History 12,000 year old megalith circles turn knowledge of ancient humans upside down

Click For Summary
The discovery of Gobekli Tepe, a site in southeastern Turkey, has revealed massive carved stones that are approximately 12,000 years old, predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years. This find challenges previous beliefs about early human societies, as it suggests that sophisticated construction and potential religious practices existed among hunter-gatherers before the advent of agriculture and metal tools. Archaeologists, led by Klaus Schmidt, believe the site may be the world's oldest temple, previously misidentified as a medieval cemetery. The carvings were likely made using flint tools on soft limestone, indicating advanced skills in stoneworking. This groundbreaking discovery raises numerous questions about the cultural practices and capabilities of prehistoric peoples.
  • #31
zoobyshoe said:
Wiki just says they depict the deceased heads of lineages. Where are you getting this more in-depth understanding?

You may read the following article by Jared Diomand:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html

It is fairly uncontroversial that it was NOT the Europeans that brought upon Easter Islan its decline, it was a self-destructive cycle of status competition; self-destructive with massive deforestation on an isolated island, where the logs where used at great bonfires&banquets and as rollers for the statues.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Andre said:
A bit more about that. This is the best I could find:



This is rather ambiguous. "Evidence of tool use" is not "we found tools", is it? So if carves resemble other artifacts, is that proof of the same tools? and if so, it that proof of the same age? Or could the same type of tools be used for several thousand years?

"Limited carbon dating"? On what? That should be anything organic, but what warrants the idea that the time that such a fossil was deposited there, is equal to the building time?

"Carbon dated to about 9000 B.C."? Sounds like 11,000 before present, but if they talk about pure - uncalibrated - carbon dates then in reality we are looking at some 12900 calendar years before present, using the INTCAL09 calibration table.

All in all, it seems that the dating is not as clearly defined as it looks.
After this article, they discovered that different rings had different dates, and they discovered that there had been building going on over this huge area for a couple of millenia (I believe in the last 17 years they said they have only uncovered 3% of the site. And that some of the still buried rings could test even older.

Another strange thing, the newer rings were not as well built and more crudely decorated than the older ones. Then in 8,000 BC, they decided to bury the entire site completely. IIRC, the entire site is something like 900 square meters.
 
  • #33
arildno said:
"This lack of math at this site surprises me because my sense of it is that big, long-term laborious projects seem always (in other cases) to have been inspired by some grasp of some geometric or mathematical principle that makes the designers feel they have tapped into some big background principle that deserves monumentalizing. This site seems very emotionally motivated without any apparent intellectual statement built into it as well.
Your sense seems reasonable to me.
The very big pillars in the center of the circles seem to depict arms descending from above, with a belt below with characters and symbols. By no means am I conceding anything about Gobekli Tepe before understanding far more about it.

Evo said:
After this article, they discovered that different rings had different dates, and they discovered that there had been building going on over this huge area for a couple of millenia (I believe in the last 17 years they said they have only uncovered 3% of the site. And that some of the still buried rings could test even older.

Another strange thing, the newer rings were not as well built and more crudely decorated than the older ones. Then in 8,000 BC, they decided to bury the entire site completely. IIRC, the entire site is something like 900 square meters.

I think this observation of the biggest and best being built first, if true, is instructive.

I have heard from some that the rings may have been buried progressively over the millenia, as if their individual usefulness had somehow expired, one by one.

In the audio link I posted above, hints are made of a much greater antiquity for the site than hitherto announced.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
  • #34
Just a correction:
Dotini, it was zoobyshoe who made that line of reasoning you quoted, not me. I just quoted it.

My argument was primarily concerned by the possible motivations behind these monuments, rather than pin-pointing, as zoobyshoe did, some peculiar and non-trivial features about them.
 
  • #35
zoobyshoe said:
Assuming the models are more or less accurate, they show how 'un-geometric' these things were. The layout has a Hundertwasser feel to it, naive and childlike.

