×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

11,000-Year-Old Temple Found In Turkey

samzenpus posted about 6 years ago | from the chicken-or-the-egg dept.

Science 307

Ralph Spoilsport writes "In Southeast Turkey, the archaeologist Klaus Schmidt has discovered an 11,000-year-old temple. Established civilization theory suggests that agriculture created cities, and cities created monuments. This discovery suggests just the opposite — people got together to build a huge monument to their religion, and in order to sustain it, communities were formed and agriculture (already in development) quickly followed on to sustain the population. Truly a startling find with significant implications."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (5, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | about 6 years ago | (#25743241)

...turkey found in 11,000-year-old temple sounds much more delicious.

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (1)

renegadesx (977007) | about 6 years ago | (#25743273)

I thought "WOW! That must be a really big turkey!

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (1)

Incongruity (70416) | about 6 years ago | (#25743593)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (2, Funny)

fbjon (692006) | about 6 years ago | (#25744885)

I thought that, although I'm not aware of all the details of the US Thanksgiving custom, this is not the right stuffing. Besides, the temporal bone is hardly a delicacy.

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | about 6 years ago | (#25743287)

A 11,000 year old turkey found in a temple?

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743327)

This is a hoax. I saw this on spongebob the other day. or maybe it was on discovery or in twilight zone. i dont knwo i am so high right now lol

oh fart in my face
i want to hear the race of the cunt
i want to feel the air
swallow the gas
smell the sweet perfume

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (2, Funny)

SanguineV (1197225) | about 6 years ago | (#25743485)

It may be delicious, but it clearly violates the 5 second rule [wikipedia.org] .

fruitcake found in 11,000 yo temple (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#25743805)

sounds more probable

both for reasons of its greater chance of being left alone and untouched, in regards to the original inhabitants and later tomb raiders, and also for its greater chance of surviving physically, intact and inert for millenia

Re:fruitcake found in 11,000 yo temple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744021)

Plus, temples tend to attract fruitcakes anyway.

Re:fruitcake found in 11,000 yo temple (1)

zobier (585066) | about 6 years ago | (#25744431)

It's funny because I don't think I actually know anyone who likes fruitcakes.
Someone must though otherwise there wouldn't be any.

Re:fruitcake found in 11,000 yo temple (1)

fbjon (692006) | about 6 years ago | (#25744729)

I like fruitcake. At least in small doses.

Re:fruitcake found in 11,000 yo temple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25745121)

No it's not, the fruitcake is a lie.

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (1)

salparadyse (723684) | about 6 years ago | (#25744233)

Must be some sort of chaos field around that headline because I saw "11,000 yr old turkey found in temple" as well. I am not alone!!!! on behalf of the Church of the Subconscious Wishful Reader

Re:I read that wrong, and I have to admit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744443)

Also much more delicious than my misreading, 11,000-Year-Old Turkey Found in Temple.

Problem (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743249)

The bible says the earth is 6000 years old so it CANT be 11,000 years old! Simple math people!

Re:Problem (4, Insightful)

spandex_panda (1168381) | about 6 years ago | (#25743311)

Mod parent funny! This guy at my uni is quite smart, but has studied the wrong things and he can argue very thoroughly things like "there were dinosaurs roaming north America less than 500 years ago because they found red blood cells in bones..."

I personally can't stand religion messing with science, they are mutually exclusive fields IMHO. You're not gonna convince me that there is no 11,000 year old turkey because the bible says the earth is too young!!!

Re:Problem (5, Interesting)

Digitus1337 (671442) | about 6 years ago | (#25743383)

I'm not sure who to attribute it to, but one of the QOTDs on the bottom (Quote of the Moments, maybe? they change more often than daily, but I digress) said something along the lines of, "Science and religion are not incompatible, but science and faith are."

Re:Problem (5, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | about 6 years ago | (#25743631)

It's not science and faith, it's science and myths that are incompatible.

There's nothing in the bible that says how long one of God's days are (in human years), so there's no definitive date for the age of the earth in the bible -- just the age of 'men'.

That having been said, I would argue that, you could still accept the 6000 year old 'birth' date of adam and reconcile that with a 11,000 year old temple, if you declare that pre-adam homo-sapiens simply weren't officially 'men' from the bible's perspective (Pre-release betas, so to speak)

OK: so it's science and blind faith in myths that are incompatible.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743683)

No, it's pretty much science and religion that are incompatible.

Re:Problem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743925)

There's nothing in the bible that says how long one of God's days are (in human years)

But wait, is there anything in that bible that says God's days are different? Or any other examples of God-units being different than man-units?

I don't recall that there are, but my reference is only the inevitable spillover of surrounding culture; I had a pleasant agnostic upbringing. So it's a sincere question.

Without such examples, we'd have to assume any units mentioned are meant to be the same whether for God or man.

Of course we'd have to go back to the original language, and also understand that language well enough to understand what a "day" was meant to be in all occurances. It could be pretty flexible, just like we have cultures that don't have much of a number system, and just use their version of "many" pretty early in discussing quantity.

Re:Problem (2, Informative)

Ian Alexander (997430) | about 6 years ago | (#25744101)

In the original Hebrew, the term translated into days can also mean a kind of generic unit for time. Could've been days, could've been some other unit of time entirely, though the traditional interpretation is just to mean "days."

