Could people have lived at Göbekli Tepe too?

It’s a plausible possibility, but “rectangular building” doesn’t automatically mean “home.” Archaeologists would look for signs of everyday activity, such as hearths, storage, food remains, or repeated domestic use. The structures could add to the picture without settling the question by themselves.

The old ritual-site-versus-settlement framing may be too tidy. A place could have had monumental spaces and areas used for ordinary activities, whether seasonally or more regularly. New structures are worth taking seriously, but their function depends on the evidence recovered from them, not just their shape.

I’d be careful with the big “history rewritten” claims. The discovery could refine how people understand the site, but it doesn’t prove that its monumental areas were homes or that people lived there year-round. “Possibly residential” is a fair description until the evidence is clearer.

What would make the residential interpretation convincing is a pattern: domestic features and artifacts in context, and evidence that distinguishes everyday occupation from activity tied to gatherings or construction. The reported find sounds interesting, but a short summary isn’t enough to judge how strong that case is.