Figure 1. Left: Plan of Enclosures A–D at Göbekli Tepe. Right: Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe, Enclosure D.
Image courtesy of Alistair Coombs.
Why would a god choose that measure of time, of all the planets and suns in the Universe, and before it had allegedly created either the sun or Earth? Or more specifically, why would the people who made up the creation myth assume it would when the stories they made up and the Universe they described have no concept of a rotating Earth or of Earth orbiting the sun, which they described as fixed to a dome over a flat, 'fixed, immobile' Earth?
Of course, the answer is that the story tellers had inherited their concept of time and how the passage of time could be measured over the course of 365 days and be found to follow a repeating pattern, and simply assumed any god would use the measure they were familiar with - they were imbuing their god with human characteristics.
One of those cultural ancestors live not a million miles from where the Bronze Age Canaanite Pastoralists who made up the origin myths later incorporated in a book decreed to be holy, but they predated them by many millennia.
What information do you have on the dating of Göbekli Tepe, Turkey? Göbekli Tepe, located in southeastern Turkey, is one of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. It's often referred to as the world's oldest known temple or religious complex. Here’s a summary of key information on the dating of Göbekli Tepe:Although they probably inherited some of their culture, the Bible's authors were apparently unaware of these people or their history, otherwise they might have thought twice before making up tales of a magic creation just a few thousand years earlier and all humans descending from a single magically-created couple born without ancestors, when there had been people living and building a temple at Göbekli Tepe, in what is now Turkey, at least 3,000 years before the Canaanite story-tellers thought everything was magicked up out of nothing.
Age and Dating
- Construction Period: Göbekli Tepe is believed to have been constructed during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, with estimates dating its oldest layers to around **9600 BCE to 8800 BCE**. This makes it over 11,000 years old, predating Stonehenge by about 6,000 years and the Great Pyramids of Giza by about 7,000 years.
- Stratigraphy: The site has multiple layers, with the oldest layers (Layer III) being the most monumental and complex, featuring large T-shaped pillars arranged in circular enclosures. These are generally dated to between **9600 BCE and 9000 BCE**. Subsequent layers (Layer II and Layer I) are less monumental, indicating a gradual decline or change in the use of the site.
- Radiocarbon Dating: Radiocarbon dating of organic materials (such as charcoal) found at the site has been one of the primary methods for dating the structures. The dates obtained from these samples have consistently placed the construction and use of Göbekli Tepe in the 10th millennium BCE.
Significance of the Dating
- Cultural Implications: The dating of Göbekli Tepe has profound implications for our understanding of the development of human society. The site suggests that complex social and religious structures existed long before the advent of agriculture and settled life. This challenges the traditional view that such developments only occurred after the domestication of plants and animals.
- Technological and Social Complexity: The sophisticated nature of the stone carvings and the organization required to build such structures indicate a highly developed society with specialized skills, even at this very early date. This suggests that hunter-gatherer groups of the time had a higher level of social organization than previously thought.
Chronological Context
- End of the Pleistocene: The construction of Göbekli Tepe coincides with the end of the last Ice Age, a period marked by significant climatic changes. The site may have played a role in the social and religious responses to these environmental challenges.
- Transition to Agriculture: While Göbekli Tepe predates agriculture, its construction and the social organization it represents are seen as potentially influencing or being part of the broader process that eventually led to the Neolithic Revolution, the transition from foraging to farming.
Göbekli Tepe remains an active site of archaeological research, and new findings may further refine our understanding of its dating and significance in human history.
But then the authors of the Adam & Eve tale were creating a mythology that placed their tribe at the center of everything, as the special creation of a creator god. The last thing they wanted was an origin myth that made them just another tribe.
The builders of the temple complex at Göbekli Tepe had different origin myths and different god, of course, and as with all old dead gods, we don't really have much idea about them or what they did, or how the religion that worshipped them worked and what prayers were believed to do because religions, unlike science, are not founded in reality, so there is no basis for reconstructing them once the believers have stopped believing in them and they have joined that vast pantheon of long-forgotten goods, as powerless and irrelevant as the present day gods will become in their turn.
But, whatever their beliefs, the people who built the temple at Göbekli Tepe probably created the earliest known calendar carved int the monument.
This is the conclusion of Dr Martin Sweatman, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Engineering. He has just published his findings, open access, in the journal Time and Mind and described it in an Edinburgh University News release:
Carvings at ancient monument may be world’s oldest calendar
The markings at Göbekli Tepe in southern Turkey – an ancient complex of temple-like enclosures adorned with intricately carved symbols – could record an astronomical event that triggered a key shift in human civilisation, researchers say.
