For us...a thread in which we can ask Bob archeology questions

“The world cannot sit by and permit unchecked anarchy to jeopardize the cultural heritage of one of the world’s oldest, greatest and most inspiring civilizations. We echo the voices of all concerned citizens of the globe in imploring Egypt’s new government authorities, in building the nation’s future, to protect its precious past. Action needs to be taken immediately.”



Why do humans respect and treasure relics, buildings and monuments from the past more than we do the living beings in our midst?
 
“The world cannot sit by and permit unchecked anarchy to jeopardize the cultural heritage of one of the world’s oldest, greatest and most inspiring civilizations. We echo the voices of all concerned citizens of the globe in imploring Egypt’s new government authorities, in building the nation’s future, to protect its precious past. Action needs to be taken immediately.”



Why do humans respect and treasure relics, buildings and monuments from the past more than we do the living beings in our midst?
Genesis 3
 
I've got a question for Bob.

To preface for those that haven't heard of it, there is a pretty amazing dig going on in Turkey that is called Göbekli Tepe and without getting into the entire history of it's recent discovery-- a look at the pic attached gives us a small look at the mammoth complex that is only fractionally uncovered after excavation since 1994.

You can see the huge T-shaped structures which apparently held roofs of some sort and many of these and other massive stones are covered with outstanding bas-relief carvings of miscellaneous animals. The most astonishing thing about this site is that it was built over thousands of years beginning almost 9000 years ago and it predates the pyramids themselves by several thousand years. It has been a major point of scholarly interest and debate in the scientific community because humans back then weren't supposed to be able to build large, complex projects like this. We were supposed to gather stuff and hunt meat, not build pylons that could hold an elevated freeway.

That's the Cliff Notes version of a very long and interesting story.

The question that I have is that some speculate that this quite massive complex could not have been buried in sand and stone naturally to the extent that it was but that it's former inhabitants seemed to have deliberately buried this place under what amounts to a small artificial mountain or a humungous hill.

How in the hell is that even possible? Are you buying that?
 
“The world cannot sit by and permit unchecked anarchy to jeopardize the cultural heritage of one of the world’s oldest, greatest and most inspiring civilizations. We echo the voices of all concerned citizens of the globe in imploring Egypt’s new government authorities, in building the nation’s future, to protect its precious past. Action needs to be taken immediately.”

Why do humans respect and treasure relics, buildings and monuments from the past more than we do the living beings in our midst?

That is a great point to bring up.

I like to think that when people state the importance of preserving their own history or heritage, they are incidentally preserving the history of civilization as a whole, and I feel that it is very important that we do not forget the past- not just in the sense that we may repeat it (e.g., "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.") but it serves as a stark reminder that unfortunately, civilizations do have the ability to destroy themselves, and in the case of the Holocaust, entire countries can and have done unprecedented evil to another or to itself, and this has occurred so many times over the course of history.

If you take a look at my avatar- it's the statue of Ramsses II at Abu Simbel, that Ramsses built for himself, and to this day it sits forlorn and slowly crumpling to dust. Ramsses II was one of the last great pharaohs who raised Ancient Egypt to unprecedented heights in his unchecked hubris, and incidentally planted the final seed of destruction that caused this great civilization to destroy itself. I have him as my avatar as a reminder to never take oneself too seriously, because sooner or later, all things turn to dust.

Conservative history puts forth the idea that Ancient Egypt could not handle the successive invasion by the Assyrians, the Persians, and then by Alexander the Great (who ejected the Persians), and finally the Romans who broken their backs. But the truth is that Ancient Egypt self-destructed, and this destruction was well underway, around the time of the ascent of Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten and instituted a series of bizarre changes, including religious suppression, and the institution of the one god belief- namely Aten. Then along came Ramesses II who build farther and wider than any other Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt, and engaged in constant warfare and immoral conduct (siring more than a hundred offsprings) ignoring the cost to the treasury and the religious schism that split the country apart and drove the gap between the rich and poor even wider.

Example: The Ancient Egyptian royalty were known for being incestuous and taking many mistresses, a lot of them barely mature, and polygamy was rampant- and there is a reason that this is illegal today, in our country and in this modern time. It's not just because it's morally corrupting- it's also socially destructive. There is a reason that we hold freedom of speech to be dear to us today, along with religious tolerance, and other values that are socially binding and constructive. Thankfully, our forefathers took their history lessons very seriously, and applied them diligently when they designed the backbone of this country, and the laws that were built consequently, over the course of 200 plus years.

And those are some of the examples of our "evolution."

