Featured Title:
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams on DVD |
 |
| Ley Lines |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 129 guests and 1 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : davidmorgan , TimPrevett , Andy B , Klingon , MickM , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> People, stones, stone circles, Stonehenge and much, much, earlier:- Gobekli Tepe.
|
 |
| Page 1 of 3 ( 1 | 2 | 3 ) |
| Author |
People, stones, stone circles, Stonehenge and much, much, earlier:- Gobekli Tepe. |
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 28-01-2013 at 16:18
Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is a long way from Stonehenge. And it's a "long way" in time from it, predating it by thousands of years. Built before humans practiced agriculture or pottery, it seems.
But agriculture came to Europe from "down there" somewhere. Did the "mania" for constructing stone circles come from there too? Even if the circles and their use changed somewhat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
The findings there, will revolutionize our ideas of human development, have already done so for some. They should influence our ideas about everything we know or surmise about Stonehenge.
Comments?
 Profile
 Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-01-2013 at 23:38
I have a little coin to toss in this pond ...
One of the 'challenges' I'm frequently presented with when dealing with Stonehenge, is: "The UKers couldn't have been very bright. They built this rude little circle when the perfect Pyramids were constructed in Egg-Yipped!"
It is generally conceded that Homo Sapiens settled in the Mid-East originally, and spread out from there with at least Some cultural advancements. As they moved out from the Center and settled, possibly over the course of many generations, much of what they brought with them in terms of general knowledge was most likely lost.
They had to start all over again, learning various things that the people 'back home' were taking for granted at the same time.
When they got to Turkey they made a fine life for themselves. In that it's only a few hundred miles from the Fertile Crescent, they no doubt had a long leg up when building their stuff.
Moving further West, we find the same pattern over again. Bulgaria, Germany, France and England all had their cultural 'jumping-off' points, wherein they eventually built their megaliths.
All of these cultures get progressively younger the further West we go.
By the same token, all this occurs in layers, in that we also see wide areas in the European Region populated long before. Just the numerous Cave Paintings found all over western Europe and elsewhere is testament to this.
So then why isn't that Culture contiguous, waiting a huge number of generations for the in-comers to eventually arrive?
Ice. Lots of Ice.
Build a farm, watch it grow, then watch it destroyed by those pesky, mile-high Glaciers. Sheesh!
Little or no record, but then, how advanced can those people have been with all that constant interruption?
So then, after the ice, we have the in-comers from the East. They stop for a while in Bulgaria, et.al., then their offspring continue the journey, repeating the same inevitable learning curves their forebears did.
When they got to England and Ireland they settled down and eventually grew advanced enough socially, culturally and metaphorically to construct their own Megaliths.
Very sophisticated stuff for the time and place, but by that time Gobekli Tepe was already 4,000+ years old and the Abacus was being used in China.
Distance from the Center, in time and space, is why the Sumerians had writing and cloth at the same time Westerners were passing on their History by Ritual Song while ripping the hides off animals to keep warm.
Neil
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2013 at 10:32
Göbekli Tepe is fairly unique and, since there is no evidence of similar stone circles west of there in Anatolia, I don't think you can draw an comparisons between it and Stonehenge.
Profile
Reply
|
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2013 at 21:16
Feanor :
Good story unsupported by any archeological evidence.
And
1. The last ice sheet in those parts did not reach so far south in Europe, the Levant ("Middle East"), or Asia. Could not have destroyed any preexisting "farms" there.
2. Sumer & Egypt with their civilizations came 6,000-7,000 years later than Gobekli Tepe.
davidMorgan
You can bear in mind the abilities and the psychology of an even more "primitive" people/society when thinking about Stonehenge. I did not mean direct comparisons.
As far as the spread West, I would suggest two things. One, we wait for further prehistoric investigations in Anatolia. Recall that there was no trace of this circle besides a Potbellied Hill with a few broken stones lying about, considered until quite recently to have been a byzantine cemetery. Two, consider a seaborne spread of related "cultures." Stones in Malta, Sicily, Balearics, Iberian peninsula, Brittany, Cornwall, West Wales, southern England, Ireland, Cumbria, the West and Islands of Scotland, the Orkneys.