The research suggests ancient people were able to record their observations of the sun, moon and constellations in the form of a solar calendar, created to keep track of time and mark the change of seasons.
Decoding symbols
Fresh analysis of V-shaped symbols carved onto pillars at the site has found that each V could represent a single day. This interpretation allowed researchers to count a solar calendar of 365 days on one of the pillars, consisting of 12 lunar months plus 11 extra days.
The summer solstice appears as a separate, special day, represented by a V worn around the neck of a bird-like beast thought to represent the summer solstice constellation at the time. Other statues nearby, possibly representing deities, have been found with similar V-markings at their necks.
Since both the moon’s and the sun’s cycles are depicted, the carvings could represent the world’s earliest so-called lunisolar calendar, based on the phases of the moon and the position of the sun – pre-dating other known calendars of this type by many millennia.
Comet strike
Ancient people may have created these carvings at Göbekli Tepe to record the date a swarm of comet fragments hit Earth nearly 13,000 years ago – or 10,850 BC – researchers say.
The comet strike is suggested to have ushered in a mini ice age lasting over 1,200 years, wiping out many species of large animals. It could also have triggered changes in lifestyle and agriculture thought to be linked to the birth of civilisation soon afterwards in the fertile crescent of West Asia.
Another pillar at the site appears to picture the Taurid meteor stream – which is thought to be the source of the comet fragments – lasting 27 days and emanating from the directions of Aquarius and Pisces.
The find also appears to confirm that ancient people were able to record dates using precession – the wobble in Earth’s axis which affects the movement of constellations across the sky – at least 10,000 years before the phenomenon was documented by Hipparchus of Ancient Greece around 150 BC.
Early civilisation
The carvings appear to have remained important to the people of Göbekli Tepe for millennia, suggesting the impact event may have triggered a new cult or religion that influenced the development of civilisation.
The find also supports a theory that Earth faces an increased risk of comet strikes when it crosses the path of orbiting comet fragments, which we normally experience as meteor streams.
Dr Martin Sweatman, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Engineering, who led the research, said:It appears the inhabitants of Göbekli Tepe were keen observers of the sky, which is to be expected given their world had been devastated by a comet strike. This event might have triggered civilisation by initiating a new religion and by motivating developments in agriculture to cope with the cold climate. Possibly, their attempts to record what they saw are the first steps towards the development of writing millennia later.
Dr Martin Sweatman, author
School of Engineering
Institute of Materials and Processes
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
What was the 'Younger Dryas'? The Younger Dryas was a period of abrupt climate change that occurred approximately 12,900 to 11,700 years ago, during the final stages of the last Ice Age. It is named after a small Arctic-alpine wildflower, Dryas octopetala, whose pollen was found in abundance in sediment layers from this time, indicating colder conditions.More technical detail is given in the open access paper in Time and Mind:
Key Features of the Younger Dryas:
- Abrupt Cooling: The Younger Dryas is characterized by a sudden and significant drop in temperatures, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. This cooling was a sharp reversal from the relatively warm conditions that had begun to emerge after the last glacial maximum.
- Duration: The event lasted for about 1,200 years, marking a cold snap that interrupted the gradual warming trend following the peak of the last Ice Age.
- Causes: The exact causes of the Younger Dryas are still debated, but several hypotheses have been proposed:
- Freshwater Input: One leading theory suggests that massive amounts of freshwater from the melting Laurentide Ice Sheet (in present-day Canada) were released into the North Atlantic Ocean. This influx of freshwater may have disrupted the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a key component of the Earth's climate system, leading to a significant cooling.
- Impact Hypothesis: Another hypothesis posits that a comet or asteroid impact triggered the Younger Dryas by causing widespread fires, releasing particulates into the atmosphere, and altering climate patterns.
- Volcanic Activity: Some have suggested that increased volcanic activity could have contributed to the cooling by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth's surface.
- Impact on Humans and the Environment: The Younger Dryas had significant effects on both the environment and early human societies. It led to the expansion of glaciers, the return of cold-tolerant flora and fauna, and disruptions to ecosystems. In human terms, it likely challenged the adaptability of early hunter-gatherer communities, particularly in regions like the Near East, where the cooling may have delayed the development of agriculture.
- End of the Younger Dryas: The period ended as abruptly as it began, with temperatures rapidly rising around 11,700 years ago, marking the onset of the Holocene epoch, the current warm period in which we live.
The Younger Dryas remains a critical subject of study for understanding rapid climate changes and their impact on Earth's systems.
