Talk:Göbekli Tepe: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

Archaeology C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive bar

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

The effort to rename, or add another name in addition to Gobekli Tepe, seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Gobekli Tepe refers to two things, a not very impressive mountain ridge, notable mainly for a single mulberry tree near the peak that Muslims used to (maybe still do) hang written prayers on. Since 1996 it also refers to an archaeological site discovered near the peak. Portasar, I take it, is the Armenian name for the mountain ridge (I forget the Kurdish name). If you want to start a page about the mountain ridge, and identify it as Portasar, please do. Although even that would be problematic, because I assume people near the mountain continue to refer to it as Gobekli Tepe, so to be fair you would need to add that name. And the Kurds, or a couple of Kurds anyway who have edited this page in the past, would probably want their name for the mountain ridge to be added. Fine.

This page, however is not about the mountain ridge. It's about the archaeological find Klaus Schmidt discovered near the top, under it to be precise, of this mountain ridge. If we knew what the people who built the temene and the other buildings called the archaeological site originally, we might call it that, like Machu Picchu. Unfortunately it was built way before writing was invented, so we have no way of knowing. By (another) convention the site takes its name from what the majority of locals call it; there's any number of parallels I could cite. As some Kurdish or Armenian editors who want to add their name for the place have quite reasonably pointed out on the Talk page, this is an entirely artificial convention. And they're right. But Schmidt had to name his discovery, his 'baby' as it were, something, so he had recourse to the convention of naming it after what most if not all of the locals call it. This name was immediately taken up by scholars who work on prehistoric monuments or who publish on the practices of early Neolithic people. We ought to respect that now–twenty-year-old tradition. Efforts to rename it are not going to be adopted by the majority of scholars or anyone else.

• This is not an effort to "rename", please refrain from twisting comments made by other users. This is an effort to ADD more ancient or alternative, if you like, names: Armenian and Kurdish, to a current placename. Similar to thousands other WIkipedia articles where current and ancient or alternative names peacefully coexist.--96.231.0.237 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

So please create a new page about the mountain ridge (even if it might not be very exciting), and call it Portasar if you like. In the meantime I intend to add this alternative name to the article in a footnote together with the Kurdish one. That's fair.User:Prohairesius

• The readers still don't see the alternative--and more ancient than Turkish--Armenian and Kurdish names of GT.--96.231.0.237 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
  • You still miss the point. This article is about the archaeological site, not the geographical locality. There are no ancient names as the archaeology wasn't known. There's a distinction between the finds and the geographical location. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of my suggestions were about the geographical locality, its more ancient and alternative names, to be precise, and not about the current archaeological site which is known in archaeological circles and beyond as Göbekli Tepe. By the way, many archaeological sites are named after the geographical localities where they were found, therefore, this "archaeological site vs geographical locality" argument is weak. First of all, it is incorrect to state that Göbekli Tepe is the name of an archaeological site, because the name denotes a hill, i.e. a geographical locality. Secondly, the article does mention that the site sits atop a mountain ridge, read: a geographical locality. What then stops Wikipedia editors to add all names the ridge was known under?--96.231.0.237 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
      • Two things stop us. First, the name of the site and the name of the locality are not the same thing. It would perhaps be appropriate to mention the Armenian and Kurdish names of "Potbelly Hill" somewhere in the article, but not give these equal weight in the lead, because (to my knowledge) the archaeological site has never been referred to by those names. Second, although there have been attempts to insert this into the articles for years now, we have yet to see a reliable source with which we can verify that these are in fact the Kurdish and Armenian names. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Archaeological site is a piece of land (read: a topographically distinct geographical tract) on which something—a building, a structure or ruins visible above natural or unearthed ground—is located. The name of this archaeological site is identical to the geographical tract of land where the site was unearthed, and denotes a hill, i.e. a natural geographical elevation. Name-wise, therefore, the site and the locality are the same thing, repeat: name-wise. And again, the attempts to insert alternative, and more ancient, names into the article pertain to the name of the geographical locality, and not the name of the archaeological site. As for reliable sources, I’m told Wikipedia admins a priori stigmatize all of them as fringe.--96.231.0.237 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
          • I think you're getting needlessly sidetracked into ontology. The main problem is the lack of sources. We have very clear guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source at WP:RS. If these are widely used names then they shouldn't be hard to produce: any atlas would do.

