It does not follow at all, by any logic or statistical method. You cannot take an estimate that is generalized for all life forms going back hundreds of millions of years and draw conclusions about species that evolved in the most recent single-digit millions of years. Humanoid species developed only after the latest mass extinction event that is the cause of most of that 99% mentioned in that pop science article.
Even if the numbers were true, it doesn’t mean those early humanoid species were advanced enough to develop impressive civilizations. This is the stuff of Atlantis myths.
That is nonsense. We have physical evidence today of civilizations from 6,000 years ago. The Khufu pyramid was built around 4,500 years ago, and that is some pretty damn fine visual evidence. We have built things today that will certainly be visible in 1,000 years. The Empire State Building is already 10% of that age now. The History Channel has a terrible track record for scientific accuracy, including sensational stories about how aliens influenced ancient societies.
Could you perhaps summarize the two videos, I’m not giving them my eyeballs until I’m convinced they’re not Graham Hancock-style kooks?
The guy behind those videos, Sweatman, published a paper that should never have been submitted, let alone published. It’s disappointing, really. He takes random constellations and tries to fit them all on one pillar. If I recall, he doesn’t even look at other pillars. As mentioned so clearly above, any serious work on this place must show how all the pillars work together, and ideally, what led to it, and how it fit in to later cultures. It wasn’t about comets, I guarantee it!
When you guys argue about whether or not they lived there, Klaus eventually decided there must have been at least some people there year-round.
In Greece, 1000 BCE or however far back, they had leagues, where groups would protect a sacred area like Delphi. At Göbekli Tepe, it’s very possible separate groups, say from the Tigris side at places like Kortik Tepe, the North with groups like the ten percent of DNA from the Caucuses, and the Euphrates side all congregated here at these special times of year, and skywatching was part of the social conversation while other bands arrived.
Also, this might sound like a joke, but it isn’t: it could very easily be that agriculture started because they loved beer. Otherwise they may have picked something easier to process like nut trees.
much less than we think we know. veritably, with history gradually dissipating behind us … we grow farther from the truth with each passing generation. believe what you wish … and, remember, watch your back.
“Look, I came here for a argument.”
“Sorry, it’s ‘Being Hit on the Head’ lessons in here.”
-Monty Python*
The whole discussion about hunter-gatherer vs. agriculture is based on the presumption that gathering resources can only support a small number of people and will suffer from seasonal variations, whereas agriculture can produce massive surpluses to feed a population year-round. Our perception of hunter-gatherers is prejudiced by the perception bias that surviving groups have mostly been pushed away from productive lands to marginal lands over time by the advance of agriculture - which with population density also has a numerical advantage in warfare.
Groups such as the West Coast Indians are an intermediate situation - they were fishermen mainly, and also exploited a massive surge or food during the annual salmon runs. Fishermen on an abundant body of water don’t need to move, and can build a complex base camp. They don’t scare off their “game”, migrations and currents replenish the supply. A good thing to read is Farley Mowat’s “Sea of Slaughter”. It concentrates on the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but also considers the rest of North America and the abundance of wildlife before the advent of the European invasion - which decimated much of the wildlife. the point would be that in an unsettled fertile wilderness, the food available to hunter groups would be far greater than modern experience suggests; and that an area would possibly support a greater density of population than we expect with today’s view of the abundance of food resources.
So that becomes the point to discuss - how much could the area support around GT and for how much of the year? It could likely support a settled group year round, or a massive gathering for a short time. the other issue relates to construction - a large temporary gathering might cut and drag the pillars, perhaps one at a time. Would they then be carved by a massive group effort? (would the carving appearance betray such a group effort?). or would a single craftsman spend a while carving the entire pillar? (Thus implying close to year-round habitation for the craftsmen - who feeds them? how?) Is there a clue how it was done - lay on its side or back until finished, carve already in place with some sort of ladder or scaffold?
The devil is in the details. The only irrefutable fact is that one way or another, it was done.
PS. maybe the lack of feet on the Venus of Willendorf suggests that foot fetishes are a recent development?
Or maybe it just means that whoever carved the Willendorf figure happened not to have a foot fetish. Or the customer it was carved for, if it was made for someone else. Or maybe the carver liked feet, but had learned from experience that round, fat shapes hold up well, but carved feet tend to break off, so he stopped bothering to try carving them. Or maybe he made another statue that was nothing but an exaggerated pair of feet, but we just happen not to have found that one.
Isn’t that figurine supposed by some authorities to be a self-portrait by a pregnant woman? Looking down, all she could see was boobs and belly, with nary a foot in evidence.
Or she - no reason to assume a he, there. In fact, there’s a not-too-crazy theory that it doesn’t have feet and has some of the proportions it has because it’s a self-portrait.
I didn’t mention the possibility that the carver was a woman, because it wouldn’t have changed any of the hypotheticals I came up with. But it hadn’t occurred to me that it might be a self-portrait: That would indeed make the carver’s sex relevant.
More particularly, the pregnant appearance denotes fertility, motherhood and life. Widespread female icons are widely agreed to be the earliest religious figures, at least in Europe. Marija Gimbutas has written books about the Old European religion — with manifestations even today. More elaborate religions, featuring at least some male gods, came later, e.g. from near the Euphrates and Volga Rivers.
Multiple “Venus” figurines have been discovered, spanning a range of more than a thousand miles and more than 10,000 years. We have no idea what the motive for making them was, or even if it was a single tradition spanning a gigantic span of human history or if the idea was reinvented over and over. Anyone who claims to know what they were for is full of shit.