ABSTRACTThe significance of this work is that it shows how the concepts of time that the inventors of the Hebrew creation myth in the Bible incorporated into their own myth and assumed their putative creator deity adhered to, was from a neighbouring culture, which had a different pantheon and predated the supposed creation of the Universe by several thousand years.
Göbekli Tepe, an archaeological site in southern Turkey, features several temple-like enclosures adorned with many intricately carved symbols. It is located centrally among a group of Taş Tepeler pre-pottery Neolithic sites which include Karahan Tepe and Sayburç. Here, an earlier astronomical interpretation for Gobekli Tepe’s symbolism is supported and extended by showing how V-symbols on Pillar 43 in Enclosure D can be interpreted in terms of a lunisolar calendar system with 11 epagomenal days, which would make it the oldest known example of its type. Furthermore, it is shown how Göbekli Tepe’s 11-pillar enclosures and a megalithic 11-pillar pool structure at nearby Karahan Tepe can also be interpreted in terms of the same lunisolar calendar system. Other V-symbols at Göbekli Tepe are also interpreted in astronomical terms, and it is shown how the Urfa Man statue, a wall carving at Sayburç and a statue at Karahan Tepe that display V-symbol necklaces can be interpreted as time-controlling or creator deities. Symbolic links with later cultures from the Fertile Crescent are explored. Throughout, links are made with the Younger Dryas impact and Cauvin’s theory for the origin of the Neolithic revolution in the Fertile Crescent.
1. Introduction
Humans have been carefully observing the stars for more than 50,000 years. Indeed, widespread myths involving the Pleiades are often so similar, typically involving stories of six or seven sisters or birds, it is suggested that they have a common origin in the middle Palaeolithic (d’Huy and Berezkin 2017; Norris and Norris 2021). It should be no surprise that astronomy was seen as important at such an early time. Until relatively recently, life depended on paying close attention to the seasons since all resources depended on them, at higher latitudes at least. As the seasons can be tracked easily by observing the solstices and equinoxes, we can expect many ancient cultures to have a significant interest in astronomy. It follows that they would also take a keen interest in the lunar cycle.
In more recent times, many Bronze and Iron Age cultures were known, or strongly suspected, to encode astronomical data in their megalithic monuments (Krupp 1983). For example, one of the most famous ancient megalithic sites of all, Stonehenge (UK, circa 2500 BCE), is thought to be arranged to celebrate either the summer or winter solstice or both (Hawkins 1962; Parker-Pearson 2013). Recent work suggests it also encodes a solar calendar (Darvill 2022). Meanwhile, many recumbent stone circles in North-East Scotland of a similar age to Stonehenge that typically feature 11 or 12 megaliths are also thought to relate to the lunar cycle (Henty 2014). An ancient temple in Malta, on the other hand, appears to be deliberately aligned with sunrise on the equinoxes (Cox and Lomsdalen 2010). Indeed, ancient temples and pyramids across the world are aligned so closely to the cardinal directions that it is clear that careful astronomical observations were being made routinely in early antiquity. Moreover, it is well known that many ancient cultures, including those from Egypt and Mesopotamia, practised religions with strong astronomical associations (Krupp 2000; North 2008). This includes conceptions of deities linked with constellations and zodiac-like animal symbols or with the planets (Kurtik 1999, 2019).
It is in this context that archaeoastronomy has become a popular way of understanding ancient megalithic constructions (Magli 2015). Decoding the astronomical alignments and symbolism of an ancient megalithic site can provide insight into the culture that built it and lived there. In eras before true writing, such insights can be especially important.
One such ancient archaeological site where archaeoastronomy has proven extremely useful is Göbekli Tepe. Situated in modern southern Turkey, it became famous for its extraordinary megalithic architecture consisting of multiple stone ‘enclosures’ (Dietrich et al. 2012; Schmidt 2000.1, 2010.1, 2011). Each enclosure (see Figure 1) consists of a sub-circular rough stone wall embedded with megalithic T-shaped pillars, many of which are adorned with a rich symbolism. It is worth noting that Enclosure D and the inner ring of Enclosure C are both formed by 11 T-shaped pillars. Each enclosure also contains a central pair of tall pillars consistent with a world-wide ‘twin’ sky-deity mythology (Coombs 2023).
Earlier work provided an astronomical interpretation for some of Göbekli Tepe’s symbolism (Sweatman and Tsikritsis 2017.1b). Specifically, animal symbols on the broad sides of Göbekli Tepe’s pillars were interpreted as constellations similar to some of those from ancient Greece. In addition, Pillar 43 from Enclosure D (see Figure 1) was suggested to use precession of the equinoxes to display a date around 10,950 ± 250 BCE and interpreted as a memorial to the Younger Dryas impact event (Firestone et al. 2007). This global-scale cosmic catastrophe dated to 10,835 ± 50 BCE (Kennett et al. 2015.1) is suggested to have triggered the rapid onset of Younger Dryas cooling, the extinction of many species of megafauna on several continents and the demise of the Clovis culture in North America. Furthermore, Pillars 2 and 38 at Göbekli Tepe were suggested to describe the path of the radiant of the Taurid meteor stream which is thought to have caused this impact event. Also, Pillar 18, one of the two central pillars from Enclosure D, was suggested to symbolize a comet related to the impact event.
Figure 1. Left: Plan of Enclosures A–D at Göbekli Tepe. Right: Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe, Enclosure D.Image courtesy of Alistair Coombs.
If this interpretation is correct, it has profound consequences. Partly, this is because it implies that astronomical knowledge was far in advance of what is generally assumed for this time. Another reason is because of Göbekli Tepe’s position in relation to the Palaeolithic–Neolithic transition in the Fertile crescent. Indeed, according to the site’s excavators (Dietrich et al. 2012):
Göbekli Tepe is one of the most important archaeological discoveries of modern times, pushing back the origins of monumentality beyond the emergence of agriculture. … At the dawn of the Neolithic, hunter-gatherers congregating at Göbekli Tepe created social and ideological cohesion through the carving of decorated pillars, dancing, feasting – and, almost certainly, the drinking of beer made from fermented wild crops.In essence, their view is that Göbekli Tepe, for which the earliest date yet recorded is 9530 ± 215 BCE (Dietrich et al. 2013.1), played an important role in the Neolithic revolution that followed by creating the social conditions for large, settled communities to develop prior to the development of agriculture. This aligns well with Cauvin’s theory for the origin of civilization in the Fertile Crescent, as he suggested it was triggered by a change in cognition related to religion and symbolism. With these views, the prime importance of agriculture in initiating this process is diminished. If it was confirmed that Göbekli Tepe’s impressive symbolism and architecture were related to the Younger Dryas impact event, it would suggest that this cosmic event also played a pivotal role in the origin of civilization in the Fertile Crescent (Sweatman 2017.2, 2019.1).
Over the last decade, several other pre-pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites near Göbekli Tepe have been discovered, including Karahan Tepe, which suggest that Göbekli Tepe existed as part of an extended local culture. Due to similarities in their geographical location and age, these sites have been grouped under the Taş Tepeler archaeological project. Consequently, observations about the importance of Göbekli Tepe in relation to cultural changes after the Younger Dryas impact might also apply to these sites, although a detailed relative chronology for their occupation is not yet established.
However, many more symbols on Göbekli Tepe’s pillars remain to be decoded. Probably, there remains much to be discovered from careful archaeoastronomical analysis of them and associated megalithic alignments. This work continues this investigation by decoding some of the more abstract symbols on Göbekli Tepe’s pillars in terms of astronomical notation, particularly the many V-symbols found on them and on similar stone carvings found nearby at other Taş Tepeler sites.
2. Göbekli Tepe and other Taş Tepeler sites in the context of the Neolithic revolution
The Neolithic revolution in the Fertile Crescent, also known as the ‘broad spectrum’ transition, exhibits a complex pattern of development over many millennia. It is typically characterized in terms of changes in several key markers, such as settlement density and population, architecture, agriculture, lithics and art (Cauvin 2000.2; Watkins 2010.2). A few decades ago, most attention was focused on archaeological sites in the Levant and lower Mesopotamia as these showed signals of all these developments earlier than anywhere else in the world. The overall result of all this work was that a few signals of this transition could be observed before the Younger Dryas period (i.e. before 11,000 BCE) but a phase of rapid development took place after the Younger Dryas onset, i.e. within the Younger Dryas period and especially within the Holocene once climate had stabilized.
For example, the Natufian culture that occupied a region from the east coast of the Mediterranean through to Mesopotamia for several millennia until the end of the Younger Dryas period is credited with creating some of the world’s first settlements with communal food storage (Bar-Yosef 1998). Those tribes that settled typically constructed circular houses with semi-subterranean walls built from large stone blocks, such as those found at Tell Qaramel (Mazurowski et al. 2009). Although it appears they cultivated some wild grains, they nevertheless remained hunter-gatherers. It is thought that settlement populations remained quite small at no more than a few hundred.
