It is said that Gobleki Tepe is the oldest man-made structure on Earth. With our method, we have proven that this intriguing structure is “just” one of the many very ancient monuments Homo sapiens has left behind. We have proven that Gobleki Tepe’s age stretches out over a period of more than 250,000 years. Human history and Earth’s history appear to be intimately entangled.
Support our work and discover more:Become a Patron!
Göbekli Tepe is “Just” One of the Many
Many people perusing this website are interested in Göbekli Tepe or in other ancient sites that we have analyzed. One can easily question the mainstream stance about this fascinating site’s history because even here, we find too many ancient mysteries left unexplained.
Somewhere in our subconscious mind, we already suspect that the official versions are incorrect. What then is the correct version?
If you carefully read the articles on our website, you already know a little about the true history of humanity and how it expanded all over the globe, over hundreds of thousands of years. Some of the ancient ruins are as old as Homo sapiens walks on this planet – over 300,000 years. The official version of history (mankind’s age) has been severely compressed. We do not speculate about the trivial reasons for that. Our goal is to dig up the truth which is ultimately a mathematical quest.
It has been arbitrarily reduced to 1/50th from what it should be – and yet, it is said of Göbekli Tepe that it is one of the oldest “temple” complexes on Earth.
Our facts indicate that Göbekli Tepe is only one of many ancient sites around the globe that are very much older than you have ever thought possible.
The first part of this article is explained in a rational, pragmatic, and scientific way (Logos) and is often quite difficult for most people. The second part of the article shows the same truth, but in an easier-to-understand philosophical way (Mythos). In both situations, we came to the same conclusion.
Ancient Monuments on Both Hemispheres Are Fundamentally Different Oriented
Mathematical Proof for Ancient Geographic Poles
Göbekli Tepe is Counterclockwise Oriented
If you have read and understood the article on our main page, you will probably know the difference between clockwise and counterclockwise orientation. Most ancient monuments on the Western hemisphere are clockwise oriented and most of the ancient monuments on the Eastern hemisphere are counterclockwise oriented. This is an established mathematical fact.
Göbekli Tepe is counterclockwise oriented and is located on the Eastern hemisphere. Here, we have our first clue. Note that Göbekli Tepe is not part of our extensive worldwide dataset of ancient structures containing mainly square or rectangular monuments.
Despite Göbekli Tepe’s unusual physical layout, we will undertake a basic analysis using our method. The four separate monuments on the site of Göbekli Tepe are oriented in a seemingly chaotic manner, but the site appears to correlate strongly with several of our proven geographic poles from our dataset. Therefore, we can calculate and simulate the probabilities for that relationship to be coincidental – or not.
The orientation of the Large T-shaped Pillars
Each separate construction of Göbekli Tepe belongs to a different time frame, which we will show further on. These time frames are many tens of thousands of years apart.
Archaeologists want us to believe that all of Göbekli Tepe was built during the same time period. This is incorrect.
An example is the long-entrenched dogma of natural evolution from primitive to sophisticated. This dogmatic idea originates from dogmatic Darwinistic thinking.
Generally unknown is in fact that we are descendants of highly-developed cultures that once spanned the entire planet. We are the survivors of a series of life-extinction-level events over the last 500,000 years.
Recognizing Patterns is Crucial
Most people do not recognize much of a pattern in Fig. 4, other than possibly a map of Göbekli Tepe. After they realize that it is, in fact, a map of Göbekli Tepe, their past “conditioning” is set in motion. This “program” is what they have learned about Göbekli Tepe and that states that it is the oldest man-made structure on Earth, some 12,000 years old. The “program” that starts to run in people’s mind prevents them from recognizing patterns that lead to a deeper truth.
When you look at the map of Fig. 4, it is easy to overlook any specific pattern when your own conditioned labeling or classifying has already started.
The “patterns” we are referring to are these:
- orientation is counterclockwise,
- the more counterclockwise oriented the simpler they are (less sophistication), less detail could therefor indicate an older age,
- the structures A, B, and C in Fig. 4 correlate with one of the former proven geographic poles. D points to an intermediate position between two younger geo poles and does not specifically correlate with one of the poles.
