Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

[E.P. Grondine]

It happens all the time the most common motifs in rock art from all periods and in all parts of the world get over interpreted by those with little knowledge of rock art but do have an agenda . The over interpretations suits suit their interests whilst ignoring that bias, context, the corpus, ethnography and the what serious researchers have to say . Most researchers just shrug their shoulders and ignore it .

Yes, I agree with you there, and I see those sorts of faulty analysis all of the time.
In the early 1970's I saw what I thought was one of the finest books on the rock art of the desert southwest of North America, in which the author used the correlation of symbols with features to establish their meaning. I sure do wish I could remember that book's name and author, so that I could check his "readings" with the known mesoamerican logograms.

You may want to watch this video by Fletcher Wilson and myself on Adena petroglphs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiQCvt4OGs

Of course, I think we did a splendid job with them.

We have covered the motifs a few times now.
“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.”

I think my "reading" is far better than his.

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.

I am very reluctant to use my scarce archaeo-astronomical resource, Fletcher, to work on Gobekli Tepe, when we have at hand so many Native American sites and artifacts which need work, but I suppose we'll have to. When I get back to Ohio, and his best computer gets back from the shop, perhaps we'll take a weekend for a first look at the Gobekli Tepe site.
It should provide information for Native American analysis.

The 2 [TWO] Holocene Start Impact Events have been demonstrated by very hard data.
The problem now is identifying the source comet.
Every meteor stream will have to be looked at.

If Fletcher were on the ground for one night with clear skies on the ground at the Gobekli Tepe site, (okay, maybe two or three nights)
the interpretation of any possible astronomical alignments would be done.
It's really quite remarkable to watch him do time shifts for the ancient night skies shifts in his head...

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 explanation 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, and their obsessions, doing the "interpreting " than the actual subject . “

“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 .

I think my "readings" of the PPN B inscribed stone artifacts are pretty objective.

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 . “

Still no mention of names for the Oxford and Cambridge archaeoastronomers who were silent on the Edinburgh nonsense .

As you yourself pointed out, you have to "read" rock art or inscribed stone objects in the context of the culture that produced them.
But they also need to be viewed as a whole, and in their own context.

As I pointed out above, the serpent in spear straightener A has an entirely different "meaning" than the serpent on plaque C.
The serpentine glyger on plaque C has to be "read" in the context of the other symbols shown on it.

So in the end, while this paper is deficient in the ways we have discussed,
it does represent a first attempt.

BTW, if you have any "friends" who work with mesoamerican materials, would you please send them over to the New World section here?

[Tiompan]

Could be "The rocks begin to speak" by LeVan Martineau .
One of the most infamous .

[E.P. Grondine]

The data of those inscribed objects, including plaque C, are what they are.
I think that I am not being overly biased in my comments on them,
in the context of the times when they were made,
and their usage.

It happens all the time the most common motifs in rock art from all periods and in all parts of the world get over interpreted by those with little knowledge of rock art but do have an agenda .The over interpretations suits suit their interests whilst ignoring that bias ,context , the corpus , ethnography and the what serious researchers have to say . Most researchers just shrug their shoulders and ignore it .
We have covered the motifs a few times now .
“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 . “
“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 . “

Still no mention of names for the Oxford and Cambridge archaeoastronomers who were silent on the Edinburgh nonsense .

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Tiompan -

You mean like these?:



The symbols on Plaque C are much more complex than those, and grouped together.

Still no mention of names for the Oxford and Cambridge archaeoastronomers who were silent on the Edinburgh nonsense .

As I mentioned before, competent archaeo-astronomer talent is scarce.

I may gather briefing materials together on the local ancient constellations
before I spend any of Fletcher's time on Gobekli Tepe.
I will have to check with him first to see what he does not already have.

That said, Gobekli Tepe is pretty well down our list of priorities.

Enough $'s of course, could move it up.
The easiest thing would simply be to fly Fletcher to the Gobekli Tepe site for a few nights.

[E.P. Grondine]

This sounds interesting:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds ... lyphs.html

The thing I remember about the book I saw was that the author was working on trails,
and had identifed symbols for "settlement" and "water", along with their directional pointers.
The "settlement" symbol was a 3 layer pyramid.

[Tiompan]

“I think my "reading" is far better than his.”
I don't . The point is that his was at least based on ethnography and local knowledge ,which is no guarantee of accuracy but it is a better starting point than ignorance , and you failed to mention it .
Plus it's just another “reading” by yet another punter .

“ If Fletcher were on the ground for one night with clear skies on the ground at the Gobekli Tepe site, (okay, maybe two or three nights) the interpretation of any possible astronomical alignments would be done. It's really quite remarkable to watch him do time shifts for the ancient night skies shifts in his head... “ I'll wait and see what he comes with, for the moment I'll stick to the best software we have available . Telling that neither you nor he mentioned anything about the problems with the images in the Edinburgh article ,or anything about the problems with Collins .

“I think my "readings" of the PPN B inscribed stone artifacts are pretty objective. “
You would say that . I don't .

“As you yourself pointed out, you have to "read" rock art or inscribed stone objects in the context of the culture that produced them.
But they also need to be viewed as a whole, and in their own context. “
I didn't say that . Context includes much more than just the culture . The concept of “reading “ is problematic in itself . Treating art as text was debunked a long time ago and by the time the structuralists got their hands on it , it was finally laid to rest. Garrick Mallery was an early proponent (late 19th C ) in the US we have moved on since then .
How can you or anyone even start to have an inkling about what non-representational symbols mean to a culture so far removed temporally , physically and culturally ? People have problems deciphering the meaning of symbols from their own period and culture .

“You mean like these?: “
Although Ms von Petzinger's compilation is centred on Paleolithic symbols it's as good as any .

“The symbols on Plaque C are much more complex than those, “
No they are not ,they are all part of that relatively limited vocabulary . There are two circles which can “mean” anything ,eyes would be a common one for many . There is a straight line which could also have multiple meanings and when in association with two circles could produce an even greater range of possibilities . The same applies to the serpentiform . All three are in the compilation .
To repeat ““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 . “

The Martineau stuff suffered from much the same problem , he believed there was a connection between the art and gesture language .There were many other problems too .

[E.P. Grondine]

I think my "reading" is far better than his.”

I don't.

I may be biased in my view.

The point is that his [reading] was at least based on ethnography and local knowledge, which is no guarantee of accuracy but it is a better starting point than ignorance, and you failed to mention it .

Yes, but the skies at the time Gobekli Tepe was built were far different than those of today.
Aside from that, modern ethnography and knowledge of the current modern landscape are not the best ways "in",
for a "reading" of this type.

For example, modern Phoenix and Tucson and modern industries and climates
are damn nigh useless for working SW North American petroglyphs.

Plus it's just another “reading” by yet another punter .

tiompan, in as much as my expertise is on phenonmena which do not exist for you,
I can understand that it follows that my expertise does not exist.

The problem is that the data clearly shows otherwise,
and I am the fellow who first spotted the production of fast neutrons in large hyper-velocity impacts.

“If Fletcher were on the ground for one night with clear skies on the ground at the Gobekli Tepe site, (okay, maybe two or three nights) the interpretation of any possible astronomical alignments would be done. It's really quite remarkable to watch him do time shifts for the ancient night skies shifts in his head... “

I'll wait and see what he comes with, for the moment I'll stick to the best software we have available, Telling that neither you nor he mentioned anything about the problems with the images in the Edinburgh article, or anything about the problems with Collins .

We have never discussed Gobekli Tepe, as we have other more pressing work to do.
I think that Collins did as well as he could, and if you compare his work with that of other popular writers, it is very good.

“I think my "readings" of the PPN B inscribed stone artifacts are pretty objective. “

You would say that . I don't .

I may be biased in my view.

“As you yourself pointed out, you have to "read" rock art or inscribed stone objects in the context of the culture that produced them.
But they also need to be viewed as a whole, and in their own context. “
I didn't say that . Context includes much more than just the culture . The concept of “reading “ is problematic in itself . Treating art as text was debunked a long time ago and by the time the structuralists got their hands on it, it was finally laid to rest. Garrick Mallery was an early proponent (late 19th C ) in the US we have moved on since then .

Yes, "reading" ancient symbols is very difficult.
But here in the Americas, "writing" and "painting" were considered the same thing, for the most part.

How can you or anyone even start to have an inkling about what non-representational symbols mean to a culture so far removed temporally , physically and culturally ? People have problems deciphering the meaning of symbols from their own period and culture .

“You mean like these?: “

Although Ms von Petzinger's compilation is centered on Paleolithic symbols it's as good as any .

yes, they are. We agree on that.

“The symbols on Plaque C are much more complex than those, “

No they are not ,they are all part of that relatively limited vocabulary. There are two circles which can “mean” anything ,eyes would be a common one for many. There is a straight line which could also have multiple meanings and when in association with two circles could produce an even greater range of possibilities . The same applies to the serpentiform . All three are in the compilation .

I may be biased in my views.
And since you know PPN B quite well, you provide a good check, as well as useful information,
I'll continue to use your resources.

To repeat ““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 . “

The Martineau stuff suffered from much the same problem, he believed there was a connection between the art and gesture language.
There were many other problems too .

[Tiompan]

The point is that his [reading] was at least based on ethnography and local knowledge, which is no guarantee of accuracy but it is a better starting point than ignorance, and you failed to mention it .

