Sanctuary
|
Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 15, 2011, 13:53
|
Loved the look of this site...most interesting, although the 'lizard' is clearly a fox or maybe a dog!
http://essayweb.net/history/ancient/gobekli.shtml
|
Resonox
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 15, 2011, 17:46
|
|
Sanctuary wrote:
Definitely looks canine...(more vulpine than lupine)...had much the same discussion some years back with a museuim curator...what the placard on some Pictish rock art indicated as an elephant, I tried, to no avail ,to point out was patently an ox/bull/auroch (or the like)...all in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 15, 2011, 18:03
|
|
Sanctuary wrote:
.Joris Peters and Schmidt did a paper (2004 ) on the animals at Gobekli Tepe plenty snakes but no Lizards and I don't think any have been noted since .
|
BuckyE
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Jan 04, 2012, 16:15
|
Most of the animals depicted there are "dangerous:" either predators or biting things (scorpian, snake, vulture). A few birds. The ones we liked particularly seem to be death or spirit images with very prominent rib cages and heads kind of like skulls; skeletal. Weird.
It was nice that the author mentioned the Balikli Gol Snowman. World's oldest known freestanding statue.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 23, 2012, 11:25
|
|
Sanctuary wrote:
Good article in yesterday’s Guardian Travel supplement here. Over twelve and a half thousand years old (and there are lots still there). Jeeze...
|
BuckyE
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 23, 2012, 16:39
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Over twelve and a half thousand years old (and there are lots still there). Jeeze...
And the most amazing thing about its age is its (yet to be found) predecessors' (implied) ages. The carving and architecture of the four large structures are obviously the result of a multi-generational trial and training effort. So the beginnings of this megalithic culture have to be much older than GT.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 23, 2012, 16:53
|
|
BuckyE wrote: Littlestone wrote: Over twelve and a half thousand years old (and there are lots still there). Jeeze...
And the most amazing thing about its age is its (yet to be found) predecessors' (implied) ages. The carving and architecture of the four large structures are obviously the result of a multi-generational trial and training effort. So the beginnings of this megalithic culture have to be much older than GT.
Jeeze... yes, hadn’t thought of that. Reliefs with that sort of sophistication must have needed centuries to evolve - though not necessarily evolve in stone. The prototypes may have been carved in wood.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 23, 2012, 17:35
|
|
Littlestone wrote: BuckyE wrote: Littlestone wrote: Over twelve and a half thousand years old (and there are lots still there). Jeeze...
And the most amazing thing about its age is its (yet to be found) predecessors' (implied) ages. The carving and architecture of the four large structures are obviously the result of a multi-generational trial and training effort. So the beginnings of this megalithic culture have to be much older than GT.
Jeeze... yes, hadn’t thought of that. Reliefs with that sort of sophistication must have needed centuries to evolve - though not necessarily evolve in stone. The prototypes may have been carved in wood.
Not the same area but an example of much earlier Paleolithic relief . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Laussel
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 23, 2012, 17:39
|
|
Littlestone wrote: BuckyE wrote: Littlestone wrote: Over twelve and a half thousand years old (and there are lots still there). Jeeze...
And the most amazing thing about its age is its (yet to be found) predecessors' (implied) ages. The carving and architecture of the four large structures are obviously the result of a multi-generational trial and training effort. So the beginnings of this megalithic culture have to be much older than GT.
Jeeze... yes, hadn’t thought of that. Reliefs with that sort of sophistication must have needed centuries to evolve - though not necessarily evolve in stone. The prototypes may have been carved in wood.
We talk about the carving in stone. If that wasn't hard enough 12,500+ years ago imagine what it was like in wood with no 'tools' as such! I completed my apprenticeship as a joiner in a workshop with no electical tools and I can tell you it was damn hard work for a lad, and that was with decent hand tools, not lumps of flint or rocks! Timber may be soft compared to rock but it's no easy material to work with without highly sharpened tools. It's one thing cutting down a tree with a flint axe but just try carving some to a good standard with the same equipment. Feel free to try it any time :-)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Gobekli Tepe...Turkey
Dec 23, 2012, 17:54
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: We talk about the carving in stone. If that wasn't hard enough 12,500+ years ago imagine what it was like in wood with no 'tools' as such! I completed my apprenticeship as a joiner in a workshop with no electical tools and I can tell you it was damn hard work for a lad, and that was with decent hand tools, not lumps of flint or rocks! Timber may be soft compared to rock but it's no easy material to work with without highly sharpened tools. It's one thing cutting down a tree with a flint axe but just try carving some to a good standard with the same equipment. Feel free to try it any time :-)
Interesting point, and in may ways (some) stone might actually be easier to work with than wood. Not talking about something like sarsen, but with a soft sandstone (or limestone re tiompan’s link above) they would have been able (quite easily I’d have thought) to created intricate reliefs to that standard (do you know what stone was used there Bucky ?).
So maybe there was no 'transition' from wood to stone at all...
|