With that said, I'm sorry but it's simply not true that sites automatically take the the name of the geographical feature they're sat on. They might be named after that, or a nearby settlement, or the name of the region plus a number, or a historical name. The person who discovers it has the privilege of defining the site's canonical name and the subsequent literature generally respects that, even if it transpires the original name was in some way not "correct" or if the thing it was based on changes its name. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • If you fail to produce evidence where in this talk I wrote that “[archaeological] sites automatically take the name of the geographical feature they’re sat on”, I’d expect an apology. Scroll up, I wrote: “many archaeological sites are named after the geographical localities where they were found”. If you think I got sidetracked into ontology, I fear you might have a reading comprehension predicament. With that said, what “any” atlas you require for just one hill in the geographical vastness of the largely mountainous Eastern Asia Minor?--96.231.0.237 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Added an academic source for the Armenian term, which was instantaneously removed by the editors. The source is "Language as a Fingerprint: Perspectives on the Cradle of Civilization and the Armenian Language" by non-fringe author Vahan Setyan. On p. 31, the author states: "The site was renamed Göbekli Tepe, which is literally translated from Portasar = Arm. Port (Navel) + (a) + Arm. Sar (Hill)".--71.191.1.192 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Fringe and non-academic. Self-published by someone with organisational psychology qualifications who thinks that The Armenian alphabet reveals the atomic numbers of some metal elements. Doug Weller talk 05:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if folklorists, mythologists, poets, chroniclers, and novelists can form “majority” of “scholars” by standards of Wikipedia editors to consider Garden of Eden to be mythological (see: Proposed locations in Garden of Eden), why, by same standards, can’t an organizational psychology specialist have a say on the original name of Göbekli Tepe?--71.191.1.192 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

I think you're lost, this isn't the [{Garden of Eden]] article so it's inappropriate to discuss this here. Interesting that you seem to think a source that thinks the Armenian alphabet reveals the atomic numbers of some metal elements is appropriate to use as a source. Or are you just trolling? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I’m just making fun of overall competence of certain--not all--Wikipedia editors… Garden of Eden is brought just as one example of such incompetence. I know where I am. I also know which Wikipedia editor keeps deleting Armenian Highlands as a proposed location for Garden of Eden.--71.191.1.192 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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[reply]
• 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[reply]
  • 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[reply]
• 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[reply]
  • Fringe authors, not reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • These authors were brought up in retort to a crackbrained claim made by "Prohairesius" in that users who suggest edits are "vandals defacing the article with their ethnic sticker tags", and as a demonstration of the fact that ancient names of GT are mentioned in the works of English and Scottish--not Armenian or Kurdish--authors. Therefore, whether these authors are fringe or not is totally irrelevant here.--96.231.0.237 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Hi there, quick question: The method by which this complex was constructed will likely remain elusive forever seeing as we do not possess a time machine. Is it not more beneficial for human knowledge to provide theories (highly vetted and cited of course) as to how this could have been accomplished as opposed to nothing at all because no method can be proven? I'm not talking about supporting bonkers ideas like they built little cranes out of wood or a ramp of sand or rolled enormous stones across many logs, I am referring to the physical requirements to move the blocks, i.e. how much force would be required to remove the blocks from the quarry, move them across land, and hoist them on top of each other. The theory of immaculate conception has its own page for Christ's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmringel (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BCE is the new hip way to say "B.C.", so give or take 2016 years. Kortoso (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this doesn't work out: the first pair of dates is given as BP: 8430 ± 80 "BCE":7560–7370, thus means of 8430 and 7465, which are 965 years apart, when they should be something like 1965 years apart. Can anyone sort out what is wrong? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"B and C produced somewhat younger dates, i.e. 8960 ± 85 BP (c. 8300-7800 cal. BC 2σ; Ua 19562) and 8430 ± 80 BP (c. 7600-7200 cal. BC 2σ; Ua 19561;"[4] another rsource L9-76 PPNA-EPPNB Oldest Ua-19561 8430 ± 80 9550–9260 Calibrated age BP.[5] 9550+50 (roughly) = 9600, take away 2000 and you have 7600. I'm not sure where you get the 1965. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table of radiocarbon dates seems off. BP dates should be around 1950 years different than the BCE dates, and the ranges do not match. I don't know enough about the topic to correct the table, however. Whateley23 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Doug mentioned above, the dates on the left are uncalibrated radiocarbon dates and the ones on the right are calibrated. You wouldn't expect them to be ~1950 years apart or for the ranges to match. It seems to be causing confusion and I don't see the encyclopaedic value in presenting uncal dates, so I've gone ahead and removed them from the table. Joe Roe (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the addition of the reference: http://timemaps.net/timemap/ wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ Gheorghiu_Gobekli_Tepe.pdf this is not a copyright infringement; the PDF document to which the link leads is simply the substantiation of the argument introduced by researcher Dragos Gheorghiu in Interpretation section of the Gobekli Tepe article.

The link leads to the site of the copyright holder and author of the article (Dragos Gheorghiu). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.217.16 (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, the chapter does say "© Archaeopress and the authors 2015" and Gheorghiu, the author of the chapter, is the project coordinator. It still needs page numbers, and I don't think reports the source accurately. The source says "The current interpretation of the round enclosures as sanctuaries (Schmidt 2010) seems justified by the reading of the iconography as a cosmogonic map, which would relate the local community to the surrounding landscape and the cosmos." He doesn't say he is expanding on Schmidt but but justifying him. We shouldn't try to interpret what he says. And the quotation needs correct punctuation, where does it start? Doug Weller talk 15:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the work of Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017) in the Journal Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry which provides an alternative interpretation for symbolism at Gobekli Tepe, edits by FireDrake were undone by Doug Weller. However, the cited work is a verifiable and reliable source. The article has been peer-reviewed and published in a mainsteam archaeological journal. The reason given for undoing the edit is that the main author, Martin Sweatman, is a Chemical Engineer. This is irrelevant. The journal in which it is published is mainstream archaeology, with a highly respected Editor in the archaeological community. I will undo the undoing by Doug Weller unless a better reason is given by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDrake (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Doug on this one. The paper is published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, but it's brand new and its conclusions are—to put it politely—eccentric. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS, we should avoid basing too much of an article on bleeding-edge interpretations in the primary research publications; we can't properly assess the due weight to give to these claims until they've been reviewed in secondary literature. In the meantime I wouldn't include more than a brief reference (one line at the most). – Joe (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would vote for a brief mention. Maybe a couple sentences distilling the essence. It's a fascinating hypothesis. TimidGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure about that I'm sure there will be responses, if nothing else the Younger Dryas being caused by a meteor stream is a controversial subject, as is Catastrophism. We shouldn't be leading the pack with this. NOTNEWS etc. There's no rush. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Graham Hancock?[6] Presumably because the press release is from a British university, it's getting media coverage. All saying more or less the same thing, nothing I can find with any commentary from archaeologists or indeed any academics. Again, WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We must expect more of this - there's a completely uncritical write-up of a press release in today's The Times (p.34). Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the idea that the animal carvings represent constellations? Are there other scholars who have suggested this? Abductive (reasoning) 04:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick and dirty search, popular with fringe from Hancock down, can't find scholars, didn't try Gscholars, sorry. Doug Weller talk 05:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just removed it from Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, I expect I'll be reverted. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • A quote from Jasonn Colavito: "The article called “Decoding Göbekli Tepe with Archaeoastronomy: What Does the Fox Say?” was published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 17, No 1, (2017), pp. 233-250. It was written by Martin B. Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis, both engineers—not archaeologists—from the University of Edinburgh’s School of Engineering. While the authors do not cite Graham Hancock, they do cite Collins and list in their bibliography most of the same papers about the so-called Younger Dryas comet impact that Hancock cites, and there is more than a hint of Hancock and especially Collins in the authors’ assertion that Göbekli Tepe should (a) be interpreted astronomically and (b) is the “smoking gun” in proving that the comet really did hit the Earth around 10,900 BCE."
      • Also, they claim a "sudden melting of the Laurentide ice sheet and immense flooding across large areas of North America." - Not what the geologists say. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How has Wikipedia come to this strange state - a clear bias. Preferring non peer reviewed opinions (e.g. Jason Colavito) to peer reviewed scientific literature? Also, as has been said previously by FireDrake, that the authors are not archaeologists is irrelevant. As for the view that this work is eccentric - how is your opinion (Joe Roe) of greater weight than a published article in a mainstream journal? I agree with TimidGuy - it deserves a mention - and so does the site's archaeologists blog with their rebuttal - even tough that is not actually published! Yes, the topic might be controversial, but there is no Wikipedia rule about censoring controversial material. It is certainly within the bounds of physics, i.e. it is not impossible. No, this is not just NEWS - it is published in a mainstream archaeological journal. The site archaeologists disagree. We can state both points of view for accuracy. Why are you all taking one side? As for Graham Hancock - this has nothing to do with him. I repeat, this has been published in a mainstream archaeological journal with a highly respectable editor in the field. I will revert the edit unless someone can come up with a better reason for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@MystifiedCitizen: A belated explanation, because I realise the discussion above won't be clear if you're not familiar with Wikipedia's norms. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means our mission is to reflect the current state of knowledge with due weight given to all significant viewpoints. To assess how significant a viewpoint is on a scientific topic, we rely on secondary and tertiary sources (e.g. review articles, monographs and textbooks), which capture the consensus within a field of study. Original research papers like this one are considered primary sources and only reflect the single viewpoint of the authors. Until they've been digested and discussed by the wider field, it's impossible to judge whether it's a significant viewpoint, or something that will turn out to be a minority view, or flat out wrong. This means we can't always cover the latest research, but that's okay: Wikipedia (and encyclopaedias in general) don't aim to be on the cutting edge. We can afford to wait a few years to see how these claims are received before incorporating them into the article.

Peer review lends some legitimacy to a viewpoint but it's by no means perfect. In fact this case is an excellent example of why we shouldn't put blind faith in peer review. The authors claim to have made an important discovery that changes many established narratives in Near Eastern archaeology. However, rather than appearing in one of the major periodicals that cover Near Eastern archaeology (e.g. Antiquity, Levant, Paléorient), they have submitted it in an obscure journal that doesn't usually publish this kind of thing. So yes, it is technically in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal", but in this case the peer review process seems to have malfunctioned. And believe me, the reputation of the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry and its editorial practices will suffer for it. – Joe (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Firedrake created two sockpuppets pushing the same authors after editing here.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake. The socks are blocked. Firedrake hasn't been blocked, presumably because he hasn't edited since editing here. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the edit by MystifiedCitizen. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [7]] E.g. "Contrary to the article’s premise the unearthed features at Göbekli Tepe are not shrouded in mystery." Doug Weller talk 19:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so having read through all of this it appears some balance is needed.The opinion that the journal within which this is published is obscure is rather odd - the Editor is well known and respected in the archaeological community. Indeed, the impact factor of the journal, a measure often used to convey the standing of a journal, places it as a top quartile journal in the field. The view that the peer review process has malfunctioned is quite a strong statement. What evidence is there for this? Have you written to the Journal Editor, Joe Roe? Now, the site archaeologists have responded to this work, and it is true they dispute its findings. However, the authors respond quite robustly, and from a scientific perspective it appears they have the high ground. Finally, UNDUE is used to block this work from appearing on Wiki. And yet, we see Gheorghiu's 'semiotic' interpretation ' is retained, despite being completely un-refereed. So it seems UNDUE is being used as a blunt weapon to support Joe Roe's bias. I have undone Joes undoing of my edit. Better arguments than this are needed to block it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNeedsEditing (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The balance of the article is maintained through the need for additional material to meet certain standards of academia before its inclusion. This, at this time, does not meet this goal. It may in the future, after it has been digested by the experts in the field. Right now that is not the case. The fact that it is published in a more obscure journal is troubling, and hints at possible agenda pushing from these two non-architecturally educated authors. Please be aware of the Wikipedia protocols for adding to an article, including 3RR and the Edit, Revert, Discuss cycle provisions of editing. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll say again, the journal is not obscure. It is top-quartile in the field. The article has been digested by experts in the field - the site's archaeologists. Their response has been rebutted by the authors, who appear to have the scientific high ground. Please read this material before coming to a judgement. The 'troubling' nature of this work is just your opinion, which does not count as a means to prevent this work receiving its due credit. And, finally, Gheorghiu's 'semiotic' work gets a mention when it is un-refereed with no citations or any other critique. Joe Roe, you are clearly biased. If you continue to undo this edit, I'll ask for a dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNeedsEditing (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAA is not a high profile journal. Scimago says it has low citation rates and is in the second quartile within archaeology. Regardless, that isn't what I meant by "obscure". I meant that it's an unusual venue for a paper on Near Eastern prehistory. For example, none of the previous papers on Gobekli Tepe have appeared in it. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the journal, but it's strange that the authors chose to submit it there. Given that they're not archaeologists themselves, and they're making such bold claims, you'd think they would look for a journal with higher circulation within the discipline.

I also don't mean to imply that there's anything disreputable about the journal or its editorial staff. What makes me think something has gone awry with the peer review process in this instance is that I, and every one of my colleagues I've spoken about it to, thinks this paper is completely crazy.

But let's be clear we're not excluding the article based on my opinion of it. That has nothing to do with it. The consensus was to not include it when it first came out because if we did we would have to present it without any critical commentary. The fact that a highly critical response from the excavators has swiftly appeared in MAA validates that decision. We can perhaps revisit the issue now there are "two sides" in reliable sources, but in my opinion the tone of that response says that Sweatman and Tsikritsis' eccentric conclusions are not a significant viewpoint and should not be included at all. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Gheorghiu's interpretation: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. But I wouldn't be opposed to removing that too. – Joe (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is just your opinion. Everyone I have spoken to about it, within academia, thinks its great because of its strong statistical case.

'Eccentric' is, again, just your opinion. You could be in the minority here. Did you read the response and rebuttal? Science is based on evidence and statistics, not opinion. Clearly, the authors have the scientific high ground in this case - they are the only ones presenting a statistical case. The site's archaeologists could not address this - they could only offer opinion.

