It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Göbekli Tepe Have Not been Purposely Buried

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I was wondering if there was any possibility that Gobekli Tepe may not have been buried but have been roofed and collapsed like many other places in the world that are built similar? The carved stones would have supported a roof of soil and rummble. Any thoughts?






Norse village

www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk...

Skara Brae




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

As far as I know its buried in compacted dirt... I would think there would be evidence of a roof, like decomposed wood of some sort in said dirt if there was one

But what do I know




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

You make a good comparison of the two site's though I do tend to think it was buried, then again how much analysis was made of the composition of the material burying it.
It is an enigmatic and fascinating site.
I think Akragon above has hit the nail on the head though.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Why was Göbekli Tepe buried about 1500 years after it was constructed?

So the place was there a long time before ...buried.

Yes that is what I was wondering as some of these other ruins have no evidence of the roof supports as far as I can lean, the ones that had collapsed long ago with only the stone floor supports in evidence.

I don't know that much about it but there are similar structures many places or at least they look similar to me.


edit on 23-7-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

My house



www.amusingplanet.com...
edit on 23-7-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Char-Lee

You make a good comparison of the two site's though I do tend to think it was buried, then again how much analysis was made of the composition of the material burying it.
It is an enigmatic and fascinating site.
I think Akragon above has hit the nail on the head though.


Interesting how they gave so much detail to all of the face but no mouth.


www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I like your theory alot, I think that it would be sensible to have a roof over the stricture to keep off the sun and the sand in the area.

In reply to Akragon it would be possible to have some sort of mudbrick/hide roof which wouldn't leave much evidence. It is possible that material was taken away to be used elsewhere and even possible that somebody excavated the site before it was excavated and in doing so the roof material was removed.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

There was no debri/evidence of any collapsed roofing when they were uncovered (and estimates are 75% MORE have YET to be recovered-uncovered).

So..no. Would have been even min-ute evidence. There is none...



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Char-Lee

You make a good comparison of the two site's though I do tend to think it was buried, then again how much analysis was made of the composition of the material burying it.
It is an enigmatic and fascinating site.
I think Akragon above has hit the nail on the head though.


Interesting how they gave so much detail to all of the face but no mouth.


www.thelivingmoon.com...

My first thought is it represents silence.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23
Silence, certainly makes sense.




top topics



 
4

log in

join