Gobleki Tepe: 15 New Temples found

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, Jarocal said:

If it more than just about carved rocks, why would you make a statement that agroforestry cannot compare to building in stone? Such an assertion seems to place undue importance on a rather simple and mundane task of working to shape stone. How do we know they were temples and not Brothels? 

imagine that, brothels...lol well i guess thats a form of specialisation too.

  

[ShadowSot]

We look at Stonehenge as a single monument, but at one point in time it was part of a series of structures that weren't as lasting. 

 The culture and cultures that built and utilized them weren't a civilization, however. While there are new structures to be discovered, the sort of land use we de expect to find to support a permanent inhabitation of a large size aren't present at the site. 

 There is evidence of primitive seed spreading and gathering, but not to the level that'd support a large (for the time) steady population. 

[Jarocal]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

imagine that, brothels...lol well i guess thats a form of specialisation too.

  

Merely pointing out that Archeologists tend to ascribe the term temple to structures rather frequently. Any decorative motif incorporated into a structure is automatically deemed religious in nature.

[Harte]

7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you're not being asked to judge coke over pepsi. what you are being asked to consider is a sophisticated temple complex that was built 12,000 years ago. a time when we have no records of anyone doing such a thing. 

We have no records of anyone doing anything 12kya.

That doesn't make every culture a civilization.

Harte

[Harte]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

imagine that, brothels...lol well i guess thats a form of specialisation too.

  

Back then, temples WERE brothels.

They had their sheet straight in ancient times.

Harte

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Back then, temples WERE brothels.

 

Unless you were a Vestal Virgin. Then you were killed for participating in "bedsport". 

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Jarocal said:

If it more than just about carved rocks, why would you make a statement that agroforestry cannot compare to building in stone? Such an assertion seems to place undue importance on a rather simple and mundane task of working to shape stone. How do we know they were temples and not Brothels? 

Hey Jarocal

How have you been, haven't seen you around much.

jmccr8

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, Harte said:

We have no records of anyone doing anything 12kya.

That doesn't make every culture a civilization.

Harte

how about you define civilisation?

[kmt_sesh]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

how about you define civilisation?

There is no single list of criteria for a civilization, but they're all similar. Here's an example:

https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/140526/

These are archaeological criteria, mind you. This helps historians define how one culture group is a civilization while another is not. Let's just take a look at some fo the criteria in the above link.

appearance of urban centers
There are no known urban centers for the GT culture group.

full-time specialists
This also is absent at GT, whose group at present still appears to be hunter-gatherers. They must've had some degree of specialization during the construction phases of GT, but the specialization was not full-time.

monumental public building
They've got that covered.

– sizeable surplus product, withdrawn by elite from taxes or tribute
No evidence for that, either. They must've stockpiled animal and plant goods when construction was anticipated, but that was at most seasonal and only occasionally.

You get the idea. The GT group occasionally meets criteria but for the most part does not. This is the conclusion for the present. Future excavations might change our understanding of these people and their culture, but at present they do not meet the criteria for a civilization.

[Unusual Tournament]

Your link sesh is crap. A simple explanation is what is needed...

My reading leads me to believe that mobilising social order, communication, religion and commerce enough to specialise are what makes a civilisation and they all fit into the GT criteria.

[kmt_sesh]

9 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Your link sesh is crap. A simple explanation is what is needed...

My reading leads me to believe that mobilising social order, communication, religion and commerce enough to specialise are what makes a civilisation and they all fit into the GT criteria.

Very well, then. Submit that for peer review and see how far it takes you. It was you who asked the question and I was trying to help.

As it is, your list is so vague and tentative that every single culture group could be considered a civilization.

[Harte]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

how about you define civilisation?

Quote

The long list definition

of civilization (Charles Redman’s reorganization o

f V. Gordon

Childe’s list)

−

Civilizations generally have most of the following

characteristics:

−

Primary traits (the organization of the society)

−

Cities

−

Full-time labor specialization

−

Concentration of surplus

−

that is, concentration of wealth, in the hands of i

nstitutions like "the church" or "the

government", individuals, or both

−

Class structure

−

that is, people fall into economic or social status

categories that have common

points of view and interests, often different from

those of other classes

−

classes often have different degrees of prestige an

d power

−

State organization

−

political hierarchy of power and administration; se

e the definitions

−

Secondary traits (the material expression and resul

ts of that organization)

−

Monumental public works

−

meant at least in part to impress, like temples, pa

laces, city walls and gates, etc.

