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.

 

Why Did Our Ancient Ancestors Bury The oldest Worship Site at Gobekli Tepe?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Archaeologists have been puzzled ever since the discovery of the Gobekli Tepe site on exactly how our hunter gatherer ancestors constructed such a complex site. How did they organize the people needed to construct the site and how did they feed them? But all of these questions pale in comparison to why the site was abandoned and then buried. Why would these ancient people feel a need to bury this worship site that had been used for centuries? A new theory attempts to explain the reasons why this happened .....

nutshellurl.com...




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

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.

I thought history showed that invaders are more likely to be assimilated than vice-versa?

Anyway, I don't necessarily believe that the two options in question are the only possible explanations. I could think of other possibilities, but they're no more nor less speculation than the available ones....



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Well if you mean invaders that didn't win then yes your right, but history is normally the story of the victor is it not?
i really should have used the term conquerer , sorry , but im sure you know what i mean ..
i was addressing the author of the link with that statement as he seems to think its why the site was buried.
but i would love to hear you speculation it makes the thread more interesting if we have varied opinions



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I've always questioned what evidence leads them to know it was intentionally buried? Since many other ancient sites have to be excavated because of mother earth changes, what makes them think this was intentional?

If someone has a link to that I'd love to read it.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
What caught my interest from the article was this....

The site dates back to more than 11,500 years ago and has turned the historical record upside down. Archaeologists never thought our hunter gatherer ancestors were capable of building such a complex monument during this time period and exactly how the building was put up and organized is a question that troubles the historical record.


I have been reading a few threads recently regarding our ancient history. A regular argument against the opening posters theories was that officialdom in the guise of scientists, archeologists etc could prove that these theories were wrong as they, well, knew better. This just goes to show that particular line of thought is not always spot on.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


My thoughts exactly, these scientists are becoming so arrogant these days. We have had many climatic events over millions of years that if we were able to go back in time more then likely wouldn't recognize our beautiful planet.

I would also like to see some proof that probably doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Gobleki Tepe is amazing, but it isn't the oldest worship site by a long margin. The paintings and ancestor worship altars in the caves in France are much older.

I don't like descriptions like 'such and so troubles the historical record'. It is nice flowery language, but makes it sound like archaeologists are ready to throw up their collective hands in defeat. In fact what it does is stimulate debate about it, and this is an exciting situation for scientists, not a troubling one.

They are excited to learn more. Are they surprised that a civilization this old could build such a fantastic artifact? Absolutely! Troubled by it? Absolutely not! Excited by the opportunity to learn more and push the boundaries of knowledge further? Absolutely! Depressed that they may never know all the answers? Hardly.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I dont think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand that at some point someone else interveened in the education and culture of mankind. Lots of things invented today are the direct result of some earlier technology that helped lead to it's discovery. Back then there was no precident for anything that happend so without any help how would it be possible for these amazing discoveries to be produced?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I wondered if anyone had noticed if the site has any astronomical alignments mentioned in any of the articles on it. The ones I read don't mention this at all and I am at a loss when I look at the pictures to get an idea of what the circles and stones represent.

I do find when I read or watch so many archaelogists etc they all sing from the same song sheet taught from uni and either close rank or refuse to put their head above the accepted parapet. Professor Pryor said that farming was evidenced in the UK thousands of years earlier than recognized and he seems to have had a hard time for sticking to his views.

Gobekli Tepe is near Urek/Edessa which is on the silk root and despite the usual religion explanations I suspect the people then were far more interested in barter and trading. For those in the UK we possibly have one last ancient link to an annual gathering in Appleby with the Travellers and Gypsies when they meet family and friends, trade and get wives etc. Perhaps Gobekli Tepe served as a centre for people to meet for various reasons.

I don't know if anyone else has experienced the sweat lodge, but when you explain what happens some people throw their hands up in horror, but I found it an amazing experience. The fire, music, chanting, singing, story telling, incense and oils burning and the people all together was a great way to spend an evening. I suspect many of the ancient peoples spent their evenings similarly and enjoyed their equivalent 'lodge rituals'. The carefully carved animals make me wonder if perhaps the area was even some kind of neutral or training zone linking the animal side of life/nature to the earth, people were totally attuned to the planet and their environment, it was how they survived.

I look forward to anything coming up as to why it was buried. Perhaps its strangeness unnerved people or whoever maintained it cursed it before their either died out or moved away. At least they preserved it rather than destroyed it.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
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 explainations for otherwise complex situations



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
you bury something to HIDE it or preserve it.

the people who made it were not a bunch of wandering nomads. i don't know who they were.

no one puts that much work into something for short term. unless it was really easy to do, aliens anyone?



they hid it from some one or something.

or preserved it for us 11,000 yrs later.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

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


there is always something to war over my friend. whether it be slaves, or food, or the tribes women and children. we might find that even that long ago, religion played a part in war.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
maybe they realised that organised religion is the cause of most of the pain and suffering that the world undergoes .
they decided to bury it and go back to the old beliefs based on mother earth , paganism .



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Because its elevation was higher than the surrounding land. It was thought to be a natural hill for millenia until they discovered what was underneath. The only way it could have been covered is by artificial means. If a site is covered by natural processes, it will be flush with the land around it.

The sphinx for example was buried naturally to the point that only its head stuck out of the sand.

This place still boggles my mind. I can't believe they really think nomadic people did this.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
using the authors logic, you can ask why the sphynx was buried


until they find shovels I'm going with erosion or natural forces



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tom.farnhill
 


Lol


"crap, what have we done?! Lets bury this and pretend it never happened. This could royally screw up the world if it catches on!"



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
If you notice much of the mainstream scientists are dragging their feet on this because of the date 11,500 years at least. What our scientists said at that time we where just starting to know animal husbandry and learning about farming and such, not building massive things as these. They don't like the over 6,000 year dating of anything involving humans doing things such as building and construction etc..



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   


Another site where the older earlier "structures" that have been dated at or around (11,500 years old) or 9,500 B.C. are actually of better and higher quality than the later ones that have been dated around (8,000 years old) or 6,000 B.C. Which is amazing in itself, Considering the location was in continuous use for over 3,500 years before recorded history
.

Another thing most people don't realize is that the area in question is massive. By most conservative estimates that vast majority of the site is still buried and needs further investigation and excavations. I'm sure we will be hearing much more about the site as time goes on and more is revealed.

The question about whether it was intentionally buried vs a natural process is still hotly debated in certain circles. What isn't argued about is it's age which has turned some of the academic community (those who staunchly supported a strictly linear human progression towards civilization) on it's ear

edit on 14-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
When I first saw this place mentioned...Gogekli Tepe...a thought struck me.
It is located in the Fertile Crecent...kind of between the Tigress and Euphrates...or so it appears
on the map.

Is it possible it may be the Garden of Eden written about? If one looks at it in that light...a lot may be explained...just a thought.

ETA...might be why it was buried to protect the site after the chosen First people were asked to leave.

interesting article:

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 14-7-2011 by Holly N.R.A. because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join