3 ms·

Calendar - the kalends is a Roman thing - the first day of a month. "In essence, their view is that Göbekli Tepe, for which the earliest date yet recorded is 9

Calendar - the kalends is a Roman thing - the first day of a month. "In essence, their view is that Göbekli Tepe, for which the earliest date yet recorded is 9530 ± 215 BCE" Stonehenge is from around 3100BC, so this is around 5500 years older than Stonehenge. I personally think that the thought processes and notions are far, far older than either sets of evidence. However, evidence is king.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
It's not like there's just this one really old data point with huge gaps on either side. There's a strong record of changing mobility patterns throughout the epipaleolithic that leads into what we see later. Gobekli Tepe is just one of dozens of known sites with architectural remains from the PPNA/PPNB, albeit an especially impressive one.
- mrangle 2y ago
  There is obviously a massive gap on one side at the least, especially given the complexity of GT. You seem to be strangely bothered by the subtlest implication that Gobekli Tepe lacks an obvious forbearer. Which I would truly love to see by the way, aside from handwaving, as the gap bothers me. An example of handwaving: once, on this forum, another user tried to make the case that cave paintings marked the transition to the high relief art of GT. In my opinion, its disingenuous to imply that there is any other known architecture that predicts Goblekli Tepe. I understand that there is an immense amount of excavation that needs to be done across countless sites from that period, but even a hypothetical architecturally parallel site from that period would not change the fact of the gap. You're incorrectly implying that Gobekli Tepe is merely an exceptional example within a wider category of architecture. That's not the case. As of now, it is the singular example.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    I'm not bothered by the implication, I just think it's incorrect. Let's talk details. Gobekli Tepe has 2 relevant cultural layers. Layer III is the older layer. It corresponds to fairly early dates in the PPNA and is associated with the larger T-stone enclosures. These dates correspond with similar structures at nearby Karahan Tepe, but we don't have many other excavations at this level in the immediate vicinity within the rest of the Tas Tepeler complex. Most of those correspond with the younger Layer II (PPNB) levels of Gobekli Tepe, but investigation of the area is slow and difficult. A general rule of the Tas Tepeler complex is that older stones are bigger and better carved. Karahan's oldest stones seem to be missing, so Gobekli Tepe's are the largest and most finely decorated of the finished stones we have left. Unfinished stones exist at both sites. If we head a little bit east from Tas Tepeler, there's another site called Kortik Tepe whose oldest layers correspond to GT Layer III. It shares the same round enclosures we see on the outskirts of GT (and most other anatolian/levant sites from this period). More closely related to GT is Jerf El Ahmar just over the border in Syria. The architectural layers of JEA slightly precede GT and share some of the same animal motifs and styles. Basically the same story applies to Tell Qaramel as well. We also have sites significantly earlier than GT like Mureybet. Gobekli Tepe is an important, early site, but it's not unique or isolated. It's clearly part of a much larger record of transition from the epipaleolithic to the larger neolithic and shares a lot of similarities with contemporaneous sites.
pantalaimon 2y ago
intricate stone figures of women date back to at least 30000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine#Notable_figurines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine#Notable_figurin...
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  I’ve always wondered how ancient man made these. Were any of the women this fat and he had a reference image? Or was he just extrapolating? If extrapolating and fantasizing they seem extremely accurate in modeling how actual obese human women look. It seems odd for anyone to have that many extra calories back then to store that much fat. Unless it was some sort of ancient religion that worshipped a fertility leader that received much more food than the rest? I’ve asked this question on Reddit before but didn’t really get any quality answers.
  - stvltvs 2y ago
    That's assuming the goal was realism. I fully believe our prehistoric forebears were capable of thinking abstractly and creating art that exaggerated reality. These figurines look to me like women with the dial turned up a few notches on characteristics of pregnancy like enlarged bellies and breasts.
    - pantalaimon 2y ago
      They look very much like SSBBW models existing today. Maybe each community selected a woman that would be worshipped as prosperity token and receive extra food. Or maybe those figures were just pornography. What’s interesting is that they appear to be widespread across such a large geographic and temporal period though.
    - Mistletoe 2y ago
      These aren't enlarged like pregnancy though. https://imgur.com/a/jRnbO3Y https://imgur.com/a/jRnbO3Y Pregnant is quite easy to recognize in sculpture. https://tribal-art-antiques.gallery/products/antique-tribal-fecondity-pregnant-woman-with-scarifications https://tribal-art-antiques.gallery/products/antique-tribal-...
52-6F-62 2y ago
Evidence, you say? https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake-michigan-stonehenge-2432737 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake... https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/9000-year-old-stonehen... We're just starting to think about scratching the surface. Again.
- lumost 2y ago
  Archeological dating is strange, we find the earliest civilizations in places where they could and did build in stone - then suffered a drought. The drought ensures that the archeological sites weren't simply re-used for another purpose. Stone ensures that it's still around for us to see it. Whenever you have a wet location, or an extremely old location - we start looking at granite, as granite structures are virtually indestructible. However many civilizations lacked the ability to do more than dent granite with some drawings, or stack rough blocks into an arrangement. As granite doesn't generally erode on human timescales... dating these blocks is problematic. Every time I've gone down the rabbit whole on the dating of granite structures - I've ended up at "the latest it could have been built is X, weak evidence suggests that it was around Y, the earliest date that it could have been built is unknown."

