UDK 903'i2/'i6(4/5)"633/634":2-526.6
Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)
Is it goddess or bear? The role of £atalhöyük
animal seals in Neolithic symbolism
Ali Umut Türkcan
Anadolu Universitesi, Department of Archaeology, Eskifehir, TR
aturkcan@anadolu.edu.tr
ABSTRACT - Two examples of stamp seals discovered in the 2003 and 2005 seasons, one depicting a
leopard, the other, a bear (both unusual with respect to their uncommon amulet forms reminiscent
offigurines, and their recurrence in wall reliefs) provide a key role in understanding the symbolism
of Catalhöyük, along with the complex relations between some distinctive animal groups and their
ritual role in the settlement. They demonstrate that the depiction of animals seems not to be confined
only to the walls at Catalhöyük, but also appear as sacred symbols of the community on seals. The
stamp in the form of a bear is another unique form that is also echoed in the large wall reliefs un-
covered by Mellaart, which compels us to change some preconceptions about the ritual role of these
wall reliefs, which have been interpreted as mother goddess images.
IZVLEČEK - Ključno vlogo pri razumevanju simbolike Catalhöyüka predstavljata dvapečatnika-žiga,
odkrita v sezonah raziskav 2003 in 2005. Umeščena sta v kompleks povezav med nekaterimi izrazi-
timi skupinami živali in njihovo vlogo v naselbini. Na enem pečatniku je upodobljen leopard, na dru-
gem medved (oba sta nenavadna zaradi njunih neobičajnih amuletnih oblik, ki spominjajo na figure
in njunega pojavljanja na stenskih reliefih). Pečatnika kažeta, da upodobitve živali niso bile omejene
le na hišne stene Catalhöyüka, temveč se kot sveti simboli skupnosti pojavljajo tudi na pečatnikih.
Pečatnik v obliki medveda je druga izjemna oblika, ki se ponavlja tudi na velikih stenskih reliefih,
ki jih je odkril Mellaart. Upodobitvi nas silita, da spremenimo nekatere predsodke glede ritualne vloge
teh stenskih reliefov, ki so jih sicer interpretirali kot podobe boginje matere.
KEY WORDS - Anatolia; Neolithic Period; Catalhöyük; stamp seals; wall reliefs; animal representa-
tions; fauna; symbolism
The unusual examples of stamp seals, one depicting
a leopard, and the other, a bear (both unusual with
respect to their uncommon amulet forms reminis-
cent of figurines, and their repetition in wall reliefs)
unearthed in the 2003 and 2005 seasons, seem to
provide a key role in deciphering some ill-defined fi-
gures explained as 'mother goddesses' and give the
seals a new role in the symbolism of Catalhöyük,
along with the complex relations between some di-
stinctive animal groups and their ritual role in the
settlement. They demonstrate that the animal repre-
sentation seems to be reserved not only to the walls
at Catalhöyük, but also appeared as sacred symbols
of the community on seals. This study aims to inter-
pret these extraordinary seals within the context of
wall paintings and reliefs and recent faunal data.
The Neolithic site of Catalhöyük in Central Anatolia
(Konya) was first discovered in the late 1950s, and
excavated by James Mellaart in four excavation sea-
sons between 1961 and 1965. The site rapidly be-
came famous internationally due to the large size
and dense occupation of the settlement, as well as
the spectacular wall paintings and other objects un-
covered inside the houses. The stamp seals were one
of the unique assemblages found at Catalhöyük.
They were common artefacts that had been widely
used or manufactured in every part of the settle-
ments and probably most households of the Early
Neolithic settlement of Catalhöyük, dated to between
the early 8th millenium and the 2nd quarter of the
7th millennium BC The earliest examples of prehis-
toric stamp seals - or pintadera (painted seals) to
Copyright by Department of Archaeology, Faculty of arts, University of Ljubljana.
257
use a New World archaeological term - have been
found at the Neolithic site of gatalhöyük. They are
made of fired clay, and with their variety of motifs
and forms comprise a significant and distinctive
group among Neolithic stamp seals dating between
8000 and 5000 BC found at various settlements in
the Near East. A total of 48 such seals have been
found at gatalhöyük, the majority during the exca-
vations under Mellaart, and others during the most
recent excavations. The latest examples were found
in Level II, and the oldest in Level VII. The classifica-
tion of the seals suggests that they might have been
used on various different surfaces, including textiles,
leather, clay, and loaves of bread, or even as tattoo.
