Gobekli Tepe has been translated to something like "Potbelly Hill", which I find an unusual translation and phrase for this site. I believe, complete personal belief with no scientific support, that the translation is most likely skewed from some distant past meaning that has been somewhat lost to time. Assuming the builders of the site, actually more accurately for this point is to focus on whomever buried the site, were intentionally burying the site for preservation versus destruction (why not just disassemble and reuse precious material) then the moniker of potbelly hill does not fit.
Mainstream archeology points to around 20,000 years ago to humans first starting to cook with pots, but the idea of caloric surplus to allow humans to grow supple enough to be called fat or have a potbelly (if that phrase maintained its meaning into ancient history) seems out of place.
My idea is that the translation would be more accurate if the original meaning of the phrase Gobekli Tepe closer aligned to "pregnant hill" as that phrasing would insinuate a treasure within versus a representation of gluttony. A pregnant hill, or the naming of such, says that what is inside is critically important and needs to be protected. To go through the work to build, use, and then cover (assuming for protection) such a structure and then give it a somewhat negative nomenclature does not make sense.
The idea that the caretakers intentionally and carefully covered the site versus outright destruction or haphazard covering (think about a landfill being covered-there is no concern about what the fill material does to the garbage within the landfill) lend one to think the place held venerated meaning in antiquity. For this structure to hold this much value at the end of its usage (why was no longer in use, and what is the reasoning for the abandonment) must be logically dwarfed by what its value was as a free standing structure. It could be reasonably assumed the physical location (geo-coordinates) may just be happenstance, but the erection of a monolithic structure is intentional as is the meaning it carried for the duration of its usage (assuming, again, that it was in use for a long period of time due to the weathering present). The significance of the site cannot be overlooked because only a place of reverence would impel a people to dedicate the time and resources needed to bury and preserve the structure.
It is my belief that the structure's naming is a mis-translation over the millennia, and as the meaning of the name was lost, so to was the knowledge that something was hidden inside the hill.
Mainstream archeology points to around 20,000 years ago to humans first starting to cook with pots, but the idea of caloric surplus to allow humans to grow supple enough to be called fat or have a potbelly (if that phrase maintained its meaning into ancient history) seems out of place.
My idea is that the translation would be more accurate if the original meaning of the phrase Gobekli Tepe closer aligned to "pregnant hill" as that phrasing would insinuate a treasure within versus a representation of gluttony. A pregnant hill, or the naming of such, says that what is inside is critically important and needs to be protected. To go through the work to build, use, and then cover (assuming for protection) such a structure and then give it a somewhat negative nomenclature does not make sense.
The idea that the caretakers intentionally and carefully covered the site versus outright destruction or haphazard covering (think about a landfill being covered-there is no concern about what the fill material does to the garbage within the landfill) lend one to think the place held venerated meaning in antiquity. For this structure to hold this much value at the end of its usage (why was no longer in use, and what is the reasoning for the abandonment) must be logically dwarfed by what its value was as a free standing structure. It could be reasonably assumed the physical location (geo-coordinates) may just be happenstance, but the erection of a monolithic structure is intentional as is the meaning it carried for the duration of its usage (assuming, again, that it was in use for a long period of time due to the weathering present). The significance of the site cannot be overlooked because only a place of reverence would impel a people to dedicate the time and resources needed to bury and preserve the structure.
It is my belief that the structure's naming is a mis-translation over the millennia, and as the meaning of the name was lost, so to was the knowledge that something was hidden inside the hill.