As a spirit site/temple, we should probably look towards its functional symbolism. What is it actually suppose to do in terms of the dead who were its "inhabitants"?

For instance, it seems likely these structures were roofed and rather womb-like. Also the later actual villages in the area are described as recreating cave-style dwellings. So there could be some conscious echo of an earlier limestone cave lifestyle - a popular paleo option.

So form follows function here most probably. Only later do we see the kind of "form dominating the design" that would indicate a society that has developed mathematical thinking.

Geometric decoration, as opposed to geometric monumentalism, is in fact very old. See - http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/geometric_signs/geometric_signs.php

But again, this would about symbolism rather than "geometry" - proto-writing rather than proto-maths.

Societies that favoured geometric decoration were also most likely responding to constraints in their materials. Such as a habit of body painting - simple patterns rather than representations making more sense when your skin is the canvas. Likewise, weaving and beading rather push the maker in the direction of simple geometric patterns.

Amusing you should mention Hundertwasser. His was the first proper exhibition I went to as a kid. Unfortunately he had very little architectural impact on NZ - the only monument he left here was his local public toilets I think!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakawa,_New_Zealand
 
  • #36
Andre said:
All in all, it seems that the dating is not as clearly defined as it looks.
It seems to me this is the case. Every aspect of it could probably be reasonably questioned.
 
  • #37
arildno said:
You may read the following article by Jared Diomand:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html

It is fairly uncontroversial that it was NOT the Europeans that brought upon Easter Islan its decline, it was a self-destructive cycle of status competition; self-destructive with massive deforestation on an isolated island, where the logs where used at great bonfires&banquets and as rollers for the statues.
The comparison of the heads to Egyptian pyramids as status symbols probably holds water. Were you suggesting the circles in Turkey might have had a similar function?
 
  • #38
apeiron said:
Geometric decoration, as opposed to geometric monumentalism, is in fact very old. See - http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/geometric_signs/geometric_signs.php

But again, this would about symbolism rather than "geometry" - proto-writing rather than proto-maths.

Societies that favoured geometric decoration were also most likely responding to constraints in their materials. Such as a habit of body painting - simple patterns rather than representations making more sense when your skin is the canvas. Likewise, weaving and beading rather push the maker in the direction of simple geometric patterns.
It makes sense that geometric designs would be arrived at incidental to the process of weaving. They are carried over, though, onto non-woven artifacts like painted designs and pottery glazes and wood carvings, due, I would say, to their inherent visual power (which is probably due to the fact of Kluver Form Constants). As you say, this isn't math or Geometry. And, generally, this kind of non-geometric geometric design is only applied in cases where it doesn't take that long to make.

Huge projects, like stonehenge and the pyramids, that involve years of work and large numbers of workers, seem to require that the designers and political "muscle" driving them to completion, be inspired by understanding of a deeper math behind them. This site under discussion seems to defy that to me. All this stone work must have taken a very long time and involved a lot of people without any of them seeming to even realize you can generate a perfect circle with a stake and a piece of rope. So, you have to wonder what was inspiring them to work so hard on something that wasn't going to be "perfect" in a higher sense.

The kind of "spirit" site you mention strikes me as something that would only be set up temporarily for a dedicated rite, a healing, rain dance, vision quest, etc. If they always returned the same "spirit" site for a given ritual over centuries, though, it would make sense that at some point after they acquired stone carving skills they would decide to set up permanent structures and that these would naturally be installed in the original informal layout.
Amusing you should mention Hundertwasser. His was the first proper exhibition I went to as a kid. Unfortunately he had very little architectural impact on NZ - the only monument he left here was his local public toilets I think!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakawa,_New_Zealand
Which leads me to the not-very-serious suggestion these things could have been elaborate public toilet facilities for all we know.
 
