Gobleki Tepe: 15 New Temples found

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

As noted by other worthy contributors, the Mississippian socio-economic structure is formally classified as a culture, not a civilization, despite your personal misconceptions..

In regards to structural materials, various cultures made use of the available resource base. If you were familiar with the Cahokia area, you would be aware that there are no readily available bedrock sources of structural-grade lithic materials. In actuality, much of the immediate area consists of alluvial soils. Thus, soils and floral resources were the most accessible structural materials. In addition, and without going into detail, belief-system attributes were likely also an influential element.

As your various misconception have already been clarified on numerous occasions, what specific concern would you wish to have addressed?

.

Bla bla bla... The definition of a civilisation is a culture that builds a city. 

[kmt_sesh]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Bla bla bla... The definition of a civilisation is a culture that builds a city. 

No, it's not. It's not that simple. We've provided you proper criteria for a civilization. Go by that, but not by what you want it to be.

[ShadowSot]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Bla bla bla... The definition of a civilisation is a culture that builds a city. 

No, it is not. 

 Now carry on with your bla bla bla tantrum. 

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

No, it's not. It's not that simple. We've provided you proper criteria for a civilization. Go by that, but not by what you want it to be.

He didn't bother reading the article he posted where Cahokia is not presented as a civilization in it, nor did he take the time to understand its part of the wider Missippian culture. 

 He presented it as though Archaeologists claimed it was a civilization, which a bit of effort would have shown that they don't. 

 He's instead doubled down on claiming that posters here are saying that that is the mark of a civilization; which is false. 

 And that's pretty much all he's capable of, defining his own terms and claiming he isn't wrong.

[Swede]

14 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Bla bla bla... The definition of a civilisation is a culture that builds a city. 

You may wish to refrain from such silliness. As per a number of contributions, including your own, the anthropological determination of a civilization is based upon number of factors. To "quote" yourself:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

(Captain Risky #90). Kindly note the additional determinants included in what would be considered to be a minimal reference.

.

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, lightly said:

I like Harte's explanation of the circles being more along the lines of social gathering places than strictly religious sites.

it just occured to me that I can't think of any other "temple" or church sites where  the religious edifices were so plentiful  !

  15 additional circles just discovered in the same area ?  Who needs more than one temple or church?  Let alone so many  of them in the same area?.    What was the purpose of these things?

Hi Lightly

I worked at a shutdown for a Powerplant in a small city and I swear there was a church on every corner. And I never saw so many sinners in one place before.

jmccr8

[Unusual Tournament]

32 minutes ago, Swede said:

You may wish to refrain from such silliness. As per a number of contributions, including your own, the anthropological determination of a civilization is based upon number of factors. To "quote" yourself:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

(Captain Risky #90). Kindly note the additional determinants included in what would be considered to be a minimal reference.

.

You’re nitpicking. You wanna apply modern definitions to ancient cultures. civilisation is based on cultural and social cohesion within a divined area. But let’s bring this conversation back to Göbeklitepe. 

Sesh and others are of the opinion that neolithic man was more interested in pouring available resources into places of worship than into food production and housing. Now from an anthropological point of view I find hard to believe. What do you think?

[jmccr8]

7 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You’re nitpicking. You wanna apply modern definitions to ancient cultures. civilisation is based on cultural and social cohesion within a divined area. But let’s bring this conversation back to Göbeklitepe. 

Sesh and others are of the opinion that neolithic man was more interested in pouring available resources into places of worship than into food production and housing. Now from an anthropological point of view I find hard to believe. What do you think?

Hi Risky

Would you think it was nit picking if a mechanic put Toyota spark plugs in your Nissan?

jmccr8

Edited July 26, 2018 by jmccr8
#@&?ING phone

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Risky

Would you think it was nit picking if a mechanic put Toyota spark plugs in your Nissan?

jmccr8

Why not? If they screw it in it works right, regardless of thread depth and gap setting?  That’s CR’s approach apparently. 

“Civilization” already has a decent set of definitions it doesn’t require being redefined.

cormac

[ShadowSot]

12 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You’re nitpicking. You wanna apply modern definitions to ancient cultures. civilisation is based on cultural and social cohesion within a divined area. But let’s bring this conversation back to Göbeklitepe. 

Sesh and others are of the opinion that neolithic man was more interested in pouring available resources into places of worship than into food production and housing. Now from an anthropological point of view I find hard to believe. What do you think?

Now, having explained several times that these places of cultural and ceremonial importance were not the same as modern centers of worship, and giving examples of how they are not, let's not keep constructing these men of straw. 

Also keeping in mind we don't know exactly the breakdown of the group, we don't know that they did put presidency of this over food gathering. Egypt had very little crop growing during parts of the year, and that was when they did their major building. 

 The same reason these folks built their villages for parts of the year would imply they had leisure time for building. 

