Talk:Göbekli Tepe

The Complex

A couple of recent additions to this section have been removed for lack of evidence. 1) There is no proof, only speculation, that the pillars supported the roof (much less the walls, whatever that might mean). It is not certain that the sacred circles even had roofs. 2) Very similar pillars were found at Nevalı Çori—mainly T-shaped, and likewise with human arms carved on the sides in low relief. Isolated examples have been found elsewhere in SE Anatolia as well. The examples at GT are not unique (though they are the most impressive uncovered so far.) And not all of them are T-shaped. 3) The naked woman, like most of the figures, animal and human, is carved in bas-relief (not 'bass relief.') Each pillar is NOT 'around 8 feet tall, and weighs up to 7 tons.' They range in height from around 2 meters to over 5 meters in height, with the largest estimated to weigh over 15 tons. But the real howler is the opener: "Göbekli Tepe is the oldest human-made finding yet discovered." Apparently our learned friend has not heard of the European cave paintings or of the Venus figurines: two years ago an example from Hohle Fels dated to before 40,000 BP was published. Not to mention all the tools not only Homo Sapiens but Neanderthals, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo habilis etc. created starting literally millions of years ago. Or the building foundation at Monte Verde. Or the remains of human habitation at Meadowcroft. Or the Ice-Age huts built of mammoth bones found in Poland and the Ukraine... Or the remains of the Natufian settlements... helio 15:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In response, I wrote the 'around 8 feet tall and weighs up to 7 tons' bit - I put that up because that's how Mithen described it in After the Ice. I am supposing this is a simplification on his part to give an idea as to the majority of the pillars? Anyway, I was tying to be factual and accurately represent my source - could you give an idea as to the general range in size and shape of the pillars? I think that would be helpful! (However, I am SO not the "oldest human made thing ever commenter though. Whoever wrote that, uh, was grossly mistaken, to say the least). ... Florimell, 7:13 27 August 2011

Regarding the engraving on one of the pillars of the naked, crouched woman: This is indeed a birthing position, but her engorged labias (a condition known as macronymphia) indicates that she is sexually excited, which is why she is described as an example of a Venus accueillante (welcoming or inviting female figure). There is also no sign otherwise that she is giving birth. I get my information from Schmidt 2006: 235–7 (fig. 104); see also Schmidt 2010: 246 (fig. 13). Consequently I have removed the suggestion that she is meant to represent a woman in labor.helio 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the last sentence in the first paragraph of The Complex section. It's no more than a verbatim quote of a sentence in Mithen's After the Ice and makes too many debatable assumptions. Mithen is a respected archaeologist, but he exaggerates the difficulty involved in constructing GT. No one knows more about the site than Klaus Schmidt, and his opinions should be deferred to as a rule. In the interview he gives on YouTube (there is a link at the bottom of the article page) he talks about conveying the roughly hewn pillars to the site where the carving would have been completed and the bas-reliefs created, and offers his opinion that the process would not have been technically difficult or required much manpower. The quarry is adjacent to the shrine, and if it is lower in elevation it isn't by much. This is no Machu Picchu.

Another problem with the sentence as it stands: It is at the very least misleading to refer to the community as "neolithic people"; Schmidt believes that GT was witness to the birth of the neolithic revolution, but since there is as yet no sign of settlement in or around GT, the revolution must still have lain in the future. The evident skill with which the reliefs were executed, the assurance with which the predatory animal in high relief was carved: this argues for a long tradition of creating similar sacred spaces, and suggests that the population was already diversified and specialized; Schmidt thinks it's legitimate to speak of an artistic guild within the community, with master sculptors, apprentices, and a tradition of training and carrying on the art that was probably centuries old by the time that that crocodile, or whatever it is, was so cleverly freed from the rock in which it was originally embedded.

The most significant thing about GT may in time turn out not to be the site itself; Schmidt does not intend to excavate too much more of it anyway. The pillars with bas-reliefs in particular are so accomplished in construction that they could not have been made by beginners. Schmidt is convinced that even older religious centers, probably with features similar to GT, remain to be discovered beneath the alluvial plain of the Euphrates, i.e., beneath the silt the river carried downstream over the course of millennia. So, even though we did not think a community this ancient had the artistic or organizational skills to construct GT, in fact its sophistication can make a compelling case that communities in the Fertile Crescent had been engaged in similar projects going back further—maybe much further—in time. It was a major undertaking, to be sure, but (again, according to Schmidt) the workmen had done this before and had devised various means to make the work collectively less labor intensive.Prohairesius (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dating

