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.

 

History in the Remaking A temple complex in Turkey that predates even the pyramids is rewriting the

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

History in the Remaking A temple complex in Turkey that predates even the pyramids is rewriting the story of human evolution.


www.newsweek.com

They call it potbelly hill, after the soft, round contour of this final lookout in southeastern Turkey. To the north are forested mountains. East of the hill lies the biblical plain of Harran, and to the south is the Syrian border, visible 20 miles away, pointing toward the ancient lands of Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent, the region that gave rise to human civilization. And under our feet, according to archeologist Klaus Schmidt, are the stones that mark the spot—the exact spot—where humans began that ascent.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
This is pretty amazing evidence that spells trouble for the consensus that has been taught for the last few decades. From page 2:


"This theory reverses a standard chronology of human origins, in which primitive man went through a "Neolithic revolution" 10,000 to 12,000 years ago."


Evolution a hypothesis in crisis. Looks like the ancients had more going on than they've been telling us. And the last paragraph of the article really sounds like a flood to me!


"Whatever mysterious rituals were conducted in the temples, they ended abruptly before 8000 B.C., when the entire site was buried, deliberately and all at once, Schmidt believes."


Hmmmmmmmm

www.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
It's precisely because these discoveries "overturn the apple cart" that they will come under fire by dogmatic Science.

Anything and everything — but especially human evolution — that has a potential of rewriting history predictably comes under attack by the dogmatists of Science who are insistent that Mankind originated in Africa and followed very precise paths of migration over very specific periods of time prior to the "birth of civilization," which Science always attributes to safety in numbers and the birth of agriculture just a few thousand years ago.

To suggest that — GASP — Mankind did not originated in Africa, that civilization came into existence tens of thousands of years before we think it did, and that religion predated everything as the cause of civilization is VERBOTEN. We must not think such things!

We must not think such things, even though there are examples of sophisticated monolithic architecture all over the world (including the Egyptian Sphinx) that date to over 10,000 years ago.

The problem is with the way we date these sites.

I've been of the opinion for decades that our Science simply doesn't know what it's talking about when it comes to the age of the Earth, the age of Humankind, and in particular the true age and birthplace of Human civilization.

We have a lot of theory, but it's theory that we shouldn't even be teaching in schools because it's so tenuous and flawed.

And GOD FORBID you suggest that RELIGION was the No.1 Reason for the birth of civilization. Oooh, I can smell the God-Haters coming out of their ratholes to assail this one.

— Doc Velocity



[edit on 2/24/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   


Religion now appears so early in civilized life—earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct—that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance. The archeologist Jacques Cauvin once posited that "the beginning of the gods was the beginning of agriculture," and Göbekli may prove his case.


This is definitely a great find. If this guy is correct then what he has to say may be correct. If this temple was the begining of civilization where is the support system. Where are the houses for priest or the remenants of




"There are no traces of daily life," he explains. "No fire pits. No trash heaps. There is no water here." Everything from food to flint had to be imported, so the site "was not a village," Schmidt says.


This is what gets me. They have found no signs of life. Did the people march for miles everyday to work and then hike out? How could they build the site without camping or living nearby? Either he will find evidence as he uncovers more, or we'll be stuck with the "aliens did it" explanation.

I still don't understand why people believe the sudden burial is evidence of of a flood. Somebody explain it scientificly please.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
It's amazing to me that they say that humans were essentially useless creatures until about 10,000 years ago. Yet, not even 60 miles from my hometown, there have been artifacts found, clay jars, pottery,jewelry, et cetera, that date back at least 12,000 years ago. Maybe longer.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Ohhhh they "overturn the apply cart", really, whats the whole point of science? Once a theory, or "fact" as you would call it, can be proved wrong or proved right, a new "theory" or fact develops.

"We have a lot of theory, but it's theory that we shouldn't even be teaching in schools because it's so tenuous and flawed." Did your Jesus come up with that theory? He must of, because he came up with everything, right, right?



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Two identical threads by the same member?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok, here's an identical post.

No.
It doesn't sound like "the" flood. It sounds like the temple was deliberately buried by people.

