21 replies to this topic

[Anew]

The current issue of Science magazine, (vol. 319, No. 5861, 18 January 2008, pp. 278-280), has an article on progress at Göbekli Tepe, in modern Turkey; with photographs

Possibly the oldest man-made, larger-than-life stone temple in the world, it includes "T-shaped limestone megaliths ... arranged in circles and ovals down the hillside." .. Some are carved abastractly, others representationally with: "leopards, lions, foxes and vultures, plus spiders, snakes and scorpions." .. (Boo) .. They are not small, being up to 5 meters tall and weighing as much as 7 tons .. It is thought that these were built by the collected efforts of the local hunter-gatherer ("Pre-Pottery Neolithic B") societies, for use in rituals which (if i may) apparently involved feasting, as the fill included the bones of "gazelle, aurochs, red deer, boar, goats, sheep, oxen--all wild--plus a dozen different bird species, including vultures, ducks and geese." .. It is suggested that this complex was the catalyst for the domestication of plants, (wheat), and animals -- which then spread southward before (presumably) moving north

All of this is very significant if very true .. But what immediately caught my eye was that the tops of these five-meter-monoliths were showered with cupmarks -- quite unambiguously -- and these look man-made .. Secondly, at least one T-shaped monolith shown, (carved with a ferocious lion), was rounded across the top .. But for a notch on the top left side, were this carved in miniature on a stone elsewhere, i'd expect it to be called an 'ax' .. What we may be seeing, in this light, if this culture of stone rings and cupmarks forebore that of the isles, is some form of altar symbol -- which over time and travel may have picked up other or additional meaning

[Maju]

I had read on this before but I wasn't aware it was so old. Yet the Wiki article is not sufficiently clear as for when are the megalith layer dated, that seems more recent than PPNB (and hence at least contemporary of the oldest European Neolithic cultures in Thessaly and maybe that of Andalusia).

I'm not sure about the cupmarks: the wiki image makes them look like natural wearing of a porous rock, thouh maybe you have seen better images.

If you are right, it would be really interesting, as it would apparently provide a remote origin for such artifacts. An origin that is not really different of that of Iberian tholoi, whose oldest comparable elements are found in the vicinity of that culture (Tell Halaf). The problem to make a link in both cases also looks the same: too distant dates, no apparent connection...

But sugegstive anyhow. I wish we could know better.

[henge]

Looking at the pictures, what I find interesting is the build quality of the complex - proving the same build quality ideal as people reflect in their work today.

extracting, transporting and erecting 7 tonnes stones should not be a problem to a group of people from any period once they have worked out the basics - very interesting.

Anyone want a replica building using authentic methods???  I could do with a holiday.

[Anew]

Maju, on 28 January 2008, 4:54, said:

I had read on this before but I wasn't aware it was so old. Yet the Wiki article is not sufficiently clear as for when are the megalith layer dated, that seems more recent than PPNB (and hence at least contemporary of the oldest European Neolithic cultures in Thessaly and maybe that of Andalusia).

I'm not sure about the cupmarks: the wiki image makes them look like natural wearing of a porous rock, thouh maybe you have seen better images.

If you are right, it would be really interesting, as it would apparently provide a remote origin for such artifacts. An origin that is not really different of that of Iberian tholoi, whose oldest comparable elements are found in the vicinity of that culture (Tell Halaf). The problem to make a link in both cases also looks the same: too distant dates, no apparent connection...

But sugegstive anyhow. I wish we could know better.

Quite suggestive

Re the cupmarks and carvings: . The first are best seen in the magazine, (which though not cheap, may still be on news-stands). . Another look can be obtained through the German Archaeological Institute's (english-language) page on the site, by clicking on their "Sie bauten die ersten Tempel", (or "den ersten Tempel"), link, which shows cupmarks on, (as before, the top surfaces of), additional monoliths

The missing link(s), to my mind, can best be explained if the traditions were carried forward in wood for some time after, before being returned to the stone medium. . Also to be considered, Göbekli Tepe's location and early date would help to explain two stone rings i recall hearing of: One in eastern Africa, and i think, one in Saudi Arabia's empty quarter. . At the time i couldn't imagine what the culture was doing down there, but if it spread from the upper (Tigris)-Euphrates, this makes sense. . It could be a question of where the traditions took root, (and held), against where they (ultimately) did not. . Temples may have been scavenged, (even as it happens, for building stone), blurring or removing their signature. . Also, as these temples were round, and (it is my impression) many of the later ones through this area were not, the culture (at its center) may have been extirpated by those developing (or arriving) later. . The (apparent) filling in of the monument may have saved it

For all the impressive carving, one thing perturbs me, and that is their apparent fixation with lethality in choosing animals to portray. . It is nice to see some (what look like) geese above the wild boar on one of the monoliths, (see link). . But, quoting from the Science article: "The most spectacular ritual space, which encompasses features seen at the others, is nestled in the dig's western corner." . West, the direction of the setting, may have been associated with death, (as it seems southwest was in the Isles). . Perhaps on the eastern side of the mound, a temple dedicated to fertility will be found

[Maju]

Can clearly see the cupboard marks now, thanks.  

