The libidinous/parturient woman in the Göbekli Tepe

engraving has a phallic body-shape

Lloyd D. Graham

The mushroom-shaped head of the only female depiction discovered at Göbekli Tepe (G.T
00.11; PPNB, 9th mill. BCE) imparts a phallic body-shape to the sexually excited or birth-
giving woman, endowing her with the attributes of both sexes. This raises the well-known
phallocentrism of Göbekli Tepe to an even higher level. Later embodiments of the “phallic
female” paradigm from Anatolia include a stone figurine from Çatalhöyük (Chalcolithic,
6th mill. BCE), a terracotta one from Canhasan (5th mill. BCE) and the alabaster idols from
Kültepe (EBA II-III, 3rd mill. BCE); from slightly further east one can include the terracotta
Amlash figurines from northwestern Iran (Iron Age, 1st mill. BCE). The dual-gendered
“visual pun” enjoys a global distribution; independent embodiments of the concept are
known from five continents, some from as early as the 26th millennium BCE. As an aside,
the ancient and widespread belief in the maleness of bones could transform the Çatalhöyük
“Life and Death” figurine (12401.X7) into another procreation-focused amalgam of
maleness and femaleness. The male/bone equivalence could also explain the partial skelet-
onisation of male human and animal representations at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe.

The female engraving from Göbekli Tepe (G.T 00.11)

The newly-published official souvenir catalogue for the early Neolithic site of Göbekli Tepe
reminds readers that only one depiction of a female has thus far been discovered at the site,1
that being a crude engraving of a naked woman on a slab from the rectangular Lion Pillar
Building in Layer II (Fig. 1).2 Klaus Schmidt, who was excavation director at the time of its
discovery, notes that “it seems clear that this depiction is not part of the original decoration,
but more probably belongs to a group of engravings which can be classified as graffiti.”3
In his 2006 monograph on Göbekli Tepe, Schmidt describes the woman as follows:4
The artist has depicted her squatting with her arms and legs bent. She is obviously naked,
as the eye can see her hanging breasts and her pubic area (Fig. 104). This has a strange
shape. Two V-shaped, band-like structures hanging downwards are not immediately
obvious. However, they are clearly greatly enlarged labia. The spread legs and the
drastically depicted macronymphia (literally: large labia) suggest a readiness for coitus
rather than a depiction of a birth scene.

The other strange feature of the sketch is the shape of the woman’s head. This has attracted
attention from the outset, with Schmidt writing in 2006:5
The inverted heart-shaped depiction of the woman’s head cannot be interpreted without
further explanation. Either it is a hairstyle that is puffed up on both sides of the head, or
possibly an animal’s head, or perhaps a snake’s head. The shape of the woman’s head is
also reminiscent of the head of the “turtle”, which is the central motif on the limestone bowl
from Nevalı Çori decorated with bas-relief, which we got to know better in connection with
the goat demon. The connection with the lady from Göbekli Tepi remains very vague,
however, and does not really help with her interpretation.

1
Fig. 1. Female engraved on a limestone slab (55.0 x 49.5 x 12.0 cm) found within the rectangular Lion Pillar
Building in Layer II of Göbekli Tepe. Inset: Information from adjacent sign at Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum,
Türkiye. Photos: Author, Oct 2024.

There certainly is some truth to the snake-head suggestion, as the shape of the woman’s head
does resemble that of two snakes depicted on a plaquette fragment from Göbekli Tepi.6

Fifteen years later, the odd shape of the woman’s head was still attracting speculation – in this
case from Cédric Bodet:7

2
 There is a stone carving from the PPNB level of Göbekli Tepe, a rare depiction of a woman-
like figure (Fig. 6). The scene recalls directly the wall relief of Çatalhöyük described above,
with her limbs reaching out to two symbolic columns. In this case, also, dualism appears
quite clearly: legs, breasts and arms are stretched out wide, possibly in birthing labor.
Moreover, if the body is frontally depicted, the head seems to have two profiles, one looking
right (west/north?) and the other left (east/south?). The limbs/faces are thus probably
reaching out / looking towards two exogamic lineages. These are not represented here, but
they are strongly suggested by the position of the figure, which has nothing natural in it.

Rather than seeing the oddly-shaped head as that of an animal or as a Picasso-esque face that
gazes simultaneously in opposite directions, I would like to suggest that its shape resembles
that of the glans penis, and that it is so depicted in order to impart an overall phallic shape to
the woman’s body. In previous papers I have discussed ancient figurines that conform to a
just such a “phallic female” paradigm, along with instances of modern-day successors.8

Surprisingly, online keyword searches failed to find any instances in the academic literature
where such an interpretation has been suggested for the Göbekli Tepe engraving – not even in
Orhan Ayaz’s recent paper, which focuses on phallic representations in Taş Tepeler cultures
but which nevertheless happens to include a colour photograph of the female engraving.9
However, the existence of numerous scurrilous comments on a non-academic website which
humorously describe the woman as a “dickhead” lend support to the idea that others, too, see
her outline as phallic.10 Moreover, soon after the first version of the present paper was
published, I was alerted to a paper in a medical journal which makes the same connection.11

Artistic and cultural context

The use of a “visual pun”12 combining sexual opposites would be consistent with conceptual
fluidity evident in the so-called totem poles of Göbekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe and Nevalı Çori,
which break or blur the boundaries between species, dynamically mixing and merging
humans with animals and birds (e.g. Fig. 2).13 Indeed, the so-called “Life and Death” figurine
from Çatalhöyük (Fig. 3) embodies a coincidentia oppositorum comparable to that effected
by the phallic female template. In a later section, we will see that the union of opposites in
this figurine is already recognised to have parallels at Göbekli Tepe.14
An overall masculinisation of the sexually aroused or parturient woman in engraving G.T
00.11 would be very much in keeping with the long-remarked phallocentrism of Göbekli
Tepe. As Ian Hodder and Lynn Meskell note:
The excavators interpret these [large T-]pillars as representing stylized anthropomorphic
beings of stone. T-pillars, as well as representing or being human forms, may themselves
be evocations of the phallus, with an elongated shaft and a pronounced head. They are
massive uprights that themselves often have images of wild male animals with penises
depicted. […]
The phallocentric focus at Çatalhöyük and Göbekli is seen at other closely related sites
such as Nevalı Çori. The focus is found elsewhere in the Neolithic of Turkey, typically on
a smaller scale, as demonstrated within the figurine corpus. At Mezraa Teleilat, Özdoğan
(2003:517) describes some 94 phallic figurines found in the transitional layers between the
PPN and Pottery Neolithic levels. The numbers of these limestone figurines […] suggest a
particular focus on male sexuality as denoted by the penis.

3
Fig. 2. Stone “totem poles” from (a) Göbekli Tepe, G.T 10.77, (b) Karahan Tepe and (c) Nevalı Çori
in the Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum, Türkiye.15 Photos: Author, Oct 2024.

Fig. 3. Replica of the small clay “Life and Death” figurine from Çatalhöyük (cat. 12401.X7, 6.5 x 7.4 x
6.4 cm) at the site’s Visitor Centre.16 The front depicts a corpulent female with large breasts and stomach,
seemingly pregnant;17 the back portrays an articulated skeleton with a modeled spinal column, a pelvis and
scapulae that project above the shoulders.18 Photo: Author, Oct 2024.

4
Carel van Schaik and Kai Michel amplify these sentiments and refocus them on Göbekli
Tepe, for which they note that:19
Hodder and Meskell have identified three main motifs. If we follow them, they don’t mince
their words: “The first concerns a general preoccupation with the penis, both human and
animal, which allows us to speak of phallocentrism […]” Hodder and Meskell point out
that the already astonishing shape of the T-shaped columns itself has something phallic
about it: they appear as “evocations of the phallus, with an elongated shaft and a
pronounced head”. Göbekli Tepe thus becomes - pardon! - an erection made of stone. This
goes hand in hand with the already diagnosed lack of forms or symbols recognizable as
female. […] In more than twenty years of excavations at Göbekli Tepe, archaeologists have
only come across a single depiction of a woman, the famous exception to the rule. While
the animals impress with the high quality of their artistic depictions, in this case it is a
primitive drawing of a naked woman which is not part of the official pictorial program but
was later carved into the stone slab of a bench. We will spare you the details; the closest
art-historical parallel to this scratched drawing is the graffiti that adorns the walls of train
station toilets.
A phallic interpretation for the T-pillars at Göbekli Tepe draws strength from the existence of
the so-called “Chamber of phalluses” at the contemporaneous site of Karahan Tepe (Fig. 4),
which likewise appears to have a masculine focus (Fig. 5a,b).20 A 38 cm-high ithyphallic
male protome from Göbekli Tepe (G.T 86.1) reifies the latter site’s masculine preoccupation
in a non-abstract manner;21 moreover, it seems likely that “a number of [Göbekli’s] large
stone phalluses probably originally belonged to large anthropomorphic sculptures.”22 The
prominent snake embellishments at Göbekli Tepe may also have phallic symbolism.23 An
overall phallic shape for the engraved woman at Göbekli Tepe would extend this site’s
marked phallocentrism further, making it even more pervasive.

The proposed superposition of opposing genders in the Göbekli Tepe engraving would also
sit well with interpretations of an ambiguous Neolithic figure from Adıyaman-Kilisik,
which:24
incorporates the T-pillar body shape with sculpted facial features on the transversal of the
T (fig.4). The arms extend to the head of the smaller body on its front side, with its own set
of arms and hands. The smaller body is constituted by a penis-shaped relief, and its hands
are placed above the empty hole [in the groin of the main statue] (where a penis could have
been inserted). Moving a penis in and out of this slot could have enhanced the sexual
element of this phallic being, mimicking masturbation. Other interpretations might be that
this combination of penis and orifice symbolizes a hermaphroditic quality, joins maleness
and femaleness, or instantiates the possibilities for bodily transformation and change.

A digression on ancestor-power: Male as bone, and bone as stone

The partial skeletonisation of male sculptures from Karahan Tepe (Fig. 5) may reflect both a
cultural interest in defleshing25 and a perceived association between ancestrality, maleness
and bones26 – the durable part of the body. The latter nexus is an instance of what Francisco
Vaz da Silva refers to as:27
the wider notion that – to put it at its simplest – male seed produces the body bones, from
which marrow will again flow out as seed. Such doctrine was in favor among the ancient

5
Fig. 4. The so-called “Chamber of Phalluses” (Structure AB), carved from the bedrock at Karahan Tepe. The flat
stela in the centre foreground of the photo (seen edge-on from the rear) is shaped like a broad number 7, and is
therefore reminiscent of the T-pillars at Göbekli Tepe. Photo: Author, Oct 2024.

