Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Neolithic

The term "Neolithic" thus does not refer to a specific chronological period, but rather to a suite of behavioural and cultural characteristics including the use of (both wild and domestic) crops and the use of domesticated animals. (Wik on Neol.) How, then, does GT "formally belong" to the neolithic? Either the >Neolithic article should be re-written to include monumental architecture (and maybe ceramics and sical hierarchies), or the GT article needs to be re-worded. Kdammers 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be fixed. Also, this article also says it's before the Neolithic Revolution. Maybe we should remove the "formally Neolithic" part, unless someone can cite it. 128.194.34.211 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is a mesolithic or late paleolithic site, according to what we know so far about the Neolithic Revolution's timing (which seems well-founded). One could argue, I suppose, that it is also a "megalithic" site (technically, it is), but I think that would be confusing. The discovery was astonishing because it is "pre-Neolithic," and that should perhaps be the wordin?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcider (talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

BP is not BC

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the dates both here and in the popular press reports. The dates are BP (i.e. before Present or more accurately 1950) which means 9000 BP = 7000 BC. This is consistent with the finds - some Epipalaeolithic overlain by PPN-A and around the start of agriculture. (Emperor 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

You are right that one shouldn't confuse BP and BC, but what makes you think that this happened here? The site of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (the guys who are doing the excavations) states that the oldest building phase ends around 9000 BC (that would be 11,000 BP). [1]. Chl 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was working by the radiocarbon dates as presented here. However, I have got my hands on the original numbers and will update with the calibrated dates. (Emperor 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

major re-edit

I have changed the page a good bit, by incorporating a translation of the German page and merging the organisation and onformation from the previous English page and the German one, so as not to loose any information. Feel free to change it around, if necessary. athinaios 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nature of Gobekli Tepe

How do we know this was a temple/shrine, and not a folly or some monument put up in the middle of nowhere for the heck of it? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And, as for deliberate burial of the monument/temple/whatever, I suspect the reason was the deliberate preservation of the site for posterity. If the whole area was changing, the locals might've feared invaders and other changes, and they might have also reasoned that burying something would keep something around a long time if nobody were to discover it right away (after all, the site was already thousands of years old at the time of abandonment, so some parts might've been uncovered after burial). Well, if that was the purpose, then those folks succeeded, obviously. That being said, a certain couple of five-thousand-year time capsules in Queens, NY are in the wrong location and ought to be relocated to, say, a desert area and preferably on an old mountain somewheres. Where they are, it's practically landfill and bound to get swamped at some point in time. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (edited to be more inclusive 204.52.215.107 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

The place is totally insane, check it out on Google Earth! It is where three prominent ridges of hills join, and the approximate location must be visible for dozens of miles (except from NW, where a large flat mesa is some 6 miles away). It would be nice if we could get a photo of the belly-hill from some distance, to give readers an impression how the people who used it could find it, with no maps and only fairly crude celestial navigation. It was dead simple - walk in the general direction of the tepe until you see two or three ranges of hills meeting with a hill in the center, and then simply go there. Given some erosion, it must have been even more prominent back then though arguably the vegetation might have been somewhat lusher too, think southern slope of the Alps today maybe (the desert belt was a bit further south back then IIRC).

The landforms in the region appear to be such that the belly-hill is the most "natural" place to put a site where such an amount of effort was put into. It is the exact opposite of "middle of nowhere".

The deliberate burial thing is very odd indeed. It is not a behavior often seen. Given the scant information available about these people's social and economic status, it is almost beyond belief that they were capable of such a decision; certainly much more technologically advanced civilizations cared little about preserving their abandoned sites. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article talks about the "temple" hypothesis. 192.103.194.6 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Something I havent seen mentioned anywhere is the nature of the ancestor worship practiced there, specifically the burial of the dead in the floors, collecting of skulls etc... these are consistant with the practices at the later catal hyuk, but seemingly more violent. As for why it was buried, judging by the reports of children being boiled in pots, who knows. And the ancients didnt really make rushmores, though rushmore itself is a form of ancestor worship and not to be lightly passed off, but if you build a f***** building you have a use for it. The complex at gobekli tepe is believed to be a permanent temple complex for local nomads.(source: http://www.philipcoppens.com/gobekli.html and: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html ) --66.190.71.155 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