Vague reference in this section is made to the discovery "of a few epipaleolithic finds as well." Citation? Examples?helio 23:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Architecture

Again I quote: "Recently smaller domestic buildings have been uncovered. Despite this, it is clear that the primary use of the site was not domestic, due to the dwellings at the site being dated at 500 years or more after the construction of the first ring of the temple." Passing over the clumsy prose again, I note that the editor cites the National Geographic article for support of this claim in reference number 10, referring the reader to p. 48 of the article. Nowhere on that page, or anywhere else in Charles Mann's article will you find any reference to smaller, or later, domestic buildings at the site. What Mann writes, in fact is: "As important as what the researchers found was what they did not find: any sign of habitation. Hundreds of people must have been required to carve and erect the pillars, but the site had no water source—the nearest stream was about three miles away. Those workers would have needed homes, but excavations have uncovered no sign of walls, hearths, or houses—no other buildings that Schmidt has interpreted as domestic. They would have had to be fed, but there is also no trace of agriculture. For that matter, Schmidt has found no mess kitchens or cooking fires. It was purely a ceremonial center. Mann reference number 10 is also adduced as secondary support for the bizarre (because pointless) claim that Schmidt and his crew have been shoveling sand (brought from where?) away for the last 15 years to expose the complex. Again, you'll look in vain for any such claim, on any page you care to consult, in Mann's article. helio 15:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know more about the contruction and design. Nothing in the article addresses composition of the rubble. Also, I noticed that on at least one column, the carved animals do not stand vertical. Is this typical for most? Do they slant in all the same direction? Are the life-size, or larger than? I see holes bored high on the pillars... are they matched with holes on adjacent pillars? I see what appear to be steps leading down to the floor of the circles, but do not lead all the way up. Some discussion of egress and pedestrian circulation would be enlightening. ---- anon. architect

Keep in mind, Helio, Mann was writing a magazine article, not an academic paper. It's common for such works to emphasize a site's mystery, even to the extent of obscuring facts.

Of course there was no water; it was up on a hill. The stones were moved from somewhere else; the water could have followed a similar route. The nearby settlement of Gürcü Tepe approximates Göbekli Tepe's time period, and it had water. Those who dealt with Göbekli Tepe (workers, priests, mendicants, whatever) would have stayed there.

Kortoso (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Age of the site

AFAIK the only dates for this site are radiocarbon dates obtained from pistachio and almond plant remains found with the debris used to fill in the Layer III site. These come in at around 9000 BC (11,000 YBP calibrated) on average (Kromer & Schmidt, 1998). Yet there are repeated assertions (not just in this article) that the site is around 12,000 years old. That might be reasonable if the radiocarbon dates were obtained from material directly associated with the upper part of Layer III, but they come from secondary debris added latter.

It would clearly help this article (to say nothing of my personal research) if somebody could add sourced statements deriving the estimated date of 12,000 YBP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris - London 1955 14:30 BST

:Professor Bar-Yosef of Harvard has written me that the dating is based on C14 datings of a mere four organic samples, which he thinks falls far short of a basis for a certain chronology. GT represents special problems in determining a date, not least because, like Stonehenge, it served as a cult site for millennia. Klaus Schmidt discusses some of the means by which he arrived at a date for Layer III in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8DOjnZu8H4. helio 05:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Details and Misinterpretations of Sources

Fixed some major claims that were either unsupported, patently false, or misinterpretations of cited material.

"No tools have been found, so the origins are unknown and open to speculation at this time." This is false - when Klaus Schmidt first recognized the site to be Neolithic and not Byzantine, a major indication was the outstanding number of flint flakes derived from tool production that crunched under his feet and he explored the site, and in his prelimnary report on the site, he describes a number of flint tools found at the site, the collection being mainly Byblos and Nemrik points, but also including sickle blades, Nevali Cori points, and Helwan points. (After the Ice, Mithin, A Preliminary Report on the 1995-1999 excavation, K. Schmidt). Because the structures were deliberately filled in, it's unclear at exactly which Neolithic layer (PPNA vs. PPNB etc.) the tools belong to, but all can be reliably dated to the larger Neolithic era.

"This site...pre-dates any civilizations found on earth by several thousand years" and "Göbekli Tepe is the oldest human-made structure yet discovered." Both of these statements are false, and the latter is a misinterpreation of it's cited source in Archaeology Magazine, which states that Gobekli Tepe is "The oldest man-made place of worship yet discovered." Hardly the same thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florimell1919 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible influence by Neanderthal religion

While we know nothing about Neanderthal culture and religion, we do know that they were intelligent and their brains were 10% larger than our own. Also the region of major human development happens to be the exact range of the Neanderthal. While most Neanderthal died out 30,000 years ago it is possible that there were survivors as late as 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile Western Asia, The Middle East, and Europe are located on the Neanderthal burial grounds.

