Another one for the debunkers

[Traveler]

Well there are a lot of finds like this coming to light in recent
months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html

Now either the method of dating is out or the timelines in the collage books are way out.

Which is it?

For the stones to last this long with the details on them they had to be comprised of a hard material. That means that the tools to make the pictures had to be of a harder material and to shape the rocks in such a clean fashion points to metal tools. Also you at least need the wheel to transport them.

[DontBeAfraid]

The first is its staggering age. Carbon-dating shows that the complex is at least 12,000 years old, maybe even 13,000 years old. You cant carbon date something that DOESNT HAVE ANY FUCKING CARBON IN IT!

[proffett]

You cant carbon date something that DOESNT HAVE ANY FUCKING CARBON IN IT!

Such sweet ownage..

Where are these people getting their degrees, a Cracker Jack box or a vending machine?

[Traveler]

You cant carbon date something that DOESNT HAVE ANY FUCKING CARBON IN IT!


Well maybe they found some old bones from the last meal held there. It makes no difference as carbon dateing does not work that far back anyway.

But a date has been assigned. IT IS A VERY OLD STRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN LOST TO THE SANDS OF TIME. That is one heck of a lot of soil deposits that covered it.

Now are we all to assume that all those people that have escavated this structure have gotten their degrees from lucky packets because they offend the integrity of your established time lines.

Is ridicule the only defence you have?

[Skygirl]

The date is from organic material found at the base level of the structures.

The structures appear to have been intentionally covered.

They seem to be connected to some sort of early hunting society, most of the carvings are of creepy critters, lots of vultures, evidently during that time period it was thought that vultures carried a persons spirit to their god(s).

There is a smithsonian article about it but my computer is being weird and I can't pull up the specific page to link to it.

[Freddy]

Here are 4 articles that do not suggest Gobeki Tepe is the Garden of Eden. One is from the Smithsonian, one from Archeology, one from sci.tech, and one from Wikipedia. Schmidt never claimed Gobeki Tepe is the Garden of Eden.

"Archaeologist Klaus Schmidt downplays extravagant spiritual interpretations of Göbekli Tepe, such as the idea, made popular in the press, that the site is the inspiration for the Biblical Garden of Eden."

The main point of discovery is that this site is 11,000 years old and is a temple built by hunter gatherers and not by an agricultural society. Gobeki Tepe is only 1% excavated so much more is waiting to be discovered.

http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html
www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2008-04/msg00318.html

[Nu Kua]

Some of our Ancients were a LOT more advanced then we tend to give them credit for.
Awesome find! Maybe before the people of the Earth implode upon themselves, we'll have learned more about our origins.

[MVP]

Well there are a lot of finds like this coming to light in recent
months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html

Now either the method of dating is out or the timelines in the collage books are way out.

Which is it?

For the stones to last this long with the details on them they had to be comprised of a hard material. That means that the tools to make the pictures had to be of a harder material and to shape the rocks in such a clean fashion points to metal tools. Also you at least need the wheel to transport them.

Some claims Pyramid of Cheops is much older than what it claimed to be or otherwise.

Radiocarbon dating method (aka carbon-14) uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14. Then, compare the decay of carbon 14 and the remainder of sample to estimate its age.

I feel protocol of carbon-14 method is accurate, except for possible contaminated sample testing.

[DontBeAfraid]

Well maybe they found some old bones from the last meal held there. It makes no difference as carbon dateing does not work that far back anyway.Carbon dating is accurate to about 60 thousand years old....

[Cyranothe2nd]

Well there are a lot of finds like this coming to light in recent
months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html

Now either the method of dating is out or the timelines in the collage books are way out.

Which is it?

For the stones to last this long with the details on them they had to be comprised of a hard material. That means that the tools to make the pictures had to be of a harder material and to shape the rocks in such a clean fashion points to metal tools. Also you at least need the wheel to transport them.

Actually this is untrue. There is plenty of evidence that many ancient monolithic structures were built without the use of the wheel. For instance, the pyramids (*edit* Aztecs and Incas, not Egyptian)...

Also, flint tools were found on the site so these were most likely used to make the carvings.

And the unspoiled nature of the site is no doubt due to it being buried. The site is only partially uncovered, as someone else pointed out, and we will most likely learn more in the coming years about the nature of this structure and its use.

Very interesting, though.

