Gobekli Tepe--Fact or Ficton???

a reply to: atlantiswatusi

It proves the pyramids weren't built 10,000 years ago.

The pyramids were built along side the niles banks, 10,000 years ago the Nile would be where the pyramid are now.

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
So what say you ATS...is this more "junk science"...Is Tepe the thing that proves the fringe right about ancient history? Are we even still alive in here?

Graham Hancock? Definately junk.

Guilo Magli has published a paper on the possible connection between Gobekli Tepe and Sirius though, as well as looking at the stone pillars and the general alignment of the stone rings by creating computer models and maps to establish how the night sky looked 11000 years ago. According to Magli Sirius was not visible, at that latitude, until 9300 BC and he claimed to have matched three of the circles to the point at which Sirius rose at 9100, 8750 and 8300 BC. It's an interesting study but not one that is sufficiently evidenced to be wholly useful. We know that the stars were significant timekeepers to the Neolithic, there is abundant evidence of that linguistically and ritually, Magli's expertise is in how we expressed that architecturally, alignments are key to that. Finding a connection with three out of twenty circles doesn't seem all that conclusive to me and there is plenty of dissension on the subject, so it is still very much open to interpretation. Personally I feel whatever it "means" is a linguistic problem first and foremost, understand the language, you can "read" it. Sirius, and the constellations, most probably do offer part of the key at least, as does understanding what the climate and environment was like back then. And what the economy of the people who built it consisted of. Sirius we know was important to the Egyptians because it marked the arrival of the flood. Why would it be important to those who built Gobekli Tepe? The same reasons or different ones?

Hancock may provide entertainment but I don't think he really contributes anything of substance to the discussion. The information is out there but he chooses to ignore it or cherry-pick from it, his "histories" as a consequence are not too far removed from the fantasy fiction section.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: atlantiswatusi

It proves the pyramids weren't built 10,000 years ago.

The pyramids were built along side the niles banks, 10,000 years ago the Nile would be where the pyramid are now.

Ah no, the Nile would have at times of flood might have overflowed the area but it never ran over a the mound that is the Giza plateau.



Heights in meters.

Oh and fully agree they were not built 12,000-10,000 BCE.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: atlantiswatusi
Stop asking questions. Stop listening to and/or reading any alternative theories. Just believe everything mainstream academia tells you, and you shall be saved.

It's best to learn what is presently KNOWN then speculate on what which is unknown. It doesn't work very well to speculate when you don't have a clue what is presently known. You don't have to believe what the mainstream writes but you should have the data as in almost all cases its reliable while fringe material tends to be made up, out of date or taken out of context.

A good way to view it is this; orthodox information is considered reliable until shown to be not, fringe material is considered to be unreliable until shown to be not.

In a perfect world, where academics play by the rules and don't let self-interest get in the way of the facts, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. How much history, and how many articles does one have to read about fake peer reviews, scientific consensus, outright denial or blackballing of those who challenge the status quo? How many Virginia Steen McIntyre's, George Ohm's, Ignaz Semmelweis's, just to name a few does there need to be to realize "what is presently known" should be met with just as much skepticism as a "fringe theory"?

A good way to view it is this; orthodox information is considered reliable until shown to be not, fringe material is considered to be unreliable until shown to be not.

Considered reliable = consensus. An assumption that information is reliable because it came through approved sources, a hierarchy of gatekeepers(peer reviewers?) who are supposed to be making sure the science behind a theory is sound, but often have a vested interest in some things being true or untrue. That said...

Those who ignore established science are no better than the mainstream of science they criticize as being closed-minded and not interested in the truth, and they are just as fanatically religious.

Fortunately, there are still good people in all fields of study, but we still need our skepticism no matter whose data we're being presented with.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
So what say you ATS...is this more "junk science"...Is Tepe the thing that proves the fringe right about ancient history? Are we even still alive in here?

Graham Hancock? Definately junk.

