Gobekli Tepe Read online

  PART THREE

  Catastrophobia

  11

  THE HOODED ONES

  Up to twelve T-shaped pillars stood in rings within Göbekli Tepe’s large enclosures, all with their faceless gaze focused toward the central monoliths, as if they formed part of some kind of otherworldly gathering of a secret society. For when we come to ask why the human form is being portrayed with T-shaped terminations both here and at other Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites across the region, with the best answer being that they represent individuals with heads that are long and narrow (hyper-dolichocephalic) who also wear cowls, or hoods, that extend to the rear, as if they might cradle a full head of hair.

  It is a conclusion strengthened in the knowledge that the life-size statue of a male uncovered during urban development on Yeni Yol Street in Şanlıurfa’s Balıklıgöl district in 1993, has a regular face and head, as do the various portable statues found at Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori. So the sculptors of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic world knew very well how to create perfect representations of the human form with all its intricacies. Clearly then, the T-shaped pillars are abstract representations of those remembered as having once looked this way, their blank expressions confirming their otherworldliness, or transcendental nature.

  Figure 11.1. An example of hooded figures in a circle, like the T-shaped pillars at Göbekli Tepe. Here three men perform a type of dance around a piper. Cyprian limestone carving. Phoenician in origin, date unknown.

  THE MINI T-SHAPED STATUE

  That the T-shaped pillars show long-headed individuals wearing cowls seems confirmed by the mini T-shaped statue found in 1965 close to the village of Kilisik, some 46.5 miles (75 kilometers) north-northwest of Göbekli Tepe. It appears to be wearing a large hood extended at the rear by the peculiar shape of the skull; indeed, even the start of the hood can be seen as a straight line that divides the rear half of the head from the projecting face (see figure 10.2).

  Why exactly these figures are depicted with elongated heads is a matter we return to later in this book. Yet why wear hoods or cowls in the first place? Perhaps it was the prevailing climatic conditions, or the fact that these individuals needed to protect their skin from the sun’s rays. More likely is that the cowls convey some idea of status among the communities in which they moved, a fact suggesting the presence of elitism; in other words, a clear division between the Göbekli builders, made up of quarry men, stone masons, flint knappers, hunters, and butchers and those who controlled and managed the construction work going on at the site.

  Having said this, it seems unlikely that the T-shapes reflect the presence of individuals living when the main enclosures at Göbekli Tepe were constructed around 9500–8900 BC. Like saints and divinities represented as carved art in churches, or the statues of gods and heroes in classical temples, the T-shapes at Göbekli Tepe are perhaps reflections of something that has been. Something that had to be remembered, celebrated, and not forgotten.

  We cannot know what might have been going at Göbekli Tepe when the large enclosures were under construction, nor whether the genesis of the T-shaped pillars happened here or elsewhere. It is possible, as Schmidt believes, that complex structures like Enclosures C and D were the pinnacle of a long period of development at the site going back many thousands of years. On the other hand, the construction of the monumental enclosures might just as easily have been inspired by a significant event. Perhaps the arrival in southeast Anatolia of representatives from another culture—individuals who helped galvanize the local hunter-gathering population into embarking on this mammoth building project.

  A SUDDEN CHANGE IN LIFESTYLE

  Is this what really happened in southeast Anatolia sometime either during or directly after the Younger Dryas mini ice age, ca. 10,900–9600 BC? Did some great change occur in the world of the local hunter-gatherers that culminated in the construction of the large enclosures at Göbekli Tepe under the guidance of some kind of “power elite,”1 as Schmidt refers to them?

  Hunter-gatherers would work together in small bands to fulfill their primary functions in life, with these being hunting wild game, foraging for various types of food, and ensuring the well-being and safety of their extended family group. They created temporary settlements that they occupied only at certain times of the year; for the rest of the time the hunters followed the migrational routes of herd animals. They relied on these animals for food; clothes; fat for balms, fires, and lamps; bone, horn, and antler for weapons, tools, and items of personal adornment; and sinew (thin shredded fibers of muscle tendons) for use as cordage, binding points on arrow shafts, and as a backing material on bows.