  • #39
zoobyshoe said:
The comparison of the heads to Egyptian pyramids as status symbols probably holds water. Were you suggesting the circles in Turkey might have had a similar function?
Yes.
Nor is it unlikely, considering what is well attested in other cultures.
The concept "conspicuous consumption" is well established within anthropology in that a primary manner in which local magnates rule is NOT through terror&violence, but by proving their worth to the community through spectacular feasting, temple building, organizing great gladiatorial displays etc. (It is these "gifts" that in a way "justify" them in also, when they feel the need, to maintain their power through..terror&violence)

Furthermore, the concept of conspicuous consumption is, in MY view, probably related to the biological principle underlying, for example, the male pheasant's ridiculous tail:
It is only the very strongest males, in genetic terms, that can survive with such a anti-adaptive tail (considered relative to factors like flight capability, being able to hide from predators etc), and THUS, the females will pick these as their favourites.

A not incidental side effect of the system of conspicuous consumption is that it effectively bars wannabe magnates from becoming actual magnates.

Who would you follow?
The one who can invite you to great banquets, or the one who can't afford to organize such in the first place?
 
Last edited:
  • #40
zoobyshoe said:
It seems to me this is the case. Every aspect of it could probably be reasonably questioned.
The article Andre referenced was from 2008, the oldest parts of the site that they have uncovered are now believed to be over 12,000 years old.

But the plants and bones they tested might have been backfill thousands of years after the structure was built, so yes, it is highly likely that the actual structures are much older than thought.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
arildno said:
Yes.
Nor is it unlikely, considering what is well attested in other cultures.
The concept "conspicuous consumption" is well established within anthropology in that a primary manner in which local magnates rule is NOT through terror&violence, but by proving their worth to the community through spectacular feasting, temple building, organizing great gladiatorial displays etc. (It is these "gifts" that in a way "justify" them in also, when they feel the need, to maintain their power through..terror&violence)

Furthermore, the concept of conspicuous consumption is, in MY view, probably related to the biological principle underlying, for example, the male pheasant's ridiculous tail:
It is only the very strongest males, in genetic terms, that can survive with such a anti-adaptive tail (considered relative to factors like flight capability, being able to hide from predators etc), and THUS, the females will pick these as their favourites.

A not incidental side effect of the system of conspicuous consumption is that it effectively bars wannabe magnates from becoming actual magnates.

Who would you follow?
The one who can invite you to great banquets, or the one who can't afford to organize such in the first place?
This all makes perfect sense. Rather than religious sites these things might have been essentially political.

But, rather than a whole monument being about one "magnate" the various animals each might symbolize a clan, tribe, or clan/tribe leader/magnate, who had entered into a pact of some sort with all the others. As time went on and old leaders died off, the political climate could have dramatically shifted. The past would be, quite literally, buried and a new picture of the new political structure would have to be created nearby.

On the other hand, they could all each be about one magnate. If we say a given 'circle' represents a given prehistoric 'Caesar', the various different animal slabs might represent the various foreign peoples he had subjugated under the central government. Here, too, the political situation would have to be revised over time as successive 'Caesars' won or lost dominion.

I think there's a lot of realistic non-religious purposes these things could have been created to serve. Religion would naturally be the matrix in which it was all set, but only in the sense most governments have historically been set in a religious matrix.
 
  • #43
Evo said:
The article Andre referenced was from 2008, the oldest parts of the site that they have uncovered are now believed to be over 12,000 years old.

But the plants and bones they tested might have been backfill thousands of years after the structure was built, so yes, it is highly likely that the actual structures are much older than thought.
The dirt used to fill in might be much older than the monument, though. If they took the fill dirt from layers of ancient middens, the organic matter in that dirt would be much older than the monument it buried. Carbon dating of charcoal that seems to come from the layer right on top of which the pillars were first erected would be the most reliable, I'd think.
 