It's kind of odd, because I would intuitively think that these T-shaped pillars would have sustained a ceiling or first floor, and hence the cupmarks would not be visible. But... well, I really don't know.

...

As for the "missing link", the type of construction, even if generically megalithic, is quite different. And I find kind of strange your tentative explanation, because it does not just affect cup marks but also building techs, like the tholos. In the case of the tholos, the time gap (and some other differences, like ones being used mainly as homes and the others basically as tombs) have made some to ponder if the two were not just developed separately, as the tholos builing system of false domes is kind of "natural" (a smaller ring of stones each level). In this case one possibility is that the "missing link" tholoi would have been made of brick or mudbrick instead of stones, of course.

Again not sure at all.

...

What I don't think I agree with is with your suggestion that Nubian, Ethiopian, Arabian (or for the case, Caucasian) megaliths, that are "western style" and that also in time suceed the western Megalithic tradition quite linearly have anything to do. As far as I have reached in my amateur and sometimes inconsistent research, the Eastern African/Arabian megaliths derivate quite directly from North African ones, which are directly linked with European ones. More unclear could be the origins of the Caucasian dolmens but it seems (if my memory doesn't fail) to be a localized missing link in Bronze Age Aegean, so they probably arrived by boat (conceptually, of course).

Personally I am under the impression that Megalith builders had an ideology (religion probably) they had faith in and that they wanted to spread and that, in the confuse events that seem to have shattered the Mediterranean region in the late 2nd mlennium BCE, they just made some "breaches" in some areas, breaches that would later send the same ideology (or a version of it) and specially its chararcteristic architecture to the East, to India and even Korea.

It doesn't seem to me directly related to what existed in a very specific area of SW Asia (the Turkish-Syrian border) looong before. Though, if we could be sure that the basics had spread in E>W direction first of all, then maybe there was still some fertile ground there to welcome the W>E counter-tide.

Quote

"The most spectacular ritual space, which encompasses features seen at the others, is nestled in the dig's western corner." . West, the direction of the setting, may have been associated with death, (as it seems southwest was in the Isles). . Perhaps on the eastern side of the mound, a temple dedicated to fertility will be found.

Indeed, for what I've read, Etruscan astrology seems to have associated the NW quarter of the sky to the Netherworld. Though it's possibly not fully clear. In modern western astrology (directly derived from Hellenistic and not sigificatively different from Hindu astrology) instead, the NW corner would be the domicile of the luminaries (Moon and Sun, and in Hellenistic times with Jupiter it seems) and associated with Summer. Of course this could have been caused by any "rotation accident" in time unknown.

In any case, it's quite logical to associate the East with birth and West with death, though, as the Sun rises again every morning, the meaning of "death" would be sort of temporary probably, much as "death and rebirth" probably. It may have just been associated with sleep and awakening, and that would make some sense to me in regards to western astrology (i.e.: those house and signs are domicile of the Sun because it "goes to bed" in that direction). Remember that at least Basque mytholgy, but also apparently other pre-IE mythologies, were cthonic, that is: deities dwelt in the underground and the sky was basically an empty secenario for their manifestations, be them lighting our days or pouring hail on our heads and grooves.

[Anew]

Returning once more to the monolith from their Sie Bauten den Ersten Tempel link, (carved with a wild boar) ... It seems no great stretch of the imagination, that the hole above its forehead in an inside corner was to be symbolic of an eye ... this (could have been) the "boar-dancer's" eye ... and the monolith's broad top, (could have been), his headdress ... It is my belief, (having seen it in such widely separated contexts as the American Indian, Ancient Egyptian and Aboriginal Australian), that the headdress was (in some fashion if not a constant then) a likelyhood for early belief systems; (one that survives to this day).

I speculate this temple reflected back upon a religious tradition wherein human actors would play out ritual stories involving various animal dieties ... that its exceptionality was being recorded in stone at such an early date, and in having survived to the present ... Following this, the traditions could have returned to more temporal, (and more mobile), materials until coalescing again (for the historical record) in other rings.