[lazserus]

You cant carbon date something that DOESNT HAVE ANY FUCKING CARBON IN IT!
Uh, there's plenty of carbon to harvest for dating. Radio-carbon dating doesn't specifically require organic matter for dating, though it is commonly used with organic matter. Carbon is generally used to date wood, charcoal, bone, cloth, water, and animal tissue. Charcoal found at the site and the flint from the tools provide the matter for dating. Furthermore, pedogenic carbonate samples were taken from the megaliths themselves for dating. Pedogenic carbonate is basically the remains of ancient soil. The dates from the pedogenic carbonate coating on the megaliths are as follows:

Location: Enclosure C
Date BP: 8430±80
Calculated Date: 7560–7370 BCE

Location: Enclosure B
Date BP: 8960±85
Calculated Date: 8280–7970 BCE

This is around the time the site was buried. The earlier dates come from charcoal found buried on site:

Location: Layer III
Date BP: 9452±73
Calculated Date: 9110–8620 BCE

Location: Layer III
Date BP: 9559±53
Calculated Date: 9130–8800 BCE

As you can clearly see a margin of error is provided, but it never reaches 100 years. The way radio-carbon dating works is the margin of error increases the older the sample. Obviously there is an upper limit to carbon dating (which sits around 80,000 years), which is a measurement in the rate of decay of carbon isotopes in a given sample. The reason carbon (in this case 14C) has such a brief measurement period is based on the rate of decay, which 14C has a half-life of 5730 years. The measurement is taken from daughter isotopes, which, in the case of 14C, is 14N. The radioactive decay equation is altered depending on the parent-daughter pairs, whereby λ represents the decay constant. Therefore, determining the rate of decay is done by a variation of the general equation N = N0(exp)-(λ)t "where N is the number of parent atoms measured today, N0 is the number of parent atoms at time t in the past when the [material] formed, λ is the decay constant for the particular radioactive parent, and (exp) is the log e (http://www.zyra.org.uk/log-e.htm)." 1 This equation alone is not very accurate for determining absolute time because one would require knowing more information. However, the equation is the basis for its modified equations whereby certain elements are understood. This is why relative and absolute dating both rely on one another.


The main point of discovery is that this site is 11,000 years old and is a temple built by hunter gatherers and not by an agricultural society. Gobeki Tepe is only 1% excavated so much more is waiting to be discovered.
The author does goof a number of times with the dating, and it is apparent that there is some bias involved in this article. The period in which Göbekli Tepe is believed to have been formed is after the Agriculture Revolution wherein a number of Mesopotamian groups had been farming for over a millennium. The early farms were not as efficient as those that appeared 3,000-6,000 years later in the southern part of the Fertile Crescent around Ur, Uruk, and Nippur; however it is important to note the shift in sustenance from hunting and gathering to strict agrarian societies.

The author does a good job at describing the shift from hunter-gatherer society to agrarian, though there is an implication that the shift itself was for a single reason: religion. It would certainly be irresponsible to dismiss religion in the agglomeration of the first civilizations, yet it could be equally irresponsible to stake the formation of the earliest civilizations on religion alone. What we know of the first civilizations and how they formed definitely has a tie to religion, but there were a number of other factors included into the formation of the earliest city-states.

For starters, the evolution from hunter-gatherer society to agrarian played an important role in the forming of the first civilizations. Hunter-gathering societies were typically, at the very least, semi-nomadic--they followed game migrations for sustenance. Groups that relied heavily on fish in the Euphrates were perhaps less mobile, moving only when fish spawning reached lows. The very nature of farming requires human groups to stabilize, to stop moving and root in at a fertile location. The Agriculture Revolution introduced simple understanding of farming and farming requires attention. The earliest agrarian societies probably mixed farming with hunting, although livestock domestication immediately followed the Agriculture Revolution. Without the ability to remain mobile and follow the migrations of game, agrarian societies began to raise livestock for meat sustenance, which includes feeding the livestock a portion of the grains and breeding the livestock. Before ancient societies mastered livestock husbandry there was definitely a need to continue hunting for protein because the crops in the Fertile Crescent were lacking seriously in that department. The wild grains domesticated in the Fertile Crescent were mostly wheat and barley.

Second, the Agriculture Revolution permitted food surpluses. In the early stages, along with caring for livestock, the farming would have been nothing more than subsistence farming. But as societies learned more about cultivating the cereals of the region there became surpluses. Grain and seed surpluses required storage, which in part led to the first ziggurats. Ziggurats were ancient temples in Mesopotamia. The ziggurats were a place built to honor the gods and to store excess food stuffs. Agrarian societies within a certain proximity to a ziggurat would return there at least once a year for various reasons: probably yearly festivals or worship, to store the excess of recent harvests, or to retreat there for protection when raided by neighboring nomads. As nomadic raids became more frequent people began moving closer and closer to the ziggurats, which led to the development of the first city-states centered around a local ziggurat. In any case, my point is that religion alone was not responsible for the development of civilization or these early megalithic sites. It did, however, play an important if not critical role in the formation of the first city-states. In the case of Göbekli Tepe it may be fair to assert that it was originally a religious worship site--at least at its current stage of excavation.

