Urkesh Palace Pit = Bunker?
Those who have followed my thoughts probably know that my first instinct when I learn of an ancient subterranean structure is "bunker!". It's not a bad hypothesis, but very hard to prove. The problem is that the use as a bunker perhaps only lasted a few generations, and neglected to leave evidence - whereas subsequent uses may have been for longer, and left more evidence. A bunker that succeeded would most likely be emptied afterwards, and anything not removed, if at all, was likely to be organic or pottery. To put it bluntly, no bones.
Reading Archaeology magazine, July/Aug 2008, page 50, I found this, about a pit found next to Urkesh Palace, a pit that pre-dates the palace:
Fair enough, it was quite likely used for that, long after the pit has served its original purpose. I find it hard to believe that the Hurrians would have built such a quality pit just for animal sacrifices (even considering the related texts mentioning the underworld):
That photo is from the only online article I could find on the pit, entitled “Introduction to the Archaeo-zoology of the abi”
I propose that, ignoring what was found within, and just looking at the structure, and with the understanding that we will never know what the roof consisted of (but may have been a substantial organic mat), that it was a bunker. The thickness of the walls are similar to the plans I have for a bunker... Actually, if all you are doing is tossing animal bones into a pit, why have a tiny entrance and steps? Or to put it another way, if it was important for people to enter the sacrificial pit, why not make the steps a comfortable width? A bunker typically has the smallest entrance possible.
BTW, the ceramics found date to 2300-2100 BC.
Reading Archaeology magazine, July/Aug 2008, page 50, I found this, about a pit found next to Urkesh Palace, a pit that pre-dates the palace:
"unusual stone-lined pit... The pit's large underground room has a square antechamber facing west and a deep circular pit... it was originally covered with a roof and had a single, easily closed entrance facing west... Within the pit they found silver rings, an obsidian blade, clay animal figurines... But it was the mass of animal bones...Mostly they found the bones of piglets and puppies - dogs were considered unclean by the Hurrians. Sheep, goat and donkey bones were found as well, including the bones of entire animals. Consequently the archaeologists have proposed that the structure was for ritual animal sacrifices.
Fair enough, it was quite likely used for that, long after the pit has served its original purpose. I find it hard to believe that the Hurrians would have built such a quality pit just for animal sacrifices (even considering the related texts mentioning the underworld):
That photo is from the only online article I could find on the pit, entitled “Introduction to the Archaeo-zoology of the abi”
I propose that, ignoring what was found within, and just looking at the structure, and with the understanding that we will never know what the roof consisted of (but may have been a substantial organic mat), that it was a bunker. The thickness of the walls are similar to the plans I have for a bunker... Actually, if all you are doing is tossing animal bones into a pit, why have a tiny entrance and steps? Or to put it another way, if it was important for people to enter the sacrificial pit, why not make the steps a comfortable width? A bunker typically has the smallest entrance possible.
BTW, the ceramics found date to 2300-2100 BC.
posted by Rob at
Sunday, June 07, 2009
2 Comments:
So exactly what would you hypothesize from this? A bunker means... they had nuclear bombs back then? They were subjected to a number of attacks from feudal states wherein the king/president/etc needed to be scurried away for safe keeping while the fighting commenced or perhaps it was just a cold room where they kept their preserves seeing as they hadn't yet invented mason jars?
My post isn't getting published is it?
First of all, Rob, congratulations on your mind growing keener and sharper over the past couple of years. You have slowly moved away from the Oprah Winfrey fantasy world and begun to talk like a serious thinker about these subjects. In my opinion you have changed considerably in the last four years and more and more often you sound like a guy who can reason.
Your observation is brilliant and you are not the first to ask along these lines. The subject has come up again and again throughout archeology going back over a hundred years. If these ancient deep rock facilities were all built for religious or ritual purposes, why are they always found to have many features more characteristic of a custom designed underground refuge, particularly one designed to survive radiation aboveground?
It's a serious question if it pertains to one structure, when it can be legimitately asked about 90% of the ancient underground structures even built then we can pretty much guess intuitively there is something that has been going on historically that we modern people have completely missed out on.
A word used frequently nowdays is amnesiac. Something terribly catastrophic has been happening at regular cycles on this planet and within a few generations all the children of the survivors conveniently forget all of it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home