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.

 

The Statues of 'Ain Ghazel

page: 1
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I recently came across this photograph on the cover of a book:



They are statues from ancient Jordan, circa. 7000 BCE.

Small, 3-4 feet tall.
Anthropomorphic. Genderless.
An almost complete lack of expression
Disproportionately large head, eyes, and neck.
Tiny mouths.
Small, pointed noses.
Diamond-shaped pupils.

Interestingly, they were discovered in their own burial pit, laid out east-west like corpses.

The archaeologists infer that these statues represent people, but I'm not entirely convinced.

They are 9000 years old but were not discovered until the 1980s, long after the typical "alien" physical characteristics of science fiction became iconic (characteristics of which these statues display an astonishing similarity).

What do you think?
edit on 4-12-2010 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Creepy eyes and noses!

On a serious note: 7000 BC?! WOW! Interesting, thanks for sharing! I guess that the Sumerians have done this?

If so, take a look at this as well, it was made 5000 BC:




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Okay am I the only one thinking Reptillian eyes?!?!?!?




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
I recently came across this photograph on the cover of a book:



What do you think?



I think they remind me of another ancient statue found over in Turkey at Gobekli Tepe

Oldest full-sized human statue, currently at the museum at Sanilurfa. It was found at Balikli Gol, a fishpond near Sanilurfa, and is about 12,000 - 11,000 years old.





posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Is there any information about any test that have been conducted on these statues other than dating? I tried to do a quick search and could find nothing on the intertubes pertaining to this angle. I'm asking because they appear to be assembled. The head and neck look as though they were inserted into the body then covered with some type of mortar to hold them together. If so, the body cavity may be hollow and could contain something from 9000 years ago.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


The facial expressions on those faces to me show blissful contentment and confidence almost like they're not drunk but have a good buzz going. Honestly the first thing that came to mind was they look like flasks which brings to mind that there may be something inside them. Mmm.. 7,000 BCE hooch, that would make for some good times!


EDIT: The faces look a bit "high" too. Maybe they were someone's 9000-year-old stash box?
edit on 12/4/2010 by mistafaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69


Beat me to it









posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
They look pretty human like to me. The sculpture just wasn't that skilled in sculpting realism.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
They look pretty human like to me. The sculpture just wasn't that skilled in sculpting realism.


That's a consideration for sure but the diamond-shaped pupil is a consideration as well. Even more so in juxtaposition with the pic by the other poster of the piece from Sumeria.

Cool find OP



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
They look pretty human like to me. The sculpture just wasn't that skilled in sculpting realism.

That's a possibility, but I don't believe what we're looking at is the work of a poor sculptor.

The design and execution of the facial features and shape of the head - particularly the cheekbones, chin, jawline, forehead, and cheek hollows - suggest a very competent artist (for the time). In any case, it's unlikely that anybody (even 9000 years ago) would be so unskilled as to create a neck about three times too long! Seriously, my four year old sister would be more accurate...

They may be creations inspired by human beings, but I don't think they are trying to represent accurate human likeness.

I would guess that they are supposed to be gods or mythological characters, unknown to us.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kemal
Creepy eyes and noses!
On a serious note: 7000 BC?! WOW! Interesting, thanks for sharing! I guess that the Sumerians have done this?

There were no Sumerians in 7,000 BC.
The Ubaid Period, which post-dates these statues by 500 years, represents the earliest known settlements in Southern Mesopotamia.

Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I believe we may call these statues as pre-modern statues.

Here is one from the 21st century. This one looks similar.
img.diytrade.com...

Another grotesque statues
www.bronze-statues.com...
www.rukmaniarts.com...

The essence is, whoever is saying they're Reptillian's... no, I must inform you some ancients presumably also tried to create some... let's say, some strange statue in the past. It's human nature. Today we're calling them as modern art (I'm calling them tasteless junks). The old statues at least had some style and beauty.

But aliens? Nope. It's the result of the human mind, fiction and art.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It's quite interesting that the sculptor didn't see a need to include ears. Or was he looking at a group of people who's ears just weren't there from his perspective?



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
It's quite interesting that the sculptor didn't see a need to include ears.

See my post above. Sculptors in the present also used to forget the ears. What's the difference? Nothing at all. Hmmm. The only difference that I like the statues of the past, while the present ones are completely tasteless. Oh, and in the present these tastless noobs are call themselves as artists.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sentinel412

Originally posted by Klassified
It's quite interesting that the sculptor didn't see a need to include ears.

See my post above. Sculptors in the present also used to forget the ears. What's the difference? Nothing at all. Hmmm. The only difference that I like the statues of the past, while the present ones are completely tasteless. Oh, and in the present these tastless noobs are call themselves as artists.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)


Which was exactly my point. And why I included the second line with the words, "from his perspective".



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The Phi ratio is totally wrong on the picture you show. Whether that is of importance given the state of understanding back then is a moot point or maybe, some of the statue has been lost, however, it is fascinating



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Very cool, and I don't think they represent humans. They are all similar, different statues of human would show more differences adn, as others have mentioned the proportions are wrong. But even if they are human, isn't it more fun to ponder the 'what if?'

What if they represent beings that arrived in that area at that time and made a huge impression on the people there - might account for that area being one of the places where civilisation took off. But then I am a believer in AAT so I see what i want to see. A sceptic would see what they want to see here.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


To me, the two on the left look more feminine. And the two on the right look more masculine. And the one in the front has a familiar look. Like I've seen that face before in some other ancient work. Maybe I'll remember it later.
S&F


edit on 4-12-2010 by Klassified because: correction



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Her's a pic of one of the statues full length... again totally wrong Phi ratio....




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
If the statue in the second post is supposed to be a "reptilian" than why is it breast feeding it's young? Being a reptile it would not have mammary glands, not to mention little sharp teeth that would be quite a b****.




top topics



 
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join