One only needs to look at the back of a dollar bill to see the far-reaching influence of Ancient Egypt, to this day, and hopefully we won't forget that in a hurry. Ancient Egypt lasted around 5,000 years before being destroyed. We've only been a country for 235 years and we've been to the brink once or twice (e.g., The Cuban Missile Crisis). Hopefully we'll last a little longer if we keep the stark reminder that civilizations indeed have the ability to destroy themselves and have done so- and perhaps with that in mind, we would not act so rashly or with ill-will towards our fellow citizens, or another country.

And so you have, as you call them- 'relics, buildings, and monuments' which are reminders of "what once was" and sometimes that can speak louder than words in a history book would.
 
The question that I have is that some speculate that this quite massive complex could not have been buried in sand and stone naturally to the extent that it was but that it's former inhabitants seemed to have deliberately buried this place under what amounts to a small artificial mountain or a humungous hill.

How in the hell is that even possible? Are you buying that?

Why would such a mound be any different from the multiple layers at Troy?
 
Why would such a mound be any different from the multiple layers at Troy?

I'm not that familiar with what happened at Troy, but even if this is identical, I feel like it is still a valid question due to the gigantic amount of earth that needed to be moved in order to bury something that was built up over thousands of years and was quite amazing.

I heard one theory that the inhabitants of that area may have buried it to protect it from enemies, but that doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me because it would have taken generations to do even if it was actually possible. You'd have to be one stubborn culture to attempt that.

Seems to me that you're better off just letting it get trashed and building a new one rather than go through a filling in and digging out process that would take god knows how long.

There could be logical reasons, but I don't know of any. That's why I asked Bob. With any luck he can fill us in on Troy and get a two-fer.
 
Difference is that Hisarlik (Troy) is layer upon layer, and none of them, as far as I remember, date back to 9000 BC.

The site Of Gobekli is that old, and seems to primarily be ceremonial, as opposed to domestic.

Troy also has a level (IV, if I recall) that shows major signs of destruction, versus this deliberate covering up.
 
I can think of only two reasons to deliberately bury something like that, defense and insulation. Either way it may have been part of the plan to hide the structures. If it were a case of out with the old Gods and in with the new, it would have been a lot easier to just destroy them. As to defense, if you don't know its there, you can't attack it. I looked at a CAD-type reconstruction and it seems like it is set up with one narrow entrance which has a maze-like quality to it. Very defensible. As to insulation, it is not uncommon in modern times to have houses set into a hill, or completely underground, to insulate from the cold. Perhaps the structures were designed to protect the inhabitants from the heat (or maybe cold?) The massive posts look like they could have supported the weight of the soil above it. I'm not a structural engineer, but the posts look like they could support a modern bridge. This is fascinating. Thanks Hawg! Here is an article on it.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/history-in-the-remaking.html
 
I can think of only two reasons to deliberately bury something like that, defense and insulation. Either way it may have been part of the plan to hide the structures. If it were a case of out with the old Gods and in with the new, it would have been a lot easier to just destroy them. As to defense, if you don't know its there, you can't attack it. I looked at a CAD-type reconstruction and it seems like it is set up with one narrow entrance which has a maze-like quality to it. Very defensible. As to insulation, it is not uncommon in modern times to have houses set into a hill, or completely underground, to insulate from the cold. Perhaps the structures were designed to protect the inhabitants from the heat (or maybe cold?) The massive posts look like they could have supported the weight of the soil above it. I'm not a structural engineer, but the posts look like they could support a modern bridge. This is fascinating. Thanks Hawg! Here is an article on it.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/history-in-the-remaking.html

The insulation theory has got to be out, since this wasn't like chambers and rooms underground-- they had to pick rocks and sand out of just about every square inch of the place and still are. It will take decades just to dig the place out fully if they ever do.

Generally, experts call Gobekli Tepe a place of worship, but that doesn't fit with all the animal carvings exactly. One theory I heard is that since it isn't far from there to Mt. Ararat that this is actaully "Noah's Ark", hence the carvings. I dunno if I like that one, either, but.....who knows?

I don't know much about world history, but all I could think of was the movie Exorcist III where they discover a church that had been buried in a similar fashion because in it's underbelly was a staircase that led straight down to hell. I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but I suppose you can't rule out that it was a superstitious thing, as if they believed that the entire place was cursed in some way.
 
Why would such a mound be any different from the multiple layers at Troy?

To understand that, you have to understand the concept of stratigraphy which concerns the layers of soil that are put on over time. Each layer has their own peculiar mix of individual contaminants. For instance, some layers have more carbon than others, indicating a period of global warming.

