Gobleki Tepe: 15 New Temples found

[kmt_sesh]

15 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

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

I was thinking about Stonehenge, too. It's a lot later in time than Tepe but has some of the same characteristics. The people who erected Stonehenge in the Early Bronze Age were certainly not a civilization, but their efforts sure bore fruit.

I just hope Göbekli Tepe doesn't suffer the same insults as Stonehenge. Plenty of solid academic research has taken place there over the years, as well as archaeological excavations, but look at the legions of woo-infested "Druid" types who are drawn to Stonehenge every year.

[Unusual Tournament]

59 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

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.

Okay so your position is “ Neolithic Man “ had a greater need to pray than to feed and house himself.

excellent !!!

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, Jarocal said:

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

 

Because Karnak is a multi-generational temple and so is Karnak.  Vegas is a one shot.  It hasn't been built over centuries.

[ShadowSot]

28 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Okay so your position is “ Neolithic Man “ had a greater need to pray than to feed and house himself.

excellent !!!

Good job knocking down that straw man. 

[ShadowSot]

For the record Cahokia is not a civilisation. It's a city built by the Missippian Culture. 

 (and stating it's just piled dirt is simply dismissive.) 

And when we are speaking of a ceremonial site, or even when the label of temple is used, we're not talking about modern ideas of temples and churches. 

Stonehenge too is religious/ceremonial site. That also served practical purposes as meeting grounds, neutral ground, at least in Stonehenges case a solar calendar, as well as evidence of cremation and burial at the site. 

 Even if the site only served as a strictly ceremonial use, all of written history shows us that humans have expended great deals of effort for strictly ceremonial purposes. From the Ziggurats of Mesopotamia to the temples and pyramids of Egypt, the temples of Rome and Greece, onto the elaborate Gothic cathedrals and churches built far beyond strictly practical matters. Featuring techniques and styles that simply weren't used or needed for practical structures, and materials that are missing in regular pragmatic constructions. 

The best you can claim is that they had to use better skills than they used on their own practical living spaces. 

Which is true. The places that they spent part of the year in do feature stone work, smaller pillars, and housing accommodations. 

But these weren't permanent. 

And as many people have found over the years, if you want something to still be there when you get back, stone is pretty much the best material for it. 

 Small abodes can be rebuilt easily enough. But like Stonehenge these sights could be abandoned for onths of the year and returned to at the decided time with little maintenance needed. 

[Piney]

4 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

but look at the legions of woo-infested "Druid" types who are drawn to Stonehenge every year.

and trash it. Like certain Newagy wannabes do at mound sites. 

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

For the record Cahokia is not a civilisation. It's a city built by the Missippian Culture. 

 (and stating it's just piled dirt is simply dismissive.) 

And when we are speaking of a ceremonial site, or even when the label of temple is used, we're not talking about modern ideas of temples and churches. 

Stonehenge too is religious/ceremonial site. That also served practical purposes as meeting grounds, neutral ground, at least in Stonehenges case a solar calendar, as well as evidence of cremation and burial at the site. 

 Even if the site only served as a strictly ceremonial use, all of written history shows us that humans have expended great deals of effort for strictly ceremonial purposes. From the Ziggurats of Mesopotamia to the temples and pyramids of Egypt, the temples of Rome and Greece, onto the elaborate Gothic cathedrals and churches built far beyond strictly practical matters. Featuring techniques and styles that simply weren't used or needed for practical structures, and materials that are missing in regular pragmatic constructions. 

The best you can claim is that they had to use better skills than they used on their own practical living spaces. 

Which is true. The places that they spent part of the year in do feature stone work, smaller pillars, and housing accommodations. 

But these weren't permanent. 

And as many people have found over the years, if you want something to still be there when you get back, stone is pretty much the best material for it. 

 Small abodes can be rebuilt easily enough. But like Stonehenge these sights could be abandoned for onths of the year and returned to at the decided time with little maintenance needed. 

according to certain posters here, a city is a sign of civilisation. so i guess Cahokia is a civilisation after all. so a culture that builds cities is a civilisation. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Captain Risky

[Piney]

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

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?

We gathered wild rice and practiced "agro-forestry" with some gardening. We traded for corn then grew it for trade after contact.   Our ancestors were the Adena and we were part of the "Hopewell Sphere of Influence". 

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, Piney said:

We gathered wild rice and practiced "agro-forestry" with some gardening. We traded for corn then grew it for trade after contact.   Our ancestors were the Adena and we were part of the "Hopewell Sphere of Influence". 

thanks for the info. would you describe north American Indians as a civilisation or culture? 

[Piney]

9 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

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

We'll see what his personal skill sets are.

--Jaylemurph

I'm still waiting for Orlon to take up my offer but since he can't answer questions on lithic reduction I doubt he will. 

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

thanks for the info. would you describe north American Indians as a civilisation or culture? 

Cultures, but highly advanced ones on a "organic" level,. 

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, Piney said:

Cultures, but highly advanced ones on a "organic" level,. 

a culture that builds cities is apparently a civilisation. did you guys build anything like that? like the mesa verde 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

a culture that builds cities is apparently a civilisation. did you guys build anything like that? like the mesa verde 

No, we were on the East Coast of N.A. From Southern New Jersey to the Carolinas. What some people call the Southeast Algonquians. 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Good job knocking down that straw man. 

there's no straw man here. 

[ShadowSot]

29 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

according to certain posters here, a city is a sign of civilisation. so i guess Cahokia is a civilisation after all. so a culture that builds cities is a civilisation. 

Huans are made of meat. A fox is made of meat. Therefore foxes are people. 

You've latched onto a single point as though it's defining. It isn't. Cahokia is a city of the Missippian Culture. 

New York city is part of a culture, and that culture is part of the larger civilization that makes up the United States. NSW is a city with a culture, that makes up the larger civilization of Australia. Both the US and Australia are part of what we generally call Western Culture. 

 

[ShadowSot]

20 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

there's no straw man here. 

Seeing as you've simplified describing what's called a ceremonial or ritual site as something people went to pray at and apparently serving no further purpose despite that being very much not the case when something is referred to as a ceremonial religious or ritual site in an anthropological site, it very much is. 

And as that's been explained before that's purposeful on your part. 

[lightly]

Ok fine.... A civilization is one thing,.  and a culture is another.    I'm sometimes more impressed with the accomplishments and cooperations of some Cultures   than those of many  'civil' lizations.

[Harte]

13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Okay so your position is “ Neolithic Man “ had a greater need to pray than to feed and house himself.

excellent !!!

I already told you why they gathered, several pages back.

Did they pray? Probably, once the teenagers had checked each other out.

Praying for fertility and for their choice in mating.

Harte

[lightly]

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?

Edited July 25, 2018 by lightly
Ceremonial

[ShadowSot]

1 hour 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?

They were built then retired after a time.  We don't know why exactly, but I'd suspect that the communal gathering idea has some explanation. We find some smaller similar sites that are younger than parts of Tepe. Shifting clans or agreements may have made the old sites wrong and required new ones to be built. While smaller groups built their own. 

[Swede]

21 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

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?

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?

.

[Swede]

2 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,

Harte and ShadowSot have already brought up some good points. Another aspect that may have entered in is what we would classify as clan-type social structures. Were such social structures part of the cultural milieu of the time and place, it may be that various constructions were associated with given "clan" groups. These may have then been subject to "renewal" ceremonies, etc. There are ethnographic analogies for such.

A side note in regards to clan-type social structures: There would appear to be a long history of "bear cults" dating back to Paleolithic Europe and, based upon similar North America practices, some researchers have suggested that the practices of traditional North American groups may be traceable to this earlier period. Such factors would suggest that clan-type social structures could have an extensive temporal presence.

Edit: Typo, addition.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Swede

[Harte]

I've just realized it.

Swede is Jean Auel!!

Harte

[Kenemet]

13 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Huans are made of meat. A fox is made of meat. Therefore foxes are people. 

You've latched onto a single point as though it's defining. It isn't. Cahokia is a city of the Missippian Culture. 

New York city is part of a culture, and that culture is part of the larger civilization that makes up the United States. NSW is a city with a culture, that makes up the larger civilization of Australia. Both the US and Australia are part of what we generally call Western Culture. 

 

Rather than reiterate, I'll just say "this."  

[jaylemurph]

57 minutes ago, Swede said:

A side note in regards to clan-type social structures: There would appear to be a long history of "bear cults" dating back to Paleolithic Europe and, based upon similar North America practices, some researchers have suggested that the practices of traditional North American groups may be traceable to this earlier period. Such factors would suggest that clan-type social structures could have an extensive temporal presence.

I believe more recent research tends to the result that the items worshipped were not bear, but another large animal whose name starts with "B"

--Jaylemurph