Göbekli Tepe

Coordinates: 37°13′25″N 38°55′18″E

Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: [ɟœbecˈli teˈpe],[2] 'Potbelly Hill';[3] known

Göbekli Tepe
as Girê Mirazan or Xirabreşkê in Kurdish,[4] Armenian:
Պորտասար)[5] is a Neolithic archaeological site in the Girê Mirazan
Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. The settlement was Xirabreşkê
inhabited from c. 9500 to at least 8000 BCE,[6] during the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic. It is famous for its large circular structures that
contain massive stone pillars—the world's oldest known megaliths.
Many of these pillars are decorated with anthropomorphic details,
clothing, and sculptural reliefs of wild animals, providing
archaeologists rare insights into prehistoric religion and the
particular iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft)-high, 8 ha
(20-acre) tell is densely covered with ancient domestic structures[7]
and other small buildings, quarries, and stone-cut cisterns from the View overlooking the main
Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods. excavation area of Göbekli Tepe

The site was first used at the dawn of the Southwest Asian
Neolithic period, which marked the appearance of the oldest
permanent human settlements anywhere in the world. Prehistorians
link this Neolithic Revolution to the advent of agriculture, but
disagree on whether farming caused people to settle down or vice
versa. Göbekli Tepe, a monumental complex built on the top of a Shown within Turkey
rocky mountaintop, with no clear evidence of agricultural
cultivation produced to date, has played a prominent role in this
debate.

Current excavators interpret Göbekli Tepe as a settlement, based

on recent findings such as domestic structures and features, water
supply installations, and Neolithic tools associated with domestic
Göbekli Tepe (Near East)
use.[8] The site's original excavator Klaus Schmidt had described it
as a sanctuary used by groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers from a Location Şanlıurfa
wide area, with few or no permanent inhabitants.[1] Province,
Turkey
No definitive purpose has been determined for the megalithic
enclosures; Schmidt had described them as the "world's first Region Southeastern
temple[s]" that were intentionally and ritually backfilled. However, Anatolia
recent stratigraphic studies revealed that they had been filled by Coordinates 37°13′25″N
slope slide events, and were sometimes repaired and modified 38°55′18″E
thereafter.[9]
Type Settlement
The site was first noted in a survey in 1963. Schmidt recognized its History
significance in 1994 and began excavations there the following Founded c. 9500 BCE;[1]
year. After his death in 2014, work continued as a joint project of
11523 years
Istanbul University, Şanlıurfa Museum, and the German
ago
Archaeological Institute, under the direction of Turkish
prehistorian Necmi Karul. Göbekli Tepe was designated an Abandoned c. 8000 BCE[1]
UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2018, recognising its
Periods Pre-Pottery
outstanding universal value as "one of the first manifestations of
Neolithic A
human-made monumental architecture".[10] As of 2021, less than
5% of the site had been excavated.[11] Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B

Geography Site notes

Discovered 1963
Göbekli Tepe is located in
Excavation dates 1995–present
the Taş Tepeler ('Stone
Hills'), in the foothills of Archaeologists Klaus Schmidt
the Taurus Mountains.[12] Necmi Karul
It overlooks the Harran
Lee Clare
plain and the headwaters
of the Balikh River, a Condition Well-preserved
tributary of the Ownership Turkey
[12]
Euphrates. The site is a
Present day landscape around tell (artificial mound) Public access no
Göbekli Tepe
situated on a flat limestone
UNESCO World Heritage Site
plateau.[13] In the north,
the plateau is connected to Official name Göbekli Tepe
the neighbouring mountains by a narrow promontory. In all other Type Cultural
directions, the ridge descends steeply into slopes and steep
Criteria (i), (ii), (iv)
cliffs.[14]
Designated 2018 (42nd
Like most Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in the Urfa region, session)
Göbekli Tepe was built on a high point on the edge of the
mountains, giving it both a wide view over the plain beneath, and Reference no. 1572 (https://w
good visibility from the plain.[15] This location also gave the hc.unesco.org/
builders good access to raw material: the soft limestone bedrock en/list/1572)
from which the complex was built, and the flint to make the tools Region Western Asia
to work the limestone.[15]

Excavations have taken place at the southern slope of the tell, south, and west of a mulberry that marks an
Islamic pilgrimage,[16] but archaeological finds come from the entire plateau. The team has also found
many remains of tools. At the western escarpment, a small cave has been discovered in which a small relief
depicting a bovid was found. It is the only relief found in this cave.[17]

Dawn of village life

Göbekli Tepe was built and occupied during the earliest part of the Southwest Asian Neolithic, known as
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN, c. 9600–7000 BCE).[18] Beginning at the end of the last Ice Age, the PPN
marks "the beginnings of village life",[19] producing the earliest evidence for permanent human settlements
in the world.[19][20] Elements of village life appeared as early as 10,000 years before the Neolithic in
places,[21][22] and the transition to agriculture took thousands of years, with different paces and trajectories
in different regions.[23][24] Archaeologists divide the Pre-Pottery Neolithic into two subperiods: the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA, c. 9600–8800 BCE) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, c. 8800 and 7000
BCE).[20] The earliest phases at Göbekli Tepe have been dated to the PPNA; later phases to the PPNB.[25]
PPN villages consisted mainly of clusters of stone or mud brick houses,[19] but sometimes also substantial
monuments and large buildings.[20] These include the tower and walls at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), as well as
large, roughly contemporaneous circular buildings at Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori, Çayönü, Wadi Feynan 16,
Jerf el-Ahmar, Tell 'Abr 3, and Tepe Asiab.[26] Archaeologists typically associate these structures with
communal activities which, together with the communal effort needed to build them, helped to maintain
social interactions in PPN communities as they grew in size.[27]

The T-shaped pillar tradition seen at Göbekli Tepe is unique to the Urfa region, but is found at the majority
of PPN sites there.[28] These include Nevalı Çori, Hamzan Tepe,[29] Karahan Tepe,[30] Harbetsuvan
Tepesi,[31] Sefer Tepe,[28] and Taslı Tepe.[32] Other stone stelae—without the characteristic T shape—have
been documented at contemporary sites further afield, including Çayönü, Qermez Dere, and Gusir
Höyük.[33]

Diet
At the time when Göbekli Tepe was occupied, the
climate of the area was warmer and wetter than it is
Nevalı Çori
today.[13] It was surrounded by an open steppe
grassland,[13] with abundant wild cereals, including Göbekli Tepe
Karahan Tepe
einkorn, wheat, and barley,[34] and herds of grazing
animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and
equids.[35] Large herds of goitered gazelle may have
passed by the site in seasonal migrations.[36] There is
no evidence of substantial woodlands nearby;[13] 90%
Known PPN sites in the Urfa region.[15][32][31]
of the charcoal recovered at the site was from
Sites with T-shaped pillars are marked with .
pistachio or almond trees.[37]

Archaeologists have long associated the appearance of

these settlements with the Neolithic Revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture—
but disagree on whether the adoption of farming caused people to settle down, or settling down caused
people to adopt farming.[38] Despite the name, the Neolithic Revolution in Southwest Asia was "drawn out
and locally variable".[39]