Egyptians and Greeks, who seemingly conceived of the spinal cord and the phallus as one
single reproductive organ. […] The hoary antiquity of these representations shows in their
diffusions […]; Lévi-Strauss has mapped all across Asia the huge ethnographic span
covered by the notion that the bones come from the father (and flesh from the mother), with
the implication that body bones are made of the coagulated father’s sperm.
This is probably the logic underpinning a find from a 4th-millennium BCE temple site in
Malta, namely “a 5.7 cm high ‘phallus-shaped’ stone figure from Mnajdra, which is decorated
on one side with a vertical and several horizontal lines, which are probably intended to
represent the spine and ribs.”28

Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry develop and extend da Silva’s theme, pointing out that, for
some tribal cultures which subscribe to this paradigm, true ancestral fertility is understood as
“a mystical process symbolised by the tomb and the (male) bones.”29 In contrast, “sexuality is
[…] opposed to fertility. It is associated with flesh, decomposition and women.”30 Thus, for
the Merina people of Madagascar, “physical birth – which is represented as an exclusively
female activity – is polluting, and is subsequently transcended by the circumcision ceremony
at which the child is torn away from the divisive and impure world of women to be born into
the pure and undivided world of the [male] descent group.”31

6
Fig. 5. Male human sculptures from Karahan Tepe with protruding ribcages. (a) Figurative ithyphallic male statue
in situ at Karahan Tepe, 2.3 m tall, dating from ca. 9400 BCE.32 (b) Seated male (with large pendulous phallus)33
from Karahan Tepe, Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum. (c) Male pillar (with double fox relief on abdominal area)
from Karahan Tepe, Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum. Photos: Author, Oct 2024.

The widespread nature of the patriarchal paradigm discussed above might explain why
putative male ancestor figures from unrelated cultures, such as the anthropomorphic statues
from Karahan Tepe and the wooden moai kavakava from Easter Island, are depicted as
emaciated males with protruding ribs (compare Fig. 5a,b with Fig. 6a).34 Female equivalents
to moai kavakava do not show ribs.35 Via divinised ancestors or simply by general analogy,
the convention could readily be extended to depictions of male creator/fertility gods; for
example, the Rapa Nui fertility god Makemake is depicted with a skeletal ribcage while his
female counterpart (presumably a consort goddess) is not.36 For Anatolia, Lee Clare – the
current excavation coordinator at Göbekli Tepe – has recently observed that:37
Human depictions from Göbeklitepe, and also the newly discovered human statue from
Karahantepe [our Fig. 5a] do not appear to exude the profound powers of cosmocratic god-
persons (cf. Sahlins 2014.287–288; 2017). Nevertheless, some of the features of the new
find from Karahantepe might infer that elements of analogism [i.e., hierarchical animism]

7
Fig. 6. Easter Island sculptures. (a) Lantern slide of a carved wooden moai kavakava (“ribbed statue”), in this
case of an akuaku (“spirit of the dead”); British Museum cat. EA Oc,G.T.1730. (b) Hoa Hakananai’a, a large stone
moai from Easter Island; British Museum. (c) Hoa Hakananai’a, rear view, upper part. (d) Large stone moai on
Ahu Tongariki, Easter Island. Panel (a) shows zoomorphic reliefs on the head of the figure, a common embellish-
ment on such carvings,38 and one that calls to mind the snake carved in relief on the limestone human head from
Nevalı Çori.39 Panel (c) shows human/bird combinations and other motifs carved in positive relief on the flat
surface of this stone moai, reminiscent of reliefs on some T-pillars at Göbekli Tepe, esp. pillar P43 from Enclosure
D.40 Photos: (a) British Museum, via Wikimedia Commons;41 (b), (c) Author, Mar 2015; (d) Cropped from a photo
of six moai (all with similar hand depictions) by Rivi, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.42

8
 existed, reflected, for example, in the visible ribcage combined with an erect penis,
characteristics also observed on some animal statues (Fig. 19; cf. Schmidt 2013).
Such thoughts are fully in line with the ancestrality – maleness – bone nexus articulated by
cultural anthropologists and ethnologists such as da Silva, Bloch and Parry.43

Insight into the Çatalhöyük “Life and Death” figurine (Fig. 3) may be afforded by much later
Moche ceramics from Peru (Fig. 7) which depict “a cadaverous man, an inhabitant of the
underworld, who is being masturbated by a woman. […] The relationship between this type
of masturbatory sexual activity and the world of the ancestors is displayed [in Fig. 7a] by the
step design on the walls of the bottle, which symbolizes access to the underworld, as well as
the presence of objects [vessels] related to funerary activities.”44 Here, to reprise Clare’s
wording, the male ancestor again presents a “visible ribcage combined with an erect penis;”
in contrast, the woman is both corpulent and alive.45 She stimulates the male ancestor to emit

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. (a-b) Skeletal male ancestors being masturbated by corpulent living females; Moche, Northern Peru,
100-800 CE. Photos: (a) Museo Larco, Lima, Peru; cat. ML004341;46 (b) Metropolitan Museum, New York;
cat. 65.266.63, public domain.47

9
semen, the fertilising bodily fluid, which emerges from the underworld as the fecundating
rains and river waters.48 Like the Çatalhöyük figurine, the Moche composition contains the
human body in both a skeletal and a corpulent aspect, but here the two aspects are preserved
separately as attributes of the male ancestor and living female, respectively.49

Many societies view stone as the pre-eminent material for monuments to the dead,50 and –
consistent with this – Klaus Schmidt considered Göbekli Tepe to provide a cult centre for the
deceased.51 Rituals probably honoured and revered male ancestors, with the T-pillars likely
representing either ancestors or gods.52 The usual trend is for representations of ancestors to
become more abstract over time,53 so all of the T-pillars may represent distant ancestors who
have become physically anonymised, while the more figurative effigies represent more
recently deceased forebears.54 In this scheme, the largest and centrally-located T-pillars in
each enclosure would represent clan patriarchs, who may also have been partly or wholly
divinised culture heroes,55 while the encircling T-pillars would constitute the ancestral
assembly.56 Overall, a scheme like this sits well with Mike Parker Pearson’s generalisation
that “In many ancestor-worshipping societies, elaborate monuments are constructed to the
glory of the ancestral collectivity. In contrast, individual ancestors are represented as small
images which may only have short currency during the mortuary rites in which the individual
makes the transition from corpse to ancestor.”57 Easter Island has been suggested to follow
such a paradigm (Fig. 6a vs. 6b,d).58 Indeed, a process analogous to this at Göbekli may be
inferred from the words of Dietrich et al.: “It seems that there was a constant tradition at
Göbekli Tepe of fragmenting and depositing anthropomorphic sculpture. The abstract [T-
]pillars, on the other hand, were not fragmented. They were the loci around which the
deposition of [the anthropomorphic] sculptures took place.”59 In any case, the progression
from figurative statues to increasingly abstract pillar-style representations at Karahan Tepe
(Fig. 5a-c) show that these form a continuum, which in turn supports the proposed
interpretation of the abstract T-pillars as ancestral significations. So, too, does their phallic
shape.60
Since the durability of bone is paralleled by the permanence of stone, the latter may be able to
substitute for the former;61 this would make skeletonisation less essential for stone effigies of
male ancestors, especially for simplified megalithic representations. Such thinking might
explain the lack of explicit ribcage depictions on the T-pillars at Göbekli Tepe and on the
giant stone moai of Easter Island (Fig. 6b,d). In both cases, the ribs are nevertheless
recapitulated on a small scale by opposing long-fingered hands at the end of bent arms,62
which – fittingly for an ancestor – gesture towards the navel and/or genital area (Fig. 6d &
8a-c).63 Moreover, on many Anatolian representations – including the central pillars of
Enclosure D at Göbekli Tepe,64 T-pillars from Nevalı Çori,65 Urfa man, and the man in the
Sayburç relief66 – the ribs may also be hinted at by the chevron-shaped “necklaces” or chest-
ribbons that adorn these representations (Fig. 8b-d).

Why this excursus on bones? The Çatalhöyük “Life and Death” figurine discussed earlier
(Figs. 3 & 7) is a sculpture which “reveals the bony, skeletal part of the body that survives
death (and interment) and explores a tension between embedded bony human parts and a
shaped, fleshed, living body.”67 If the identification of bones with maleness also apply to this
artifact, it would constitute a procreation-focused superposition of maleness
(bony/skeletonised backbone and ribs) and femaleness (corpulent/pregnant front with large
breasts). The Çatalhöyük figurine – and its much later parallels from Tarxien-phase Malta

10
Fig. 8. Surrogate rib-cage candidates on Anatolian sculptures. (a) Hands, detail of a central Göbekli Tepe T-pillar
in Enclosure D. (b) Hands and “necklace,” central Nevalı Çori pillar, Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum. (c) Hands
and “necklace,” Urfa Man / Yeni Mahalle Man / Balıklıgöl statue, Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum. (d)
“Triangular-shaped neckband,” ithyphallic male figure, centre of Sayburç relief.68 In panel (b) the outline of the
V-shaped necklace is faint; the upper and lower limits of the chevron are indicated by red arrows. Photos: (a)-(c)
Author, Oct 2024; (d) K. Akdemir via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.69

11
(3000-2500 BCE)70 – would then embody exactly the same coincidentia oppositorum as the
engraving of the phallomorphic woman at Göbekli Tepe. Given the privileging of maleness in
Neolithic Türkiye,71 the Merina-style tribal thinking adduced earlier this section raises the
question of whether either or both of the Anatolian representations might project ancestral
male potency onto fleshly female sexuality with a view to valorising the former over the
latter.

To conclude this excursus, we should note that, for the Çatalhöyük “Life and Death”
figurine:72
There are interesting parallels at Göbekli, specifically in the carvings of beasts with bared
fangs and claws, attached to the large stone pillars described above. Several of these beasts,
some still attached, others cut and removed in antiquity, have the same skeletal detail on
the back while retaining a fully fleshed belly and underside. Several examples show an
erect penis underneath, even when it would have been difficult to view.
Perhaps these instances are further identifications of bones with male procreativity, this time
projected onto the animal domain (Fig. 9).73

Fig. 9. Semi-skeletal animal figures from Enclosure C at Göbekli Tepe. Ribs engraved into a 97-cm wild boar
protome which “was created with an outstanding, sculptural skill;” originally positioned horizontally as if jumping
out of a wall, it is now installed vertically in Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum.74 The protruding tusks suggest that
it is a male.75 (b) High relief of a leopard on the thickness of T-pillar P27 at Göbekli Tepe, possibly hunting the
low-relief boar below it.76 Photos: Author, Oct 2024.

12
The “phallic female” paradigm

The visual pun of the “penis Venus” is extremely ancient and enjoys global distribution;
independent embodiments of the concept are known from Europe (Fig. 10), Africa (Fig. 11),77
China78 and South America,79 some from as early as the 26th millennium BCE (Fig. 10b).80
Even without including the Göbekli Tepe engraving, West Asian examples from Iran (which
will be discussed below) bring the total number of continents on which it is found to five.

Post-Neolithic embodiments of the “phallic female” template in and near Anatolia may be
considered circumstantial evidence in support of the idea that the woman in G.T 00.11
conforms to this template. The following subsections provide regional examples of the
template, which range in date from the 6th to 1st millennium BCE.

Anatolia, 6-5th millennia BCE

An unambiguous example in this category is afforded by a Chalcolithic stone figurine from
Çatalhöyük (6th millennium BCE) whose clearly phallic shape is adorned with incised breasts
(Fig. 12).81 Less certain instances of the paradigm from the same millennium BCE are
afforded by the Late Halaf “angel” pendants from Domuztepe;82 their visual ambiguity
invites comparison with predynastic Egyptian “bull’s-head amulets” from the 4th millennium

Fig. 10. Line drawings of European “phallic female” figurines from the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras, from
Graham (2013).83 (a) “Venus de la grotte du Placard,” phallic figurine with female genitalia, 15 cm high, reindeer
antler, Charente, France, Magdalenian 1-II (20,000-15,000 BCE).84 (b) Phallic figurine with breasts, mammoth
tusk, Dolní Věstonice, Brno, Czech Republic, ca. 26,000 BCE.85 (c) Goddess with phallic upper body and testicle-
like legs, Körös Valley, south-east Hungary, Starčevo culture (ca. 5600-5300 BCE).86 Last panel © Univ.
California Press, reproduced by kind permission of the publisher.