However, after the Younger Dryas period, within a span of a few thousand years, we see the rapid development of domesticated plants and animals, a larger number of settlements with higher populations, rectangular houses built entirely above ground from mud-brick and specialized buildings used for cultic purposes, more specialized use of stone tools and the emergence of a richer form of symbolic art (Watkins 2010.2).
Since it was often thought that these changes were all driven by developments in agriculture at the beginning of the Holocene period (Bar-Yosef 1998), the hunt for the origin of this Neolithic revolution tracked the earliest domestication of plants and animals to northern (upper) Mesopotamia close to the foothills of the Taurus Mountains (Watkins 2010.2). Well-known pre-pottery sites such as Çayönü, Nevali Çori, Hallan Çemi, Abu Hureyra and Jerf al Amar in this region (see Figure 2a) also display other features of this Neolithic transition at a very early time. Because the development in symbolic art appeared to have occurred millennia before clear and widespread signals of domesticated species of plant or animal, Cauvin (2000.2) proposed that this cultural transition was triggered by cognitive changes, especially the development of religion and associated symbolic artworks. In his view, agriculture developed later in response to the growth of settlements around cultic centres. However, more recent work suggests that changes in agriculture, symbolism and religion may have been more synchronous after the Younger Dryas onset (Moore et al. 2023.1).
Following this interest in upper Mesopotamia, Göbekli Tepe was discovered towards the end of the last century in the hills overlooking the Harran Plain (see Figure 2b). It is situated between the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, around 12 km north-east of the modern city of Şanliurfa, which was ancient Urfa and said to be the birthplace of Biblical Abraham.
Excavations of the tell (mound) at Göbekli Tepe began in 1994 (Schmidt 2000.1). They revealed four large sub-circular enclosures (labelled A–D, see Figure 1) and many other rectangular buildings which are generally smaller. Each rounded enclosure, as already mentioned, consists of a rough stone wall embedded with megalithic T-shaped pillars surrounding a pair of taller, centrally located T-shaped pillars which are typically grounded within stone sockets. Although Schmidt originally thought Göbekli Tepe was a cultic centre only (Schmidt 2010.1), more recent excavations indicate that Göbekli Tepe was also a settlement with the rectangular buildings thought now to be houses (Clare 2020). While the large enclosures are still considered ‘special’ buildings, it is debated whether they had a specific cultic purpose or whether they were the larger homes of important families (Kinzel and Clare 2020.1). In the context of this debate, it is argued whether the largest pillars could represent deities or perhaps revered ancestors. In either case, it is generally thought these large enclosures were roofed, although firm evidence is elusive.
The largest complete enclosure so far uncovered, Enclosure D at 30 m across, generated the oldest radiocarbon date yet measured for the site at 9530 ± 215 BCE (Dietrich et al. 2013.1). This date corresponds approximately to the end of the Younger Dryas period at the Epipaleolithic–Neolithic boundary when the northern-hemisphere climate rocketed upwards after more than 1200 years of near ice-age Younger Dryas climate. However, the earliest occupation date of Göbekli Tepe is unknown. Ground-penetrating radar scans suggest several other large structures situated towards the centre of the main tell also exist, waiting to be uncovered. In fact, given that only a small fraction of the site’s surface (which covers around 7 hectares) has been excavated, with an even smaller area excavated down to bedrock, it is possible that Göbekli Tepe’s origin will eventually be found to date closer to the onset of the Younger Dryas around 10,800 BCE. In fact, Schmidt (2010.1) suggested it could have a Palaeolithic origin.
Indeed, the scale and precision of Enclosure D clearly indicate that it was unlikely the first construction of its type. Kinzel and Clare (2020.1) show that, actually, Enclosure D’s construction involved several phases of building and reconstruction. Moreover, the oldest part of the enclosure is older than the part that has been radiocarbon dated. Therefore, the age of the earliest version of Enclosure D is unknown, but Kinzel and Clare (2020.1) do not rule out a Palaeolithic origin. As we can expect at least one, and possibly several, earlier stages of design and construction preceded Enclosure D by many hundreds of years, although it is not known whether these occurred at Göbekli Tepe itself, its design template is surely Palaeolithic. Possibly, a fifth sub-circular feature at Göbekli Tepe called Enclosure E situated just outside the main tell might represent an earlier phase of construction. This view is supported by the fact that its pillars and walls are missing and thus might have been removed and re-used within the other enclosures. Only its smoothed bedrock floor, which appears smaller and more primitive than that of Enclosure D, remains, complete with a pair of centrally located stone sockets presumably designed to hold another central pair of tall pillars.
