Archaeologica.org

Really exciting stuff, E.P. Thanks for sharing!

Google Karahan Tepe + Bahattin Çelik and avoid the nonsense about Cygnus and Deneb .

Hi Tiompan -

Andrew Collins was the first person to figure out the astronomical alignments at Gobleki Tepe, and did so with the late Klaus Scmidt, the sites discoverer and excavator.

Collins has been trying for some time to work through those alignments using later ethnographic materials, and precessional astronomy tools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxW9uU0r8jQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjtWB6X0tfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z-WQSsO42s


Collins has been trying to find a reason for Gobleki Tepe's alignment to celestial north.
The reason for that is straight forward:
that is where Comet Giacobini Zimmer approached the Earth from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75j5CP0vtsI

The Comet that ended the last glacial cycle.
IMKO, Collins does not have his dates straight yet.

Collins believes that the people who led the construction were the result of intermingling
between Sapiens, Denisovian and Neanderthal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75j5CP0vtsI

I am pretty certain that they were in fact X mt DNA who evolved along the Black Sea.

The informed reader will also note Collin's confusion of separate impact events,
and his pandering to various nu-age frauds.

E.P. ,
The informed reader would have been aware of the nonsense Collins has been peddling for years . Look at the texts .
Where do we start with this rubbish ? Ignoring the obvious nonsense about the “Cygnus mystery “ itself i.e. - Cygnus is at the root of all the world's religions
- The origins of astronomy, literature, ancient cosmologies, even transoceanic sea voyages all occurred some 17,000 years ago .
- Cosmic rays from a binary star known as Cygnus X-3 helped accelerate human evolution during the last Ice Age
- Traces the very DNA of life from shamanic art in Paleolithic caves to the foundations of the Great Pyramid, from psychedelic journeys in the Peruvian Amazon to Francis Crick's discovery of the double helix
- Reveals that our ancestors knew what science is now telling us - that life on Earth originated among the stars, a fact known and accepted by our ancestors .

He is not an archaeoastronomer ., he simply has an axe to grind about Cygnus . As with any any site that has multiple components e.g .Stonehenge ,you can use them to find "alignmnets " to any point of the compass or related to any day of the year . The re are plenty of othere examples of "archaeoastronomy " coming up with "alignments" that suggest something entirely differnet and equally as unlikley .I suggest you read what real archaeoastronomers have to say about the site.

Your'e "pretty sure about X mt DNA " from the site .I doubt that is based on anything other than a very superficial knowledge of archaeogenetics and is more likely wishful thinking in association with an agenda .

We can find equally nonsensical "archaeoastronomy " in relation to KT .

First , there are three apparent alignments / “avenues” that have their orientation on to the knoll . Accepting the accuracy of the measurement and their presence , their azimuths are 15º, 115º and 140º ,none of which are oriented towards Deneb or Cygnus and are apparently to , or less likely ,away from the knoll . They at least have some association with the basic tenets of archaeoastronomy in that there is ,hopefully , a clear setting of stones indicating a specific orientation , although even this is probemlatic i.e. “their twin sets of pillars forming an apparent zigzagging pattern” .
The real nitty gritty is the putative alignment towards Deneb . What we have as seen from the knoll i.e. the backsight is a flat horizon to the north towards Keçili North Tepe .This is the foresight , except it is nothing like a foresight ,it’s a featureless flat summit a kilometre away but only 20 m higher than the knoll .The effect is seen in fig 12 . That is not an example of a foresight , it’s a featureless horizon. An example of a foresight could be a standing stone ,like the Heel Stone , or even a prominent notch in a hillside ,something that provides a element of accuracy when lined up from the backsight , not a flat hillside occupying over 20 degrees of the horizon .It’s potentially worse than that , the knoll is merely the high point ,and not where the pillars are and it looks likely that Keçili North Tepe is unsighted from the majority of the pillars/avenues .
Then when we look at what actually happens with the Deneb in the period we discover that half the year Deneb would not be seen to set over the hill at all as it would take place in daylight . The altitude of 2 degrees for the extinction height means that when in view it is still over half an hour before setting on the actual horizon and has also moved over four degrees towards the centre of the “hill” (actually a flat horizon ).Looking to play games with stars on the northern horizon in the period ?, far more interesting would Mizar ,in Ursa major , which actually descends towards towards the horizon as seen from the knoll and skims the top of the hill before ascending again at due north ,where there happens to be a relatively distinctive hill (752 m )for the area ,if anything is a foresight it is .Arcturus a much brighter star than Deneb behaves in much the same way as Mizar ,following the silhouette of the hill then ascending at the more likely and only potential foresight . These are not intended suggested as being meaningful, simply examples that crop up if you look hard enough or have an agenda to sell .Ever hear of a major prehistoric monument being accepted as being aligned on Deneb ? North yes , but that’s a cardinal point .Like the rest of the “mystery “ it’s a joke .The nonsense goes back a long way . I can remember “The Green Stone” and the psychic questing and magazine articles that would make the alt/ wacky US crowd seem sober .

Hi Tiompan -

Tiompan wrote: E.P. ,
The informed reader would have been aware of the nonsense Collins has been peddling for years. Look at the texts. Where do we start with this rubbish ?

Ignoring the obvious nonsense about the “Cygnus mystery “ itself i.e. - Cygnus is at the root of all the world's religions
- The origins of astronomy, literature, ancient cosmologies, even transoceanic sea voyages all occurred some 17,000 years ago .

We've had discussions here about the timing and appearance of boats and their use.