I suspect ancient pre-history sites including sites such as that gave rise to Atlantis legends were influenced by remnants of a culture that died off as our culture was just beginning. I believe that Gobekli Tepe is an example of this. There are probably many more buried under Europe and Western Asia. This theory of mine explains many unknowns. The only other possibility is that our Cro-Magnon ancestors had knowledge and culture that was later lost. Then I would ask where did our ancestors get this knowledge and culture in the first place.

I imagine that willing human sacrifice was part of Neanderthal culture and that is why they died out. <large>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchasen (talk • contribs) 14:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can fantasise about prehistory as much as you want. I also do that occasionally. But this is what is technically known here as "original research" and has no chance of inclusion in the article. (It's not even particularly convincing. I guess it could have been like that, but your attempt to prove it makes no sense.) Please note that per WP:TALK, talk pages are meant for discussions on improving the article. Hans Adler 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

While it is OR in terms of this article and a bit off topic, I want to respond to the conjecture that Neanderthals may have became extinct because of "willing human sacrifice". It seems more plausible that extinction occurred because their physiology was less able to adapt to climate change in Europe in the Near East. Perhaps Neanderthals found it difficult to compete for prey with the increasing population of the more mobile homo sapiens in changing terrain and possibly less flexible in their diet when it came to foraging. Robert Currey talk 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

...criteria,Forvo reference.

http://www.forvo.com/license/ > Attribution. You must give the original author credit.

Props

Maybe it's presumptuous of me and not my place to express my appreciation to those who have contributed to this article over the last couple of months: Stan Klimas, Doug Weller, Drift Chambers, the anonymous pundit 151.152.141.200, Chris, Florimeli: the rest of you know who you are. You helped restore to respectability an article that had been virtually vandalized by an ignoramus who shall go nameless because he seems to prefer it that way. Thanks.helio 03:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the compliment and your hard work recently. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it under cover?

It is arguably the most important archaeological site ever discovered. Here it is seen (photo from 2011) that it's out in the open in that dessicated area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe,_Urfa.jpg

Shouldn't something be over it to shelter? That just seems wrong. There has already been damage to the site - some of the structures are damaged. It'll just blow away or get washed away like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.6.59 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are in the wrong place. This isn't a forum to discuss the subject of the article. You need an archaeology forum for that. But if you can find some sources that discuss this that meet our criteria for WP:RS, then please do bring them here. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Klaus Schmidt (chief excavator) here after 7 minutes says that winter rains recently have damaged the site. It's exposed (question originator). Schmidt says they can't figure out whether it was covered originally during it's use, or in the open - but is saying that because it was undamaged when found (relatively), it must have been covered. Although, the whole site wasn't as exposed when built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8DOjnZu8H4

From what I see of some photos of the site now it may partially have aluminium structure covering 217.43.159.189 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the statement that “The circles [in Layer III] were probably not roofed” with a “citation needed”. It is unclear what the evidence for this is. According to Schmidt 2010, p. 251, the question whether the circular enclosures were roofed remains unsettled. But he has also said (e.g., in the youtube interview) that in the relatively brief time since the pillars were unearthed, some of the bas-reliefs have visibly deteriorated owing to inadequate protection from the elements. This suggests that originally they WERE provided with a roof. But a citation is called for in either case.Prohairesius (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Göbekli Tepe: 37.223300N 38.922400E —86.160.81.176 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Declined — Coordinates in article, the same ones listed above by 86.160.81.176, appear to be correct and no particular error given. Feel free to re-tag, stating exactly what you believe to be the problem. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox - References section ('Megalithic Portal')

The 'References' section in the Infobox links to the 'Megalithic Portal' with a footnote to Globalheritagefund.org. Is that correct? It looks strange to me? Wiki-uk (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Zodiacal?

Is there any evidence that the icons/animals/carvings at GB are the first evidence of a zodiacal system? Many of them seem to relate to Sumerian and later zodiac signs (lion, bull, scorpion). If so, then maybe the pillars and so on at GB are aligned to azimuths and solstices? I would be happy to get a response to this idea from someone who knows the site. (Lgh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.178.126 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Of relevance to this suggestion is one (reported in New Scientist No2390 17 August 2013 p14, 'Stone Age Temple tracked the dog star' by Anil Ananthaswamy) recently made by Giulio Magli, an archeoastronomer at the Polytechnic University of Milan.