The patterns that we recognized in Göbekli Tepe are not some coincidental events, as archaeologists would reply if you ask them. That is because they do not have a single clue what they are looking at.
Validating the Recognized Patterns
- Firstly, the most important structures of Göbekli Tepe, as shown in Fig. 4 are counterclockwise oriented. The odds for that pattern to be coincidental is simply defined as A = 0.54 = 0.0625 or 6.25%.
Fig. 6: This simulation is especially engineered by us to understand how large the probability is that three out of the four structures of Gobekli Tepe are correlating with former geographic poles I to V. We ran 50,000 simulations in total (you see 10 frames of 5,000 simulations each). The odds that 3 of the 4 structures correlate to a former pole, which is the case here in Fig 6, is roughly 2.92%. | © Mario Buildreps. - Secondly, we recognize in the orientation layout that, the more counterclockwise, they are oriented, the less detail they exhibit. It is relatively easy to understand that the more counterclockwise orientation indicates that they were oriented to an older geo pole location, and thus an older age of the structure is indicated. That explains in the simplest possible way why there is less of the structure left to properly analyze. We also built a specialized Monte Carlo simulator for this situation and calculated the chances (n=100,000) for such a pattern to be something coincidental. For this pattern we found B = 0.00869 or 0.869%.
- Thirdly, and that is the most important one, 3 of the 4 structures correlate with one of the 5 proven geo pole locations. By running a series of simulations (Fig. 6), we have analyzed the probability chance of two independent functions, namely the five poles and the orientation patterns of Göbekli Tepe, to coincide coincidentally. We found in this pattern C = 0.0292 or 2.92%.
Having three separate variables, we can now multiply them, and that leads to a very tiny probability for Göbekli Tepe to be “only” 12,000 years old.
P(ABC) = A × B × C = 0.0625 × 0.00869 × 0.0292 = 0.0000159 or 1.59×10-5
What does this probability number mean? It means that the probability that Göbekli Tepe DOES NOT relate to the proven series of Poles I to V is 0.0000159 or 1 to 63,055. In other words, Göbekli Tepe’s official age of 12,000 years is nothing but a wild guess.
We now know with almost 100% certainty that Göbekli Tepe’s age stretches over a period of more than 250,000 years. Archaeologists will never come to this conclusion, no matter how hard, how much or how deep they dig. It is crucial to understand that their “science” has nothing to do with finding the truth. It is simply keeping busy doing “things”.
Why Carbon Dating is a Scientific Illusion
It is also crucial to understand that the true age of Göbekli Tepe is out of reach for the unreliable and short-ranged 14C method that reaches no further than some 60,000 years. All organic materials that are older than 60,000 years show “0” on the displays of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry equipment that tries to count the amount of 14C isotopes. Only the materials that give “results” are associated with the official Göbekli Tepe site’s age, and therefore, this type of “dating” invariably results in an unrealistic age.
We know that this article might be difficult to understand for many of our readers but to really expand the horizon of our ancient history and to see it in its true light, needs a veritable leap of comprehension. Mainstream Media and Academia discourages this effort and that is why archaeologists and historians have made such a big mess of our ancient history and continue to do so.
Here at “Antiquity Reborn”, we invite you to ask questions about the why’s and the how’s of our new aging methods. For us, these are no longer theories – they are hard-core facts. We are here to educate the public about our true ancient history and not to repeat fairy tales and to lead you into a dark labyrinth of half-truths and unproven suppositions.
You cannot take a red pill like in The Matrix and sit back and relax. If you are willing to burn a little midnight oil at comprehending our radical discoveries, to immerse yourself in our Logos, like the Gnostic called it, then ours is the only measure of truth that can set you free.
What do You Prefer: Logos or Mythos?
Some people prefer to label Göbekli Tepe with fancy words such as “early Neolithic sanctuary” when they address the alleged age of this archeological site. These people probably do not have much affection for mathematics and numbers. Such descriptive labels by “experts” are essentially meaningless because they do not bring us closer to the truth. We call this Mythos.
