New findings at the Gobekli Tepe site.

originally posted by: Hanslune
I mean they did solid work in their careers but none made an astounding find, which leads to positions at better schools more offers of leading expeditions/programs/projects, tenure, book deals, institutes being named for you and the biggie the turning on of the grant tap.

I don't think I ever met a real archeologist (I've met a few) who didn't in the back of their mind really, really want to discover something paradigm shifting and amazing. Maybe there are a few who just love patching together old clay pots and never want to do anything else. But they're nuts. Who wouldn't want to be the guy (or gal) who discovered the tomb of Moses, or the intact sarcophagus of Osiris?

a reply to: strongfp

I thought the T stood for Turkey. lol

You know the simple answer?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hellas
Carbon dating is still based on a Theory. Those numbers are somewhat made up.

Regarding the origin of it, most of it seems to be of ancient greek architecture.

I would venture to say that carbon dating is FAR more accurate than, say, your personal knowledge of ancient architecture.

Harte

What do you know about my knowledge of ancient architecture? Probably nothing.
Living in the country that is responsible for all architectural achievements in the world and being surrounded by it, gives me way more knowledge that you could ever obtain from your books.

originally posted by: Hellas

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hellas
Carbon dating is still based on a Theory. Those numbers are somewhat made up.

Regarding the origin of it, most of it seems to be of ancient greek architecture.

I would venture to say that carbon dating is FAR more accurate than, say, your personal knowledge of ancient architecture.

Harte

What do you know about my knowledge of ancient architecture? Probably nothing.
Living in the country that is responsible for all architectural achievements in the world and being surrounded by it, gives me way more knowledge that you could ever obtain from your books.

And yet Gobekli Tepe looks Greek to you.
Maybe you've been overexposed - finding Greek architecture in every structure you see.

Harte

a reply to: Hellas

Could you provide specific examples matching the architecture at GT to some Greek?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Hellas

Could you provide specific examples matching the architecture at GT to some Greek?

Since Stonehenge is now believed to have been build by early migrants from the Mediterranean, Gobekli Tepe looks very similar to me. Plus the location should speak for itself

a reply to: Hellas

That doesn't add up. The oldest known architecture in Greece is dated around 2000 - 1300 BC. Stonehenge was built between 3400 - 3000 BC.

GT is dated 12,500 - 12,000 BC. If anything the people from the region of GT would be plausibly responsible for Greek and ancient English features.

a reply to: strongfp

The ancestors of the people who built Stonehenge travelled west across the Mediterranean before reaching Britain, a study has shown.
Researchers compared DNA extracted from Neolithic human remains found across Britain with that of people alive at the same time in Europe.
The Neolithic inhabitants were descended from populations originating in Anatolia (modern Turkey) that moved to Iberia before heading north.
They reached Britain in about 4,000BC.

DNA reveals that Neolithic Britons were largely descended from groups who took the Mediterranean route, either hugging the coast or hopping from island-to-island on boats. Some British groups had a minor amount of ancestry from groups that followed the Danube route.

BBC

Even with what I posted, carbon dating is a guessing game.

a reply to: Hanslune

You funny as #

Was not that long ago that you would have said it was impossible to find structures like this so far back. Now you pretending its all normal.

You dont have a clue....

a reply to: Hellas

Migrating from or across the Med region isn't the same as bringing the knowledge of building megalithic structures. Cyclopean masonry wasn't widespread, and was even a lost art for hundreds of years. Also, yes carbon dating is accurate. It's not a broad stroke one size fits all dating method, it's just one of many to coincide and collaborate with other dating methods which all verify one another. Carbon dating in conjunction with tree rings have given accurate results, which is pretty good evidence it's an accurate dating method.