Thread: Gobekli Tepe

Originally Posted by Someone

This is based on a number of assumptions that are probably quite false regarding early human societies. For example, we have no idea if they had math or the wheel or not; that is an assumption on our part because we have found no direct evidence to suggest they did (though we don't know enough about the people who built Gobekli Tepe to comment on that matter at all). Some of these very early civilizations exist only as fragmentary ruins; vast pieces of which are missing, and can never be restored. There are many ruins, for example, with languages that we cannot interpret, and thus have no good idea of where they came from or of the people who lived there, or anything beyond the physical remains we find.

Not so. The pyramids are quite possible to explain without aliens or supernatural forces. Keep in mind that these civilizations surely had people more accustomed to building with megaliths than we do today--since that is not a construction technique people actually use today. Surely they wouldn't have started with the most impressive structures. Clearly it is possible to construct such features--people did it, so there's obviously a method of doing so, and probably one that's quite simple if properly understood. After all, it was replicated in so many different places.

It's a basic geometric shape that makes sense for the construction of stone buildings. Given that there's no other geometric shape that could be used to construct such large buildings with nothing but stacked stones, it makes sense that they would be independently derived.

This is more of an indication that they both had mathematical skill, and that both societies did run the calculations before constructing them. Even if we don't actually know this to be true, it can be reasonably inferred through their wise selection of mathematically useful designs.

Clearly not. The idea that these structures are impossible is silly; hard work and a high degree of proficiency with basic engineering principles provides an adequate explanation here. This seems impossible to us only because we wouldn't have had the audacity or the need to construct buildings in such a manner. Nor do typical building projects today have sufficient manpower to do it--in short, they're only impossible because we'd never consider devoting the required resources into similar structures today.

Well, YOU'VE just spewed the current archaeological line of BS!!! I'm not saying anything about aliens. I'm saying that based on what we KNOW of these peoples, most of these megaliths SHOULD not have been possible.

Talk to men who move heavy things. Ask them how to move a block of stone weighing from 50-400 TONS! And some weigh even more.

Getting the picture?

I know these stones were quarried, transported, and carved. But using what tools, what math, what language, what math, what technology? In other words, HOW DID THEY DO IT?

There are a lot of missing pages to these stories, because based on current archaeological dogma, again, these megaliths SHOULD not have been possible.

Regarding the Great Pyramid. There are 2.3 million stones. If built in 22 years as was written, that means that a stone must be cut, transported, and fitted every 5 minutes, 24 hours a day! Every 5 minutes of every day for 22 years. Oh really? Since they likely did not work at night for various reasons, the numbers become even more insane. No way.

Originally Posted by teeceemv

Well, YOU'VE just spewed the current archaeological line of BS!!! I'm not saying anything about aliens. I'm saying that based on what we KNOW of these peoples, most of these megaliths SHOULD not have been possible.

That's probably the year of anthropology I took in college speaking.

Talk to men who move heavy things. Ask them how to move a block of stone weighing from 50-400 TONS! And some weigh even more.

Yes, they are very large, but physics still applies. People can and have replicated the proposed construction methods, and they would work if scaled to a large number of people. Talk to the men who move heavy things today, ask them how often they've worked with 15,000 workers. Yes, it is doable, but difficult. The how of the matter is honestly rather less important than the why of it, since it represents a massive investment of resources for relatively little return. We know vaguely the purpose of the structures (in most cases), but it seems odd that societies would develop such extensive burial and religious rituals with such limited resources.

Getting the picture?

I know you think it's impossible, but you underestimate the power of simple machines and determination. There's not much that can't be moved with levers and rollers.

But using what tools, what math, what language, what math, what technology? In other words, HOW DID THEY DO IT?

Obviously they had a more sophisticated knowledge of mathematics and engineering than the direct evidence shows; that's the only way to explain how they did this without invoking aliens, gods, psychic powers or other nonsense. Very heavy objects can be moved without advanced technology, if you're in no particular hurry and have vast amounts of labor available.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because this would be exceptionally difficult to construct with modern methods that it would have been impossibly difficult using less advanced methods. The way we build buildings today is radically, fundamentally different from how they were built 200 years ago, and that was still different from how they were built 900 years ago, and that was surely different from how they were built 1900 years ago, or 3600 years ago. A lot of knowledge about the construction of megalithic structures has probably been lost over the millennia--because frankly it's not a very practical or useful type of construction.

