This past Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the Annual Student Symposium run by the archaeological society at Brock, better known as BUAS. While I had originally intended to post on the first paper which dealt with repatriation, I figure that I often talk about repatriation (and I still plan on writing on the Parthenon Marbles..) and so instead I will focus on another aspect that we've discussed in class: the responsibilities of how to portray artifacts and cultural heritage.
The last paper of the Symposium, by Colin Pipher, entitled "Dirty Pictures: An examination of pornographic megaliths from the site of Göbekli Tepe," first outlined the archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe in modern day Turkey and the uncertainty behind its function.
The site, resembling Stonehenge but larger, dates to circa 9600 BCE.
It is the oldest known example of monumental architecture, and Colin Pipher postulates that the site indicates the possibility that religion may have preceded urbanization and agriculture. He also, as the title of the talk indicates, examined the pornographic images on the megaliths, which are not widely looked at. He believes that magazines that have published about the site have deliberately avoided something that must have been important to the cultures at Göbekli Tepe, and have politicized the site. For example, this National Geographic article does not even mention the existence of the images.
We, as laypeople not actually on the site, rely on those with the information to interpret the site in a way which actually represents what it may have been, trusting that those who weave the stories will do so accurately. But what if we find out that there's an entire aspect which has been neglected? Is it right for magazines such as National Geographic to not even mention these erotic images? Yes, audience is something that must be kept in mind, but just because something in a civilization is unpalatable to our modern sensitivities, does that mean it should be ignored? Take for instance the Aztecs who sacrificed not only their enemies, but also select maidens to the gods. It's something you learn about when you are little, because that's just the way they were, and you can't talk about the Aztecs and their impressive architecture without mentioning the function of the pyramids as a place for sacrifice. Just because we may be uncomfortable with an idea does not mean that the idea is unlikely or false, as proven by the evidence of human sacrifice associated with Aztec sites and accounts.
Because the exact function of Göbekli Tepe is still debated, I think it's even more important to report on all the images, because they give the site different possibilities. Without the erotic images, the site can be seen as a place for worship, for trade, burial grounds, etc. With these images, it could also be a brothel. Some postulate that the erect phallus may pictures may indicate homoerotic activity or a homosexual cult of worship within Göbekli Tepe. Or perhaps the pictures really mean nothing at all. Only time may tell what their significance was, but for now, I think it's only fair for the public to be aware that they exist. To make my point: after hearing of their existence I searched the internet for mention of these images or for the images themselves, and suffice it to say, few sites which discuss Göbekli Tepe also discuss the erotic images at any length. Here is one of them. Happy hunting!
The last paper of the Symposium, by Colin Pipher, entitled "Dirty Pictures: An examination of pornographic megaliths from the site of Göbekli Tepe," first outlined the archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe in modern day Turkey and the uncertainty behind its function.
 |
| Reconstruction of Göbekli Tepe |
It is the oldest known example of monumental architecture, and Colin Pipher postulates that the site indicates the possibility that religion may have preceded urbanization and agriculture. He also, as the title of the talk indicates, examined the pornographic images on the megaliths, which are not widely looked at. He believes that magazines that have published about the site have deliberately avoided something that must have been important to the cultures at Göbekli Tepe, and have politicized the site. For example, this National Geographic article does not even mention the existence of the images.
We, as laypeople not actually on the site, rely on those with the information to interpret the site in a way which actually represents what it may have been, trusting that those who weave the stories will do so accurately. But what if we find out that there's an entire aspect which has been neglected? Is it right for magazines such as National Geographic to not even mention these erotic images? Yes, audience is something that must be kept in mind, but just because something in a civilization is unpalatable to our modern sensitivities, does that mean it should be ignored? Take for instance the Aztecs who sacrificed not only their enemies, but also select maidens to the gods. It's something you learn about when you are little, because that's just the way they were, and you can't talk about the Aztecs and their impressive architecture without mentioning the function of the pyramids as a place for sacrifice. Just because we may be uncomfortable with an idea does not mean that the idea is unlikely or false, as proven by the evidence of human sacrifice associated with Aztec sites and accounts.
Because the exact function of Göbekli Tepe is still debated, I think it's even more important to report on all the images, because they give the site different possibilities. Without the erotic images, the site can be seen as a place for worship, for trade, burial grounds, etc. With these images, it could also be a brothel. Some postulate that the erect phallus may pictures may indicate homoerotic activity or a homosexual cult of worship within Göbekli Tepe. Or perhaps the pictures really mean nothing at all. Only time may tell what their significance was, but for now, I think it's only fair for the public to be aware that they exist. To make my point: after hearing of their existence I searched the internet for mention of these images or for the images themselves, and suffice it to say, few sites which discuss Göbekli Tepe also discuss the erotic images at any length. Here is one of them. Happy hunting!
Hello Ana. This is Colin Pipher here. What an honour, I've never been blogged about before (well, at least, not to my knowledge..)
ReplyDeleteThank you for your wonderful and succinct synopsis of my symposium presentation. I agree heartily. I also feel that the lead archaeologist Schmidt has completely politicized the site in an effort to tear down Childe and place his name in the history books instead.
In fact, thinking about it now, it possible that Schmidt has downplayed these phalliocentric elements of Gobekli Tepe because they divert attention away from those features which he has identified which he believes contradict Childe's teachings. The plot thickens once again...
Grateful for your interest, keep on blogging!!!
Fascinating! I had not even heard of the site, let alone the controversy! Glad to know you young and aspiring archaeologists will keep the old "scholars" in check!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work! =)