13
 Fig. 11. A pair of Gudza dolls from modern-day Kenya, attributed to the Samburu or Turkana
peoples, from Graham (2013).87 Frontal view; left figure 16.0 cm, right 19.5 cm.

Fig. 12. Chalcolithic stone figurine from Çatalhöyük; Museum of Anatolian Cultures, Ankara, cat. 79-799-65. (a)
Note the breasts engraved on the unambiguously phallic shape. (b) The item – the more distant figure in this panel
– continues to have a phallic shape when viewed from the side and from behind. Photos: Author, Oct 2024.

14
BCE (Fig. 13), especially since both are thought to reference the pose of clay figurines which
show seated females with bent arms cradling their breasts.88 Accordingly, the twin holes
drilled in both of the amulet types shown in Fig. 13 may simultaneously represent eyes or
nipples,89 while the overall mushroom-shape of the amulets is phallic.90 It is curious how the
shapes of these amulets seem to recapitulate the head of the woman in the Göbekli Tepe
engraving (Fig. 13d).

Another marginal example from Late Halaf Domuztepe is afforded by a sandstone pebble in
the shape of penis-with-scrotum assembly, which – viewed from another angle – “looks
similar to a seated female figurine.”91 As Ellen Belcher and Karina Croucher say of
prehistoric Anatolian figurines:92
While it may be possible to classify many figurines as male or female, others are less
obvious; some may be both […] In some cases, figurines appear to be dual-sexed rather
than simply ambiguous or difficult to categorize (see Çatalhöyük and Croucher 2008;
Daems 2008). Such examples stand out as they appear as seated females from one angle
but are phallic when rotated 90 degrees. Many figurines from Çatalhöyük, for example, are
recognized as displaying an ambiguous or phallic nature, described by Meskell and
colleagues as ‘phallomorphic’ (Meskell et al. 2008: 141). Such figurines do not portray a
fixed gender; they may refer to a range of ambiguities which reference changing and fluid
social and gender identities.
A more secure example of the phallic female template is afforded by a terracotta Canhasan
figurine from the 5th millennium BCE, described by the museum that houses it as a “Seated
Mother Goddess” (Fig. 14).93

Anatolia, 3rd millennium BCE

Moving forward in time to the 3rd millennium BCE, we encounter the distinctive alabaster
idols from Kültepe (Fig. 15); these Anatolian figurines are products of the Early Bronze Age
(EBA II-III).94 Found in sacred deposits or in graves, these enigmatic figurines are widely

Fig. 13. Ambiguous human body/animal head amulets; panels (a)-(c) from Fig. 6 in Graham (2020)95 may be
compared with newly-added (d), a detail from our Fig. 1. (a) Predynastic bull’s head amulet, 4th millennium BCE,
Egypt; amethyst, 3.4 cm high; Cleveland Museum of Art, cat. 1998.26.96 (b) Late Halaf figurine pendant, 6th
millennium BCE, Domuztepe; excav. no. dt6560 (2009 season), now in Maraș Museum;97 serpentenite, 2.4 cm
high; image © Stuart Campbell, Domuztepe Project. (c) Predynastic bull’s head amulet, 4th millennium BCE,
Egypt; serpentenite, 3.5 cm high; Metropolitan Museum, cat. 59.101.1.98 (d) Head of the female from the Göbekli
Tepe engraving. Another bovine/human visual pun is present on a Çatalhöyük vessel (not shown) which equates
bull horns with human eyebrows.99

15
 Fig. 14. “Seated Mother Goddess” from Canhasan, 5th millennium BCE. Museum
of Anatolian Cultures, Ankara. Photo: Author, Oct 2024.

Fig. 15. Alabaster idols from Kültepe, 2400-2000 BCE. Museum of Anatolian Cultures, Ankara. Photo: Author,
Oct 2024.

16
believed to represent the fertility goddess.100 Type 1 figurines, which date from the EBA II
period, are “headless” discoid or waisted (i.e. violin-shaped) artifacts with long tapering
headless necks (Fig. 15a); their Type 2 successors, which date from the EBA III and which
are sometimes just called “Kültepe-type idols,” have disc-shaped bodies with long necks and
either triangular heads (Type 2.1; Fig. 15b-d) or realistic/figurative heads (Type 2.2, not
shown).101

For Type 2.1 idols, the neck-and-head protrusion is often present more than once on a single
disc-shaped body (Fig. 15b,c).102 As a contribution from the Centre for Manuscript Cultures
(CMC) at the University of Hamburg explains:103
All of them have disk-shaped bodies, from which one to four necks extend, each
surmounted by a head. […] The idols of Kültepe are unique of their kind and their
interpretation is still the subject of some debate. Their multiple heads are sometimes
thought to represent couples, or perhaps even families. However, their genitalia, when
depicted, are always female, suggesting that these idols represent women or goddesses.
Because of where they were discovered, these idols very probably served as objects for the
practice of a religious cult. It could be that they were derived from the ‘Mother Goddesses’
of ancient Anatolian culture, which were fertility symbols. The depiction of one or more
idols in relief on the disk of some of the figurines could therefore be representations of a
mother and her child(ren).
An example of the miniature “idol in relief” circumstance is shown in Fig. 15d. The CMC
overview is consistent with the more detailed assessment of Güzel Öztürk, who notes that:104
nearly all of the Kültepe idols bear female genitals, while a small number of examples bear
details, which could be assumed to represent breasts. In this context, it is clear that the
Kültepe idols usually represent women or goddesses. [...] The alabaster idols of Kültepe
must be artifacts reflecting the “Mother Goddess” culture of Anatolia that goes back to the
very early periods. Relief idol representations seen on bodies of some examples are then
probably reflections of a concept known also from the Alacahöyük and Horoztepe metal
statuettes, where a goddess and her child or children are depicted together.

A particularly salient antecedent to the “child reliefs” on Kültepe alabaster figurines is

afforded by a Chalcolithic-era anthropomorphic vessel – possibly an incense burner – from
Aşağı Pınar (Fig. 16).105 Öztürk describes it thus: “On a short vessel shaped by joining two
globular vessels [vertically] to give a female form, breasts have been indicated with knobs in
relief. On the lower part of the vessel, there are reliefs showing the upper body of a human
and an idol with handle[-shaped] head/neck side by side.”106 The idol relief resembles a
Kültepe Type 1 figurine.107 The Aşağı Pınar vessel (Fig. 16) simultaneously confirms the
abstract and ambiguous idol shape as anthropomorphic (since it twins the idol relief with an
unambiguously human one) and strongly supports the idea that smaller anthropomorphic
reliefs placed within the body of a larger figurine denote children (since the two reliefs are
placed in the centre of the female vessel’s belly).

There may even be a conceptual connection between the “child reliefs” that adorn some
Kültepe idols and the previously-mentioned embellishment on the belly of the Neolithic T-
shaped figure from Adıyaman-Kilisik. As we saw in an earlier block-quote, this potentially

17
Fig. 16. Chalcolithic anthropomorphic vessel, possibly an incense burner, from Aşağı Pınar. Photo: Alamy.108

18
dual-gendered figure bears “a smaller body on its front side, with its own set of arms and
hands, [...] constituted by a penis-shaped relief.”109 Despite the prevalent understanding of T-
shaped pillars as male, Harald Hauptmann has suggested that Adıyaman-Kilisik figure could
be interpreted as a “mother and child” motif.110

Elsewhere, Öztürk addresses the puzzling multi-headed nature of many Kültepe Type 2.1
figurines:111
Investigations would concentrate on idols with multiple heads, and within this context there
have been various suggestions to what the idols with two or three heads might represent.
Independent from the concept they represent, the origins of this perception go back to the
Early Neolithic Age in Anatolia. A marble, double-headed female/goddess figurine from
Çatalhöyük might be accepted as the oldest representative of this concept.112 It is
represented on anthropomorphic vessels of the Chalcolithic Age, and is found during the
EBA period in different types of terracotta idols. Similar artifacts interpreted as double
goddesses are seen in other cultural regions. [… T]he Kültepe idols with multiple necks
and heads reflect multiple examples of the same gender. According to Tahsin Özgüç, the
Kültepe artifacts do not show ‘female-male-child’ triads, but are only a symbolic
expression of a woman and her child.
Despite their markers of femininity and – in many cases – pregnancy, the Kültepe idols
conform to the “phallic female” template. Öztürk qualifies his gender assignment as follows:
Especially when genitals are taken into consideration, it is clear that the majority of idols
from Kültepe represent women. However, as pointed out by Goodarzi, the long neck and
head on many of these figurines also lends a strong phallic image to the objects. Thus, both
genders might be represented within a single artifact.
A phallic interpretation for the multiple neck-head extensions seems particularly justified
when one compares them with the figurative sculptures of paired and tripled phalli from the
slightly earlier Tarxien temple in Malta (3150-2500 BCE) (Fig. 17).113

Overall, it is clear that the Kültepe figurines are relevant to our discussion of Anatolian
successors to the female engraving from Göbekli Tepe, since both representations embody a
dual-gendered female in much the same way.

One other site warrants discussion before we leave this region and time-period. The first
block-quote from Öztürk (above) mentions metal statuettes from Alacahöyük which – like
some Kültepe idols – appear to show a goddess with her child or children. It transpires that
other female figurines from Alacahöyük that are fashioned in bronze, silver and gold and that
date from the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE (e.g. Fig. 18) are relevant to our
discussion of phallomorphic females.114 Although the overall body-shape of these females is
not phallic, the figurines have mushroom-shaped heads which recall the shape of the
woman’s head in the Göbekli Tepe engraving. However, the latter remains the most obviously
phallic example of the group (Fig. 18, inset).

Iran, 1st millennium BCE

Terracotta “Amlash idols” come from near the village of Amlash in Gilan, a province in
northwestern Iran on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea.115 Amlash lies some 1380 km

19
Fig. 17. Stone sculptures from Kültepe (2400-2000 BCE) and Tarxien Temple, Malta (3150-2500 BCE). (a)
Kültepe Type 2.1 alabaster idol with four heads (the left-most three being reconstructions); Museum of Anatolian
Civilizations, Ankara. (b) Three-phallus figurative carving, 12.3 cm, from Tarxien, in the National Museum of
Archaeology, Valetta.116 (c) Paired phalli in fragments from two unrelated carved blocks from Tarxien, in the same
museum; compare these with the paired heads/necks in Fig. 15b,c. The purpose of the Tarxien sculptures is un-
known, but we may reasonably expect that they were tokens of fertility and that the wished-for abundance was
intensified by repetition of the key element. Photos: Author, (a) Oct 2024 & (b-c) Apr 2023.

Fig. 18. Metal female figurines from Alacahöyük. Museum of Anatolian Cultures, Ankara. Photo:
Author, Oct 2024. Inset, top: head of the engraved woman from Göbekli Tepe (detail from Fig. 1).

