The Oldest Architecture?

[Michael Bulatovich]

[Jude Alexander]

Thanks for the link. Seems logical that there were lesser refined buildings (as these buildings are fairly refined) before people starting improving on their skills.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Yeah. Hoisting 50 tons 10,000 years ago? (Presumably 'before animal domestication' means 'before slavery'.)

Ever notice how the older architecture gets the more it looks like an original Star Trek set?

Comprehensive study of this place may end up rewriting the early chapters in the history books.

[++]

Or that buildings being in done in quite different materials were being replicated in stone. One example of this is the so-called Hellenistic carvings of furniture and architectural elements like beams in the caves of Bamiyan (probably blown up along with the Buddhas under the Taliban) and similar elements in "Desert Cathay". They were simply, in the first millenium BC, a way of expressing quite another kind of home to the cave's somewhat sophisticated inhabitants

[Michael Bulatovich]

Probably so, but I think the point is that if they could do this in *ninth* millenium BC, it probably points to an even earlier mastery of acrhitectural technology, and even this site is pushing backwards the assumed date and circumstances when this technology was developed.

The fact that people were doing amazing buildings so far back is one thing, but I really find it much more curious that this site was *intentionaly buried*. I'm not sure of the date of covering, but even if animals were domesticated by then, it must have been a huge undertaking, and of great significance. Any bored fool can destroy stuff, but to *bury* it intact must have had meaning that we can only guess at for now.

Anyway, I'm glad Klaus Schmidt didn't quit school at twelve, and I hope he pieces the whole story together. My habitual structural engineer is a Turk ( ..and my kid's best friend is an Shqiptar! ) and he says that Asia Minor is so littered with ancient sites that they themselves barely knew anything about it when he was coming up in school. He just came back from a business trip to Istanbul and says they're building, with permits, a Four Seasons hotel on a known Roman site in the city. You wonder how much of this stuff will get dozed in the name of progress before they realize what that word means after you all have dishwashers and cars and iPods.

[++]

That was also my obvious point as well, in support of your statement. If someone is making a fake beam look like an hellenistically carved beam that would normally be in a wooden house, then that person has seen and possibly even constructed the wooden house before moving into Mr. cave.

When you go in the caves in the volcanic area of Cappadocia in Turkey, itentionally buring prevoius parts are a ay of shoring up the tufa.Some of the Hittite chambers are incredibly far underground but stairways and etc. could undermine chambers built higher with airways.

Albanian. Considered pejorative term by anyone other than.

A lot is underground. Cisterns and such. Probably Four Seasons in near there and the underground is so vast that it is almost impossible to avoid. What is worse in archeology and architetural history is literally rasing areas. An incredible lot of Byzantine architecture was rased to present a "pristine" Acropolis in Athens I was literally shocked at some of the site drawings and photos associated with the archaeology done there.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Maybe, but this is a freestanding mound above the area's datum. They piled earth up and over exostong buildings.

Like the "N word"? I thought it was the "Albanian" word for an ethnic "Albanian." Wiki says the word is actually, "Shqiptarët", so Shqiptar is probably a Serb derivative.

Links?

[++]

If they wanted to save it, htey might have done.

No, because alone it is not pejorative. It is mroe like "Polack", semi=20 jocular in the Polish mouth but unwanted by anyone else.

No, just been there a number of times. For example, I have visited=20 every building of the Selcuk period, most of the Byzantine (if I was=20 allowed into converted structures) AND every building of Selim in=20 Istanbul and surrounds.

Big fan

[Michael Bulatovich]

Was the demolition after the advent of photography?

[Kris Krieger]

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Interesting, thanks - I've developed a peculiar interest in ancient sites (as in, before even the Romans or Greeks);Stonehenge for example, and not because of the neo-"Druid" stuff associated with it, but how people might have built it, including, how it might have been planned and then those plans executed, as well as the possible reasons the mindset, that might lie behind the plans. The Pyramids are well-documented, and, althought the idiot Conquistadores burned all but, what, four?, of the Mayan books, there is at least that much of a written roecord - no, what fascinates me is what has no written record.