Because this website deals extensively with numbers and mathematics (Logos), it can explain our forgotten history much more accurately than the dubious attempts by academic “experts” to fit our method into their worldview. You will probably already have discovered that our logical and pragmatic dating method departs considerably from what you might have learned about history from books or the media.
Backfilled by Hand?
How Does Soil Build Up Over Time?
Most people know that soil builds up over time. Each season has its period of growth and decay. Living organisms like trees, plants, and grass that die will very slowly decompose into a few basic elements. These basic elements are the building blocks for what we call “soil”, and will eventually end up in things like rocks, sand, coal, etcetera.
Most people intuitively understand that the rate at which soil builds up depends on the environment. For example, in the Amazon rain forest soil builds up much faster than in a barren deserted area like the South of Turkey. In a dense forest, the soil (it is not about the compost layer above) builds up at a rate of about 30 meters per 100,000 years.
The Geoglyphs, as they can be found in the Amazon rainforest due to the extensive logging of the area, can still be seen as faint square or rectangular imprints in the soil, especially from the air. If archaeologists wanted to excavate such a structure, they would have to dig down dozens of meters to get to the bottom of the oldest foundations.
The soil in the South of Turkey builds up at a rate of about 1.5 meters per 100,000 years because there is hardly any flora to feed the buildup of the soil. When considering a structure that was built between 250,000 and 300,000 years ago and hardly has been visited again by people, the soil will slowly cover the structure as well as the surrounding area.
Most people, and that includes archaeologists, have never really thought about this matter. Why do we have to excavate something when it is only some 2,000 years old? No one seems to notice this discrepancy that is invariably caused by the programming we receive from “history lessons” and “Mainstream Media”.
Roman Buildings Are at the Same Ground Level
When we look at the many buildings in ancient Rome, or at the many ancient Roman settlements around Europe, we see that the levels of ancient Roman buildings and contemporary buildings do not differ significantly, or not at all. This raises the question: Why was Göbekli Tepe covered by many feet of soil?
Some Archaeologists might argue that Göbekli Tepe had a ‘roof which collapsed’ to justify the thick layer of soil with which the site was covered. Other Archaeologists claim that Göbekli Tepe was intentionally buried before it was abandoned. These are typical arguments by the members of Academia who like to keep their belief systems intact rather than advance their science with real research to discover the truth.
All the bickering does not explain why Göbekli Tepe lies deeper than the surrounding area. Was the surrounding land also deliberately back-filled? These are arguments of people who are unwilling to think rationally. The only reasonable explanation is a very old age.
What is easily acknowledged is the assertion that Göbekli Tepe is much older than Roman temples. Archaeologists claim that Göbekli Tepe is about 6 times older than Roman temples. To many people, large numbers are meaningless – one thousand years, or 12,000 years, let alone 250,000 years. It all far exceeds the time frame of the mortal ego.
But if we follow the chronostratigraphy of that region, Göbekli Tepe would, if it is really 12,000 years old, be covered with only about 7 to 8 inches of soil. The site would still be in plain sight, ruined maybe, and probably covered with some vegetation.
How Deep Did They Have to Dig for Göbekli Tepe?
That is an important question to ask. As a rule, the deeper something lies, the older it is. The depth where a site can be found usually depends on the rate at which the ground layers are built up over time.
If the depth of a specific site (to be dug up) is about 15 feet below the current ground level, how old could it really be? Remember: None of the Roman temples ever had to be dug up.
Chronostratigraphy gives us some of the first indications of the site’s true age. It also removes any speculation that the site was back-filled because that much soil does not build up in only 12,000 years.
What is Chronostratigraphy?
Chronostratigraphy is the study of the age of ground layers. It attempts to label an age relative to a certain ground layer. The rate at which ground layers build up varies somewhat, depending on the geographical region.
The common rate at which ground layers build up in the region of Southeast Turkey where Göbekli Tepe is situated is around 4 to 5 feet of dense soil per 100,000 years. Because Göbekli Tepe was covered with a layer of soil of between 10 to 15 feet thick gives an indication of its true age, which is between 200,000 and 250,000 years.