Good, I agree. If the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper is blocked, then Gheorghiu's work should also not be mentioned - it is not even refereed. This is why there appears to me a clear case of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.102.192 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the authors disagreed with the experts. How can chemical engineers (one a student), have the scientific high ground over an archaeology issue? WikiNeedsEditing, you don't have a consensus here and not to be rude you don't have any experience on Wikipedia, so you need to consider that just maybe you might not yet have a firm grasp on our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Doug. I am new here. But science is based on evidence and statistics, not opinion. Consensus where? In Wikipedia or academia? How can you know? Being engineers does not prevent them from being experts in archaeology, and vice-versa. Did you even read their response to the archaeologists? They are clearly not amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.102.192 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Other stuff exists. We are not discussing that here, we are discussing your addition, which has now twice been reverted. If you wish to add something this non-mainstream to the article, the impetus is on you to prove why its inclusion is important right now. You do that here by discussion, not edit warring. Wikipedia articles are created by editors using the latest, sources available to that particular field or subject. When something new comes along, it may well be worthy of mention in the articles, eventually, and only if it passes the Reliable sources and Fringe hurdles. The opinions of these two authors as expressed in their journal publication are simply not there yet. Sorry. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is only your opinion that it is 'non-mainsteam'. Okay, so let's wait and see what else appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.102.192 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Trojan War#Astronomical dating?. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it determined that the makers of level III were "hunter-gatherers"? I see this assumed everywhere, but where's the proof that these people were not growing grain near this place? Kortoso (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand (which, admittedly, is limited), it's fairly obvious to determine whether this was a sedentary settlement supported by horticulture or agriculture. Typically there would be a lot of trash -- bones of animals that had been eaten, remnants of storage vessels, hearths, etc. But apparently there's none of that at Gobekli Tepe. So far it seems to be a place where people visited but didn't live there. Of course, much research is yet to be done. TimidGuy (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's answering a different question to the one he asked. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! Whether people were living there or not, is a separate matter. They haven't found anything yet that shows permanent residence, but not everything has been excavated; for now we say "no evidence of permanent settlement, suggesting a cult center (like Stonehenge)".

But of course I was asking about the characterization of the builders as "hunter-gatherers" suggesting a certain level of culture. That area of the Middle East was in the pre-pottery neolithic, and while it was very transitional, I think the use of the term "hunter-gatherer" assumes too much and brings the wrong impression.:Kortoso (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I think it would be good to change the wording. TimidGuy (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source:^[1] It's a word-for-word quote except the essential fact of course. :D I'll just take it out since it doesn't add that much to the article. Kortoso (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

luddite nano pico editors keep refusing to acknowledge the proven history of first writing and civilization c 40,000 to 20,000 bc in not mythical but real Aratta (not to be confused with add'l Aratta in SE Persia); pls add to article as founding culture of Gobekli Tepe and all Europe , Indo Europe all way to China etc

ref: Ancient History of Aratta-Ukraine (20,000 BCE - 1,000 CE) Paperback – January 29, 2015

by Dr Yuri Shilov (Author), Trishula Translations (Translator)

about author / doctor - real ancient archeology pro dr yuri shilov

ab author dr yuri shilov Editorial Reviews About the Author Dr. Yuri Shilov, born Zaporizhia region, Ukraine. Graduate of Moscow State University; doctorate, Ukrainian Academy of Science. Academic appointments: Professor of Ancient History; Professor of Ukrainian Studies, Kyiv; Cossack Military Institute. Head of several public organisations of ancient history and archaeology. Honorary Doctor of Historical Sciences; Professor of the Russian Right Slavic Academy and Inter-regional Academy of Humanities; Head of History, All-Slavic Council; Colonel General of the International Academy of Cossacks. Member of Ukrainian Academy of Original Ideas; International Academy of Humanities; New York Academy of Sciences. Author of hundreds of publications: over 30 books - scientific, journalistic and artistic. Member of the National Union of Writers of Ukraine and Russia.

Dr. Shilov's significant discoveries, gleaned over a lifetime of archaeological investigation of Ukrainian Steppe kurgans and graves, have revised academic understanding of the origins of Indo- Europeans, Aryans and Slavs. He has shown that civilization did not originate from slave-holding Sumer (c.3,200 BCE in Mesopotamia) but began from the community of Aratta (c. 6,800 BCE in the Danube-Dnipro region). For these discoveries he has received international and national honors with monuments in the city of Komsomolsk and the city of Sicheslav (Dnipropetrovsk).

add'l book review: by JD I have waited years for a serious academic book to appear, written in English, that appraises the archaeological cultures that arose in the northern Black Sea lands many millennia before the Sumerian civilisation. This book far exceeds my expectations, not only in the almost encyclopaedic scope of time and territory that it covers, and richness of illustration, but particularly in the hundreds of references to all related and relevant research papers, monographs and textbooks that have appeared since the early 19th century explorations in this subject. Those alone give this book the stamp of authority that allows the critical reader to have complete confidence in the veracity of Shilov’s expansive and detailed understanding of his subject. 

This is a particularly difficult study to explore if you cannot read Ukrainian or Russian to access the wealth of information that is available on the internet in those languages. Personally, I have been awed by the archaeological exhibits of this archaic civilisation in both State and private museums across Ukraine, and purchased many books (in Ukrainian and Russian) by the foremost researchers of the ancient Trypillian civilisation, including the pioneering decipherment of proto-Sumerian petroglyphic texts discovered in Ukraine, but nowhere have I found a book in English that can even closely rival Shilov’s book on Ancient Ukraine. 

This book is almost like a “Rosetta stone” in opening up far more about this fascinating subject than I had ever hoped to find. Of course, sensational new discoveries tend to receive treatments that span a spectrum from applause to disbelief and Shilov’s research and discoveries have evidently attracted both polarisations, from East and West. However, do not be misled into thinking this book is heavily biased towards the Communist doctrines of historical materialism, of which Shilov is openly critical,and do not be surprised to see his scope of review covers research from academics in the US, UK, western and eastern Europe, and Asia. This is an astonishingly thorough book that will be my foremost reference text for many years. It is perhaps the most useful and best value book I have ever bought.