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Bla bla bla... The definition of a civilisation is a culture that builds a city. 

Just who are we supposed to believe, multiple experts across a dozen fields who all use the same working definition, or you, who makes basic blunders in fact and methodology all the time and can barely write grammatical sentences?

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

...

Sesh and others are of the opinion that neolithic man was more interested in pouring available resources into places of worship than into food production and housing. Now from an anthropological point of view I find hard to believe. What do you think?

 

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said such a thing, nor do I remember anyone else having said such a thing. It would seem now that your efforts to "redefine" civilization have failed, you're trying to shift a negative focus onto other posters. Not only will it never work, it's dishonest.

The GT people certainly must've been invested in construction at certain times of the year and in certain years, but hardly all the time. You make it seem as though erecting GT is all they did. There's a lot we can't know about these people, but look at other hunter-gatherers about whom we do know a lot. If the Lakota Sioux of he Northern Plains had a good hunting season among the buffalo herds, a big chunk of their time was idle. They could prepare and store plenty of reserves to sustain them. Something similar must've been true at Göbekli Tepe. When they could and felt the need to do so, they worked on their ritual center. It's not much more complicated than that.

Now, I take it we're agreed GT was not a civilization?

[Unusual Tournament]

59 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Now, having explained several times that these places of cultural and ceremonial importance were not the same as modern centers of worship, and giving examples of how they are not, let's not keep constructing these men of straw. 

Also keeping in mind we don't know exactly the breakdown of the group, we don't know that they did put presidency of this over food gathering. Egypt had very little crop growing during parts of the year, and that was when they did their major building. 

 The same reason these folks built their villages for parts of the year would imply they had leisure time for building. 

Geez I wish I was around during those care free Neolithic times... work a little then relax.

let me tell you how I think this whole Goblekli Tepe business played out... I think that looking at the geography of the area, small rolling grassy hills with water and good drainage these hunter and gathers would spend time every year collecting wild grains and herding animals while hunting and fishing would supplement their diets until in time they achieved more from managing the surrounding land and in time they learnt to plant and cultivate different grains with the seasons...

they built up reserves of food that allowed them to build better products and eventually developed artisans to work in different materials, like rock and stone and carved and posits textiles.

they developed a priesthood and built temples, eventually claiming the lands for themselves. The priesthood started stargazing and development of seasonal records and time began. 

Th y traded and so forth. Ahead of their time until either crops and soils failed, disease or war scattered them. 

Now for their time they had all the attributes of a civilisation, if not in the making. Nothing like it for the next 7000 years. 

Where are the houses? Well they might not have been in the same area as the temples or maybe they haven’t been excavated yet. But it’s nuts to think that they built such monuments to the beliefs but live like nomads as is being suggested. Especially if they had so much time on their hands...

Edited July 26, 2018 by Captain Risky

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Geez I wish I was around during those care free Neolithic times... work a little then relax.

let me tell you how I think this whole Goblekli Tepe business played out... I think that looking at the geography of the area, small rolling grassy hills with water and good drainage these hunter and gathers would spend time every year collecting wild grains and herding animals while hunting and fishing would supplement their diets until in time they achieved more from managing the surrounding land and in time they learnt to plant and cultivate different grains with the seasons...

they built up reserves of food that allowed them to build better products and eventually developed artisans to work in different materials, like rock and stone and carved and posits textiles.

they developed a priesthood and built temples, eventually claiming the lands for themselves. The priesthood started stargazing and development of seasonal records and time began. 

Th y traded and so forth. Ahead of their time until either crops and soils failed, disease or war scattered them. 

Now for their time they had all the attributes of a civilisation, if not in the making. Nothing like it for the next 7000 years. 

Where are the house? Well they might not have been in the same area as the temples or maybe they haven’t been excavated yet. But it’s nuts to think that they built such monuments to the beliefs but live like nomads as is being suggested.

 As someone who flatly demonstrates they know very little about what they're talking about, has misrepresented what members have said, and is being deliberately obtuse in posting, your opinions are about as worthless as the stuff on the underside of my boot. 

Yes, Neolithic peoples had leisure time. You'll note the many artifacts that display artistry going back before the construction of the site. The idea that they spent all of their time surviving is an old and long disproven idea. 

 Aboriginals and natives in the states and in Aus and other countries didn't and don't dedicate all of their time to surviving. 

And a purpose built structure only needs to be built once, until a new one is needed. It doesn't require being built every season. 

[kmt_sesh]

8 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Geez I wish I was around during those care free Neolithic times... work a little then relax.

let me tell you how I think this whole Goblekli Tepe business played out... I think that looking at the geography of the area, small rolling grassy hills with water and good drainage these hunter and gathers would spend time every year collecting wild grains and herding animals while hunting and fishing would supplement their diets until in time they achieved more from managing the surrounding land and in time they learnt to plant and cultivate different grains with the seasons...

they built up reserves of food that allowed them to build better products and eventually developed artisans to work in different materials, like rock and stone and carved and posits textiles.

they developed a priesthood and built temples, eventually claiming the lands for themselves. The priesthood started stargazing and development of seasonal records and time began. 

