoclasm at atalhyk is well attested
of Sp.327 in B.74 (TP Area) along with fragments of the

northern and southern walls were found decorated with incised geometric spiral motifs (Marciniak & Czerniak 2007,
118119, Fig. 77). The basic pattern is identical to a seal
(11632.x1) found during the 2005 season in B.44, Level
South S (Fig. 13.10).
atalhyk stamp seals and Anatolian Neolithic

glyptic tradition
Figure 13.10. The seal of 11632.x1 with wall panel in B.74

(TP) (Illustration by Zeki Baris Beyolu, Yunus Emre Demirbilek, and John Swogger).
The bear seals paws appear to have undergone the same
treatment. The fact that the seal appears to have been intentionally placed in house fill deposits associated with the closing of a building suggests it was used as a votive object before the abandonment of Sp.54 at the end of its use-life.
The absence of leopards and bears from wall paintings
is interesting, considering their recurrence in other media at
atalhyk. As Russell & Meece (2006, 229) have stressed,
molded leopard and splayed figures have an episodic character and remain visible for longer periods than wall paintings.
Thus, they may also be tied to changing myths. In traditional societies, animals form an integral component of human
existence. Images of animals within Paleolithic cave paintings, for instance, may have functioned to cue the recall of
ecological knowledge (Mithen 1998, 98). The examples can
also be multiplied to the Neolithic Period in the Near East,
especially in the rich repertoire of PPNA and PPNB sites like
Gbekli Tepe, Nevali ori, Jerf el Ahmar (discussed earlier
in Trkcan 2007). These images seem to belong to the interconnected worlds of animals and humans as reflected in shamanic traditions of associating the soul with animals such as
wolves, bears, vultures, etc. According to Ingold (2000, 121),
depictions of animals and humans in traditional societies are
not representations of everyday activities but rather another
plane of reality where animals, ancestral beings and humans
relate socially to one another.
A final example of the relationship between the largescale, immobile decorative motifs used in buildings and the
small-scale, portable motifs embodied by stamp seals came
to light between 2005 and 2007. In 2007, the western walls
Since my last report on the atalhyk stamp seals (Trkcan

2005), many new publications dealing with regional corpuses
(e.g. Balkans, Italy) have emerged. A new corpus by Makkay
(2005) who published a supplement to his renowned reference
work Early Stamp Seals of Southern Europe (1984), including the vast spatio-temporal distribution of these objects from
Southeast Europe, while providing an overview of morphological and typological variations. In addition to Makkays work,
several scholars (Naumov 2008a; 2008b; Dhsfenzova 2003;
Makkay 2005) have also evaluated stamp seals with respect
to their typological, chronological and functional parameters
within the framework of the Neolithization of the areas in
which they occur. Recent studies have also tended to focus on
cultural processes of production and consumption as well as
focusing on typological classification and stylistic comparisons.
In a similar way, stamp seals in Neolithic Anatolia have
gained more attention in light of recent work (ilingiroglu
2009; Lichter 2005, 6770; Umurtak 2000). Several new excavations have begun in Western Anatolia along with ongoing
projects on the Aegean Coast (e.g. Ulucak) and Eastern Marmara (e.g. Barn, Aktopraklk) as well as a few excavations
in Central Anatolia. Especially noteworthy are the increasing number of stamps from Aegean Coast Neolithic settlements such as Ulucak Hyk (ilingiroglu 2009), Ege Gbre
(Salamtimur 2007, 375, Fig. 1214), Yeilova, (Derin 2007,
382; 2010, 480, Fig. 4), neighboring sites such as ukurii
Hyk and Dedecik-Heybelitepe (Lichter & Meri 2007, 386,
Fig. 3) and sporadic finds from Cokun Tepe near anakkale
(Takaolu 2005, 424, Fig 4.12). Comparisons show that the
atalhyk assemblage share similar forms and patterns with
the Lake Side region (referred to as Pisidian in earlier publications) iconographic tradition (Umurtak 2000). Excavations
in the Lake Side region at Bademaaci continue to uncover
many seals, just as we are at atalhyk (Duru 2007, Fig. 70
72, Figs. 7477). In a previous study, I had already shown that
the most similar stamp seals to atalhyk are from the Lake
Side region (Trkcan 2005b, 184).
It is remarkable that neither Eastern Marmara sites (e.g.
Mentee, Ilpnar, Aktopraklk, Fikirtepe) nor sites in Turkish
Thrace (e.g. Aapnar, Hocaeme) have yielded any evidence of stamp seals. The situation is in contrast with coastal
244
Neolithic settlements from the zmir area (e.g. Ulucak, Ege Gbre, Yeilova, Dedecik-Heybelitepe) all of which have yielded
stamp seals. Moreover, seals are also abundant throughout a
number of 7th millennium BC Early Neolithic settlements in
Bulgaria (Karanovo I) and Greece (Thessaly and Macedonia).
A further observation is the scarcity of stamp seals at Central and Western Anatolian Chalcolithic sites like Canhasan I,
Orman Fidanl, Gvercinkayas and Kuruay. The only exception to the absence of stamp seals in Chalcolithic Anatolia
is the Haclar IIB seals (Mellaart 1970, 164, Fig. 187.810 &
pl. CXIX), which are similar to the stylized, pseudo-meander
motifs of atalhyk and early Chalcolithic Haclar IIB. This
absence of seals stands in contrast to the situation in Northern Mesopotamia, where stamps were widely used from the
Halaf through to the Uruk Period. The earliest seals and sealings in the Near East are from Tell Sabi Abyad. Building Levels 8 and 7 (provisionally dated to 63006000 BC and thus
contemporary with late atalhyk Levels II and I) yielded
many seals and sealings in addition to the famous burnt village sealings of Level 6 found in the early 1990s (Akkermans & Duistermat 2004, 3).
Contextual data on function

