Having been on the other side of this, archaeologists don't take pictures to look good, but for documentation. There's typically also some ethical concerns if human remains or sacred sites are involved. Nevertheless, there are some photos in this article:
If the picture can’t be shared publicly there should be some disclaimer or note on that. I think it is very rare for these classical era and prior digs to have credible reasons for not releasing.
These photos seem fine to me and were likely provided by the team, I was just explaining the general problem.
However, I've been on ancient digs where we declined to release pictures of the interesting bits due to ethical concerns, generally photos of graves or remains. It's also common if the photo would leak the location of a sensitive site, or violate someone's privacy. You're free to disagree with those standards, but they're widely-held enough that violating them will prevent publication and earn you a bad reputation.
Many people, myself included, argue that there is. I acknowledge that there's a value to some excavations, but you should pursue those goals as respectfully as possible. If I can't ask descendants, the safest thing to do ethically is treat them as I would treat something equivalent in my own life.
In a more pragmatic sense, trying to draw a line at some finite number of years always turns up an edge case like Kennewick man where someone genuinely cares about a 9k year old skeleton. Adopting the conservative approach of "extend the same respect to everyone, regardless of age" is both the simplest and the legally safest ethical system.
On deterring certain bad elements, that does sound credible. Though of course it would just mean some types of pictures are withheld, not all. It would have to be a very sensitive situation that no possible picture can be taken that is suitable for public release.
> Though of course it would just mean some types of pictures are withheld, not all.
Calculating where something is from light and shadows, is not that difficult. If you're trying to protect the location of a dig, it is usually safer to not release any photos at all.
For example, last year's desert monolith didn't have its location shared on purpose, but with a little footage it took the public all of two days to locate it, by working out which flight path the helicopter took.
>archaeologists don't take pictures to look good, but for documentation
Before clicking the link I didn't realize what this sentence actually meant. I think I do not have the skills to figure out why these stones are important. Makes you appreciate the works of actual photographers though so that's nice
I know! It was just an ad-buffet. I kept scrolling looking for any kind of visual enticement and kept being served ads. What a poor website / magazine / journalism.
It's so great that I'm seeing this type of content in the foreign feed. Because every week another ancient temple, town or monument discovering in Turkey and it is so wonderful to see this richness of root but, the problem is our people or government can't properly serving this to global, consequently all this founded waiting for to rot.
It makes me happy that there a still so many new discoveries in Turkey, given that the attempt to preserve the cultural heritage is comparably recent in history and many things were lost (and I am not talking about current politics so please leave it out).
On the other hand, having visited a lot of areas in Turkey, there is still a lot more that can be done, especially for younger sites, and especially considering how significant some of those things are. Many of those are... just left there, maybe with some odd ad-hoc car park of all things. Only the major sites seem really well preserved and presented for us contemporary humans.
So there is a lot more to be done, and a lot more to learn, which is a good.
The amazing thing about Turkey far back is the first "temple" there. I've read once people speculate if the first city was build to support the build of the "temple"
They surfaced 2 more temples like Göbekli tepe this year. The area is said to have 10 more temples like that. One of which is believed to be older than Göbekli tepe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karahan_Tepe
I recently got into a kick reading about ancient civilizations and learned about Göbekli Tepe and it blew my mind. It's substantially older than _anything_ else we have, and we're still finding sites older than it, and Turkey is chock full of sites like that. I really hope we're able to gain some more understanding about our past from these sites.
AFAIU, the temple is dated ~8-10000 years BCE, while the neolithic start should be around 12000 BCE, so it would be "early neolithic".
But maybe I'm missing something.
Thanks for pointing this out, I was unclear. The era we call the "Neolithic" does indeed start a bit earlier, and the earliest layers of the site are within the PPNA. Sometimes we use the term neolithic to refer to certain sets of economic and cultural modes, the so-called "Neolithic Package". The general thinking has been that the earliest layers and probably the site as a whole were not made by one of these groups.
There's been a long-running argument that all of the elements of a really old, really bad concept called "civilization" require this so-called "neolithic package" to be invented. All the other known examples post-dated the earliest of these societies, and the (dumb) explanation was just that the ideas had diffused from more "sophisticated" societies. Gobekli Tepe was clear evidence against that.
