2 ms·

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

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.

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.