4 ms·

I think it runs the other way. There is an orthodox view of the chain of events. We can call it a theory, but it is more suggestive than predictive. Still, its

by netcan 6y ago

I think it runs the other way. There is an orthodox view of the chain of events. We can call it a theory, but it is more suggestive than predictive. Still, its only the strongest theory as long as it is most parsimonious with existing evidence, artifacts mostly. Artifacts are sparse, but it isn't totally absent. Maybe I'm over extrapolating, but not using lack of evidence as evidence. Lack of evidence as evidence comes into play more in the the orthodox view before. It extrapolates a timeline of the fertile crescent. First comes semi-nomadic agriculture,^ then permanent villages, then towns, then "civilised" religion/politics/etc. The timeline assumes an absence of institutions like religion or politics from the absence of public buildings or monuments. Gobekli Tepeh is one hell of a public building, monument or whatever it is. Gobekli Tepeh is firmly dated before any known agricultural, villages, towns, etc. The agriculture date is especially strong, because archeology agrees with genetics. It is some sort of big political/religious/cultural thing. Using the same logic as the theory I'm challenging, we need to reorder things... or maybe conclude we have no idea. That said, it seems like (most scholars agree) that the site was made by non agricultural people. IMO, even concepts like settled/nomadic may need rethinking. How nomadic? What kind of nomadic. The range of possibilities is much bigger than village life. It's possible that earlier evidence for agriculture will be discovered, which would mean ice age agriculture... possibly of species that are no longer cultivated. Gobekli Tepeh itself will definitely turn up more dates, very possibly older too.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
In my opinion, Gobekli Tepe isn't interesting because it's suggestive of pre-agricultural sedentary societies. We know those existed a long, long time before recognizable domestication occurred and probably even before the LGM. Gobekli Tepe is interesting because it's clearly monumental a heck of a lot earlier than the traditional narrative thought was possible. Classically, archaeologists argued that monuments were a thing of "big, complex hierarchial societies with full agriculture". The modern counterexamples were dismissed as unrepresentative, anomalous, or "cultural transmission" (i.e. copy-cats). Newer generation folks, myself included, think it's a dumb dismissal and having sites to corroborate that is nice. Unrelated, but there are species that were formerly cultivated by early foragers/farmers that got dropped over time. Rambling vetch is one example. There are some large preservation biases in what we're able to see of early sites. Grasses preserve best, so we've focused a bit too much on them relative to what was likely consumed.
- netcan 6y ago
  I think we agree. I'm not even sure hobekki tepeh is evidence of sedentary society. It is evidence of what it is, primarily: the existence of a large monument/statuary site. I even think "sedentary" becomes an less interesting characteristic, largely because of GT. If something like GT existed before agricultural economies, then sedentary is not a "necessary condition" for the development of monumental culture. Sedentary agriculturalism is interesting because it later became prominent, but not as a milestone. Overall, my anateur interpretation of the site is "culture comes first." This is at odds with both the Marxist & Victorian views that put "material conditions" first. My other speculative take is that invention is constant. People probably "invented agricultural" many times. They may have even practiced it in significant ways. The spread an development of ideas is the limiting factor, not invention. GT, as place of gathering or some other custom that involved large groups, makes a lot more sense as a contributor to what happened next in Anatolian history GT isn't just early, it's adjacent to and immediately precedes one of the earliest known hotspots for neolithic human activity. I don't think that's a coincidence.

by netcan 6y ago

AlotOfReading 6y ago

In my opinion, Gobekli Tepe isn't interesting because it's suggestive of pre-agricultural sedentary societies. We know those existed a long, long time before recognizable domestication occurred and probably even before the LGM. Gobekli Tepe is interesting because it's clearly monumental a heck of a lot earlier than the traditional narrative thought was possible. Classically, archaeologists argued that monuments were a thing of "big, complex hierarchial societies with full agriculture". The modern counterexamples were dismissed as unrepresentative, anomalous, or "cultural transmission" (i.e. copy-cats). Newer generation folks, myself included, think it's a dumb dismissal and having sites to corroborate that is nice. Unrelated, but there are species that were formerly cultivated by early foragers/farmers that got dropped over time. Rambling vetch is one example. There are some large preservation biases in what we're able to see of early sites. Grasses preserve best, so we've focused a bit too much on them relative to what was likely consumed.

netcan 6y ago
I think we agree. I'm not even sure hobekki tepeh is evidence of sedentary society. It is evidence of what it is, primarily: the existence of a large monument/statuary site. I even think "sedentary" becomes an less interesting characteristic, largely because of GT. If something like GT existed before agricultural economies, then sedentary is not a "necessary condition" for the development of monumental culture. Sedentary agriculturalism is interesting because it later became prominent, but not as a milestone. Overall, my anateur interpretation of the site is "culture comes first." This is at odds with both the Marxist & Victorian views that put "material conditions" first. My other speculative take is that invention is constant. People probably "invented agricultural" many times. They may have even practiced it in significant ways. The spread an development of ideas is the limiting factor, not invention. GT, as place of gathering or some other custom that involved large groups, makes a lot more sense as a contributor to what happened next in Anatolian history GT isn't just early, it's adjacent to and immediately precedes one of the earliest known hotspots for neolithic human activity. I don't think that's a coincidence.