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

[apeiron]

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.

 

[arildno]

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...

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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?

 

[SimsStuart]

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.

 

[arildno]

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).

 

[Dotini]

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

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[thorium1010]

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.

 

[Evo]

I think dakhma is a ritual seen in Zoroastrian tradition . wiki link to it -

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakhma]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakhma[/URL]

But Gobekli Tepe predates dakhmas by thousands of years. So to suggest that the later Dakmahs have any rituals passed down by the inhabitants of Gobekli Tepe thousands of years earlier is rather unlikely. More probably they may have seen a ring structure and made some similar structures, but using their current religion.

 

[Dotini]

I thought the final burial of the entire site was dated at 8,000 BC? That seems to be an accepted date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#Dating
Lab-Number Date BP Cal BC Context
Ua-19561 8430 ± 80 7560–7370 enclosure C
Ua-19562 8960 ± 85 8280–7970 enclosure B
Hd-20025 9452 ± 73 9110–8620 Layer III
Hd-20036 9559 ± 53 9130–8800 Layer III

Catal Huyuk is thought to started up around 7500BC. It seems there could be some overlap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Evo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#Dating
Lab-Number Date BP Cal BC Context
Ua-19561 8430 ± 80 7560–7370 enclosure C
Ua-19562 8960 ± 85 8280–7970 enclosure B
Hd-20025 9452 ± 73 9110–8620 Layer III
Hd-20036 9559 ± 53 9130–8800 Layer III

Catal Huyuk is thought to started up around 7500BC. It seems there could be some overlap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük

Respectfully,
Steve

Yes, that's possible.

I wish that everyone could watch the Nat Geo special, so we'd all be on the same page.

 

[arildno]

I wish that everyone could watch the Nat Geo special, so we'd all be on the same page.

In Norway, we only learn about moose..

 

[Evo]

In Norway, we only learn about moose..

The secret order of the stone meessons.

 

[arildno]

The secret order of the stone meessons.

The second law of thermodynamics holds for meese as well, I guess, and not only as sufficiently explanatory for the degeneration of humans&their societies..

But, there is always hope:
MOOSELETS, in whatever shape they come!

 

[SimsStuart]

But Gobekli Tepe predates dakhmas by thousands of years. So to suggest that the later Dakmahs have any rituals passed down by the inhabitants of Gobekli Tepe thousands of years earlier is rather unlikely. More probably they may have seen a ring structure and made some similar structures, but using their current religion.

I recently communicated with Dr Schmidt (he heads up the Gobekli Tepe excavation) 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.

 

[Evo]

I recently communicated with Dr Schmidt (he heads up the Gobekli Tepe excavation) on this topic of Dakhmas. Here is the email --

Welcome to the forum. Yes, I saw that and you may be misreading what he said. He is saying that hypothetically the fixtures at Gopekli Tepe might have served a similar purpose as the modern Dakhmas, but the dakhmas have nothing to do with the structures at Gobekli Tepe. Gobekli Tepe predates dakhmas by many thousand years. This is why there is no mention of any connection between them.

So far they have found no bodies, they are wondering if bodies could have been buried under the tile floors. That's yet to be seen.

I tend to lean towards zooby's thoughts. Especially after Dr Schmidt said that he didn't want too much spritual meaning placed on the structures.

 

[apeiron]

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.

This is a plausible line of speculation, but there is some evidence that does not tally.

It does seem that Schmidt may have further evidence to support some kind of excarnation ritual.

Intriguingly, in recent excavations at Göbekli Tepe Schmidt’s team have uncovered pieces of human bones in soils which came from the niches behind the stone pillars at the site. Schmidt believes the bones show that corpses were brought into the ritual areas demarcated by the engraved T-shaped stone, where they were then laid out and left to be stripped of their soft tissue by wild animals. Such activity would Göbekli Tepe both a cemetery and a center of a regional death cult.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/234/

But against that, there is the likelihood these circles were roofed, the fact that many animals are represented in the carvings, rather than just vultures, and that vulture bones are among the "feast debris" - which does not suggest a particularly reverential attitude.

Another plausible explanation of the carvings is that they are constellation maps - http://timothystephany.com/gobekli.html

This is probably too literal, but it demonstrates how many different explanations might be the case. Which is why there is a fascination of course - it gives us a nice little detective case, trying to put ourselves back into an ancient mindset.

 

[arildno]

I recently communicated with Dr Schmidt (he heads up the Gobekli Tepe excavation) 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.

Remember that, due to past unpleasant experiences, either to themselves or colleagues, many professionals have deliberately developed a perhaps unjustified, but understandable, technique towards ALL strangers:
Rather than detailing their objections to some particular hypothesis, they respond in a friendly manner in order to prevent potential stalkers from developing a hostile attitude.

I do NOT, in any way, consider yourself, due to your postings, to be a crackpot of potential stalkjing behaviour, but mention this in order that you'll take Dr. Schmidt's response as just that, the cautious, self-serving response to someone he simply CANNOT know who is, or whether you might pose some risk to himself or his immediates.

You'll need to look at Dr. Schmidt's subsequent scientific publications to see if you ACTUALLY made an impact on his professional views. He might well have been honest with you, but do not be disappointed if his articles does not seem influenced by the alternative hypotheses you transmitted to him in private e-mails.

 

[Evo]

This is a plausible line of speculation, but there is some evidence that does not tally.

It does seem that Schmidt may have further evidence to support some kind of excarnation ritual.

Seems Schmidt thinks differently.

Schmidt believes the people who created these massive and enigmatic structures came from great distances. It seems certain that once pilgrims reached Göbekli Tepe, they made animal sacrifices. Schmidt and his team have found the bones of wild animals, including gazelles, red deer, boars, goats, sheep, and oxen, plus a dozen different bird species, such as vultures and ducks, scattered around the site. Most of these animals are depicted in the sculptures and reliefs at the site.

