Just a little extra info: I actually removed a chapter of this video, explaining that there are, in fact, some 'domestic-like' buildings at Gobekli Tepe. This was done because it was slow / somewhat off-topic. The main complex (the one obsessed over in the media) is certainly not domestic. We wouldn't, for example, call a cathedral 'domestic' just because there are houses next to it...
That's a shame, I'd have liked to hear what you have to say on the domestic aspects of the site. While a cathedral in isolation has no domestic component and houses built near said cathedral wouldn't relate to it, a similar arrangement of buildings could have a very different relationship if we were talking about a monastic cathedral site, for example. What I'm saying is, the so-called 'special buildings' at GT may not be domestic, but who's to say the associated domestic buildings are not in some way 'special'? Was the domestic activity going on there just ordinary life, or is there evidence for certain kinds of people or a certain kind of living going on there? If I was really clever I'd research this myself, but I'm not, so I'll wait for someone to make a video on it😄
@@AdamMorganIbbotson The fundamental fact is it is probably a grain storage facility for the surrounding community. The so called religious aspect was just a part of ordinary life.
Thanks, I almost wanted to write a comment, as there were quite some layers of domestic structures around in the parts that are excavated. And as many were squarish and only a few rounded, which might be earlier as is common in the earliest Neolithic in the Levant, these might overlay other earlier round ones. Also the many quern stones do suggest domestic activities. It is probably that the debris of the settlement filled up the temple-like structures.
The difference might be that we have never believed that nobody lived near cathedrals. We always knew people lived there. As I recall, initially, we were told there were no signs of residence at Gobekli Tepe. That it was a meeting place for hunter gatherers travelling from miles around, but who didn't reside there. Now it appears people did live at the site, which is not what some sources were saying a few years ago.
At last. A video on this site that I felt safe to watch feeling confident there would be no reference to Hancock. It is a mind boggling discovery. I (stupidly) feel ashamed about what wasn’t happening here, when these people built this. Golf course analogy was excellent, Adam. “Let’s hump this frog!”
Doesn't matter how times I hear it, or whomever says it, 12,000 years is unfathomable! Behold the capabilities of prehistoric humans. Truly remarkable.
Good for you that you kept a foot back on the "ritual" stuff. But there are still some things you should note: 1) During the thousands of years that those sites have been occupied, every stone, pillar, "window", statue etc has probably been moved from its originally intended location, and reused and repurposed one or more times. Interpretations that assume those sites were built as we see them now are fundamentally flawed. 2) The pillars were not sculpted in human shape. They were sculpted in plain T-shape. The human and other figures on *some* of the pillars were clearly added after the pillar was erected -- maybe days later, maybe 2000 years later... AFAIK there are only one or two decorations which *may* have been sculpted as the pillar was quarried, such as that full-relief leopard. That is, if they are not lime plaster additions... 3) There are many obvious signs that those "round rooms" were originally water cisterns, not "temples" or "meeting rooms". Such as the fact that they were built at the lowest spot in the settlement, rather than at its highest; that they were rebuild 2-3 times as *smaller* spaces (as the sources dried up?), rather than expanded; that the oldest ones have wells on their pavements; that the "passages" between them are ok for water but impracticable for people; and so on. 4) There ARE many residential spaces in the area surrounding those "round" rooms. Check the most recent reports. They are mostly square and small. Some of these have one or two T-pillars, most have none. 5) There is no evidence that Neolithic people had anything we could call a "religion" or belief in "supernatural" entities (gods, spirits, etc.) There are many examples that can be presumed to be "rituals", but only in the general sense of "an action that is performed for its symbolic meaning rather than for its expected consequences". Like we today bury the dead in coffins, put flowers in front of a memorial, cut the ribbon at an inauguration, shoot fireworks at 00:00 Jan 1, hoist a flag at half-mast, etc. None of these derive from belief in supernatural entities. There are also examples that were probably amulets; but, like today's rabbit foot and horseshoe over the door, they do not imply supernatural beliefs. The person's belief that the amulet will bring good luck is on the same category as his belief that rubbing two sticks will make fire.
@@flipflopski2951 I consider that a prime example of archaeologists' hallucinations. A much more likely explanation of that engraving (advanced by @CuriousBeing) is a common and characteristic pose of vultures: perched, with the wings spread out towards the Sun to warm up.
So you're saying they played indoor golf back in the day? Makes sense, they probably got tired of breaking windows and obviously more than one of them took a golf ball to the forehead, so they figured out that it was best to play it outside!
@@flipflopski2951 , what's Trump got to do, got to do with it? What's Trump but a second hand coping method? What's Trump got to do, got to do with it? Who needs a personality, when being anti Maga is enough.
I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Tas Tepeler sites have upended our views of the Neolithic. They are more spectacular than anything else from that time frame, but there are other contemporary sites in the Levant that show equivalent level of development: namely, "urban" settlements of hunter-gatherers, probably with a little husbandry and/or agriculture, with undressed drystone walls, stone vessels, etc.