It's also very region-specific. Because of the euro-centrism of these fields in their traditional naming schemes, the "Neolithic revolution" often refers to the invasion/migration of Neolithic peoples into better documented regions, in particular Western Europe. That happened after Göbekli Tepe.
But if you ask "where did the Neolithic people come from" the answer is somewhere in central or western Asia. And presumably they developed their technology and society over thousands of years before taking the world by storm, so that puts Göbekli Tepe (potentially!) inside the bounds of the Neolithic peoples.
This is a neat find. How many people dig around for something in their yard, oblivious to the fact that this is where Alexander the Great tossed his empties?
Hi Jake you probably should have renamed your account as throwawayJake, since you probably not going to use it after the parent post.
Sure the Turks may have done bad things to Greece people and similar can be said to the Roman before them. The same can also be said to the Greeks people when they're expanding their once great empire. I'm pretty sure the Greeks at some times committed some atrocities in large proportion when they were conquering other nations that you are not aware of. The same can be also said to the British and French empires, etc.
Having said that, about century ago there were a huge exchange of residents between the city of Istanbul and Thessaloniki. According to the an architecture history book that I've read some times ago (cannot remember he exact title now), essentially you can find more Greece people is Istanbul city and vice versa i.e. more Turkish people in Thessaloniki city. As you probably know the fact that one third of Greece people is living in the urban area, the number of people moving in these two directions probably quite a lot, albeit a rather smaller scale if compared to the later India and Pakistan residents exchange movement.
This fact is kind of proof of the seamless integration and the tolerance of the Ottoman empire until of course the fanatic of the nationalists from the both sides taking over with their own propaganda. Imagine if at one particular time in European history that you have more Italian people living in Munich and more German people living in Milan during the period Holy Roman Empire period. It's kind of unthinkable now but that's really happened during the time in Europe few centuries back and the melting pots nature of Ottoman empire probably has only been surpassed by the modern USA.
p/s: there is probably no original Turks people in Turkey anymore since they are the mixed descendent of the various people that lived in Turkey namely Turkic and European peoples including Greece.
I don't know enough about the history of Turkey and the Armenian genocide to be properly outraged every time the country of Turkey makes it in a headline, so I'm sorry if I'm being insensitive here but I have a question open to everybody.
Is there any road to redemption for historical atrocities? I'm not defending Turkey because I genuinely don't know, but is there something they could do to alleviate the issue or are they cancelled for all eternity? Is there something they're doing now that's related to the Armenian genocide that's perpetuating the issue? Should we still be mad at Mongolia for Genghis Khan's infamous imperial violence?
Enough time for national borders to become meaningless is the most common solution. Nobody complains about Ancient Greece’s atrocities today. When everyone has ancestors on both sides of a conflict it becomes less obvious who to root for.
Presumably admitting that the relocation was not done for reasonable reasons and that the deaths were intentional would be a start. Also, re-burying the architect of the genocide outside of a place of honor in the national cemetery would be a good gesture toward reconciliation.
Can we please stop allowing these western forces to create archaeology sites in Turkey since it does nothing but empower "Remove Kebab" memes, thank you.
I'm also happy to note that many churches and historic monasteries are being restored in (Northern) Cyprus [1] but alas nothing good can come of it.
I do not understand what you people are talking about (also referencing some flagged replies here). Ignoring for a moment my instinct to down-vote unneeded sarcasm, I did my best to understand what's going on, I still have no idea.
What are you trying to say? If you are Turkish and trying to make a point that here is some racism against Turks, as a Turkish-German, I've never witnessed that (other than a few flagged troll attempts). If you are Greek and trying to say (with too much sarcasm) that the Turks get a "free pass" or something, I don't understand that either.
All these words, and what I'm trying to say is actually:
The people who hate Turks do so under the illusion that Turks shouldn't exist because they're illegitimate invaders living on land that doesn't belong to them. Therefore, if that's the case, then what the fuck are Turks doing allowing people to excavate archeological sites that help prove their case? Surely the Turks aren't that stupid!
It was essentially a rhetorical rebuttal to anti-Turkish racists; admittedly in bad sarcastic form, but judging by the flagged comment, it worked.
Anyway, I'm happy you haven't experienced racism in Germany, those of us in other countries haven't been so lucky xD
