Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-31-2018, 09:15 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
I don't think its an unreasonable question. I am sorry if that offends you. Georadar surveys show that the area currently being excavated is at most 25% of the full size of the site. All areas seem to show the same large stone pillar architecture.

Given the size and the overlap in time and location with the origin of wheat cultivation, I am curious as to how we can totally dismiss the notion that there were some kind of large permanent settlements involved or that some may have accreted around the complex. If not co-located then nearby. We don't need to postulate anything the size or population density of the Cucuteni–Trypillia or similar fully agricultural culture.
  #52  
Old 08-31-2018, 09:21 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, a city is a large settlement where lots of people live. Size is the defining feature of a city - what contrasts the city with the town or hamlet. Even a layman should know this - even if English were not their first language - this isn't some special archaeological term.
A definition that contrasts a city with a town or hamlet seems pretty useless in this case, though, since I severely doubt there was any distinction made at that time. What I was more uncertain about was whether there exists some minimum size, or if "lots of people" is a relative term, since lots of people in the Ice Age is not necessarily a large number to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
To an archaeologist, though, other characteristics can include: permanence, urban planning, sanitation, trade, social stratification, non-agricultural specialization, provision of centralized commercial, religious and political functions for a larger hinterland, etc. The list isn't exhaustive, nor is it prescriptive. For one thing, there's absolutely no sign anyone permanently lived at Göbekli Tepe - no hearths, no houses, no burials. It's not a settlement.
Thank you, that answers my question.
  #53  
Old 08-31-2018, 09:30 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I don't think its an unreasonable question. I am sorry if that offends you. Georadar surveys show that the area currently being excavated is at most 25% of the full size of the site. All areas seem to show the same large stone pillar architecture.
Exactly - more of the same, not houses.
Quote:

Given the size and the overlap in time and location with the origin of wheat cultivation,
There isn't an overlap in origin, though. Wheat cultivation (not gathering of wild wheat) starts after the site is already in place.
Quote:
I am curious as to how we can totally dismiss the notion that there were some kind of large permanent settlements involved or that some may have accreted around the complex.
We can dismiss the notion of large settlements because it's not like they haven't looked for them, and no evidence has turned up. Plus the subsistence pattern we do have evidence for is that of large-scale hunting, not agricultural settlements. I'm not saying that future finds won't turn up some houses. But it won't be a city. Even Çatalhöyük was not a city.
  #54  
Old 08-31-2018, 09:43 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,183
Thank you for explaining terms as used by scientists.

Is agriculture considered a necessary condition for a settlement?

Does permanence refer to year-round habitation or to immobility of the shelter, or both? For example, if people live in the same tent at the same location for many years, is that a permanent habitat? Or, if people live in a stone hut for three weeks each year but elsewhere the rest of time, is that a permanent habitat?
  #55  
Old 08-31-2018, 09:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
A definition that contrasts a city with a town or hamlet seems pretty useless in this case, though, since I severely doubt there was any distinction made at that time.
Since there were no cities, it wasn't a distinction they were in any position to make. But I'm confident the inhabitants of the first real cities like Uruk and Eridu did make the distinction. They knew which places had ziggurats and palaces, and which didn't.
Quote:
What I was more uncertain about was whether there exists some minimum size, or if "lots of people" is a relative term, since lots of people in the Ice Age is not necessarily a large number to us.
It's always relative, but "tens of thousands" would be a good working standard anyway. Uruk would have had 50,000 people at its height.
  #56  
Old 08-31-2018, 10:09 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Thank you for explaining terms as used by scientists.

Is agriculture considered a necessary condition for a settlement?
No - you can look at Pacific North West American natives (people like the Haida, Tlingit, Coastal Salish etc.) to see settlements that didn't have agriculture. Also the Natufian settlements (including early Jericho).
Quote:
Does permanence refer to year-round habitation or to immobility of the shelter, or both?
If there's a migration cycle that returns to the same locales, that would be only semi-permanent habitation, but still considered a settlement. But permanence requires year-round habitation, or close to it. At least, that's what I was taught.
Quote:
For example, if people live in the same tent at the same location for many years, is that a permanent habitat?
Yes.
Quote:
Or, if people live in a stone hut for three weeks each year but elsewhere the rest of time, is that a permanent habitat?
No. If the "elsewhere" is one place where they spend all the rest of their time, that place would be permanent, 49 weeks is plenty, IMO. But in e.g. Alpine transhumanance, the pasture dwellings aren't considered permanent dwellings, but the village bases are.

Last edited by MrDibble; 08-31-2018 at 10:10 AM.
  #57  
Old 08-31-2018, 11:50 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I've already dealt with why this is such an ignorant assumption. If that's what the "Göbekli Tepe changes everything" argument is based on, it's based on a provably invalid assumption.