20
east of Göbekli Tepe by modern roads. Amlash figurines date mostly from the early 1st
millennium BCE,117 and are well known from the Near Eastern antiquities trade (e.g. Fig.
19). Since the figurines’ torsos and necks are often strongly phallic, having only minimalist
arms, and since their short bulky legs could correspond to testicles, they constitute another
instance of the “phallic female” template.

Conclusion

The mushroom-shaped head of the female engraving from Göbekli Tepe imparts a phallic
body-shape to the sexually aroused or birth-giving woman, endowing her with the attributes
of both sexes. This bivalence is consistent with the ambiguity present in Neolithic creations
from many Anatolian sites – artifacts which delight in merging species and uniting opposites.
Given the strong privileging of maleness at Göbekli Tepe, the intent of the female’s phallic
body shape may be to valorise ancestral male potency over fleshly female sexuality and
reproduction.

Fig. 19. Amlash female figurines, from Graham (2013).118 (a) Terracotta, 22 cm; image © Bonhams,
London, reproduced by kind permission of the auction house and the current owner.119 (b) Terracotta,
15 cm, ex coll. Dr. Hans Winkler, from Galerie Günter Puhze, Freiburg, Germany.120 Image ©
Galerie Günter Puhze GmbH, reproduced by kind permission of the gallery.

21
If there was a Neolithic identification of bones with maleness and ancestral power, as there
was (and still is) in many patriarchal societies, the Çatalhöyük “Life and Death” figurine may
embody another procreation-focused amalgam of maleness and femaleness. Rather than – or
in addition to – contrasting life and death, it is possible that the Çatalhöyük figurine too might
have been intended to contrast male ancestral fertility (seen as pure and enduring) with
female sexuality and birth (seen as polluting and ephemeral).

The “phallic female” template is archaic, with instances known from as early as 26,000 BCE.
Many examples of the template can be found in Anatolia and its surrounds. Ranging in date
from the 6th to 1st millennium BCE, these show the longue durée of the paradigm in the
region, where it clearly is very much at home. The presence of a 9th millennium BCE
example at Göbekli Tepe should therefore occasion little surprise, especially since this site
has a reputation for phallocentricity and the engraving in question is currently the only female
representation to have been discovered there. Recognising its phallomorphic nature elevates
the phallocentrism of Göbekli Tepe from pervasive to comprehensive.

© Lloyd D. Graham, 2025 (excluding third-party quotations and images). v2.0_26.01.25

Cite as: Lloyd D. Graham (2025) “The libidinous/parturient woman in the Göbekli Tepe engraving has a
phallic body-shape,” online at
https://www.academia.edu/126830960/The_libidinous_parturient_woman_in_the_G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe_engra
ving_has_a_phallic_body_shape.

Bibliography

Akdamar, Ali (2024) Göbeklitepe: One of the most important archaeological discoveries in human
history, Anadolu Kültürel Girişimcilik / Müzedenal, Istanbul.
Alpert, Steven G. (2022) “Rapa Nui: Easter Island icons at the British Museum,” Art of the Ancestors,
post of 28 Dec, online at https://www.artoftheancestors.com/blog/rapa-nui-easter-island-british-
museum.
Atakuman, Çiğdem (2013) “Deciphering later Neolithic stamp seal imagery of northern
Mesopotamia.” Documenta Praehistorica 40: 247-264, online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.20.
Attenborough, David (2000) Lost Gods of Easter Island [TV documentary], dir. & prod. Kate
Broome, BBC/PBS, online at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsynkz.
Ayaz, Orhan (2023) “Self-revelation: An origin myth interpretation of the Göbekli Tepe culture (An
alternative perspective on anthropomorphic themes),” Van Yüzüncü Yıl University: Journal of
Social Sciences Institute 60: 191-208.
Banning, E.B. (2011) “Comments [to Hodder & Meskell (2011)], Current Anthropology 52.2: 252-
253.
Becker, Nico, Oliver Dietrich, Thomas Götzelt, Çiğdem Köksal-Schmidt, Jens Notroff & Klaus
Schmidt (2012) “Materialien zur Deutung der zentralen Pfeilerpaare des Göbekli Tepe und

22
 weiterer Orte des obermesopotamischen Frühneolithikums,” Zeitschrift für Orient- Archäologie 5:
14-43.
Belcher, Ellen H. (2014) Embodiment of the Halaf: Sixth millennium figurines from northern
Mesopotamia, PhD dissertation, Columbia University, online at
http://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/84/.
Belcher, Ellen & Karina Croucher (2016) “Exchanges of identity in prehistoric Anatolian figurines,”
Proceedings, 9th ICAANE, Basel 2014, vol. 1: 43-56, online at
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/57/.
Belcher, Ellen & Karina Croucher (2017) “Prehistoric figurines in Anatolia (Turkey),” The Oxford
Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines [Online edition], ed. Timothy Insoll, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 443–468, online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.013.021.
Benz, Marion & Joachim Bauer (2013) “Symbols of power – Symbols of crisis? A psycho-social
approach to early Neolithic symbol systems,” Neo-Lithics 13.2, 11-24.
Bloch, Maurice & Jonathan Parry (1982) “Introduction: Death and the Regeneration of Life” In:
Death and the Regeneration of Life, eds. Maurice Bloch & Jonathan Parry, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1-44.
Bodet, Cédric (2021) “Deciphering Göbekli Tepe: The hidden potential of archaeo-ethnology,” In:
Anadolu'da Etnoarkeoloji Araştırmaları: Prehistorik Dönemlerden Günümüze Kadar /
Ethnoarchaeological Studies in Anatolia: From the Prehistoric Times to the Present, eds. İsmail
Akkaş & Murat Karakoç, Doruk Yayımcılık, Türkiye, 135-152.
Bourget, Steve (2007) Morir para Gobernar: Sexo y poder en la sociedad Moche [Exposición,
octubre 2007/marzo 2008, Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino, Santiago], Museo Chileno de
Arte Precolombino, Santiago de Chile; online at https://museo.precolombino.cl/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/Morir-para-gobernar.-Sexo-y-poder-en-la-sociedad-moche.pdf, accessed
25 Jan, 2025.
Centre for Manuscript Cultures (2018) “A fresh discovery of alabaster idols at Kültepe (Turkey),”
Mesopotamian Bulletins, post of 29 Oct, Centre for Manuscript Cultures, University of Hamburg,
online at https://www.csmc.uni-hamburg.de/publications/mesopotamia/2018-10-29.html.
Clare, Lee (2024) “Inspired individuals and charismatic leaders: Hunter-gatherer crisis and the rise
and fall of invisible decision-makers at Göbeklitepe,” Documenta Praehistorica 51: 6-43, online at
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.51.16.
Coombs, Alistair (2021) “Karahan Tepe and Taş Tepeler,” Alistair Coombs, post of 31 Oct, online at
https://alistaircoombs.com/2021/10/31/karahantepe/.
Dagan, Esther A. (1990) African Dolls for Play and Magic, Galérie Amrad African Arts, Montreal.
Da Silva, Francisco Vaz (2008) Archeology of Intangible Heritage, Peter Lang, New York.
Delporte, H. (1979) L’Image de la femme dans l’art prehistorique, Picard, Paris.
De Mortillet, A. (1906) “Deux curieuses pièces de la grotte du Placard,” Bulletin de la Société
Préhistorique Française 3.10: 431-434.
Dietrich, Oliver, Çiğdem Köksal-Schmidt, Cihat Kürkçüoğlu, Jens Notroff & Klaus Schmidt (2014)
“Göbekli Tepe: Preliminary report on the 2012 and 2013 excavation seasons,” Neo-Lithics 14.1:
11-17.
Dietrich, Oliver, Laura Dietrich, Jens Notroff (2019) “Anthropomorphic imagery at Göbekli Tepe,”
In: Human iconography and symbolic meaning in Near Eastern prehistory: Proceedings of the
Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016,” eds. Jörg Becker, Claudia Beuger & Bernd
Müller-Neuhof (eds.), Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 151-166. PDF of the corrected proof online at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338449956_Anthropomorphic_Imagery_at_Gobekli_Tep
e.
Dyson, R.H. (2011) “Amlaš ii: Excavations,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1.9, p. 976, available online at
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/amlas-excavations.

23
Eggertsson, Sveinn (2011) “Human figures in Rapanui woodcarving,” Journal of the Polynesian
Society 120.2: 113-128.
Fery, Georges (n.d.) “Easter Island’s Collapse – Part Two,” Travel Thru History, online at
https://travelthruhistory.com/easter-islands-collapse-part-two/.
Föll, H. (n.d.) “Early places without metals: Göbekli Tepe,” University of Kiel, online at
https://www.tf.uni-
kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3qbd
ryQvEtzCa9h_U_b68JRu-qeUQzxkM-
8bCX0kaTsX_ZN1WkZ4wkptA_aem_eWfe4vJqdPPlGIx7sLcDUA.
Gardiner, Judith (2012) “Female masculinity and phallic women: Unruly concepts,” Feminist Studies
38.3: 597-624, online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/fem.2012.0059.
Gimbutas, Marija (1999) The Living Goddesses, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Graham, Lloyd D. (2013) “Terracotta fertility figurines of prehistoric Eurasian design from modern
East Africa,” online at Academia [http://www.academia.edu/4685518] and Knowledge Commons
[https://doi.org/10.17613/3qbjn-5mq71].
Graham, Lloyd D. (2015) “Gender and gnosis: Making Mary male, making Jesus female,” online at
Academia [https://www.academia.edu/19327057] and Knowledge Commons [
https://doi.org/10.17613/jvj2v-b7a72].
Graham, Lloyd D. (2020) “Similarities between North Mesopotamian (Late Halaf), Egyptian
(Naqada) and Nubian (A-Group) female figurines of the 6-4th millennia BCE,” Journal of Ancient
Egyptian Interconnections 27: 24-37.
Graham, Lloyd D. (2021) “Between catrinas and ñatitas: The decorated skulls of a north Peruvian
shaman,” online at Academia [https://www.academia.edu/46757155/] and Knowledge Commons
[https://dx.doi.org/10.17613/mkj1f-zvg69].
Hanisch, Edwin (2002a) “Schroda: The archaeological evidence,” In: Sculptured in clay – Iron Age
figurines from Schroda, Limpopo Province, South Africa, eds. J.A. van Schalkwyk & E.O.M.
Hanisch, National Cultural History Museum, Pretoria, 21-39.
Hanisch, Edwin (2002b) “Classification of the Schroda clay figurines,” In: Sculptured in clay – Iron
Age figurines from Schroda, Limpopo Province, South Africa, eds. J.A. van Schalkwyk & E.O.M.
Hanisch, National Cultural History Museum, Pretoria, 47-67.
Harper, Catherine (2007) Intersex, Berg, Oxford & New York.
Hart, George (2005) The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, Routledge, London.
Hauptmann, Harald (2012) “Frühneolithische Kultbilder in der Kommagene,” In: Gottkönige am
Euphrat: Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene, ed. J. Wagner, Darmstadt/Mainz,
13-22.
Hendrickx, Stan & Merel Eyckerman (2012) “Visual representation and state development in Egypt.”
Archéo-Nil 22: 23-72.
Hodder, Ian (2020) “From communal to segmentary: An alternative view of Neolithic ‘monuments’ in
the Middle East. Comments on Chapters 2 and 3,” In: Monumentalising life in the Neolithic:
Narratives of change and continuity, eds. Anne B. Gebauer, Lasse Sørensen, Anne Teather &
António C. Valera, Oxbow Books, Oxford & Philadelphia, 49-51.
Hodder, Ian & Shahina Farid (2005) “Season Review: New finds and new interpretations at
Çatalhöyük,” Çatal News 12, online at https://www.catalhoyuk.com/newsletters/12/nl12_01.html.
Hodder, Ian & Lynn Meskell (2011) “A ‘curious and sometimes a trifle macabre artistry’: Some
aspects of symbolism in Neolithic Turkey,” Current Anthropology 52.2: 235-263.
Holmquist, Ulla & Carole Fraresso (2021) Machu Picchu and the golden empires of Peru
[Exhibition catalogue], Laboratorio Rosso, Viterbo, Italy.
Huth, Christoph (2008) “Darstellungen halb skelettierter Menschen im Neolithikum und
Chalkolithikum der Alten Welt,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38.4: 493-504.