Re:Problem (5, Insightful)

IorDMUX (870522) | about 6 years ago | (#25744327)

Of course we'd have to go back to the original language, and also understand that language well enough to understand what a "day" was meant to be in all occurances. It could be pretty flexible, just like we have cultures that don't have much of a number system, and just use their version of "many" pretty early in discussing quantity.

If you go back to the original Hebrew, you find that it's not even that big of an issue because the word "day" doesn't even appear.

I believe the Hebrew word used in Genesis is "yem" (or something like that), which simply means "passage of time"--much like our modern-day "eon" except without the automatic connotation of a long time period (though not excluding long periods of time). In other words, essentially zero context as to how long was the period that was translated into the English word "day".

Re:Problem (2, Insightful)

jabuzz (182671) | about 6 years ago | (#25744573)

If you actually read the first chapter of Genesis and actually apply some basic reading comprehension you will find that in the beginning God creates the heavens and earth, then at some point later he says let their be light, and then after that at some indeterminate period of time he separates the the light from the dark and there is day and night.

What that means is he could have spent 10 billion years creating the heavens and the earth if he wanted, we have no way whatsoever of knowing, as the bible has *NOTHING* to say on the subject.

All this six/seven day and 6000 year nonsense is from a bunch of illiterate morons.

Re:Problem (5, Funny)

ColaMan (37550) | about 6 years ago | (#25744919)

in the beginning God creates the heavens and earth, then at some point later he says let their be light

That's why I find God to be so amazing. He made all this, IN THE DARK! I would have been, "Oh, sod this, let there be a small star or something, so I can see what I'm doing here."

Actually, that explains why some things are a bit fucked up. Wave/Particle duality? Yeah, look, God couldn't see exactly what He was doing there when that bit came together, so no wonder. Duck-billed mamallian egg-laying Platypuses? Vestigial tails on humans? Same deal. With Him working blind, consider yourself lucky you don't have an anus right next to your nose.

(Well, *some* people do sometimes, but that's a matter of lifestyle preference.)

Re:Problem (3, Funny)

oliverthered (187439) | about 6 years ago | (#25745165)

Wave/Particle duality isn't fucked up at all. It's kinda quite cosy.

Re:Problem (4, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | about 6 years ago | (#25744057)

nah, it's rational thought and faith that are incompatible. myths aren't incompatible with science/rational thought as long as you recognize what they are. you can be a rational person and adhere to scientific principles while appreciating cultural myths, folklore, and legends.

i mean, you can be an atheist and still appreciate the beauty of Greek mythology. you don't have to actually believe in Hellenic polytheism to appreciate the literary value and rich cultural tapestry that's woven into Greek mythology. likewise, you can study and appreciate the myths of other ancient cultures without abandoning logic and reason.

but religion by definition requires blind faith, and that's why it's incompatible with rational thought.

Re:Problem (1)

dch24 (904899) | about 6 years ago | (#25744355)

You argue that any bit of faith makes a person blind, but you've taken that as a premise to your argument: "religion by definition requires blind faith." What definition are you going by? Religion is a very complex subject, but appealing to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] just to simplify things still leaves you with this:

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

In the frame of western religious thought, religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane. Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

You might prove to a believer that their belief is false (impossible, since religion is not falsifiable - it is "personal faith and religious experience").

Or you will have to demonstrate the exact rational nature of religion, which is impossible as long as religion escapes out through "division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane."

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein (1941) [wikiquote.org]

So if you swear off all religion, Mr. Einstein says you're in bad shape. But as long as you don't swear off all science, the two ought to coexist, according to him.

Re:Problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744689)

I find many who do believe in it are capable of both believing, in say, the Germanic Gods and embracing the associated philosophy and way of life, and still think rationally.

Science and metaphysics aren't mutually exclusive, I mean take the Germanic creation myth for example: with the void of Ginnundagap, the fires of Muspelheim collided with the frost of Niffelheim, thereby creating Ymnir (matter?), from whom the nine worlds were crafted. It's not particularly scientific, but it doesn't differ much from the big bang -> matter -> heavenly bodies theory. One can feasibly argue that the three brothers, Woden, Wili and We who crafted the nine worlds from the remains of Ymnir as Nordic-style personifications of natural forces. Which is in line with the classification of deities; the Jotnar being personifications of natural forces (Skadi -> frost, Aegir -> ocean, Ran -> storms, Surtr -> fire, etc), the Vanir being personifications of nature as they affect man (Njord -> seafaring, Freyjr and Freyja -> fertility, etc) and the Aesir being personifications of man-made constructs (Odin -> Wisdom, Thor -> courage, Forsetti -> Justice, Tyr -> leadership, etc). Combined with how the Aesir/Vanir groups are presented as tribe elders, and inhabitants of this universe, and the heavy emphasis on ancestor veneration, one can argue that the Gods are just that ancestors who either ascended to a higher plane, or achieved "immortality" through achievement and reputation, (which is another heavily-emphasized aspect of the belief-structure), hell, the Gods are even depicted as mortal (most of them are killed at Ragnarok, and are replaced by a new generation, who rebuild the world from the rubble)

Just like you can be an atheist and appreciate mythology, you can be spiritual without abandoning logic and reason. It's just a case of being able to read between the lines and spot an analogy when you see one. They aren't meant to be taken word for word, or to be taken as a replacement to scientific process.

