3 ms·

is there even a single documented case of finding writing at Gobekli Tepe? My understanding is there is no evidence of a writing system

tiffanyh 2y ago
Yes https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=90367#:~:text=Current%20archeological%20evidence%20in%20the,i.e.%20a%20time%20coinciding%20with https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=90367...
- Retric 2y ago
  No. You misunderstood that quote, the emergence of writing is far more recent and at different locations. Thus “within 30km of” not at Göbekli Tepe. “Current archeological evidence in the form of seals, reliefs, steles, lead strips, and wood panels, across almost one-hundred Anatolian sites, including some within 30 km of Göbekli Tepe, dates the emergence of the hieroglyphic script used to write in Luwian to the late 15th century B.C.E.,” Göbekli Tepe was inhabited ~9500-8000 BCE, so ~6500 years before the writing examples given.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    So the writing is found in the same area, but may be from a much later civilization?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - danparsonson 2y ago
      That's the idea - settlements are usually built in favourable areas (e.g. next to rivers) so the same site may be continuously inhabited or repeatedly reinhabited over very long periods of history.
Kye 2y ago
>> "As of 2021, less than 5% of the site had been excavated."
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  My conclusion was the sites aren't excavated because they aren't really that interesting. They are all similar in nature and don't contain extensive written knowledge that can be preserved and studied. To put it comparatively Ötzi the iceman is highly studied because preserved bodies aren't found from his era and location that often. If we stumbled across a graveyard with 10000 people from the same era that was easily accessible, I doubt we'd spend much time studying all of them. As another poster has pointed out, there may in fact be a writing system that we are just beginning to understand. So I'll have to see if there is anything I can try and learn there.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - masklinn 2y ago
    The sites are absolutely interesting, however unless pressed for time (usually because they're in the way of or uncovered by construction work) archaeological digs are slow going: the slower you are the more artifacts you can find, the better you can place them, and the better you can preserve them and the rest of the site. Used to be people dynamited sites to get at stuff faster (also dynamite colleague's sites to undermine them). We stopped doing that, because it was stupid and wasteful. Furthermore protecting and stabilising the site been a major focus of recent site coordinators, especially as the site has been opened up more for public visits. If you want faster digs, fund archeological grants so there's more money to hire more people.
coconutwater72 2y ago
[flagged]

tiffanyh 2y ago

Yes https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=90367#:~:text=Current%20archeological%20evidence%20in%20the,i.e.%20a%20time%20coinciding%20with https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=90367...

Retric 2y ago
No. You misunderstood that quote, the emergence of writing is far more recent and at different locations. Thus “within 30km of” not at Göbekli Tepe. “Current archeological evidence in the form of seals, reliefs, steles, lead strips, and wood panels, across almost one-hundred Anatolian sites, including some within 30 km of Göbekli Tepe, dates the emergence of the hieroglyphic script used to write in Luwian to the late 15th century B.C.E.,” Göbekli Tepe was inhabited ~9500-8000 BCE, so ~6500 years before the writing examples given.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  So the writing is found in the same area, but may be from a much later civilization?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - danparsonson 2y ago
    That's the idea - settlements are usually built in favourable areas (e.g. next to rivers) so the same site may be continuously inhabited or repeatedly reinhabited over very long periods of history.

Kye 2y ago

>> "As of 2021, less than 5% of the site had been excavated."

sidewndr46 2y ago
My conclusion was the sites aren't excavated because they aren't really that interesting. They are all similar in nature and don't contain extensive written knowledge that can be preserved and studied. To put it comparatively Ötzi the iceman is highly studied because preserved bodies aren't found from his era and location that often. If we stumbled across a graveyard with 10000 people from the same era that was easily accessible, I doubt we'd spend much time studying all of them. As another poster has pointed out, there may in fact be a writing system that we are just beginning to understand. So I'll have to see if there is anything I can try and learn there.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- masklinn 2y ago
  The sites are absolutely interesting, however unless pressed for time (usually because they're in the way of or uncovered by construction work) archaeological digs are slow going: the slower you are the more artifacts you can find, the better you can place them, and the better you can preserve them and the rest of the site. Used to be people dynamited sites to get at stuff faster (also dynamite colleague's sites to undermine them). We stopped doing that, because it was stupid and wasteful. Furthermore protecting and stabilising the site been a major focus of recent site coordinators, especially as the site has been opened up more for public visits. If you want faster digs, fund archeological grants so there's more money to hire more people.

coconutwater72 2y ago

[flagged]