There is still much that we don't understand about religious practices at Göbekli Tepe, Schmidt cautions. But broadly speaking, the animal images "probably illustrate stories of hunter-gatherer religion and beliefs," he says, "though we don't know at the moment." The sculptors of Göbekli Tepe may have simply wanted to depict the animals they saw, or perhaps create symbolic representations of the animals to use in rituals to ensure hunting success.

http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html

 

[SimsStuart]

Welcome to the forum. Yes, I saw that and you may be misreading what he said. He is saying that hypothetically the fixtures at Gopekli Tepe might have served a similar purpose as the modern Dakhmas, but the dakhmas have nothing to do with the structures at Gobekli Tepe. Gobekli Tepe predates dakhmas by many thousand years. This is why there is no mention of any connection between them.

So far they have found no bodies, they are wondering if bodies could have been buried under the tile floors. That's yet to be seen.

I tend to lean towards zooby's thoughts. Especially after Dr Schmidt said that he didn't want too much spritual meaning placed on the structures.

Judaism predates Christianity and Islam by thousands of years, yet they are still closely related. I would postulate that what we are seeing at Gobekli Tepe is the beginning of formalized burial rituals that led to the theology that became Zoroastrianism. And since Zoroastrianism strongly influenced Jewish theology (the notion of heaven and hell, for example) and modern Hinduism, what we are potentially seeing is a truly startling continuity of beliefs that affect billions of people today. Very exciting.

 

[arildno]

Judaism predates Christianity and Islam by thousands of years, yet they are still closely related.

irrelevant. Since Judaism provably has existed continuously, something that is utterly unattested bettwen thetime of Gobekli Tepe monuments and the emergence of Zoroastrianism.

 

[Evo]

Judaism predates Christianity and Islam by thousands of years, yet they are still closely related. I would postulate that what we are seeing at Gobekli Tepe is the beginning of formalized burial rituals that led to the theology that became Zoroastrianism. And since Zoroastrianism strongly influenced Jewish theology (the notion of heaven and hell, for example) and modern Hinduism, what we are potentially seeing is a truly startling continuity of beliefs that affect billions of people today. Very exciting.

But there are no signs of human burials ay Gobekli Tepe. Just animals. Zoroastrianism started around the 6th century BC, Gobekli Tepe, ended in 8,000 BC. And unlike the continuation of Judaism to Christianity to Islam there was no overlap of Gobekli Tepe with any of those religions.

So unless it comes from an authoritative published source, no more pulling the thread off topic. Thanks.

 

[thorium1010]

But Gobekli Tepe predates dakhmas by thousands of years. So to suggest that the later Dakmahs have any rituals passed down by the inhabitants of Gobekli Tepe thousands of years earlier is rather unlikely. More probably they may have seen a ring structure and made some similar structures, but using their current religion.

I suspect going by the symbols on the stone it was place of rituals, what exactly the rituals were is speculation. Again going by the date and period, ritualistic practices probably would have been very common.

Would these ritualistic practices probably been animal sacrifice i think is a reasonable hypothesis, considering animal sacrificial rituals were common in the region including parts of Mesopotamia and early Judaism. But there is a large separation in time between organized religion and these early practices. This finding indicates a continuous process of development of rituals which were later modified according to need of the time and development of theology in the region.

Edit : I am not an expert in the field. I am only speculating here. But it is a interesting hypothesis on the origins of ritualistic practices.

 

[apeiron]

Seems Schmidt thinks differently.

http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html

He certainly seems to have changed his mind and most recent media reports indicate no human remains found there.

In 2007 he says:

In the latest season of digging, his team have found human bones in soils that once filled the niches behind the megaliths. “I believe the ancient hunters brought the corpses of relatives here, and installed them in the open niches by the stones. The corpses were then excarnated: picked clean by wild animals.”

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/449/gobekli_tepe_paradise_regained.html

Then in 2008, it is more about feasts/sacrifice...

It seems certain that once pilgrims reached Göbekli Tepe, they made animal sacrifices. Schmidt and his team have found the bones of wild animals, including gazelles, red deer, boars, goats, sheep, and oxen, plus a dozen different bird species, such as vultures and ducks, scattered around the site.

http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html

Then in 2011, he is only quoted as hoping still to find human remains...

Another theory is that it could have been a burial ground but if so, where are the bones? "This cannot be excluded from current research," he says, adding: "Work is still going on and of course a possible connection to burial ritual has to be considered. Bones could be situated in some of the areas not excavated yet, for example within the 'banks' between the pillars."

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/004220.html

So that seems to knock excarnation on the head.

Other interesting factoids that crop up in reports are a lack of fertility symbols (removing another common ritualistic function), the pillars face south-east (so a definite orientation), and the hill is a long way from water (making it more of a puzzle that hunter gatherers might be able to camp there for long).

 

[SimsStuart]

But there are no signs of human burials ay Gobekli Tepe. Just animals. Zoroastrianism started around the 6th century BC, Gobekli Tepe, ended in 8,000 BC. And unlike the continuation of Judaism to Christianity to Islam there was no overlap of Gobekli Tepe with any of those religions.

So unless it comes from an authoritative published source, no more pulling the thread off
topic. Thanks.