Until we uncover granaries or ziggurats, I'm inclined to believe what Schmidt and the author claim: Göbekli Tepe was likely a religious site. Going as far as calling it the historical site for the Biblical Garden of Eden is pushing the envelope, especially considering its proximity to a major water source. The closest source--at least the closest major source--is to the east at the Euphrates River. I won't dismiss the possibility of smaller river systems cutting through the region some time in antiquity, but there needs to be a team of geologists dispatched to the region to check that out. Another reason I won't subscribe to the Eden notion is that a number of major and more successful civilizations perpetuated on the other side of the Euphrates, all of which existed within a closer proximity to the river. The Euphrates River is very old and was used as a source for irrigation in Mesopotamia for the longest time because of its age. Older rivers are wide, deep, and calm, where as younger rivers, like the Tigris, are more shallow, more narrow, and tend to move too fast for irrigation. However, the Tigris was tapped at one point later in Mesopotamian history for irrigation. The Euphrates's currents were less powerful, thus probably yielding a higher population in fish and making the river ideal for irrigation. The drawback is a wider flood plain, meaning that the Euphrates was subject to flooding on a regular basis. Rains from the Taurus Mountains to the north would have a much more significant effect on the Euphrates than the Tigris, causing semi-frequent flooding; and sometimes those floods would be tremendous in magnitude, flooding the regions of the flood plain and drowning communities near the river, especially in the south near Uruk and Ur.


Some of our Ancients were a LOT more advanced then we tend to give them credit for.
This is a common thread with people lacking an education in history and historical sciences. Göbekli Tepe is dated right around the same time as Jericho and neither are considered remnants of civilization--both were constructed thousands of years before the first civilizations arose. However, that does not mean the ancients were incapable of ingenuity prior to the development of civilization. As I've mentioned in a number of threads, there were relatively advanced trading networks established between early humans and our cousins the Neandertals. We cannot be sure to the why this trade existed between the two species but we do have enough evidence to suggest it happened nonetheless. Homo neandertalensis was not some bumbling and stupid hominid. Neandertals were crafty, were most likely able to communicate with a primitive yet complex verbal language, understood the need for trade and community, and recognized basic philosophy by way of believing in an afterlife.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES

1 Thomas F, Timp, ed., Laboratory Studies in Earth History (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), 79.

[DontBeAfraid]

. Radio-carbon dating doesn't specifically require organic matter for dating, though it is commonly used with organic matter. Carbon is generally used to date wood, charcoal, bone, cloth, water, and animal tissue. The only non-organic in that list is water... And water can only be carbon dated if it has carbon in it. The only place where c14 is "renewed" is in live organic material. That is why you can date something based on its decay.

[Freddy]

This is a common thread with people lacking an education in history and historical sciences. Göbekli Tepe is dated right around the same time as Jericho and neither are considered remnants of civilization--both were constructed thousands of years before the first civilizations arose. However, that does not mean the ancients were incapable of ingenuity prior to the development of civilization.

The author does goof a number of times with the dating, and it is apparent that there is some bias involved in this article. The period in which Göbekli Tepe is believed to have been formed is after the Agriculture Revolution wherein a number of Mesopotamian groups had been farming for over a millennium. The early farms were not as efficient as those that appeared 3,000-6,000 years later in the southern part of the Fertile Crescent around Ur, Uruk, and Nippur; however it is important to note the shift in sustenance from hunting and gathering to strict agrarian societies.

I think I will will go with the experts in the field who have actually excavated Gobeki Tepe.

Archeology states the following.

"Before the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, archaeologists believed that societies in the early Neolithic were organized into small bands of hunter-gatherers and that the first complex religious practices were developed by groups that had already mastered agriculture. Scholars thought that the earliest monumental architecture was possible only after agriculture provided Neolithic people with food surpluses, freeing them from a constant focus on day-to-day survival. A site of unbelievable artistry and intricate detail, Göbekli Tepe has turned this theory on its head."

From the Smithonian:

"Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it's the site of the world's oldest temple."

From the sci.tech.archive:

"Never mind circular patterns or the stone-etchings, the people who erected this site did not even have pottery or cultivate wheat. They lived in villages. But they were hunters, not farmers."

From Wikipedia:

"While the site formally belongs to the earliest Neolithic (PPN A), up to now no traces of domesticated plants or animals have been found. The inhabitants were hunters and gatherers. Schmidt speculates that the site played a key function in the transition to agriculture; he assumes that the necessary social organization needed for the creation of these structures went hand-in-hand with the organized exploitation of wild crops."

[lazserus]

I think I will will go with the experts in the field who have actually excavated Gobeki Tepe.
Good, which is NOT the author. The author of the article here was a visitor of the site and wrote a novel based on his findings. Hence, he collected information to write fiction. If you look at the archaeological evidence you'll see it's more along the lines of what I'm saying and differs in the author's dating (which is what I did before responding).



Before the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, archaeologists believed that societies in the early Neolithic were organized into small bands of hunter-gatherers and that the first complex religious practices were developed by groups that had already mastered agriculture.
Which is exactly what I said later on in my response. The first ziggurats were established some 3,000-5,000 years after the Agriculture Revolution. Farming was learned and practiced for a long time before these megaliths were first built.


