Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. A Szent István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 34. 2004 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (2005)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Zalai-Gaál, István: New evidence for the Cattle cult in the Neolithic of Central Europe. XXXIV. p. 7–40. T. I–XVII.

walls, bucrania and clay benches with horns. The rooms decorated with bucrania and bull depictions were usually larger than the ones containing images of the goddess. In the lower levels, the horns and the animal heads were modelled from plaster, while in the upper ones the skeletal parts of slaughtered animals were used. Aurochs skulls and horns were found in one of the shrines; intentionally broken or „wounded" votive figures of various animals, including cattle, were concealed in the shrine walls or in the pits beside them, which according to James Mellaart had been used in some sort of hunting ritual (Mellaart 1967, 214). The so-called hunting scene in one of the shrines is dominated by an almost two metres long bovine with onagers and a dog and „dancers" clad in animal skins. David and Joan Oates have suggested that this scene does not evoke an actual hunt, but rather some sort of ritual (Oates- Oates 1976, 93). The eastern wall of this building was adorned with an enormous bull head and three ram heads, below which ran a row of stylised female breasts. One of the sanctuaries in Level VI was decorated with bull heads sculpted from plaster (Mellaart 1965, Fig. 80, Fig. 86, with a reconstruction of the sanctuary; 1967, 109, Fig. 58b). The best-known finds of this level are the aurochs horn-cores placed in carefully modelled clay benches with horns protruding from both sides (Mellaart 1967, Fig. 58a; 1975, 99, Fig. 84-85; Oates 1976, 90, Fig. 97).

13 Johannes Maringer and Dieter Kaufmann believe that the bull and ram figures symbolised the masculine aspect of the fertility cult (Maringer 1956, 246; Kaufmann 1976a, 79). Although most of the Early Neolithic settlements in Turkey have been dated to the period between 7600 and 6000 ВС,

14 recent research has shown that the first tangible evidence for the existence of a cattle cult comes from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN), dated between 12,0007600 ВС (Özdogan 1999b, 197, Figs 1-2). The fourfooted stone and clay figurines from Cayönü could not be associated with any kind of ceremonial or cult building and the species of the portrayed animal is very often uncertain (Özdogan 1999a, 59, Figs 71-72). A unique monument, the Stonehenge of Anatolia, has been uncovered at Göbekli Tepe, a site predating Çatal Hüyük by two thousand years, where aurochs was the second most important source of food after gazelle for the hunter-gatherer groups populating the region (Peters-Schmidt 2004, 183, Tab. 1). Remains of monoliths enclosed within rectangular walls were found in Layer III (PPNA), dated to 91638744 calBC, and Layer II (PPNB), dated to 8240-7780 13 Huge aurochs homs were found lying by the wall in the debris of House 2 during recent excavations (Hodder 1999, 162; for an overview of the cattle depictions at the Çatal Hüyük site, ср. MüllerКафе 1968, Taf. 118,120). 14 James Mellaart dated the Çatal Hüyük sequence to 6250-5400 ВС (Mellaart 1975, 98). calBC.

15 The finely carved stone pillars bear images of various animals - lions, foxes, gazelles, snakes and other reptilians - portrayed most naturalistically and abstract pictograms, perhaps representing stylised human figures. Three monoliths bear depictions of aurochs (Schmidt 1999; 2001, 45-54; Hauptmann 1999, 79, Fig. 22; Linsmeier-Schmidt 2003, 10-15; Beile-Bohn et al. 1988; Peters-Schmidt 2004, 183-206, Tab. 2).

16 The first (P2, PPNA) depicts an aurochs, a vulture and a fox, and has a bull head relief on its upper, tapering part (Plate XIII, Fig. 20; Peters-Schmidt 2004, 184, Fig. 12, Fig. 19); the second (P20) is adorned with reliefs showing an aurochs, a fox and a snake (Enclosure D; Peters-Schmidt 2004, Fig. 8), while a bucranium relief adorns the narrower side of the third (P31, Enclosure D; Peters-Schmidt 2004, Fig. 20). Joris Peters and Klaus Schmidt mention a number of other bucranium deposits from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Peters-Schmidt 2004, 184).

17 Although bucrania so characteristic of the Çatal Hüyük settlement were not found at the Late Neolithic settlement of Haçilar, the prominence of the cattle cult at this site is reflected by painted motifs of horned cattle skulls on pottery (Mellaart 1970, 353). The appearance and spread of bull head symbols on pottery from Haçilar, Demirci Hüyük and Kuruçay has been discussed in detail by Holger Schubert, who argued that the so-called fertility motif from Haçilar evolved in close association with the animal head patterns (such as spiral horns) in Haçilar V. The bull head motifs of Haçilar VII-II and the fertility motifs of Haçilar I are usually set in the focal point of the design (Plate XVII, Fig. 25; Schubert 1999, 192, 195, Taf. 142. 16-18, Taf. 155. 15-19, 20, Taf. 163).

18 From his examination of the contacts between Anatolia and Greece, he concluded that the bull head symbolism of Haçilar VI (5276 calBC) more or less coincided with the appearance of painted pottery in Thessaly (Achilleion lb), and that the triangle, one of the motifs of the painted designs, was perhaps an abstract version of the bull head.

19 It must here 15 „Architecture at Göbekli Tepe is distinctive, consisting of larger curvilinear (probably PPNA) and smaller rectangular (late Early/early Middle PPNB) structures with megaliths in the form of T-shaped stone pillars" (Beile-Bohn et al. 1998; Schmidt 1999; 2001; Peters-Schmidt 2004,182, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5). 16 "All animals of Göbekli Tepe are male sexually marked" (Bischoff 2005, 2). 17 Hallan Çemi Tepesi (Rosenberg et al. 1995), Tell Halula (Sana Segui 1999) and Jerf el Ahmar (Helmer et al. 2004). 18 For the "sacred signs" of the Neolithic, cp. Lazarovici 1994. Ina Wunn is probably correct in noting that the interpretation of cattle symbols is not possible either at Haçilar or at Çatal Hüyük 19 „Eine inhaltliche Übereinstimmung zwischen Sesklo/Franchti und Haçilar ist jedoch in keinem Falle nachweisbar, die Kulturen des griechischen Neolithikums bildeten im Zuge ihrer omamentalen Entwicklung eine eigene 'material culture language', ein eigenes Paradigma aus...?" (Schubert 1999, 191); "Wenn die von Gimbutas aus Achilleion beschriebene Anlage mit erhöhter Plattform und Feuerstellen vielleicht als früher Opferplatz gedeutet werden kann, gehörten Tieropfern offensichtlich schon damals zu den rituellen Gepflogenheiten in den Ortschaften" (Wunn 2001,133). 17