Evidence indicates the inhabitants of Göbekli Tepe were hunter-gatherers who supplemented their diet with
early forms of domesticated cereal and lived in villages for at least part of the year. Tools such as grinding
stones and mortars and pestles found at the site have been analyzed and suggest considerable cereal
processing. Archaeozoological evidence hints at "large-scale hunting of gazelle between midsummer and
autumn."[40]

The village acquired drinking water through a rainwater harvesting system, consisting of carved
channels[41] that fed several cisterns carved into the bedrock under the site,[42] which could hold at least
150 cubic metres (5,300 cu ft) of water.[40][43] Additionally, the local water table may have been higher,
activating springs closer to the site that are dormant today.[44]

Chronology
Radiocarbon dating shows that the earliest exposed structures at Göbekli Tepe were built between 9500
and 9000 BCE, towards the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period.[9][25] The site was
significantly expanded in the early 9th millennium BCE and remained in use until around 8000 BCE, or
perhaps slightly later (the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, PPNB).[25] There is evidence that smaller groups
returned to live amongst the ruins after the Neolithic structures were abandoned.[25]

Schmidt originally dated the site to the PPN based on the types of stone tools found there, considering a
PPNA date "most probable".[45] Establishing its absolute chronology took longer due to methodological
challenges.[46][47] Though the first two radiocarbon dates were published in 1998,[48] these and other
samples from the fill of the structure dated to the late 10th and early 9th millennium – 500 to 1000 years
later than expected for a PPNA site.[46] Schmidt's team explained the discrepancy in light of their theory
that this material was brought to the site from elsewhere when it was abandoned, and so was not
representative of the actual use of the structures.[46][47] They instead turned to a novel method of dating
organic material preserved in the plaster on the structure's walls, which resulted in dates more consistent
with a PPNA occupation, in the middle or even early 10th-millennium BCE.[49][50][9] Subsequent research
led to a significant revision of Schmidt's chronology, including the abandonment of the hypothesis that the
fill of the structures was brought from elsewhere, and a recognition that direct dates on plaster are affected
by the old wood effect.[51] Together with new radiocarbon dates, this has established the site's absolute
chronology as falling in the period 9500 to 8000 BCE – the late PPNA and PPNB.[1][52]

Building phases

The preliminary, now abandoned,[53] stratigraphic model by Klaus Schmidt consisted of three architectural
layers. The large circular enclosures were attributed to Layer III, dated to the 10th millennium BCE
(PPNA). The smaller rectangular structures and the abandonment of the site were assigned to Layer II in
the 9th millennium BCE (early to middle PPNB). Layer I consisted of all post-Neolithic activities up to the
modern surface.[9]

The revised chronology consists of eight phases that span at least 1,500 years. It details the history of the
large circular enclosures, including events that led to their alteration or abandonment, and the evolution of
the domestic buildings surrounding them.[54]

Phase 1: The earliest settlement phase includes the first versions of enclosures A to D and
round-oval domestic structures, which indicate a (semi) sedentary lifestyle.[53]
Phase 2: In the second phase (early 9th millennium BC) significant modifications of
enclosures A-D were undertaken: New walls were erected, which incorporated the first
monolithic T-shaped pillars. An increasing number of domestic structures were built, still
mostly oval-round, though with a rising tendency for a rectangular floor plan.[53]

Phases 3–5: In the early PPNB, the northern and western slopes saw the erection of
rectangular (domestic) structures. They underwent multiple construction phases, for
instance, the addition of benches with incorporated T-shaped pillar, and new inner walls
resulting in more rectangular rooms. The large enclosures were modified as well. Walls
were repaired and new ones added. Benches were placed against the interior sides of
phase 2 walls.[54]
At the end of the early PPNB, a slope slide inundated the lower lying structures, flushing
sediments and domestic rubble (likely including midden and burials) downhill. This caused
extensive damage to enclosure D, and led to stabilization works in Phase 5. Building C was
reconstructed for the last time, and a terrace wall was placed above it, to prevent future
slope-slides. Nonetheless, a second major slope-slide event occurred, which likely resulted
in enclosure D being abandoned in the late 9th millennium BC.[54]
Phases 6 and 7: Building activity gradually declined in phases 6 and 7 (late 9th to early 8th
millennium BC). The loss of enclosures B and D may have led to the construction of building
 G and the "Lion Pillar Building". In Phase 7 another terrace wall was constructed in a last
attempt to stabilize the northern slope.[55]
Phase 8: In the final occupation period, small habitation structures were built within the
remains of the abandoned Neolithic village.[55]

Architecture

Large enclosures

At this early stage of the site's history, circular compounds

first appear. They range from 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 ft) in
diameter. Their most notable feature is the presence of T-
shaped limestone pillars evenly set within thick interior walls
composed of unworked stone. Four such circular structures
have been unearthed so far. Geophysical surveys indicate
that there are 16 more, enclosing up to eight pillars each,
amounting to nearly 200 pillars in all. The slabs were
transported from bedrock pits located approximately 100 m
(330 ft) from the hilltop, with workers using flint points to
cut through the limestone bedrock.[56] The pillars are the
oldest known megaliths in the world.[57]

Two taller pillars stand facing one another at the centre of

each circle. Whether the circles were provided with a roof is
uncertain. Stone benches designed for sitting are found in the Aerial view of the main excavation area,
interior.[58] Many of the pillars are decorated with abstract, showing circular enclosures A, B, C and D
enigmatic pictograms and carved animal reliefs. The and a number of rectangular structures.
pictograms may represent commonly understood sacred
symbols, as known from Neolithic cave paintings elsewhere.
The reliefs depict mammals such as lions, bulls, boars, foxes, gazelle, and donkeys; snakes and other
reptiles; arthropods such as insects and arachnids; and birds, particularly vultures. At the time the edifice
was constructed, the surrounding country was likely to have been forested and capable of sustaining this
variety of wildlife, before millennia of human settlement and cultivation led to the near–Dust Bowl
conditions prevalent today.[59] Vultures also feature prominently in the iconography of Çatalhöyük and
Jericho.

Few humanoid figures have appeared in the art at Göbekli Tepe. Some of the T-shaped pillars have human
arms carved on their lower half, however, suggesting to site excavator Schmidt that they are intended to
represent the bodies of stylized humans (or perhaps deities). Loincloths appear on the lower half of a few
pillars. The horizontal stone slab on top is thought by Schmidt to symbolize shoulders, which suggests that
the figures were left headless.[60] Whether they were intended to serve as surrogate worshippers, symbolize
venerated ancestors, or represent supernatural, anthropomorphic beings is not known.