He observes that, due to the changing alignment of the Earth's axis, the star Sirius (the brightest in the sky, and the basis of the ancient Egyptian calendar) would have only started to be visible above the horizon at Göbekli Tepe around 9300 BCE, and that the central pillars of three of the excavated circles seem to be aligned on the horizon where it would have risen in 9100, 8750 and 8300 BCE respectively.

He therefore proposes that the temple may have been built to follow the 'birth' of this star. He stresses that corroboration of this preliminary result needs more accurate calculations based on a full survey with theodolites, etc, and clarification of the sequence in which the circles were built.

As a minor aside in his paper (See arxiv.org/abs/1307.8397), Magli himself repeats a suggestion of an earlier paper (Belmonte and García 2010), that "many of the animals are indeed tempting as representation of constellations." One should bear in mind that the Zodiacal and other constellations familiar to us (in the modern Western tradition) are not universal, and that other traditions both surviving and historical divided the stars (and sometimes other celestial objects) into often quite different patterns with different symbolism.

Our article on the constellation Taurus mentions scholarly assertions that cave paintings dating back some 17,000 years BP include depictions of the Pleiades star cluster and of other stars (see here), and I have read a paper (now mislaid) suggesting that one or more also include the Hyades cluster drawn accurately enough to date it/them from that cluster's stellar proper motions. If any are correct, it pushes the possible age of some roots of 'a' (if not 'the') Constellation/Zodiacal system back considerably beyond the conventionally accepted Babylonian era (see here). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.246.168 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

BC vs BCE

On a related issue of proper dating terminology: Currently, both BC and BCE are used within the page, adding needless complexity. Would it be reasonable to insert the (somewhat more) culturally-neutral BCE, in place of BC, throughout the page? Fotomatt 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotomatt (talk • contribs)

See WP:ERA. Either is acceptable, but it should be consistent within any given article. Editors shouldn't change an article's consistent choice of BC/BCE. I just reverted a BC/BCE edit because I thought that was what was going on (99% of the time it is, and there was no edit summary). By all means, make them consistent if they're not. - Special-T (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Theft from the site

"Unfortunately, Göbekli Tepe hit the news late last year because a 40-centimeter-high, T-shaped stela with a human head above and animal figure below was stolen from the site. The site was briefly closed to the public but security has been improved: there's now a gate to the site and also a camera system in place. As a result of increasing interest in Göbekli Tepe, there are plans for a visitor's center and a presentation of the site for the general public."

Excerpt from January 2011 article: http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/004220.html

86.145.7.91 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

InfoMap is Wrong

The site is NE of Urfa, not SE... Smarkflea (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, the site is NE of Urfa, but the map shows it as SE. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discovery

Most sources seem to name a Kurdish shepherd, Savak Yildiz, as the discoverer of the site. This needs to be clear in the text. There could also be inclusion in the article of the naming of the site as there is a good argument that the name should be Kurdish, and the current name reflects only the form of the hill and not the actual structure itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.206.95 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Most sources..." What sources?Prohairesius (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment exemplifies the kind of ethnic claims to ownership of GT that have bedeviled it since it was first discovered. This suppositious shepherd didn't discover the site, local inhabitants were aware of the limestone monuments atop the hill for who knows how long, but, knowing nothing of (or caring nothing for) prehistoric art, had either ignored them, removed them to cultivate the land, smashed them for the same reason, or carried them off to incorporate in walls or (other) new construction. Consequently I have removed reference to this Mr. Yildiz and replaced it with an account of GT's discovery from a respected source. As for the name of the archaeological site, it does indeed derive from the geographical feature that overlay it for millennia, but that is the name that it now and forever will be known by. Compare Altamira, Meadowcroft, Monte Verde, all toponyms that now primarily refer to archaeological sites located in these various places.Prohairesius (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"ethnic claims to ownership of GT that have bedeviled it since it was first discovered" sources for this assertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.124.19 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Check the comments appended to the Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html?viewAll=y&page=3Prohairesius (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I loved the Babylonian Kurds. But I had to give up reading the comments - who knew so many crazies would comment on a Smithsonian article? Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

lead focus on too much detail, forgot the main stuff

The lead starts by discussing technical specs, it should first let people know what it is and how old it is. technical measurements should be in the body. --Inayity (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography Needed

Can someone please add a Bibliography to this article. I have no idea what Schmidt 1990 means as someone wanting to verify the content. This is why I prefer links to articles because then people can actually read and learn for themselves. This is why I put in the National Geographic as a link. --Inayity (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"a few epipaleothic finds"

