Göbekli Tepe#Large enclosures

File:Göbekli Tepe surrounding area.JPGGöbekli Tepe is located in the Taş Tepeler ('Stone Hills'), in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains.{{sfn|Clare et al.|2017|p=17}} It overlooks the Harran plain and the headwaters of the Balikh River, a tributary of the Euphrates.{{sfn|Clare et al.|2017|p=17}} The site is a tell (artificial mound) on a flat limestone plateau.{{sfn|Knitter et al.|2019}} In the north, a narrow promontory connects the plateau to the neighbouring mountains. The ridge descends steeply into slopes and cliffs in all other directions.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=102}}

The climate of the area was warmer and wetter when Göbekli Tepe was occupied than it is today.{{sfn|Knitter et al.|2019}} The site was surrounded by an open steppe grassland,{{sfn|Knitter et al.|2019}} with abundant wild cereals, including einkorn, wheat, and barley,{{sfn|Neef|2003}} and herds of grazing animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids.{{sfn|Peters et al.|2013}} Large herds of goitered gazelle may have passed by the site in seasonal migrations.{{sfn|Lang et al.|2013}} There is no evidence of substantial woodlands nearby;{{sfn|Knitter et al.|2019}} 90% of the charcoal recovered at the site was from pistachio or almond trees.{{sfn|Neef|2003|p=14}}

Like most Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in the Urfa region, Göbekli Tepe was built at a high point on the edge of the mountains, giving it a wide view over the plain beneath and good visibility from the plain.{{sfn|Moetz|Çelik|2012}} This location also gave the builders good access to raw material: the soft limestone bedrock from which the complex was built and the flint to make the tools to work the limestone.{{sfn|Moetz|Çelik|2012}} The prehistoric village acquired drinking water through a rainwater harvesting system, consisting of carved channels{{Sfn|Clare|2020|p=84-85}} that fed several cisterns carved into the bedrock under the site,{{sfn|Herrmann|Schmidt|2012}} which could hold at least {{convert|150|m3}} of water.{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2019}}{{sfn|Curry|2021}} Additionally, the local water table may have been higher, activating springs closer to the site that are dormant today.{{sfn|Banning|2011}}

Excavations have taken place at the southern slope of the tell, south, and west of a mulberry that marks an Islamic pilgrimage,{{sfn|Schmidt|2009|p=188}} but archaeological finds come from the entire plateau. The team also found many tools that remain. At the western escarpment, a small cave was discovered, and a small relief depicting a bovid was found. It is the only relief found in this cave.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=111}}

Göbekli Tepe was built and occupied during the earliest part of the Southwest Asian Neolithic, known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN, {{BCE|{{Circa|9600}}–7000}}).{{sfn|Gresky|Haelm|Clare|2017}} Beginning at the end of the last Ice Age, the PPN marks "the beginnings of village life",{{sfn|Banning|2002}} producing the earliest evidence for permanent human settlements in the world.{{sfn|Banning|2002}}{{sfn|Watkins|2017}} Archaeologists have long associated the appearance of these settlements with the Neolithic Revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture—but disagree on whether the adoption of farming caused people to settle down, or settling down caused people to adopt farming.{{sfn|Watkins|2010}} Despite the name, the Neolithic Revolution in Southwest Asia was "drawn out and locally variable".{{sfn|Hodder|2018}} Elements of village life appeared as early as 10,000 years before the Neolithic in places,{{sfn|Zeder|Smith|2009}}{{sfn|Maher|Richter|Stock|2012}} and the transition to agriculture took thousands of years, with different paces and trajectories in different regions.{{sfn|Fuller|Willcox|Allaby|2012}}{{sfn|Arbuckle|2014}} Archaeologists divide the Pre-Pottery Neolithic into two subperiods: the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA, {{BCE|{{Circa|9600}}–8800 }}) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, {{Circa|8800}} and {{BCE|7000}}).{{sfn|Watkins|2017}} The earliest phases at Göbekli Tepe have been dated to the PPNA; later phases to the PPNB.{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|pp=32–33}}

Evidence indicates the inhabitants of Göbekli Tepe were hunter-gatherers who supplemented their diet with early forms of domesticated cereal and lived in villages for at least part of the year. Tools such as grinding stones, mortars, and pestles found at the site have been analysed and suggest considerable cereal processing. Archaeozoological evidence hints at "large-scale hunting of gazelle between midsummer and autumn."{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2019}}

PPN villages consisted mainly of clusters of stone or mud brick houses,{{sfn|Banning|2002}} but sometimes also substantial monuments and large buildings.{{sfn|Watkins|2017}} These include the tower and walls at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), as well as large, roughly contemporaneous circular buildings at Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori, Çayönü, Wadi Feynan 16, Jerf el-Ahmar, Tell 'Abr 3, and Tepe Asiab.{{sfn|Richter et al.|2021|p=2}} Archaeologists typically associate these structures with communal activities which, together with the communal effort needed to build them, helped to maintain social interactions in PPN communities as they grew in size.{{sfn|Richter et al.|2021|pp=15–17}}

The T-shaped pillar tradition seen at Göbekli Tepe is unique to the Urfa region but is found at most PPN sites.{{sfn|Güler|Çelik|Güler|2012}} These include Nevalı Çori, Hamzan Tepe,{{sfn|Çelik|2010}} Karahan Tepe,{{sfn|Çelik|2011}} Harbetsuvan Tepesi,{{sfn|Çelik|2016}} Sefer Tepe,{{sfn|Güler|Çelik|Güler|2012}} and Taslı Tepe.{{sfn|Güler|Çelik|Güler|2013}} Other stone stelae—without the characteristic T shape—have been documented at contemporary sites further afield, including Çayönü, Qermez Dere, and Gusir Höyük.{{sfn|Dietrich|2016a}}

{{Location map+ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

|relief=1

|width=300

|float=right

|caption=Known PPN sites in the Urfa region.{{sfn|Moetz|Çelik|2012}}{{sfn|Güler|Çelik|Güler|2013}}{{sfn|Çelik|2016}} Sites with T-shaped pillars are marked with 13px.

|places=

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label = Göbekli Tepe

| position = top

| background = white

| label_width = 150

| lat_deg = 37.22

| lon_deg = 38.92

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label = Karahan Tepe   

| label_width = 8

| position = top

| lat_deg = 37.09

| lon_deg = 39.30

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = left

| lat_deg = 37.08

| lon_deg = 38.80

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = left

| lat_deg = 37.16

| lon_deg = 38.79

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label = Nevalı Çori

| lat_deg = 37.52

| lon_deg = 38.61

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| lat_deg = 37.19

| lon_deg = 39.49

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| lat_deg = 37.15

| lon_deg = 39.50

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F4.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = bottom

| lat_deg = 37.13

| lon_deg = 39.49

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F4.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = left

| label_width = 8

| lat_deg = 37.21

| lon_deg = 39.48

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = top

| lat_deg = 37.37

| lon_deg = 39.28

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = left

| lat_deg = 37.26

| lon_deg = 39.41

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F4.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

{{Location map~ | Turkey Şanlıurfa

| label =

| position = left

| lat_deg = 37.05

| lon_deg = 39.25

| mark = Emojione BW 1F1F9.svg

| marksize = 13

}}

}}

Radiocarbon dating shows that the earliest exposed structures at Göbekli Tepe were built between 9500 and {{BCE|9000}}, towards the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period.{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2013}}{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|pp=32–33}} The site was significantly expanded in the early {{BCE|9th millennium}} and remained in use until around {{BCE|8000}}, or perhaps slightly later (the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, PPNB).{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|pp=32–33}} There is evidence that smaller groups returned to live amongst the ruins after the Neolithic structures were abandoned.{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|pp=32–33}}