Some of the floors in this, the oldest, layer are made of terrazzo (burnt lime); others are bedrock from which
pedestals to hold the large pair of central pillars were carved in high relief.[61] Radiocarbon dating places
the construction of these early circles around 9000 BCE.
Later enclosures were rectangular in shape, perhaps to make more efficient use of space compared with
circular structures. They often are associated with the emergence of the Neolithic,[62] but the T-shaped
pillars, the main feature of the older enclosures, also are present here, indicating that the buildings continued
to serve the same function in the culture,[63] during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). The several
adjoining rectangular, doorless, and windowless rooms have floors of polished lime reminiscent of Roman
terrazzo floors. Carbon dating has yielded dates between 8800 and 8000 BCE.[64] Several T-pillars up to
1.5 meters tall occupy the center of the rooms. A pair decorated with fierce-looking lions is the rationale for
the name "lion pillar building" by which their enclosure is known.[65]

Enclosure B Enclosure C

Enclosure F

Slope slide events

The enclosures, lying over 10 metres (33 ft) below the highest areas of the settlement, were subject to
several slope slide events during the occupation period of Göbekli Tepe.[66] A particularly severe one
occurred at the end early PPNB. which inundated enclosure D with rubble of domestic structures and
sediments, including burials and midden deposits. This caused severe damage to the enclosure, which led to
repairs and stabilization works to be conducted. At a later point, in Building Phase 5, terrace walls were
erected, likely to prevent future damage from such events. These measures, however, proved futile, when a
second major slope slide probably caused the enclosure to the abandoned during Building Phase 6, around
the late 9th millennium BC. Other enclosure suffered a similar fate, which might have led to new
enclosures being constructed to replace them.[54]
Previously, it had been assumed that the large enclosures were intentionally back-filled, an interpretation
that has fallen out of favor since Klaus Schmidt's death.[67]

Domestic structures

In the earliest occupation phase, round-oval domestic structures were built alongside the large enclosures,
which indicate a (semi) sedentary lifestyle. Over time there was an increasing tendency of these buildings to
have a rectangular floor plan. In the final settlement phase only small structures were erected.[54]

Burials

Before any burials were found, Schmidt speculated that graves could have been located in niches behind
the walls of the circular building.[59] In 2017, fragments of human crania with incisions were discovered at
the site, interpreted as a manifestation of the widespread Neolithic skull cult.[18] Special preparation of
human crania in the form of plastered human skulls is known from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period at
sites such as 'Ain Mallaha, Tell es-Sultan (also known as Jericho), and Yiftahel.

Other structures

At the western edge of the hill, a lionlike figure was found. In this area, flint and limestone fragments occur
more frequently. It was, therefore, suggested that this could have been some kind of sculpture
workshop.[68] It is unclear, on the other hand, how to classify three phallic depictions from the surface of
the southern plateau. They are near the quarries of classical times, making their dating difficult.[17]

Apart from the tell, there is an incised platform with two sockets that could have held pillars and a
surrounding flat bench. This platform corresponds to the oldest parts of the tell. Continuing the naming
pattern, it is called "complex E". Owing to its similarity to the cult-buildings at Nevalı Çori it has also been
called "Temple of the Rock". Its floor has been carefully hewn out of the bedrock and smoothed,
reminiscent of the terrazzo floors of the younger complexes at Göbekli Tepe. Immediately northwest of this
area are two cistern-like pits that are believed to be part of complex E. One of these pits has a table-high pin
as well as a staircase with five steps.[69]

Later structures

The uppermost layer of the tell is the shallowest but accounts for the longest stretch of time. It consists of
loose sediments caused by erosion and the virtually-uninterrupted use of the hill for agricultural purposes
since it ceased to operate as a ceremonial center.

Around the beginning of the 8th millennium BCE, Göbekli Tepe lost its importance. The advent of
agriculture and animal husbandry brought new realities to human life in the area, and the "Stone-age zoo"
apparently lost whatever significance it had had for the region's older, foraging communities.

Construction
The plateau Göbekli Tepe is situated on has been shaped by erosion and quarrying from the Neolithic
onwards. There are four 10-metre-long (33 ft) and 20-centimetre-wide (7.9 in) channels on the southern
part of the plateau, interpreted as the remains of an ancient quarry from which rectangular blocks were
taken. These are possibly related to a square building in the neighbourhood, of which only the foundation is
preserved. Presumably, this is the remains of a Roman watchtower that was part of the Limes Arabicus,
though this is conjecture.[70] Most structures on the plateau seem to be the result of Neolithic quarrying,
with the quarries being used as sources for the huge, monolithic architectural elements. Their profiles were
pecked into the rock, with the detached blocks then levered out of the rock bank.[70] Several quarries
where round workpieces had been produced were identified. Their status as quarries was confirmed by the
find of a 3-by-3 metre piece at the southeastern slope of the plateau. Unequivocally Neolithic are three T-
shaped pillars that had not yet been levered out of the bedrock. The largest of them lies on the northern
plateau. It has a length of 7 m (23 ft) and its head has a width of 3 m (10 ft). Its weight may be around
50 tons. The two other unfinished pillars lie on the southern Plateau.

Archaeologists disagree on how much labour was needed to construct the site. Schmidt maintained that
"the work of quarrying, transporting, and erecting tons of heavy, monolithic, and almost universally well-
prepared limestone pillars [...] was not within the capability of a few people".[71] Using Thor Heyerdahl's
experiments with the moai of Rapa Nui as a reference, he estimated that moving the pillars alone must have
involved hundreds of people.[44] According to these experiments, one moai of similar size to a T-shaped
pillar from Göbekli Tepe would have taken 20 people a year to carve, and 50–75 people a week to
transport 15 km.[72] Schmidt's team has also cited a 1917 account of the construction of a megalith on the
Indonesian island of Nias, which took 525 people three days.[44][72] These estimates underpin their
interpretation that the site was built by a large, non-resident workforce,[73] coerced or enticed there by a
small religious elite.[74][75] However, others estimate that just 7–14 people could have moved the pillars
using ropes and water or another lubricant, with techniques used to construct other monuments such as
Stonehenge.[44] Experiments at Göbekli Tepe itself have suggested that all the PPNB structures currently
exposed could have been built by 12–24 people in less than four months, allowing for time spent quarrying
stone and gathering, and preparing food.[76] These labour estimates are thought to be within the capability
of a single extended family or village community in the Neolithic.[44] They also match the number of
people that could have comfortably been inside one of the buildings at the same time.[77]

Enclosures B, C and D were initially planned as a single, hierarchical complex that forms an equilateral
triangle, according to Haklay and Gopher.[78]

Tools
Göbekli Tepe is littered with flint artifacts, from the ridge-top site to the slopes.[79] The tool assemblage
found resembles that of other Northern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (settlement) sites.[80]

In 1963, over 3,000 Neolithic tools were uncovered, the vast majority of excellent quality flint, only a
handful of obsidian. Cores, various blades, flakes, scrapers, burins, and projectile points, were the most
common tool types.[81]

Excavations of Space 16, a small building adjacent to enclosure D, yielded almost 700 tools. Most common
were retouched artifacts, followed by scrapers, perforators and artifacts with gloss. Heavy duty tools, burins
and microliths were also present.[82]

Iconography

Pillars
The stone pillars in the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe are T-shaped, similar to
other Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the region.[83] Unlike at these other
sites, however, many of the pillars are carved – typically in low relief,
though sometimes in high relief. Most carvings depict animals, mostly
serpents, foxes, and boars, but also gazelle, mouflon (wild sheep), onager,
ducks, and vultures. Insofar as they can be identified, the animals are male,
and often depicted with an aggressive posture.[84][85]
Reproduction of the central
Abstract shapes are also depicted, mostly an upright or horizontal 'H'-
pillars of Enclosure D in the
shaped symbol, but also crescents and disks. Depictions of humans are rare; Şanlıurfa museum:
pillar 43 in enclosure D includes a headless man with an erect phallus. engraved arms are visible
However, the 'T'-shape of the pillars themselves is anthropomorphic: the on the shaft.
shaft is the body, and the top is the head. This is confirmed by the fact that
some pillars include – in addition to animal reliefs – carvings of arms,
hands, and loincloths.[86]