Guilo Magli has published a paper on the possible connection between Gobekli Tepe and Sirius though, as well as looking at the stone pillars and the general alignment of the stone rings by creating computer models and maps to establish how the night sky looked 11000 years ago. According to Magli Sirius was not visible, at that latitude, until 9300 BC and he claimed to have matched three of the circles to the point at which Sirius rose at 9100, 8750 and 8300 BC. It's an interesting study but not one that is sufficiently evidenced to be wholly useful. We know that the stars were significant timekeepers to the Neolithic, there is abundant evidence of that linguistically and ritually, Magli's expertise is in how we expressed that architecturally, alignments are key to that. Finding a connection with three out of twenty circles doesn't seem all that conclusive to me and there is plenty of dissension on the subject, so it is still very much open to interpretation. Personally I feel whatever it "means" is a linguistic problem first and foremost, understand the language, you can "read" it. Sirius, and the constellations, most probably do offer part of the key at least, as does understanding what the climate and environment was like back then. And what the economy of the people who built it consisted of. Sirius we know was important to the Egyptians because it marked the arrival of the flood. Why would it be important to those who built Gobekli Tepe? The same reasons or different ones?

Hancock may provide entertainment but I don't think he really contributes anything of substance to the discussion. The information is out there but he chooses to ignore it or cherry-pick from it, his "histories" as a consequence are not too far removed from the fantasy fiction section.

He does provide some comic relief however as he did in his last book:

The problem with any 'star based' idea is that the sky is filled with over 6,000 dots of light and they keep changing position so if you look long enough something WILL line up or appear or disappear behind the horizon. The problem is did the people notice it and think it was important - we don't know.

I don't see where anything is aligned with much of anything. Besides, it's probable that these rooms were accessed through a door in the roof like at Çatalhöyük, and they were closed off from the sky most of the time. It's not like they were observatories. Probably more like churches or theaters where you'd go to sit by a dancing fire and hear cool moralistic stories about animals as their shadows would move around the walls. But without the popcorn.

For a start the giza plateau is 60 metres above sea level so the Nile would never get near the pyramids. As for the great pyramid, it's the same as every archaeologists down the ages, they put their interpretations on monuments. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE when the great pyramid was built. Just because the quarry is nearby and a cemetery is nearby does not correlate to the same time period.
Example, there's a cemetery in Avebury with burials going back a couple of hundred years, but non of the people buried there built the Avebury Circle, thousands of years ago.
The main reason Hancock goes on about Gobekli Tepi is it is a very, very ancient site and his factual reason is mainstream archaeologists say there was not ANY form of organised civilisation (as it took thousand of people to construct Tepi with the accompanying logistics, food etc.) living in those times.
No one can say what was in any ancient mans minds, so archaeologists come up with their pet theories and say they are the truth.

a reply to: Hanslune

I take it you haven't seen the Two Towers? Because my answer for you is simple.....They light giant bonfires on the tops of mountains all across the world!!!!

I keed I keed.

I guess I assume such a large impact would have been noticeable fairly quickly. If what I read about the YD impact could be true---the activity in the scablands would indicate a powerful rushing force. Not to mention a quick darkening of the skies. How quick I do not know....I have no basis of comparison for such destruction. Or rumored destruction.

And this is just me....but since they found it "filled in" well what if it wasn't ever filled in before the impact? I dunno....I guess I can see some survivor making a trek to Tepe to dig out a area and leave a sign. But the idea that Tepe is a exact time capsule of the event seems very far fetched.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I have read a little about Sirius recently. Had kinda forgotten about that because I guess the first time I stumbled across this is was GH claiming the sphinx was created when Leo was the North Star. Thank you for the info though!!!!

a reply to: Hanslune

Ah yes. You're right. But even still there is large evidence the nile and the pyramids were very close to one another.

a reply to: crayzeed

Archaeology is a giant game of forensic science. It takes time to establish the final picture. And the beat tool it has is dating methods which include a myriad of scientific fields. Geology is one of the best to use.

originally posted by: crayzeed
For a start the giza plateau is 60 metres above sea level so the Nile would never get near the pyramids. As for the great pyramid, it's the same as every archaeologists down the ages, they put their interpretations on monuments. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE when the great pyramid was built. Just because the quarry is nearby and a cemetery is nearby does not correlate to the same time period.

Sure there is, you have the 1985 and 1994 C-14 dating, you have the unique graffiti in the relieving chambers and the Goyon-Grinsell mark. These place them in the time of the Pharaoh's. This doesn't take into consideration the stylist considerations.

The main reason Hancock goes on about Gobekli Tepi is it is a very, very ancient site and his factual reason is mainstream archaeologists say there was not ANY form of organised civilisation (as it took thousand of people to construct Tepi with the accompanying logistics, food etc.) living in those times.

No one can say what was in any ancient mans minds, so archaeologists come up with their pet theories and say they are the truth.

No they state them as THEORIES. GH often presents his opinions as facts. People were organized in families, clans and perhaps even tribes. There are indication of large hunting endeavors in the Middle_east. They may have had the start of specialization and perhaps power structures, the consideration that certain places belong to them, etc.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Hanslune

Ah yes. You're right. But even still there is large evidence the nile and the pyramids were very close to one another.

Oh yeah absolutely the Merer was probably bring Tura limestone right up to the Valley temple.

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
a reply to: Hanslune

I take it you haven't seen the Two Towers? Because my answer for you is simple.....They light giant bonfires on the tops of mountains all across the world!!!!

I keed I keed.

Who exactly do you think back then would have establish thousands of kilometer long fires? To what end?

I guess I assume such a large impact would have been noticeable fairly quickly. If what I read about the YD impact could be true---the activity in the scablands would indicate a powerful rushing force. Not to mention a quick darkening of the skies. How quick I do not know....I have no basis of comparison for such destruction. Or rumored destruction.

Sorry no such an impact would not be noted 6,000 kilometers away. You can determine to some degree - from the crater's size how much an impact it may have made.

The Anatolian plains have long fascinated me,from the domestication of wheat,animal husbandry and of course the awesome megalithic structures that make us speculate today.Anything that can push back the date of the rise of human civilization has my attention.
BUT,GH whilst an amazing story teller,lost me years ago with his pseudo-scientific-psychedelic-spritual literature.

a reply to: atlantiswatusi This site used to be just that,but if you look at trend over years was to be biggest conspiracy website,and now it is big ,but has been turned into a social media website,nothing ground breaking nor of any mention just babble,when someone makes a post about something of this nature,they used trained idiots called archeologist's who read off a script,if not in script you are crazy,everything is controlled even here,the true history of our world is about 300 yrs old,we have undergone total devastation before to certain levels,check out ancient maps they all say same thing just in different languages,1700's Calif was an island and Antartica and So America were ajoined and ice free

originally posted by: Hanslune
The problem with any 'star based' idea is that the sky is filled with over 6,000 dots of light and they keep changing position so if you look long enough something WILL line up or appear or disappear behind the horizon. The problem is did the people notice it and think it was important - we don't know.

Which is exactly why I question Magli's conclusion. 3 out of 20 is not at all conclusive of anything and could easily represent chance but none the less, his findings add to the body of information to consider. His maps and satellite images removed from his theories remain useful for the further study of the site. I mentioned it because while his ideas remain a little on the fringe he is willing to put his ideas forth and open him himself up to criticism, constructive and otherwise, from his "peers". Hancock considers himself above such "peers", he wants acolytes.

I don't think it is necessary to wonder whether they noticed the stars and their configurations, their brains were the same as ours in potential, they were definately, some at least, observers and collectors of information in the same way we are and probably just as curious and imaginative too. That they noticed celestial objects and began to make note of their movements by around the 2nd millenium BC is evidenced, how long that understanding took to come to that fruition is most certainly debateable. We certainly do not know that, and most likely can never be all that sure.

I find that most of the eminent historians, that I have read, have a few fringy speculations of their own that they sprinkle in their books but not in their papers. They also have a tendency to cherry-pick from time to time to suit their theoretical preferences. It's an aspect of the fields of history and archaeology that many people don't appreciate, it is fraught with disagreements and differences of opinion, and there appears to be quite a bit of mud-slinging and assertion of egos too. That's one of the reasons I enjoy history so much. Hancock can't stand that heat in the least. It's fine to speculate, as you say, we do not know, it is very much open to debate but there are parametres that confine the scope of debate, peer review is one of them. We're a different kind of peer group here, we're allowed to get a little faster and looser on the speculation compared to say Renfrew and Cunliffe, however I think that recognising that Hancock is one of our peers rather than one of their's (in the context of ATS) gives a better weight to his "work". His books are his opinion which is worth just as much as any member of these boards but he is no authority.

a reply to: Klassified

In a perfect world, where academics play by the rules and don't let self-interest get in the way of the facts, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. How much history, and how many articles does one have to read about fake peer reviews, scientific consensus, outright denial or blackballing of those who challenge the status quo? How many Virginia Steen McIntyre's, George Ohm's, Ignaz Semmelweis's, just to name a few does there need to be to realize "what is presently known" should be met with just as much skepticism as a "fringe theory"?

this sh** exactly.

Considered reliable = consensus. An assumption that information is reliable because it came through approved sources, a hierarchy of gatekeepers(peer reviewers?) who are supposed to be making sure the science behind a theory is sound, but often have a vested interest in some things being true or untrue. That said...

truth is rather dangerous in our world. There are truths one must not utter or risk losing your livelihood.

After you have said all that you did...then you close it with this:

Those who ignore established science are no better than the mainstream of science they criticize as being closed-minded and not interested in the truth, and they are just as fanatically religious.

I can only speak for what is on my mind when I "ignore" established science. Skepticism is on my mind. I dont ignore it. I just dont believe it outright because phys.org claims it. My reasons are rather simple.

If you take time to read some of the science articles, proclaiming "new findings", more often than not you will see articles starting with or similar:

"Scientist previously believed...but new findings..."


All of those "previous" theories were vetted, peer reviewed, accepted by "consensus". And heaven forbid that you should doubt any of it. You were science denier at best. At worst....a flatearther. That's the designation these days if you were to question any "science".

And for the record. There is nothing wrong with science. Science is fine. In fact...it's excellent. Scientists however have one major flaw...they are human.

Gobekli Tepe was deliberately covered up with fill dirt.... way back about 12,000 bce (best estimate)

was the Landmark buried to 'protect it' from assured destruction from huge Tsunami's from a long ago Cyclical Pole-Reversal Catastrophe ?

or was the Landmark buried because the burial was the official End of the Goddess 'Gaia' control of the World ? seeing that the Patriarch Religions were the new religious Paradigm around the world.


Gobekli Tepe was likely a well known and established Nature Temple on the highlands which ringed the Great, Lush Valley which later filled with water to become the present day Mediterranean Sea...It is also likely that the Mediterranean Valley and the Pre-Desert Sahara, some 50,000 years ago were both teeming with wilderness creatures and animals and only had human intrusions during short term, hunting expeditions

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I can only speak for what is on my mind when I "ignore" established science. Skepticism is on my mind. I dont ignore it. I just dont believe it outright because phys.org claims it. My reasons are rather simple.

If you take time to read some of the science articles, proclaiming "new findings", more often than not you will see articles starting with or similar:

"Scientist previously believed...but new findings..."

All of those "previous" theories were vetted, peer reviewed, accepted by "consensus". And heaven forbid that you should doubt any of it. You were science denier at best. At worst....a flatearther. That's the designation these days if you were to question any "science".

And for the record. There is nothing wrong with science. Science is fine. In fact...it's excellent. Scientists however have one major flaw...they are human.

I was going for brevity, but you said what I was thinking for the most part, and said it better.