The Oldest Religious Structures & Ancient Aliens?

Vortigern99 said:
!Kaggen has an interesting point, that's at least worth considering. Religious historian Karen Armstrong, in her excellent book A History of God, asserts that early temples and cities were claimed (in what documents I'm uncertain) by their builders to be earthly representations of celestial structures and palaces.

The idea that early architects got their plans from hallucinogenic drugs presents an intriguing possibility.

Meanwhile, not to (intentionally) muddy the waters, but I want to point out that the hypothesis that the people who built Gobekli-Tepe were early farmers, and not settled hunter-gatherers, has not been conclusively shown. That is merely one possibility, supported by evidence for agriculture found on a nearby mountain-top, believed to belong to the same period. There is as yet no conclusive evidence that either one came before the other.

In short, the builders of Gobekli-Tepe may have been permanently-settled hunter-gatherers, or they may have been early agriculturalists. It is unknown which.
Click to expand...

Correct about the early farmers/ hunter gatherers question. The best evidence so far of the hunter- gatherers origin is that domestic grains are only found higher up in the geological strata compared to the structures. On the other hand their is oddly enough depictions of agriculture production of grains on the structures. Perhaps hallucinogenic visions inspired the domestication of wild plants. It explains the rapid success that humans had in the domestication process rather than the usual idea of trial and error.
 
!Kaggen said:
Edge brings up interesting artifacts and then ignores them.

Others explain them whilst ignoring the interesting artifacts.

Interesting that.....
Click to expand...

How does one explain the interesting artifacts while simultaneously ignoring them?

Interesting that....
 
Last edited:
!Kaggen said:
Edge brings up interesting artifacts and then ignores them.

Others explain them whilst ignoring the interesting artifacts.

Interesting that.....
Click to expand...


I do not understand your post. Would you elaborate?

_______________________

edge said:
I have a left hand injury and am going to be out for awhile.
Click to expand...


I do hope you are able to find treatment or relief.
 
Last edited:
!Kaggen said:
Correct about the early farmers/ hunter gatherers question. The best evidence so far of the hunter- gatherers origin is that domestic grains are only found higher up in the geological strata compared to the structures. On the other hand their is oddly enough depictions of agriculture production of grains on the structures. Perhaps hallucinogenic visions inspired the domestication of wild plants. It explains the rapid success that humans had in the domestication process rather than the usual idea of trial and error.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a source for "domestic grains [being] found higher up in the geological strata compared to the structures"? Wiki is saying "no traces of domesticated plants or animals have been found". Lots of animal bones -- "Butchered bones ... from local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese ... derived from hunting and food prepared for the congregants" -- but no domesticated beasties, and no domestic grains. The sources cited for these assertions are Peters & Schmidt 2004, 207 and The Guardian report 23 April 2008.

I'd also like a source for the "depictions of agriculture production of grains on the structures". This information, if legitimate, certainly bears further investigation!
 
Can you provide a source for "domestic grains [being] found higher up in the geological strata compared to the structures"?
Click to expand...
I'd love to see this as well. My current understanding is that agriculture, and planting in particular, re-works the soil, making such distinctions impossible to identify anywhere other than regions with extreme sedimentation rates. If I'm wrong I'd love to know it, and have the evidence to back it up. For me this is not a trivial concern; this is part of what I do for a living. (I'm not trying to say "I do this for a living, so you're wrong"--rather, I'm saying "I do this for a living and if I'm wrong I'd love to know, so I can do it better". :) )
 
!Kaggen said:
Perhaps hallucinogenic visions inspired the domestication of wild plants. It explains the rapid success that humans had in the domestication process rather than the usual idea of trial and error.
Click to expand...

Based on my admittedly limited experience, I am skeptical that following directions coming from hallucinogenic visions would be more successful than trial and error.
 
This interactive painting at Nat Geo depicts and describes, in fairly close detail, the most likely ways in which human beings would have quarried, worked and transported the stone, carried water to the workers from rainwater cisterns, etc. etc. It's cantankerously fascinating!