Whatever mysterious rituals were conducted in the temples, they ended abruptly before 8000 B.C., when the entire site was buried, deliberately and all at once, Schmidt believes. The temples had been in decline for a thousand years—later circles are less than half the size of the early ones, indicating a lack of resources or motivation among the worshipers. This "clear digression" followed by a sudden burial marks "the end of a very strange culture," Schmidt says.

www.newsweek.com...


Schmidt and I descend a ladder to the floor of the dig, where the ancient dust is banked against the T-stones. He continues: “The really strange thing is that in 8,000BC, during the shift to agriculture, Gobekli Tepe was buried. I mean deliberately – not in a mudslide. For some reason the hunters, or the ex-hunters, decided to entomb the entire site in soil. The earth we are removing from the stones was put here by man himself: all these hills are artificial.”

www.forteantimes.com...


[edit on 2/24/2010 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Actually you have it reversed. It was civilization that gave birth to religion. The hunter/gatherer groups that preceded civilization were, by necessity, small in population. This meant that they were tightly-knit little extended families that were heavily influenced by "group identity". They tended to be naturally cooperative and did not require authoritarian social structures to maintain order within the group. These people believed in a hidden spirit world whose machinations were responsible for the physical world that they inhabited. Today we call their belief system Animism. Although this spirit world had many inhabitants, none of them had authority over the others. Even tribal people with a belief in a Great Spirit never postualted that this spirit could command the other spirits in the shadow world.

The twin advents of agriculture and animal husbandry brought an end to the roving bands of foragers that had been the reality of human existence for millennia. In its place there arose the first city-states; stationary human settlements that raised their own foodstuffs and built permanent dwellings to inhabit. They were so successful at producing food that they soon experienced an unprecedented population explosion. Try to imagine the chaos that must have resulted from the population blast.

As I said before, the hunter/gatherer bands were small and self-regulating, with a strong sense of group identity. The rapidly expanding city states were anything but. The first cities must have quickly turned into a collection of small clans whose designs and objectives competed with other clans. I suspect that there was much social friction between the clans and I wouldn't be surprised if inter-clan violence was not a common occurence in the formative years of civilization. It must have become obvious fairly quickly that if the new cities were going to succeed they were going to require some kind of political authority to establish order and cohesion within the bulging populations. But by what means could such authority be legitimized?

Enter Religion. What is Religion (in most cases, Taoism definitely does not fit this mold) than Animism with a political heirarchy tacked onto it? There is an old old expression that goes "as it is in Heaven, so it is on Earth". The new Religions postulated a divine political order in Heaven, with a ruling God who ruled the lesser Gods and the entire universe. Coveniently, the new kings were declared to be the Sons of Top God, and, as such, were ordained to rule over the city in his name. And so it has been ever since for civilized man. Even in a country such as ours, whose Constitution clearly states that there shall be no religious test for a man to hold public office, a political candidate is still required to gain the approval of priest, minister and rabbai if they honestly intended to seek public office, for they have little chance of succeeding without them. It was civilization that needed religion and not the reverse.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I still don't understand why people believe the sudden burial is evidence of of a flood. Somebody explain it scientificly please.

The same reason paleontologists always reach for "sudden flood" explanations to explain what they don't understand about the mysterious process of fossilization.

Science does not know how fossilization works — it's Science's great leap of Faith, the "scientific" equivalent of the Medusa myth, because they don't understand why fossilization is so selective in replacing organic materials with inorganic materials right down to the molecular level.

Science can't reproduce the fossilization effect, which is the most infuriating thing of all to scientists. All we have is their word that organic materials somehow "scientifically" — rather than "magically" — turn to solid rock.

How do you take a massive dinosaur carcass, for example, cast it upon the ground with millions of carnivorous scavengers and trillions of hungry microbes in abundance and somehow, miraculously arrive at an articulated, fossilized skeleton turned to stone?

The quick answer, the stock answer from Science is: Sudden flood. The carcass was suddenly covered in mud during a deluge — which still doesn't explain why microbes didn't finish decomposing the carcass.

What's most ridiculous is that Science just leaves the explanation hanging, with no proof to back up any of their fossilization theory. They can't reproduce the effect, never have been able to duplicate it, yet they expect us to just believe — have Faith — that what they're telling us is a scientific fact.

