It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sprocket2cog
Cool, the only problem i have with that article is the fact that if it was buried because as the author puts it
"Once these new belief systems took over, it was decided to bury the old system which might have been considered evil or cursed and therefore Gobekli Tepe was buried." is that history tends to show that its more likely that the invaders would have destroyed the site rather then bury it.. its easier to smash it up then spend heaps of time and manpower to bury the site..
and it would have then left a lasting reminder to the natives that the invaders were stronger, better then they were..
but thats just my opinion.
Originally posted by xPico
I really disagree with the idea that they were 'invaded'. Firstly, the group here is being referred to as hunters and gatherers - so hypothetically, there wouldn't be much worth invading them for except land. If they invaded them for the land, then we would see that in our finds as well. If these people were invaded I also don't think the invaders would have the moral code of politely preserving the site.
I don't quite know what happened, but i think there's a lot of catch-all explanations for otherwise complex situations