First, let’s get our facts straight – Zoroastric text dates back to about 600 BC, but given the complexity of the theology found in the Avesta, we can be sure the belief system stretches much father back in time. Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BC. Secondly, Jewish theology is not continuous. It changed and evolved, first taking certain beliefs from the Egyptian theology during the Hebrews enslavement, then taking strongly from Zoroastrianism during their enslavement by the Babylonians. Actually, the first Jewish text appeared around the same time as the Avesta. Thirdly, someone needs to watch the NatGeo special again, and pay close attention to the portion when they discuss the apparent custom of ritualistically digging up the bodies and removing the skulls, a practice with striking similarities to the Zoroastic custom of digging up the dead so they do not pollute the ground. What I am contending is the POSSIBILITY that Gobekli Tepe is evidential of the beginning of human beings ritualizing the process of burial. The fact that these Neolithic people not only disinterred their dead, but also buried the Dakmahs after a certain period of time makes a strong case for a correlation to Zoroastrianism. But all of this is of course just speculation, but given that Gobekli Tepe is located in the Fertile Crescent, it is likely the beliefs of these Neolithic people influenced later Zoroastric theology to some extent. The most compelling component of Gobekli Tepe is the undeniable advanced level of cognitive development these Neolithic people demonstrate by organizing and constructing such a monument. It is the first hard evidence of that level of cognition demonstrated by Stone Age people. It is a wonderful piece of the puzzle of when and how humans first developed self-awareness.

 

[SimsStuart]

Remember that, due to past unpleasant experiences, either to themselves or colleagues, many professionals have deliberately developed a perhaps unjustified, but understandable, technique towards ALL strangers:
Rather than detailing their objections to some particular hypothesis, they respond in a friendly manner in order to prevent potential stalkers from developing a hostile attitude.

I do NOT, in any way, consider yourself, due to your postings, to be a crackpot of potential stalkjing behaviour, but mention this in order that you'll take Dr. Schmidt's response as just that, the cautious, self-serving response to someone he simply CANNOT know who is, or whether you might pose some risk to himself or his immediates.

You'll need to look at Dr. Schmidt's subsequent scientific publications to see if you ACTUALLY made an impact on his professional views. He might well have been honest with you, but do not be disappointed if his articles does not seem influenced by the alternative hypotheses you transmitted to him in private e-mails.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree to some extent. However when a scientist uses the phrase “highly probable”, this translate into the highest level of certainty that can be obtained short of hard empirical evidence. His use of this sort of language leads me to conclude he is not just humoring a crack-pot. He would have said “thank you, and it is an interesting theory,” don’t you think? Or simply have not responded at all. You could write Dr. Schmidt and ask for clarification -- kls@orient.dainst.de -- I would be interested to hear what he has to say.

 

[apeiron]

The most compelling component of Gobekli Tepe is the undeniable advanced level of cognitive development these Neolithic people demonstrate by organizing and constructing such a monument. It is the first hard evidence of that level of cognition demonstrated by Stone Age people. It is a wonderful piece of the puzzle of when and how humans first developed self-awareness.

From a cognitive point of view, Gobekli Tepe does not suggest any particular advance in mentality.

There is plenty of art, like the 25 kya Venus of Laussel and 32 kya Lion man of Hohlenstein Stadel, to show the essentials were in place for a long time already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Laussel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_of_the_Hohlenstein_Stadel

That is why Gobekli Tepe isn't rewriting any paleo theories as yet. The only real surprise is that a hunter-gatherer economy could afford to build stone temples.

And also some other small surprises - like I find it striking there are no depictions of warfare or tribal strife. So this suggests a low level of resource conflict despite also a reasonable population density.

The site is important because of the many clues it may give about the precise lifestyle of a critical time, the dawn of the holocene, when climate change released the fetters on human population and cultural development. But it is also being over-played rather as a moment of actual significant change.

Instead, you could remark on the fact that they were still only hunter-gatherers. And all the real changes of livestock domestication and settled agricultural were still some time off.

 

[SimsStuart]

From a cognitive point of view, Gobekli Tepe does not suggest any particular advance in mentality.

There is plenty of art, like the 25 kya Venus of Laussel and 32 kya Lion man of Hohlenstein Stadel, to show the essentials were in place for a long time already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Laussel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_of_the_Hohlenstein_Stadel

That is why Gobekli Tepe isn't rewriting any paleo theories as yet. The only real surprise is that a hunter-gatherer economy could afford to build stone temples.

And also some other small surprises - like I find it striking there are no depictions of warfare or tribal strife. So this suggests a low level of resource conflict despite also a reasonable population density.

The site is important because of the many clues it may give about the precise lifestyle of a critical time, the dawn of the holocene, when climate change released the fetters on human population and cultural development. But it is also being over-played rather as a moment of actual significant change.

Instead, you could remark on the fact that they were still only hunter-gatherers. And all the real changes of livestock domestication and settled agricultural were still some time off.

Oh, I strongly disagree -- the level of cognitive development required to produce cave art, or even stone carvings is an order of magnitude away from organizing fifty people (the experts say it required “at least” fifty people. Likely it was far more) for a long period of time to design and build structures such as those found at G.T. (Gobekli Tepe). Architecture is actually an established benchmark for the evolution of human cognition -- ask any evolutionary psychologist. This potentially pushes back this benchmark five or six thousand years. You do not find this significant? All previous evidence of human cognition prior to these structures required no more than exactly one artist. The emotional intelligence, advanced level of spatial intelligence, and just pure language ability required to organize and produce complex architecture like that found at G.T. is unprecedented at this point in pre-history. The Zoser Pyramid in Egypt is considered to be the earliest large-scale cut stone construction, although the nearby enclosure known as Gisr el-mudir would seem to predate the complex. The oldest known unworked stone pyramid structure dates to 3000 BC in the city of Caral, Peru. All previous evidence of human cognition prior to these structures required no more than exactly one artist. Cut stone architecture requires cooperation and coordination that sets it apart and above singly produced stone carvings.

