Tartaria tablets

Although this English translation of the theme it seems lame : Göbekli Tepe’s buildings has “so fair a house”. And if the translation were from Chinese,it would have sounded better. As far as I know there was no moment or person directly interested in what they are exactly the enclosures of Gobekli Tepe: temples or constructions for living. The moment when subject raised high and got hot, was when begun discussions and nobody knew what were so called “handbags” on Vulture Stone Vulture Stone, Göbekli Tepe (Illustration) – World History Encyclopedia

I am giving much credit to the opinions of regreted Professor Klaus Schmidt, and at least as much to the researcher Jens Notroff. The latter has a broad vision, a great mobility of thought and a capacity for scientific analysis. In opposition to their views, I believe that if the views of Canadian researcher E.B. Banning despite he have some valuable opinions , his conclusions have no support. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Klaus Schmidt

:From https://www.archaeology.org › issues Last Stand of the Hunter-Gatherers? – Archaeology Magazine “a team led by German Archaeological Institute (DAI) archaeologist Klaus Schmidt reached a stunning conclusion: The buildings and their multiton pillars, along with smaller, rectangular structures higher on the slope of the hill, were monumental communal buildings erected by people at a time before they had established permanent settlements, engaged in agriculture, or bred domesticated animals. Schmidt did not believe that anyone had ever lived at the site.”

E B Banning: His paper: So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of …https://www.journals.uchicago.edu › doi › pdfplusby EB Banning  From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24 A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams “Just recently a colleague challenged the existence of pure domestic or ritual structures for the Neolithic, arguing that archaeologists tend to impose modern western distinctions of sacred vs. profane on prehistory, while anthropology in most cases shows these two spheres to be inseparably interwoven (Banning 2011, 624-627). In his eyes, Göbekli Tepe rather was a settlement with buildings rich in symbolism, but nevertheless domestic in nature.” Fig 4 – uploaded by Edward Bruce Banning https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913

Jens Notroff https://jensnotroff.com/curriculum-vitae/

:From https://www.dainst.blog › 2017/01/24 A Sanctuary … or so fair a House? – Tepe Telegrams “From its discovery onwards, the interpretation of Göbekli Tepe’s suprising architecture has centered around the terms ‘special purpose buildings’ (Sondergebäude), ‘sanctuaries’, or even ‘temples’. Naturally, this line of interpretation has been called into question. As already discussed here, it is indeed quite challenging to use a rather strictly defined historical terminology and complex spiritual concepts to describe the material remains of prehistoric phenomena. Even more while cult, ritual and ultimately religion are concepts often cited but rarely clearly defined by archaeologists. …Banning’s arguments that in-house inhumations, caches and wall paintings are demonstrating that ‘the sacred’ clearly is leaking into everyday live in the Near Eastern Neolithic (Banning 2011, 627-629) and that therefore a clear distinction is impossible to define, is valid, too, of course.In fact the idea of manifestations of the sacred in houses or parts of houses is neither new, nor surprising as already M. Eliade pointed out in his seminal work on the entanglement of the sacred and profane.z…So, even though we cannot know if these buildings actually were really meant to house gods or deities, the peculiar role of these larger-than-life anthropomorphic images forming the centre and main element of the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe remain conspiciously disctinctive to the life-sized sculpture heads which were apparently carefully deposited in the backfill. … Summing up, from our point of view there seems to be ample evidence to interpret Göbekli Tepe as a peculiar place formed of special purpose structures related to cult and ritual with distinct and fixed life-cycles of building, use, deconstruction and burial. All of these stages seem to be marked by specific ritual acts, of which the last, i.e. those related to burial and deposition of symbolic objects are naturally best visible in the archaeological record. …If ‘temple’ is understood as a technical term for specialized cult architecture, one could indeed consider this label for Göbekli Tepe. If the term is defined in our western perception as a place where a god is present, maybe ‘sanctuary’’ would be a more neutral description; alternatively the auxiliary construction of ‘special purpose buildings’ (Sondergebäude) may be used to escape any trap of culturally bound denominations.BUT IN ANY CASE ONE THING IzS SURE: THE IDEA THAT GOBEKLI TEPE’s BUILDINGS ARE “SO FAIR A HOUSE” SEEMS NOT THE MOST CONVINCING INTERPRETATION OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SO FAR.

eugenrau: – it is an impiety (and only to think, not to mention to write) that the T-pillars with deep meaning and bearing signs with symbolic, sacred meaning could have been pillars that support a roof! – the sockets of the pillars in the bedrock are designed only to support, sustain (even so, precarious) the pillars in vertical position.The T-pillars represent a sacred symbol perpetuated, not forgotten and repeated AT LEAST 2000 years (9,600-7,600) – pillars can break easily due to the rock with poor consistency and small thickness.(Blade-like) https://content.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mikeyperes2.jpg

• if they had the support in mind, there is evidence on the site that in the are there were trees and it was 100x easier to make wooden poles.
• totem poles are never used to support something they are singular, solitary.
• – even in low intensity winds, the forces transmitted to the pillars would have tensed and cracked very easily. Cannot support stress, (cannot be in slightest measure bended !)

• -The “bag” symbols have those “bows”/ “handles” offset (forced asymmetrically) only to make room for those symbols.
• Mr. Banning, in addition to some otherwise common sense and correct statements, even some valuable ones, pushed forward an enormity that by no means finds its place.

This entry was posted on August 31, 2021 at 1:50 pm and is filed under Ancient civilisations, Gobekli Tepe, History, Tartaria tablets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.