  Epipaleolithic (that is, transitional Paleolithic) hunters used established campsites and work stations, kitted out with basic facilities, before moving on to the next site, and the next site, and so forth, until eventually they returned to their original place of departure. This was their cycle of life, and it would have remained so had neolithization not gotten in the way.

  There can have been no obvious advantage in hundreds, if not thousands, of people (Klaus Schmidt believes that between five hundred and a thousand individuals were employed in building construction at Göbekli Tepe at any one time2) putting aside their free existence as hunters and foragers and coming together to create monumental architecture on such a grand scale. Something must have spurred the regional population into abandoning their old lives and adopting a completely different way of living, and from the presence in the enclosures of the massive T-shaped pillars, that “something” would appear to have been whoever, or whatever, they represented.

  Did the T-shapes represent the memory of powerful individuals, great ancestors perhaps, of those who built Göbekli Tepe?

  MESSIANIC MESSAGE

  If so, then who exactly were these influential figures—the Hooded Ones, as we shall call them until their likely identity is revealed? Did they come as messianic figures, bringing some sort of message—one that was so clear it could not be ignored? Was it believed that something bad would happen to the local hunter-gatherers, their families, and the world around them if this message were to be ignored?

  As much as these ideas might seem at odds with our understanding of the Paleolithic mindset, they will begin to make sense of the evidence being uncovered right now at Göbekli Tepe. This can be seen in the fact that the continuous building of sacred enclosures in the same basic style, albeit in a gradually declining fashion, across a period of nearly fifteen hundred years, ca. 9500–8000 BC, argues for the presence at the site of a very rigid belief system attached to the erection of the T-shaped pillars. It implies also a strength of conviction that might be compared to the manner in which Christians, adhering to ancient traditions, have steadfastly built churches in the same basic style across a very similar period of time.

  The same can be said for the religious houses of other major religions, with the motivation behind these strictly-adhered-to dogmas always being the words, deeds, and legacy of prophets, saints, and messianic figures. Had something similar been going on at Göbekli Tepe or more particularly in the world that existed immediately prior to the construction of its large enclosures?

  If the Hooded Ones did exist, then what might have been their powerful message, and where did they come from? To even start to answer these questions we need to return to the strange symbolism of the T-shaped pillars, in particular those that stand proud in the center of Enclosure D, arguably the most accomplished structure uncovered so far.

  12

  THE FOX’S TAIL

  The imposing central pillars in Göbekli Tepe’s Enclosure D both sport wide belts, at the front of which, beneath a centrally placed belt buckle, fox-pelt loincloths have been carved, the animal’s hind legs and long, bushy tail extending down to knee level (see plate 13). Further emphasizing the eastern monolith’s vulpine character is the presence on its inner face of a leaping fox, something present also on the central pillars of Enclosures B, the eastern central pillar in Enclo
sure A, and the western central pillar in Enclosure C.

  These images of the fox, along with the high level of faunal remains belonging to the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) found at Göbekli Tepe, led archaeozoologist Joris Peters, writing with Klaus Schmidt, to conclude that the interest in this canine creature went beyond any domestic usage and was connected in some way with the “exploitation of its pelt and/or the utilization of fox teeth for ornamental purposes.”1 That this statement was made even before the discovery of the fox-pelt loincloths carved on the front narrow faces of Enclosure D’s central pillars means that what Peters and Schmidt go on to say in the same paper should not be ignored, for in their opinion “a specific worship of foxes may be reflected here.”2

  That leaping foxes appear also on the central pillars in the large enclosures at Göbekli Tepe suggests that the entrant passing between them would have encountered this vulpine creature upon accessing the otherworldly environment reached through the enclosures’ inner recesses. So why foxes, especially as they are usually seen in indigenous mythologies as cosmic tricksters, evil twins of the true creator god, responsible only for chaos and disarray in the universe?

