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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
There isn't agreement about this topic, but one interesting theory is that the obesity of the images increases during periods of starvation and that the objects themselves represent resilience and fecundity during hard times.
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.
There's a fascinating blog whose author theorizes that the signs of the zodiac originated as markers to track the seasons by noting the mating and birthing behaviors of local animals.
The author explicates the meaning of the traditional signs and their variants across Eurasia by noting differences in climate and consequent timing and nature of animal behavior.
Author claims that these relationships also explain the patterns of markings on the monuments at Gobekli Tepi.
It's a big topic. I'm interested in the meltwater pulses following the last glacial maximum. I think something happened to cause those meltwater pulses. An impactor, or solar ejecta, or something similarly catastrophic. It's very interesting that those events seem to coincide with the earliest signs of human civilization. Global sealevels are still around 120m / 400ft higher than at the glacial maximum, and humans tend to build settlements at shorelines. Which suggests there is a lot of human history yet to be found on continental shelves worldwide. It seems an interesting avenue to potentially explain the gap between the appearance of biologically modern humans ~ 1m - 200,000 years ago and civilization ~10k years ago. I would not be surprised to find records somewhere of such a global catastrophe as seems to have happened.
> It's very interesting that those events seem to coincide with the earliest signs of human civilization.
I think migration is a much easier argument to make than "civilization", especially when it gobekli tepi predates domesticated civilization by thousands of years, and cultivation of seeds began around twelve to fifteen thousand years before concrete evidence of settled civilization.
Still, if you're determined to link migrations to a single disaster, look no further than the link between the Toba eruption and the introduction of humans to Australia for the first time around ~70kya.
Please note that they're not the "earliest" sign of civilization. For once - as mentioned in the article, you have the Lascaux signs for example. But if you consider that these signs are not sufficiently complex to represent a civilisation, dont forget that Gobekli Tepe was only discovered in 1963 and that excavation only begun in 1995.
So there could easily be other sites of similar interest but more ancient history - not mentioning that David Graeber made a fair point of rememebering us that even important and powerful civilizations dont always leave big archeological traces.
But of course, that's in point with your argument about sea levels.
The paintings at Lascaux are beautiful and sophisticated, granted. I suppose by "civilization" which could have many definitions, I meant farming and city building (a city being some group of dwellings larger than dunbar's number). There is also some compelling genetic evidence that rice may have been domesticated and re-feralized several times throughout history, which could push the farming date back much further, which would be amazing. It seems to me that the nature of evidence-based archeology is to always be pushing these numbers further back in time, which is to be expected.
Well if you think that civilization equals cities and farming, then go grab "the dawn of everything", the last book of David Graeber :)
I was quite amazed to realize that the Golden Horde was way more sophisticated and powerful than most other empires of its time, and still it did not had cities, nor farming, and left really few traces. And that was around 1300, not in prehistoric times.
Also, if you're interested in the relation between farming and civilization but want an adverse position, go read "against the grain". It's also quite mind-opening.
Steppe nomads always had permanent settlements and agriculture. Often not by the nomads themselves, but the agricultural settlements were an integral part of their society. The Golden Horde had many cities in Europe and Central Asia, but those cities were usually on the peripheries of the empire rather than centers of power.
In some sense, this was similar to the Early Medieval Europe, where kings often had itinerant courts rather than permanent capitals.
You could also compare steppe empires to naval empires that were common in the Mediterranean. Both had vast expanses of low-value territory that enabled rapid travel. But the real value was in the surrounding agricultural land and cities.
I'm not really looking to debate or defend assertions. Just mark interesting points in human technological development in a way that's visible in the archeological or genetic record.
> I was quite amazed to realize that the Golden Horde was way more sophisticated and powerful than most other empires of its time, and still it did not had cities, nor farming, and left really few traces.
This is a pretty common theme for steppe horsemen, right? You can link this to the fall of probably dozens of empires.
Sweatman has a very thorough YouTube channel where he goes deep on this topic and carefully rebuts the criticism towards his ideas and the debate around the Younger Dryas Impact Hyptohesis
But was he saying it based on evidence or was it just something he wanted to be true? (Genuine question, I know nothing of the person.) Often someone believes something strongly against available evidence and is then "proven correct" - this doesn't show good reasoning or foresight, just the wishful thinking to pin one's hopes on an unlikely outcome. In those cases there is usually nothing to be learned from that person.
Without canonizing Hancock, it should be noted that he is and has always presented himself as a journalist; and he has been consistent in reporting the theories of scientists and researchers who have gone against the mainstream and had their careers damaged or destroyed, but have ultimately been proven right or at least shown that their ideas are resistant to facile dismissal.
He is more in the line of an aggregator or curatorial journalist than someone who is simply dreaming things up on his own.
"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.