Actually, no seal impressions on clay have been
found, neither at gatalhöyük nor any other Neolithic
settlements in Anatolia (Türkcan 2006).
The stamps in the form of hands and distinctive ani-
mals (leopard, bear) are also reflected in wall pain-
tings and reliefs, as well as ones with complex ab-
stract designs. Moreover, two unusual examples
(both with respect to their unusual amulet forms re-
miniscent of figurines, and their recurrence in wall
reliefs) discovered during the 2003 and subsequent
excavation seasons demonstrate that the stamps
played an important part in the symbolism of ^atal-
höyük. The leopard is the most frequently represen-
ted animal form in wall reliefs at the site, but this is
the first example of this motif on a stamp. Another
stamp, in the form of a bear, discovered in 2005, is
echoed in the large wall reliefs uncovered by Mel-
laart. Therefore, there is fresh evidence, which chan-
ges some preconceptions about the ritual role of
these wall reliefs, hitherto interpreted as 'mother
goddess' images.
It is a fact that the stamp's capacity of reproduction,
which can be duplicated repeatedly on any conve-
nient surface, seems to have transformed itself into
an important ritual device. This can also be related
to the transition of memory into mobile art objects
on upper levels. As Ian Hodder remarked (2006.
195) that the house-based control of memory seen in
the upper levels of the site, and symbols that had
earlier only been used within the houses come to be
used in media that can be exchanged between hou-
ses, so as the stamp seals take the wall designs into
a new mobile context. Furthermore, they may be ob-
jects identitifying individuals of high rank in the so-
ciety or symbols of some clans who were authorized
to organize the religious and economic life of the set-
tlers. However, even if they have any implications
for status organization, these naturally remain ob-
scure on the current evidence. The seals show that
these cult images were also transferred to portable
images like seals that can also duplicate the same
images like bear, panther, hands, paws and floral
forms on relevant surfaces.
The leopard, its presence in representations
and Catalhöyük fauna
The earliest leopard representations in Anatolia are
those comprising the main subject of representation
among the gatalhöyük reliefs. Therefore, it is also
a renowned animal figure in Neolithic gatalhöyük.
Anatolian Leopards (Panthera pardus tulliana) are
known to have lived in Central Anatolia and South-
ern Taurus Mountains until recent times (Gürpinar
2000; Yalgin 2006)1. The earliest leopard represen-
tation was found in one of the deep galleries of Chau-
vet Cave in southern France and dated to the Auri-
gnacian period, to approximately 33 000 BP (White
2003.79). The earliest leopard scenes in the Neoli-
thic Near East were first recovered on carved stone
'stelai' of probably rounded 'cult buildings' in Tell
Abr in Northern Syria and dated to the PPNA period
(Yartah 2005.4-5).
The leopard seal is (Fig. 1) the first of this type not
only from gatalhöyük, but also throughout the Neo-
lithic period in Anatolia (Türkcan 2003). Early tra-
ces of leopards in gatalhöyük are not first represen-
ted themselves, but only by their spotted skin, com-
plete with tail, worn by many of the humans in Le-
vel V. In Level III, there are also humans wearing
spotted skins. As understood, leopard skin garments,
are very common in the paintings (Russel and Me-
ece 2006.215). Leopards themselves occur first in a
shrine for two levels, building VII.44 and VI.44., a
so-called leopard shrine (Fig.2). It has a pair of fac-
ing leopards on the north wall and a single leopard
on the east wall. There is another shrine directly
overlying it (E.VI.44) with another pair of facing
spotted leopards (Mellaart 1964e.42. fig 5). One
1 The Anatolian leopard (Panthera pardus tulliana) is a subspecies of leopard native to Anatolia. It is unknown whether any of these
leopards still exist in the wild.. These animals once prowled the forest and hill regions of Aegean, West Mediterranean, East Medi-
terranean, and East Anatolia. Adults grow 200-250 centimeters long and may weigh up to 90 kg; their lifespan is approximately
20. The last official sighting of the Anatolian leopard was in 1974. The animal was killed after an attack on a woman in Bagozu
village, 5 km from Beypazari in Ankara.
Fig. 1. Leopard seal (£atalhöyük
Research Project Archive).
more pair is found tail to tail in the northwest cor-
ner of building VI.80 (Mellaart 1967.175-6).
On the other hand, any leopard or any associated fe-
line clay figurine could not be recognised among the
animal figurines that occur almost entirely in Levels
VI and VII. In neither Mellaart's excavations nor on-
going excavations could feline or leopard figurines
be detected. Actually, the leopards are only represen-
ted by humans or deities on large sculptural pieces,
as especially seen on woman seated on large felids,
much probably leopards or male representaions ri-
ding sitting, riding leopards. As in Mellaart's classifi-
cation (1967.203-204, Pl. 73-76, 86, Fig. 49, Pl. 67,
68, fig. 50, Pl. 87), there are 7 statuettes in the form
of pairs of 'goddessses' or deities riding leopards
seated with two leopard cubs, or wearing a leopard
blouse. There are also male or 'gods'
as stone carved statuettes, such as a
boy riding a leopard and a seated
god with a leopard cap. Among
them, one piece from Level II is the
most renowned: an enthroned god-
dess giving birth between two leo-
pards.
On the other hand, the leopard was
frequently the only animal that ap-
peared in representations, but was
totally absent from the faunal re-
mains until its discovery in 2005.
Therefore, this sort of absence in the fauna also
seems worth consideration. This is particularly stri-
king, since there are so many representations of leo-
pards, that it was unthinkable to kill leopards. Accor-
ding to Russel and Meece (2006.223), if whole skins
of leopards were brought back to the site, at least the
feet should have been recovered so far, or if a skin
had been processed into clothing, one or more bones
should have been left on site. According to the pain-
tings in Level V and level III., people at least wore
leopard skins and thus used them in their daily life.
Moreover, two figurines on the wall paintings from le-
vels II and IV are wearing spotted garments that may
well be leopard skins (Mellaart 1967.Fig. 51, Pl. 87).
Although leopards appear repeatedly in ^atalhöyük
art, part of a specimen was only finally found in 2006:
Fig. 2. Leopard reliefs (Mellaart 1967.Pl. VI)
a claw that was probably pierced to be worn as a
necklace or bracelet found in the burial of a wo-
man holding a plastered human skull to her chest
and face in 2004 (Hodder 2006.260). Therefore the
special context of the find make it more interesting
than other similar finds in as much as it is unique
material. So the discovery of at least one bone in a
remarkable context seems to confirm that there were
leopards in the vicinity and were already familiar to
the gatalhöyük community at that time. Moreover,
finding only one piece among 24 000 pieces classi-
fied to their taxon is also striking, suggesting that it
was somehow a rare relic in the community.
The bear, its presence in representations and
Catalhöyük fauna
In the search for bear representations in ^atalhö-
yük, only one could be identified, in a wall painting
from Level V. However, apart from the paintings, va-
rious splayed figure types are important, whether
they are bear or human representations, in a discus-
sion of bear imagery and a probable bear cult in the
settlement. Aside from the indeterminate quadruped
heads, all splayed figure types are central to the dis-
cussion (Fig. 3). They comprise a wide representa-
tion group, which Mellaart believed (1963d.61-67)
represented stylized human females and hence the
'mother goddess', with the outstretched and some-
times upturned limbs as an indication of the birth po-
sition. They were found in several buildings (9 buil-
Fig. 3. Splayed figure in shrine VII. 23 (Mellaart 1967.Pl. VII).
dings: VIA.50, VI.B 12, VI.31, VII 31, VII.1, VI.A.8,
VIB.8, VII.A.8, VII.45, VII.23, VI.A.10, VI.B.10 'shri-
nes'), with 15 representations, of which 3 are shown
as twin 'goddesss' representations (Mellaart 1967).
However, Ian Hodder (1987.45) was the first to que-
stion the real identity of the splayed figures as 'mo-
ther goddess' representations, and assumed that as-
sociations of humanoid reliefs are too ambigious to
be regarded as women, much less as goddesses. Rus-
sel and Meece (2006.215) also suggested that the
splayed figures are generally animals, because none
of them have any indication of gender, in contrast
to some figurines and painted figurines. They also
add that the upturned legs create a position physi-
cally impossible for humans, and that the placement
of the limbs suggests bears or some other quadru-
peds. A similar relief figurine, but with a tail, was
also found on limestone pillars at Göbekli tepe, and
is interpreted as an animal (Hauptmann 1999.52,
Fig. 27; Schmidt 2005; Russel and Meece 2006.215),
probably a large lizard (Varan varanus) still found
in the area.