−

Long-distance trade

−

Standardized, monumental artwork

−

big, impressive statues, murals, etc. in a specific

, widespread style associated with

the civilization

−

Writing

−

Arithmetic, geometry, astronomy

Source

Harte

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Source

Harte

So just outta curiosity Harte... who would you regard as a civilisation?

[Kenemet]

15 hours ago, Harte said:

Back then, temples WERE brothels.

Actually, no.  The reports of the Babylonians using this practice are greatly exaggerated.  Certainly not true for Egypt or China or India.

[Kenemet]

37 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

So just outta curiosity Harte... who would you regard as a civilisation?

"Civilization" comes from the root word meaning "city."  So any culture with cities.  In order to have cities you need agriculture, transportation, animal husbandry (food, work assistance), and structured government.  So the Mongol Horde is a culture (or horde) but not actually a civilization.  They didn't live in cities at the time of Genghis Khan.

[Harte]

55 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, no.  The reports of the Babylonians using this practice are greatly exaggerated.  Certainly not true for Egypt or China or India.

Oh.

So it's only true for the present.

Harte

[Harte]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

So just outta curiosity Harte... who would you regard as a civilisation?

Any culture that meets a large majority of the conditions I listed in the quote.

Harte

[ShadowSot]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

how about you define civilisation?

Ancient History Encyclopedia

Quote

The meaning of the term civilizationhas changed several times during its history, and even today it is used in several ways. It is commonly used to describe human societies "with a high level of cultural and technological development", as opposed to what many consider to be less "advanced" societies. This definition, however, is unclear, subjective, and it carries with it assumptions no longer accepted by modern scholarship on how human societies have changed during their long past.

Etymologically, the word civilization relates to the Latin term civitas, or ”city”, which is why it sometimes refers to urban state-level societies, setting aside the nomadic people who lack a permanent settlement and those who live in settlements that are not considered urban or do not have a state-level organization. Sometimes it can be used as a label for human societies which have attained a specific degree of complexity. In a wide sense, civilization often means nearly the same thing as culture or even regional traditions including one or more separate states. In this sense, we sometimes speak of the “Aegeancivilization”, “Chinese civilization”, “Egyptian civilization”, or “Mesoamerican civilization”, but each of these may include several cities or regions, for example: “Mesoamerican civilization” includes groups such as the Olmec, Maya, Zapotec, Aztec, and others; “Aegean civilization” includes the Minoan, Mycenaean, and other societies of the Cycladic islands and western Anatolia.

 

[Jarocal]

15 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hey Jarocal

How have you been, haven't seen you around much.

jmccr8

Work has been hectic. Still lurk though.

[Unusual Tournament]

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

"Civilization" comes from the root word meaning "city."  So any culture with cities.  In order to have cities you need agriculture, transportation, animal husbandry (food, work assistance), and structured government.  So the Mongol Horde is a culture (or horde) but not actually a civilization.  They didn't live in cities at the time of Genghis Khan.

okay thanks. but i think that this area (Goblekli Tepe) still needs to be properly excavated before like you said we can call it a city or not. certainly looking like a city, eh?  

[Unusual Tournament]

6 hours ago, Harte said:

Any culture that meets a large majority of the conditions I listed in the quote.

Harte

rubbish! every definition I've read is less that 10 words yours is such a tome that it would exclude half the civilisations that have ever sprung up with your "conditions". lets keep this civil (civilisation) do you see what i just done there?  

[Unusual Tournament]

5 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Ancient History Encyclopedia

 

its a communal, looks like a city, has social structures like temples, art and masonry is highly evolved. possible astronomical alignments... looks like a duck, moves like one and quacks like one then its a duck. 

[Grignr]

22 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

its a communal, looks like a city, has social structures like temples, art and masonry is highly evolved. possible astronomical alignments... looks like a duck, moves like one and quacks like one then its a duck. 

Which discoveries so far make it look like a city instead of a huge temple(maybe?) complex?

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, Grignr said:

Which discoveries so far make it look like a city instead of a huge temple(maybe?) complex?

an entire temple mound for starters. the art work is exceptional. some have attributed astrological proportions to these temples. the area hasn't been entirely excavated as of yet but its looking like alot of people went to a lot of trouble to build this. it would have required specialisation which as you know is a by product of surplus food and learning. mind you all this around 12,000 yes ago. not bad. i just can't imagine it being a seasonal camp for a bit of religion. its full on. 

i take it you have reservations about calling it a city or even a civilisation ? 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Work has been hectic. Still lurk though.

Good to hear your still with us.

jmccr8