Discovering Göbeklitepe: How to Get There and Its Historical Significance

Introduction to Göbeklitepe

Göbeklitepe, located in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey, is considered one of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 21st century. This ancient site has reshaped historical perspectives, providing invaluable insights into early human civilisation.

Situated approximately 15 kilometers northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa, atop a mountain ridge, Göbeklitepe dates back to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, around 9600-8200 BCE. It is believed to be the world’s oldest known temple complex, with structures predating the pyramids of Egypt by thousands of years.

Key Features of Göbeklitepe:

• Massive T-Shaped Pillars: The site is characterised by its large, T-shaped limestone pillars, some of which reach heights of up to 6 meters. These pillars are arranged in circular and oval formations and are intricately decorated with carvings of animals, abstract symbols, and humanoid figures.

• Enclosures: Göbeklitepe comprises multiple stone enclosures, many of which have been excavated, while others remain buried. Each enclosure contains several pillars, set in a circular or oval pattern, with two larger central pillars facing each other.

• Archaeological Stratigraphy: The site consists of several layers, representing different phases of construction and usage. The deepest layers contain the earliest structures, with subsequent layers indicating ongoing activity and modifications over millennia.

• Symbolism and Artistry: The carvings and reliefs on the pillars showcase a high degree of artistic skill and symbolic meaning. Depictions of animals such as lions, snakes, boars, and birds are common, suggesting various ritualistic or cultural significances.

Discoveries and Excavations

The discovery of Göbeklitepe is attributed to Klaus Schmidt, a German archaeologist, who began excavations in the mid-1990s. Prior to Schmidt’s research, the site was mistakenly thought to be a medieval cemetery. However, Schmidt’s work revealed its true ancient and monumental nature, revolutionising the understanding of prehistoric societies.

Historical Context

Göbeklitepe challenges traditional views on the development of civilisation. It suggests that complex religious practices and social structures existed prior to the advent of agriculture and settled communities. This has led scholars to re-evaluate the relationship between hunter-gatherer societies and the rise of organised religion.

Further studies and digs continue at Göbeklitepe, promising to uncover more secrets about humanity’s distant past. The site’s importance is recognised by its inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List, underscoring its universal value to human history.

Planning a Visit

For those interested in exploring this archaeological wonder, Göbeklitepe is accessible from Şanlıurfa. The site is open to tourists year-round, offering a unique glimpse into a civilisation that flourished over 11,000 years ago. Visitors can view the impressive structures and gain a deeper appreciation of early human innovation.

Unveiling the Mysteries: A Brief History of Göbeklitepe

Göbeklitepe, located in southeastern Turkey, is one of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. Often referred to as the “world’s first temple,” this site has revolutionised our understanding of early human societies. Here is a brief history of Göbeklitepe:

Discovery and Excavation

• Initial Discovery: Göbeklitepe was first identified by a Kurdish shepherd in 1963, but it wasn’t until 1994 that German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt fully realised its significance.
• Excavation: Under Schmidt’s guidance, excavation and analysis began, revealing multiple megalithic structures dating back to the 10th millennium BCE.

Architectural Marvels

• T-shaped pillars: The site is renowned for its large T-shaped limestone pillars, some of which stand up to 20 feet tall and weigh up to 20 tonnes.
• Circular Enclosures: These pillars are arranged in circular enclosures, suggesting a possible ritualistic or communal function.
• Carvings and Reliefs: The pillars are adorned with intricate carvings, including depictions of animals such as snakes, foxes, and wild boars. These carvings provide insight into the symbolic practices of the site’s builders.

Significance

• Age: At approximately 12,000 years old, Göbeklitepe predates Stonehenge by over 6,000 years and the Pyramids of Giza by about 7,000 years.
• Societal Impact: The complexity of the site indicates a high level of social organisation, challenging long-held assumptions about hunter-gatherer societies. It suggests that religious and complex social rituals may have been integral to human communities even before the advent of agriculture.

Theories and Interpretations

• Purpose: Scholars debate the exact purpose of Göbeklitepe. While some view it as a religious temple, others propose it served as a communal gathering space.
• Construction Techniques: The construction of such monumental structures without modern tools remains a puzzle. This has led to numerous theories regarding the workforce and methods employed.
• Cultural Development: The artifacts and constructions at Göbeklitepe provide critical data on the cultural and ideological developments of early humans.

Ongoing Research

• Current Excavations: Archaeological work continues, with many areas yet to be fully explored. Each new discovery adds to the understanding of this enigmatic site.
• Interdisciplinary Studies: Research incorporates various disciplines, including anthropology, archaeoastronomy, and palaeoenvironmental studies, to construct a more comprehensive picture.

The history of Göbeklitepe underscores its importance in the narrative of human civilisation, marking it not only as an archaeological treasure but also a profound testament to early human ingenuity and social organisation.

Significance of Göbeklitepe in Human History

Göbeklitepe, located in southeastern Turkey, represents a monumental archaeological site that has reshaped the understanding of early human civilisation. Unearthed in the mid-1990s, the site dates back approximately 12,000 years, predating Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids of Egypt by several millennia.

Transformative Discoveries

Several groundbreaking discoveries have emerged from the excavation of Göbeklitepe:

• Earliest Known Temple Complex: Göbeklitepe is widely regarded as the world’s oldest known temple complex. Unlike subsequent temples, it was erected long before the advent of agriculture and settled civilisation, suggesting that this monumental architecture was the work of hunter-gatherers.

• Advanced Engineering: The megalithic structures at Göbeklitepe feature intricately carved limestone pillars, some towering over 5 metres tall and weighing up to 10 tonnes. These pillars are adorned with detailed depictions of animals, abstract symbols, and human-like figures, demonstrating sophisticated artistic and engineering abilities.

• Social and Religious Implications: The complexity and scale of Göbeklitepe indicate a high level of social organisation. The construction of such a site would have required coordinated efforts from a substantial workforce, highlighting the existence of complex societal structures at this time.

Redefining Historical Timelines

Göbeklitepe challenges previous timelines associated with the dawn of civilisation:

1. Origins of Religion: The discovery suggests that organised religion may have played a crucial role in the formation of early societies. The congregational nature of Göbeklitepe implies that religious gatherings could have been a driving force behind the establishment of settled communities.

2. Agricultural Revolution: The site pre-dates the advent of farming, prompting scholars to reconsider the relationship between sedentary life and agriculture. The construction of Göbeklitepe implies that the move towards permanent settlements might have been motivated by spiritual or communal needs rather than agricultural necessity.

3. Technological Development: The sophisticated craftsmanship of Göbeklitepe’s structures necessitates a re-evaluation of technological capabilities during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. This suggests a more advanced level of tool use and construction techniques than previously assumed.

   Planning Your Visit: Best Time to Go

Choosing the best time to visit Göbeklitepe can greatly enhance the overall experience. The region, located in southeastern Turkey, experiences a diverse climate, which varies throughout the year. Knowing when to visit can make a significant difference in the level of comfort and enjoyment during the trip.

Spring (March to May)

• The temperatures during spring are mild and pleasant, typically ranging from 10°C to 20°C.
• This season is ideal for exploring the archaeological site without enduring the extreme heat of summer.
• The lush greenery and blooming flowers add to the scenic beauty, making the experience more visually appealing.

Summer (June to August)

• Summer in Göbeklitepe can be quite hot, with temperatures often exceeding 30°C.
• Visiting during early mornings or late afternoons can help avoid the peak heat of midday.
• Hydration and sun protection are crucial during this time of year.