The ways in which stamp seals were used is still unclear,
but ascribing a single function to them can be limiting. It is
thought that they may have been used to impress skin or to
mark portable items such as textiles or ceramics (Mellaart
1963, 46; Perles 2001, 252253; Wickede 1990, 63). To date,
however, stamp seal impressions on ceramics have not been
found at atalhyk or any other contemporary Anatolian
Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites. Stamp seals found in
the same contexts as spindle whorls, however, point to a domestic association with textile production in the Late Pottery
Neolithic Period.
Possible textile workshops identified in three different
buildings of A- - Z2 at Sesklo in Thessaly (in the Sesklo B
[Middle Neolithic] deposits) have also yielded evidence of
seals; House A showed a relatively high frequency of spindle
whorls (13 pieces) in addition to an abundance of painted pottery and three identical clay and stone seals (Pilali-Papasteriou 1992; Souvatzi 2008, 94). Between 1995 and 2008 at Ulucak on the Aegean coast, seven stamps have been recovered,
including Stamp 1 from Building 12:

The stamp unearthed in the building was found in association with 11 donut-shaped loom weights deposited
as a pile on the floor (Figure 5). The fact that the loom
weights were found not in a row (which would have indicated a set-up warp-weighted loom) but as a stored
set (probably in a vessel) implies that the loom was not
set up at the time of the fire that destroyed building 12....
The high quantity and variety of finds from the same

area imply that this was an activity area where weaving
and textile decoration took place. Apart from the loom
weights, bone needles and awls, pierced shells and beads
might also have formed part of the activities related to
textiles that could have been decorated with these items
(ilingirolu 2009, 14. Fig. 5).
The stamp also shows traces of red residue in its grooves,
while its intact state indicates that it was still in use before the
building was burnt (ilingirolu (2009, 14). Another stamp
(Stamp 3) was found in association with a woven piece of
cloth and a concentration of 22 spindle whorls on the floor of
heavily burnt Building 33 (Cilingiroglu 2009, 1516 Fig. 6).
Another stamp (Stamp 4) found in Level IVb from an activity
area outside the houses was found with in association with
several domestic objects including loom weights (ilingirolu 2009, 18).
According to Perles (2001, 252), Neolithic Greek stamp
seals are indistinguishable from textile stamps known ethnographically from Turkey and South America. Their small
size would fit well with the production of narrow linen strips,
but they could also have been used to decorate the borders
of larger textiles. Perles (2001, 254) indicates that the distribution of these artifacts within and between settlements is
uneven, and that this could suggest a differential distribution
of weaving activities. In a recent study of Neolithic households in Greece, Souvatzi (2008, 9394) notes that the use of
spindle whorls, bobbins and loom weights suggests that some
households were involved in intensive textile production and
that clay and stone stamps were used for impressing decorations onto items of clothing or other types of fabrics.
At atalhyk, a seal (15282.x2) found in a midden in
the western part of B.73 in the TP Area also points to an association with textile production. The seal was found with two
spindle whorls as well as a pottery cluster and one worked
stone. In addition, the depositional context of four stamp
seals recovered by Mellaart from shrine A1 in Level II may
suggest further associations. These four seals were recovered
from the floor of the main room along with several hundred
palettes, pounders, querns and polishers items potentially
linked to the processing of pigments (Mellaart 1963, 46). In
my opinion, the association of the stamp seals with spindle
whorls and the production of pigment point to their use as
textile markers, possibly as decorations or as indicators of
ownership or social identity. Such seals are known as pintaderas (painted seals) in the Canary Islands and Latin
America.
Conclusions
Ideas expressed as symbols carved on stone or shaped in clay
may serve as symbolic codes passed down from generation
245
to generation within a society. Stamp seals may be regarded