readings first

before excavations begin on any of these ancient structures, there should be complete photographs made and esp also if possible, a reading as these sites contain usually "imprints" of the results of the rites practiced there and those "imprints" can explain the site entirely ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that the archaeologists involved are being very careful about copiously documenting everything before excavating. This is standard practice in modern archaeology, as everyone knows that once you start digging, you're destroying artifacts. The use of remote sensing technology is relatively new to archaeology, so I wouldn't venture a guess at how many readings they've done. But, it would be interesting to note the use of this technology in the article if you can find citations. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement on the 'Garden of Eden' claim

"From the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut: [2]: On February 28th the Daily Mail published an article by Tom Cox, in which Prof. Dr. Klaus Schmidt, leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations, is cited as follows: "Göbekli Tepe is a temple in Eden". On the basis of this, the author formulates several conclusions about the biblical paradise, Adam and Eve and other events connected to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Several German- and Turkish-language newspapers and radio stations of german and turkish language have picked up on the contents of the article since its publication.
"Tom Cox" or "Tom Knox" is a pseudonym of the British journalist Sean Thomas, who used the article to get publicity for his thriller "Genesis Secret", which is due to appear in March in English and simultaneously in German. Since Sean Thomas is using a falsified version of an interview with Klaus Schmidt made in fall 2006, he presents a distortion of the scientific work of the German Archaeological Institute.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) distances itself from these statements and reserves the right to take legal action against further dissemination of the story in connection with the work of the DAI at Göbekli Tepe. Klaus Schmidt neither in an interview nor on any other occasion made the above mentioned statements."
That's pretty clear, we shouldn't use the Daily Mail stuff. dougweller (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Substantial re-edit

While keeping most of the existing template, I have made several additions, based on my reading of Schmidt's book and other published sources. I have also cleaned up the English; as it stood the article was a middling translation of the German Wikipedia entry. A couple of images have been added, and the list of references, online and off, has been expanded. I too am puzzled by the prevailing description of the site as "Neolithic," for reasons enumerated in the comments above. Perhaps because it belongs to the Holocene rather than the Pleistocene epoch; but of course that should not be the defining criterion, or a factor at all. In all respects that I can determine the origins of the site lie in the Paleolithic. Maybe it is Schmidt's (controversial) hypothesis that the very construction of the complex motivated the transition to the Neolithic that is behind the application of "neolithic" to GT. helio 05:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs)

Where is it?

Whilst I have not made any alterations to the article, I note that the map and text in the first paragraph contradict one another. That is, the text says that Göbekli Tepe is NORTHeast of Urfa, but the map clearly shows it to be SOUTHeast of Urfa. A minor consideration, perhaps, but complete newcomers to the subject, such as myself, might find it helpful to have a decision one way or t'other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.170.205 (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct: Göbekli Tepe is to the northeast of Şanlıurfa. The map is confusing and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.215.205 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Şanlıurfa, not Urfa

They changed the name in 1984. The article should reflect that. 85.106.215.205 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Şanlıurfa article, Urfa is an acceptable and commonly used alternative. --clpo13_(talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've misquoted the Şanlıurfa article. It states "often simply known as Urfa in daily language." Wikipedia is not daily language: it's print. The article needs to be corrected, especially the map. 85.106.215.205 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing semantics. "Daily language" is interpreted to mean "commonly used". At any rate, if you feel it needs fixing, fix it. --clpo13_(talk) 21:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm defending accuracy. Further: your tone is unhelpful, combative and catty. Take a page from your own book, Cody: "...if you can't be civil and work with other contributors instead of against them, Wikipedia is not the place for you." 78.176.5.224 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's inaccurate when people call it Britain instead of Great Britain? Or America instead of the United States of America? Basically, you're saying that the full name is not being used and that it should. I'm saying that I don't see why the full name should be used here when the shortened version is acceptable enough to be used multiple times in the city's own article. You haven't really justified your stance.

Yes, I do. America is one (or two) continent/s.