At gatalhöyük, the heads and usually the hands and
sometimes feet of these splayed figurines were knoc-
ked off during the abandonment of the related spa-
ces. One of them has faint indications of rounded
animal ears. For Mellaart, it was merely a horned
hairstyle (1964.50). Another has its feet outlined in
red, which Mellaart compares to the similar treat-
ment of the feet and tails of the leopard reliefs (1964.
45). Russel and Meece {2006.216)
assume that all of these features
raise the strong possibility that the
reliefs portray animals. The rounded
heads suggest a carnivore, perhaps
leopard and bear. On the other hand,
some of these figures have a distinc-
tly marked navel. This feature sug-
gests that they were intended to be
antropomorphic or theriantropic
(human-bear?). Whether humanoid
or animal, they recur as an impor-
tant, reasonably standardized motif
(Russel and Meece 2006.216). A
possible human-bear therianthropic
image somehow recalls a vision of
shaman figures on the walls.
As already mentioned, the heads and
hands of the splayed plaster exam-
ples are always missing, so it was not
easy to say whether the figures were
humans or animals. It raises new
questions as much as it may illustrate existing argu-
ments regarding the identification of the splayed fi-
gures on the walls. But now the bear stamp seal pro-
vides a key. Actually, the head and the hind paws of
the seal are clearly recognizable as bear and identi-
cal with the splayed relief figures on the walls (Fig.
4). An almost complete clay bear (11 652.X1) from
South Area, Building 44 & 56 (Türkcan 2005). De-
spite minor damage to the forelegs, it is possible to
reconstruct the overall form. They seem to have
been intentionally broken at the same point. The
small tail is also emphasized between the legs. The
overall form, the head, small tail and other featu-
res (the head and paws) all show that it is a bear re-
presentation. One tiny pebble is recognized as stuck
just in the middle of the belly part. It makes a con-
trast with the flat and smooth surface of the seals
face. It is also noteworthy that a similar spot is also
emphasized 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).
Another aspect is that the proportions in which bears
are represented symbolically differ from those in the
faunal remains. The differences or contrasts between
the representations and the taxa are interesting. Up
to now, only one bear paw has been identified. This
is an articulated bear paw with traces of plaster be-
tween the toes where it was found in the fill of space
159, Bldg 24, Level VII. This is also the antechamber
of Mellaart's building VII. 10 (Russel and Meece
2006.221) The plaster probably indicates that the
paw or a hide to which it was attached was once
part of an architectural feature (Russel and Meece
2006.221). This actual find of a specially treated
bear paw also reinforces the idea that it could also
be a fragment or part of a splayed figure on the
walls, as we think that the heads and hands of all
the plaster relief examples were al-
ways removed. All paws are empty
and the head parts have been defaced.
One is described clearly by Mellaart
(1967.114):
" VII.3I 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 se-
parately and inserted into now empty sockets."
Moreover, the study which I made of the stamp seal
assemblage in 1997, of a hand-shaped seal, with lar-
ger and bold digits in oval form, was already singled
out (Level IV, Area E1; Mellaart 1964.Fig. 41.4), as
it was considered as likely to be a bear paw as a hu-
man hand (Türkcan 2005.SealNo. 19). In earlier re-
search, I was hesitant to say that it was a bear paw,
but in the light of our bear representation, it can be
called as a bear paw on the light of bear paw (Fig. 5).
The context of the bear stamp is also noteworthy re-
garding its deposition. It was at the center of the
building deposit, equidistant from the walls and the
northern edge of the hearth. It was placed face
down, with head on house fill (Space 54) that was
probably a backfill below the upper phase of the
overlying building (Fig. 6). So the seal does not seem
to have been deposited accidentally, but seems to
have been left as a votive object before the aban-
donment of the space (space 54). It is clearly identi-
Fig. 5. Paw-sha-
ped stamp seal
(Ali Türkcan Ar-
chive).