We could accept such reasoning as being factual but are there other indicators that point to a similar age? Yes, there are. The structural orientations, as revealed at the beginning of this article, justify an even more accurate age determination.
First Rough Indications of Göbekli Tepe’s True Age
The original ground level of Göbekli Tepe varies between 10 to 15 feet beneath the current ground level. All the sand, rocks, and soil that the Archaeologists had to dig away were deposited there in a natural way. That takes an enormous amount of time, between 200,000 to 375,000 years, depending on which part of the construction you are considering.
Archaeologists assert that Göbekli Tepe is roughly 12,000 years old. However, no facts are available that will support this claim other than personal opinions and associative and assumptive evidence gathered at the local scene.
In addition, Göbekli Tepe was never covered with any kind of a roof. Nor was it intentionally back-filled because, according to our calculations, the site is hundreds of thousands of years old. The alleged roof, which is believed to have collapsed, or the back-filled version thereof, is invented by archaeologists because that much soil cannot build up in just 12,000 years. The surrounding area is also at a similar higher level. Therefore, this debunks instantaneously the theory that Göbekli Tepe had a roof or was hand filled. Otherwise, the rest of Turkey had a roof as well! And it all collapsed!
Göbekli Tepe was a calendar which served to measure the time of the year. It was an open-air construction to measure the seasons, and every T-shaped construction at this site was once oriented to another geographic pole. The proof is in the numbers.
Archaeologists and Geologists Work With Other Time Scales
Göbekli Tepe’s Original Ground Level
The map of Fig. 4 shows how the four constructions are oriented. All four constructions are differently oriented and are negatively oriented with respect to our current geographic North pole. Why?
Archaeologists do not seem to have paid attention to the negative orientation of these sites. The question why this site is not oriented to our current North pole has never been addressed. What and where were the four sites oriented to? And why would these constructions be oriented so strangely and so differently to each other? Why are the large T-shaped pillars not oriented towards the solstices? Archaeologists do not know what to reply, except for wild guesses and irrational theories.
The answer is that the site of Göbekli Tepe was rebuilt and reoriented after every crustal displacement. Each crustal displacement resulted in another geographic pole position. This process extended over a period of more than 250,000 years.
Because the crust and the geographic poles had moved, Göbekli Tepe was purposely reoriented with respect to the then current geographic pole. How large are the odds for this statement to be true?
We have seen that the stratigraphy records are pointing to the oldest age (A) of between 350,000 and 375,000 years.
Note this fact: The older a structure (which you can derive from its orientation), the greater its counter-clockwise orientation. That is an indication of its true age. It is also likely that little remains of the original oldest structures. Let us resume what we have found so far…
The Conclusions
The conclusions of our research are clear:
- The stratigraphic records point to an age of between 350,000 to 375,000 years for the oldest, deepest constructions. This age correlates with the (re)orientation patterns of the site with Pole V. This relation alone is very small to be just coincidental.
- The orientation layouts reveal more subtle ages between 350,000 and 100,000 years.
- The certainty of the claim for Göbekli Tepe’s age to stretch over 250,000 years is 99.99984%.
- It is therefore 99.99984% certain that Göbekli Tepe has been (re)oriented due to crustal displacements.
- The part of Göbekli Tepe marked as “D” (Fig. 4) is oriented between Pole II and Pole I. Thus, it has been built during the shifting crust and became obsolete after a few millennia.
- We can pinpoint the age of “D” at between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago.
- None of the calendars of Göbekli Tepe are oriented to our current geographic North pole because the site was not restored as a calendar once more after the crustal displacement to Pole I. This happened around 70,000 years ago after “D” became obsolete.
- The older a structure, the less is left of it. “A” is the oldest, “D” is the youngest.
There is nothing in and around the site that is pointing to an age of only 12,000 years. This age is unsubstantiated by current academia and is based on unscientific methods.
If you must dig many feet below the current ground level to unearth ruins in areas like Italy, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Peru, Mexico, etc., your alarm bells should already be going off. Check out the chronostratigraphy records of the region to get an indication of the soil build-up rate over a given time period. Do not let yourself be scared off by the personally directed and harsh language of the “experts” who like to brush off such inquiries. Try some real, scientific research.