24
Ildun, Tolga (2024) “Discovering a new Neolithic world,” Archaeology Magazine, Mar/Apr, online at
https://archaeology.org/issues/march-april-2024/features/discovering-a-new-neolithic-world/.
Imagina Rapa Nui (n.d.) “Easter Island heads, myth and reality of the buried moai statues,” Imagina
Rapa Nui – Easter Island, online at https://imaginarapanui.com/en/easter-island-heads/.
Iza (2023) “Finds from Çatalhöyük in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara,” post of 15
Oct, Turkish Archaeological News, online at https://turkisharchaeonews.net/article/finds-
%C3%A7atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk-museum-anatolian-civilizations-ankara#.
Jeunesse, Christian (2020) “Elite houses or specialised buildings? Some comments about the special
buildings of Göbekli Tepe in relation to Chapters 2 and 3,” In: Monumentalising life in the
Neolithic: Narratives of change and continuity, eds. Anne B. Gebauer, Lasse Sørensen, Anne
Teather & António C. Valera, Oxbow Books, Oxford & Philadelphia, 53-56.
Kinzel, Moritz & Lee Clare (2020) “Monumental – compared to what? A perspective from Göbekli
Tepe,” In: Monumentalising life in the Neolithic: Narratives of change and continuity, eds. Anne
B. Gebauer, Lasse Sørensen, Anne Teather & António C. Valera, Oxbow Books, Oxford &
Philadelphia, 29-48.
Koontz, Rex (2015) “Huastec: Life-Death figure,” Smarthistory, post of 9 Aug, online at
https://smarthistory.org/huastec-life-death-figure/, accessed 11 Jan, 2025.
Meskell, Lynn (2008) “The nature of the beast: Curating animals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük,” World
Archaeology 40.3: 373-389.
Meskell, Lynn & Carolyn Nakamura (2005) “Çatalhöyük archive report: Figurines,” online at
https://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_29.html and
https://web.stanford.edu/group/figurines/cgi-
bin/omeka/files/original/f9bcd1d615efc93fcd1fe897640ebbc1.pdf.
Metropolitan Museum (2000-2024) “Stirrup spout bottle with couple,” cat. 65.266.63, online at
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/309354.
Monk, Kate (1997) “Kate Monk's onomastikon: Easter Island (Rapa Nui),” Tekeli, online at
https://tekeli.li/onomastikon/Pacific/Polynesia/Easter-Island.html.
Museo Larco (2018a) “Scenes of masturbation,” cat. ML004341, online at
https://www.museolarco.org/en/exhibition/erotic-room/online-exhibition/sexual-activity-in-the-
underworld/scenes-of-masturbation/, accessed 23 Jan, 2025.
Museo Larco (2018b) “Propitiation of the ancestors,” cat. ML004334, online at
https://www.museolarco.org/en/exhibition/erotic-room/online-exhibition/sexual-activity-
in-the-underworld/propitiation-of-the-ancestors-2/, accessed 23 Jan, 2025.
Museo Larco (2018c) “The dead fertilizing,” cat. ML004199, online at
https://www.museolarco.org/en/exhibition/erotic-room/online-exhibition/sexual-activity-
in-the-underworld/the-dead-fertilizing-the-underworld/, accessed 23 Jan, 2025.
Museo Larco (n.d.) “Sculptural ceramic ceremonial vessel that represents an inhabitant of the
underworld masturbating himself ML004212,” Google Arts & Culture, online at
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/sculptural-ceramic-ceremonial-vessel-that-
represents-an-inhabitant-of-the-underworld-masturbating-himself-ml004212-moche-
style/RQGw3o_4_567nw?hl=en, accessed 23 Jan, 2025.
Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (2023) The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations [Catalogue],
Bayden Ofset, Ankara.
Needles, William (1982-83) “Reflections on the sexual dilemma of the phallic female: Biologic
considerations,” Psychoanalytic Review 69.4: 497-512.
Notroff, Jens (2019) “A rather odd figure: The so-called Kilisik Sculpture from Adıyaman, Turkey,”
Tepe Telegrams, post of 20 Mar, online at https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/tag/t-pillars/.
Notroff, Jens, Oliver Dietrich & Klaus Schmidt (2015) “Gathering of the dead? The early Neolithic
sanctuaries of Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey,” In: Death rituals, social order and the

25
 archaeology of immortality in the ancient world: “Death shall have no dominion,” ed. Colin
Renfrew, Michael J. Boyd & Iain Morley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 65-81.
Özdoğan, Eylem (2022) “The Sayburç reliefs: A narrative scene from the Neolithic,” Antiquity 96
(390): 1599-1605, online at https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.125.
Özdoğan, Mehmet (1998) “Tarihöncesi Dönemlerde Anadolu ile Balkanlar Arasındaki Kültür İlişkileri
ve Trakya’da Yapılan Yeni Kazı Çalışmaları”, TÜBA-AR 1: 63-93.
Öztürk, Güzel (2013) “Representations of religious practice at Kültepe: Alabaster idols of Early
Bronze Age,” In: Proceedings of the 1st Kültepe International Meeting, Kültepe, 19-23 September
2013, eds. Fikri Kulakoğlu & Cécile Michel, Brepols, Turnhout, 155-170.
Parker Pearson, Mike (2003) The Archaeology of death and burial, The History Press, Stroud.
Parker Pearson, Mike (2013) Stonehenge, Simon & Schuster, UK.
Parker Pearson, Mike & Ramilisonina (1998) “Stonehenge for the ancestors: The stones pass on the
message,” Antiquity 72 (276): 308-326, online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00086592.
Parker Pearson, Mike & Ramilisonina (2015) “Stonehenge for the ancestors: Part two,” Antiquity 72
(278): 855-856, online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00087470.
Pitts, Mike, James Miles, Hembo Pagi & Graeme Earl (2014) “Hoa Hakananai’a: A new study of an
Easter Island statue in the British Museum,” The Antiquaries Journal 94: 291-321, online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581514000201.
Radley, Dario (2023) “New statues found in Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe,” Archaeology News,
post of 3 Oct, online at https://archaeologymag.com/2023/10/statues-found-in-gobekli-tepe-and-
karahan-tepe/.
Reddit (2021) “10,000 year old carving from Göbekli Tepe depicting a woman in a birth-giving
position (c. 10.000 - 8.000 BC),” r/ArtefactPorn, online at
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/comments/r6zklz/10000_year_old_carving_from_g%C3%
B6bekli_tepe/?rdt=61654.
Schmidt, Klaus (2005) “‘Ritual centres’ and the neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia,” Neo-Lithics
05.2: 13-21.
Schmidt, Klaus (2006) Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger:
Die archäologische Entdeckung am Göbekli Tepe, C.H. Beck, Munich, online at
https://archive.org/details/siebautendieerst0000schm/page/240/mode/2up.
Schmidt, Klaus (2008) “Göbekli Tepe – Enclosure C,” Neo-Lithics 08.2, 27-32.
Schmidt, Klaus (2010) “Göbekli Tepe – The Stone Age sanctuaries. New results of ongoing
excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs,” Documenta Praehistorica 37:
239-256, online at 10.4312/dp.37.21.
Schmidt, Klaus (2013) “Von Knochenmännern und anderen Gerippen: Zur Ikonographie halb- und
vollskelettierter Tiere und Menschen in der prähistorischen Kunst,” In: Gedankenschleifen:
Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Weißmüller [Erlanger Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 1], eds.
Sven Feldmann & Thorsten Uthrneier, Verlag Dr. Faustus, Erlangen.
Thomas, Sean (2022) “Is an unknown, extraordinarily ancient civilisation buried under eastern
Turkey?,” The Spectator, 8 May, online at https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-an-unknown-
extraordinarily-ancient-civilisation-lie-buried-under-eastern-turkey/.
Trump, David H. (2004) Malta: Prehistory and Temples, Midsea Books, Malta.
Van Schaik, Carel & Kai Michel (2020) Die Wahrheit über Eva: Die Erfindung der Ungleichheit von
Frauen und Männern, Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Hamburg [Kindle Edition].
Verit, Ayhan, Cihat Kurkcuoglub, Fatma F. Veritc, Hasan Kafalic & Ercan Yenia (2005)
“Paleoandrologic genital and reproductive depictions in earliest religious architecture: Ninth to
tenth millennium BC,” Urology 65: 208-210; online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.09.037, accessed 10 Jan, 2025.

26
Weismantel, Mary (2004) “Moche sex pots: Reproduction and temporality in ancient South America,”
American Anthropologist 106.3: 495-505.
Zimmermann, Thomas (2024) “Transformation or transcendence? A cross-cultural and morphological
approach to visualized tribal narratives in the early Holocene Harran plain,” World Neolithic
Congress 2024, 4–8 November, Şanliurfa, Türkiye, oral presentation at 13:00–13:20 on 8 Nov;
abstract in WNC2024 E-Abstracts book, 768, accessed 11 Jan, 2025, online at
https://www.worldneolithiccongress.org/assets/files/WNC2024-E-Abstracts%20Book.pdf.

Endnotes

Unless otherwise indicated, all URLs were accessed 3 Jan, 2025.