Fig. 4. Bear seal (11652.x1/fatalhö-
yük Research Project Archive).
fied in the report of Roddy Regan (2005), who exca-
vated in Building 44 on the Summit Area:
"If seen in this light the impressive clay stamp un-
earthed in 'room-fill' deposit (11652) may also
mark a transitional event within the construction
of Building 44. In this case the end of backfilling
and the beginning of constructional levelling. Of
course, it could be argued that the stamp was just
dumped as part of the backfilling process, its neatly
clipped hands/paws suggesting that the object it-
self had undergone a transition. The stamp, how-
ever, was recovered from a deposit of relatively
few finds and appeared to have been 'placed'face
downwards, hinting at more than casual loss."
Discussion
Neolithic studies are shifting away from rigid arte-
fact analysis to an understanding of beliefs and ritu-
als during one decade. Animal representations (wall
paintings, figurines, bucranium projections, reliefs
and rock paintings right coming through Upper Pa-
leolithic tradition) and these animal groups' taxono-
my on faunal evidence are becoming important in
Neolithic Studies. The multiciplity of human-animal
relations, their symbolism and association with the
social domain, ritualised practises and classification
systems have hardly been tackled in archaeological
literature. They are predominantly understood with-
in the framework of economic efficiency and the do-
mestication process. However, anthropological and
historical accounts point to the centrality of the cul-
tural and social importance of animals for Neolithic
communities, as well as for traditional herders.
The evidence from the stamp seals and probable
splayed figures testify that the bear cult was another
important ritual figure, as well as the leopard and
bull cults throughout many levels among the Catal-
höyük Neolithic community. On the other hand, the
cult of the bear was already a deeply rooted belief
from the Middle Paleolithic (and until recent peo-
ples in the Arctic). The first evidence of a bear cult is
observed at a Middle Paleolithic site at Regourdou.
Regourdou constitutes a case for some kind of bear-
centered animal cult some 60 000-70 000 years ago
(Hayden 2005). Ethnographically, bear cults are ra-
ther common in cold climates, from the Northern
Coast to Finland and Siberia. Lajoux (2002) and Bo-
nifay (2002) have drawn attention to the frequent
importance of the bear as a symbol of death and re-
surrection (because of its hibernation and reemer-
gence in spring), making it apt for rituals. These
Fig. 6. In-situ position of bear seal (11 652.x1) on
house fill of Building 44. on-line http://www.
catalhoyuk. com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_14.
html (Fig. 53).
examples can also be multiplied in shamanic cultu-
res in Central Asian and Native American cultures.
Many large bear craniums, teeth were frequently
employed as personal ornaments. In the Gravettian
period, there is also a carved bear's head in Dolni
Vestonice, and bear representations in Chauvet Cave
(White 2003).
On the other hand, in comparisons of engravings
and faunal taxa from various sites (La Vache, Limo-
uil, La Madeleine) have also yeilded many represen-
tions of many carnivores such as fox, wolf, lion but
no bear. It is even more striking to see the differen-
ces between the species represented and animal re-
mains. In an analysis of engraved/painted subjects
on the walls of rock shelters and caves, Gilles and
Brigitte Delluc (1991) have tallied the different ani-
mal groups; bears are represented in the Aurignacian
period, but not in any Gravettian deposits.
As stated before, animals were integral components
of human existence in many more domains than to-
day. Images of animals within Paleolithic cave pain-
tings, for instance, may have functioned to cue the
recall of ecological knowledge (Mithen 1998.98).
Actually, depictions of what are probably supernatu-
ral beings (half-human, half-animal representations)
provide some of the most intriguing images of prehi-
storic art. The earliest representations can be seen
in examples like the half-man, half-lion Hohlenstein
high carving dating to c. 33 000 years ago (White
2003), and the contemporary half-human, half-bison
figures found in Chauvet Cave (Chauvet et al. 1996)
and the famous 'Sorcerer' figure in Les Trois Freres
cave (White 2003), which is dated to the Magdale-
neian period. They are important works that can be
regarded as supernatural/mythical images of those
kinds of hybrid representation. The examples can
also be multiplied from the Upper Paleolithic to the
Neolithic in the Near East. Actually, these images also
seem to belong to the intertwined worlds of animal
and human beings as reflected in the shamanic tra-
dition of dedicating or connecting the soul to a pre-
dator such as wolf, bear, vulture and etc. According
to Ingolds (2000.121), depictions of animals and hu-
mans in traditional societies are not representations
of everyday activities, but rather of another plane of
reality, where animals, ancestral beings, and humans
relate to each other socially.
