[Merged] Gobekli Tepe

[Abramelin]

thanks Abramelin. didn't it turn from cold and dry to warmer and wetter about 12,000 years ago? ... Work calls .. so i might not see your answer for awhile.

Oh.. and remember, the decapitated heads were determined to be postmortem . So what could look like sacrificial Sacrifice to some .. might be a practice done out of great respect for the dead. I would guess, since there is only so much room Under a temple,, that the space there was reserved for, If found, highly important people, and the rest got also got a respectful sendoff ,, via Vultures? What they did to an enemy is anybody's guess?

I'll have to look for some paper about climate change in Anatolia to say something serious about this. But even at 12,000 BP Anatolia appeared to be quite densely populated.

=

The decapitations were in some places determined to be postmortem, in other places people were killed and then decapitated (they found thick layers of blood).

[Macroramphosis]

I'll have to look for some paper about climate change in Anatolia to say something serious about this. But even at 12,000 BP Anatolia appeared to be quite densely populated.

I think it's the fault of the 5.9 kiloyear event, circa 3900BC........so says Wiki, anyway.

The decapitation lark - whereabouts in the timeline of Çatalhöyük did this occur ? Didn't someone earlier in the thread say something about decapitations (perhaps after death, I can't remember) occurring there too ?

It seems to me that all of these Anatolian cultures we have discussed were pretty much of a muchness when it came to daily life, and it's just the point about the possibility of live sacrifice in some of them that raises a discordant note. Would this be about right ? Do we have signs of battle on any remains excavated elsewhere, by the way ?

[Abramelin]

Harte - what sort of further "hallmarks" are needed, as a matter of interest ?

Abramelin - I see that Colin Renshaw hypothesises that PIE may have 7th century Anatolian origins, I was still thinking that the origins were further east. In which case, by just PIE relation we can hypothesise a lot.

As for "sky burials", I was always under the impression that many cultures worldwide practiced some form of this in Palaeolithic or neo-Palaeothic times. It might not have been with the same clinical overtones, and with the same religious fervour that some cultures practice it today, or even with specific structures upon which it was practiced, but it seemed common enough, even if in some instances wild animals were also the architects of the practice as well as vultures. I'd class "sky burials" as being in the same branch of synchronicity as pyramids and wheels, for example. Many of these early cultures were astrologically religious, and it must have been natural for them to assume that the spirit and soul needed to go "up". I don't think it necessarily meant an obsession with death, but perhaps more a significant event in the cycle of life that needed attending to in the correct manner according to custom ?

I have my hat close by if I need to eat it......

About Anatolia and the origins of IE:

Anatolia has been proposed to be the origin of the Indo-European language family. Using Bayesian phylogeographic analysis, a multi-disciplinary research team has proposed that the Indo-European language expansion coincided with the migration of Anatolian farmers occurring about 9000 years ago. However, the method has been criticised as containing possible sources of error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia#Antiquity

===

Maybe I try to hard to see links where there are none, or have not been found yet. However, despite the fact that most scientists declare the age of Zoroastrianism the ancient classical writers came up as mere nonsense, in the light of the latest findings there could be some truth in it. But I'd like to know - even when proven wrong - how these classical writers came up with that extreme age for Zoroastrianism ( ~ 6200 BCE).

Then, did the Anatolians, when they spread out, also take their culture with them, or change the cultures of the peoples they met and mingled with? It is said they introduced agriculture wherever they went, so why not their beliefs, customs, art an so on?

Zoroastrianism - including the way they disposed of their dead - may be a very diluted form of a millennia older belief/religion from Anatolia.

[Abramelin]

I think it's the fault of the 5.9 kiloyear event, circa 3900BC........so says Wiki, anyway.

The decapitation lark - whereabouts in the timeline of Çatalhöyük did this occur ? Didn't someone earlier in the thread say something about decapitations (perhaps after death, I can't remember) occurring there too ?

It seems to me that all of these Anatolian cultures we have discussed were pretty much of a muchness when it came to daily life, and it's just the point about the possibility of live sacrifice in some of them that raises a discordant note. Would this be about right ? Do we have signs of battle on any remains excavated elsewhere, by the way ?