To me it seems some people were seafarers. And their descendents stayed seafarers. 
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2013 at 22:21
If you're speculating that the "Stones in Malta, Sicily, Balearics, Iberian peninsula, Brittany, Cornwall, West Wales, southern England, Ireland, Cumbria, the West and Islands of Scotland, the Orkneys" are a "related culture" with origins in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Mesopotamia, then perhaps this thread ought to be moved to the Mysteries forum.
Just because ancient peoples made monuments from stone it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a connection.
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-01-2013 at 01:02
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-29 21:16, ryszard wrote:
Feanor:
Good story unsupported by any archeological evidence.
And
1. The last ice sheet in those parts did not reach so far south in Europe, the Levant ("Middle East"), or Asia. Could not have destroyed any preexisting "farms" there.
2. Sumer & Egypt with their civilizations came 6,000-7,000 years later than Gobekli Tepe.
|
|
ryszard,
Paint a bulls-eye with a radius of 500-miles centered in the Tigris & Euphrates area. Gobekli Tepe falls well within that circle.
Making concentric rings progressively further out, mark the circles at 1,000 year intervals. (Based upon evidence)
By and large, the farther out from the center we travel the newer the cultures are.
But nothing remains of the people who continuously occupied the Cave of Horses for 3,000 years - except for their paintings and hand-prints.
This occurred as far back as ~30-k years ago. Ice and all the subsequent environmental ramifications of it utterly destroyed a culture whose expressions in Art were unrivaled until the Renaissance.
If not for that pesky, recurrent temperature drop, they'd still be there - much as the people of Wiltshire today can trace their DNA directly back to the Builders of Stonehenge.
This is what I meant by 'Layers' of development. Some people made it - others ... not so much.
(Don't get me started on the perfectly acclimated, woefully out-competed Neandertal ...)
You need to sharpen your pencil a bit when it comes to dating Sumer and Egg-Yipt.
Sumeria began its rise 5,500 years ago, and Egypt about 5,000.
So then, 4,500 / 5,000 years difference if GT is 10,000 years old, when all kinds of stuff we still don't know about Must have been going on.
No one is attempting to degrade the importance or sophistication of the achievements seen at Gobekli Tepe.
But as far as we know to date, it is a stand-alone edifice, with nothing else like it anywhere. It's age is truly astonishing and this 'Temple' speaks to a culture of intricate social complexity.
With the much later Stonehenge by comparison, though also a stand-alone edifice, we find any number of extant cultural references which lead to its construction.
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-01-2013 at 02:28
>If you're speculating that the "Stones in Malta, Sicily, Balearics, Iberian peninsula, Brittany, Cornwall, West Wales, southern England, Ireland, Cumbria, the West and Islands of Scotland, the Orkneys" are a "related culture" with origins in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Mesopotamia, then perhaps this thread ought to be moved to the Mysteries forum. <
Agreed as that would be alternative archaeology, please let us know if this is your opinion Ryzard.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-01-2013 at 15:07
Given the research done by geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, it seems unlikely that the model of successive waves of settlers from the East eventually reaching the UK is correct. His model is more probable and can loosely be summarised as follows.
After the Last Glacial Maximum (approx 26,000 - 20,000BP), north-western Europe was slowly repopulated by hunter-gatherers who had previously been forced South by the ice, many finding refuges in southern France, northern Spain and Portugal. Without going into genetic detail (which I don’t understand anyway) and to quote Oppenheimer “…. over half our maternal ancestors arose from southern refugees and arrived in north-west Europe just as soon as the melting ice allowed.” The majority of these peoples moved up the west coast of the UK with a few coming over from what is now thought of as Doggerland. Again to quote SO “They expanded and flourished in numbers as great as at any time in prehistory.”
Later, the Younger Dryas (a mini-ice age approx 12,000-11,000BP) again brought ice to the UK but was not as severe as the LGM with much of the country remaining as steppe tundra - an environment known to be tolerated by humans. There is enough evidence for limited human activity during this period to show not everyone was driven out by the cold and as the UK’s landmass was far greater then, much more may lie under the ocean. Oppenheimer then goes on to suggest that much of the human expansion after the Younger Dryas was from indigenous people.
ryszard
None of this is evidence for or against a “cultural” flow, but as culture and race often go together, there may be something in it.