Scholars thought that the earliest monumental architecture was possible only after agriculture provided Neolithic people with food surpluses, freeing them from a constant focus on day-to-day survival. A site of unbelievable artistry and intricate detail, Göbekli Tepe has turned this theory on its head.
Are you arguing against or supporting what I've written? Because I said basically the same thing. I provided the lab data regarding the dates of Göbekli Tepe, which is concurrent with Jericho. Göbekli Tepe was probably constructed a century or more before Jericho was in the neighboring region. If you're focusing on the last portion of your quote stating "Göbekli Tepe has turned this theory on its head" then you're taking the side of the author and not the archaeologists. The discovery of Göbekli Tepe in 1994 is by no means undermined in its significance. It actually contributes and supports the theories of historians and archaeologists that have studied Jericho. Göbekli Tepe provides us with yet another location of the same period of Jericho to support what we believe happened during pre-civilization millennia.


Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it's the site of the world's oldest temple.
My question still stands: Are you challenging what I wrote or supporting it? Because if you're attempting to challenge what I've said you're inadvertently supporting everything.

As I mentioned, I wholeheartedly believe Göbekli Tepe was constructed as a religious site. And also as I said, unless we discover granaries or ziggurats--basically any storage buildings--there is no reason to believe Göbekli Tepe was anything other than a religious site. I am cautious, though. I won't go as far to claim it's the earliest religious site because we know that Neandertals were quasi-religious. But I would not go as far as to presume Neandertals built temples or anything of the sort. At best we can assume Neandertal architecture was limited to temporary huts made of branches and skins. I will absolutely recognize it as the oldest religious site found. Jericho was an amazing discovery but it didn't have the religious elements the Göbekli Tepe megaliths do. Göbekli Tepe sits perfectly in the Cradle of Civilization, which is basically the Fertile Crescent.

I hope I'm not coming off as marginalizing this discovery, because that is the last thing I want to do. The discovery of Göbekli Tepe is crucial to our understanding of pre-civilization humans. This discovery is paramount to human history on every level. My only concern is tagging it as the geographic location for a Biblical story, especially one as important as Genesis.


Never mind circular patterns or the stone-etchings, the people who erected this site did not even have pottery or cultivate wheat. They lived in villages. But they were hunters, not farmers
To me this is pushing the envelope too far. The earliest permanent villages arose from agrarianism. Otherwise there was nothing but reasons to remain mobile (unless, as I mentioned, the community fed mostly on fish). At this point, again as I mention, there was a combination of farming and hunting. To be sure, communities that relied solely on animal protein, particularly fish protein, you will see this more stable community and little farming. But without bones to study we cannot be certain. And considering how deep we've excavated at Göbekli Tepe without finding remains, I'm comfortable with acknowledging the site as strictly a religious one visited infrequently for only short periods. Otherwise there would be skeletal remains as the people would bury their dead nearby.


While the site formally belongs to the earliest Neolithic (PPN A), up to now no traces of domesticated plants or animals have been found. The inhabitants were hunters and gatherers. Schmidt speculates that the site played a key function in the transition to agriculture; he assumes that the necessary social organization needed for the creation of these structures went hand-in-hand with the organized exploitation of wild crops."
Wikipedia is far from an accurate source of information on any level. I know this in part because I'm a member and one of the writers. I've made changes using references where there were none before only to have my changes replaced with the original work. Basically, I've made alterations and provided sources to back up my changes only to have those changes replaced with unsubstantiated and completely wrong data. Wikipedia is a power and ego game.

Unless a tremendously large population resided here and it was fruitful in the growing of various plant life (either naturally or domestically), there is no way to be 100% about the local agriculture of the period. Again, we're still digging there and may perhaps find farming equipment that contradicts Schmidt's claim that there was no agriculture in the area. At the same time, we might get to the bottom of this site and find no tools, strengthening Schmidt's assertion. Tools always outlast the organic material, thus if we never find tools we can rest easy and agree that Schmidt was right all along. In the equation involving social cultivation and primordial civilization there does not require farming. Farming is not an absolute or a requirement, though in this region it seems to be a common trend. Hell, Southwest Indian groups in North America sometimes never set up farming communities, strictly remaining mobile and chasing game. This is as recent as the 19th century and even the nomadic nature of the Southwest tribes that never settled down into agrarian communities still hunting in a general region.

[Freddy]

All of the sources I have supplied contend that Gobeki Tepe was built by hunter gatherers pre-Neolithic Revolution.

[lazserus]

All of the sources I have supplied contend that Gobeki Tepe was built by hunter gatherers pre-Neolithic Revolution.
I supplied the data from the labs dating the site, all of which supports Gobekli Tepe being constructed c9100 BCE. This is right around the time the Neolithic "revolution" occurred. The Agriculture Revolution and the Neolithic Revolution are one in the same...for all intents and purposes. But there is still minor regional details that challenge the link. On the bigger picture they are the same. Jericho dates at around 9000-8700 BCE and Gobekli Tepe is around 9100 BCE. This shows that Gobekli was built before Jericho by at least 100 years, more than likely 200 years. What must be understood is the shift from hunter-gatherer society to agrarian was not global or even regional. Just before the first city-states appeared in southern Mesopotamia there were agrarian communities between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that witnessed raiding by neighboring nomadic peoples (most likely hunter-gatherer groups), particularly in the west from Akkad.