Autumn (September to November)

• Autumn presents similar advantages to spring, with comfortable temperatures ranging from 15°C to 25°C.
• The weather is generally stable, and the landscape features autumnal hues that enhance the site’s visual allure.
• This period is less crowded compared to summer, providing a more serene environment for exploration.

Winter (December to February)

• Winter months can be quite cold, and temperatures can drop to around 5°C.
• Although less crowded, the chillier weather may not be as comfortable for outdoor exploration.
• Rainfall is more common during winter, which could affect the experience.

Key Considerations:

• Crowds: Off-peak seasons such as spring and autumn tend to have fewer tourists, offering a more intimate and peaceful visit.
• Festivals and Events: Checking the local calendar for any cultural events or festivals can enrich the visit.
• Accommodation and Services: Ensure availability and pricing of accommodation and local services, which may fluctuate with the seasons.

By carefully selecting the time of year for a visit to Göbeklitepe, one can optimise the balance of comfort, weather conditions, and overall experience, ensuring a memorable and informative exploration of this extraordinary archaeological site.

How to Reach Göbeklitepe: Travel Tips and Options

Located in southeastern Turkey, Göbeklitepe is a fascinating archaeological site near the city of Şanlıurfa. Travellers seeking to explore this ancient wonder have several options and tips to consider for a smooth journey.

Reaching Şanlıurfa

One must first reach Şanlıurfa to visit Göbeklitepe. Here are some potential travel methods:

• By Air:

  • The primary airport serving Şanlıurfa is the Şanlıurfa GAP Airport (GNY).
  • Several domestic flights operate daily from major Turkish cities, such as Istanbul and Ankara.
  • International travellers may need to catch connecting flights through these major hubs.

• By Bus:

  • Long-distance buses run regularly to Şanlıurfa from numerous cities across Turkey.
  • The bus journey can be lengthy; however, it offers a cost-effective option.
  • Major bus operators provide services such as overnight trips, comfortable seating, and scheduled stops.

• By Car:

  • Renting a car allows for flexibility, enabling exploration of surrounding areas at a preferred pace.
  • Driving from nearby cities such as Gaziantep or Diyarbakir is feasible.
  • The road conditions are generally good, but checking maps and traffic updates beforehand is advisable.

From Şanlıurfa to Göbeklitepe

Once in Şanlıurfa, reaching Göbeklitepe is straightforward. The site is approximately 15 km northeast of the city centre. Options to consider:

• Guided Tours:

  • Many local operators organise day trips to Göbeklitepe, combining transportation, guided tours, and sometimes meals.
  • These tours provide historical context and insightful commentary.

• Public Transport:

  • Public buses or minibuses (dolmuş) run from Şanlıurfa to key points nearby Göbeklitepe.
  • Clarify the schedules beforehand, as services may not be frequent.

• Taxi or Ride Services:

  • Hiring a taxi for a round trip or one-way journey is convenient.
  • Agree on the fare in advance, as many taxi drivers may not use meters for out-of-town trips.

Travel Tips

• Timing the Visit:

  • Göbeklitepe opens year-round, but spring and autumn offer more temperate weather conditions.
  • Early morning or late afternoon visits help to avoid crowds and the midday sun.

• What to Bring:

  • Sunscreen, hats, and water are essential for protection against the sun.
  • Comfortable walking shoes are crucial due to uneven terrain and potential distances to cover.

• Additional Considerations:

  • Checking local holidays and events can help avoid disruptions.
  • Respecting the archaeological site’s rules and preserving its integrity is paramount.

Travellers planning to visit Göbeklitepe can benefit significantly by considering these travel tips and options, ensuring an enriching and hassle-free experience.

Guided Tours vs. Self-Exploration: Which is Better?

When deciding how to explore Göbeklitepe, visitors often face the choice between guided tours and self-exploration. These two modes offer distinct experiences, each with its advantages and potential drawbacks.

Guided Tours

Guided tours are a popular choice for many visitors due to several reasons:

• Expert Knowledge: Guides are usually well-versed in the history and significance of Göbeklitepe, providing detailed information that might not be easily accessible through self-research.
• Organised Itinerary: Tours follow a structured schedule, ensuring that visitors see all the significant areas without missing key sites.
• Interactive Experience: Visitors can ask questions and engage in discussions, enhancing their understanding.
• Convenience: Booking a tour often includes transportation, entry fees, and other logistics, simplifying the visit.
• Safety and Comfort: Guided tours provide a sense of security, especially for those unfamiliar with the region.

Self-Exploration

Conversely, self-exploration allows for a different form of discovery:

• Flexible Pace: Visitors can explore at their own speed, spending more or less time at points of interest based on personal preference.
• Personal Experience: Exploring independently allows for a more intimate and personal connection with the site.
• Cost-Effective: Self-exploration can be more economical as it eliminates the costs associated with guided tours.
• Customisation: Visitors have the freedom to tailor their visit, focusing on areas that interest them the most without adhering to a fixed schedule.

Considerations

Both options have their merits and should be carefully considered based on individual preferences and needs:

• Time Constraints: Those with limited time may benefit from the efficiency of a guided tour.
• Interest in Details: History enthusiasts who seek in-depth information might appreciate the expertise of a tour guide.
• Comfort with Navigation: Confident travellers may prefer the independence and flexibility of self-exploration.
• Budget: Budget-conscious visitors might opt for self-exploration to save on tour costs.

Choosing between guided tours and self-exploration ultimately depends on what type of experience appeals more to a visitor. Both methods can offer rewarding and informative visits to Göbeklitepe.

Main Attractions in Göbeklitepe: What Not to Miss

Göbeklitepe houses several unparalleled attractions, each offering a window into the ancient world. Visitors should ensure they experience these significant highlights:

Monumental Pillars

• Pillar 1: The largest and considered the most important pillar, displaying intricate animal carvings and humanoid figures.
• Pillar 31: Known for its unique reliefs, including depictions of wild boars, cranes, and serpents.

Enclosures

• Enclosure D: The best-preserved and most impressive, featuring massive T-shaped pillars.
• Enclosure C: Distinguished by carvings that include a menacing fox.

Central Plaza

• Offering panoramic views, the Central Plaza provides an ideal vantage point to observe the entire archaeological site and its layout.

Stone Rings

• Kamennaya Gora I Ring: Highlights the complex stone arrangements and astronomical alignments.
• Southeast Ring: Includes reliefs of animals—particularly serpents and foxes—demonstrating sophisticated early artistry.

Visitor Centre

• Features educational displays and augmented reality experiences, allowing guests to immerse themselves in the site’s history.

Audio Tours

• Available in multiple languages, audio tours guide visitors through the site’s extensive history and significance.

Archaeological Museum

• Houses artifacts unearthed at Göbeklitepe, providing a deeper understanding of the site’s history and significance.

Guided Tours

• Expert-led tours offer detailed explanations of Göbeklitepe’s archaeological, historical, and cultural contexts.

Key Carvings

• Featuring various carvings including leopards, lions, and other symbolic animals, these are pivotal for understanding the site’s iconography.

Panoramic Viewpoints

• Designated areas around Göbeklitepe provide breathtaking views, especially at sunrise and sunset, highlighting the site’s elevated positioning and surrounding landscapes.

Surrounding Landscape

• The scenic surroundings of Göbeklitepe, including natural fauna and flora, add to the site’s serene and inspirational ambiance.

Visitors to Göbeklitepe should ensure they explore these key attractions, offering an unparalleled glimpse into one of humanity’s most enigmatic archaeological sites.

