력사를 찾아서

환기9217해,신시배달5917해 단기 4353해,서기 2020해, 대한민국 101해(나뉨 72해),

[와우! 과학] 1만 년 전 ‘인류 최초 신전’ 미스터리…수준 높은 기하학 설계/ [스크랩]고대유적지=터키에서 발견된 기원전 1만년전 유적지/ Dead heads: Turkish site reveals more evidence of neolithic 'skull ..

댓글 0

환국시대/환국시대의 세계

2020. 5. 24.

[와우! 과학] 1만 년 전 ‘인류 최초 신전’ 미스터리…수준 높은 기하학 설계

입력 : 2020.05.18 13:36 ㅣ 수정 : 2020.05.18 13:37

 

▲ 1만 년 전 ‘인류 최초 신전’ 미스터리…수준 높은 기하학 설계(사진=길 해클리, 아비 고퍼) [출처: 서울신문에서 제공하는 기사입니다.]  https://nownews.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20200518601006&wlog_tag3=daum#csidx9015f7925cb90c595f48a9b92b891ed 

 

터키 남동부 샨르우르파주(州)에는 1만1500년 전인 기원전 9500년부터 건축되기 시작한 인류 최초의 신전으로 추정되는 괴베클리 테페 유적이 있다. 당시 인류는 정착 농경 생활이 아닌 수렵 생활을 했기에 많은 고고학자는 오랫동안 왜 이런 거대 유적을 세울 필요가 있었는지를 두고 고민해 왔다. 그런데 이 신석기 유적에 관한 최신 연구는 고고학자의 고민을 더욱더 가중하는 결과를 낳고 말았다. 이 유적의 단위인 원형 구덩이의 위치를 건축학적인 방법으로 분석한 결과, 초기에 지어진 세 구덩이의 각 중앙 지점은 완벽한 정삼각형을 그리는 것으로 나타났기 때문이다. 이는 이 유적을 설계한 건축자에게 삼각형에 관한 상당히 정확한 지식이 있었다는 점을 시사한다. 그렇다면 대체 이 유적을 누가 설계했다는 것일까.

괴베클리 테페 유적을 둘러싼 미스터리

 

▲ 유적은 원형의 울타리를 기준으로 중앙에 두 개의 T자형의 돌기둥이 배치돼 있다.(사진=페르난도 고메즈-바프티스타) [출처: 서울신문에서 제공하는 기사입니다.]  https://nownews.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20200518601006&wlog_tag3=daum#csidx68d93f2ff7c7d8ebf7d5585d8aaaf35 

기존 상식으로는 피라미드와 같이 거대한 유적이 건설되려면 인간의 정착화와 농경의 시작이 필요하다. 그리고 조직적인 건축 작업을 하기 위해서는 지도자로서의 왕과 같은 집권적 존재와 노동자에 대한 안정적 식량 공급이 필수인데 이 두 요소를 충족할 수 있는 것은 농경 문명뿐인 것으로 여겨졌다. 사실 괴베클리 테페 유적에 존재하는 거대한 수십 t의 돌기둥을 세우려면 최소 500명이 넘는 인력을 집중적으로 투입해야 하는 것으로 추산되고 있었다. 하지만 이 시대 터키 남동부의 인류는 기본적으로 수렵 생활을 했고 농경 생활은 극히 제한적이었다. 따라서 기존에는 괴베클리 테페 유적의 초기 건축물을 수렵 생활을 하던 여러 사람이 세대와 부족을 넘어 계속해서 만들어가는 방법으로 완성한 것으로 결론지었다. 또 조직적인 건설에는 신관과 같은 종교적 지도자가 선출됐을지도 모른다. 하지만 어떤 가설도 결정적인 근거는 부족했다. 대규모 노동자를 차출할 정도의 지도력을 지닌 신관의 존재는 농경 문명에서나 가능했다. 괴베클리 테페 유적의 주변은 티그리스 유프라테스강에 우선할 정도로 농경에 적합한 지역은 아니었다.

괴베클리 테페의 초기 유적은 고도의 기하학적 지식으로 만들어졌다

 

▲ 건축학적인 방법으로 구덩이 가운데 놓인 돌기둥의 위치를 분석한 결과, 공개된 그림에서처럼 세 개의 원형 울타리(B, C, D)와 각 돌기둥의 관계가 밑변(노란색 선)이 되는 선의 수직선(파란 점선)을 바탕으로 완벽한 정삼각형을 그리는 것으로 나타났다. (사진=길 해클리, 아비 고퍼) [출처: 서울신문에서 제공하는 기사입니다.]  https://nownews.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20200518601006&wlog_tag3=daum#csidx5885db1f8a0767ba7b7aa812f6102c3 

 

하지만 새롭게 진행한 이번 연구에서는 이 문제를 더욱더 난해하게 할지도 모른다. 이스라엘 텔아비브대 길 해클리 연구원과 아비 고퍼 교수가 이끄는 연구진은 이번 연구를 통해 괴베클리 테페의 초기 유적은 단일 계획 아래에서 한꺼번에 세워졌다고 주장했다. 근거가 된 부분은 초기 유적의 단위인 움푹 파인 곳에 세워진 돌기둥의 위치이다. 건축학적인 방법으로 구덩이 가운데 놓인 돌기둥의 위치를 분석한 결과, 공개된 그림에서처럼 세 개의 원형 울타리(B, C, D)와 각 돌기둥의 관계가 밑변(노란색 선)이 되는 선의 수직선(파란 점선)을 바탕으로 완벽한 정삼각형을 그리는 것으로 나타났다. 이 근거가 맞는다면 초기 유적은 하나의 계획성을 지니고 지어진 것이 된다. 그리고 유적의 건설을 지휘한 사람은 기하학적 형상에 관한 고도의 지식을 갖고 있었던 것이다. 하지만 문자조차 존재하지 않는 수렵 생활을 했던 인류가 어떻게 삼각형의 법칙을 이해하고 고도의 측량을 바탕으로 도형을 그려냈는지는 알 수 없다.

돌기둥에 새긴 동물은 무엇을 의미할까

 

▲ 사진 속 돌기둥은 200개 이상 존재하며 이를 세우는 데는 엄청난 노력이 들어갔다.(사진=독일 고고학 연구소) [출처: 서울신문에서 제공하는 기사입니다.]  https://nownews.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20200518601006&wlog_tag3=daum#csidxa7c8bb7e456e7e48629836fc39fa965 
▲ 돌기둥에는 사자와 소, 멧돼지, 여우, 가젤 그리고 당나귀와 같은 포유류, 뱀과 기타 파충류, 곤충을 비롯해 거미 등 절지동물 그리고 새(특히 독수리, 조장문화가 있었다)가 그려져 있다. (사진=독일 고고학 연구소) [출처: 서울신문에서 제공하는 기사입니다.]  https://nownews.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20200518601006&wlog_tag3=daum#csidx491a665ba9fc37b8f0a3e42d5c0ecc9 

 

또 이 유적이 계획성 있게 한꺼번에 건설된 경우 필요 인력은 최소 500명에서 최대 수천 명으로 치솟는다. 따라서 이들 연구자는 괴베클리 테페의 초기 유적이 수렵 생활을 하던 인류 자원의 거의 한계치를 투입해서 만든 것이라고 결론지었다. 하지만 어떤 이유로, 또 누가 수렵 생활을 하던 인류 부족을 하나로 묶어 그 자원과 노동력을 한계까지 공출시켰는지는 알 수 없다. 다만 그 정도의 노동력과 자원을 투입한 초기 유적도 탄소 측정을 사용한 분석을 통해 1000년 뒤쯤인 기원전 9000년 전후 버려진 것으로 나타났다. 또 이 시대에는 문자가 존재하지 않았으므로 유적이 만들어진 이유도 알 수 없다. 읽을 수 있는 유일한 정보는 돌기둥에 기록된 여러 동물의 조각뿐이다. 돌기둥에는 사자와 소, 멧돼지, 여우, 가젤 그리고 당나귀와 같은 포유류, 뱀과 기타 파충류, 곤충을 비롯해 거미 등 절지동물 그리고 새(특히 독수리, 조장문화가 있었다)가 그려져 있다. 오늘날 황폐한 땅에 불과한 괴베클리 테페 주변도 1만1500년 전에는 숲이 펼쳐져 있어 많은 동물이 있었다. 수렵 생활을 하던 인류에게 동물은 더 친숙한 존재였을 것이다. 미래에 이들 동물에게서 뭔가 단서를 얻을 수 있을지도 모른다.