One of the strengths of this book is that it offers a chronology for the plethora of cultural periods of prehistoric Eurasia. Although the majority of academic historians and archaeologists will be perfectly accepting of the veracity of radiocarbon dating techniques that the author here has drawn upon (even though scientific claims for precision of absolute dating of artefacts can still be challenged), one can at least choose to interpret some of the precise dates within this book, such as archaeoastronomical dates, as an acceptable and significant guideline rather than an absolute. 

Perhaps the most exciting revelation in this book, for me, was to read of the discovery of identical archaic texts found in Ukraine and Catal Hoyak which give clear proof of their mutual cultural and spiritual connection across the Black Sea in the dawning of civilisation, radiocarbon dated to 6200 ± 97 BCE. Since those texts clearly predate the famous Romanian Tartaria tablets that have been radiocarbon dated to 5500 BCE and been claimed to be the earliest writing in the world, this book clearly shows that Ukraine has an even more ancient history of civilisation that genuinely deserves attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.131.209 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:FRINGE. If you can provide reliable sources—in English, Ukrainian, Russian or any other language—that backs up these claims then we can include them. However, I can read Ukrainian and Russian and this sounds like absolutely nonsense to me. There is no such thing as the "Aratta civilisation". The prehistoric archaeology of the Danube-Dnipr region is quite well known and bears no resemblance to the tales Dr. Shilov is spinning about it. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see the book and read it vs opposing it without reading it (the book is in English which hopefully you can read, see above ref , available at amazon.com) ! 24.146.191.73 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Johnson, Sr, PhD Gaia (streaming)[reply]

I see he couldn't get a reputable publisher but had to self-publish through CreateSpace. One major indicator we should ignore it. The "Ukrainian Academy of Original Ideas" is a self-styled academy.[8] Anyone can become a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, you just pay your membership fees. When his views starting receiving discussion in academic publications,which seems extremely unlikely, they might be mentioned. Not now. See also this.. Meanwhile, please stop using our talk pages to promote him. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug Weller for your comments on my edits. You write that "Your edits are interesting but lacking sources they can be removed"

Here's what I did:

- Changed the sentence "The tell includes two phases of ritual use" to "The tell includes two phases of use". Not a big thing, but still we should show some humility, and admit that we can't really know how the builders used these structures. Yes, they don't seem to be ordinary houses for living, being too large and too elaborated. Extrapolating from all other human societies we know of it is tempting to call them "ritual" or "sanctuaries", but for all we know they could have had a purely social/political function, or even economic, as market places. So better to use neutral language

- Then I added a paragraph questioning whether these people were hunter-gatherers or not. They have been repeatedly stated as such, also by the excavator Klaus Schmidt. The reasons given are that no remains of domesticated plants or animals have been found. But that could have several reasons. The simplest is that this was a place for special gatherings, maybe ritual in character, and not a place where people lived and cooked. We don't cook and eat in our churches or mosques today either. Another, more interesting reason is that at this early stage of Neolithisation grown crops were still of the wild varieties, so it is hard to say whether remnants of cereals are the result of harvesting wild plants or intentional farming. This is a general problem of archaeology of this period. So I didn't find it necessary to quote an exterior source.

"Hunter-gatherers" usually collects food daily to be eaten immediately. Their mobile life style excludes the possibility of storing food surpluses for later use, as everything they own has to be carried from camp to camp. We know that in the Middle East (and other places?) this was followed by a sedentary life style, with food storage (f.ex. the Natufian culture). It gives the wrong impression calling this stage "hunter-gatherers"; often they are called "hoarders" instead. In favourable conditions hoarders can be quite affluent, being able to finance experts, communal works and a political caste - all the trappings of "complex society" (in archeology now often called "state societies" instead, because all societies are "complex"). In modern times the people on the West coast of the USA was an example of this.

- I also added newer info from archeology showing that the structures at Göbekli Tepe are not so unique as Schmidt thought, but exist in smaller version at several sites. I could add sources for that info if desirable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arekrishna (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Arekrishna. I take your point about how we state the use, but we should say something that reflects the article so I've changed it so it says "believed to be of a social or ritual nature", That's accurate and doesn't make a factual statement in Wikipedia's voice.

I'm moving the questioning of whether they were hunter gatherers here to a section of its own to see if it can be sourced. I understand why you might find sourcing it unnecessary, but this is Wikipedia and sources are required, see WP:VERFIY, even more so as you are challenging the archaeological literature about this site. Not just sources, but sources discussing Göbekli Tepe. Pleases understand that I am not disagreeing with your argument but that although it might belong in an essay or even a published paper, here it is what we call original research - fine for peer reviewed papers, but not for this encyclopedia.