@@JorgeStolfi Those ‘urban’ sites, I think you’re referring to, are thousands of years younger than the Gobekli Tepe sites. As mentioned, the idea that monumental temples preceded such places did upend our views.
But there is evidence of residential buildings and domestic activity at Gobeli Tepi. There are what seem to be houses or workshops, bowls/sinks cut into rock and quern stones.
Not necessarily 'domestic', or "not concrete" as I put it in the video. Domestic means residences / living arrangements of families - of which there is no evidence. Kitchens etc, could have been for religious purposes.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson After I made my comment I noticed your post about removing a chapter. No, you wouldn’t call a cathedral domestic because there were houses next to it but you would call the houses domestic. Buildings next to the main structure at GT do have domestic features. A quern stone in a building the size and with the layout that might be expected of a house suggests domestic. No, it’s not certain but it wouldn’t be surprising either. There was clearly a lot of activity on the hill, it would make sense to live there. Further excavations will clarify.
There are, I actually removed a bit of the video where I explain this! However, they sit off the main complex. To call these 'domestic' may also be a stretch, as the evidence is rather flimsy (in my opinion)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
It's clearly a club house for an ancient golf course.
Phenomenal new video Adam...
Thanks Adam, I really appreciate that :)
Just a little extra info: I actually removed a chapter of this video, explaining that there are, in fact, some 'domestic-like' buildings at Gobekli Tepe. This was done because it was slow / somewhat off-topic. The main complex (the one obsessed over in the media) is certainly not domestic. We wouldn't, for example, call a cathedral 'domestic' just because there are houses next to it...
That's a shame, I'd have liked to hear what you have to say on the domestic aspects of the site. While a cathedral in isolation has no domestic component and houses built near said cathedral wouldn't relate to it, a similar arrangement of buildings could have a very different relationship if we were talking about a monastic cathedral site, for example. What I'm saying is, the so-called 'special buildings' at GT may not be domestic, but who's to say the associated domestic buildings are not in some way 'special'? Was the domestic activity going on there just ordinary life, or is there evidence for certain kinds of people or a certain kind of living going on there? If I was really clever I'd research this myself, but I'm not, so I'll wait for someone to make a video on it😄
@ Yes, not unlike an abbey’s or priory’s kitchens / dorm rooms etc - but, of course, they don’t change the fundamental fact it’s a religious temple.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson The fundamental fact is it is probably a grain storage facility for the surrounding community. The so called religious aspect was just a part of ordinary life.
Thanks, I almost wanted to write a comment, as there were quite some layers of domestic structures around in the parts that are excavated. And as many were squarish and only a few rounded, which might be earlier as is common in the earliest Neolithic in the Levant, these might overlay other earlier round ones. Also the many quern stones do suggest domestic activities. It is probably that the debris of the settlement filled up the temple-like structures.
The difference might be that we have never believed that nobody lived near cathedrals. We always knew people lived there. As I recall, initially, we were told there were no signs of residence at Gobekli Tepe. That it was a meeting place for hunter gatherers travelling from miles around, but who didn't reside there. Now it appears people did live at the site, which is not what some sources were saying a few years ago.
Adam Morgan Ibbotson - you are magnificent! Thank you for the very interesting videos and the sense of humour.
Why thank you - what a lovely thing to say!
@@Istehomo and thanks again…
I can’t wait to watch it👏🏻 I was wondering about Gobekli a lot
@@zhunya_asmr a true Renaissance woman
Thanks man, very well made. Really enjoying your videos.
Excellent, Adam. Another thoroughly entertaining video.
@@ChrisN1973 thanks!
At last. A video on this site that I felt safe to watch feeling confident there would be no reference to Hancock.
It is a mind boggling discovery. I (stupidly) feel ashamed about what wasn’t happening here, when these people built this.
Golf course analogy was excellent, Adam.
“Let’s hump this frog!”
@@WC21UKProductionsLtd Thanks Darren!
I’m sure us Brits probably had a few sticks stuck in a glacier somewhere around that time!
That was incredible. I’ve subbed. Great work man 🙏🏼
@@ImJustAdam_ Thanks!
Doesn't matter how times I hear it, or whomever says it, 12,000 years is unfathomable! Behold the capabilities of prehistoric humans. Truly remarkable.
great breakdown! nice one
Its on the list to go, along with Çatalhöyük but goodness knows when
@@ForestArchaicCollective thanks!
Great video!
You should check out JJ Ainsworth new video on Gobekli Tepe . One of the only people that does her own actual research.
An excellent delve into things.
@@fraglast6809 Thanks!
A cracking video. :)
Good for you that you kept a foot back on the "ritual" stuff. But there are still some things you should note:
1) During the thousands of years that those sites have been occupied, every stone, pillar, "window", statue etc has probably been moved from its originally intended location, and reused and repurposed one or more times. Interpretations that assume those sites were built as we see them now are fundamentally flawed.
