http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... ogy.turkey
This site even predates agriculture.
It also may have the first depictions of gods and religion

Much of the megalithic sites in the northern and western Europe preceede agriculture, usually only a small amount of time though.

It is not that profound of a find: there are other sites that date back to that period, not the least being Jericho. Neolithic culture, although still early, was already evident in that area of the world then. It would've been contemporary with agriculture.

Actually, it is a pretty big deal. Take notice of what Hodder says. The quotation's a good basic explanation of why the site (maybe it is more than one site) is important.
But mostly I don't think the article's a very good read.

Are there any pictures of this yet?

Always cool to see something like this. I would've liked to see some pictures of the artifacts.


Funny how they indicated they've been working on the site for a decade, for it to only be revealed recently. I guess they wanted more concrete proof of age.

It's not that major of a find in the general context of early human societies. It exists contemporary with agriculture, not "pre-agricultural" in that deliberate cultivation had already begun in that area. It could be argued as a proto-agricultural society, but that is semantics. Mr. Hodder over-exaggerated the importance of the site. Hierarchical societies predate agriculture. Complex proto-agriculturalists are already evident in the archaeological record.

What it is significant for, though, is that proto-agricultural societies could erect monuments. This is not unusual - such societies much more recently have done much the same - only in this circumstance, it is shown to be during the origins of agriculture, not - as in those cases - post-agricultural. It would suggest, thus, that the building of monuments is not simply a product of agriculture, but a process that occurred at the same time. Nothing too profound, when you honestly think about the ramifications that mass cultivation (as had occurred already by then) requires manpower and a force to tie people together. Proto-agricultural societies have been exhibited to be hierarchical and spiritual, so the power base to incite people to build monuments already exists. The fact that the 'temple' came before the 'city' is irrelevant: in order to do proto-agricultural cultivation, you need to be resident on the land being cultivated. That's already evident in other societies - though, at a much later date - who continued to use proto-agricultural means, yet have built substantial monuments.

The only other significance this site has is in its age, which is contemporary with other sites and technologies of similar significance. The means through which proto-agriculturalists built monuments is already well known. This site merely provides evidence for it in early agriculture, even though it's understood to have occurred among proto-agriculturalists in a post-agricultural world.


Many archaeological findings are not revealed until well after they've been thoroughly documented. This is partly to avoid media attention (and general attention) during the dig, as well as the consequence of many digs throughout the world, but mostly it's a precaution to avoid misinterpretations. It was notorious in the example of Egyptology for discovers to make grandiose claims, only to discover that their hypothetical ideas were wrong (and they would have to admit that publicly).

Keeping it private makes it so that the dig can occur without intervention or the problems that arise from public awareness. Most news articles on digs usually occur well after the dig has happened or started to happen. It doesn't really become verbatim in the archaeological record for 5 to 10 years after the dig initiated.

Oh, I fully understand the "whys" and "hows" of releasing this news so long after the fact. I just find it generally humerous. I mean, it's a bombshell for much of the world, but to these guys, it's old news. For instance, capturing live footage of a Giant Squid and one of it's tentacles was announced several months after it had happened, and that was preceeded by years of work.

Ha, yes. The thing that generally surprises me is the amount of information known for decades that isn't readily publicly known, but could easily be. I hear bits and pieces from people in the Archaeological Department and from a friend who's training at the British Museum to be an Egyptologist. Things from the mundane (enormous mummified crocodiles) to the more profound (sites in what was once Nubia that would shock some people's perceptions of Egyptian-Nubian relations). It is amusing, yes.

Dr. Hodder, Derigin.
I was wrong to call it an article. It's a news story. And it does sound like it's one site, quite well-defined. Interesting that it was buried.
It makes it pretty clear in the story that the people who put up and decorated those stones were hunters. They were able to live in a village, though, which means they must have had some good and stable resources available.
Very old finds are usually very interesting, but quite recent sites can also be very interesting. Nothing has been found in this country older than about 800 years old. People first got here about then. It's still all very interesting. It's how much change that has gone on that fascinates me, especially in such a short period of time.