자세한 연구 결과는 동료검토 학술지 ‘케임브리지 고고학 저널’(Cambridge Archaeological Journal) 30권 제2호에 실렸다.

윤태희 기자 th20022@seoul.co.kr



[출처: 서울신문에서 제공하는 기사입니다.] https://nownews.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20200518601006&wlog_tag3=daum#csidx7cb92e26e1c7bdd90c28ccbfb398969 

 

[스크랩]고대유적지=터키에서 발견된 기원전 1만년전 유적지

 

0400년 터키의 샨리우르파 Şanlıurfa 의 역사는 기원전 4세기부터 기록되어 있습니다.

0400년 기원전 400년부터 기원전 301년까지

 

 

0638년 라시둔 칼리파[632년 6월8일-661년7월28일 ]

0638년정통 칼리파 or 라시둔 칼리파(Rashidun Caliphate)

0638년선지자 마호메트를 계승한 4명의 이슬람교 칼리파들을 가리킨다 (632-661).

0638년라시둔 칼리파는 아랍어로

0638년 정통 칼리파(the rightly guided Caliphs, the righteous Caliphs)라는 뜻으로,

0638년 이슬람교 수니파의 규정에 따라 부르는 이름이다

0638년 정통 칼리파 시대의 전성기 판도는 아라비아 반도를 중심으로

0638년 이란 고원에서 북아프리카까지 넓은 영역을 관할하였다.

0638년 이슬람세력은 서기 638년 터키의 샨리우르파에 도착했다.

 

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

터키의 샨리우루파[SANLIURFA ] 동북쪽 15km지역에서 발견된 12000년전 유적지.

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure[2012.02.18] 히스토리채널

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo0ZkgqM1TE

 

1964년 터키 이스탄불 대학 과 시카고대학의 조사=언덕에 비잔틴 시대의 묘지가 있다고 추측한다.

1994년 쿠르드인 농부가 작업중에 고베키 테베에서 매장된 석조물을 발견합니다.

 

1994년 클라우스 슈미트[Klaus Schmidt 독일 고고학자,]=이스탄불 지부가 고베키 테베에 방문합니다.

1994년 독일 고고학 연구소 이스탄불 지부( German Archaeological Institute )

1995년 독일 고고학 연구소와 샨리우르파 박물관에 의하여 고베키 테페 발굴 시작합니다.

1995년 클라우스 슈미트 (1953년 12월 11일 - 2014 년 7 월 20일 사망 )

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/news/archaeology.php?id=126

 

 

배불뚝이 언덕으로 알려진 터키의 고베키테페에서, 유적지 발굴

기원전 1만년-기원전 8000년 사이의 여러군데

돌울타리를 발견했습니다.

이 거대한 돌의 대부분은 동물과 의인화된 인물의

매우 복잡한 묘사와 함께 새겨져 있습니다.

고베키 테페 유적 주변 불모의 영역은 지역은

공동 의식 활동,의식 센터와

현재의 정착지의 증거가 없습니다.

이 종교의 기원에 대해서는 아주 중요합니다.

 

 

 

 

독일 고고학자  클라우스 슈미트에 따르면, "

세계에서 가장 매혹적인 신석기 지역 중 하나입니다.

그것은 신석기 시대로 거슬러 올라가는 인공 언덕입니다.

그것은 거주에 사용되지 않았다;

그것은 거석 울타리의 형태로 여러 보호 구역으로 구성되어 있습니다.

이 지역은 샨리우르파로부터 약 15km 북동쪽에 자리 잡고 있습니다.

그것은 멀리서도 눈에 띄는 랜드 마크입니다.

약 9헥타르의 영역에 수천년 동안 축적했다. 

오늘날에도 장소가 신비한 매력을 전혀 손실되지 않았습니다.

예를 들어,이나무를 희망하는 능선의 정상에여전히 인근 주민들에 의해 추구된다.

고고학자들은 정착생활(定着生活, Sedentism)과정의 완전히 새로운 이해와

농업의 시작 부분에 기여하는 지역에서

인류의 초기 역사에서 퍼즐의 중요한 조각을 발견 농업의 시작입니다.

무수한 많은 돌도구와 큰언덕의 일반블륵 절단석(切斷石)

비밀을 밝혀내려고합니다.

 

출처;http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/news/archaeology.php?id=126

 

===============

 

샨리우루파[SANLIURFA ] 고고학 박물관과 협력하여

독일 고고학 연구소[ 고고학자 클라우스 슈미에] 가 1995 년부터

실시 발굴의 결과

================

 

 

2010년 개발도상국(developing country) 문화유산보호、

 

2010년 세계 문화 유산 기금(Global Heritage Fund (GHF) )고베키 테베 유적지 보호조치를시작합니다.

 

 

2011년 종교의 탄생

2011년 우리는 농업이 도시의 상승과 그 이후의 기록, 예술, 종교를 생각했습니다.

2011년 지금 세계에서 가장 오래된 사원은 문명게기를 숭배하는 충동을 시사하고 있습니다

2011년 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text

 

 

2014년 기존의 역사 지식대로라면 그 시대의 사람들은 대부분이

 

2014년 아직 수렵생활을 하고 이제 슬슬 농업시대로 옮겨가는 시대인데 
2014년 반듯하게 잘려진 돌기둥, 세세하게 묘사한 동물상

2014년 저런 유적이 나와서 고고학자들 당황중이라고하네요 
2014년 현재의 고고학적,역사적 자료,지식들로는 설명을 할 수가 없다고 하는군요.

 

 

 

 

 

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

 

 

 

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

 

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

절단석

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

 

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

 

 

고베키 테페 (터키어 : Göbekli Tepe ="배불뚝이 언덕 Potbelly Hill")

 

 

출처;다음 아고라

http://bbs1.agora.media.daum.net/gaia/do/debate/read?bbsId=D115&articleId=3085338

 

 

Dead heads: Turkish site reveals more evidence of neolithic 'skull cult'

죽은 머리 : 터키 유적지에서 신석기 시대 '해골 숭배'에 대한 더 많은 증거가 밝혀졌다

 

Fragments of three skulls found at Göbekli Tepe have hallmarks of being carved with flint after being scalped and defleshed first

 

괴베클리테페 (Göbekli Tepe)에서 발견된 3 개의 두개골 조각은 두피를 벗겨서 먼저 살을 바른 후 부싯돌로 조각한 특징이 있습니다.

 

번역은 구글번역임.

 

Ian Sample Science editor

 @iansample

Shares 533

 

A carving found on a pillar at Göbekli Tepe, apparently showing a figurine holding a head. Photograph: German Archaeological Institute (DAI)

 

Fragments of carved bone unearthed at an ancient site on a Turkish hillside are evidence that the people who spent time there belonged to a neolithic “skull cult” – a group that embraces rituals around the heads of the dead.

