Archaeologica.org

And of course there is no reason to assume that then, as now, the larger, more prosperous and populous towns were closer to the sea. Mankind has always had an affinity for the sea.

PPN A grain domestication:

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... eSGCn1bx5Y

Gobekli Tepe news letter:

https://www.academia.edu/6280624/G%C3%B ... etter_2014

For the production and use of beer in Egypt in a religious festival see:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce102103.html

For relations between Egypt and Byblos, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byblos

and the Thoth lore

X mt DNA shows up again:

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

And where the hell is the original discussion: "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?"

The El Portalon results are hardly new ,and it's not particularly surprising to find mt DNA X present .

There never was a discussion "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?" . It clearly wasn't . Only you could manage to think it that it was . Read the literature , the excavation reports etc , nobody who knows anything about the site ever suggested that it was .
You did however ask that question about 3 years ago .

Three years, and we still can not agree on the definition of "henge".
Nor can we agree to let the matter rest.

E.P. Grondine wrote:Three years, and we still can not agree on the definition of "henge".
Nor can we agree to let the matter rest.

It is not 3 years ,it's 'closer to 8 . You have been told this many times too , does nothing stick ?
It is not a disagreement , there is a proper definition of the term that is accepted worldwide including America by people who know about the subject .
The proper definition with multiple separate links , is nothing like the two you made up . In contrast to the multiple links highlighting where you get it wrong ,you have never supplied any supporting evidence to show that anyone with any knowledge about the subject agrees with your definition .
You won't let the matter rest and accept your error . I just keep replying to your crap .

E.P. Grondine wrote:X mt DNA shows up again:

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

And where the hell is the original discussion: "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?"

This particular article makes no mention of any haplogroup whatsoever, be it from mtDNA, Y-DNA or autosomal DNA. Where the hell do you come up with these ideas of yours EP???

Wrong link. Here it is, in all its detail:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1717762115

E.P. Grondine wrote:Wrong link. Here it is, in all its detail:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1717762115

That's what I was referring to in "The El Portalon results are hardly new ,and it's not particularly surprising to find mt DNA X present . ".