Text 1
Archaeologist Klaus Schmidt argued that Göbekli Tepe, a 11,000-year-old site in Turkey, served exclusively as a temple, built by mobile hunter-gatherers who congregated periodically for rituals. Schmidt claimed the lack of domestic water sources and residential structures indicates that the monumental stone circles were not inhabited, meaning religion predated agriculture and settled life.
Text 2
Archaeologist Ted Banning challenges the "temple-only" view of Göbekli Tepe. Banning points out that domestic activities leave subtle signatures, such as bone grease and hearths, which are present at the site. He suggests that the stone buildings could have supported roofs and served as large communal houses. Thus, the distinction between ritual and daily domestic life in early Neolithic societies is likely overstated.
Based on the passages, how would Banning (Text 2) most likely respond to Schmidt’s claim in Text 1 regarding the lack of residential structures at Göbekli Tepe?
- ABy agreeing that the absence of permanent water sources confirms the site was only used for periodic rituals.
- BBy presenting evidence that agricultural practices were already well established when the monument was built.
- By asserting that the stone buildings may have served as large communal houses rather than strictly non-residential structures.Answer
- DBy demonstrating that the mobile hunter-gatherers lacked the technical skills required to build roofs for the stone structures.