  BELT BUCKLE CLUE

  Was the fox the chosen animal totem of the Hooded Ones, the faceless individuals portrayed by the T-shaped pillars? If the answer is yes, then what does it mean? The key is the strange belt buckle immediately above the fox-pelt loincloth on the enclosure’s eastern pillar (Pillar 18). A similar belt buckle is seen on the western pillar (Pillar 31), although here it is left unadorned, in the same way that the figure’s belt, in complete contrast to the one worn by its eastern counterpart, is completely devoid of any glyphs or ideograms.

  Only on the eastern pillar does the belt buckle reveal something very significant indeed. It shows a glyph composed of a thick letter U that cups within its concave form a large circle from which emerge three prongs that stand upward (see figure 12.1 and plate 13). That this emblem is worn centrally, on a belt festooned with strange ideograms, suggests that it has a very specific function. If so, then what might this have been?

  THREE-TAILED COMET

  Having examined the belt buckle glyph at some length, it is the author’s opinion that it represents the principal components of a comet. The circle is its head, or nucleus, and the U-shape is the bow shock that bends around the leading edge of the nucleus and trails away as the halo. The upright prongs denote three separate tails, with multiple tails being a common feature of comets (see figure 12.2).

  That the comet’s “tails” on the belt buckle stand upward also makes sense, for these are often seen to trail into the night sky as the comet reaches perihelion. This is its final approach and slingshot orbit around the sun. As this takes place the solar magnetic fields cause the gaseous particles of the comet to point away from the sun, so when the comet is seen in the sky, either in the predawn light (before perihelion) or, alternatively, just after sunset (following perihelion), its tail or tails point upward from the horizon, creating an unforgettable sight (see figure 12.3).

  Figure 12.1. The belt on Enclosure D’s eastern central pillar (Pillar 18) showing its belt buckle device and fox-pelt loincloth.

  Figure 12.2. Left, comet showing the bow shock around its leading edge and, right, Halley’s Comet in 1910. Both resemble elements of Pillar 18’s belt buckle.

  Figure 12.3. The Great Comet of 1861 showing its triple tail.

  The idea that the belt buckle glyph shows a comet is strengthened by its similarity to three-tailed comets seen in an ancient Chinese silk text. The Mawangdui cometary atlas (also known as the Book of Silk), created ca. 300–200 BC and named after the Han Dynasty mound tomb in which it was discovered in the 1970s, lists, in all, twenty-nine different cometary forms and the disasters associated with them. In figure 12.4, we see that in more than one example there is a striking resemblance to the Göbekli Tepe belt buckle design, especially as the comets are drawn with their tails pointing upward.3

  MARK OF THE COMET

  Yet even assuming that the belt buckle glyph does show a comet, could this not simply be a personal device without any connection to the function of Göbekli Tepe? This appears unlikely, as the pillar is festooned with ideograms of a probable celestial nature. The belt’s C and H glyphs would appear to have cosmological values, as does the carved eye held within a slim crescent worn around the “neck” of the T-shaped monolith. In addition to this, it does seem as if Enclosure D’s eastern central pillar has a greater function than its western neighbor, almost as if one twin is alive, while the other functions as a ghost or echo of the other.

  Figure 12.4. The Chinese Mawangdui atlas (or Book of Silk) from ca. 300– 200 BC, showing the entry for the various different types of comet, some resembling the belt buckle on Göbekli Tepe’s pillar.

  Regardless of these facts Pillar 18’s belt buckle is simply not enough to demonstrate that comets held some special importance at Göbekli Tepe. There is, however, another tantalizing link between the symbol of the comet and Enclosure D—this being the fox-pelt loincloths seen beneath the belt buckle on both monoliths. Universally the fox, and the fox tail in particular, has been seen as a metaphor for comets, due to the hairlike appearance of their long tails. Even in British heraldry the device known as the comet or blazing star is drawn to resemble the fox’s tail (see figure 12.5 on p. 124). It is for this reason that comets have occasionally been personified as having clear vulpine and—as we shall see—canine (doglike) and lupine (wolflike) qualities of a dark, foreboding nature.

  COMETARY CANINES

  Chinese myths and legends, for instance, speak of mountain demons called t’ ien-kou (tengu in Japanese), “heavenly dogs.” Folk tradition asserts that these supernatural creatures derive their name from comets or meteors falling to earth, for it is said they resemble the tails of dogs or foxes. One account speaks of t’ien-kou as:

  Figure 12.5. Medieval heraldic device known as the comet or blazing star with its distinctive “fox tail.”

  a huge dog with a tail of fire like a comet. Its home was in the heavens, but it sustained itself by descending to earth every night and seeking out human children to eat. If it could not catch any children it would attack a human adult and consume his liver.4

  It is this dreaded fear of comets, seen in terms of malevolent supernatural creatures in canine form, that brings us to a fascinating account recorded by a Spanish Jesuit priest who journeyed through northern Mexico in 1607–1608. While staying in the town of Parras in the state of Coahuila, Andrés Pérez de Ribas (1576–1655) witnessed the priests of the local tribe, perhaps the Tlaxcalan Indians, conduct a powerful and somewhat macabre ceremony to ward off the baleful influence of a comet (almost certainly it was Halley’s Comet, which made an appearance in 1607). According to him:

  The end of the comet (some of them said) was in the form of plumage: others said it had the form of an animal’s tail. For this reason some came with feathers on their heads, and others with a lion’s or fox’s tail, each of them mimicking the animal he represented. In the middle of the plaza there was a great bonfire into which they threw their baskets [containing dead animals] along with everything in them. They did this in order to burn up and sacrifice these things, so they would rise up as smoke to the comet. As a result, the comet would have some food during those days and would therefore do them no harm.5

  Although this strange ceremony to negate the influence of a comet took place on another continent nearly ten thousand years after the abandonment of Göbekli Tepe, the very specific use of fox (and lion) tails not just to represent the comet but also to connect with its supernatural nature, cannot be ignored. This form of sympathetic magic was the domain of the priest or shaman, and there can be little question that very similar ceremonies took place on other continents in past ages.

  That the twin central pillars of Göbekli Tepe’s Enclosure D both display fox tails, while the eastern example additionally possesses a belt buckle that might well show the symbol of a comet, begs t
he question of whether the Göbekli builders might in some way have been concerned by the influence and presence of comets in our skies. Moreover, because the comet symbolism only appears in full on one of the central pillars, was this particular figure seen to have a special dominion over comets, an ability connected with the proposed message or doctrine introduced to the hunter-gatherers of southeast Anatolia in the epoch immediately prior to the construction of the first stone enclosures at Göbekli Tepe?

  I PREDICT A COMET

  Is it possible that this imposing stone figure at the center of Enclosure D, whoever or whatever it represents, was seen to have delivered the means by which the Epipaleolithic peoples of southeast Anatolia, with the help of his shamanicbased elite, could combat the baleful influence of comets? That the hunter-gatherers of southeast Anatolia so readily gave up their nomadic lifestyles to build monumental architecture in an unprecedented manner argues persuasively that this incoming elite must have had some kind of hold or influence over the people. Perhaps they claimed they had direct contact with the supernatural creature behind the manifestation of comets. If so, then such claims would have needed to be backed up with some convincing displays of proof for the hunter-gatherers to have so readily abandoned their old ways. So what might this have been?

  One realistic answer is that, like the ancient Chinese astrologers behind the creation of the Mawangdui atlas ca. 300–200 BC, the incoming elite had a very real knowledge of comets, which might have included information on periodic comets, those that make their return within one to two human generations. A perfect example is Halley’s Comet, which makes its return every seventy-five to seventy-six years (its last appearances were in 1910 and 1986). Indeed, even though the gravitational influence of the solar system’s larger planets, such as Saturn and Jupiter, means that the orbit of a short-period comet can fluctuate somewhat, it is possible that its reappearance might have been calculated to some degree of accuracy in just a few centuries of observation.