 

터키 언덕의 고대 유적지에서 발굴된 조각된 뼈 조각은 그곳에서 시간을 보낸 사람들이 신석기 "해골 숭배"(죽음의 머리 주위의 의식을 포용하는 집단)에 속한다는 증거입니다.

 

The remains were uncovered during field work at Göbekli Tepe, an 11,000-year-old site in the south-east of the country, where thousands of pieces of human bone were found, including sections of skulls bearing grooves, holes and the occasional dab of ochre.

 

터키 남동부의 11,000 년 전 유적지인 괴베클리테페 (Göbekli Tepe)에서 홈, 구멍 및 간혹 틈새가있는 두개골 부분을 포함하여 수천 개의 인간 뼈가 발견되었습니다 .

 

Pieces of three adult skulls recovered from the site have hallmarks of being carved with flint after being scalped and defleshed first. Evidence that the latter was not always an effortless affair is found in multiple scrape marks where the muscles once attached to the bone.

 

현장에서 회수된 세 개의 성인 두개골 조각은  두피를 벗겨서 살을 바른 후 부싯돌로 조각한 특징을 가지고 있습니다. 후자가 항상 힘들지 않다는 증거는 근육이 뼈에 부착된 여러 개의 긁힌 자국에서 발견됩니다.

 

But the intentional carvings look very different to other marks on the skulls. “The carvings are very deep lines in the bone and are definitely intended,” said Julia Gresky at the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin. “It’s the first evidence we have for carved human skulls anywhere.”

 

그러나 의도적인 조각은 두개골의 다른 표시와 매우 다르게 보입니다. 베를린에 있는 독일 고고학 연구소의 줄리아 그레 스키 (Julia Gresky)는 “조각은 뼈에 아주 깊은 선으로 되어 있으며 확실히 의도된 것이다. " 그것은 우리가 어디에서나 조각된 인간 두개골에 대한 최초의 증거입니다."

 

The scientists discovered the bits of skull in two trenches at the 300 metre-wide site on a hilltop about 30 miles (50km) north of the Syrian border. Excavations which began at the site in the mid-1990s uncovered eight large oval buildings there. At the centre of each stand two T-shaped pillars which resemble people rising to more than 5 metres high. Smaller pillars of the same design are built into the walls.

 

과학자들은 시리아 국경에서 북쪽으로 약 30 마일 (50km) 떨어진 언덕 꼭대기에있는 300 미터 넓이의 부지에서 두 개의 참호에서 두개골 조각을 발견했습니다. 1990 년대 중반에 현장에서 시작된 발굴 작업으로 8 개의 큰 타원형 건물이 발견되었습니다. 각각의 중앙에는 높이가 5 미터 이상인 사람들과 유사한 2 개의 T 자형 기둥이 있습니다. 동일한 디자인의 작은 기둥이 벽에 내장되어 있습니다.

 

The grooves and holes cut purposefully into skulls are far less ornate than the beautiful carvings of people and animals that decorate limestone pillars at the site, leading scientists to suspect that they were not for show, but instead helped others to string the skulls up with cord.

 

의도적으로 두개골에 자른 홈과 구멍은 현장의 석회암 기둥을 장식하는 아름다운 사람과 동물 조각보다 훨씬 덜 화려하여 과학자들이 쇼 용이 아닌 것으로 의심하였고, 그러나 대신 다른 사람들이 두개골을 끈으로 묶는 데 도움이 되었습니다. .

 

Those who spent time at the site – there is little evidence people lived there – may have commemorated their ancestors by suspending their skulls, or displayed the skulls of their enemies. “They think the power from the dead is going to the living,” said Gresky.

 

그 장소에서 시간을 보낸 사람들은 – 그곳에 사람들이 살았다는 증거가 거의 없음 – 그들의 두개골을 매달거나 적의 두개골을 전시하여 그들의 조상을 기념했을 수도 있습니다. “그들은 죽은 자의 힘이 산 자에게 온다고 생각합니다."라고 Gresky는 말했습니다. 

 

Aerial view of the site at Göbekli Tepe. Photograph: German Archaeological Institute (DAI)

 

Other artefacts found at the site support the suspicion that those who frequented Göbekli Tepe had a special relationship with the skulls of others. One carving found on a pillar at the site shows a human who has just lost their head. Meanwhile, figurines hold heads as apparent gifts or have been decapitated themselves, according to a report in Science Advances.

 

이 사이트에서 발견된 다른 유물들은 괴베클리테페 (Göbekli Tepe)를 자주 방문한 사람들이 다른 사람들의 두개골과 특별한 관계가 있다는 의혹을 지지합니다. 부지의 기둥에서 발견된 한 조각은 방금 머리를 잃은 사람을 보여줍니다. 사이언스 어드밴스 (Science Advances) 의 보고서에 따르면, 인형은 명백한 선물로 머리를 잡거나 스스로를 빼앗겼습니다. 

 

One skull found at the site has a hole in the right position that would allow it to hang level if suspended. Meanwhile, the grooves would prevent cord from slipping when it was tied around a skull to prevent the lower jaw from falling off when it is hung up. “It allows you to suspend it somewhere as a complete object,” she said.

 

현장에서 발견된 두개골 하나는 매달린 상태를 유지할 올바른 위치에 구멍이 있습니다. 한편, 홈은 끈이 두개골 주위에 묶여있을 때 끈이 미끄러지는 것을 방지하여 매달릴 때 아래턱이 떨어지지 않도록 합니다. "그것은 당신이 완전한 대상으로 어딘가에 매달릴 수 있습니다"라고 그녀는 말했다.

 

The site dates to a time when people were in transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers. The people of Göbekli Tepe had not domesticated plants or animals, but settled in the area, and used what resources they found around them.

 

이 장소는 사람들이 사냥꾼 채집자에서 농부로 전환하는 시대로 거슬러 올라갑니다. 괴베클리테페 (Göbekli Tepe) 사람들은 식물이나 동물을 길들이지 않고 그 지역에 정착하여 그들이 주변에서 찾은 자원을 사용했습니다.

 

Lee Clare, another scientist on the study, said that the shift towards settled life will have brought on new challenges as the population grew. The site itself would have served to build the group’s collective identity, one which could have been bolstered by the rituals of the skull cult.

 

이 연구의 또 다른 과학자인 리 클레어 (Lee Clare)는 인구가 증가함에 따라 정착생활로의 전환이 새로운 도전을 가져올 것이라고 말했습니다. 이 장소 자체는 그룹의 집단적 정체성을 구축하는 데 도움이 되었을 것인데, 이는 하나의 두개골 컬트 의식에 의해 강화될 수 있었습니다.

 

출처;https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/28/turkish-site-evidence-of-neolithic-skull-cult-gobekli-tepe

 

 

 

Göbekli Tepe, site of the possible skull cult, is considerd the world's oldest temple. PHOTOGRAPH BY VINCENT MUSI, NAT GEO IMAGE COLLECTION

 

Hints of Skull Cult Found at World's Oldest Temple

세계에서 가장 오래된 사원에서 발견된 해골 컬트의 힌트

 

Carved human skull fragments from a Stone Age archaeological site hint at a surprisingly complex culture.

석기 시대 고고학 유적지의 조각된 인간 두개골 조각은 놀랍도록 복잡한 문화를 암시합니다.

 

번역은 구글번역임.

 

BY SHAENA MONTANARI

 

PUBLISHED JUNE 28, 2017

 

Around 10,000 years ago, the already striking presence of Göbekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey could have been even more impressive—as human skulls might have dangled in what is considered the world's oldest temple.