I'm afraid science doesn't - or better, shouldn't - work that way.


Only an archaeological ignoramus would think HGs couldn't build permanent settlements. I've already cited 3 such cultures in this thread.

Once again, let me state that I find Göbekli Tepe fascinating, and I do think it has a lot to teach us. But I find the argument that it's a "total upset of everything we know" is based on utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures, and I have no respect for that.

Ok, on one hand we have https://anthropology.stanford.edu/people/ian-hodder
Ian Hodder
Professor
Dunlevie Family Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences
Ph.D. Cambridge, 1974 Among his publications are: Symbols in Action (Cambridge 1982), Reading the Past (Cambridge 1986), The Domestication of Europe (Oxford 1990), The Archaeological Process (Oxford 1999). Catalhoyuk: The Leopard's Tale (Thames and Hudson 2006), and Entangled. An archaeology of the relationhips between humans and things (Wiley and Blackwell, 2012). Professor Hodder has been conducting the excavation of the 9,000 year-old Neolithic site of Catalhoyuk in central Turkey since 1993.


A Stanford Professor, PhD from Cambridge, with at least four major books published in the field, who has been actually out there digging in Turkey for 15 years.

Vs- Some poster on a message board who calls the professor & his ideas: "ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures" all without a single cite.

Tell me Mr Dibble, what University are you a professor of archeology at? How many works published? How many years spent digging in that area?

Who to believe, who to believe...
  #58  
Old 08-31-2018, 12:04 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Are we really playing this fucking stupid game? What definition of "definition" are you using? And of "we"? And "using"? Where's "here"?
Moderator Note

This is GQ. Dial it back.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #59  
Old 08-31-2018, 12:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
For one thing, there's absolutely no sign anyone permanently lived at Göbekli Tepe - no hearths, no houses, no burials. It's not a settlement.
Really? with only 5% of the area excavated, you can make this determination? Wow, why should they even bother to do any more digging? It's true, as of this point, there's none of the classic signs of full time settlement, as per Schmidt "Schmidt’s team, however, found none of the telltale signs of a settlement: no cooking hearths, houses or trash pits, and none of the clay fertility figurines that litter nearby sites of about the same age.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...6fuHR0GsLvY.99

But you already dismissed this man and Professor Hodders as "Ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures" so why rely upon other conclusions they made?

Sure, from the evidence so far, it doesn't appear to be a 'city", the people apparently lived nearby in villages and also came for long distance to perhaps worship. But with only 5% excavated it is perhaps too early to make sweeping conclusions that no one lived there.

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-31-2018 at 12:12 PM.
  #60  
Old 08-31-2018, 12:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
More cites:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...9860D94CCD090E
Göbekli Tepe is one of the most important archaeological discoveries of modern times, pushing back the origins of monumentality beyond the emergence of agriculture. We are pleased to present a summary of work in progress by the excavators of this remarkable site and their latest thoughts about its role and meaning. At the dawn of the Neolithic, hunter-gatherers congregating at Göbekli Tepe created social and ideological cohesion through the carving of decorated pillars, dancing, feasting—and, almost certainly, the drinking of beer made from fermented wild crops.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/661207
Archaeologists have proposed that quite a number of structures dating to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B in southwest Asia were nondomestic ritual buildings, sometimes described specifically as temples or shrines, and these figure large in some interpretations of social change in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Yet the evidence supporting the identification of cult buildings is often equivocal or depends on ethnocentric distinctions between sacred and profane spaces. This paper explores the case of Göbekli Tepe, a large Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Turkey that its excavator claims consisted only of temples, to illustrate weaknesses in some kinds of claims about Neolithic sacred spaces and to explore some of the problems of identifying prehistoric ritual. Consideration of the evidence suggests the alternative hypothesis that the buildings at Göbekli Tepe may actually be houses, albeit ones that are rich in symbolic content.
the buildings at Göbekli Tepe may actually be houses,
  #61  
Old 08-31-2018, 12:42 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
A new concept has already been developed and is now widely accepted among scientists and professionals. It simply hasn't filtered through to the general public yet.

See the article I posted above.

(Skip to Part 4 of the article if you're not interested in how this relates to theories of inequality and ideas of primitive 'innocence' presented in some pop-sci bestsellers.)
You missed my point, but that's OK because I have a new theory. Drawing conclusions about events in the distance past based on little to no evidence is not a good idea and it's remotely possible that just maybe many such conclusions will be overturned each time new evidence is discovered.