Verhoeven (2002) assumes that humans' relations
with animals, especially wild animals, seem to be
the key concept of the symbolic representations of
PPNB Upper Mesopotamia. The absence of many car-
nivores which are otherwise dominant representatio-
nal figures from the faunal taxonomy are also simi-
lar in the Upper Mesopotamian PPNB figurine as-
semblage. Among the many clay animal figurines
from ^ayönü and Nevali ^ori sites, no carnivore re-
presentations that form the main repertoire of re-
liefs on pillars and sculptures along with humans
were found. Among the many clay animal figurines
from the ^ayönü and Nevali ^ori sites, no carnivo-
res that composed the main repertoire of reliefs on
pillars and sculptures along with humans have been
found. According to some sources, (Wengrow 2003;
Morsch 2002) over 70 % have been identified as
horned quadropeds of some sort; the remaining mi-
nority are generally identified as mammalian forms.
However, any felines, reptiles, or birds which would
have been common feature in the landscape at that
time appear to be almost or totally absent in the figu-
rine assemblage. These wild specimens seem to be
reserved for monumental reliefs on monolithic T-pil-
lars and stone sculptures found in 'Cult Buildings'.
Wengrow (2003) also assumes that the major pre-
sence of carnivores and birds reinforces at these sites
a sense of a symbolic lanscape alien to the domestic
household. In a way, in the light of the Nevali ^ori
and Göbekli tepe examples, a sense of wild landscape
symbolism consisting of large carnivores and birds
seems to be reserved to monumental reliefs in so-cal-
led monumental 'Cult Buildings', not in any house or
house-based context (Wengrrow 2003; Schmidt
2006). In contrast, the clay animal figurines from
Nevali ^ori represent a different symbolic sphere
seemingly reserved to the domestic area and more
a part of daily rituals.
The absence of leopards and bears and other carni-
vores in the figurine assemblage at ^atalhöyük also
seems worth considering. The predators and birds
are never identified in the figurine assemblage, de-
spite their dominant representations on monumen-
tal reliefs. Rather, domesticated species or bull figu-
rines are the dominant figure in this assemblage, as
well as in the Nevali ^ori and ^ayönü figurine as-
semblages. The different divisions and proportions
of represented groups are noteworthy. In a way, in
the light of the Upper Mesopotamian PPNB evidence
from Nevali ^ori and Göbekli tepe, a sense of wild
landscape symbolism consisting of large carnivores
and birds seem to be reserved to monumental re-
liefs in 'Cult Buildings'. In contrast, figurines of do-
mestic animals or at least herbivores from Nevali
^ori represent a different symbolic sphere seemingly
reserved to the domestic area and more a part of
daily rituals. Similarly, at Catalhoyuk no carnivore
or wild animals were seen on any clay figurines ex-
cept the stamp seals. So, it can be assumed that the
symbolic landscape represented by wild animals on
portable objects seems to have been reserved to the
animal seals. Although the reason is obscure, it can
be assumed that the representation of predators that
are only seen in reliefs can also be related to the fun-
ctions of the figurines, or to taboos that can not be
deciphered.
Another absence has been detected in the bear's
(<%1) and leopards' (? %) share in the taxonomy of
faunal remains. Whereas the proportions betwen the
representations and those animals' proportions in
the taxonomy are not symmetrical. The proportions
in which animals are represented symbolically differ
from those in the faunal remains just as much as the
differences between the media are assymetrical, and
therefore interesting. These differences tend to sug-
gest there could be a taboo about either bringing
those animals onto the site, or hunting (Hodder
2006.261). Viewed from this perspective, the actual
paw remains of a bear and the perforated leopard
claw pendant testify that they are the result of spe-
cial treatment, as well as to their special role in the
community.
Another phenomenon that has been attested on
splayed figures is the removal of the paws and head
parts. It might be, therefore, as a result of an icono-
clastic custom, as already stressed by Mellaart in par-
ticular cases (1966.188):
"Were the heads destroyed intentionally before the
paintings were covered with white plaster, like the
deer's head in the level V shrine, the leopard's in
Shrine VI. (0 or the heads, arms and legs of god-
dess reliefs in the shrines of level VII? The habit of
religious iconoclasm at gatalhöyük is well attested."
