Anyone else worried about Göbekli Tepe?

just a quick video for everyone

Here's another perspective on the site.

Archaeologist argues world's oldest temples were not temples at all

Ancient structures uncovered in Turkey and thought to be the world's oldest temples may not have been strictly religious buildings after all, according to an article in the October issue of Current Anthropology. Archaeologist Ted Banning of the University of Toronto argues that the buildings found at Göbekli Tepe may have been houses for people, not the gods.

The buildings at Göbekli, a hilltop just outside of the Turkish city of Urfa, were found in 1995 by Klaus Schmidt of the German Archaeological Institute and colleagues from the Şanlıurfa Museum in Turkey. The oldest of the structures at the site are immense buildings with large stone pillars, many of which feature carvings of snakes, scorpions, foxes, and other animals.

The presence of art in the buildings, the substantial effort that must have been involved in making and erecting them, and a lack of evidence for any permanent settlement in the area, led Schmidt and others to conclude that Göbekli must have been a sacred place where pilgrims traveled to worship, much like the Greek ruins of Delphi or Olympia. If that interpretation is true it would make the buildings, which date back more than 10,000 years to the early Neolithic, the oldest temples ever found.

However, Banning offers an alternative interpretation that challenges some of Schmidt's claims.

He outlines growing archaeological evidence for daily activities at the site, such as flintknapping and food preparation. "The presence of this evidence suggests that the site was not, after all, devoid of residential occupation, but likely had quite a large population," Banning said.

Banning goes on to argue that the population may have been housed in the purported temples themselves. He disagrees with the idea that the presence of decorative pillars or massive construction efforts means the buildings could not have been residential space.

"The presupposition that 'art,' or even 'monumental' art, should be exclusively associated with specialized shrines or other non-domestic spaces also fails to withstand scrutiny," Banning writes. "There is abundant ethnographic evidence for considerable investment in the decoration of domestic structures and spaces, whether to commemorate the feats of ancestors, advertise a lineage's history or a chief's generosity; or record initiations and other house-based rituals."

Archaeological evidence for domestic art from the Neolithic period exists as well, Banning says, such as the wall paintings at Çatalhöyük, another archaeological site in Turkey.

Banning suggests that the purported temples may instead have been large communal houses, "similar in some ways to the large plank houses of the Northwest Coast of North America with their impressive house posts and totem poles."

press.uchicago.edu...

I don't know much on 10,000 year old activities, but I think we're far from learning the whole story. There's more digging to do in more ways than one

reply to post by flexy123


The "conspiracy" is not so much with the location itself but the acceptance of what it may mean to the scientific community.

There are are a lot of academic careers dependent on history appearing a certain way. This find up ends a lot of that. Ergo, those who made a living "being right" could be wrong.

reply to post by ABNARTY


You do realize that historians want to learn about history and revise what we know when new light is shed on it?
There is no reason for a conspiracy.

reply to post by Consequence


So you truly believe all scientists are above their ego's on all matters? They have no concerns about their careers or perceptions about their professionalism? They never worry about funding, grants, or a paycheck? They are just a bunch of cool cucumbers with no investment in any idea but the "truth"? No cult of personality exists?

Have you ever read the history of competing ideas in the academic community? It is rife with competition, back
stabbing, and drama. How often do we read about what turns out to be "true" long after the discoverer is dead and buried? His/her idea was never accepted because it countered the mainstream, accepted dogma.

Please.....If you want to keep believing the righteousness of all things scientific, it's a free planet. Go ahead. But scientists are human before their science. Good things do come from science, we do find out the right answers sometimes, but to ignore the context of the science is fool hearty.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Consequence

 

So you truly believe all scientists are above their ego's on all matters? They have no concerns about their careers or perceptions about their professionalism? They never worry about funding, grants, or a paycheck? They are just a bunch of cool cucumbers with no investment in any idea but the "truth"? No cult of personality exists?

Sure there are characters who have a one-track mind. In fact, history is a tough subject and involves story-telling, which really isn't scientific at all. So, this is a subject where there is a lot of unknowns and these sites are very important for us to know more.

That being said, clearly new information has come into light, it is out in the open that this site is very old and doesn't really match the picture we have already. See? No apparent sign of an ego at work obfuscating things?
Second, when it comes to funding, grants and paychecks, what is more sexy:
* Hi.. we found some stuff that we think further confirms my theory of 'x', so we need to dig around there some more.
or:
* Hi...we have found something amazing! This site is n-thousands years older than anything we've ever seen. We need a bit more funding so that we can re-write history!