Which it certainly isn't.

So, the sudden flood explanation is just another of the Scientific quackeries with which they bolster their otherwise unsubstantiated theories.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by godless
Actually you have it reversed. It was civilization that gave birth to religion.

Uh-huh. That's the typical "safety in numbers" and "agricultural necessity" explanation handed down for decades by anthropologists who, quite frankly, don't know what they're talking about beyond their labored theories.

That's the Scientific dogmatism that wants to sweep aside religion as the true reason for civilization — these are the same "scientists" who want us to believe that monolithic circles and other ancient structures were devised strictly as agricultural calendars, which is a crock.

Primitive farmers don't quarry stone 500 miles away and truck it in to build an agricultural calendar. That's absurd.

But it's precisely the sort of absurdity that anthropology has been spoon-feeding us for decades.

Of course, we know that megalithic structures were inspired works, not mere agricultural accessories.

Now we are seeing new evidence of civilization rising up some 7,000 years before the birth of agriculture, as we theorize it.

It makes a great deal more sense to think that "primitive Man" gathered together in groups large enough to quarry and build massive stone structures as places to WORSHIP their nature deities, long before they ever conceived of social order, authoritarian hierarchy, or even agriculture.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I agree....I didn't realize that there is a theory that monolitic structures were just agricultural calendars.
I guess that would include the pyramids.


There are some theories that are just ridiculous. That is one of them.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by helta
"We have a lot of theory, but it's theory that we shouldn't even be teaching in schools because it's so tenuous and flawed." Did your Jesus come up with that theory? He must of, because he came up with everything, right, right?

My Jesus? Did someone place me in charge of Jesus while I wasn't looking? Who told you to write that? Your Satan?




— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I didn't realize that there is a theory that monolitic structures were just agricultural calendars.
I guess that would include the pyramids.

You're not very well-read on Stonehenge, eh? Nor on many of the other henges of Britain and Europe. Anthropologists have been telling us for decades that these stone circles are "calendars" for determining the seasons of planting and harvesting.

You missed that, eh?

The pyramids of Egypt, to which I alluded earlier, are examples of inspired architecture, gigantic edifices erected for no apparent reason aside from the obvious spiritual reason, as tombs and springboards to the afterlife.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 2/24/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I appreciate Doc Velocity's enthusiasm, but I wish he'd be a bit less aggressively confrontational with his posts.

You can't have social organization OR complex stone construction without first attaining agricultural surplus. Without agricultural surplus, there can be no specialists - everyone in a clan/society must be involved in the production of food in order for the society to survive.

It seems likely to me, based on everything I've read both in the mainstream and from alternative sources, that agricultural civilization began at least 18,000 years ago - 10,000 years older than currently accepted - and that it has gone through periods of growth and remission for thousands of years.

I support the view that there is a periodic global cataclysm (deluge) that affects the earth, and that this cataclysm is responsible both for the rarities of fossilization as well as for many of the mysteries of archaeology.

Bottom line for me: Civilization is far older than we currently acknowledge. But the ever-changing and occasionally dramatic shifts of earth's climate have eroded, buried, or destroyed much of our ancient history. Still, I can't fault archaeologists for the current view - they're just going along with the preponderance of evidence. It's only on an intuitive level that it seems obvious that civilization is older than we suspect.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I think God put this here for us to find.. Like the dino's, and the pyramids, and the maya temples..

Its to test our faith in him.. ya, thats it.. to see if we believe him still after finding these things will we still believe god is real.

Ya I will go with that..

God testing us...

Do I win a prize?

Although this is cool, anything that is found from along time ago is nothing but cool. It gives us a better history of who we are and such things like that.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


I m sorry Redbird but it is precisely the kind of theory you are proposing that the discovery is threatening (at this point I guess.) The archeologist in charge states that there is NO agricultural surroundings , village , farm , bones, pottery. nothing. Just a temple. Its one of the reasons that this find is so incredibly peculiar. It may be that religious worhip came first, not agriculture.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Well, I knew that they were viewed as astronomical observatories, but no, honestly, agricultual calendars, nope, can't say I ever heard that one.







 
3

log in

join