PPN notes

[Tiompan]

If the “ folks at Cahokia “ don’t know what henge is then they might learn , you have no excuse you were told a long time ago and still ,unsurprisingly , persisted with the error .

The basis of the problem was Warren Wittry who named the Cahokia timber monument “Woodhenge” after the English monument , like you he was confused and misused the term Henge ( the timber monument at Cahokia is not a henge ). It was not the only thing he got wrong , his “astronomy “ and “alignments” suggested at the monument were worthy of your alignments towards the invisible comet ,or anyone else who can’t “do “ alignments .

How can you possibly know the “sky practices in the area “ ? even those who know the archaeology , astronomy and archaeoastromy of the period and area wouldn’t be so presumptious , for someone who knows nothing of the various disciplines it is a joke . Yes , we know the sky was different in the past , but Giacobini Zinner was not to be observed in the north and almost certainly not at all .
However , none of this has anything to with GT which was originally built after the end of the younger dryas , and you still haven’t explained why you made the link to the Kennet paper .

[Tiompan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Abu_Hureyra

better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mureybet

better:

http://archaeology.about.com/od/jterms/ ... -Ahmar.htm

http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/en370a4.htm

http://www.seshat.ch/home/ouranos.JPG

???
Some of us are perfectly aware of these monuments . If you want further info , do ask . What's the point of the links ?

[E.P. Grondine]

If the “ folks at Cahokia “ don’t know what henge is then they might learn , you have no excuse you were told a long time ago and still ,unsurprisingly , persisted with the error .

The basis of the problem was Warren Wittry who named the Cahokia timber monument “Woodhenge” after the English monument , like you he was confused and misused the term Henge ( the timber monument at Cahokia is not a henge ). It was not the only thing he got wrong , his “astronomy “ and “alignments” suggested at the monument were worthy of your alignments towards the invisible comet ,or anyone else who can’t “do “ alignments .

How can you possibly know the “sky practices in the area “ ? even those who know the archaeology , astronomy and archaeoastromy of the period and area wouldn’t be so presumptious , for someone who knows nothing of the various disciplines it is a joke . Yes , we know the sky was different in the past , but Giacobini Zinner was not to be observed in the north and almost certainly not at all .
However , none of this has anything to with GT which was originally built after the end of the younger dryas , and you still haven’t explained why you made the link to the Kennet paper .

George, if might be nice if you stopped acting like a DOLT.

Now here is how one makes a well reasoned criticism:
http://archaeobotanist.blogspot.com/201 ... an-or.html
Note the clear differences between this gentleman's behavior and that of DOLTS.

If you have a problem with the folks at Cahokia using the word "henge",
then write them a nasty note.

If you can not deal with the ancients' practices of sky "magic", that is your problem, and not mine.

[Tiompan]

Someone who continues to use a term wrongly after being told and demonsatred that they are using it in error , is a dolt .
Wittry got it wrong , like much else , but he had an excuse , nobody told him and it was fifty years ago .You don't have that excuse .
What "ancient practices of sky magic " ? ,you know nothing about the subject and couldn't possibly know what these practices may have been , if they existed , in the area and period .
You have failed to even attempt to address any of the astro nonsense from Collins and Hale and anytime you made comments in relation to the subject they have been shown to be in error .

[E.P. Grondine]

For comparative purposes:



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

NOTE C 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 may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

It appears there is disagreement on which ends are up:

[E.P. Grondine]

a wide regional paperon the transition with summary of terms:
http://neareast-prehistory.com/html/epi ... ithic.html

A paper on the lithic transition at PPNA:
http://demo.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-93 ... _21_1_4607
Qu'est-ce que le mot en franciase pour "DOLT"?

European Serrated edge:
http://www.altereagle.com/Master-Carpen ... neoaxe.jpg

serrated edges in PPNB:
http://www.aggsbach.de/2014/10/pressure-flaking/

Obsidian again, but sources for cherts and obisdians do not appear to be known.
Crude serration:

http://www.academia.edu/4644655/Nishiak ... ex_oriente

VERY NICE: OBSIDIAN SOURCED:
http://demo.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-93 ... _32_1_5170
along with a pretty nicely serrated obsidiena blade,
and absolute dates for the spread lithic technologies

a wide regional paper:
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstr ... er%208.pdf

Coarse serrations in sickle blades:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... Hula_Basin

And finally, finely serrated chert tools In the Levant:
http://www.exoriente.org/docs/00039.pdf
double ended, and no maritime tool kit.

[Tiompan]

NOTE C especially:



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

The obverse may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

Lol .
Haven't seen too many examples of prehistoric rock art/symbols then .
Ever come across Paredolia ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia .
Or wishful thinking ?