1
Akdamar (2024: 74); so also Schmidt (2006: 237).
2
Schmidt (2006: 235); Akdamar (2024: 80) and photo at Akdamar (2024: 86).
3
Schmidt (2010: 246); similarly Schmidt (2006: 237).
4
Schmidt (2006: 235-236). In the original German: “Der Kunstler hat sie hockend und mit angewinkelten
Armen und Beinen dargestellt. Sie ist offensichclich nackt, denn der Blick trifft aufhängende Brüste und die
Scham (Abb.104). Diese besitzt eine merkwürdige Form. Zwei V-förmig nach unten hängende, bandförmige
Gebilde sind jedenfalls nicht auf Anhieb zu deuten. Es handelt sich dabei aber offenbar um stark vergrößerte
Schamlippen. Die gespreizten Beine und die drastisch dargestellte Makronmphia (wörtlich: die großen
Schamlipen) lassen eher eine Bereitsehafr zum Koitus als die Wiedergabe einer Geburtsszene erkennen.”
5
Schmidt (2006: 237). In the original German: “Die umgekehrt hertzförmige Darstellung des Kopfes der Frau
ist indes nicht ohne weteres zu deuten. Entweder handelt es sich um eine beidseitig des Kopfes gebauschte
Frisur oder möglicherweise auch um einen Tier-, vielleicht um einen Schlangenkopf. Die Kopfform der Frau
erinnert auch an den Kopf der ‘Schildkröte’, die sich als zentrales Motiv auf der mit Flachrelief verzierten
Kalkschale aus Nevali Cori befindet, die wir im Zusammenhang mit dem Ziegendämon näher kennengelernt
haben. Die Verbindung mit der Dame vom Göbekli Tept bleibt aber sehr vage und hilft bei deren Deutung
nicht wirklich weiter.”
6
Dietrich et al. (2014: 16, Fig. 2).
7
Bodet (2021: 147-148).
8
In relation to figurines, the term “phallic female” – which I have used previously in this context (Graham 2013
passim.; 2015: 4-7) – has a specific meaning quite unrelated to the use of the same phrase in psychology (to
describe personality types) or in anatomy (to describe biological intersex conditions). Examples of these
other uses include Needles (1982-83), Gardiner (2012) and Harper (2007: 73-78). I explored potential
psychosexual, religious and cultural dimensions to the figurine-related term in Graham (2015).
9
Ayaz (2023). This paper proposes that the T-shaped pillars of Göbekli Tepe and related sites represent the
phalli of the ancestors; in respect of the female engraving (Ayaz 2023: 203, Fig. 10), the author refers only to
its pornographic character and suggests that such depictions may have been accessories to masturbation in
male initiation rites (Ayaz 2023: 203). Quality popular reportage describes the engraving in a similar vein;
for example, an article in The Spectator refers to it as “one obscene caricature of a woman perhaps giving
birth” (Thomas 2022).
10
In Reddit (2021), see the quips by texastoker88, comment of 2 Dec, 2021, at 12:56:04 a.m. (GMT+11);
deleted user, comment of 2 Dec, 2021, at 3:06:16 a.m. (GMT+11); deleted user, comment of 3 Dec, 2021, at
5:51:43 a.m. (GMT+11); Flat_Impact_4838, comment of 2 Dec, 2021, at 7:07:21 p.m. (GMT+11);
Anger_Puss, comment of 2 Dec, 2021, at 08:45:13 p.m. (GMT+11); Insideisout13, comment of 2 Dec, 2021,
at 10:49:34 p.m. (GMT+11); Highman_Being, comment of 2 Dec, 2021, at 11:01:59 p.m. (GMT+11);
Beginning-Drive-2027, comment of 17 May, 2023, at 1:52:24 a.m. (GMT+10).
11
Verit et al. (2005: 209): “In our opinion, the figure represents the classic intercourse position of the female
with an erect penis – and probably with its testes – in their normal scale just entering the vagina. No trace of
a male is seen apart from his penis. Did they consider the penis the only part of the male worth depicting?
However, the most curious finding was the head of the woman, which seems to us to represent the image of
the glans penis. This is surely a very early example of phallic exaltation in a male-centered cult or, from
another perspective, the exclusion of the male apart from his penis and testes in a scene representative of
female dominance. Analogously, as in the first speculation, this figure on the floor of the temple surrounded
with carved animal gods might have served as the ideal location for divine intercourse under the powerful

27
 god eyes for new couples. Thus, it could be that the ancient people of the Near East required divine
voyeurism.” The authors then go on to present purely phallic depictions from Taş Tepeler sites, being
primarily interested in cataloging the earliest explicit depictions of human genitalia and sexual activity. Since
Verit et al. do not develop either of the two opposing possibilities (male-centered cult or female dominance)
that they raise in respect of the engraved female and do not identify her as an instance of the widely-attested
“phallic female” paradigm, the present paper occupies quite a different niche.
12
For want of a better expression, I use this term to denote the visual equivalent of a linguistic double entendre.
13
Belcher & Croucher (2016: 54) and Belcher & Croucher (2017: 455) note that similar fluidity and ambiguity
is evident in artifacts from Domuztepe and Çatalhöyük.
14
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 248).
15
Catalogue number for panel (a) from Akdamar (2024: 82). For a shamanistic interpretation of these
sculptures, especially panel (b) and related figures where an animal rears up from the back of a human, see
note 44.
16
For photographs of the original artifact, see e.g. Fig. 3 in Hodder & Farid (2005) or Fig. 83 in Meskell &
Nakamura (2005).
17
Huth (2008: 493) says: “The stomach and breasts are depicted oversized, and an umbilical hernia clearly
shows that it is a pregnant woman.” In the original German: “Bauch und Brüste sind über groß dargestellt,
und ein Nabelbruch gibt deutlich zu erkennen, dass es sich um eine Schwangere handelt.”
18
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 248).
19
Van Schaik & Michel (2020: 255-256 of 700; ca. Kindle location 4155). In the original German: “Hodder und
Meskell haben in der Hauptsache drei verschiedene Motivwelten identifiziert. Folgen wir ihnen, sie nehmen
kein Blatt vor den Mund: «Die erste betrifft eine allgemeine Beschäftigung mit dem Penis, dem
menschlichen wie auch dem tierischen, die es uns erlaubt, von einem Phallozentrismus zu sprechen […]»
Hodder und Meskell verweisen darauf, dass auch die an sich schon erstaunliche Formgebung der T-förmigen
Säulen selbst etwas Phallisches habe: Sie erscheinen als «Evokationen des Phallus, mit einem
langgestreckten Schaft und einem ausgeprägten Kopf». Göbekli Tepe wird damit zu einer – Pardon! –
steingewordenen Erektion. Das geht einher mit dem bereits diagnostizierten Fehlen als weiblich erkennbarer
Formen oder Symbole. Die aber existierten in den neolithischen Siedlungen Anatoliens ansonsten reichlich.
Die Archäologen stießen in über zwanzig Jahren Ausgrabungen am Göbekli Tepe nur auf eine einzige
Darstellung einer Frau, die berühmte Ausnahme der Regel. Bestechen die Tiere durch die hohe Qualität ihrer
künstlerischen Darstellungen, handelt es sich in diesem Fall um eine primitive Zeichnung einer nackten
Frau, die nicht zum offiziellen Bildprogramm gehört, sondern später in die Steinplatte einer Sitzbank
eingeritzt wurde. Wir ersparen uns die Details, die nächste kunsthistorische Parallele zu dieser Ritzzeichnung
sind jene Graffiti, die auf Bahnhofklos die Wände zieren.”
20
Ayaz (2023).
21
Verit (2005: 209, Fig. 2); Akdamar (2024: 89). For an online photograph, see the last image on Föll (n.d.).
22
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 239).
23
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 239).
24
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 238). Detailed colour photographs of the Kilisik sculpture are provided online by
Notroff (2019).
25
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 248-249); Banning (2011: 252); Notroff et al. (2015: 77-78).
26
Da Silva (2008: 14-16).
27
Da Silva (2008: 15).
28
Huth (2008: 494). In the original German: “Aus Mnajdra liegt außerdem noch eine 5,7cm hohe
»phallusförmige« Steinfigur vor, die auf einer Seite mit einer senkrechten und etlichen waagerechten Linien
verziert ist, die vermutlich Wirbelsäule und Rippen darstellen sollen.”
29
Bloch & Parry (1982: 21).
30
Bloch & Parry (1982: 21).
31
Bloch & Parry (1982: 24).
32
Radley (2023).
33
One must wonder whether the tail of the foxskin loincloth on the large anthropomorphic T-pillars at Göbekli
Tepe (e.g. Akdamar 2024: 70) might not be intended to simulate this appendage.
34
The limestone human head in Şanlıurfa Archaeology Museum, whose face (or mask) consists of eight evenly-
spaced horizontal lines resembling ribs, may constitute another embodiment of the same paradigm; see
28
 photograph Urfa Museum-Karahantepe-100, online at
https://www.meretsegerbooks.com/gallery/1340/karahantepe-finds-in-urfa-museum.
35
Alpert (2022: Figs. 5 & 6); contrast these with the male figurines in his Figs. 3 & 4. Curiously, the carved
female figures from Easter Island called mo’ai vi’e, ‘figure of a woman,’ are interpreted either as possessing
elongated labia or as giving birth, which is precisely the same set of alternatives that have been used to
interpret the female engraving from Göbekli Tepe. Eggertsson (2020: 121) says of the mo’ai vi’e that: “The
figure is variously interpreted as depicting a woman with elongated genital parts or as a woman giving birth
to a child, its feet protruding from the woman’s vagina. It can, quite reasonably be argued, given the
emphasis on large genitals in other wood carvings (Heyerdahl 1976: Plate XX), that ‘[n]ext to the ubiquitous
cupules, vulva signs comprise the largest design category on the island’ (Lee 1992: 193) and, of course given
the actual practice of lengthening the outer labia, that the mo'ai vi'e should be understood as depicting a
woman with transmuted genitals. This interpretation was also suggested by many Rapanui who associated
the practice of lengthening the labia with sexual pleasure. Others held the opposite view that the figure was
associated with the birth of an ariki ‘king’. A woman working in the Moira souvenir shop (Hanga Roa),
assumed the physical pose of the carved figure, squatting on the floor as if giving birth, to underline her
argument: the mo'ai vi'e is a woman giving birth. Considering Gell's argument about the protective quality of
duplication, and the ‘direct connection between the idea of doubling and birth’ (1995:34), it appears quite
reasonable also to interpret the figure from such a reproductive angle.” A mo’ai vi’e in a museum in Hanga
Roa (on Easter Island) may be seen in a photo by Dennis Jarvis, accessed 12 Jan, 2025, online at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archer10/49073311317/in/photostream/.
36
Attenborough (2000: 11:38-12:40 & 45:15-48:10). The female figurine may therefore represent Vie Kenatea
(Pitts et al. 2014: 318), since she is credited as being Makemake’s wife (Monk 1997; Fery n.d.).
37
Clare (2024: 22).
38
See, for example, the birds carved on the head of the moai kavava in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
cat. M.2008.66.6, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancestor_Figure_(moai_kavakava)_LACMA_M.2008.66.6_(2_of
_3).jpg. Similar motifs appear on the twin-headed moai kavava at the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de La
Rochelle, cat. H1529, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moa%C3%AF-kava-
kava_bic%C3%A9phale_Ile_de_P%C3%A2ques._Museum_La_Rochelle.jpg.
39
Benz & Bauer (2013: 17, Fig. 6).
40
No other stone moai bears imagery of this kind, which relates to the Rapa Nui bird-man cult and was added
belatedly to the statue (Pitts et al. 2014: 301-319). Typical moai do, however, share with many of the T-
pillars both bent arms at their sides and belts/loincloths at their midriffs, and some do have reliefs or
engraved petroglyphs on their backs or chests (e.g. photo captioned “Different petroglyphs on the back of an
unearthed moai” in Imagina Rapa Nui n.d.), although these too may be later additions. For other similarities
between Easter Island and Neolithic Anatolian iconography, see notes 35 & 62.
41
British Museum via Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two_images_spliced_together;_a_front_and_side_view_of_the_sa
me_wooden_moai_Kavakava_anthropomorphic_figure_carving_representing_akuaku_spirits,_supported_on
_a_base._Oc,G.T.1730,_British_Museum.jpg, right hand image only. For other examples of moai kavakava
representing akuaku, see online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mana_Expedition_to_Easter_Island#/media/File:Lantern_sli
de_of_the_back_of_four_wooden_moai_kavakava,_representing_Aku_Aku_spirits._Oc,G.T.1511,_Mana_E
xpedition_to_Easter_Island,_British_Museum.jpg.
42
Rivi via Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahu_Tongariki.jpg.
43
A few days after releasing the first version of this paper, I was alerted to the abstract of a short conference
presentation delivered two months earlier by Thomas Zimmermann of Bilkent University. The abstract
indicates that, similar to my methodology in the current section of the main text, Zimmermann has begun to
use tribal initiation rituals as a lens through which to try to understand the representations of maleness at
Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe. At the end of the abstract, Zimmermann says: “This contribution tries to
contextualize some recurrent critical concepts in the artworks of these places in the scope of diverse tribal
narratives and re-read their visual legacy within the frame of cultural synchronisms as exemplified by
Spenglerian cultural morphology. Furthermore, ethnographic studies about the rite of passage rituals as
documented in contemporary tribal communities in Zambia and Papua New Guinea may shed further light
on the deeper context of the explicit ‘maleness’ prominently displayed in these Early Holocene hilltop
edifices” (Zimmermann 2024). It is not clear which tribal paradigms Zimmermann has in mind, but da Silva
(2008: 16) mentions that PNG tribal beliefs include “the tenet that bones are built from sperm,” which is
29
 fully in line with the maleness-of-bones theme advanced in the present section of the main text. Likewise,
Zambia is geographically quite close to Madagascar, and – as reported in the main text – the latter harbours
tribes who believe in the maleness of bones and see them as the true mediators of ancestral descent.
44
Holmquist & Fraresso (2021: 94); similarly Museo Larco (2018a). Interestingly, the pre-Columbian cultures
of Central America and western South America shared with Neolithic Anatolian cultures a “skull cult”
(Graham 2021: 2-11; Hodder & Meskell 2011: 245-250), while the Moche (and later Chimu) preoccupation
with wild and noxious animals, and particularly with the bared teeth and fangs of feline predators (Bourget
2007: 89; Holmquist & Fraresso 2021: 44, 60-65, 112-115, 258, 262 & 268), has its match in the
iconography at Göbekli Tepe (Hodder & Meskell 2011: 237 & 248). Moreover, Andean shamanism offers an
understanding of animal-human hybrids that may be relevant to the Anatolian “totem poles” in our Fig. 2,
especially Fig. 2b and its parallels (e.g. those in the photos titled Urfa Museum-Karahantepe-012 and -020,
online at https://www.meretsegerbooks.com/gallery/1340/karahantepe-finds-in-urfa-museum). Accordingly,
“what we see in the artistic representations as ‘hybrid’ beings are not transformations, but changes in the
perspective from which the world is viewed and experienced. During the ritual, the officiant does not leave
behind his humanity and transform into a jaguar, but temporarily acquires the traits that allow him to
perceive the world as a jaguar would. […W]e can say that in the Andean worldview, what matters is not so
much determining which ‘being’ we are looking at, but rather what that being can do, i.e. their power and
ability” (Holmquist & Fraresso 2021: 97-98 & 106). Another hybrid form seemingly known to the Moche
was the phallic female (Bourget 2007: 47, Fig. 48), which – as a paradigm – forms the central theme of the
present paper.
45
Holmquist & Fraresso (2021: 94); similarly, Museo Larco (2018b), Bourget (2007: 60, Fig. 65 & 81, Fig. 85).
For a related depiction of ancestral potency as a solitary cadaverous skull-headed figure with an oversized
erection, see Museo Larco (2018c) or Holmquist & Fraresso (2021: 90); likewise the ithyphallic skeletal
males in Museo Larco (n.d.) and Bourget (2007: 28, Fig. 24 & 31-32, Fig. 31).
46
Museo Larco (2018a), reproduced here for education/research [https://www.museolarco.org/en/collection/];
additional photos from different angles, including close-ups, can be found in Holmquist & Fraresso (2021:84
& 94-95).
47
Metropolitan Museum (2000-2024).
48
Holmquist & Fraresso (2021: 94). However, in the absence of textual records, Moche afterlife dynamics
remain complex and contested. For example, Bourget (2007: 87-102) envisages the skeletonised figures as
inhabiting the World of the Dead, which he associates with non-vaginal sexual activities (“inverted
fertility”), from which they may eventually be able to graduate to the World of the Ancestors, which he
associates with vaginal intercourse (fertility). In contrast, Mary Weismantel (2004) argues that the Moche
perceived such non-vaginal sex acts as reproductive, forming part of “an endless flow of vital fluids between
bodies and across time” (Weismantel 2004: 503). Weismantel’s understanding is developed in the next note.
49
Of particular relevance to our discussion is when Weismantel (introduced in the previous note) turns her
attention to “another set of commonly depicted images: the woman masturbating the skeleton. Skeletons
often masturbate alone, sometimes while holding a small figure; frequently, however, they are masturbated
by a female companion. When, as is often the case, she is as fleshy as he is bony, it is tempting to read this
pair as embodying oppositions between life and death and male and female, and so to see the skeleton’s erect
penis as a trickster element that erupts across these boundaries undermining the power of death. […] If we
look at a larger corpus of the Moche masturbation scenes, however, the message is rather one of corporeal
continuity between the living and the dead, for both figures are sometimes fleshed, sometimes fully or
partially skeletonized. The one constant is the erect penis, a member that in the Andes would only grow in
fertilizing power when wielded by a dead man. […] In the Native American languages of the Andes, the
concepts of ‘ancestor,’ ‘lineage,’ and ‘penis’ are linked linguistically and metaphorically (Salomon 1991:20;
Zuidema 1977:256); the erect penis of the skeletonized male may unite these three concepts as well and so
signify the principle of descent over time. The skeleton’s partner then, may be less significant as a woman
than as an affine. For while we do not know the details of Moche kinship, one general principle is clear for
all societies that emphasize descent through corporate kin groups: Ancestral fertility, which flows down
through lineages, must be activated through living affines. Alone, the masturbating skeleton represents the
ancestor s reproductive potential; with one hand on his penis and the other cradling a small body, this power
to create new life becomes more visible. When it is a woman s hand, rather than his own, that rubs the penis,
we see this ancestral potency being activated by another sexually active being who can capture and convey it
to the lineage’s living descendants” (Weismantel 2004: 501-502). It would, of course, be easy to read the
Çatalhöyük “Life and Death” figurine in similar terms.
50
Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina (1998; 2015); Parker Pearson (2013).
51
Schmidt (2010: 243); Notroff et al. (2015); Clare (2024: 22-23).