Over the last few decades, several more ancient archaeological sites with some similar features have been discovered in the local region surrounding Göbekli Tepe. These include Karahan Tepe, Sayburç and Balikligöl Höyük (within ancient Urfa), where the Urfa Man statue was found. Given their proximity to each other and their apparently similar symbolism, they are considered together to define the Taş Tepeler project or region. Although these Taş Tepeler sites are thought to be roughly contemporaneous, not all of them have been radiocarbon dated. They form a smaller region of focused activity within the broader context of the sites mentioned earlier (see Figure 2b).
Göbekli Tepe’s architecture and symbolism are extraordinary for its age. No other site constructed before it, or for millennia after, is known to display such a grand architectural vision and such skilful artistry. However, elements of its design are seen elsewhere within the Taş Tepeler region, and beyond, which suggests Göbekli Tepe played an important role in establishing the local culture of this region. For example, Nevali Çori has rectangular communal buildings with T-shaped pillars. Most notably, Karahan Tepe in the east of the Taş Tepeler region about 45 km from Göbekli Tepe shows most similarities with Göbekli Tepe in that it also features large sub-circular enclosures with T-shaped pillars and zoomorphic carvings. It is also known to be a large site, perhaps even larger than Göbekli Tepe (Karul 2020.2). Nevertheless, even Karahan Tepe does not yet display the same level of grandeur or artistry as Göbekli Tepe, although excavations there began only in the last few years. It is worth noting that as yet there are no reports of domesticated species of plant or animal at Göbekli Tepe or Karahan Tepe.
Clearly, to understand the sequence of events that lead to Göbekli Tepe’s construction, which will likely hold clues to the motivation for the cultural transition at the onset of the Neolithic period in this region, it will be important to decode the rich symbolism covering many of its pillars.
To this end, first consider Pillar 18, one of the tall pair of pillars at the centre of Enclosure D with an anthropomorphic form consisting of a horizontal ‘head’ on top of a vertical ‘body’. The ‘necklace’ symbol underneath the head of Pillar 18 (see Figure 3a) can intuitively be interpreted as a moon and sun symbol below an abstract H-symbol. The sun-disc and H-symbols are obscured by dimples.
The Sun and Moon were viewed as deities by many ancient cultures, including several from the Near East. Consequently, solar discs and lunar crescents are common cultic and religious symbols. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians used these symbols specifically to denote the Sun and Moon in their hieroglyphic writing. Moreover, the symbols found on Pillar 18 bear strong resemblance to those found on the Nebra sky-disc, an artefact discovered in modern Germany thought to date to the second millennium BCE (see Figure 3d and Goral 2020.3). On the sky-disc we see the Moon, Sun and, probably, the Pleiades. The two opposing arcs along the edges of the disc are thought to measure the angle between the rising and setting points of the sun on the summer and winter solstices. The identity of the final feature at the bottom of the disc, the long, curved shape incised with parallel lines, is contentious, but one possibility is that it is a comet.
Figure 3. (a) Likely moon and sun symbols below an ‘H-symbol’ underneath the ‘head’ of Pillar 18. (b) Seven birds possibly symbolizing the Pleiades on the base of Pillar 18. (c) Belt buckle and fox-pelt loincloth, both reminiscent of a comet, on the narrow, inner face of Pillar 18. (d) The Nebra sky-disc, displaying symbols for the sun, moon, Pleiades and, possibly, a comet (image from Wikipedia, CC-by-4.0).Images a, b and c courtesy of Alistair Coombs.
Next, note the row of seven small bird symbols along the base of the carved stone socket for Pillar 18 (see Figure 3b). Given their number and form and the astronomical theme indicated by the necklace above, these birds might also represent the Pleiades which are often described in worldwide myths in terms of a group of six or seven birds or sisters (d’Huy and Berezkin 2017). Additionally, on the front of the pillar below a pair of hands is a geometric belt buckle and fox-pelt loin cloth that can be viewed as representing the head and tail of a comet, respectively (see Figure 3c). Thus, it appears that the Nebra sky-disc and the narrow face of Pillar 18 display very similar information.
Given that the Nebra sky-disc is generally thought to depict astronomical data, its similarity to the front face of one of the largest pillars within a ‘special’ structure at Göbekli Tepe suggests we should immediately consider the possibility that much of the symbolism at Göbekli Tepe is astronomical.