Schmidt originally dated the site to the PPN based on the types of stone tools found there, considering a PPNA date "most probable".{{sfn|Schmidt|2000b|p=51}} Establishing its absolute chronology took longer due to methodological challenges.{{sfn|Dietrich|2011}}{{sfn|Dietrich|2016b}} Though the first two radiocarbon dates were published in 1998,{{sfn|Kromer|Schmidt|1998}} these and other samples from the {{archaeogloss|fill}} of the structure dated to the late 10th and early 9th millennium – 500 to 1,000 years later than expected for a PPNA site.{{sfn|Dietrich|2011}} Schmidt's team explained the discrepancy in light of their theory that this material was brought to the site from elsewhere when it was abandoned, and so was not representative of the actual use of the structures.{{sfn|Dietrich|2011}}{{sfn|Dietrich|2016b}} They instead turned to a novel method of dating organic material preserved in the plaster on the structure's walls, which resulted in dates more consistent with a PPNA occupation, in the middle or even early {{BCE|10th millennium}}.{{sfn|Pustovoytov|2002}}{{sfn|Dietrich|Schmidt|2010}}{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2013}} Subsequent research led to a significant revision of Schmidt's chronology, including the abandonment of the hypothesis that the fill of the structures was brought from elsewhere, and a recognition that direct dates on plaster are affected by the old wood effect.{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=38}} Together with new radiocarbon dates, this has established the site's absolute chronology as falling in the period 9500 to {{BCE|8000}} – the late PPNA and PPNB.{{sfn|Clare|2020}}{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020}}

The preliminary, now abandoned,{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32}} stratigraphic model by Klaus Schmidt consisted of three architectural layers. The large circular enclosures were attributed to Layer III, dated to the {{BCE|10th millennium}} (PPNA). The smaller rectangular structures and the abandonment of the site were assigned to Layer II in the {{BCE|9th millennium}} (early to middle PPNB). Layer I consisted of all post-Neolithic activities up to the modern surface.{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2013}}

The revised chronology consists of eight phases that span at least 1,500 years. It details the history of the large circular enclosures, including events that led to their alteration or abandonment, and the evolution of the domestic buildings surrounding them.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32-33}}

• Phase 1: The earliest settlement phase dates to the second half of the {{BCE|10th millennium}} and includes the first versions of enclosures A to D and round-oval domestic structures, which indicate a (semi) sedentary lifestyle.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32}}
• Phase 2: In the second phase (early {{BCE|9th millennium}}), significant modifications of enclosures A-D were undertaken: New walls were erected, which incorporated the first monolithic T-shaped pillars. An increasing number of domestic structures were built, still mostly oval-round, though with a rising tendency for a rectangular floor plan.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32}}
• Phases 3–5: In the early PPNB, the northern and western slopes saw the erection of rectangular (domestic) structures. They underwent multiple construction phases, such as adding benches with a T-shaped pillar and new inner walls, resulting in more rectangular rooms. The large enclosures were modified as well. Walls were repaired, and new ones were added. Benches were placed against the interior sides of phase 2 walls.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32-33}}
  At the end of the early PPNB, a slope slide inundated the lower-lying structures, flushing sediments and domestic rubble (likely including midden and burials) downhill. This caused extensive damage to enclosure D and led to stabilisation works in Phase 5. Building C was reconstructed for the last time, and a terrace wall was placed above it to prevent future slope slides. Nonetheless, a second major slope-slide event occurred, which likely resulted in enclosure D being abandoned in the late {{BCE|9th millennium}}.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32-33}}
• Phases 6 and 7: Building activity gradually declined in phases 6 and 7 (late 9th to early {{BCE|8th millennium}}). The loss of enclosures B and D may have led to the construction of building G and the "Lion Pillar Building". In Phase 7, another terrace wall was constructed in a last attempt to stabilise the northern slope.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=33}}
• Phase 8: In the final occupation period, small habitation structures were built within the remains of the abandoned Neolithic village.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=33}}

File:The archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe - main excavation area.png

The first circular compounds appear around the latter half of the {{BCE|10th millennium}}. They range from {{cvt|10|to|30|m}} in diameter. Their most notable feature is the T-shaped limestone pillars evenly set within thick interior walls of unworked stone. Four such circular structures have been unearthed so far. Geophysical surveys indicate that there are 16 more, enclosing up to eight pillars each, amounting to nearly 200. The slabs were transported from bedrock pits located approximately {{cvt|100|m}} from the hilltop, with workers using flint points to cut through the limestone bedrock.{{sfn|Schmidt|2000b|pp=52–3}} The pillars are the oldest known megaliths in the world.{{sfn|Scham|2008|p=23}}

Two taller pillars stand facing one another at the centre of each circle. Whether the circles were provided with a roof is uncertain. Stone benches designed for sitting are found in the interior.{{sfn|Mithen|2004|p=65}} Many of the pillars are decorated with abstract, enigmatic pictograms and carved animal reliefs. The pictograms may represent commonly understood sacred symbols, as known from Neolithic cave paintings elsewhere. The reliefs depict mammals such as lions, bulls, boars, foxes, gazelle, and donkeys; snakes and other reptiles; arthropods such as insects and arachnids; and birds, particularly vultures. Vultures also feature prominently in the iconography of Çatalhöyük and Jericho.

Few humanoid figures have appeared in the art at Göbekli Tepe. Some of the T-shaped pillars have human arms carved on their lower half; however, this suggests to site excavator Schmidt that they are intended to represent the bodies of stylised humans (or perhaps deities). Loincloths appear on the lower half of a few pillars. Schmidt thought the horizontal stone slab on top symbolised shoulders, which suggests that the figures were left headless.{{sfn|Schmidt|2010|pp=244, 246}} Whether they were intended to serve as surrogate worshippers, symbolise venerated ancestors, or represent supernatural, anthropomorphic beings is unknown.{{citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Some of the floors in this, the oldest layer, are made of terrazzo (burnt lime); others are the bedrock from which pedestals hold the large pair of central pillars, which were carved in high relief.{{sfn|Schmidt|2010|p=251}} Radiocarbon dating places the construction of these early circles {{circa|{{BCE|9000}}}}.

Later enclosures were rectangular, perhaps to make more efficient use of space compared with circular structures. They often are associated with the emergence of the Neolithic,{{sfn|Flannery|Marcus|2012|p=128}} but the T-shaped pillars, the main feature of the older enclosures, also are present here, indicating that the buildings continued to serve the same function in the culture,{{sfn|Schmidt|2010|pp=239, 241}} during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). The adjoining rectangular, doorless, and windowless rooms have polished lime floors reminiscent of Roman terrazzo floors. Carbon dating has yielded dates between 8800 and {{BCE|8000}}.{{sfn|Schmidt|2009|p=291}} Several T-pillars up to 1.5 metres tall occupy the centre of the rooms. A pair decorated with fierce-looking lions is the rationale for the name "lion pillar building" by which their enclosure is known.{{sfn|Schmidt|2009|p=198}}

Urfa_Göbeklitepe_Building_B_5326.jpg|Enclosure B

File:Göbeklitepe_Şanlıurfa.jpg|Enclosure C

File:Göbeklitepe.jpg|Enclosure F

The enclosures, lying over {{Convert|10|m|ft}} below the highest areas of the settlement, were subject to several slope slide events during the occupation period of Göbekli Tepe.{{Sfn|Schönicke|2019|p=217-219}} A particularly severe one occurred at the end of the early PPNB, which inundated enclosure D with rubble of domestic structures and sediments, including burials and midden deposits. This caused severe damage to the enclosure, which led to repairs and stabilisation works to be conducted. At a later point, in Building Phase 5, terrace walls were erected, likely to prevent future damage from such events. However, these measures proved futile when a second major slope slide probably caused the enclosure to be abandoned during Building Phase 6, around the late 9th millennium BCE. Other enclosures suffered a similar fate, which might have led to new enclosures being constructed to replace them.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32-33}}

Previously, it had been assumed that the large enclosures were intentionally back-filled, an interpretation that has fallen out of favour since Klaus Schmidt's death.{{Sfn|Schönicke|2019|p=217}}

In the earliest occupation phase, round-oval domestic structures were built alongside the large enclosures, which indicates a (semi) sedentary lifestyle. Over time, there was an increasing tendency for these buildings to have rectangular floor plans. In the final settlement phase, only small structures were erected.{{Sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=32-33}}

