WORTHY IS THE LAMB : A DOUBLE BURIAL

AT NEOLITHIC ATALHYK (TURKEY)

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

Abstract : Neolithic atalhyk (central Anatolia) is well known for its elaborate animal symbolism. However, while sheep are the most
abundant animal in the faunal assemblage at the site, they are virtually absent in the art and among the animal parts incorporated into
the architecture. Thus it is striking that the first and so far only animal burial found at atalhyk is a lamb placed with a human body,
a sharp departure from usual human burial practice at the site. We set this find in the context of other animal burials in the Neolithic
Near East, and note that animals included in burials are usually domestic, non-threatening, or young. We explore possible reasons for
including this animal and conclude that the relationship between this man and sheep must have been especially strong, but that pet is
probably an inadequate description.
Rsum : Le gisement Nolithique de atalhyk (Anatolie centrale) est connu pour son symbolisme animal labor. Alors que parmi
les restes fauniques les moutons constituent l'espce la mieux reprsente, ceux-ci sont presque totalement absents des reprsentations
artistiques et des parties d'animaux incorpores dans l'architecture. Il est frappant de constater que jusqu'ici la seule inhumation d'un
animal mise au jour atalhyk est celle d'un agneau enterr avec un corps humain, ce qui change nettement des pratiques funraires
habituelles pratiques sur ce site. Cette dcouverte est replace dans le contexte des inhumations animales connues dans le ProcheOrient au Nolithique : les animaux enterrs sont en gnral domestiques, inoffensifs et jeunes. En cherchant les raisons de la prsence
de cet animal, nous concluons que le rapport entre cet homme et ce mouton dt tre particulirement fort ; l'interprtation comme animal de compagnie ne suffit pas toutefois expliquer la nature de cette relation, la position du corps de l'agneau laissant planer une
certaine ambivalence : importance d'enterrer la bte avec l'homme mais ncessit de maintenir une sparation entre les deux.
Key-Words : Central Anatolia, Near East, Neolithic, Burial Practices, Animal burials, Human-Animal Relations, atalhyk.
Mots Clefs : Anatolie centrale, Proche-Orient, atalhyk, Nolithique, Pratiques funraires, Inhumation danimaux, Relations
humains - animaux.

ANIMALS AND PEOPLE AT ATALHYK

Much of the fame of Neolithic atalhyk is based on the
dramatic animal symbolism at the site, including paintings,
reliefs, and the incorporation of animal parts into architecture.
It is striking that while sheep are by far the most common species in the animal bone remains at the site, they are nearly
absent in these representations1, a pattern familiar from other
1. RUSSELL and MEECE, 2006.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

contexts, such as Upper Palaeolithic animal depictions2. In

this context, the recent find of a sheep in a human burial at the
site adds a new dimension to our understanding of human-animal relations at atalhyk and in the contemporary Near
East.
atalhyk is a large tell site (13 hectares) in Central Anatolia (fig. 1). The Neolithic East Mound dates roughly to
7 400-6 200 cal. BC3. In four seasons in the 1960s, James
2. E.g. DAVIDSON, 1999.
3. CESSFORD, 2001.

Manuscrit reu le 06 dcembre 2005, accept le 21 juin 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

32_1.book Page 73 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

32_1.book Page 74 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

Fig. 1 : Eastern Mediterranean with sites mentioned in text.

Mellaart excavated more than 200 houses and at least 462 burials4. In 1993 the atalhyk Research Project, directed by
Ian Hodder, renewed work at the site, initially focusing on
careful documentation of the life history of a smaller number
of houses. In the 1995-1999 excavation seasons, 94 additional
skeletons were found5. In the post-1999 seasons, many more
burials have been excavated, but these remain to be analyzed.
atalhyk has long been known as a centre of cattle
domestication6, but analysis of the animal bones from the
recent excavations shows that the cattle are in fact wild7.
Moreover, with systematic sieving and flotation we find that
the animal bones are numerically dominated not by cattle, as
previously thought8, but by sheep and goat. The vast majority
of these sheep and goats are domestic, and their meat supplied
most of the protein in the diet9. The culling pattern, with most
animals slaughtered as juveniles or subadults, indicates that
they were raised primarily for meat, with wool (these early
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

MELLAART, 1967 ; DRING, 2003.