Profile
Reply
|
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2013 at 10:46
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-30 02:28, Runemage wrote:
>If you're speculating that the "Stones in Malta, Sicily, Balearics, Iberian peninsula, Brittany, Cornwall, West Wales, southern England, Ireland, Cumbria, the West and Islands of Scotland, the Orkneys" are a "related culture" with origins in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Mesopotamia, then perhaps this thread ought to be moved to the Mysteries forum. <
Agreed as that would be alternative archaeology, please let us know if this is your opinion Ryzard.
Rune
|
|
I am not suggesting they are a related culture, merely that certain obvious facets of a culture, such as erect stones, might spread by other means than waves of immigration, or invasion, or overland communication. A simple idea such as "use stone instead of, say, wood, for religious monuments" could spread very quickly. I am not aware that we know anything about trade in those days apart from trade in obsidian in the Levant. It appears to me that we consider the different groups of hunter-gatherers to have always been quite separate from one another, and perhaps always hostile to one another, with little or no intercommunication. I question this assumption.
As Sem points out above, the successive waves of migration into Europe theory with cultural changes is possibly not the whole "truth". I think ideas could spread faster than agriculture, even amongst hunter-gatherers. And travel by sea, voluntary as for trade and/or exploration, or accidental (as in being swept off your fishing grounds by storms), was easier and quicker in those days. Hunter-gatherers did travel to Australia and crossed other considerable distances on the seas. By the nature of things evidence of "boats" or rafts from those times is non-existent. All we have is the distribution of humans, their DNA, and their artefacts, like stone monuments of various types, construed at various periods.
I may not have been very clear in my original post, but I must say I was surprised at the reaction; it seemed like a knee-jerk reaction, immediately to consider a new suggestion as woo-woo.
The "stones" in the
[ This message was edited by: ryszard on 2013-01-31 10:49 ]
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2013 at 12:54
Woo-woo - "extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence".
You appear to be suggesting that the idea for erecting stone monuments in Britain originated in Mesopotamia. Is there any evidence for this? Or is it just unprovable speculation?
Profile
Reply
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2013 at 16:16
Is there any evidence for a spiritual/ritual revolution emerging from the Levant that would have spread the building of burial mounds and stone enclosures?
John
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2013 at 18:14
Hi Ryszard,
I may not have been very clear in my original post, but I must say I was surprised at the reaction; it seemed like a knee-jerk reaction, immediately to consider a new suggestion as woo-woo.
Here in the Stones Forum, discussions are about actual factual topics where ideas can be backed up by research and evidence. Our Mysteries Forum covers all other theories.
We're trying to determine where this discussion should take place, from posts so far, there doesn't seem to be the evidence to back up your theory, but perhaps there could be. That's why we're asking
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-02-2013 at 10:25
Quote:
| I asked... Is there any evidence for a spiritual/ritual revolution emerging from the Levant that would have spread the building of burial mounds and stone enclosures? |
|
Hi Rune
Quote:
| You wrote... Here in the Stones Forum, discussions are about actual factual topics where ideas can be backed up by research and evidence. Our Mysteries Forum covers all other theories. |
|
With this in mind, may I return to my question above as to whether any evidence existed of a spreading Spi-ritual revolution having caused the building of megalithic structures. Let me cite two pieces of academic work that might inadvertently support such a supposition.
The following quote is from a 1999 publication compiled by 29 eminent historians and archaeologists... [quote “The earliest changes visible in the archaeological records relate not to food production, but to social relations, indicated not only in the tendency to reside in one location over longer periods and in the investment in labour in more substantial and more permanent structures, but also in the growth of ritual, an important factor in social cohesion. Indeed, it is possible that this “symbolic revolution” was of greater immediate significance than the economic changes we associate with the origins of agriculture . [/quote] Would you say that Gobekli Tepe and Nevali Cori, etc, are expressions of this emerging ritual activity.