The bear seal's broken paws are likely to have sha-
red the same fate and seem to be related to the same
custom as seen on the splayed figurines, the paws of
which are also broken. Despite the leopard seal's
front part and some part of the tail being broken, its
abraded condition and unclear context make it har-
der to speculate on whether it was broken delibera-
tely.
The repetition or dominance of the associated repre-
sentations is another phenomenon. The repetition
of the same images between levels VI and VII in se-
veral buildings show that the splayed figures may
have functioned as important deities. Besides that,
the absence of leopard and bear figures in wall pain-
tings also reinforces their different role in the ritual
sphere of the community, as well as the redundancy
of the same iconography of representations through
many levels of habitation in the gatalhöyük commu-
nity. As Russel and Meece (2006.229) have stressed,
the leopard and splayed figures display an episodic
character and remain visible for longer periods. Thus
they may also be tied to changing myths.
Conclusions
The variable representation of bear and leopard on
portable and reproductive media as seen on seals,
reliefs and wall paintings seems to reinforce our ar-
gument that these are representations of mythical
animals, along with paintings, reliefs and pendants
and stone statuettes. With the possible decipherment
of splayed figures as bear, the bear cult or a similar
cult centered on bear was also an important ritual fi-
gure as well as the leopard and bull cult throughout
many levels among gatalhöyük Neolithic community.
As a result of evidence based on an analysis of fau-
nal evidence and contextual evidence, as well as an
iconographic comparison, it can be summarized as
below:
O According to Russel and Meece (2006.215), they
are generally animals, because none of them have
any indication of any gender, in contrast to some fi-
gurines and painted figurines. Moreover, the uptur-
ned legs make a position physically impossible for
humans. The placement of the limbs rather suggests
bears or some other some quadruped animals. More-
Fig. 7. 'Master of the animals', limestone figurine
of a woman on a leopard (Mellaart 1967.Pl. 75)
over, one figure has faint indications of rounded ani-
mal ears. All of these features raise the strong possi-
bility that the splayed reliefs portray animals. The
rounded heads also suggest a carnivore, bear and
perhaps even leopard. As they are compared to the
seal's upturned legs and the more important head
part, it is a point of fact that the splayed figures are
generally bear.
© This actual find of a specially treated bear paw
also reinforces the idea that it could also be a frag-
ment as an lively apparatus on moulded relief of
splayed figures on the walls as we think that heads
and hands of the plaster relief examples were al-
ways cut off. At gatalhöyük, the heads and usually
the hands and sometimes the feet of these splayed
figurines were knocked off upon the abandonment
of the related spaces.
© As stated already, the bear seal's possible deposi-
tion as a votive object before the abandonment of
the space fill (of space 54) (Regan 2005) suggests
that the bear image had already been a valuable
amulet before its deposition in the fill. Their fore-
paws are also broken, and this does not seem to be
a post-depositional case. It seems instead to have
been deliberately broken, as observed on the bro-
ken legs and forepaws of splayed figures at the end
of the life cycle of the buildings where they were bu-
ried. Therefore, sharing similar application to what
happened to the splayed figures during the abandon-
ment of the buildings seems in a way to be identi-
cal with the same broken parts of the bear seal. Al-
though the leopard seal is broken in the front part,
including head and tail at the back, the abraded con-
dition of the broken parts and the unclear context
compel me to think it was probably discarded where
it was deposited. On the other hand, the leopard re-
liefs seem to have been kept as they were in the
shrines.
As far as depicting leopards in relief at gatalhöyük
is considered, it should not be surprising that the
bear image is already growing clear. However, some
hints of human features, like the concentric belly on
one splayed figure, is still intriguing and is probably
an indication of a pregnant belly; bear features are
sufficiently dominant as to suggest it was once an
animal deity. So it is probable that the splayed re-
liefs with upraised arms and legs do not seem to be
antropomorphic 'goddesses' as Mellaart formulated
(1967), but more probably bears or somewhat hy-
brid creatures in bear form.
Combining all the evidence, the splayed figures are
much more likely to represent an animal deity, fi-
nally indicating that the splayed figures are images
of bear, rather than humanoid goddess figurines, an
important deity, like the leopard and bull. In a way,
the combination of three representation groups (bull,
bear and leopard) through many levels of habitation
together in the same buildings ('shrines') suggests
that they might have acted as a 'Holy Triad' in gatal-
höyük symbolism.