But I guess that's why I make the distinction between being spiritual and being religious (believing vs. following, not dogmatising vs. dogmatising). The "big three" semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), or their followers, more aptly, kinda ruined the whole religion thing with the taking everything word for word as fact, and abandoning reason and logic by making an enemy out of science.

Spirituality does not place itself at odds with science, and in all fairness, neither does religion. It's the followers of religion who place them at odds with science. And non religious people just waste their time trying to "reason" (read: convince them otherwise) with them. They abandoned reason when instead of embracing science (also for what it is), placed it at odds with their religion.

Though honestly the atheists who dismiss all spirituality and religion as dogmatic faerie tales and opposite to science are just as unreasonable as the religious, creationist zealots. There's absolutely no reason that spirituality and science need to be mutually exclusive. Blind faith is opposite to science, and blind faith isn't a requirement of spiritual belief.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25745103)

but religion by definition requires blind faith

No, it does not. In fact, religion doesn't require anything at all other than a willingness to be part of a power structure. You certainly do not have to BELIEVE in anything.

What you probably meant is that belief by definition requires blind faith, but that's not true, either.

The only thing that requires blind faith by definition is blind faith itself. And indeed, science and blind faith are incompatible, pretty much by definition again, and that's just the conflict we're seeing with many of the dimwits all over the world today.

Re:Problem (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 6 years ago | (#25744381)

No, science is incompatible with any kind of faith in any kind of myth.

Re:Problem (1)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | about 6 years ago | (#25744625)

There's nothing in the bible that says how long one of God's days are (in human years)

If a day in the bible is not a day, then the bible could just as well be an introduction to object oriented programming in Lisp.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Why would God tell us something lasted a day if it lasted several years. I guess Gods Ways are inconceivable..

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25745083)

Religion is completely based in myth.

Re:Problem (2, Informative)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | about 6 years ago | (#25743977)

Science and religion are not incompatible, but science and faith are

That applies only to religions that insist that their mythical stories be taken as fact. Not all religions do that. Try not to be so exclusive -- Christianity is not the only religion out there. Making sweeping generalizations like that makes you (and the others in this thread who did the same) look prejudiced.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744153)

Faith is belief without proof... if you knew that a thing were true you wouldn't need to have "faith" in it.

Science demands proof... faith is not and can never be a part of science.

Re:Problem (5, Insightful)

dch24 (904899) | about 6 years ago | (#25744451)

You mistake the interplay between truth (is there any?), theory, hypothesis, and observation.

Both science and faith can exist in this gray area.

Science generates incremental, provable (observable, repeatable) hypotheses. If these are generally believed (faith!), they are called a theory. There is no generally accepted absolute truth [wikipedia.org] available to a scientist.

I refer you to Albert Einstein's quote, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," and so religion at least can co-exist with science. You certainly don't have to accept either one!

Faith in the scientific method and in the majority of your scientific peers is essential, unless you intend to resolve everything you believe in through exhaustive observations -- and then you would only have it down to a small probability that you are deceived. Scientists must consider their peers and teachers trustworthy, or our collected knowledge could not be accepted and those who found it out would die faster than those who could prove it to themselves.

Faith in absolute truths accepted by a large population at some point gets called a "religion." [wikipedia.org] Pascal's wager [wikipedia.org] -- since the majority of the humans alive today are religious, you are safer to accept the hypothesis that religion is not a hoax, than you are to accept the hypothesis that religion is a hoax -- implies that science provides support of faith.

So in other words, science (about faith) proves that faith is a reasonable assumption -- as much as science can prove anything. Faith (in science) is a necessary assumption to prevent the loss of scientific knowledge, and faith as a general quality allows scientists to work together.

Science often suffers from "groupthink." Faith often also gets lost in "myth." All in pursuit of truth, something that men can't ever really capture.

Good luck!

One CAN manage both science and faith (1)

Jesrad (716567) | about 6 years ago | (#25744671)

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, if you delimit their domains: faith for things metaphysical, un(dis)provable either way ; science for all the mundane, observable / measurable things. That's the Discordian way.

Obligatory (0, Redundant)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | about 6 years ago | (#25743389)

I for one welcome our cloned 500 year old Jurassic overlords.

PS. I suggest you ask him what Dinosaur DNA looks like, and when his first test subject is due to hatch.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743319)

Agreed. If people congregated to build monuments to god and then evolution would favour people who more easily believed in supernatural things and therefore God exists. An amazing day for god warriors everywhere!

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743329)

Im a comedian you insensative clod!

- AC

Re:Problem (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 6 years ago | (#25743715)

Not a problem, this was god's pre-earth space temple and he created Turkey so he would have a place to put it.

Re:Problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744241)

How did they work out that it was 11,000 years?

Did they find a dated invoice from the builders? There is no reliable way of working out the age of things, and carbon dating has only been proved to work correctly up to 4,000 years.

The volcanic rock at Mount St. Helens has been carbon dated to hundreds of thousands of years old, even though it erupted in 1980.

FIRST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743269)

I put my PENIS IN Palin'S ASSHOLE

I Farted

AAHAHA

Turkey's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743357)

16th holiest temple!

Re:Turkey's... (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | about 6 years ago | (#25744419)


As far as I can see, it's only someone's assumption that this was a temple. Who says that it had to have been religious in nature or even that in those times, religion was distinct in anyway from politics or science? This could have been an art installation, a marker for a trading post or any number of other things. It could have been a marker for a grave for example. A very big one, pyramid style.

Another common mystery (5, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#25743429)

"Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."

We've known about the rings at Stonehenge for how long? What do we know about them? Not much.

The simple fact is that we are still discovering evidence of what man did before inventing writing of any sort. I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right.

Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me. There has to be more history in the dirt than we know about. Chances of us finding it... meh!

I don't think that the curve of knowledge acquisition of the last 500 years is a linear projection of the millions of years before them. I think this whole gain in knowledge is rather logarithmic in nature. Meaning that the first several thousand centuries passed without writing, without lasting evidence to show we had been there. Stonehenge, the Sphinx... how many others? They all stand there with no written account of who or why they were erected. We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete).

Point is, this should not be surprising. What should be is that it has taken this long to find it, never mind any other corroborating evidence of early man's efforts to create. What the temple could mean in terms of sociology or religion is pittance compared to what it means to evolution IMO. The technology and effort used to create it means a lot. Guesses about agriculture and social groupings are just that. I have a sneaking suspicion that socially, mankind evolved from pack/clan culture early on. There are so many similarities to that, but we just don't see it in modern society, or ignore it. sheeple anyone? They need a pack leader, right?

Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found. We, as a species, need it to fully recognize where we came from, for that is how you understand what direction to go. Just an opinion.

Re:Another common mystery (1)

Xiroth (917768) | about 6 years ago | (#25743575)

that what science knows now is all there is to know

Coming from a scientific background...*shudder* I can't think of anything worse. Thank god the universe still has an incredible amount still to explore.

Re:Another common mystery (5, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#25743693)

I agree with you! I basically write code for a living right now, and every day I learn something new. It's invigorating. I cannot imagine that learning new things about the as yet unknown or our past is not invigorating for mankind. I look back at old code I have written and think... wow, I know a lot more now.

Interestingly, I don't believe this kind of thinking is new. 1000 years before the library at Alexandria there must have been people who thought the same thoughts. It follows that 10,000 years before that people had the same thoughts. All the way back past learning how to use fire or the wheel. Where we might be in 50, 100, or 500 years is an incredible thought. The people who built this temple must have done it with the latest technology and skills available... meaning that there were many skills and technologies prior that were not as good. From their perspective, it would seem no different than an architect working on a new building today.

Our knowledge and skill really took off flying when we created ways to store knowledge and share it easily. The easier it is to share knowledge, the greater mankind becomes. My vote for invention of the last 1000 year? The internet, for all the reasons stated. Now, you as a 'scientist' can share your ideas with all of us, and we with you. One thought in the bathtub can lead to great moments in science. (unless you are in the porn industry... but that is another matter).

When I was in school, the paper encyclopedia was all there was, or a library. Now I can consult libraries all over the world... and never leave my house. Awesome. I hope that this discovery being blasted across the planet spurs on ideas and knowledge linking that was not possible before it's publication. Sort of the butterfly effect of knowledge acquisition.

I wish to know more about our past and origins and will patiently wait for those good folks who do such things to discover clues. I wait feeling assured that my wait is not in vain, that there will be answers, and that no one will find the garden of Eden. Discoveries like this can only light the way toward that enlightenment. I want to know about all the mysteries as though they were birthday gifts to me. Why are the Nasca lines there? Why did the migration of early man leave us separated? (I secretly doubt this is true) I want to know the true origins of mankind. I would also like to meet an alien. If not in person, by some communication method. I'm not afraid of what can be, or was. I just want to know. Simply knowing all these things and more is reason enough to have lived.

Enough blathering, on with the discoveries :-)

Re:Another common mystery (1)

Yoozer (1055188) | about 6 years ago | (#25743751)

The easier it is to share knowledge, the greater mankind becomes. My vote for invention of the last 1000 year? The internet, for all the reasons stated.

You mean the printing press. The obvious reason is that a peasant in a 3rd world country won't own a computer - heck, most people didn't because it was a nerdy thing. Both require literacy, and the press's slightly higher treshold to get things published means you wouldn't get the book equivalent of a selection of random Youtube comments.

The internet's nice, but pales compared to Gutenberg, really.

Re:Another common mystery (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#25743997)

No, I don't. While the printing press is good, very good, it pales miserably compared to the speed and efficacy of the Internet at spreading information.

From our favorite site (wikipedia):

It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.[2]

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance.

Books were not invented by Gutenberg, only a way of making them faster. The Internet has done serious damage to his contributions. Magazines and newspapers are struggling to stay in business in opposition to the Internet. Citizen reporting and writing has replaced what took weeks, months, and years with a process that takes minutes. Read that again. Minutes! While Gutenberg did a good thing, the results of his work were still subject to censorship. The Internet has worked it's way around most censorship (China and Australia excepted) Even the FCC has admitted that the fairness doctrine is all but useless under the weight of the onslaught of information from the Internet. Gutenberg made publishing faster, the Internet has made everyone a fast publisher.

It matters not whether peasants in third world countries own a computer. The knowledge that they do receive will be based on information that was amalgamated as a result of the Internet.