Before any burials were found, Schmidt speculated that graves could have been located in niches behind the walls of the circular building.{{harvnb|Curry|2008b|}}. In 2017, fragments of human crania with incisions were discovered at the site, interpreted as a manifestation of the widespread Neolithic skull cult.{{sfn|Gresky|Haelm|Clare|2017}} Special preparation of human crania in the form of plastered human skulls is known from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period at Levantine sites such as Tell es-Sultan (also known as Jericho), Tell Aswad, and Yiftahel, and later in Anatolia at Çatalhöyük.{{sfn|Stordeur|2003}}{{sfn|Kenyon|1965}}{{sfn|Meskell|2008}}

At the western edge of the hill, a lionlike figure was found. Flint and limestone fragments occur more frequently. It was, therefore, suggested that this could have been a sculpture workshop.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|pp=109–11}} It is unclear, on the other hand, how to classify three phallic depictions from the surface of the southern plateau. They are near the quarries of classical times, making their dating difficult.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=111}}

Apart from the tell, there is an incised platform with two sockets that could have held pillars and a flat bench surrounding it. This platform corresponds to the oldest parts of the tell. Continuing the naming pattern, it is called "complex E". Owing to its similarity to the cult buildings at Nevalı Çori, it has also been called the "Temple of the Rock". Its floor has been carefully hewn out of the bedrock and smoothed, reminiscent of the terrazzo floors of the younger complexes at Göbekli Tepe. Immediately northwest of this area are two cistern-like pits that are believed to be part of complex E. One of these pits has a table-high pin and a staircase with five steps.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=109}}

The uppermost layer of the tell is the shallowest but accounts for the longest period. It consists of loose sediments caused by erosion and the virtually uninterrupted use of the hill for agricultural purposes since it ceased to operate as a ceremonial centre.

Around the beginning of the {{BCE|8th millennium}}, Göbekli Tepe lost its importance. The advent of agriculture and animal husbandry brought new realities to human life in the area, and the "Stone-age zoo" apparently lost whatever significance it had had for the region's older, foraging communities.

The plateau Göbekli Tepe is situated on has been shaped by erosion and quarrying from the Neolithic onwards. There are four {{convert|10|m|ft|adj=mid|-long}} and {{convert|20|cm|in|adj=mid|-wide}} channels on the southern part of the plateau, interpreted as the remains of an ancient quarry from which rectangular blocks were taken. These are possibly related to a square building in the neighbourhood, of which only the foundation is preserved. Presumably, this is the remains of a Roman watchtower that was part of the Limes Arabicus, though this is conjecture.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=105}} Most structures on the plateau seem to result from Neolithic quarrying, with the quarries being used as sources for the huge, monolithic architectural elements. Their profiles were pecked into the rock, with the detached blocks, then levered out of the rock bank.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=105}} Several quarries where round workpieces had been produced were identified. Their status as quarries was confirmed by finding a 3-by-3 metre piece at the southeastern slope of the plateau. Unequivocally, Neolithic are three T-shaped pillars that had not yet been levered from the bedrock. The largest of them lies on the northern plateau. It has a length of {{convert|7|m|0|abbr=on}} and its head has a width of {{convert|3|m|0|abbr=on}}. Its weight may be around 50 tons. The two other unfinished pillars lie on the southern plateau.{{citation needed|date=August 2021}}

Archaeologists disagree on how much labour was needed to construct the site. Schmidt maintained that "the work of quarrying, transporting, and erecting tons of heavy, monolithic, and almost universally well-prepared limestone pillars [...] was not within the capability of a few people".{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|p=252}} Using Thor Heyerdahl's experiments with the moai of Rapa Nui as a reference, he estimated that moving the pillars alone must have involved hundreds of people.{{sfn|Banning|2011}} According to these experiments, one moai of similar size to a T-shaped pillar from Göbekli Tepe would have taken 20 people a year to carve and 50–75 people a week to transport 15 km.{{sfn|Dietrich|Notroff|2015}} Schmidt's team has also cited a 1917 account of the construction of a megalith on the Indonesian island of Nias, which took 525 people three days.{{sfn|Banning|2011}}{{sfn|Dietrich|Notroff|2015}} These estimates underpin their interpretation that the site was built by a large, non-resident workforce,{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=35}} coerced or enticed there by a small religious elite.{{sfn|Schmidt|1999}}{{sfn|Dietrich|Notroff|Schmidt|2017}} However, others estimate that just 7–14 people could have moved the pillars using ropes and water or another lubricant, with techniques used to construct other monuments such as Stonehenge.{{sfn|Banning|2011}} Experiments at Göbekli Tepe itself have suggested that all the PPNB structures currently exposed could have been built by 12–24 people in less than four months, allowing for time spent quarrying stone and gathering, and preparing food.{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|p=37}} These labour estimates are thought to be within the capability of a single extended family or village community in the Neolithic.{{sfn|Banning|2011}} They also match the number of people that could have comfortably been inside one of the buildings simultaneously.{{sfn|Kinzel|Clare|2020|pp=38–44}}

Enclosures B, C, and D were initially planned as a single, hierarchical complex that forms an equilateral triangle, according to Haklay and Gopher.{{sfn|Haklay|Gopher|2020}}

Göbekli Tepe is littered with flint artifacts, from the ridge-top site to the slopes.{{Sfn|Benedict|1980|p=179}} The tool assemblage found resembles that of other Northern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (settlement) sites.{{Sfn|Breuers|Kinzel|2022|p=484}}

In 1963, over 3,000 Neolithic tools were uncovered, the vast majority of excellent quality flint, only a handful of obsidian. Cores, various blades, flakes, scrapers, burins, and projectile points, were the most common tool types.{{Sfn|Benedict|1980|p=181-182}}

Excavations of Space 16, a small building adjacent to enclosure D, yielded almost 700 tools. Most common were retouched artifacts, followed by scrapers, perforators, and artifacts with gloss. Heavy duty tools, burins and microliths were also present.{{Sfn|Breuers|Kinzel|2022|p=478-479}}

Over 7,000 grinding stones have been found, spanning the entirety of the site's usage, which are suggested to have been used to process cereal based on phytoliths found in associated soil. However, it is unclear whether the cereal was wild or cultivated.{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2019}}

File:Şanlıurfa Müzesi Göbeklitepe D Tapınağı.jpg

The stone pillars in the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe are T-shaped, similar to other Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the region.{{sfn|Schmidt|2015|pp=285–292}} Unlike at these other sites, however, many of the pillars are carved – typically in low relief, though sometimes in high relief. Most carvings depict animals, mostly serpents, foxes, and boars, but also gazelle, mouflon (wild sheep), onager, ducks, and vultures. Insofar as they can be identified, the animals are male and often depicted with an aggressive posture.{{sfn|Schmidt|2012|p=152}}{{sfn|Peters|Schmidt|2004|pp=183–185, 206}}

Abstract shapes are also depicted as upright or horizontal H-shaped symbols, crescents, and disks. Depictions of humans are rare; pillar 43 in enclosure D includes a headless man with an erect phallus. However, the 'T'-shape of the pillars themselves is anthropomorphic: the shaft is the body, and the top is the head. This is confirmed by the fact that some pillars include – in addition to animal reliefs – carvings of arms, hands, and loincloths.{{sfn|Schmidt|2012|p=153–155}}

The two central pillars occupied a special place in the symbolic architecture of the enclosures. Those in Enclosure D represent humans, with arms, a belt, and a piece of cloth that hides the genitals. The sex of the individuals depicted cannot be identified, though Schmidt suggested that they are two men because the belts they wear are a male attribute in the period. There is only one certain representation of a woman, depicted naked on a slab.{{sfn|Schmidt|2012|p=153–155}}

Schmidt and zooarchaeologist Joris Peters have argued that the variety of fauna depicted on the pillars means they likely do not express a single iconography. They suggest that, since many of the animals pictured are predators, the stones may have been intended to stave off evils through some form of magic representation or served as totems.{{sfn|Peters|Schmidt|2004|pp=209–12}}

File:Göbekli Tepe Pillar.JPG|Pillar 10, Enclosure B: fox

File:Göbeklitepe Building C 5372 (cropped).jpg|Pillar 12, Enclosure C: ducks and boar

File:Göbeklitepe Building C sept 2019 5373crop.jpg|Pillar 27, Enclosure C: predator (perhaps a felid) hunting a boar

