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.
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.
You mean the article I’ve referenced three times in this thread?
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.
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. Your logical fallacy is 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.
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.
*
Yes, we all read it the first time, repeating the whole spew isn’t going to magically make it more convincing
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.
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”. :rolleyes:
Ok.
To summarize: I’ve made 2 specific claims:
- There have existed hunter gatherer cultures that were complex, sedentary and hierarchical and were capable of monumental construction.
- 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.
That’s precisely the same claim, just more forcefully stated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Gulf of Cambay: Cradle of Ancient Civilization | Archaeology Online
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.
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.
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.
Except, of course, you have yet to show how either of my two points are wrong…
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.
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
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?