[E.P. Grondine]

NOTE C especially:



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

The obverse may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

Lol .
Haven't seen too many examples of prehistoric rock art/symbols then .
Ever come across Paredolia ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia .
Or wishful thinking ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

[Tiompan]

NOTE C especially:



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

The obverse may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

Lol .
Haven't seen too many examples of prehistoric rock art/symbols then .
Ever come across Paredolia ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia .
Or wishful thinking ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
This is exactly what you have done with all the problems concerning Collins and GT anmd KT , the errors about him working with Schmidt , the misuse of the term Hnege , the fact that Giacobini Zinner is invisible to the naked eye and not seen in the northern sky . The fact th t GT was built after the end of the YD etc .
Now we get the fantasy of the plaques . You have never seen many prehistoric symbols have you ? or encountered the explanation for one aspect the fantasy ?

Look at what you omitted from the site from which you linked the pics .The author suggests “I can tell you that the strange loops with dots in them on stone c look like humans depicted from above in Australian Aboriginal art. The ‘u’ shapes represent the legs or arms of someone sitting cross legged on the ground, and the dot inside the head.”
That is as good as place to start as any , in that it is unlikely anyone is going to depict the Draconids in the southern hemisphere ,further we have the ethnography of producers of the symbols to tell us their meaning and they never mention the Draconids ,probably because they are not as visible as other showers like the Quadrantids ,which are not deoicted either .
One of the classics of Australian symbolism is Nancy D .Munn’s “Walibiri Iconography :Graphic Representation and cultural symbolism in a cenrtral 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 explalantion and with no possibility of the the interpration 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 ,and their obsessions , doing the "interpreting " than the actual subject .

[E.P. Grondine]

Commentary on GT glyphs:

http://gianfrancopintore.blogspot.com/2 ... nella.html

http://monteprama.blogspot.com/2014/11/ ... ernal.html
from:
https://www.academia.edu/8328806/Recent ... bekli_Tepe

NOTE THAT NO ONE THINKS THAT ANY SCULPTURED SIDE OF ANY OF THE PILLARS WOULD BE HIDDEN FROM VIEW.

Note the map on page 29 in the following shows the current known distribution of large stone pillar usage:
http://www.buchgestaltung-online.de/Les ... and_01.pdf

2014 GT newsletter
https://www.academia.edu/6198728/G%C3%B ... etter_2014

video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ceXk_VLQAE

images of new excavation results:



?





just a nice image:

from:
http://tragicocomedia.com/2013/11/11/

[E.P. Grondine]

A PPNA site in Jordan, with inscribed stone plaques:

http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4898510.pdf

Catal Hoyuk:
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~easouti/pdfs/06 ... Asouti.pdf

obsidian sources and trade unknown at this point:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2pm3A ... view?pli=1
http://megaantas.blogspot.com/2012/02/7 ... ipped.html

Though Schmidt gave a presentation:

15,45-16,10 Towards an Archaeology of Pilgrimage: Sourcing Obsidian from the PPN Temple Complex of Göbekli
Tepe Tristan CARTER, François-Xavier LE BOURDONNEC, Gérard POUPEAU and Klaus SCHMIDT

Cofee Break: 16,10-16,40

16,40-17,05 Arpachiyah obsidians: their context
Stuart CAMPBELL and Elizabeth HEALEY

Obsidian sources:
http://www.livescience.com/19085-world- ... image.html
A nice site distribution map:

Collins on obsidian sources:
https://books.google.com/books?id=RMeSA ... 6EMQ&hl=en&
sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAmoVChMIpNi7q7aJxwIVxyceCh0U8QAF#v=onepage&q=gobekli%20tepe%20obsidian%20sources&f=false
which will have footnotes and full citations.

Catal Hoyuk obsidian sources:
http://www.eu-artech.org/files/ReportCarter.pdf

[E.P. Grondine]

Finally: the function of the pillars:
http://www.academia.edu/1513081/Materia ... olithikums

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... olithikums

A good paper on inscribed objects:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... olithikums

[Tiompan]

There are countless articles on GT , even papers , some provide new info ,most regurgitate the older stuff or have a wacky new age Collins/Hancock type fantastical approach .
None of the above that rae not attributable to the nutty brigade provide any succour to anyone who imagines the Jerf –el Hamar plaque represents “two sighting stone circles, with a comet
shown nearby. The obverse may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids. “ ,or that there are astronomical “alignments “ at GT aligned on the Draconids or comet Giacobini Zinner ,
or even the misuse of the term “henge” . Numerous links to papers with no commentary in relation to recent errors and problems appears to be a cloak of denial covering up and diverting us from these very problems .

[E.P. Grondine]

None of the above provide any succour to anyone who imagines the Jerf –el Hamar plaque represents “two sighting stone circles, with a comet
shown nearby. The obverse may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids. “ ,or that there are astronomical “alignments “ at GT aligned on the Draconids or comet Giacobini Zinner ,
or even the misuse of the term “henge”.

[Tiompan]

Your'e learning , best not to make any comments or provide data that can be shown to be in error .
Putting your fingers in your ears and thumbing your nose is much the safer option .