A great amount of irreplaceable knowledge was lost when the libraries of antiquity were burned to the ground. Perhaps they had records there, but they were destroyed. Or maybe the knowledge of how to build these large structures was never recorded, taught from one master engineer to the next. We'll honestly probably never know for sure.

There are a lot of missing pages to these stories, because based on current archaeological dogma, again, these megaliths SHOULD not have been possible.

Actually, "archeological dogma" accepts that they were quite possible and, there are a number of proposals floating around about the precise construction methods used for megalithic structures in antiquity. The main debate is over which of these methods is the right one, or whether none of them are precisely correct. These structures are not, however, impossible to place within the known technological boundaries of ancient people. They just represent an enormous investment of resources and manpower.

Regarding the Great Pyramid. There are 2.3 million stones. If built in 22 years as was written, that means that a stone must be cut, transported, and fitted every 5 minutes, 24 hours a day! Every 5 minutes of every day for 22 years.

Or the time estimate is wrong, or they lied about how long it took, or their definition of the start of construction differs from ours today. Or they actually were placing a block every 5 minutes because they had a vast pool of skilled labor experienced in the construction of megalithic structures--something we do not have today. In fact, we have no one alive today experienced in the construction of megalithic structures, because no one actually does it today.

Why does it seem so strange to you to think that perhaps this only seems exceptional because it's so grossly outdated that no one is still familiar with the technique?

Originally Posted by Someone

That's probably the year of anthropology I took in college speaking.



Yes, they are very large, but physics still applies. People can and have replicated the proposed construction methods, and they would work if scaled to a large number of people. Talk to the men who move heavy things today, ask them how often they've worked with 15,000 workers. Yes, it is doable, but difficult. The how of the matter is honestly rather less important than the why of it, since it represents a massive investment of resources for relatively little return. We know vaguely the purpose of the structures (in most cases), but it seems odd that societies would develop such extensive burial and religious rituals with such limited resources.






Or the time estimate is wrong, or they lied about how long it took, or their definition of the start of construction differs from ours today. Or they actually were placing a block every 5 minutes because they had a vast pool of skilled labor experienced in the construction of megalithic structures--something we do not have today. In fact, we have no one alive today experienced in the construction of megalithic structures, because no one actually does it today.

But even if they were somehow capable of carving out a block every 5 minutes..they had to transport the blocks up some sort of ramp. And the number of available ramps must have been limited..I think the '5 minute' theory sort of falls apart once they were at the 'up the ramp' stage.

Originally Posted by ronmatt

But even if they were somehow capable of carving out a block every 5 minutes..

Maybe that time estimate doesn't include time spent preparing the materials. Or they lied to make it seem exceptionally fast.

they had to transport the blocks up some sort of ramp. And the number of available ramps must have been limited..I think the '5 minute' theory sort of falls apart once they were at the 'up the ramp' stage.

What makes you think only one group of workers would be using one ramp at one time? If they're able to consistently place a block every five minutes, then one would think they'd have teams with a block lined up on the ramps at five minute increments.

Have you been to Baalbeck?

Originally Posted by Someone

Maybe that time estimate doesn't include time spent preparing the materials. Or they lied to make it seem exceptionally fast.



What makes you think only one group of workers would be using one ramp at one time? If they're able to consistently place a block every five minutes, then one would think they'd have teams with a block lined up on the ramps at five minute increments.

Originally Posted by Margot

Have you been to Baalbeck?

Sadly, I've never had the budget for much travel outside of the western hemisphere. Visiting relatives in England is about the extent of it, and that was only when fairly young.

Originally Posted by Someone

That's probably the year of anthropology I took in college speaking.

Yes, they are very large, but physics still applies. People can and have replicated the proposed construction methods, and they would work if scaled to a large number of people. Talk to the men who move heavy things today, ask them how often they've worked with 15,000 workers. Yes, it is doable, but difficult. The how of the matter is honestly rather less important than the why of it, since it represents a massive investment of resources for relatively little return. We know vaguely the purpose of the structures (in most cases), but it seems odd that societies would develop such extensive burial and religious rituals with such limited resources.

I know you think it's impossible, but you underestimate the power of simple machines and determination. There's not much that can't be moved with levers and rollers.

Obviously they had a more sophisticated knowledge of mathematics and engineering than the direct evidence shows; that's the only way to explain how they did this without invoking aliens, gods, psychic powers or other nonsense. Very heavy objects can be moved without advanced technology, if you're in no particular hurry and have vast amounts of labor available.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because this would be exceptionally difficult to construct with modern methods that it would have been impossibly difficult using less advanced methods. The way we build buildings today is radically, fundamentally different from how they were built 200 years ago, and that was still different from how they were built 900 years ago, and that was surely different from how they were built 1900 years ago, or 3600 years ago. A lot of knowledge about the construction of megalithic structures has probably been lost over the millennia--because frankly it's not a very practical or useful type of construction.