The linked page opens to a "Full View of a Gobeli Tepe Temple". Just click on the painting to view it more closely; each close-up will be accompanied by text explaining the current theories on the engineering, architecture and purposes of the site.

Note that there are relatively few creatures of extraterrestrial origin included in the painting, and no gods visible to the naked eye. ;)
 
Last edited:
Regarding grains, the above-linked Nat Geo June 2011 publication has this to say: "Evidence of plant domestication [at Gobekli Tepe] is debated, but wild grains were cultivated."

Currently looking for more substantial, er, substantiation of this claim.
 
Okay just throwing this out there - all the carvings seem to be prey animals, stuff we eat. We are not looking at the worlds first temple - Its the world first drive through eatery

How cool, aliens come thousands of light years, and their gift. Fast food joints :(
 
MG1962 said:
Okay just throwing this out there - all the carvings seem to be prey animals, stuff we eat. We are not looking at the worlds first temple - Its the world first drive through eatery

How cool, aliens come thousands of light years, and their gift. Fast food joints :(
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, in fact exactly the opposite. Scorpions, snakes, foxes, vultures, and lions are not prey animals! Boars arguably are, but they are also deadly to humans -- just like scorpions, snakes and lions.

Which "prey animals, stuff we eat" are you imagining you're seeing? And you are talking about Gobekli-Tepe, correct?
 
MG1962 said:
Okay just throwing this out there - all the carvings seem to be prey animals, stuff we eat. We are not looking at the worlds first temple - Its the world first drive through eatery

How cool, aliens come thousands of light years, and their gift. Fast food joints :(
Click to expand...



MaccasGlyph3.jpg


You want fries with that?​
 
"... the pillar carvings ignore game on which the society mainly subsisted, like deer, in favor of formidable creatures such as lions, snakes, spiders and scorpions." -- Klaus Schmidt, directing archeologist at Gobekli-Tepe.

There are cattle and ducks depicted, but these are by far in the minority compared to the number of predatory animal carvings. Indeed, the animal bones found at the site -- "Butchered bones ... from local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese ..." -- evidently do not include either cattle or ducks.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Which "prey animals, stuff we eat" are you imagining you're seeing? And you are talking about Gobekli-Tepe, correct?
Click to expand...

Wow do I have to spell it out - it is the remains of the breakfast menu beside the main pillar on the right. Just across from the half buried UFO who's bumper sticker says "In God we trust"
 
Vortigern99 said:
Allow me, if I may, to answer your question with a question, or rather a series of them.

Which, in your estimation, requires greater skill: To draw a single ovoid shape to represent the frontal view of the human face, and fill it with symbolic pictures of facial features which were developed by another artist prior to your time, and which you have been trained to emulate, regardless of the rules of perspective or the basic facts of human individuality...

... or to draw an accurate portrait of a real human face, with all its unique features and proportions, each with millimetric distinctions in their shape and position compared to other faces, in correct perspective with the background, and utilizing the technique of chiaroscuro to render light and shadow according to the reality before your eyes?

Please answer, and I'll respond in full, though surely you can see where this is headed.
Click to expand...

Vortigern99 said:
...they were different, they had different intentions and aims. like all aspects of any society and civilisation.

I see that, and in addition to that statement, their technical skill was less proficient too.

I am an artist, an illustrator and an art teacher. In my education in art history I was taught this, but I can also see see it with my own eyes and sense of artistic judgment. Most importantly, I personally find it easier -- ie it takes less manual skill and hand-eye coordination-- to draw flat, symbolic forms than it does to correctly and accurately record what I see before my eyes in three-dimensional space.

Your mileage may, and evidently does, vary.
Click to expand...
In the one-and-only art history class I ever took, the instructor argued that it wasn't a question of skill but a question of what the creator of the work found important or significant. Thus the Venus of Willendorf has huge breasts and hips and a protruding belly to emphasize her fecundity. The Egyptians always drew the eye as if it were facing toward the viewer, and the face in profile, because those were the most characteristic and easily recognized aspects of those features.

Not saying I bought it completely (although it did make sense in some cases, like the Egyptians), but that's what she said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom