Talk:Göbekli Tepe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Göbekli Tepe: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
Contents |
[edit] Neolithic
The term "Neolithic" thus does not refer to a specific chronological period, but rather to a suite of behavioural and cultural characteristics including the use of (both wild and domestic) crops and the use of domesticated animals. (Wik on Neol.) How, then, does GT "formally belong" to the neolithic? Either the >Neolithic article should be re-written to include monumental architecture (and maybe ceramics and sical hierarchies), or the GT article needs to be re-worded. Kdammers 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BP is not BC
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the dates both here and in the popular press reports. The dates are BP (i.e. before Present or more accurately 1950) which means 9000 BP = 7000 BC. This is consistent with the finds - some Epipalaeolithic overlain by PPN-A and around the start of agriculture. (Emperor 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
- You are right that one shouldn't confuse BP and BC, but what makes you think that this happened here? The site of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (the guys who are doing the excavations) states that the oldest building phase ends around 9000 BC (that would be 11,000 BP). [1]. Chl 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I was working by the radiocarbon dates as presented here. However, I have got my hands on the original numbers and will update with the calibrated dates. (Emperor 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
[edit] major re-edit
I have changed the page a good bit, by incorporating a translation of the German page and merging the organisation and onformation from the previous English page and the German one, so as not to loose any information. Feel free to change it around, if necessary. athinaios 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Traduzione delle steli ad opera del centro ricerche onfalos geodetici preistorici:
http://archeoastronomia-geodetica.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.6.140 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nature of Gobekli Tepe
How do we know this was a temple/shrine, and not a folly or some monument put up in the middle of nowhere for the heck of it? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- And, as for deliberate burial of the monument/temple/whatever, I suspect the reason was the deliberate preservation of the site for posterity. If the whole area was changing, the locals might've feared invaders and other changes, and they might have also reasoned that burying something would keep something around a long time if nobody were to discover it right away (after all, the site was already thousands of years old at the time of abandonment, so some parts might've been uncovered after burial). Well, if that was the purpose, then those folks succeeded, obviously. That being said, a certain couple of five-thousand-year time capsules in Queens, NY are in the wrong location and ought to be relocated to, say, a desert area and preferably on an old mountain somewheres. Where they are, it's practically landfill and bound to get swamped at some point in time. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (edited to be more inclusive 204.52.215.107 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC))
[edit] readings first
before excavations begin on any of these ancient structures, there should be complete photographs made and esp also if possible, a reading as these sites contain usually "imprints" of the results of the rites practiced there and those "imprints" can explain the site entirely ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