30
52
Schmidt (2005: 14); Schmidt (2010: 254); Becker et al. (2012).
53
This point is illustrated by the progression proposed by Parker Pearson for smaller effigies during the 8th to 6th
millennia BCE (Parker Pearson 2003: 164). Having reviewed the data, he concludes: “Thus, during the tenth
to eighth millennia BP, we see a process of metaphorical elaboration in which the relationship between the
signified (dead ancestor) and the signifier (skull > figurine > pot) is made manifest by an increasingly
abstract representation.”
54
Parker Pearson (2003: 158). As Notroff et al. (2015: 75) observe: “If thus these [naturalistic] heads and life-
sized statues are seen as depictions of ancestors, it becomes clear that the monumental T-shaped pillars
project something different, something larger and more powerful.” I am suggesting that they represent
patriarchs and distant ancestors; others incline towards seeing them as proto-gods. For example, Becker et al.
(2012: 36) propose that “the stone heads and human sculptures from Göbekli Tepe could perhaps also be
assigned to the sphere of such ancestor worship, while the pillar beings, monumentally elevated, go beyond
this and could represent apparitions that are hierarchically even higher than the mythical ancestors.” Most
recently, Clare (2024: 23) takes a position in the middle ground, noting that “the T-shaped pillars in the
special buildings have been interpreted as the embodiments of forebears (e.g., Schmidt 2000c.49; 2005.14).
Naturally, we cannot rule out that the human depictions from other Taş Tepeler sites, including the newly
discovered human statue from Karahantepe, the human figure depicted in the Sayburç relief, as well as the
so-called Urfa Man recovered from Şanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalle (Çelik 2000), are also in the image of ancestors
or even representations of the same (mythological) ancestor individual (cf. Fig. 22).” Also, from Clare
(2024: 25): “The similarities between the high relief from Sayburç and human statuary from other Şanlıurfa
sites are striking (Figs. 19 and 22). This observation begs the question as to whether these ithyphallic
individuals are depictions of the same person, i.e. a revered ancestral huntsman or even a so-called
supernatural gamekeeper.”
55
Becker (2012: 22-23 & 30). The dyadic nature of the two central pillars could relate to societal patrimoieties
(Becker 2012: 36-37).
56
Becker (2012: 34); Jeunesse (2020: 44-55); Kinzel & Clare (2020: 34-35 & 44); Hodder (2020: 50); Ayaz
(2023); Clare (2024: 22-23 & 27).
57
Parker Pearson (2003: 158).
58
So Eggertsson (2011: 115-116): “It is tempting to associate the kavakava figures as depicting decaying
corpses with the idea of the akuaku as temporary spirits waiting to become pure spirits that can move on to
the pō […]. The notion of a liminal transformative state of spiritual being corresponding to the period of
bodily decomposition is known from different parts of the world (Howes 1986, 1987) and the mo'ai
kavakava may well be considered images of deceased relatives whom the living are still mourning or fondly
remembering, the lulling and lifting described by early visitors being affectionate gestures. Akuaku spirits
are, generally, thought of as protective and helpful towards their living relatives, even though they are also
considered capable of punishing them for not behaving according to ancestral custom. Against strangers they
would be ‘mischievous and even hostile’ (Fischer 2005: 29). I believe that the carving of the mo'ai kavakava
and the mo'ai pa'apa'a is concerned with this dangerous transition of the akuaku, with how to beneficially
interact with these liminal beings during their transformation from the world of the living to the divine
afterworld.” In this scheme, the large stone mo’ai would represent chiefs who have successfully
accomplished this transformation and now form part of the ancestral collective (Eggertsson 2011: 122). I
would see the skeletonisation of the kavakava figures not just as denoting physical decay of the body after
death but also as constituting a marker of male ancestrality, its presence helping the deceased towards the
enduring status to which they aspire. This is consistent with Adrienne Kaeppler’s vision of the kavakava
figures as “socio-historical mnemonics with their notched backbones representing ‘succeeding generations
of ancestors’” (Eggertsson 2011: 123-124). Recently-collected Rapa Nui oral narratives that point to very
different interpretations (e.g. to skeletonisation as shameful, Eggertsson 2011: 118) may reflect modern
Western sensibilities; we should remember that “whatever the mo'ai vi'e or the mo'ai kavakava meant to their
initial authors has been subject to reconsideration by subsequent artists and other folk” (Eggertsson 2011:
126).
59
Dietrich et al. (2019: 4/19 in corrected proof). Similarly, on the same page: “At Göbekli Tepe, burial rites
seem to have been applied to anthropomorphic sculpture, but exclusively to the smaller, naturalistic
depictions. Only naturalistic anthropomorphic sculpture was intentionally fragmented. During the backfilling
of the stone circles, a selection of fragments, mostly heads, was placed inside the filling, most often near the
central pillars. The abstract, but nevertheless also clearly anthropomorphic pillars of the monumental
buildings on the other hand were not intentionally fragmented.” These statements summarise the authors’
more detailed commentary in Becker (2012: 28-29 & 35-36). Clare (2024: 13) warns that Dietrich et al.’s
31
 belief that these depositions occurred as part of an intentional back-filling process is no longer justified;
rather, “these items were either already in situ at the time of inundation or they stem from buildings or
deposits that became displaced and redeposited during the slope slide event(s).” If they were already in situ –
a circumstance which is arguably more significant than their deposition at the time of decommissioning the
building – then the point that I make in the main text stands. Despite the recently revised understanding of
Göbekli Tepe’s burial, deliberate deposition of statue fragments followed by intentional back-filling still
seems to be the current model for termination of the enclosures at Karahan Tepe (Ildun 2024).
60
Ayaz (2023).
61
My suggestion is consistent with Necmi Karul’s observation for Karahan Tepe that “The use of hard materials
like stone for masculine symbolic elements may suggest a deliberate choice” (Ildun 2024).
62
For the T-pillars at least, the arms are long and thin (i.e. bony); the elongation of the hands in moai are due to
exceptionally long fingernails (Attenborough 2000: 41:20-42:20). Curiously, both Easter Island and some of
the Neolithic Anatolian sites contain anthropomorphic representations that are six-fingered. Thus, Sean
Thomas reports of the Taş Tepeler excavations that: “Another unnerving oddity is the curious number of
carvings which show people with six fingers” (Thomas 2022); one example is the bull-fighter engraved on
the left of the high-relief ithyphallic male at Sayburç (Özdoğan 2022: 1602 & 1602, Fig. 4; see colour photo
online at https://archaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Turkey-Sayburc-Stone-Bench-Relief.jpg),
while another possibility is Urfa Man (our Fig. 8c). In both cultures, polydactyly is probably a marker of
special status; for example, in Polynesian statuary – including that of Easter Island – six fingers are used to
indicate a deity (Attenborough 2000: 45:45-47:00).
63
In other stone Polynesian ancestor figures, the fingers of the hands either flank an explicity depicted overlong
erect phallus, or the space that one would occupy; as a result, they sit much higher on the body and occupy
approximately the correct position for the ribs. See, for example, the Tahitian Ti’i and the Pitcairn Island
statue in Otago Museum, New Zealand, online at https://www.instagram.com/p/C-
JVsZfT4O9/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== (photo 3) and
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=9351860451530801&set=gm.3495980813872059&idorvanity=7217
34017963433, accessed 14 Jan, 2025.
64
Notroff (2019).
65
Hauptmann (2012: 18, Fig. 8).
66
Özdoğan (2022: 1601 & 1604).
67
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 248). Note that a Huastec male figure (1.6m tall, sandstone) with a similar
conjunction of living (front) and skeletonised (back) is known from Northern Veracruz, Mexico, ca. 900-
1250 CE; it is now in the Brooklyn Museum. The conjunction is explained as follows by Koontz (2015):
“Often religious officials and rulers would carry the remains of revered ancestors on their backs, with the
ancestor’s bones wrapped in a cloth bundle. Here the cloth bundle is unwrapped, revealing the skeletal figure
inside. The Mexica (Aztecs) of Central Mexico, who flourished at the same time as the Huastec, even had a
name for this office, teomama. Thus it is possible that the skeletal figure represents a sacred ancestor whose
skeleton has been placed in cloth wrap and carried through the city by the somber young man during an
important religious rite.” If so, the intention of the statue is not to contrast life with death per se, but rather to
present life as beholden to the male ancestral power (bones/skeleton) responsible for its existence.
68
Özdoğan (2022: 1601 & 1604). For a photo from a different angle which showcases the impression of three
ribs on the right-hand side of the man’s chest (left-hand side of image), see the last photo in Thomas (2022).
69
K. Akdemir via Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Urn_cambridge.org_id_binary_20221201181421541-
0856_S0003598X22001259_S0003598X22001259_fig5.png.
70
Huth (2008: 484, Figs. 2 & 3); Schmidt (2013: 198 & 199, Figs. 7-8).
71
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 237-241 & 250).
72
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 248). The point to be developed here was anticipated earlier in this section (in the
block-quote from Lee Clare), but in a context unrelated to the Çatalhöyük figurine.
73
A possibility not countenanced by Schmidt (2013) or Clare (2024: 22 & 23, Fig. 23), who discuss the possible
meaning of these figures.
74
Schmidt (2008: 29 & 31, Fig. 6); Clare (2024: 21, Fig. 18).
75
Clare (2024: 20).
76
Clare (2024: 18 & 19, Fig. 15.12).
77
For archaeological examples from Schroda, see Edwin Hanisch (2002a; 2002b: 51-52).
32
78
Hongshan jade “penis-Venus” from Neolithic north-eastern China, 4500-2350 BCE; online at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hongshan_jade/7947268702/ and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hongshan_jade/7947268580/in/photostream/.
79
Phallic pre-Columbian Valdivian “Venus” figure, from Ecuador, ca. 3500-2000 BCE; Artemis Gallery Ancient
Art, online at http://www.antiques.com/classified/Antiquities/Ancient-South-America/Antique-Valdivian-
Terracotta-Venus-Figure. Another example is given by Dagan (1990: 5, Fig. 3).
80
Graham (2013: 16-17).
81
For an additional photograph, see Meskell & Nakamura (2005: Fig. 80 right). The figurine is also visible
online in a photograph within Iza (2023).
82
Atakuman (2013: 257, incl. Fig. 22); Belcher & Croucher (2017: 457-458, incl. Fig. 20.6).
83
Graham (2013: 17, Fig. 1.11).
84
De Mortillet (1906).
85
Delporte (1979: 142).
86
Gimbutas (1999: 37, Fig. 31).
87
Graham (2013: 8, Fig. 1.2).
88
For Egypt, Hendrickx & Eyckerman (2012: 39): “The human features distinguished by Baumgartel (1960: 73-
74) for the bull’s head amulets are most obvious when compared to a particular type of statuette representing
a woman with her arms curved underneath her breasts.” For Anatolia, Belcher & Croucher (2017: 457-458):
“Among the Domuztepe figurines, one type dominates: a flat figurine carved from a variety of locally
available soft stones (Figure 20.6). There are ten such figurines found in Late Halaf contexts, all representing
standing figures in the same pose […] The silhouette of a front-facing body is represented with bent arms,
which imply hands clasped between and supporting breasts. The outline of the figurine ambiguously implies
that it might be gendered female. This overall form references a well-known pose of seated clay figurines
with bent arms supporting breasts from Late Halaf upper Mesopotamia, numerous examples of which come
from the Khabur headwaters region of Syria at Chagar Bazar, Tell Halaf, and other sites.” Graham (2020)
points out the strong resemblance between clay/pottery female figurines of this type from Late Halaf
Mesopotamia and from predynastic Egypt.
89
For the Domuztepe “angels,” Belcher & Croucher (2016: 49) say “the silhouette of a front facing body is
represented with bent arms, which imply hands clasped between and supporting breasts. Therefore the
outline of the figurine ambiguously implies that these figurines might be gendered female.” Similar
sentiments appear in Belcher & Croucher (2017: 458). Our interest lies in a subset of these figurines
(Belcher 2014: 438-442; specifically DT-4 to DT-6, and possibly DT-3 and DT-7 as well) whose overall
shape could be considered phallic. There may also be equivalents from other Halaf sites, e.g. Belcher (2014:
393, FH-4), Belcher (2014: 402, TK-9).
90
Graham (2020: 30); Atakuman (2013: 257) relates the “angels” to phallic deltoids. In respect of the bull’s
head amulet, we might note that the bull is the quintessential phallic animal of ancient Egypt, as evidenced
by the kamutef (“bull of his mother”) paradigm for self-begetting gods (e.g. Amun Kamutef; Hart 2005: 21).
Of course, bucrania and bulls’ horns were similarly recognised as markers of maleness in the Anatolian
Neolithic at Çatalhöyük (Hodder & Meskell 2011: 237).
91
Belcher (2014: 446, DT-11); Belcher & Croucher (2016: 49 & 51, Fig. 3); Belcher & Croucher (2017: 448 &
449, Fig. 20.3). As Belcher & Croucher (2016: 52) remark, “There are ambiguities in biological markers in
the Domuztepe figurine assemblage[. … I]f we do not try to constrain our categorization to our modern
concepts of gender and binary opposites, then a clear ambiguity can be witnessed in the figurine record.”
92
Belcher & Croucher (2017: 451)
93
Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (2023: 49 & 53, Fig. 67).
94
Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (2023: 62); Öztürk (2013: 155).
95
Graham (2020: 30).
96
Cleveland Museum of Art, online at https://clevelandart.org/art/1998.26.
97
Belcher (2014: 439, DT-4).
98
Metropolitan Museum, online at https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/547235.
99
Belcher & Croucher (2017: 455 & 456, Fig. 20.5a); “here molded and incised human and cattle heads
mutually constitute each other: the horns of the bull evoke the brows of the human faces” (Meskell 2008:
384). The item’s symbolism is also discussed by Hodder & Meskell (2011: 235 & 246, Fig. 9).