  • #44
zoobyshoe said:
This all makes perfect sense. Rather than religious sites these things might have been essentially political.
That separation is just meaningless for just about any other culture than the judeo-Christian.
Rather, those sites are AS MUCH religious as they are political. There is no reason, to think, that the magnates were snickering atheists out to awe the dumb religionists. Furthermore, to curry favour from the gods by creating temples clearly has the premise that you believe in the gods to begin with. Even though you hope the gods will favour you with political success.
But, rather than a whole monument being about one "magnate" the various animals each might symbolize a clan, tribe, or clan/tribe leader/magnate, who had entered into a pact of some sort with all the others. As time went on and old leaders died off, the political climate could have dramatically shifted. The past would be, quite literally, buried and a new picture of the new political structure would have to be created nearby.

On the other hand, they could all each be about one magnate. If we say a given 'circle' represents a given prehistoric 'Caesar', the various different animal slabs might represent the various foreign peoples he had subjugated under the central government. Here, too, the political situation would have to be revised over time as successive 'Caesars' won or lost dominion.

I think there's a lot of realistic non-religious purposes these things could have been created to serve. Religion would naturally be the matrix in which it was all set, but only in the sense most governments have historically been set in a religious matrix.

Sure, these are a number of hypotheses that are highly interesting; we might even be able with more knowledge make some of them more likely to be true than others.
 
  • #45
Dotini said:
There may be a bit of archeoastronomy going on in this one:
http://www.seshat.ch/home/goebekli.GIF
This is interesting. I was wondering if sighting along the tops of the pillars pointed to any astronomical events. I'm not sure what this diagram shows though. Some sort of moon calendar?
 
  • #46
arildno said:
Sure, these are a number of hypotheses that are highly interesting; we might even be able with more knowledge make some of them more likely to be true than others.

Since we may be able to put Gobekli Tepe in the context of Kilisik, Navali and Catal Huyuk, it occurs to me that what we may have is a sort of Neolithic University. Founded by a powerful and persuasive elite, knowledgeable from earlier experiments in proto-agriculture, a center of initiation and learning is established from which graduating classes may be sent to establish flourishing cultures throughout Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Levant and beyond. Each class builds its ring, and fills it in after training is accomplished?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
  • #47
zoobyshoe said:
The dirt used to fill in might be much older than the monument, though. If they took the fill dirt from layers of ancient middens, the organic matter in that dirt would be much older than the monument it buried. Carbon dating of charcoal that seems to come from the layer right on top of which the pillars were first erected would be the most reliable, I'd think.
It's hard to say, but they did find piles of animal bones that show signs of having been butchered by humans. I would assume that the piles of bones would not have been from piles of dirt moved there. They have also done testing on the pillars, but the tests only show when they were buried. Carbonate layers only begin to form after the burial.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gea.20134/abstract
 
  • #48
arildno said:
That separation is just meaningless for just about any other culture than the judeo-Christian.
Rather, those sites are AS MUCH religious as they are political. There is no reason, to think, that the magnates were snickering atheists out to awe the dumb religionists. Furthermore, to curry favour from the gods by creating temples clearly has the premise that you believe in the gods to begin with. Even though you hope the gods will favour you with political success.
The distinction arises from your concept of the magnate, though. If only a magnate can afford to commission a temple and the point is to conspicuously consume to create the aura of power and wealth, the conclusion that it is essentially a political, rather than religious, gesture is obvious. That's a completely different motivation than propitiating the spirits of the dead because they'll haunt you if you don't, sort of thing.
Sure, these are a number of hypotheses that are highly interesting; we might even be able with more knowledge make some of them more likely to be true than others.
There's quite a bit more to dig up as Evo pointed out, so there's no telling what interesting clues are still hidden.
 
  • #49
Dotini said:
Since we may be able to put Gobekli Tepe in the context of Kilisik, Navali and Catal Huyuk, it occurs to me that what we may have is a sort of Neolithic University. Founded by a powerful and persuasive elite, knowledgeable from earlier experiments in proto-agriculture, a center of initiation and learning is established from which graduating classes may be sent to establish flourishing cultures throughout Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Levant and beyond. Each class builds its ring, and fills it in after training is accomplished?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Something like this occurred to me after reading one of your earlier posts.

The Lakota were a huge nation and very spread out. They used to have an annual gathering to touch base and reinforce the fact they were all the same.

