Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Gobleki Tepe: 15 New Temples found

707 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Grignr
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

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 ? 

I would say until we find more than these markers whatever they are, clan, tribe, god, starsign whatever they might be, there's nothing to suggest this is more than a gathering place, possibly for nomadic tribes, although obviously the scale is impressive! Once we start finding evidence of permanent occupation all bets are off :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

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?  

If you are wanting to talk Anthropology (which is what this is,) then you are obliged to use the definitions as agreed upon by Anthropologists, or risk incoherency.

Your second use of the term above is indicative of the latter.

A culture classsified as a civilization need not be "civil" in any way whatsoever.

Harte

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
4 hours ago, Grignr said:

I would say until we find more than these markers whatever they are, clan, tribe, god, starsign whatever they might be, there's nothing to suggest this is more than a gathering place, possibly for nomadic tribes, although obviously the scale is impressive! Once we start finding evidence of permanent occupation all bets are off :)

The scale is what assumes a certain level of advancement of the people that built GT. Think of everything that had to come together long before the first stone monuments were erected there: a stable climate, a sizable group of people, the resources to stay and develop stone work abilities that are fairly advanced. GT has a lot of "relief carving" which is cutting away excess stone around a shape instead of just carving a shape in to the stone. Very difficult and time consuming to do. So who taught the builders of GT to do this >12,000 years ago? How many workers did it take to make GT? How long did it take them and how were they supplied with resources during the building process? This wasn't just a tribe wandering through that stopped for an afternoon to build a massive complex, this was the work of an established people, IMO. A civilization? Eh, I can't speak to that. But "established" to a certain degree, whatever that entailed in pre-history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
On July 22, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Jarocal said:

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.

       Yup...  I often think the same thing.     I dunno why... But,  in this case,   I keep thinking the structures may be more political than reigious.

mayyyyyybe  the animal symbols represent clans or divisions of power...   We just don't know what they were thinking....

they might have had some very unexpected social structures.     .????.

Edited by lightly
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

The scale is what assumes a certain level of advancement of the people that built GT. Think of everything that had to come together long before the first stone monuments were erected there: a stable climate, a sizable group of people, the resources to stay and develop stone work abilities that are fairly advanced. GT has a lot of "relief carving" which is cutting away excess stone around a shape instead of just carving a shape in to the stone. Very difficult and time consuming to do. So who taught the builders of GT to do this >12,000 years ago? How many workers did it take to make GT? How long did it take them and how were they supplied with resources during the building process? This wasn't just a tribe wandering through that stopped for an afternoon to build a massive complex, this was the work of an established people, IMO. A civilization? Eh, I can't speak to that. But "established" to a certain degree, whatever that entailed in pre-history.

Given that no evidence of any long-term residency has ever been found there (yet,) there's no reason to assume an entire level was completed in one go.

One or two T-columns each season would account for what we see.

Back in those days, it was advantageous for tribes to have a gathering place - to swap DNA. This was needed only about once or twice a year (it takes 9 months for fruition, and you don't want to be 8 months pregnant in mid winter.) The rest of the time, they moved from site to site.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The world was their play ground ...

 

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

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?  

Not really.  You need streets and specialized buildings (a village may not have a town hall, for instance, or even shops for various trades (think about the villages of the "uncontacted tribes" in the Amazon.)  This appears to be more like the Temple of Karnak, where pharaohs built and enlarged for many centuries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
31 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Not really.  You need streets and specialized buildings (a village may not have a town hall, for instance, or even shops for various trades (think about the villages of the "uncontacted tribes" in the Amazon.)  This appears to be more like the Temple of Karnak, where pharaohs built and enlarged for many centuries.