The real problem that you're trying to point out is the proclamation of one original master race by whom the rest of us were taught.

Thus the human need to simplify the complex leads to racism, in particular the modern theosophist kind. Or to Ancient Aliens.

Tiompan wrote: - Cosmic rays from a binary star known as Cygnus X-3 helped accelerate human evolution during the last Ice Age
- Traces the very DNA of life from shamanic art in Paleolithic caves to the foundations of the Great Pyramid, from psychedelic journeys in the Peruvian Amazon to Francis Crick's discovery of the double helix
- Reveals that our ancestors knew what science is now telling us - that life on Earth originated among the stars, a fact known and accepted by our ancestors .

Yes but.. Collins did re-locate caves at the Giza plateau

Tiompan wrote: He is not an archaeo astronomer, he simply has an axe to grind about Cygnus. As with any any site that has multiple components e.g .Stonehenge , you can use them to find "alignments " to any point of the compass or related to any day of the year . There are plenty of other examples of "archaeoastronomy " coming up with "alignments" that suggest something entirely different and equally as unlikely. I suggest you read what real archaeoastronomers have to say about the site.

In as much as I have not read anything of his after "From the Ashes of Angel" I'll take your word for Collins has written later.

Collins is an author who knows his market, and further he has to work within a distribution system where other more delusional "authors" appear, and has to appear at "conferences" with them.

None the less, Collins was the person who first spotted the celestial alignments at Gobekli Tepe.

He has been trying to figure out the reasons for those alignments using ethnographic materials, while working in the environment he is.

The hard data of those alignments led him to his focus on Cygnus.

As far as "real archaeoastronomy" goes, here's the facts, despite the severe denial that some people are engaged in:
Within human memory, we gotten hit by TWO different comets.
That is the data on the recent impact rates for comets.

The reason why this is important right now is because we have another fragmenting comet in the inner solar system. (And who was it who said that archaeology was fairly useless - oh yes, it was my own mother, among others.)

As far as North American archaeoastronmy goes, I first met John Carlson in the early 1980's when he was claiming that the Phaestos Disk was an astrological record.

Tiompan wrote: Your'e "pretty sure about X mt DNA " from the site. I doubt that is based on anything other than a very superficial knowledge of archaeogenetics and is more likely wishful thinking in association with an agenda .

Tiompan, when I wrote my book many years ago there was no agreement on taxonomy among the evolutionary specialists. My summary of impacts and human evolution got a lot of heat from some of them.

Of course, the recent fossils finds have pretty much silenced most of my critics.

Yes, I'm pretty sure about X mt DNA. It appears that it evolved along the shores of the ancient Black Sea prior to later flooding. This evolution nearly resulted in speciation.

Tracing its distribution in North America is relatively straight- forward due to their relatively advanced tool kit.

The data agrees with Native memories of them, which are contained in their "traditional histories".

Tiompan wrote: We can find equally nonsensical "archaeoastronomy " in relation to KT .

Since the KT impact occurred well before humans evolved, archaeology is not applicable.
Geology is; cosmology is.

Despite what you may have heard about the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs,
it was a comet that hit.

We know this because we have a sample of the impactor.

We also know this because ELE's occur on a 26 million year stochastically periodic basis.

Despite Dr. Morrison's (a principle of Sceptic Magazine) best efforts to impede any challenges to his very early estimate of the impact hazard, while that estimate appeared very high at the time he published it, it very seriously underestimated the impact hazard and its sources.

As this data has extreme implications for national space policy, some of the well entrenched NASA clients have done their best to suppress it.

The rate of cometary impact is very very important in the design of planetary defense systems.

Tiompan wrote:
First , there are three apparent alignments / “avenues” that have their orientation on to the knoll . Accepting the accuracy of the measurement and their presence , their azimuths are 15º, 115º and 140º ,none of which are oriented towards Deneb or Cygnus and are apparently to, or less likely, away from the knoll . They at least have some association with the basic tenets of archaeoastronomy in that there is, hopefully , a clear setting of stones indicating a specific orientation , although even this is problematic i.e. “their twin sets of pillars forming an apparent zigzagging pattern” .

Tiompan, the celestial alignments of the pillars at Gobkli Tepe which is locate on that knoll you mention are pretty much as Collins first noted.

The iconography on those pillars is pretty much as Collins first noted.

That is why the site's German excavator worked with him, and not you.

As far as "the basic tenets of archaeoastronomy" goes, since those basic tenets ignored both impact events and used imaginary data (for which see my note on the Phaestos Disk above), that "field" is in need of substantial revision.

In all cases, the data wins in the end; its simply a question of casualties along the way.

Tiompan wrote: The real nitty gritty is the putative alignment towards Deneb. What we have as seen from the knoll i.e. the backsight is a flat horizon to the north towards Keçili North Tepe .This is the foresight , except it is nothing like a foresight ,it’s a featureless flat summit a kilometre away but only 20 m higher than the knoll .The effect is seen in fig 12. That is not an example of a foresight , it’s a featureless horizon. An example of a foresight could be a standing stone ,like the Heel Stone , or even a prominent notch in a hillside ,something that provides a element of accuracy when lined up from the backsight , not a flat hillside occupying over 20 degrees of the horizon .It’s potentially worse than that , the knoll is merely the high point ,and not where the pillars are and it looks likely that Keçili North Tepe is unsighted from the majority of the pillars/avenues .

Tiompan, you have to remember that the ancient sky was not the sky we see today.

Aside from celestial precision, both comets and their associated "meteor showers" were much more intense.