It is possible that Gobekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers. But I'm not ready to concede that it was in fact built by non-agrarian peoples. The region in which Gobekli Tepe resides was once quite fertile and has a relatively close proximity to the Euphrates--and as I mentioned earlier, it is not at all improbable that smaller rivers or streams flowed through the region in antiquity. I'm definitely not saying it was NOT built by peoples that were not practicing agriculture, but it stands to reason that it was. Like I said, until we excavate more from the site we can only make assertions based on corresponding peoples in the Fertile Crescent. The site of Jericho is not very far from this site geographically speaking. But without geologic scrutiny we cannot be absolutely sure that this site was in fact pre-agrarian. What is known is that it was built within a century of two before Jericho, and Jericho was definitely agrarian.

[Traveler]

There is a practical side to this.

I do not think that any of you have actually rubbed shoulders with any tribes that are hunter gathers before. The most organized that they get is when the tribe story teller comes by to scrounge a free meal or paint a picture on a rock face. At most any social gathering will not last more than a week.

There is no way no how that a society like this will ever be able to get the wear with all together to construct a structure like what has been unearthed here unless there is an outside influence forcing them to do it against their natural natures.

I know a bit about stone working and what is involved. I call B/S on the ideas being put out regarding who is supposed to have built this.

[lazserus]

I do not think that any of you have actually rubbed shoulders with any tribes that are hunter gathers before. The most organized that they get is when the tribe story teller comes by to scrounge a free meal or paint a picture on a rock face. At most any social gathering will not last more than a week.
And you're some expert? Do you have field experience in this area all around the world? How many modern nomadic tribes have you rubbed your elbows with or interviewed? You're touching on a subject relating to the appearance of written language and myth, nothing relating to agrarian culture in antiquity.


There is no way no how that a society like this will ever be able to get the wear with all together to construct a structure like what has been unearthed here unless there is an outside influence forcing them to do it against their natural natures.
Aside from what you saying not making any sense, you're blatantly wrong about ancient peoples and their ingenuity. You're probably one that puts zero faith in humanity and 100% in the absurd notion aliens made us. Every single piece of progressive civilization requires outside influence, but we're talking about influence across the continent. There is no such thing as a completely original thought.


I know a bit about stone working and what is involved. I call B/S on the ideas being put out regarding who is supposed to have built this.
What is it you know about stonework? I know a bit myself, including what types of rocks are brittle, soft, etc., and what tools are best to use to carve out detailed pictographs. I'm curious to learn what it is you think you know that calls this site bullshit.

[TC]

I have to back Laz on this, H/G people would not remain in a fixed place, they would be following game. Even our native Americans prove this point by following herds from summer and winter grazing.

To build such a work such as mentioned above, this would demand a permanent food supply....

[MVP]

I have to back Laz on this, H/G people would not remain in a fixed place, they would be following game. Even our native Americans prove this point by following herds from summer and winter grazing.

To build such a work such as mentioned above, this would demand a permanent food supply....

An excellent point. Most primitive cultures were nomadic in nature due to lack of agricultural and animal domestication knowledge.

[Traveler]

I have to back Laz on this, H/G people would not remain in a fixed place, they would be following game. Even our native Americans prove this point by following herds from summer and winter grazing.

To build such a work such as mentioned above, this would demand a permanent food supply....

Please could you confirm if you back the idea that this was built by primitive H/G because you seem to have the wrong name there.

And yes I have been around these tribes a lot. In places you do not find on most maps.

[Goldmoon]

It could very well be the garden of Eden, if science has proven that all women of all races are descendants of Eve (1 woman), then there is reason to believe the garden of Eden could have also existed at some point in time.

I personally believe it, and I don't believe in fairy tales, its just that when I read the Bible for myself, it speaks truth to my heart. There is just something about it all that rings true, fitting together with scientific findings as well.

Thanks for the post, Traveler.

[Cartesiantheater]

If you guys really believe this ~ 10 000 year old site is the Garden of Eden, then you have some explaining to do... (http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfdiscovery.html)







also see:
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204(199604)37%3A2%3C227%3ASIUPFF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage&cookieSet=1

[TC]

Please could you confirm if you back the idea that this was built by primitive H/G because you seem to have the wrong name there.

And yes I have been around these tribes a lot. In places you do not find on most maps.


No I do not back the idea of H/G building this.....as I said, it would demand a continued and permanent food supply, an established dwelling place using agriculture.

[lazserus]

It could very well be the garden of Eden, if science has proven that all women of all races are descendants of Eve (1 woman), then there is reason to believe the garden of Eden could have also existed at some point in time.
It is genetically impossible for an entire species to form from a single genetic entity. Some scientists even argue that modern humans do not have a viable population after the eruption of Toba in Sumatra some 70,000 years ago. Those that believe this think that within 2 million years humans will become extinct due to the inability to produce viable offspring as genetics catches up. And those that follow that line of thinking base their theories on Toba leaving behind only 1,000 breeding pairs. I don't particularly prescribe to the notion 1,000 breeding pairs, or better yet a population of 10,000, is incapable of producing a viable population. However, it's scientific fact that a single breeding pair alone is incapable of producing a viable population without significant genetic mutation. The genetic mutation required to produce a viable population with even 100 breeding pairs is on the order of absurdity. You'd have to crunch 2 million years of evolution into a meger few generations.