So, this was an interesting link to me, and gives me some info I can look into further.

I especially liked the photo showing the bas relief of the animal. It makes me want to "get into the heads" of the people who obviously put so much energy into building the structures, to speculate on how they might have perceived the world and their role in it, and how that perception influenced their aesthetic and their reasons for transitioning from impermanent structures (huts, yurts, or whatever) to masive and permanent stone structures taht must have required quite a lot of planning and skill, as well as manpower.

Anyway, it will be interesting to look into this further. THanks for the link :)

[Kris Krieger]

"Jude Alexander" wrote in news:Rn6kj.44387$ [e-mail]:

I had read, a long time ago, that the fluting of the Greek colimns originated in the practice of wrapping mud columns with reeds so they'd hold their shape while drying. Now that's indigenous ;)

THese sncient stone structures and complexes always fire the imagination, makeing me wonder about the process, i.e. the evolution from impermanent to permanent, and what practical and aesthetic forms led to teh eventual stone forms.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Pretty, eh?

[Michael Bulatovich]

Now imagine that this was done before the advent of agriculture and technological specialization... then covered up with soil thousands of years later....like it was sacred...or evil.

[Kris Krieger]

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

THat's part of the fascination.

It amazes me that so many "modern" people seem to prefer to believe in BS about extraterrestrial builders, rather than realize that ancient people were not only as mentally sophisticated as are people nowadays, but, in my own theory, in many ways, actually smarter, in that they did not have all of the "safety nets" that current society provides, andtherfore had to be, if not more intelligent, then at least more aware and more sensible.

It seems reasonable to suggest, tho', that, having put so much into the place, and most esp. if it *was* some sort fo sacred place, if the people did have to move on due to soil depletion, climate change, or some other problem, the builders chose to cover it rather than leave it open to erosion and/or "defilement".

I think the various reasons are very understandable. It's natural to bury, or otherwise hide, something which is of great personal significance. I think that current thinking is so focused upon the notion of money=value that many people can't relate to, or even understand, the concept that value and money are two different things. Modern people think that money/price creates value, when the reality is that true value exists independent of money, and money is merely a means of acquiring or creating that which one values.

Obviously, the people who lived there must have assigned great value to the place, since they did put so much into erecting the structures, so IMO, it's perfectly reasonable that, if they did have to leave, they would prefer to bury it, rather than have it fall into the hands of those who would deface or even destroy it. If it was a sacred place, than it also is reasonably to suggest that burying it might also have been a way of preserving it, preserving the sacredness by preventing it from being tromped upon/through by people who might defile that sacredness.

Oh, quit harping on that damn string already, it only makes you appear petty.

Anyway, the original discussion was, IIRC, mroe about giving kids the option of going tech-track, entering apprenticeships, as opposed to

*forcing* EVERYONE to follow the exact same educational track, regardless of their talents or interests.

So give it a rest already and let a decently-interesting thread remain so, without the puerile sniping.

It'd be so fascinating to go there, except for the fears of violence :(

The history Channel has presented several interesting shows concerning the cities that lie beneath modern cities, and one of the most interesting delved into the ROman and even pre-Roman cities beneath Istanbul. You might be interested in catching a coupel of those shows - the chennel does repeat them.

[Michael Bulatovich]

It's now been three quarters of a day without anything but a civil, on topic post by Don, and I think he has resisted his temptations to respond to a minor provocation, so you'll note that I have also 'stood down', but not before seemingly accomplishing what I set out to do. Let's see how things unfold. There are no points for style in a street fight. I wrote that eight days ago. You should visit more often.

[Warm Worm]

Unsure they needed the kind of "safety nets" we have today anyway, given their hypothesized tighter social fabrics.