There will not be a book equivalent of 'random youtube comments' for reasons that you missed. They are not relevant outside the scope of the video itself. Remember Reader's Digest? The onslaught of the Internet has made it rather moot. Ughhhh, peasants don't have Reader's Digest either. The point is that the Internet has affected more people, more quickly, and more profoundly than any other invention for decades and longer. Not even the Spanish Inquisition had such an effect. Some of those peasants you talk of want me to help them smuggle a king's ransom out of war torn countries in Africa, and they tell me so over the Internet.

Yes, the Internet has not reached 100% of the world's population yet. Neither have books BTW. Illiteracy is still a problem. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4420772.stm [bbc.co.uk] Your point falls flat.

So, with that, I must say I disagree

Re:Another common mystery (4, Funny)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | about 6 years ago | (#25743917)

So you're saying that in ancient times, hundreds of years before the dawn of history, there lived an ancient race, the Druids. No-one knows who they were, or what they were doing, but their legacy remains, hewn into the living rock of Stonehenge.

Re:Another common mystery (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | about 6 years ago | (#25744311)

Where are they now ? The Little People of stone 'enge and what would they say to us if they were here, tonight ?

Re:Another common mystery (2, Funny)

laejoh (648921) | about 6 years ago | (#25744639)

Mod this up to eleven please!

Re:Another common mystery (3, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 years ago | (#25744107)

"I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right."

I'm continually amazed how often people claim this, I cannot think of one person I have met in my 50yrs that has held this idea but there are countless people who claim it is common.

What's more the assertion itself implies that somewhere "out there" is a correct answer that we can all accept with 100% unchanging certainty. That concept is the contrary to science both in philosophy and implementation, science simply provides the best answer (as demonstrated by centuries of usefull spin-off's). IMHO the pace of knowledge acquisition over the last 50yrs has exploded due mainly to more accessible education and a massive reduction of influence from religion. On the longer term mankinds colective body of knowledge goes up and down, but it does have a fairly consistent upward trend and is definitely related to events in society.

"Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me."

Then I suggest you argue with Dawkins or Gould.

"Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found."

I am glad to see you support the work even though you personally think it's meaningless, it implies a trust in science on your part that I admire. Having said that, it's only meaningless to those who don't understand what those "guesses" about the relationship between agriculture/religion/buildings are based on. Turkey (via many lines of evidence) is where both agriculture and buildings originated ~10,000yrs ago, an 11,000yo temple (anywhere in the world) is therefore meaningfull to people who are intrested in the origins and spread of civilization (not that nomadic tribes are uncivilised, just that they have an alterantive definition-re: modern day Mongolia). But yes, there is still a lot we don't know outside of Europe - perhaps Turkey wasn't the birthplace of civilization but right now at this point in time that idea is far more speculative than any of the ideas in TFA.

"We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete)."

Again simply because we don't know everything does not mean we know nothing. Some people actually know quite a bit about the various methods (note the plural) used to build pyramids. Normally they were made from limestone and/or granite blocks, some were given a coating of lime to make the sides smooth and white. Over the millenia most (if not all) the lime coating has been scavanged to cover the walls of nearby towns/cities.

As for "concrete blocks", it's an interesting idea backed up by a couple of material analysists and (to me anyway) the limestone covering demonstrates they knew about "concrete" but these guys are still very far from providing the evidence needed to ADD it to accepted idea's, let alone the "extrodinary evidence" that would be needed to show ALL pyramids were built with the concrete method.

Re:Another common mystery (1)

dargaud (518470) | about 6 years ago | (#25744423)

I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found.

A lot has been found already, with incredible surprises: the site does not seem to have a city nearby. It's 20km away from where wild wheat comes from. The stones are very different from any other megalithic culture. The site was _purposefuly_ covered with dirt (for our own enjoyment?).

I've been following this discovery for a while and it's certainly the most extraordinary archaeological find of our generation.

Re:Another common mystery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744465)

We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete).

I'm sorry, but... what? Concrete? That's funny.

What the temple could mean in terms of sociology or religion is pittance compared to what it means to evolution IMO. [...] I have a sneaking suspicion that socially, mankind evolved from pack/clan culture early on

That's even more funny. You assert that this find is most significant from an evolutionary point of view, and then elaborate by making a statement about the social history of Man. You do know that evolution is usually thought to refer to somatic changes in species, right?

Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found. We, as a species, need it to fully recognize where we came from, for that is how you understand what direction to go. Just an opinion.

Well, we're gonna have problems with that. Science, and in particular studies into our own history, are a work in progress. You may choose to dismiss all findings until a definite answer is found, as long as you are ok to wait a few thousand years. But don't expect the rest of the world to exhibit that same patience.

The significance of this find can be found in the first paragraph about the first agricultural revolution [wikipedia.org] . This temple predates the earliest known settlements by about a thousand years. But that is not meaningful, because we now know less about our history than we thought we did, right?

It could be worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743433)

I guess discovering a 11,000-year-old temple in Turkey is better than discovering it in Uranus.

That's a leap (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | about 6 years ago | (#25743453)

How do you jump from finding one very old temple to deciding that the motivation for all civilization starting and people getting together being religion?

Sounds to me like someone with religion is trying to justify their bad habit.

Re:That's a leap (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 years ago | (#25743623)

No, sounds to me like someone's trying to drum up funding for the next dig.

"With my last expedition, I revolutionized our thought about religion. What will I do next time? With a modest grant and my immeasurable innate skill, its only a matter of time before my brilliance is further pored out to the undeserving human wretches. That my greatest gift to humanity is to nourish the those worthy of drinking of my genius, and drowning those unworthy. Thank you for your support."