With regard to the emergence of the first city-states in Mesopotamia it is interesting to find the anthropologist Charles Keith Maisels (in 1993) arguing against the agricultural origins of these conurbations. Whilst not directly stating that “ritual activity” was responsible for these city-states, he does argue that these conurbations came about by crystallizing about temple complexes, not fertile terrain!
Are we overlooking the possibility of a hugely important common ritual function being behind the building of both ancient tombs and temples?
John
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-02-2013 at 20:39
The earliest changes visible in the archaeological records relate not to food production
I don't understand what that sentence means. What earliest changes? Maybe the quotation is taken out of context and refers to an actual site. It appears to be from Inside the Neolithic Mind by David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce.
Worth noting this extract from a review of the book in American Scientist:
"If changes in belief systems really were the underlying cause of socioeconomic inequality, domestication, megalithic building and political complexity, why didn't these changes come about long before the beginning of the Neolithic? And why did they take place only in the most productive environments of the time? How did some people convince others to adopt what were transparently self-serving ideologies? It seems to me that the issues of domestication and the emergence of socioeconomic complexity are poorly served by cognitively based explanations. As I have attempted to demonstrate in my own research, aspiring elites really use a wide range of strategies to acquire power and promote their self-interests. Controlling access to purportedly powerful supernatural entities is only one strategy among many, some of which are much more materially potent prime movers."
why didn't these changes come about long before the beginning of the Neolithic?
Quite, the Natufians were an Epipalaeolithic sedentary culture a long time before Göbekli Tepe, can the same be said about them? Apparently not.
[ This message was edited by: davidmorgan on 2013-02-01 21:02 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-02-2013 at 23:50
Hi David
My copy of "Inside the Neolithic Mind" is packed up pending a move back to the UK, as is my 1999 edition of "The Times History of the World, P38, from where the above assertion can be found.
I can only assume that the reviewer of "Inside the Neolithic Mind" (from The American Scientist) is an anthropologist, because he asks " why did [the changes suggested by the author's] take place only in the most productive environments of the time? A clear defense of the "Fertile Crescent" hypothesis.
I'm not an expert on the Natufian era or their adoption of a sedentary lifestyle. My area of interest is the history of religion, and it this research that brings me to examine their use of seasonal encampments; a precursor to their adoption of a sedentary lifestyle proper. According to the archaeological evidence, these seasonal encampments were where they began to bury their dead, and where at certain times of the year they would return in order to disinter their remains where they became the focus of ritual activity. My findings suggest that it was this ritual treatment of the dead at these specific locations that brought about the need for these temporary encampments. Thus began a spiritual revolution that swept through an already well dispersed humanity, some adopting a sedentary lifestyle, others not. What form this ritual activity took and what its attraction was to ancient people are just a few of the questions that my forthcoming work looks to explain.
John
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-02-2013 at 02:55
My findings suggest that it was this ritual treatment of the dead at these specific locations that brought about the need for these temporary encampments.
I'm inclined to think the opposite. Is there evidence of nomadic burial grounds preceding settlements?
Profile
Reply
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-02-2013 at 10:32
Hi David
Quote:
| you wrote... I'm inclined to think the opposite. Is there evidence of nomadic burial grounds preceding settlements? |
|
No, to my knowledge only isolated internments (some with burial goods) have been found, nothing to indicate a growing practice of group burials amongst hunter-gatherers!
The clustered burials found in these emerged seasonal encampments present us with a number of fundamental problems. The first being that the deceased are found interred inside huts or shelters that form the first settlements on earth. More problematic however, is that the deceased were seasonally disinterred and subjected to what anthropologists term ritual activity!
The element of religious history that has intrigued me for more forty years is the ritual activity that sustained/sustains it. The pivotal event in this spiritual activity revolved about the act of blood sacrifice; an extraordinary rite whose history anthropology has puzzlingly failed to explain? Which is odd, when one can trace its origins back to these unique seasonal encampments!
