Gobekli Tepe- The Mystery of the Missing Megaliths

Hello everybody and welcome to Ancient Architects. Please subscribe now to get the latest ancient history news and independent research from around the world. The 10 to 12,000 year old site of Gobekli Tepe has so many points of interest, so many anomalies, so many oddities and fascinating facets and although the main focus for many is the monumental circular enclosures and also their associated finely decorated T-shaped pillars, did you know there is also an enclosure with no pillars whatsoever? What people were doing at Gobekli Tepe in the pre-pottery Neolithic, the purpose of this enormous site remains unknown. They didn't have a written language and there are no eyewitness accounts to fall back on. So we just have the physical archaeology, or with regards to enclosure E, a lack of. As we know, a pre-pottery Neolithic A circular or oval enclosure has T-shaped pillars spaced at intervals in a perimeter wall, often decorated, and in the centre are two larger T-shaped pillars placed on bedrock pedestals with a shallow footing. As I said in a previous video, I think that these could be decorated roof supports, but even this idea is speculative. In the main enclosures there is evidence of historic alteration, remodelling, renovation and so on. Some of the pillars, like pillar 2 in enclosure A, was moved at some point in its history. We find that its original back side became its front and vice versa. Whether it moved from one enclosure to another, or was just moved within the enclosure, we don't know. So these structures were not just built, left static and then buried, they were modified, probably more than once, before their eventual burial and abandonment. And no, all of the enclosures were not buried in one go, but this was staggered over a period of time. In terms of the known monumental enclosures, in the main excavation area we have A, B, C, D and G. We have enclosure F at the southwestern hilltop, enclosures H and I in the northwestern depression, and the enclosure with no pillars, enclosure E, is found on the western plateau. Its location and appearance make it unique, and although many do believe it was once a complete circular enclosure, of course we don't know this and there is an argument it never was. The first name given to this enclosure was Felsentemple, meaning rock temple, and it is located on the very fringe of the site, set apart from the main hill and placed in a somewhat strategic position, overlooking the valley with a wide panoramic view. In 2017 in official documentation, it was described as lacking any superstructure and comprised solely of two preserved pedestals that were cut from the natural limestone bedrock and also a carefully smoothed limestone floor. Although excavated in the mid-1990s, it was not until the later discovery of building C and building D that these features were identified as the remains of a monumental structure. To the north of the building are two large pits, carved into the surface of the natural plateau. It is likely that these pits, possibly systems for collecting rainwater, were contemporaneous with enclosure E, although we don't know. As well as the two pedestals, which looked with once housed central T-shaped pillars, the enclosure measuring 10 metres across has a very shallow rock-cut bench. In the bedrock behind there looks to be a secondary concentric line, maybe outlining the foundation of the perimeter wall. What sets this possible former enclosure apart from the rest, apart from the obvious, is that it sits on the limestone ridge. There are outcrops of bedrock all around as the land dips into the valley. This enclosure wasn't buried like the others, because I guess it's in a position you can't effectively bury with soil, because soil and rubble would naturally creep and wash down into the valley. The enclosure could just be at the edge of Quebecly Tepe, on the margins of the site, or the structure could have been set apart for good reason. We don't know why it is where it is, and probably won't until we have an idea of the complete layout of the site. It's estimated there are 15 further circular enclosures under the hill, as well as more domestic rectangular enclosures. As we can see, the oval of the enclosure is carefully pecked and very plain. The two platforms are inside the oval, just like what we see with enclosures C and D, with two slots for the T-shaped pillars. As said by Klaus Schmidt in 2007, the reuse of pillars and other work stone could often be observed in the excavated structures of Quebecly Tepe, so it wasn't strange that at Enclosure E, nothing had been left except for the layout of the oval in the bedrock and the two platforms. It's easy to assume that Enclosure E was once an enclosure, and that the stone walls and pillars have been reused or robbed at some point in the past 11,500 years. But if we look at it closely, as well as being subjected to natural weathering and