Critics on “A River Runs Through It: the Semiotics of Göbekli Tepe’s Map” by Dragos Gheorghiu


A River Runs Through It: the Semiotics of Göbekli Tepe’s Map (an Exercise of Archaeological Imagination) Dragoş Gheorghiu National University of Arts, Bucharest. (PDF) A River Runs Through It:: the Semiotics of Göbekli …www.researchgate.net › publication › 281366206_A_Riv…Sep 29, 2020 — PDF |

I was astonished how the author choosed between many interesting subjetcs and approaches, on a hunter-gatherer society, this one with water/rivers.

“In the 20th century, archaeologists paid attention to this relationship between humans and water,
especially in the arid zones of the Earth, for example, Pumpelly (1908) and later Childe (1928, 1936), proposed
the oasis model to explain the emergence of agriculture and the domestication of animals (Verhoeven 2004: 192).Other archaeologists also tried to explain the emergence of domestication due to the proximity to water (Price and Gebauer, 1995: 7–8; Smith, 1998: 210), since “plants were first domesticated near rivers, lakes, marshes or springs” (Verhoeven 2004: 189).Paleoeconomies were dependent of water resources (see Brown 1997: 282) not only because of the acquisition of food, but also because of trade exchanges. It is well known
that there was a relation between site location and water sources (Jackson 1988; Dobrzanska et al. 2004; Byrd
2005; Gheorghiu 2006).>>

From Archeology and the Domestication of Animals in the Old Worldanthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › pdf In the light of the current evidence, a Neolithic economy based in part on four domestic animals (cattle, sheep/goat, and pig) was first developed in the Near East by the fifth millennium B.C. From this area the practice of domestication spread through the Old World in two ways: (1) as an idea which was applied …

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTATION OF ANIMAL DOMESTICATION
Melinda A. Zeder, Section Editor (PDF) Archaeological approaches to Documenting Animal … http://www.researchgate.net › publication › 285767160_Archae… <<Efforts to document the domestication of sheep and goats in the Near East have drawn heavily on both zoogeographic and abundance markers. Early work in the Zagros region of the eastern Fertile Crescent effectively used zoogeographic arguments to buttress the case for the domestic status of goats on the arid, lowland Deh Luran Plain (Hole et al. 1969), and, less convincingly, to make a case for the domestic status
of sheep in highland Iraq (Perkins 1964). These markers have played a much larger role in more recent work, which focuses on the piedmont and steppe regions of the Taurus Mountains in the central Fertile Crescent and on its far western arm in the Levant. Beginning about 9000–8500 BP, a manymillennia-long concentration on gazelles was replaced in this region by a dramatic increase in the importance of caprovines, especially goats. ….. Early research in the Fertile Crescent focused on the Zagros region of Iran
and Iraq, where the earliest evidence of the domestication of sheep and goats
seemed to coincide with, or perhaps even slightly precede, the domestication of cereal grains (Hole 1989). With the shift in research away from politically troubled regions like Iran and Iraq in the 1970s and the explosive growth of research in the Levant, particularly in Israel, Jordan, and the piedmont and steppe regions of northern Syria, a very different picture emerged. Here, there was very early evidence for cereal domestication but no corresponding evidence for animal domestication.Although people in this region may have been auditioning the gazelle for a possible role as a future domesticate, gazelles are not behaviorally suited to domestication. Domestic animals do not appear in the Levant until as much as a millennium after the initial domestication of certain types of barley and wheat, when goats begin to play a major role in local subsistence economies alternatively attributed to either a local process of domestication (Horwitz 2003) or to the introduction of already domesticated animals from outside the region (Bar Yosef 2000). Emerging evidence from recent work in the foothills and mountain valleys of the Taurus Mountains is pushing back dates for initial domestication of sheep, goats, and pigs, promising, once again, to rewrite the story of the domestication of plants and animals in the region
(Peters et al. 1999; Vigne and Buitenhuis 1999; Hongo and Meadow 1998; Ervynck et al. 2002). >>

So,1. “a dramatic increase in the importance of caprovines, especially goats” ,not specifically domestication, between 9000-8500 BP is 7.000-6.500 BC. But Gobekly Tepe is between 7.500-9.000 !! 2. At Gobekly Tepe were found only bones/remaines of gazelles wich were eate. No other animal was availeble for hunting. Gazelles as obove:not suited for domestication !

Emergence of livestock husbandry in Early Neolithic Anatolia …www.oxfordhandbooks.com › view › oxfordhb › oxfo… Despite interaction with humans since the final Pleistocene, domestication of Sus in southeastern Anatolia is only evidenced after 8500 bce

Spread of domestic animals across Neolithic western Anatolia …journals.plos.org › plosone › article › journal.pone.018… Oct 18, 2017 — … adds new zooarchaeological data to the existing body of research on the spread of domesticated animals across Neolithic western Anatolia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication#Animals   <In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-11,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated.  Cereal crops were first domesticated around 11,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. > My note. 9.000 BC for animals and plants but in Fertile Crescent. 9.000-10.000 BC in any case is out of range and out of any domestication !

From Gheorghiu’s paper: <<Assuming that the presence of the various species of animals acts as evidence of a specific ecosystem, the iconography acquires meaning and structure. Peters
and Schmidt (2004: 211-212) already approached this semiotics of the landscape, by stressing that “[w]hile the
combination of gazelle and Asiatic wild ass on P[illar]21 is indicative for dry, open landscapes, other species such as aurochs, wild boar and cranes are partial to moist, riparian habitats. Such a mixture of biotopes is found at the ecotone of steppe and river valley vegetation, and this must have been the case along most water courses in both the Euphrates and Tigris drainage regions.” >>

None of above animals could be domesticated: gazelles, aurochs,wild boar and cranes.

Göbekli Tepe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

The inhabitants are presumed to have been hunters and gatherers who nevertheless lived in villages for at least part of the year.[11][unreliable source?] So far, very little evidence for residential use has been found.[dubious – discuss] Through the radiocarbon method, the end of Layer III can be fixed at about 9000 BCE (see above), but it is hypothesized by some archaeologists[by whom?] that the elevated location may have functioned as a spiritual center during 10,000 BCE or earlier, essentially, at the very end of the Pleistocene. ….. <<Around 10.000 YBP, a new way of life emerged for humans through the management and exploitation of plant and animal species, leading to higher-density populations in the centers of domestication, the expansion of agricultural economies, and the development of urban communities>>

10.000 YBP=8.000 BC, out of Göbekli Tepe range 9.000-10.000 BCE !

<<Around the beginning of the 8th millennium BCE Göbekli Tepe lost its importance. The advent of agriculture and animal husbandry brought new realities to human life in the area, and the “Stone-age zoo” (Schmidt’s phrase applied particularly to Layer III, Enclosure D) apparently lost whatever significance it had had for the region’s older, foraging communities. >>

Göbekli Tepe’s foraging communities left the site after advent of agriculture and animal husbandry !

WIKI: <<Schmidt also interpreted the site in connection with the initial stages of the Neolithic.[6] It is one of several sites in the vicinity of Karaca Dağ, an area that geneticists suspect may have been the original source of at least some of our cultivated grains (see Einkorn). Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Karaca Dağ 30 km (20 mi) away from the site, suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaca_Da%C4%9F#:~:text=The%20results%20strongly%20suggest%20that,in%20the%20Battle%20of%20Yass%C4%B1%C3%A7emen. The results strongly suggest that slopes of Karaca Dağ provided the site for the first domestication of einkorn wheat approximately 9,000 years ago.

me: wheat domestication in the area at 7.000 BC, 2.000-3.000 years later!

Wiki: <<Schmidt also engaged in speculation regarding the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe, based on comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He presumed shamanic practices and suggested that the T-shaped pillars represent human forms, perhaps ancestors, whereas he saw a fully articulated belief in deities as not developing until later, in Mesopotamia, that was associated with extensive temples and palaces. This corresponds well with an ancient Sumerian belief that agricultureanimal husbandry, and weaving were brought to humans from the sacred mountain Ekur, which was inhabited by Annuna deities, very ancient deities without individual names. Schmidt identified this story as a primeval oriental myth that preserves a partial memory of the emerging Neolithic>>

From Cereals, feasts and monuments at Göbekli Tepe – The Tepe … https://www.dainst.blog › 2019/05/09 › cereals-feasts-a.. <<At the same time, Göbekli Tepe´s remote location on a barren mountain ridge is very unusual compared to the setting of contemporaneous Neolithic settlements, which are regularly located next to water sources.>>

From Losing your head at Göbekli Tepe – The Tepe Telegrams https://www.dainst.blog › 2016/05/05 › losing-your-he.. <<Göbekli Tepe is a special site in many respects: its location is hostile to settlement, no water sources are in vicinity; clear evidence for domestic building types missing so far in Layer III; only selection of material culture is present (very few bone tools, clay figurines absent); and there is a considerable investment of resources and work.>>

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: