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

Captain Risky
45 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

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

lets just say they don't find a city around Goblekli Tepe. someone other than those with only the skill set of hunter and gathers built it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

So you're aware of the skill set of a tribe of hunter gatherers?

And you know more than the team that's been working there for decades?

Quote

So, to finally answer the question of who built Göbekli Tepe: Stone Age people coming from a radius of roughly 200km around the site. With Stone Age tools.

Source

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
1 minute ago, Harte said:

So you're aware of the skill set of a tribe of hunter gatherers?

And you know more than the team that's been working there for decades?

Source

Harte

Is this one of those thing where chronic astonishment intrudes on logic?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

People think "stone age" means idiot.

Actually, it's the people that think that who are the idiots.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
7 minutes ago, Harte said:

People think "stone age" means idiot.

Actually, it's the people that think that who are the idiots.

Harte

Thank you!  :tu:   Living primitive takes a lot of sophistication.

Oh, I just put up the pics of  2 of the 3 little Piney Mark IIIs. The oldest decided to drink lake water so he's at sister's because my black tank isn't that big. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Thank you!  :tu:   Living primitive takes a lot of sophistication.

Oh, I just put up the pics of  2 of the 3 little Piney Mark IIIs. The oldest decided to drink lake water so he's at sister's because my black tank isn't that big. 

I was thinking why you hadnt entered this thread earlier and happy that you’re here. :)

tell me Piney did your people practice agriculture and what monuments did they build?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Harte said:

So you're aware of the skill set of a tribe of hunter gatherers?

Let's throw him in the woods for a few days with no supplies.

We'll see what his personal skill sets are.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

People think "stone age" means idiot.

Actually, it's the people that think that who are the idiots.

Harte

Yeah sure Harte... Stone Age people can do anything. They built temples and stone work structures and yet failed to see the advantage and then buried it and forgot about those skills for 6000 years. 

Stoneage man 1. Looking out at Goblekli Tepe... “ what have we done?”

Stoneage man 2. “ no idea... but it’s boring and stupid and makes no sense.”

Stoneage man 1. “ yeah puck it... let’s go back to making fire and chasing my dinner.”

Share this post


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

So you're aware of the skill set of a tribe of hunter gatherers?

And you know more than the team that's been working there for decades?

Source

Harte

Harte,

Just a potentially relevant note: In regards to the above GT reference, the projectile points pictured are the result of the core and blade reduction practices associated with the (in Europe) upper Paleolithic Aurignacian tool tradition which is further associated with the presence of H.s.s. While the Aurignacian tradition was a significant advancement, it technologically pales in comparison to the somewhat earlier (in comparison to Gobekli Tepe) North American Clovis, Folsom, Cumberland, etc. tool traditions.

In short, the presence of Aurignacian technology is, as you are aware, consistent with hunter-gatherer cultures.

In addition, it would appear that Captain Risky is unfamiliar with the construction/ceremonial accomplishments of other hunter-gatherer/early agricultural cultures (eg Effigy Mound Culture, Mississippian Culture(s), etc.).

Edit: Clarification.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Yeah sure Harte... Stone Age people can do anything. They built temples and stone work structures and yet failed to see the advantage and then buried it and forgot about those skills for 6000 years. 

Stoneage man 1. Looking out at Goblekli Tepe... “ what have we done?”

Stoneage man 2. “ no idea... but it’s boring and stupid and makes no sense.”

Stoneage man 1. “ yeah puck it... let’s go back to making fire and chasing my dinner.”

It is somehow oddly amusing to observe someone pontificating on archaeological and anthropological studies from an 18th/19th century perspective in the 21st century.

.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
On 7/23/2018 at 6:43 AM, 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 yet but still needs further excavations.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
On 7/23/2018 at 5:30 PM, 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.

I am still bewildered by you likening it to the temple at Karnak rather than the cherry patch outside if Vegas.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
7 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

I am still bewildered by you likening it to the temple at Karnak rather than the cherry patch outside if Vegas.

 

Well maybe she should have likened it to Cahokia? apparently that was a civilisation.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/17/lost-cities-8-mystery-ahokia-illinois-mississippians-native-americans-vanish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
19 minutes ago, Swede said:

It is somehow oddly amusing to observe someone pontificating on archaeological and anthropological studies from an 18th/19th century perspective in the 21st century.

.

Cahokia built earth mounds, no carvings or permanent structures. Clearly they were stuck in the Stone Age and for all intents and purposes they’re classified as a civilisation.

now please be good chap and explain what your anthropological argument is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Small, semi permanent sites would not have supported an urban development. For the same reason that makes them semi permanent, there weren't a lot of resources to work with. 

 The conditions that lead to the sites development, drier conditions shrinking hunting/gathering areas would have been similar to what kick started civilizations like Egypt. But other things happened too. 