The H-symbol is relatively common at Göbekli Tepe, although until now the example near the head of Pillar 18 is the only one carrying a dimple, which suggests the dimple has a special astronomical meaning. However, the circular disc symbol, likely representing the sun, is currently relatively rare. The only other example uncovered so far at Göbekli Tepe is on Pillar 43, which is embedded in the north-west portion of Enclosure D’s wall (see Figure 1).
Pillar 43 is split into two sections by rows of V-symbols and small box-symbols (see Figure 4). The lower, main portion has a circular disc symbol supported above the wing of a bird of prey. Below this bird symbol is a scorpion symbol. If the circular disc represents the sun, as expected, then the animal symbols probably represent constellations. In particular, the scorpion reminds us of the Greek Scorpius constellation. Its position relative to a circular disc clearly points to an astronomical interpretation.
Despite these rather obvious astronomical clues, other than in the work of Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017.1b) interpretation of these symbols is generally quite cautious and vague. Peters and Schmidt (2004) favoured the possibility that the symbols indicated shamanistic practices and especially a ‘cult of the deceased’, that is, that ancestor worship was important. Although they found some correspondence between the animals depicted on the pillars and animal remains excavated from the enclosures, they viewed the animals depicted as mythological creatures rather than direct representations of wild animals and food sources. Essentially, Göbekli Tepe’s enclosures were viewed as temple-like constructions for the performance of rituals, and the animal symbols were thought likely to be totems associated with shamanism.
Figure 4. Left: a scene around Scorpius from Stellarium. The teapot asterism of the Sagittarius constellation is highlighted in yellow. Right: a sketch of Pillar 43.
Hodder and Meskell (2011.1) compared the symbolism found at Göbekli Tepe with that at Çatalhöyük. They found that although Çatalhöyük is around 450 km to the east of Göbekli Tepe and separated from it by around one millennium, a clear similarity is the focus on wild rather domestic animals, even though Çatalhöyük is agricultural. They note some continuity in terms of animal species between the two sites, like the aurochs, but there are also some clear differences; that is, foxes, snakes, spiders and scorpions are much more common at Göbekli Tepe. They also highlight the concept of ‘history houses’ developed at Çatalhöyük and associated with human burials interred with animal parts, and a possible skull cult associated with de-fleshing by raptors. Regarding the latter, they point out that images of headless men and vultures are common to both sites. Especially, they suggest that the circular disc above the raptor’s wing on Pillar 43 (see Figure 4) could symbolize a decapitated head. They conclude:The similarities between Çatalhöyük and Göbekli and in material culture we have drawn with other sites suggest a very long-term and very far-flung set of myths, ideas, and orientations, even if there were many local variations. (Hodder and Meskell 2011.1)Regarding the similarities in material culture with other sites, burials of humans with the remains of specific species of animals, such as fox and aurochs, are documented at several PPN sites in the Levant (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2004.1; Maher et al. 2011.2; Reshef et al. 2019.2). Such practices are often linked with shamanism (Dietrich 2023.4; Kolankaya-Bostanci 2014.1). In addition, images of snakes, scorpions and ibex are documented at Kortiktepe on stoneware and bone plaques (Siddiq, Sahin, and Ozkaya 2021.1). Note that the oldest layers of Kortiktepe date to just after the Younger Dryas onset. Images of snakes or serpents are common across a wide range of pre-pottery Neolithic sites (Çelik 2016).
While some later work takes a utilitarian view of the animal symbols as representing predators and/or food sources (Fagan 2017.3), a more frequent direction for research into the site’s symbolism has tended to focus on emphasizing the role of shamanistic practices, in line with Schmidt’s initial views (for example, see Benz and Bauer 2015.2). In the most recent contribution of this kind, Dietrich (2023.4) concludes:The present contribution has tried to refine already established criteria for the identification of shamanism, to add new ones, and to test them for materials from Göbekli Tepe and contemporary sites. The results are positive for a sufficient number of criteria … in order to identify Göbekli Tepe’s (and PPN) material culture and imagery with an animistic ontology and shamanism.Nevertheless, Dietrich (2023.4) and others avoid any astronomical interpretation of Göbekli Tepe’s symbolism, other than acknowledging that the disc on Pillar 43 could represent the sun. Instead, the animals and other symbols are sometimes viewed mythologically and at other times as real-world creatures and objects. However, human burials appear to be mostly absent at Göbekli Tepe, and given the artistic talent displayed on Pillar 43 it is evident that if the circular disc was meant to symbolize a decapitated head it would probably have been carved to look a lot more like a head than a featureless disc.