In particular the Draconids, pea sized grains left by Comet Giacobini Zimmer.

That comet was the reason such an extraordinary investment was made in constructing Gobekli Tepe. And that comet explains the alignment of Gobekli Tepe's pillars, and the later ethnographic materials.

Tiompan wrote: Then when we look at what actually happens with the Deneb in the period we discover that half the year Deneb would not be seen to set over the hill at all as it would take place in daylight . The altitude of 2 degrees for the extinction height means that when in view it is still over half an hour before setting on the actual horizon and has also moved over four degrees towards the centre of the “hill” (actually a flat horizon ).

Looking to play games with stars on the northern horizon in the period ?, far more interesting would Mizar, in Ursa Major, which actually descends towards towards the horizon as seen from the knoll and skims the top of the hill before ascending again at due north , where there happens to be a relatively distinctive hill (752 m )for the area , if anything is a foresight it is .Arcturus a much brighter star than Deneb behaves in much the same way as Mizar ,following the silhouette of the hill then ascending at the more likely and only potential foresight . These are not intended suggested as being meaningful, simply examples that crop up if you look hard enough or have an agenda to sell.

Ever hear of a major prehistoric monument being accepted as being aligned on Deneb ? North yes, but that’s a cardinal point .Like the rest of the “mystery “ it’s a joke .The nonsense goes back a long way . I can remember “The Green Stone” and the psychic questing and magazine articles that would make the alt/wacky US crowd seem sober .

Tiompan, before the advent of 14C dating, the only way of gaining hard dates was through astronomical texts. That skill has been nearly lost now, along with the use of the slide rule.

The result is that we get a lot of archaeoastronomical babble both from the fringe and from the mainstream, as there is no one who takes their time to refute them.

You are focusing on stars, and constellations,
while ignoring the comets that were active both in the recent ancient skies,
and on Earth.

How does it go? "The fault lies within ourselves, dear Brutus, and not within the stars"?

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi Tiompan -

Tiompan wrote: E.P. ,
The informed reader would have been aware of the nonsense Collins has been peddling for years. Look at the texts. Where do we start with this rubbish ?

Ignoring the obvious nonsense about the “Cygnus mystery “ itself i.e. - Cygnus is at the root of all the world's religions
- The origins of astronomy, literature, ancient cosmologies, even transoceanic sea voyages all occurred some 17,000 years ago .

The real problem that you're trying to point out is the proclamation of one original master race by whom the rest of us were taught.

No th real problem is that Collins knows nothing about archaeaeoastronomy and what he writes is nonsense .

Tiompan wrote: - Cosmic rays from a binary star known as Cygnus X-3 helped accelerate human evolution during the last Ice Age
- Traces the very DNA of life from shamanic art in Paleolithic caves to the foundations of the Great Pyramid, from psychedelic journeys in the Peruvian Amazon to Francis Crick's discovery of the double helix
- Reveals that our ancestors knew what science is now telling us - that life on Earth originated among the stars, a fact known and accepted by our ancestors .

Yes but.. Collins did re-locate caves at the Giza plateau

Tiompan wrote:
Which ignores the ridiculousness of his points ,and the additiopn of the "caves " only exacrebates them .

None the less, Collins was the person who first spotted the celestial alignments at Gobekli Tepe. [/quote]

Which is nonsense , have you read the other equally nonsensical asro stuff related to Gobekli ?



VHe has been trying to figure out the reasons for those alignments using ethnographic materials, while working in the environment he is.

The hard data of those alignments led him to his focus on Cygnus. V

He had an agenda about Cygnus before his findings and merely slotted it in .

[/quote]
As far as "real archaeoastronomy" goes, here's the facts, despite the severe denial that some people are engaged in:
Within human memory, we gotten hit by TWO different comets. [/quote]

Whether we did or not has nothing to do with Collins writing rubbish .

Tiompan wrote: Your'e "pretty sure about X mt DNA " from the site. I doubt that is based on anything other than a very superficial knowledge of archaeogenetics and is more likely wishful thinking in association with an agenda .

Yes, I'm pretty sure about X mt DNA. It appears that it evolved along the shores of the ancient Black Sea prior to later flooding.
Tracing its distribution in North America is relatively straight- forward due to their relatively advanced tool kit.

[/quote]
As I suggested ,I doubt you have more than a superficial understanding of archaeogenetics and the your "pretty sure " is simply wishful thinking cionnected with some agenda .

Tiompan wrote: We can find equally nonsensical "archaeoastronomy " in relation to KT . First , there are three apparent alignments / “avenues” that have their orientation on to the knoll . Accepting the accuracy of the measurement and their presence , their azimuths are 15º, 115º and 140º ,none of which are oriented towards Deneb or Cygnus and are apparently to, or less likely, away from the knoll . They at least have some association with the basic tenets of archaeoastronomy in that there is, hopefully , a clear setting of stones indicating a specific orientation , although even this is problematic i.e. “their twin sets of pillars forming an apparent zigzagging pattern” .

"Tiompan, the celestial alignments of the pillars at Gobkli Tepe which is locate on that knoll you mention are pretty much as Collins first noted. [/quote]

You didn't undersatnd what I have just written , I was talking about the nonsense written about KT not GT and completely ignored the obvious problems with his and Hale's assessment

Not only has he made obvious errors , as noted if you have an agenda you could find "alignments at GT to anything you wish .
There are other holed stones at Gobekli , due to these holes being low lying they are hardly likely to be useful for observation ,they have been conveniently ignored .
Why should we even consider the hole as being used for observation ?