Have you ever read the history of competing ideas in the academic community? It is rife with competition, back
stabbing, and drama. How often do we read about what turns out to be "true" long after the discoverer is dead and buried? His/her idea was never accepted because it countered the mainstream, accepted dogma.

Most battles are only good for science. The backstabbing and drama I don't feel like commenting.
Sooner or later, the most accurate model will win. However long it may take.

Please.....If you want to keep believing the righteousness of all things scientific, it's a free planet. Go ahead. But scientists are human before their science. Good things do come from science, we do find out the right answers sometimes, but to ignore the context of the science is fool hearty.

I don't believe in the righteousness of all things scientific, if you include our current findings.
However, the scientific model is the way to go to progress.

reply to post by Consequence


I'm on the fence on this one. I've taken a few history courses in college the last few semesters and they still teach that the first civilization was Sumeria and that agriculture started with around the time of the Sumerians. This is despite that this site has been known about now for 22 years. With how often they update college textbooks, you'd think book publishers would jump at the chance to release a new textbook version. I mean the name of the site was never even mentioned in the class.

I realize that they like to gloss over finer details in high school history classes. But at the college level, this seems like a detail that maybe should at least get a mention.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Maybe this is getting slightly off-topic (but I'll come back to that).
The OP was worried that some evil-minded people would do a cover-up of the findings from this site for some reason, and that clearly isn't the case. The site is highly interesting because highly interesting things have been found. I don't know why that wouldn't summarize the whole thing up quite nicely.

When it comes to your experience of history classes, I'll first have to say that I'm not an historian, but from a scientific point of view, I'll say this:
Hopefully we agree that whatever non-Sumer knowledge you have comes from scientific research and nothing else? It is also safe to say that this research has academic ties and this material is being discussed at history-oriented Universities. It is also safe to say that these things are also discussed in greater detail than in this thread, and most importantly, in context of what we already know.

So, why did they teach what they did to you?
First option is that you went to a college detached from reality as their course material is from 30 years old. But, I don't think that is the case.
Now, the following is a wild guess as I'm the wrong person to answer this, but I think the above is partly true because of the nature of History. Remember that during the last 100 years, mankind has taken massive leaps in technology that has enabled the historians around the world to communicate, translate, date, scan the ground for findings, use computers to find connections in ancient writings not thought of before, and so forth.

100 years is not a long time. Think about all the knowledge we've had about our history and how primitive tools we have used to find out about it. Clearly this means that what we have found out before has mostly been things that have been the easiest to discover?

So, when it comes to the "story-telling", the Sumerian "beginning of civilization" happened to have the oldest traces of such signs that also has a believable story on the background and why things changed. It seems to me that this story still holds quite well in itself. If an older site is found with similar life, it doesn't necessarily change anything else except "well, these guys over at 'x' did the same thing, but earlier".

So, in short, if it was introductory History, they gave a solid view on how our origin looks like. The closer you get to research, the more relevant is it to bring up incomplete facts.

If you are interested, as you seem to be, you are of course welcome to read the latest papers on history. Just for fun, or to do your own thinking/research.

This is the difference between Science and ATS-guys who do "research" and make up the craziest stories based on "new evidence" and a couple of loose ends. The former does it methodically and takes it for what it is. The latter writes the craziest story on ATS on the origin of the Human after hearing about a random discovery and then calls it a scientific fact.

Originally posted by Consequence
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

The OP was worried that some evil-minded people would do a cover-up of the findings from this site for some reason, and that clearly isn't the case. .

I was saying I was worried there MIGHT be unchecked bias' with misleading conclusions being given out.

I don't think bias is inherently "EVIL", I copped to it myself.

I hope i did not leave the impression that I was sure it was going to go on. Sorry if I did.

All I am hoping for is that the tiny % of humanity that does not believe that "civilization" and all that it brings is good, be represented at the site.

I still believe they COULD try to cover up flying cars and portraits of aliens...should they be found. No real "rational" reason why, just my gut and a belief that historians and scientists have lied before.

I wonder if the site will be given or if it's been given a World Heritage tag thingy...I'll go look into it.

It's surely a Wonder of the World.

In 2010, Global Heritage Fund (GHF) announced it will undertake a multi-year conservation program to preserve Göbekli Tepe. The first conservation program in the site's history, the partners include Klaus Schmidt and the German Archaeological Institute, German Research Foundation, Şanlıurfa Municipal Government, and the Turkish Ministry of Tourism and Culture.[34] The stated goals of the GHF Göbekli Tepe project are to support the preparation of a Site Management and Conservation Plan, construction of a shelter over the exposed archaeological features, training local community members in guiding and conservation, and helping Turkish authorities secure UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

"(Oops, I read it wrong...he (poster Consequence) asked why I thought GB not ATS was UFO'ish. I can see in my wording why he thought the "site" I was talking about was GB, but I was saying ATS was UFO'ish....I still think the poster would not like the label on ATS either so I will not erase the following.
Although English is my first language I still have not mastered the spoken or written form of it)

To the poster up-thread who doubted the tag "UFO'ish

Do most other popular science/current event discussion sites have well used forums called "Paranormal Studies", "Cryptozoology", "Aliens and UFO's", "The Grey Area", Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails" etc?

They might, but I have not been to them.

The way I found this site is after reading about how the singer Robbie Williams believed in ufo's and spent time on a site called ATS, many years ago. Can't find the artical now but will try.

ok here it is...

www.thesun.co.uk...

At the US conference 34-year-old Robbie revealed he had retreated into paranormal investigation to fill a “void” in his life and escape the pressures of fame. He explains: “I have spent so much time looking at pictures on websites like Above Top Secret and reading conspiracy theories that I want to go and meet these people. “I want to do something other than sit in my bed watching the news at half past ten, I want to go out and do something. Read more: www.thesun.co.uk...

So I feel it's ok to call this site UFO'ish...that's the way I found out about it.

OK, sorry to get of topic so bad.

Originally posted by butterflyowl
I was saying I was worried there MIGHT be unchecked bias' with misleading conclusions being given out.

As I described in my earlier post, science is "slow" and very much non-instant - the direct opposite to most ideas on this site. You said yourself that they've been at it for 20 years. Scientist don't simply suggest things (as on this site), the rest swallowing the bait and end it at that.

Also, when it comes to your "there MIGHT be".. Toyota MIGHT use highly engineered chemicals in the "new car smell" that is as addictive as heroine and wears off the car in 2 years, forcing you to buy a new car, as nothing else will work.
Or, they MIGHT use the chemical to get you hooked on Brazilian wax, as the guys behind Toyota and Brazilian wax are in fact the real people behind the powers of the world.

Scientists don't "might", because the result is just that.

I don't think bias is inherently "EVIL", I copped to it myself.

That is fine, but you saying:

Like they are trying to make sure it gets interpreted the way TPTB want it to be.

..chose me to use the "evil people" word, as I was rather sure that you by "TPTB" DIDN'T mean (typo earlier) mean "The people who save our souls by not letting us know the truth". Whatever that means.

I hope i did not leave the impression that I was sure it was going to go on. Sorry if I did.

No, you did not actually. It's the pure speculation that I reacted on. Just like my Toyota idea above.

All I am hoping for is that the tiny % of humanity that does not believe that "civilization" and all that it brings is good, be represented in the work of science and reporting at the site.

Now I'm curious, what makes you believe all but a tiny percentage of humanity thinks that everything that comes with a civilization is good? Surely most people can find at least something that is a strain, even though they think that, at the end of the day, they can live with thanks to the advantages.

And hey, let's go with your "might". Let's say that in the "beginning of civilization" a big disagreement appeared (as so many times thereafter) which lead to a tiny civil war. People left the community and reverted back to living a tribal life. Completely plausible, and has probably happened in many forms, regardless of being tribes, villages, cities, countries.. What is your point? What is it that you are trying to say? Is this evidence that we cannot get along? Don't we already know that? Isn't civilization amazing that we, most of the time, manage not to kill each other even if we do not get along? That even the biggest of enemies can co-operate on things?

I still believe they COULD try to cover up flying cars and portraits of aliens...should they be found.

Of course. There COULD be a God. And assuming that God can do anything, he COULD turn your keyboard into the mouth of an Alligator and bite your hands off. I wouldn't worry about it, though.
You do realize that you are questioning the validity of exactly this subject because -you- happen to have a certain belief on humanity and civilization? You COULD have questioned something completely different, like the next ATS thread-creator.
Think about my absurd COULD-examples, look around the site and find more could-mights, and see that they are searching meaning to their own specific beliefs, having little to do with the rest of the world.

After that, take any subject and see that if you just want it, you can could-might up the most fantastic and incredible stories. In fact, so incredible that the TPTB clearly must cover up - making it true!

reply to post by Consequence

Wow, cool you're here...I've been trying to edit and make my post better, sorry if what you replied to has changed...I will read your post and try to respond in a non-newbie fashion

Originally posted by butterflyowl
"(Oops, I read it wrong...he (poster Consequence) asked why I thought GB not ATS was UFO'ish. I can see in my wording why he thought the "site" I was talking about was GB, but I was saying ATS was UFO'ish....I still think the poster would not like the label on ATS either so I will not erase the following.
Although English is my first language I still have not mastered the spoken or written form of it)

Ah, then that is cleared.
English is not my first nor second language, but I hope I can make myself understood. There are subtleties in a language that takes time (and experience) to learn. I don't, and haven't, lived in an English speaking country, so it's even harder to gain that experience.

Do most other popular science/current event discussion sites have well used forums called "Paranormal Studies", "Cryptozoology", "Aliens and UFO's", "The Grey Area", Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails" etc?
They might, but I have not been to them.

Some do, some don't, I guess. But there's good reasons not to.
When it comes to UFOs, and keeping it scientific I guess they can ultimately fall under Meteorology and Astronomy. But since UFOs are per definition categorized differently, it's hard to fit in.
Second, it might attract the wrong kind of people.

Cryptozoology should fall under zoology. How could an animal differ from an animal?

Paranormal studies.. Well, the science of Parapsychology exists, but as it is such of an dead-end, there isn't unfortunately any discoveries, only "debunkings".

The way I found this site is after reading about how the singer Robbie Williams believed in ufo's and spent time on a site called ATS, many years ago. Can't find the artical now but will try.

ok here it is...

At the US conference 34-year-old Robbie revealed he had retreated into paranormal investigation to fill a “void” in his life and escape the pressures of fame. He explains: “I have spent so much time looking at pictures on websites like Above Top Secret and reading conspiracy theories that I want to go and meet these people. “I want to do something other than sit in my bed watching the news at half past ten, I want to go out and do something. Read more: www.thesun.co.uk...

edit on 26-8-2012 by butterflyowl because: to add text

Oh this is fantastic! Read my previous post as to why people seem to be here and why they make up these theories.

But I guess a lot of it comes down to how much we trust people in authority or in a job that seems to confer expertise. How much do they really care? Is it just a "job" to them? Do they worry about ticking off a higher up?

It's not possible to do science "on routine". You need to be curious, to constantly test and try, dig and find to get anywhere. I think a few scientists have ticked off a few people in the past, namely the church. Today, we don't have any guidelines from the top on what we can and what we cannot do, except for certain ethical and safety rules.
Unfortunately, just when I wrote that I got saddened... I guess it's time for someone to think "Wait a minute.. why exactly aren't we supposed to play around with stem-cells"..... and another circus begins here.

Anyway, I encourage you to choose the path of science if all this is exciting for you. You could even do science on science if you wish. Only for the purpose of scrutinizing it. As long as you follow the scientific methodology, the world is free for you to explore!

reply to post by Consequence

Well, i just spent 45 minutes trying *"Fisking" your post and i hit some key (or that alligator did it) and poof -gone! Formating is another weakness.
*en.wikipedia.org...

Well I guess I was telling my life story about how through many belief systems in my look for the truth i ended up at Primitivism.

I read Derrek Jensen, John Zerzan, am mostly latent and of course non-practicing.

I do not like science nor do i respect the scientific method, like, at all, so our discussion is doomed to failure. It'd be like me talking politics with my fundy Christian friends....whho boy...if you're so far apart on the fundamentals...Maybe I can address some specifics later when I feel better.

Thanks for the interesting replys!

Originally posted by butterflyowl
reply to post by Consequence

 

Well, i just spent 45 minutes trying *"Fisking" your post and i hit some key (or that alligator did it) and poof -gone! Formating is another weakness.
*en.wikipedia.org...

That's a shame. It has happened to me as well. Hopefully you feel like trying again after some rest.

Well I guess I was telling my life story about how through many belief systems in my look for the truth i ended up at Primitivism.

Sounds even more interesting and I'd like to hear that story, especially since I can't see how it relates to the possible scientific discoveries as I said before.. What sort of answers you'd hope to receive, that is.

