Originally posted by SLAYER69
This may help
Göbekli Tepe - the World's First Temple?
Located in modern Turkey, Göbekli Tepe is one of the most important archaeological sites in the world. The discovery of this stunning 10,000
year old site in the 1990s sent shock waves through the archaeological world and beyond, with some researchers even claiming it was the site of
the biblical Garden of Eden. The many examples of sculptures and megalithic Architecture which make up what is perhaps the world’s earliest Temple
at Göbekli Tepe predate pottery, metallurgy, the invention of writing, the wheel and the beginning of agriculture. The fact that hunter–gatherer
peoples could organize the construction of such a complex site as far back as the 10th or 11th millennium BC not only revolutionizes our understanding
of hunter-gatherer Culture but poses a serious challenge to the conventional view of the rise of civilization.
Well and good, written by someone who has a B.A and Masters in archaeology, so he considers himself a pro and is the one who said "shock." But he
doesn't present any evidence that this event was shocking. Perhaps it is beyond this article, but I think the criticism here is two-fold.
First, a lot of claimed superlatives aren't, really. They consist of other people making the claim, but when you look at the record, those "shocks"
are few and far between, and usually made by the popular press that is pre-disposed to use words like "shock" so you'll be intrigued and read the
article. Pointing out that this guy used the word "shock" is really not all that shocking. Basically this site was excavated by archaeologists,
reported in the professional literature by archaeologists and other archaeologists said, "Cool!"
Second, it is still bona fide archaeologists who keep finding the new stuff. These aren't interested amateurs showing up professional archaeologists,
by and large. They are archaeologists themselves advancing the state of knowledge. Dates get pushed back. New findings happen. This is all a good
thing and doesn't show "traditional" archaeology in a bad light at all. Indeed, it IS traditional archaeology.
And, yeah, it moves slowly and conservatively and once in awhile an amateur like Heinrich Schliemann wins by thinking outside the box. I feel a bit in
the middle on this age-old controversy and always have been. As almost-an-archaeologist myself (B.A, in Anthriopology, which includes archaeology,
cultural and physical anthropology, and linguistics) and having been on some serious digs (surveyed, documented, accurate to the inch) I understand
the archaeologists' points of view vis-a-vis amateurs, who are too often pot hole diggers who destroy sites and sensationalize everything. They'll be
claiming every new stone hut proves Atlantis, or that it is buried in Antarctica even though Santorini is staring them in the face the whole time.
On the other hand, I also see professional archaeologists who hate intrusion into "their" field so much that it blinds them to new insights. Rather
than remain open-minded they will fight you tooth and nail for every sentence you write on something admittedly speculative, such as "Noah's Flood,"
for example, but won't sit down and write out a well-documented rebuttal, preferring ad hominem attacks instead.
I find the whole situation extremely disappointing.
edit on 10/21/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)