[/quote]
The iconography on those pillars is pretty much as Collins first noted. [/quote]

So what that same iconography has been described by others without an agenda ,and much better .

[/quote]
That is why the site's German excavator worked with him, and not you. [/quote]

Schmidt , the excavator, didn't work with Collins .You just dreamt that or made it up . Read what Collins says about him "I had never met Klaus Schmidt before that day, as he had had not been at the site when I first visited Göbekli Tepe in 2004. At first he refused to grant me an audience, citing the fact that he was too busy. However, he said that if he got time, he would find me, and this is what he did. I hung around the place so long that I think he felt he had to answer my questions in some manner. He actually opened up on a number of points, and later I sat with him and his staff beneath a tree next to the container used as the archaeologists’ kitchen and storehouse. When they all left for Sanliurfa in the late afternoon, Klaus asked if I wanted to accompany them. As I had already ordered a taxi, I politely declined. I saw him again in September 2013 when I led a party around the site as part of the Megalithomania Origins of Civilization tour. I went to see him in his new portacabin next to the excavations on the northwest side of the site. He sat at his desk and made it clear he was not happy to answer questions as he was so busy. I recall asking him just a couple of things – one being his opinion of potential astronomical alignments at the site. As he’d done the previous year, he did not dismiss the idea, but admitted it was not his favourite theory. " That is not working with .

Tiompan wrote: The real nitty gritty is the putative alignment towards Deneb. What we have as seen from the knoll i.e. the backsight is a flat horizon to the north towards Keçili North Tepe .This is the foresight , except it is nothing like a foresight ,it’s a featureless flat summit a kilometre away but only 20 m higher than the knoll .The effect is seen in fig 12. That is not an example of a foresight , it’s a featureless horizon. An example of a foresight could be a standing stone ,like the Heel Stone , or even a prominent notch in a hillside ,something that provides a element of accuracy when lined up from the backsight , not a flat hillside occupying over 20 degrees of the horizon .It’s potentially worse than that , the knoll is merely the high point ,and not where the pillars are and it looks likely that Keçili North Tepe is unsighted from the majority of the pillars/avenues .

[/quote] Tiompan, you have to remember that the ancient sky was not the sky we see today.[/quote]
I don't have to remember that , I know it . If you had read and understood what I had written about KT you would know that Collins has that probelm

[/quote] That comet was the reason such an extraordinary investment was made in constructing Gobekli Tepe. And that comet explains the alignment of Gobekli Tepe's pillars, and the later ethnographic materials. [/quote]
That is nonsense . You have no more idea for the reason of building GT than all the other new age nuts . As noted previously you could argue for anything you like regarding the "alignments " of the numerous pillars at GTB .Further there is no evidence that we should consoder that "alignments " were even considered by the erectors .

Tiompan wrote:

Then when we look at what actually happens with the Deneb in the period we discover that half the year Deneb would not be seen to set over the hill at all as it would take place in daylight . The altitude of 2 degrees for the extinction height means that when in view it is still over half an hour before setting on the actual horizon and has also moved over four degrees towards the centre of the “hill” (actually a flat horizon ).

Looking to play games with stars on the northern horizon in the period ?, far more interesting would Mizar, in Ursa Major, which actually descends towards towards the horizon as seen from the knoll and skims the top of the hill before ascending again at due north , where there happens to be a relatively distinctive hill (752 m )for the area , if anything is a foresight it is .Arcturus a much brighter star than Deneb behaves in much the same way as Mizar ,following the silhouette of the hill then ascending at the more likely and only potential foresight . These are not intended suggested as being meaningful, simply examples that crop up if you look hard enough or have an agenda to sell.

Ever hear of a major prehistoric monument being accepted as being aligned on Deneb ? North yes, but that’s a cardinal point .Like the rest of the “mystery “ it’s a joke .The nonsense goes back a long way . I can remember “The Green Stone” and the psychic questing and magazine articles that would make the alt/wacky US crowd seem sober .

[/quote]Tiompan, before the advent of 14C dating, the only way of gaining hard dates was through astonomical texts. That skill has been nearly lost now, along with the use of the slide rule. [/quote]
That is nonsense too .Unless you can be sure that an alignment was intended by the builders it's only conejcture .Even if you were sure of the intention there is no way of knowing the level of accuracy ,making any suggestion of dating monuments from alignments a very risky business . It was tried in the past and proved to be a huge failure , see Lockyer 's attempt at dating Stonehenge .

[/quote]The result is that we get a lot of archaeoastronomical babble both from the fringe and from the mainstream, as there is no one who takes their time to refute them. [/quote]
You obviously on't know the literature , I have just done so with Collins as have others .


[/quote]You are focusing on stars, and constellations,
while ignoring the comets that were active both in the recent ancient skies,
and on Earth.

[/quote]
Most archaeoastronomy is not about stars (with the exception of the sun) and constellations . Tell me of one prehistoric monument that is considerd to have been aligned to a comet ,that is accepted as such by a reputable archaeoastronomer .

Tiompan wrote: No the real problem is that Collins knows nothing about archaeaeoastronomy and what he writes is nonsense .

Since you are going to argue ex-cathedra claiming the existence of a field of "archaeoastronomy", little less, let us go to the hard data, which always wins in the end.

WHAT NO ONE WHO SELF-PROCLAIMS THEMSELVES "ARCHAEO ASTRONOMERS" CAN EXPLAIN IS WHY ANCIENT CULTURES INVESTED SO MUCH EFFORT IN BOTH CONSTRUCTING STRUCTURES AND IN MAINTAINING A CLASS OF ASTRONOMERS.