Re:That's a leap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744135)

haha, may I use that paragraph of yours in my next grant application?

Re:That's a leap (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744563)

How do you jump from finding one very old temple to deciding that the motivation for all civilization starting and people getting together being religion?

It need not be religion. Consider the following observations:
- ancient Man changed from a nomadic people to stationary societies (settlements)
- the oldest known settlements in mesopotamia (present-day Turkey) are from around 10,000BC
- 10,000BC is also considered to be the onset of agriculture

Based on those findings, it was presumed that agriculture was the catalyst that enabled us to stop roaming. Now, we add another fact:
- a temple was built in mesopotamia around 11,000BC

This can have different implications. One of its implications is that the discovery of agriculture was not instrumental in allowing us to settle down, or that perhaps agriculture was discovered before 10,000BC.

Another implication, and the one alluded to in the summary, is that people did not gather around grain fields or otherwise fruitful soil, but instead gathered around sites of worship, and that perhaps the discovery (or exploration) of agriculture was a result of us becoming stationary.

It's not much of a leap. Neither is it a certainty, there are other possibilities as well.

Re:That's a leap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744895)

> Sounds to me like someone with religion is trying to justify their bad habit.

More likely some archaeologist is trying to inflate the importance of his find.

Come on it was for the hunt (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743461)

The Predators showed the early tribes how to build it structures, thats' common knowledge.....

Wikipedia entry (5, Informative)

S3D (745318) | about 6 years ago | (#25743505)

Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on the subject is more clear and concise. Also it's not exactly a news - wiki entry dates from four years ago.

Re:Wikipedia entry (2, Funny)

Bob The Cowboy (308954) | about 6 years ago | (#25743581)

Also it's not exactly a news - wiki entry dates from four years ago.

We'll just see about that! I bet you also weren't aware that the number of 11,000 year old Temples found in Turkey have tripled in the last six months!

Re:Wikipedia entry (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 6 years ago | (#25744359)

So they have a building, with no evidence of people living there so it must be a temple?

And they have radiocarbon dated the soil and "pedogenic carbonate" coatings on the pillars, these are a) assumed to be from the time it was in use/abandoned b) correct carbon dates ....

They have, besides the buildings, and carbon in the soil, nothing else to date... and stone is notoriously hard to date accurately?

I would like better evidence of a build date than they have ...

Re:Wikipedia entry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744685)

"pedogenic carbonate" coatings on the pillars

My Latin is very bad. What does "pedogenic" mean? "coming from the feet" or "made by kids"?

Does that imply people scratched their itchy feet on pillars' surface, or perhaps the kids smeared buggers from their noses on them?

Re:Wikipedia entry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25745099)

The coolest thing about that entry is the lat/long location, which you can then view in Google Maps [google.com] . The stone rings are clearly visible in the imagery.

Lies (1)

nawcom (941663) | about 6 years ago | (#25743507)

Bah!! Everyone knows that Jeebus' daddy made this to trick the stupid scientists!

Re:Lies (1)

Louis Savain (65843) | about 6 years ago | (#25743657)

So the hunters and gatherers suddenly decided to cut ten-ton blocks of stones with their flint tools, carved sophisticated figures on them and carried them many miles to their current location. Makes a lot of sense. Not!

Methinks a bunch of clueless know-it-alls have been feeding us unlearned commoners a bunch of BS.

Re:Lies (1)

joelleo (900926) | about 6 years ago | (#25743881)

From TFA:

"Even without metal chisels or hammers, prehistoric masons wielding flint tools could have chipped away at softer limestone outcrops, shaping them into pillars on the spot before carrying them a few hundred yards to the summit and lifting them upright."

Not exactly "many miles."

I doubt that very f**ing much. (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 years ago | (#25743539)

Since large communities and cities are not possible without agriculture, I highly doubt that agriculture sprang up after communities and cities.

Asserting that it did work that way (as the OP does), is like asserting that gasoline was developed to fuel all those gasoline engines that were already lying around.

Re:I doubt that very f**ing much. (3, Insightful)

Grant_Watson (312705) | about 6 years ago | (#25743633)

Since large communities and cities are not possible without agriculture, I highly doubt that agriculture sprang up after communities and cities.

I think the OP was trying to argue that the growth of cities and monuments drove the development of agriculture, rather than simply being a nifty aftereffect.

It still doesn't compute (2, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | about 6 years ago | (#25745007)

Actually, if you think about it, it doesn't even f-ing make any sense:

1. You can't have a city _before_ you have a stable source of food that doesn't move around.

2. Agriculture depended on a mutation in a species of grass, that made it have bigger grains. It first started with wild Rye, actually, but the mutation of emmer wheat was what really kicked things into gear. It's a tetraploid plant, meaning that at some point it acquired _two_ sets of chromosomes, and that mutation survived.

You can't cause a mutation by simply building a city or a temple.

3. The only major invention that happened in that time for agriculture was irrigation. At some point some guys in Egypt for example discovered that if you plant your seeds in the wet earth after the Nile's flood is over, you get a lot of grain to eat. I don't know how it happened in Messopotamia, and it could have been independent, but that's literally what they did: imitate a flood. They'd literally flood their fields with water from a river, later from a canal bringing water farther from a river, then close the gates and let the water dry, then plant grain.