The two central pillars occupied a special place in the symbolic architecture of the enclosures. Those in
Enclosure D represent humans, with arms, a belt, and a piece of cloth that hides the genitals. The sex of the
individuals depicted cannot be clearly identified, though Schmidt suggested that they are two men because
the belts they wear are a male attribute in the period. There is only one certain representation of a woman,
depicted naked on a slab.[86]

Schmidt and zooarchaeologist Joris Peters have argued that the variety of fauna depicted on the pillars
means they likely do not express a single iconography. They suggest that, since many of the animals
pictured are predators, the stones may have been intended to stave off evils through some form of magic
representation, or served as totems.[87]
 Pillar 10, Pillar 12, Enclosure C: Pillar 27, Pillar 37
Enclosure B: fox ducks and boar Enclosure C: (central),
predator Enclosure C:
(perhaps a fox
felid) hunting a
boar

Pillar 43,
Enclosure D: the
"Vulture Stone"

Other objects

The structures at Göbekli Tepe have also yielded a number of smaller carved stones, which typically cannot
be attributed to one period or another. The iconography of these objects is similar to that of the pillars,
mostly depicting animals, but also humans, again primarily male.[88][89]
 Carved stone with animal Boar statuette with legs Sculptured Boar statuette
(possibly a reptile, felid, or stone pole without legs
wolverine) in high relief

Head of an animal

A "totem pole" was discovered in one of the structures, dating to the early PPNB. Reassembled, it is 192
centimetres (6.30 ft) tall and 30 centimetres (0.98 ft) in diameter. It depicts three figures (from top to
bottom): a predator (a bear or large felid) with a missing head, and the neck and arms of a human; another
figure missing a head with human arms, likely male; and a third figure with a head that had survived intact.
Snakes are carved on either side.[90]

Interpretation
Klaus Schmidt's view was that Göbekli Tepe was a stone-age mountain sanctuary. He suggested it was a
central location for a cult of the dead and that the carved animals are there to protect the dead. Butchered
bones found in large numbers from the local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese have been
identified as refuse from food hunted and cooked or otherwise prepared for the congregants.[91]
Zooarchaeological analysis shows that gazelle were only seasonally present in the region, suggesting that
events such as rituals and feasts were likely timed to occur during periods when game availability was at its
peak.[36] Schmidt saw the construction of Göbekli Tepe as contributing to the later development of urban
civilization.[92]

Schmidt also speculated on the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe, based on
comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He presumed shamanic practices and suggested that the T-
shaped pillars represent human forms, perhaps ancestors, whereas he saw a fully articulated belief in deities
as not developing until later, in Mesopotamia, that was associated with extensive temples and palaces. This
corresponds well with an ancient Sumerian belief that agriculture, animal husbandry, and weaving were
brought to humans from the sacred mountain Ekur, which was inhabited by Annuna deities, very ancient
deities without individual names. Schmidt identified this story as a primeval oriental myth that preserves a
partial memory of the emerging Neolithic.[93] It is apparent that the animal and other images give no
indication of organized violence, i.e. there are no depictions of hunting raids or wounded animals, and the
pillar carvings generally ignore game on which the society depended, such as deer, in favour of formidable
creatures such as lions, snakes, spiders, and scorpions.[59][94][95]
Expanding on Schmidt's interpretation that round enclosures could
represent sanctuaries, Gheorghiu's semiotic interpretation reads the
Göbekli Tepe iconography as a cosmogonic map that would have
related the local community to the surrounding landscape and the
cosmos.[96]

The assumption that the site was strictly cultic in purpose and not
inhabited has been challenged as well by the suggestion that the
structures served as large communal houses, "similar in some ways Steles and sculptures from Göbekli
to the large plank houses of the Northwest Coast of North America Tepe in Şanlıurfa Museum
with their impressive house posts and totem poles."[44] It is not
known why every few decades the existing pillars were buried to
be replaced by new stones as part of a smaller, concentric ring inside the older one.[97] According to Rémi
Hadad, in recent years "the interpretative enthusiasm that sought to see Göbekli Tepe as a regional
ceremonial centre where nomadic populations would periodically converge is giving way to a vision that is
more in line with what is known about other large Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites, where ritual and profane
functions coexist."[98] For example, the discovery of domestic buildings and rainwater harvesting systems
has forced a revision of the 'temple' narrative.[1]

Research history
Before being documented by archaeologists, the hill Göbekli Tepe
stands on, known locally in Kurdish as Girê Mirazan or Xerabreşk,
was considered a sacred place.[99][100]

The archaeological site was first noted in a survey conducted by

Istanbul University and the University of Chicago in 1963.[101]
American archaeologist Peter Benedict identified the stone tools
collected from the surface of site as characteristic of the Aceramic
Neolithic,[102] but apparently mistook the upper parts of the T-
shaped pillars for grave markers.[103] The hill had long been under Klaus Schmidt delivering a lecture in
agricultural cultivation, and generations of local inhabitants had Salzburg, 2014.
frequently moved rocks and placed them in clearance piles, which
may have disturbed the upper layers of the site. At some point,
attempts had been made to break up some of the pillars, presumably by farmers who mistook them for
ordinary large rocks.[59]

In October 1994, German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt, who had previously been working at Nevalı Çori,
was looking for evidence of similar sites in the area and decided to re-examine the location described by the
Chicago researchers in 1963.[59][104] Asking in nearby villages about hills with flint,[104] he was guided to
Göbekli Tepe by Mahmut and İbrahim Yıldız, the farmers who owned the land the site was situated
on.[100] Mahmut Yıldız and his father had previously discovered finds while ploughing there, which they
reported to the local museum.[100] Having found similar structures at Nevalı Çori, Schmidt recognized the
possibility that the stone slabs were not grave markers as supposed by Benedict, but the tops of prehistoric
megaliths. He began excavations the following year and soon unearthed the first of the huge T-shaped
pillars.[59] Ultimately he found only three tombs on the eastmost hill-group, which were a pilgrimage
destination.[105] Yıldız went on to work on the excavations and serve as the site's guard.[100]
Schmidt continued to direct excavations at the site on behalf of the Şanlıurfa Museum and the German
Archaeological Institute (DAI) until his death in 2014. Since then, the DAI's research at the site has been
coordinated by Lee Clare.[106][1] As of 2021, work on the site is conducted jointly by Istanbul University,
the Şanlıurfa Museum, and the DAI, under the overall direction of Necmi Karul.[107][108] Recent
excavations have been more limited than Schmidt's, focusing on detailed documentation and conservation
of the areas already exposed.[108]

Conservation
Göbekli Tepe was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in
2018, recognising its outstanding universal value as "one of the first
manifestations of human-made monumental architecture".[10] As of
2021, less than 5% of the site had been excavated.[11]

Conservation work at the site caused controversy in 2018, when

Çiğdem Köksal Schmidt, an archaeologist, and widow of Klaus
Schmidt, said that damage was caused by the use of concrete and
"heavy equipment" during the construction of a new walkway. The Protective roof added to the site
Ministry of Culture and Tourism responded that no concrete was
used and that no damage had occurred.[109]

