3 ms·

> The statues, especially in the context of the greater site, could not be made by one person Why not? Sculptors sometimes make dozens of sculptures per year,

by p-e-w 3y ago

> The statues, especially in the context of the greater site, could not be made by one person Why not? Sculptors sometimes make dozens of sculptures per year, by themselves. > they could not be themselves participating in hunter-gathering activities Why not? Hunting and gathering doesn't occupy all of a person's time. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that those sculptures weren't created by part-time artists. > implying there was some sort of a social structure (aka civilization) Social structure exists even in apes, and is not at all synonymous with what the term "civilization" is usually taken to mean. As a sibling commenter has explained, there is nothing substantially new in this archeological find, and it fits well into our existing model of how people lived back then. Claims of an incoming paradigm shift triggered by this find lack any substance.

maratc 3y ago
> Why not? Sculptors sometimes make dozens of sculptures per year, by themselves. Sculptors today are stationary and they depend on money (a mark of a civilization) and tools (same) and supermarkets (same) and demand for their work (economic surplus; same). Leonardo da Vinci, if he was a part of hunter-gatherer society (which is mobile), would neither be able to paint nor invent, for he would be busy with gathering (or growing, or hunting) his own food most of his time; he would also not have access to paper or canvas or colors or brushes. > I see no reason whatsoever to assume that those sculptures weren't created by part-time artists. As mentioned, hunter-gatherers are mobile at least part-time, because they go from where some food grows today, to where some other food roams tomorrow, to where yet other food swims the day after. > Social structure exists even in apes And bees, and ants; but not the kind that allows a big part of a society (capable adults) to engage in activities that are not directly related to gathering food, growing children, or fighting, but creating temples and art. A group of hunter-gatherers can provide for themselves, their children, and maybe their elders or sick (as long as these are mobile). They can even accommodate a leader or a shaman here and there; but not an apparently big group of able adults that do not hunt and do not gather and do not fight and do not move but rather sit in one place and build a temple and statues. > there is nothing substantially new in this archeological find Gobekli Tepe have completely changed our view of the development of the human societies, as we have previously believed the first civilization (Sumerians) to be as recent as 5,000-4,000 BCE (or 6-7 kya). This hints at a civilization twice as old as previously believed.
- Retric 3y ago
  Hunter gatherer’s had a lot of free time. Based on studies of the last hunter gather groups, in reasonably fertile area they can spend ~15 hours per week on food and ~15-20 hours per week on domestic chores. That seems similar to us except we exclude tasks like commuting, grocery shopping, cooking, working out, cleaning dishes etc from what we consider ‘work’. Thus resulting in a lot more time for hobbies and socializing. They move around, but would return to the same locations regularly thus potentially spending years in one location over their lifetime. Plenty of time to make dozens of life sized statues.
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    > In reasonably fertile area they can spend ~15 hours per week on food and ~15-20 hours per week on domestic chores. on what you base this one? (from what I remember this time would not be even to even produce clothes - unless it is for area of world where no clothing is needed?)
    - nyrikki 3y ago
      There is a very large difference not being able to produce clothes and not finding clothing that happens to be preserved. Currently the guesses are 40,000 to 3 million years ago. These people in this article are just as intelligent as modern humans.
    - defrost 3y ago
      There are rock art painting depicting details on ceremonial costumes that date back 18,000 years BP, so clothing goes back at least that far. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37733157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37733157
    - Retric 3y ago
      1960’s studies of the Bushmen one of the last remaining hunter gatherer groups had roughly that much time spent working. They really spent quite a lot of time working on hobbies and socializing. Processing animal skins is also a lot faster than weaving. Clothing is ~170,000 years old, weaving is very recent by comparison.

by p-e-w 3y ago

maratc 3y ago

> Why not? Sculptors sometimes make dozens of sculptures per year, by themselves. Sculptors today are stationary and they depend on money (a mark of a civilization) and tools (same) and supermarkets (same) and demand for their work (economic surplus; same). Leonardo da Vinci, if he was a part of hunter-gatherer society (which is mobile), would neither be able to paint nor invent, for he would be busy with gathering (or growing, or hunting) his own food most of his time; he would also not have access to paper or canvas or colors or brushes. > I see no reason whatsoever to assume that those sculptures weren't created by part-time artists. As mentioned, hunter-gatherers are mobile at least part-time, because they go from where some food grows today, to where some other food roams tomorrow, to where yet other food swims the day after. > Social structure exists even in apes And bees, and ants; but not the kind that allows a big part of a society (capable adults) to engage in activities that are not directly related to gathering food, growing children, or fighting, but creating temples and art. A group of hunter-gatherers can provide for themselves, their children, and maybe their elders or sick (as long as these are mobile). They can even accommodate a leader or a shaman here and there; but not an apparently big group of able adults that do not hunt and do not gather and do not fight and do not move but rather sit in one place and build a temple and statues. > there is nothing substantially new in this archeological find Gobekli Tepe have completely changed our view of the development of the human societies, as we have previously believed the first civilization (Sumerians) to be as recent as 5,000-4,000 BCE (or 6-7 kya). This hints at a civilization twice as old as previously believed.

Retric 3y ago
Hunter gatherer’s had a lot of free time. Based on studies of the last hunter gather groups, in reasonably fertile area they can spend ~15 hours per week on food and ~15-20 hours per week on domestic chores. That seems similar to us except we exclude tasks like commuting, grocery shopping, cooking, working out, cleaning dishes etc from what we consider ‘work’. Thus resulting in a lot more time for hobbies and socializing. They move around, but would return to the same locations regularly thus potentially spending years in one location over their lifetime. Plenty of time to make dozens of life sized statues.
- matkoniecz 3y ago
  > In reasonably fertile area they can spend ~15 hours per week on food and ~15-20 hours per week on domestic chores. on what you base this one? (from what I remember this time would not be even to even produce clothes - unless it is for area of world where no clothing is needed?)
  - nyrikki 3y ago
    There is a very large difference not being able to produce clothes and not finding clothing that happens to be preserved. Currently the guesses are 40,000 to 3 million years ago. These people in this article are just as intelligent as modern humans.
  - defrost 3y ago
    There are rock art painting depicting details on ceremonial costumes that date back 18,000 years BP, so clothing goes back at least that far. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37733157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37733157
  - Retric 3y ago
    1960’s studies of the Bushmen one of the last remaining hunter gatherer groups had roughly that much time spent working. They really spent quite a lot of time working on hobbies and socializing. Processing animal skins is also a lot faster than weaving. Clothing is ~170,000 years old, weaving is very recent by comparison.