On the other hand, those who work in impact studies have no problems with explaining those activities. They have no problem with the data, just with some really dense self proclaimed "archaeo-astronomers".

Collins did re-discover caves on the Giza Plateau.

Tiompan wrote: Which ignores the ridiculousness of his points, and the addition of the "caves " only exacrebates them .

The caves exist. If that causes you problems, then...
Collins was also the person who first spotted the celestial alignments at Gobekli Tepe.

Tiompan wrote: Which is nonsense , have you read the other equally nonsensical astro stuff related to Gobekli ?

The sites excavator, Klaus Schmidt, was of a different opinion about Collins' observations on the sites alignments.

There are a lot of fringe writers milking Gobleki Tepe for all they can,
in particular the usual theosophists.
I generally don't have time to keep up with all of them.
I have my own work on "recent" impacts to do.

As far as "real archaeoastronomy" goes, here's the facts, despite the severe denial that some people are engaged in:
Within human memory, we gotten hit by TWO different comets.
These two comets, and the impacts of their fragments with the Earth,
neatly explain the observed data, and easily explain the behaviors noted above.

Tiompan wrote: Whether we did or not has nothing to do with Collins writing rubbish.

Throw out the "rubbish", and you are left with the celestial alignments Collins noted.
and the ethnographic materials on cosmologies he collected.

Impact events "explain" much of the "strange" beliefs in those cosmologies,
as well as many ancient "magical" practices.

Yes, I'm pretty sure about X mt DNA. It appears that it evolved along the shores of the ancient Black Sea prior to later flooding.

Tracing its distribution in North America is relatively straight- forward due to their relatively advanced tool kit.

Tiompan wrote: As I suggested, I doubt you have more than a superficial understanding of archaeogenetics and the your "pretty sure " is simply wishful thinking connected with some agenda .

I am not a geneticist,
but depend on others for data.
That said, this is simply where the DNA data lead me.

As far as it goes, archaeogenetics is a developing field.
You can see this by the contradictory studies published every other week or so.
I depend on more gross anatomical features, rather than alleles.
and on the remains of material culture.
At this point in time mt DNA distribution
appears to be useful in tracking the movements of homonid propulations.

Tiompan, the celestial alignments of the pillars at Gobkli Tepe which is locate on that knoll you mention are pretty much as Collins first noted.

Tiompan wrote: You didn't understand what I have just written, I was talking about the nonsense written about KT not GT and completely ignored the obvious problems with his and Hale's assessment
...
Not only has he made obvious errors , as noted if you have an agenda you could find alignments at GT to anything you wish .

There are other holed stones at Gobekli , due to these holes being low lying they are hardly likely to be useful for observation ,they have been conveniently ignored .
Why should we even consider the hole as being used for observation ?

My apologies. I usually hear crap about the KT impact event,
rather than about the site of Karahan Tepe.

The iconography on those pillars is pretty much as Collins first noted.

Tiompan wrote: So what. That same iconography has been described by others without an agenda ,and much better .

Collins spotted it first.

That is why the site's German excavator worked with him, and not you.

Tiompan wrote: Schmidt , the excavator, didn't work with Collins .You just dreamt that or made it up.

Read what Collins says about him:
"I had never met Klaus Schmidt before that day, as he had had not been at the site when I first visited Göbekli Tepe in 2004. At first he refused to grant me an audience, citing the fact that he was too busy. However, he said that if he got time, he would find me, and this is what he did. I hung around the place so long that I think he felt he had to answer my questions in some manner. He actually opened up on a number of points, and later I sat with him and his staff beneath a tree next to the container used as the archaeologists’ kitchen and storehouse.
When they all left for Sanliurfa in the late afternoon, Klaus asked if I wanted to accompany them. As I had already ordered a taxi, I politely declined.

"I saw him again in September 2013 when I led a party around the site as part of the Megalithomania Origins of Civilization tour. I went to see him in his new portacabin next to the excavations on the northwest side of the site. He sat at his desk and made it clear he was not happy to answer questions as he was so busy. I recall asking him just a couple of things – one being his opinion of potential astronomical alignments at the site. As he’d done the previous year, he did not dismiss the idea, but admitted it was not his favourite theory. "

That is not working with.

You've left out the date of that particular meeting.

None the less, the orientation of the paired pillars was not understood before Collins noted them. I believe he was the first to discuss the iconography on them, but that may reflect my own limited reading now.

Tiompan, you have to remember that the ancient sky was not the sky we see today.

Tiompan wrote: I don't have to remember that , I know it . If you had read and understood what I had written about KT you would know that Collins has that problem

I have not heard you comment before on the behavior of Comet Giacobini-Zimmer during that the relevant time period, and you are not acknowledging its existence in your posts here.

That comet was the reason such an extraordinary investment was made in constructing Gobekli Tepe. And that comet explains the alignment of Gobekli Tepe's pillars, and the later ethnographic materials.

Tiompan wrote: That is nonsense .

The problem you have is explaining the existence of the Draconids, the craters, and the existence of Gobekli Tepe.

Tiompan wrote: You have no more idea for the reason of building GT than all the other new age nuts .

I see. Having lost your ex-cathedra argument,
you engage in an ad hominem attack,
in other words simple slander.

Me, I simply point out that the data is what it is.
That is quite different than the nu-age nuts,
for whom see my post here.

Tiompan wrote: As noted previously you could argue for anything you like regarding the "alignments " of the numerous pillars at GTB. Further there is no evidence that we should consider that "alignments " were even considered by the erectors .