See also
Archaeoastronomy – Interdisciplinary study of astronomies in cultures
Boncuklu Tarla
Gürcütepe – Archaeological site in Turkey
List of archaeological sites by continent and age
List of largest monoliths
Prehistoric religion – Religion before written records
Pseudoarchaeology – Scientifically insubstantial theories interpreting archaeology

Notes
1. Clare 2020.
2. "Göbekli Tepe" (http://www.forvo.com/word/g%C3%B6bekli_tepe/). Forvo Pronunciation
Dictionary.
3. Symmes 2010.
4. Kosen 2019.
5. Mirror-Spectator, The Armenian (26 September 2019). "Reclaiming our Ancient Heritage:
Portasar (Göbekli Tepe)" (https://mirrorspectator.com/2019/09/26/reclaiming-our-ancient-herit
age-portasar-gobekli-tepe/). The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Retrieved 16 October 2023.
6. Breuers & Kinzel 2022, p. 471.
7. Schönicke 2019, p. 214.
8. Schönicke 2019, p. 214-215.
9. Dietrich et al. 2013.
10. "Göbekli Tepe" (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572). UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
11. Strebe, Matthew (3 November 2015). "Göbekli Tepe, Turkey" (https://globalheritagefund.org/
places/gobekli-tepe-turkey/). Global Heritage Fund. Retrieved 11 August 2021.
12. Clare et al. 2017, p. 17.
13. Knitter et al. 2019.
14. Schmidt 2006, p. 102.
15. Moetz & Çelik 2012.
16. Schmidt 2009, p. 188.
17. Schmidt 2006, p. 111.
18. Gresky, Haelm & Clare 2017.
19. Banning 2002.
20. Watkins 2017.
21. Zeder & Smith 2009.
22. Maher, Richter & Stock 2012.
23. Fuller, Willcox & Allaby 2012.
24. Arbuckle 2014.
25. Kinzel & Clare 2020, pp. 32–33.
26. Richter et al. 2021, p. 2.
27. Richter et al. 2021, pp. 15–17.
28. Güler, Çelik & Güler 2012.
29. Çelik 2010.
30. Çelik 2011.
31. Çelik 2016.
32. Güler, Çelik & Güler 2013.
33. Dietrich 2016.
34. Neef 2003.
35. Peters et al. 2013.
36. Lang et al. 2013.
37. Neef 2003, p. 14.
38. Watkins 2010.
39. Hodder 2018.
40. Dietrich et al. 2019.
41. Clare 2020, p. 84-85.
42. Herrmann & Schmidt 2012.
43. Curry 2021.
44. Banning 2011.
45. Schmidt 2000b, p. 51.
46. Dietrich 2011.
47. "How old is it? Dating Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/06/2
2/how-old-ist-it-dating-gobekli-tepe/). 2016.
48. Kromer & Schmidt 1998.
49. Pustovoytov 2002.
50. Dietrich & Schmidt 2010.
51. Kinzel & Clare 2020, p. 38.
52. Kinzel & Clare 2020.
53. Kinzel & Clare 2020, p. 32.
54. Kinzel & Clare 2020, p. 32-33.
55. Kinzel & Clare 2020, p. 33.
56. Schmidt 2000b, pp. 52–3.
57. Scham 2008, p. 23.
58. Mithen 2004, p. 65.
59. Curry 2008.
60. Schmidt 2010, pp. 244, 246.
61. Schmidt 2010, p. 251.
62. Flannery & Marcus 2012, p. 128.
63. Schmidt 2010, pp. 239, 241.
64. Schmidt 2009, p. 291.
65. Schmidt 2009, p. 198.
66. Schönicke 2019, p. 217-219.
67. Schönicke 2019, p. 217.
68. Schmidt 2006, pp. 109–11.
69. Schmidt 2006, p. 109.
70. Schmidt 2006, p. 105.
71. Schmidt 2006, p. 252.
72. Dietrich & Notroff 2015.
73. Kinzel & Clare 2020, p. 35.
74. Schmidt 1999.
75. Dietrich, Notroff & Schmidt 2017.
76. Kinzel & Clare 2020, p. 37.
77. Kinzel & Clare 2020, pp. 38–44.
78. Haklay & Gopher 2020.
79. Benedict 1980, p. 179.
80. Breuers & Kinzel 2022, p. 484.
81. Benedict 1980, p. 181-182.
82. Breuers & Kinzel 2022, p. 478-479.
83. Schmidt 2015, pp. 285–292.
84. Schmidt 2012, p. 152.
85. Peters & Schmidt 2004, pp. 183–185, 206.
86. Schmidt 2012, p. 153–155.
87. Peters & Schmidt 2004, pp. 209–12.
88. Schmidt 2011, pp. 929–930.
89. Dietrich et al. 2019, p. 26.
90. Köksal-Schmidt & Schmidt 2010.
91. Peters & Schmidt 2004, p. 207.
92. Schmidt 2000.
93. Schmidt 2006, pp. 216–21.
94. Schmidt 2006, pp. 193–4, 218.
95. Peters & Schmidt 2004, p. 209.
 96. Dragos Gheorghiu (2015); A river runs through it. The semiotics of Gobekli Tepe's map (an
exercise of archaeological imagination); in Andrea Vianello (ed.), Rivers in Prehistory,
Oxford, Archaeopress
97. Mann 2011, p. 48.
98. Hadad 2022.
99. Zekîoğlu, Jînda (2020). " "Kêmasîya ku li Girê Mirazan derketîye holê bêdewletbûna kurdan
e" | Le Monde diplomatique Kurdî" (https://diplo-kurdi.com/index.php/ku/node/2038). Le
Monde diplomatique kurdî (in Kurdish). No. 57. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
100. "The guard of Göbeklitepe, humanity's 'ground zero' " (https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/th
e-guard-of-gobeklitepe-humanitys-ground-zero-129322). Hürriyet Daily News. 27 March
2018. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
101. Benedict 1980.
102. Schmidt 2011, p. 917.
103. "Turkey's Ancient Sanctuary" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/12/19/the-sanctua
ry). The New Yorker. Retrieved 26 August 2017.
104. Dietrich, Dietrich & Notroff 2017.
105. Beile-Bohn; Gerber; Morsch; Schmidt (1998). "Neolithische Forschungen in
Obermesopotamien: Gürcütepe und Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio
n/253342438). Istanbuler Mitteilungen (in German). 48: 45.
106. Clare et al. 2017, p. 87.
107. "Our Project" (https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/home/). Tepe Telegrams.
Retrieved 5 April 2021.
108. Kazanci, Handan (8 March 2020). "Turkey: Conservation, not excavation, focus in
Gobeklitepe" (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/culture/turkey-conservation-not-excavation-focus-in-
gobeklitepe/1758455). Anadolu Agency.
109. "Construction around site of Göbeklitepe stirs debate" (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/co
nstruction-around-site-of-gobeklitepe-stirs-debate-129089). Hürriyet Daily News. 21 March
2018. Retrieved 24 January 2021.

References
Arbuckle, Benjamin S. (2014). "Pace and process in the emergence of animal husbandry in
Neolithic Southwest Asia" (http://anthropology.uw.edu.pl/08/bne-08-03.pdf) (PDF).
Bioarchaeology of the Near East. 8: 53–81.
Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.): "Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten
Monumente der Menschheit." Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung im Badischen Landesmuseum
vom 20. Januar bis zum 17. Juni 2007. Theiss, Stuttgart, ISBN 978-3-8062-2072-8
Banning, Edward B. (2002). "Aceramic Neolithic". In Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Melvin (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers. pp. 1–20. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0023-0_1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4
615-0023-0_1). ISBN 978-1-4684-7135-9.
Banning, Edward B. (2011). "So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East". Current Anthropology. 52 (5 – October 2011):
619–60. doi:10.1086/661207 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F661207). S2CID 161719608 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161719608).
Benedict, Peter (1980). "Survey Work in Southeastern Anatolia". In Cambel, Halet; Braidwood,
Robert J. (eds.). Prehistoric Research in Southeastern Anatolia (https://oi.uchicago.edu/rese
arch/publications/misc/prehistoric-research-southeastern-anatolia-guneydogu-anadolu-tarih
oncesi). pp. 179, 181–182.
Breuers, Jonas; Kinzel, Moritz (2022). " "[…] but it is not clear at all where all the […] debris had
been taken from […]": Chipped Stone Artefacts, Architecture and Formation Processes at
Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360996154). Tracking the Neolithic
in the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on Its Origins, Development and Dispersals. pp. 469–
486.
Çelik, Bahattin (2010). "Hamzan Tepe in the light of new finds" (https://doi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.3
7.22). Documenta Praehistorica. 37: 257–268. doi:10.4312/dp.37.22 (https://doi.org/10.431
2%2Fdp.37.22).
Çelik, Bahattin (2011). "Karahan Tepe: A new cultural centre in the Urfa area in Turkey" (https://d
oi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.38.19). Documenta Praehistorica. 38: 241–253. doi:10.4312/dp.38.19
(https://doi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.38.19).
Çelik, Bahattin (2016). "A small-scale cult centre in southeast Turkey: Harbetsuvan Tepesi" (http
s://doi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.43.21). Documenta Praehistorica. 43: 421–428.
doi:10.4312/dp.43.21 (https://doi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.43.21).
Clare, Lee; Pirson, Felix; Eichmann, Ricardo; Yüncü, Zeynep Tuna; İnan, Yıldırım; Mert, Duygu;
Duzcu, Seda (2017). Göbekli Tepe: Nomination for Inclusion on the World Heritage List (http
s://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572/documents) (Report). UNESCO.
Clare, Lee (2020). "Göbekli Tepe, Turkey. A brief summary of research at a new World Heritage
Site (2015–2019)". E-Forschungsberichte. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. 2020 (2):
81–88. doi:10.34780/efb.v0i2.1012 (https://doi.org/10.34780%2Fefb.v0i2.1012).
Andrew Curry, "Seeking the Roots of Ritual" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120415112503/htt
p://80.251.40.59/veterinary.ankara.edu.tr/fidanci/Yasam/Gelecege_Miras/Gobekli-Tepe.pdf),
Science 319 (18 January 2008), pp. 278–280:
Curry, Andrew (2008). "Göbekli Tepe: The World's First Temple?" (http://www.smithsonianmag.c
om/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html). Smithsonian. Vol. November 2008. ISSN 0037-
7333 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0037-7333).
Curry, Andrew (2021). "Last Stand of the Hunter-Gatherers?" (https://www.archaeology.org/issue
s/422-2105/features/9591-turkey-gobekli-tepe-hunter-gatherers). Archaeology.
Vol. May/June 2021.
Dietrich, Oliver; Schmidt, Klaus (2010). "A Radiocarbon Date from the Wall Plaster of Enclosure
D of Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2010
_2.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 2010 (2): 8.
Dietrich, Oliver (2011). "Radiocarbon dating the first temples of mankind. Comments on 14C-
Dates from Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258182967). Zeitschrift
für Orient-Archäologie. 4: 12–25.
Dietrich, Oliver; Köksal-Schmidt, Çiğdem; Notroff, Jens; Schmidt, Klaus (2013). "Establishing a
Radiocarbon Sequence for Göbekli Tepe: State of Research and New Data" (https://www.ex
oriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2013_1.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 2013
(1): 35–37.
Dietrich, Laura; Meister, Julia; Dietrich, Oliver; Notroff, Jens; Kiep, Janika; Heeb, Julia; Beuger,
André; Schütt, Brigitta (2019). "Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,
southeastern Turkey" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6493732). PLOS ONE.
14 (5): e0215214. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1415214D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019
PLoSO..1415214D). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215214 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0215214). ISSN 1932-6203 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1932-6203). PMC 6493732
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6493732). PMID 31042741 (https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042741).
Dietrich, Oliver; Notroff, Jens (2015). "A sanctuary, or so fair a house? In defense of an
archaeology of cult at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Gobekli Tepe" (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=M98dCgAAQBAJ&q=G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20earliest&pg=PA75). In Laneri, Nicola
(ed.). Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East.
Oxbow Books. p. 75. ISBN 978-1-78297-685-1.
Dietrich, Oliver; Notroff, Jens; Schmidt, Klaus (2017). "Feasting, Social Complexity, and the
Emergence of the Early Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: A View from Göbekli Tepe". Feast,
Famine or Fighting? Multiple Pathways to Social Complexity (https://link.springer.com/chapt
er/10.1007/978-3-319-48402-0_5). Springer International Publishing. pp. 91–132.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48402-0_5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-48402-0_5).
ISBN 978-3-319-48402-0.
Dietrich, Oliver (8 May 2016). "The current distribution of sites with T-shaped pillars" (https://ww
w.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/05/08/the-current-distribution-of-sites-with-t-shaped-p
illars/). Tepe Telegrams. Retrieved 17 May 2021.
Dietrich, Oliver; Dietrich, Laura; Notroff, Jens (2017). "Cult as a Driving Force of Human History:
A View from Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/cult-as-a-driving-forc
e-of-human-history/). Expedition. Vol. 59, no. 3. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Museum.
DVD-ROM: MediaCultura (Hrsg.): Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der
Menschheit. Theiss, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-8062-2090-2
Flannery, Kent; Marcus, Joyce (2012). The Creation of Inequality. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-06469-0.
Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin G. (2012). "Early agricultural pathways: moving
outside the 'core area' hypothesis in Southwest Asia" (https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/6
3/2/617/501600?login=true). Journal of Experimental Botany. 63 (2): 617–633.
doi:10.1093/jxb/err307 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjxb%2Ferr307). ISSN 0022-0957 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0957). PMID 22058404 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22058
404).
Gresky, Julia; Haelm, Juliane; Clare, Lee (28 June 2017). "Modified human crania from Göbekli
Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
mc/articles/PMC5489262). Science Advances. 3 (6): e1700564.
Bibcode:2017SciA....3E0564G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SciA....3E0564G).
doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700564 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fsciadv.1700564). ISSN 2375-2548
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2375-2548). PMC 5489262 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC5489262). PMID 28782013 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28782013).
Güler, Gül; Çelik, Bahattin; Güler, Mustafa (2013). "New Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites and cult
centres in the Urfa Region" (https://doi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.40.23). Documenta Praehistorica.
40: 291–303. doi:10.4312/dp.40.23 (https://doi.org/10.4312%2Fdp.40.23).
Güler, Mustafa; Çelik, Bahattin; Güler, Gül (2012). "New pre-pottery neolithic settlements from
Viranşehir District" (https://doi.org/10.1501%2FAndl_0000000398). Anadolu / Anatolia. 38:
164–80. doi:10.1501/Andl_0000000398 (https://doi.org/10.1501%2FAndl_0000000398).
Lewis-Williams, David; Pearce, David (January 2006). "An Accidental revolution? Early
Neolithic religion and economic change" (https://www.academia.edu/19767870). Minerva.
17 #4 (July/August, 2006): 29–31.
Klaus-Dieter Linsmeier and Klaus Schmidt: "Ein anatolisches Stonehenge". In: Moderne
Archäologie. Spektrum-der-Wissenschaft-Verlag, Heidelberg 2003, 10–15, ISBN 3-936278-
35-0.
Hadad, Rémi (2022). "In the shadow of monoliths: Göbekli Tepe and the monumental tradition of
the Pre-Pottery Levant". In Laporte, Luc; Large, Jean-Marc; Nespoulous, Laurent; Scarre,
Chris; Steimer-Herbet, Tara (eds.). Megaliths of the World. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 823–
836. ISBN 978-1-80327-321-1.
Haklay, Gil; Gopher, Avi (2020). "Geometry and Architectural Planning at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey"
(https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0959774319000660). Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 30
(2): 343–357. doi:10.1017/S0959774319000660 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS09597743190
00660). ISSN 0959-7743 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0959-7743).
Hauptmann, Harald (1999). "The Urfa region". In Özdoğan, M.; Basgelen, N. (eds.). The
Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of civilization, new discoveries. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları. pp. 65–86.
Herrmann, Richard A.; Schmidt, Klaus (2012). "Göbekli Tepe–Untersuchungen zur Gewinnung
und Nutzung von Wasser im Bereich des steinzeitlichen Bergheiligtums". In Klimscha, F.;
Eichmann, Ricardo; Schuler, C.; Fahlbusch, H. (eds.). Wasserwirtschaftliche Innovationen
im archäologischen Kontext: von den prähistorischen Anfängen bis zu den Metropolen der
Antike (https://www.academia.edu/41312606) (in German). Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.
pp. 54–67. ISBN 978-3-86757-385-6.
Hodder, Ian (2018). "Things and the Slow Neolithic: the Middle Eastern Transformation" (https://l
ink.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-017-9336-0). Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory. 25 (1): 155–177. doi:10.1007/s10816-017-9336-0 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs1081
6-017-9336-0). ISSN 1573-7764 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-7764).
S2CID 151467821 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:151467821).
Kinzel, Moritz; Clare, Lee (2020). "Monumental – compared to what? A perspective from Göbekli
Tepe". In Gebauer, Anne Birgitte; Sørensen, Lasse; Teather, Anne; Valera, António Carlos
(eds.). Monumentalising Life in the Neolithic: Narratives of Change and Continuity (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=T6QGEAAAQBAJ). Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 29–48. ISBN 978-1-
78925-495-2.
Kosen, Hesen (24 July 2019). "Girê Mirozan Rihayê dike navenda geshtyariyê" (https://www.kur
distan24.net/ku/magazin/27cf0771-9b3f-44d1-b5fe-4bbc9deeb7bf). Kurdistan 24 (in
Kurdish). Retrieved 25 November 2020.
Knitter, Daniel; Braun, Ricarda; Clare, Lee; Nykamp, Moritz; Schütt, Brigitta (2019). "Göbekli
Tepe: A Brief Description of the Environmental Development in the Surroundings of the
UNESCO World Heritage Site" (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fland8040072). Land. 8 (4): 72.
doi:10.3390/land8040072 (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fland8040072).
Köksal-Schmidt, Çiğdem; Schmidt, Klaus (2010). "The Göbekli Tepe "Totem Pole": A First
Discussion of an Autumn 2010 Discovery (PPN, Southeastern Turkey)" (http://www.exorient
e.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2010_1.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 2010 (1):
74–76.
Kromer, Bernd; Schmidt, Klaus (1998). "Two Radiocarbon Dates from Göbekli Tepe, South
Eastern Turkey" (https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_1998_
3.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 1998 (3): 8.
Lang, Caroline; Peters, Joris; Pöllath, Nadja; Schmidt, Klaus; Grupe, Gisela (2013). "Gazelle
behaviour and human presence at early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-east Anatolia" (https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2013.820648). World Archaeology. 45 (3):
410–429. doi:10.1080/00438243.2013.820648 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00438243.2013.
820648). ISSN 0043-8243 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0043-8243). S2CID 161637995 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161637995).
Lloyd, Seton; Brice, William (1951). "Harran" (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anatolian
-studies/article/abs/harran/061CB1112066E8E145559B1F9A9A5586). Anatolian Studies. 1:
77–111. doi:10.2307/3642359 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3642359). ISSN 2048-0849 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/2048-0849). JSTOR 3642359 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/364235
9). S2CID 240812354 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:240812354).
Maher, Lisa A.; Richter, Tobias; Stock, Jay T. (2012). "The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-term
Behavioral Trends in the Levant" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/evan.2130
7). Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 21 (2): 69–81.
doi:10.1002/evan.21307 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fevan.21307). ISSN 1520-6505 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/1520-6505). PMID 22499441 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22499
441). S2CID 32252766 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32252766).
Mann, Charles C. (2011). "The Birth of Religion: The World's First Temple" (https://web.archive.
org/web/20180820065725/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2011/06/gobeki-t
epe/#:~:text=The%20Birth%20of%20Religion&text=Dating%20to%20at%20least%208000,o
r%20gods—began%20to%20appear.). National Geographic. Vol. 219, no. 6 – June 2011.
Archived from the original (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2011/06/gobeki-t
epe/#:~:text=The%20Birth%20of%20Religion&text=Dating%20to%20at%20least%208000,o
r%20gods—began%20to%20appear.) on 20 August 2018.
Mithen, Steven (2004). After the Ice:A global human history, 20,000–5000 BC. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01570-3.
Moetz, Fevzi Kemal; Çelik, Bahattin (2012). "T-shaped pillar sites in the landscape around
Urfa". In Matthews, Roger; Curtis, John (eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Congress
on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2898
19398). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-06684-6.
Neef, Reinder (2003). "Overlooking the Steppe-Forest: A Preliminary Report on the Botanical
Remains from Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey)" (https://www.exoriente.or
g/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2003_2.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 2002 (3): 13–16.
Peters, Joris; Schmidt, Klaus (2004). "Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment" (https://www.academia.edu/
4807320). Anthropozoologica. 39 (1).
Peters, Joris; Buitenhuis, Hijlke; Grupe, Gisela; Schmidt, Klaus; Pöllath, Nadja (2013). "The