John
Profile
Reply
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2013 at 15:55
Hi Ryszard
Quote:
| Your wrote... I am not suggesting they are a related culture, merely that certain obvious facets of a culture, such as erect stones, might spread by other means than waves of immigration, or invasion, or overland communication. A simple idea such as "use stone instead of, say, wood, for religious monuments" could spread very quickly. |
|
For what its worth, my work suggests that during the late Mesolithic, Neolithic periods, a spiritual ideology began to spread outwards from the Levant on the back of ritual activity. You'll get a sense of where I'm coming from and what made this ritual activity so attractive here... http://andrewgough.co.uk/secretorigins.html
I've made quite a lot of headway since writing that article, such that I now believe I have a clear picture of antiquity which is slowly beginning to be verified by archaeology. Unfortunately, they have a tendency to see evidence of feasting, not ritual activity, i.e. the practice of blood sacrifice, etc. Note that the "etc" here is extremely important as it spawned the one megalithic structure that was seen across the ancient world in one form or another. I'm referring to the megalithic temple, be it a passage grave or a dolmen, over which was raised a mound of earth or an intricate pyramid. The act of sacrifice was never far away, as it supplied the blood necessary for the rite performed in these darkened places. Contrary to what the historical sciences say publicly, ancient blood sacrifice was not a symbolic act of "feasting"; it had a purpose, and that was to provide blood for use in these sanctuaries, be they temples or tombs. The intricacies of this once universal ritual process does allow for variations in the ritual complexes built to house it, but the basic duality of altar precinct-darkened sanctuary, appears to hold good.
Ancient people the world over recorded the events that took place in their temples and tombs, and yet the historical sciences dismiss such testimony as myth. This rejection is clearly dogma based, because they can't give credence to its spiritual assertions. Unfortunately, this stance has prevented a thorough analysis of these ancient "ritual" claims.
The moderators may feel that this subject belongs on the Mysteries forum, but I would disagree. Granted it may be an unusual proposal, and it may be based upon unusual events, but it is evidence based and is open to current laboratory and field analysis. I'll await a judgement, but if anyone should wish to discuss this further please say so.
John
Profile
Reply
|
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2013 at 19:52
Having followed this thread, and having, for the the first time since I joined the forum, looked at the Mysteries Forum, I have no objection to "my" thread being moved there, if that is deemed to be the right and proper thing to do. it may well be that all my thoughts on the subject are a figment of my imagination, though I support to an extent the views of Elijah here.
The discussion reminds me of a comment of a friend of mine, a fully qualified Egyptologist, made when I asked him something about the astronomical alignments of the pyramids. He said, "Oh my God, don't say you've been listening to what we (presumably he meant Egyptologists) call the nonsense spread by those we (that we again) call Pyramidomaniacs." And he went off to see all those stones and mummies there in Egypt without answering my question whether he thought the Egyptians just put those things where they were, as would a child building something in his nursery with Leggo blocks.
[ This message was edited by: ryszard on 2013-02-06 19:55 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-02-2013 at 16:38
Hi Ryszard
The incident you mention with the Egyptologist is a perfect example of the mindset driven into these academics. It's actually a form of ideological indoctrination based upon the scientific rejection of god, something that directly impacts upon the work of our historical sciences. It's an ideology that simply rejects outright widespread ancient claims of sacrificial phenomena! Start to mention solar alignments and your into ritual/spiritual activity and its otherworldly claims; a no no for these scholars who see the act of blood sacrifice as symbolic and claims of sacrificial miracles as myths and lies!
It's important to understand that I am not suggesting that these events were spiritual, far from it. Forty years of analysis suggests that these widespread ancient claims of miracles are actually records of induced biological enigma! Nor am I enticing, or revealing how people may replicate these sacrificial events, as the physical environment of the planet and the biological nature of these events will negate such attempts.
My work sees the daily rites practiced at sacred sites as being especially attuned to the rising and setting sun. The crucial thing being to determine precisely when these events took place on the horizon! The actual crucial factor for ancient people was the terrain on which these sites were located. How they determined the (assumed) sacredness of these locations was usually by making a sacrificial offering and this producing some form of sign. It may also have been determined by some unusual occurrence having taken place at these locations. Remember that ancient hunter-gatherers would have been finely attuned to their environment and the occurrence of anything unusual.
So what links these locations (and their controversial events) with the rising and setting sun?
John
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News