 

According to new research published in Science Advances, three Neolithic skull fragments discovered by archaeologists at Göbekli Tepe show evidence of a unique type of post-mortem skull modification at the site.

(Read more about Göbekli Tepe, the "world's oldest temple.")

 

약 10,000 년 전, 터키 남동부에서 이미 괴베클리 테페 (Göbekli Tepe)의 존재는 세계에서 가장 오래된 사원으로 인간의 두개골이 매달려 있었기 때문에 더욱 인상적이었습니다.

사이언스 어드밴스 (Science Advances)에 발표 된 새로운 연구에 따르면 , 괴베클리 테페 (Göbekli Tepe)의 고고학자들이 발견한 3개의 신석기 시대 두개골 조각은이 사이트에서 고유한 형태의 사후 두개골 수정의 증거를 보여준다.

( Göbekli 테페의에 대한 자세한 읽기 "세계에서 가장 오래된 사원입니다. " )

 

The deep, purposeful linear grooves are a unique form of skull alteration never before seen anywhere in the world in any context, says Julia Gresky, lead author on the study and an anthropologist at the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin. Detailed analysis with a special microscope shows the grooves were deliberately made with a flint tool. One of the fragments even has a hole drilled in it, resembling skull modifications made by the Naga people of India who used the hole to hang the skull on a string.

 

베를린의 독일 고고학 연구소의 연구자이자 인류학자 줄리아 그레스키 (Julia Gresky)는 깊고, 목적이 있는 선형 그루브는 세계 어느 곳에서도 볼 수 없는 독특한 형태의 두개골 변형이라고 전했다. 특수한 현미경을 사용한 상세한 분석은 홈이 부싯돌 도구로 의도적으로 만들어 졌음을 보여줍니다. 조각 중 하나에는 구멍이 있는데, 구멍을 해골을 끈으로 매다는데 사용한 인도의 나가 사람들이 만든 두개골 수정과 비슷합니다.

 

Finds at Göbekli Tepe that suggest a focus on human heads include, from left: an intentionally decapitated human statue, a figure bearing a human head as a gift, and a pillar depicting a bird-like headless individual (lower right) PHOTOGRAPH BY DIETER JOHANNES AND KLAUS SCHMIDT, GÖBEKLI TEPE ARCHIVE, DAI

 

The marks may only appear on a few fragments of bone that date between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago, but archaeologists believe that this find is extremely significant and means that this society, like many others in this part of the world at the time, was a “skull cult” that venerated the human skull after death.

 

이 표식은 10,000 년에서 7,000 년 전의 뼈 조각에만 나타날 수 있지만, 고고학자들은 이 발견이 매우 중요하다고 생각하며 이 사회는 당시 세계의 다른 많은 지역과 마찬가지로 사망 후 인간의 두개골을 숭배한“해골 숭배”사회였다는 것을 의미한다고 믿는다.

 

SKULL AND BONES

“Skull cults are not uncommon in Anatolia,” says Gresky. She explains that archaeological remains from other sites in the region indicate people would commonly bury their dead, then exhume them, remove the skulls, and display them creatively. Other archaeologists have even found that Neolithic people would remodel the faces of the dead with plaster.

(See the face behind the 9,500-year-old plastered Jericho Skull.)

 

Gresky는“아나톨리아에서는 두개골 종파가 드문 일이 아닙니다. 그녀는이 지역에있는 다른 지역의 고고학적 유적은 사람들이 일반적으로 죽은 사람을 묻고 숨을 내쉬고 두개골을 제거하고 창조적으로 전시할 것이라고 설명합니다. 다른 고고학자들은 심지어 신석기 시대 사람들이 석고로 죽은 자의 얼굴을 리모델링할 것임을 발견했습니다.

( 9,500 년 된 회 반죽 제리코 스컬의 얼굴을보십시오. )

 

Göbekli Tepe held special significance to the Neolithic people who lived nearby. “This was not a settlement area, but mostly monumental structures,” the anthropologist explains.

 

괴베클리 테페는 인근에 사는 신석기 시대 사람들에게 특별한 의미를 지니고 있었습니다. 인류학자는 “이곳은 정착지가 아니라 대부분 기념비적인 구조물이었다”고 설명했다.

 

Post-mortem modifications in the Göbekli Tepe skulls include carvings (figures A, C and D) and a drilled hole (B). PHOTOGRAPH BY JULIA GRESKY, DAI

 

The site's massive T-shaped stone pillars and prominent position on top of a hill with sweeping vistas suggests the hunter-gathers who lived here also had a somewhat complex culture and practiced rituals.

 

이 사이트의 거대한 T 자형 석조 기둥과 언덕 꼭대기에서 눈에 잘 띄는 위치는 경치가 아름답고 이곳에 살았던 사냥꾼 수집가들에게는 다소 복잡한 문화와 의식이 있었음을 시사합니다.

 

 

FRIENDS OR FOES?

“This is an interesting skull modification that hasn’t been documented in this part of the world or this time period,” says bioarchaeologist Matthew Velasco at Cornell University, who was not involved in the study. But this find does raise additional questions about who the skulls belong to and why they were treated this way.

 

이번 연구에 참여하지 않은 코넬 대학의 생물고고학자인 매튜 벨라스코 (Matthew Velasco)는 “이것은 세계의 이 부분이나 이 시기에 기록되지 않은 흥미로운 두개골 변형이다." 라고 말했습니다. 그러나 이 발견은 두개골이 누구이며 왜 이런 식으로 취급되었는지에 대한 추가 질문을 제기합니다.

 

“There is a range of skull modification behaviors, [from] veneration of ancestors to violation of enemies,” Velasco explains, and this distinction can only be investigated at Göbekli Tepe if additional discoveries are made.

 

Velasco는 다음과 같이 설명합니다.“조상의 숭배에서 적의 침범에 이르기까지 다양한 두개골 변형 행동이 있습니다." 그리고 이 차이는 괴베클리테페에서만 발견할 수 있습니다.

This skull fragment shows a deep incision made with a flint tool some 10,000 years ago. PHOTOGRAPH BY GERMAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

 

Besides the cut-mark and drill-hole evidence, Gresky says other clues at the site show this culture placed a special significance on skulls. “We find depictions like a headless person on a pillar, or human heads made of stone. The site iconography fits with special emphasis on the skull.”

 

그레스키는 컷 마크와 드릴 홀 증거 외에도 이 사이트의 다른 단서가 이 문화가 두개골에 특별한 의미를 가졌다고 밝혔다. “우리는 기둥에 머리가 없는 사람이나 돌로 만든 사람의 머리처럼 묘사되어 있습니다. 사이트 아이콘은 두개골에 특히 중점을 둡니다.”

 

 

At Göbekli Tepe, there are no burial sites but rather just pits of human bones mixed in with animal bones and flint tools, meaning additional context is needed to better understand the site. “We are still in the beginning of working to understand the anthropology of the site," says Gresky. "[H]opefully we will find some more bones and skull fragments. Then we can get a clearer picture of how these people lived.”

 

괴베클리테페 (Göbekli Tepe)에는 매장지가 없지만 동물 뼈와 부싯돌 도구가 혼합된 인간 뼈의 구덩이가 있기 때문에 사이트를 더 잘 이해하기 위해서는 추가적인 맥락이 필요합니다. Gresky는“우리는 여전히 이 사이트의 인류학을 이해하기 위해 노력하고있다”면서 “우리는 뼈와 두개골 조각을 더 많이 발견하게 될 것이다. 그런 다음이 사람들이 어떻게 살았는지 더 명확하게 파악할 수 있습니다.”라고 말했습니다.