Concerning the reference to "a few epipaleolithic finds as well": Yes, it would be nice if a citation supporting this statement were added, but the statement itself is problematic because it's too vague. What epipaleolithic finds? The epipaleolithic/mesolithic periodization refers to a period of transition from a nomadic, foraging lifestyle to a sedentary one characterized by the domestication of plants and animals. Exactly what features at GT can be associated with this transition? Tagging the statement with "citation needed" seems to me to simply avoid the problem by appeal to some notional authority that will supply the needed specifics. Examples of these "epipaleothic finds" should be expressly given in this section of the page, in conjunction with a supporting citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Commerce before religion

The archeologists who opine on sites such as Gobekli Tepe may be forgiven for sharing the blinders that their profession has created over the decades: that all major structures from prehistory must be for religious purposes. In our modern era, many great structures have been constructed for the purpose of worship. Far more great structures have been erected for the purpose of conducting trade. The World Trade Towers, Chicago's Merchandise Mart, the great Downtown department stores, and the multitude of suburban shopping malls are all grand structures that have nothing to do with religion. Is it so unreasonable to consider that in an area known to be a cross-roads for trade caravans, that centers for barter might be profitable enough to warrant investing time and manpower in their construction?

In a modern shopping mall, we navigate to the location where we can conduct our trade by symbols: want a computer, visit the store with the Apple or the yellow sales tag. Need a mobile phone, stop in the stall with the stylized globe. The symbols carefully carved into the GT pillars might well represent types of goods that are traded there; those who wish to barter gather in a designated location to meet and negotiate trades, perhaps aided by translators who can assist communication among merchants speaking many languages. The administrators of the site make their profit in the same way as modern mall owners, by taking a cut of the successful trades.

It seems me that a far stronger case can be made for constructing a trade center that would be active and profitable year round, compared with a temple that would be used occasionally, when investing skilled labor in a location where there are no permanent settlements. If you look at Stonehenge as a trade center rather than as a sun-worship temple, the centuries long occupation and effort expended in making it larger and more permanent make more sense. Similarly, Gobekli Tepe makes no sense as a temple in the middle of nowhere, but excellent economic sense as a shopping mall.

IMHO Edward ArnoldChieddie (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but see WP:NOTFORUM - discussions like this are not appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I find your comment officious, unnecessary and rude, Dougweller. I consider Edward's comment well made. There is a disturbing slavishness to the canon of Wiki rules that militate AGAINST the betterment of wiki. That is why the rule that no rule should be used suh that it impedes the development of wiki and its aims WP:IAR was created. Instead of your unhelpful, and destructive terseness how about spending your energies on finding ways to improve the article to address the logical bias identified? Slavishly mouthing received information seems to me to be worse than remaining silent. LookingGlass (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm rude, officious, etc and your comments "slavishly mouthing received information seems to me to be worse than remaining silent" isn't? The only problem with my comment is that I didn't explain the major point. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources have to say about a subject - the relevant policies here are WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR and WP:RS gives guidance on finding reliable sources. Some original research is permitted on talk pages but it still has to be based on sources, not on what we as editors simply think might have been the case. WP:IAR doesn't allow us to ignore the need for sources. Current theories about Stonehenge, by the way, are mainly divided into those who think it was a place to bury and honor the dead of the British Isles and those who think it was a place of healing, although there are of course other ideas. As for Gobekli Tepe itself, some people think it might have been lived in, others see it as a burial site. We can find sources for those opinions. If you think it was used for something else, then you are welcome to show sources for those opinions. Rather than criticize me, why not do something yourself? Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair I did think Chieddie was using the space as a forum. But it is borderline. Looking glass remark seems on the strong side, maybe there is a prior relationship (who knows--I don't). But I have come across some admins who are officious where it really stalls development. But I do not see that here.--Inayity (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Klaus Schmidt

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads - "Since the mid-1990s, it is excavated by a German archaeological team under the direction of Klaus Schmidt." The name 'Klaus Schmidt' links to a Wikipedia article about Klaus D. Schmidt, an Austrian mathematician and retired professor at the Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna. Is this the same Klaus Schmidt who is excavating Gobekli Tepe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.239.86 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, and I've created a stub for the archaeologist. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Göbekli Tepe is the most important archaeological site in the world."