If you have the opportunity to use ground-penetrating radar or a Lidar system which you can easily mount on a drone, work from rough stages to the finer ones. Scan the contours of the structure and find out how it is oriented in relation to our current geographic pole. If it relates to one of the ancient poles (which you can find on this website) and you find a similar age match in the surrounding stratigraphy records, you already have a one-to-many-thousands hit that they could agree with each other coincidentally.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
https://mariobuildreps.com
Proofreading and editing: J.B.
Contact: buildreps@gmail.com
35 Responses
I feel sure you are on the right track by relating the age of Göbekli Tepe to the rate of soil deposition found at the site. However, that rate of deposition would have changed during your proposed lifetime of the site having been in use. You indicated that the soil “builds up at a rate of about 1.5 meters per 100,000 years” in that area currently, but would build up much faster in forested terrain.
There was a significant climate change occurring in that area about ~6500 years ago, making it become arid [1]. Prior to ~6500 years ago the area was steppe grasslands [2], preceded by a forested period [3], preceded by grasslands again [4], and then preceded by another forested period [5]. Prior to that there was an extended period of mixed forests and steppe vegetation [6].
I believe what this means is that to work backwards to calculate when Göbekli Tepe was abandoned, based on soil deposition rates, it will be necessary to integrate over at least the six different time periods noted above, applying the different deposition rates that would have been in effect during each of those prior time periods. That calculation should yield the result that Göbekli Tepe is much older than its conventional archaeological dating, just as you have said, but also is much younger than your original calculated abandonment date.
References
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/4/72
“Non-arboreal taxa as well as mesic deciduous trees declined sharply in the Eastern Mediterranean during the climatic aridization after c. 6.5 ka BP …”
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
“At the time when Göbekli Tepe was occupied, the climate of the area was warmer and wetter than it is today. It was surrounded by an open steppe grassland, with abundant wild cereals, including einkorn, wheat, and barley, and herds of grazing animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids.”
[3] https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/5893632
“With the beginning of the Early Holocene, the oak woodland spread again and replaced these open grass-dominated stands …”
[4] https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/5893632
“With the start of the Younger Dryas, there was an opening up of the oak woodland, which may have allowed widespread dense stands of annual, especially small-seeded grasses and riverine taxa to grow and thus provide staple foods …”
[5] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/4/72
“The subsequent Bølling-Allerød, with its increasing temperatures and effective moisture, is characterized by a greater proportion of C3 plants and higher soil productivity …”
[6] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/4/72
“Steppe and arboreal vegetation with C4 plants, a low plant density, and little soil microbial activity due to dry climatic conditions prevailed between 50.3 ka BP and 14.6 ka BP …”
Interesting and thank you, Pete. I am always open to other possibilities. At the same time we have to deal with the immense high probabilities of the matching orientations.
I am really impressed with the work you are doing. Thank you!
However, if the statements on another website are correct, there may be a complication for your theory that the backfilling of the Göbekli Tepe site is *solely* due to soil deposition processes.
The very lowest level of the site, Level III, is stated to have been filled, in part, with “limestone rubble from the neolithic quarry areas on the adjacent plateaus, mixed with large quantities of animal bones, flint debitage, artefacts and tools.”
https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/05/05/losing-your-head-at-gobekli-tepe/
Perhaps a multi-stage process?
1. Initial intentional backfilling of Level III, possibly in a ceremonial manner (as described at the above link),
2. then a higher Level II is developed on top of that,
3. then, much later on, Level I is built on top of Level II after soils have built up upon Level II, and
4. lastly, after Level I is ultimately abandoned, soil deposition continues until it reaches nearly to the tops of the T megaliths.
thank you for the extensive and informative article and the genuine effort in search of truth. Stonehedge and Altamira cave paintings fall into the same category as many others.