You can go ahead and change it, though. I don't care enough to get into an edit war. But when you ask for opinions on the talk page, don't get upset when someone provides one you disagree with. --clpo13_(talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making his/her point, Clpo13. You don't call it Britain or America in any official publication...like a map or an encyclopedia. It *is* wrong in such a setting. And any changing an article whole cloth regarding a city which has had many names over time is also a sticky wicket: Şanlıurfa *was* Urfa, just not now, just a Istanbul was Constantinople was Byzantium. The Turks must like changing their city names (Gaziantep used to be just Antep). Anyway, my point: leave the Şanlıurfa article alone due to its various names over time and ethnicities, change the Göbekli Tepe article to reflect the CURRENT ACCURATE name of the city. 98.119.36.249 (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Now just the map needs to be fixed: for name *and* location. Blasted Smithsonian! 98.119.36.249 (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think the Kurdish element is relevant to this page, and I note that the comment left by 64.228.143.45 was particularly racist and unpleasant,and unhelpful. Many thanks to those who have added and supported the Gire Navoke and Turkish Kurdistan additions [I'm new to all this so my apologies if I've broken any rules]. Please can we support the 'also known as Turkish Kurdistan' addition that I added a while ago. We seeemd to have a wording that compromised and accepted most views before it was removed again.

Thanks, Sheila sheila mosley (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Kurdish posture is not unique. There are other sources that argue it's Armenian. 78.176.5.224 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing Kurdish about Göbekli Tepe. There is nothing Armenian or Turkish. There's nothing anything. Any ethnic attachment is inappropriate. Turkey is only mentioned due to the physical location of the site. Leave ethnic wrangling out. 98.119.36.249 (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"an order of complexity not hitherto associated with pre-Neolithic societies"?

The article makes the claim above and also says "Apparently, the erection of monumental complexes was within the capacities of hunter-gatherers and not only of sedentary farming communities as had been previously assumed.". This assumption is not universally shared by archaeologists. Here are some of my notes on this subject:

Bradley, R. 1993 Altering the Earth Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series No. 8.

Bradley disagrees with those who claim that hunger-gatherers are not territorial and pay little attention to ancestry and descent, and see no need to make any lasting investment in land, pointing out that In North America the first monuments are not associated with evidence for substantial agriculture.He discusses a paper by Andrew Sherratt, who points out that “the first megalithic tombs and their equivalents are a feature of the marginal areas of the European Neolithic ...found beyond the limits of initial agricultural colonisation..These are all in areas “in which hunter-gatherers could sustain themselves without any pressure on local resources.” “...the first real signs of expansion, in the economy and in the patterns of settlement, come some time after the creation of monuments. If farming did not provide a surplus for building tombs could the sequence of events have been the other way round?”

Julian Thomas, . 1999. Understanding the Neolithic, Routledge: London

The size/complexity of settlements and monuments has been seen as an indicator of agriculture in the past. “However, it is far from clear that complex monuments, or for that matter involved ritual practices of social stratification, need to be based upon a system of sedentary agriculture with fixed fields and a dependence on staple crops.” Thomas points to the late Archaic period (1800-500 BC) in NA as a time when large monuments were built by sedentary hunter-gatherers, and later in early AD the Ohio Hopewell who built large geometric enclosures but exploited mainly wild resources with a ‘modest range of garden crops’. NW Amerindians “had complex ceremonial cycles yet the only crops which they cultivated were those which were used as sacraments in ritual’. (23) “Hunters and gatherers and those practising garden horticulture and other simple forms of cultivation often have many hours of spare time not engaged in productive labour.” Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross-reference to Beth Eden

I have removed a cross-reference to Beth Eden twice now and am looking for support to keep it removed. After looking at the linked page, it's clear that any connection with GT is very speculative. I object to its inclusion on the page on the same grounds as those cited under Statement on the Garden of Eden Claim above. Add to which, the sites are around 8,000 years removed.helio 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs)