It leads me to wonder a few things: Were the various stones at many (if not most) rings decorated with temporal materials intended to express their (possible) identity as representations of spirits or ancestors ?.. Are the carvings  generally interpreted as 'axes', (or i have suggested 'altars'), better seen in some contexts as a shamanistic or diety symbol ?.. Was the evidence of 'feasting' connected with this site (and with others) that of offering instead ?.. as it seems meat may have been buried in the proximity of these stone(s), whose assigned dieties it may have been intended to satisfy ... Returning the next year and finding the meat removed from the bone, these people could have called their offerings accepted ... This might also explain the presence of vultures in the mix, scavenging animals whose sense of smell (could have) drawn them to the temple, only (possibly) to be killed by its retainers, and themselves left for the gods ... Although the lead archaeologist believes that the site was left open to the air, the very flat tops of many of these monoliths, and the walls surrounding them, lead me to believe that here the rings were roofed in their off-season; uncovered for ceremony ... I might have imagined them to be roofed continuously, but for the following:

I speculate the cupmarks to have been devotional, filled by a measure of faithfull's blood in a tradition not (entirely) dissimilar from the pieces of flesh given in a Sun Dance ... At Göbekli, it could have been felt that with their blood they had brought the stone dieties to life, and bound them into their community

[Maju]

I don't know. I tend to suspect those "cupmarks" were not visible where they are and may well be actually the product of erosion. Not sure anyhow.


Good image of the "cupmarks".

I can barely see your boar in that image but the animals represented in other stones look true animals (not people):





There is one case of human representation though, the so called "god of erotism" or "fertility":



According to this site, the oldest layers are dated somewhere between 9130-8800 BCE (roughly 9,000 BCE, when Neolithic was at its beginning) but the layers of the pillars are somewhat more recent: c. 8000 and c. 7400 BCE. The latter date only barely approaches the oldest dates of European Neolithic (Thessaly), it is 2500 years older than Portuguese megalithism and 4,000 or 4,500 years older than the apogee of Atlantic megalithism.

I find it extremely difficult to find any correlation with these phenomenons, so distant in space and time. Earliest Portuguese dolmens would be as distant from the latest Gobekli Tepe as we are from Alexander the Great, with the added difficulty that in those times all communication was restricted to oral means (or so it seems).

But it is very possible that Neolithic cultures shared and extended certain "common" astronomical tools and understanding. Astronomy was a constant among Danubians as among Atlantic peoples and so many others, including West Asians and Egyptians. It was important for agriculture, for sailing and for religious purposes surely.

In any case Gobelki Tepe is a fascinating site, comparable to Jerico and Çatal Hüyuk.



Is this representation a plough? Or is it just an axe?  

[Anew]

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

I don't know. I tend to suspect those "cupmarks" were not visible where they are and may well be actually the product of erosion. Not sure anyhow.



Good image of the "cupmarks".

The cupmarks didn't need to be visible, in my opinion, during the ceremony ... They knew (if it happened this way) who gave blood

Natural erosion would be hard pressed to explain the relatively few cupmarks on the monolith at upper left, (5 by my count), (and the way they seem to be, roughly, in a line) ; their apparent absence, (perhaps 1), on the monolith at high-center-left ; and the scarcity, (perhaps 2), on the high-center ; in a way that accounts for the multiplicity of them on those in the foreground and at the right ... Then to explain why those on the right-hand monolith appear to be in two nearly-parallel, nearly-straight lines separated at one end by a short groove ... Nor does natural weathering explain the absence of cupmarks on the stones lying at the foot of and to the left of the heavily marked monolith at high-center-right

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

I can barely see your boar in that image

klein, gross

I gave instruction how to access the larger image

Anew, on 30 January 2008, 10:46, said:

Another look can be obtained through the German Archaeological Institute's (english-language) page on the site, by clicking on their "Sie bauten die ersten Tempel", (or "den ersten Tempel"), link, which shows cupmarks on, (as before, the top surfaces of), additional monoliths

^ here

in a different context, as you may recall

Maju, on 30 January 2008, 15:04, said:

Can clearly see the cupboard marks now, thanks.  

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

but the animals represented in other stones look true animals (not people):

A fox, a goose and a bull ; What would be the story there ?.. It looks like the lion-totem, (my interpretation), fell and that's unfortunate ... Your observation is correct so far as these images are concerned, but i caution not to be too narrow in interpretation ... This would have been a transitional time, when spirit-dancers may have been common, but would have left no trace ... Wooden totems may have been common, but would have left no trace ... The remarkable stroke of luck, (or of misinterpretation), is the monolith which to some extent resembles a "boar-dancer"

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

There is one case of human representation though, the so called "god of erotism" or "fertility":

The God of Puberty ... This fellow came from a different site, Balikligol, in the same province ... He may be relevant, but i find it difficult to say how without more to go on

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

According to this site, the oldest layers are dated somewhere between 9130-8800 BCE (roughly 9,000 BCE, when Neolithic was at its beginning) but the layers of the pillars are somewhat more recent: c. 8000 and c. 7400 BCE.