A friendly request about two Ancient Greek words you using: Logos and Myth,
Myth is not a FABLE!!! in Greek language fable is a PARAmythi, same differnce as Legal and Paralegal, Normal and Paranormal, Military and Paramilitary, Sitos (wheat) and Parasite, Logos and Paralogo (in Greek) etc.
How did they know where the geo pole was?
Simple, by finding the middle between sunrise and sunset. The more accurate they did this, the more accurate they found the geo pole.
They could have achieved that to a degree high of accuracy on the fall equinox, using a rod, a cord, and this method:
Secret to Great Pyramid’s Near-Perfect Alignment Possibly Found
https://www.livescience.com/61799-great-pyramid-near-perfect-alignment.html
Mario, as with others , a BIG THANK YOU !I am trained in clinical psychology (masters level). And almost a bachelors level in Marine Biology (brain went south with two courses incomplete).loss of short term memory related to Viet Nam service. However, many courses in most sciences. We are so far beyond my 19 year old attendance of junior college anthropology circa 1968. Like others, I find your work quite satisfying , over the top, and stimulating. None the less, I consider myself far far less than a novice when approaching this field. It is to your credit that I was able to follow most of your presentation. I think the most important point you made is, look beyond what you were trained to think. I see that facts that I knew back in graduate school (clinical psych) are mostly not relevant given what we know today. I particularly appreciate your presentation of location and direction to “north poles”. Keep on keeping on.
Thank you James!
What about cataclysm. Cataclysmic events such as volcanoes, sea level rise, floods and earthquakes all give history of major transformation to the surface of the Earth including the related mud floods.
After Mount St. Helens erupted it was evidenced that stratification layers of soil happened rapidly over a period of days and weeks not millennia.
As for the level of ancient Roman structures and the like being at the same level as other modern buildings, this can be explained by the fact of a continuous population performing the necessary broom and dust pan operations.
And what of your proposed ‘crustal displacement’. What are your calculations for this big piece of the puzzle? Is this not cataclysmic events.
This article you have read is just one of the many on our website. You can go to the main page here and find more info on our research.
Figure 1 is north down, which is rather confusing. Could you please turn it north up? Then it matches figure 4.
To me, site D seems older (at least simpler) than C when I look at figure 1.
I’ll call the possible pole pointed to by site D: pole IIa.
Might it be possible that the temporal sequence was:
1: from pole V northward (i.e. towards the current pole) to pole IV
2: then northward to pole III
3: subsequently northward to pole IIa where it stayed for not too long a time in which only at Gobekli Tepe site D was built and nowhere else anything we now know of
4: shortly thereafter back southward (why not?) to pole II (Earth may have done like what a dog does when it comes out of the water)
5: ultimately northward to pole I (current) which would be the flood we all “remember”?
Please read http://henk-reints.nl/HR-the-flood.pdf and http://henk-reints.nl/HR-the-flood-02.pdf
Could it be that step 4 was the start of the Younger Dryas and step 5 the end?
I understand the logic, first we have to come to grips with the fact that Homo Heidelbergensis was more advanced then first thought, about 1/2 way through his evolution towards a bifurcated Sapiens species Gobekli Tepe appears (250,000 kya). The Neanderthals/Denisovn and other hominids from original Heidelbergensis create a completely new hominid that eventually reconverges with Homo Sapiens (Africa) in much latter periods. The Heidelbergensis hominids (Eurasia) are absorbed or become extinct but not before leaving the earliest traces of civilization (Gobekli Tepe & Denisovia Caves).
I have a question. First: I am assuming the alignments of the structures were set relative to the stars, and that the movement of the NP axis you are referring to is relative to the motion of the continental plates, making it appear to be moving as the continents move relative to the axis of the Earth. However, does your analysis take into account the Earth’s precession, as this would also account for alignment differences over time? According to various websites, the precession has a cycle of 25,772 years and a radius of 23.5 degree, moving about 1 degree every 100 solar years.
Opps. Ignore my assumption. I don’t know why, but I was thinking 250 mya. I am still curious about the precession.
There are more people who have such a question about precession. No matter what you are studying in the sky you must orient your instrument first to the only fixed point which is the spin axis. That is what the ancients have done.