Ep "Yes, but the skies at the time Gobekli Tepe was built were far different than those of today."

You are missing the point , the ethnography was in relation to markings that you had mis "read" .
Of course the sky was different at GT in the past , that is what archaeoastronomy is partly about , you have to take that into consideration ,accurately , that is one of the areas they got wrong that I pointed out .
i.e. the constellations that they mentioned for the time date and place were below the horizon when they would have been visible .


"Aside from that, modern ethnography and knowledge of the current modern landscape are not the best ways "in",
for a "reading" of this type."
Modern ethnography is problematic enough in relation to modern examples of RA , but it is a bit more helpful than fantasists supporting a wild agenda/"readings" about a culture they don't have a clue about .

[E.P. Grondine]

Here's some context for my "reading", tiompan:



I'd also like to mention that the lunar counts first presented in "The Roots of Civilization", widely doubted at first,
are now generally accepted.

And I think Collins did a fine job in calling attention to the stone holes.

Like I stated earlier, Fletcher and I have so much work to do,
that I don't know if we'll be able to spend any time on GT,
but we may have to, in order to further the analysis of the Holocene Start Impact Events,
and Native American astronomies.

[Tiompan]

Your reading has nothing to do with Marshack .
Although his ideas are not generally accepted by the archaeoastromomy community there is always a possibility that Paleolithic peoples did record lunar cycles .
His view is not some fanciful "reading" of motifs , although it may well be wishful thinking

We were all aware of the stone holes at GT long before Collins produced his fantasies about them .
You have forgotten about the following .
"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 ?
Where is the data showing the height of the hole ? or where the putative observer should stand ? or the actual azimuth of the of the hole ? would it be possible to see anything through that hole from the distance of the pillars which are approx 7 m from the hole ?" and "There are various holed stones at GT most of them are quite low down on the pillars but the recent find has been claimed to have been a sighting hole for the putative “alignment” but the description and subsequent image give a false impression , the picture of the holed stone between the pillars is not how it was found , it’s merely a wishful thinking reproduction . Look at the holed stone in enclosure C , i.e. in it’s actual; position , not a “reconstruction “ you would have to lie down to see through it and you still wouldn’t see the horizon , it was not used for “sighting “ anything ."

[E.P. Grondine]

And Hi O tiompan -

And here I was hoping for:
"I can see your point.
Perhaps there MAY have been a class of small portable inscribed objects
that could be described as 'admission tickets' or 'souvenirs'."
Oh well.

You and I both know that we do know with any certainty the original locations of the stone holes.

IMO, Collins did a very good job with the ethnography of the area,
starting with "From the Ashes of Angels", and moving on from there.
He works hard at his craft of popular writer.

[circumspice]

I think that Collins did as well as he could, and if you compare his work with that of other popular writers, it is very good.

@ E.P.

Excuse me? You endorse that freaking nutcase Andrew Collins?

Really?

He's on par with Graham Hancock, Edgar Cayse, et al... One the worst in my opinion...

So you're a fringe idiot too? You need to get a checkup by a reputable neurologist. Your stroke must have severely damaged your cognitive abilities...

[Tiompan]

IMO, Collins did a very good job with the ethnography of the area,
starting with "From the Ashes of Angels", and moving on from there.
He works hard at his craft of popular writer.

EP . Collins is no more an ethnographer then he is an astronomer , historian ,or brain surgeon .
Ethnography can have it's uses as well as as problems, but what use is ethnography in relation to beliefs that are 11,000 years old .
He not only writes fantasy, it is not even well written and has hardly improved in that regard since his earliest rubbish .

[E.P. Grondine]

HI Tiompan, spice -

Both Collins and Hancock are WRITERS, that is their profession, an they must be viewed in that context.
How well do they serve their audiences, how are their sales, how is their writing style?

IMO, I think that Collins did a really fine job in "From the Ashes of Angels".
Really first class work, and he works very hard.

In his book on Atlantis, Collins went through medieval materials on the Atlantic Ocean
in an entertaining style.

Hancock less so.
Hancock had written a book on submerged remains ["Underworld"]
and then when it came to the rise in sea levels due to the Holocene Start Impact Events,
he simply walked away from the remains off the west coast of India,
in his search for one master race.

Now how many truly popular archaeological writers can you think of?
Pellegrino?
Have either one of you ever written a book and tried to sell it?

Now as far as yours truly goes,
I simply pass on what was passed on.
I know full well that traditional Native histories are considered as little more than trash by many archaeologists,
but I strongly disagree.

[Tiompan]

EP ,
Collins writes rubbish ,always has done and his "style" fits the same bill .
It's not archaeology , it's alt / new age nonsense for the ultra gullible .
The videos are even funnier , although it does get tiresome after a while .