출처;https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/06/skulls-cult-turkey-archaeology-neolithic-gobekli/

 

 

Göbekli Tepe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Göbekli Tepe (pronounced [ɟøbekˈli teˈpe][1]), Turkish for "Potbelly Hill",[2] is an archaeological site in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey, approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa. The tellhas a height of 15 m (49 ft) and is about 300 m (980 ft) in diameter.[3] It is approximately 760 m (2,490 ft) above sea level.

The tell includes two phases of use believed to be of a social or ritual nature dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE. During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[4] More than 200 pillars in about 20 circles are currently known through geophysical surveys. Each pillar has a height of up to 6 m (20 ft) and weighs up to 10 tons. They are fitted into sockets that were hewn out of the bedrock.[5] In the second phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), the erected pillars are smaller and stood in rectangular rooms with floors of polished lime. The site was abandoned after the PPNB. Younger structures date to classical times.

The details of the structure's function remain a mystery. It was excavated by a German archaeological team under the direction of Klaus Schmidt from 1996 until his death in 2014. Schmidt believed that the site was a sanctuary where people from a wide region periodically congregated, not a settlement.

 

Contents

   [hide

 

Discovery[edit]

 

Göbekli Tepe site (1)

The site was first noted in a survey conducted by Istanbul University and the University of Chicago in 1963.[6] American archaeologist Peter Benedict identified lithics collected from the surface of the site as belonging to the Aceramic Neolithic,[7] but mistook the stone slabs (the upper parts of the T-shaped pillars) for grave markers, postulating that the prehistoric phase was overlain by a Byzantine cemetery.[8][9] The hill had long been under agricultural cultivation, and generations of local inhabitants had frequently moved rocks and placed them in clearance piles, which may have disturbed the upper layers of the site. At some point attempts had been made to break up some of the pillars, presumably by farmers who mistook them for ordinary large rocks.[10]

In 1994, Klaus Schmidt of the German Archaeological Institute, who had previously been working at Nevalı Çori, was looking for another site to excavate. He reviewed the archaeological literature on the surrounding area, found the 1963 Chicago researchers’ brief description of Göbekli Tepe, and decided to reexamine the site. Having found similar structures at Nevalı Çori, he recognized the possibility that the rocks and slabs were prehistoric. The following year, he began excavating there in collaboration with the Şanlıurfa Museum, and soon unearthed the first of the huge T-shaped pillars.[10]

 

Dating[edit]

 

View of site and excavation

The imposing stratigraphy of Göbekli Tepe attests to many centuries of activity, beginning at least as early as the Epipaleolithic period. Structures identified with the succeeding period, Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), have been dated to the 10th millennium BCE. Remains of smaller buildings identified as Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) and dating from the 9th millennium BCE have also been unearthed.

A number of radiocarbon dates have been published:

Lab-NumberContextcal BCE

Ua-19561 enclosure C 7560–7370
Ua-19562 enclosure B 8280–7970
Hd-20025 Layer III 9110–8620
Hd-20036 Layer III 9130–8800

The Hd samples are from charcoal in the fill of the lowest levels of the site and would date the end of the active phase of occupation of Level III - the actual structures will be older. The Ua samples come from pedogenic carbonate coatings on pillars and only indicate the time after the site was abandoned—the terminus ante quem.[11]

 

Complex[edit]

Göbekli Tepe is on a flat and barren plateau, with buildings fanning in all directions. In the north, the plateau is connected to a neighbouring mountain range by a narrow promontory. In all other directions, the ridge descends steeply into slopes and steep cliffs.[12] On top of the ridge there is considerable evidence of human impact, in addition to the actual tell. Excavations have taken place at the southern slope of the tell, south and west of a mulberry that marks an Islamic pilgrimage,[13] but archaeological finds come from the entire plateau. The team has also found many remains of tools.

 

Plateau[edit]

 

Göbekli Tepe surrounding area

 

Complex E

The plateau has been transformed by erosion and by quarrying, which took place not only in the Neolithic, but also in classical times. There are four 10-metre-long (33 ft) and 20-centimetre-wide (7.9 in) channels on the southern part of the plateau, interpreted as the remains of an ancient quarry from which rectangular blocks were taken. These are possibly related to a square building in the neighbourhood, of which only the foundation is preserved. Presumably, this is the remains of a Roman watchtower which belonged to the Limes Arabicus. However, this is not known with certainty.[14]

Most structures on the plateau seem to be the result of Neolithic quarrying, with the quarries being used as sources for the huge, monolithic architectural elements. Their profiles were pecked into the rock, with the detached blocks then levered out of the rock bank.[14] Several quarries where round workpieces had been produced were identified. Their status as quarries was confirmed by the find of a 3-by-3-metre piece at the southeastern slope of the plateau. Unequivocally Neolithic are three T-shaped pillars that have not been levered out of the bedrock. The biggest of them lies on the northern plateau. It has a length of 7 m (23 ft) and its head has a width of 3 m (10 ft). Its weight may be around 50 tons. The two other unfinished pillars lie on the southern Plateau.

At the western edge of the hill, a lion-like figure was found. In this area, flint and limestone fragments occur more frequently. It was therefore suggested that this could have been some kind of sculpture workshop.[15] It is unclear, on the other hand, how to classify three phallic depictions from the surface of the southern plateau. They are near the quarries from classical times, making their dating difficult.[16]

Apart from the tell, there is an incised platform with two sockets that could have held pillars, and a surrounding flat bench. This platform corresponds to the complexes from Layer III at the actual tell. Continuing the naming pattern, it is called "complex E." Owing to its similarity to the cult-buildings at Nevalı Çori it has also been called "Temple of the Rock." Its floor has been carefully hewn out of the bedrock and smoothed, reminiscent of the terrazzo floors of the younger complexes at Göbekli Tepe. Immediately northwest of this area are two cistern-like pits, believed to be part of complex E. one of these pits has a table-high pin as well as a staircase with five steps.[17]

At the western escarpment, a small cave has been discovered in which a small relief depicting a bovine was found. It is the only relief found in this cave.[16]

Layer III[edit]

 

Pillar 2 from Enclosure A (Layer III) with low reliefs of what are believed to be a bullfox, and crane.

At this early stage of the site's history, circular compounds or temene first appear. They range from 10 to 30 metres in diameter. Their most notable feature is the presence of T-shaped limestone pillars evenly set within thick interior walls composed of unworked stone. Four such circular structures have been unearthed so far. Geophysical surveys indicate that there are 16 more, enclosing up to eight pillars each, amounting to nearly 200 pillars in all. The slabs were transported from bedrock pits located approximately 100 metres (330 ft) from the hilltop, with workers using flint points to cut through the limestone bedrock.[18]

 

Pillar 27 from Enclosure C (Layer III) with the sculpture of a predatory animal

 

Pillar with the sculpture of a fox

Two taller pillars stand facing one another at the centre of each circle. Whether the circles were provided with a roof is uncertain. Stone benches designed for sitting are found in the interior.[19] Many of the pillars are decorated with abstract, enigmatic pictograms and carved animal reliefs. The pictograms may represent commonly understood sacred symbols, as known from Neolithic cave paintings elsewhere. The reliefs depict mammals such as lions, bulls, boars, foxes, gazelles and donkeys; snakes and other reptiles, arthropods such as insects and arachnids; and birds, particularly vultures. At the time the edifice was constructed, the surrounding country was likely to have been forested and capable of sustaining this variety of wildlife, before millennia of settlement and cultivation led to the near–Dust Bowl conditions prevalent today.[10] Vultures also feature prominently in the iconography of Çatalhöyükand Jericho.