It appears I have reduced your argument to the point where you contradict yourself.
A reductio ad absurdam.
QED.

Tiompan wrote: Ever hear of a major prehistoric monument being accepted as being aligned on Deneb ? North yes, but that’s a cardinal point. Like the rest of the “mystery “ it’s a joke .The nonsense goes back a long way . I can remember “The Green Stone” and the psychic questing and magazine articles that would make the alt/wacky US crowd seem sober .

I never read "The Green Stone".

While it is true that the theosophist nonsense goes back a long way,
Clube and Napier's work on cometary impact only goes back about 30 years.

Tiompan, before the advent of 14C dating, the only way of gaining hard dates was through astronomical texts. That skill has been nearly lost now, along with the use of the slide rule.

Tiompan wrote: That is nonsense too.

I think that there are only about 14-30 individuals who actually are competent in working with ancient astronomical texts. Dr. Carlson is not among them; I do not know about you.

Tiompan wrote: Unless you can be sure that an alignment was intended by the builders it's only conjecture. Even if you were sure of the intention there is no way of knowing the level of accuracy ,making any suggestion of dating monuments from alignments a very risky business. It was tried in the past and proved to be a huge failure, see Lockyer 's attempt at dating Stonehenge .

As far as Stonehenge goes, may I suggest to you that you examine the dates of the major construciton phases?

The result of the ignorance of the ancient night sky and impacts is that we get a lot of archaeoastronomical babble both from the fringe and from the mainstream, as there is no one who takes their time to refute them.

Tiompan wrote: You obviously don't know the literature.

And you do not know the ancient night sky.

Tiompan wrote: I have just done so with Collins as have others .

I prefer to spend my time with those who do know the ancient night sky.

You are focusing on stars, and constellations,
while ignoring the comets that were active both in the recent ancient skies,
and on Earth.

Tiompan wrote: Most archaeoastronomy is not about stars (with the exception of the sun) and constellations. Tell me of one prehistoric monument that is considered to have been aligned to a comet, that is accepted as such by a reputable archaeoastronomer .

Again, Comet Giacobini-Zimmer was very active in the "recent" past,
and this is known among those astronomers who specialize in comets.
Comet Encke was as well.

Now if those who proclaim themselves archaeo-astronomers do not know that,
then it is not my problem that they do not know contemporary cometary astronomy.

PS - We have craters. We win.

[qEP ,
The quotes are getting difficult to distinguish from each other .
The effort involved in working out where the sun sets or rises on the horizon or the moon or any other celstial object for that matter , and marking where that occurs on the horizon as seen from a particular spot is not difficult and does not require a "class of astromomers ". Children could quite easily do it ,building monuments is something else . Those involved in imapct "studies" are obviously no better qualified than anyone else in proviiding explanations , apart from their ill informed agenda driven fantasies .
Collins belongs to the fringe writers on GT and much else besides , you are wasting your time reading him .
Archaeogenetics is a very fast moving fioeld and I doubt that you keep up with it .
You have avoided all the problems about the Cygnus /Deneb nonsense and there is plenty more .do you want an inventory ?
Schmidt clearly did not work with Schmidt , as you had claimed .
How did you manage to confuse the KT data with GT , they are quite different sites in relation to the problems in the "astronomy" . The start of the thread was about KT and Collins , his argumnet about the alignmnet is simply incredibly falwed ,as was the original GT suggestion .
As far as GT goes there are host of problems in connection with what Collins and Hale suggests . You have been given hard data on KT , which you ignored and a critique of the basic problems with GT ? do you want more data on GT , the type of data that the dense agenda driven impact students avoid or fail to understand , in favour of fantasy writers like Collins .

Tiompan wrote: EP ,
The quotes are getting difficult to distinguish from each other.

Yes,
But since we are dealing with life and death matters,
I tend to take the time to do as best I can with them.

Tiompan wrote: The effort involved in working out where the sun sets or rises on the horizon or the moon or any other celestial object for that matter, and marking where that occurs on the horizon as seen from a particular spot is not difficult and does not require a "class of astromomers ". Children could quite easily do it, building monuments is something else.

Thank you for conceding that point, Tiompan. No let's move on to the important one:

WHAT NO ONE WHO SELF-PROCLAIMS THEMSELVES "ARCHAEO ASTRONOMERS" CAN EXPLAIN IS WHY ANCIENT CULTURES INVESTED SO MUCH EFFORT IN BOTH CONSTRUCTING STRUCTURES AND IN MAINTAINING A CLASS OF ASTRONOMERS.

Tiompan wrote: Those involved in impact "studies" are obviously no better qualified than anyone else in providing explanations , apart from their ill informed agenda driven fantasies .

Ahah. Trying once again to escape the gross data by using an ad hominem attack.

Tiompan wrote: Collins belongs to the fringe writers on GT and much else besides,
you are wasting your time reading him .

While I certainly differ with Collins on many things, just as I do with you,
I find Collins' earlier work on the PPN to be very interesting, an easy and fun read, and useful.

Tiompan wrote: Archaeogenetics is a very fast moving field and I doubt that you keep up with it .

Once again, my observation is that at the current time mt DNA haplogroup distribution studies are useful in tracking population movements.

Tiompan wrote: You have avoided all the problems about the Cygnus /Deneb nonsense and there is plenty more. Do you want an inventory ?

Yes, that would be useful.

Tiompan wrote: Collins clearly did not work with Schmidt , as you had claimed .

And you did?
You were the person to spot the pillar alignments, and the holed stones?