This site could be where something similar took place, where far flung but related bands gathered periodically to teach the young their common mythology. It would explain all the animal bone fragments in the dirt everywhere if it turned out to be the site of a huge annual picnic/reunion place.
 
  • #50
zoobyshoe said:
The distinction arises from your concept of the magnate, though. If only a magnate can afford to commission a temple and the point is to conspicuously consume to create the aura of power and wealth, the conclusion that it is essentially a political, rather than religious, gesture is obvious. That's a completely different motivation than propitiating the spirits of the dead because they'll haunt you if you don't, sort of thing.
Not really, because what you base it on is a very narrow conception of how people regard the spirit world from interacting with the real world, and how "secular" power is considered as proofs of "sparks of divinity" in those individuals fortunate to have it.
For example, the hero cults in Hellenistic Greece and the imperial cults in Rome are highly interesting in these respects.
The historian Price has written an excellent, and still considered seminal, study on the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia minor, "Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor "
This book has university academic standard, and was used in my stint at studying history at oslo University.
Here's the Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/052131268X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

My main point of contention though, are what WORDS are appropriate in history, and which we should not use.
The couple "essential/inessential" is basically either rhetorically pointing at som "eternal essence" (and I do NOT think you intended that), OR, as a quantifying measure of relative weights.
But, quantification of the importance of different causes in history is highly suspect, or must be used with extreme caution, and we need a more modest idea besides:
To which extent our sources seem to indicate that analytically separate ideas were intertwined in some particular culture, or equivalently, how "separate" those ideas where.

(Judeo-)Christianity is quite unique in this degree of separatedness of the sacred and the secular, the normal picture seems to indicate a much stronger degree of intertwining.BTW, Price* is quite adept in showing that in terms of quantification, LOCAL status competition for construction of imperial cults was probably more important than heavy-handed, centrally directed adoration policy from the Roman State.
It was the LOCAL magnates, in scurrying not just for (or even mainly for) imperial favour, but in order to be resplendent in the eyes of the local population by having a "closer tie" with the almost-divine, far-off Emperor through his temple construction in his honour..
More than enough sources indicate that the Emperors themselves were rather embarassed on the personal level at the prevalence of this religio-political "Greek" phenomenon, closely related to the city-state structure of Asia Minor.*Whose main laudable effort in that work is to "de-Christianize" religion as such, in particular opposing the traditional view that worship of a living, or dead, person, was some sort of "debasement" of religion for "mere political" reasons. Rather, the mentality landscape, Price argues, between religious might and secular power should NOT be regarded in such a way that the clear distinction between "religion" and "politics" is to be assumed to have been felt as "natural" as it is for cultural Christians.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
The question remains whether Gobekli Tepe does change anything much about "what we know". What actual questions does it either pose or answer?

After all, it is not a first city, far more ancient than any other. It does not have anything directly to do with first agriculture - any such claim seems very speculative.

It is indeed a monumental structure. But the only surprise about that is that a hunter-gatherer economy could produce it. The level of symbolism and craftmanship had already been around 20,000 years of so. So the interest boils down to the particular circumstances that allowed it to actually happen.

Was it simply just the post-ice landscape was fertile enough to support a suddenly larger population? Or did it also require some new kind of social organisation not seen before?

There seems no reason to think it involved slaves to build it, or a priest caste to maintain it (no evidence of secondary habitation being cited).

It seems simply to be an established ritual that persisted many centuries - a sacred hill accumulating a succession of the same structures serving the same symbolic function (with later circles being built inside/on top of earlier ones).

Maybe there was already a tradition of building these things out of wood or whatever, and this hill became special because of some convenient limestone that split nicely.

But the question is really how many people would have devoted how much time to one of these acts of construction? The programme claimed about 50 people over a year, from memory, which would be rather a large investment.

Get an accurate figure and some firmer speculation about the social economy would be possible.