Few humanoid figures have appeared in the art at Göbekli Tepe. However, some of the T-shaped pillars have human arms carved on their lower half, suggesting that they are intended to represent the bodies of stylized humans (or perhaps gods). Loincloths also appear on the lower half of a few pillars. The horizontal stone member on top is thought to symbolize a human head. The pillars as a whole therefore have an anthropomorphic identity.[20]Whether they were intended to serve as surrogate worshippers, symbolize venerated ancestors, or represent supernatural, anthropomorphic beings is not known.

Some of the floors in this, the oldest, layer are made of terrazzo (burnt lime), others are bedrock from which pedestals to hold the large pair of central pillars were carved in high relief.[21] Radiocarbon dating places the construction of these early circles in the range of 9600 to 8800 BCE. Carbon dating suggests that (for reasons unknown) the enclosures were backfilled during the Stone Age.

 

Layer II[edit]

 

A sort of a totem pole from Göbekli Tepe, Layer II, 8800-8000 BC - Şanlıurfa (Urfa) Museum

Creation of the circular enclosures in layer III later gave way to the construction of small rectangular rooms in layer II. Rectangular buildings make a more efficient use of space compared with circular structures. They are often associated with the emergence of the Neolithic.[22] But the T-shaped pillars, the main feature of the older enclosures, are also present here, indicating that the buildings of Layer II continued to serve as sanctuaries.[23] Layer II is assigned to Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). The several adjoining rectangular, doorless and windowless rooms have floors of polished lime reminiscent of Roman terrazzo floors. Carbon dating has yielded dates between 8800 and 8000 BCE.[24] Several T-pillars up to 1.5 meters tall occupy the center of the rooms. A pair decorated with fierce-looking lions is responsible for the name "lion pillar building" by which their enclosure is known.[25]

A sort of a stone totem pole was discovered at Göbekli Tepe, Layer II in 2010. It is 1.92 metres high, and is superficially reminiscent of those in North America. The pole features three figures, the uppermost depicting a predator, probably a bear, and below it a human-like shape. Because the statue is damaged, the interpretation is not entirely clear. Fragments of a similar pole were discovered about 20 years ago in Nevalı Çori, also in Turkey. Also, an older layer at Gobekli does feature some related sculptures portraying animals on human heads.[26]

 

Layer I[edit]

Layer I is the uppermost part of the hill. It is the shallowest, but accounts for the longest stretch of time. It consists of loose sediments caused by erosion and the virtually uninterrupted use of the hill for agricultural purposes since it ceased to operate as a cult center.

The site was deliberately backfilled sometime after 8000 BCE: the buildings were buried under debris, mostly flint gravel, stone tools, and animal bones.[27] In addition to Byblos points (weapon heads, i.e. arrowheads etc.) and numerous Nemrik points, Helwan-points and Aswad-points dominate the backfill's lithic inventory.

 

Chronological context[edit]

All statements about the site must be considered preliminary, as less than 5% of the site has been excavated, and Schmidt planned to leave much of it untouched to be explored by future generations when archaeological techniques will presumably have improved.[10] While the site formally belongs to the earliest Neolithic (PPNA), up to now no traces of domesticated plants or animals have been found. The inhabitants are assumed to have been hunters and gatherers who nevertheless lived in villages for at least part of the year.[28] So far, very little evidence for residential use has been found. Through the radiocarbon method, the end of Layer III can be fixed at about 9000 BCE (see above) but it is believed that the elevated location may have functioned as a spiritual center by 11,000 BCE or even earlier, essentially at the very end of the Pleistocene.

The surviving structures, then, not only predate potterymetallurgy, and the invention of writing or the wheel, but were built before the so-called Neolithic Revolution, i.e., the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry around 9000 BCE. But the construction of Göbekli Tepe implies organization of an advanced order not hitherto associated with PaleolithicPPNA, or PPNB societies. Archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the heavy pillars from local quarries and move them 100–500 meters (330–1,640 ft) to the site.[29] The pillars weigh 10–20 metric tons (10–20 long tons; 11–22 short tons), with one still in the quarry weighing 50 tons.[30]

Around the beginning of the 8th millennium BCE Göbekli Tepe lost its importance. The advent of agriculture and animal husbandry brought new realities to human life in the area, and the "Stone-age zoo" (Schmidt's phrase applied particularly to Layer III, Enclosure D) apparently lost whatever significance it had had for the region's older, foraging communities. But the complex was not simply abandoned and forgotten to be gradually destroyed by the elements. Instead, each enclosure was deliberately buried under as much as 300 to 500 cubic meters (390 to 650 cu yd) of refuse consisting mainly of small limestone fragments, stone vessels, and stone tools. Many animal, even human, bones have also been identified in the fill.[31] Why the enclosures were buried is unknown, but it preserved them for posterity.

Interpretation[edit]

 

Klaus Schmidt, 2014 in Salzburg

Schmidt's view was that Göbekli Tepe is a stone-age mountain sanctuary. Radiocarbon dating as well as comparative, stylistical analysis indicate that it is the oldest religious site yet discovered anywhere.[10][32] Schmidt believed that what he called this "cathedral on a hill" was a pilgrimage destination attracting worshippers up to 150 km (90 mi) distant. Butchered bones found in large numbers from local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese have been identified as refuse from food hunted and cooked or otherwise prepared for the congregants.[33]

Schmidt considered Göbekli Tepe a central location for a cult of the dead and that the carved animals are there to protect the dead. Though no tombs or graves have been found so far, Schmidt believed that they remain to be discovered in niches located behind the sacred circles' walls.[10]

In 2017, discovery of human crania with incisions were reported, interpreted as providing evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult.[34]

Schmidt also interpreted it in connection with the initial stages of the Neolithic.[10] It is one of several sites in the vicinity of Karaca Dağ, an area which geneticists suspect may have been the original source of at least some of our cultivated grains (see Einkorn). Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Karaca Dağ 30 km (20 mi) away from the site, suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[35] Such scholars suggest that the Neolithic revolution, in particular the beginnings of grain cultivation (i.e. not animal husbandry) took place here. Schmidt believed, as others do, that mobile groups in the area were compelled to cooperate with each other to protect early concentrations of wild cereals from wild animals (herds of gazelles and wild donkeys). Wild cereals may have been used for sustenance more intensively than before and were perhaps deliberately cultivated. This would have led to early social organization of various groups in the area of Göbekli Tepe. Thus, according to Schmidt, the Neolithic did not begin on a small scale in the form of individual instances of garden cultivation, but developed rapidly in the form of "a large-scale social organization".[36]

 

With its mountains catching the rain and a calcareous, porous bedrock creating lots of springs, creeks and rivers[37] the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris was a refuge during the dry and cold Younger Dryasclimatic event (10,800 – 9,500 BCE). Crowded conditions could have led these people to develop common rituals strengthened by monumental gathering places to reduce tensions and conflicts over resources[38], and probably to mark territorial claims.