Tiompan wrote: How did you manage to confuse the KT data with GT, they are quite different sites in relation to the problems in the "astronomy".

As I explained earlier, I usually hear crap about the KT impact event,
rather than about the site of Karahan Tepe.

Tiompan wrote: The start of the thread was about KT and Collins , his argument about the alignment is simply incredibly flawed ,as was the original GT suggestion .

As far as GT goes there are host of problems in connection with what Collins and Hale suggest.

You have been given hard data on KT , which you ignored, and a critique of the basic problems with GT? Do you want more data on GT, the type of data that the dense agenda driven impact students avoid or fail to understand, in favour of fantasy writers like Collins .

Speaking about fantasies,

I have pointed out to you significant features of the ancient night sky which you insist on ignoring.

The same goes for Collins, but he has different reasons for making his mistakes.

Like I said before, I have had to read a lot of babble to get to useful hard data.

PS - We have craters. We win.

E.P. Grondine wrote:

Tiompan wrote: EP ,
The quotes are getting difficult to distinguish from each other .

Yes,
But since we are dealing with life and death matters,
I tend to take the time to do as best I can with them.

The problem was that it meant you avoided addressing them .

Tiompan wrote: The effort involved in working out where the sun sets or rises on the horizon or the moon or any other celstial object for that matter , and marking where that occurs on the horizon as seen from a particular spot is not difficult and does not require a "class of astromomers ". Children could quite easily do it, building monuments is something else.

Thank you for conceding that point, Tiompan. No let's move on to the important one:

WHAT NO ONE WHO SELF-PROCLAIMS THEMSELVES "ARCHAEO ASTRONOMERS" CAN EXPLAIN IS WHY ANCIENT CULTURES INVESTED SO MUCH EFFORT IN BOTH CONSTRUCTING STRUCTURES AND IN MAINTAINING A CLASS OF ASTRONOMERS.


Nopthing conceded at all . That's the facts , something you seem to avoid . "Explanations " are ten a penny . When they come from fantasists they rea even more worthless .

Tiompan wrote: Those involved in imapct "studies" are obviously no better qualified than anyone else in providing explanations , apart from their ill informed agenda driven fantasies .

Ahah. Trying once again to escape the gross data by using an ad hominem attack. [/quote]
You have no gross data that "explains " the building of GT or monuments , to think otherwise is delusional .

Tiompan wrote: You have avoided all the problems about the Cygnus /Deneb nonsense and there is plenty more. Do you want an inventory ?

Yes, that would be useful.

Tiompan wrote:
Collins clearly did not work with Schmidt , as you had claimed .


[/quote EP] And you did?
You were the person to spot the pillar alignments, and the holed stones?

I never said I did , you said Collins did , that was wrong and shows how much attention you have been paying to the basics of the fanatsy and how you uncritically buy into it .
The pillars were obvious long befoe Collins mentioned them ,the holed stones were later as the holes were lower . The problems with the holes are another point that you seem to have avoided ,again ,and there are more .
Anyone can make claims for "alignments , and they do , you could and it would be no more to the point than Collins doing so .
How did you manage to confuse the KT data with GT , they are quite different sites in relation to the problems in the "astronomy" .
[/quote]

As I explained earlier, I usually hear crap about the KT impact event,
rather than about the site of Karahan Tepe.

Tiompan wrote: The start of the thread was about KT and Collins , his argument about the alignment is simply incredibly flawed ,as was the original GT suggestion .

As far as GT goes there are host of problems in connection with what Collins and Hale suggest.

You have been given hard data on KT , which you ignored and a critique of the basic problems with GT? do you want more data on GT , the type of data that the dense agenda driven impact students avoid or fail to understand , in favour of fantasy writers like Collins .

[/quote EP]
Speaking about fantasies, I have pointed out to you significant features of the ancient night sky which you insist on ignoring.
[/quote]

Not anything that I don't know or made sense .

[/quote EP]
The same goes for Collins, but he has different reasons for making his mistakes.
[/quote]
One is that he doesn't know the subject , he is not even the person who does the data , get that right

PS - We have craters. We win.[/quote]
Not when when it produces nonsense explanations .We all have craters and don't produce fantasies about them .
You have provided no data and avoided addressing the problems .
When you are attenpt to do so , I'll ask again if you want further hard data on GT .

Tiompan wrote: The problem was that it meant you avoided addressing them.

Tiompan wrote: Nothing conceded at all. That's the facts , something you seem to avoid. "Explanations " are ten a penny. When they come from fantasists they are even more worthless.

You yourself don't have to concede.
But just because you are ignorant of modern astronomical cometary work,
do not assume that everyone else is.

And do not expect respect for your opinion from any cometary astronomer.

Tiompan wrote: You have avoided all the problems about the Cygnus /Deneb nonsense and there is plenty more. Do you want an inventory ?

Yes, that would be useful.

Tiompan wrote: Collins clearly did not work with Schmidt , as you had claimed .

And you did?
You were the person to spot the pillar alignments, and the holed stones?
You discussed possible astronomical alignments at Gobekli Tepe with Schmidt?

Tiompan wrote: I never said I did, you said Collins did, that was wrong and shows how much attention you have been paying to the basics of the fantasy and how you uncritically buy into it .

Excuse me, I have told you multiple times that I have my own opinions.

Tiompan wrote: The pillars were obvious long before Collins mentioned them, the holed stones were later as the holes were lower. The problems with the holes are another point that you seem to have avoided, again, and there are more .

Once again, to my knowledge Collins was the first person to suggerst that the central pairs may have been aligned to sky, and the first to point out the later use of the circular holed siting stones.

Tiompan wrote: Anyone can make claims for "alignments, and they do, you could and it would be no more to the point than Collins doing so.

How did you manage to confuse the KT data with GT , they are quite different sites in relation to the problems in the "astronomy" .

Tiompan wrote: The start of the thread was about KT and Collins , his argument about the alignment is simply incredibly flawed, as was the original GT suggestion .

As far as GT goes there are host of problems in connection with what Collins and Hale suggest.

You have been given hard data on KT, which you ignored, and a critique of the basic problems with GT? Do you want more data on GT, the type of data that the dense agenda driven impact students avoid or fail to understand , in favour of fantasy writers like Collins .

There are competent cometary astronomers who are working through the GT alignments.

About the only fantasy that they have that I know of
is not having to deal with blockheads who present themselves as experts.

Particularly when they resort to pretty poor debating techniques to try and make their points.

Its more like a nightmare than a fantasy.
In this particular case wasting my Sunday responding to
someone who is demonstrating the intelligence of a house cat.

Speaking about fantasies, I have pointed out to you significant features of the ancient night sky which you continually insist on ignoring.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Tiompan wrote: Not anything that I don't know or made sense .

Captain Oblivious, I salute you.

But you'll have to forgive me for pointing out your ignorance to others,
and trying to prevent you from sharing your ignorance with them.

Collins, has had different reasons for making his mistakes.

Tiompan wrote: One is that he doesn't know the subject , he is not even the person who does the data , get that right

Collins works with ethnographic materials which are very difficult.
That is no excuse for your own mistakes in modern cometary astronomy.

PS - We have craters. We win.

Tiompan wrote: Not when it produces nonsense explanations.
We all have craters and don't produce fantasies about them .

It is very easy to ignore the craters,
and their dates,
and what exactly hit to create each of them,
but that is whistling in the dark.

Tiompan wrote: You have provided no data and avoided addressing the problems .
When you are attempt to do so, I'll ask again if you want further hard data on GT .

Excuse me, but i will be getting my analysis of GT data from others who actually know their field. Since my stroke, I generally have to depend on them for detailed advanced computational work.

I will probably also read Collins more recent works, and take a look at the kind of synthesis of the ethnographic materials which he arrived at.

You have avoided all the problems and again provided no data ,which says it all .
Yo u haven't pointed out any significant features that are not known about , why do keep wittering on about that . ?
Cometary experts are as likely to be as useful as youraelf or Collins when it comes to the putative "alignments ".
For start of the inventory look back over the detail about KT (Tha's the one you confused with the GT .) ,then maybe you might actually be able to respond with something concrete .
Here's a start on GT .No reasonable response expected .
The first problem is that there is an assumption that there is an alignment ,that is by no means certain .Assuming that there was some possibility of an intentional astronomical alignment then there is a huge choice of possibilities . Standing between the pillars is hardly providing a degree of accuracy , where does the observer stand ? behind them , between them ? ,which way does she look , north or south ? in archaeoastronomical terms there is no indication , why not across the tops of the pillars , or along the actual orientation of an individual pillar ? All will provide “alignments but how can we know that there was any intention .
The alignments that are accepted in archaeoastronomy are obvious with clear indications , in one of the rare cases where the alignment is between the pillars e.g. Stonehenge there are multiple pillars that are aligned creating a narrow tunnel/sighting line effect ,(unlike the single widely spaced pairs at GT ) the observing point is obvious (the centre of the monument) and there is a linear monument connected to the monument on the same alignment (the Avenue ) .Further ,the alignment is to an astronomical event that is found in various /cosmologies throughout the world i.e a solstice . Despite what Collins claims , alignments in prehistoric monuments certainly facing north i.e not part of orientation that could also be described as southerly and facing a part of the sky where the sun or moon doesn’t rise or set ,are eschewed in the vast majority of alignments and monuments ,and those that do face north are rarely facing Deneb ,if there is an astro alignment due to the date of build and precession , it would be Thuban . Plenty more ,but judging by your previous replies ,which actually avoid the salient points ,you are unlikely to understand .


I missed this "As far as Stonehenge goes, may I suggest to you that you examine the dates of the major construciton phases? " I m well aware of the dating of the major phases . I wonder if you are are . The miserable attempt at dating the monument using archaeoastronomy by Lockyer , was the point ,another one that was avoided .

Have we reached the "Tempest in a Tea Pot" stage yet?
The site is very interesting.
Lets let the chips fall where they may.

Personally I expect a Bosnia Pyramid and AZ Los Lumas type "if we ignore it, it will go away" mainstream response.
It is a classic “Artifact out of place” discovery, except it is a whole site out of place.

kbs2244 wrote:Have we reached the "Tempest in a Tea Pot" stage yet?
The site is very interesting.
Lets let the chips fall where they may.

Personally I expect a Bosnia Pyramid and AZ Los Lumas type "if we ignore it, it will go away" mainstream response.
It is a classic “Artifact out of place” discovery, except it is a whole site out of place.

KT is not a “site out of place” , there are other contemporary settlement sites in the general area too e.g. Sefer Tepe , Hamzan Tepe ,Nevali Kori . Simply because it gets the attention of the loony fringe does not mean it is in the same league as the Bosnian “pyramids “ , ,it will not go away , it is a genuine site ,not a fantasy of fringe writers .
As mentioned in my first post in this thread Google Karahan Tepe + Bahattin Çelik and avoid the nonsense about Cygnus and Deneb and the nut stuff .