AlotOfReading 2y ago

It's not like there's just this one really old data point with huge gaps on either side. There's a strong record of changing mobility patterns throughout the epipaleolithic that leads into what we see later. Gobekli Tepe is just one of dozens of known sites with architectural remains from the PPNA/PPNB, albeit an especially impressive one.

mrangle 2y ago
There is obviously a massive gap on one side at the least, especially given the complexity of GT. You seem to be strangely bothered by the subtlest implication that Gobekli Tepe lacks an obvious forbearer. Which I would truly love to see by the way, aside from handwaving, as the gap bothers me. An example of handwaving: once, on this forum, another user tried to make the case that cave paintings marked the transition to the high relief art of GT. In my opinion, its disingenuous to imply that there is any other known architecture that predicts Goblekli Tepe. I understand that there is an immense amount of excavation that needs to be done across countless sites from that period, but even a hypothetical architecturally parallel site from that period would not change the fact of the gap. You're incorrectly implying that Gobekli Tepe is merely an exceptional example within a wider category of architecture. That's not the case. As of now, it is the singular example.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I'm not bothered by the implication, I just think it's incorrect. Let's talk details. Gobekli Tepe has 2 relevant cultural layers. Layer III is the older layer. It corresponds to fairly early dates in the PPNA and is associated with the larger T-stone enclosures. These dates correspond with similar structures at nearby Karahan Tepe, but we don't have many other excavations at this level in the immediate vicinity within the rest of the Tas Tepeler complex. Most of those correspond with the younger Layer II (PPNB) levels of Gobekli Tepe, but investigation of the area is slow and difficult. A general rule of the Tas Tepeler complex is that older stones are bigger and better carved. Karahan's oldest stones seem to be missing, so Gobekli Tepe's are the largest and most finely decorated of the finished stones we have left. Unfinished stones exist at both sites. If we head a little bit east from Tas Tepeler, there's another site called Kortik Tepe whose oldest layers correspond to GT Layer III. It shares the same round enclosures we see on the outskirts of GT (and most other anatolian/levant sites from this period). More closely related to GT is Jerf El Ahmar just over the border in Syria. The architectural layers of JEA slightly precede GT and share some of the same animal motifs and styles. Basically the same story applies to Tell Qaramel as well. We also have sites significantly earlier than GT like Mureybet. Gobekli Tepe is an important, early site, but it's not unique or isolated. It's clearly part of a much larger record of transition from the epipaleolithic to the larger neolithic and shares a lot of similarities with contemporaneous sites.

pantalaimon 2y ago

intricate stone figures of women date back to at least 30000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine#Notable_figurines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine#Notable_figurin...

Mistletoe 2y ago
I’ve always wondered how ancient man made these. Were any of the women this fat and he had a reference image? Or was he just extrapolating? If extrapolating and fantasizing they seem extremely accurate in modeling how actual obese human women look. It seems odd for anyone to have that many extra calories back then to store that much fat. Unless it was some sort of ancient religion that worshipped a fertility leader that received much more food than the rest? I’ve asked this question on Reddit before but didn’t really get any quality answers.
- stvltvs 2y ago
  That's assuming the goal was realism. I fully believe our prehistoric forebears were capable of thinking abstractly and creating art that exaggerated reality. These figurines look to me like women with the dial turned up a few notches on characteristics of pregnancy like enlarged bellies and breasts.
  - pantalaimon 2y ago
    They look very much like SSBBW models existing today. Maybe each community selected a woman that would be worshipped as prosperity token and receive extra food. Or maybe those figures were just pornography. What’s interesting is that they appear to be widespread across such a large geographic and temporal period though.
  - Mistletoe 2y ago
    These aren't enlarged like pregnancy though. https://imgur.com/a/jRnbO3Y https://imgur.com/a/jRnbO3Y Pregnant is quite easy to recognize in sculpture. https://tribal-art-antiques.gallery/products/antique-tribal-fecondity-pregnant-woman-with-scarifications https://tribal-art-antiques.gallery/products/antique-tribal-...

52-6F-62 2y ago

Evidence, you say? https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake-michigan-stonehenge-2432737 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake... https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/9000-year-old-stonehen... We're just starting to think about scratching the surface. Again.

lumost 2y ago
Archeological dating is strange, we find the earliest civilizations in places where they could and did build in stone - then suffered a drought. The drought ensures that the archeological sites weren't simply re-used for another purpose. Stone ensures that it's still around for us to see it. Whenever you have a wet location, or an extremely old location - we start looking at granite, as granite structures are virtually indestructible. However many civilizations lacked the ability to do more than dent granite with some drawings, or stack rough blocks into an arrangement. As granite doesn't generally erode on human timescales... dating these blocks is problematic. Every time I've gone down the rabbit whole on the dating of granite structures - I've ended up at "the latest it could have been built is X, weak evidence suggests that it was around Y, the earliest date that it could have been built is unknown."