Yes, I said something about decapitations:

Çayönü

It is characteristic that this most ancient of all known class societies should present itself to us as a patriarchal society (Hauptmann 1991: 161/3, 2002: 266 f., Özdogan 1999b: 234/2) of bitter destructiveness: the gloomy temples dug into the mountain like caves served to maintain power in a society that was obviously rigidly organized (Özdogan 1994: 43, 1999b: 231) through open terror: human sacrifices. In the temples of all building levels huge amounts of blood were shed which the excavators retrieved in thick crusts on daggers, altars or draining funnels which were designed specifically for that purpose (Schirmer 1983: 466 f. and footnote 5, see also 475, Schirmer 1990: 382, 384, Hole 2000: 200 f.). The analysis of the isolated blood pigment haemoglobin revealed that it was generally human blood (Loy and Wood 1989, Wood 1998). In the chambers of one of these temples there were the skulls of more than 70 people and parts of skeletons of more than 400 different individuals (Özdogan and Özdogan 1989: 71/2) "neatly stacked up to the ceiling" (Schirmer 1990: 382). The situation in the other settlements of Eastern Anatolia was comparable.

http://www.urkommuni...k_en.html#_ftn3

In some other places skulls were put inside walls, in Catal Huyuk skeletons were buried beneath a floor.

.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

I think it's the fault of the 5.9 kiloyear event, circa 3900BC........so says Wiki, anyway.

...the Catal Huyuk culture appeared suddenly on the Konya plain amid a backdrop of very unstable climatic conditions. For example, there is good evidence to suggest that Anatolia was plunged into a mini ice age, c. 8850-8300 BC, following a relatively mild period after the recession of the last Ice Age proper, c. 9500-9000 BC. This glacial relapse would have brought with it intensely long periods of snow, ice and freezing conditions, which would have forced indigenous populations to seek refuge in cave shelters in an attempt to survive on a day-to-day basis. This was significant, for the Catal Huyuk folk's construction of its mostly sub-surface shrines and houses, all huddled together without exterior doors or windows, was clear evidence that they had evolved from a race that had once experienced a subterranean lifestyle...(149)

http://humanpast.net...r/shelter8k.htm

And - as I posted before - Catal Huyuk started when Göbekli Tepe ended.

+++++

EDIT:

The quote is of course not from a serious scientific paper, but I only hope someone didn't pull it out of a high hat, lol.

.

.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Since Catalhuyuk has no public buildings or temple but lots of houses for people, who appear to have no denominations or classes, maybe Gobekli Tepe was the temple place or pilgrimage site for the people living at Catalhuyuk...

Maybe they exposed the dead and unwanted children at places like these, where the spirits of God, priests or whatever were. Even Paris of Troy was exposed as a baby, to die. Then collected the remains to take back home - because reading up on the place,(Catalhuyuk) the inhabitants are extremely clean, no rubbish in the houses, all middens outside etc. Contaminants were possibly kept at a distance.

Disarticulated bones in some graves suggest that bodies may have been exposed in the open air for a time before the bones were gathered and buried.

All rooms were kept scrupulously clean. Archaeologists identified very little rubbish in the buildings, finding middens outside the ruins, with sewage and food waste, as well as significant amounts of wood ash. In good weather, many daily activities may also have taken place on the rooftops, which may have formed a plaza. In later periods, large communal ovens appear to have been built on these rooftops. Over time, houses were renewed by partial demolition and rebuilding on a foundation of rubble, which was how the mound was gradually built up. As many as eighteen levels of settlement have been uncovered.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Çatalhöyük

Even though the date of Gobekli Tepe is older, (if it's even that old) it seems connected imo.

--------

Weather conditions were probably affected by the Younger Dryas, who some think spurred agriculture on in the Levant. The Natufians got obsidian from Anatolia so much have also had some connection with the area even that far back.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Younger_Dryas

Always an interesting read at this site too:

http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/lostworlds/timeline/lwstory15.htm

Edited October 2, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Even though the date of Gobekli Tepe is older, (if it's even that old) it seems connected imo.

It is:

The Hd samples are from charcoal in the lowest levels of the site and would date the active phase of occupation. The Ua samples come from pedogenic carbonate coatings on pillars and only indicate a time after the site was abandoned—the terminus ante quem.

http://en.wikipedia....kli_Tepe#Dating

.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

It is:

The Hd samples are from charcoal in the lowest levels of the site and would date the active phase of occupation. The Ua samples come from pedogenic carbonate coatings on pillars and only indicate a time after the site was abandoned—the terminus ante quem.

http://en.wikipedia....kli_Tepe#Dating

.

Maybe it was a Natufian pilgrimage site....

[Abramelin]

Maybe it was a Natufian pilgrimage site....

Well, I suggested earlier they may have been the ones ending as sacrifice, their heads chopped off.... and also the ones that later buried those sites in revenge or from fear.

If they got their obsidian from the Anatolians, maybe at some point they didn't agree about the price the Anatolians asked for it, lol.

[Harte]

Harte - what sort of further "hallmarks" are needed, as a matter of interest ?

