Gobekli Tepe, the disputed, complex ancient site.

Some of the far out ideas always made me chuckle, but the sheer size of GT along with the fore thought to bury the site for possible return, or to protect it seems like an amount of thought that we can barely manage today.

Case in point how many times have you gone to campground and found it trashed, these people had to carefully bury the site for it to still be in such good shape considering its age.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Blue Shift
In my opinion, mainstream historical science doesn't really WANT to know what's at GT and what it represents. Because it breaks all their perfect models they've spent careers building.

Oh, no! If there's one thing an archeologist doesn't want is to make an amazing, paradigm-shifting discovery that will completely rewrite history, make them famous and enshrine them textbooks until long after they're dead. That would be horrible!

a reply to: Blue Shift

I have absolutely no doubt what you say is 100% accurate! However, the problem is...that same individual (or group) would be up against thousands of years (collectively) of established classical archeological history, and thousands of people, organizations and religions who have already made their fortunes and their careers, dynasties even, from things being just the way they are. Their voices, and their research, would be drummed into oblivion by those looking to preserve those monuments to themselves and their legacies. Especially now, with the interwebz, it's so much easier to hip shoot. At least in the past people had to spend the time and effort to publish a paper or a book. Today, people can't even get a serious audience without first being ripped to ribbons by social media, agenda driven and slanted 'investigative' journalism, erm, smear campaigns and money driven MSM bias.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Blue Shift
In my opinion, mainstream historical science doesn't really WANT to know what's at GT and what it represents. Because it breaks all their perfect models they've spent careers building.

Oh, no! If there's one thing an archeologist doesn't want is to make an amazing, paradigm-shifting discovery that will completely rewrite history, make them famous and enshrine them textbooks until long after they're dead. That would be horrible!

Oh that would be terrible not to mention the unlimited funding for his projects. And the millions he would make on his books and lectures.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Blue Shift

In my opinion, mainstream historical science doesn't really WANT to know what's at GT and what it represents. Because it breaks all their perfect models they've spent careers building.

That must be why Klaus Schmidt made GT his life's work from 1995 until he passed away in 2014. He completely destroyed the nonexistent "models" you refer to. It's no different than overturning Clovis First in the Americas. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to change a paradigm and Schmidt did that in spades with GT and entirely changed perceptions of who we were 10 or 11 thousand years ago. The fact that it's a PPNA site yet there appears to be clay troughs used for cooking large amounts of porridge is a complete game changer.

a reply to: peter vlar

That was pretty much exactly my whole point. Klaus Schmidt and how many thousands of others? Nope, pretty much just Schmidt and few handfuls of local helpers. Plus, Schmidt was met with skepticism, doubt and outright ridicule for much of his work at GT. He wasn't hailed as a hero of the ages with finding what is probably one of the most significant archeological finds of our lifetimes, quite the contrary.

If Schmidt, as you say, did in fact change the paradigm 'in spades', then why is GT not a household name now? Why have few even heard about it? As I noted previously, go ask 100 people if they've even heard of GT and better than 90% will likely say they haven't.

I completely agree with you, but my point is who were the tens of thousands of archeologists who were lined up to carry the torch forward when Schmidt could no longer do it himself? **crickets** pretty much, almost as if many just hoped his incredible find would just go away, just be buried in the sand for another 12,000 years.

ETA - What Klaus Schmidt found at GT is every bit as important, if not more so, than the Great Pyramids of Giza. Sure, the Pyramids are much more impressive to look at, but that doesn't change the historical significance of GT.

a reply to: dragonridr

Oh, you mean just like Klaus Schmidt received 'unlimited funding for his projects' and 'millions for his books and lectures' on GT, right???? Right???

You might want to re-think your statement!

ETA - If some archeologist found a new tomb from a Pharaoh who lived at the exact same time as the Egyptians he'd be hailed as a World Renowned archeologist for the ages and receive 'unlimited funding and millions for his books and lectures' on the subject. Historically speaking, his find would be next to historically irrelevant, but he'd receive fame and fortune anyway. Why not Schmidt and GT, which has far more significance?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: dragonridr
Historically speaking, his find would be next to historically irrelevant, but he'd receive fame and fortune anyway. Why not Schmidt and GT, which has far more significance?

Schmidt HAS received fame and fortune. As much as any archaeologist can anyway.

If Schmidt, as you say, did in fact change the paradigm 'in spades', then why is GT not a household name now?

Name some archaeological discoveries that ARE a "household name."

Tut's about it. And you know why? Because of 1 - the gold, 2 - the world tour.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Troy.

People are pretty sure that The Ark has been found.

Terracotta Warriors in China.

Some what if’s...

If they ever found Genghis Khan’s tomb that would be huge, even if it turned out like Al Capone’s vault.

Jesus’s Tomb with the rock would be an astronomically universally known find.

Any ruins of any type on any moon or planet proving a one time advanced life form.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: dragonridr

If Schmidt, as you say, did in fact change the paradigm 'in spades', then why is GT not a household name now?

Name some archaeological discoveries that ARE a "household name."

Tut's about it. And you know why? Because of 1 - the gold, 2 - the world tour.

Harte

I caught the St Louis stop on the world tour several years ago and it was amazing to see it up close and see just how proficient the Ancient Egyptians were when it came to the level of craftsmanship they put into their work.

It was a nice 2 for 1 trip because the next day I went across the river to see the work of the Mound Builders which to me was as mind blowing as the construction of the pyramids when you factor in how much earth had to be moved to create the mounds.

The only place I've been that was as impressive was either Tulum or Chacchoben. Hi mum being a world heritage site was a little more tightly controlled but at Chacchoben you cpuld actually climb on the pyramids after signing a waiver. The Maya weren't joking when they built a city that's for sure.

a reply to: peter vlar

It's unfortunate that most of mesoamerican structures are actually recreations... almost all of tulum and chichen itza were dismantled over the years to build homes and cathedrals.

You can see in some of the surrounding homes skulls and such in the brick work itself. It's amazing the Egyptian pyramids never fell victim to that sort of deconstruction.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Harte

Troy.

Not a "household name."

originally posted by: AhabstarPeople are pretty sure that The Ark has been found.

"People" are "pretty sure," eh?
The Ark is not an archaeological discovery, given that it hasn't been discovered.

originally posted by: AhabstarTerracotta Warriors in China.

Another world tour. Saw it in Knoxville Tenn.

There's not really any archaeological find that is a "household name."

Like I said before, Schmidt DID receive fame, fortune and respect for his discoveries at Gobekli Tepe. The fact that the name (or his name) isn't on the lips of every Joe Sixpack doesn't mean a thing.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

As you said, Tut. But I’m not sure Carter was quite the superstar in his day as he would be to us today. PT Barnum was well known for his sideshow hoaxes...yet Barnum and Bailey’s Circus really was the greatest show on earth.

a reply to: djz3ro

been filled intentionally, the circular buildings were instead rocked by earthquakes or buried by landslides

Funny I thought that Gobekli Tepe translated something like pot bellied pig. The name being defined by the large hill which buried the site. Infact the site is a hill. I dont know where you got your theory from but it needs a little reworking. Nothing to do with landslides. Sediment does not collect on hill tops. It goes the other way.

a reply to: Blue Shift

There's a missing proto-empire somewhere around there.

Yes but its more than that. Temples in accordance to the law of legacy come somewhat after the rise of agriculture. So this is not a normal proto empire. This is an anomolgy. It is worth noting too that whoever built this site showed like is found pan golbally a clear understanding of the stars. The site orientated to true north demonstrates this and also clearly states that the temple is stellar by orientation.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Blue Shift

There's a missing proto-empire somewhere around there.

Yes but its more than that. Temples in accordance to the law of legacy come somewhat after the rise of agriculture. So this is not a normal proto empire. This is an anomolgy. It is worth noting too that whoever built this site showed like is found pan golbally a clear understanding of the stars. The site orientated to true north demonstrates this and also clearly states that the temple is stellar by orientation.

The site isn't oriented to true north, nor are there any correlations with stars.

Harte

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Blue Shift

There's a missing proto-empire somewhere around there.

Yes but its more than that. Temples in accordance to the law of legacy come somewhat after the rise of agriculture. So this is not a normal proto empire. This is an anomolgy. It is worth noting too that whoever built this site showed like is found pan golbally a clear understanding of the stars. The site orientated to true north demonstrates this and also clearly states that the temple is stellar by orientation.

If it's like the aticles in the OP say, then these were hunter gatherers left over from the ice age, trying to hold onto their way of life.

When they realized they were losing the war, they would have buried the temple to prevent it from being desecrated


The biggest reasons I think this site is so hard to "place", are:

1) Archaeologists massively under estimate what a hunter/gatherer society would be able to do if its prey were megafauna. (They assume agri is the only way to feed an advanced society, because in the modern world that no longer has megafauna, it is the only way to do that.)

2) Guilt. They don't want to admit that the surviving agri cultures that they are so proud of, beat up on the Gobekli Tepe culture.

3) Adding to 2, there is the issue that the surviving agri cultures had deliberately broken their continuity with the previous age. To the point of hunting down and wiping out the few who still held onto the old ways.


It's not because there was no previous age, or because all the people of the previous age did culturally was bang sticks and rocks together. The Agri cultures reset themselves on purpose. Like when the Spanish invaded South America: books were burned.


And that... makes it hard to take the writers of that age at their word. They would have been just as dishonest as a lot of modern history writers.

So even if we discover perfectly preserved texts from that age, we can't even believe them?

a reply to: Harte

The site isn't oriented to true north, nor are there any correlations with stars. Harte

I smell muchos chicken poop..

KEK

Göbekli Tepe is the oldest megalithic site and the oldest structure in history with north-south alignment. ‘True North

Göbekli Tepe is the oldest megalithic site and the oldest structure in history with north-south alignment. ‘True North’ that is, which is determined not by the Earth’s magnetic field, but by its axis of rotation. This is significant as it shows that the site’s builders must have been knowledgeable in astronomy, something historians never attributed to hunter-gatherers.

Which by default defines it as a stellar temple. Which is was notably defined as. The Star it caliabratess to isgSirius. Thats the star that defines the rotation of earth through the seaons of man (zodiacal procession) If of further interest that the same theme can be found defined through many megalitithic structures of the world. Highlighting the commonalty of culture worldwide. Something legacy historians fail to comprehend to this day.


involvedmag.com...

a reply to: purplemer
You never bother to check do you.

There is one of the multiple rectangular buildings north of the circular structures that has a north south orientation. NONE OF THE REST OF THE SITE IS SO ORIENTED.
So what I said stands. There ARE aerial photos you know, and drawings that show the different orientations of the structures. All you have to do is look.
www.researchgate.net...
But as I said, you never do, do you.


link.springer.com...

Harte

The site was occupied for a very long time.

I wonder if perhaps the knowledge to align true North wasn't available when the site initially began to be used, but later on, after it was discovered, they incorporated it into a building or two?

They weren't going to tear down all the buildings and rebuild them, just to add an orientation.


I wonder what caused the site to be chosen? Do you think maybe there was something about the terrain that made it a safe haven from megafauna?