It could very well be the garden of Eden, if science I personally believe it, and I don't believe in fairy tales, its just that when I read the Bible for myself, it speaks truth to my heart. There is just something about it all that rings true, fitting together with scientific findings as well.[/quote]
The thing is, it DOESN'T fit with scientific findings. The story of Eden comes from a localized oral tale regarding an obscure region when in fact there were hundreds of regions just the same. You have to take the Eden tale with a grain of salt, just as you have to do the same with the flood story. The earliest known literary flood story comes from the 11th tablet (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/eog/eog13.htm) of the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/eog/index.htm) out of Akkad. The earliest tablets were written in Akkadian cuneiform sometime in the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE (c2200 BCE) but the story of Gilgamesh predates Akkadian control of Mesopotamia. Semi-legendary Gilgamesh (c2650 BCE) was in fact the Sumerian lugal (warrior-king) of Uruk before the Akkadians took control of the region under Sargon I circa 2340 BCE. 1 In the Akkadian-written version of the epic Gilgamesh plays the part Noah fills later in the Torah. Gilgamesh's role isn't as dramatic as Noah's, but he is in charge of saving humanity from the incoming flood.

This part of the Near East, particularly the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, experienced frequent and unpredictible flooding. Sometimes the floods were minor and sometimes they were massive. A smaller flood would have drowned wheat and barley fields neighboring the Euphrates, resulting in poor harvesting and probably significant starvation in areas further in proximity to ziggurats, and massive floods would have probably flooded the villages and cities of southern Mesopotamia. Particularly wet summers would produce frequent flooding of the Euphrates so much that the agricultural region was incapable of recovering--hence you have tales of massive floods basically coming close to wiping out humanity. As far as I know, the Sumerians were isolationists and had no particular appreciation for the size of the world. To them a series of cataclysmic floods would appear to threaten civilization as a whole.

We also find descriptions of flooding and the Earth breathing fire in other ancient cultural texts. The early Chinese, for example, roughly around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, experienced heavy flooding from local river systems draining from higher altitudes. But there are also descriptions of paradise similar to Eden in cultures with little or no known contact with the Mesopotamians. The point I'm hammering home here is that you cannot define a singular place for the Biblical Eden unless you're willing to accept that the tale is nothing short of a localized extravagant story from the past. All myths and fairy tales are built atop foundations of truth. I certainly won't deny that Gobekli Tepe was a candidate for Eden, or even considered Edenic to those that lived there, however that attitude could require a more permanent community. Hunter-gatherers are mobile and at this point in time there were not only more agrarian communities starting up but there became a more transhumant mode of behavior. But even transhumant societies are mostly stable in location, only moving with the seasons short distances (upwards of 100-150 miles) to follow game or breed newly domesticated animals.


No I do not back the idea of H/G building this.....as I said, it would demand a continued and permanent food supply, an established dwelling place using agriculture.
The reason I think the architects of Gobekli Tepe were agrarian is because it fits with the timeline. Strict hunter-gatherer groups tend (but aren't restricted) to move great distances as they follow game migrations. This is one theory used with ancient Asians crossing the Bering Strait--it's believed they did so in persuit of food, following large game migrations. But Gobekli Tepe doesn't require strict agrarian society for construction. A transhumant soceity could have just as easily carved the megaliths between movements because they would have remained in relatively close proximity to the site, returning to it at least once a year. I don't know if we're sure as of yet where the stone came from to carve the megaliths. Regardless, the stones are large enough to require significant quarrying, which requires relatively little movement. If the megaliths are sandstone (which is what they look like from the images) from the area there would definitely require a permanent source of food supplies in the area--meaning hunter-gatherers wouldn't be able to produce the megaliths without an immediate and permanent source of food. If the rock was moved to Gobekli Tepe from somewhere else, as was Stone Henge, then you'd still need semi-permanent food sources. You'd probably need to semi-permanent food sources, one in each location: place of quarry and place of assembly.

Although we're talking over a 3,000-year difference between Stone Henge and Gobekli Tepe, some stable source of food was required. Gathered berries and roots don't provide enough of the protein and minerals required to replenish such energetic exsertion, and obviously meat would not keep. If we speculate that the [sandstone] used in constructing the megaliths came from a distant location then there would be a need for cereals--that requires planting and harvesting. Hunter-gatherers had to continue moving in order to find the necessary calories to survive. Looking at American Indians in North America alone helps us better understand this. Indians from New England did not domesticate livestock (in fact, European livestock destroyed their harvests) but they did plant. They were more transhumant, not strictly agrarian in practice. The women would plant and harvest while the men hunted and fished. The New England Indians were transhumant because they would plant and harvest in an area out of the year and hunt game in the region, then move on and start over. In many cases they consumed their excess food supplies in the early autumn, but there are cases where pits were dug and excess grain supplies were stored. The groups would move to another location and repeat the process. However, many f the New England Indians returned to places they previously occupied to farm again. On the other hand, in the case of certain Southwest Indian groups in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the tribes were strictly nomadic--they continued the hunter-gatherer behavior by following game and gathering roots and berries along the movement. But studying the social behavior of the Indians in each part of North America sheds light on our understanding of our hunter-gatherer and agrarian ancestors. I'm using the Native Americans as an example, but there are a number of Asiatic peoples that continue these same trends today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES

1 Jacobsen, Thorkild, "Sumer," in The Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, ed. Arthur Cotterell (New York: Penguin Books, 1988), 78.