Hi Doug. I changed the cite because the original was from the Daily Mail. I couldn't find any other source for the quote (bar the one I added) and if the replacement comes from a fringe writer, then perhaps its best just to remove it entirely? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I almost mentioned the the DM isn't the best source for an RS in my edit summary - it's pretty much trivia and I agree, remove it. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done with pleasure. I definitely agree about the Daily Mail not being RS.. (See: User talk:Hillbillyholiday81/Tabloid_Terminator#Daily_Mail) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Language

I've just done some copy editing on the first half of the article, to render it into more fluent English. This passage could use some help: "Several quarries where round workpieces had been produced were identified. Their interpretation was confirmed by the find of a 3 by 3 m piece at the southeastern slope of the plateau. Their function is not yet clear." What is meant by "their interpretation?" GemeinerPfennig (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. "Their interpretation" means determining that these quarries are quarries and these workpieces are workpieces... --Sar Kissatim (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I will make it, "Several quarries where round workpieces had been produced were identified. Their status as quarries was confirmed by the find of a 3 by 3 m piece at the southeastern slope of the plateau," and perhaps you can elaborate at some point if you have time. Good day! GemeinerPfennig (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Does Nanzhuangtou predate Göbekli Tepe?

On Nanzhuangtou's article, it is stated that the culture began around 12600 BCE. Does this mean it predates Göbekli Tepe? If so does this mean that Göbekli Tepe did not, in fact predate the neolithic revolution, but rather the neolithic revolution had not yet reached them? Ace45954 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed that, it should have been 12600-11300 cal BP. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Annunaki

"Very ancient gods without individual names." The truth is that we don't know what they were called. Kortoso (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Site Map?

I think a map of the site itself, showing what has been excavated and what is thought to be there from geophysics, would be a good addition to this article if anyone has one. Reading it it is quite hard to get a "feel" for the site layout just from the text.82.71.30.178 (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No settlements found, no water

Gürcütepe is a settlement within sight of Göbekli Tepe and is situated on a stream. Dates from about the same period. OR: Couldn't this be the home of Göbekli Tepe's builders/worshippers/whatever? Perhaps I will find a source with an archaeologist discovering the same... Kortoso (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Name

The ancient Armenian name of Göbekli Tepe, Portasar, which was Turkified by means of exact translation from Armenian ("the hill of the navel") was, surprisingly, not posted. Please explain the reason and based on what Wiki regulation this was done. Thank you.71.191.9.3 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

User:Prohairesius give his/her reasons in two edit summaries: "Look, I do understand the impulse to right the wrongs done to the Armenians by the Young Turks in the wake of WWI; but laying claim to GT is an entirely inappropriate, not to say absurd (given the time frame) to proceed. Anyone else want to step up?" and "Look, I do understand the impulse to right the wrongs done to the Armenians by the Young Turks in the wake of WWI; but laying claim to GT is an entirely inappropriate, not to say absurd (given the time frame) to proceed. Anyone else want to step up?"

I've seen a number of attempts to suggest that it was Armenians who built this, despite the fact that there were no Armenians for thousands of years after it was built. Indeed, and I doubt that is a coincidence, a website discussing Stars and Stones[1] says "Armenian is one of the oldest languages of the region/Armenian Highlands and surrounding areas, Small Asia/which, according to the recent studies, was a spoken language 8000-9000 years ago." - not what our article Armenian language suggests at all. This sort of claim was mentioned on this page earlier, see [2] which correctly says "There is nothing Kurdish about Göbekli Tepe. There is nothing Armenian or Turkish. There's nothing anything. Any ethnic attachment is inappropriate. Turkey is only mentioned due to the physical location of the site. Leave ethnic wrangling out.".

Then of course there's the use of a fringe author, Andrew Collins. Please don't bother to try to use Graham Hancock either. Neither of them meet WP:RS for this issue. Doug Weller (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight. Adding an alternative name or names to a toponym, such as GT, is viewed by Wiki editors as an “impulse to right the wrongs done to the Armenians by the Young Turks in the wake of WWI” and an attempt to “lay claim that it was Armenians who built it”? Dear Sirs, in illimitable vastness of Wikipedia articles readers come across thousands of cases where modern geographical, personal or other names are provided with alternative versions they are known under by other ethnic groups or in earlier historical periods. As just one example, Mount Ararat is given both in Turkish: Ağrı Dağı and Armenian: Արարատ or Masis Մասիս. Moreover, the article provides the readers with the mountain’s other names and etymology. So, I guess, my question is: what particular rule or regulation do you go by when you deny the inclusion of an alternative name to a geographical place, especially in the case of GT where its modern name is a literal corruption of an earlier Armenian name meaning “the hill of the navel”? What does this have to do with the mass extermination of the Armenians by the Turks or laying a foolish claim that it was the Armenians who built this Neolithic complex? Sorry, but I see no point in this. There is also a Kurdish name of GT that I just found out and wished to add. Will this, too, be viewed by distinguished editors in the light of “righting the wrongs done to the Armenians by the Turks” or “laying claim that it was Kurds who built it”?

Also, what Wiki rule or regulation determines whether an author of a published source is fringe or non-fringe? Thank you.71.191.9.3 (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

Consensus. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. In Consensus, in the section “Consensus-building in talk pages” we learn that “if an edit is challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia.” I received no explanation as to how the removal of an alternative name of Göbekli Tepe improves the article. Instead, I was given certain User:Prohairesius, not even a Wiki editor, whose comment contains nothing remotely applicable to reasonable explanation. “Righting the wrongs done to the Armenians by the Turks” or “laying claim to GT as a site built by the Armenians” have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that GT had other names. Editors then brought up an archival comment, which says: “There is nothing Kurdish about Göbekli Tepe. There is nothing Armenian or Turkish. Any ethnic attachment is inappropriate. Turkey is only mentioned due to the physical location of the site. Leave ethnic wrangling out.” Okay. But still, exactly how adding an alternative name to the site physically located in Turkey relates to ethnic attachment or, even funnier, “ethnic wrangling”? A great number of Wikipedia articles contain modern toponyms or ethnonyms with their earlier ethnic or historical names, normally provided in parentheses immediately after them and/or in the main text (again, the article on Mount Ararat is just one of many such examples). How do you explain inclusion of many in the great number of your other articles and the removal of one in this article? Thank you.71.191.9.3 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

And I'd be grateful if you direct me to a Wiki rule or regulation, which determines what author of a published source is considered "fringe" and based on what criteria. Thanks.71.191.9.3 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

What do you mean when you say User:Prohairesius isn't even a "Wiki" - we call it Wikipedia, by the way, not Wiki, editor? You can read WP:FRINGE or ask about a specific source at WP:RSN. Also see WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that the word "User" in User:Prohairesius indicates that he or she might not be a WIKIPEDIA editor, no? Thank you for providing a link to WP:FRINGE. Will investigate it to understand Wikipedia's policies towards the authors of published sources. And I look forward to receiving Wikipedia editors' explanation for the removal of an edit containing other name for Göbekli Tepe, especially in light of existence of alternative names for various toponyms or ethnonyms in great many other Wikipedia articles. Thank you.71.191.9.3 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

I see your confusion. Everyone who edits at all is an editor, be it a talk page or an article or any other page. We call them users, and their talk pages are "User talk" - yours is [[User talk:71.191.9.3|talk]]. Normally each article is considered on its own. A clear instance is whether to use BCE or BC - see WP:ERA. Thus one article on Judaism might be BCE but another BC - until there is consensus at the talk page to change it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think the example of BCE or BC is suitable for this occasion. There you have a linguistic innovation (BCE) designed to lessen the sensitivity of a religious group. Here, if we accept that each article is considered on its own, we have a modern place name, which represents a direct translation of a more ancient Armenian toponym, and another one in the language of the Kurds (Gire Navoke) who, after Armenians were mass murdered, now inhabit the area. Therefore, I think it is relevant to include both Armenian and Kurdish names for the site. Any historian will testify that the area was inhabited by the Armenians millennia before the Turks. I just don’t see a point in removing the edit. How can a statement of a historical and toponymical fact be an “ethnic wrangling”? Not as an analogy for this article, but only as food for thought. The whole world knows Biblical Mount Ararat as “Mount Ararat”. Turks changed it, as they did to many other geographical place names, to “Ağrı Dağı”. However, both names co-exist in Wikipedia however sorrowful this might be for the Christians. What is such a big deal with GT?71.191.9.3 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

I was only giving that as an example, not suggesting which era style we should use. There isn't another we can use. Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Source for Portasar

A necessary condition to keep the word in is an academic source. The fact that the Armenian version of this article doesn't have one, and the only English sources seem to be fringe, is worrying. You'd think there would be one. Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to get one, Doug. Thanks.71.191.9.3 (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

Felice Cesarino as a source

User:Felix caesar added " Felice Cesarino, "A Gobekli Tepe la più antica forma di scrittura della storia dell'umanità?", Archeomisteri 3,2013,pg.15-21 * Felice Cesarino, "Lascimmia ambiziosa". Arbor Sapientiae Ed., 2015, ISBN 978-88-97805-62-5" as references earlier, and today a claim for proto-writing. User:RA0808 reverted the first, I reverted today's claim. I reverted because any such claim would be so important that it would be picked up by experts in the field. I find this source - not sure if it's an RS or not, which says his ideas have been ignored. Archeomisteri is a clearly fringe journal - his name is on it here[3] and if you scroll through you'll see how bad it is. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Building of the structure