I'll leave the T-shaped finds but I hope you can find sources that compare them with Göbekli Tepe. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether the builders and users of these constructions were mobile hunter-gatherers, sedentary hoarders or incipient farmers is not determined. Other contemporary (and older) settlements in similar settings (like Körtik Tepe) were sedentary with a rich material culture, and lots of cereal remnants. It has not been determined whether these cereals were harvested in the wild or intentionally grown. In this early stage of neolithisation" sown and grown cereals were still wild. The lack of remains of domesticated plants or animals at Göbekli Tepe can be due to this being a special/sacred gathering place, not somewhere people lived, and the fact that only a small part of the site has been excavated."

This needs sources discussing Göbekli Tepe. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article now talks about the big stone constructions. We should include info on the many other finds from the site. Some are mentioned here:

https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe/

https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/beginning-social-complexity-during-the-early-neolithic-of-upper-mesopotamia-a-view-from-goebekli-tepe/

https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/buried-face-down-a-statue-from-goebekli-tepes-southwestern-hilltop/

Arekrishna (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Göbekli Tepe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705232017/http://globalheritagefund.org/what_we_do/preservation_by_design_partnerships/current_projects/gobekli_tepe_turkey to http://globalheritagefund.org/what_we_do/preservation_by_design_partnerships/current_projects/gobekli_tepe_turkey
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415112503/http://80.251.40.59/veterinary.ankara.edu.tr/fidanci/Yasam/Gelecege_Miras/Gobekli-Tepe.pdf to http://80.251.40.59/veterinary.ankara.edu.tr/fidanci/Yasam/Gelecege_Miras/Gobekli-Tepe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612061638/http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/10613_Peters.pdf to http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/10613_Peters.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131114925/http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_21.pdf to http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424014044/http://ghn.globalheritagefund.org/?id=1327 to http://ghn.globalheritagefund.org/?id=1327

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The is out of my areas of expertise, but I believe someone should add a section about the destruction of the site by the Islamists.

Concrete poured on Turkish World Heritage site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.172.229.119 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Destruction of the site by the Islamists"? What are you talking about? That article is about a dispute over construction work related to the shelter and visitor centre. See also [9], which includes a response from the culture ministry. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sky burial was removed in 2009 there have been several new developments. I thought it was okay to link to sky burial but here are two articles among many.

Hints of Skull Cult Found at World's Oldest Temple By Shaena Montanari National Geographic 30 June 2017 http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/hints-of-skull-cult-found-at-worlds-oldest-temple.aspx

World's oldest Pictograph Discovered in Göbekli Tepe Shows Decapitated Head in Vulture Wing by Hannah Osborne IB Times July 16, 2015 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worlds-oldest-pictograph-discovered-gobekli-tepe-shows-decapitated-head-vulture-wing-1511137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhardwunne (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhardwunne:Thanks. It was added in 2009, not removed. We really should wait for peer-reviewed papers, not the media. I don't see anything in the National Geographic article about sky burials, and the NG has been criticized recently by an archaeologist as being sensationalist. The source for the NG article is this, which talks about a skull cult, not a sky burial. Please sign with 4 tildes, ie ~~~~. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, new editor here so I wanted to discuss and receive input before making edits. I notice that a lot of archaeological site and ancient megalithic complex articles provide a stand alone 'History and Description' section just after the Table of Contents. Obviously, this article does not have that motif, but I believe it should provide this section for consistency among similar articles. There is plenty of relevant information throughout the current article that I believe could better serve users in a 'History and Description' section. This overhaul would require cutting information from sections and splicing it together coherently as well as incorporating more detailed information regarding the history of the site (as best can be cited) and the description of the site (I was thinking a better physical description as the current version is not very clear) as well as maybe a description of the excavation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmringel (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's in a predatory publisher's journal, raised the issue at Talk:OMICS Publishing Group#Athens Institute for Education & Research and the "Athens Journal of History". Doug Weller talk 20:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently misguided articles from WP:RS continue to come out about the Sweatman / Tsikritsis / Coombs purported links between comets, the younger dryas, Göbekli Tepe, Lascaux etc.

* MacDonald, Fiona (2019-05-01). "Ancient Carvings Show Evidence of a Comet Swarm Hitting Earth Around 13,000 Years Ago". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
* McRae, Mike (2018-11-28). "These Cave Art Fragments Could Be Proof of Humans Doing Astronomy 17,000 Years Ago". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 2019-05-03.
* Knapton, Sarah (2017-04-21). "Ancient stone carvings confirm how comet struck Earth in 10,950BC, sparking the rise of civilisations". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
* Yirka, Bob (2017-04-24). "Ancient stone pillars offer clues of comet strike that changed human history". phys.org. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
* Bennett, Gabriella (2017-04-22). "Comet's devastation carved in history". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2019-05-03.