1. If the build up timeline of Göbekli Tepe spread over some 100.000 of years, why are the different sites buried with the same thick layer of soil?
2. Where is the soil coming from? Note that Göbekli Tepe resides on a hill.
3. Your angle theory is very impressive and logical, but the convertion into years was made with some things like “yuga” and this is not “hard logical” and a weak point to it.
We need more people like you, Niels Bohr once told that a Hypothesis has ony a chance to become a good Theory if it is creasy enough.
Sorry for the bad english, its not my native language.
Thanks Norbert. The conversion to from orientation into years is made by using the ice cores from Antarctica, and is completely scientific in all its aspects. The probability that we are wrong is less than 0.4%.
There seems to be a growing following that Pillar 43, “The Vulture Stone” depicts constellations and the sun.
Here is an essay by Andrew Collins where he describes his depiction: http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/news/P43.htm
Perhaps there is more information in the orientation of individual pillars that you may have encountered in your research. I want to ask the question of whether the picture could be correct, but for a different epoch. If there is an unexplained inconsistency, that matches your other data, it may be very valuable supporting evidence for you theory.
Thanks for posting the link, Alan. We still have to dive much deeper into Göbekli Tepe than we already did and this can be an interesting addition to that research. Göbekli Tepe is on the agenda for a much deeper investigation!
Thank you, at last some comments that make sense, I am no academic but in my travels have seen things that cannot be explained by current thinking, the serapheum forgive the spelling, for one, is plainly obviously made by very different methods than the simple, though, wonderful tombs. I had thought that the Goblekli tepe remains were built by the survivors of the Younger Dryas impact, as a sort of time capsule, but then looked a the orientation to North and also came to the conclusion that with the shift of the poles, they were now out of sinc.
Will definitely try to follow your site in future.
Congratulations for your remarkable study that joins other findings. Here is the link of the French translation I just made https://www.facebook.com/notes/louis-de-jonghe-dardoye/le-v%C3%A9ritable-%C3%A2ge-de-g%C3%B6bekli-tepe/126696045265577/
In my article on the Great Sphinx in point 2 you will find a geological approach to a dating of the Great Egyptian Sphinx. https://www.facebook.com/notes/louis-de-jonghe-dardoye/le-grand-sphinx-pr%C3%A9c%C3%A8de-le-plioc%C3%A8ne/1273859709303595/?hc_location=ufi
The original link of the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is in English
==> http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/64Manichev.pdf?
Did you auto translate the text or did you do it by hand? You should have asked approval before you translate our copyright work.
Mario,
a second mathematical method would be good. The ages of the polar placements are irrefutable if logic is allowed to prevail and coincidence and chance are removed from the facts, at first when you published I thought I would find the flaw in your reasoning/ logic. I admit you have me onside.
So a couple of points for your info, of interest. Firstly in 7450 bc a meteor storm/comet impact off the Charleston coast left a meteor impact field surrounding Charleston that had organic remains dated by carbon dating. there are two graviometric anomolies detected off the coast and these are meant to be the remnants of the main comet/ asteroid. The resulting tsunami would have wiped out anything in the Atlantic basin with a wave that would have been over a thousand feet tall traveling supersonically. This can be testified in the jumble of surface fossils from many ages that litter the south west of the UK from ten thousand years to one hundred million years ago life forms and the greensands washed inland by 40 and fifty miles. This one event has obscured the younger Dryas event from the surface layers as the were buried underneath in Europe nine thousand years ago at locations which are now at 900 feet elevations. The fossils are known as eratics because acurate dating is impossible. The younger Dryas event is recorded in Chinese and North American Indian myth. The Chinese have an ancient Hurculean Character known as Yi the great archer(not Yu the great) The legend describes ten suns in the sky and Yi fires his nine magic arrows and destroys nine of them leaving only one ,our current sun in the sky. A thought occurs, that Yi would not have seen a fractured comet come around to China again if it landed in nine parts over the western hemisphere or Younger Drys impact area depicted commonly.