[Kris Krieger]

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Oh, far more than merely pretty ;)

Graphically intersting, also a mind-journey, and a connection, and more...

[Kris Krieger]

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I'm way ahead of you there ;) As I said, I have an interest in the plausibly possible "how's" as well as plausibly possible "why's" of prehsitoric structures.

I highly doubt that somethign so elaborate would have been erected for "evil". It *is* plausible that some later group of people thought it "evil" and buried it, but I think it's mroe likely that it would have been razed had people thought it "evil". I think it's mroe likely that the burying was an act of preservation.

[Kris Krieger]

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Heh, my copmputer should remain operational for longer periods of time.

Street fight are not things I've ever sought out. I tend to be a defender rather than an aggressor, tho' admitteldy have made unwise choices ergarding what is and isn't defensible.

Be that as it may, my annoyance was only based on my great enjoyment of this topic (ancient tructures) in general and my appreciation for your having posted the link and started a discussion of it, as opposed to the injection of a "bicker-point" so to speak. THat's all. I don't like fighting because I think it is nto only unproductive, but also destrctive.

What ti all comes down to, for me, is what is interestingand productive/constructive, versus what is not. I've been told that is part of my "problem" (the Asperger's) and my "inability to connect emotionally", and so on an dso forth and yadda aydda yadda blahblahblah. IMO, it's the opposite - what I see as a problem is that people in general allow their fleeting emotions to get the better of them, and therefore end up syaing/doing things that are unproductive.

Which is in no way whatsoever the same as trying to saythat nobody shoudl disagree - it's just that there is a productive/constructive way of disagreeing, and a way that comes to no good and merely ends up widening rifts.

There are things Don says that I don't agree with and some that irk me, and a few that I just get pisse doff at - due to lack of time, I do tend to ignore many of those, because I'm not much of a spontaneous communicator, plus I type very slowly (and even there, still can't type worth beans =:-o ). But that's true of pretty much everyone. Hell, sometimes I even piss *myself* off =:-o But the point, to me, is not to throw the proverbial baby out wiht the proverbial bath water - that's how I was trained to react while growing up, and I lost out on a lot fo interesting friendships because of it. So I've learned ot at least try to be circumspect and avoid knee-jerk reactions.

Anyhoo, the point is not that I was trying to be snooty or talk down to you or anything like that, but the opposite - when I say to soemone that they ought not bicker, it's only because I think that certain behaviors are *beaneath* that person, IOW, that the person is better than they are allowing themselves to *appear* to be.

I know Don and you don't get along, btu my view is that I think both of you have some interesting ideas, and have knowledge to offer, and I dont reject either because of a disagreement that is between you and has nothing to do, IMO, with me. To me, the main point is that bickering/sniping is a waste of time and energy, plus is, as I said, not worthy of the positive traits that I see in both you and Don.

'Nuff said, I hope, also I hope not *too much* =:-o since I know all too well that brevity/succinctness is definitly *not* one of my strong points...

[Kris Krieger]

Warm Worm wrote in news:fnlfd2$ms7$ [e-mail]:

I think that it's a very reasonable hypothesis, based upon both "modern primitive" societies (groups who still live with very little. if any, modern technology), and the known rigors of non-technological survival.

One of the stupidest things I ever heard was speculation, on one of those "anthropological" pop-science TV shows, was some drivel about how the death of a guy (whose skeleton was found at the bottom of a pitfall-cave) led to the death of his mate and children, since they'd be forced to live without their provider - that migh tbe how the current nuclear so-called family operates (with welfare standing in for what extended families used to do), but, in non-technological societies, that's not the case - for one thing, the tribe/village is basically an extended family; for another thing, when population is very limited, teh group isn't just going to stand around and let a significant percentage of its numbers just die. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that they would.

So yes, as you mention, it's likely that this sort fo ancient social structrue woudl not need safety nets, becasue the entire group (the entire extended family) was interdependent. An extra pair of hands and eyes benefits the group and is a group resopurce.