Because there was no mention in this article of these claims, nor references to the responses to their claims, the authors of these stories didn't have the benefit of easy access to the context, which includes highly suspicious statements by Sweatman about this highly inexact science like The probability I am right is in the region of 99.99999999999999%, which gives me plenty of confidence.[10]

Furthermore, I have wasted time, as have many others over the last two years, trying to represent these claims in the article based on the conventional reporting. I wouldn't have done so if there had been a mention and rebuttal.

* FireDrake: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe&type=revision&diff=776443243&oldid=773459607 Note that I'll only include one copy of the edits by FireDrake, since those from MystifiedCitizen and WikiNeedsEditing have been confirmed as sockpuppets as noted earlier.
* User:Cpaaoi: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=776524881
* Me today (nealmcb) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göbekli_Tepe&oldid=prev&diff=895203562

With Sweatman's book https://www.amazon.com/Prehistory-Decoded-Martin-Sweatman-author/dp/178901638X out this will just increase.

The need for this has been noted before, along with the recommendation to wait until a response from the experts was in. It is now past time to follow thru, to give WP:DUE coverage and avoid WP:POV ★NealMcB★ (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we bear any responsibility for lazy journalists failing to do their research. Its their job to write reliable sources, not ours.

That said, as I said above I've no objection to an appropriately weighted and contextualised mention of Sweatman's theory. I think the best way would be a "Fringe theories" section including Sweatman's, Hancock's, and other notable pseudoarchaeologists' theories – Gobekli Tepe attracts a lot of them. – Joe (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And making it clear the book is self-published (which is pretty clear evidence it's fringe). A fringe section is a good idea so long as there's been adequate mainstream discussion/rebuttal. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back on 2013-09-01, a fair chunk of text was added which I think was based on a Google translation from the de article. Most of it reads reasonably in English but we still have a table-high pin which doesn't. The German article has einen etwa tischhohen Zapfen. Google does offer some alternative translations for Zapfen - spigot, cone, tenon, bung, stopper and icicle. For something presumably of solid stone, I would suggest pillar but that might be confused with the T shaped pillars that are a feature of the site. Perhaps a metre high obelisk but I'm loath to add my guess without knowing what the original source was describing. Does anyone have access to the source or an alternative description or image? --Cavrdg (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps peg? This is my go-to translation site for German https://www.dict.cc/?s=zapfen— Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"block" is nice and vague, and infers no function. I think the others are too specific unless we actually know more. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A friend who knows German recommended https://www.deepl.com/translator over Google translate. This seems to translate it as "table-high cone" which is similar. According to him Zapfen (pine) also commonly means cone. —PaleoNeonate – 19:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to whoever is working on this article: I am a retired academic without much experience on Wikipedia, who has recently been reading quite a lot about Göbekli Tepe, starting with the excavation's official website and blog, accessing a number of the publications mentioned there, and then going on to others that came my way. Although my reading has hardly been systematic and I am not an archaeologist (see my recently composed user page — user:filursiax — for a general impression of my credentials), it strikes me that the article could do with some updating. Below are some of the ideas I have in mind. I'm not including references at this point, just mentioning briefly what occurs to me, to see if there is any interest in following up on my suggestions. If there is, I can get some references together and we can go on from there. If we make good progress, we might even contact the GT project itself and ask them to look at the revised text and see if they have additional suggestions. OK, here are some ideas for an update:

1) Dating. Newer C14 dates place the building of Enclosure D around the middle of the 10th mill BC (c. 9600 cal BC, if I remember correctly).

2) Cereal processing. A very large number of grinding tools have been found at GT. Microscopic analysis of grind marks on the tools + of plant remains in the plaster at column foot (again, I think this was in Enclosure D - or perhaps H?), indicate that grain was processed, and that the cereals were wild, not domesticated.

3) Large numbers of (wild)-animal bones have also been found.

4) No storage spaces have been identified. Nor any sign of settlement.

5) Points 2-4 above (+ other data, including large stone basins with traces of what may have been beer!) are interpreted by the excavators as evidence of periodic communal feasting, which may prove to be a key to understanding how these large building projects could be realized by hunter-gatherers.

6) There is evidence of re-use and rearrangement of (some of) the pillars. This, if I have understood correctly, may indicate that parts of the site were relatively frequently reorganized — permitting additional feasting — even after it was (ostensibly) finished.

7) There are also some more speculative or tentative interpretations that surface in the "Tepe Telegrams" blog of the excavation, which might deserve mention (e.g. an attempted reconstruction of a "crane dance ritual").

8) Other possible inclusions are information about the geophysical survey work done, updated info on conservation efforts, etc.

9) Finally, there are some older conclusions that I cannot see are included in the present article, but might be mentioned, e.g. the abundance of flint tools (imported from fairly far off), and the perfect adequacy of such tools for carving the (relatively soft) local limestone. (A good argument against UFO's and such for one thing.)

Looking forward to any and all serious responses (no paranormals, please!). Would be happy to work cooperatively on this, particularly since I need to learn more about the technical aspects of Wikipedia editing, and also since I no longer have a univ position, and thus lack easy access to closed scientific article databases.

Filursiax (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]