3 ms·

> I visited this place when I was in Turkey. I follow the work of Graham Hancock quite closely but how did the artwork appear to you? The need for the speciali

> I visited this place when I was in Turkey. I follow the work of Graham Hancock quite closely but how did the artwork appear to you? The need for the specialized tools to bore the holes or mae those 3d outward busts on stone are incredibly advanced and the accuracy of these depictions of animals and peoples seen on stone predates what most archaeologists place Agriculture at ~10,000 years ago, which coincidentally is also in this part of Turkey. Most tools from nomadic people before the advent of Agriculture were likely for hunting, and cutting meat or building fires and clothes, not precision based specialized tools so this site opens the door to the notion that very specialized tools being used prior to this period for ornamental or sacred purposes in Human History was already common practice. Personally speaking, after having done agriculture myself, I think agriculture its closer to 20-30,000 years old and sites like this and the one in Indonesia re-enforce my hypothesis as you cannot make these monoliths without several generations of a very well refined work force that requires specialization and surpluses of food and water only possible due to a systematic application of horticulture and domestication of livestock. What were your biggest takeaways, and how much would you say is still left to unearth? It is my understanding most of it is still underground and other sites have yet to be even approved or greenlit for excavation due to political and warfare issues, was that still the case when you were there?

ncmncm 6y ago
Everybody agrees that there is overwhelmingly more left underground there, and in nearby hills, than has been dug up. Nobody knows if any of it is older. The other stuff they dug up so far has turned out not to be. The thing to know about Graham Hancock is that he is full of wacky ideas, but he is very careful to keep reports of his observations separate from his speculations. He is better at this than many scientists. He is absolutely not a scientist, not trained as one, not acting like one. But he also absolutely never pretends to be one, so is no kind of pseudo-scientist. You can trust his observations implicitly, his speculations not at all. Very unlike archaeologists, he is happy to take note of what has no plausible explanation yet, and not pretend that the professionals have everything wrapped up. That, more than anything, is what infuriates the archaeologists who label him a pseudo-scientist. You are not supposed to talk about things they haven't a clue about, and especially things they have been, or are, obviously and aggresively wrong about. The other thing about him is that he really goes places, and reports accurately what he finds, and takes excellent photographs, even of things archaeologists are still unsure and embarrassed about. Could the bas relief carvings there represent constellations, as he guesses? Absolutely! The ones he thinks? Very probably not. Does Earth's rotational precession have anything at all to do with the timing of orbital/impact events? Absolutely not. Is the existence of Göbekli Tepe consistent with any narrative of pre-history promoted before it was found? Absolutely not. Has it been integrated into current narratives? No. Can it be? Yes, but with substantial pain; and the new narrative will end up needing to be revised again soon, which they hate. Archaeological distaste for further work there can probably be explained, in some degree, by the expectation that further revelations will show that the pros have been even more wrong about our immediate pre-history than we now know. It will mainly yield further embarrassment. At the time it was built, the Persian Gulf was largely dry land. Did people live there? Very probably; we would need to know why not, if not. Did they have to abandon settlements as the sea level rose? They would. Would there be legends about that? If not, that would be surprising. Did it happen suddenly? No. Thing is, archaeology is not science. They do fieldwork, apply for grants, order lab work, and publish papers in journals, but are not allowed to make hypotheses that could be overturned. Their role is to tell stories about facts already unearthed. Graham Hancock is happy to speculate about it all, and be wrong. For archaeologists, obvious speculation is forbidden, and being found to have speculated wrongly embarrassing. The easiest reaction to what he does is to label him a bad scientist so his observations can be safely ignored.

ncmncm 6y ago

Everybody agrees that there is overwhelmingly more left underground there, and in nearby hills, than has been dug up. Nobody knows if any of it is older. The other stuff they dug up so far has turned out not to be. The thing to know about Graham Hancock is that he is full of wacky ideas, but he is very careful to keep reports of his observations separate from his speculations. He is better at this than many scientists. He is absolutely not a scientist, not trained as one, not acting like one. But he also absolutely never pretends to be one, so is no kind of pseudo-scientist. You can trust his observations implicitly, his speculations not at all. Very unlike archaeologists, he is happy to take note of what has no plausible explanation yet, and not pretend that the professionals have everything wrapped up. That, more than anything, is what infuriates the archaeologists who label him a pseudo-scientist. You are not supposed to talk about things they haven't a clue about, and especially things they have been, or are, obviously and aggresively wrong about. The other thing about him is that he really goes places, and reports accurately what he finds, and takes excellent photographs, even of things archaeologists are still unsure and embarrassed about. Could the bas relief carvings there represent constellations, as he guesses? Absolutely! The ones he thinks? Very probably not. Does Earth's rotational precession have anything at all to do with the timing of orbital/impact events? Absolutely not. Is the existence of Göbekli Tepe consistent with any narrative of pre-history promoted before it was found? Absolutely not. Has it been integrated into current narratives? No. Can it be? Yes, but with substantial pain; and the new narrative will end up needing to be revised again soon, which they hate. Archaeological distaste for further work there can probably be explained, in some degree, by the expectation that further revelations will show that the pros have been even more wrong about our immediate pre-history than we now know. It will mainly yield further embarrassment. At the time it was built, the Persian Gulf was largely dry land. Did people live there? Very probably; we would need to know why not, if not. Did they have to abandon settlements as the sea level rose? They would. Would there be legends about that? If not, that would be surprising. Did it happen suddenly? No. Thing is, archaeology is not science. They do fieldwork, apply for grants, order lab work, and publish papers in journals, but are not allowed to make hypotheses that could be overturned. Their role is to tell stories about facts already unearthed. Graham Hancock is happy to speculate about it all, and be wrong. For archaeologists, obvious speculation is forbidden, and being found to have speculated wrongly embarrassing. The easiest reaction to what he does is to label him a bad scientist so his observations can be safely ignored.