ANDREWS et al., 2005.
PERKINS, 1969.
RUSSELL, MARTIN and BUITENHUIS, 2005.
PERKINS, 1969.
RICHARDS et al., 2003.

sheep are unlikely to have been woolly in any case) and dairy
products of little importance. The ratio of sheep to goats
among the specimens determined to species is 7:1, making
sheep the main herd animal at the site. The only other domestic animal present is dog10.
While sheep provide the staple meat source, wild animals, particularly cattle, appear to hold much greater symbolic significance. Cattle and other wild animals are more
often consumed at feasts, and their body parts are much
more likely to be incorporated into the houses in the form of
horns set in walls, pillars, benches or modelled heads ; scapulae placed in abandoned houses or built into walls ; and
commemorative deposits in pits in the house floors. Most or
all of the animals in the paintings are wild11. Sheep are notably absent in the paintings, but sheep bones do occasionally
appear in feasting and commemorative deposits. Mellaart
reports a few cases of modelled clay heads with sheep
horns12, although we do not know whether the horns derive
from wild or domestic sheep. In sum, sheep are altogether
absent from paintings at atalhyk, and are present but
severely under-represented in feasting deposits and special
treatments of animal remains.

BURIAL PRACTICES AT ATALHYK

Most burials at atalhyk are found inside houses, in
pits dug through the floors. A few, mostly infants, were
placed in the foundation fills that preceded house construction, and very occasionally people were buried in outdoor
areas. These on-site burials probably represent only a selection of the deceased13. The new investigations at atalhyk
show that single primary interments are the norm, and these
burials include all age categories and both sexes in equal
measure. Most burials are contracted and lie on the right or
left side, but there is no standard orientation or arrangement
of the body. A smaller number of burials consists of double
or triple inhumations. Finally, a few burials have evidence
for secondary burial or of intentional retrieval of skeletal
parts14.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

RUSSELL and MARTIN, 2005.

RUSSELL and MEECE, 2006.
MELLAART, 1967.
DRING, 2003.
ANDREWS et al., 2005.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

74

32_1.book Page 75 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

Inspired by paintings of vultures swooping at headless

human figures at the site, Mellaart proposed a burial rite that
involved exposing bodies for excarnation by vultures prior to
burying the cleaned bones in the houses15. However, careful
taphonomic studies of burials from the new excavations indicate that almost all bodies were buried intact. Since burials
were often repeatedly placed in relatively small areas in buildings, it is common for earlier burials to be disturbed by subsequent ones, and as a consequence in many cases only the latest
burials in a building are fully articulated and undisturbed16.
Grave goods are not ubiquitous ; many burials contain
none, whereas others contain rich assemblages. Most are
ornaments or components of clothing such as beads, pendants,
rings, and belt hooks. Occasionally burials include tools and
weapons such as bone points and spatulas, stone maces, flint
daggers, and obsidian projectile points. Other items include
obsidian mirrors, mussel shells containing pigment, wooden
containers, and stone bowls. Contrary to earlier suggestions17,
these burial goods do not seem to be related to the gender of
the deceased18. All of these burial goods could be construed
as personal possessions of the deceased, although some may
be gifts from the mourners19.
Until 2004, no animal burials had been found at atalhyk. While a few complete, articulated animal skeletons
have been recovered, none were placed in pits, let alone in pits
inside houses in the manner of human burials. Some are perinatal sheep found in penning areas, possibly natural deaths
that were left where they expired. Others are dogs found in
midden deposits with no sign of special treatment. Perhaps the
closest thing to an animal burial previously encountered is a
puppy skeleton lying on top of the northeast platform of
Building 3 (Level VI). An adult male human was buried
beneath this platform, but since the platform was replastered
at least twice subsequent to this burial, there is no direct connection between the two bodies20.
The lamb skeleton reported here is thus the first deliberate
animal interment at atalhyk. Not only was this lamb buried like a human (in a pit dug through a house floor), it was in
fact buried with a human body.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

MELLAART, 1967.
ANDREWS et al., 2005.
MELLAART, 1967 : 207-208.
DRING, 2003 ; HAMILTON, 1996 ; HODDER, 2004.
HAMILTON, 2005.
STEVANOVIC and TRINGHAM, 2000.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

75

THE BURIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

This double burial occurred in the main room (space 112)
of Building 50 in the South Area. This building was first excavated by Mellaart in 1963 as Shrine 9 in Level VII21. The
building has a large southern room (space 112) and a narrow
room (space 231) on the north (fig. 2). The main room contained four posts : two on the east wall and two on the west. A
plastered ledge running between the two northernmost posts
demarcated a large platform extending across the northern
part of the room. Mellaart reconstructed a number of moulded
cattle heads (on the basis of scars in the wall plaster) with
what he believed to be wavy plaster horns along the east and
the west walls, and designated the building as a shrine on that
basis.
Mellaart did not completely remove this building, and in
1997 the atalhyk Research Project renewed excavations
here, removing the southern two-thirds of space 112. The
edge of the trench coincided approximately with the southern

Fig. 2 : atalhyk Building 50 floor plan.

21. MELLAART, 1964 : 52, fig. 11-13, pl. Va ; MELLAART, 1967 : 105106, fig. 10, 19 and 20, tables 13 and 16.

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

Worthy is the Lamb : a Double Burial at Neolithic atalhyk (Turkey)

32_1.book Page 76 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

edge of the northern platform22. Eleven humans were found

interred below the level of the largely truncated floors of this
southern part of the building, most of them single burials. The
burials consist of two single neonate burials, two single infant
burials, two single children burials, one single adult burial
(male), one double burial with two children, and one double
burial with two adults (a male and a female)23.
In 2004, Space 231 and the remaining, northern part of
Space 112 were excavated. Fragments of truncated floors and
features were found in both spaces, most of which could be
matched with Mellaarts published plan of this building24. An
additional group of burials was located in the centre of the
north platform, consisting of five individuals, one of them a
sheep skeleton.
A large pit (Feature 1 702) measuring about 1,8 by 1,2 m
was cut through the centre of the north platform. In the bottom
lay a remarkable double burial (fig. 3). On the south was a
complete, articulated skeleton of an adult male (Unit 10 840).
The skeleton awaits further investigation for a more detailed
age, stature, and health assessment. The head was badly
crushed while the rest of the skeleton was in good condition
and articulated. Skeleton 10 840 was oriented west-east (head
to the west) lying on its right side and leaning somewhat onto
its back, with the legs flexed to the chest (fig. 4)25. A worked
bird bone tube was placed on the chest and a large flint object
and a bone point lay behind the left shoulder.
A shallow fill deposit surrounded this skeleton, sealed by
a brown interface from which the matrix broke evenly and
clearly. This interface is probably the remains of an organic
substance such as a mat. It sloped down to the north of the
skeleton, where a complete, articulated skeleton of a young
sheep (unit 10 839) lay directly on top of it. This mat therefore
establishes the contemporaneity of the two burials. The sheep
was oriented east-west (head to the east) with its head twisted
back to the north. It lay in a contorted posture on its left side :
its hind legs extended straight behind it at roughly a 45 angle
upward, while its front legs were close together and extended
straight up vertically, twisting the forequarters so that the legs
were essentially at right angles to the body (fig. 5). This could
only have been achieved by holding the legs up while the pit
was filled ; otherwise they would have fallen next to the lamb
and perhaps touched or lain across the human body.

22.
23.
24.
25.

FARID, in press.
Ibid.
DRING, 2004.
BOZ and HAGER, 2004.

The surface condition of the sheep bones is very fresh,

although they are delicate and friable. The skeleton showed
no sign of disturbance. The only bones out of place were a few
of the smaller leg and foot bones such as sesamoids and patellae that had rolled down to the shoulders and hips during
decomposition. Some of the phalanges had also collapsed
downward slightly. Clearly the sheep was buried intact and
fully fleshed.
The diagnostic features of the deciduous premolars permitted the identification of this animal as a sheep26. The proximal radii are fused but too damaged to determine whether
they retain an epiphyseal line. The distal humerus, the acetabulum of the pelvis, and the second phalanges exhibit faint epiphyseal lines, while the first phalanges are in early fusion. The
first permanent molars are just coming into active wear
(Grants staged27), while the second molars and the permanent first incisors have not yet erupted. Thus the sheep falls
into Zeders dental Group III, tentatively aged 6-12 months,
and toward the late end of her fusion Group C, tentatively
aged 12-18 months28. It is likely, then, that the sheep is about
a year old. The season of birth for early domestic sheep is
uncertain (early or late spring), but this age suggests a spring
or summer burial. The immaturity of the sheep prevents evaluation of its domestication status ; however, since nearly all
the sheep at the site are domestic, this animal probably is, too.
It is also too young for a reliable sex determination, but the
pelvis appears more female than male in morphology29, and
there are no signs of developing horns. Horn buds are apparent by four-six months of age in both mouflon (wild sheep)30
and Soay sheep (feral sheep probably descended from Bronze
Age domesticates)31. Females are generally hornless in the
modern wild sheep near atalhyk, and there are hornless
specimens from the atalhyk assemblage as well. This
lamb is therefore more likely to be female.

LATER BURIAL ACTIVITY

Later in the occupation of Building 50, the locality of the
double burial was repeatedly opened for a series of three further human burials placed above the human skeleton unit
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

PAYNE, 1985.
GRANT, 1982.
ZEDER, 2006.
BOESSNECK, 1969.
LINCOLN, 1998 ; SANTIAGO-MORENO et al., 2000.
CLUTTON-BROCK et al., 1990.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

76

32_1.book Page 77 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

77

Fig. 3 : Plan of burial F. 1702, with human skeleton 10 840 and sheep skeleton 10 839.

Fig. 4 : Human skeleton 10 840.

10 840. Skeleton 10 829, a mature female with a large

number of grave goods (including four incised and perforated boar tusk plaques and a number of stone and boar incisor beads) was oriented south-north (head to the south),
lying with legs flexed against the chest on its right side,

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

above and to the east of 10 840, while skeletons 10 814 and

10 813 were placed directly above 10 840. Both were oriented west-east (head to the west), lying on their back with
the legs flexed to the chest, thus with the same body posture
as 10 840.

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

Worthy is the Lamb : a Double Burial at Neolithic atalhyk (Turkey)

32_1.book Page 78 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

Fig. 5 : Sheep skeleton 10 839, with most of front legs removed.

Skeleton 10 814, an adult female with no grave goods, was

located approximately 7 cm above skeleton 10 840 and was
only partly found in situ, due to later disturbance by the interment of skeleton unit 10 813. Interestingly, skull 10 834,
found in the north-eastern post-retrieval pit of the building,
matches with loose incisors found with skeleton 10 814 and
therefore derives from that burial32. The subsequent burial
10 813, an adult male, included a large bone belt hook that lay
on the left side of the chest and a cluster of five flint tools and
one antler implement that lay on the right side33.
We believe the key point with respect to this burial group
is that the positioning and orientation of the individual bodies
seem to be structured by memories of earlier burials. First,
while three later burials took place in the southern part of the
north platform of space 112, none was put where the sheep
had been buried, suggesting that this area might have been
considered inappropriate for further burials. This could be due
32. DRING, 2004.
33. BOZ and HAGER, 2004

to a desire to avoid disturbing the upstanding front legs of the

sheep (although they were not averse to disturbing human
skeletons), or perhaps it was inappropriate for human burials
to occupy an area associated with an animal. At atalhyk it
is often the case that only the latest burials beneath a platform
remained in full articulation, and older burials were generally
disturbed by more recent ones. Second, the orientation of the
sheep in reverse to the human bodies, with the head on the east
rather than the west, may be significant. As we have already
indicated, there are no standardised burial orientations at
atalhyk, and thus the possible meaning of these orientations would be purely local. Third, the odd position of the
lambs body seems to express ambivalence toward its inclusion in the burial. The lamb was carefully placed with the
human body (and the pit dug large enough to accommodate
both), but also carefully separated both by the mat and by
holding its legs so they would not come in contact with the
human body (fig. 6). Further, whereas the humans were all
placed in a position resembling a sleeping posture, if perhaps
more flexed than would be comfortable in life, the sheep was

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

78

32_1.book Page 79 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

79

Fig. 6 : Reconstruction of the double burial by John Gordon Swogger.

buried in a completely artificial position. Fourth, it seems

more than coincidental that both skeletons 10 814 and 10 813
are buried in the same body position and with the same orientation as earlier skeleton 10 840. Given that such repetitions
of burial postures in the same locations are rare at atalhyk
it could be suggested that these two later burials referred back
to the first human burial, which was associated with the sheep
skeleton.

ANIMAL BURIALS IN THE NEAR EASTERN

NEOLITHIC
To put our sheep burial into the context of the Near Eastern Neolithic, we surveyed the available literature for other
occurrences of complete animals in burials (see Table 1 and
references therein). We leave aside here finds of animal parts
in human graves, as this would seem to be a different kind of

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

practice. Further, we will not extensively discuss the animal

burials of the Near Eastern Neolithic, as that is beyond the
scope of this paper, but will only note some features that seem
particularly relevant in relation to our lamb burial.
Domestic animals predominate in burials of complete animals. Dog burials, some with humans, start in the Natufian34
and are also found in the Neolithic. The Shillourokambos cat
is morphologically wild, but probably tamed35. Likewise, the
Basta cow falls within the range of Near Eastern wild female
cattle, but Becker suggests cattle at the site may have been
herded36. The suid at Tell Ain el-Kerkh is too young to determine its domestication status, but is likely to be domestic as
well37. Most relevant to the atalhyk lamb burial, two animal burials of sheep or goats were found beneath the floors of

34.
35.
36.
37.

DAVIS and VALLA, 1978 ; TCHERNOV and VALLA, 1997.

VIGNE and GUILAINE, 2004.
BECKER, 2002.
TSUNEKI, 2002.

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

Worthy is the Lamb : a Double Burial at Neolithic atalhyk (Turkey)

32_1.book Page 80 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

Table 1 : Animal Burials in the Neolithic Near East.

Site

Animal

Age

Human Association ?

Period

Area

References

Demirky Hyk

Dog

Unknown

None

PPNA/
EPPNB

SE Anatolia

ROSENBERG and
PEASNALL, 1998

Basta

Pregnant cow

Mature, with
foetus

Near adult male burial

PPNB

Levant

BECKER, 2002

Kfar Hahoresh

Headless gazelle

Unknown

Plastered skull immediately

above it in plaster-lined pit ;
disarticulated bones nearby

PPNB

Levant

HORWITZ and
GORING-MORRIS,
2004

ayn

Dog

Unknown

Near male human burial

PPNB

SE Anatolia

ZDO*AN, 1999

KissonergaMylouthkia

9 sheep, 14
goats, 1 little owl
in well

8 immature, 1
mature sheep ;
12 immature, 1
mature goat

Disarticulated, partial remains

of at least 5 individuals in
same deposits

PPNB

Cyprus

CROFT, 2003

Shillourokambos

Cat

8 months

Near human burial

PPNB

Cyprus

VIGNE et al., 2004

Khirokitia

Sheep or goat

Mature

None ; below floor III of tholos VII, under threshold

PPNC

Cyprus

DIKAIOS, 1953 ;
KING, 1953

Khirokitia

4 sheep or goats

Immature

Near adult burial, below floor

XII of tholos X

PPNC

Cyprus

DIKAIOS, 1953 ;
KING, 1953

Canhasan I

2 dogs, head to
tail below threshold

Unknown

None

Ceramic Neolithic

Central Anato- FRENCH, 1998

lia

Tell Ain el-Kerkh

Pig

6 months

Near human child, in sealed

structure

Ceramic Neolithic

Northern
Levant

buildings at Khirokitia. One burial contained an adult sheep or

goat, the other includes four young sheep or goats, and the latter are located near a human adult burial38. Unfortunately, few
details have been published about these caprine burials at Khirokitia.
In most cases where we have information about age, the
animals buried are relatively young. In one case (the pregnant
Basta cow) the animal burial was associated with new life.
Some of these animals were not buried as intact carcasses.
The Basta cow was butchered and defleshed, then the bones
were carefully placed in roughly anatomical position to reconstruct the skeleton, with the foetus in place. The Kfar
HaHoresh gazelle is headless, and the Tell Ain el-Kerkh pig
had been partially dismembered and stacked in a pile.
In contrast to some of the Natufian dog burials, these animals are generally not buried in direct association with a
human skeleton, although several are buried near humans or
found with a few disarticulated human bones. The only direct
association in a burial occurs at Tell Ain el Kerkh where a
human infant and an infant suid occur along with a pile of
jumbled animal bones in the same stone-lined pit. The well at
38. DIKAIOS, 1953 : 67, 77, 222 ; KING, 1953 : 435.

TSUNEKI, 2002

Kissonerga-Mylouthkia is not really a burial, but contains

deliberately deposited intact animals. The human specimens
that accompany them suggest that this is a ritual deposit rather
than disposal of diseased or otherwise inedible carcasses.
While geographically distant, we should also mention what is
probably the closest parallel to the atalhyk sheep burial :
four adult human burials at Mehrgarh, Pakistan (Period I,
preceramic Neolithic) with infantile goats arrayed around
their feet39.

DISCUSSION
Some have suggested that an association between death
and wild and/or dangerous animals is a key theme of the Near
Eastern Neolithic40, and there are certainly many examples
that fit this idea41. However, animals in burials, including
those associated with human remains, are often domestic,
39. LECHEVALLIER et al., 1982.
40. E.g. HODDER, 1990 ; VERHOEVEN, 2002.
41. E.g. ZDO*AN, 1999 : 51-52.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

80

32_1.book Page 81 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

non-threatening, or young. The atalhyk lamb was probably all three. Thus there is another strand to human-animal
relations and their connection with death and the dead. This
strand is less adversarial, and in at least some cases it would
be easy to interpret the animals as pets. As Vigne and Guilaine
have observed, it is inappropriate to apply present-day notions
of pets or companion animals to the Neolithic42. Certainly not
all dogs and cats (much less cattle and sheep) were treated as
companion animals, as most get no special treatment in death
and may have been skinned and eaten. We suspect that there
were multiple reasons for animal burials, and each case needs
to be analyzed in its own context. We will not attempt a caseby-case analysis of all Near Eastern Neolithic animal burials,
but we will discuss possible explanations for the human-lamb
co-burial at atalhyk in the context of these broader practices.
It seems unlikely that whole animals in human burials, as
opposed to joints of meat, are intended to provide food for the
afterlife. In fact there is little evidence for this practice anywhere in the Neolithic Near East. Another possibility is that
the animal was sacrificed to honour the dead person or propitiate their or other spirits. Sacrifice is difficult to establish
archaeologically, since the difference between sacrifice and
ordinary slaughter is the context in which it occurs. The Basta
cow is a good candidate, and was surely ritually consumed. If
it was domestic, slaughtering a pregnant female would be a
true sacrifice of a highly valuable animal. To a lesser extent,
the same is true of the atalhyk lamb, if it was indeed
female, as it would have formed a part of the breeding stock;
normally it is the young males that are culled. However, while
sacrifice may well have been practiced at atalhyk, burial
of sacrificial animals was not part of the usual ritual. Thus
although the sheep may have been sacrificed, this seems an
insufficient explanation for its burial.
Intact animals found in human burials or buried like
humans are often taken to be pets, that is, animals that have
been taken into the family and granted a quasi-human status43.
The dog and cat burials, and the general pattern of young animals in burials found at various Neolithic sites, fit this model,
although other explanations are possible. While most sheep at
atalhyk were raised for meat, this does not preclude one
of them being a pet. However, this does not seem likely, given
the great care taken to avoid contact between the human and
sheep bodies, and the awkward burial position of the sheep,
42. VIGNE and GUILAINE, 2004.
43. E.g. VALLA, 1996 : 660 ; MOREY, 2006.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

81

which does not bespeak affection. This contrasts with the

famous Natufian Ain Mallaha burial, where the persons hand
lies on the dogs head44. On the other hand, the inclusion of
the sheep with a human in a burial does indicate some form of
special relationship between the two.
Animals in human burials have sometimes been interpreted as shamans animal familiars (a spirit helper in animal
form), or spirit guides leading the dead to the afterworld45,
and such a role has been suggested for canids and vultures in
the Near Eastern Neolithic based on artistic representations46.
A lamb would be an unusual spirit helper (carnivores and
birds seem to be more typical), and, as noted above, sheep do
not appear to have been of major symbolic significance at
atalhyk. The general lack of animals in atalhyk burials does not indicate a concept of the need for an animal guide
to the afterworld. And we would expect that the intimate bond
with an animal familiar would preclude the aversion to touch
seen in this case. On the other hand, there might be ambivalent
feelings among the living about a dead shamans animal
familiar.
It has been suggested that the goats in the Mehrgarh burials mark the people with them as shepherds, and one could
interpret the atalhyk burial in the same way. We have
noted that most atalhyk grave goods appear to be personal
possessions. However, in contrast to Period I at Mehrgarh,
sheep herding must have been very common, probably the
norm, at atalhyk. If nearly everyone, or every member of
certain age/gender categories, was a shepherd, then it is
unclear why only this particular person was so marked in
death. Perhaps he was especially wealthy in livestock.
There may be elements of several of these possibilities
involved in this human-sheep relationship. Tani points out
that creating domestic animal herds requires breaking vertical bonds between mother and offspring and fostering horizontal bonds among age-mates47. Shepherds accomplish this
by removing lambs from their mothers for much of the time
and grouping them together, while taming the lambs. To control the herd, shepherds commonly develop especially close
relationships with one or a few animals, which then act as
herd leaders. Prototypically these are bell-wethers, but may
also be intact males or females. It is possible that this burial
represents a particularly intense relationship of this kind.

44.
45.
46.
47.

DAVIS and VALLA, 1978.

E.g. COLLINS, 1991 ; WING, 1984.
HELMER et al., 2004.
TANI, 1996.

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

Worthy is the Lamb : a Double Burial at Neolithic atalhyk (Turkey)

32_1.book Page 82 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

In any case, it is clear that the context we have encountered is highly exceptional. Burial of intact animals in human
graves is otherwise unknown in the Neolithic Near East.
Although hundreds of burials have been excavated at atalhyk, this is the only one containing an animal. Perhaps this
is the crux of the matter : the personal ties between the dead
man and this particular lamb were so strong that it was felt
necessary to include it, but concern over this transgression of
human-animal boundaries was expressed by maintaining a
certain separation between the two bodies, as well as the subsequent interments. It may be significant that the sheep is
probably domestic, as the human-animal boundary tends to be
drawn more sharply with domestic animals48. Despite the
ambivalence about the lamb, the echoing of the position and
orientation of the man buried with it in the subsequent burials
in this location suggest that he was regarded not as a pariah,
but as a respected ancestor.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDREWS P., MOLLESON T. and BOZ B.
2005
The human burials at atalhyk. In : HODDER I. (ed.), Inhabiting atalhyk : reports from the 1995-1999 seasons :
261-278. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
BECKER C.
2002

BOESSNECK J.
1969
Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linn)
and goat (Capra hircus Linn). In : BROTHWELL D.R. and
HIGGS E.S. (eds), Science in archaeology : a survey of progress and research : 331-358. London : Thames and Hudson.
BOZ B. and HAGER L.
2004
Human remains. atalhyk Archive Reports 2004.
(http : //www.catalhoyuk.com).
BRADLEY R.
2001
Humans, animals and the domestication of visual images.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11,2 : 261-263.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our colleagues on the atalhyk Project

in general, and Basak Boz, Claire Christensen, Rebecca Daly, Lori
Hager, Ian Hodder, and Marin Pilloud in particular. We are grateful
to Medy Oberendorff, Sophie Lamb, Mark Roughley, and John
Swogger, the creators of Figures 1, 2, 5, and 6 respectively. This
paper has benefited from comments on an earlier version by Chiara
Cavallo, Shahina Farid, Lori Hager, Katheryn Twiss, Melinda
Zeder, and three anonymous reviewers. Bleda Dring worked on this
paper in the course of a Ph.D. funded by the Faculty of Archaeology,
Leiden University.

Nerissa RUSSELL
Department of Anthropology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
nr29@cornell.edu

Bleda S. DRING
Institute of Archaeology
University College London
31-34 Gordon Square
London WC1 0PY
United Kingdom
bsduring@yahoo.com

CESSFORD C.
2001
A new dating sequence for atalhyk. Antiquity 75,290 :
717-725.
CLUTTON-BROCK J., DENNIS-BRYAN K., ARMITAGE P.L. and JEWELL P.A.
1990
Osteology of the Soay sheep. Bulletin of the British Museum
of Natural History 56,1.
COLLINS P.W.
1991
Interaction between island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) and
Native Americans on islands off the coast of southern California II, Ethnographic, archaeological, and historic evidence. Journal of Ethnobiology 11/2 : 205-229.
CROFT P.
2003

The animal bones. In : PELTENBURG E.J. (ed.), The colonisation and settlement of Cyprus : investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996 : 49-58. Gteborg : Paul
strms (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 70,4).

DAVIDSON I.
1999
Symbols by nature : animal frequencies in the Upper Palaeolithic of western Europe and the nature of symbolic representation. Archaeology in Oceania 34 : 121-131.
DAVIS S.J.M. and VALLA F.R.
1978
Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in
the Natufian of Israel. Nature 276 : 608-610.
DIKAIOS P.
1953

48. BRADLEY, 2001 ; INGOLD, 1994.

Nothing to do with indigenous domestication ? Cattle from

Late PPNB Basta. In : BUITENHUIS H., CHOYKE A.M., MASHKOUR M. and AL-SHIYAB A.H. (eds), Archaeozoology of the
Near East V : 112-137. Groningen : Center for Archaeological
Research and Consultancy (ARC Publicatie 62).

Khirokitia : final report on the excavation of a Neolithic settlement in Cyprus. London : Oxford University Press.

DRING B.S.
2003
Burials in context : the 1960s inhumations of atalhyk
East. Anatolian Studies 53 : 1-15.
2004
Spaces 112 and 231. atalhyk Archive Reports 2004.
(http : //www.catalhoyuk.com)

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

82

32_1.book Page 83 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

FARID S.
in press

1967
South area excavations. In : HODDER I. (ed.), Excavating
atalhyk : South, North and KOPAL area reports from the
1995-1999 seasons. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.

FRENCH D.H.
1998
Canhasan sites 1. Canhasan I : stratigraphy and structures.
London : British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 23).
GRANT A.
1982

The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In : WILSON B., GRIGSON C. and PAYNE S. (eds),
Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites :
91-108. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 109).

HAMILTON N.
1996
Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials. In : HODDER I.
(ed.), On the surface : atalhyk 1993-95 : 215-263. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
2005
Social aspects of burial. In : HODDER I. (ed.), Inhabiting
atalhyk : reports from the 1995-1999 seasons : 301-306.
Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
HELMER D., GOURICHON L. et STORDEUR D.
2004
A l'aube de la domestication animale : imaginaire et symbolisme animal dans les premires socits nolithiques du nord
du Proche-Orient. Anthropozoologica 39 : 143-163.
HODDER I.
1990
2004

The domestication of Europe : structure and contingency in

Neolithic societies. Oxford : Basil Blackwell.
Women and men at atalhyk. Scientific American 290,1 :
66-73.

HORWITZ L.R.K. and GORING-MORRIS A.N.

2004
Animals and ritual during the Levantine PPNB : a case study
from the site of Kfar Hahoresh, Israel. Anthropozoologica
39 : 165-178.
INGOLD T.
1994

KING J.E.
1953

83

From trust to domination : an alternative history of humananimal relations. In : MANNING A. and SERPELL J.A. (eds),
Animals and human society : changing perspectives : 1-22.
London : Routledge.
Appendix III : mammal bones from Khirokitia and Erimi. In :
DIKAIOS P. (ed.), Khirokitia : final report on the excavation
of a Neolithic settlement in Cyprus : 431-437. London :
Oxford University Press.

LECHEVALLIER M., MEADOW R.H. et QUIVRON G.

