Introduction to Göbekli Tepe
Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: ‘Potbelly Hill’; Kurdish: Girê Mirazan or Xerabreşkê, ‘Wish Hill’) is a Neolithic archaeological site in Turkey, on the southern border of Southeastern Anatolia. The settlement was inhabited from around 9500 BCE to at least 8000 BCE, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. It is famous for its large circular structures that contain massive stone pillars – among the world’s oldest known megaliths.
Many of these pillars are decorated with anthropomorphic details, clothing, and sculptural reliefs of wild animals, providing archaeologists rare insights into prehistoric religion and the particular iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft) high, 8 ha (20-acre) tell is densely covered with ancient domestic structures and other small buildings, quarries, and stone-cut cisterns from the Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods.
The site was first used at the dawn of the southwest Asian Neolithic period, which marked the appearance of the oldest permanent human settlements anywhere in the world. Prehistorians link this Neolithic Revolution to the advent of agriculture, but disagree on whether farming caused people to settle down or vice versa. Göbekli Tepe, a monumental complex built on the top of a rocky mountaintop, with no clear evidence of agricultural cultivation, has played a prominent role in this debate.
Recent discoveries indicate there was indeed an inhabitation at Göbekli Tepe, which features domestic structures, significant processing of cereals, water supply, and tools allied with the daily life. Such evidence starkly contrasts with previous assumptions that linked this site to a sanctuary used by nomadic people with nearly no or minimum permanent residents.
The megalithic structures, described popularly as the ‘world’s first temple[s],’ do not have any defined purpose. They are thought to have been roofed, and it appears that they often collapsed, were overwhelmed by slope slides, and then were rebuilt or repaired. The architecture and iconography seem similar to other sites of comparable date in the area, like Karahan Tepe.
The site was first recorded in a survey in 1963. German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt recognized its importance in 1994 and initiated excavations there the following year. After his death in 2014, work continued as a joint project of Istanbul University, Şanlıurfa Museum, and the German Archaeological Institute, under the direction of Turkish prehistorian Necmi Karul. In 2018, Göbekli Tepe became a UNESCO World Heritage Site: it was given the status based on its universal outstanding value being ‘one of the first expressions of human-created monumental architecture’. Only less than 5% of the excavations had taken place by 2015. More areas had been surveyed with geophysical probes and indicated at least 20 large enclosures were present on the mound.
The environment and geography
Göbekli Tepe is located in the Taş Tepeler (‘Stone Hills’), in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains. It overlooks the Harran plain and the headwaters of the Balikh River, a tributary of the Euphrates. The site is a tell (artificial mound) on a flat limestone plateau. In the north, the plateau is connected to the neighbouring mountains by a narrow promontory. In all other directions, the ridge descends steeply into slopes and steep cliffs.
The climate of the region was warmer and wetter during the period of occupation at Göbekli Tepe than it is at present. Wild cereals of einkorn, wheat, and barley surrounded the site and herds of grazing animals: wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids. Large herds of goitered gazelle may have passed by the site in seasonal migrations. There is no indication of significant woodlands near; 90% of the charcoal recovered at the site was from pistachio or almond trees.
Like most Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in the Urfa region, Göbekli Tepe was built on a high point on the edge of the mountains, giving it both a wide view over the plain beneath and good visibility from the plain. This location also gave the builders good access to raw material: the soft limestone bedrock from which the complex was built, and the flint to make the tools to work the limestone.
The prehistoric village acquired drinking water through a rainwater harvesting system, consisting of carved channels that fed several cisterns carved into the bedrock under the site, which could hold at least 150 cubic metres (5,300 cu ft) of water. Additionally, the local water table may have been higher, activating springs closer to the site which are dormant today.
Excavations have taken place at the southern slope of the tell, south, and west of a mulberry that marks an Islamic pilgrimage, but archaeological finds come from the entire plateau. The team has also found many remains of tools. At the western escarpment, a small cave has been discovered in which a small relief depicting a bovid was found. It is the only relief found in this cave.
The beginning of village life
Göbekli Tepe was erected and used at the very earliest stage of the Southwest Asian Neolithic, what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN, c. 9600–7000 BCE). From the final stages of the last Ice Age, the PPN represents ‘the dawnings of village life,’ creating the first evidence anywhere in the world for permanent human settlements.
Archaeologists have long associated the appearance of these settlements with the Neolithic Revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture—but disagree on whether the adoption of farming caused people to settle down, or settling down caused people to adopt farming.
Despite the name, the Neolithic Revolution in Southwest Asia was ‘drawn out and locally variable.’ Elements of village life appeared as early as 10,000 years before the Neolithic in places, and the transition to agriculture took thousands of years, with different paces and trajectories in different regions.
Archaeologists subdivided the Pre-Pottery Neolithic into two subperiods: the PPNA (c. 9600–8800 BCE) and the PPNB (c. 8800 and 7000 BCE). The earliest phases at Göbekli Tepe date back to the PPNA, whereas subsequent phases fall within the PPNB.
The residents of Göbekli Tepe were hunter-gatherers with an early, partial diet that supplemented their meals with domesticated cereal and also lived in a village for part of the year. Grinding stones and mortars and pestles, which are analyzed, give an indication that there was extensive processing of cereals. The archaeozoological evidence points toward ‘large-scale hunting of gazelle between midsummer and autumn.’
PPN villages were primarily made up of clusters of stone or mud brick houses, but sometimes also substantial monuments and large buildings. These include the tower and walls at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), as well as large, roughly contemporaneous circular buildings at Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori, Çayönü, Wadi Feynan 16, Jerf el-Ahmar, Tell ‘Abr 3, and Tepe Asiab.
The archaeologists often link these structures with social activities which, along with the social labor required to erect them, tended to perpetuate the sociality among PPN communities as these communities expanded in size.
The T-shaped pillar tradition is unique to the Urfa region, but it is present at the majority of PPN sites there. These include Nevalı Çori, Hamzan Tepe, Karahan Tepe, Harbetsuvan Tepesi, Sefer Tepe, and Taslı Tepe. Other stone stelae—without the characteristic T shape—have been documented at contemporary sites further afield, including Çayönü, Qermez Dere, and Gusir Höyük.
Timeline
Radiocarbon dating indicates that the earliest exposed structures at Göbekli Tepe date to the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period, between 9500 and 9000 BCE. The site was dramatically expanded in the early 9th millennium BCE and was used until around 8000 BCE, or possibly a little later (early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, PPNB). It is clear that smaller groups returned to live among the ruins after the Neolithic structures were abandoned.
Schmidt originally dated the site to the PPN based on the types of stone tools found there, considering a PPNA date ‘most probable.’ Establishing its absolute chronology took longer due to methodological challenges. Though the first two radiocarbon dates were published in 1998, these and other samples from the fill of the structure dated to the late 10th and early 9th millennium – 500 to 1000 years later than expected for a PPNA site.
Schmidt’s team explained the discrepancy in light of their theory that this material was brought to the site from elsewhere when it was abandoned, and so was not representative of the actual use of the structures. They instead turned to a novel method of dating organic material preserved in the plaster on the structure’s walls, which resulted in dates more consistent with a PPNA occupation, in the middle or even early 10th millennium BCE.
Subsequent research led to a significant revision of Schmidt’s chronology, including the abandonment of the hypothesis that the fill of the structures was brought from elsewhere, and a recognition that direct dates on plaster are affected by the old wood effect. Together with new radiocarbon dates, this has established the site’s absolute chronology as falling in the period 9500 to 8000 BCE – the late PPNA and PPNB.
Phases of construction
The preliminary, now abandoned, stratigraphic model by Klaus Schmidt consisted of three architectural layers. The large circular enclosures were attributed to Layer III, dated to the 10th millennium BCE (PPNA). The smaller rectangular structures and the abandonment of the site were assigned to Layer II in the 9th millennium BCE (early to middle PPNB). Layer I consisted of all post-Neolithic activities up to the modern surface.
The new chronology is divided into eight phases and covers a time span of over 1,500 years. It discusses the history of the large circular enclosures, events that led to alterations or abandonment, and changes in the surrounding domestic buildings.
- Phase 1: The earliest settlement phase dates to the second half of the 10th millennium BCE and includes the first versions of enclosures A to D and round-oval domestic structures, which indicate a (semi) sedentary lifestyle.
- Phase 2: In the second phase (early 9th millennium BCE), important transformations of enclosures A-D were carried out: New walls were constructed, which included the first monolithic T-shaped pillars. More and more domestic structures were erected, still mostly oval-round, but with a growing tendency towards a rectangular floor plan.
- Phases 3–5: Rectangular (domestic) structures were erected along the northern and western slopes of the early PPNB phase. They had several construction phases, like the installation of benches having T-shaped pillars incorporated into them and new inner walls making rooms even more rectangular. The larger enclosures were also changed. This was done with wall repair and new wall additions on some places. Benches were installed against the interior sides of phase 2 walls. A final slope slide in the late stages of the Early PPNB inundated the lower-lying structures, washing sediments and domestic debris – probably including midden and burials – down the slope. This badly damaged enclosure D and led to stabilisation works in Phase 5. Building C was built over for the last time and a terrace wall installed above it to prevent further slope-slides. Nonetheless, the second major slope-slide event is thought to have caused the final abandonment of the late 9th millennium BCE.
- Phases 6 and 7: Building activity gradually declined in phases 6 and 7 (late 9th to early 8th millennium BCE). The loss of enclosures B and D may have led to the construction of building G and the ‘Lion Pillar Building.’ In Phase 7, another terrace wall was constructed in a last attempt to stabilize the northern slope.
- Phase 8: In the last occupation period, small habitation structures were built within the abandoned remains of the Neolithic village.
Buildings
Large enclosures
The first circular compounds emerged around the second half of the 10th millennium BCE. They are from 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 ft) in diameter. The most distinctive feature of these circular compounds is the arrangement of T-shaped limestone pillars equally spaced within the thick walls built of unworked stone. So far, four such circular compounds have been found. Geophysical surveys reveal 16 more, enclosing up to eight pillars each, which adds up to nearly 200 pillars in all. The slabs were brought from bedrock pits located approximately 100 m (330 ft) from the hilltop. Workers used flint points to cut through the limestone bedrock. The pillars are the oldest known megaliths in the world.
Two taller pillars face each other at the centre of each circle. It is unclear if the circles had a roof above them. There are stone benches that function as seating inside. Most of the pillars have abstract, mysterious pictograms and relief sculptures of animals carved into them. The pictograms could be a representation of widely accepted symbols for sacred things, as seen in Neolithic cave paintings elsewhere. The reliefs feature mammals such as lions, bulls, boars, foxes, gazelle, and donkeys; snakes and other reptiles; arthropods like insects and arachnids; and birds, particularly vultures. Vultures also dominate the iconography of Çatalhöyük and Jericho.
There are very few humanoid figures to be found in the art of Göbekli Tepe. On the lower half of a few of the T-shaped pillars, human arms have been carved; these perhaps intend to portray stylized, deified figures (or their bodies).
There are loin clothes on the lower halves of some pillars. It is thought that the horizontal stone slab on top is a form of shoulders. That might account for the absence of heads in these figures. Whether they were to act as substitute worshippers, to represent venerated ancestors, or to portray supernatural, anthropomorphic beings is unknown.
Some of the floors in this, the oldest, layer are made of terrazzo (burnt lime); others are bedrock from which pedestals to hold the large pair of central pillars were carved in high relief. Radiocarbon dating places the construction of these early circles around 9000 BCE.
In a later style of enclosures, the shape seems to be a rectangle, likely to maximize room usage over round structures. Generally, these styles are considered closely related to the rise of Neolithic culture. However, what is significant to note is the presence of the T-shaped pillars, the major feature of earlier enclosures; this means the buildings still remained functional in exactly the same cultural context in PPNB times.
The several adjacent rectangular, doorless, and windowless rooms have floors of polished lime similar to Roman terrazzo floors. Carbon dating has produced dates between 8800 and 8000 BCE. Several T-pillars up to 1.5 meters tall fill the center of the rooms. A pair decorated with fierce-looking lions is the reason for the name ‘lion pillar building’ by which their enclosure is known.
Events involving slope slides
The enclosures lie over 10 meters (33 ft) below the highest areas of the settlement, and several slope slide events occurred during the occupation period of Göbekli Tepe. One particularly severe event happened at the end of the early PPNB, which inundated enclosure D with rubble of domestic structures and sediments, including burials and midden deposits. This badly damaged the enclosure, necessitating repairs and stabilization works.
Much later, during Building Phase 5, walls for terracing were built perhaps to protect against future events like this. In any case, these were to no avail since a second significant slope slide may have rendered the enclosure uninhabitable in Building Phase 6, which occurred sometime after around the late 9th millennium BCE. Other enclosures were similarly fated, and this may have resulted in the construction of new enclosures to replace them.
Previously, it had been assumed that the large enclosures were intentionally back-filled, an interpretation that has fallen out of favor since Klaus Schmidt’s death.
Domestic structures
In the earliest occupation phase, round-oval domestic structures were built alongside the large enclosures, indicating a (semi) sedentary lifestyle. Over time, there was an increasing tendency for these buildings to have a rectangular floor plan. In the final settlement phase, only small structures were erected.
Burials
Before any graves were discovered, Schmidt hypothesized that graves might have been situated in niches behind the walls of the circular structure. In 2017, fragments of human crania with incisions were found at the site and were interpreted as an expression of the widespread Neolithic skull cult. Special preparation of human crania in the form of plastered human skulls is known from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period at Levantine sites such as Tell es-Sultan also known as Jericho, Tell Aswad, and Yiftahel, and later in Anatolia at Çatalhöyük.
Other structures
On the western edge of the hill, a lionlike figure was discovered. Here, flint and limestone fragments are more frequent. It was proposed that this might have been some sort of sculpture workshop. Three phallic depictions from the surface of the southern plateau are harder to classify. They are near the quarries of classical times, making their dating difficult.
Apart from the tell, there is an incised platform with two sockets that could have held pillars and a surrounding flat bench. This platform corresponds to the oldest parts of the tell. Continuing the naming pattern, it is called ‘complex E’. Owing to its similarity to the cult-buildings at Nevalı Çori, it has also been called ‘Temple of the Rock’.
Its floor has been carefully hewn out of the bedrock and smoothed, reminiscent of the terrazzo floors of the younger complexes at Göbekli Tepe. Immediately northwest of this area are two cistern-like pits that are believed to be part of complex E. One of these pits has a table-high pin as well as a staircase with five steps.
Later configurations
The uppermost layer of the tell is the shallowest but accounts for the longest stretch of time. It consists of loose sediments caused by erosion and the virtually-uninterrupted use of the hill for agricultural purposes since it ceased to operate as a ceremonial center.
Around the start of the 8th millennium BCE, Göbekli Tepe seems to have lost its significance. The new realities of agriculture and animal husbandry brought into human life in the area meant that the “Stone-age zoo” apparently lost whatever significance it had had for the region’s older, foraging communities.
Building
The plateau Göbekli Tepe is situated on has been shaped by erosion and quarrying from the Neolithic onwards. On the southern part of the plateau, four 10-metre-long and 20-centimetre-wide channels are visible, interpreted as the remains of an ancient quarry from which rectangular blocks were taken. These are possibly related to a square building in the neighborhood, of which only the foundation is preserved. It must be a remains of the Roman watchtower as part of Limes Arabicus, although one can only surmise this.
Most structures on the plateau are apparently results of Neolithic quarrying; their quarries had been used for the great monolithic architectural elements. Their profiles were pecked into the rock, with the detached blocks then levered out of the rock bank. Several quarries where round workpieces had been produced were located.
Their identity as quarries was confirmed by the discovery of a 3-by-3 metre piece on the southeastern slope of the plateau. Three undoubtedly Neolithic pillars, T-shaped and not yet levered out of the bedrock, also remain. The largest of these lies on the northern plateau. It has a length of 7 m and its head has the width of 3 m. The weight may be about 50 tons. The other two uncompleted pillars lie on the southern Plateau.
Archaeologists have different opinions on the number of labor that was needed to build Göbekli Tepe. Schmidt insisted that quarrying, transporting, and erecting the large, monolithic limestone pillars was something that could not be done by a few individuals. He made an estimate using Thor Heyerdahl’s experiments with the moai of Rapa Nui, that the pillars alone would have required hundreds of people. In these experiments, it was determined that moving a pillar of comparable size to one at Göbekli Tepe would have taken about 50–75 people a week to transport it 15 kilometers.
Schmidt’s team also referenced a 1917 account of the construction of a megalith in Indonesia, which took 525 people three days to complete. These examples led to the conclusion that Göbekli Tepe’s construction likely involved a large, non-resident workforce, possibly enticed or coerced by a small religious elite.
However, other researchers have suggested that it could have been a much smaller group of just 7 to 14 people who could have moved the pillars using ropes and water or another lubricant, similar to techniques used in the construction of monuments like Stonehenge.
Experiments done on the Göbekli Tepe have demonstrated that all the structures seen from the PPNB period may be constructed by only 12–24 people within a period of less than four months, including time taken for quarrying and resource gathering. These labor estimates are believed to be within the capacity of one extended family or village community, and they are consistent with the number of people who could have easily fit inside one of the buildings at the site.
According to Haklay and Gopher, enclosures B, C, and D were originally intended to create an equilateral triangle as a unified, hierarchical complex.
1. Why Was Göbekli Tepe Built?
Göbekli Tepe, located in modern-day Turkey, is one of the most enigmatic archaeological sites in the world. The site dates back to around 9600 BCE, long before the development of agriculture and written language. Its massive stone pillars, carved with intricate reliefs of animals, are arranged in circular and rectangular enclosures. The purpose of Göbekli Tepe remains unclear, but researchers have several theories.
Some believe it was a religious or ceremonial center, with the carvings representing deities or spirits. Others suggest it was an astronomical observatory, with the pillars aligned to specific celestial events. However, there is no definitive evidence linking the site to any particular function, leaving its exact purpose a matter of speculation. Its size, complexity, and apparent importance challenge our understanding of prehistoric societies and their capabilities. Moreover, the fact that the site predates known urban civilizations raises questions about the nature of early human social organization.
2. Why Was Göbekli Tepe Buried?
One of the most puzzling aspects of Göbekli Tepe is why it was deliberately buried, likely around 8000 BCE. Archaeologists discovered that the site was carefully covered with layers of earth, effectively hiding it from view for millennia. This raises the question: why would the builders have gone to such lengths to bury a monumental site they had invested so much effort into constructing?
Several theories attempt to explain the burial. Some suggest that it was done to preserve the site, protecting it from natural degradation or from invading groups. Others hypothesize that it was a symbolic act, perhaps signaling the end of its cultural or religious significance. There is also a possibility that the people of the time considered it sacred and wished to conceal it after its purpose had been fulfilled, a sort of burial ritual for a place of power. Unfortunately, without written records or more definitive evidence, the true reason remains a mystery.
3. How Did Prehistoric People Construct Göbekli Tepe?
The construction of Göbekli Tepe required an impressive amount of labor and ingenuity, especially considering the people who built it had no access to metal tools or the wheel. The massive limestone pillars, some weighing up to 20 tons, were likely quarried from nearby sources, and the site consists of multiple enclosures with intricate carvings and reliefs.
How such large and heavy stones were transported and erected is still debated. One theory suggests that the builders used a system of levers and ramps to move the stones into place. Others believe that the pillars may have been carved on-site and then transported using human strength and basic tools. Given that the society at the time had no advanced technology, the scale of the undertaking is both impressive and perplexing, leaving many questions about the methods used to achieve such monumental construction.
4. What Is the Significance of the Carvings?
Göbekli Tepe is renowned for its intricate stone carvings, which feature a wide range of animals, such as snakes, scorpions, foxes, and birds. Some researchers have speculated that these carvings represent a form of symbolic language or an early form of storytelling, possibly linked to the beliefs and cosmology of the people who built the site.
The animals depicted are often associated with specific meanings in various cultures. For example, snakes are frequently linked to transformation or fertility, while vultures may symbolize death or the afterlife. The diversity of animals represented suggests a complex belief system, but the absence of written records or clear context makes it difficult to determine the exact significance of the carvings. Were they representations of gods, spirits, or a form of ancient writing? This question remains unresolved.
5. Why Is Göbekli Tepe Older Than Previously Believed Civilization?
When Göbekli Tepe was first discovered, it challenged the established timeline of human history. The site predates other known ancient civilizations, such as those in Mesopotamia and Egypt, by thousands of years. This raises the question: how could a society with such advanced construction techniques and symbolic art have existed so long before the development of cities and agriculture?
Some researchers believe that Göbekli Tepe suggests the existence of a forgotten or lost civilization that possessed knowledge and skills beyond what we currently attribute to prehistoric people. The idea that complex religious, social, and architectural systems existed before the advent of agriculture challenges the traditional view that human civilization developed in a linear progression. Could Göbekli Tepe represent an earlier phase of human development that was eventually forgotten or lost to time? This theory has not been universally accepted but remains a tantalizing possibility.
6. Could Göbekli Tepe Have Served as an Astronomical Observatory?
Given the alignment of some of the pillars at Göbekli Tepe, many scholars have suggested that the site might have had astronomical significance. Some researchers believe that the positioning of certain stones corresponds to the movements of celestial bodies, such as the sun, moon, and stars. These alignments could indicate that the site was used for astronomical observations, perhaps as a calendar or a means of marking the changing seasons.
However, no definitive proof exists to confirm that Göbekli Tepe was used for such purposes. While the idea of an ancient observatory is compelling, the absence of clear astronomical instruments or written records leaves much to be desired in terms of evidence. Nevertheless, the possibility that ancient people had a sophisticated understanding of astronomy is an intriguing part of the mystery surrounding Göbekli Tepe.
7. Why Was the Site Abandoned?
Göbekli Tepe was abandoned after a few centuries of use, but the reasons for this sudden end are unclear. Some archaeologists propose that changes in climate or resources may have forced the inhabitants to leave the site. The region experienced significant climatic shifts during the period, including a shift from a more temperate climate to a more arid one, which could have made life at Göbekli Tepe unsustainable.
Another theory is that the people who built Göbekli Tepe gradually transitioned to a more agricultural-based society. As farming practices developed, the need for large ceremonial centers might have diminished, and the site fell into disuse. The fact that it was eventually buried only adds to the mystery of why such an important place was abandoned and hidden from view.
8. What Role Did the Animal Carvings Play in Religious Practices?
The animal carvings at Göbekli Tepe are one of the most striking features of the site, and their religious or symbolic significance remains a subject of great interest. Animals such as lions, boars, and birds are frequently depicted in the carvings, leading researchers to consider their possible role in the spiritual or ritualistic practices of the people who created them.
It is possible that the animals were seen as totems or spiritual guides, representing particular powers or forces in the natural world. Some theories suggest that the site may have been a kind of “shamanic” center, where rituals and ceremonies were performed to communicate with the spirit world. The association between animals and the afterlife or supernatural realms is common across many ancient cultures, but the specific beliefs of the Göbekli Tepe people remain elusive.
9. Was Göbekli Tepe Part of a Larger Network of Sites?
Göbekli Tepe is not the only ancient site in the region, and some researchers believe it may have been part of a larger network of ceremonial centers. Other sites, such as Karahan Tepe and Nevali Çori, exhibit similar features, including large stone pillars and carvings. This has led some to suggest that these sites were connected in some way, either through trade, shared religious practices, or even as part of a broader cultural or political network.
The possibility of a larger network raises questions about the social and political structures of prehistoric people. Were these sites part of a regional system of power, with Göbekli Tepe serving as a central hub? Or did these sites represent independent groups with similar cultural practices? The lack of definitive evidence makes this question difficult to answer but offers an exciting avenue for future research.
10. Is There a Connection Between Göbekli Tepe and Other Ancient Megalithic Sites?
Göbekli Tepe is often compared to other ancient megalithic sites, such as Stonehenge in England and the pyramids of Egypt. These sites, like Göbekli Tepe, feature large stone structures and are believed to have held ceremonial or religious significance. Some researchers have proposed that there may be a broader connection between Göbekli Tepe and other ancient megalithic sites around the world, suggesting that ancient peoples may have shared knowledge of advanced construction techniques or religious ideas.
While the idea of a global network of megalithic cultures is compelling, the lack of direct evidence linking Göbekli Tepe to other sites makes this theory speculative. However, the similarities in architectural style and the focus on ritual and astronomy at many megalithic sites suggest that early human societies across different regions may have been more interconnected than previously thought. This possibility remains one of the intriguing mysteries surrounding Göbekli Tepe.