If the carbon-dating is accurate, even with the margin of error, how would Neolithic peoples build this site with "primitive stone tools"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is evidence that the site was intentionally buried. Why? I can't imagine semi-nomadic peoples building such a sophisticated and detailed site. Images of the site show an high level of knowledge in mathematics and technical skill. If the site proves to be astronomically aligned, it also shows a high level of astronomical knowledge. I think to be fair, alternate theories need to be presented as well. See: Hancock, Graham "Magicians of the Gods" (2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayofthegunn (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please review policies regarding fringe theories here at Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, a place for reliable academia, not a place to advance off-topic, fringe agendas or ideas. Sorry. That fluff belongs on your blog, not here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• "This is a place for reliable academia", huh? Lol... In article Garden of Eden, as just an example, I tried, unsuccessfully, to make an edit in the Proposed Locations section, where it says that "Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars". I've added several references to the works of reliable academics, such as Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, Gary Greenberg, John Morris, and Ephraim Speiser--all proposing various physical, not mythological, locations for the Garden. Yet, none of them were accepted by the all-knowing editors of Wikipedia, and the sentence in Proposed Locations now reads that "there is some popular speculation about its possible former location." It's not a popular speculation, okay? It's the works of several respectable scholars specializing on the subject. So, next time don't give us this crap about Wikipedia "being a place for reliable academia".71.191.0.18 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian
  • That IP was you? And you are still pushing Senior Trial Attorney Greenberg as an academic? Doug Weller talk 17:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Might you be the same editor who included folklorist and poet Howard Schwartz; mythologist Arthur George; Catholic church chronicler Jean Delumeau; poet and novelist Robert Graves; and Jewish folklorist Raphael Patai as distinguished figures in “reliable academia” for references that support the nonsense that “most” scholars consider the Garden of Eden to be mythological in Garden of Eden? Go ahead, exclude Greenberg, but leave Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, John Morris, and Ephraim Speiser as scholars proposing the Garden’s physical location. Dare you do that?71.191.0.18 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian

No to the question, and you seem to be lost. Please don't post about another article here. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• My post was in response to user: GenQuest about Wikipedia being "a place for reliable academia". His remark was posted here and I therefore responded here with an example from another article. I know where I am.71.191.0.18 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian
• Whenever readers attempt to make changes based on the works of such authors as Graham Hancock, Andrew Collins, Frank Joseph, etc., they bump into the editors' denunciation of these authors as fringe. Whereas many of alternate theories that these authors advance deserve to be at least taken into account.71.191.0.18 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian
  • It's a shame that vandals continue to deface this article with their ethnic sticker tags. Thank you, Doug, for your vigilance. And you cranks, with your petty agendas, enough!Prohairesius (talk)
• What do admins normally do, according to Wikipedia policies, against a user who uses profanities ("cranks", for example)? Please attend. I have no clue as to who or what might have irked this Prohairesius guy, but since when does Wikipedia consider users who offer edits “vandals” and since when thousands of alternate toponyms found in Wikipedia articles are considered “ethnic sticker tags”? Maybe it makes sense to remove them from all relevant articles? Why have Greek Konstantinoúpolis; Latin Constantinopolis; Ottoman Turkish Qustantiniyye‎; modern Turkish İstanbul; Bulgarian Цариград for Constantinople in article Constantinople? Or Spanish Tejas for Texas in article Texas? Or Turkish Ağrı Dağı and traditional Armenian Masis for Mt Ararat in article Mount Ararat? Or the French rendering Messipi of the Anishinaabe name for the river Misi-ziibi for Mississippi in article Mississippi River? Why have all these petty “ethnic sticker tags” there? According to, mildly speaking, logic of types like Prohairesius, there was no history before the current day. The Old World settlers, not the Indians or the Spanish, lived in America from the times immemorial. Turks always lived in Asia Minor and never came from Central Asian steppes in the 11th century AD. Ancient Egyptians never lived along the banks of the Nile River, only modern-day Muslim Egyptians always did. Right? RIGHT?71.191.0.18 (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian
• By the way, the earlier Armenian name of Göbekli Tepe (Portasar) is given in the accounts of English author Andrew Collins and Scottish author Graham Hancock. One hell of an "ethnic" sticker tag, I guess...71.191.0.18 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian

Explaining abbreviations

The table in the Dating section contains the abbreviations "Date BP" and "Cal BCE". These should be explained. Does "BP" stand for "before present" and "Cal BCE" for "calibrated before common era"? If so, the numbers don't seem to match up. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)