7 ms·

The most impressive part of Gobekli Tepe is that the site was built by hunter-gatherers -- people with no granaries, no specialists, no taxes or central authori

The most impressive part of Gobekli Tepe is that the site was built by hunter-gatherers -- people with no granaries, no specialists, no taxes or central authorities. This was a very impressive display of community will, and reveals that hunter-gatherer societies were potentially capable of much greater accomplishments (while remaining hunter-gatherers) than we'd previously known of or imagined. I'm reminded of MFAC -- the Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization hypothesis -- which argues that Peruvian/Incan civilization began with fishing instead of agriculture: another of those things that supposedly can't happen. Granaries are very important, but perhaps less so than we think...

throwawayIndian 10y ago
> that the site was built by hunter-gatherers Hilarious, ha ha ha! And thus fodder continues… It's almost like the western linguists were there only yesterday: "people with no granaries, no specialists, no taxes or central authorities." :-)
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  Regardless of your viewpoint, the way you express yourself makes you sound like one of those conspiracy theorists that pats other people on the shoulder saying "don't worry, you'll figure it out some day". Does not help with credibility at all.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
injvstice 10y ago
What proof is there that they were hunter and gatherers (aside from an assumption based on timeline)? Isn't building an extensive permanent structure a signature of settled people?
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  That it's the only permanent structure of its kind from that period, and that every other type of artefact from the era we have found so far is very different.
  - injvstice 10y ago
    But the amount of resources required to build that type of structure is not present in a H&G society. Those societies tend to be small groups. Quarrying large stones requires a lot of resources, which is only present in a settled society.
    - huxley 10y ago
      That's one of the things discussed in the article: "To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies."
    - duaneb 10y ago
      While I agree with your general sentiment—I would also be skittish to refer to them as H&G—I think a few things are clear that we can all agree on: 1. The site well pre-dates current archeological evidence for sustained agriculture. 2. The site clearly supported a lot of people with similar aims and (most likely) religious significance. 3. The site is quite impressive to build on both a physical and organizational level. The question I've heard posed around the site is: did the social/religious element help bootstrap sustained agriculture, or did the agriculture allow the gathering to form when it couldn't be sustained before, or did they form in unison? I don't think the archeological record is anywhere near answering that question; I don't recall much evidence of agriculture, and the only other model of clearly pre-agriculture society we have is H&G societies. Long-winded; apologies. But I think we can have a more nuanced discussion than H&G vs Settled.
john_mac 10y ago
The discovery of Gobekli Tepe was completely random and could just as easily not have happened. Our picture of the post ice age period is tenative at best and easily disrupted by new information. I suspect there are many more sites like this lurking under the soil, especially in this region.
dalbasal 10y ago
I'd never heard of this theory. Interesting. I always thought that the neolithic revolution narrative needed friends. It seems entirely possible that other forms of "civilization" existed even if they did not persist and/or spread the way agricultural ones did.

throwawayIndian 10y ago

> that the site was built by hunter-gatherers Hilarious, ha ha ha! And thus fodder continues… It's almost like the western linguists were there only yesterday: "people with no granaries, no specialists, no taxes or central authorities." :-)

vanderZwan 10y ago
Regardless of your viewpoint, the way you express yourself makes you sound like one of those conspiracy theorists that pats other people on the shoulder saying "don't worry, you'll figure it out some day". Does not help with credibility at all.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

injvstice 10y ago

What proof is there that they were hunter and gatherers (aside from an assumption based on timeline)? Isn't building an extensive permanent structure a signature of settled people?

vanderZwan 10y ago
That it's the only permanent structure of its kind from that period, and that every other type of artefact from the era we have found so far is very different.
- injvstice 10y ago
  But the amount of resources required to build that type of structure is not present in a H&G society. Those societies tend to be small groups. Quarrying large stones requires a lot of resources, which is only present in a settled society.
  - huxley 10y ago
    That's one of the things discussed in the article: "To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies."
  - duaneb 10y ago
    While I agree with your general sentiment—I would also be skittish to refer to them as H&G—I think a few things are clear that we can all agree on: 1. The site well pre-dates current archeological evidence for sustained agriculture. 2. The site clearly supported a lot of people with similar aims and (most likely) religious significance. 3. The site is quite impressive to build on both a physical and organizational level. The question I've heard posed around the site is: did the social/religious element help bootstrap sustained agriculture, or did the agriculture allow the gathering to form when it couldn't be sustained before, or did they form in unison? I don't think the archeological record is anywhere near answering that question; I don't recall much evidence of agriculture, and the only other model of clearly pre-agriculture society we have is H&G societies. Long-winded; apologies. But I think we can have a more nuanced discussion than H&G vs Settled.

john_mac 10y ago

The discovery of Gobekli Tepe was completely random and could just as easily not have happened. Our picture of the post ice age period is tenative at best and easily disrupted by new information. I suspect there are many more sites like this lurking under the soil, especially in this region.

dalbasal 10y ago

I'd never heard of this theory. Interesting. I always thought that the neolithic revolution narrative needed friends. It seems entirely possible that other forms of "civilization" existed even if they did not persist and/or spread the way agricultural ones did.