Quote

The most recent building phase at Göbekli Tepe (Level II) has been dated both comparatively and absolutely (C14) to ca 8000 BC, with an earlier primary building phase (Level III) ending as early as 9000 BC. The age of the earliest occupation cannot yet be determined; the depth of the deposit, however, would suggest a period of several millennia, which signifies that the site had already existed in early Paleolithic times. Level I refers to the accumulation of sediment on the lower slopes of the rise, often considerably deep, occasioned by natural erosion and recently intensified by agriculture.

from Deutches Archaologisches Institut

The team you cite seems to feel it's in competition with the Germans, (at Göbekli), whose low-key approach i might prefer if they'd only be more forthcoming with their finds ... However, yes, 11,500 years ago is too early a date

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

The latter date only barely approaches the oldest dates of European Neolithic (Thessaly), it is 2500 years older than Portuguese megalithism and 4,000 or 4,500 years older than the apogee of Atlantic megalithism.

I find it extremely difficult to find any correlation with these phenomenons, so distant in space and time. Earliest Portuguese dolmens would be as distant from the latest Gobekli Tepe as we are from Alexander the Great, with the added difficulty that in those times all communication was restricted to oral means (or so it seems).

But it is very possible that Neolithic cultures shared and extended certain "common" astronomical tools and understanding. Astronomy was a constant among Danubians as among Atlantic peoples and so many others, including West Asians and Egyptians. It was important for agriculture, for sailing and for religious purposes surely.

In any case Gobelki Tepe is a fascinating site, comparable to Jerico and Çatal Hüyuk.

I'm not determining the past, it is already determined ... I'm trying to interpret it

Maju, on 19 February 2008, 5:10, said:

Is this representation a plough? Or is it just an axe?  

A further possibility is it is a spirit of some kind, look at the forward edge beneath the "headdress" and see a stylized face with two big eyes and a breathing, (or speaking), mouth ... A long skinny arm with a spikelike hand ; the limb itself a waraxe (?) ... How many "cupmarks" does this character have on his top ?..

[Maju]

Are you saying that the cupmarks are not, as I thought, marks to measure the Sun's endeavours but something to riually spill blood in them? I was thiking in something completely different, based in stuff I've read about archaeoastronomy in the Canary Islands (if I don't recall badly): in that case the cupmarks were inside a cave where the sunlight illuminated them in specific days of the year. In a different case, in Canary Islands too, I think, the cupmarks were outside and the astronomical measure was done using a stick that projected a shadow (the stick is, of course, a reconstruction).

I'm not knoweldgeable on cupmarks elsewhere, so please illustrate me.

...

Thanks for the larger image of the boar. But I can only see one eye: for me it's a boar or some other animal.

I do see the face at the side of the "plough" stone. Yet I would not make any clear relation between the two. I guess the lateral image could be in other stones as well, whatever its meaning. My question was about the main image.

The dates between the German and the Turkish site are not really different: the German site says that layer III is dated to 9,000 BCE so says the Turkish site (layer III: charcoal, pistachio and almond remains); the German site talks of a layer II dated to 8000 BCE and the Turkish site talks of structure B, pillar 8 dated to 8000 BCE. But the Turkish site adds a more recent datation of c. 7400 BCE at structure C, pillar 11 that the German site just doesn't mention.

And thanks also for noticing that the blue statue is from a different site. It definitively looks of a distinct style that Sanliurfa.

...

I have no idea what the animals meant. They remind me somewhat of those of the "Lord of the Beasts" of Indus Valley Civilization though:



They also suggest me of the Zodiac: bull, lion... they vaguely suggest to my mind the astrological "fixed cross" adopted by Christian symblogy... and the Tarot:



Bulls and lions (loness actually) are also present in the iconography of nearby Çatalhöyük. It is curious that Çatalhöyük seems to begin just after Göbekli Tepe comes to an end (more or less), even if the geography is some 500 km to the west.

Well, just what it suggests to me.

[kevin.b]

Anew,
           Surely the carvings would match the alignment of the stone?
Whatever the alignment looked like to them at the time, they may have carved a representation on the stone to match what appeared in the sky to align with the stones alignment.
Is there any compass bearings given for the lengthway alignment of the stones?