For example, probably the most famous layer is the K -T boundary which separates the era of the dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period, and the latter Teritary period (65 million to 2.5 million BC). The K-T layer contains very little trace of vegetation, and a very unusual amount of iridium, a substance not really found on Earth. This is suggestive of the giant asteroid impact theory that wiped out the dinosaur era.

And unlike at Troy, the soil at Göbekli Tepe (Turkish for "Potbelly hill") there are no discerned layers. Also the amount of dust Schmidt found adhering to the limestone monolithic pillars indicated that this was a slow deliberate processs of burial. Slowly moving dirt into the area raised a lot of dust which stuck to the monuments themselves as they were being buried, and this is the general indication that this was a deliberate process.

Note: the K-T layer is now being called Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) but as I am a creature of old habits, I referred it to K-T without thinking. The same is true of my habit in persisting in the use of BC as opposed to BCE, which is irresponsible, I have to confess.
 
I'm not that familiar with what happened at Troy, but even if this is identical, I feel like it is still a valid question due to the gigantic amount of earth that needed to be moved in order to bury something that was built up over thousands of years and was quite amazing.

I heard one theory that the inhabitants of that area may have buried it to protect it from enemies, but that doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me because it would have taken generations to do even if it was actually possible. You'd have to be one stubborn culture to attempt that.

Seems to me that you're better off just letting it get trashed and building a new one rather than go through a filling in and digging out process that would take god knows how long.

There could be logical reasons, but I don't know of any. That's why I asked Bob. With any luck he can fill us in on Troy and get a two-fer.

I'm afraid I am about as clueless as you are, and so is the archaeologist in charge, Klaus Schmidt, who said as such himself. It's refreshing to me, to hear such honesty.

One thing to bear in mind is that the GT burial occurred around the era that agriculture sprung up (8000 BC) and if I had to venture a guess, I would say that with the massive shift to agriculture, from the hunter-gatherer method of subsistence, there was also a massive shift in religious belief and that the beliefs practiced at GT had simply been supplanted by another, and was no longer seen as useful.

My reason for believing this is that in many instances throughout history, we have seen countless examples of one religion concealing or destroying evidence of an older, pre-existing one, such as the Taliban destruction of Buddha images in the Middle East , and I need not recount the incalculable destruction that Christianity has waged in the Western Hemisphere.

While there is no evidence of destruction, I do think the idea of an attempt at concealment is not wholly without merit.

The great thing is that only 5% of GT has been excavated. There is much more buried in the soil, and hopefully somewhere in there, is the answer to this burning question.
 
I'm afraid I am about as clueless as you are, and so is the archaeologist in charge, Klaus Schmidt, who said as such himself. It's refreshing to me, to hear such honesty.

One thing to bear in mind is that the GT burial occurred around the era that agriculture sprung up (8000 BC) and if I had to venture a guess, I would say that with the massive shift to agriculture, from the hunter-gatherer method of subsistence, there was also a massive shift in religious belief and that the beliefs practiced at GT had simply been supplanted by another, and was no longer seen as useful.

My reason for believing this is that in many instances throughout history, we have seen countless examples of one religion concealing or destroying evidence of an older, pre-existing one, such as the Taliban destruction of Buddha images in the Middle East , and I need not recount the incalculable destruction that Christianity has waged in the Western Hemisphere.

While there is no evidence of destruction, I do think the idea of an attempt at concealment is not wholly without merit.

The great thing is that only 5% of GT has been excavated. There is much more buried in the soil, and hopefully somewhere in there, is the answer to this burning question.

First, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You've been awesome to give your time and effort to these questions and hopefully it isn't too much of a pain for you to explain this stuff to laymen, inquistive and pesky ones that we are.

If both you and Klaus don't really have a solid theory, then that makes me feel pretty good, because I'm absolutely dumbfounded and I have a sense that a lot of people are.

The religious evolution theory might be plausible because, as you mentioned a few posts earlier, religious fanatics aren't usually interested in preserving any history other than their own. I won't comment on just how frigging long filling that thing in might have taken and how motivated a culture needs to be to conceal something like that. Major religions have been born and then died in that span of time.

I really hope you are correct and that the answer to what it all means may still be under all that dirt and waiting to be uncovered. It's going to be a corker, no doubt.
 
First, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You've been awesome to give your time and effort to these questions and hopefully it isn't too much of a pain for you to explain this stuff to laymen, inquistive and pesky ones that we are.

Neither you or anyone else in this thread has been pesky at all. I actually enjoy doing this because the curiosity and desire to know answers in this forum is genuine.
 
Back
Top