Archaeologica.org

From earlier in our discussion:




For comparative purposes:




ESPECIALLY NOT THE HOLED STONE'S LOCATION AT GOBLEKI TEPE.

NOTE PLAQUE C here especially:



C looks to me to be two sighting stone circles, with a comet shown nearby.

The ant(?) at the bottom may be raising a stone.
This is the first time I have seen an ant(?) symbol in this area.

The obverse of C may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

It appears there is disagreement on which ends are up:



That said, the twin pillars had significance for the builders of Gobekli Tepe:

What a waste of space that is .
You have posted the same large images on a number of occasions .
It doesn't make your "interpretation " of the plaques that didn't even come from GT(they were found 90 Km to the south ) any more likely .

You never did manage to respond meaningfully to or understand the following .
"We have been over the interpretation of these markings before ,as is often the case the “interpretation”, like a rorschach test , tells us more about the personal obsessions of the interpreter than the actual markings .
What you see as a comet is a phosphene form and one of the most common symbols used in rock art and prehistoric engravings the world over . It’s present on all four of the stone objects ,and ,as is also common there are often multiple examples together .In this case two of the stones have three ,but often there are many more . It is usually referred as a serpentiform or when more angular simply a zig zag , neither of which look like a comet or are similar to actual depictions of comets .In some cases they may represent a serpent /snake but there are countless other interpretations from different cultures e.g. water ,life force ,smoke , lightning etc and very often it is purely decorative .As noted earlier there is a similar explanation for the arcs ,which are also phosphenes ,found all over the world in all periods of rock art and have multiple possible explanations including ethnographic ones which don’t mention meteor showers ." or
"One of the classics of Australian symbolism is Nancy D .Munn’s “Walibiri Iconography :Graphic Representation and cultural symbolism in a central Australian society “ The arcs ,which are found in nearly all areas where rock art is to be found usually represent actors , often human but they can be animals e.g. oppossums , the dots can represent head as she suggests or increase i.e. plularity . Exactly the same symbol complete with ethnographic explantion and with no possibility of the the interpretation being the Draconids . Arcs and dots are some of the basic forms used world wide in rock art and symbols ,they can represent many things depending on the culture that is doing the representing .
the point is that you can make up any old BS and suggest what you like but some things are going to be much less likely than others .
One point about Pareidolia is that it tells us much more about the person doing the "interpreting " ,and their obsessions, than the actual subject ."

Of course the OED accept neologisms , but they won't accept something that is made up by one individual who doesn't know what he is talking about and can't decide quite what the definition is .More to the point they and other reputable dictionaries already have a definition that is accepted and used by those across the globe who do know what they are talking about .

“My errors are pretty limited “.
Looks like another definition problem . Re-check limited .
They occur per page never mind per thread .

Oh yeah, tiompan

Of course those primitive and stupid Native Americans could not have had henges,
because henges were developed by the lily white super intelligent ancient Celtic ancestors of today's Brits,
and only by them,
and most certainly henge technology could not have been developed by some heathens in Africa...

Now how is that for a few words of unambiguous meaning?
Do you have any problems with any of those words' definitions?

We know that you can't and have never responded meaningfully about your error .
The most recent attempt is particularly childish and pathetic .

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/worl ... -skin.html

I wonder if his ancestors brought henge technology with them.

E.P. Grondine wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/worl ... -skin.html

I wonder if his ancestors brought henge technology with them.

Just the sort of nutty thing that might have occurred to you .

Hopefully it won't turn out like the previous fiasco concerning blokes dna .

oh yeah, tiompan =

“Only a highly uneducated fool who experienced zero parental input owing to those adults loose sexual nature would think such a thing!”

Lol .
Hard to believe , but may you have learnt something i.e. don't make falsifiable comments if you don't want to see them refuted .
It's a common trait with the alt crowd that when shown to be wrong they have no where to turn except abuse , in the more extreme cases the bile becomes distilled gobbledygook .
The new thread title is reminiscent of the failure who decides to get a tatooed forehead .

Have you heard the one about the Wanker and the Yank?

So the Yank says" Look out, there's a truck coming for you."
The Wanker says, "No there isn't. That's not truck. It's a lorry."
The truck then runs over the Wanker.

You were run over a long time ago EP .
But keep up with the"comedy " , old cringers can't be refuted , unless they are in human form .

Have you heard the one about the Brit and the Yank?

Brid says "look out Yank, there's a lorry coming.

Yank looks left and says "whar thuh hell is she?", steps off curb, gets run over.

That pesky X mt DNA again:

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot ... VZKCZgh.97

http://www.grunge.com/43893/historical- ... ne-circle/

Another North American henge.

E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.grunge.com/43893/historical- ... ne-circle/

Another North American henge.

The Miami "circle " is not a henge .
Not that it matters , but the even the description in the text and vid didn't describe it as henge .