That's it. That's the only change that happened to agriculture in thousands of years.

So how did cities and monuments drive it? It's not like any change happened to agriculture because of those cities. People still sowed and reaped in the exact same way as their ancestors did, and the only change was needing more and more land to feed more and more people. That's it.

4. By contrast it's easier to see the effects of agriculture on the cities. E.g., the rise to power and importance of priesthood in Egypt because they could tell you when the next flood starts, or of those who controlled the canals in Messopotamia, is a direct effect of agriculture. Or on religion? Well, Egypt had some half a dozen deities connected in some way with agriculture, and that's just off the top of my head.

Heck, even the fact that those cities grew walls and codes of laws and standing armies, is an effect of not being able to move freely in response to threats and invasions. You _had_ to stay there near the river you irrigated your crops with, no matter what, and you had to live with each other because there was nowhere else to go if half the tribe doesn't like the other half.

If you look at the tribes which didn't practice agriculture (e.g., northern Europe until very late), they were a lot more inclined to just pack their shit and move when they overpopulated. While we tend to draw an age of migrations around the age when the Roman Empire started getting shafted by them, they moved around a lot before that too. E.g., Caesar's eventual conquest of Gaul started when the Helvetii just packed their shit and wanted to pass through and plunder the territory of the Allobroges which were clients of Rome. E.g., the Teutons and Cimbri migrated through the whole f-ing Europe, before being stopped by the Romans in 101 BC and 102 BC. E.g., while everyone remembers the spanking that the Goths gave to the Byzantines, how do you think the Goths ended up in Dacia when starting from Scandinavia in the first place?

It's only when they got into agriculture that they started trying to build stone forts and defend their plots of land. Sure, some had to migrate later anyway, when someone else displaced them, but you can see the abrupt change in attitude before and after agriculture anyway. After agriculture it's no longer about some space to live in, but about the land itself. The very place you're in becomes worth defending.

Again, it's damn impossible to see an effect the other way around. Building a stone fort or a temple doesn't make your fields suddenly grow grain, or anything. Discovering a plant you can grow, or a plough that can work on your type of soil does. (The latter was what changed the situation in Europe, btw.)

Re:I doubt that very f**ing much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743717)

I think its more along the lines of people wanting to live around the temples in 'cities' and so better means to support them were made.

dont be silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743555)

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact they attempt explanations at very similar subjects...most obviously the origin and future of the universe. They might very well combine to more fully answer them. Further more, I think that in many ways science has become a religion.

One thing everyone I talk to agrees with me about is that over the next fifty years we will continue to make amazing new discoveries that will rewrite our science. That implies that some of todays theories are wrong! So it is a good idea to remain a bit humble when arguing about science. This also implies that we are acting with a good deal of faith in scientific theories which are not yet proven. Can anyone throw out some good examples of previous scientific theories proven wrong ...or possibly proven wrong. Lol. Remember that the bunk theories of the earth being the center of the universe and then the sun were scientific before they were associated with religious zealots.

Re:dont be silly (5, Informative)

meringuoid (568297) | about 6 years ago | (#25744151)

That implies that some of todays theories are wrong! ... This also implies that we are acting with a good deal of faith in scientific theories which are not yet proven.

Pretty much all of today's theories are wrong, in the sense that they are inaccurate and incomplete. General relativity fails us at the beginning of the Universe and at the centre of a black hole. Quantum mechanics gives us no description at all of gravitational effects. In cases where we need to use both theories together we end up with infinities and singularities and contradictions all over the place.

A new theory will dramatically change our description of these exotic systems. But in order to work, such a theory must agree with the current theories in domains where those theories are known to be valid. General relativity replaced Newtonian gravity, but it could only do so because it made nearly the same predictions in conditions where Newtonian gravity worked. Newton's theory is still used for interplanetary navigation, because the calculations are so much simpler and the error is small - but if you had to do a gravitational slingshot round a neutron star you'd go to Einstein.

I'd just add that no scientific theory is ever proved. You want proof, the mathematics department is next door. You want certainty, there's a church down the road. In science we accumulate evidence, and the more evidence agrees with our predictions, the more confident in the theory we become - but you can never test every possible case.

Gosh I'm stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743619)

I read that and promptly wondered how an 11,000 year old temple could possibly have been found inside a turkey. Must have been tiny...

It's in Japan. Japan always on the edge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25743635)

This one looks more advanced to me

http://members.toast.net/rjspina/images/yonaguni1-12.jpg

It's about 10ky too

Re:It's in Japan. Japan always on the edge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744229)

That's R'lyeh. Don't mention it outside our meetings please.

well yeah (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#25743641)

when i play the aztecs, i can usually get my obelisk built before my starting worker even finishes his first few roads, nevermind that i haven't even discovered agriculture yet. of course, this is because the aztecs have mysticism as a starting tech, and assumes i'm not cranking out warriors to combat barbarian threats so...

wait, we're talking reality?

sorry

Re:well yeah (1)

meringuoid (568297) | about 6 years ago | (#25744927)

when i play the aztecs, i can usually get my obelisk built before my starting worker even finishes his first few roads, nevermind that i haven't even discovered agriculture yet. of course, this is because the aztecs have mysticism as a starting tech, and assumes i'm not cranking out warriors to combat barbarian threats so...