I do not like science nor do i respect the scientific method, like, at all, so our discussion is doomed to failure.

Yes, this is a completely different discussion altogether, but I wouldn't mind having it. I'm interested in hearing that story too. Especially on what your problem with the scientific method is?
I would much appreciate if you created a thread on that, alternatively sent me a PM explaining it.

It'd be like me talking politics with my fundy Christian friends....whho boy...if you're so far apart on the fundamentals...Maybe I can address some specifics later when I feel better.

The fact that you say that you're "in between" science and religion and dismissing both, as they are on the opposite sides of of the scale makes me want to hear you out even more.

Finally, when it comes to "fisking" or whatever it may be called, the reason for that is that since whole paragraphs are constructed by statements that are "far out", it is impossible for me to comment on the whole. Clearly I'm lacking the necessary information in all those details to take in anything at all. So for me to go forwards with the bigger picture, I obviously need answers on the details.

Thanks for understanding. I'm still not quite up to the challenge but I will say a few things.

Clearly I'm on thin ice logically given that I want "answers" and that to do so the diggers must be "methodical".
They can't go in to Göbekli Tepe and willy-nilly shovel around, they have to use archaeological skills, put up grids and other science-y stuff.

But IMO science likes to "accumulate" knowledge thus accumulate power..and on and on and then we get nukes and other nasties. Trying to teach ethics to certain greedy ppl is never going to do much good. Good, fair and honest humans have to see this? I don't think if we lived in a primitive world it would be all hippy utopia without violence and horrid stuff...like I like to say, "sure, life would be short and brutal but it would be short, brutal and fulfilling"...one with nature and all of that.

I don't reject religion, I think it might be necessary to humans in this "civilization", if it were not around maybe we would be even more bonkers. I just don't know. I just don't believe in the Bible or any of the big3 monotheistic books.

I spent last night watching some old videos on YT of Graham Hancock reading and speaking about his book "Fingerprints of the Gods". It was so cool but of course I thought "oh boy, he's gonna be all over Göbekli Tepe" but it seems to be that he is sticking with Egypt and the Atlantis stuff. Maybe he will get around to it but I hope he addresses it soon.

Originally posted by butterflyowl
But IMO science likes to "accumulate" knowledge thus accumulate power..and on and on and then we get nukes and other nasties.

Science is the act of gathering knowledge of our world using a methodology which makes it organized and possible to share to everyone around the world. In doing so, you will also get your work scrutinized, which is a must as it's part of the methodology.
I don't know how "power" comes into it, because for science to be "powerful" I guess it has to be contained (not spread).
The research in nuclear physics revealed the possibility of Nuclear Power, and, Nuclear weapons. Science doesn't judge, it learns and presents the facts as they are.
Unfortunately, the leaders of countries (military advisors, or whoever) decided that nuclear weapons was a smart idea. The military deals with applied science and the people involved have their own moral compass.
I've heard some stories about the scientists who worked on the nuke, and how they themselves tried to reason why it was more of a good idea than bad to build it. Every scientist or the country where the scientist lives can decide what to do with our knowledge of the world. Science in itself is not evil.
In fact, it's often a good thing for the public when science discovers "dangerous things" (i.e. learning what is bad for humans and our environment, and therefore stopping it). Again, science does not judge, it simply tells the facts. It is up to humanity to use it wisely.

Trying to teach ethics to certain greedy ppl is never going to do much good. Good, fair and honest humans have to see this? I don't think if we lived in a primitive world it would be all hippy utopia without violence and horrid stuff...like I like to say, "sure, life would be short and brutal but it would be short, brutal and fulfilling"...one with nature and all of that.

To me, civilization is one of those things that makes us "human". I don't really like using the term "human" for that very reason. It is religion and civilization that seem to keep the bigger part of us somewhat tamed.

I don't reject religion, I think it might be necessary to humans in this "civilization", if it were not around maybe we would be even more bonkers. I just don't know. I just don't believe in the Bible or any of the big3 monotheistic books.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
I get slightly scared every time a religious person says "well, if God didn't exist, then people could just go do whatever they want, not caring about the consequences!".
The usual view is that religious people are "proper". But according to that statement, without the fear of God punishing them, they might not have any moral at all.
Interestingly, I'm not religious but I still have no intention of "doing whatever I want". My moral compass is about fairness and cooperation.