[Goldmoon]

It is genetically impossible for an entire species to form from a single genetic entity.

What if Adam & Eve were clones placed on the earth to start the new human race?

[lazserus]

What if Adam & Eve were clones placed on the earth to start the new human race?
Although the notion is pretty absurd considering our understanding of the changes in organic history, a single breeding pair is incapable of producing a viable population. In fact, a single breeding pair is incapable of producing viable offspring that will outlast a few generations. Besides, there is no phase in Earth history wherein a single species multiplied and perpetuated. And humans didn't come out of no where. If humans were alien clones (which would require cloning of Earth organic cells) then you'd have a record wherein humans sprang up out of no where and populated the planet. This didn't happen. Human evolution is considerably complex and at no time in hominid history do we truly find a drastic gap between the species of past and present. There truly is no missing link.

[Goldmoon]

Thanks for the reply, Lazerus.


Laz: If humans were alien clones (which would require cloning of Earth organic cells) then you'd have a record wherein humans sprang up out of no where and populated the planet. This didn't happen.

Or did it? If we are indeed a hybrid of primates combined with ET DNA, suited to this planet's environment, It would explain why we are 10x physically weaker than primates, why we have 2 less chromosomes in our DNA, and why we are completely upright, almost hairless, and have an extremely advanced brain.

I have read various articles that explain how, like you said, humans did literally just spring up out of no where.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so just some food for thought. I will try to find some articles regarding the subject, and how we sprang up out of nowhere.

[lazserus]

Or did it? If we are indeed a hybrid of primates combined with ET DNA, suited to this planet's environment, It would explain why we are 10x physically weaker than primates, why we have 2 less chromosomes in our DNA, and why we are completely upright, almost hairless, and have an extremely advanced brain.
You don't need E.T. to explain any of this. Monitoring hominid evolution alone explains a lot of this, especially if you dig into the stuff written regarding the evolution of cognitive thinking. And considering the results of the last 20 years of cognitive research we've found that humans are not the only cognitive species on the planet. There are a number of avian species, mammalian species, and even marine species (cephalopods for example) that show us that cognition is not limited to hominids.


I have read various articles that explain how, like you said, humans did literally just spring up out of no where.
You misread. Humans did NOT appear out of no where. There is a reasonable timeline concerning bipedalism and the development of cognition. And brain size alone doesn't necessarily factor into cognition. There are a number of species that have larger brains in relation to their bodies that aren't classified as cognitive. Furthermore, Neandertals had large craniums and slightly larger brains than anatomically modern humans but were incapable of developing the technology we were. As I said, there is no missing link.

[Zhavric]

Also you at least need the wheel to transport them.

No. No, you do not.

You just need a lot of people and mud.

And if there's one thing ancient people had a plethora of, it was slaves and dirt.

[Cyranothe2nd]

There are a lot of things that we don't yet understand about this ancient site. But the answer is not to think of the most outlandish thing possible (God did it, this is the Garden of Eden, ect) and call it good. The answer is to study, to dig and to LEARN MORE.

[Protostar]

Interesting thread. I compeletely agree with Laz on the thought process that Earth IS the Garden of Eden. I'll tell you why..,
ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

After our beloved SUN becomes the red giant that we know it will,
earth will become ashes and dust. Burning and then cinders until
nothing is left but dust. People think that a human becomes ashes to ashes however, the human body only becomes ashes AFTER it is burnt...
So,.there you go!

And by the way, Our sun is now in it's beginning stages of becoming
A red giant.

STEP ONE:Blow out it's major fuel,<HYDROGEN> and as we know, IT IS
doing just that, right now..
It started to do that December,2006. How long it takes
to become a red giant some say billions of years some say not so long...

Anyway, Earth is EDEN. Just look at it! it's soooooo obvious!

[Cartesiantheater]

Did anyone not notice my other post? How can this site be the Garden of Eden when we have found human crafts that predate it by 10 000 + years?

[lazserus]

Interesting thread. I compeletely agree with Laz on the thought process that Earth IS the Garden of Eden. I'll tell you why..,
ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

After our beloved SUN becomes the red giant that we know it will,
earth will become ashes and dust. Burning and then cinders until
nothing is left but dust. People think that a human becomes ashes to ashes however, the human body only becomes ashes AFTER it is burnt...
So,.there you go!