Last edited by TriPolar; 08-31-2018 at 12:43 PM.
  #62  
Old 08-31-2018, 01:34 PM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
I do have to wonder if Göbekli Tepe was more the result of a personality cult rather than a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Very often the same thing.
Yes, but the distinction is that the cult dies with the founder, or at most with his immediate successor, if that person is also charismatic. I'm wondering if these monuments could have been built during one person's life and then abandoned.
  #63  
Old 08-31-2018, 01:41 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You missed my point, but that's OK because I have a new theory. Drawing conclusions about events in the distance past based on little to no evidence is not a good idea and it's remotely possible that just maybe many such conclusions will be overturned each time new evidence is discovered.
Actually there is a large amount of clear and consistent evidence.

It's the nature of science that any theory may be overturned when new evidence comes along. At the moment this theory is accepted by most scientists and experts in prehistory, whether you happen to like it or not.
  #64  
Old 08-31-2018, 02:09 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Actually there is a large amount of clear and consistent evidence.

It's the nature of science that any theory may be overturned when new evidence comes along. At the moment this theory is accepted by most scientists and experts in prehistory, whether you happen to like it or not.
It's a speculative theory. Interesting for discussion, hardly anything to draw broad conclusions from. Mostly what these finds do is set back the date for the 'earliest' events, they don't tell us much else clearly. We've seen the dates, purpose, builders, and source of stone for Stonehenge change repeatedly. We glean a few useful facts about the particular site discovered but it doesn't tell us much about the life of humans elsewhere at that time. Their could have been large civilizations of permanently settled people at the same time who relied on wood and mud and the evidence will never be found. This is a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing and no readily identifiable edge pieces.
  #65  
Old 08-31-2018, 03:01 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Tell me Mr Dibble, what University are you a professor of archeology at? How many works published? How many years spent digging in that area?
I don't need any of that to know that thinking hunter-gatherers were considered incapable of complex construction at the time Göbekli Tepe was being excavated is ignorance, no matter who makes it. But hey, cool argument from authority, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Really? with only 5% of the area excavated, you can make this determination?
Not me, the teams there saying they've found no sign.
Quote:
But you already dismissed this man and Professor Hodders as "Ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures" so why rely upon other conclusions they made?
Because I'm happy to believe they're absolutely stellar field archaeologists while not being all that great at the anthropology interpretation part of it. As evidenced by their seeming ignorance of other sedentary HG cultures.
Quote:
Sure, from the evidence so far, it doesn't appear to be a 'city", the people apparently lived nearby in villages and also came for long distance to perhaps worship. But with only 5% excavated it is perhaps too early to make sweeping conclusions that no one lived there.
Gosh, it's almost like I said something similar ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'm not saying that future finds won't turn up some houses. But it won't be a city. Even Çatalhöyük was not a city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
the buildings at Göbekli Tepe may actually be houses,
...which would overturn the idea of them being a temple complex, which would mean...suddenly religion doesn't precede settlement, which would mean...suddenly everything isn't changed?

And if they were houses, they'd have all the other stuff houses had - the hearths, the trash pits, the burials. They don't. But what they do have, are the characteristics of other roughly contemporaneous PPNA/B non-domestic buildings that are associated with easily-identifiable houses, like the cultic complex at Nevalı Çori or the 3 cult buildings at Çayönü. We know what their houses looked like. We know what their cult buildings looked like. The buildings at Göbekli Tepe look like their cult buildings, not their houses.

You expect us to believe they started off living in buildings exactly like the temples, then later moved to living in simpler houses? And they built their later temples to look like their old houses because...? Nostalgia?

Last edited by MrDibble; 08-31-2018 at 03:05 PM.
  #66  
Old 08-31-2018, 03:27 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
Yes, but the distinction is that the cult dies with the founder, or at most with his immediate successor, if that person is also charismatic. I'm wondering if these monuments could have been built during one person's life and then abandoned.
No. From the NatGeo article I linked earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The NatGeo article I linked earlier
For reasons yet unknown, the rings at Göbekli Tepe seem to have regularly lost their power, or at least their charm. Every few decades people buried the pillars and put up new stones—a second, smaller ring, inside the first. Sometimes, later, they installed a third. Then the whole assemblage would be filled in with debris, and an entirely new circle created nearby. The site may have been built, filled in, and built again for centuries.

Bewilderingly, the people at Göbekli Tepe got steadily worse at temple building. The earliest rings are the biggest and most sophisticated, technically and artistically. As time went by, the pillars became smaller, simpler, and were mounted with less and less care. Finally the effort seems to have petered out altogether by 8200 B.C.
This also destroys the argument that it was a city because it is big. It is like finding a landfill and thinking "Boy, that must have been a big party!".
  #67  
Old 08-31-2018, 03:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I don't need any of that to know that thinking hunter-gatherers were considered incapable of complex construction at the time Göbekli Tepe was being excavated is ignorance, no matter who makes it. But hey, cool argument from authority, though.
Argument from authority? Cites? Facts? That's exactly what General Questions is.