as the most important vehicle for duplicating and passing
on these codes. As we know from their use-wear and final
depositions (often in middens), they are highly mobile and
represent the physical remains of a set of social and material
processes rather than static, finished things in themselves.
Along similar lines, Bailey (2000, 110) suggests that
stamps may have helped to construct or maintain common
social as well as cultural bonds between communities.
Common images such as spirals, concentric circles and mazelike shapes are found over a broad geographic region, from
Mesopotamia to the Balkans, and may have generated broad
cultural affinities. The importance of symbols in any society,
prehistoric or modern, lies in what they signify to the community in which they are used.
With their unusual, amulet-style forms and their similarities with motifs seen on the walls of houses, the leopard and
bear stamps discovered at atalhyk demonstrate that some
seals, at least, are connected with the deep symbolism of the
Neolithic settlement. In addition, the evidence for links between stamp seals, wall paintings/reliefs and body markings
are becoming stronger with the discovery of animal, hand and
spirals motifs within the assemblage. This association was
already noted in a previous study which observed the continuity and longevity of motif types at atalhyk:

Pattern varieties and their groups seem to have been

made intentionally alike to display similar authority or
emphasize social affiliation. From this point of view, they
may be related to identity and social status (Trkcan

2005b, 183).
In traditional societies, moieties, clans or other social
sub-groupings often use totemic emblems which serve as a
symbol and reaffirmation of group identity. We may be witnessing this phenomenon at atalhyk in the depiction of
animals such as leopards and bears on the walls of houses
and, in later levels, in stamp seals used to mark more portable
items such as clothing, textiles and pottery. The increasing
use of seals to distinguish ownership, identities or other social arrangements may go hand in hand with emerging levels
of social complexity seen at many Late Neolithic and Early
Chalcolithic sites throughout the Near East.
Acknowledgements
I owe thanks to Ian Hodder, who first suggested the rather
laborious methodology and who has read and commented on
various versions of the paper. None of the graphics presented
here would have been possible without the assistance of John
Swogger, Bar Zeki Beyolu, Lyla Pinch Brock, Yunus Emre
Demirbilek and Kathryn Killackey. I would also thank Roddy Regan, who provided valuable information on B.44, and
Chris Doherty and Duygu Tarkan zbudak for the clay analysis of Etudluk stamp seals. I give special thanks to the Konya
Archaeological Museum staff , especially Enver ren, who
gave me the opportunity to study the material stored there.
246

Figurines Uncorrected Second Proof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Figurines Uncorrected Second Proof

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Figurines Uncorrected Second Proof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Substantive Technologies at

BRITISH INSTITUTE AT ANKARA

Published by the British Institute at Ankara

UK distributor: Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN

of figurine types and densities (Meskell et al. 2008), and the

Recording the figurines

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Figure 12.2. Zoomorphic (Photograph by Jason Quinlan).

pomorphic, zoomorphic, abbreviated, phallomorphic forms.

Figurines as process at atalhyk

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

ties represent a set of choices and processes embedded in a

not explicitly occur off-site. Given the dispersal too, we can

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Production: materials, technology

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Table 12.1. Modeling quality by figurine form.

Figure 12.8. Very worn obsidian blades possibly used for

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Table 12.2. Figurine forms (all).

Figure 12.12. 15839.x10 (1.61 cm H, 1.2

(10475.x2). Another example of a removed limestone head

Figurine distributions: counts and densities

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

Preservation and fragmentation

Table 12.4. Breakage patterns in figural examples.

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Dry sieve vol.

bedding and burying seemed fairly established and consistent

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

Table 12.6. Figurine types in buildings and external areas.

Table 12.7. Figurine counts by area.

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

the southwest corner of B.49 (2008, 35). One

Figure 12.13. Figurine counts by context (data category).

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

maining four figurines are fragmentary and inconclusive in

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Snapshots of household activities: burnt

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

these bin-figurine associations might suggest

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Dry sieve volume (KL)

1A D: initial layout of B.3: roof access and kitchen area in

2 blocking of wall opening (F. 633) in east wall; changes in

3 first burials interred in B.3 (central space); changes in

4A change to 2 room configuration with introduction of 2

4B solid barrier between 2 rooms established; burials in

5 final occupation phase; closure of residence

Table 12.8. Building 3 figurine numbers by occupation phase.

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds

infill (e.g. B.3) or even interpreted as part of

Volume 9: Substantive Technologies at atalhyk: Reports from the 20002008 Seasons

Figure 12.20. 13142.x3 (2.65 cm H, 1.88 cm W, 1.62 cm

Headedness and headlessness

of other creatures with fangs, claws and stingers is placed

Chapter 12: Figurine Worlds