Th y traded and so forth. Ahead of their time until either crops and soils failed, disease or war scattered them. 

Now for their time they had all the attributes of a civilisation, if not in the making. Nothing like it for the next 7000 years. 

Where are the houses? Well they might not have been in the same area as the temples or maybe they haven’t been excavated yet. But it’s nuts to think that they built such monuments to the beliefs but live like nomads as is being suggested. Especially if they had so much time on their hands...

It's not a bad theory and follows a logical course, but one must examine the evidence on the ground. There's no evidence for real agriculture in that vicinity until after GT had been abandoned and buried. Iy's suspected that agriculture is one of the primary reasons GT fell out of use.

[docyabut2]

Quote

Just a question, why were the structures  all buried ? 

 

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

Just a question, why were the structures  all buried ? 

No one can know for sure but it probably had ritual applications, Think of how important that place must've been to its Neolithic people. Eventually it no longer served their spiritual needs but it must've still meant something to them. So instead of just abandoning or destroying it, they ritually buried it. And a good thing they did, because that's probably the only reason the site was so well preserved.

[ShadowSot]

11 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

No one can know for sure but it probably had ritual applications, Think of how important that place must've been to its Neolithic people. Eventually it no longer served their spiritual needs but it must've still meant something to them. So instead of just abandoning or destroying it, they ritually buried it. And a good thing they did, because that's probably the only reason the site was so well preserved.

It's not uncommon for ritual or important sites to be buried or deconstructed. 

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

It's not a bad theory and follows a logical course, but one must examine the evidence on the ground. There's no evidence for real agriculture in that vicinity until after GT had been abandoned and buried. Iy's suspected that agriculture is one of the primary reasons GT fell out of use.

It’s a good theory and since there is no logical example, anywhere of agriculture and animal husbandry coming after temple and masonry specialisation it’s not only a good theory it fact!

...don’t you think that maybe after 12,000 years, rivers meandering, wars and so on that asking for any signs agriculture is kinda self defeating?

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

It’s a good theory and since there is no logical example, anywhere of agriculture and animal husbandry coming after temple and masonry specialisation it’s not only a good theory it fact!

...don’t you think that maybe after 12,000 years, rivers meandering, wars and so on that asking for any signs agriculture is kinda self defeating?

So we can find houses, tools, trash, and debris, but somehow all the farming, seeds, and crops disappeared? 

 And you are forcing facts to fit your conclusion. It stands out because we do not have evidence that fits our expectations. 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

No one can know for sure but it probably had ritual applications, Think of how important that place must've been to its Neolithic people. Eventually it no longer served their spiritual needs but it must've still meant something to them. So instead of just abandoning or destroying it, they ritually buried it. And a good thing they did, because that's probably the only reason the site was so well preserved.

Well I have another theory that as the importance of trade grew and agriculture thrived they built new temples and the old became warehouses/storage areas for trade. War and rivers changing course might have made the area infertile and people retreated back to a decentralised lifestyle... of course Shadow would have us believe that with all this free time now they moved closer to the touristy areas of the Mediterranean where they spent their time golfing and swimming. Geez I wish I was neolithic too.

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

So we can find houses, tools, trash, and debris, but somehow all the farming, seeds, and crops disappeared? 

 And you are forcing facts to fit your conclusion. It stands out because we do not have evidence that fits our expectations. 

Show me one example where agriculture is not part of human progression? 

[kmt_sesh]

1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

So we can find houses, tools, trash, and debris, but somehow all the farming, seeds, and crops disappeared? 

 And you are forcing facts to fit your conclusion. It stands out because we do not have evidence that fits our expectations. 

It's mainly that farmers develop very particular tool types, from all areas and all periods. It's a natural outgrowth of agriculture. And there are no such tools to be found in or near GT. Moreover, reamins of flora and fauna will demonstrate whether there's domestication. Again, absent at GT.

No agriculture occurred there yet.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, ShadowSot said:

It's not uncommon for ritual or important sites to be buried or deconstructed. 

It was buried and not destroyed so it was in essence protected. They dug it back up when it was safe and reburied it again when it was threatened...what is so hard to understand mate?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Captain Risky

[ShadowSot]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

It was buried and not destroyed so it was in essence that I got protected. They dug it back up when it was safe and reburied it again when it was threatened...what is so hard to understand mate?

If you'd read some of the articles you've linked to, you'd remember that rather than digging them up, new ones were constructed over the years. Old ones were buried after they stopped being used.