 

[apeiron]

Architecture is actually an established benchmark for the evolution of human cognition -- ask any evolutionary psychologist. This potentially pushes back this benchmark five or six thousand years. You do not find this significant? All previous evidence of human cognition prior to these structures required no more than exactly one artist.

This is dubious concerning both facts and theory.

Construction of shelters goes much further back. The mammoth bone designs of 15 kya for instance - http://donsmaps.com/mammothcamp.html

So it is reasonable to conclude that shelter building was already advanced at 10kya, but little of it would have been preserved if mobile bands of hunter-gatherers were building trail camps of wood and hide.

Shelter is in fact not a great benchmark precisely because it does not preserve reliably, unlike tools or art. You end up with endless disputes about whether there really is a circle of perimeter stones and post holes, or just some assemblage swept together by natural circumstance.

And then art is primarily a cultural activity, not some individualistic expression. So "cognitive teamwork" would have been just as important there as in constructing a ritual site.

Again, Gobekli Tepe does spell something unusual in terms of hunter-gatherer economics, and then quite possibly something new also in terms of social organisation. But we should be looking for the simplest possible explanation of what is found.

The emotional intelligence, advanced level of spatial intelligence, and just pure language ability required to organize and produce complex architecture like that found at G.T. is unprecedented at this point in pre-history.

Again, it doesn't take any special intelligence to pile up rocks - apologies to any builders out there. The technical skill involved in knapping flint, making clothes, crafting weapons, is just as demanding. As for emotional intelligence, there are some who even claim that trade between tribes goes back 100 kya or more. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248400904354)

But what such construction does take is the economic and social circumstances to make it happen.

Any claim you make about mental sophistication has to be stacked up against the paleo evidence like the rich cultural and ritual life of the Australian aborigines who split off 50 kya.

Gobekli Tepe may turn out to have some kind of significance as an innovation in social organisation - that is a possibility. But it appears to have zero significance so far as human cognitive ability goes.

 

[SimsStuart]

This is dubious concerning both facts and theory.

Construction of shelters goes much further back. The mammoth bone designs of 15 kya for instance - http://donsmaps.com/mammothcamp.html

So it is reasonable to conclude that shelter building was already advanced at 10kya, but little of it would have been preserved if mobile bands of hunter-gatherers were building trail camps of wood and hide.

Shelter is in fact not a great benchmark precisely because it does not preserve reliably, unlike tools or art. You end up with endless disputes about whether there really is a circle of perimeter stones and post holes, or just some assemblage swept together by natural circumstance.

And then art is primarily a cultural activity, not some individualistic expression. So "cognitive teamwork" would have been just as important there as in constructing a ritual site.

Again, Gobekli Tepe does spell something unusual in terms of hunter-gatherer economics, and then quite possibly something new also in terms of social organisation. But we should be looking for the simplest possible explanation of what is found.



Again, it doesn't take any special intelligence to pile up rocks - apologies to any builders out there. The technical skill involved in knapping flint, making clothes, crafting weapons, is just as demanding. As for emotional intelligence, there are some who even claim that trade between tribes goes back 100 kya or more. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248400904354)

But what such construction does take is the economic and social circumstances to make it happen.

Any claim you make about mental sophistication has to be stacked up against the paleo evidence like the rich cultural and ritual life of the Australian aborigines who split off 50 kya.

Gobekli Tepe may turn out to have some kind of significance as an innovation in social organisation - that is a possibility. But it appears to have zero significance so far as human cognitive ability goes.

I did a little research on this subject of “cognitive archeology” – the conclusion I must draw from my brief examination of this subject is that the experts cannot seem to agree on the specifics of this topic anymore than you and I can. (Laughing) Some experts contend that there has been no significant change in human cognition in the past 150,000 years. Others argue no change in the past 250,000 years. My opinion is simple – the evidence these experts use to make these conclusions are indirect, requiring liberal use of inference and leaps in deductive reasoning. For example, the postulation that man began using primitive boats to traverse the oceans 150,000 BC because they found human remains from that period on an island is a facile, specious argument. The point I am attempting to make is this – until now, all evidence for advanced human cognition in the archeological records has been indirect. Like the argument you made, “And then art is primarily a cultural activity, not some individualistic expression. So "cognitive teamwork" would have been just as important there as in constructing a ritual site.” This is not a provable assertion. It is logical, and I could make a strong argument supporting that contention, but there is no rock solid evidence to support it. We really do not know how or why primitive people carved the few trinkets we have found. It is possible that the neurological evolution of the portion of the brain that allowed that sort of creativity emerged as a result of millions of years of early hominids shaping flint and other rocks, or perhaps children are responsible for these rock carvings. We just do not know. What excites me is that G.T is rock solid evidence, if you will pardon the pun, of advanced human cognition in the late Neolithic. The G.T. structures are not just a bunch of piled rocks. They are highly organized structures requiring an understanding of basic engineering and masonry carving. There is so much “soft science” applied to archeological conclusions, we all sometimes forget that these conclusions amount to no more than educated guesses. There is an enormous grey-scale between FACTS and OPINION in the study of history, and I personally think the most valuable obsession a scholar can possesses is a fanatical tendency to differentiate between the two. Gobekli Tepe is a FACT, and I for one am a huge fan of new facts.

 

[apeiron]

What excites me is that G.T is rock solid evidence, if you will pardon the pun, of advanced human cognition in the late Neolithic.

Yes, I have plenty of familiarity with the controversies and wishful interpretations in this area.

I don't see why you think Gobekli Tepe is any more privileged than a thousand other paleo sites in terms of "facts".

When it comes to evidence about cognition, tool-making and art-making are the principle "facts". And evidence of equally advanced human cognition goes back easily 30 kya.

On what grounds are you arguing otherwise?