Agreed. There's no sign of urbanization, no indication or proof of social stratification, no infrastructures for food storage or distribution, no facilities for full-time specialization, and in fact so far there is no evidence at all that the GT people resided in or near that ritual space. We'll see what the future brings, but there just aren't any indications that would lead us to call the site a civilization.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
14 hours ago, Grignr said:

I would say until we find more than these markers whatever they are, clan, tribe, god, starsign whatever they might be, there's nothing to suggest this is more than a gathering place, possibly for nomadic tribes, although obviously the scale is impressive! Once we start finding evidence of permanent occupation all bets are off :)

You contradict yourself buddy by saying on the one hand ‘these markers’ and then say there’s nothing ‘to suggest’ it might very well be what those markers indicate.

 I agree, more study and excavation is required but the current signs point to this being an acropolis of sorts and we all know temples more than likely take centre stage in any polis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
5 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Not really.  You need streets and specialized buildings (a village may not have a town hall, for instance, or even shops for various trades (think about the villages of the "uncontacted tribes" in the Amazon.)  This appears to be more like the Temple of Karnak, where pharaohs built and enlarged for many centuries.

...you see...you can’t compare it to Karnak (which was built by a civilisation) and then deny that the builders of Goblekli Tepe were a civilisation by heaping civilisation prerequisites on the builders like city planning when we all know there are none at Karnak?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
24 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...you see...you can’t compare it to Karnak (which was built by a civilisation) and then deny that the builders of Goblekli Tepe were a civilisation by heaping civilisation prerequisites on the builders like city planning when we all know there are none at Karnak?

Actually, I can.

There are these structures in the areas surrounding Karnak - some of them even abut up to the temple walls.  There are none in the areas surrounding Gobleki Tepe.  We do know what culture it belongs to and they weren't making cities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

That's a huge difference with Karnak. It was a sprawling temple complex, but it was also surrounded by an even more sprawling city. We know the Egyptians called the city Waset and the temple complex itself Ipet-Isut.

Göbekli Tepe, as of yet, shows none of the same features—no permanent settlement of any kind.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
30 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, I can.

There are these structures in the areas surrounding Karnak - some of them even abut up to the temple walls.  There are none in the areas surrounding Gobleki Tepe.  We do know what culture it belongs to and they weren't making cities.

...and we don’t know yet what other structures will be found at Goblekli Tepe but saying that because nothing has been found to date, there fore it’s NOT a civilisation is a bit like finding a chariot without any wheels. Cause there are no wheels does not mean that it didn’t have them at some stage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
37 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's a huge difference with Karnak. It was a sprawling temple complex, but it was also surrounded by an even more sprawling city. We know the Egyptians called the city Waset and the temple complex itself Ipet-Isut.

Göbekli Tepe, as of yet, shows none of the same features—no permanent settlement of any kind.

So your saying that the mark of a civilisation is the proximity of its temples to the living areas?

i guess the builders of Machu Picchu were not part of a civilisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
21 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

So your saying that the mark of a civilisation is the proximity of its temples to the living areas?

i guess the builders of Machu Picchu were not part of a civilisation.

That's not what I said, but you might have it partly right. GT shows no settlement patterns or domestication. That's key. But whet's more important than proximity is seasonality of settlement/ GT shows none at all, while a place like Karnak shows permanent settlement with highly developed infastructure.

Machu Picchu doesn't serve as an adequate example. It appears to have been a seasonal settlement for the elite, but it's only one small site of an otherwise sprawling, well-attested  civilization.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
6 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's not what I said, but you might have it partly right. GT shows no settlement patterns or domestication. That's key. But whet's more important than proximity is seasonality of settlement/ GT shows none at all, while a place like Karnak shows permanent settlement with highly developed infastructure.

Machu Picchu doesn't serve as an adequate example. It appears to have been a seasonal settlement for the elite, but it's only one small site of an otherwise sprawling, well-attested  civilization.

Not entirely accurate. There are some semi permanent villages in the area of Tepe. But they weren't permanent inhabitations, they left for the season to follow game. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
28 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's not what I said, but you might have it partly right. GT shows no settlement patterns or domestication. That's key. But whet's more important than proximity is seasonality of settlement/ GT shows none at all, while a place like Karnak shows permanent settlement with highly developed infastructure.