Schmidt engaged in some speculation regarding the belief systems of the groups that created Göbekli Tepe, based on comparisons with other shrines and settlements. He assumed shamanic practices and suggested that the T-shaped pillars represent human forms, perhaps ancestors, whereas he saw a fully articulated belief in gods only developing later in Mesopotamia, associated with extensive temples and palaces. This corresponds well with an ancient Sumerian belief that agriculture, animal husbandry, and weaving were brought to mankind from the sacred mountain Ekur, which was inhabited by Annuna deities, very ancient gods without individual names. Schmidt identified this story as a primeval oriental myth that preserves a partial memory of the emerging Neolithic.[39] It is also apparent that the animal and other images give no indication of organized violence, i.e. there are no depictions of hunting raids or wounded animals, and the pillar carvings generally ignore game on which the society depended, such as deer, in favor of formidable creatures such as lions, snakes, spiders, and scorpions.[10][40][41] Expanding on Schmidt's interpretation that round enclosures could represent sanctuaries, Gheorghiu's semiotic interpretation reads Göbekli Tepe's iconography as a cosmogonic map which would have related the local community to the surrounding landscape and the cosmos.[42]

 

Importance[edit]

Göbekli Tepe is regarded by some as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change the understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything".[2][43] If indeed the site was built by hunter-gatherers as some researchers believe then it would mean that the ability to erect monumental complexes was within the capacities of these sorts of groups which would overturn previous assumptions. Some researchers believe that the construction of Göbekli Tepe may have contributed to the later development of urban civilization. As excavator Klaus Schmidt put it: "First came the temple, then the city."[44]

 

Sites with T-shaped pillars from the PPN

 

Not only its large dimensions, but the side-by-side existence of multiple pillar shrines makes the location unique. There are no comparable monumental complexes from its time. However, since its discovery surface surveys have shown that several hills in the greater area also have T-shaped stone pillars (e.g. Hamzan Tepe[45], Karahan Tepe[46], Harbetsuvan Tepesi[47], Sefer Tepe[48], Taslı Tepe[37]), but there has so far not been much excavation done. Most of these constructions seem to be smaller than Göbekli Tepe, and their placement evenly between contemporary settlements[48][37] indicate that they were local social/ritual gathering places, with Göbekli Tepe maybe as a regional centre[49]. So far none of the smaller sites are as old as the lowest Level III of Göbekli Tepe[37], but contemporary with its younger Level II (mostly rectangular buildings, though Harbetsuvan is circular). This could indicate that this type of architecture and associated activities originated at Göbekli Tepe and then spread to other sites.[citation needed]

 

A 500 years younger site is Nevalı Çori, a Neolithic settlement also excavated by the German Archaeological Institute and submerged by the Atatürk Dam since 1992. Its T-shaped pillars are considerably smaller, and its rectangular shrine was located inside a village. The roughly contemporary architecture at Jericho is devoid of artistic merit or large-scale sculpture, and Çatalhöyük, perhaps the most famous Anatolian Neolithic village, is 2,000 years later.

At present Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers. It remains unknown how a force large enough to construct, augment, and maintain such a substantial complex was mobilized and compensated or fed in the conditions of pre-sedentary society. Scholars cannot interpret the pictograms, and do not know for certain what meaning the animal reliefs had for visitors to the site; the variety of fauna depicted, from lions and boars to birds and insects, makes any single explanation problematic. As there is little or no evidence of habitation, and the animals pictured are mainly predators, the stones may have been intended to stave off evils through some form of magic representation. Alternatively, they could have served as totems.[50] The assumption that the site was strictly cultic in purpose and not inhabited has also been challenged by the suggestion that the structures served as large communal houses, "similar in some ways to the large plank houses of the Northwest Coast of North America with their impressive house posts and totem poles."[51] It is not known why every few decades the existing pillars were buried to be replaced by new stones as part of a smaller, concentric ring inside the older one.[52] Human burial may have occurred at the site. The reason the complex was carefully backfilled remains unexplained. Until more evidence is gathered, it is difficult to deduce anything certain about the originating culture or the site's significance.

Conservation[edit]

 

Göbekli Tepe

Future plans include construction of a museum and converting the environs into an archaeological park in the hope that this will help preserve the site in the state in which it was discovered.[53]

In 2010, Global Heritage Fund (GHF) announced it will undertake a multi-year conservation program to preserve Göbekli Tepe. Partners include the German Archaeological InstituteGerman Research FoundationŞanlıurfaMunicipal Government, the Turkish Ministry of Tourism and Culture and, formerly, Klaus Schmidt.[54]

The stated goals of the GHF Göbekli Tepe project are to support the preparation of a site management and conservation plan, construction of a shelter over the exposed archaeological features, training community members in guiding and conservation, and helping Turkish authorities secure UNESCO World Heritage Site designation for GT.[55]

The conservation work caused controversy in 2018, when Çiğdem Köksal Schmidt, an archaeologist and widow of Klaus Schmidt, said the site was being damaged by the use of concrete and "heavy equipment" during the construction of a new walkway. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism responded that no concrete was used and that no damage had occurred.[56][57]

 

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up^ "Göbekli Tepe". Forvo Pronunciation Dictionary.
  2. Jump up to:a b "History in the Remaking". Newsweek. 18 Feb 2010.
  3. Jump up^ Klaus Schmidt (2009): Göbekli Tepe - Eine Beschreibung der wichtigsten Befunde erstellt nach den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995-2007. In: Erste Tempel - Frühe Siedlungen. 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur. Oldenburg, p. 188.
  4. Jump up^ Sagona, Claudia. The Archaeology of Malta. Cambridge University Press. p. 47. ISBN 9781107006690. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  5. Jump up^ Curry, Andrew (November 2008). "Gobekli Tepe: The World's First Temple?". Smithsonian.com. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
  6. Jump up^ Peter Benedict (1980): Survey Work in Southeastern Anatolia. In: Halet Çambel; Robert J. Braidwood (ed.): Prehistoric Research in Southeastern Anatolia I. Edebiyat Fakültesi Basimevi, Istanbul, pp. 151–191.
  7. Jump up^ Schmidt, Klaus (2011). "Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic Site in Southwestern Anatolia". In Steadman, Sharon R.; McMahon, Gregory. The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 917. ISBN 9780195376142.
  8. Jump up^ "Turkey's Ancient Sanctuary"The New Yorker. Retrieved 2017-08-26.
  9. Jump up^ "World's Oldest Monument to Receive a Multi-Million Dollar Investment"HISTORY.com. Retrieved 2017-08-26.
  10. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Curry, Andrew (November 2008). "Göbekli Tepe: The World's First Temple?". Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
  11. Jump up^ Upper Mesopotamia (SE Turkey, N Syria and N Iraq) 14C databases: 11th–6th millennia cal BCE
  12. Jump up^ Klaus Schmidt: Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Die archäologische Entdeckung am Göbekli Tepe. Munich 2006, p. 102.
  13. Jump up^ Klaus Schmidt: Göbekli Tepe. Eine Beschreibung der wichtigsten Befunde erstellt nach den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995-2007. In: Erste Tempel - Frühe Siedlungen. 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen zwischen Donau und Euphrat. Oldenburg 2009, p. 188.
  14. Jump up to:a b Schmidt 2006, p. 105
  15. Jump up^ Schmidt 2006, pp. 109-111
  16. Jump up to:a b Schmidt 2006, p. 111
  17. Jump up^ Schmidt 2006, p. 109
  18. Jump up^ Schmidt 2000b, pp. 52–53
  19. Jump up^ Mithen 2004, p. 65
  20. Jump up^ Schmidt 2010, pp. 244, 246
  21. Jump up^ Schmidt, 2010, p. 251.
  22. Jump up^ Flannery and Marcus, The Creation of Inequality, p. 128
  23. Jump up^ Schmidt 2010, pp. 239, 241.
  24. Jump up^ Schmidt 2009, p. 291
  25. Jump up^ Schmidt 1990, p. 198
  26. Jump up^ The Göbekli Tepe ‘Totem Pole’. News & Notes from the Göbekli Tepe Research Staff - 03/01/2017
  27. Jump up^ Schmidt 2010, p. 242
  28. Jump up^ The Guardian report 23 April 2008
  29. Jump up^ "Which came first, monumental building projects or farming?"Archaeo News. 14 December 2008.
  30. Jump up^ Taracha, Piotr (2009). Religions of second millennium Anatolia. Eisenbrauns. p. 12. ISBN 978-3-447-05885-8.
  31. Jump up^ Schmidt 2010, pp. 242—243, 249.
  32. Jump up^ "The World's First Temple"Archaeology magazine. Nov–Dec 2008. p. 23.
  33. Jump up^ Peters & Schmidt 2004, 207
  34. Jump up^ Julia Gresky, Juliane Haelm and Lee Clare, "Modified human crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 6, 28 Jun 2017. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1700564 (full text).
  35. Jump up^ Heun et al., Site of Einkorn Wheat Domestication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting, Science, 278 (1997) 1312–14.
  36. Jump up^ Klaus-Dieter Linsmeier: Eine Revolution im großen Stil.Interview mit Klaus Schmidt. In: Abenteuer Archäologie. Kulturen, Menschen, Monumente. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, Heidelberg 2006, 2, ISSN 1612-9954
  37. Jump up to:a b c d Güler, Çelik, Güler (2013). "New Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites and cult centres in the Urfa Region".
  38. Jump up^ Oliver, Dietrich (June 1, 2017). "Cooperative Action of Hunter-Gatherers in the Early Neolithic Near East. A View from Göbekli Tepe".
  39. Jump up^ Schmidt 2006, pp. 216–221
  40. Jump up^ Schmidt 2006, pp. 193–4; 218.
  41. Jump up^ Peters & Schmidt 2004, p. 209
  42. Jump up^ Dragos Gheorghiu (2015); A river runs through it. The semiotics of Gobekli Tepe's map (an exercise of archaeological imagination); in Andrea Vianello (ed.), Rivers in Prehistory, Oxford, Archaeopress
  43. Jump up^ http://www.newsweek.com/turkey-archeological-dig-reshaping-human-history-75101
  44. Jump up^ K. Schmidt 2000: "Zuerst kam der Tempel, dann die Stadt."
  45. Jump up^ Çelik, Bahattin (2010). "Hamzan Tepe in the light of new finds".
  46. Jump up^ Çelik, Bahattin (2011). "Karahan Tepe: a new cultural centre in the Urfa Area in Turkey".
  47. Jump up^ Çelik, Bahattin. "A small-scale cult centre in Southeast Turkey: Harbetsuvan Tepesi".
  48. Jump up to:a b Güler, Çelik, Güler. "New pre-pottery neolithic settlements from Viranşehir District" (PDF).
  49. Jump up^ Simmons, Alan H. "The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape"University of Arizona Press via Google Books.
  50. Jump up^ Peters & Schmidt 2004: pp. 209–212
  51. Jump up^ Banning 2011
  52. Jump up^ Mann, June 2011, p. 48
  53. Jump up^ K. Schmidt in Schmidt (ed.) 2009, p. 188.
  54. Jump up^ "GHF - Göbekli Tepe - Turkey", globalheritagefund.org, web: GHF2 Archived 5 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine..
  55. Jump up^ "GHF - Gobekli Tepe, Turkey - Overview", globalheritagefund.org: GHF3.
  56. Jump up^ "Concrete poured on Turkish World Heritage site"Ahval. 21 March 2018. Retrieved 2018-03-26.
  57. Jump up^ "Construction around site of Göbeklitepe stirs debate"Hürriyet Daily News. 21 March 2018. Retrieved 2018-03-26.