A gathering of the clans is an attractive model. You can imagine the men going off to do the sacred work, the women then left to gather grass seed to feed the group. Learning to collect, mill and bake wild wheat may have indeed been the key to it all. But if that was going on, then the evidence should be there as well.

The fact that what is being found is a lot of rock shaping flints and a lot of gazelle bones suggests a simpler scenario so far.

You could turn the story around I guess. As is said about the San bushmen, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle can leave people with a lot of time on their hands. So people might invent crazy religious projects like these circles as they want something "meaningful" to do. They had no cable TV in those days. :smile:
 
  • #52
There are many fascinating hypotheses one might consider.
For example this one:
Chiselling the objects was some sort of initiation ritual, where young men, gathered from different clans or tribes were expected to seclude themselves for some time with a generally revered priest and made a collective effort in thanking the gods.
Then they returned to their own tribes and were considered "mature" males.
the site itself would on clan-specific occasions be revisited, where one marvelled at the old, and new, signs of piety...
 
  • #53
arildno said:
Not really, because what you base it on is a very narrow conception of how people regard the spirit world from interacting with the real world, and how "secular" power is considered as proofs of "sparks of divinity" in those individuals fortunate to have it.
For example, the hero cults in Hellenistic Greece and the imperial cults in Rome are highly interesting in these respects.
The historian Price has written an excellent, and still considered seminal, study on the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia minor, "Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor "
This book has university academic standard, and was used in my stint at studying history at oslo University.
Here's the Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/052131268X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

My main point of contention though, are what WORDS are appropriate in history, and which we should not use.
The couple "essential/inessential" is basically either rhetorically pointing at som "eternal essence" (and I do NOT think you intended that), OR, as a quantifying measure of relative weights.
But, quantification of the importance of different causes in history is highly suspect, or must be used with extreme caution, and we need a more modest idea besides:
To which extent our sources seem to indicate that analytically separate ideas were intertwined in some particular culture, or equivalently, how "separate" those ideas where.

(Judeo-)Christianity is quite unique in this degree of separatedness of the sacred and the secular, the normal picture seems to indicate a much stronger degree of intertwining.


BTW, Price* is quite adept in showing that in terms of quantification, LOCAL status competition for construction of imperial cults was probably more important than heavy-handed, centrally directed adoration policy from the Roman State.
It was the LOCAL magnates, in scurrying not just for (or even mainly for) imperial favour, but in order to be resplendent in the eyes of the local population by having a "closer tie" with the almost-divine, far-off Emperor through his temple construction in his honour..
More than enough sources indicate that the Emperors themselves were rather embarassed on the personal level at the prevalence of this religio-political "Greek" phenomenon, closely related to the city-state structure of Asia Minor.


*Whose main laudable effort in that work is to "de-Christianize" religion as such, in particular opposing the traditional view that worship of a living, or dead, person, was some sort of "debasement" of religion for "mere political" reasons. Rather, the mentality landscape, Price argues, between religious might and secular power should NOT be regarded in such a way that the clear distinction between "religion" and "politics" is to be assumed to have been felt as "natural" as it is for cultural Christians.
I think I'm familiar with the concept you're talking about but from a completely different source. The artist, George Catlin, observed and described the same thing being in play among the Mandan Indians, a tribe he lived with for a few months and whose culture he recored in both paintings and journal entries. For the Mandan everything was a matter of sacred power: if a guy was a better marksman with a bow and arrow it was because he had more sacred power, if he won more at gambling, same cause, if he bested someone in a trade of goods, same thing: more sacred power. There was no secular concept of skill, intelligence, acumen.

Catlin's own artistic abilities amazed the Indians and he was deferred to everywhere due to the perception he had a huge amount of sacred power. All the local magnates lined up to have their portrait painted.

In one band of Indians, though, he was disturbed to find out that a particular shaman was preaching against him, warning that he was evil and up to no good. He was perplexed at first, but then he figured out what was going on. He invited the shaman to sit and have his portrait painted, and suddenly the man's whole attitude changed. He suddenly announced he'd been wrong and that Catlin had completely good "sacred power", and was a good man.