Nearby Historical Sites and Attractions

Exploring Göbeklitepe opens a gateway to many nearby historical sites and attractions worth visiting. These locations offer deep insights into the rich cultural and historical tapestry of the region, making a trip to this area even more rewarding.

Historical Sites

1. Şanlıurfa Archaeology and Mosaic Museum

   • Located in the city of Şanlıurfa, this museum houses a remarkable collection of artefacts from various periods, including Neolithic, Roman, and Byzantine eras.
   • Highlights include the famous “Urfa Man” statue and stunning mosaic floors from the ancient city of Edessa.

2. Balıklıgöl (Pool of Sacred Fish)

   • A site steeped in religious significance, believed to be where the Prophet Abraham was thrown into a fire by King Nimrod.
   • Features carp ponds that are considered sacred, and visitors often feed the fish while exploring the beautiful gardens.

3. Harran

   • An ancient city known for its unique beehive-shaped houses and believed to have been inhabited since the Bronze Age.
   • Mentioned in the Bible, Harran is an archaeological site with ruins of the University of Harran, one of the oldest in the world.

Cultural Attractions

1. Şanlıurfa Bazaar

   • A bustling market where visitors can experience local culture, purchase traditional handicrafts like carpets and jewellery, and taste local spices and sweets.

2. Göbeklitepe Visitors Centre

   • Provides detailed exhibitions about the site’s discovery, with interactive displays and information about the excavation process.

3. Halfeti

   • Known as the “hidden paradise” due to its partially submerged town, following the construction of the Birecik Dam.
   • Offers boat tours of the flooded village, giving visitors a unique perspective of the area’s transformation over time.

Other Notable Attractions

1. Mount Nemrut

   • A UNESCO World Heritage site famous for its colossal statues and the tomb sanctuary of King Antiochus I of Commagene, offering panoramic views and a glimpse into ancient practices of worship.

2. Gaziantep Zeugma Mosaic Museum

   • Home to some of the world’s most beautifully preserved mosaics from the Roman period and celebrated for its extensive collection and sophisticated presentation.

These additional historical sites and attractions provide a fuller understanding of the depth of history and culture in the region surrounding Göbeklitepe. Visitors are encouraged to explore these landmarks to gain a broader appreciation of this historically rich area.

Accommodation and Dining Options around Göbeklitepe

Visitors exploring Göbeklitepe will find a variety of accommodation and dining options tailored to different preferences and budgets.

Accommodation Options

1. Local Hotels:

   • Hilton Garden Inn Şanlıurfa: Known for its comfortable amenities and proximity to Göbeklitepe.
   • Hotel El-Ruha: Offers a blend of modern comforts and traditional Turkish hospitality.
   • Nevali Hotel: Features spacious rooms, a spa, and panoramic views of Şanlıurfa.

2. Boutique Hotels:

   • Narli Ev Butik Otel: Provides a unique stay experience with charming decor and personalised service.
   • Edessa City Hotel: Combines historical ambience with modern facilities.

3. Guesthouses and Inns:

   • Aslan Guest House: A cost-effective option with a homely atmosphere.
   • Ekinci Otel: Offers a quaint stay experience with friendly services.

4. Holiday Rentals:

   • Airbnb Options: Variety of homes and apartments available for a more personalised stay experience.
   • Local Rental Agencies: Offering apartments and villas for short-term stays.

Dining Options

1. Local Cuisine:

   • Ciğerci Aziz Usta: Famous for its delicious liver kebabs.
   • Halil Usta Restaurant: Known for its authentic Turkish dishes.

2. Casual Dining:

   • Baklavaci Çelebi: Renowned for its mouth-watering baklava and desserts.
   • Harran Sofrası: Offers both local and international dishes in a casual setting.

3. Fine Dining:

   • Gülizar Konukevi: Provides a fine dining experience with traditional Turkish cuisine.
   • Kasrı Vezir: Elegant ambience and a gourmet menu featuring local flavours.

4. Cafés and Teahouses:

   • Şair Nafi Café: For a relaxed atmosphere and a good selection of teas and coffees.
   • Çermik Kahvesi: A popular spot to enjoy traditional Turkish coffee.

5. Markets and Street Food:

   • Balıklıgöl Bazaar: Offers a variety of food stalls featuring traditional snacks.
   • Local Street Vendors: Great for a quick bite and sampling local delicacies.

Overall, whether staying in a luxury hotel or a quaint guesthouse, and whether dining at a gourmet restaurant or a local teahouse, visitors to Göbeklitepe will find plenty of options to suit their preferences.

Cultural and Archaeological Insights

Göbeklitepe, a gem of the ancient world, holds boundless cultural and archaeological significance. Situated in Southeastern Turkey, this archaeological site predates Stonehenge and the Egyptian pyramids by several millennia, revolutionising understanding of early human history.

Archaeological Significance

1. Oldest Known Temple: Dated back to the 10th millennium BCE, Göbeklitepe contains massive T-shaped pillars organised in circular structures, believed to be temples.
2. Construction Techniques: Despite their primitive tools, the builders demonstrated advanced engineering skills. Each stone pillar, weighing up to 20 tonnes, was meticulously carved and strategically positioned.
3. Artwork and Symbolism: The pillars are adorned with intricate carvings of animals and abstract symbols, suggesting ritual significance and early artistic expression. Common motifs include foxes, snakes, and birds, reflecting the fauna of that era.

Cultural Implications

1. Sedentary Civilisation: Göbeklitepe challenges the traditional narrative of hunter-gatherers transitioning to agriculture. It indicates that religious beliefs may have led to the formation of permanent settlements, preceding agricultural practices.
2. Social Hierarchy: The complexity and scale of the site imply an organised society with specialised roles, suggesting the existence of social stratification and labour division.
3. Ritual Practices: The design and layout hint at complex ritualistic practices, providing insight into the spiritual life of early human societies. It’s believed that the site’s primary purpose was ceremonial rather than domestic.

Broader Archaeological Impact

1. New Research Avenues: Göbeklitepe has prompted archaeologists to revisit existing theories about the Neolithic Revolution and its correlation with religious and social developments.
2. Comparative Analysis: The site provides a benchmark for comparing other contemporary ancient structures globally, enriching the understanding of early human ingenuity.

Influence on Modern Culture

1. Tourism and Education: Göbeklitepe has become a focal point for researchers and tourists alike, significantly contributing to educational tourism in Turkey.
2. Cultural Preservation: Efforts to preserve and study Göbeklitepe reflect a broader commitment to protecting world heritage and understanding human history’s origins.

Incorporating these elements highlights Göbeklitepe’s profound contributions to archaeology and the study of early humans.

Preservation Efforts and Future Research

Preservation efforts at Göbeklitepe have been multifaceted, focusing on both immediate protection and long-term conservation. Key initiatives include:

• Sheltering Structures: Protective roofing and shelters have been constructed to shield the delicate stone carvings and structures from weather elements.
• Access Control: Strict access control measures limit the number of visitors and manage foot traffic to minimise wear and tear on the site.
• Monitoring Systems: Advanced monitoring systems track environmental conditions, such as humidity and temperature, to promptly address any potential threats to the structural integrity.

In addition to these physical measures, several projects have been launched to ensure the long-term preservation of Göbeklitepe:

1. Local Involvement Programmes: Engaging the local community in conservation efforts through education and employment opportunities, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility.
2. Collaborative Efforts: Collaboration with international archaeological institutions and governmental bodies to employ best practices in site preservation.
3. Educational Outreach: Offering educational programmes and workshops to raise awareness about the site’s significance and the importance of its preservation.

Future research at Göbeklitepe is driven by the need to uncover further insights into the prehistoric era. Several avenues of investigation are being pursued:

• Archaeoastronomy Studies: Research into how Göbeklitepe might have been used for astronomical observations, possibly serving as an ancient observatory.
• Technological Analysis: Utilising advanced technologies such as ground-penetrating radar and 3D modelling to explore undiscovered areas and refine understanding of the site’s layout.
• Comparative Studies: Comparing findings from Göbeklitepe with other contemporary archaeological sites to build a broader picture of early human civilisation.

Continued excavations are expected to reveal more about the social, cultural, and spiritual functions of Göbeklitepe. Researchers remain committed to uncovering how the site fits into broader narratives of human history.

• Interdisciplinary Research: Bringing together experts from various fields such as anthropology, geology, and climate science to enrich the understanding of the site’s history.
• Ethnoarchaeological Approaches: Investigating contemporary and historical communities to draw parallels and enhance interpretations of the site’s usage.
• Material Analysis: Detailed analysis of tools, pigments, and other materials found onsite to glean information about the technology and resources available to its builders.

Preservation and research at Göbeklitepe are vital for comprehending humanity’s early history and ensuring this invaluable heritage endures for future generations.

Conclusion: Reflection on the Importance of Göbeklitepe

The historical significance of Göbeklitepe cannot be overstated, as its discovery has profoundly impacted our understanding of early human civilisation. As the oldest known temple complex, Göbeklitepe offers invaluable insights into the lives and beliefs of humans during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, challenging previously held notions about the development of religious practices and societal structures.

Significance in Archaeology

1. Age and Uniqueness: Göbeklitepe, dating back to approximately 9600 BCE, is unparalleled in its age and sophistication. Its existence predates Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids by several millennia.
2. Construction Mastery: The advanced architectural skills demonstrated by the construction of large T-shaped pillars indicate that early humans had the capability for complex planning and execution.
3. Tool Use and Craftsmanship: The intricate carvings and symbols found on the pillars show an early mastery of tools and artistic expression, shedding light on cognitive development and cultural practices.

Implications for Understanding Early Societies

• Religious Practices: The presence of these elaborate structures suggests that the impetus for early humans to settle and build communities may have been driven by religious or ritualistic motivations more than by agriculture or economic needs.
• Social Organisation: The organisation required to construct Göbeklitepe implies the existence of a cooperative society with a division of labour, a previously underestimated element of such early communities.
• Diet and Subsistence: The evidence of communal feasting gleaned from animal bones found at the site suggests that large-scale gathering and sharing of food were integral to the Göbeklitepe society.

Broader Cultural Repercussions

• Challenging Historical Narratives: Göbeklitepe encourages a reevaluation of human history, providing new perspectives on the origin of complex societies, often pushing back the timeline of human advancement and societal complexity.
• Global Interest: The site has attracted attention worldwide, fostering international cooperation in archaeological research and promoting cultural tourism. This not only has economic benefits but also enhances global heritage appreciation.

In light of these points, Göbeklitepe stands as an essential archaeological site, offering profound insights into the dawn of civilisation and continually inspiring research and discovery in the quest to understand humankind’s ancient past.

Trajan nymphaeum in the ancient city of Laodikeia (fountain of trajan)

    The Nymphaeum of Trajan was unearthed at the southern end of the West Portico of the Stadium Street, bordering the street and the portico connected to it at the southern end. The monumental fountain has a single-storeyed façade with a large square in front of the façade. The fountain, which has a rectangular plan on the exterior, has a façade animated by an apsidal pool and a colonnaded gallery on the interior, which was widely built in the Roman Empire at the end of the 1st century AD. In the monumental Nymphaeum structure, the power of both the Roman Empire and Laodikeia was exhibited to the public as political propaganda with four granite and eight marble columns and pedimented facades on both sides in front. The water law unearthed on the eastern wing of the façade facing the square provides important information about the use of water in the city, its cleanliness, the protection of the line, its distribution, the nature of the officials supervising it, and the penalties and prohibitions to be imposed on those who violate the rules, as well as showing that the monumental fountain was built in 113-114 AD during the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD). The group sculpture of Emperor Traian and the Daker (Dacia) captive in the pediment carried by two columns, which are higher than the others and arranged in the form of a temple pediment on the main façade of the fountain, reveals the importance of the structure. On the other hand, water was provided from the north side of the fountain, an arched pool at the southern end of the Stadium Street West Portico, and water was provided on three sides, one of which was rectangular in plan, on the east and west sides. The main pool provided water to the part facing the square in the south front.

It is understood from the crosses engraved on the parapets that the monumental fountain structure was used for a while more in the 4th century AD due to the liberalization of Christianity (313 AD). Due to the importance of the square and the construction of an administrative building to the south and official offices on both sides of the square in the 5th century AD, the apsidal pool was converted into an exedra for seating. During this phase, the rectangular pool on the east side was enlarged, two small pools were built on the southwest side, and a small water terminal was created in the north by installing a system of funnels supplying water in different directions. In this use, the sculpture group consisting of Emperor Trajan and the captive was continued to be exhibited in the exedra since it was likened to Constantine the Great who freed Christianity. The exedra completely lost its function as a result of the collapse of the columned gallery on the rear façade into the building with the earthquake in 494 AD.

REFERENCE: https://twitter.com/celal1964

                           https://laodikeia.pau.edu.tr/yapilar-696

Human-Sized Sculptures Found in Göbeklitepe and Karahan Tepe

 A life-size statue of a wild boar and a human was found during the excavations at Göbeklitepe and Karahantepe in Şanlıurfa. In Karahantepe, one of the realistic human statues of the period was brought to light. The statue, one of the examples of prehistoric art with a realistic facial expression, is 2.3 meters high.

According to a statement released by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey, various human and animal sculptures were unearthed during excavations at 9 archaeological sites in 2023 as part of the Stone Hills project.

During the excavations, a life-size statue of a wild boar made of limestone was found in the D structure of Göbeklitepe. The pig statue, which has red, white and black pigment residues on its surface, is the first painted statue from that period to date.

The boar statue discovered in Göbeklitepe was unearthed on a bench with decorations that are estimated to be an 'H' shaped symbol, a crescent moon, two snakes and three human faces or masks.

TAŞ TEPELER(Stone Hill)

Göbekli Tepe and 11 surrounding archaeological sites are home to Anatolia's and Upper Mesopotamia's oldest settled communities. Spread over 200 kilometers, the 'taş tepeler' are expected to illuminate a little-known period in human history. The monumental structures in the 'taş tepeler' are believed to be communal spaces where people came together.

The Stone Hills show that there are other sites that are contemporary with Göbekli Tepe and have similar characteristics. All of these sites were located on high hills in areas ideal for hunting. The hunting grounds in the vicinity of these sites also support this view.

Göbekli Tepe dates back to 9600 BC and reflects an uninterrupted period of about 1500 years. This process, which we recognize with Göbekli Tepe, actually covers a wide geography and maintains its dynamism for a long time.

KIBYRA

 

Kibyra ancient city was founded on low hills, heights of which differ from 950 m and 1350 m,  to the West of Burdur, in Gölhisar. The city was at the junction of Lycian, Karian and Phrygian cultural areas and in the center of a trade route connecting the North to the South and the East to the West in early periods. The area was called as ‘Kabalia’ in early periods and ‘Kibyratis’ during Hellenistic and Roman periods. Although the meaning of the word is not known exactly, Kibyra is not a Hellenistic name. Common view is that it belonged to a language used by Luvians, people who lived in western and southwestern Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, and this unknown name was changed as Kibyra in Hellen. According to Strabo, a traveller from Anatolia, Kibyrians were of Lydian origin and they moved to Kabalis from there. It is also obvious that there were also migrations from Pisidia, Milyas and Solym to the area and all these people joined and established Kibyra, the width of which reached to 100 stadia. Strabo also emphasized that four different languages, Lydian, Solymi, Psidian, Hellenic, were spoken in the city. Strabo’s description about the foundation of the city has been supported by the archaeological finds from Uylupınar, a settlement approximately 18 km away from Kibyra. The settlement around Uylupınar village of Gölhisar and the rocky area around Gölhisar Lake has finds dating back to the Early Iron Age. This settlement is most probably the area where Kibyrians had settled long before they moved to the city, which can be seen today, in other words ‘Old Kibyra’. Old architectural ruins of the city today are from the Roman Imperial Period and Late Antiguity.

Kibyra was an autonomous city which could coin its own money during the Hellenistic Period.  It is known that the quadruple council  (Kabalis Tetrapolis / Association of Four Cities in Kabalis Region) which was established in the second century BC under the leadership of Kibyra and consisted of Bubon, Balboura and Oinoanda, cities located nearby, played an important role in the political history of the area. It seems that the council was a decision making mechanism based on voting of city representatives.  In this political association, Kibyra had two votes, whereas the other cities had one vote each. According to Strabo, Kibyra had two votes for providing 30.0000 infantry and 2000 cavalry. Records show that the council was eliminated by Roman commander Murena in 82 BC. After this period, Kibyra was incorporated into Asia Minor and the other cities were incorporated into the Lycian League. During the Roman Period, it became the judicial centre of Asia Minor’s state governor.

The city, destroyed by an earthquake in 23 AD, was exempted from tax for five years and it was donated money by Roman Emperor Tiberius. Thus, the city was rebuilt and Kbyrians showed their gratitude by naming their city as ‘Caesera Kibyra’. After the second devastating eartquake in 417 AD, the city lost its architectural plan and continued its existence getting smaller and losing its glory during Late Antiguity.

Kibyra main city is on three hills seperated from each other by deep cliffs. It is seen that public, civil and religious buildings were organized symmetrically to form completeness. All the buildings were placed on the terraced hill so as not to spoil each other’s lake and valley view.

Necropolis, consisting of many different architectural styles, surrounds the hill where public buildings are seen densely. These buildings are dense between the Stadion in the East and the West ridge of the hill where the Theatre and the Odeon are. On the same axis, main street, secondary routes, basilica with administrative and judicial functions, temples, social and commercial market place (Agora), temples and small shops, symbols of economical liveliness of the city, can be seen. According to the records and inscriptions, Kibyra was famous for its ironworking, leather trade and horse breeding. It has also been found out that ceramic fabrication was of great importance in Kibyra.

Excavation and research studies in Kibyra, under the leadership of the Burdur Museum, started in 2006. It has been a continuous excavation by the decision of the Council of Ministers on behalf of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University headed by Associate Professor Şükrü Özdoğru since 2010. Since 2006, Stadion, Odeion (Music House), Agora, Necropolis, Late Antiguity Bath, Caiserion, Roman Imperial Bath and Basilica have been excavated. Stadion, Odeion and Bath excavations have been completed. Work continues in Agora, Main Street, Necropolis, Caisarion, Basilica and the Bath Complex from the Roman Imperial Period.

 

KIBYRA CAISARION (EMPEROR CULT TEMPLE)

 

            Caisarion is located to the Southwest of the main hill. The hill, at this point, goes towards the stream (Kanlı Dere)  in South and West directions by forming steep crests and  creating an area to control everywhere easily. Caiserion was built at this dominant point of the city. The reason why it is called as ‘Caisarion’ is the inscriptions. Inscriptions are reliable proofs to show us that the construction was built for the memory of Emperor Augustus and his wife Livia, by the order of Emperor Cladius (41-54 AD). Thanks to the insriptions, it is also understood that it was built during the reign of Emperor Cladius. Therefore, this construction must have been built as a Caisarion (emperor cult temple). Facade of the North-South directioned construction is on the North. Total area of the construction is 16.00 x 8.90 m. Findings, which can be seen today, give us information about the structure because the whole construction except for the foundation must have been destroyed by the devastating earthquake in 417 AD. Caisarion is originally an Ionic emperor cult temple built in ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­prostylos (four columns on the facade).

KIBYRA THOLOS NYMPHAEUM (ROUND FOUNTAIN)

 

The round fountain structure decorated with columns, embossed friezes and sculptures was unearthed during the 2016 excavations in the city square functioning as a social and cultural gathering area on the level of Terrace III of the Agora.

 The structure consists of a round body with a water system laid in the center, formed with blockwork, and two circular pools, one inside and one outside, surrounding it. The central structure is covered with a conical roof carried by columns. The fountain, which was apparently built for the first time after the earthquake of 23 AD, has three different phases of use: In its first phase of use, it consists of a single pool and a circular body with a central water system, and a second pool was probably added in the late second and early third centuries AD. Although it is understood that the roof of the fountain collapsed and was extensively damaged in the 417 AD earthquake; archaeological data show that the structure was used with the same function in the Late Eastern Roman Period, probably until the end of the VII century AD, after some renovations. The excavations revealed that the building was not only a fountain (nymphaion), but also a castellum that provided water distribution to its immediate surroundings; and a visual water monument decorated with sculptures, columns and architrave-friezes with girlanded architraves carrying the conical roof. Due to its location, it was placed in the busiest square of the city, visible to those coming to the Agora from the direction of the Theater and Odeion, as well as from the direction of the Stadion.

The diameter of the structure, together with the stone drainage troughs surrounding the outer round pool, is 14.91 meters in total, and its estimated height should have been approximately 8 meters with the conical roof covering only the central body through which the water system passes. In its current state after the restoration was completed, it is 6.76 meters high. The thick-walled main funnels supplying water to the fountain, which only had a central cylindrical body and a single pool in Phase I, were made of terracotta. The water from the ancient spring in the Böğrüdelik plateau was poured into the first pool through six marble statues between the supporting columns in the central platform. Only two of these statues were recovered during the excavations, depicting Heracles reclining on a lion's pelt and Dionysus the Younger reclining on a panther's pelt. According to the traces on the outer pool, there should have originally been twelve bronze statues on the outer pool. Unfortunately, no trace of them was found.

The restoration project prepared for the Nymphaeum, which was approved by the decision of the Antalya Regional Board for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage dated 30.07.2021 and numbered 12576, was carried out by the Kibyra Excavation Team between August and October 2022. The restored structure was raised to its feet and water from the ancient spring was poured, thus restoring it to its original function two thousand years after its first construction.

KIBYRA BASILICAL PLANNED CHURCH

    The Basilical Planned Church, located just above the Kibyra Stadion, is the largest religious building of the Eastern Roman period city, measuring 20.00 x 48.00 m from exterior to exterior. This church has a basilica plan with three naves and a triconchos (clover-shaped) apse. The central apse has an altar and synthronon, while the pastophorion rooms are located behind the side apses. The three rooms to the south of the basilica and the rooms next to it are burial chambers. In the first room in the east, an altar and a relicer were found inside the altar. In the other rooms, burials were made in terracotta sarcophagi under the floor. In front of the basilica is a landing added later. From here, the narthex (the covered front space at the entrance of the church) is entered through four doors, two at the front and one on each side. The floor is paved with opus sipicatum (rectangular pieces of terracotta/tile arranged side by side to form the spica (spike) motif that gives the floor its name) decorated with different geometric ornaments. Entered through three doors from the narthex is the naos section (the place where the congregation gathers in basilicas consisting of the central and side naves). The naos is divided into three naves by colonnades (spaces within the naos, placed perpendicular to the apse, separated from each other by columns or pillars). During the excavations, it was observed that the floor of the central nave was paved with marble slabs reclaimed from Roman Imperial Period buildings. The floor of the side naves, which are separated by colonnades from Roman Imperial buildings, is paved with opus spicatum. At the eastern end of the naos is the bema (a raised space with an altar separated from the naos by parapets and accessible only to priests). The bema is surrounded by a buttressed tempo (a parapeted section separating the naos from the altar room). In the center of this area, traces of the etching of the metal doors on the stone are still visible. A four-legged altar table was excavated in the center of the area. In the central apse, there is a stepped Synthronon (stone or wooden seating benches placed inside the apse). To the north and south of the main apse, two rooms were exposed. These rooms are called "pastophorion". The room to the north, where bread and wine were prepared, is the "prothesis" room. The room to the south, where liturgical objects or vestments were kept, is called "diakonikon". To the south of the basilica are the burial chambers, which seem to have been planned together with the building. In the first room, which is accessed through the diaconicon room and paved with marble, an altar is observed to the east of the row of three opposite columns. During the excavations, a silver relicer (objects in different forms made for placing relics belonging to holy people) was found inside this altar. This room and the rooms to its west were used as burial areas. Fifty-five terracotta sarcophagi placed under the floors of the rooms were found during the excavations. Architectural fragments, ceramic vessels, lamps, coins and medallions were found inside the basilical planned church with triconchos apse. The dating of the building is based on its plan with triconchos apse, which is not very common in Anatolia, and it is thought that it was built in the 5th-6th century AD after the 417 AD earthquake, which was the second largest earthquake that the city suffered according to ancient sources. 

ANATOLIAN PERSIAN ART

         

  With the disappearance of the Lydian State in 547 BC, Anatolia continued its life under Persian rule for two centuries. Persians kept the cities under their control with the Satrapy system they established. The number of Satrapies at the imperial level was 23. Satrapies-Provinces were divided into smaller satrapies-provinces. The number of these provinces reached 127.

According to this division, the following new satrapies were established in Anatolia:

Yauna (Ionian) Satrapy: It covered the entire western coastal region of Anatolia, from Aeolia to Caria, Lycia and Pamphylia; it was obliged to pay an annual tax of 400 talents of silver to the treasury. Later, the coasts between Caria and Cilicia were separated from this satrapy.

Sparda (Sardes) Satrapy: It included Mysia, Lydia, Lasonia, Kabalia and Hygennia; the annual tax was 500 talents of silver.

Daskyleion Satrapy: Phrygians, Anatolian Thracians, Paphlogonians, Mariandians and Cappadocians, i.e. the entire northern coast of Anatolia, the Greek cities on the southern shores of the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmara, inland Phrygia and Cappadocia were also under this satrapy; the annual tax was 360 talents of silver. Later on, this very large satrapy was divided into three satrapies: Hellespontus Phrygia, Great Phrygia and Kapatuka (Kappadokia).

Cilicia Satrapy: It covered the part of Anatolia extending from the Taurus Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea; the annual tax it was obliged to pay was 360 white horses at the rate of one per day and 500 talents of silver. Of this, 140 talents went to the Persian Cavalry Garrison in Cilicia. It was initially ruled by local Cilician kings called Syennesis; later it became a province directly subordinate to the centre.

Eastern Black Sea Satrapy: It included the area between the present-day Ordu and Trabzon provinces, inhabited by the Moskhi and Tibarenes, formerly called Muski and Tabal, as well as the Makrons, Mossyniks and Marelis; the tax was 300 talents of silver.

Satrapy of Pactyica and Armenia: It extended from the northern part of present-day eastern Anatolia to the Black Sea; the annual tax was 400 talents of silver.

            Thanks to these satrapies, they collected regular taxes and tried to ensure control with permanent garrisons. One of the most important of these is the Satrapy of Dasklyleion. In 1952, German archaeologist Kurt Bittel discovered Hisartepe in Ergili Village as the Persian Satrapal Centre. The first excavations in Daskyleion were carried out by Ekrem Akurgal. In 1988, Tomris Bakır restarted the excavations.  During the Early Achaemenid Phase between 547-480 BC, Satraps known as Pharnakes, Mitrobates, Megabazos and Megabates served as governors in Daskyleion. Archaeological finds from this period include architectural blocks of palaces and a magnificent Terrace Wall and typical Persian palace architecture. The Middle Achaemenid Phase between 480-370 BC constitutes the Golden Age of Daskyleion and some architectural fragments found during this period comprise an Andron belonging to noble rulers and a section belonging to the palace. Satraps such as Artabazos I, Pharnabazos I, Pharnakes I and Pharnabazos II lived in this palace. This palace was burnt and destroyed by the Spartan commander Agesilaos in 395 BC. Tomb stelae in Anatolian-Persian style with royal inscriptions in Aramaic, ivory artefacts, loom weights, and more than 500 bullae (seal impressions), evidence of the correspondence of the Great Shah of Iran with his satraps in the west, should be mentioned. Some remains indicate that structures belonging to the Zoroastrian religion were also located in Daskyleion. After the Battle of Granicus (Biga) in 334 BC, the Persian rule both in Daskyleion and in Anatolia came to an end.

The term "Anatolian Persian Art" was coined by T. Bakır in consideration of the Persian Period grave stelae found in various regions, especially in the Propontis region, which differ in their continuity and composition. With the arrival of the Persians, workshops ceased in a significant part of Anatolia, and especially Western Anatolia was plunged into a darkness that lasted for about two centuries. The Persians' constant struggle with Athens played an important role in this. It is debatable to what extent the Persians dominated the cultural history of Anatolia during their two-century rule. In fact, while archaeological researches reveal a certain amount of Persian pattern in the satrapal centres, this situation is uncertain in other regions.

Architecture:

     The Pyramidal Tomb from Sardis and the Stone Tower Tomb Monument from Phokaia are the earliest examples of Persian architecture in Anatolia, dating to the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC. Architectural examples include orthostad blocks with reliefs of different periods, column capitals or bases, a marble window lintel with Persian-style profile and ornamental details, a Miletian-style corner acroter with volutes, fragments of kyma decorated with a lotus-palmette frieze, architectural terracottas similar to Anatolian and especially Lydian examples, decorated or plain architrave blocks, and other finds belonging to buildings built in Daskyleion from the late archaic period onwards. While these architectural fragments provide information about the buildings of the Persian period, they also show that the Persians employed Ionian craftsmen as architects and stonemasons, that these Anatolian craftsmen both applied the Ionian architectural style and made ornaments in the Persian tradition, and at the same time prove that a new "Anatolian - Persian" style was born with the architecture of Daskyleion.

Tomb Stelae:

            The Anatolian tomb stelae of the Persian period, with their heights up to 3 m., the body structure narrowing from bottom to top and the anthemion on the upper part, originate from Western Anatolia, since the closest examples in terms of form are found in Samos and Sardes. In terms of form, it is found in the Troad Region, Samos, Ionia, Attica and Thessalia from the Early Archaic period onwards. On the other hand, while there is no relief decoration on the Sardis and Samos examples, the Attica and Thessalia examples depict a single scene consisting of one or two figures covering the whole body, while the Perinthian stelae depict one or two small human figures on the upper part of the body. It is thought-provoking that the three-line inscription under the relief depictions on the stele called "Manes Stele" found during the excavations at Daskyleion is not in Aramaic as usual, but in Phrygian. The depictions on the stelae depict scenes from the lives of the Persian nobles, such as banquet scenes, hunting scenes, the dead being brought to the grave in a chariot, or the ceremonies required by the cult of the dead. Among the figures in these scenes, the deceased nobleman and his relatives are distinguished from the other figures (usually servants) by their proportions and their size. The style of the reliefs is also unique. The surfaces of the figures are left flat and the details (face, hair, clothing) are indicated by timely colouring. These depictions bear no resemblance to Greek art, and directly reflect the iconography of the Pre-Anatolian and Anatolian cultures.

    

            These stelae are categorised into six groups according to their subjects.

I .   Ekphora Scene,

Banquet Scene II,

Hunting Scene III,

Act IV. Battle Scene,

V. The Induction Scene,

VI. Religious Ceremony

I. EKPHORA SCENE

         The fact that these procession scenes, which start around 500 BC and continue until the post-Achaemenid period, feature similar types of chariots carrying cargo and emphasise their importance leads to various interpretations. The common feature of the scenes is a chariot with a dome-shaped upper part, carrying a load. The transition from the flat body to the dome is characterised by a protrusion at the back and front. The carts are usually drawn by two horses, but in a single example they are drawn by four horses. The carts have a single axle and a high wheel. Some figures accompany these chariots in the processions.

        These scenes, which are common in the Propntis Region, are also found in Lycia in the burial chamber of the Karaburun II Tumulus (Fig.1) and in the Tomb of Weeping Women from Sidon (Fig.2). The extensive treatment of the subject matter in the procession scenes of Karaburun II and the Sarcophagus of Weeping Women is important in terms of understanding the figures neglected due to lack of space in the tomb stelae found in the Propontis Region and in terms of showing that the people participating in the procession on the stelae were not limited to depictions.

        The equestrian figures depicted on the upper frieze of the Istanbul 5764 Stele (Fig.3 ) are difficult to explain on their own. These equestrian figures, which move in the silence of a religious ceremony, gain meaning only when they are combined with the lower frieze. Considering Karaburun II, Sarcophagus of Weeping Women and Istanbul 5762 Stele (Fig.4), it is understood that the equestrian figures in the first frieze accompany the chariot and a procession scene is depicted. The procession scenes depicting carts also shed light on the processions in which carts were not found. The longest of these procession scenes, the cortege on the southern frieze of Xanthos G Heroon (Fig.5 ), does not include a chariot. However, the fact that the chariot is located at the end of the cortege in Karaburun II and Istanbul 5764 Stele strengthens the possibility that the chariot is located in the last part of the southern frieze of Heroon G, which has not been recovered. Except for the Sidon example, ekphora scenes in this style are not encountered outside Anatolia. This draws attention to Anatolia in this regard.

The discovery of beasts of burden such as horses and oxen, as well as related materials in Phrygian tumuli from the 8th century BC onwards, shows that in Phrygian funeral ceremonies, the cart and the animals pulling it were also buried together with the deceased. This Phrygian tradition continued in the tumuli of the Achaemenid period in the Lydian and Phrygian regions. Based on the findings, it can be said that this tradition continued in the Achaemenid period and was also adopted by the Persians living in Anatolia. 

 

II. BANQUET SCENE

          The most important figure in the banquet scenes is the male figure lying on the kline. In some scenes, this man shares the kline with a woman. In others, the woman sits not on the kline but on a stool next to it. In some scenes where the woman is not emphasised in this way, she participates in the scene as a servant.

        The meaning of the banquet scene in Anatolian Persian tomb iconography is one of the most debated topics. Three main views have gained weight in explaining this iconography.

1. That the banquet scene is a cross-section of the life of the deceased,

2. That it was a farewell dinner,

3. A feast attended by the deceased in the afterlife.

         Macridy, Akurgal and Kleeman agree that this is a slice of the life of the deceased. Dentzer, on the other hand, associates it with Persian court life and says that the status of the person is emphasised. Hanfman and Mellink see the banquet scene as a reflection of the high standard of living that the Persian king valued and to which his satraps had to conform.

        Borchhardt, on the other hand, goes beyond all these views and brings a different interpretation. He believes that in the early cults of Mycenae, Argos, Crete and Cyprus, human sacrifices were made in the tomb of the deceased, and that the participants of the feast should actually be buried in the tomb, but that ancient traditions gained humanitarian applications with modern thought, so that only their depictions were placed on the tombs. Dolunay, on the other hand, while agreeing with Dupont-Sommer's interpretation of the stelae as votive stelae, interprets the scene on Stele 5763 in Istanbul as a funeral feast (Fig.6), while the banquet scene on the Ödemiş Stele (Fig.7) from the İzmir Museum is interpreted as entertainment, the comfort and joy of finishing a job, rather than a meal for the dead, and therefore emphasises that this stele is a votive stele related to transport and caravans.   

        While women are present in the banquet scene on many Lycian reliefs, there are no women on Trysa (Fig.8) and Nereid (Fig.9). Jacobs argues that this was not only due to the social status of the deceased, but also to his political status. In other words, these were official banquets given by the ruler himself, and therefore women could not attend. In this context, the Karaburun II Tumulus is a summary of the banquet scene in the Nereid example.

         We can learn from Herodotus and other ancient writers that there were banquets in Persia in which women also participated. Herodotus, in particular, states that it was customary for women to attend banquets in Persia.

         Undoubtedly, banqueting meetings could not be organised by everyone and required a certain wealth and social status. Therefore, the reason why Persian or pro-Persian nobles, who were not rulers, also included banquet scenes in tomb iconography must be the understanding of transferring this wealth and status to the grave.

III. HUNTING SCENE

         The hunting scene is a favourite subject in Anatolian Persian funerary iconography. These scenes depict the hunting of five different animals. These are the male wild boar, deer, bear, bird and panther.

         Due to space constraints on the stelae, hunting scenes are usually represented by only one horseman. On the other hand, on monuments with long friezes, such as the Nereids, they are depicted quite long (Fig.10 ). The hunt is usually carried out with long spears and a dog always assists the hunter.

         Although the subject matter is centred on the encounter between the hunt and the hunter, there are also scenes of the hunt and the return from the hunt. For example, on the Pergamon 4394 Stele, the lower frieze depicts going hunting and the upper frieze depicts hunting. The Dereköy Stele has a similar narrative.    

         Only Manisa Stele 3389 depicts a bird hunt (Fig.11). The hunter dressed in Persian costume uses a bow and arrow and aims at a bird perched on a branch. The hunting scene with arrows is also found on the Alexander Sarcophagus.

        The hunting scenes at Kızılbel and Isinda also show that this subject was depicted in Anatolia in the 6th century BC. The depiction of the hunting scene has been used in Assyrian palaces since the 9th century BC. Khorsabad in the 8th century BC and Til-Barsib in the 7th century BC are other early examples. In the Achaemenid hunting scenes, early examples of depictions of hunters struggling with the prey while standing on their hind legs are found in Assyria (Fig.12).

         As Jacobs also states, hunting scenes were depicted in Anatolian art, albeit to a lesser extent, before the Persian conquest of Anatolia. They were also an indispensable part of the tomb iconography of the Anatolian Persian period.

IV. BATTLE SCENE

        Almost all of the battle scenes depicted on friezes and stelae are between horse cavalry and foot soldiers.