As I said, it varies, but the following is a reasonable listing:

Serious students of archaeology, anthropology, and history use a technical definition of civilization that describes without conveying value judgments. Civilizations, in this technical sense, are a specific type of human community: large, complex societies based on domestication of plants, animals, and people, plus other typical characteristics. (Culture is everything about a human community, its knowledge, beliefs, and practices; civilizations are a particular kind of culture.)

What are the characteristics of civilization carefully defined? The most influential theorist of civilization in the Western world during the first half of the twentieth century was a professor of prehistoric archeology, V. Gordon Childe (1892-1957), who taught at Edinburgh University from 1927-46 and at London University 1946-56. Childe's checklist for what constitutes a civilization still influences our thinking; here is his list summarized briefly:

• Large urban centers
  
• Full-time specialist occupations
  
• Primary producers of food paying surpluses to deity or ruler
  
• Monumental architecture
  
• Ruling class exempt from manual labor
  
• System for recording information
  
• Development of exact, practical sciences
  
• Monumental art
  
• Regular importation of raw materials
  
• Interdependence of classes (peasants, craftspeople, rulers)
  
• State religion/ideology
  
• Persistent state structures⁴
  

Source: http://worldhistoryc.../6.3/brown.html

Harte

[Abramelin]

Well, based on what you quoted, Harte, post-ice-age Anatolia was not a civilization.

* Large urban centers.

It is said the area was densely populated with many urban centers, but they were not much larger then a modern village or town.

* Full time specialist occupations.

They had agriculturists, probably priests, people (even settlements) specialized in making flint tools. Artists??

* Primary producers of food paying surpluses to deity or ruler

No idea about that one.

* Monumental architecture

That they had.

* Ruling class exempt from manual labor

No idea, and it has been suggested it was an egalitarian society.

* System for recording information

Nothing like that has been found yet.

* Development of exact, practical sciences

Is agriculture an 'exact, practical science'? Is making tools an exact, practical science??

* Monumental art

That they had.

* Regular importation of raw materials

It is suggested they traded to get these raw materials.

* Interdependence of classes (peasants, craftspeople, rulers)

No rulers as said before, and maybe all people worked the land, tended herds of domesticated animals hunt, created tools, without there being classes. Maybe they were all jacks of all trades with some of them having some kind of specialization.

* State religion/ideology

It's not even known they had a state, but they did have some sort of shamanistic religion.

* Persistent state structures

See former.

.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

God.... 381 guests and 1 anonymous user...

.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Well, based on what you quoted, Harte, post-ice-age Anatolia was not a civilization.

This is not directed at you Abramelin, but in general if those making such claims concerning this or that location would actually take Harte's post into account, they'd see that quite often what's being presented as a civilization isn't. And yet, some wonder why they can't make it up as they go along. Happens alot, both in the media and at sites such as UM.

cormac

[Abramelin]

This is not directed at you Abramelin, but in general if those making such claims concerning this or that location would actually take Harte's post into account, they'd see that quite often what's being presented as a civilization isn't. And yet, some wonder why they can't make it up as they go along. Happens alot, both in the media and at sites such as UM.

cormac

It's ok Cormac, I do know I was one who said the Anatolians created a civilization, but apparently they did not. Period.

I had some ideas, and then someone shoots them down.

Bad luck for me, and so I should come up with something better next time, lol.

I was not religiously pushing a theory against all costs and odds, I just had some ideas.

[cormac mac airt]

It's ok Cormac, I do know I was one who said the Anatolians created a civilization, but apparently they did not. Period.

I had some ideas, and then someone shoots them down.

Bad luck for me, and so I should come up with something better next time, lol.

I was not religiously pushing a theory against all costs and odds, I just had some ideas.

Wasn't trying to pin you to the wall Abe. The point I was trying to make is that there are certain requirements for whatever sites/area to qualify as a civilization and more often than not we don't see those qualifications met. The commonly presented idea that because something exists, that it must qualify as a civilization, is where the problem lies IMO.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

Wasn't trying to pin you to the wall Abe. The point I was trying to make is that there are certain requirements for whatever sites/area to qualify as a civilization and more often than not we don't see those qualifications met. The commonly presented idea that because something exists, that it must qualify as a civilization, is where the problem lies IMO.

cormac

So we decide what constitutes a civilisation.I think if a bar was to be set it should not be related to material culture at all but rather on social principles and interactions and higher intelligence and thought process rather then on buildings,occupations etc.Though material evidence can be considered an indicator,it cannot be considered an absolute.A civilisation can be naturalistic or based on a symbiotic relation with nature and still be quite advanced intellectually,but then again we wouldn't consider it to be a civilisation, would we? since it is not materialistic enough to leave us our material evidence that survives over millenias.To surmise i would prefer to go with what the word literally means i.e a population which is 'civil' and not necessarily defined by our material notions of being 'civil'.

