Something About Göbekli Tepe No Longer Makes Sense

Comments · 344

• RO

  @robertoriggio117 · 4 weeks ago

  This video could have been a minute long. They spent 22 minutes making one point: modern techniques have exposed that only 5% of the site has been excavated, and it looks like there were dwellings alongside the temple. That's it! In other words, we don't have enough study or evidence to come to Schmidt's absurd conclusion.

  98

• HE

  @hexenex · 4 weeks ago

  Great description and considerations. One statement to be pointed out. 5% excavated could not necessarily mean 5% of the information. It could be 5%, 1%, 50%, or something else. We do not know.

  33

• JA

  @jameswalker7899 · 3 weeks ago (edited)

  This was a nice update of earlier research, and the evolving understanding of human history. Warmest compliments. Thank you, sir.

  2

• BA

  @BatteryIncluded · 8 days ago (edited)

  The problem is that the common layman does not understand how anthropology works and how slow it advances. &nbsp;From day one, the scientists had to give a preliminary context in order to explain the importance of this site. &nbsp;This preliminary context is NOT the final conclusion. &nbsp;Having excavated only 5% of the site, the data and context evolved changed and WILL change again several times. Evidence drives understanding. Invoking fantasies like Atlantis and Wakanda will do absolutely nothing to improve actual understanding. It will take 100-200 years to complete excavations and assessments. And by then the assessments will have evolved multiple times.<br>When science changes, it did not lie to you. It learned more and self-adjusted. &nbsp;Self-correction is a feature of science, and you cannot expect it to reach an accurate conclusion so early in the project that will likely take over one century. &nbsp;As data flows and understanding improves, the context will change again and again.

  3

• BA

  @BatteryIncluded · 8 days ago

  An honest summary and update without sourcing that con artist by the name of Graham Hancock.<br>Suscribed!

  2

• JE

  @jennifermerva9538 · 1 day ago

  I hope I live long enough when they find more information on these sites.

• GW

  @GwynCann · 4 weeks ago

  Great presentation. &nbsp;I&apos;m sort of addicted to these essays.

  14

• BI

  @billeib427 · 4 weeks ago

  who ever these people were, they lived there along time, enough time for knowledge to grow, particularly working with stone. &nbsp;Our ancestors have been creating art since the dawn of time. &nbsp;And patience, that is the magic that gets large things done by human strength itself, plus the innate inventiveness humanoids have. &nbsp;Humans have not stopped inventing. &nbsp;They were humans, with thinking brains, problem solving, imagination. &nbsp;No outside force, just early humans surviving with a robustness that surprises modern day humans. l

  32

• FR

  @Friendo111 · 3 weeks ago

  It must have taken years to construct the temples, so of course there were dwellings for the people that built it.

  1

• WI

  @WilliamKirkland-j4r · 4 weeks ago

  Science is made one death at a time. Someone famous said such back whenever. Thanks.

  6

• RO

  @robinparker6178 · 3 weeks ago

  Ok, everyone has a theory about whether or not Gobekli tepe was filled in on purpose to preserve the sight. So here&apos;s my 2 cents worth, think about it, the world was going through or just went through the younger dryas ( sorry for all the misspelled words). It was probably getting close to an emergency situation. The elders knew that they had to leave the area but wanted to have their site preserved if they were able to return. That means that they had to fill in the site as fast as possible. Now, I don&apos;t know what was happening to the area and the people but if the situation was getting worse than they would have to hurry up and finish the coverage meaning of course there would be areas where great care was taken and because of the emergency, less care might have been used just so the job was completed before they had to leave. It makes sense to me but I would have to study the younger dryas more carefully to understand what was happening to the world.

  1

• TI

  @timstorey7915 · 3 weeks ago

  Martin Sweatman’s paper was not from 1917 lol. Maybe 2017.

  9