 

[Evo]

First, let’s get our facts straight – Zoroastric text dates back to about 600 BC, but given the complexity of the theology found in the Avesta, we can be sure the belief system stretches much father back in time. Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BC.

Yes, I also read the wikipedia entry.

Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Origins When you quote verbatim from wikipedia, you must site it.

Again, there was a gap of thousands of years between the two.

Also we do not allow overly speculative posts and personal theories that are not part of the actual findings.

 

[SimsStuart]

Yes, I have plenty of familiarity with the controversies and wishful interpretations in this area.

I don't see why you think Gobekli Tepe is any more privileged than a thousand other paleo sites in terms of "facts".

When it comes to evidence about cognition, tool-making and art-making are the principle "facts". And evidence of equally advanced human cognition goes back easily 30 kya.

On what grounds are you arguing otherwise?

The question of the evolution of human consciousness is a highly contentious one in academic circles – reason being, we do not really understand what consciousness IS, or why we have it. The advances we have made in the last ten years in the fields of neuropsychology using fMRI’s, EEG and other imaging technology has answered many questions about how the brain functions, but has raised more questions than it has answered concerning the nature and source of human’s singularly unique self-awareness. One of the questions that has always been deeply compelling to me is how long have fully self-aware humans been wandering around out there. At what point did we stop functioning on the level of instinct and become fully human? So why do I consider large scale shaped stone architecture like that found at G.T. more evidential of this self-awareness than stone tools, carved stone figures or cave art? Given the evidence of remarkable neurological plasticity -- how the brain is capable of adaptation to new stimuli – it seems probable that consciousness did not just appear full blown one day as some guy was walking along. It slowly emerged out of an instinctual fog, until it reached the level we find ourselves at today. Let us postulate that man 100,000 years ago functioned 75% on instinct and 25% on self-aware cognition. Just for the sake of this discussion. Then let’s say modern humans function at the level of 15% instinct and 85% self-aware cognition. A bushman of the Kalahari might be more like 30% to 70%, and Albert Einstein or Sigmund Freud might have been 10% to 90%. People who could make stone tools might be at 50% to 50%, and people who make simple art might be at 60% to 40%, but men who gather together and cooperate to plan to build a large, shaped stone building for some abstract reason that has no survival oriented purpose are functioning at a much higher level. I would contend men such as those are fully human, and if they lived today would blend right in. The men who made stone tools 100,000 years ago, if you dressed them in the suit and put them in an office cubicle might very likely jump up on the desk and throw their feces at you or something.

 

[SimsStuart]

Yes, I also read the wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Origins When you quote verbatim from wikipedia, you must site it.

Again, there was a gap of thousands of years between the two.

Also we do not allow overly speculative posts and personal theories that are not part of the actual findings.

I will site the sources of my verbatim facts in the future. An excellent standard, I think. Please clarify something for me --why do you find it unlikely that beliefs can span thousands of years? Many historians argue that oral traditions are just as, if not more reliable than written traditions. If you disagree with this assertion, then I can site several sources who make compelling arguments for the consistency of oral traditions over enormous periods of time. The Jewish tradition maintained its oral traditions from the time of Abraham to the time they were finally written down, a span of at least 2,000 years.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The G.T. structures are not just a bunch of piled rocks. They are highly organized structures requiring an understanding of basic engineering and masonry carving.

I spent some time earlier in the thread asserting this wasn't true, and that the opposite was true: these are not well designed structures at all and were erected in defiance of basic engineering and aesthetic principles. The slabs are not stable structures and have to be propped upright somehow. They're top heavy, which is aesthetically uncomfortable, and very bad for practical reasons: anyone of them could have been toppled over by a single person.

At the same time each slab seems to embody the same form or formula, they are all different sizes. There was no effort made to maintain the important kind of consistency that makes Stonehenge, for example, what it is. Joining them into a single architectural entity requires all kinds of jury-rigging as a result. The makers didn't even seem to know how to generate a circle on which to arrange them. It's all 'freehand'. The design behind it is comparable to what an untrained 8 - 10 year old might produce.

The animal renderings, though, are much more advanced. The artists seem to be shooting for realism without quite knowing how to achieve it, as opposed to shooting for a characteristic style with its own aesthetics. The animal renderings seem, therefore, to be the important thing to these people. They don't have a larger concept of composition, design, or structural integrity yet. No geometry/math/measuring system. They sculpt a pretty good animal, but they certainly couldn't have designed Stonehenge or a pyramid, much less a Roman Aqueduct. While these aren't piles of stones by any means, they aren't what I'd call "engineering". Trial and error, jury-rigging, it looks to me to be.

This is the mystery to me: how could they have been such hard workers without also being smart workers? What held so many to such labor for so long in the absence of any motivational feeling they were aware of, and employing, Nature's deeper structural secrets?

Your suggestion they were dedicated exposure sites for the dead would fit the bill completely just on the principle we know that what you do with the dead was, and still is, a pivotal issue in many cultures, including those that don't/didn't otherwise have much in the way of civilization.

This question occurs to me: if you put a dead body out in that part of the world in a place far from water, what animals are attracted? Are those the same animals depicted on the slabs? I have no idea, but it might be worth investigating.

 

[Evo]

I will site the sources of my verbatim facts in the future. An excellent standard, I think. Please clarify something for me --why do you find it unlikely that beliefs can span thousands of years?

We don't know of any beliefs tied to Gobekli Tepe. We do know that the creation and/or meaning of ancient megaliths and monuments such as the Pyramids, the Spynx, Stonehenge, etc... were completey lost in a relatively shorter span of time. And they weren't buried out of site.

So stop trying to impose some religion that formed thousand of years later in another part of the world onto these structures.

