Mureybet Tell neolithic site, 12,200 years old

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks for another Neolithic presentation Hanslune. It is very much appreciated. Not really anything useful to add at this stage though to be honest - will get back to you upon further reading!

When i am Supreme Leader...........(ahem) this sort of thing will be much further up the list of priorities for humanity!

reply to post by Hanslune


Hi Hans,
Can you confirm the early date? 10,200 bc
Method used for dating?
Where the work was done?
thanks ljb

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Hi Hans,
Can you confirm the early date? 10,200 bc
Method used for dating?
Where the work was done?
thanks ljb

It in this report, the site was excavated by French teams so much of the information is only in French

The report

There is a table on page 5 which - even if you cannot read French - will tell the story

Show radiocarbon dates from the various site of that area, Mureybet shows 10350 +-150 years

Well dang the dates are in BP not BC but are for the plant remains found, other sources show 10,200 BC but I'm thinking they are repeating the same error. Will check - did so edited wiki page which was wrong too

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Hi Hans,
Can you confirm the early date? 10,200 bc
Method used for dating?
Where the work was done?
thanks ljb

It in this report, the site was excavated by French teams so much of the information is only in French

The report

There is a table on page 5 which - even if you cannot read French - will tell the story

Show radiocarbon dates from the various site of that area, Mureybet shows 10350 +-150 years

Well dang the dates are in BP not BC but are for the plant remains found, other sources show 10,200 BC but I'm thinking they are repeating the same error. Will check - did so edited wiki page which was wrong too

edit on 10/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Hi hans
It wouldn't really matter to me when, what I would call a date for Neo-Agra (transitional period ) that is.
The subject is most fasinating no matter. Some one had to start building something, somewhere. Mammoth hunters built fairly sophisticated dwellings of hide and Mammoth bones. Turf roof, and piped in outside air for fire place draft.
Way, way prior to the dates of this site. Nomads with houses.
What the site does for me that is most interesting is point out the house construction as being rocks with mud chinking.
that is a real fine example of construction evolution.
the best lb

reply to post by longjohnbritches


In todays climate it gets cold up there (that part of Syria) I suspect it was cool during the winters also when these gentlemen and ladies were building. The main problem in staying in place is santiation problems, lack of water and food depletion. I would suspect thta these people came here seasonally.

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

In todays climate it gets cold up there (that part of Syria) I suspect it was cool during the winters also when these gentlemen and ladies were building. The main problem in staying in place is santiation problems, lack of water and food depletion. I would suspect thta these people came here seasonally.

Hi hans
Very possibly,and more likly.
Eapecially if they were big game hunters as well, getting thier feet wet in agriculture.
I usually find that the water moves away from really old sites.
For example the rivers digs ever deeper, the creeks and springs usually follow down hill.(water table)
Just a personal perspective. I think very old sites are more Back Water possibly due to superstition of the unknown of big water. Also the managableity of smaller beaver ponds and creeks. Think, running a trapline.
Any luck on the date? 10,200 pb is honerable by itself, for this nsat look at human evolution.
the best ljb

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

In todays climate it gets cold up there (that part of Syria) I suspect it was cool during the winters also when these gentlemen and ladies were building. The main problem in staying in place is santiation problems, lack of water and food depletion. I would suspect thta these people came here seasonally.

I thought there was also some evidence that it was wetter in this area during this particular time frame? This may indicate there was actually far more water around at this point, meaning formation of settlements in these areas was more possible - and for longer periods of time than just seasonal migration. I may be wrong on that but i am sure i have a paleo archeology report on that somewhere.......

reply to post by Flavian


Sorry I'm working on something else and just go back to this

This pdf gives a very general/simplified view of what probably happened in the FC during the time in question

Climate change in the fertile crescent