File:Göbekli2012-11.jpg|Pillar 37 (central), Enclosure C: fox

File:Vulture Stone, Gobekli Tepe, Sanliurfa, South-east Anatolia, Turkey (cropped).jpg|Pillar 43, Enclosure D: the "Vulture Stone"

The structures at Göbekli Tepe have also yielded some smaller carved stones, which typically cannot be attributed to one period or another. The iconography of these objects is similar to that of the pillars, mostly depicting animals but also humans, again primarily male.{{sfn|Schmidt|2011|pp=929–930}}{{sfn|Dietrich et al.|2019|p=26}}

File:Urfa museum Animal relief sept 2019 4772.jpg|Carved stone with animal (possibly a reptile, felid, or wolverine) in high relief

File:Urfa museum Boar statue sept 2019 4766.jpg|Boar statuette with legs

File:Urfa_museum_Totem_sept_2019_4806.jpg|Sculptured stone pole

File:Göbekli2012-27.jpg|Boar statuette without legs

File:Urfa museum Animal statuette sept 2019 4754.jpg|Head of an animal

One of the structures contained a "totem pole" dating to the early PPNB. Reassembled, it is {{Convert|192|cm|ft}} tall and {{Convert|30|cm|ft}} in diameter. It depicts three figures (from top to bottom): a predator (a bear or large felid) with a missing head and the neck and arms of a human; another figure missing a head with human arms, likely male; and a third figure with a head that had survived intact. Snakes are carved on either side.{{sfn|Köksal-Schmidt|Schmidt|2010}}

{{Update|section|date=November 2022}}

Klaus Schmidt's view was that Göbekli Tepe was a stone-age mountain sanctuary.{{citation needed|date=November 2022}} He suggested it was a central location for a cult of the dead and that the carved animals are there to protect the dead.{{citation needed|date=November 2022}} Butchered bones found in large numbers from the local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese have been identified as refuse from food hunted and cooked or otherwise prepared for the congregants.{{sfn|Peters|Schmidt|2004|p=207}} Zooarchaeological analysis shows that gazelle were only seasonally present in the region, suggesting that events such as rituals and feasts were likely timed to occur during periods when game availability was at its peak.{{sfn|Lang et al.|2013}} Schmidt saw the construction of Göbekli Tepe as contributing to the later development of urban civilization.{{sfn|Schmidt|2000|}}File:UrfaMuseumGöbekli.jpg ]]

Schmidt also speculated on the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe based on comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He presumed shamanic practices.Dietrich, Oliver, "Shamanism at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. Methodological contributions to an archaeology of belief", Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 9-56, 2024 He suggested that the T-shaped pillars represent human forms, perhaps ancestors. In contrast, he saw a fully articulated belief in deities as not developing until later, in Mesopotamia, that was associated with extensive temples and palaces. This corresponds well with an ancient Sumerian belief that agriculture, animal husbandry, and weaving were brought to humans from the sacred mountain Ekur, which was inhabited by Annuna deities, very ancient deities without individual names. Schmidt identified this story as a primeval oriental myth that preserves a partial memory of the emerging Neolithic.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|pp=216–21}} It is apparent that the animal and other images do not indicate organised violence, i.e., there are no depictions of hunting raids or wounded animals, and the pillar carvings generally ignore game on which the society depended, such as deer, in favour of formidable creatures such as lions, snakes, spiders, and scorpions.{{sfn|Schmidt|2006|pp=193–4, 218}}{{sfn|Peters|Schmidt|2004|p=209}} Expanding on Schmidt's interpretation that round enclosures could represent sanctuaries, Gheorghiu's semiotic interpretation reads the Göbekli Tepe iconography as a cosmogonic map that would have related the local community to the surrounding landscape and the cosmos.{{sfn|Gheorghiu|2015}}

The assumption that the site was strictly cultic in purpose and not inhabited has been challenged as well by the suggestion that the structures served as large communal houses, "similar in some ways to the large plank houses of the Northwest Coast of North America with their impressive house posts and totem poles."{{sfn|Banning|2011|}} It is unknown why the existing pillars were buried every few decades to be replaced by new stones as part of a smaller, concentric ring inside the older one.{{sfn|Mann|2011|p=48}} According to Rémi Hadad, in recent years, "the interpretative enthusiasm that sought to see Göbekli Tepe as a regional ceremonial centre where nomadic populations would periodically converge is giving way to a vision that is more in line with what is known about other large Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites, where ritual and profane functions coexist."{{sfn|Hadad|2022}} For example, the discovery of domestic buildings and rainwater harvesting systems has forced a revision of the 'temple' narrative.{{sfn|Clare|2020}}

Claims have been made that it was an ancient astronomical observatory, but these have been largely rejected by the team working at the site.{{Cite web|url=https://www.astronomy.com/observing/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-astronomical-observatory/|title=Gobekli Tepe: The world's first astronomical observatory?|first=Eric|last=Betz|date=4 September 2020}}

File:Klaus Schmidt Monumento 2014 5.jpg

Before being documented by archaeologists, the hill Göbekli Tepe stands on, known locally in Kurdish as {{lang|ku|Girê Mirazan}} or {{lang|ku|Xerabreşkê}} ({{lang|ku|Girê Mirazan}} meaning 'Wish Hill'{{sfn|Kosen|2019}}), was considered a sacred place.{{sfn|Zekîoğlu|2020}}{{sfn|Hürriyet Daily News|2018}}

The archaeological site was first noted in 1963 as part of an archaeological survey directed by Halet Çambel of Istanbul University and Robert John Braidwood of the University of Chicago.{{sfn|Benedict|1980}} American archaeologist Peter Benedict identified the stone tools collected from the surface of the site as characteristic of the Aceramic Neolithic,{{sfn|Schmidt|2011|p=917}} but mistook the upper parts of the T-shaped pillars for grave markers.{{sfn|Batuman|2011}} The hill had long been under agricultural cultivation, and generations of local inhabitants had frequently moved rocks and placed them in clearance piles, which may have disturbed the upper layers of the site. At some point, attempts had been made to break up some of the pillars, presumably by farmers who mistook them for ordinary large rocks.

In October 1994, German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt, who had previously been working at Nevalı Çori, was looking for evidence of similar sites in the area and decided to re-examine the location described by the Chicago researchers in 1963.{{sfn|Dietrich|Dietrich|Notroff|2017}} Asking in nearby villages about hills with flint,{{sfn|Dietrich|Dietrich|Notroff|2017}} he was guided to Göbekli Tepe by Mahmut Yıldız, whose family owned the land the site was situated on.{{sfn|Hürriyet Daily News|2018}} The Yıldız family had previously discovered finds while ploughing there, which they reported to the local museum.{{sfn|Hürriyet Daily News|2018}}{{sfn|Hürriyet Daily News|2021}} Having found similar structures at Nevalı Çori, Schmidt recognised the possibility that the stone slabs were not grave markers as supposed by Benedict, but the tops of prehistoric megaliths. He began excavations the following year and soon unearthed the first of the enormous T-shaped pillars. Ultimately, he found only three tombs on the eastmost hill group, a pilgrimage destination.{{sfn|Beile-Bohn|Gerber|Morsch|Schmidt|1998|p=45}} Yıldız went on to work on the excavations and serve as the site's guard.{{sfn|Hürriyet Daily News|2018}}

Schmidt continued to direct excavations at the site on behalf of the Şanlıurfa Museum and the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) until he died in 2014. Since then, the DAI's research at the site has been coordinated by Lee Clare.{{sfn|Clare et al.|2017|p=87}}{{sfn|Clare|2020}} {{As of|2021}}, work on the site is conducted jointly by Istanbul University, the Şanlıurfa Museum, and the DAI, under the overall direction of Necmi Karul.{{sfn|Tepe Telegrams}}{{sfn|Kazanci|2020}} Recent excavations have been more limited than Schmidt's, focusing on detailed documentation and conservation of the areas already exposed.{{sfn|Kazanci|2020}}

File:Göbeklitepe Ören Yeri 2023.jpg

Göbekli Tepe was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2018, recognising its outstanding universal value as "one of the first manifestations of human-made monumental architecture".{{sfn|UNESCO World Heritage Centre}} {{As of|2021}}, about 10% of the site has been excavated.{{sfn|Curry|2021|p=31}}