 

[SimsStuart]

We don't know of any beliefs tied to Gobekli Tepe. We do know that the creation and/or meaning of ancient megaliths and monuments such as the Pyramids, the Spynx, Stonehenge, etc... were completey lost in a relatively shorter span of time. And they weren't buried out of site.

So stop trying to impose some religion that formed thousand of years later in another part of the world onto these structures.

Ok, I think I see part of the problem. You are mistaken on several of the facts -- “Zoroastrianism is a religion and philosophy based on the teachings of prophet Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra, in Avestan) and was formerly among the world's largest religions. It was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Greater Iran.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism) Now, how does Iran, located just east of the Fertile Crescent (the location of Gobekli Tepe), qualify in your mind as “another part of the world”? Furthermore, I am not imposing religion on Gobekli Tepe. It is always productive to look for continuities in history, and the similarities between these structures and Dakhmas is blatant –there circular formation, for one, and the fact that the people buried them after a period of time, just like in Zoroastric traditions. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to speculate that these early structures might well have been the beginning of the belief system that later became Zoroastrianism. You have previously dismissed the fact that the archeologist who is excavating the site, Dr. Schmidt, personally responded to me and indicated that he also believed the structures were Neolithic Dakhmas. “Highly Probable”, were his exact words. Obviously to your mind this is not credible information. I can understand that. And you still have not addressed the fact that you have repeatedly stated that there were no human remains found at G.T. This is just incorrect. The NatGeo special spent ten minutes talking about how the Neolithic people disinterred the dead buried at Gobekli Tepe and removed their skulls for some unknown purpose. It is impossible to have an intelligent, productive discussion when we disagree on the fundamental facts. So where am I going wrong? Please, if any of the facts I have stated here are incorrect please let me know. We are all here to learn, correct?

 

[thorium1010]

It is always productive to look for continuities in history, and the similarities between these structures and Dakhmas is blatant –there circular formation, for one, and the fact that the people buried them after a period of time, just like in Zoroastric traditions. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to speculate that these early structures might well have been the beginning of the belief system that later became Zoroastrianism. You have previously dismissed the fact that the archeologist who is excavating the site, Dr. Schmidt, personally responded to me and indicated that he also believed the structures were Neolithic Dakhmas. “Highly Probable”, were his exact words. Obviously to your mind this is not credible information. I can understand that. And you still have not addressed the fact that you have repeatedly stated that there were no human remains found at G.T.

A site dated 11000 bc is nowhere close to rise of Zoroastrianism (even if it is 2000 bc). I think you have to temper some of your assumptions, First of all we have a ancient site which might have been used for rituals at best for some sort of sacrifice (considering animal bones ). Was there any other kind of ritual such as one you are referring to is unclear. unless other similar sites available to confirm the ritualistic practice it is hard to come to all that conclusion from one site.

 

[SimsStuart]

I spent some time earlier in the thread asserting this wasn't true, and that the opposite was true: these are not well designed structures at all and were erected in defiance of basic engineering and aesthetic principles. The slabs are not stable structures and have to be propped upright somehow. They're top heavy, which is aesthetically uncomfortable, and very bad for practical reasons: anyone of them could have been toppled over by a single person.

At the same time each slab seems to embody the same form or formula, they are all different sizes. There was no effort made to maintain the important kind of consistency that makes Stonehenge, for example, what it is. Joining them into a single architectural entity requires all kinds of jury-rigging as a result. The makers didn't even seem to know how to generate a circle on which to arrange them. It's all 'freehand'. The design behind it is comparable to what an untrained 8 - 10 year old might produce.

The animal renderings, though, are much more advanced. The artists seem to be shooting for realism without quite knowing how to achieve it, as opposed to shooting for a characteristic style with its own aesthetics. The animal renderings seem, therefore, to be the important thing to these people. They don't have a larger concept of composition, design, or structural integrity yet. No geometry/math/measuring system. They sculpt a pretty good animal, but they certainly couldn't have designed Stonehenge or a pyramid, much less a Roman Aqueduct. While these aren't piles of stones by any means, they aren't what I'd call "engineering". Trial and error, jury-rigging, it looks to me to be.

This is the mystery to me: how could they have been such hard workers without also being smart workers? What held so many to such labor for so long in the absence of any motivational feeling they were aware of, and employing, Nature's deeper structural secrets?

Your suggestion they were dedicated exposure sites for the dead would fit the bill completely just on the principle we know that what you do with the dead was, and still is, a pivotal issue in many cultures, including those that don't/didn't otherwise have much in the way of civilization.

This question occurs to me: if you put a dead body out in that part of the world in a place far from water, what animals are attracted? Are those the same animals depicted on the slabs? I have no idea, but it might be worth investigating.

I am using the term “highly organized structures” in relation to any earlier known human architecture. Compared to the Egyptian pyramids they are certainly remedial. Compared to mud-brick dwellings they are a huge leap forward. The size of the structures is significant I think, as well as the coordination to not only shape the limestone, but to get that many people to move those large stone obelisks up to the top of that hill. This is the oldest hard evidence for that level of organized, long range, abstract thinking demonstrated by Neolithic people. And in defense of those poor primitive men and women of so long ago, the structures DID survive being buried for 12,000 years, and then survived the excavation process with the obelisks still upright. Well done, I say!

 

[Evo]

Now, how does Iran, located just east of the Fertile Crescent (the location of Gobekli Tepe), qualify in your mind as “another part of the world”?

From the perspective at the time, what constituted the "known world" for them.

]You have previously dismissed the fact that the archeologist who is excavating the site, Dr. Schmidt, personally responded to me and indicated that he also believed the structures were Neolithic Dakhmas. “Highly Probable”, were his exact words. Obviously to your mind this is not credible information.