I'm happy with that. On the other hand, I've removed the link to the website of the fringe writer Philip Coppens - it is a personal website and I don't think it really is any more helpful than the reference to Beth Eden. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

actually it had quite a bit that the article is missing, specifically the burial habits, and though it is a personal website the article itself though somewhat fringe, is still a published article, and unlike most doesnt go out of its way to suggest that this site is the garden of eden (on the contrary it explicitly states that it isnt). --66.190.71.155 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Organized violence"

With regard to someone's deletion of the last sentence in the next-to-last paragraph in the interpretation section. "Organized violence" is not used in a prejudicial sense when applied to depictions of animals in paleolithic and neolithic art. In context the statement only means that the reliefs are not intended to dramatize hunting scenes: there are no wounded animals, no signs of weaponry or predation. Moreover, the animal most often depicted is a snake, which was not hunted for game: there are no snake bones among the butchered remains on the site. Spiders, ants, scorpions, vultures and lions also feature; again, these were not game animals. Schmidt believes the animal representations as a whole serve to protect the humans buried (presumably) in the lower levels. It is significant that the paleolithic cave paintings of animals at Lascaux, Altamira, Grotte Chauvet, etc. are also no longer thought to have any connection with "organized violence," i.e., hunting. Accordingly, I have restored the deleted sentence because it is entirely accurate and apropos.helio 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe this isn't a pov edit, but it definitely needs a reliable source. And it reads as though it was suggesting the people who worshipped there didn't hunt, so it would have to be rewritten. I'm not convinced that there is any connection with the cave paintings you mention. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Information on the pronunciation of this site's name would be useful. ThaddeusFrye (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Click on note [1] for pronunciation of the name of the site by a native speaker of Turkish.helio 18:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Mesolithic Society Claim

In the middle of the article there is a claim, without any sources, that states there is evidence due to stratification layers that the temple may have existed during Mesolithic times. Now, i'm not a scientist, but i have taken AP World History, and to say that the temple is evidence of pre-Neolithic Revolution society is a claim that can be debated with some honesty. However, to say that the temple is evidence of Mesolithic Era societies in that area is just silly, especially since there is no reference to where the data came from. Now, if there is a study that says explicitely that stratification layers around the temple show evidence of Meoslithic Society i'd be ok with that. However, without such evidence to support that claim, i strongly urge that that statement be taken down. Thanks for reading my rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehr3 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the chief excavator, K Schmidt, on the correct periodization to be assigned to GT: "Gobekli Tepe, at least in the lower layers with the megalithic pillars, was not really Neolithic, but Proto-Neolithic or Mesolithic." (K. Schmidt: Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A preliminary Report on the 1995–1999 Excavations. In: Palèorient CNRS Ed., Paris 2000: 26.1, p48.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation and Importance

The two paragraphs appended to the end of this section do not really add anything to the article. To summarize, they say that little can be known about the society that built GT. That's uncontroversial—but already covered in the preceding paragraph beginning "At present, Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers." Historical ethnography is little certifiable help in understanding a society that, as the writer aptly points out, is more than twice as old as Sumer. As for the issue of slavery (and other, related matters) Professor Bar-Yosef—who is something like the dean of neolithic studies—has written me this: "For clarity- Gobekli Tepe in my interpretation is a ceremonial center built by farming communities who cultivated wheat and cereals as well as pulses, and continued to hunt. During this millennium we have the first sign for corralling goat, sheep, cattle and pig and they became domesticated by ca. 10,500 cal BP. In this society, that is often referred to as PPNB, I hypothesize that there were slaves and predicted that when excavations will continue, the evidence for their presence could be found." So GT, in Dr. Bar-Yosef's view, is the product of a transitional society in which slavery was already a very real possibility. It would certainly help to explain how such an elaborate sanctuary came to be built. And as for the incipient cultivation of cereals, we should remember that the megafauna of the Pleistocene had disappeared so that the contemporaries of GT were increasingly forced to rely on plants for nutrition.helio 18:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs)

pragmastics

I would like to see more than2 verifications of the dating here please because I don' think you understand what that does to ur reality, or self-precribed-fixations on many previous subjugations of time categorials and development. Where will you have to dig next, and how deep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.36.179 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Prags - one the scope of focus, two the application of discipline

You said a mouthful when you said that, brother.helio