I believe the NT is a good book in the sense that if people who would otherwise lack a moral compass, followed it and believed in God, they wouldn't cause much harm in the world. The problem is when this book is read in a church and this combined group of people start judging others. Just live by the book and you will be "human", and let God deal with the rest.
In fact, any idiot could learn the 10 commandments, which are a very good way of staying out of trouble.
I think I agree with each point, even though I don't follow them literally, because I can use common sense - too.


That being said, I'm not sure you explained why you don't agree with the scientific method.

One of the best books I have ever read is "A Short History of Nearly Everything". Fascinating read and really outlines the competitive nature of Science & Religion.

For instance; in the beginning of fossil collection (which only started in the Victorian era), dinosaurs were only considered to be a few thousand years old, mostly because Scholar's were still functioning under the Roman Catholic teachings tht the world was only 10,000 or so years old, based on Creationism. Some people thought that these "bones" were some sort of fabricated hoax made to create a rift between science and religion.

Next nugget: I saw this on a documentary I cannot find- a lady archeologist found a large human skull that was dated to be 250-300 million years ago. She represented her info to the scientific community, several times. It ruined her career.

greaterancestors.com...

Next nugget: Human AND dinosaur foot prints side by side. I'm not sure what to say about this:

paleo.cc...

Next nugget: carbon dating-I never dated a carbon, do you call them and ask them out? Or wait for them to make the first move? Seriously. I think that system is relied on too much. I believe that system may be completely inaccurate.

Next nugget: I have a hard time believing Man went from creating cave art and a hunter/gatherer culture to Sumerian culture and art in a few short generations. Call me a cynic.

Bottom line from ME: I don't think the group of folks that print science books for our kids to read have a CLUE what they are talking about. I think there is an implied place where it is thot that discoveries should fit, and information is found to Prove or Disprove. And hands are brushed off and careers are saved by making safe theories that don't rock the boat too much.

These people could lift and move around huge stones and carve them to suit, yet, they had no knowledge of pottery or metals? ...

What annoys me most about us "modern" people is that we think our ancestors were walking around throwing poop at each other.

Think about it this way.

You are told the world is going to end in 6 months. Sure, a couple thousand will survive, but other than that, you, me, we, are all dead guaranteed. Now, you know SOME will survive, what is the best material you can use to say, "I WAS HERE GOD DAMNIT!" ...?

Stone.

Whats the shelf life of a modern building? 150 years... 200 years until its a pile of rubble tops. Sure you could make a giant metal structure to say we were here, but will it last long enough for people to find it and debate its origin? nope. it'll be gone long before we come out of the caves.

Look at the pyramids, well THE pyramid. what better way to say, we were here, and we were just as smart as you. It wont collapse, it wont rust, it wont turn to carbon, that is THE best material to use if a catastrophe is coming and you want to leave something behind. Just because someone makes something out of stone does not mean they are poop throwers.

Thats how I see it.

This ancient aliens bull# is just to misdirect.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by SeenAlot
Next nugget: I saw this on a documentary I cannot find- a lady archeologist found a large human skull that was dated to be 250-300 million years ago. She represented her info to the scientific community, several times. It ruined her career.

What's your point?

Next nugget: Human AND dinosaur foot prints side by side. I'm not sure what to say about this:
paleo.cc...

We have found the dinosaur that makes those "foot prints".

Carbon-Dating - Seriously. I think that system is relied on too much. I believe that system may be completely inaccurate.

Could you please elaborate on why you believe it may be completely inaccurate?

Next nugget: I have a hard time believing Man went from creating cave art and a hunter/gatherer culture to Sumerian culture and art in a few short generations. Call me a cynic.

How many generations was that?
Imagine that a bit over a hundred years ago, we used bigger animals to plow the earth. Now we have automated vehicles on another planet. Isn't that a 'slightly' bigger step in a ridiculously short time?

Bottom line from ME: I don't think the group of folks that print science books for our kids to read have a CLUE what they are talking about.

I agree, thinking that they are in the printing business and all. The content is quite accurate, though.

And hands are brushed off and careers are saved by making safe theories that don't rock the boat too much.

What do you base these claims on? Theories can rock the boats as much as they want, as long as you can show that the ideas float. Sometimes there are such ideas and they are ridiculed (Einstein) until they are proven.
Unlike your way of thinking, Science doesn't "believe", it observes, learns and knows.