I look forward to your videos and reccomend to my friends to see if they can find any way to clearly discredit your line of reasoning. No one has thus far come up with anything. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Howard. More information about the comet impact (Charleston) would be helpful. Dating of comet impacts is hazardous terrain, and when carbon dating is involved it suggests that 14C is not formed during an impact, which I doubt. Formation of 14C would result in a much younger age. There have been probably many more comet impacts over the last hundreds of thousands of years that are very hard to date accurately. The YD comet is said to have impacted 12,800 years ago, while the truth is this: it’s 1.3 million years old ±1.3 million years.
My layperson”s heartbeat is thundering at the revelations in your exciting presentation!!! Gobekli Tepe has long been of premier interest to me & I have so waited for astounding truths to be revealed. Your article has brought new energy to this classicly mistreated subject. Thank you for your beautifully researched information. It is true treasure.
Your claim that Roman buildings are at the same level of ground today as they were then is inaccurate. Cities like Paris and Istanbul are built over older structures. The Obelisk of Theodosius for example is about 3 meters below the current level of the ground as are 2 other structures in the square. While this isn’t due to decomposition of organic materials, there are ways that things can get buried faster than you are suggesting. Earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, war. So many Roman villas in Britain are under .5 to 1 meter or more even of soil.
In the case of Gobekli Tepe, i believe it was the type of surrounding materials in the enclosures that led to the findings that it was back filled. no stratification and the fact that they did find organic materials at the bottom that had carbon dates of 12k years ago. And we can agree, I think, that finding that organic material doesn’t prove the date of construction just when that material was placed there.
It is interesting that you have Enclosure D as the youngest and the archaeologists have it dated as the oldest. New, young archaeologists are linking D to the near extinction event that happened around 12k years ago by analyzing the carvings on the stones but that still doesn’t line up with your dates. And I am intrigued with the orientations you have analyzed but my biggest question about your work is this…
Many of these structures like Gobekli are calendars that line up with the equinox and constellations/stars etc. we can roll back time using computer models to see the night sky, taking into account the precession and see how the stars line up in the night sky. What happens to these alignments when crustal displacement is taken into account?
Hi Tobias, you assume that these are Roman structures. You assume based on your programming that Paris is only some 2,000 years old. There are many ways that structures can get buried, and if they are, it is automatically assumed that it were floods, earthquakes or similar that buried them because we are programmed to believe there was nothing before Romans, Greek, Egyptian and Sumerians cultures. Archaeology believes that Gobleki Tepe was back filled because in only 12,000 years the area will never be covered in many meters of dense soil. So it was back filled, end of discussion.
What you are doing is valuing a mathematical theory with your programmed believe system. It is your freedom to do so, but if you think this way, you are so to speak valuing quantum mechanics with medieval believes. Mathematics is the only way to set you free, material archaeology will never bring you to that point, but if you are not ready for it, it’s better not limp on two legs so to speak and chose what you prefer.
If you take a site buried in layers, then you can claim your analysis. But if it is not layers, but rather a deep amount of the same age material, you can’t apply your analysis there. You can’t assume that if a site is buried it has to be certain age due to the depth. It has to be layered. And from what I hear, Gobekli Tepe is NOT layered.
The amount of soil is not at the core of our method, orientation is. The site has multiple orientations. That’s enough to prove it’s true age.
Dear Mario, I found your site by coincidence and I am kind of happy. Very interesting how you explain everything, sounds logic to me. Also the build up of the soil over that long time in Göbekli Tepe. What I cannot explain is… Stonehenge is about the same age right.
But there is nothing built up, still looks as it would have been built up 2000
years ago. Any ideas? Sorry for my bad English I am located in Innsbruck, Austria
Thank you for your comment and your interesting observation, Berthold. This is one of the many topics that we have discussed intensively. There is a good explanation for this phenomenon. When a site is visited by many people throughout the millennia, like that of Stonehenge, the soil is constantly “walked off”, so it won’t get much change to build up. But when is a site is forgotten, like the desolate and abandoned area of Gobleki Tepe, the soil will build up naturally and will finally end up totally covering the site.
Thank you for this mind opening journal
Some genuinely fantastic work on behalf of the owner of this site, perfectly great content.