Mysterious symbols have been found on 9,000-year-old arrowheads — no one understands what they mean

This new study has added 11 such arrowheads at once from the Neolithic settlement of Tepejik-Çiftlik in Cappadocia. Together with the specimen found previously, there are now 12 known examples from that site, and only 54 in the whole of Central Anatolia. Scientists have examined theories regarding accidental scratches, owners’ markings and ritual purposes, but none has yet been conclusively confirmed.

Details

Tepejik-Ciftlik is situated in Central Anatolia, within modern-day Turkey. During the Neolithic period, the site was home to an agricultural and pastoral settlement whose inhabitants grew cereals, reared livestock and continued to hunt. The main Neolithic sequence at the site dates to approximately 6800–6100 BC, whilst one of the marked arrowheads comes from an even earlier layer dating to around 7100–7000 BC.

There was an abundance of obsidian here: the settlement was situated just about 5 km from the Göllüdag deposits and 20 km from Nenezi-Dag. This volcanic material cleaves to form extremely sharp edges, which is why it was widely used for making tools and weapons.

Archaeologists recorded 740 arrowheads at Tepedjik-Çiftlik, of which 730 were made of obsidian and only 10 of flint.

Notches were found on only 12 of the 740, that is, approximately 1.6 per cent of the collection. Even allowing for the fact that damage and retouching sometimes make it difficult to see the lines, the practice clearly remained rare.

Microscopic analysis shows that many of the lines were made deliberately.

The most complex specimen features three square-like shapes connected by a vertical line. Creating the composition required 20 separate incisions. The sequence of overlapping lines even allowed the researchers to reconstruct the order of the work: first, the craftsman created the three shapes and only then added the long vertical line.

Other arrowheads feature crosses, chevrons, V-shaped figures, rectangular shapes, wavy and parallel lines.

Sometimes the same incision was made two or three times, presumably to make it more visible on the dark vitreous surface. Some of the images were applied before the final retouching of the tip, whilst others were added afterwards. This suggests that there was apparently no single stage in the manufacturing process at which the markings were applied.

To test whether the scratches could have occurred accidentally during the manufacture or use of the arrows, the researchers carried out an experiment.

An attempt to scratch obsidian with another piece of obsidian failed: the materials have the same hardness. However, a flint blade left clear lines on the surface, the microscopic traces of which resembled those found on the ancient artefacts.

This is an interesting detail, as obsidian accounted for more than 99 per cent of the stone tools from Tepejik-Çiftlik, whilst flint and other materials were found in fewer than 1 per cent of cases. A person wishing to create a clear pattern would probably have needed a specially chosen, harder tool.

The authors do not, however, claim to have definitively identified the tool: the experiment merely demonstrates that flint is suitable and capable of producing similar marks.

However, the combination of repeated lines, complex compositions and the sequence in which they were made confirms the key point — at least the majority of the unusual markings were made deliberately, and the designs do not repeat themselves.

This is where the mystery begins.

If this were a system of signs with a specific overall meaning, one might expect certain symbols to recur. But at Tepedjik-Ciftlik, each group of notches is unique.

Some resemble squares, crosses or V-shaped figures; however, not a single composition can be confidently identified as a depiction of a human, an animal, a plant or any other recognisable object. Nor do they correspond to the known ornamentation found on Neolithic pottery and seals from this settlement.

Researchers have found no correlation between the type of mark and the quality of the arrowhead, its shape, the source of the obsidian or the method of production.

Even the most complex design is not found on the best-crafted or most symmetrical arrowhead.

This paints a curious picture: for over a thousand years, people maintained a very rare tradition, yet did not use what would appear to be a standard set of symbols.

Perhaps these were the ‘signatures’ of the hunters

One of the best-known theories emerged as far back as the 1980s following the study of similar arrowheads from another Anatolian settlement — Jan Hasan III.

Archaeologist Kathryn Ataman suggested that the marks might have identified the owner of the arrow or the hunter himself. Such practices are ethnographically well-documented: an individual mark made it possible to determine whose arrow had struck the prey and who was entitled to it.

The new data do not refute this hypothesis. Moreover, the absence of exact repetitions is potentially consistent with individual markings.

But there are plenty of problems too.

There are far too few marked arrowheads: if the markings were indeed necessary for identifying arrows, it is unclear why the vast majority of weapons remained unmarked. Furthermore, researchers have not yet found clear series of identical marks that could be linked to a single person or group.

Therefore, the ‘hunters’ signatures’ remain a possible, but unproven, theory.

The ritual theory is also not supported

Another obvious possibility is that the marks were symbolic or magical.

However, the archaeological context does little to support a simple ritual interpretation.

Over 100 burials have been discovered at Tepedjik-Çiftlik, including mass graves and unusually worked human skulls. However, not a single marked arrowhead has been found directly within a burial. A similar pattern is observed at other sites: such objects are not concentrated in sanctuaries or special structures, but are found amongst ordinary stone artefacts.

This does not prove that the markings had no symbolic significance. An object could well have served as a weapon whilst simultaneously carrying personal, social or magical significance.

There is even evidence of actual use: one of the marked arrowheads from Tepedjik-Chiftlik has a characteristic fracture caused by an impact, which archaeologists attribute to its use as a projectile weapon. Another similar specimen is known from a different site.

Scholars therefore believe that these objects were part of everyday hunting or armed conflicts, rather than being exclusively ceremonial items.

A strange tradition persisted for over a thousand years

The mystery becomes even more intriguing when one looks beyond a single site.

There are now 54 notched arrowheads known from Central Anatolia. The largest series — comprising 31 examples — comes from Jan Hasan III; a further five were found at Çatalhöyük; 12 are now known from Tepejik-Çiftlik; and the remainder come from several other sites.

The earliest examples date back to the 8th millennium BCE, whilst the practice continued into the 7th millennium. The authors conclude that it existed for over a thousand years, surviving significant changes in the way of life and material culture of the region’s population.

However, outside Central Anatolia, no such Neolithic tradition is yet known.

This is particularly strange given that Cappadocian obsidian travelled vast distances — artefacts made from it reached as far as the Southern Levant. Yet arrowheads marked in this way did not spread along with the material itself.

This leads researchers to suggest that this was a local cultural practice, rather than simply a convenient way of decorating obsidian.

What these lines meant remains unknown

A new series of finds has provided scientists with far more material, but, paradoxically, has not brought them any closer to a definitive interpretation.

The notches could clearly have been intentional. The tradition persisted for a long time. Common principles can be traced across several sites, but there is no standardised set of symbols. The arrowheads do not differ in quality, raw material or function, nor are they associated with any specific ritual sites.

The authors therefore allow for several possibilities at once: hunters’ personal markings, group symbols, decorative motifs, symbolic or magical significance — or a combination of several functions.

However, the archaeological evidence does not yet allow us to settle on a single explanation.

This is precisely what makes the 54 rare arrowheads so unusual: for many generations, the people of Central Anatolia deliberately spent time marking a small proportion of their weapons, yet the reason for this practice remains unknown nine millennia later.

Source

Study:“Intentional incisions on Neolithic obsidian arrowheads from Central Anatolia: A techno-functional and iconographic approach”

Authors: Alice Vinet, Denis Guilbeau.

Journal: PLOS ONE, 21(7), e0354715.