Conservation work at the site caused controversy in 2018 when Çiğdem Köksal Schmidt, an archaeologist and widow of Klaus Schmidt, said that damage was caused by using concrete and "heavy equipment" while constructing a new walkway. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism responded that no concrete was used and that no damage had occurred.{{sfn|Erbil|2018}}

• Boncuklu Tarla
• {{annotated link|Gürcütepe}}
• List of largest monoliths
• {{annotated link|Prehistoric religion}}

{{reflist}}

{{refbegin|30em|indent=yes}}

• {{Cite journal |last=Arbuckle |first=Benjamin S. |year=2014 |title=Pace and process in the emergence of animal husbandry in Neolithic Southwest Asia |url=http://anthropology.uw.edu.pl/08/bne-08-03.pdf |journal=Bioarchaeology of the Near East |volume=8 |pages=53–81 }}
• {{cite book|editor=Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe|chapter=Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit.|title=Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung im Badischen Landesmuseum|date=20 January – 17 June 2007|location=Stuttgart|publisher=Theiss|isbn=978-3-8062-2072-8}}
• {{Cite encyclopedia |year=2002 |title=Aceramic Neolithic |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia |publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers |last=Banning |first=Edward B. |editor-last=Peregrine |editor-first=Peter N. |pages=1–20 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4615-0023-0_1 |isbn=978-1-4684-7135-9 |authorlink=Edward B. Banning |editor-last2=Ember |editor-first2=Melvin}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Banning |first=Edward B. |date=2011 |title=So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=52 |issue=5 – October 2011 |pages=619–60 |doi=10.1086/661207 |s2cid=161719608}}
• {{Cite magazine|last=Batuman|first=Elif|date=11 December 2011|title=Turkey's Ancient Sanctuary|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/12/19/the-sanctuary|magazine=The New Yorker|access-date=26 August 2017}}
• {{Cite journal |journal=Istanbuler Mitteilungen |volume=48 |last1=Beile-Bohn |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253342438 |title=Neolithische Forschungen in Obermesopotamien: Gürcütepe und Göbekli Tepe |last2=Gerber |last3=Morsch |last4=Schmidt |year=1998 |pages=5–78 |language=de }}
• {{Cite book |last=Benedict |first=Peter |url=https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/misc/prehistoric-research-southeastern-anatolia-guneydogu-anadolu-tarihoncesi |title=Prehistoric Research in Southeastern Anatolia |year=1980 |editor-last=Cambel |editor-first=Halet |pages=179, 181–182 |chapter=Survey Work in Southeastern Anatolia |editor-last2=Braidwood |editor-first2=Robert J. }}
• {{Cite book |last1=Breuers |first1=Jonas |last2=Kinzel |first2=Moritz |year=2022 |title=Tracking the Neolithic in the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on Its Origins, Development and Dispersals |chapter="[...] but it is not clear at all where all the [...] debris had been taken from [...]": Chipped Stone Artefacts, Architecture and Formation Processes at Göbekli Tepe |pages=469–486 |chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360996154 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Caletti |first=Christopher Claudio |date=8 November 2020 |title=Göbekli Tepe and the Sites around the Urfa Plain (SE Turkey): Recent Discoveries and New Interpretations |url=https://riviste.fupress.net/index.php/asiana/article/view/679 |journal=Asia Anteriore Antica. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures |volume=2 |language=en |pages=95–123 |doi=10.13128/ASIANA-679 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Çelik |first=Bahattin |year=2010 |title=Hamzan Tepe in the light of new finds |journal=Documenta Praehistorica |volume=37 |pages=257–268 |doi=10.4312/dp.37.22 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Çelik |first=Bahattin |year=2011 |title=Karahan Tepe: A new cultural centre in the Urfa area in Turkey |journal=Documenta Praehistorica |volume=38 |pages=241–253 |doi=10.4312/dp.38.19 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Çelik |first=Bahattin |year=2016 |title=A small-scale cult centre in southeast Turkey: Harbetsuvan Tepesi |journal=Documenta Praehistorica |volume=43 |pages=421–428 |doi=10.4312/dp.43.21 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite report |url=https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572/documents |title=Göbekli Tepe: Nomination for Inclusion on the World Heritage List |last1=Clare |first1=Lee |last2=Pirson |first2=Felix |publisher=UNESCO |last3=Eichmann |first3=Ricardo |last4=Yüncü |first4=Zeynep Tuna |last5=İnan |first5=Yıldırım |last6=Mert |first6=Duygu |last7=Duzcu |first7=Seda |ref={{harvid|Clare et al.|2017}} |year=2017 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Clare |first=Lee |year=2020 |title=Göbekli Tepe, Turkey. A brief summary of research at a new World Heritage Site (2015–2019) |journal=E-Forschungsberichte |publisher=Deutsches Archäologisches Institut |volume=2020 |issue=2 |pages=81–88 |doi=10.34780/efb.v0i2.1012}}
• {{cite journal |last=Curry |first=Andrew |url=http://80.251.40.59/veterinary.ankara.edu.tr/fidanci/Yasam/Gelecege_Miras/Gobekli-Tepe.pdf |title=Seeking the Roots of Ritual |journal=Science |issue=319 |date=18 January 2008a |pages=278–280 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415112503/http://80.251.40.59/veterinary.ankara.edu.tr/fidanci/Yasam/Gelecege_Miras/Gobekli-Tepe.pdf |archive-date=15 April 2012 }}
• {{Cite magazine |last=Curry |first=Andrew |year=2008b |title=Göbekli Tepe: The World's First Temple? |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html |magazine=Smithsonian |volume=November 2008 |issn=0037-7333 }}
• {{Cite magazine |last=Curry |first=Andrew |year=2021 |title=Last Stand of the Hunter-Gatherers? |url=https://www.archaeology.org/issues/422-2105/features/9591-turkey-gobekli-tepe-hunter-gatherers |magazine=Archaeology |volume=May/June 2021 }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Dietrich |first1=Oliver |last2=Schmidt |first2=Klaus |year=2010 |title=A Radiocarbon Date from the Wall Plaster of Enclosure D of Göbekli Tepe |url=https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2010_2.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=2010 |issue=2 |page=8 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Dietrich |first=Oliver |year=2011 |title=Radiocarbon dating the first temples of mankind. Comments on 14C-Dates from Göbekli Tepe |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258182967 |journal=Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie |volume=4 |pages=12–25 }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Dietrich |first1=Oliver |last2=Köksal-Schmidt |first2=Çiğdem |last3=Notroff |first3=Jens |last4=Schmidt |first4=Klaus |year=2013 |title=Establishing a Radiocarbon Sequence for Göbekli Tepe: State of Research and New Data |url=https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2013_1.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=2013 |issue=1 |pages=35–37 |ref={{harvid|Dietrich et al.|2013}} }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Dietrich |first1=Laura |last2=Meister |first2=Julia |last3=Dietrich |first3=Oliver |last4=Notroff |first4=Jens |last5=Kiep |first5=Janika |last6=Heeb |first6=Julia |last7=Beuger |first7=André |last8=Schütt |first8=Brigitta |year=2019 |title=Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=14 |issue=5 |pages=e0215214 |bibcode=2019PLoSO..1415214D |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0215214 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=6493732 |pmid=31042741 |ref={{harvid|Dietrich et al.|2019}}