1982
Dpts d'animaux dans les spultures nolithiques de Mehrgarh, Pakistan. Palorient 8,1 : 99-106.
LINCOLN G.A.
1998
Reproductive seasonality and maturation throughout the
complete life-cycle in the mouflon ram (Ovis musimon). Animal Reproduction Science 53 : 87-105.
MELLAART J.
1964
Excavations at atal Hyk, 1963 : third preliminary report.
Anatolian Studies 14 : 39-119.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

atal Hyk : a neolithic town in Anatolia. London : Thames

and Hudson.

MOREY D.F.
2006
Burying key evidence : the social bond between dogs and
people. Journal of Archaeological Science 33 : 158-175.
ZDO*AN A.
1999
ayn. In : ZDO*AN M. and BAGELEN N. (eds), Neolithic in Turkey : 35-63. Istanbul : Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yaynlar.
PAYNE S.
1985

Morphological distinctions between the mandibular teeth of

young sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12 : 139-147.

PERKINS D. JR.
1969
Fauna of atal Hyk : evidence for early cattle domestication in Anatolia. Science 164,3876 : 177-179.
RICHARDS M.P., PEARSON J.A., MOLLESON T., RUSSELL N. and MARTIN L.
2003
Stable isotope evidence of diet at Neolithic atalhyk, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 30,1 : 67-76.
ROSENBERG M. and PEASNALL B.L.
1998
A report on soundings at Demirky Hyk : an Aceramic
Neolithic site in eastern Anatolia. Anatolica 24 : 195-207.
RUSSELL N. and MARTIN L.
2005
The atalhyk mammal remains. In : HODDER I. (ed.),
Inhabiting atalhyk : reports from the 1995-1999
seasons : 35-95. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
RUSSELL N., MARTIN L. and BUITENHUIS H.
2005
Cattle domestication at atalhyk revisited. Current
Anthropology 46,5 : S101-S108.
RUSSELL N. and MEECE S.
2006
Animal representations and animal remains at atalhyk.
In : HODDER I. (ed.), atalhyk perspectives : themes from
the 1995-1999 seasons : 209-230. Cambridge : McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research.
SANTIAGO-MORENO J., GONZLEZ-BULNES A., GMEZ-BRUNET A. and
LPEZ-SEBASTIN A.
2000
Effect of birth date on body weight, scrotal circumference
and horn dimension growth in captive juvenile mouflon
(Ovis gmelini musimon) rams. Game and Wildlife Science
17,3 : 179-187.
STEVANOVIC M. and TRINGHAM R.
2000
The excavation of the Bach 1 area. atalhyk Archive
Reports 2000. (http : //www.catalhoyuk.com).
TANI Y.
1996

Domestic animal as serf : ideologies of nature in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. In : ELLEN R.F. and FUKUI K.
(eds), Redefining nature : ecology, culture and domestication : 387-415. Oxford : Berg.

TCHERNOV E. and VALLA F.R.

1997
Two new dogs, and other Natufian dogs from the southern
Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 24 : 65-95.

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

Worthy is the Lamb : a Double Burial at Neolithic atalhyk (Turkey)

32_1.book Page 84 Mardi, 28. novembre 2006 5:10 17

TSUNEKI A.
2002
A Neolithic foundation deposit at Tell Ain el-Kerkh. In :
GEBEL H.G.K., HERMANSEN B.D. and HOFFMAN JENSEN
C. (eds), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern
Neolithic : 133-143. Berlin : ex oriente.
VALLA F.R.
1996
L'animal bon penser : la domestication et la place de
l'homme dans la nature. In : OTTE M. (d.), Nature et Culture : 651-667. Lige : Universit de Lige (tudes et
Recherches Archologiques de l'Universit de Lige 68).
VERHOEVEN M.
2002
Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the
Levant and southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 12,2 : 233-258.

N. RUSSELL and B.S. DRING

VIGNE J.D. et GUILAINE J.

2004
Les premiers animaux de compagnie, 8 500 ans avant notre
re ? ... ou comment j'ai mang mon chat, mon chien et mon
renard. Anthropozoologica 39 : 249-273.
VIGNE J.D., GUILAINE J., DEBUE K., HAYE L. and GRARD P.
2004
Early taming of the cat in Cyprus. Science 304,9 : 259.
WING E.S.
1984

Use and abuse of dogs. In : GENOWAYS H.H. and DAWSON

M.R. (eds), Contributions in quaternary vertebrate paleontology : a volume immemorial to John E. Guiday : 228-232.
Pittsburg : Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Special
Publications 8).

ZEDER M.A.
2006
Reconciling rates of long bone fusion and tooth eruption and
wear in sheep (Ovis) and goat (Capra). In : RUSCILLO D.
(ed.), Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones :
87-118. Oxford : Oxbow.

Palorient, vol. 32/1, p. 73-84 CNRS DITIONS 2006

Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS Tirs part CNRS DITIONS

84