A great amount of irreplaceable knowledge was lost when the libraries of antiquity were burned to the ground. Perhaps they had records there, but they were destroyed. Or maybe the knowledge of how to build these large structures was never recorded, taught from one master engineer to the next. We'll honestly probably never know for sure.



Actually, "archeological dogma" accepts that they were quite possible and, there are a number of proposals floating around about the precise construction methods used for megalithic structures in antiquity. The main debate is over which of these methods is the right one, or whether none of them are precisely correct. These structures are not, however, impossible to place within the known technological boundaries of ancient people. They just represent an enormous investment of resources and manpower.

Or the time estimate is wrong, or they lied about how long it took, or their definition of the start of construction differs from ours today. Or they actually were placing a block every 5 minutes because they had a vast pool of skilled labor experienced in the construction of megalithic structures--something we do not have today. In fact, we have no one alive today experienced in the construction of megalithic structures, because no one actually does it today.

Why does it seem so strange to you to think that perhaps this only seems exceptional because it's so grossly outdated that no one is still familiar with the technique?

You make all valid points. And I understand every one of them. I am talking about what we KNOW based on written accounts or legend passed down through generations.

To say they may have been far more advanced than we believed, flies in the face of logic. You say they could have been far more advanced than we believe, yet there is no evidence of that. I say something else was at work here, and you object to that because there is no evidence to support that.

Neither of us have evidence to support our beliefs, so our suppositions are equal in all aspects.

Originally Posted by teeceemv

You make all valid points. And I understand every one of them. I am talking about what we KNOW based on written accounts or legend passed down through generations.

To say they may have been far more advanced than we believed, flies in the face of logic. You say they could have been far more advanced than we believe, yet there is no evidence of that. I say something else was at work here, and you object to that because there is no evidence to support that.

Neither of us have evidence to support our beliefs, so our suppositions are equal in all aspects.

The more exceptional the claim, the more evidence required to support it. The claim that "they perhaps had more mathematical knowledge than we admit" is not a particularly exceptional claim--we know that most of these societies did have reasonably sophisticated understanding of math, because virtually all of them were obsessed with astronomy and lining up structures for astrological significance. The claim that space aliens or god or whatever came down from the sky and used their tractor beams to levitate the rocks, or other similarly ludicrous supernatural explanations, are much more far fetched than the idea that we underestimate their precise degree of mathematical knowledge. After all, even the archeologists admit that much of a societies writing, culture, and knowledge gets lost over the years.

For an example of this, consider the construction of free standing domes during the renaissance. The techniques for constructing free standing domes out of poured concrete were known by the Romans, but this knowledge was long since lost by the middle ages. Engineers at the start of the renaissance knew that these domes were possible to construct--they'd seen what the ancients did, because some examples did survive into the 15th century. What they didn't know was how they did it, because the knowledge had been lost. The knowledge of how to build free standing domes had to be reinvented; and the renaissance method was quite different from the original Roman method (not the least because they lost the recipe for concrete...). In the same way, we know that these people had a method of constructing megalithic structures, even if that seems impossible to us today. The technique, like the technique for constructing free standing domes, was forgotten. This doesn't mean that suddenly mundane but only loosely supported propositions are just as valid as fantastic answers to the question. Claiming that these structures are so impossible it must require a supernatural explanation is just as silly as proposing that the Romans used magic to pour a free standing dome.

Originally Posted by Someone

The more exceptional the claim, the more evidence required to support it. The claim that "they perhaps had more mathematical knowledge than we admit" is not a particularly exceptional claim--we know that most of these societies did have reasonably sophisticated understanding of math, because virtually all of them were obsessed with astronomy and lining up structures for astrological significance. The claim that space aliens or god or whatever came down from the sky and used their tractor beams to levitate the rocks, or other similarly ludicrous supernatural explanations, are much more far fetched than the idea that we underestimate their precise degree of mathematical knowledge. After all, even the archeologists admit that much of a societies writing, culture, and knowledge gets lost over the years.

