A temple so old, it's changing our thoughts on how civilization came to be

Malor wrote:

The reason they're pretty sure is a temple is because there's no signs whatsoever of actual habitation. There's none of the debris that accumulates in human civilizations, when they've been living in a place for long enough. Further, there's no water at the site, meaning it would be a remarkably bad place to settle down, and there'd be no reason to defend it. "Temple" is about the only explanation left.

We since they just found it I'd bet there is a lot of other information left to be found. Maybe a water table, and signs of civilized debris for instance...

Dirt wrote:

I believe the thinking is that small animals had a better chance at survival because they required less food. The vegetarian Dinosaurs couldn't get enough food and as they died off, the carnivores found themselves with less and less to eat. Alligators and crocs are probably still around because they can go a year or something without eating.

It was also that rodents were capable of living underground, horded food, lived cooperatively, and produced their own heat. They probably died by the millions as well, but, statistically, were better adapted to deal with the shifting climate. I'm not sure what the deal was with frogs, but I would imagine that being a lower level predator meant it was closer to prey that was less affected (insects).

It would also seem to me that large, cold blooded animals like dinosaurs would be extremely ill-suited to deal with major shifts in climate. The surface area on a T-Rex has to be enormous.

Malor wrote:

The reason they're pretty sure is a temple is because there's no signs whatsoever of actual habitation.

I don't mind them calling it a "temple" but rather the idea that because there's no habitation nearby, people must have created civilization to serve temples that's the speculation. If the need to serve a temple triggered civilization, where is the evidence of a surrounding civilization that served it?

Well, from what I understand, they've been digging it out for a LONG time. The first archaeologist that found just made a few notes about it and left it, because it made absolutely no sense in his map of prehistory. The guy who IS digging it out visited it on a hunch, after reading the notes, and also thought about walking away. He knew, if he started to dig there, he'd be at it for the rest of his life.

Well, he's married to a Turkish woman now, happily settled down, and digging. They're only just now starting to become really certain of what they've found.

The way they characterize it in the article is a place that roaming nomads visited and cooperated building, rather than one with a nearby settlement.

another article wrote:

And, at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.

source. That's page 2 of 3. Another pretty good read.

Hmm. Well, that's a good point. I can't answer it, all I have is the same sources you do.

Malor wrote:

Hmm. Well, that's a good point. I can't answer it, all I have is the same sources you do.

Just watch out for the face-huggers.

All I keep thinking about is some old movie or TV show I saw in which archaeologists from the future are digging through our trash and they show a person wearing a toilet seat around their neck saying that it was a decorative piece of jewelry that ancient man used to wear.

I, honestly, wonder what artifacts of our society will still be around after 10,000 years.

Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, wonder what artifacts of our society will still be around after 10,000 years.

That's easy. water bottles.

Seth wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, wonder what artifacts of our society will still be around after 10,000 years.

That's easy. water bottles.

No, it's obviously disposable diapers.

Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, wonder what artifacts of our society will still be around after 10,000 years.

A metric sh*tload of plastic...

Whatever it is, I'm sure it will involve a lot of styrofoam and plastic.

I wonder if historians are open minded enough to re-evaluate things if real evidence is found or if they would just find ways to explain it away as an aberration or misinterpretation of data.

heavyfeul wrote:

A carbon date of 14,000 years ago is earlier than expected, but not divergent enough to change the basic ideas archaeologist have in regards to the development of sedentary complex civilizations in that general part of the world. This is an interesting culture history find, but it hardly rewrites the textbooks. It's cool, but not earth shattering. North and South America have far more interesting "outliers" in the archaeological record.

I admit my ignorance on this, but my reading so far today has actually said the exact, 100% opposite. That is, that history books MUST be re written, that the basic ideas archaeologists have had prior are complete wrong, that this changes everything we know about the development of sedentary civilizations.

But, I am not an archaeologist. I'm just going on what I read today.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, wonder what artifacts of our society will still be around after 10,000 years.

A metric sh*tload of plastic...

Good news then! All the artifacts from our precious hobby will still be around to allow future archaeologists to speculate about a culture ruled by a warrior caste who wield plastic guitars.

A carbon date of 14,000 years ago is earlier than expected, but not divergent enough to change the basic ideas archaeologist have in regards to the development of sedentary complex civilizations in that general part of the world. This is an interesting culture history find, but it hardly rewrites the textbooks. It's cool, but not earth shattering. North and South America have far more interesting "outliers" in the archaeological record.

The whole discussion of religion just bugs me. You cannot study religion in the archaeological record. If you had a time machine, then you are in business. Even if you could, there are far earlier examples than this (Neanderthal burial practices).

Stuff like this reminds me of how far archaeology (and the public media's view of prehistory) needs to come. Once it is able to break away from the social science model of relying on empirical generalizations and "paleoethnography," we could learn some important things about culture's role in human evolution.

There a few champions out there doing actual scientific research based on testable (read: falsifiable) hypotheses and they are forced to bang their heads on tables every time one of their fellow archaeologist writes a paper about gender issues and religiosity in Neolithic Italy or something.

I believe a current theory is that the T-Rex (theropod dinosaur) was actually warm-blooded, or at least, not completely cold-blooded.

Dirt wrote:

I believe a current theory is that the T-Rex (theropod dinosaur) was actually warm-blooded like its bird decendents.

Even if it was, that's a hell of a lot of surface area from which to lose LOTS of heat. Let's say a rapid change in climate resulted in seasonal temperature fluctuations outside of the normal band. A creature that thrived inside a 30 degree temperature band has to deal with a number of days/year that is well outside of it. That's tough enough for a population of herd animals, but a territorial apex predator is not going to deal with that well at all.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, wonder what artifacts of our society will still be around after 10,000 years.

A metric sh*tload of plastic...

A large pit full of ET games.

All I know is they took away my Brontosaurus, and with it my childhood dreams. I'll never forgive them.

Seth wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

A carbon date of 14,000 years ago is earlier than expected, but not divergent enough to change the basic ideas archaeologist have in regards to the development of sedentary complex civilizations in that general part of the world. This is an interesting culture history find, but it hardly rewrites the textbooks. It's cool, but not earth shattering. North and South America have far more interesting "outliers" in the archaeological record.

I admit my ignorance on this, but my reading so far today has actually said the exact, 100% opposite. That is, that history books MUST be re written, that the basic ideas archaeologists have had prior are complete wrong, that this changes everything we know about the development of sedentary civilizations.

But, I am not an archaeologist. I'm just going on what I read today.

They found a 14,000 (give or take) year old structure. That is right around the same time period that we see evidence of plant domestication and sedentary populations beginning to form in other parts of the world. The date is a couple thousand years earlier than expected, but it doesn't seem that big a deal in my opinion. Just add another site to the list and start rethinking the timeline. Double check the dates as well.

The big question is why? There was a big climatic shift (Pleistocene->Holocene in geology) about 12,000 years ago and that is when human populations began to become more sedentary, at least in some parts of the world (e.g. China, India, Middle East, Mediterranean). That is the question archaeologists need to focus on. Evolutionary theory can explain it. They need to use that theory to generate some hypotheses and start answering the big questions.

Nothing gets you published and more funding rolling in than if you claim your discovery rewrites the history books/fossil record/etc. Combine that with simplified and sensationalized science reporting in the mainstream media, and then take it all with a 10-ton grain of salt.

Not that it's not an important site, but the excavations have only just barely begun. Don't stop the textbook presses quite yet, there're still decades of work left.

Malor wrote:

Further, there's no water at the site, meaning it would be a remarkably bad place to settle down, and there'd be no reason to defend it. "Temple" is about the only explanation left.

Someday our abandoned housing developments will be considered temples!
No signs of habitation, no litter, no utilities... just barren structures on a hill with a touch of graffiti.

Dirt wrote:

I believe a current theory is that the T-Rex (theropod dinosaur) was actually warm-blooded, or at least, not completely cold-blooded.

Pruit has the power to change blood temperature.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Pruit has the power to change blood temperature.

All Hail Pruit, Changer of Blood, and His prophet, FSeven.

Paleocon wrote:
Dirt wrote:

I believe a current theory is that the T-Rex (theropod dinosaur) was actually warm-blooded like its bird decendents.

Even if it was, that's a hell of a lot of surface area from which to lose LOTS of heat. Let's say a rapid change in climate resulted in seasonal temperature fluctuations outside of the normal band. A creature that thrived inside a 30 degree temperature band has to deal with a number of days/year that is well outside of it. That's tough enough for a population of herd animals, but a territorial apex predator is not going to deal with that well at all.

Uh... I'm going to check out now while my dignity is still intact.

There's some hyperbole in that article. For example, there's a combined human-dog burial in Germany dated to 14,000 BC, and a dog burial in North America circa 11,000 BC. Religion is so old, we have evidence of religious practice among *Neanderthals*. I think it may be more accurate to note that this is the earliest example of stone building we have yet found.

What does it mean to say "religion begat culture"? I'd say that's a statement that will be interpreted differently by modern literalist Christians than perhaps a Turkish archaeologist means it. I don't think he meant "God created culture", however. As the article noted, religion seems to be more a genetic heritage than a direct result of the development of culture and civilization. It's part and parcel of every human culture, even modern ones, and with good reason. Without a systematic method for investigating the world, anthropomorphization is the only game in town.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Dirt wrote:

I believe a current theory is that the T-Rex (theropod dinosaur) was actually warm-blooded, or at least, not completely cold-blooded.

Pruit has the power to change blood temperature.

LOL that actually has me thinking....

...see my response in the A vs. A thread...

Minarchist wrote:

All I know is they took away my Brontosaurus, and with it my childhood dreams. I'll never forgive them. :(

You and my wife. I keep telling her that she can tell my son that the Brontosaurus was real as soon as we find herds of them living on Pluto.

Paleocon wrote:
Dirt wrote:

I believe a current theory is that the T-Rex (theropod dinosaur) was actually warm-blooded like its bird decendents.

Even if it was, that's a hell of a lot of surface area from which to lose LOTS of heat. Let's say a rapid change in climate resulted in seasonal temperature fluctuations outside of the normal band. A creature that thrived inside a 30 degree temperature band has to deal with a number of days/year that is well outside of it. That's tough enough for a population of herd animals, but a territorial apex predator is not going to deal with that well at all.

Which would also be consistent with the surviving dinosaurs being the smaller, feathered warm-blooded ones (aka birds).