[Harte]

Misuse of the term is rampant.

"Civilization" means one thing to the layman and something else to the Anthropologist.

This is the problem here.

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel]

Misuse of the term is rampant.

"Civilization" means one thing to the layman and something else to the Anthropologist.

This is the problem here.

Harte

The anthropologist should invent a new word for his own special definitions rather then resorting to the laymans language or words to avoid such confusions.

[Harte]

Any other suggestions from the peanut gallery for academia?

H.

[cormac mac airt]

The anthropologist should invent a new word for his own special definitions rather then resorting to the laymans language or words to avoid such confusions.

The layman should quit misusing the one that's there.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

The anthropologist should invent a new word for his own special definitions rather then resorting to the laymans language or words to avoid such confusions.

It's the other way around. Historians of all calibers coined many if not all of the terms related to historical studies, beginning back in the nineteenth century. In historical, social, and anthropological terms, words like "civilization," "state," "polity," and "culture" have specific meanings. Göbekli Tepe simply was not a civilization, in so far as the available evidence tells us thus far.

The same applies to words like "hypothesis" and "theory," which also have specific meanings (although not necessarily applied exactingly the same by all disciplines). More than most, these two words are misapplied and misused by laypeople. One that always drives me nuts is that idiotic television show Ancient Aliens and its constant use of the misnomer "alien theorists." There is no such thing. In strict terms, an alien theory does not exist. This is why I prefer the term "theme" for such things—first coined, if I remember correctly, by Swede in describing cladking's "geyser" beliefs about the Great Pyramid.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

No matter how we called Gobekli Tepe its stand for what it is. But I do agree that there sort of liklyness about ancient people when we talk about calling them civilization or culture.

Etruscans are civilization and Illyrians are tribes. Thats hilarious. Some pre Inca people are called cultures although thed deserve civilization.

When we talk about china well it gets even more foggy there. There we have names like mythical kingdoms then dynasties. Whats dynasty stand for?

Imagine that we call Rome empire under Hadrian, Hadrian dynasty, Augustus dynasty. Beside one Mongol and one Manchu they were all Han dynasties. I spoke with some historians which say that China civilization is old as Egypt, India, less older then Sumer and that their empire strech from 221 BC to 1911 AD which is in sense true. So from Qin to Qing.

China was always center of world till we get to industruial revolution. Or equal. Fine example is Han dynasty and Rome.

Edited October 4, 2012 by the L

[Harsh86_Patel]

Any other suggestions from the peanut gallery for academia?

H.

Peanuts and popcorn gallery,but i am happy that the anthropologists have not redefined 'Peanuts' aslo.

civ·i·li·za·tion/ˌsivələˈzāSHən/

Noun:

• The most advanced stage of human social development and organization.
  
• The process by which a society or place reaches this stage.
  

Most advanced stage of human "social development" and "organisation" ,both are not indicated in an absolute fashion by material evidence...............can't find large monuments,stone tablets and large cities in the definition.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Harsh86_Patel

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Peanuts and popcorn gallery,but i am happy that the anthropologists have not redefined 'Peanuts' aslo.

civ·i·li·za·tion/ˌsivələˈzāSHən/

Noun:

• The most advanced stage of human social development and organization.
  
• The process by which a society or place reaches this stage.
  

Most advanced stage of human "social development" and "organisation" ,both are not indicated in an absolute fashion by material evidence...............can't find large monuments,stone tablets and large cities in the definition.

Today we see one nation as nation if those people have: their language, their territory, their tradition and customs.

Criteria to full fill term civilization is more hard then nation.

I guess what science means under term civilization is that they must have language but also use of alphabet, advanced organizations either military or construction achivements beside their language territory, own customs. Maybe uniqe art or architecture. Their myths and religion.

Illyrians for example have had their own Gods, uniqe art, they own territory, language, customs, organization yet they dont fullone term which is alphabet. So they are not civilization. They are tribes.

Which is kind of word game. When you hear civilization and word tribes , you think on very much different things which in reality doesnt follow.

Even Illyrians use Greek alphabet,built cities and made own coins and so own.

Same thing with Celts.

Culture is culture, just customs and traditions, art , pottery.

Thats not including alphabet neither. It doesnt include one area.

Is just one criteria what full fill todays term of nation.

[Harte]

People should make at least a small effort to understand that the terms "civilization," "culture," "tribe" etc. do not, in Athropology, constitute any sort of moral judgement on a society.

Harte