References[edit]

  • Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.): Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung im Badischen Landesmuseum vom 20. Januar bis zum 17. Juni 2007. Theiss, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-8062-2072-8
  • E.B. Banning, "So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East", Current Anthropology, 52.5 (October 2011), 619 ff.: https://www.scribd.com/doc/67961270/Gobekli-Tepe-temples-Ted-Banning-2011
  • Andrew Curry, "Seeking the Roots of Ritual," Science 319 (18 January 2008), pp. 278–80: https://web.archive.org/web/20120415112503/http://80.251.40.59/veterinary.ankara.edu.tr/fidanci/Yasam/Gelecege_Miras/Gobekli-Tepe.pdf
  • Andrew Curry, "Göbekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?". Smithsonian Magazine (November 2008): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html
  • DVD-ROM: MediaCultura (Hrsg.): Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Theiss, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-8062-2090-2
  • Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus, The Creation of Inequality(Cambridge and London, 2012), pp. 128–131.
  • David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce, "An Accidental revolution? Early Neolithic religion and economic change", Minerva, 17 #4 (July/August, 2006), 29–31.
  • Klaus-Dieter Linsmeier and Klaus Schmidt: Ein anatolisches Stonehenge. In: Moderne Archäologie. Spektrum-der-Wissenschaft-Verlag, Heidelberg 2003, 10–15, ISBN 3-936278-35-0.
  • Charles C. Mann, "The Birth of Religion: The World's First Temple" National Geographic Vol. 219 No. 6 (June 2011), pp. 34–59: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text
  • Steven Mithen, After the Ice:A global human history, 20,000-5000 BC. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2004, ISBN 0-674-01570-3. Pp. 65–69, 89–90.
  • J. Peters & K. Schmidt: "Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment." Anthropozoologica 39.1 (2004), 179–218: https://web.archive.org/web/20110612061638/http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/10613_Peters.pdf.
  • K. Pustovoytov: Weathering rinds at exposed surfaces of limestone at Göbekli Tepe. In: Neo-lithics. Ex Oriente, Berlin 2000, 24–26 (14C-Dates)
  • Erika Qasim: "The T-shaped monuments of Gobekli Tepe: Posture of the Arms. In: Chr. Sütterlin et al. (ed.): Art as Behaviour. An Ethological Appraoch to Visual and Verbal Art, Music and Architecture. Oldenburg 2014, 252-272
  • Sandra Scham, "The World's First Temple," Archaeology 61.6 (November/December 2008): http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html
  • K. Schmidt: Frühneolithische Tempel. Ein Forschungsbericht zum präkeramischen Neolithikum Obermesopotamiens. In: Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 130, Berlin 1998, 17–49, ISSN 0342-118X
  • K. Schmidt: "Zuerst kam der Tempel, dann die Stadt." Vorläufiger Bericht zu den Grabungen am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe 1995–1999. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50 (2000): 5–41.
  • K. Schmidt, 2000a = Göbekli Tepe and the rock art of the Near East, TÜBA-AR 3 (2000): 1–14.
  • K. Schmidt, 2000b = Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A preliminary Report on the 1995–1999 Excavations. In: PalèorientCNRS Ed., Paris 2000: 26.1, 45–54, ISSN 0153-9345http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_2000_num_26_1_4697
  • K. Schmidt: Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Verlag C.H. Beck, München 2006, ISBN 3-406-53500-3.
  • K. Schmidt, "Göbekli Tepe. Eine Beschreibung der wichtigsten Befunde erstellt nach den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995–2007", in K. Schmidt (ed.), Erste Tempel—Frühe Siedlungen. 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur, Ausgrabungen und Forschungen zwischen Donau und Euphrat, (Oldenburg 2009): 187–233.
  • K. Schmidt, "Göbekli Tepe—the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs," Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII (2010), 239–256: https://web.archive.org/web/20120131114925/http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_21.pdf
  • Metin Yeşilyurt, Die wissenschaftliche Interpretation von Göbeklitepe: Die Theorie und das Forschungsprogramm. (Neolithikum und ältere Metallzeiten. Studien und Materialien, Band 2.) Lit Verlag, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-643-12528-6.
  • "Göbekli Tepe"Megalithic Portal.

External links[edit]

  Wikimedia Commons has media related to Göbekli Tepe.

Articles[edit]

Photographs[edit]

Videos[edit]

RIR-Klaus Schmidt-Göbekli Tepe-The Worlds Oldest Temple? on YouTube Jan 8, 2011. Interview with principal excavator

 

출처;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe