Comments on: “It may be the very first thing human beings ever built.”

By: cee

cee — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:58:09 +0000

There is a lot to be desired with the wording of the Newsweek article. Take a look at this entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Only 5 percent of the site excavated, some dwellings found, Schmidt is described as speculating that the ‘religion’ is a pre-deity ‘religion’. Also, that the reason the people came together was to protect sources of wild grain – agriculture. So, does this really turn everything upside down? How does this mean ‘religion’created cities?

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:50:27 +0000

“Heartbreaking to see so many who find it startling to see that people more ancient than we ever knew were compelled to worship and to create beauty. This is created human nature. This is not evolution.” (comment on the newsweek article)

see… there you go, creationists are gonna use this as proof!! ugh.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:48:24 +0000

His main thesis (as reported and focused on by newsweek anyhow) is that religion came before civilization, and leads to unfounded assertions like ‘Civilization happened BECAUSE of Religion/sites of worship,’ etc.

The common philosophical idea that Religion (with a capitol R, as in the institution) happened after power and property become centralized caused is not disproved by this discovery as Newsweek states.

Culturally speaking, we have no idea what significance and cultural purpose these sites had. Sure they are ‘religious,’ but how do we know whether or not EVERYTHING was inherently ‘spiritual’ for these people? What else was there?

We have a division in our culture between the ‘sacred’ and ‘profane,’ between ‘this is the time we’re going to go to church and pray’ and ‘this is the time we’re going to watch football.’

To assume the same of a culture we have little to no information about is to write our own beliefs onto a foreign culture. I’d imagine this site was as much a gathering area for people to just kick it and get together as it was proof that RELIGION was the building block of civilization.

By: Ian Thal

Ian Thal — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:10:53 +0000

Daniélou seems to be primarily a musicologist whose work was primarily focussed on Indian music and civilization– so he was working in a different part of Asia than Schmidt, whose excavations are in Turkey. So I think it would benefit us all if Skater were to explain the relationship.

Even if Schmidt’s discovery were to fit into some “larger picture” about which Daniélou theorizes, Schmidt has every right to be excited, because he found the evidence that will cause the entire field to be reevaluated; he also deserves kudos for spending 12 years leading the team that unearthed and catalogued the evidence.

By: Mark D Dreikosen

Mark D Dreikosen — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:33:49 +0000

Neither of these explain his statement (mayhaps you actually need to read the books as suggested) but here goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Dani%C3%A9lou

http://www.alaindanielou.org/index.php?lg=en

By: Jay Babcock

Jay Babcock — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:13:30 +0000

SS: Tell us more please

By: Skater Satyr

Skater Satyr — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:44:47 +0000

If he read Alain Daniélou, the good Herr Doktor Professor Schmidt wouldn’t going quite so ga-ga over this.
What he has uncovered is only a very small piece of a much larger picture that has been already well outlined by Daniélou and going back much further.