Kevin

[Anew]

kevin.b, on 19 February 2008, 16:44, said:

Anew,
           Surely the carvings would match the alignment of the stone?
Whatever the alignment looked like to them at the time, they may have carved a representation on the stone to match what appeared in the sky to align with the stones alignment.
Is there any compass bearings given for the lengthway alignment of the stones?

Kevin

Fine thinking

It seems possible (to me) that their choice of carvings would be influenced by the stones' compass orientation and (in particular) placement within the group ; as we have already seen an apparent bias in the cupmarking of one ring toward some stones, and away from others ... I am curious about the rings' long-axis compass bearings, (where these are not round) ... And, it seems not out of the question (if this is what you suggest) that some constellations, (perhaps unknown), visible above certain stones from certain points at certain times, may have been involved

At some point, i hope the team will release detailed 5-sided photos of all monoliths - keyed to detailed maps of all groups - so far unearthed

[Maju]

Searching under "Göbekli Tepe", instad of simplified "Gobekli Tepe", I've found a couple of sites that may be of some use:

1. This one in German, that includes a general map of the region in the Neolithic:



... and more interestingly a panoramic reconstruction of the site:



2. This other site on 'early calendars' (in English), that you may find interesting and includes an alleged map of the Göbekli Tepe calendar, that would be not different from our own and is specially compared with that of Tell Halaf, that is exactly like a blank Zodiac, changing days by degrees.

Hope it's of some use.

[Anew]

[left]
Göbekli Tepe ... (point taken, change made)


The German-language site provides a nice map and plan, as you have posted ... though i can't say i fully share their perspective

Quote

Unbemerkt vom Rest der Welt wurde in Süd-Ost-Anatolien ein Wunder entdeckt: Die älteste Kultstätte der Welt - weit älter als das bisher als älteste Stadt gehandelte Jericho - wartet mit wunderbaren Tierskulpturen auf. Wie passt das zusammen, dass altsteinzeitliche Jäger und Sammler auf einer solch hohen kulturellen Entwicklungsstufe stehen?

Das ist jedenfalls Fakt - und Sitchin erläutert: Das Zweistromland war durch die Sintflut zerstört und unbewohnbar. Die Überlebenden siedelten sich auf den umliegenden Höhen an. Enlil übergibt den überlebenden Menschen der Sintflut Geräte und Samenkörner. Im Hochland beginnt die Landwirtschaft. Enki zähmt Tiere.

source:  http://www.urgeschichte.org

Quote

Unnoticed by the rest of the world a wonder has been discovered in South-East Anatolia : The oldest place of worship in the world - far older than the previously oldest city, held to be Jericho - waiting with wonderful animal sculptures ... How does that come together, that Old Stone Age hunters and gatherers stood on such a high level of cultural development?

That is in any case fact - and Sitchin explains : Mesopotamia was by the Great Flood destroyed and uninhabitable ... The survivors settled on the surrounding heights ... Enlil gives these Great Flood Survivors equipment and seed ... In the high country agriculture begins ... Enki tames animals.

[Maju]

Me neither. We are talking of a time before Sumer even existed. It's possible that large parts of Mesopotamia were still just parts of the sea and that any remains in the rest may have been hidden under huge ammounts of silt, as often happens in alluvial areas. But the case is that before Samarra there's nothing known of in Mesopotamia proper and that there is a lot of prehistoric (pre-writing) early Sumer (El Ubayd culture), later on, to account for the pre-deluge civilization (that in any case would not begin before c. 5000 BCE).

Also I am of the opinion that the deluge actually refers to the Semitic invasions of 3900-3500 BCE, being a metaphore and possibly also a Sumerian word play.

It is in any case a lot more recent than Göbekli Tepe and also any other known early Neolithic site.

Glad that you can speak German, Anew. I had no idea what it said there. I just picked the sites based on the images (same for the second one, that has some eccentric ideas too).

[arne]

I found the info on Gobekli Tepe only recently. Like others, the age amazes me.

  Thoughts on the condition:

   this site was intentionally buried , which contributed to the preservation of details. Unlike many other mega sites, weathering was minimized.  

    I've always wondered what stones such as at Stonehenge or Callanish looked like when first quarried. The sharp angles and smooth sides of the Gobekli stones might be the norm, rather than unique.

    4,000-5,000 years of rain and - importantly - the freezing cycles of Winter , can do in the surface of any rock. Compare the outer surface of Egyptian stones, where only heat and wind-borne sand acted, to the protected inner sides.

     BTW, the car park post holes at Stonehenge are contemporaneous with Gobecki.