12,000 Year Old Temple Found in Turkey

Great post Scott

You realize you just added to my work load huh?

Originally posted by JPhish

im interested in what methods they used to date this site.

Here is the Wikipedia page on this site... you will find good information on dating here

en.wikipedia.org...


I find this graphic overview of the find to be extremely interesting...




And this set of images certainly is thought provoking




[edit on 23-4-2008 by zorgon]

Now I have a question... since this site is BEFORE pottery was invented... and all they found so far was "flint tools like scrapers and arrowheads and animal bones. " according to wikipedia...

So they carved all these intricate, highly detailed animals, 50 ton pillars using flint scrapers? Moved them from a distant quarry? Where are the tools?


The other thing that gets me is why do Archaeologist always assume that anything other than a home MUST automatically be a temple? Based on what? Wikipedia says this...
"There is no evidence of habitation; the structures are interpreted as temples."

Why? Why are they temples? Considering this is an older find that predates most anything, what do they base this on?

Maybe its just a hunting lodge... Maybe old cave paintings are just ancient graffiti done by people who had no where to go during the winter months and just simply got bored and drew on the walls due to lack of TV?

"With no evidence of houses or graves near the stones, Schmidt believes the hill top was a site of pilgrimage for communities within a radius of roughly a hundred miles."

No evidence... but he 'believes' it was a pilgrimage site for miles around...

Now I am seeing this touted as the "Garden of Eden... and have even seen sites that say this was a "cult"

If we present that kind of 'facts' here at ATS we get pounced on by every skeptic and troll out there...

But these are the main stream archaeologists so I guess its okay for them to make wild guesses and assumptions ( and be wrong )


So just HOW DID THEY CARVE THIS?



And could someone please link me to that image of the Sphinx mentioned in the OP? I seem to have difficulty finding it

And the detail these guys went to is simply amazing...




So the ducks are being caught in a net... has anyone got the figures handy for when nets were 'invented'?

Göbekli Tepe can be described as sacerdotal, in that it was clearly utilized as a place of veneration and perhaps communication with supernatural entities and domains. This is accepted by the main excavator Dr Klaus Schmidt of the German Aarchaeological Institute of Istanbul. Curiously, in the Turkish language Göbekli Tepe means 'hill of the naval', suggestive of the site's former role as an important religious centre serving a large catchment region



I strongly suspect that the transition was engineered by an extremely powerful and very cunning shamanic or priestly-based ruling elite, who knew how to easily manipulate and motivate the local population. It would have required a considerable work force of hundreds of people to have constructed sites such as Göbekli Tepe, and this has to have been controlled by a ruling body of immense persuasiveness.



I can only repeat what I have said above. We are talking about a cult of birdmen, vulture shamans, who would eventually be remembered as the Watchers of the Book of Enoch and the angels of biblical tradition. No 'angel' has been found at Göbekli Tepe, simply carved statues of men with wings on their backs. These hybrids are likely to be shamans wearing wings, not supernatural beings.

Eden Home of the Watchers

[edit on 23-4-2008 by zorgon]

[edit on 23-4-2008 by zorgon]

Thanks, Scott.

This is fascinating stuff. I think it also serves to remind us that the people who lived back then were as smart and as resourceful as people today. They were probably more resourceful and persistent than most of us today.

So was there a lot of crocodiles in Turkey 10.000 years ago because there are not any now ?

The way I see it is either crocodiles swam a long way around the coast of the Mediterranean or the people were traveling to and from north Africa how else would they know about them, always assuming this represents a crocodile that is.

Originally posted by zorgon

If we present that kind of 'facts' here at ATS we get pounced on by every skeptic and troll out there...

But these are the main stream archaeologists so I guess its okay for them to make wild guesses and assumptions ( and be wrong

)

They won't conclusively answer the questions you pose in your post. From long-time-experience on various threads you can see the pattern of them only responding to things they can refute and ignoring everything they cant, as if it didnt exist.

Great questions you pose there.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Hello Scott, again a great and very interesting post. flggd and strrd.
Human’s history is step by step pushed back in time, and who knows how far we can go?
It is really amazing.
Those very interesting pictures shows to me that those who build it, must have use more then some “flint scrapers” in my opinion.