erosion, you could argue the bedrock looks somewhat rough and ready, maybe more primitive compared to the other enclosures, but not as much care and attention went into the design, layout and bedrock carving. Look at the pedestals. Yes, they have been subject to erosion, but don't show evidence of decoration like what we see in Enclosure D. They have a more rounded form, and even cut marks have been bored into them. Although yes, these cut marks could well have come later. We see even more cut marks on the flat limestone floor of the enclosure. Whether people in antiquity were planning on making another pit after the enclosure went out of use, or whether they had some other function or purpose, well, your guess is as good as mine. In my opinion, and with my limited knowledge, I believe there are four possible explanations for Enclosure E. Firstly, we could be looking at another pre-pottery Neolithic A circular enclosure, but robbed of its pillars and walls. We can tentatively date it to this period, between 9,500 and 8,800 BC, and that's because it does have the same form as the other enclosures. The second possibility is that this enclosure is older than the others. As stated, Enclosure E doesn't look as well made as the enclosures in the main part of the excavation, and so, if this is the case, you could argue it could be a precursor, with an older maybe Epipaleolithic origin, from the period before the pre-pottery Neolithic. Maybe the pillars and wall stone were reused and moved to the later enclosures A, B, C, D and so on. I think Option 2 does require quite a leap as there is no datable evidence for such a claim. Thirdly, it's also very possible that this enclosure was not finished, and was actually abandoned during the foundation preparation phase. This could be because of this large crack in the bedrock, or maybe they realised the location was too exposed on the ridge above the valley. Maybe it was at risk from flooding and storms, and maybe that's why these two cisterns were dug, to collect rainwater runoff to try and divert it away from the enclosure. I explained a theory in an older video, how boring cut marks into the bedrock was the first phase in creating cisterns in the pre-pottery Neolithic. You bore dozens and dozens of cut marks, and then smashed through the thin rock barriers between them, and this in effect creates a basin. To deepen it, you just continue the process on the new floor surface. The fact we can still see cut marks on the actual floor of the enclosure, and the fact that this bench is only shallow, may imply the workers were employing the same technique to dig the enclosure, and the fact we still see cut marks on the floor, could imply the work was never completed. So the reason it does look somewhat unfinished, is simply because it was. Furthermore, I know the circular enclosures at Göbekli Tepe come in all different shapes and sizes, but to me, it looks like the pedestals for the central pillars are in fact too close to the wall, and also too close to the northern end of the enclosure. Why weren't they placed in a central position? This section of the wall is also better worked and finished than this part, which as we can see when we trace the layout, it does look more haphazard. It screams out to me that this is unfinished, but my fourth possible explanation could also fit the evidence. That being that Enclosure E was like what some say the trial passages were in relation to the Great Pyramid, a test run. Was Enclosure E the test site for the construction techniques employed at Göbekli Tepe, a location away from the main site to try and test the methods of building? It's situated on the ridge because that's where you find patches of exposed bedrock without having to dig, and this patch is large enough to test out the methods before putting them into action. It actually does make sense that the pre-pottery Neolithic people tested out their methods first of all, because the circular enclosures involve shaping the bedrock, and once you start that process at the main site, you can't really go back if you make a mistake, or if structurally it wasn't as sound as was planned. The cisterns at the locality may not be cisterns at all, but again, a way to practice the technique of digging down into the limestone. Maybe this whole area is some kind of test. These man-made pits are actually relatively shallow, and one even has a bench inside, which makes their purpose uncertain. Were the people just practicing techniques, or did they have some real practical purpose? Personally, I don't think Enclosure E was ever a finished enclosure, and that's based on the very limited evidence we have. But that is just my opinion, and I'd love to know yours as well, so please do leave a comment below. Thank you very much for watching this episode of Ancient Architects. If you enjoyed the video, please subscribe to the channel, please like the video, and please leave a comment below. Thank you very much.