He seems to be humoring you because he has stated he believes Sumerian myths may be a descendant, although it's believed by scholars to be highly unlikely that any later known religion came from GT.

Schmidt has engaged in some speculation regarding the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe, based on comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He assumes shamanic practices and suggests that the T-shaped pillars may represent mythical creatures, perhaps ancestors, whereas he sees a fully articulated belief in gods only developing later in Mesopotamia, associated with extensive temples and palaces. This corresponds well with an ancient Sumerian belief that agriculture, animal husbandry and weaving had been brought to mankind from the sacred mountain Du-Ku, which was inhabited by Annuna—deities, very ancient gods without individual names. Klaus Schmidt identifies this story as an oriental primeval myth that preserves a partial memory of the emerging Neolithic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#Interpretation_and_importance

"There's more time between Gobekli Tepe and the Sumerian clay tablets [etched in 3300 B.C.] than from Sumer to today," says Gary Rollefson, an archaeologist at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, who is familiar with Schmidt's work. "Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html#ixzz1oMMtV36p

So please stop with the unfounded speculations.

I can understand that. And you still have not addressed the fact that you have repeatedly stated that there were no human remains found at G.T. This is just incorrect. The NatGeo special spent ten minutes talking about how the Neolithic people disinterred the dead buried at Gobekli Tepe and removed their skulls for some unknown purpose.

They found some human remains OUTSIDE of the enclosures, not inside.

No tombs or graves have been found, although it has been suggested that the site served as a center for a cult of the dead. This is because human remains have been found outside the perimeter of the site,

http://home.comcast.net/~cvn1813/history/ancient/gobekli.html

Check it out for yourself, the only human bones found inside were skattered among the layers of backfill.

This thread is not for speculation about the unknown.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am using the term “highly organized structures” in relation to any earlier known human architecture. Compared to the Egyptian pyramids they are certainly remedial. Compared to mud-brick dwellings they are a huge leap forward. The size of the structures is significant I think, as well as the coordination to not only shape the limestone, but to get that many people to move those large stone obelisks up to the top of that hill. This is the oldest hard evidence for that level of organized, long range, abstract thinking demonstrated by Neolithic people. And in defense of those poor primitive men and women of so long ago, the structures DID survive being buried for 12,000 years, and then survived the excavation process with the obelisks still upright. Well done, I say!

I agree that what they did achieve, as opposed to what they didn't, is of extreme interest, but it's important not to characterize them as "highly organized structures" just because they are the result of highly organized endeavors. They were created to embody or illustrate a concept that had nothing whatever to do with engineering and the engineering is, as a result, completely haphazard. To the extent you are just pointing at the high degree of social organization behind them you're completely right and the construction of these things might well represent a pivot point in history for that.

I think my question about the animals deserves a thought. If it were an exposure site, depicting the animals that gathered to the dead might be a statement about the continuation of life from one form to the next. I don't have any idea if that ties into Zoroasterism or not.

 

[SimsStuart]

From the perspective at the time, what constituted the "known world" for them.

He seems to be humoring you because he has stated he believes Sumerian myths may be a descendant, although it's believed by scholars to be highly unlikely that any later known religion came from GT.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#Interpretation_and_importance



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html#ixzz1oMMtV36p

So please stop with the unfounded speculations.

They found some human remains OUTSIDE of the enclosures, not inside. http://home.comcast.net/~cvn1813/history/ancient/gobekli.html

Check it out for yourself, the only human bones found inside were skattered among the layers of backfill.

This thread is not for speculation about the unknown.

I agree that what they did achieve, as opposed to what they didn't, is of extreme interest, but it's important not to characterize them as "highly organized structures" just because they are the result of highly organized endeavors. They were created to embody or illustrate a concept that had nothing whatever to do with engineering and the engineering is, as a result, completely haphazard. To the extent you are just pointing at the high degree of social organization behind them you're completely right and the construction of these things might well represent a pivot point in history for that.

I think my question about the animals deserves a thought. If it were an exposure site, depicting the animals that gathered to the dead might be a statement about the continuation of life from one form to the next. I don't have any idea if that ties into Zoroasterism or not.

You make a salient point. It is the organizational level that is more significant here. And as to the Zoroastrinistic practices that correlate to the animal carvings, I have not come across anything in my research. You can search for yourself. It is actually quite interesting-- http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe0411.htm But almost every ancient culture demonstrated some form of animal worship, from the native American Indians to the ancient Egyptians. I would say it is likely the meaning of those carvings probably lies more in line with some form of nature worship.

 

[Evo]

Ok, we can now return to the purpose of the thread, to discuss a finding of this scale in a time that we previously thought impossible due to the perceived nature of hunter gatherer societies.

 

[apeiron]

There is a 2010 radio interview with Schmidt -

His working hypothesis is that Gobekli Tepe is a ritual centre possibly for a region of some 100s of kilometres. At 24 mins he mentions there are 10 other settlements (actual villages) being exclavated in the region from this period. He thinks the whole Turkey/Iraq/Syria Upper Mesopotamia area is undergoing a crystalisation to a new more settled, higher density, hunter-gatherer lifestyle, transitional to agriculture.

That would explain the economics of the enclosure building. Hunter gatherer settlements that existed to cure, preserve and store wild food would be a first step.

Schmidt says there may be many more villages and perhaps ritual sites. He says much would have been covered by alluvial sediment in Mesopotamia if they had existed. So the transition could have been widespread and connected.

If this bears out, it does add another useful chapter to the human story, another distinct stage to talk about.

Other details from the interview.

Schmidt says Cyprus was being colonised at this time, which would have required ships not just rafts - so again, large scale construction.

At Gobekli Tepe, there is no evidence it was an astrolab.