Long and Winding Road: Ungulate Exploitation and Domestication in Early Neolithic
Anatolia (10000–7000 cal BC)". In Colledge, Sue; Conolly, James; Dobney, Keith; Manning,
Katie; Shennan, Stephen (eds.). The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest
Asia and Europe (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315417653-12/lo
ng-winding-road-ungulate-ex-ploitation-domestication-early-neolithic-anatolia-10000-7000-c
al-bc-joris-peters-hijlke-buitenhuis-gisela-grupe-klaus-schmidt-nadja-p%C3%B6llath).
London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315417653 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F97813154176
53). ISBN 978-1-315-41765-3.
Erika Qasim: "The T-shaped monuments of Gobekli Tepe: Posture of the Arms". In: Chr. Sütterlin
et al. (ed.): Art as Behaviour. An Ethological Approach to Visual and Verbal Art, Music and
Architecture. Oldenburg 2014, 252–272
Pustovoytov, Konstantin (2002). "14C Dating of Pedogenic Carbonate Coatings on Wall Stones
at Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey)" (https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/
NEO-LITHICS_2002_2.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 2002 (2): 3–4.
Richter, Tobias; Darabi, Hojjat; Alibaigi, Sajjad; Arranz‐Otaegui, Amaia; Bangsgaard, Pernille;
Khosravi, Shokouh; Maher, Lisa; Mortensen, Peder; Pedersen, Patrick; Roe, Joe; Yeomans,
Lisa (February 2021). "The Formation of Early Neolithic Communities in the Central Zagros:
an 11,500 year-old communal structure at Asiab". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 40 (1): 2–
22. doi:10.1111/ojoa.12213 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fojoa.12213). S2CID 234033394 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:234033394).
Scham, Sandra (2008). "The World's First Temple" (http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/t
urkey.html). Archaeology. 61 (6 – November/December 2008).
Schmidt, Klaus (1998). "Frühneolithische Tempel. Ein Forschungsbericht zum präkeramischen
Neolithikum Obermesopotamiens". Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Berlin
(130): 17–49. ISSN 0342-118X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0342-118X).
Schmidt, Klaus (1999). "Boars, Ducks, and Foxes – the Urfa-Project 99" (https://www.exoriente.
org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_1999_3.pdf) (PDF). Neo-Lithics. 1999 (3): 12–
15.
Schmidt, Klaus (2000). "Zuerst kam der Tempel, dann die Stadt." Vorläufiger Bericht zu den
Grabungen am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe 1995–1999". Istanbuler Mitteilungen (50):
5–41.
Schmidt, Klaus (2000a). "Göbekli Tepe and the rock art of the Near East" (https://doi.org/10.2252
0%2Ftubaar.2000.0001). Tüba-Ar (3): 1–14. doi:10.22520/tubaar.2000.0001 (https://doi.org/1
0.22520%2Ftubaar.2000.0001).
Schmidt, Klaus (2000b). "Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A preliminary Report on the 1995–
1999 Excavations" (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-934
5_2000_num_26_1_4697). Paléorient. Paris. 26 (1): 45–54. doi:10.3406/paleo.2000.4697 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.3406%2Fpaleo.2000.4697). ISSN 0153-9345 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/
0153-9345).
Schmidt, Klaus (2006). Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der
Steinzeitjäger (in German). München: C.H. Beck. ISBN 3-406-53500-3.
Schmidt, Klaus (2009). "Göbekli Tepe. Eine Beschreibung der wichtigsten Befunde erstellt nach
den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995–2007". In Schmidt, Klaus (ed.). Erste
Tempel – Frühe Siedlungen. 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur, Ausgrabungen und
Forschungen zwischen Donau und Euphrat (in German). Oldenburg: Florian Isensee.
ISBN 978-3-89995-563-7.
Schmidt, Klaus (2010). "Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New results of ongoing
excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20120131114925/http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_21.pdf) (PDF).
Documenta Praehistorica. 37 (XXXVII): 239–56. doi:10.4312/dp.37.21 (https://doi.org/10.431
2%2Fdp.37.21). Archived from the original (http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors3
7/37_21.pdf) (PDF) on 31 January 2012.
Schmidt, Klaus (2011). "Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic Site in Southwestern Anatolia" (https://books.
google.com/books?id=TY3t4y_L5SQC&pg=PA917). In Steadman, Sharon R.; McMahon,
Gregory (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE). Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537614-2.
Schmidt, Klaus (2012). "Anatolia". In Potts, Daniel (ed.). A Companion to the Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 144–160.
Schmidt, Klaus (2015). Le premier temple: Göbekli Tepe (in French). Translated by Guiot-
Houdart, Thérèse. Paris: CNRS éditions. ISBN 978-2-271-08160-5.
Schönicke, Julia (2019). "There and Back Again — Towards a New Understanding of
Abandonment Practices at the Neolithic Settlement of Göbekli Tepe" (https://www.researchg
ate.net/publication/358411654). Bridging the Gap: Disciplines, Times, and Spaces in
Dialogue. Vol. 1. pp. 210–237.
Symmes, Patrick (18 February 2010). "Turkey: Archeological Dig Reshaping Human History" (ht
tps://www.newsweek.com/turkey-archeological-dig-reshaping-human-history-75101).
Newsweek.
Metin Yeşilyurt, "Die wissenschaftliche Interpretation von Göbeklitepe: Die Theorie und das
Forschungsprogramm". (Neolithikum und ältere Metallzeiten. Studien und Materialien, Band
2.) Lit Verlag, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-643-12528-6.
Watkins, Trevor (2010). "New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia" (https://doi.org/10.
1017%2FS0003598X00100122). Antiquity. 84 (325): 621–634.
doi:10.1017/S0003598X00100122 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0003598X00100122).
ISSN 0003-598X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003-598X).
Watkins, Trevor (14 August 2017). "From Pleistocene to Holocene: the prehistory of southwest
Asia in evolutionary context" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556129).
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 39 (3): 22. doi:10.1007/s40656-017-0152-3 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs40656-017-0152-3). ISSN 1742-6316 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/1742-6316). PMC 5556129 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556129).
PMID 28808914 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28808914).
Zeder, Melinda A.; Smith, Bruce D. (2009). "A Conversation on Agricultural Origins: Talking Past
Each Other in a Crowded Room" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/605553). Current
Anthropology. 50 (5): 681–691. doi:10.1086/605553 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F605553).
ISSN 0011-3204 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0011-3204). JSTOR 10.1086/605553 (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/605553). S2CID 41194691 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:41194691).

External links
Media related to Göbekli Tepe at Wikimedia Commons
Goblekli Tepe: A Summary of Past and Recent Results - Lee Clare (https://www.youtube.co
m/watch?v=QVMxHWcnT8o&list=PLmXaxHgt2ww8u6j2uOlnGRQTWLrk8FPkt&index=12)
Oriental Institute lecture 9 March 2020
Explore Göbekli Tepe in the UNESCO collection on Google Arts and Culture (https://artsand
culture.google.com/story/g%C3%B6bekli-tepe/OALyoXJ7tDcpLA)
Göbekli Tepe (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572/), UNESCO World Heritage List
Tepe Telegrams (https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/), blog of the DAI's Göbekli
Tepe Research project
"Göbekli Tepe" (http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968). Megalithic Portal.
Göbekli Tepe (https://www.exoriente.org/associated_projects/ppnd_site.php?s=25), Platform
for Neolithic Radiocarbon Dates (PPND)
3D model (https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/gobekli-tepe-5a4d25c355ff48d59ab76c36812b9
cf3) of the site

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göbekli_Tepe&oldid=1185732646"