Plenumssitzung - Human-animal interactions in the prehistoric Near East and North Africa: Case studies from Göbekli Tepe and Hierakonpolis

A blog post by David Usieto Cabrera

On July 14th 2022, the GRK got reunited one more time to enjoy the last Plenumssitzung of the summer semester where Nicky van de Beek and Benny Waszk gave a presentation entitled: “Human-animal interactions in the prehistoric Near East and North Africa: Case studies from Göbekli Tepe and Hierakonpolis”. This series of seminars on different research concepts forms a very useful discussion of various interconnected topics within our respective doctoral projects. Furthermore, the discussions that arise between professors and doctoral candidates are crucial. 

Figure 1: Title of the presentation.

First off, evidence related to human-animal interactions from two sites were compared. Benny Waszk proceeded to explain the site of Göbekli Tepe, located in Upper Mesopotamia and dated about 9000 BC, i.e., dating to the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic period with few anthropological remains at the so-called “special buildings  ”. In this site, the iconography of wild animals is incredibly high, as the faunal and botanical remains indicate seasonal hunting activities and a steppe landscape. Then, Nicky introduced her site: Hierakonpolis, or ancient Nekhen (falcon god), Kom el-Ahmar (“red mound”) which was a political center in Upper Egypt at end of Predynastic Period Peak: circa 3700-3500 BCE. Hierakonpolis stretches in the low desert, 2 km into Wadi Abu Suffian. 

By exploring the subjects of human-animal interaction and their consequences not only in physical scenography but also on the cosmological world, Nicky and Benny are creating a scope of original interdisciplinary research. The first question to ask is: Which animal remains are represented the most in each site? While at Göbekli Tepe most of those animals are wild, at Hierakonpolis, Figure 2 illustrates it very well.   

Figure 2: Animal burials at Hierakonpolis.

One of the most studied and analyzed human and animal interactions comes from activities like hunting. Both sites are ideal for hunting purposes, with Göbekli Tepe located on a hill that, although not the highest point, is a place where gazelles migrate. Migrating herds can be spotted while humans are concealed. At Hierakonpolis, on the other hand, a wadi crossed by animals in search of water, there is an exceptionally high percentage of wild animals in archeozoological records (15%). Here, the economic importance of hunting was limited. Hunting scenes became an important aspect of elite iconography. Thus, at Hierakonpolis hunting is mostly more important in depictions rather than pragmatically as at Göbekli Tepe.   

Another important point is the human-animal interaction they discussed was the control over nature. At Göbekli Tepe, these “special buildings” are related to specific animals in an effort to control them which makes it very interesting  . Animals depicted that are rare in the archeozoological record (leopard, boar, fox) Gazelle (very common) are normally only depicted once. While on the other hand, at Hierakonpolis, large wild animals (which were difficult to obtain) represent social power of the elite, perhaps protection from the chaotic forces of nature? Or sacrificed on death of ruler?  

All in all, the talk ended with a wonderful discussion and very interesting and productive questions where those human and animal interactions were brought to the table to see what concepts and further questions they raised. For instance, not every animal had the same value within their societies as some of them were very hard to get (i.e. elephants) and the costs of putting them to death was too high for an unimportant event. Thus, the relevancy of those animals were indeed higher than that of a mere hunting tool or food.