[GeekyBear]

Professor emeritus Irving Finkel of the British Museum thinks that we have evidence from much farther back in history.

> Controversial theory about Göbekli Tepe | Irving Finkel and Lex Fridman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0BcGMaEV8o

This interview sent me down a Finkel interview rabbit hole, as he makes a delightful guest.

[KingOfCoders]

Also,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stone-age-art-may...

Pre-script about 40.000 years ago

[vintagedave]

Is it possible to summarise? I can't watch a video currently.

I'm also aware Göbekli Tepe is a favourite of pseudoarcheologists and conspiracy theorists. Given who Finkel is, it will be nice to see a theory presented by someone who is actually a genuine expert! :)

[card_zero]

Here's a blog post about it from an involved and irritated archeologist:

https://trowelandpen.com/2025/12/22/hidden-in-plain-sight-di...

> Did this small stone represent the very beginnings of writing, about 12,000 years ago? And did archaeologists really overlook such an important find all this time? (Spoiler: No, it doesn’t. And we didn’t.)

Hmm, but later in the post, discussing neolithic symbols from the wider region:

> Interestingly, among these depictions there are some which indeed appear to be symbolic substitutes for more complex images, like the bucranium (ox head) in place of a full aurochs, or arrow-like zigzag lines representing snakes, and large birds reduced to a few characteristic lines. These depictions and their “abbreviations” seem to adhere to a certain convention, kind of a standardisation even, suggesting a communication system that uses these stone objects as media to store important information and knowledge.

But totally not writing, yo.

It's unfair to attack archaeologists, who only busy diligently doing their job, increasing the store of public knowledge, and winning awards from each other. Except sometimes they deserve it, so I'm going to attack them by saying that they hate to be specific. It's a huge risk, you might be wrong, or ridiculed as a crank, or you might attract cranks. Better to couch everything in language that lets you avoid saying the thing.

On the other hand we have the 40,000 year old mammoth carving from Germany (see Sci Am article in a different comment) with decorative cross patterns on it, touted as "statistically complex" and conveying information, when they're just badly carved decoration. In that case they were simultaneously pussyfooting around about stating their case and going off on a flight of fancy, at the same time, in the style of "I'm not saying it's aliens".

[poulpy123]

>> Interestingly, among these depictions there are some which indeed appear to be symbolic substitutes for more complex images, like the bucranium (ox head) in place of a full aurochs, or arrow-like zigzag lines representing snakes, and large birds reduced to a few characteristic lines. These depictions and their “abbreviations” seem to adhere to a certain convention, kind of a standardisation even, suggesting a communication system that uses these stone objects as media to store important information and knowledge.

>But totally not writing, yo.

Children drawings have the same characteristics but are not writings

[card_zero]

Yes, and the final sentence "But in my humble opinion we’re not seeing phonetic values assigned to specific symbols representing spoken language here yet" is fair enough.

The letter A evolved from an ox head, but that's mere coincidence, showing only an enduring interest in symbols of ox heads.

[GeekyBear]

The link is to a clip of the relevant portion of a longer interview.

One of the artifacts found at a Göbekli Tepe dig was a pictographic seal stone.