I still want your reply, what makes you think you know better than :
Ian Hodder
Professor
Dunlevie Family Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences
Ph.D. Cambridge, 1974 Among his publications are: Symbols in Action (Cambridge 1982), Reading the Past (Cambridge 1986), The Domestication of Europe (Oxford 1990), The Archaeological Process (Oxford 1999). Catalhoyuk: The Leopard's Tale (Thames and Hudson 2006), and Entangled. An archaeology of the relationhips between humans and things (Wiley and Blackwell, 2012). Professor Hodder has been conducting the excavation of the 9,000 year-old Neolithic site of Catalhoyuk in central Turkey since 1993.

A Stanford Professor, PhD from Cambridge, with at least four major books published in the field, who has been actually out there digging in Turkey for 15 years.

What's your qualifications? Where are your cites?
  #68  
Old 08-31-2018, 05:01 PM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,817
Another point about GT site is - no article really mentions the origin of the stones. Did they find chunks of stone lying about and dress them? Did they actually quarry them from the local bedrock, (Meet the modern stone age family...♫) have the tech to split 15-foot chunks out of solid rock? Were they dragged a long distance?

Also fascinating -they "filled in" the circles? Even back in Roman times (or later) the area beside the Jerusalem Temple was filled in using stone arches since that was cheaper than hauling the equivalent amount of rubble from elsewhere. Filling in one of those circles must have been a fairly hefty amount of work. The problem with large gatherings in the pre-agricultural times means that attendees either stripped the neighbourhood bare in no time, or had to carry in significant amounts of food or travel mighty far for their next feast.

the excavations of GT specifically mention no settlement found, but a LOT of animal bones.

IMHO - IANAArchaeologist - a defining factor for "city" is a large settlement of relative permanence. Permanent occupation gave the incentive to build more permanent structures. Seasonal structures would need significant cleaning and repairs each year - at a certain point, too large or complex a building is not worth it.
  #69  
Old 08-31-2018, 05:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Another point about GT site is - no article really mentions the origin of the stones. Did they find chunks of stone lying about and dress them? Did they actually quarry them from the local bedrock, (Meet the modern stone age family...♫) have the tech to split 15-foot chunks out of solid rock? Were they dragged a long distance?
.
They did find quarries nearby.iirc

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-31-2018 at 05:35 PM.
  #70  
Old 08-31-2018, 06:18 PM
bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
The status of whether Göbekli Tepe is a city or not is apparently important. So what do archeologists consider to be a city?

In my layman's view, a city is simply a small area where lots of people are living. Göbekli Tepe would seem to qualify, but I guess not. Please fight ignorance here.
City and town are pretty interchangeable. In the UK, 'City' is a status granted by the monarch and there are examples of small cities (Ely) and large towns (Northampton). In other parts of the world, towns title themselves as cities to give themselves more status.

I guess you go from hamlet to village to town.
  #71  
Old 08-31-2018, 06:38 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
City and town are pretty interchangeable. In the UK, 'City' is a status granted by the monarch and there are examples of small cities (Ely) and large towns (Northampton).
How does that work? Assuming we in the USA were still with you guys, does Levy, Arkansas (cesspool of the world, armpit of the South) write a Letter to Elizabeth II and request to become a city instead of a town?
  #72  
Old 08-31-2018, 08:19 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Another point about GT site is - no article really mentions the origin of the stones. Did they find chunks of stone lying about and dress them? Did they actually quarry them from the local bedrock, (Meet the modern stone age family...♫) have the tech to split 15-foot chunks out of solid rock? Were they dragged a long distance?
The area is made of limestone. From the NatGeo article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The NatGeo article
Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden.
From the Smithsonan article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Smithsonian article
Even without metal chisels or hammers, prehistoric masons wielding flint tools could have chipped away at softer limestone outcrops, shaping them into pillars on the spot before carrying them a few hundred yards to the summit and lifting them upright.
  #73  
Old 08-31-2018, 10:51 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
How does that work? Assuming we in the USA were still with you guys, does Levy, Arkansas (cesspool of the world, armpit of the South) write a Letter to Elizabeth II and request to become a city instead of a town?
Currently, in the U.S. each state has its own regulations for and definitions of what makes cities, towns, and villages. They are formally incorporated by state law. (Which is why a city attorney is its corporation counsel.) (And why areas outside these boundaries are called unincorporated districts.)