        The Nereidler Monument (Fig.13) depicts a battle between Persians and Greeks. In these battles, the cavalry depicted on horseback are dressed in Persian clothes, while the soldiers on foot are fighting on the Greek side. The Persian cavalry is constantly superior to the foot soldiers. In the scenes with a long depiction area, the defeat of the enemy by the army, in which the grave owner is also included, also heroises the grave owner, while in the steles with a narrow area, only the grave owner and his opponent are depicted. In the Manisa 3389 Stele, this is narrowed even more and the grave owner is depicted alone (Fig.11).

        Although the siege of a city, as seen on the Nereidler Monument and Trysa Heroon, is not found in continental Hellas, the closest examples are found on Assyrian palace reliefs. Like the battle on the Nereids Monument, the battle on the Payava Sarcophagus (Fig.14) is thought to deal with a specific war. Because the rocky place where the battle was fought in the Payava Sarcophagus is similar to the landscape in the Autophradates relief and the mention of the name Autophradates in the Payava Sarcophagus carries this to a more serious dimension. This must be related to a battle won by Autophradates. The historical experience and the spatial reflection of the subject matter here give the work the characteristic of being a historical document in the real sense. 

         The war scenes in the Anatolian Persian iconography had previously been included in the iconography of Anatolia and Hellas. Starting from the Archaic period, the deceased is depicted as a warrior on tomb stelae. This subject is also encountered in the Klazomenai sarcophagi.

V. THE RECEPTION SCENE               

          The scene of the audience, which is depicted in many places in the Persepolis Palace, shows that this narrative has an important place in Persian palace iconography. Apart from Persepolis, the audience scene in this palace depiction is also found on the sarcophagus of Alexander and on the seals of Daskyleion.     

         The other scenes of the audience were found in Anatolia, especially in Lycia. These are found in Kızılbel Tumulus (Fig.15), Harpy Monument, Nereidler Monument (Fig.16), Payava Sarcophagus (Fig.17) and Trysa Heroon. It is seen that these ceremonies took place in an official atmosphere by following certain rules.

          The fact that the figures on the Nereids Monument and the Payava Sarcophagus are wearing tiaras suggests that they could not have been the Great King. Moreover, it is clear from the inscription on the Payava Sarcophagus that this person represents the Lydian Satrap Autophradates. The close resemblance of the first of the two men next to the satrap to the person depicted in the other sections suggests that he may be Payava.

         The frieze of Podium II of the Nereidler Monument depicts the reception of the dignitaries of the besieged city by a Persian dressed person, who is probably the Satrap, which must be a continuation of the reception scene at Persepolis.

         At this point, the reception scene on the wall painting of the Kizilbel Tumulus, which is dated to 525 BC, creates a problem. This is because it appears to be earlier than the depictions in the Treasury Buildings, which are the earliest of the Persepolis initiation scenes. However, the fact that this type of reception scene was found in Assyrian art before the Persians, and that the reception scenes in the wall paintings found in Til-Barsib (Tell Ahmar) are very similar to the Persepolis reception scenes, clearly shows that the reception scenes in Persian art were influenced by Assyrian art. In spite of this clear similarity, Persian reception scenes did not copy Assyrian reception scenes exactly, but developed a unique form, especially in terms of furniture components. According to Kyrieleis, the cover over the kline and stools is also a Persian feature.     

VI. RELIGIOUS CEREMONY

          Only three artefacts from the Persian period in Anatolia depict Persian religious ceremonies in the real sense. Two of them were found at Daskyleion and the other at Bünyan. The Median garments worn by magos such as tiara, kandys, sarapis and anaxyrides were also used by Persian nobles during the Achaemenid period. The classes and duties of the wearers of these garments, which do not differ in terms of shape, can be distinguished by the different colours they carried. For example, magos wear white clothes that give a simple appearance, while commanders are much more flamboyant and striking with their red or purple clothes. In this context, the figure in relief 5391 (Fig.17) is distinctive in that he holds the barsman in his right hand, while the red colour of the kandysun must emphasise that he is not a magos but a Persian nobleman.

         Although the colours of the figures in relief 2361 (Fig.18) have not been preserved, it is possible that they were father and son magos, as it is clear that they were performing the sacrifice with the stunted sticks they were holding in their hands and that they were in a divine supplication with their right hands raised upwards. The figures in reliefs 5391 and 2361 are probably performing the sacrifice in front of a building.

          In the cella frieze of the Nereidler Monument (Fig.19), the figures performing the sacrificial ceremony prefer himation instead of Persian clothes. In the frieze, the figure standing on the left side of the altar is libating with a bowl in his right hand. The figure bringing a bull and two goats from the right side must represent a priest with a garment exposing both shoulders. This scene is not similar to the relief no. 2361. However, we learn from the ancient sources that the Persians organised sacrifices to gods, fire, water and deceased persons, and that each of these ceremonies had its own rules. The Persian nobleman depicted on the Cappadocian Altar of Fire is also holding a barman in his right hand and a libation vessel in his left hand.

        In relief 2361, the heads of sacrificed animals rest on a quadrangular object. This quadrilateral, elaborated with thin sticks, must symbolise the pile of myrtle and laurel branches that kept the sacred fire burning and on which the meat was then placed. A similar scene was found at Ravansar. In the light of these two scenes, Calmeyer believes that a religious ceremony was performed in front of the tomb.

        In the Ravansar rock-cut tomb, the ceremony was performed at the actual door of the tomb, whereas in reliefs 5391 and 2361 the scene is depicted in front of a door. The façade of the Aktepe Tumulus of the Achaemenid period, which was opened in Uşak-Güre, shows an interesting similarity with the structure in these reliefs. This similarity suggests that this structure, in front of which ceremonies were performed, was a tomb. Indeed, as reported by Arrian (Anabasis VI. 29.7), it is known that sacrificial ceremonies were performed in front of the tombs during the Achaemenid period. At the tomb of Cyrus, a sheep was sacrificed every day and a horse every month.

          In the light of these data, while the reliefs 5391 and 2361 depict a religious ceremony in front of a tomb, a summarised version of a religious ceremony is also found on the Cappadocian Fire Altar. The cella frieze of the Neridler Monument, on the other hand, depicts a prolonged sacrifice scene. In the ceremony performed in front of a fire altar, animal sacrifices are performed as well as libations.  These religious scenes reflect Persian traditions in accordance with the information obtained from ancient sources.

        In particular, when the grave stelae of the Achaemenid period are analysed, it is seen that these works, which are under the influence of Anatolian local cultures in terms of form and style, also incorporate Persian style to a certain extent and thus deserve the definition of Anatolian Persian Art. However, the issue to be emphasised here is whether these artefacts adequately reflect the traces of a culture that dominated Anatolia for two hundred years. Stelae, relief blocks and architectural artefacts were mostly found in satrapal centres such as Daskyleion and Sardes, and in Xanthos, the local administrative centre. These artefacts are a blend of Anatolian and Persian art. However, the emphasis here shifts towards Anatolia. The situation that we encounter on many depictions is simply that the owner of the grave presents himself as a Persian. Whether the tomb owner is Persian or local, this is intended to emphasise a purely political situation, i.e. loyalty to the administration.On the other hand, hunting, war and banqueting scenes, which were seen in Anatolian iconography before the Persian invasion of Anatolia, continued to increase as they were related to the Persian understanding of life. Ekphora scenes, on the other hand, are not found in Persian grave iconography, and this indicates a Phrygian influence when horse and chariot burials are taken into consideration. The preferred form of grave stelae is also from Propontis. Monumental tomb architecture such as tumuli, heroons and pillars are also of Phrygian and Lycian origin.