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

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.