And by the way, Our sun is now in it's beginning stages of becoming
A red giant.

STEP ONE:Blow out it's major fuel,<HYDROGEN> and as we know, IT IS
doing just that, right now..
It started to do that December,2006. How long it takes
to become a red giant some say billions of years some say not so long...

Anyway, Earth is EDEN. Just look at it! it's soooooo obvious!
It'll take something like 2-3 billion years before the sun has expanded into a full-fledged red giant and when that happens it will completely swallow all the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) However, within the next 300 million years the surface of the Earth will be too hot to sustain surface life. The only hope for humanity is to leave Earth, but in 300 million years humanity will be long gone. No species has every remained static for even 100 million years.

[Goldmoon]

Did anyone not notice my other post? How can this site be the Garden of Eden when we have found human crafts that predate it by 10 000 + years?

Better not to get yourself too tied up in dates, just because some christians have said 6000 years, doesn't make it a fact.

We really don't know when it was all placed down.

[Cartesiantheater]

Better not to get yourself too tied up in dates, just because some christians have said 6000 years, doesn't make it a fact.

We really don't know when it was all placed down.

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is this:

How can the place being discussed in this thread be the Garden of Eden when we know with near certainty that there was a human civilization in another location thousands of years earlier than THIS location- than the one everyone is claiming is the Garden of Eden.

The Garden of Eden is supposed to be the first place that humans dwelt, right? Then let's say you think location A is the Garden of Edan. How is it then that at location B we find evidence that humans were in location B BEFORE humans were in the Garden of Eden?



If you believe these ruins that are being discussed in this thread are from the Garden of Eden, then you are basically saying that you believe human beings existed on Earth in a different location BEFORE human beings ever lived in the Garden of Eden. See what I am saying now?

[Goldmoon]

Yep, thanks. Maybe that site is not the garden of Eden then.

Protostar had a good point there:


Protostar: Anyway, Earth is EDEN. Just look at it! it's soooooo obvious!

[Cartesiantheater]

^^ unless you believe in pre Adamic races, but that is a whole other theological bag of worms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite

[DaKat]

Well there are a lot of finds like this coming to light in recent
months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html

Now either the method of dating is out or the timelines in the collage books are way out.

Which is it?

For the stones to last this long with the details on them they had to be comprised of a hard material. That means that the tools to make the pictures had to be of a harder material and to shape the rocks in such a clean fashion points to metal tools. Also you at least need the wheel to transport them.

There are MANY places on the planet with far different conditions from the past, but that does NOT translate into it being the Garden of Eden.

Too many archaeologists look at the past thru their prejudices and beliefs, and overlook the science, at least a little, and sometimes a lot.

[DaKat]

I have to back Laz on this, H/G people would not remain in a fixed place, they would be following game. Even our native Americans prove this point by following herds from summer and winter grazing.

To build such a work such as mentioned above, this would demand a permanent food supply....

There are stone circles all OVER Europe and even farther, and none that I've heard of have any permanent settlements near them (other than maybe Stonehenge and Avebury), seeming to show they weren't made by anyone OTHER than migrant hunter/gatherers.

And there are probably MANY more sites now under water that we have yet to search for, and dig on.

[Singularity]

The fact is that they'll be digging in the sand for hundreds of years to find all of man's early footsteps. What I find interesting about Gobekli Tepe is that there is no written historical record of it at this time. Now, I'm willing to stretch my mind a bit and suggest that it is conceivable (possible, maybe not probable) that this is THE Garden of Eden. I know, shocking that I might agree with the religious on this point.

My rationale is thus. First there is historical precedent for society taking a giant leap backwards in terms of progress under the right conditions. Europe did exactly this when the Roman Empire fell. Now maybe it didn't go from steel age to stone age, but socially and scientifically, it was a leap back and it stayed that way for a thousand years. So it is possible that really early man did settle in a spot, farm, and then get screwed back to hunter-gatherers due to climate change.

Second, the Bible is a collection of stories from a specific tribe of people, that have been preserved through time and eventually written down. For instance, I watched a show on the History channel that suggested that Noah and the flood story could be based on a great flood in ancient times caused by an asteroid collision. If the Bible is taken figuratively rather than literally then many of the stories probably trace back to some event that took place. Eden plays such an important role that it is conceivable that the tribals who passed it down were talking about a literal place that was remembered through fables and superstition.

Another point to consider is that even if Gobekli Tepe is "the" Garden of Eden, that does not mean that it was the only tribe of man that existed at the time. I see no reason to believe that there weren't a lot more in Africa, and maybe some a little closer to Europe. Do we even have an idea when the Japanese wound up on their island, or when Native Americans made it there? There's a lot of guesswork on these things and they're largely dated by finding fossil remains, carbon dating them, and whichever ones prove to be the oldest mark the starting point. Go deeper in some area and you might find more.

So I'm not suggesting that Traveler IS right, but I'm saying that it's possible that he COULD be right. I'll also go out on a limb and say that I'd have a hard time swallowing the notion that this was done by a hunter-gatherer society.