These definitions have exactly nothing in common with the way archaeologists use the terms. They are arbitrary and there are 50 of them. I'm assuming that each nation has its own set of equally arbitrary definitions and rules.

Think of "city" as a scientific term that lives in a different world from the common meaning, similar to theory, paradigm, chaos, and countless others.
  #74  
Old 09-01-2018, 01:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What's your qualifications?
I merely have undergrad arcaeology. Not that that matters.
Quote:
Where are your cites?
I've referenced 3 HG cultures in this thread, any of which would give the lie to the naive idea that HGs were just small roaming bands incapable of building anything monumental. Do you really need cites for the existence of any of them, or what they were capable of? One of them was right in the Levant, even.

Last edited by MrDibble; 09-01-2018 at 01:32 AM.
  #75  
Old 09-01-2018, 01:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
City and town are pretty interchangeable.
Not to archaeologists, urban planners or anthropologists - and while there's a continuum, even in common parlance there's generally a differentiation to be made.

In the UK, it used to be that a city had a cathedral, a town didn't. That's why small Ely is a city. That went by the wayside, though, and just royal proclamation was all that counted. But that definition isn't really useful in the Levant, now is it?

Archaeologists usually use some variant of Childe's 10 criteria, :
  1. increased settlement size,
  2. concentration of wealth,
  3. large-scale public works,
  4. writing,
  5. representational art,
  6. knowledge of science and engineering,
  7. foreign trade,
  8. full-time specialists in nonsubsistence activities,
  9. class-stratified society,
  10. political organization based on residence rather than kinship.
That's overlain nowadays with the functional definition concept, where cities are defined in terms of the services they provide hinterlands, as not all archaeological cities meet all Childe's criteria.
  #76  
Old 09-01-2018, 02:03 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Well, I am convinced that there was nothing around that could qualify as a city by either than definition or having tens of thousands of people. It would be highly out of context with everything we know about the period and there would have been a lot of evidence still. I don't really believe any line of cultural descent to Sumer and the other Mesopotamian civilizations is probable, besides the most fundamental. The intervening time period is way too long.

I am not convinced we can state with any certainty that there was no group who lived permanently at or near the site. A small group of permanent specialists does not seem a reach. We have excavated too little of the site to be certain, and presumably started excavations at the most visible remains. Also, Göbekli Tepe is situated on a hill with views of every direction. Any humans would most likely have settled near a water source. Permanent residence does not man stone houses. I think archeologists would have to be marvelously lucky to find the remains of a small permanent camp near a river or similar water source that may possibly have flooded occasionally over eleven thousand years of climate variety. Also under ten thousand years of debris.

I am quite unconvinced that Göbekli Tepe wasn't closely involved in the origins of agriculture. It is too on the nose in location and time. I'd expect any small permanent resident group may have had periods when they needed to rely on other food sources than hunting, and after a few cases of that may have made it a permanent practice. There is no evidence that the buildings didn't come first though.
  #77  
Old 09-01-2018, 05:16 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
So anyway, I was doing some reading around, and came across a National Geographic article on the site. And towards the end of the piece, Klaus Schmidt the archeologist in charge of the work, says he is not at all certain they have reached the bottom layer!

So... it could be even older?
  #78  
Old 09-02-2018, 12:21 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Not that that matters.I've referenced 3 HG cultures in this thread, any of which would give the lie to the naive idea that HGs were just small roaming bands incapable of building anything monumental. Do you really need cites for the existence of any of them, or what they were capable of? One of them was right in the Levant, even.
What has that to do with my cites? Do anyone disagree with the Stanford Professor?
  #79  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:04 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What has that to do with my cites? Do anyone disagree with the Stanford Professor?
It's kinda difficult to disagree with questions, speculation, and opinions. Got any actual science backing your position? Or is appeal to authority your only case?
__________________
ed
  #80  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:08 AM
ataraxy22's Avatar
ataraxy22 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,555
I'm 104 years old. I remember in my youth when this was a happening place.
  #81  
Old 09-02-2018, 02:22 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What has that to do with my cites?
How does it not?
Quote:
Do anyone disagree with the Stanford Professor?
Disagree about what, specifically? The well-known existence of complex sedentary HG societies capable of monumental architecture disagrees with some of what he, and Schmidt, have said, but not everything.

Last edited by MrDibble; 09-02-2018 at 02:24 AM.
  #82  
Old 09-02-2018, 02:40 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Also, I've noticed the "but they could have been houses" argument seems to have been dropped like a hot potato. Which I'm glad for, not really up for a Gish Gallop right now.
  #83  
Old 09-02-2018, 02:46 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
So anyway, I was doing some reading around, and came across a National Geographic article on the site. And towards the end of the piece, Klaus Schmidt the archeologist in charge of the work, says he is not at all certain they have reached the bottom layer!