Expanding your capital's culture isn't so important at the very beginning, unless there's a really juicy resource outside your initial nine squares. Better to produce an extra scout or warrior, to boost your chances of grabbing free techs from goody huts. Your palace produces culture and will get you the expansion soon enough anyway. Obelisks become important when you're founding cities and want to establish a continuous territory, to obstruct rivals' expansion.

If you start with Mysticism, make a dash for Buddhism. If you don't, then research Mysticism then go for Hinduism. Grab a religion early on and you often won't need to build obelisks.

What I want to know is how anyone managed to build a temple so early. Priesthood is several techs in.

Obligatory joke (5, Funny)

Amiralul (1164423) | about 6 years ago | (#25743711)

So Germans found some cooper wires deep in the ground near Berlin and concluded that their ancestors used electricity way before anyone else, circa 1,000 years ago. Later on, the British found near London some glass way deeper than previous German team and concluded than optical cable was used on British 2,000 years ago. Turkish people kept digging and digging and found nothing. They concluded that their ancestors from 11,000 years ago have used wireless.

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744161)

The reason the British went with optical cable was because the packet loss on the Turkish wireless networks was totally unheard of

Re:Obligatory joke (2, Insightful)

zobier (585066) | about 6 years ago | (#25744561)

You jest, but primitive peoples - at least in Oceana and Polynesia - have been using wireless communication for aeons.

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744989)

So Germans found some cooper wires deep in the ground near Berlin and concluded that their ancestors used electricity way before anyone else, circa 1,000 years ago. Later on, the British found near London some glass way deeper than previous German team and concluded than optical cable was used on British 2,000 years ago. Turkish people kept digging and digging and found nothing. They concluded that their ancestors from 11,000 years ago have used wireless.

Bwahaha ! :)

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25745019)

No Polack version?

Either Way (1)

srothroc (733160) | about 6 years ago | (#25743787)

The summary seems to make it a lot more revolutionary than I think it is. It's not like the temple represents definite evidence that the current way of thinking is /wrong/. I'm not an anthropologist, but it seems to me like you could make a monument and then a city to support it as well as the other way around; there's no reason it has to be one way or another.

I'm sure that for every Stonehenge in the middle of nowhere, there's a Colosseum in the middle of a city.

People didn't build that temple (3, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | about 6 years ago | (#25743867)

Jesus did. With falsely pre-aged faith testing blocks.

Re:People didn't build that temple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744607)

My brother died that way, you insensitive clod!

Apparently... (2, Funny)

crossmr (957846) | about 6 years ago | (#25743979)

you've been to my grandma's house at thanksgiving...

It is obvious what they have found: (1)

Hucko (998827) | about 6 years ago | (#25744191)

The tower of Babel. Moved when the continents split up during the days of Peleg.

So it seems-you CAN go back back to Constantinople (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744239)

They Might Be Giants indeed.

I'm glad it was Turkey and not Afghanistan! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 years ago | (#25744295)

All politics aside this --> http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archaeology/2001-03-22-afghan-buddhas.htm [usatoday.com] -- is why I hate the Taliban... that and their abuse of women.

Had this discovery occurred in a land where the Taliban had influence, it likely would not have lasted very long after discovery.

Re:I'm glad it was Turkey and not Afghanistan! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744837)

Do you also hate the US government then?

For bombing all that is left of Mesopotamia out of existence presenting lies as excuses?

Do you actually think anyone here is going to live to see the stolen archaeological pieces from Iraq museums ever displayed in public again?

Had this discovery occurred in a land where the Taliban had influence, it likely would not have lasted very long after discovery.

Had this discovery occurred in a land where Bush went after oil, it likely would not have lasted long enough for discovery.

Why always a temple? (4, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 6 years ago | (#25744329)

Why do archaeologists always declare that old buildings are temples? It could have been a Sandwich Shop or a Greasy Spoon for all we know.

but the world was created 5000 years ago (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744435)

wasn't it?

Chicken and Egg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25744663)

So this overturns the standard answer about what came first: the chicken or the egg.

Should put an end to that long lasting debate!

News about science, comments about religion (0, Troll)

BlackCreek (1004083) | about 6 years ago | (#25744815)

I understand that the job of the moderation system is to keep the good posts visible, and off-topic, flame stuff down.

Still science posts are often the hallmark of how this system doens't work. News on science, people only talk about religion. How the bible this and that....

Does anyone has recommendations of better science news forums? Where you know, people actually focus on Science?

Re:News about science, comments about religion (2, Insightful)

Petrushka (815171) | about 6 years ago | (#25745041)

Does anyone has recommendations of better science news forums? Where you know, people actually focus on Science?

Academic journals.

I'm very much afraid that other than in costly peer-reviewed forums like those, the discourse doesn't get a great deal better than Slashdot. Even in academic journals the discourse is often poorly focussed and off-topic. Even discipline-specific mailing lists aren't noticeably better: I'm not even subscribed to the most important one for my field because it's just full of US-centric political rants.

(I speak as someone who studies ancient cultures professionally, and who is keenly aware that this story is not remotely "science" in a sense that most people here would tolerate ... unless you're one of the rare birds who accept that the natural sciences and human sciences -- humanities -- have anything in common.)

OLD NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25745031)

Come on, guys, how is something that has gone up and down all the documentation channels for years now be new?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?