I don't think it would be any different in Greek and Roman hero cults. Regardless of how any of those ancients might rationalize their purely political maneuvers as having a religious motivation, it doesn't mean we are misunderstanding them if we don't buy it as they would represent it. This isn't Judeo-Christian vs ancient pagan, it's modern secular psychology vs primitive.

The quantification of the importance of different causes in history happens. Many claim Caesar's Gallic campaigns were essentially self serving, intended to increase his status, in contradiction to his own characterization of them as necessary for the good of the empire. I think the whole point and advantage of retrospective analysis is to sort out what was most likely really going on from a third party, outside perspective, rather than to side with any participant on their own terms.

To that end I appreciate you linking to that book and I'll make an effort to get hold of it at some point. I think you'd love Catlin's book given your general interest in anthropology. It's called Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of North American Indians. Two volumes, published by Dover.
 
  • #54
apeiron said:
A gathering of the clans is an attractive model. You can imagine the men going off to do the sacred work, the women then left to gather grass seed to feed the group. Learning to collect, mill and bake wild wheat may have indeed been the key to it all. But if that was going on, then the evidence should be there as well.

The fact that what is being found is a lot of rock shaping flints and a lot of gazelle bones suggests a simpler scenario so far.

You could turn the story around I guess. As is said about the San bushmen, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle can leave people with a lot of time on their hands. So people might invent crazy religious projects like these circles as they want something "meaningful" to do. They had no cable TV in those days. :smile:
Great post. You suddenly reminded me of the fact of "societies" in plains Indian culture. In most tribes men and women were inducted into one "society" or another when they came of age. These were something like a cross between a fraternity and the Freemasons. Each society had their own secret rituals and lore and also their public contributions to the tribe, which might be a practical or spiritual service. With no cable T.V. as you say, a person's life might revolve around their membership in a society. These sites could have been a particular society's traditional meeting place.
 
  • #55
Evo said:
It's hard to say, but they did find piles of animal bones that show signs of having been butchered by humans. I would assume that the piles of bones would not have been from piles of dirt moved there. They have also done testing on the pillars, but the tests only show when they were buried. Carbonate layers only begin to form after the burial.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gea.20134/abstract
I couldn't understand that abstract, but thanks.

I would be interested to find out the most recent possible date for the site. That is, if all the parameters were weighed in favor of the most recent date, what would that give us? Would it still predate any similar site by thousands of years?
 
  • #56
I recently communicated with Dr Schmidt on this topic of Dakhmas. Here is the email --

Dear Dr. Schmidt,
>
> I have followed with great enthusiasm your excavations in Turkey. It has
> potentially changed my entire conception of the Neolithic Revolution. I
> recently came across a verse in the Zoroastrian text of Zend Avesta
> that you
> may find interesting. It could help explain the cultural purpose of the
> Gobekli Tepe structures:
>
> “With regard to Dakhmas, see Introd. V, 10. 'Nor is the Earth happy at
> that
> place whereon stands a Dakhma with corpses upon it; for that patch of
> ground
> will never be clean again fill the day of p. 25 resurrection' (Gr.
> Rav. 435,
> 437). Although the erection of Dakhmas is enjoined by the law, yet the
> Dakhma
> in itself is as unclean as any spot on the Earth can be, since it is
> always
> in contact with the dead (cf. Farg. VII, 55). The impurity which would
> otherwise be scattered over the whole world, is thus brought together
> to one
> and the same spot. Yet even that spot, in spite of the Ravaet, is not
> to lie
> defiled for ever, as every fifty years the Dakhmas ought to be pulled
> down,
> so that their sites may be restored to their natural purity (V. i.
> Farg. VII,
> 49 seq. and this Farg. § 13).”
>
> I found this compellingly similar to what you have found at Gobekli Tepe.
> Good luck to you. Have a nice day.
>

Dr Schmidt responded --

"Dear Mr. Sims
thank you for your interesting reference, yes, the hypothesis, that the
Göbekli Tepe enclosures had been neolithic Dakhmas seems highly probable"

This is interesting, since there is no reference to Dakhmas in the NatGeo special. But it would seem Schmidt agrees with the Dakhmas theory.
 
  • #57
zoobyshoe said:
I think I'm familiar with the concept you're talking about but from a completely different source. The artist, George Catlin, observed and described the same thing being in play among the Mandan Indians, a tribe he lived with for a few months and whose culture he recored in both paintings and journal entries. For the Mandan everything was a matter of sacred power: if a guy was a better marksman with a bow and arrow it was because he had more sacred power, if he won more at gambling, same cause, if he bested someone in a trade of goods, same thing: more sacred power. There was no secular concept of skill, intelligence, acumen.

Catlin's own artistic abilities amazed the Indians and he was deferred to everywhere due to the perception he had a huge amount of sacred power. All the local magnates lined up to have their portrait painted.

In one band of Indians, though, he was disturbed to find out that a particular shaman was preaching against him, warning that he was evil and up to no good. He was perplexed at first, but then he figured out what was going on. He invited the shaman to sit and have his portrait painted, and suddenly the man's whole attitude changed. He suddenly announced he'd been wrong and that Catlin had completely good "sacred power", and was a good man.

I don't think it would be any different in Greek and Roman hero cults. Regardless of how any of those ancients might rationalize their purely political maneuvers as having a religious motivation, it doesn't mean we are misunderstanding them if we don't buy it as they would represent it. This isn't Judeo-Christian vs ancient pagan, it's modern secular psychology vs primitive.

The quantification of the importance of different causes in history happens. Many claim Caesar's Gallic campaigns were essentially self serving, intended to increase his status, in contradiction to his own characterization of them as necessary for the good of the empire. I think the whole point and advantage of retrospective analysis is to sort out what was most likely really going on from a third party, outside perspective, rather than to side with any participant on their own terms.

To that end I appreciate you linking to that book and I'll make an effort to get hold of it at some point. I think you'd love Catlin's book given your general interest in anthropology. It's called Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of North American Indians. Two volumes, published by Dover.

Very interesting story!
However, maintaining that someone was RELIGIOUSLY motivated for some action does NOT imply there must exist any gods.

Rather, on the psychological level, this is a minimalist "surface" description of motivation, and I fully agree that on the subconsciouslevel "secular" power is an important factor in shaping that motivation, but there will be a whole lot of other factors besides that we do NOT know about, the conglomerate of which effects a..religious motivation, in want of a more apt description 8i.e, a listing of the relevant contributions from the various motivational factors that agglutinate themselves in a sense of being religiously motivated to do this and that).
 
  • #58
zoobyshoe said:
I would be interested to find out the most recent possible date for the site. That is, if all the parameters were weighed in favor of the most recent date, what would that give us? Would it still predate any similar site by thousands of years?

Gobekli Tepe's final occupational horizon ends around 7000BC, the same time that Catal Huyuk first arose near Konya not very far away.

At Catal Huyuk there was a funerary ritual called excarnation. Excarnation involves laying out the body, usually in a circular stone tower called a Dakhma. Vultures were key part of this process. Vultures feature prominently upon the stone pillars of Gebekli Tepe. Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Dotini said:
Gobekli Tepe's final occupational horizon ends around 7000BC, the same time that Catal Huyuk first arose near Konya not very far away.

At Catal Huyuk there was a funerary ritual called excarnation. Excarnation involves laying out the body, usually in a circular stone tower called a Dakhma. Vultures were key part of this process.


Respectfully submitted,
Steve
I thought the final burial of the entire site was dated at 8,000 BC? That seems to be an accepted date.
 
  • #60
I think dakhma is a ritual seen in Zoroastrian tradition . wiki link to it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakhma


A Tower of Silence or Dakhma (Persian: دخمه‎) is a circular, raised structure used by Zoroastrians for exposure of the dead.