So... it could be even older?
You mean the article I've referenced three times in this thread?
  #84  
Old 09-02-2018, 02:57 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
So anyway, I was doing some reading around, and came across a National Geographic article on the site. And towards the end of the piece, Klaus Schmidt the archeologist in charge of the work, says he is not at all certain they have reached the bottom layer!

So... it could be even older?
Possibly. They haven't turned up a different bottom in the 7 digging seasons since. Schmidt, of course, isn't in charge of anything anymore.
  #85  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It's kinda difficult to disagree with questions, speculation, and opinions. Got any actual science backing your position? Or is appeal to authority your only case?
FIrst of all, you (and Mr Dibble) do not seem to understand General Questions and "Appeal to authority".

Hee in GQ, people ask questions, and they are answered, factually. That usually includes cites. Which are authorities. This isnt GD. Next of all a "appeal to authority" is perfectly acceptable is your are citing a expert on a position. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

Next I do have actual science and scientists backing- not MY position, but their position.
Again, you are apparently confusing GQ with GD. I posted facts from scientific experts, in answer to a question. Mr Dibble is simply giving a layman's opinion, without recourse to cites and facts.

Here is my post with statements given by experts in the field:


wiki: Göbekli Tepe is regarded by some as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change the understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything".[2][43] If indeed the site was built by hunter-gatherers as some researchers believe then it would mean that the ability to erect monumental complexes was within the capacities of these sorts of groups which would overturn previous assumptions. Some researchers believe that the construction of Göbekli Tepe may have contributed to the later development of urban civilization. As excavator Klaus Schmidt put it: "First came the temple, then the city."[44]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...mple-83613665/

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey’s stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization...
To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies.

The immensity of the undertaking at Gobekli Tepe reinforces that view. Schmidt says the monuments could not have been built by ragged bands of hunter-gatherers. To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago. “This shows sociocultural changes come first, agriculture comes later,” says Stanford University archaeologist Ian Hodder, who excavated Catalhoyuk, a prehistoric settlement 300 miles from Gobekli Tepe. “You can make a good case this area is the real origin of complex Neolithic societies.”


https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news...t-architecture
Göbekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers, apparently before the Agricultural Revolution when fully permanent settlements came into being with plant cultivation and animal herding. Rather than architecture being the product of organised societies, as has long been thought, there is new thinking that, in fact, it may have been the organisation needed to build on such a scale that helped usher in agriculture and settled society.
  #86  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:05 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
How does it not?Disagree about what, specifically? The well-known existence of complex sedentary HG societies capable of monumental architecture disagrees with some of what he, and Schmidt, have said, but not everything.
Here is what I posted. You, as a layman, said these well known experts are "ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures"


wiki: Göbekli Tepe is regarded by some as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change the understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything".[2][43] If indeed the site was built by hunter-gatherers as some researchers believe then it would mean that the ability to erect monumental complexes was within the capacities of these sorts of groups which would overturn previous assumptions. Some researchers believe that the construction of Göbekli Tepe may have contributed to the later development of urban civilization. As excavator Klaus Schmidt put it: "First came the temple, then the city."[44]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...mple-83613665/

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey’s stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization...
To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies
.

The immensity of the undertaking at Gobekli Tepe reinforces that view. Schmidt says the monuments could not have been built by ragged bands of hunter-gatherers. To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago. “This shows sociocultural changes come first, agriculture comes later,” says Stanford University archaeologist Ian Hodder, who excavated Catalhoyuk, a prehistoric settlement 300 miles from Gobekli Tepe. “You can make a good case this area is the real origin of complex Neolithic societies.”


https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news...t-architecture
Göbekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers, apparently before the Agricultural Revolution when fully permanent settlements came into being with plant cultivation and animal herding. Rather than architecture being the product of organised societies, as has long been thought, there is new thinking that, in fact, it may have been the organisation needed to build on such a scale that helped usher in agriculture and settled society.
  #87  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:43 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Here is what I posted.
Yes, we all read it the first time, repeating the whole spew isn't going to magically make it more convincing
Quote:
You, as a layman, said these well known experts are "ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures"
Yes, and I stand by that - as it pertains to the specific ignorance that was demonstrated, as I mentioned several times now.

You have done absolutely nothing to show that they are not ignorant of the fact that HG cultures aren't necessarily "small roving bands", but can be complex, sedentary, hierarchical cultures perfectly capable of monumental construction. I've mentioned 3 such cultures.
  #88  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yes, we all read it the first time, repeating the whole spew isn't going to magically make it more convincingYes, and I stand by that - as it pertains to the specific ignorance that was demonstrated, as I mentioned several times now.

You have done absolutely nothing to show that they are not ignorant of the fact that HG cultures aren't necessarily "small roving bands", but can be complex, sedentary, hierarchical cultures perfectly capable of monumental construction. I've mentioned 3 such cultures.
So, you, as a laymen, are calling a Stanford professor, a recognized expert in the field, with many published books and papers, and 15 actual years out there digging: "ignorant".

Ok.
  #89  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:56 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
To summarize: I've made 2 specific claims:
1. There have existed hunter gatherer cultures that were complex, sedentary and hierarchical and were capable of monumental construction.
2. By their own statements, Schmidt and Hodder apparently were ignorant of the existence of these cultures.

Are either of those statements false? If so, show me how they're false.

Last edited by MrDibble; 09-02-2018 at 01:57 PM.
  #90  
Old 09-02-2018, 02:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
To summarize: I've made 2 specific claims:
1. There have existed hunter gatherer cultures that were complex, sedentary and hierarchical and were capable of monumental construction.
2. By their own statements, Schmidt and Hodder apparently were ignorant of the existence of these cultures.

Are either of those statements false? If so, show me how they're false.

No, you made several more claims.

You claimed that the recognized experts in the field were "ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures"

That is the claim I am refuting. Like you I am a layman in the field. So, I am not attempting to refute your little 'claims" about what you, as a layman , have as an opinion - because honestly your opinion on this means absolutely nothing and isn't worth discussing.

I won't discuss the opinion of a evolution denier who claims Darwin was "ignorant" either.

What I am discussing is the cites I provided from experts , i.e. what we here in GG like to call "facts". The facts that you as a admitted layman are dismissing as "ignorant".

Please email Doctor Hodder and tell him you find his statements "ignorant". Let us know his reply please.
  #91  
Old 09-02-2018, 02:40 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, you made several more claims.

You claimed that the recognized experts in the field were "ignorant assumption... invalid assumption...archaeological ignoramus...utter ignorance of other complex HG cultures"
That's precisely the same claim, just more forcefully stated.
Quote:

That is the claim I am refuting.
I take it you're using "refute" in the "deny" sense, rather than the "prove" sense, because you've so far not even attempted to prove either of my points false.

Quote:
Like you I am a layman in the field.
Erm, I doubt I'm as much of a layman as you seem to think I am. I've actually done archaeological fieldwork, for one thing.
Quote:
So, I am not attempting to refute your little 'claims" about what you, as a layman , have as an opinion
Neither of my claims are opinions - they are statements of fact and trivial to disprove - either the HG cultures I claimed existed, don't, or they didn't make the statements about H-Gs just being "roving bands" or suchlike.
Quote:
What I am discussing is the cites I provided from experts , i.e. what we here in GG like to call "facts".
You seem confused at to what's fact and what's opinion here. "This pillar has a carving of a scorpion" or "we found a skull at the base of that one" are facts.

"This overturns everything" is an opinion. Regardless of who makes it.

"H-G societies were all small roving bands" is neither - it's an error. An ignorant one.

Last edited by MrDibble; 09-02-2018 at 02:42 PM.
  #92  
Old 09-02-2018, 07:12 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
FIrst of all, you (and Mr Dibble) do not seem to understand General Questions and "Appeal to authority".

Hee in GQ, people ask questions, and they are answered, factually. That usually includes cites. Which are authorities. This isnt GD. Next of all a "appeal to authority" is perfectly acceptable is your are citing a expert on a position. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
You and Dibble are arguing over matters of opinion, not fact. Your cites are the fluff used to justify and solicit grant money. Every archaeologist says he's working on a very important dig. GT is producing a plethora of actual facts, number, size, location, and composition of construction stones, all of the other artifacts left there, the usual remains from food preparation. But the language in your cites is full of ifs and maybes and speculation. This kind of research is constantly pushing back dates. A term like 'pre-pottery' will get redefined every time a ceramic shard is dated earlier. The start of agriculture, and just about every date of development from that far back is inexact. Whether of not structures are dwellings or serve other purposes isn't going to be clear with the level of evidence found so far. And it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the actual measurable data that can be compiled. Dibble provided information about other ancient sites that contradicts the opinions in your cites, not the facts about what is found at GT. It's a virtual guarantee that some other archaeologist will one day draw different conclusions about those things that cannot be absolutely established.

Last edited by TriPolar; 09-02-2018 at 07:13 PM.
  #93  
Old 09-02-2018, 07:40 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,021
While we're talking about ancient cities, there was one in the Gulf of Cambay that apparently is 9500 years old and thus about 4000 years older than earliest known Mesopotomia city. http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/cambay

It appears they seem to believe this was a major town. Not just a village.

The Gulf of Cambay is also known as The Gulf of Khambhat and is in the North West of India, close to the modern city of Vadodara.
  #94  
Old 09-02-2018, 08:21 PM
TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
While we're talking about ancient cities, there was one in the Gulf of Cambay that apparently is 9500 years old and thus about 4000 years older than earliest known Mesopotomia city. http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/cambay

It appears they seem to believe this was a major town. Not just a village.

The Gulf of Cambay is also known as The Gulf of Khambhat and is in the North West of India, close to the modern city of Vadodara.
I'm hoping someone with more knowledge will weigh in, but the site seems slightly woo-ish. The linked article seems like a mix of seemingly hard facts about artifacts recovered and carbon dating of same, and assertions like "The folk songs in local Kachchi dialogue, mention about 4 major towns of ancient past. Three of these have been identified as Mohenjadaro, Harappa and Dholavira. Obviously the fourth one and the biggest of them all and oldest is the Gulf of Cambay metropolis." Well, OBVIOUSLY...

The other articles on the site seem somewhat agenda-driven to my layman's eye. I'm willing to admit maybe this is my lack of knowledge combined with articles imperfectly translated to English, but...expert opinion please.
  #95  
Old 09-02-2018, 09:37 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
I'm hoping someone with more knowledge will weigh in, but the site seems slightly woo-ish.
The whole site looks to be of deeply questionable scholarship. This is one of the featured articles. I'd take anything there with a Himalaya of salt.
  #96  
Old 09-02-2018, 09:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You and Dibble are arguing over matters of opinion, not fact. Dibble provided information about other ancient sites that contradicts the opinions in your cites, not the facts about what is found at GT. It's a virtual guarantee that some other archaeologist will one day draw different conclusions about those things that cannot be absolutely established.
No, actually they didn't.

And yes, there is a degree of opinion there, but it's the learned expert opinion of a degreed professional, with 15 years there, vs some guy on the internet.
  #97  
Old 09-03-2018, 12:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
While we're talking about ancient cities, there was one in the Gulf of Cambay that apparently is 9500 years old and thus about 4000 years older than earliest known Mesopotomia city. http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/cambay

It appears they seem to believe this was a major town. Not just a village.

The Gulf of Cambay is also known as The Gulf of Khambhat and is in the North West of India, close to the modern city of Vadodara.
Yeah, that's been discussed here before.
  #98  
Old 09-03-2018, 12:47 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, actually they didn't.
Except, of course, you have yet to show how either of my two points are wrong...
Quote:
And yes, there is a degree of opinion there, but it's the learned expert opinion of a degreed professional, with 15 years there, vs some guy on the internet.
Nevertheless, facts are facts.

This "guy on the internet" has a fact : there have been hunter-gatherers who lived in sedentary societies more complex than simple roving bands, whose existence and form of society have been known by archaeologists and anthropologists for far longer than GT has been excavated.

Your "degreed professional" (and Schmidt) exhibited no knowledge of this form of HG, and according to your own cites have formed opinions based on that ignorance.

Prove either of those wrong, and you can say "no, they didn't". Just repeating "layman. layman" isn't proving anything.
  #99  
Old 09-03-2018, 07:59 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
We have reliable evidence that this is silly. Of many possible examples, one is this modest bridge in France - around 1900 years old.
I saw a number of those "life after man" programs. It is amazing how quickly things disappear.

What remains? Most structures disappear and only foundations are left, which get buried fairly quickly - within a few decades. Of the very old structures that we have, among the oldest are the Egyptian pyramids. which have huge blocks of stone with no mortar. By contrast, most things that were held together with mortar fall apart eventually.

Modern structures should provide much more for future archeologists, mainly due to our lavish use of concrete. Reinforced concrete won't last as long, since the rebar rusts and expands, but plain concrete is damn near indestructible unless attacked chemically over a long time. Things like bunkers could last almost for ever. Things like stone bridges will outlast most of the modern ones, since steel fails sooner or later. The program suggested that most steel structures would collapse within 500 years.

So yes, after 1000 years of no man the evidence for our existence would probably just be a lot of strange humps in the landscape
  #100  
Old 09-03-2018, 08:17 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,433
How about gold? Gold doesnt break down.

Now assuming a society 10,000 years ago would value it as much as we do now, wouldnt there be these rooms filled with gold laying somewhere? Evidence of an ancient bank or gold depository?

How about gold jewelry?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017