2) The pillars were not sculpted in human shape. They were sculpted in plain T-shape. The human and other figures on *some* of the pillars were clearly added after the pillar was erected -- maybe days later, maybe 2000 years later... AFAIK there are only one or two decorations which *may* have been sculpted as the pillar was quarried, such as that full-relief leopard. That is, if they are not lime plaster additions...
3) There are many obvious signs that those "round rooms" were originally water cisterns, not "temples" or "meeting rooms". Such as the fact that they were built at the lowest spot in the settlement, rather than at its highest; that they were rebuild 2-3 times as *smaller* spaces (as the sources dried up?), rather than expanded; that the oldest ones have wells on their pavements; that the "passages" between them are ok for water but impracticable for people; and so on.
4) There ARE many residential spaces in the area surrounding those "round" rooms. Check the most recent reports. They are mostly square and small. Some of these have one or two T-pillars, most have none.
5) There is no evidence that Neolithic people had anything we could call a "religion" or belief in "supernatural" entities (gods, spirits, etc.) There are many examples that can be presumed to be "rituals", but only in the general sense of "an action that is performed for its symbolic meaning rather than for its expected consequences". Like we today bury the dead in coffins, put flowers in front of a memorial, cut the ribbon at an inauguration, shoot fireworks at 00:00 Jan 1, hoist a flag at half-mast, etc. None of these derive from belief in supernatural entities. There are also examples that were probably amulets; but, like today's rabbit foot and horseshoe over the door, they do not imply supernatural beliefs. The person's belief that the amulet will bring good luck is on the same category as his belief that rubbing two sticks will make fire.
So you don't consider vultures playing ball with human heads supernatural beings?
@@flipflopski2951 I consider that a prime example of archaeologists' hallucinations.
A much more likely explanation of that engraving (advanced by @CuriousBeing) is a common and characteristic pose of vultures: perched, with the wings spread out towards the Sun to warm up.
* currently Polaris is our North Star
12k years ago our North Star was Vega the vulture and will be again in 14k years the site could be 36k years old
Rubbish
Golf is definitely a complex ritual activity.
That Urfa man chap has a resemblance of Alex Murphy and is wearing a St Helens shirt. Clearly, there's time travelling aliens involved 🙂
So you're saying they played indoor golf back in the day?
Makes sense, they probably got tired of breaking windows and obviously more than one of them took a golf ball to the forehead, so they figured out that it was best to play it outside!
That must be what the vulture is holding (a golf ball I mean) and why the anthropomorphic pillars show their hands protecting their privates!
You've got it. Good to know my subtle sway worked.
I guess stupidity is a virtue now in trump world.
@@flipflopski2951 , what's Trump got to do, got to do with it?
What's Trump but a second hand coping method?
What's Trump got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a personality, when being anti Maga is enough.
I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Tas Tepeler sites have upended our views of the Neolithic. They are more spectacular than anything else from that time frame, but there are other contemporary sites in the Levant that show equivalent level of development: namely, "urban" settlements of hunter-gatherers, probably with a little husbandry and/or agriculture, with undressed drystone walls, stone vessels, etc.
@@JorgeStolfi Those ‘urban’ sites, I think you’re referring to, are thousands of years younger than the Gobekli Tepe sites. As mentioned, the idea that monumental temples preceded such places did upend our views.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson I was thinking of the Natufian culture, which is dated 15'000-11'000 years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
@ When we find a temple complex as large and impressive as Gobekli from them, maybe
@ "Temple"...?
Cool vodeo
How can I contact you Adam? RUclips and Instagram are keeping deleting my messages to you... ):
Predating settled societies: if you build it, they will come
But there is evidence of residential buildings and domestic activity at Gobeli Tepi. There are what seem to be houses or workshops, bowls/sinks cut into rock and quern stones.
Not necessarily 'domestic', or "not concrete" as I put it in the video. Domestic means residences / living arrangements of families - of which there is no evidence. Kitchens etc, could have been for religious purposes.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson After I made my comment I noticed your post about removing a chapter. No, you wouldn’t call a cathedral domestic because there were houses next to it but you would call the houses domestic. Buildings next to the main structure at GT do have domestic features. A quern stone in a building the size and with the layout that might be expected of a house suggests domestic. No, it’s not certain but it wouldn’t be surprising either. There was clearly a lot of activity on the hill, it would make sense to live there. Further excavations will clarify.
@ Agree. Though I do say this in the video.
I've never heard bedrock being called pavement before. A British thing?
@@flipflopski2951 look up “limestone pavement” it’s a geological formation.
But, but… but I thought that there are domestic structures at Gobekli Tepe.
There are, I actually removed a bit of the video where I explain this! However, they sit off the main complex. To call these 'domestic' may also be a stretch, as the evidence is rather flimsy (in my opinion)
Stone Henge is much older than 4500 years old.
@@terryoc8802 no, no it isn’t