When we actually see agriculture and domestication start we see the sites being retired. And instead other sites that do show permanent settlements being developed, and there we see the start of developing urban planning. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

From your link:

Quote

Its mix of people made Cahokia like an early-day Manhattan, drawing residents from throughout the Mississippian-controlled region: the Natchez, the Pensacola, the Choctaw, the Ofo. Archaeologists conducting strontium tests on the teeth of buried remains have found a third of the population was “not from Cahokia, but somewhere else”, according to Emerson, who is director of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey. “And that’s throughout the entire sequence [of Cahokia’s existence.]”

The Native Americans at Cahokia farmed, traded and hunted. They were also early urban planners, who used astronomical alignments to lay out a low-scale metropolis of 10-20,000 people, featuring a town centre with broad public plazas and key buildings set atop vast, hand-built earthen mounds. The largest of these mounds was 100 feet tall and covered 14 acres – and still exists today.

 

They built a sprawling city supported by farming and large mound structures with clear social structures which supported a population into the thousands. 

There's no evidence of farming at Gobekli. There's no evidence of a large population group. Or of a structured society. Or of any sort of urban planning. 

 Your argument seems to be, sure they held a massive trade network, urban planning, division of resources and labor, massive build works, and supported a large population. 

But it's not stone so it doesn't count. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

From your link:

 

They built a sprawling city supported by farming and large mound structures with clear social structures which supported a population into the thousands. 

There's no evidence of farming at Gobekli. There's no evidence of a large population group. Or of a structured society. Or of any sort of urban planning. 

 Your argument seems to be, sure they held a massive trade network, urban planning, division of resources and labor, massive build works, and supported a large population. 

But it's not stone so it doesn't count. 

 

You’ve missed my point entirely.

...my argument is that a low skilled constructed polis can be called a civilisation then why not a well made stone one. It’s harder and requires more skills to work with stone as opposed to dirt. It took 7 years of apprenticeship in the Middle Ages to make a stone mason.

Where does it say that farming lands or living areas need to be directly around temples?

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


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

You’ve missed my point entirely.

...my argument is that a low skilled constructed polis can be called a civilisation then why not a well made stone one. It’s harder and requires more skills to work with stone as opposed to dirt. It took 7 years of apprenticeship in the Middle Ages to make a stone mason.

Where does it say that farming lands or living areas need to be directly around temples?

Once again you're ignoring critical factors.

Göbekli Tepe does not show indications of permanent settlements. It does not display urbanization. It does not show full-time specialization and the infrastructure to sustain it. It does not reveal far-flung trade nor control over other people's economies or resources. Et cetera. These are all essential for th proper designation of civilization.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
48 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You’ve missed my point entirely.

...my argument is that a low skilled constructed polis can be called a civilisation then why not a well made stone one. It’s harder and requires more skills to work with stone as opposed to dirt. It took 7 years of apprenticeship in the Middle Ages to make a stone mason.

Where does it say that farming lands or living areas need to be directly around temples?

You might have missed a larger point as well, while jumping to support your point. I was going to pass a bit, as it's not an Archaeological write up but a bit of a pop history piece. 

But I note the word civilization is not on the page. Did a word search as well to make sure. 

 See, Cahokia is not listed as a civilization. It's a city. Because it displays many features of a city. 

 Living spaces, markets, urban planning, trade, so on. 

 Notedly missing from Gobleke. 

However, if you'd made an attempt to read about the site, it's not considered a civilization. But is part of the Mississippian culture

So your example of why is this considered a civilization and Gobekli Tepe not fails because your example, which feature much more development than Tepe also is not considered a civilization. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
56 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You’ve missed my point entirely.

...my argument is that a low skilled constructed polis can be called a civilisation then why not a well made stone one. It’s harder and requires more skills to work with stone as opposed to dirt. It took 7 years of apprenticeship in the Middle Ages to make a stone mason.

Er. Yes. Because there's a much greater level of stone working needed when constructing multi story stone castles and homes and bridges than erecting pillars. 

You'll notice, for example, that you can make a pillars by standing a slab on end. While building a castle takes rather more complex skills. 

And while this is true not everyone built stone castles. 

56 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Where does it say that farming lands or living areas need to be directly around temples?

Directly around? No. In the vicinity? Yes. The area has been examined well enough to find several sites, some very similar to Tepe, yet smaller. Like Sefer Tepe. 

Yet no evidence in these areas of a food network that could support any sort of major city, or even minor one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

For the record, Stonehenge is probably a better comparison here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

According to Emerson, the most likely explanation is that Cahokia was planned and constructed to double as a “pilgrimage city”, where all Mississippians could gather for religious events.

Share this post


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

Once again you're ignoring critical factors.

Göbekli Tepe does not show indications of permanent settlements. It does not display urbanization. It does not show full-time specialization and the infrastructure to sustain it. It does not reveal far-flung trade nor control over other people's economies or resources. Et cetera. These are all essential for th proper designation of civilization.

You’re right about there is no urbanisation, evident but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t built for a specific purpose. 

Share this post


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

You’re right about there is no urbanisation, evident but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t built for a specific purpose. 

Clearly it was. A site that long in use and with that much ritual development would've been serous business to Neolithic clans. Whatever the purpose, however, it does not contribute toward the status of civilization.

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.