For an example of this, consider the construction of free standing domes during the renaissance. The techniques for constructing free standing domes out of poured concrete were known by the Romans, but this knowledge was long since lost by the middle ages. Engineers at the start of the renaissance knew that these domes were possible to construct--they'd seen what the ancients did, because some examples did survive into the 15th century. What they didn't know was how they did it, because the knowledge had been lost. The knowledge of how to build free standing domes had to be reinvented; and the renaissance method was quite different from the original Roman method (not the least because they lost the recipe for concrete...). In the same way, we know that these people had a method of constructing megalithic structures, even if that seems impossible to us today. The technique, like the technique for constructing free standing domes, was forgotten. This doesn't mean that suddenly mundane but only loosely supported propositions are just as valid as fantastic answers to the question. Claiming that these structures are so impossible it must require a supernatural explanation is just as silly as proposing that the Romans used magic to pour a free standing dome.

You keep mentioning aliens, as if I had somehow said they were involved. Why? I never made any mention of aliens. Only you have.

We know the level of technology of the Egyptians. It is well written.

We know the builders of Puma Punku are UNKNOWN. They are not known to any existing peoples in the area. They were a pre-Inca people. The largest stones weighing up to a couple hundred TONS were transported there... from 10 km away, 13,000 ft altitude. The remainder were quarried 90 km away. There is no known written language of any known peoples at the time the site was supposedly built. The wheel was not known to exist at the time of construction, and there were no trees for miles. The stone was cut with incredible intricacy and used "cramps" to secure stones together. These cramps were made of an unusual alloy and the molten alloy was "poured" directly into the sockets.

Gobekli Tepi was also built by an unknown people for an unknown purpose. It is estimated to be at least 11,000 years old. We are supposed to believe that it was built by "hunter gatherers". Neolithic people who wander around searching for food. Yet they have the skills to quarry, transport, and carve 7 ton blocks of stone.

One has to ask how these people did this, and why the hell did they invest such incredible cost and effort to complete. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THAT?

If they used lost technology, then we are talking about an immensely different history than the one we have been taught. And a human history that is far far older than we have ever believed possible. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THAT?

How and why have never been proven. And yet you seem eager to criticize others who question the mainstream explanation. Not very scientific of you, is it.

Now, where did I ever mention aliens?

Originally Posted by teeceemv

You keep mentioning aliens, as if I had somehow said they were involved. Why? I never made any mention of aliens. Only you have.

We know the level of technology of the Egyptians. It is well written.

We know the builders of Puma Punku are UNKNOWN. They are not known to any existing peoples in the area. They were a pre-Inca people. The largest stones weighing up to a couple hundred TONS were transported there... from 10 km away, 13,000 ft altitude. The remainder were quarried 90 km away. There is no known written language of any known peoples at the time the site was supposedly built. The wheel was not known to exist at the time of construction, and there were no trees for miles. The stone was cut with incredible intricacy and used "cramps" to secure stones together. These cramps were made of an unusual alloy and the molten alloy was "poured" directly into the sockets.

didn't I read that the New World didn't have the wheel when it was 'discovered'??

Gobekli Tepi was also built by an unknown people for an unknown purpose. It is estimated to be at least 11,000 years old. We are supposed to believe that it was built by "hunter gatherers". Neolithic people who wander around searching for food. Yet they have the skills to quarry, transport, and carve 7 ton blocks of stone.

One has to ask how these people did this, and why the hell did they invest such incredible cost and effort to complete. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THAT?

If they used lost technology, then we are talking about an immensely different history than the one we have been taught. And a human history that is far far older than we have ever believed possible. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THAT?

How and why have never been proven. And yet you seem eager to criticize others who question the mainstream explanation. Not very scientific of you, is it.

Now, where did I ever mention aliens?

it is VERY interesting to me to speculate on how and why. What I wonder is this: current theories say that human civilization evolved in a fairly straightforward line from primitive to modern, with an occassional dip here and there...civilizations rise and fall but overall, the human race has steadily advanced...WE think WE are the most advanced civilization that has ever appeared on this planet and that our descendents will be more advanced than we are but maybe that isn't true.

Maybe history isn't quite so clear cut. Maybe we AREN'T the most advanced people that have ever evolved on this planet.. Maybe some time in the past a civilization as advanced or more DID evolve and DID fall for whatever reasons and all those stories of Atlantis are just primal memories?

just something interesting (to me at least) to consider...and if it happened to them..it could happen to us. There is no guarantee that we won't experience a cataclysmic (sp) event that will erase most of the traces of our existance from the earth.

We don't know, it could have happened a dozen times..humans reaching high levels and then falling back to primitives again.