REFERENCES
BONIFAY E. 2002. L'Homme de neanderthal et L'ours (Ur-
sus Arctos) dans le Grotte du Regordou (Montignac sur
Vezere, Dordogne, France) In T. Tillet and L. Binford
(eds.), L'ours et l'Homme. ERAUL. Liege: 247-54.
CHAUVET, J. M., BRUNEL DESCHAMPS E. and HiLLAiRE C.
1996. Grotte Chauvet: The Discovery of the World's Ol-
dest Paintings. Thames and Hudson. London.
ERGIR Y. 2006. The Last Anatolian Panther. on-line http://
www.ergir.com/last_anatolian_panther.htm
HODDER I. 1987. Contextual Archaeology: An interpreta-
tion of gatal Höyük and a discussion of the Origins of
Agriculture. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology
(London) 24: 43-56.
2006. Qatalhöyük: The Leopard's Tale; Revealing the
Mysteries of Turkey's Ancient 'Town'. Thames & Hud-
son. London.
INGOLD T. 2000. Totemism, animism and the depiction of
animals. In T. Ingold (ed.), The Perception of the Envi-
ronment: Esssays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill.
Routledge. London: 111-131.
DELLUC G. and DELLUC B. 1991. L'art Parietal Archaique
en Aquatine. Supplement a Gallia Prehistorie 28e. CNRS.
Paris.
GÜRPINAR T. 2000. Anatolian Leopard - follow the legend.
YesilAtlas Qevre Özel Sayisi, Dogan Burda A. Sc., Istanbul.
LAJOUX J. D. 2002. Les Donees Ethnoloqies du Culte de
L'ours. In T. Tillet and L. Binford (eds.), L'ours et l'Hom-
me. ERAUL, Liege: 247-54.
MELLAART J. 1963. Excavations at gatal Höyük. 1962.
Anatolian Studies XIII: 43-103.
1964. Excavations at gatal Höyük. 1963. Anatolian
Studies XIV: 39-119.
1966.	Excavations at gatal Höyük. 1965. Anatolian
Studies XVI: 165-91.
1967.	Qatal Höyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia.
Thames and Hudson. London.
MORSCH M. G. F. 2002. Magic Figurines? Some Remarks
about the Clay Objects of Nevali gori. In H. G. K. Gebel,
B. D. Hermansen & C. H. Jensen (eds.), Magic Practises
and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Studies in
Early Near Eastern Production and Environment 8. Ex
Oriente, Berlin: 145-162.
RUSSEL N. and MEECE S. 2006. Animal representations
and Animal Remains at gatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.), Qa-
talhöyük Perspectives: Themes from 1995-1999. Qatal-
höyük Research Project 6. McDonald Institute for Ar-
chaeological Research, Cambridge: 209-230.
RODDY R. 2005. Excavations of the South Area. Buildings
44 & 56. Qatalhöyük Archive Reports 2005. on-line http://
www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_14.html
TÜRKCAN A. U. 1998. Some Remarks on Stamp Seals. Qa-
tal Höyük Archive Reports 1998. on-line http://www.
catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1997/ar97_18.html
2003. Stamp seals and Clay Figurines. Qatalhöyük Ar-
chive Report 2003. on-line http://www.catalhoyuk.
com/archive_reports/2003/ar03_16.html.
2005.	Stamp Seals. fatalhöyük Archive Reports 2005.
on-line http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/
2005/ar05_30.html, 2005
2006.	Some Remarks on ^atal Höyük Stamp Seals. In
Hodder I. and members of the ^atalhöyük Teams
(eds.), Excavations at fatalhöyük, Volume 5. Chan-
ging Materialities at fatalhöyük; Reports from 1995-
1999 seasons. Monographs of the McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge
and British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, Cam-
bridge and Ankara: 175-185.
2003. on-line http:///F:/Catal/Stampseal/Archive_Re
ports/seals/2003/report.htm
VERHOEVEN M. 2002. Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic of the Levant and Southeastern Anatolia.
Cambridge Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 233-58.
WHITE R. 2003. Prehistoric Art: The Symbolic Journey
of Humankind. Abrams Books. New York.
YARTAH T. 2005. Les batiments communautaires de Tell
'Abr 3 (PPNA, Syria). Neo-Lithics 1(05): 3-8.