|doi-access=free}}

• {{Cite book |last1=Dietrich |first1=Oliver |title=Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East |last2=Notroff |first2=Jens |date=2015 |publisher=Oxbow Books |isbn=978-1-78297-685-1 |editor-last=Laneri |editor-first=Nicola |page=75 |chapter=A sanctuary, or so fair a house? In defense of an archaeology of cult at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Gobekli Tepe |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M98dCgAAQBAJ&q=G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20earliest&pg=PA75 }}
• {{Cite book |last1=Dietrich |first1=Oliver |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48402-0_5 |title=Feast, Famine or Fighting? Multiple Pathways to Social Complexity |last2=Notroff |first2=Jens |last3=Schmidt |first3=Klaus |date=2017 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-48402-0 |pages=91–132 |language=en |chapter=Feasting, Social Complexity, and the Emergence of the Early Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: A View from Göbekli Tepe |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-48402-0_5 }}
• {{Cite web |last=Dietrich |first=Oliver |date=8 May 2016a |title=The current distribution of sites with T-shaped pillars |url=https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/05/08/the-current-distribution-of-sites-with-t-shaped-pillars/ |website=Tepe Telegrams |accessdate=17 May 2021 }}
• {{Cite web |last=Dietrich |first=Oliver |date=22 June 2016b |title=How old is it? Dating Göbekli Tepe. |work=Tepe Telegrams |url=https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/06/22/how-old-ist-it-dating-gobekli-tepe/ }}
• {{Cite magazine |last1=Dietrich |first1=Oliver |last2=Dietrich |first2=Laura |last3=Notroff |first3=Jens |year=2017 |title=Cult as a Driving Force of Human History: A View from Göbekli Tepe |url=https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/cult-as-a-driving-force-of-human-history/ |magazine=Expedition |location=Philadelphia, PA |publisher=Penn Museum |volume=59 |issue=3 }}
• {{Cite AV media|editor=DVD-ROM: MediaCultura|title=Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit.|location=Stuttgart|publisher=Theiss|year=2007|isbn=978-3-8062-2090-2}}
• {{Cite web |last=Erbil |first=Ömer |date=21 March 2018 |title=Construction around site of Göbeklitepe stirs debate |url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/construction-around-site-of-gobeklitepe-stirs-debate-129089 |access-date=24 January 2021 |website=Hürriyet Daily News }}
• {{Cite book |last1=Flannery |first1=Kent |title=The Creation of Inequality |last2=Marcus |first2=Joyce |date=2012 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-06469-0 |location=Cambridge MA |authorlink1=Kent Flannery |authorlink2=Joyce Marcus}}
• {{Cite web |title=Göbekli Tepe |url=http://www.forvo.com/word/g%C3%B6bekli_tepe/ |work=Forvo Pronunciation Dictionary |ref={{harvid|Forvo Pronunciation Dictionary}} }}
• {{cite book|last=Gheorghiu|first=Dragos|year=2015|chapter=A river runs through it. The semiotics of Gobekli Tepe's map (an exercise of archaeological imagination)|editor-last=Vianello|editor-first=Andrea|title=Rivers in Prehistory|location=Oxford|publisher=Archaeopress}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Fuller |first1=Dorian Q. |last2=Willcox |first2=George |last3=Allaby |first3=Robin G. |year=2012 |title=Early agricultural pathways: moving outside the 'core area' hypothesis in Southwest Asia |url=https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/63/2/617/501600?login=true |journal=Journal of Experimental Botany |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=617–633 |doi=10.1093/jxb/err307 |issn=0022-0957 |pmid=22058404 |doi-access=free |authorlink1=Dorian Fuller |authorlink2=George Willcox }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Gresky |first1=Julia |last2=Haelm |first2=Juliane |last3=Clare |first3=Lee |date=28 June 2017 |title=Modified human crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult |journal=Science Advances |language=en |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=e1700564 |bibcode=2017SciA....3E0564G |doi=10.1126/sciadv.1700564 |issn=2375-2548 |pmc=5489262 |pmid=28782013 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Güler |first1=Gül |last2=Çelik |first2=Bahattin |last3=Güler |first3=Mustafa |year=2013 |title=New Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites and cult centres in the Urfa Region |journal=Documenta Praehistorica |volume=40 |pages=291–303 |doi=10.4312/dp.40.23 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Güler |first1=Mustafa |last2=Çelik |first2=Bahattin |last3=Güler |first3=Gül |year=2012 |title=New pre-pottery neolithic settlements from Viranşehir District |journal=Anadolu / Anatolia |volume=38 |pages=164–80 |doi=10.1501/Andl_0000000398 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite news |date=27 March 2018 |title=The guard of Göbeklitepe, humanity's 'ground zero' |language=en |work=Hürriyet Daily News |url=https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-guard-of-gobeklitepe-humanitys-ground-zero-129322 |access-date=5 April 2021 |ref={{harvid|Hürriyet Daily News|2018}} }}
• {{Cite web |date=5 March 2021 |title=Landowner recalls story of Göbeklitepe's discovery |url=https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/landowner-recalls-story-of-gobeklitepes-discovery-162873 |access-date=19 April 2024 |website=Hürriyet Daily News |language=en |ref={{harvid|Hürriyet Daily News|2021}} }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Lewis-Williams |first1=David |last2=Pearce |first2=David |title=An Accidental revolution? Early Neolithic religion and economic change |url=https://www.academia.edu/19767870 |journal=Minerva |date=January 2006 |volume=17 #4 (July/August, 2006) |pages=29–31 }}
• {{cite book|last1=Linsmeier|first1=Klaus-Dieter|last2=Schmidt|first2=Klaus|chapter=Ein anatolisches Stonehenge|title=Moderne Archäologie|location=Heidelberg|publisher=Spektrum-der-Wissenschaft-Verlag|year=2003|pages=10–15|isbn=3-936278-35-0}}
• {{cite book |last1=Hadad |first1=Rémi |editor1-last=Laporte |editor1-first=Luc |editor2-last=Large |editor2-first=Jean-Marc |editor3-last=Nespoulous |editor3-first=Laurent |editor4-last=Scarre |editor4-first=Chris |editor5-last=Steimer-Herbet |editor5-first=Tara |title=Megaliths of the World |date=2022 |publisher=Archaeopress |location=Oxford |isbn=978-1-80327-321-1 |pages=823–836 |chapter=In the shadow of monoliths: Göbekli Tepe and the monumental tradition of the Pre-Pottery Levant}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Haklay |first1=Gil |last2=Gopher |first2=Avi |year=2020 |title=Geometry and Architectural Planning at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey |journal=Cambridge Archaeological Journal |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=343–357 |doi=10.1017/S0959774319000660 |issn=0959-7743 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite book |last=Hauptmann |first=Harald |title=The Neolithic in Turkey: the cradle of civilization, new discoveries |publisher=Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları |year=1999 |editor-last=Özdoğan |editor-first=M. |location=Istanbul |pages=65–86 |chapter=The Urfa region |editor-last2=Basgelen |editor-first2=N. |authorlink=Harald Hauptmann}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Herrmann |first1=Richard A. |url=https://www.academia.edu/41312606 |title=Wasserwirtschaftliche Innovationen im archäologischen Kontext: von den prähistorischen Anfängen bis zu den Metropolen der Antike |last2=Schmidt |first2=Klaus |publisher=Leidorf |year=2012 |isbn=978-3-86757-385-6 |editor-last=Klimscha |editor-first=F. |location=Rahden/Westfalen |pages=54–67 |language=de |chapter=Göbekli Tepe–Untersuchungen zur Gewinnung und Nutzung von Wasser im Bereich des steinzeitlichen Bergheiligtums |editor-last2=Eichmann |editor-first2=Ricardo |editor-link2=Ricardo Eichmann |editor-last3=Schuler |editor-first3=C. |editor-last4=Fahlbusch |editor-first4=H. }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Hodder |first=Ian |year=2018 |title=Things and the Slow Neolithic: the Middle Eastern Transformation |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-017-9336-0 |journal=Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory |language=en |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=155–177 |doi=10.1007/s10816-017-9336-0 |issn=1573-7764 |authorlink=Ian Hodder |s2cid=151467821 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{Cite news |last=Kazanci |first=Handan |date=8 March 2020 |title=Turkey: Conservation, not excavation, focus in Gobeklitepe |agency=Anadolu Agency |url=https://www.aa.com.tr/en/culture/turkey-conservation-not-excavation-focus-in-gobeklitepe/1758455 }}
• {{Cite book |last=Kenyon |first=Kathleen |title=Excavations at Jericho, II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955-1958 |publisher=British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem |year=1965}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Kinzel |first1=Moritz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T6QGEAAAQBAJ |title=Monumentalising Life in the Neolithic: Narratives of Change and Continuity |last2=Clare |first2=Lee |publisher=Oxbow |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-78925-495-2 |editor-last=Gebauer |editor-first=Anne Birgitte |location=Oxford |chapter=Monumental – compared to what? A perspective from Göbekli Tepe |editor-last2=Sørensen |editor-first2=Lasse |editor-last3=Teather |editor-first3=Anne |editor-last4=Valera |editor-first4=António Carlos |pages=29–48 }}
• [https://publications.dainst.org/journals/istmitt/article/view/4708/8479]Kinzel, Moritz, Lee Clare, and Devrim Sönmez, "Built on Rock–Towards a Reconstruction of the› Neolithic‹ Topography of Göbekli Tepe", Istanbuler Mitteilungen 70, pp. 9–45, 2024
• {{Cite news |last=Kosen |first=Hesen |date=24 July 2019 |title=Girê Mirozan Rihayê dike navenda geshtyariyê |language=ku |work=Kurdistan 24 |url=https://www.kurdistan24.net/ku/magazin/27cf0771-9b3f-44d1-b5fe-4bbc9deeb7bf |access-date=25 November 2020 }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Knitter |first1=Daniel |last2=Braun |first2=Ricarda |last3=Clare |first3=Lee |last4=Nykamp |first4=Moritz |last5=Schütt |first5=Brigitta |date=2019 |title=Göbekli Tepe: A Brief Description of the Environmental Development in the Surroundings of the UNESCO World Heritage Site |journal=Land |language=en |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=72 |doi=10.3390/land8040072 |ref={{harvid|Knitter et al.|2019}} |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Köksal-Schmidt |first1=Çiğdem |last2=Schmidt |first2=Klaus |year=2010 |title=The Göbekli Tepe "Totem Pole": A First Discussion of an Autumn 2010 Discovery (PPN, Southeastern Turkey) |url=http://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2010_1.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=2010 |issue=1 |pages=74–76 }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Kromer |first1=Bernd |last2=Schmidt |first2=Klaus |year=1998 |title=Two Radiocarbon Dates from Göbekli Tepe, South Eastern Turkey |url=https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_1998_3.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=1998 |issue=3 |page=8 }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Lang |first1=Caroline |last2=Peters |first2=Joris |last3=Pöllath |first3=Nadja |last4=Schmidt |first4=Klaus |last5=Grupe |first5=Gisela |date=2013 |title=Gazelle behaviour and human presence at early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-east Anatolia |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2013.820648 |journal=World Archaeology |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=410–429 |doi=10.1080/00438243.2013.820648 |issn=0043-8243 |ref={{harvid|Lang et al.|2013}} |s2cid=161637995 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Lloyd |first1=Seton |author-link=Seton Lloyd |last2=Brice |first2=William |date=1951 |title=Harran |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anatolian-studies/article/abs/harran/061CB1112066E8E145559B1F9A9A5586 |journal=Anatolian Studies |language=en |volume=1 |pages=77–111 |doi=10.2307/3642359 |issn=2048-0849 |jstor=3642359 |s2cid=240812354 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Maher |first1=Lisa A. |last2=Richter |first2=Tobias |last3=Stock |first3=Jay T. |year=2012 |title=The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-term Behavioral Trends in the Levant |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/evan.21307 |journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews |language=en |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=69–81 |doi=10.1002/evan.21307 |issn=1520-6505 |pmid=22499441 |s2cid=32252766 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{Cite magazine |last=Mann |first=Charles C. |date=2011 |title=The Birth of Religion: The World's First Temple |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2011/06/gobeki-tepe/#:~:text=The%20Birth%20of%20Religion&text=Dating%20to%20at%20least%208000,or%20gods—began%20to%20appear. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180820065725/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2011/06/gobeki-tepe/#:~:text=The%20Birth%20of%20Religion&text=Dating%20to%20at%20least%208000,or%20gods—began%20to%20appear. |url-status=dead |archive-date=20 August 2018 |magazine=National Geographic |volume=219 |issue=6 – June 2011 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Meskell |first=Lynn |author-link=Lynn Meskell |date=September 2008 |title=The nature of the beast: curating animals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438240802261416 |journal=World Archaeology |language=en |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=373–389 |doi=10.1080/00438240802261416 |s2cid=26968373 |issn=0043-8243 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{Cite book |last=Mithen |first=Steven |title=After the Ice: A global human history, 20,000–5000 BC |date=2004 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=0-674-01570-3 |location=Cambridge MA |authorlink=Steven Mithen}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Moetz |first1=Fevzi Kemal |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289819398 |title=Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East |last2=Çelik |first2=Bahattin |publisher=Harrassowitz |year=2012 |isbn=978-3-447-06684-6 |editor-last=Matthews |editor-first=Roger |location=Wiesbaden |chapter=T-shaped pillar sites in the landscape around Urfa |editor-last2=Curtis |editor-first2=John }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Neef |first=Reinder |date=2003 |title=Overlooking the Steppe-Forest: A Preliminary Report on the Botanical Remains from Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey) |url=https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2003_2.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=2002 |issue=3 |pages=13–16 }}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Peters |first1=Joris |last2=Schmidt |first2=Klaus |date=2004 |title=Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment |url=https://www.academia.edu/4807320 |journal=Anthropozoologica |volume=39 |issue=1 }}
• {{Cite book |last1=Peters |first1=Joris |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315417653-12/long-winding-road-ungulate-ex-ploitation-domestication-early-neolithic-anatolia-10000-7000-cal-bc-joris-peters-hijlke-buitenhuis-gisela-grupe-klaus-schmidt-nadja-p%C3%B6llath |title=The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe |last2=Buitenhuis |first2=Hijlke |last3=Grupe |first3=Gisela |last4=Schmidt |first4=Klaus |last5=Pöllath |first5=Nadja |date=2013 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-315-41765-3 |editor-last=Colledge |editor-first=Sue |location=London |language=en |chapter=The Long and Winding Road: Ungulate Exploitation and Domestication in Early Neolithic Anatolia (10000–7000 cal BC) |doi=10.4324/9781315417653 |ref={{harvid|Peters et al.|2013}} |editor-last2=Conolly |editor-first2=James |editor-last3=Dobney |editor-first3=Keith |editor-last4=Manning |editor-first4=Katie |editor-last5=Shennan |editor-first5=Stephen }}
• {{Cite book |last1=Peters |first1=Joris |first2=Klaus|last2=Schmidt|first3=Laura|last3= Dietrich |first4=Oliver|last4= Dietrich |first5=Nadja|last5=Pöllath | first6=Moritz |last6=Kinzel|first7=Lee|last7= Clare| chapter= Göbekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication|editor-first=Claudia |editor-last=Smith |title= Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology|publisher= Springer|location= New York|year=2020| doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_2226|pages= 4607–16|isbn=978-1-4419-0426-3 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Pustovoytov |first=Konstantin |year=2002 |title=14C Dating of Pedogenic Carbonate Coatings on Wall Stones at Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey) |url=https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2002_2.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=2002 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 }}
• {{cite book|last=Qasim|first=Erika|chapter=The T-shaped monuments of Gobekli Tepe: Posture of the Arms|editor1-last=Sütterlin|editor1-first=Christa|editor2-last=Schiefenhövel|editor2-first=Wulf|editor3-last=Lehmann|editor3-first=Christian|editor4-last=Forster|editor4-first=Johanna|editor5-last=Apfelauer|editor5-first=Gerhard|title=Art as Behaviour: An Ethological Approach to Visual and Verbal Art, Music and Architecture|publisher=BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität|location=Oldenburg|year=2014|pages=252–272|isbn=9783814222905}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Richter |first1=Tobias |last2=Darabi |first2=Hojjat |last3=Alibaigi |first3=Sajjad |last4=Arranz-Otaegui |first4=Amaia |last5=Bangsgaard |first5=Pernille |last6=Khosravi |first6=Shokouh |last7=Maher |first7=Lisa |last8=Mortensen |first8=Peder |author-link8=Peder Mortensen |last9=Pedersen |first9=Patrick |last10=Roe |first10=Joe |last11=Yeomans |first11=Lisa |title=The Formation of Early Neolithic Communities in the Central Zagros: an 11,500 year-old communal structure at Asiab |journal=Oxford Journal of Archaeology |date=February 2021 |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=2–22 |doi=10.1111/ojoa.12213 |s2cid=234033394 |ref={{harvid|Richter et al.|2021}}}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Scham |first=Sandra |date=2008 |title=The World's First Temple |url=http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html |journal=Archaeology |volume=61 |issue=6 – November/December 2008 |access-date=14 October 2008 |archive-date=29 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120329113052/http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html |url-status=dead }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |author-link=Klaus Schmidt (archaeologist) |date=1998 |title=Frühneolithische Tempel. Ein Forschungsbericht zum präkeramischen Neolithikum Obermesopotamiens |journal=Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft |location=Berlin |issue=130 |pages=17–49 |issn=0342-118X}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |year=1999 |title=Boars, Ducks, and Foxes – the Urfa-Project 99 |url=https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_1999_3.pdf |journal=Neo-Lithics |volume=1999 |issue=3 |pages=12–15 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |year=2000 |title=Zuerst kam der Tempel, dann die Stadt." Vorläufiger Bericht zu den Grabungen am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe 1995–1999 |journal=Istanbuler Mitteilungen |issue=50 |pages=5–41}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |date=2000a |title=Göbekli Tepe and the rock art of the Near East |journal=Tüba-Ar |issue=3 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.22520/tubaar.2000.0001 |doi-broken-date=2 November 2024 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |date=2000b |title=Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A preliminary Report on the 1995–1999 Excavations |url=http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_2000_num_26_1_4697 |journal=Paléorient |location=Paris |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=45–54 |doi=10.3406/paleo.2000.4697 |issn=0153-9345 }}
• {{Cite book |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |title=Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger |publisher=C.H. Beck |year=2006 |isbn=3-406-53500-3 |location=München |language=de}}
• {{Cite book |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |title=Erste Tempel – Frühe Siedlungen. 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur, Ausgrabungen und Forschungen zwischen Donau und Euphrat |publisher=Florian Isensee |year=2009 |isbn=978-3-89995-563-7 |editor-last=Schmidt |editor-first=Klaus |location=Oldenburg |language=de |chapter=Göbekli Tepe. Eine Beschreibung der wichtigsten Befunde erstellt nach den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995–2007}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |date=2010 |title=Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs |url=http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_21.pdf |journal=Documenta Praehistorica |volume=37 |issue=XXXVII |pages=239–56 |doi=10.4312/dp.37.21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131114925/http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_21.pdf |archive-date=31 January 2012 }}
• {{Cite book |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |title=The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE) |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-537614-2 |editor-last=Steadman |editor-first=Sharon R. |chapter=Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic Site in Southwestern Anatolia |editor-last2=McMahon |editor-first2=Gregory |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TY3t4y_L5SQC&pg=PA917 }}
• {{Cite book |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |title=A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East |publisher=Blackwell |year=2012 |editor-last=Potts |editor-first=Daniel |location=Oxford |pages=144–160 |chapter=Anatolia}}
• {{Cite book |last=Schmidt |first=Klaus |title=Le premier temple: Göbekli Tepe |publisher=CNRS éditions |year=2015 |isbn=978-2-271-08160-5 |location=Paris |language=fr |translator-last=Guiot-Houdart |translator-first=Thérèse}}
• {{Cite book |last=Schönicke |first=Julia |title=Bridging the Gap: Disciplines, Times, and Spaces in Dialogue |volume=1 |year=2019 |chapter=There and Back Again — Towards a New Understanding of Abandonment Practices at the Neolithic Settlement of Göbekli Tepe |pages=210–237 |chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358411654 }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Stordeur |first=Danielle |date=2003 |title=Des crânes surmodelés à Tell Aswad de Damascène (PPNB - Syrie) |url=https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2003_num_29_2_4767 |journal=Paléorient |language=fr |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=109–115 |doi=10.3406/paleo.2003.4767 |issn=0153-9345 }}
• {{Cite news |last=Symmes |first=Patrick |date=18 February 2010 |title=Turkey: Archeological Dig Reshaping Human History |language=en |work=Newsweek |url=https://www.newsweek.com/turkey-archeological-dig-reshaping-human-history-75101 }}
• {{Cite web |title=Our Project |url=https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/home/ |access-date=5 April 2021 |website=Tepe Telegrams |ref={{harvid|Tepe Telegrams}} }}
• {{Cite web |title=Göbekli Tepe |url=https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572 |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre |ref={{harvid|UNESCO World Heritage Centre}} }}
• {{cite book|last=Yeşilyurt|first=Metin|chapter=Die wissenschaftliche Interpretation von Göbeklitepe: Die Theorie und das Forschungsprogramm|title=Neolithikum und ältere Metallzeiten. Studien und Materialien|volume=2|publisher=Lit Verlag|location=Berlin|year=2014|isbn=978-3-643-12528-6}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Watkins |first=Trevor |year=2010 |title=New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia |journal=Antiquity |language=en |volume=84 |issue=325 |pages=621–634 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X00100122 |issn=0003-598X |doi-access=free |authorlink=Trevor Watkins}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Watkins |first=Trevor |date=14 August 2017 |title=From Pleistocene to Holocene: the prehistory of southwest Asia in evolutionary context |journal=History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences |language=en |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=22 |doi=10.1007/s40656-017-0152-3 |issn=1742-6316 |pmc=5556129 |pmid=28808914 |doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Zeder |first1=Melinda A. |last2=Smith |first2=Bruce D. |year=2009 |title=A Conversation on Agricultural Origins: Talking Past Each Other in a Crowded Room |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/605553 |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=50 |issue=5 |pages=681–691 |doi=10.1086/605553 |issn=0011-3204 |jstor=10.1086/605553 |authorlink1=Melinda A. Zeder |authorlink2=Bruce D. Smith |s2cid=41194691 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{Cite news |last=Zekîoğlu |first=Jînda |date=2020 |title=Kêmasîya ku li Girê Mirazan derketîye holê bêdewletbûna kurdan e |language=ku |work=Le Monde diplomatique kurdî |issue=57 |url=https://diplo-kurdi.com/index.php/ku/node/2038 |access-date=5 April 2021 |archive-date=2 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602214843/https://diplo-kurdi.com/index.php/ku/node/2038 |url-status=dead }}

{{refend}}

• {{Commons category-inline|Göbekli Tepe}}
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVMxHWcnT8o&list=PLmXaxHgt2ww8u6j2uOlnGRQTWLrk8FPkt&index=12 Goblekli Tepe: A Summary of Past and Recent Results – Lee Clare] Oriental Institute lecture 9 March 2020
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHsSyhl_9VI What's Happening At Göbekli Tepe⁉? An update with Field Director Dr Lee Clare (DAI)], video by Flint Dibble
• [https://artsandculture.google.com/story/g%C3%B6bekli-tepe/OALyoXJ7tDcpLA Explore Göbekli Tepe in the UNESCO collection on Google Arts and Culture]
• [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572/ Göbekli Tepe], UNESCO World Heritage List
• [https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/ Tepe Telegrams], blog of the DAI's Göbekli Tepe Research project
• {{Megalithic Portal|14968}}
• [https://www.exoriente.org/associated_projects/ppnd_site.php?s=25 Göbekli Tepe], Platform for Neolithic Radiocarbon Dates (PPND)
• [https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/gobekli-tepe-5a4d25c355ff48d59ab76c36812b9cf3 3D model] of the site

{{Neolithic Southwest Asia}}

{{World Heritage Sites in Turkey}}

{{Middle Eastern megaliths}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gobekli Tepe}}

Category:Populated places established in the 10th millennium BC

Category:Populated places disestablished in the 8th millennium BC

Category:1963 archaeological discoveries

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Turkey

Category:Archaeological sites in Southeastern Anatolia

Category:Archaeological sites of prehistoric Anatolia

Category:Buildings and structures in Şanlıurfa Province

Category:Former populated places in Turkey

Category:History of Şanlıurfa Province

Category:Megalithic monuments in the Middle East

Category:Prehistoric art in Turkey

Category:Tells (archaeology)

Category:World Heritage Sites in Turkey

Category:Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Category:Pre-Pottery Neolithic A