The orientation is on a prominent ridge looking back towards the plains (taking a hunter-gathererly interest in the herds of gazelle that may have made this a good hunting ground, especially if teams of 100s combined in massed annual drives?).

Ground radar reveals 20 enclosures, 4 of which have been dug, and perhaps another 4 will be dug, it taking at least another 20 years to get "good answers".

Schmidt still favours a burial connection, saying the bones could be behind the walls which they have not dug. (14 mins)

The enclosures may have been roofed - seems no concrete evidence but the limestone would have needed protection from winter rains to be in such good condition.

So a semi-coherent picture is coming together of a transitional hunter gatherer stage of first enduring villages perhaps (could be just winter camps) that most likely, in my view, would have been based on innovations around food preservation and storage.

Maybe Gobekli Tepe got built to occupy the lads while the gazelle jerky was drying in the summer sun? Whatever, monuments raise questions about economics rather than cognition.

What is also fascinating is the way Gobekli Tepe is being latched onto for the back-projection of modern mythology/religion. All the talk about finding the Garden of Eden, or speculation that the animals on the pillars are representations of Noah's Ark.

Like this link to a History channel clip - http://humansarefree.com/2011/10/gobekli-tepe-history-channel.html

I'd forgotten how strong the "forgotten golden era of civilisation" meme still is in popular culture, and how Schmidt indeed will be batting off the crackpots.

 

[apeiron]

The classic Sahlins paper emphasises how food storage would have indeed involved quite a psychological shift in cultural terms. It may seem an obvious thing to do from our perspective, but not necessarily for a hunter gatherer.

The Original Affluent Society -by Marshall Sahlins
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

We were humiliated by the realisation of how little there was we could give to the Bushmen. Almost everything seemed likely to make life more difficult for them by adding to the litter and weight of their daily round. They themselves had practically no possessions: a loin strap, a skin blanket and a leather satchel. There was nothing that they could not assemble in one minute, wrap up in their blankets and carry on their shoulders for a journey of a thousand miles. They had no sense of possession.

Storing food and getting settled are alien concepts to hunter-gatherers, so archaeology would be seeking some new constraint that forced people into quite a different economic mentality (a constraint such as demographic or environmental change).

Sahlins was of course making a point about the modern consumer society (and so was projecting a meme to some extent).

...the food quest is so successful that half the time the people seem not to know what to do with themselves. On the other hand, movement is a condition of this success, more movement in some cases than others, but always enough to rapidly depreciate the satisfactions of property. Of the hunter it is truly said that his wealth is a burden. In his condition of life, goods can become "grievously oppressive", as Gusinde observes, and the more so the longer they are carried around. Certain food collectors do have canoes and a few have dog sleds, but most must carry themselves all the comforts they possess, and so only possesses what they can comfortably carry themselves. Or perhaps only what the women can carry: the men are often left free to reach to the sudden opportunity of the chase or the sudden necessity of defence. As Owen Lattimore wrote in a not too different context, "the pure nomad is the poor nomad". Mobility and property are in contradiction. That wealth quickly becomes more of an encumbrance than a good thing is apparent even to the outsider.

On the food storage hypothesis in particular, there is this book chapter review for instance.

Demography and Storage Systems During the Southern Levantine Neolithic Demographic Transition - Ian Kuijt
http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/Demography.pdf

One outgrowth of this study centers on the importance of food storage. Building on the work of Testart (1982), I argue that the initial stages of the southern Levant NDT were linked to food storage. Pre-domesticated food storage served as an economic and nutritional foundation for the NDT several thousand years before domestication.

There are some good images of dwellings from this time period on p297. Kuijt suggests a big step up in sophistication of construction at 9.5-10.5 kya in the Levant.

 

[Dotini]

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg441/scaled.php?server=441&filename=gobeklitepe.jpg&res=medium

I have a question regarding this image, please. What do readers think about those three objects, the ones that look like containers with curved handles, carved across the top of the pillar? Can they be identified?

I have been scouring images of Mesopotamian bas reliefs for similar objects, and I keep coming up with "buckets" or "baskets", always shown in the hands of deities, kings or culture heroes. They are sometimes described as holding water, or balm. Do you suppose they could represent a food storage container - or dare I ask, a seed container?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[apeiron]

I have a question regarding this image, please. What do readers think about those three objects, the ones that look like containers with curved handles, carved across the top of the pillar? Can they be identified?

There looks to be an animal associated with each "basket" - perhaps a gosling, squirrel and then something indistinct. The "baskets" are also set against a geometric field which could represent bound sheaves...or anything.

There is one vulture and a bunch of different birds by the look of it. Odd the way the birds are seated, a little human like. And then the wild creatures - scorpion, snake, some wolf-like face - are in the section below. It seems to be telling a whole story.

This is another one that seems to suggest the same idea. The world outside with all its angry beasts, then the "head" piece of the T pillar representing perhaps the separate world of the enclosure with its humans as seated birds - spirits waiting to fly? Or not, as the case may be.

I find this portal rather curious. If it is a doorway, why the bar across it?.

The existence of the portals is another reason to think the enclosures were roofed of course.

Also note the cupules - the circular indentations - that ring the doorway. The same thing marks the top of many pillars too. They are a lot of extra work and must have significance. More curiously, they are a very widespread and far more ancient feature of prehistoric art.

So probably invented many times (rather than representing any continuous tradition), but still really baffling to the modern eye. They are an illustration of how quickly we get stuck as soon as we stray from the obvious stuff like "that's a dangerous boar".

For cupules, see http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/cupules.htm#description

http://amkon.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=4413&d=1308867365

 

[Evo]

Thanks for the excellent posts that have kept this thread on topic despite the hijack.