Sutliff (2012.1) rejected Hodder and Meskell’s (2011.1) interpretation of the animal symbols as wild and dangerous animals capable of rendering flesh because this is not a consistent characteristic of the animals depicted. Instead, partly due to Göbekli Tepe’s megalithic construction, Sutliff pointed to the sky and suggested the symbolism is largely astronomical. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the animal symbols at Göbekli Tepe represent actual animals since on the broad sides of Pillar 33, Enclosure D, we see bunches of snakes projecting from the legs and torsos of tall standing birds and leaping foxes (see Figure 5). Obviously, these images are much more likely to represent mythological or astronomical creatures. In the astronomical case, the scene on Pillar 33 has an immediate interpretation as meteors projecting from the direction of specific constellations, which provides further support to the link between Göbekli Tepe and the Younger Dryas impact for which the culprit is generally thought to be the Taurid meteor stream.
Having reviewed recent research into Göbekli Tepe’s symbolism, one of the most notable aspects is its determination to avoid any astronomical interpretation for Göbekli Tepe’s symbolism. This is despite some obvious clues and the well-known association between shamanism and astronomy across many widely dispersed cultures (Krupp 1999.1). In particular, neither Sweatman and Tsikritsis’ (2017.1b) astronomical interpretation nor any research supportive of the Younger Dryas impact are cited in the aforementioned research, despite the strong evidence in their favour and the clear possibility that the Younger Dryas impact motivated the rapid development in symbolism and cultic practices following the impact event, i.e. it is an explanation for Cauvin’s (2000.2) observations.
Figure 5. Sketch of Pillar 33 at Göbekli Tepe, enclosure D, showing the side with a pair of tall birds. The other side of the pillar shows a fox. Snake symbols emanate from these animal symbols, with their heads converging on the narrow inner pillar face.
Given this general hesitance to view Göbekli Tepe’s symbolism astronomically, the remainder of this article describes evidence that supports an astronomical interpretation. This examination begins in the next section by reviewing the evidence for astronomy in the preceding Palaeolithic period.
[…]
10. Conclusions
The presented discussion highlights likely continuity of some Palaeolithic artistic symbolism through into the ancient Near East and even into modern times. The vector for this continuity appears to be the (largely) unchanging stellar sky and the regular motion of the moon and sun, i.e. astronomy, and a desire to understand the cosmos so that seasonal resources can be optimized and important communal activities scheduled. Archaeoastronomy, as a discipline, seeks to understand this phenomenon.
Earlier work provided an astronomical interpretation for animal symbols on the broad sides of pillars at Göbekli Tepe that involved knowledge of precession. Sweatman and Tsikritsis, (2017.1b) provide a statistical argument that this interpretation is very likely correct based on comparison with constellations in Stellarium. A consistent theme for this interpretation is the Younger Dryas impact, a global-scale cosmic catastrophe at 10,835 ± 50 BCE. The novel calendrical interpretation described in this work both supports and extends those earlier arguments. It also contributes more generally to archaeoastronomical research on the origins of naked-eye astronomy and the ancient Greek and Mesopotamian constellations.
Specifically, lunisolar calendar systems are likely described at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe. Indeed, similar to Stonehenge and some other ancient megalithic circles, Enclosures C and D at Göbekli Tepe could represent giant calendars where the number 11 has a special significance; it likely indicates the number of epagomenal days needed to complete a solar year (approximately), given 11 + 1 lunar months. The summer solstice appears to have been regarded as a special epagomenal day. In addition, V-symbols within the Taş Tepeler culture appear to denote the counting of days. Necklace symbols also appear to have great significance. On the Urfa Man statue, Karahan Tepe statue and Sayburç wall carving they appear to indicate time-controlling or creator deities. It would be interesting to see whether these V-symbols occur also in Palaeolithic cave art.
[…]
Sweatman, M. B. (2024).
Representations of calendars and time at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe support an astronomical interpretation of their symbolism. Time and Mind, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876
Copyright: © 2024 The authors.
Published by Taylor & Francis. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)
Also apparent from this work is that the builders of the temple complex at Göbekli Tepe were aware of events which led to the 'Younger Dryas' give support to the theory that it was caused by a meteor impact - none of which is mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that it had major significance for nascent agriculture. Of course, had the authors of the Bible been aware of their own cultural history and influences, and of significant events in their history, they could have written a more accurate and plausible creation myth, but clearly their knowledge wasn't up to such things so they had to manage as best they could with what little knowledge they had.
The result is a mythology almost entirely detached from what really happened based on a view of the Universe that bears no resemblance to reality.
What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You
How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.
Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle
Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It
This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.
Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle
No comments:
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.