Machu Picchu doesn't serve as an adequate example. It appears to have been a seasonal settlement for the elite, but it's only one small site of an otherwise sprawling, well-attested  civilization.

Today it show no permanent settlement but like shadow says there are what looks like semi permanent structures. Goblekli Tepe shows signs of complex social structure. Now might not have reached the heights of say a complex civilisation like Egypt in 2500 BC but it certainly looks like it was developing before we thought was possible. 

A bevy of skills are evident in the creation of Goblekli Tepe. It looks like it was flourishing. and then suddenly we have nothing like it for 6000 years. 

It ticks all the boxes of a civilisation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grignr
3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Today it show no permanent settlement but like shadow says there are what looks like semi permanent structures. Goblekli Tepe shows signs of complex social structure. Now might not have reached the heights of say a complex civilisation like Egypt in 2500 BC but it certainly looks like it was developing before we thought was possible. 

A bevy of skills are evident in the creation of Goblekli Tepe. It looks like it was flourishing. and then suddenly we have nothing like it for 6000 years. 

It ticks all the boxes of a civilisation. 

As you've already been told, its not up to you to define what a civilisation is and what those boxes are, clearly at this moment in time with the information available to us the GT culture does not yet tick all of the boxes for the actual agreed definition of a civilisation.

 

If there is not yet evidence of a city, but might be one, there is no reason to make the assumption that it exists until we find actual proof as opposed to wishful thinking. The minute we start seeing indications of permanent settlement I'm sure the archaeologists involved will be jumping out of their seats to declare that they have evidence of the first civilisation, who wouldn't want their name against that discovery?

 

Which skills particularly do you feel are evident by the way?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grignr
6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

You contradict yourself buddy by saying on the one hand ‘these markers’ and then say there’s nothing ‘to suggest’ it might very well be what those markers indicate.

I don't think its a contradiction to say that just because the markers exist they don't suggest anything in and of themselves without an understanding of what they represent? Again you're jumping to a conclusion that isn't yet supported. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but you've yet to be proven right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 hour ago, Grignr said:

As you've already been told, its not up to you to define what a civilisation is and what those boxes are, clearly at this moment in time with the information available to us the GT culture does not yet tick all of the boxes for the actual agreed definition of a civilisation.

 

If there is not yet evidence of a city, but might be one, there is no reason to make the assumption that it exists until we find actual proof as opposed to wishful thinking. The minute we start seeing indications of permanent settlement I'm sure the archaeologists involved will be jumping out of their seats to declare that they have evidence of the first civilisation, who wouldn't want their name against that discovery?

oh god. you realise no one ever reacts well to being "told" anything. thats rude. i guess you're just after a rise. 

let me make this simple... the only box that the Goblekli Tepe civilisation doesn't tick and the one that is causing the most trouble for you'all... that is agriculture is supposed to predate such constructions and art work, (which lets face it is incredible for whatever era in the last 8000 years.) now what Harte and sesh are banking on is that geometric construction and stone artwork predate agriculture. while I'm saying that agriculture and farming led to fixed settlements and eventually villages and towns and then complex societies, including temples and star gazing. 

now you're right in saying that we don't have enough information as of yet but Im betting that putting the horse before the cart is more logical than what sesh, Harte and yourself are suggesting, being that hunter gatherers created this temple complex (and whatever else they will discover) as a seasonal hunting and gatherers meeting place before having a reliable surplus of food to create the skills needed to build and support a priesthood. and then created farming.

1 hour ago, Grignr said:

Which skills particularly do you feel are evident by the way?

well here is the paradox. sesh, Harte and yourself are on the one hand saying this was an era of hunter and gatherer types that lived by hunting and collecting seasonally. yet how logical is it to assume that people that just came outta the ice age could organise themselves and build geometric shaped temples, that computer experts can attribute to astrological dates, carved with incredible artwork for a priesthood and then maintain it for 300 hundred years? is tis the work of hunter, gatherers? 

