Göbekli Tepe dating plain wrong
“Regarding the topic of
evolution in general I am of the opinion that
the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at
Göbekli Tepe
had its origin
in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian
culture”.
Pietro
Gaietto
“History is Wrong” declares one site regarding “The Mystery of Gobekli Tepe” (2018): https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mystery-of-gobekli-tepe
…. many
have proposed that Gobekli Tepe can even be a temple inside the Biblical Eden
of Genesis. Is it possible that what we know about the ‘uncivilized and
primitive’ prehistoric men is not at all true? Is it possible that advanced
civilizations existed before 6000 BCE and their tracks are simply lost in time?
Or is it possible that extra-terrestrials interfered and helped men to build
monuments throughout the history of humanity? The questions are certainly
compelling.
Man was
supposed to have been a primitive hunter-gatherer at the time of the sites’
construction. Gobekli Tepe’s presence currently predates what science has
taught would be essential in building something on the scale such as those
structures. For instance, the site appears before the agreed upon dates for the
inventions of art and engravings; it even predates man working with metals and
pottery but features evidence of all of these. ….
which site finds
it all so incomprehensible as to have to resort to this extreme suggestion:
Ancient Aliens
If
ancient aliens visited Earth, can evidence of their existence be found in the
mysterious structures that still stand throughout the world? Inexplicably,
megalithic structures found on different continents are strikingly similar, and
the cutting and moving of the massive stones used to build these magnificent
feats would be a struggle for modern day machinery, let alone ancient man.
Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that the standing stones in Carnac, France
were used as an ancient GPS system for ancient flying machines. The recently
discovered Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which has been dated back 12,000 years, has
finely chiseled pillars that experts describe as a Noah’s Ark in stone. Is it
possible that extraterrestrials assisted primitive man in constructing these
unexplained structures? If so, what was the purpose of these grand projects?
[End of quotes]
The truth is that
Paleolithic man was nowhere near as primitive as proponents of evolutionary development
imagine. See e.g. my multi-part series:
So-called
Paleolithic man was not dumb
commencing with:
but consider especially
this one potentially linking Australian Aborigines with Göbekli Tepe:
So-called
Paleolithic man was not dumb. Part Four: Australian Aboriginal link to Göbekli
Tepe?
“We start with a comparison between the only female
figure discovered at Göbekli Tepe, and a rock painting depicting a well-known
creator being from Arnhem land, Yingarna. The likeness between these two images
is immediately striking; we recognise similar posture with the same positioning
of the legs and breasts, cartoonish exaggeration of the female genitalia, and
clearly inhuman heads”.
Pietro Gaietto (Intelligent Cells and their Inventions, p.
42) considers Göbekli
Tepe to belong to “the Acheulean tradition of the
Mousterian culture” of what the author calls “modern post-Paleolithic”:
To my knowledge, the most ancient
civilization that we might define as modern
post-Paleolithic, was discovered at an archeological site called Göbekli Tepe, an area which includes the south-eastern region of
present day Turkey. The Göbekli Tepe site is a peculiar cultic
locale, without habitations, although they exist just a few miles away. A large number of
geometric stelae-statues in limestone have been found, decorated
with bas-reliefs and engravings of animals ….
Anthropometric free-standing tall squared
stones, and pilaster in a T-shape, carry representations,
in high or low relief, of animals such as foxes, lions and scorpions; and vultures flying or not; deer,
bovids, spiders, snakes, cranes, ducks, ostriches, crocodiles, herons, leopards
and wildcats. Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that the
strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian
culture. I believe that the Göbekli Tepe civilization
may well have been the end result of a mixing of two different cultures, although we know nothing
at this point regarding the commingling of
different populations in those archaic periods of time.
[End of quote]
Dr. John Osgood
has, in his far more satisfactory arrangement of the Stone Ages, greatly
lowered on the timescale the Acheulean (and Mousterian) phase (“A Better Model for the Stone Age”): https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age
The Model: A Preliminary Hypothesis
From the dispersion of Babel into the virgin forested
lands of Palestine came the families of Canaan - Genesis 10:15-19. The initial
number of families is unknown, but they are represented culturally by the
Palestinian Acheulean artifacts.
Their culture was consciously adapted to their new
environment of heavily forested country and wet climate with large lakes in
land basins, much of the water being left-over from the great Flood. The wet
climate would have produced heavy sedimentation of the open land and friable
conditions in many caves, which nonetheless were good protection from the
climate.
From the Acheulian background two different developments
came - the Mousterian and Aurignacian of Palestine. At Carmel the Mousterian
shelters suffered collapse, possibly from earthquake, 15:176 ending Mousterian
habitation in them. Geographically at least, the Aurignacian appears to have
given rise to Kebaran culture.
The Natufian appears to have been invasive, probably
from the north, but possibly having a memory of a riverine background:
‘All
that may be said at present is that the Natufian settlers came from an Alluvial
environment and brought with them a tradition of building in clay or pise.’18
Moore affirms that Natufian to PPNA then PPNB formed
one cultural continuity.
A new invasion from the north came with the PNA
culture, continuous with PNB. But against the biblical model, this also must
have been a Canaanite culture,5:23 as was all before it.
Proto-Urban possibly followed, contemporary with
Ghassulian culture (North8) and possibly had a relationship with the Esdraelon
culture of the North Palestine area. But with it came rock-hewn tomb burials,
suggesting a possible connection with the Hittites of Genesis 23:9.
We seem to be on surer ground when identifying Ghassul
with the Amorites (see ‘The Times of Abraham’, this volume), a wave of
Canaanites which came down through southern Syria. They were perhaps related to
the defunct Hassuna culture driven out by Halafian expansion, which enveloped
Hassuna and Syria, and more particularly, Aram-Naharaim. ….
Comments