33
100
Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (2023: 62 & 87, Fig. 121). For an informed discussion, see Öztürk (2013:
157). When discussing anthropomorphic statuettes, Öztürk (2013: 155) uses the term “figurines” for
generally naturalistic representations of humans and opposes these to “idols,” which he defines as more
abstract representations of deities. I do not take these to be mutually exclusive categories; I consider all
statuettes to be figurines and – sparingly – use the term “idol” to denote a subset of the figurine corpus for
which a cultic use seems likely.
101
Öztürk (2013: 155-157).
102
Öztürk (2013: 160).
103
Centre for Manuscript Cultures (2018).
104
Öztürk (2013: 166-167).
105
Özdoğan (1998: Fig. 18).
106
Öztürk (2013: 158, fn. 27).
107
Öztürk (2013: 158).
108
Alamy image CN6R09, online at https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-human-figure-incense-burner-aa-pnar-
neolithic-site-krklareli-turkey-47478265.html; purchase ref: OY0100518314, invoice: IY05065549.
109
Hodder & Meskell (2011: 238).
110
Hauptmann (2012: 22).
111
Öztürk (2013: 165).
112
A twin-headed pillar found at Karahan Tepe may now provide a much earlier prototype; see the photo
captioned “Pillar head and relief” in Combs (2021). We should also remember that the large central T-pillars
in the Göbekli Tepe enclosures occur in pairs, and that a Janus-like double-faced figure was found at the site
in 2002 (Becker et al. 2012: 31, Fig. 22).
113
Trump (2004: 55 (date), 112 (photo) & 113).
114
Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (2023: 76, Fig. 93 & 94).
115
Dyson (2011).
116
Trump (2004: 112 (photo) & 113).
117
Dyson (2011).
118
Graham (2013: 13-14, Figs. 1.9 & 1.10b).
119
Lot 194, Bonhams antiquities auction, 11:00 BST, 29 Apr, 2009, New Bond Street, London; online at
http://m.bonhams.com/auctions/16777/lot/194/.
120
Item 3108, online at http://www.galerie-puhze.de/4.74+M52087573ab0.0.html, accessed 3 Oct, 2013.

34