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
32 minutes ago, Grignr said:

I don't think its a contradiction to say that just because the markers exist they don't suggest anything in and of themselves without an understanding of what they represent? Again you're jumping to a conclusion that isn't yet supported. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but you've yet to be proven right.

check my post above as i have answered some of your questions in this post. 

fine! you say I'm jumping to conclusions... how about you show me where else hunters and gathers 12,000 years ago built anything like GT? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's a huge difference with Karnak. It was a sprawling temple complex, but it was also surrounded by an even more sprawling city. We know the Egyptians called the city Waset and the temple complex itself Ipet-Isut.

Göbekli Tepe, as of yet, shows none of the same features—no permanent settlement of any kind.

I believe Kenemet was referring to a gradual enlargement both sites have in common.

Obviously Gobekli Tepe doesn't compare with Karnak except for maybe in that one way.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Today it show no permanent settlement but like shadow says there are what looks like semi permanent structures. Goblekli Tepe shows signs of complex social structure. Now might not have reached the heights of say a complex civilisation like Egypt in 2500 BC but it certainly looks like it was developing before we thought was possible. 

You mean before YOU thought it was possible?

There has been no assertion that nomads don't have a complex social structure.

In fact the nomads that still exist today actually have an extremely complex social structure.

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

A bevy of skills are evident in the creation of Goblekli Tepe.

Stone cutting, hunting and cooking are the main skills evinced by the site so far

But no evidence a formal division of labor.

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

It looks like it was flourishing. and then suddenly we have nothing like it for 6000 years. 

No, there are similar sites in Turkey. But they're a thousand or more years younger, so the chronically astonished don't know about them.

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

It ticks all the boxes of a civilisation. 

Not a single box.

Harte

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grignr
54 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

oh god. you realise no one ever reacts well to being "told" anything. thats rude. i guess you're just after a rise. 

Read what you want into it, if you're not willing to learn from others why bother having a discussion? There's no attempt at a rise here, I'm stating facts, people have told you what the globally accepted definition is of a civilisation, you're trying to use a different definition and saying it matches that.

Quote

let me make this simple... the only box that the Goblekli Tepe civilisation doesn't tick and the one that is causing the most trouble for you'all... that is agriculture is supposed to predate such constructions and art work, (which lets face it is incredible for whatever era in the last 8000 years.)

No the box it doesn't tick is that currently there is no city. There may be a city under that dirt waiting to be dug up, but right now there is no city, therefore no Civilisation.

 

Quote

well here is the paradox. sesh, Harte and yourself are on the one hand saying this was an era of hunter and gatherer types that lived by hunting and collecting seasonally. yet how logical is it to assume that people that just came outta the ice age could organise themselves and build geometric shaped temples, that computer experts can attribute to astrological dates, carved with incredible artwork for a priesthood and then maintain it for 300 hundred years? is tis the work of hunter, gatherers? 

 

Honestly, its a fascinating site and I can't wait to find out more information as it becomes available. Right now it cannot be classed as a civilization, that could change.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
14 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...and we don’t know yet what other structures will be found at Goblekli Tepe but saying that because nothing has been found to date, there fore it’s NOT a civilisation is a bit like finding a chariot without any wheels. Cause there are no wheels does not mean that it didn’t have them at some stage. 

Civilizations leave huge imprints on the landscape.  Around Karnak there's the rubble of thousands of buildings, including mud brick.  If you take a look at the Gobekli Tepe site, you will see that immediately around it, there's been farming activity (looks like some sort of tree farm or some such.  While this appears to be relatively new (past 30 years) it means that the area isn't untouched and if there'd been other buildings around the hill, we'd have seen trace of them.  There's also an extended dig to the west.

So, yes, we can safely say that there's not a city around it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.