Archaeologist Argues World's Oldest Temples Were Not Temples at All

reply to post by SLAYER69
I think you've hit upon a great idea and could be right? It's conceivable. I'm not too keen on the idea myself for a couple of reasons.

The Gobekli complex is pretty huge and the pillars are decorated on all sides including some tops. The site's made up from some half-dozen circles of up to a 100 feet in diameter and some of the pillars are an estimated 50 tons - dragged screaming from the quarries nearby (half mile) and, at their tallest, 5 metres high.







The presence of animal carvings on the top of pillars suggests that they were intentionally open to the skies and not buried beneath sod or earth. Also, the scale of the construction exceeds the needs of entrapment when a concealed series of pits would serve the purpose more efficiently (much less labour) and effectively (sequenced across a greater area for example). By extension, if they were busy making such elaborate traps, where did they learn their skills from? I'd expect there to be prior evidence of habitations and places of worship. In this scenario, they've leapfrogged the stages of domestic construction and gone straight to elaborate traps.

None of which leaves us knowing what the builders intended! Excavations have shown a lot of phallic depictions and some suggest that all the animals (were sex can be defined) are male. This could be used to infer a patrimonial, or warrior, society but who can say? We can't ask the builders and, in much the same way as European megaliths, the sites are so sparse that there's a lot of room for squeezing any cultures or societies into the narrative.

@Hans - What reason have you heard for why they back-filled the site? All I know is that they used the debris from the first known period of construction to fill them in with. This alone is interesting because it seems to suggest that , after construction, further site development was minimal. One would expect them to have buried their earliest debris beneath subsequent efforts or even constructions and yet there it was hundreds of years later.

reply to post by Hanslune


I haven't heard the theories about why it was buried....

Please share.

reply to post by Hanslune


I haven't heard the theories about why it was buried....

Please share.

Unfortunately I've only seen the summary of the idea that the site was backed filled - not the actual evidence or the logic train that led the scientists to that conclusion.

Some of the studies dealing with this site:

1995-1999

Ritual

Information on the region and context


The 2003 report where backfill is mentioned

This layer is comprised of
the backfill from enclosures (each made up of concentric
stone walls) connecting a circle of monolithic T-shaped
pillars. The precise dating of the time when this backfill
took place is difficult due to the character of the filling
material. The soil used is not sterile but instead full of
flints and bones, resembling settlement debris (Schmidt
2002a; 2000b). However, so far no settlements contemporary
to the monument have been found nearby.

At this time I haven't seen a detail discussion of the backfill claim/theory. I'm not doubting the theory I was just curious as to the evidence=conclusion chain

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks for the links.

I found this interesting:

More than ten large enclosures could be located in the geomagnetic map..., and some more can be expected.

As four enclosures are under excavation, in total a minimum of 20 enclosures seem to exist inside the mound of Göbekli Tepe. At every enclosure a number of 12 megalithic pillars can be expected

So we have around 20 enclosures, each with 12 megalithic pillars.

Sound more astronomical to me.

Also I find the fact that when following the path of the pillars it goes in a downward spiral interesting.

Since we are "thinking outside the box", here is a website that gives quite detailed information of how he thinks the pillars are representing constellations.

Linky

And here is another one - this one is long, I haven't read it all.

Some 12,000 years ago, a Late Magdalenian tribe settled in southeast Anatolia and built a five meters high earth mound on the limestone outcrop known as Göbekli Tepe, Nabled Hill, and on top of the mound a hypothetical calendar sanctuary consecrated to the triple goddess, the fire giver PIR GID, the fur giver BIR GID, the fertility giver BRI GID, and her triple hero AAR RAA NOS and AD DA MAN and GIS BAL CA MmOS whose names shall be explained later on. In the center of the circular sanctuary on top of the hill stood a Tree of Life, around it a dozen poles that symbolized the solar year of a dozen months of 30 days each.

Link

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Hanslune

 

This following image got me thinking. Notice how the entrance on the right has two slabs that slide closed? They appear to only really be opened and closed from the outside not the inside.

So if they were buried level with the surrounding terrain and had a false roof any animal that was chased over the top would fall in and be trapped.

Just a thought

edit on 7-10-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

To me this looks more like an ancient arena .. Think about it , we as a species love war and killing in every form , and killing for sports has been a favorite entertainment for a long time . Now as You said the slabs only open and close from the outside , so I can picture two or more people entering the "arena" , the slabs being closed and the fun begins . It could have been for ritual purposes instead of pure recreational , but to me it just stands out as a arena with addons . I can even picture standing around the circle cheering/chanting/ etc ....

Seems somewhat small for an arena

I believe the columns supported a covering of wood or fabric/skins...but we should know more as excavation continues. Annoyingly a check with my travel diary shows I pass by this site in the summer of 1983....eleven years before its discovery...dang

A site that big - and based on previous DAI excavation style (methodical) it will be 15-20 years for the site be completely uncovered and the reports written

I have a theory on this, a town at that time would not be very large, (compared to Roman time periods even,) but entertainment is a necessity for humans. Doesn't this resemble a coliseum, I mean fighting animals has always been a show of courage, and strength. Would explain why most of the animals depicted on the sides are of a violent nature.

Those circular structures remind me of the stone structures in South Africa.

Originally posted by aRogue
Those circular structures remind me of the stone structures in South Africa.

When building walls you have two choices, straight and angular, or curved and circular. People have used both at various times and in different continents.

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Harte

 

Mr Harte have you seen the argument for why they believe it was buried deliberately?

I have not.

What is it?

Harte

I'm sure it has been mentioned before, but, it reminds me of Skara Brae in the Orkneys.




(Don't know how to just paste an image, sorry )

well I can't swallow the house part since I don't see kitchens, bedrooms toilets so on

but a temple is a building that only a few have access to it has a elite priesthood and and a security system to keep people out, has secret activities not shared with most of the population and is organized around proprietary knowledge available only to a few and is basically a corporate power and wealth system.

but buildings serve other purposes too,such as community gathering places ,restaurants,theaters, shopping centers
senates ,court houses, brothels,schools,hospitals, warehouses workshops factories ,etc. I have long had a problem with archeology tagging any public facility they find as a Temple, Gobelki Tepe could be church? or museum?as huge as it is it could be a town or a farm it could also be a Temple

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Harte

 

Mr Harte have you seen the argument for why they believe it was buried deliberately?

I have not.

What is it?

Harte

I was asking you !

I've only seen pronouncements of it not the actual evidence for it and with the switch of excavators it may be a while before we seen the evidence - possibility - plausibility - probability rationale

Originally posted by MrsBlonde

I have long had a problem with archeology tagging any public facility they find as a Temple,

This has been noted within anthropology and archaeology also (it is mocked in the famous book, Motel of the Mysteries by David Macaulay) However religious themes did tend to dominate early civilization and didso until the 18th century in the west. If the culture also considered the ruler a god or his representative then virtually every structure except irrigation and fortifications was in some way 'religious' oriented.

What stood out for me were the oldest statues of man; they were tall, white, had two large black eyes, nose and no mouth. Don't ask me why but the first thing that came to mind were the Whispers from the movie "Knowing" !

Something else also striked a cord as to the particular area of these "temples" of sorts but need to do go back on some old research of very ancient history before I say anything. It's to do with two almost identical rivers or sea ways of which co-ordinates have since moved, but I'll get back to you on that.

What if those round structures had nothing to do with animals but were bases for something to sit on top of it?

This is along the lines of Slayer's theory that Olmeca was a futbol star. I think it was Slayer. Great extrapolating. We tend to glorify ancient structures, when most of the pyramid sites on Earth were probalbly just amusment parks and places to be entertained. Religion might have been a small part of human life back then, just as it is now in most countries.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Harte

 

Mr Harte have you seen the argument for why they believe it was buried deliberately?

I have not.

What is it?

Harte

I was asking you !

I've only seen pronouncements of it not the actual evidence for it and with the switch of excavators it may be a while before we seen the evidence - possibility - plausibility - probability rationale

So, my guess is still good, then.

Whew!

It was only an idea. Who can say why they buried the place?

Harte

Originally posted by DieBravely
I too think labelling any ancient site as an "important religious temple" is ridiculous.

I forget it, but there is a word for the tendency of people to overly-attribute religious or ritualistic meanings to archeologically found artifacts. It's possible that if you were to go back in time and look at it when it was being used, its purpose would become embarrassingly obvious.

the Acropolis leaps to mind,it had a 'temple" to Athena in it but it was basically a shopping mall with a museum and restaurants

I'll bet if someone digs up our shopping malls 10,000 years hence ,they will come up with some conclusion that we had a Hello Kitty cult,and Mickey Mouse is her celestial mate