4 ms·

I'm confused, why wouldn't they date some tiny piece from the structure itself? It seems like an obvious thing to do, is it not?

ska 4y ago
That sort of assumes you have a structure containing elements that were a) made by hand that b) survived. A pile of stone laid by hand doesn't help, for example.
Barrera 4y ago
The review I linked has a remarkably readable discussion of this. In a nutshell, the filling of the site rendered everything that has been tested liable to contamination by the fill. Apparently, the plaster on the walls (which contain lime, which I believe is thought to have come from fires) was one of the main pieces of evidence presented by Schmidt. But plaster can absorb carbon from the fill. This is plausible given both age (at least thousands of years) and the fact that plaster only occurs on the surface in direct contact with the contaminating fill. AFAICT, there as been no enclosed space from which samples have been dated. It all comes from areas that were directly exposed to fill, or the fill itself. The author of the review also notes something that should be obvious to those outside the field, but for some reason doesn't get discussed much inside: > Thus, in questioning the claim about Gobekli Tepe’s date (of PPNB, possibly earlier) one might think that the one who does the questioning must have extraordinary and abundant as well as “almost beyond reasonable doubt” convincing evidence to counter what the archeological establishment has claimed about Gobekli Tepe. In effect, it seems it is no longer asked that the agency who makes the extraordinary claims about Gobekli Tepe provides the extraordinary evidence. But instead, the burden of proof has shifted to those who tend to counter the claims. Be that as it may, the paper will proceed as if the burden of proof is on the counterclaim. The paper will be setting the most stringent of all arguments and criteria in an attempt to support the counter arguments, although it doesn’t have to do so. As Sagan famously said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But the evidence on the dating of this site seems pretty weak.
jandrese 4y ago
There are probably no organic parts of the structure left, just rocks.
- twelve40 4y ago
  didn't they also find skulls and bones and stuff? anyway, I'm sure they will figure it all out eventually.
  - 8bitsrule 4y ago
    According to Sweatman (a year ago), 'three bodies' have been found in 'a burial' 'under the floor of houses'. Start at about 5:10 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F3qZQRzzA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F3qZQRzzA4]

ska 4y ago

That sort of assumes you have a structure containing elements that were a) made by hand that b) survived. A pile of stone laid by hand doesn't help, for example.

Barrera 4y ago

The review I linked has a remarkably readable discussion of this. In a nutshell, the filling of the site rendered everything that has been tested liable to contamination by the fill. Apparently, the plaster on the walls (which contain lime, which I believe is thought to have come from fires) was one of the main pieces of evidence presented by Schmidt. But plaster can absorb carbon from the fill. This is plausible given both age (at least thousands of years) and the fact that plaster only occurs on the surface in direct contact with the contaminating fill. AFAICT, there as been no enclosed space from which samples have been dated. It all comes from areas that were directly exposed to fill, or the fill itself. The author of the review also notes something that should be obvious to those outside the field, but for some reason doesn't get discussed much inside: > Thus, in questioning the claim about Gobekli Tepe’s date (of PPNB, possibly earlier) one might think that the one who does the questioning must have extraordinary and abundant as well as “almost beyond reasonable doubt” convincing evidence to counter what the archeological establishment has claimed about Gobekli Tepe. In effect, it seems it is no longer asked that the agency who makes the extraordinary claims about Gobekli Tepe provides the extraordinary evidence. But instead, the burden of proof has shifted to those who tend to counter the claims. Be that as it may, the paper will proceed as if the burden of proof is on the counterclaim. The paper will be setting the most stringent of all arguments and criteria in an attempt to support the counter arguments, although it doesn’t have to do so. As Sagan famously said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But the evidence on the dating of this site seems pretty weak.

jandrese 4y ago

There are probably no organic parts of the structure left, just rocks.

twelve40 4y ago
didn't they also find skulls and bones and stuff? anyway, I'm sure they will figure it all out eventually.
- 8bitsrule 4y ago
  According to Sweatman (a year ago), 'three bodies' have been found in 'a burial' 'under the floor of houses'. Start at about 5:10 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F3qZQRzzA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F3qZQRzzA4]