Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?
Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
- By Andrew Curry
- Photographs by Berthold Steinhilber
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2008, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 3)
"There's more time between Gobekli Tepe and the Sumerian clay tablets [etched in 3300 B.C.] than from Sumer to today," says Gary Rollefson, an archaeologist at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, who is familiar with Schmidt's work. "Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."
Still, archaeologists have their theories—evidence, perhaps, of the irresistible human urge to explain the unexplainable. The surprising lack of evidence that people lived right there, researchers say, argues against its use as a settlement or even a place where, for instance, clan leaders gathered. Hodder is fascinated that Gobekli Tepe's pillar carvings are dominated not by edible prey like deer and cattle but by menacing creatures such as lions, spiders, snakes and scorpions. "It's a scary, fantastic world of nasty-looking beasts," he muses. While later cultures were more concerned with farming and fertility, he suggests, perhaps these hunters were trying to master their fears by building this complex, which is a good distance from where they lived.
Danielle Stordeur, an archaeologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in France, emphasizes the significance of the vulture carvings. Some cultures have long believed the high-flying carrion birds transported the flesh of the dead up to the heavens. Stordeur has found similar symbols at sites from the same era as Gobekli Tepe just 50 miles away in Syria. "You can really see it's the same culture," she says. "All the most important symbols are the same."
For his part, Schmidt is certain the secret is right beneath his feet. Over the years, his team has found fragments of human bone in the layers of dirt that filled the complex. Deep test pits have shown that the floors of the rings are made of hardened limestone. Schmidt is betting that beneath the floors he'll find the structures' true purpose: a final resting place for a society of hunters.
Perhaps, Schmidt says, the site was a burial ground or the center of a death cult, the dead laid out on the hillside among the stylized gods and spirits of the afterlife. If so, Gobekli Tepe's location was no accident. "From here the dead are looking out at the ideal view," Schmidt says as the sun casts long shadows over the half-buried pillars. "They're looking out over a hunter's dream."
Andrew Curry, who is based in Berlin, wrote the July cover story about Vikings.
Berthold Steinhilber's hauntingly lighted award-winning photograhs of American ghost towns appeared in Smithsonian in May 2001.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Archaeology Rituals and Traditions Neolithic Turkey Places of Worship
Additional Sources
"Seeking the Roots of Ritual" by Andrew Curry, Science, January 18, 2008






Comments (565)
+ View All Comments
Re Curious April 21: many of the stones were damaged on the top: the suggestion is that this was done by much later farmers attempting to break up the stones to clear the land for agriculture. re Tom Carberry April 21: I don't think flooding is possible - the Tepe is the highest point for a long way around, so I don't see how earth and/or other debris could have been washed into the structures. The structures were in use for some time before being buried - it wasn't just a case of building them then immediately burying them, which I agree doesn't make any sense at all. Jim Cleary.
Posted by Jim Cleary on May 9,2013 | 06:58 AM
(sorry I missed my details off the previous posting) Jim Cleary.
Posted by Jim Cleary on May 9,2013 | 06:46 AM
Hello, Thank you for this excellent article on Gobekli Tepe; I was lucky enough to visit there last week. Due to the understandable limits placed on user access, your photos give more details than I could see. One minor issue with the article - the map you give is slightly wrong, as it shows Gobekli Tepe as being south-east of Urfa, while your text correctly states that the site is north-east. Please can you fix that? Your map has been picked up by Wikipedia and so this error is very widely disseminated now. Thanks & Regards, Jim Cleary.
Posted by on May 9,2013 | 06:44 AM
Absolutely Incredible, mind boggling. It never ceases to amaze me what science continues to uncover, the questions that it brings with each new discovery. That Faith and worship seem to have always been a large part of the human experience, validating something much more important than simply being here, that A Higher Power, whatever you chose to call it, does and always has existed.
Posted by Gazelle Richardson on May 7,2013 | 12:09 PM
It's simple reasoning! Correlate fact. Seperste from fiction and realize. It's not rocket science people! It's people before science says so! Our society is deeply rooted In religious fact that came from religious ideals. Ideals are fairy tales fiction. Truth behind every UN covered hillside.
Posted by Ccrider on April 28,2013 | 04:03 AM
Humans build grand things to take their minds off of their own misery.
Posted by teresa Ballard on April 26,2013 | 12:33 PM
What are the indentations on top of the structures? What do they mean, or has no one noticed?
Posted by Curious. on April 21,2013 | 07:53 PM
"Then, Schmidt says, once the stone rings were finished, the ancient builders covered them over with dirt." Why? To me it makes no sense that hundreds of people could work building these monuments, carving the animals, lugging the stones up the hill, and then bury it. I don't think human nature has changed over the last 10,000 years or so. We don't have any modern examples of people building some giant structures and then burying them. What about flooding? What about some other explanation?
Posted by Tom Carberry on April 21,2013 | 11:21 AM
Bruce, You bring up a good point. The only reason why Gobekli Tepe is currently regarded as the oldest man made megalithic site is because it was burried for 10,000 years and no other subsequent civilization was able to inhabit it and leave its remnants behind. Many sites such as Puma Punku, Pyramids, Petra, amchu Pichu, etc. have been settled in many times over, so it's impossible to tell when they were originally constructed. For instance, some of the "H" markings at Puma Punku seem very similar to Gobekli Tepe, but current archaological dating has them being built 10,000 years apart.
Posted by on April 9,2013 | 05:35 PM
Did they find the quarry site? Is there a possibility that the date of the site is much older and the stone tools, etc., are those of the people who found the site and used it to some degree 10,000 B.C.E.? Plus if the site had been buried intentionally, would it not be necessary to go to a nearby site where the soil was undisturbed and go down through the layers to determine the age of the site by reaching the comparable surface when the monoliths were erected? Could not all the bone fragments of wild game, once again, be the detritus of the stone age people who simply visited the site? Is there evidence of more than one episode of burying a particular site, or, once buried, it remained buried. I always get amazed that once archeologists discover an ancient site, it becomes a site of rituals and religious ceremonies as if our ancient ancestors had nothing else to do. Once they do this, they shut down on looking at the sites with a creative and open mind. There is no modern precedent where we build sites and abandon them except to go to them once or twice a year. Why do we assume our ancestors did this?
Posted by Bruce M on April 5,2013 | 11:16 AM
The idea that this is the oldest "temple" in the world carries with it the implied suggestion (even the hope) that it's not the oldest, and that there are many older sites yet to be discovered. Archeologists, after all, are scientists; and science, by very definition, constantly seeks out new and clarifying information in order to update mankind's understanding of the world. So they DO mean it is the oldest to date; "to date" is an implied part of every scientific statement. The people who have difficulty with discoveries like this are those who embrace ONLY the traditional views of religion. I believe that religion and science are after the same thing: fact-based truth. But science has a great advantage over religion in that it IS constantly looking for change -- constantly looking for better, more correct answers. The problem religion has with discoveries like this is that they DO suggest change; they do require that we re-evaluate how we see the past, and that is a tough pill to swallow for people who base everything on traditional views and interpretations that they ONLY THOUGHT were facts. For example, the statement below that seems to limit the definition of the word "create" to a process involving (God's) hands, when "create" can mean many things. Religious people should be able to concede that scientific discovery is the process of learning the facts about God's methods of creation, organization, etc. I'm religious, and I've adopted that view, because it just makes sense. So, civilization is older that we thought it was. Let's be happy that we have new information; then let's accept it, adjust our understanding for it, and move on to the next exciting find.
Posted by Dwayne Donkersgoed on April 4,2013 | 06:37 AM
Very cool, but we have been modern H S Sapiens for a long while. There has to be earlier stuff.
Posted by Zach on March 19,2013 | 02:24 PM
This may be the oldest religious site (temple) in the world but no one can Know that. It may be the oldest and it may be religious; However, what was the "oldest" before this site was discovered? All too often the "Scientific Method" practice by many scientist of today consists of first coming up with a theory then collecting data that agrees with that theory and discarding data that doesn't. Why is it so difficult for "scientists" to say; this is the oldest, biggest, or whatever that we Know of to date?
Posted by Martin W Mosier, PG on March 18,2013 | 03:18 PM
The problem with modern day archaeology is that it often gets confused about the triangular relationships between agriculture, astronomy and religion. Ample scientific evidence points to the capacity for religious experience being hardwired in the human brain. Likewise exciting new evidence is showing that often complex behaviors can be found to be hardwired into the animal genome. Animals and thus also humans use geo-location based on magnetic fields, gravity or light. Archaeology would be much more of a scientific enterprise if it took into consideration environmental factors (e.g. climate, vegetative cover, available animal species etc.) to see how these affect hardwired behaviors in humans. Therefore the Gobekli Tepe religious hypothesis does not make sense. Where do hunter gatherers get the time to specialize themselves in rather sophisticated masonry and edifice building while still not living in organized towns? Astronomy is the driving force behind civilization NOT religion. And only when man realizes that knowledge of natural phenomena can be used for harvesting food, does the modern era of man begin. And agriculture presupposes hardwired and learned behaviors of utilization of astronomical knowledge (weather and seasons predictable through astronomical observations). The romanticized concepts of Schmidt thus do not obey Occam's Razor. We should be looking for an astronomical basis.
Posted by Milton Ponson on March 18,2013 | 11:03 AM
+ View All Comments