Originally posted by zorgon
The other thing that gets me is why do Archaeologist always assume that anything other than a home MUST automatically be a temple? Based on what? Wikipedia says this...
"There is no evidence of habitation; the structures are interpreted as temples."

Why? Why are they temples? Considering this is an older find that predates most anything, what do they base this on?

Maybe its just a hunting lodge... Maybe old cave paintings are just ancient graffiti done by people who had no where to go during the winter months and just simply got bored and drew on the walls due to lack of TV?

"With no evidence of houses or graves near the stones, Schmidt believes the hill top was a site of pilgrimage for communities within a radius of roughly a hundred miles."

No evidence... but he 'believes' it was a pilgrimage site for miles around...

Now I am seeing this touted as the "Garden of Eden... and have even seen sites that say this was a "cult"

If we present that kind of 'facts' here at ATS we get pounced on by every skeptic and troll out there...

But these are the main stream archaeologists so I guess its okay for them to make wild guesses and assumptions ( and be wrong

)

Greetings Zorgon, very good questions if you ask me, but don’t you think it is possible that it has something to do with so called “Forbidden Archaeology”, the things we are not allowed to know.
Because by naming it temples it gives the impression that it is something of some less historical importants.
Because findings like these don’t fit in their view of Human history they have for years and years now.
And therefore they do everything in their power to keep it that way, at least trying that and so far with success.
You see the same happen with the view of mainstream Egyptologists about certain Egyptian history matters, especially the view on the Giza pyramids/plateau and the Sphinx.

Just a thought.

"If we imagine the history of humanity as giant museum, containing all knowledge on this topic, then we shall find that several of the rooms of this museum have been locked. Scientists have locked away the facts that contradict the generally accepted picture of history. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson have, however, opened many of the locked doors and allowed laymen as well as scientists to see inside. Even scientists have been influenced, and rightly so. The Hidden History of the Human Race compels the world of science to enter new territories and calls into question many revered theories about humanity and human history."
-Walter J. Langbein, PARA Magazine, Austria

www.mcremo.com...



[edit on 24/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 24/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 24/4/08 by spacevisitor]

Seems as though history will have to be rewritten.

And then there is the subtle elements, such as what stars and planets line up at what times with peices of the complex, identifying what was important to a culture 12,000 years ago, climate changes, invasions and migrations, etc.

Starred and flagged!

reply to post by zorgon


I'm not a trained archeologist so maybe its obvious to everyone else..but the back drop ,,,the stacked rocks packed with dirt ..makes it appear as if this column was purposely buried. My understanding is that this site is just a mound,, not the site of a second or third generation settlement. It looks as if the rocks were purposely stacked (doesnt appear to be refuse) to cover up the entire site.

Thats a lot of work for a hunting lodge, and why hide a temple.. maybe its just me ,,,,dunno.

One might hide/bury a temple if you expected to be attacked by a neighboring community and wanted to hide your valuables or your religious artifacts. My understanding is that this kind of action to protect against pillaging was not terribly uncommon. If it wasn't unburied afterward it suggests perhaps it did not end well for the tribe/community there.
Just a fellow layman's interpretation of what I've seen so far.

reply thwr'Fo post by _Del_
[mo\

Plausible, except nothing in the way of valuble metals (of barter or monetary exchange) have yet to be unearthened that we know about.
Nothing to indicate a burial site of some ancient potentate..yet

If the site was buried to protect valuables,, I doubt if the looters would take the time to replace all the stones afterwards.

Just think of the resources it would of taken a primative 10-12 thousand year old culture ..just to build the place,,, only to bury it?
Surely there is more to this story.

Even today you might protect something emotionally or religiously valuable from destruction without it having a real monetary value. If you thought your idols were instrumental in worship and had been in the family, so to speak, for generations, wouldn't you protect them? Or would you let them be burned, demolished, or stolen simply because they don't have much material value...
Again, I'm just promoting a theory here; I'm no archeologist.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by zorgon


lol the wiki page, thanx; i should have thought of that. That graphic view of the site is awesome. It proves that they had some idea of what the site would look like from an areal perspective or more simplistically, in a spacial setting. They weren't just building square walls. They were building circles! Architecturally one of the most difficult shapes to fashion for a wall.

I'm honestly a bit skeptical as to the date of the structure though . . .

[edit on 4/26/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by _Del_


I dont see what technology could of existed 10-12 thousand years ago to make this ediface. Surely if they could build it they could protect it,,,

If they built it then left and they didnt want anyone to find it,, then what was so important about it,, thats the rub,,
Doesnt look a repository for valuables,, doesnt appear to be a sarcophagus or burial site,,and how could some local native/ nomad tribe come along and make off with one of those "Thor's Hammer" stones,,

There is another solution/answer hidden in plain view I bet,,,

Originally posted by jbmitchIt looks as if the rocks were purposely stacked (doesnt appear to be refuse) to cover up the entire site.

It does say that in the original research... that this site was deliberately buried...

WHY is a very good question... WHEN might also be relevant

reply to post by zorgon


WHY is a very good question... WHEN might also be relevant

-The presenting OP sets a date of construction (presumably,,could of been anytime in the past), however when and why it was purposely buried does kinds poke at me. If it were the builders of the structure then I would expect something hinting at the same technological skill as it took to build it,,,stacking rocks and dirt was just a simple and partially effect method as ,,we did manage to find and unearth it. The possibility of a priestly line left behind to monitor and finally bury the site add some time in the future after the original builders left, seems plausible. Thats a best guess, but it still remains as a why and a what,,, I dont see the builders as religous zealots but maybe the local natives ,, not knowing any better treated them and their ediface as Gods and their temple.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by jbmitch]

reply to post by jbmitch


I still think you might protect it from destruction by burying it. The fact that little of (non-cultural) value was found at the site doesn't mean too much to me. They might not carry off your "hammerstone"s, but you wouldn't want them broken or shattered either.
Hypothetical scenario:
It's harvest time, and the annual raiders from the mountains to the north will be coming to rape, pillage and destroy soon. Instead of losing the majority of our crops to the scavengers, we decide it's best for the group to leave this year. Last year was particularly bad. Instead of leaving our temple to be pulled down and destroyed, we bury it. We pack up everything we can carry and relocate for awhile hoping to come back before winter.

It would have taken a lot of effort to bury these circles without knocking something over or damaging something, especially considering that these circles supposedly have remained buried for 10 thousand years. How much material was used to cover these circles, all sand, or rocks and sand and dirt? What was the profile of the mound? Was the mound that covered these circles of considerably greater circumferance? This would have have required transporting a whole lot of material, without beasts of burden. Or could they have already been using animals for such purposes?

There would have to be some local housing for the people who built these circles. They couldn't have travelled that far back and forth to work on building these sights. Maybe they took away all signs of inhabitation as carefully as they covered these circles. Did they ever expect to return, or was this left for the express reason of creating a time vault to send a message to the future. This seems to me to be the most logical reason for such a sight to be so carefully buried. If enemies were coming, you would think that a primitive society would have far more pressing matters to deal with than taking the time to carefully bury their religious site.

reply to post by _Del_



I still think you might protect it from destruction by burying it. The fact that little of (non-cultural) value was found at the site doesn't mean too much to me. They might not carry off your "hammerstone"s, but you wouldn't want them broken or shattered either.

- Well it certainly is possible, but not probable ,,(only an opinion and I resepct yours).

Its just a reoccurring theme of coming across these megalithic structures all over the globe. There is a native population with legends of "Gods" who built this things and then left. With the locals as Shamans and the "keepers" of the "temple".

If it were Eden it would have been buried by a flood as opposed to being buried by human hands. Correct? It was buried shortly after it was built? Why cover up something you worked so hard to make. Unless something "bad" happened there. Facinating. Sphinxs aren't necessarily half breeds are they? There were female lioness goddesses in Egypt. And lion statues seemed to be guarding temple entrances. ( and Frat houses)

I guess I should clarify my question, because I even confused myself when I read it. (it's late, really) In regards to that crocodile, It looks more like a lioness to me, with the ribs, long tail, and what appears to be whiskers. Is this the sphinx that they are referring to in this quote?

Funny, in one article I Googled, Schmidt talks about showing a tablet with a Sphinx-like figure that "Pre-dates Egypt". Love it because it places the Sphinx to this pre-cataclysm period as well (something else I had intuited).

Are we sure that the sphinx wasn't originally a lion or lioness statue? If there is a true sphinx in GT then that would be HUGE.